37 thoughts on “News/Politics 5-4-18

  1. You would think as a career prosecutor type that Mueller would know that it’s a no-no to hide evidence from the defense.

    Because he does know it. But he’s not playing by the rules, he’s too busy trying to cover up his offices’ leaks..


    “There was an interesting filing recently by Paul Manafort in the prosecution by Robert Mueller’s team against him in the Eastern District of Virginia.

    The filing concerned leaks reported in the media that were attributed by the media to government sources. Some of those media reports alleged Manafort contact with Russians. Manafort file a Motion (pdf.)(full embed at bottom) seeking a court hearing to get to the bottom of the leaks.

    The motion is apart from motions Manafort has filed to suppress evidence obtained from his home and storage facility.

    The motion has garnered attention because of a portion of the motion concerning the failure of Mueller to turn over any evidence substantiating the alleged Russian contacts.

    The introduction to the motion sets the context of what Manafort is complaining about:

    In the fall of 2016, the former chairman to Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign, Paul J. Manafort, Jr., became the target of an apparent “leaks” campaign conducted by numerous unidentified government officials. Over the following sixteen months, current and former government officials-including law enforcement agents–disclosed confidential and ostensibly classified information to multiple media sources in an effort to substantially prejudice and adversely impact Mr. Manafort. These actions were in violation of the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to due process, his Sixth Amendment right to trial before an impartial jury, and Rule 6( e) of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure. The government leaks may have also disclosed classified information, a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 798. Moreover, it appears that government officials or agents intentionally provided false information to media outlets, knowing that the information would be widely reported and that the disclosures would unfairly prejudice Mr. Manafort in his efforts to defend himself….

    As discussed infra, the leakers in these articles are often identified as current and former government officials who have requested anonymity, who admit that they were not authorized to speak, and who were-astoundingly-providing information that was seemingly classified. Although the exact persons are not yet known, they must be identified. At bottom, these government-sourced disclosures have violated the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, internal government policies and procedures, federal statutes, and Mr. Manafort’s constitutional rights….

    Importantly, former FBI Director James Corney, and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, have admitted to leaking information to the press during their tenures at the FBI. Both individuals had direct involvement in the investigation of the Trump campaign.

    After reviewing some of the leak reports (which also are exhibits to the motion), Manafort alleges (emphasis added):

    The government-sourced leaks concerning surveillance of Mr. Manafort with foreign
    individuals is particularly troubling. Despite multiple discovery and Brady requests in this regard, the Special Counsel has not produced any materials to the defense-no tapes, notes, transcripts or any other material evidencing surveillance or intercepts of communications between Mr. Manafort and Russian intelligence officials, Russian government officials ( or any other foreign officials). The Office of Special Counsel has advised that there are no materials responsive to Mr. Manafort’s requests. Of course, the natural implication of this is that these government leaks were intentionally designed to create a false narrative in order to gamer support for the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate Mr. Manafort for purportedly coordinating with Russian intelligence/ government officials despite the lack of any such evidence. If this proves this to be true, then Mr. Manafort should not have been referred to the Special Counsel for investigation of coordination with the Russian government, nor for any other matters. Simply put, without original jurisdiction to investigate Mr. Manafort for alleged coordination with the Russian government during the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, the Special Counsel had – and has – no lawful authority or jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Mr. Manafort for the matters that he has brought in this Court and in the District of Columbia. See United States v. Providence Journal Co., 485 U.S. 693 (1988); see also Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949).

    The highlighted sentences have received attention, including from Chuck Ross at The Daily Caller and Molly Hemingway at The Federalist. You can read their takes at the links.”

    Here are those links…..





  2. He should stand down and admit it. He’s got nothing on Trump.


    “I am assuming the authenticity of the questions that Special Counsel Robert Mueller reportedly wants to ask President Trump. The questions indicate that, after a year of his own investigation and two years of FBI investigation, the prosecutor lacks evidence of a crime. Yet he seeks to probe the chief executive’s motives and thought processes regarding exercises of presidential power that were lawful, regardless of one’s view of their wisdom.

    If Bob Mueller wants that kind of control over the executive branch, he should run for president. Otherwise, he is an inferior executive official who has been given a limited license — ultimately, by the chief executive — to investigate crime. If he doesn’t have an obvious crime, he has no business inventing one, much less probing his superior’s judgment. He should stand down.

    The questions, reported by the New York Times, underscore that the special counsel is a pernicious institution. Trump should decline the interview. More to the point, the Justice Department should not permit Mueller to seek to interrogate the president on so paltry and presumptuous a showing.”

    “The corrupt-motive theory is legally and factually specious
    The list of questions elucidates that Mueller is pursuing the legally suspect theory that legitimate exercises of presidential prerogatives can become prosecutable obstruction crimes if undertaken with an arguably corrupt motive. This theory is specious on at least two grounds.

    First, it would empower a subordinate executive official (an unelected bureaucrat who serves at the president’s pleasure) to second-guess the chief executive’s every action and judgment — not just to investigate a patent, serious crime but to question what the president was thinking even when his actions were within his constitutional authority. The president is answerable to peer branches and to voters, but not down his chain of command. If an order is lawful, it is not the captain’s place to question the general’s motives.

    Second, the corrupt-motive theory is factually meritless as applied to Trump. Whatever pressure Trump may have brought to bear regarding Flynn’s investigation, it had zero impact. Comey has testified that the FBI disregarded Trump’s comments. The Flynn investigation proceeded without a hitch, and Mueller ultimately charged and convicted him. Trump could have ordered the investigation to be shut down, but he let it continue.”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Getting schooled.


    “f you asked the leading foreign policy experts in the Republican Party—those great minds who have dedicated their lives to the history, the economics, the abstract game theory of human conflict—what has been the most vexing and potentially catastrophic threat to humanity and civilization over the last 15 years, you would find a considerable number who ranked nuclear-tipped missiles in the hands of Kim Jung-un right at the top. These experts could offer up volumes of articles in journals like Foreign Affairs, International Studies Quarterly and The National Interest—articles published over more than a generation—attesting to the intractable complexity of the Korean problem; illustrating the multitude of competing theories about how to proceed and how to avoid triggering a disastrous confrontation.

    It might seem paradoxical, therefore, that for many of these experts the recent announcement by the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea that they will halt their nuclear tests and scrap their test site, followed by the stunning show of rapprochement between Kim and his South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-in, rather than being a cause for rejoicing is rather an utterly ego crushing dose of humiliation.

    The reason for this reaction, of course, is that the man who brought it all about is Donald Trump. It is Trump who is threatening to cut the Korean Gordian knot. And you won’t find Trump’s strategy in the pages of Foreign Affairs.

    But you will find it in the pages of The Art of the Deal.

    In August 2016, as the U.S. presidential election headed into its final stretch, fifty of “the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials” signed a letter published in the New York Times eviscerating Donald Trump. They declared that Trump would “be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being,” that he “has little understanding of America’s vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances, and the democratic values on which U.S. foreign policy must be based.”

    They argued:
    Mr. Trump lacks the temperament to be President. In our experience, a President must be willing to listen to his advisers and department heads, must encourage consideration of conflicting views, and must acknowledge errors and learn from them.

    These and other “critical qualities,” they concluded, Trump lacked; insisting that “in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.”

    That August letter and another similar missive signed by 122 experts in March 2016 convey a combination of hubris and rage more commonly found in disappointed children. The authors could have chosen more temperate language if they were simply trying to make an adult point about the shortcomings of a candidate with a reputation for a mercurial temperament and admittedly meager foreign policy experience. To their credit, some of the signatories have come around since and expressed regret for signing. Some have even written largely in support and agreement with the president.

    But their truculence and the hysteria that gripped them at the time showed in the tone of these letters. Among other things, it demonstrated that they were unconcerned about shutting the door on any future participation in a Trump Administration because, after all, how could Trump ever win now that they had delivered this verdict? The signatories’ fully believed that their sententious opposition to their party’s nominee eventually would find its way into high school history books and that it would be remembered as the decisive blow of the election.”

    Except it wasn’t. 😄

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Which leads us right into…..

    A message to Jonah Goldberg.

    Stop whining. 🙂


    “The conservative movement is committing suicide for reasons quite similar to those that explain the suicide of the West Goldberg catalogs in his book. Each are, at bottom, choices. Movement conservatism chose for years to be a pliant doormat to the relentless onslaught of the social justice-crazed, progressive Left and its ever-escalating leftward demands. It chose to rehearse an inflexible checklist ideology rather than to be guided by prudential judgments about the common good of the nation in light of natural rights reasoning of the American Founding. It chose to see politics as bean bag, rather than the inherently scrappy contest for dominance that it truly is.

    They have, in short, opted to view the public square as a debating society and the nation as a playground—complete with imaginary judges and recess duty patrol. They imagine they can send up their trial balloons and tout their pet ideas in this idealized “fair” and objective world rather than in a real place inhabited by real persons who deserve to be led, respected, and taken seriously as political actors—not dominated against their wishes, condescended to, or ignored.

    Conservatives like Goldberg want to see less politics—not more—because politics is often ugly. Conservatism in their minds is elegant and elevated, a belief set that alights upon the earth only long enough to inform the common folk that, actually, we just need to keep up with “free trade” and endlessly bombing other countries even when the people (the only referees worth talking about) are not persuaded these ideas represent the national interest just because the graphs these conservative grandees are holding say so, thank you very much. It annoys them that the people have the power to shoot down their ideas. It’s also why they have chosen to go after Obamacare for a third time in the courts—a sort of sneaky, “back door” approach—rather than to flex their political muscles and just repeal the monstrosity. That would require they do politics. And that’s just not the sort of thing “principled” conservatives care to do anymore.

    In this respect, these conservatives are the ones who mimic the Left. The Left has been adept in the last several decades at using the federal courts as engines of a rolling constitutional convention, the outcome of which is intended both to impose upon the country the trendy morality of the Ivy League smart set and to bypass the vagaries of popular sovereignty and rule by the consent of the governed.

    Losing gracefully to those who despise what you profess to stand for—who you are, even—is shameful. Pretending that courage demands impotency and restraint in the face of such existential threats is both naϊve and immoral. Better to fight in such a way that brings the other side to the bargaining table to hammer out a workable peace than to plod along toward the ruin of the Right and the country as a whole—all in a misguided and selfish quest to preserve some insular sense of decorum.

    A hollowed out America so conservatives can preserve their unearned and perverse sense of moral-aesthetic superiority? No thank you.”


  5. It has been a wild couple of weeks on The Trump Show. If you were watching the NBA Playoffs and couldn’t keep up with all the scandals, here is a guide to where things now stand:


  6. So we can anticipate that the Democrats will capitalize on the public’s disgust with you-know-who to make big gains in November. 2020 will be more of the same. So how bad will it be? Really bad. While the Republicans were going from flawed but good to stupid and zombie-like, the Democrats have gone from socialist and prevented to crazed, socialist and perverted.
    I hear the summers are delightful in Patagonia.


  7. If he denies it, we know it has to be true. So what did NBC come up with?


  8. Yesterday’s article by David French is probably the article of the year, if not the decade. I expected some pushback, but my Trumper Facebook friends have been stunned into silence.


  9. Ricky,

    I’ve taken a screen shot of your rantings from 7:58am.

    I can’t wait to remind you of this prediction when you and the NYT are proven wrong again. 🙂

    If Dems don’t win the House and Senate this fall, expect to have to eat those words.

    Meanwhile, you and the NYT just keep whistling past the graveyard…… 🙂






  10. “So what did NBC come up with?”

    Two words for ya’…..

    Fake. News.

    That’s what NBC has.


    “Late on Thursday, NBC News issued a correction to a false news report they published earlier in the day which dominated the news cycle for the majority of the day.

    NBC News had claimed that federal investigators had a “wiretap” on the phones belonging to President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen and that “at least one phone call between a phone line associated with Cohen and the White House was intercepted.”

    That turned out to be false.”

    Yet again.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. While you, French, and the rest of the Never-Trumpers whine, Trump is taking care of business.

    If that is French’s best, he should retire. While they give lip service to evangelicals, Trump gives them something more useful. You folks rant, rave, and ramble, he gets the job done. Trump is giving them a voice and presence in govt.


    “President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday to create a new faith-based initiative ensuring the government’s cooperation with religious communities.

    Trump unveiled the Establishment of a White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative in a Rose Garden ceremony on the National Day of Prayer. The executive order established the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative within the Office of the President to help ensure that all departments of the federal government, as opposed to only faith offices, work with faith-based communities on issues like poverty and the preservation of religious liberty, according to the White House.

    “Today we are launching another historic action to promote religious freedom,” Trump said at the ceremony, surrounded by leaders of various faiths.

    “The faith initiative will help design new policies that recognize the vital role of faith in our families, in our communities, and in our great country. This office will also help ensure that faith based organizations have equal access to government funding and the equal right to exercise their deeply held beliefs,” Trump added.”


  12. Ricky @ 9:26 I can’t stand the thought of Trumpers ‘stunned into silence’, so I commented on your Facebook. The article did not appear to me particularly profound, nor did it in any way affect my ability to speak or communicate. Evangelical leaders do not need to be commenting on Stormy Daniels or presidential crudities. Supporting Trump’s policies and presidency does not require it; it does require some wisdom. Evangelical leaders can stand by Mike Pence and let him do the heavy political lifting if need be. It’s his job, not theirs. Their role is not to be a political cheerleader for any partisan purpose. However there are lessons to be learned about glorifying God in difficult circumstances.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Paul Ryan caves again.


    “The US House of Representatives chaplain will stay in his post after at first claiming he was forced to quit by top Republican Paul Ryan last month.

    Catholic Reverend Patrick Conroy said in a letter he was forced out, believing the House Speaker had the power to fire him.

    US lawmakers had raised questions over his sudden departure, said to be in part because of a “political prayer”.

    Mr Ryan denies forcing the cleric to quit and has now reinstated him.

    The Jesuit priest has been the House chaplain since 2011.

    “It is my job as speaker to do what is best for this body, and I know that this body is not well served by a protracted fight over such an important post,” Mr Ryan said.”


  14. The NY Times gets in on the act with some fake news of their own…..



    “The Pentagon released a statement on Friday that called a New York Times story, which reported President Donald Trump is considering reducing the number of U.S. forces in South Korea, false.

    The New York Times reported Friday that Trump requested plans from the Defense Department on reducing U.S. troop numbers in South Korea.

    President Trump has ordered the Pentagon to prepare options for drawing down American troops in South Korea, just weeks before he holds a landmark meeting with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, according to several people briefed on the deliberations.

    Reduced troop levels are not intended to be a bargaining chip in Mr. Trump’s talks with Mr. Kim about his weapons program, these officials said. But they acknowledged that a peace treaty between the two Koreas could diminish the need for the 28,500 soldiers currently stationed on the peninsula.”


  15. Borders are so passe anyway, right Jerry?……. 🙂


    “A homeless man who was arrested last month after breaking into California Gov. Jerry Brown’s home in Sacramento reportedly said he only tried entering the mansion because he figured the sanctuary state politician was “an open-door policy kind of guy.”

    The California Highway Patrol said 51-year-old Steven Seeley was arrested April 19 and treated at a hospital for cuts he received while breaking a window to get out of the home in downtown Sacramento, located about 10 blocks from the Capitol.

    In an interview with KCRA-TV on Sunday, Seeley claimed he heard what sounded like a large cat roaring nearby, and ran in to an unlocked side door.”


  16. An update on the link and story in the first post.

    The judge is not happy with Mueller’s shenanigans.


    “A federal judge sharply criticized the special-counsel prosecution of Paul Manafort in court this afternoon, accusing Robert Mueller’s team of attempting to unseat the president by proxy. Judge T.S. Ellis told prosecutors that “you don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud,” and questioned whether Mueller had gone beyond his jurisdiction in bringing the case:

    A federal judge expressed deep skepticism Friday in the bank fraud case brought by special counsel Robert Mueller’s office against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, at one point saying he believes that Mueller’s motivation is to oust President Donald Trump from office.

    “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud,” District Judge T.S. Ellis said to prosecutor Michael Dreeben, at times losing his temper. Ellis said prosecutors were interested in Manafort because of his potential to provide material that would lead to Trump’s “prosecution or impeachment,” Ellis said.

    “That’s what you’re really interested in,” said Ellis, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. He repeated his suspicion several times in the hour-long court hearing.”



    “This morning in court on Manafort’s motion challenging Mueller’s authority to prosecute the bank fraud case, the Judge lashed out at Mueller and made some comments that echo the points I’ve been making all along.

    We don’t have a transcript, but we do have multiple news reports. From The Washington Post (emphasis added):

    A federal judge in Virginia on Friday grilled lawyers from the office of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about the motivations for bringing a bank and tax fraud case against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.

    “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud,” Judge T.S. Ellis III said during a morning hearing. “You really care about getting information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump and lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

    Manafort was seeking to have the bank and tax fraud charges against him dismissed in federal court in Alexandria, with his lawyers arguing that the alleged crimes have nothing to do with the election or with President Trump.

    Ellis agreed, but he made no immediate decision on the defense motion. He said even without such a connection the special counsel, which is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, may well still have the authority to bring the charges.

    Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, leaves the federal courthouse in Washington in November.

    I’m not saying it’s illegitimate,” Ellis said.”

    “At one point, Ellis posed a hypothetical question, speaking as if he were the prosecutor, about why Mueller’s office referred a criminal investigation about Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen to New York authorities and kept the Manafort case in Virginia.

    They weren’t interested in it because it didn’t “further our core effort to get Trump,” Ellis said, mimicking a prosecutor in the case.

    It doesn’t sound from the reports that the Judge is likely to quash the prosecution, but at least some truth was spoken.

    Mueller is out to get Trump. It’s that simple. It’s not an investigation, it’s a hunt, and Trump is the hunted.



  17. Trey Gowdy is a tragic figure. He tries to honestly do his work, he studies the documents and he defends Mueller. He turned down judicial appointments from Trump and has decided not to remain in the Washington of Trump and Nunes.

    Nunes is truly a mini-Trump. He rants and raves, threatens and distracts. However, when he gets the documents he has demanded, he is too lazy or dumb to read them.


  18. If there were a smidgen of goodwill Giuliani could come on and play himself, though I suppose being a lawyer in the midst of litigation precludes that.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Back to the open letter to evangelical leaders– this is not a new problem. It’s been ongoing for years. Religious leaders are not supposed to be partisans. If they must wade into political (hazardous) issues it can’t just be for Republicans. It must be for truth.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. A method to the madness…….


    “Rudy Giuliani Knows Exactly What He’s Doing

    Former federal prosecutor and New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has a simple message to Robert Mueller: Put up or shut up.

    The day after President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani unexpectedly admitted on cable news that his client had reimbursed Trump lawyer Michael Cohen for the payout to Stormy Daniels, he was roundly criticized for having gone off the reservation and compromising the White House. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

    In fact, Giuliani, a bare-knuckles brawler in the rings of both politics and litigation, was laying down a marker. The former New York mayor is sending a clear message to Special Counsel Robert Mueller: It’s been more than a year; show your cards. Put up or shut up.”

    “A criticism of Giuliani’s revelation, which he offered without even being asked about it, is that it proves Trump lied on Air Force One when he said he didn’t know anything about the payment to Daniels. But the facts don’t bear this out. According to his attorney, Trump knew nothing of the payout at the time it was paid, and even while repaying it was not aware exactly what Cohen had fixed. Giuliani says Trump only found out he paid for the Stormy silence 10 days to two weeks ago.

    This didn’t stop the news media from insisting that Trump had been caught in a lie, and that doddering old man Giuliani had skipped the sunset special at the old folks’ home to inadvertently throw his client under the bus. But let’s take a step back. Giuliani knew Trump had personally repaid Cohen. He knew this would come out. He put it out first and took control of the narrative. That’s not doddering, it’s good lawyering.”

    “The message to Mueller could not be clearer: What do you got? And it is asked with a New York swagger that perhaps only Rudy has perfected more completely than Trump. Giuliani is convinced that the Mueller investigation has nothing on his client. It may indict Russians, it may find that Paul Manafort engaged in shady business practices, it might find that James Comey bravely broke the law, but on Trump it has nothing.

    That’s the bet. It’s the marker Rudy is laying down. He says Mueller has bubkis, and he’s offering the special counsel a way out, offering an off-ramp to a constitutional crisis. Mueller can seek a subpoena and compel the president to testify under oath with no constraints. He might win; he might lose. But if he has evidence of collusion, why not take the offered opportunity to confront Trump about that evidence? Why not take the offer Giuliani is giving?”

    You know the answer here. It’s because Mueller has nothing.


  21. What are they hiding?

    Further evidence of their leadership’s wrong doing, that’s what.


    “The feud that has simmered for months between Congress and the Justice Department erupted this week into a cage match. That’s because the House is homing in on the goods.

    Until this week, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and fellow institutionalists at the department had fought Congress’s demands for information with the tools of banal bureaucracy—resist, delay, ignore, negotiate. But Mr. Rosenstein took things to a new level on Tuesday, accusing House Republicans of “threats,” extortion and wanting to “rummage” through department documents. A Wednesday New York Times story then dropped a new slur, claiming “Mr. Rosenstein and top FBI officials have come to suspect that some lawmakers were using their oversight authority to gain intelligence about [Special Counsel Bob Mueller’s ] investigation so that it could be shared with the White House.”

    Mr. Rosenstein isn’t worried about rummaging. That’s a diversion from the department’s opposite concern: that it is being asked to comply with very specific—potentially very revealing—demands. Two House sources confirm for me that the Justice Department was recently delivered first a classified House Intelligence Committee letter and then a subpoena (which arrived Monday) demanding documents related to a new line of inquiry about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Trump investigation. The deadline for complying with the subpoena was Thursday afternoon, and the Justice Department flouted it. As the White House is undoubtedly monitoring any new congressional demands for information, it is likely that President Trump’s tweet Wednesday ripping the department for not turning over documents was in part a reference to this latest demand.

    Republicans also demand the FBI drop any objections to declassifying a section of the recently issued House Intelligence Committee report that deals with a briefing former FBI Director James Comey provided about former national security adviser Mike Flynn. House Republicans say Mr. Comey told them his own agents did not believe Mr. Flynn lied to them. On his book tour, Mr. Comey has said that isn’t true. Someone isn’t being honest. Is the FBI more interested in protecting the reputations of two former directors (the other being Mr. Mueller, who dragged Mr. Flynn into court on lying grounds) than in telling the public the truth?

    It’s hard to have any faith in the necessity of the more than 300 redactions in the House Intel report, most of which the Republican committee members insist are bogus and should be removed. On every occasion that Justice or the FBI has claimed material must be withheld for the sake of national security or continuing investigations, it has later come out that the only thing at stake were those institutions’ reputations. Think the Comey memos, which showed the former director had little basis for claiming obstruction. Or Sen. Chuck Grassley’s criminal referral of dossier author Christopher Steele, the FBI’s so-called reliable source, whom we now know it had to fire for talking to the press and possibly lying.

    The Justice Department is laying all this at the feet of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which technically oversees redactions. But ODNI consults with the agency that “owns” the material, and the FBI is clearly doing the blocking. Again, many pieces of the House Intel report that are being hidden happen to relate to FBI conduct during the 2016 election.”


  22. The judge in the Manafort case is starting to figure it out. And he’s called Mueller and his team liars.





  23. I believe the article @4:26 was written before Trump came out and said Giuliani didn’t know what he was talking about. See 10:30. Have Trump and Giuliani changed their stories again in the last 7 hours? It is getting harder and harder to be a Trumpkin.


  24. So Sarah, Who are you going to believe?
    1. Trump
    2. Trump’s old lawyer who is a target of the Feds.
    3. Trump’s new lawyer who has been disavowed by #1 and #2.
    4. The porn star.

    It would probably be less embarrassing to switch and become the spokesperson for Stormy Daniels.


  25. Like

  26. The Benghazi investigations took 28 months and found nothing. I think we can at least give Mueller the same time. And as Clinton was interviewed 2x, I don’t think it’s not too much to ask Trump answer a few questions.

    I’ve not yet decided who to give credit for Korean peace. It may be two trust fund babies who can understand each other. Or its realpolitik. The test site has collapsed and is no longer useable. The Chinese and the South Koreans want a stable border. Kim wants to stay in power. All three have mutual interests to settle down.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. “The Benghazi investigations took 28 months and found nothing. I think we can at least give Mueller the same time.”

    We? 🙄


  28. Yes. We. Though we are 180 degrees apart on economics and reside in different countries, HRW and I both belong to that shrinking fraternity: North Americans who believe in the rule of law.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.