“Gosh Almighty”: Democrats Call to End Durham Investigation Despite Proven Criminal Conduct

440px-John_H._DurhamBelow is my column in the Hill on the announced criminal plea by former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith and the continued calls by Democratic leaders to end the John Durham investigation. This week I discussed the call of Andrew Weissmann, one of the top prosecutors with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, for DOJ lawyers to refuse to help in the investigation despite his own conflict of interest. When the Clinesmith plea was announced, Weissmann proceeded to deride the charge and make spurious legal and factual claims about its basis.  The Weissmann call for DOJ lawyers to hinder this investigation is unprofessional and unwarranted but hardly uncommon in this rage-filled environment.

Here is the column:

Gosh almighty.” Those words from former Vice President Joe Biden sum up plenty about the announced criminal plea by former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. Of course, Biden was not referring to the implications of the FBI lawyer who lied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court for the efforts to continue the surveillance of an adviser to the campaign of Donald Trump. Nor was he referring to growing evidence that the Russia investigation was launched based on false and flawed evidence.

Biden was referring to the federal investigation by United States Attorney John Durham that led to the criminal plea by Clinesmith. Like most other Democrats, Biden previously denounced the investigation and the effort to look into criminality. Now that criminality has been found, Democrats and commentators still insist there are no reasons to continue it.

From the start, Democrats overwhelmingly condemned the investigation despite admitting Durham is a respected prosecutor. Leaders like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff deemed the investigation “tainted” and “political.” Biden mocked the very idea of an “investigation of the investigators” and added, “Give me a break. Gosh almighty.”

These are the same figures who repeatedly cited plea agreements in the special counsel investigation by Robert Mueller as proof that real crimes were waiting to be found. When the plea by former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn was announced, it was seen as the critical development even though FBI agents said they did not believe Flynn had intentionally lied about his conversations with Russian diplomats.

Many in the media cited the plea by Flynn to disprove the insistence by Trump that the Mueller investigation was a hoax. But they are not citing the plea by Clinesmith to disprove the statement by Biden. Indeed, they have barely covered it. It does not appear to matter that Clinesmith said “viva la resistance” after the 2016 election or that, after claiming he was devastated by the victory of Trump, he lamented that “my god damned name was all over those legal documents investigating his staff.”

But several Democrats and commentators maintained there was never a targeting of the campaign before the special counsel appointment. That was untrue. Declassified documents show that an agent was used with a national security briefing of Trump and his aides during the campaign to gather information for the Russia investigation. Who did the agent report to? Clinesmith and Peter Strzok at the FBI, who infamously referred to his own “insurance” with the chance that Trump might be elected.

This is a plea agreement so it is not known what information Clinesmith may have shared. Moreover, this is just the first public move by Durham, just as Flynn was the early salvo for Mueller. But the date of this criminal false statement is key. In September 2016, administration officials leaked the existence of the classified investigation in the midst of the campaign and suggested Trump adviser Carter Page was a Russian agent.

This secret surveillance started the next month, based on that allegation against Page, when he was in fact an American asset. The FISA court was never told that information in the surveillance application was derived in part from the dossier, or that it was paid for by the opposition campaign. Nor was it told that at the time, FBI agents challenged both the bias and credibility for the dossier author and past British spy Christopher Steele, who was known to have given interviews for the media and claimed that he was trying to defeat Trump and assist the Clinton campaign.

In January 2017, Trump was inaugurated and FBI agents had sought to end their investigation of Flynn, citing no evidence of a crime. However, Strzok evidently wanted the collusion investigation to remain open and, later that month, Clinesmith also sought to renew that surveillance order over Page. His FISA application expressly cited the Steele dossier and described it as credible, despite knowing the different findings by FBI agents.

In February 2017, there were more leaks about alleged collusion by Trump officials with the Russians, a claim that even Strzok said was unsupported. The FBI was finding no evidence of collusion, while there was pressure to end the investigation. In June 2017, Clinesmith falsified an email in a third FISA application. What he was able to hide from the court was incredible. The court was told that Page might be a Russian asset for a conspiracy to influence the election as Clinesmith was told that Page was an American asset who was working by meeting with Russians. Clinesmith altered one critical email to state otherwise and extend the investigation.

When Clinesmith took this criminal action, the Russia collusion theory had already fallen apart. Both former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates declared they would never have signed off on all the surveillance applications if they knew then what they know today. Rosenstein called for the Durham investigation to finish, while Yates called for accountability for all of the misconduct.

With news of the criminal plea by Clinesmith, one might expect the media and our members of Congress to demand the same vigorous investigation from Durham as they did from Mueller. The collusion allegations that were noted to launch the Russia investigation were after all ultimately rejected. Durham is by contrast investigating the bias and misconduct.

So we have a collusion investigation that was shown to be based on false or unreliable information. It was launched and maintained by officials who were accused by an inspector general of misconduct, false statements, or procedural errors. Today we have the actual criminal guilty plea. However, many voices in Washington continue to insist that there are no reasons for Durham to continue digging. As Biden says, “Gosh almighty.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

202 thoughts on ““Gosh Almighty”: Democrats Call to End Durham Investigation Despite Proven Criminal Conduct”

  1. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Republicans participated in the Watergate impeachment/resignation of Richard Nixon based on the facts.

    Democrats deny the attempt at an illegal “soft coup” by Obama et al. and eschew prosecution of its exposed and obvious co-conspirators.

    “The ends justify the means.”

    – Karl Marx

    On the plea deal of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith:

    “The implications of this criminal plea are enormous but the media has engaged in a pattern of willful blindness to mounting evidence of wrongdoing in the Russian investigation by FBI and DOJ figures.”

    – Professor Turley

    “We will stop him.”

    – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page

    “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok

    All roads lead to Obama.

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,

    James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic,

    Sally Yates, James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell,

    Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud,

    Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary,

    Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,

    Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,

    Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg et al.

  2. Russian collusion charge fell apart. Hell, Mueller was as incognitive (as Joe Biden is) in the hearing. You can bet the Farm that if there was collusion Mule would have brought charges. It would have imploded just as the Senate Trial To remove DT did.

  3. I posted this to yesterday’s column about Weissmann, but it belongs here too:

    Ryan Goodman (NYU law prof. who co-authored the op-ed with Weissmann that Turley quoted / mischaracterized) has posted a Twitter thread in response this morning:

    The following quotes his response for those too lazy to click on the link to read it, though the thread has relevant images, so better to read it there:

    @JonathanTurley has a seriously flawed blog post trying to criticize @AWeissmann_ and me.

    Turley badly misrepresents what we said, what Justice Dept charged, and more…

    This is a pattern for Turley (see final tweet in this thread for that pattern)…

    2. On left: [see Twitter thread for the images]

    Turley falsely claims op-ed calls on DOJ lawyers “to undermine” Durham investigation

    On right: [see Twitter thread for the images]

    Our op-ed: DOJ lawyers should refuse IMPROPER requests if VIOLATE oath to Constitution and policy on actions that interfere in election; plus Durham CAN indict after 11/3

    3. On left: [see Twitter thread for the images]

    Turley: FBI lawyer charged for falsely stating Carter Page was not a CIA source to court, when Page was a source.

    On right: [see Twitter thread for the images]

    The charge: Knowingly altering a document to FBI supervisor by adding words (charge never mentions Page’s status or whether lawyer knew it).

    4. An aside: as Turley tries to amplify Clinesmith’s charge, compare how he described Flynn’s charge for lying to FBI (and admitting being unregistered foreign agent):

    “pretty anemic” (Fox News 12/13/18)
    “rather anemic crime that borders on the pathetic” (Fox News 12/18/18)

    5. In his blog, Turley goes down a familiar rabbit hole of disinformation.

    He writes, at length, that Flynn false statement was not material in reference to CRIMINAL investigation, but never mentions key in Flynn false statement case was ongoing COUNTERINTELLIGENCE investigation

    6/6 Notice a pattern.

    ______________________________END quote__
    Recall that Turley has previously mischaracterized statements/arguments made by others in that list.

    1. SO what CTHD? The stay behind partisans are unified in their foot dragging, sabotage, sedition, and slander of Turley. Tar and feather them all

      1. Kurtz, CTHD early yesterday called out JT’s obviously false comments. You get he was wrong then and wrong today, right?

        1. Book, I did not read the blog yesterday, and from what i read today, I am not impressed with her allegations that turley is “false”

      2. Kurtz,
        LOL that you think Prof. Goodman’s comments constitute slander (or, for that matter, that you think there’s been “sedition”).

        I wonder whether Turley will update his column to respond to Goodman’s criticism.

        No doubt you’ll characterize UT Austin law prof. Steve Vladeck’s response the same way. He replied to Goodman’s thread saying “It’s not exactly new (or news) that, as @rgoodlaw documents here, @JonathanTurley is deliberately mischaracterizing the arguments he’s purporting to critique. But it’s still a serious problem—and worth calling out publicly, all the more so given how often it’s happening.”

        1. CTHD, I defy them and you to push this errant ploy, because they will break their teeth on Turley, and we will unite in his defense.

          I will have a 501c3 organized in a day if Turley receives an ethical beef over their lies and there will be $100,000 in funding within a month inside of it to pay his deductible and run up the flag of free speech on that hill. and oh that would be just a stsart

          I would turn around and repeat it for the next guy too. If the big name Republicans are too incompetent to make this happen from their silkstocking wood paneled quarters, then let a nobody from flyover make it happen.

          Trust me I’ve raised funds for a lot worse than Turley

          1. Kurtz, we can’t even trust you to address the column that has you wigging out – again.

            1. Ok, whatever. it’s just a saying. as for “Wigging out:”

              I have studied the career of Rahm Emmanuel. I appreciate psychological intensity as one of the attributes of the most successful Democrat operators of the past 20 years and I want the Stupid Party Ie Republicans, my party, to get some of it too.

              Ever hear the “Clinton” enemies” story? that’s the kind of psychological intensity we need in this phase of history. Not country club manners.


      3. Kurtz, so what? That’s usually a response from someone who knows that what is shown is a truth, but still refuse to believe it.

        Turley can be accused of lying to the public with those “mischaracterizations”. Obviously he’s a smart man and that kind of “oversight” would be very amateurish even for Turley. He’s being called out for making false claims. It’s up to Turley to either one refute, or correct his own claim.

        1. Turley can fence with those goofballs all he likes Svelaz, as you say.

          for my part, I am zeroed in on one small side issue, which was evoked by CTHD’s false and bullying tactic to threaten a defamatory ethics complaint.
          Nobody making a false claim of ethics against him will go unopposed. It would be very foolish for anybody to attempt to actually file such a false claim.

          Think twice before you volunteer to be cannon fodder for the Red Guards. There will be growing opposition to all elements of “Woke” intimidation. It is being organized and the push-back will be a “Long March” of our own

          Turley doesn’t even know me, and there’s a lot more mes out there too. He’s got friends he doesnt even know, cheering him on, people who appreciate his integrity and will dig deep into our times and pockets to show thanks

          1. But you haven’t read any part of the his column and the blowback by those he attacked.


            1. Thats right. I spend zero of my time on the bloviators and Turley detractors. They are time wasters and I am using my time to advance a subject of interest to myself. See that’s how free speech works.

              They are spinning up a fog as they ever do, to cover their friends’ retreat as one aspect after another of the past schemes collapse.

          2. Mr. Kurtz, Turley has been shown with physical proof that what he’s saying in his columns is not true. CHTD, provided a link and a transcription of said proof which nobody here has been able to refute without losing their $hit and go off on a tangent about coups and anything else that avoids recognizing the simple fact that Turley is being called out a liar with direct proof. It’s already been shown that Turley deliberately mischaracterizes what others say.

            CHTD, and byb, both have presented rational arguments. Everyone else has gone into full monkey rage over a simple truth about Turley’s lying being proven.

    2. CTHD, wow, seems Turley is getting some serious flak for his opinions and recognition that they are getting worse. Seeing many distinguished lawyers and professionals call him a hack is not a good sign for Turley’s credibility.

      1. This is from wiki. Against the handful of slanderers, a career that would be the envy of every lawyer who could read this

        Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” (and second most cited law professor) in a 2001 study by Judge Richard Posner of intellectuals referenced in the media and public debates.[68] [info those who may not know: richard posner is a 7th circuit federal appeals judge of tremendous influence himself)

        In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute[8] and The Week magazine.[69]

        In 2008 he was awarded an honorary doctorate of law from John Marshall Law School in recognition of his career as an advocate of civil liberties and constitutional rights.[70]

        He was ranked among the nation’s top 500 lawyers in 2008.[71] Turley was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country as well as being ranked as one of the top ten military lawyers.[8]

        In 2008 his blog was ranked as the top law professor blog and legal theory blog by the American Bar Association Journal survey of the top 100 blogs.[72][73] His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.[21] He has received other awards including the James Madison award and was declared one of four university fellows at the Utah Valley University in 2019.[21]

        Prominent cases
        Turley has served as counsel in notable cases; representing whistleblowers, military personnel, and a wide range of other clients in national security, environmental, and constitutional law cases. His cases as lead counsel have secured decisions striking down both a federal and a state law,[21] among them:

        Lead counsel in United States House of Representatives v. Price, the 2014 constitutional challenge of President Obama’s changes to the Affordable Care Act
        Lead counsel in Brown v. Buhman, for the Brown family from the TLC reality series Sister Wives, in their challenge of Utah’s criminalization of polygamy
        Lead counsel for five former United States Attorneys General in litigation during the Clinton Impeachment in federal court
        Lead counsel to ‘Five Wives Vodka” in successful challenge of ban on sales in Idaho due to a finding that the product was insulting to Mormons
        Lead counsel representing Dr. Sami Al-Arian in securing this release for civil contempt and later, in defense of criminal contempt charges (which were dropped after years of litigation)
        Larry Hanauer, a House Intelligence Committee staff member falsely accused of leaking classified information to The New York Times [74]
        David Faulk, a whistleblower who revealed abuses at NSA’s Fort Gordon surveillance programs [75]
        Dr. Eric Foretich,[43] in overturning the Elizabeth Morgan Act in 2003 [76]
        Former Judge Thomas Porteous’s impeachment trial defense [42] Turley characterized Porteous’s chronic bribe-taking as merely being a “moocher”, convicted on four articles of impeachment, removed as judge by a Senate vote of 94-2 [77][78]
        Defendants in terrorism cases, including Ali al-Tamimi (the alleged head of the Virginia Jihad/Paintball conspiracy)-[79]
        Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada.[80][81]
        Lead counsel in the litigation over the mass arrests at the World Bank/IMF protests in Washington.[82]
        Turley represented the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado [83]
        Turley testified on December 4, 2019, regarding the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, regarding constitutional issues not supporting the impeachment of Trump.[84]

        1. How rare is a lawyer who has gone to bat so many times in real courts on behalf of real clients?

          and testified in weighty matters before Congress?

          who gracefully instructs the youth entering law school, too?

          Turley is a GIANT compared to his detractors. I am absolutely awed by him and his courage and work ethic and insight. It’s been an absolute honor to post in his space.

          Turley could have made gobs of money as a lawyer, but he gave his life to public service instead. He probably made a living out of it., but a person of his caliber could have been a top dog in investment banking inside counsel, instead of a public servant & constitutional soldier

          We Americans benefit from his integrity, all of us, and some daily posters shamefully come on here and claim he lacks it. No. Turley is a hero, and those who spit on him here are dog feces he may or may not bother to scrape off his shoe.

        2. Mr. Kurtz, Turley’s credibility as a “public intellectual” is being seriously undermined by his own hubris. The proof being presented poses a big problem for Turley. He’s being called out by other lawyers who know he’s being dishonest.

          1. Svelaz wrote, “Turley’s credibility as a “public intellectual” is being seriously undermined by his own hubris. The proof being presented poses a big problem for Turley. He’s being called out by other lawyers who know he’s being dishonest.”

            That’s false.

            What’s happening is that the Turley, a Liberal, is now considered to be a Conservative by the irrational extremists in the political left because they have moved so far to the left that anyone right of an extreme Progressive is now considered a Conservative and therefore wrong, dishonest, lying, etc, etc about everything. I’ve been following Turley for many years and Turley is right where he’s always been and when his criticism is targeting progressives the progressive hive mind goes off the rails of reality and attacks him like a bunch of children throwing an immature tantrum.

            Turley is not being dishonest, he’s being honest and true to his beliefs and anyone claiming otherwise is likely a extreme progressive hack, ignorant, or a liar; but I repeat myself.

            1. To actually have fixed principles and to evaluate events with those fixed principles is no longer characteristic of anyone on the left. You’ve got a few eccentrics – Pollack, Greenwald, Taibbi, Merritt, Althouse, Dershowitz, KC Johnson, and that’s it. Liberals do not have principles. They have improvisations which provide specious justification for whatever line they’re pushing this moment.

            2. Steve, “ Turley is not being dishonest, he’s being honest and true to his beliefs and anyone claiming otherwise is likely a extreme progressive hack, ignorant, or a liar; but I repeat myself.”

              Like everyone defending Turley keeps willfully ignoring. Turley has been PROVEN to be making false claims with direct proof of his lying. His columns have been shown against the actual documents he’s criticizing that Turley is making false claims. Nobody including you have been able to prove that it is not true.

            3. “Turley is not being dishonest”

              He’s been dishonest numerous times.
              He regularly includes errors of fact and reasoning in his columns, and he doesn’t correct them, even when they’re noted on his Corrections page or emailed to him. It’s one thing to make a mistake, but an honest person corrects their mistakes. When he refuses to correct his mistakes, it becomes dishonesty.

              If you’d like to see old examples, just click on the Corrections link at the top of the page and read some of the comments identifying errors that were never fixed. Or pay attention to his mischaracterization here of Andrew Weissman’s argument in his op-ed with Ryan Goodman, the response by Goodman providing evidence of Turley’s mischaracterization (link is in my 12:45 comment), and Turley’s silence in response — no correction posted.

              1. Here’s your side CTHD

                In Portland the past few days…. BLM forced a young white guy off the road, falsely accusing him of “trying to run people over.” they were actually just blocking and attaacking his car as they often do. he crashed into a building not people. then they hauled him out and began looting his lousy old truck. some white privilege, this guy cant even afford a decent junkheap to drive. hes sitting on the ground watching and suspect Marquise Lee Love, a light skinned big afro punk who looks like Colon Crapperneck, hit him hard in the head, knocking him out unconscious for gosh knows how long, bleeding and likely brain damaged. then they looted the truck more. this is YOUR SIDE IN ACTION cthd


                if you believe the garbage nonsense the likes of CTHD spins out here every day then YOU MIGHT AS WELL VOLUNTEER TO BE LOOTED AND KICKED IN THE HEAD TOO.

                1. No, Kurtz, that’s not my side. MY side are the peaceful protesters, which is why I’ve condemned the violence and looting. If they’ve done what you describe (no, I’m not going to click to read the Daily Caller), then I hope they go to jail.

                  You’d rather believe false things about me because it’s more comfortable for you than dealing with the truth. Including the truth that Turley regularly mischaracterizes things, which is why you’re trying to distract from that discussion.



                    1. You’re willfully blind if you don’t know that many people have protested peacefully in Portland.

                      You don’t see me pretending that everyone has been peaceful, but you have to pretend that everyone has been violent. SMH.

                  2. I dont follow your comments i usually ignore them. You are too long winded and boring. Today you caught my eye with one daring yet empty threat against turley, tomorrow you will be again ignored.

                    Chicago has another mob of all violent protesters. I am sure there are various other cities infested by a hardened core of anarchist looters and criminals hiding right behind the BLM paid “organizers” who work hand in hand with them in the racketeering operation fools like you think are “peaceful protests”

                    naive fools, who would be as easily beaten as any other white person, in spite of you hauling water for them here as you do

                    1. Kurtz, are you in support of the right wingers who murdered the federal guard in Oakland during BLM protests? By your low standards we should assume so and refuse to address any other issue you raise. CTHD has stuck with the subject, presented reasoned arguments while you have accused her of irrelevancies up to and including beating people on the streets. If you had any brains – and balls – you’d respond on topic and cut the crap. You’re making a fool of yourself.

                  3. “I’ve condemned the violence and looting” – CTHD

                    Yet Nancy Pelosi has dismissed all of the “violence and looting” as; “People will do what they do”.

                    So have you contacted her and the DNC to let them know, that like you, they should openly condemn the violence and looting?

                    Of course you haven’t. That’s because you’re nothing more than just another partisan who toes the Party line no matter what.

                    Portland has become the poster child for what the vast majority of Americans do not want to happen where they live and work. Yet the Democrats not only refuse to acknowledge that reality, they have doubled down on condoning the violence by supporting the incredibly stupid “Defund the Police” meme.

                    All while trying to pretend that Antifa doesn’t really exist, and the founders of BLM are not self-admitted “trained Marxists”.

                    It’s a recipe for political disaster come November. As if nominating a 78 year old natural born dumb ass with Dementia wasn’t already a big enough problem.

                    1. Biden is in favor of arresting and prosecuting those who turn violent at protests

                      “I think we do need to hold those who violate the law accountable,” Biden said. “We should never let what’s done in a march for equal rights overcome what the reason for the march is. And that’s what these folks are doing. And they should be arrested — found, arrested and tried.”


                      He opposes defunding police;

                      “…Available joebiden.com/justice/ , his platform for criminal justice reform promises to “reinvigorate community-oriented policing” by strengthening the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, “which authorized funding both for the hiring of additional police officers and for training on how to undertake a community policing approach.” Biden intends to “reinvigorate” the program with a $300-million investment, contingent on officers mirroring the diversity of their communities.

                      In an interview with Norah O’Donnell ( here ) aired by CBS just three days before the NowThis clip was published, Biden said, “I don’t support defunding the police… I support conditioning federal aid to police, based on whether or not they meet certain basic standards of decency and honorableness.” ( here )

                      Contrary to the America First Action advert, Biden has not called for “fewer resources” for police departments. His campaign has said it is calling for police departments to receive funding that would allow them to provide better training, equip officers with body cameras and improve relationships with the communities they patrol ( here ).

                      Biden has drawn criticism from progressive activists, who have expressed disappointment in his proposal to provide $300 million to the COPS program, arguing that doing so would only exacerbate the problem of over-policing ( here ). ….”


    3. Needs To Be Committed is a radical, extremist activist and slavering, rabid, Feminazi White Shirt operative. During her period…of eccentricity, of rationalizing the acute, unusual, hyperactive self defense by Weissmann, Obama and all the Obama Coup D’etat co-conspirators, she gets an E for effort for her delirious, hysterical and incoherent frothings. She furiously slings mud and bovine compost, because you never know what’s gonna stick, as was the case with Johnny Cochran in the OJ Simpsom jurisprudential debacle, which communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are very proud of to this day (of course, circumventing the facts and packing the jury never hurts, right?).

      “Move along, folks, nothing to see here.”

      – Frank Drebin

    4. Yo big mouth today is monday, tomorrow another indictment, I expect you’ll have another sophist answer to that on Wednesday. I wait expecting another double think answer. This is the worst insult that words can convey. You have no interest in truth only to win.

  4. Sorry shills, Turley’s words reach millions of people and you can’t stop it. He kicks your tail everyday now. I do hope he comes out and states that he’ll be voting against the Dems this election.

  5. What’s this got to do with getting the: disgrace, shame, traitor, travesty, liar, poltroon, killer, that inhabits the White House, out? This sort of thing goes on in both parties and during every administration. Let’s dig up Bush. There’s simply not enough time. Clinton lost. Trump won. Trump has proven himself a: disgrace, shame, traitor, travesty, liar, poltroon, kills, and completely unfit to be called President, so, let’s get rid of him. All the minor indiscretions of either side won’t change this.

    1. Minor indiscretions? You are are tunnel-vision channel-locked brain Liberal. Obama and his admin attempted a Coup against candidate Trump, and also as subsequent incoming POTUS. The Russian collision charges were a hoax. Obama “In the Meeting” told them to go by the book. Guess referencing “by the book” has been ascribed new meanings. For the system (= DOJ, AGs, FBI, CIA, other intel agencies,etc.) to participate and rig the system (ignore , withhold, and other lying) to get confessions is beyond egregious. Those people who can be fully implicated should be prosecuted harshly, if applicable to Obama, from there on down. The egregious use of lying to FISA Court, knowing that Trump wasn’t guilty, Strozk saying they had “Insurance Policy”, and on and on, with abuses. If AG Barr does not prosecute the corruptness, , he will be calling himself as saving the system, but that will mean the Rule of Law is gone if he doesn’t. .

  6. “Nothing to see here….” C’mon man! “You’re a lying dog faced pony soldier!”

  7. Guess what? The Democratic Party is a criminal organization and it’s partisans don’t think their people should be held accountable for anything. Their mayors, governors, and sorosphere DAs are currently at work seeing to it that their antifa muscle isn’t held accountable for anything, either. (OTOH, an innocent military veteran has been through three years worth of process-is-punishment). Should the normies draw the implications of this, partisan Democrats are not going to like what comes next.

    1. He’s a Jamaican, respects other nations. Good for him. And the fastest man on Earth. What a champ! a true Olympian

    1. Home Home Home I hope the chickens didn’t get lost for my bad spelling directions.

  8. Aaahhh A. Weissman, once again and IMO crosses the line of Weissman fails to live up to the intent of the Rules of Conduct for Attorney’s. He was hardly a neutral party while serving the Special Council investigation. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during those discussions btn him and Mueller.
    He convinced a district judge to instruct the jury that they could convict the firm regardless of whether its employees knew they were violating the law. That ruling was later unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, in which the court held that “the jury instructions failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing.” But Weissman didn’t care 1 tiny bit about the reputations of so many innocent people who worked at Arthur Anderson. Morally bankrupt? YOU BET.

  9. “This week I discussed the call of Andrew Weissmann, one of the top prosecutors with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, for DOJ lawyers to refuse to help in the investigation despite his own conflict of interest. ”

    And Turley continues to misrepresent what Weissmann and Goodman actually meant by what they wrote. Here it is AGAIN, in context:
    “Today, Wednesday, marks 90 days before the presidential election, a date in the calendar that is supposed to be of special note to the Justice Department. That’s because of two department guidelines, one a written policy that no action be influenced in any way by politics. Another, unwritten norm urges officials to defer publicly charging or taking any other overt investigative steps or disclosures that could affect a coming election.
    “Attorney General William Barr appears poised to trample on both. … But Justice Department employees, in meeting their ethical and legal obligations, should be well advised not to participate in any such effort. The genesis of the department’s admirable practice of creating a protective shell surrounding an election recognizes that unelected officials at the Justice Department should not take action that could distort an election and influence the electorate.”
    It’s very clearly a reference to not participating in Barr’s choice to take public actions that could affect the upcoming election, and is not in any way calling for DOJ lawyers to otherwise “refuse to help in the investigation.”

    “The Weissmann call for DOJ lawyers to hinder this investigation” is a figment of Turley’s imagination.

    “Indeed, they [the media] have barely covered it [the Clinesmith plea]” is false too. It’s been covered by all MSM (NYT, WaPo, NPR, WSJ, CNN, …), often with the article title on the front page / home page for a period of time.

    Turley also omits relevant info. Quoting Marcy Wheeler, who’s much more careful with details:
    “March 2, 2016: FBI interviews Page in preparation for Victor Podonyy trial and learns he informed a Russian Minister and others at the UN he was identified in the indictment in “the spirit of openness.” [IG Report 62]
    “March 21, 2016: Trump formally names Page a foreign policy advisor.
    “April 1, 2016: Counterespionage Section advises NYFO to open an investigation on Page. [IG Report 62]
    “April 6, 2016: NYFO opens investigation into Page (note, one reference to this says the investigation was opened on April 4). [IG Report 63]
    “May 16, 2016: Page requests permission from campaign to make trip to Russia
    “July 3 to 9, 2016: Page in Moscow
    “July 11 or 12, 2016: Page first meets Stefan Halper at a conference in London, though DOJ IG says that was not part of an FBI tasking. Page recruits Halper to join Trump campaign.
    “July 31, 2016: FBI opens Crossfire Hurricane.”

    Also relevant:
    “in June 2017, Mueller’s team would be trying to assess what to make of FBI 302s where Page is recorded as equivocating about whether he had told anyone he was Male-1 in the Victor Podobnyy indictment, which would amount to an attempt to deny that he had gone out of his way to maintain contact with Russia even after it became clear those contacts were with intelligence officers.” (emptywheel.net/2020/08/16/how-durham-gets-to-intent-on-false-statements-with-kevin-clinesmith/)
    and more details about the FBI New York Field Office mentioned above: emptywheel.net/2020/08/15/the-clinesmith-information-includes-evidence-that-john-durham-misunderstands-his-investigation/

    And these aren’t the only errors/omissions. Turley is irresponsible in mischaracterizing so much.

      1. No. And frankly, he was shown to be misrepresenting it yesterday / was corrected on that, and when he continues to misrepresent it again today, it starts to cross the line from ignorant misrepresentation to purposeful lying.

        I’ll note again that Turley is admitted to the DC Bar, one of their rules is:
        “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: … (c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; …”

        Turley repeatedly misrepresents things in his columns and generally makes no attempt to correct them, even when corrections are emailed to him. It’s professional misconduct.

        1. You’re so scared, that you’re actually threatening Jonathan Turley with violating the rules of professional misconduct?!

          That’s a sure sign that he’s dead on, and that Durham is directly over the target.

          Your beloved Party wasted 27 months on a Russian Snipe hunt, followed up by a sham impeachment based on the Ukraine. Which was nothing more than an attempt to run interference ahead of all of the misdeeds in the Ukraine that began after the CIA and State Department staged yet another phony color revolution to remove a duly elected President.

          Which was further exacerbated by Putin once again playing geopolitical chess, while Barry and his self-appointed plebes were playing checkers.

          Meanwhile, guess who is in the middle of both the Russian hoax, and the Ukraine pay for play, shenanigans?

          That’d be your nominee for POTUS, with Dementia, who is hiding in his freakin’ basement.

          “People who convince themselves that they’re really smart often do the dumbest things.”


          On top of all that, your beloved Party has a major “Defund the Police” problem. As if them thinking it was a good idea to condone rampant rioting, burning, and looting, organized by the self-proclaimed Marxists running BLM and Antifa, was a good political strategy.

          And all of this due to Trump Derangement Syndrome, which wouldn’t exist were it not for the deeply entrenched Participation Trophy Syndrome, that goes back decades.

          1. Rhodes,

            RME that you suggest calling out Turley’s dishonesty is a sign of fear and that you characterize a simple comment about the DC Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct as a threat.

            You sound a bit triggered.

            1. CTHD iks a despicable slanderer. Do you like being a defamer? Falsehoods against a professional in their line of work is defamation per se.

              What an ingrate. You come here every day and type on Turley’s blog for free, now you call him dishonest and stupidly suggest your personal fancy rises to an ethics beef

              Hey, you b ye otch. Yes, it is actually a big deal. If you can make out a colorable claim against a lawyer, which is actually pursued by authorities, then yes, it triggers their professional malpractice coverage, a huge hassle and a big expense even with insurance…..Now, what you said actually IS NOT an ethics violation, but you play with fire. I would BAN YOU IN A HEARTBEAT

              but i am not a moderator. just making the suggestion. Turley doesn’t need to tolerate people attacking him with FALSE CLAIMS

              1. CTHD’s claim yesterday and today are not false, or if they are, you should be able to prove it.

                They aren’t and you can’t. The rest of your personal attacks is likely just frustration with that fact.

              2. Kurtz, it wasn’t just CHTD pointing out Turley’s lying. Multiple Professionals showed proof that Turley’s “mischaracterizations” have been a constant pattern, this equates to lying after being proven publicly that his columns have been deliberately edited to misrepresent what others are saying.

                That’s bad for Turley, especially when there’s direct proof which has been presented.

                1. I could care less what a small group of lawyers say about Turley. I have been reading him now for quite some time

                  I go up against groups of lawyers spinning out “narrative” day after day. You’re credulous if you believe somehow they are a Sandedrin to approve of Turley or not

                  the point of this article was, by the way, ANDREW WEISSMAN IS OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE

                  Thats rock solid in my view

                  You guys just come on here dodging the point and cluttering up the comments with your own argumentation. thats fine but don’t start with the TURLEY LIES crap because if you think he’s so bad you ought to bugger off and quit taking advantage of his generous hosting of this comment space. it would be too bad to lose people who have different points of view and contribute to lively debate but if you start calling Turley a “liar” as falsely as have done then you are not debating you are slandering and your commentary has become worthless.

                  how about talking about something useful instead of repeating false characterizations and slanders

                  1. “the point of this article was, by the way, ANDREW WEISSMAN IS OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE”


                    Be specific about what Weissmann did that you believe constitutes obstruction.

                    And if you’re going to refer to Turley’s claim that “Weissmann call[ed] for DOJ lawyers to hinder this investigation,” Turley’s claim is false, as is clear if you actually read the op-ed that Weissmann and Goodman wrote, or if you look at Goodman’s Twitter thread in response to Turley’s column, where Goodman includes images of the op-ed side-by-side with Turley’s mischaracterizations.

                    For the record, the “group of lawyers” criticizing Turley for repeatedly mischaracterizing things includes Steve Vladeck (UT Austin Dalton Cross Professor in Law, has argued before the Supreme Court) and Walter Shaub (former Director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics), both of whom understand legal ethics better than you do.

            2. Commit, you are the prototype for “triggered”.

              You’re screaming like a stuck pig because Durham is doing his job following up on the criminal referrals by IG Horowitz.

              Calling JT “dishonest”, is a sure sign that you and BTB don’t know whether to sh*t or go blind now that all of the Russiagate Chickens are coming home to roost.

              1. Oh yeah, can’t sleep at night Rhodes. Can’t forget the carnage when McCabe was arrested and sent to the tombs.

                How long have you been practicing mind reading?

          2. Rhodes, she can try, and they will file her allegation in the GARBAGE

            you have to actually make out a colorable claim on its face and nothing in her misunderstanding of Turley even comes close

            I can predict that turley could care less about weak, lame attempts at intimidation like this

            but other lawyers should take note”



            get BUSY,. laziness and reluctance to participate in professional self licensing by conservatives– will mean conservatives will be PURGED

            you have been warned

          3. Speaking of defunding the police Rhodes:

            “Fourteen municipal governments — from Albuquerque, New Mexico, to Wildwood, New Jersey — want Trump’s campaign committee to clear a combined $1.82 million worth of public safety-related debt connected to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign rallies, according to interviews with local officials and municipal records obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

            ….But in a statement to Public Integrity, the Trump campaign indicated it’s not responsible for reimbursing cities for police and public safety costs associated with its spirited, and sometimes boisterous rallies — the president’s favored venue for connecting with supporters.

            “It is the U.S. Secret Service, not the campaign, which coordinates with local law enforcement. The campaign itself does not contract with local governments for police involvement. All billing inquiries should go to the Secret Service,” the statement said.

            Secret Service officials, however, said that they receive no funding from Congress to reimburse municipal governments for the local public safety protection they request.

            The Trump campaign did not say whether it supports Congress appropriating federal tax dollars to reimburse municipal governments for protecting people at future presidential campaign rallies.

            In the meantime, Trump’s campaign should both pay Tucson, Arizona, the nearly $82,000 for a March 2016 campaign rally and prioritize helping all cities contend with coronavirus-ravaged budgets, Tucson spokesperson Lane Mandle said….

            …Many cities that hosted Trump rallies chose not to bill his campaign for police and public safety costs, explaining they have policies against doing so or didn’t bother because of Trump’s history of nonpayment.

            Alternatively, several — including Nashville— required the Trump campaign to sign a contract and prepay police costs because Trump planned to appear at a city-owned facility.

            When the Trump campaign does not pay, local taxpayers are left to absorb costs they effectively cannot avoid, as municipal leaders say they are duty bound to secure and protect any large gathering within their cities’ limits.

            Some recent presidential candidates, including Republican Ted Cruz in 2016 and Democratic also-rans Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg in 2020 routinely paid police bills municipal governments sent their campaigns. They argued it was the right thing to do, even if their campaigns weren’t legally obliged….”


            1. Bad try, BTB. More of your same old weak sauce.

              That has zero to do with the Antifa/BLM “Defund the Police” idiocy.

              The irony of which is that the people most afraid of defunding the police are lower and lower middle class black people living in crime ridden neighborhoods in major urban areas across the country.

              Which is why Biden’s handlers already tried to walk back his previous statements supporting the defunding of police, and now they will have to try to do the same for Kamala Harris.

              Your DNC got so caught up in the racial BLM fervor they created, that they lost sight of the forest, for the trees.

              1. BIden didn’t say he was for defunding the police and working class blacks are exactly who put Biden over the top in the primaries. The DNC has been centrist Democrats because that’s who wins the primaries, despite the wishes of Trump and lackeys like JT who promote Bernie. The losers don’t dictate terms and even Bernie .accepted this last night.

          4. “threatening Jonathan Turley with violating the rules of professional misconduct”

            There are rules for professional misconduct?

            1. yes there are in every state. rules of professional conduct. modeled on ABA pattern rules, but, ABA rules are just suggestions. RPC dictated by State Supreme Courts are LAW. and they can and do take lawyer licenses away, sometimes for trifles, sometimes for serious bad things. here we have a false claim being used to attempt to chill Turley’s free speech with a threatened frivolous complaint

              CTHD did not make this tactic up– it has been done by far more skilled operators than her, for decades. but of late, the ploy has gained greater interest from the “Woke” red guard faction which seeks to end “free speech” for everyone besides BLM riot squads and their Dem party beneficiaries

              State Supreme Court justices had better wake up to this emergent trend too. Because they are the arbiters of lawyer speech codes, not legislatures. And not even the SCOTUS can gainsay them on certain matters.

              I’ve personally met with more than one state supreme court justice, and had candid conversations about trends in lawyer speech codes. They know there is more to this than meets the eye, considering the weak push-back so far. In the future, when I have chance again, and I will, I will be sure to make a modest compelling argument for maintaining the free speech rights of lawyers as against the threat of frivolous ethics complaints such as the scurrilous harridan CTHD made today

        2. What you know about ethics fits in a thimble. Your personal misunderstandings of what turley says are so far from a colorable claim of ethical breach for dishonesty, the mere suggestion is slanderous of Turley per se..

          You should be banned for defaming Turley in his profession. SLANDERER

          And we know Left-wing scum are trying to leverage ethics beefs against lawyers all the time. First it was fire all the professors, now you want to sneak-thief away all the licenses of lawyers you dont like


          1. Simple facts Kurtz. Indefensible false hoods in his columns are common and he repeats them. I’m sure that if he is a 1st amendment advocate as he claims, opposing viewpoints with data – CTHD excells in that, which is why you all hate her – would be welcome by him. If you’re up to it, you could try defending him.

            1. I dont hate nobodies. i save my hate for important things.

              And this tactic, that she just spun ou there, is a new field of play.


              I am warning other lawyers about this for years, and it’s a timely opportunity for me to discuss it here.

              Turley should wake up, quit worrying about professors all the time, and worry about Lawyers getting hounded by “activists”– I am grateful to CTHD for illustrating the very thing that I want to warn people about., A despicable threat, and she a fool for tossing it out so casually, but one that we need to understand. so it’s opportune

          2. Kurtz, you sound triggered too.

            Note that you haven’t presented a shred of evidence that I said anything false.

            Turley is free to ban me at any time.
            And if he thinks I’ve slandered him, I invite him to file suit. I’d love to for him to be deposed about why he generally chooses not to correct his factual and reasoning errors when they’re pointed out to him and whether he believes that that’s consistent with ethics rules for lawyers / whether he thinks that’s a good model for the law students he teaches.

            1. GD MF ING RIGHT IM TRIGGERED. i know what you’re up to. maybe you don’t know. it may be over your head. you may not know that the little fib you tossed out there might get you a lot of enmity in some circles., well you just found out. maybe you thought you were playing with matches, but you’re playing iwth fireworks

              Im taking your example to make the point to my friends. You’re no friend, and you don’t count, except to make my point.


              they are coming for your LICENSES



              SWARM them now and make your voice heard — speak up to stop the expansion of Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4


              1. Take a pill Kurtz. You’ve become the drama queen of the blog, calling your allies to the ramparts over BS.

                1. You take your own pills and have fun with them. I”ll do what Im gonna do.

                  It just so happens there are cliques forming to fight about this very issue all over the US now. A day late but not too late. I am in contact with lawyers licensed in 10 different states active on this issue.

                  And we know this: Turley’s a banner-man for free speech. For academics, and for lawyers too. HAIL TURLEY

                  we understand this: the woke red guards want to take away jobs and licenses from anybody who opposes them
                  for now, we can address that inside the system

                  this, like the rest of the woke tactics, is a thing that will hurt working Americans, but they never care. i wont bother to explain this unless someone seems genuinely interested

                  I am however warning you fools out there who think BLM or the rest of the current miscreants are doing anything good for the working class, you are wrong, badly wrong, and you had better figure out, do you support economic issues which will help the working class, or do you just want to wave the banner of whatever aggrieved interest group is the most assertive today?

                  since about 1968, the “Left” in the West, both in Europe and America, has dropped economic issues in favor of identity conflicts. If you can’t reckon that, figure out what Im talking about, because it is a very sinister development engineered by billionaires for decades, to emasculate any effective pollitical resistance to their money schemes.

                  And it comes home to roost when you see a mindless parrot of woke talking points attacking an honest and reputable professor like Turley,. really pathetic !

              2. RME.

                It has long been the case that anyone who wants to can file a bar complaint (and for the record, I’ve never filed one). At that point, it’s out of the hands of the person who files the complaint: it’s investigated by the Bar (info about the DC Bar’s investigations here: https://www.dcbar.org/attorney-discipline/office-of-disciplinary-counsel/filing-a-complaint/what-should-you-expect), and they either choose to dismiss it or they act on it in some way (from simply admonishing the person to disbarring him/her). None of this is public unless their own investigation leads them to conclude that they need to take public action.

                I find Turley’s dishonesty unethical — both as a lawyer, but especially as a law professor, who should be modeling ethical behavior for his law students. Across fields, intellectual integrity (attention to details, not knowingly making false claims, correcting errors when they’re pointed out, …) is part of being a good professor.

                But my opinion about it has zero impact on his law license.

                1. CTHD, backing down? if you feel the grace which attends sincere regret, then make a full retraction instead of trying to slither out of it like a snake:

                  “Turley’s dishonesty unethical — both as a lawyer, but especially as a law professor, ….But my opinion about it has zero impact on his law license.”



                  1. No, I’m not backing down. Just pointing out your mistaken inferences.
                    RME that you accuse me of being a “liar,” but can’t bring yourself to provide evidence that anything I said is false.

                    1. Ok then go on, file a complaint. You’ll find out where it leads when you make false claims to real authorities.

                      see how tough you are calling Turley a liar, when you have to sign your real name to the slander.

                    2. Again: you haven’t provided any evidence that anything I said here is false.

                      Nor have you provided any evidence that Prof. Goodman’s response to Turley included anything false.

                      As the saying goes, p*ss or get off the pot.

              3. Jeez Kurtz, are you really losing your $h/t over the fact that Turley has been proven to be lying in his columns? Nobody here has actually dived in on the actual proof provided by not only CHTD, but multiple respected lawyers.

                Are you hoping that by throwing a giant monkey fit will distract others from the simple fact that direct proof of the claim has been presented? It’s only making you look very foolish and belligerent.

                1. the fact that Turley has been proven to be lying in his columns?

                  Peter is projecting, as always.

                  1. Absurd, there has been concrete proof on this thread that Turley is making false claims about Weissmann’s statements. Too many been frothing at the mouth ranting about pointless topics not related to the subject at hand In an apparent attempt to ignore a simple fact that cannot becomes disputed.

                    1. And no one has addressed that fact Svelaz.JT is full of s…. on this one and everyone here knows it. The response of people like Kurtz is to attack personally with irrelevancies those – especially CTHD – who exposed it.

                    2. Speaking of “full of sh*t”…look at candidate Joe Biden going at it with a Michigan auto worker, losing it, telling the voter he is “full of sh*t” and asking if he wants to ‘take it outside.” Steady as she blows, Joe Biden? Not on your life. The man is losing it right before our eyes. If only we had an honest media that would do its job.

                2. I havent lost anything. I have explained to you fools how you are part of a bad trend, an evil tactic, and you will be opposed.

                  CTHD is just blabbering, repeating drivel she barely understands.

                  meanwhile., in your Democrat run city Chicago, a person is shot about every 2 and half hours, and someone is murdered on the average twice a day

                  last weekend, they looted the Magnificent mile. this past weekend, they blocked the Dan Ryan

                  that’s the sort of stuff you people love, lying, trolling, defamation, intimidation, disorder, bullying, whatever you think will get your political aims. despicable

                  1. Kurtz, you embarrass yourself. Address what JT wrote or shut up. Your mindless blabbering, which includes trying to associate CTHD with Chicago shootings is beyond ridiculous to pathetic. Something tells me lawyers can’t lose their license for lying or ……… does that need further explanation? But not one person on this board has offered an argument for why CTHD’s criticism of JT’s column on Weismann is wrong. Insults, yeah, but monkeys can throw s…. Step up and prove her wrong or move on. You lost.

                    1. Weismann should adhere to the same garbage he spewed about Trump. Since Weismann said that Trump criticizing the Mueller investigation constituted obstruction, then why doesn’t Weismann swallow the same pill he expected Trump to swallow? Be quiet and let the investigation process play out, Andrew, you unethical hack.

                    2. I dont need to address her schtick because i fundamentally agree with the premise that Weissman is obliged by law to cooperate with any Durham investigative requests and him urging people to thwart them is essentially obstructing justice. I don’t need to waste my energy prying open a bulging old can of green beans and testing them for botulism to know that the can is garbage. I just throw it away. This is the argument that has been made: obstruction of justice is licit. I equate that with a bulding old can of rotten green beans. No I don’t need to evaluate it. I just toss it in the garbage

                    3. Im also not embarrassed and I don’t shut up when you tell me to. You’re presumptuous for giving me orders, book. Are you my boss or father? I think not. But that’s how you guys operate. even as you tear down righteous and legit authority (Durham, Trump, etc) you elevate yourselves as boss man in their place. Well that may work on some people but not me. sorry

                    4. Anon., you claim “Weismann said that Trump criticizing the Mueller investigation constituted obstruction,” but you don’t quote Weissmann saying that, and there’s no reason to assume your evidenceless assertion is true. If you’re referring to the 10 instances of obstruction by Trump in the SCO Report (https://www.justice.gov/storage/report_volume2.pdf), none of them correspond to your claim.

                    5. Kurtz, you claim that “[Weissmann] urging people to thwart them [i.e., Durham investigative requests] is essentially obstructing justice”

                      The thing is: Weissman didn’t do that. Which you’d know if you bothered to read what Weissmann and Goodman actually wrote, or even just look at Goodman’s Twitter thread which shows images of what they wrote vs. Turley’s claims, to make it easy to see that Turley’s claim was false.

                      Are you truly so triggered that you’d rather believe something false than learn the truth of what he actually said?

                    6. Troll, trolling, tries to troll again

                      and fails

                      Weissman is a scoundrel involved in obstruction of justice. and coverup of serious crimes.

                      Turley is a hero.

                      Trump is a hero.

                      God bless the USA!

            2. Dishonest discussion:

              “Turley is free to ban me at any time.”

              Turley is a believer in the First Amendment. Don’t use his integrity as proof of your virtue.

              Turley has stated many times that he will allow false/wrong posts in the interests of discussion.

              Typical that you would take is generosity and claim it as vindication.

    1. It must be that Turley is drunk from the Kool-Aid. Turley sees nothing on Trump “despite-proven-criminal-conduct”. Where are all the lawyers backing Turley, There isn’t any, outside the cult.

      1. Fish-head, you are like so many others, who think you know, and you don’t

        Turley is highly esteemed. only among the woke nutjobs is he now a dirty name for his testimony in the impeachment

        his academic record speaks for itself


        we MUST take action to hold back their devious attempts to intimidate us all

        Professor Josh Blackman on the subject of 8.4 expansion:


        1. 1. If Turley’s a Democrat, I’m the Duke of York.

          2. Turley’s academic credentials neither forgive or explain his posting outright falsehoods in his column, and which you have made no effort to address.

          1. BOOK, Lordship of York.

            He is a Democrat. He said so many times. Perhaps you think he’s lying about that too

            It may surprise you that a lot of Democrats are not staunch party allies and actually have their own opinions.

            Used to be, Democrat party welcomed a diverse set of people with various opinions
            Im from the Rust belt and always felt welcome around Democrats my whole life, and I was surrounded by them, even as a Republican, right up until the past year or so.
            Really, it’s amazing how fast the party has locked itself down. I have never seen a narrower scope of opinions being accepted than now.

            You guys whine about the bernie bros. I don’t know about them nationwide, but the ones I knew around here were very tuned into economic issues, not all the race baiting.
            I guess i may have been wrong, maybe the ANTIFA were all burrowed into Bernie’s thing and they’ve just hopped on the back of another dog that offers them fun and games. But the race baiting is all it’s about now. BLM, hate white privilege, oh and maybe some trans this and that, to break the monotony.
            my gosh, aren’t you sick of this? Is that the only thing to be concerned about?

            Your party is becoming myopic and narrow minded as ever

            We always knew Republicans were “the Stupid party” and succeeded in spite of themselves, but what’s happening to gut the Democrat party of anybody who isn’t in the “Woke” category is a truly sad outcome for America. Our nation needs the Democrat party to be more than a carrier for whatever “civil rights” extortion outfits want. The current trend is very, very bad.

            And it’s all very fake too. Because Biden-Kamala ticket is what they call a “neoliberal” ticket from the economics perspective. They are going to dismantle the whole fair trade effort against China, that much you will see if they win. mark my words. That will all go away. bezos and Soros will get their desire on that if Biden wins.
            Certainly they are not “socialists” as the Republican talking heads proclaim, and they are not even “progressives,” from what I hear undisputed progressives say.
            They are free traders and false friends of any kind of socialist reform that would actually help the working class. Raising taxes will be the closest thing they do if they do anything at all. Mostly they will serve their donor base: billionaires! And you can be sure they will reverse the immigration restrictions too. Now a guy like me isnt economically threatened by migrants, but the unskilled workers are! But the billionaires want more scabs here to depress wages and that’s what they will get. Oh, you guys either don’t understand this dynamic, hard to believe, more likely, you don’t care.

            And here is CTHD threatening turley with a bogus claim of ethical breach, because she doesnt like what he says about TRUMP and various issues of constitutional law.


    2. Just more obfuscation from a person who suffers severely from TDS.
      But to say that Turley continues to misrepresent what Weissmann and Goodman actually meant by what they wrote in interesting. But you know? I can only think that you know what was actually meant cause ur best friends with Weis et al otherwise . . .

    3. Interesting until I got the sources every one is completely unreliable and unacceptable so I stopped read the socialist trash and wonder which one of the phony name trolls wrote it.

    4. Schoolmarm says Turley is “irresponsible” – arrogant, tendentious, “correct the record” presumptuousness airing a stinking belch of opinion

      at best, only a difference of opinion and interpretation

      there are zero factual misrepresentations at all from Turley

  10. I eagerly await the investigation of the Durham investigation. First we’ll get the DOJ IG to spend months on it and then declare no partisan intent and a proper investigation but that was not done perfectly, then AG Weissman will appoint a USA to spend a year on it, holding off of course until just before the midterms.

    1. “I eagerly await the investigation of the Durham investigation.”

      BTB, the Horse belongs in front of the cart, not behind the cart.

      But “Gosh almighty”, your fear of Durham is quite understandable, and duly noted.

      Welcome to Hell. The head guys name is John Durham. That’s Mr. Durham to you.

    2. I bet you eagerly await Durham report. From the emails that have been released, from various sources, there will be proven Partisan attempts. You could wager some of those participants A holes are working some button holes on the chair seats. I would wager that you would defend Hillary that she did not release and destroy classified documents included in personal server That had been subpoenaed. Weissman is guilty of Prof Turley’s charges.

    1. You mean in his rear view mirror and GAINING on him, right?
      As opposed to something he drove past and left behind.

  11. Just more evidence that Pinkos are partisan, fundamentally unfair, and intellectually dishonest.

    Waiting for the usual suspects who post on this blog to come out claiming that Turley is biased for pointing out the truth.

    The Pinkos who post here are either loony, bold faced liars, or plain stupid. Doesn’t matter which, the main point is that they are wrong.

    1. The Russian “collusion” charges did not fall apart. Mueller refused to indict Trump; he did not exonerate him. If the number of criminal charges are the way we determine if an investigation is appropriate there were a number that cam out of Mueller’s investigation. By your yard stick it was solid and by any yard stick it was solid.

      Do you have the same problem with Barr interfering in the Flynn case where there have been not one but two guilty pleas or Trump and Barr’s interference in the Roger Stone case? Good grief Professor.

      1. “Mueller refused to indict Trump; he did not exonerate him.” – Justice Holmes

        There are reasons that Mueller did not indict Trump.

        Those reasons are the basis of what Durham is investigating.

        Try to keep up.

Comments are closed.