October 31, 2017

"Why George Papadopoulos Is More Dangerous Than Paul Manafort."

That's a cagey headline at the NYT. It only makes a comparison, and that depends on how dangerous  Manafort. This is the same construction: Why a kitten is more dangerous that a mouse.

But an argument is made that there's something particularly dangerous about Papadopoulos, who has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. The argument is made by Harry Litman, "a former United States attorney and deputy assistant attorney general, teaches at the University of California, Los Angeles, Law School and practices law at Constantine Cannon."
A footnote in Mr. Papadopoulos’s plea agreement includes a detail that is particularly damning when combined with previously reported information: Mr. Manafort wanted to be sure that Mr. Trump himself would not accept a Russian invitation to travel to Russia. In March 2016, George Papadopoulos sent an email to seven campaign officials, including Mr. Manafort and the campaign manager at the time, Corey Lewandowski, saying that Russian leadership wanted to meet with the Trump team. Mr. Manafort forwarded that email to Mr. Gates with a note saying: “We need someone to communicate that D.T. is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.”...

Third, a paragraph in the plea agreement indicates that Mr. Papadopoulos pleaded guilty on Oct. 5 and the plea was sealed so that he could act as a “proactive cooperator.” The meaning of that phrase is unclear. But one nerve-racking possible implication is that Mr. Papadopoulos has recently worn a wire in conversations with other former campaign officials....

Fourth, the plea agreement makes clear the Trump campaign knew about the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails well before it was publicly revealed....

Fifth, the episode that prompts the guilty plea is a virtual carbon copy of the infamous July 9, 2016, meeting that Mr. Manafort, Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr. attended with a Russian lawyer....

287 comments:

1 – 200 of 287   Newer›   Newest»
mockturtle said...

IIRC, Hillary lied to the FBI.

Henry said...

George Papadopoulos is clearly a clumsy pseudonym for Roberto Rastapopoulos, Tin Tin's famous nemesis.

Original Mike said...

"Third, a paragraph in the plea agreement indicates that Mr. Papadopoulos pleaded guilty on Oct. 5 and the plea was sealed so that he could act as a “proactive cooperator.” "

Oct. 5 seems awfully late in the game.

Kevin said...

Fifth, the episode that prompts the guilty plea is a virtual carbon copy of the infamous July 9, 2016, meeting that Mr. Manafort, Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr. attended with a Russian lawyer....

That's so disingenuous. The guilty plea is because he didn't state the correct dates of the meeting. And we all know - thanks Martha Stewart! - that you can do something perfectly legal but go to jail for not describing it accurately to the FBI when questioned.

If we wonder why people like Inga keep coming here with excitement that Trump is going to be impeached any minute, it's articles like this which are purposely written to create such feelings.

Henry said...

Roberto Rastapopoulos is a fictional character in The Adventures of Tintin, the comics series by Belgian cartoonist Hergé. He is a criminal mastermind with multiple identities and activities, and is said to be the main antagonist in the series. (my emphasis).

We are clearly living in the age of the Cigars of the Pharaohs.

Michael K said...

Fake news. By the time he "might have worn a wire" he had nothing to do with the campaign.

This making a mountain out of a pimple.

The description of what Papadopoulos did that got him in hot water makes it clear that he essentially wasted the FBI’s time. But not that much, because it’s also clear that they were asking him questions the answers to which they already knew. Thanks to FISA, which is to say, in effect, thanks ultimately to the Clinton Campaign. In any event, it’s hard to take this business of wasting the FBI’s time terribly seriously when they seem to have been doing so well at wasting their own time.

Just like Scooter Libby but this guy was a nobody.

AReasonableMan said...

It was Clintonses who COLLRUDED!

Kevin said...

IIRC, Hillary lied to the FBI.

Hillary's deposition was not done under oath so she could not be prosecuted for lying.

I firmly believe this is what Bill and Loretta discussed on the tarmac.

Equipment Maintenance said...

I worry about Mueller. He looks like he thinks he is pure and noble of heart in doing God's work in bringing down Trump. I hate arrogance like that in civil servants.

Birches said...

Is it just me or is the NYT turning into Glenn Beck and the Tides Foundation?

Equipment Maintenance said...

Kevin, a person doesn't have to be under oath to be prosecuted for lying to the FBI.

zipity said...

Gee, I wonder how history would be different if the LameStream Media© hadn't been abject boot-lickers and sycophants for Obama.

It appears to take a Republican in the White House for the LameStream Media© to do their job, even to the point of making mountains out of molehills.

mccullough said...

Headline should say "Could Be" not "Is.". Ask Mueller for the transcripts of the wire. It's his MO to leak investigations to the media. Have Kristoff call him up and spread the news like in the Hatfill investigation. Mueller still owes the treasury $4 million for his fuck up on that "investigation."

The Vault Dweller said...

Well the pertinent e-mails in question, were not the DNC e-mails, but the ones she sent and received as Secretary of State on her private server. And at least according to the wikipedia article on that issue, that first became publicly known in March 2015. Speculating regarding whether someone else had her e-mails followed soon after. This CBS news article from September 30, 2015 reports that Russian hackers tried to infiltrate her server for e-mails.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-hackers-tried-to-infiltrate-hillary-clintons-emails/

I think it is safe to say that it was widely known, public knowledge that Hillary had a private e-mail server and Russians may have hacked it well before Papadopoulos ever talked to any Russians. Trying to play it that the Trump campaign learned about these e-mails from the Russians, is either intellectually dishonest or just dumb.

Henry said...

But one nerve-racking [sic] possible implication

You've got to love that phrase "nerve-racking". To nerve-racking to whom? The most nerve-racked people reading that article, are the ones who desperately, desperately hope that Pop was wearing a wire.

Also, 'racked' or 'wracked'? The Times insists on racked:

Some ... usage guides provide a way of dealing with this question that has a certain brutal charm: just stop using the word wrack. This is the method that is advocated by The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, which points out that wrack is archaic, and then informs the reader that they should simply “substitute a modern synonym.”

However, as is so often the case, we find that the advice most worth repeating is that found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage:

"Probably the most sensible attitude would be to ignore the etymologies of rack and wrack (which, of course, is exactly what most people do) and regard them simply as spelling variants of one word. If you choose to toe the line drawn by the commentators, however, you will want to write nerve-racking, rack one’s brains, storm-wracked, and for good measure wrack and ruin. Then you will have nothing to worry about being criticized for—except, of course, for using too many clichés."

Gk1 said...

Who? The kid that handed out Trump foam fingers at the Florida rally is the linchpin to this case. O.k, whatever.

flophouse philosopher said...

Papadopoulos wearing a wire? He was arrested back in July and it’s been known since March that he was likely to be arrested. Who the hell in Trump’s campaign would have talked to him at all knowing that? Especially when apparently nobody who mattered had ever spoken to him before — from the plea, it appears that virtually all of his communications with the campaign were by email and all of them were with second- or third-tier members of the campaign, not anybody important.

And isn’t the quoted email by Manafort actually exculpatory of any “collusion” charge against him? “We need someone to communicate that D.T. is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.” Sounds very much like, “Make sure nobody thinks this clown is speaking for Donald Trump or his campaign.”

Mike said...

Fourth, the plea agreement makes clear the Trump campaign knew about the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails well before it was publicly revealed....

What it reveals is that team Trump was being tempted by Russians through Papadopoulos who were dangling access to Hillary's emails in March 2016, one year after she admitted she had deleted those allegedly "personal" emails. Which by inference means that Trump had nothing to do with the supposed "hacking" because access to the emails was the bait in at least two attempts at a meeting. The "analysis" by the professor is lacking in credibility on this point, given the known facts.

Fifth, the episode that prompts the guilty plea is a virtual carbon copy of the infamous July 9, 2016, meeting that Mr. Manafort, Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr. attended with a Russian lawyer...

This is as misleading as any standard DNC-media press release masquerading as "news" analysis. No "episode" prompted a guilty plea. The unsealed documents are clear in reporting that Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to giving incorrect statements about WHEN he was contacted for meeting with Russians, and WHEN he knew the real purpose for the meeting. Timing. Not guilty for "meeting" as this hack implies. Guilty of "lying to the FBI" about WHEN he did certain things. The same kind of bullshit charge old Scooter got caught in. All this has zero to do with the Russia collusion story the DNC is trying to gin up...still.

Kevin said...

Date: Oct 5, 2017
From: George Papadopoulos
To: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Tony Podesta, Donald J Trump
BCC: mueller@gettrump.gov

Guys!

Holding a little get together at my place this Friday. Light food, strong drinks, and a photo montage of that trip to Russia I took a while back.

Would love if you could all come. Please, please, please RSVP so I know how much food to get!

See you there,
G-dog

BDNYC said...

The unsealing of the Papadopoulos plea documents suggests the case may actually be nearing conclusion. Why blow his cover? I suppose it's possible his cover was already blown, so there was no harm in unsealing.

Kevin said...

Kevin, a person doesn't have to be under oath to be prosecuted for lying to the FBI.

Also, no written transcript of the questions and answers was taken.

Mike said...

Kevin, a person doesn't have to be under oath to be prosecuted for lying to the FBI.

So Mueller's decision to not record or even take notes during his meeting with Hillary looks even more suspicious now.

BDNYC said...

Hillary's deposition was not done under oath so she could not be prosecuted for lying.

Incorrect. She could have been prosecuted for lying to the FBI, regardless of whether her statements were sworn.

rhhardin said...

No matter how innocent you are or how helpful you want to be, never talk to the government.

Numerous old youtube things explain this too.

The prosecutor's incentive is take somebody down.

BDNYC said...

No matter how innocent you are or how helpful you want to be, never talk to the government.

What if you're the victim of a crime?

Birches said...

Kevin, you've been on fire recently. Keep up the good work.

Mike said...

Articles like this by "experts" like this are why the public holds the media in lower esteem than Congress and used car dealers. This crap is why Trump is President. The "experts" are full of shit and trying to sell it to us every day.

Birches said...

"Uhhh. Paul, can you say that bit about money laundering with rugs a little bit louder. And into my chest. Thanks."

Feranandinande said...

"Why a kitten is more dangerous that a mouse."

Which one would garner the best screams if let loose at the 2017 Forward Feminism Conference?

Kevin said...

Kevin, you've been on fire recently. Keep up the good work.

Thanks! I'm no Laslo, but sometimes the topics just inspire you.

madAsHell said...

This guy was a gopher. Here's his wiki page.

In particular, see this line describing his personal life "Papadopolous has lived for the past several years with relatives in the Ravenswood neighborhood of Chicago.

He should have been fetching coffee like Obama.

Bob Ellison said...

D.T. That's such good masking. Kinda like hillaryMeYesIamHillaryAndItIsMisspelledAndILiedAboutIt@hillaryemail.com.

Michael K said...

Mueller looks like a fanatic who is certain of his virtue.

Those people are dangerous to everyone around them. Even Hillary, but the Podestas especially.

John Tuffnell said...

"Guys!

Holding a little get together at my place this Friday. Light food, strong drinks, and a photo montage of that trip to Russia I took a while back."

Beware Greeks bearing gifts.

Anonymous said...

If the Trump campaign was conspiring with Russia, why were Joseph Mifsud and Putin's "neice" pushing Papadopoulos to set up a meeting or a trip to Russia by Trump from March through August 2017? If there was collusion happening, then this trip and introduction would have been unnecessary, no? Also, if collusion were happening then there would have been no need to use a low level staffer from the Carson campaign to create the introduction, no? Also, the charging document admits that Papadopoulos failed in his entreaties to his superiors ("
The trip proposed by defendant PAPADOPOULOS did not take place."). So, the charging document itself appears to be evidence that there was no collusion between Trump and Putin. What am I missing? Why is no one discussing this "dog that did not bark"?

rhhardin said...

The chief hazard in talking to the government is you give your account and somebody else gives an account that differs. The the case becomes why is one of you lying, even if it's just mistaken identity.

So you actually were at X and lied about it. That's an element of the prosecution's case. No such element if you don't talk to the government. There's nothing suspicious in being at X, just lying about it.

Sebastian said...

If Pop is more dangerous than Man, Mueller ain't got nuttin. Trump will rest easy. Except that, being Trump, he will really be exasperated. As should we.

Original Mike said...

"What it reveals is that team Trump was being tempted by Russians through Papadopoulos who were dangling access to Hillary's emails in March 2016, one year after she admitted she had deleted those allegedly "personal" emails."

Why would anyone be interested in Hillary's yoga emails?

Mac McConnell said...

It's being reported that the British diplomatic and foreign relations professor that Papadopoulos said was his contact to the Kremlin is saying the Papadopoulos "story" is full of bullshit.

The Vault Dweller said...

Why would anyone be interested in Hillary's yoga emails?

Yoga e-mails, are nothing, but the ones about Chelsea's wedding plans could have some really interesting gossip.

cubanbob said...

Why is Trump wasting time? Appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary, Bill, Loretta, Eric and Barack along with Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey. Go big or go home.

Freder Frederson said...

Who the hell in Trump’s campaign would have talked to him at all knowing that?

You assume that Trump's campaign was full of smart people. There is very little evidence of that. The Trump family members especially (Don Jr, Eric, Jared and to a lesser extent Ivanka) don't seem particularly bright but are operating under the delusion that they are fucking geniuses, a very dangerous (to them) combination.

Chuck said...

This is the same construction: Why a kitten is more dangerous that a mouse.

Look; I sure don't want to defend the New York Times. My general reaction to the New York Times' persistent bias, is to instead read the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, the Weekly Standard, the Daily Telegraph, and to watch parts of Fox News. Get my news and commentary someplace other than the NYT.

But as for the relative danger of "a mouse." If the mouse carries something like norovirus, and its droppings infect humans, well then I think the mouse is more dangerous.

PB said...

The FBI got an intern (he was unpaid) to flip and wear a wire AFTER he left the White House? More and more this announcement and leak seems solely designed to distract from Hillary, Obama, ant the Democrat's mounting problems with the Russians and politicization of the FBI and DOJ.

Matthew Sablan said...

"The FBI got an intern (he was unpaid) to flip and wear a wire AFTER he left the White House?"

-- So? They still got to put on the front page, top of the hour that someone in Trump's campaign LIED TO THE FBI and that there was A CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

Mueller and the Dems win on points.

Matthew Sablan said...

Huh, the alleged Russian scholar/Kremlin operative isn't happy with how he is being characterized? Yesterday I wondered why the FBI didn't flat out say who it was. So... who was it?

The Vault Dweller said...

You assume that Trump's campaign was full of smart people. There is very little evidence of that. The Trump family members especially (Don Jr, Eric, Jared and to a lesser extent Ivanka) don't seem particularly bright but are operating under the delusion that they are fucking geniuses, a very dangerous (to them) combination.

I agree that the Trump campaign was probably the most chaotic presidential campaign of 2016 and probably for decades earlier. But I think the Trump family is decently skilled at managing public emotions and reactions, which is what a lot of politics is. The wonky stuff about particular policies and the technicalities of running a primary and general campaign they aren't the best at, but the public facing stuff they are fairly decent at.

Mike said...

You assume that Trump's campaign was full of smart people. There is very little evidence of that. The Trump family members especially (Don Jr, Eric, Jared and to a lesser extent Ivanka) don't seem particularly bright but are operating under the delusion that they are fucking geniuses, a very dangerous (to them) combination.

Well they were smart enough to deduce the Russian's were not offering what they set up the meeting for in Trump Tower last July, and end the meeting without any exchange of information or material goods. This is a meeting, we now know, set up by a Russian who was specifically allowed in by Eric Holder, even though she was on a list people not allowed to travel in the U.S.

But their real genius move was when the Trump kids and spouses came out and said they had the meeting, released their emails and volunteered to speak to Congress. Smart and above board. Everyone truly connected to Fusion GPS has hid their involvement, and (like always) Hillary and her cronies have major memory problems and plead the 5th. So you can admire Trump transparency or rail about how dumb they are, but they weren't as dumb as young Mr. Papadopolous were they?

This just a rehash of the "dumb republican" meme the DNC-media complex loves to push. It reminds me of the old "Bush is a dumb monkey who somehow tricked all of us into voting for a war we didn't really want" crap they used to peddle. Don't they see how this also erodes trust in their side?

mccullough said...

All these people are stupid and arrogant enough to talk. D.C. is filled with the stupid and arrogant. Hopefully for the targets, they aren't as stupid and arrogant as Mueller and his team.

Nonapod said...

I'm a little bemused by the fantasizing that the NYT and the Left in general indulges in. I don't know what result they're imagining with all this. Do they actually believe this will lead to something? Are they still really entertaining the thought that all this will lead to Trumps eventual impeachment? Why do they delude themselves so?

I mean, look at what happened last year. They were convinced that Hillary had it in the bag. They were in shock when the result they were so certain of didn't come to pass. Have they forgotten that bitter feeling? When you get your hopes up only to have them dashed so harshly, why would you not become at least a little skeptical?

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Earnest Prole said...

Kitten, mouse . . . you're woefully naive about the danger posed by an unprincipled federal prosecutor with unlimited investigative tools. Remember: if Trump is correct, he and his advisers were surveilled ("wiretapped") for months before the election.

traditionalguy said...

Tail Gunner Joe's briefcase redux.The FBI is, as usual,engaged in a mass conspiracy to promote itself and try to collect information they can use for collection of protection money from the other Swamp Creatures. That is all they have ever been.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

It's illegal to talk to Russians, unless you are HIllary.

It's illegal to dig up dirt on HIllary.

Not illegal to dig up dirt on Trump.


Drago said...

LLR and "Accidental Leftist" Chuck: "Look; I sure don't want to defend the New York Times."

LOL

Jersey Fled said...

Back almost 50 years ago when I was just out of school and commuting to my first real job, I used to listen to Morning Edition on NPR. Back then it was Daniel Ortega and the Sandonistas non-stop and end to end.

Then one morning I realized that none of the people giving "expert" opinions were anyone I had ever heard of. In fact, I don't think that anyone had ever heard of them.

Seems like the NYT is still using the same old playbook.

CStanley said...

I heard Preet Bharara on NPR this morning talking about watching Trump''s reactions. I think that is what the "wire" talk is about...not that they really got anything but that they're watching to see if anyone acts nervous thinking they might have been entrapped.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Do they actually believe this will lead to something?"

-- Cheney will be Frog Marched for War Crimes Any Day Now.

SECRET ROUTERS!

mccullough said...

What's Preet up to these days? He and Comey should go work for the NFL

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

It's illegal for Citizens to Unite and criticize Hillary.

Ralph L said...

Nonapod, the point is to jam up the works of Washington for as long as possible, as happened with Iran-Contra and Monica.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"SECRET ROUTERS!"

Funny the things that trigger nostalgia. Where have you gone garage mahal?

Henry said...

Another famous Tintin villain is Red Rackham. There's that "rack" reference.

And finally, a Müller. Clever of our special counsel to abandon the umlaut.

Ferananidinande said...

CStanley said...
Preet Bharara


He's the clown who persecuted and harassed some Reason.com commenters; after goofing around with a grand jury, "Federal prosecutors dropped the matter as moot."

AReasonableMan said...

Instead of whining about Clinton or the press why not whine about Trump? In particular why he took on these two sleaze bags in the first place. Another own goal.

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Sablan said...

"In particular why he took on these two sleaze bags in the first place."

-- One was fired once Trump learned his true sleaziness... the other was a low-level functionary who didn't have any power at all. Guilt by association is a terrible thing, unless you can show something more, it's a dead subject.

Mike Sylwester said...

Yesterday, Robert "The FBI White-Washer" Mueller did NOT indict "Crazy Comey the Leaker" for leaking FBI secrets.

Mueller NEVER will indict his BFF Comey for anything -- especially for leaking FBI secrets, even though Comey has admitted the crime publicly.

After all, Mueller was Comey's mentor and taught him how to leak FBI secrets.

Whenever you read a newspaper article calling Mueller a "straight-shooter" or something similar, the reason for such praise is that the journalist himself has been the recipient of Mueller's leaks of FBI secrets.

How has information about a grand jury's sealed indictments appeared in the press before the indictments were unsealed?

Because Mueller himself has leaked it to his favored journalists, that's how.

Henry said...

People say that truth is stranger than fiction, but they're wrong. You could make this up. History repeats Hergé, first as serial, second as farce.

bgates said...

You assume that Trump's campaign was full of smart people.

s/b President Trump's campaign

AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
One was fired once Trump learned his true sleaziness


So an own goal. Should not have been hired in the first place. It's not Clinton's fault. It's not the fault of the press, or Mueller, or Comey. It is the Donald who lacked the judgement to do the right thing here. Another own goal.

Gk1 said...

"So an own goal. Should not have been hired in the first place" Priceless. Say, who won that election last year anyways? Who won despite being outspent 3 to 1? That idiot,trump?

Mike Sylwester said...

Michael K at 9:49 AM

Mueller looks like a fanatic who is certain of his virtue.

A zealot.

Qwinn said...

Guilt by association is infinite if you are a Republican, even if the "sleaze" in question also worked for Podesta.

Guilt by association is utterly invalid (and you're scum for even suggesting it) if it involves leftists.

Mike said...

So an own goal. Should not have been hired in the first place. It's not Clinton's fault. It's not the fault of the press, or Mueller, or Comey. It is the Donald who lacked the judgement to do the right thing here. Another own goal.

Well Manafort was hired to wrangle delegates, and he did that well. Once the GOPC was over, he was let go. Shame on the FBI for not giving candidate Trump a heads-up, like they gave Hillary. But their short 60-day association won't taint Trump the way Manafort's decade-long association with the Podestas will harm other people. The Donald fired him as soon as his sleazy connections started to come to light.

Did Hillary fire the Podesta Group? If not why not?

Keep dreaming ARM.

AReasonableMan said...

Gk1 said...
Say, who won that election last year anyways?


A win at any cost attitude has costs, as we are now seeing. An own goal. No one else to blame.

Original Mike said...

Blogger Nonapod said..."I'm a little bemused by the fantasizing that the NYT and the Left in general indulges in. I don't know what result they're imagining with all this. ...I mean, look at what happened last year. They were convinced that Hillary had it in the bag. They were in shock when the result they were so certain of didn't come to pass. Have they forgotten that bitter feeling? When you get your hopes up only to have them dashed so harshly, why would you not become at least a little skeptical?"

This whole Russian thing was cooked up to salve their despair and now they have to play out the string.

CStanley said...

One was fired once Trump learned his true sleaziness

Personally I think this goes too far in excusing Trump. I looked up some background because I couldn't recall ever hearing exactly how Trump ended up choosing Manafort- other than the stock line that he needed Manafort skill set to wrangle delegates at the convention. What I learned was that the two had a history working together on real estate deals and Manafort was known as someone who cleared the way for controversial projects that often involved foreign money. That these deals involve money laundering is about as secret as Harvey Weinstein's acts were in Hollywood.

I'm just sayin'....it strains credulity that Trump didn't know what Manafort was up to, he just chose not to know and made a calculated decision. He needed someone to play hardball and that he'd be able to take the heat and dump Manafort if/when that became necessary, which it did,

Gk1 said...

LOL Oh sweetie, that's too precious. This made my day.;-)

Snark said...

Trump has been wound up with Manafort and Stone for decades. He knew exactly who Manafort was when he agreed to bring him in. He fired him only when it became politically necessary. Trump doesnt make decisions for principled reasons ffs. Honestly, there are other options than being in moist thrall to a narcissistic sociopath.

Original Mike said...

"A win at any cost attitude has costs, as we are now seeing. An own goal. No one else to blame."

At any cost? I still am waiting to hear what nefarious actions the Trump campaign engaged in. Maybe Mueller will find something, but as of now, no one much cares about Manafort and Pops.

CStanley said...

This whole Russian thing was cooked up to salve their despair and now they have to play out the string.

Although this is now conventional wisdom it seems very off to me. The seeds of all of the collusion narrative were being planted as early as Spring 2016, and clearly HRC thought she was going to win.

The loss caused everything to go into hyperdrive, but it couldn't have been the reason for the narrative to have been created in the first place.

Mike Sylwester said...

One argument that advocates of non-enforcement of our immigration laws often make is that enforcement inhibits illegal aliens from cooperating with police investigations.

If an illegal aliens sees a crime and then a police office asks him about it, then the illegal alien will refuse to tell what he saw. Therefore, we should not enforce immigration laws.

Meanwhile, our FBI and our special prosecutors are convicting and jailing citizens for misstating facts to "investigators".

As a consequence, citizens are learning that they should not cooperate in any such investigation. Citizens should refuse to answer any questions at all.

That is the lesson that is being taught to citizens yet again by Robert "The FBI White-Washer" Mueller in his disgraceful investigation.

The expression describing this state of affairs is Anarcho-Tyranny.

Illegal aliens are not subjected to any inconveniences, whereas citizens are subjected to investigators' sneaky tricks and entrapments and subsequently to heavy legal expenses, to huge fines and to long imprisonment.

Xmas said...

@ARM

Manafort did what the Trump campaign needed, which was strong-arm the RNC delegates that were being wooed by Cruz.

If you're expecting Trump to know about the Ukrainian money-laundering that Manafort hid from the FBI and the IRS for years, you're expectations are unreasonable.

Mike Sylwester said...

Samuel Frances defined Anarcho-Tyranny as follows:

What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny —- the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through “sensitivity training” and multi-culturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.

The laws that are enforced are either those that extend or entrench the power of the state and its allies and internal elites … or else they are the laws that directly punish those recalcitrant and “pathological” elements in society who insist on behaving according to traditional norms —- people who do not like to pay taxes, wear seat belts, or deliver their children to the mind-bending therapists who run the public schools; or the people who own and keep firearms, display or even wear the Confederate flag, put up Christmas trees, spank their children, and quote the Constitution or the Bible —- not to mention dissident political figures who actually run for office and try to do something about mass immigration by Third World populations.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-tyranny

AReasonableMan said...

Xmas, as CStanley and Snark have pointed out already, Manafort was a known quantity. There is a reason why he hadn't worked in US politics for twenty years. Roger Stone was another known quantity.

William Chadwick said...

" . . . Hillary lied to the FBI." I must protest this egregious calumny against Queen Cacklepants. Just because the Alinskyite Witch not only comes from a tradition of "No truth but socialist truth," but also has the surname "Clinton," is no reason to think she's a liar. And cut her some slack, Jack. She probably was drunk at the time; plus her head was grazed by a bullet that time in Bosnia when she landed in a helicopter under enemy sniper fire.

Michael K said...

"Should not have been hired in the first place."

Well, he knew that you were not available to guide the convention floor votes so he had to take second choice. Dope.

The lead prosecutor of Mueller's team has an interesting history.

Kirkendall, who represented three Enron executives in civil cases, said he got a "front-row seat" to the prosecution tactics in the criminal cases. He documented those tactics in a series of blog posts.

Kirkendall told LifeZette that Weissmann's team employed extremely aggressive tactics and obtained convictions in five cases. The victories were short-lived, however.

"I find it highly ironic that Mr. Mueller, who is investigating Russian interference in the election, used KGB tactics in pursuing this case. That seems to be lost on them."
"Every one of those convictions that were obtained from this were overturned on appeal," he said. "Every one of them."

Kirkendall pointed to another unusual tactic employed by Weissmann. The Enron task force in court documents named 114 unindicted co-conspirators in the case involving Enron Chairman and CEO Kenneth Lay and CEO Jeffrey Skilling.

"That was unprecedented in American criminal law that has never been done before," he said. "The transparent purpose of doing that was an effort to chill them from testifying for Lay and Skilling. And it was effective."

Kirkendall said his research indicates that the previous record for named unindicted co-conspirators in a federal criminal case was 60-something in the prosecution of former Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards.

Said Powell: "That made most of Houston lawyer up. It was like the Houston Defense Lawyers Employment Act."


Manafort will walk because of prosecutorial misconduct. If they get a conviction using these tactics, he will win an appeal.

This is Ted Stevens again.


Unknown said...

But remember...there was no collusion!

CStanley said...

Xmas, as CStanley and Snark have pointed out already, Manafort was a known quantity. There is a reason why he hadn't worked in US politics for twenty years. Roger Stone was another known quantity.

I must point out though that my judgment of this is probably different than those other commenters. I'm generally not an "ends justifies the means" person but I do understand that this was the only way Trump could win and while I don't trust or like him I feel he is better than the alternative.

I just don't like seeing supporters turn into syncophants. If you believe it was necessary for Trump to fight dirty, just say so, don't pretend he was stupid enough to believe that Manafort was squeaky clean.

AReasonableMan said...

A defense attorney for the Enron sleaze bags may not be the most reliable witness on the planet.

Qwinn said...

So the criteria now is that everyone Trump associated must have been "squeaky clean", forever?

What associate of Hillary's has ever even met the "cleaner than pond scum" standard?

AReasonableMan said...

This is just deflection. Why not hold Trump to the same standard that you are attempting to hold Clinton to?

bgates said...

A win at any cost attitude has costs, as we are now seeing.

Yes, the Clinton campaign's collusion with the Russians to produce the fake dossier so the Obama administration could go back to the FISA court for the second or third time to get wiretaps on American citizens, details of whose communications were then illegally leaked was horrible - the whole affair was unethical, immoral, illegal, and anti-American.

mccullough said...

Several convictions of Weismann's scum prosecutorial tactics were overturned. This is we'll know and the court decisions are available online. Weismann is Mueller's boy. Mueller is also a dirtbag.

pacwest said...

"This is just deflection. Why not hold Trump to the same standard that you are attempting to hold Clinton to?"

I wish that were the case. Equal treatment would be best. There should be a full scale special investigation of Clinton by a Republican partisan, packed with rabid Republican lawyers. We are in full agreement ARM.

cubanbob said...

Manafort will walk because of prosecutorial misconduct. If they get a conviction using these tactics, he will win an appeal."

The problem with prosecutorial misconduct is that in the end the prosecutor still keeps his job and pension, law license, can't get sued personally and doesn't risk going to jail.

buwaya said...

Somewhat off-topic -

Official portraits (to be hung in all Federal offices, etc.) of Trump/Pence

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/171031095428-mobapp-trump-pence-official-portraits-exlarge-169.jpg

Trump has his expression of gleeful mischief. As if he is watching someone just realize that he has fallen for some practical joke.
Pence just looks bland.

DHunter said...

I do not see where the Trump campaign knew before they were released that the DNC had been hacked. Where is that?

Unknown said...

“I just don't like seeing supporters turn into syncophants. If you believe it was necessary for Trump to fight dirty, just say so, don't pretend he was stupid enough to believe that Manafort was squeaky clean.”

Of course they know that Trump was aware of Manaforts illegal activities. He also knew about the attempts of his staff and even his son to connect the campaign with the Russian government for their help with releasing the hacked emails.

It’s collusion and it’s called criminal conspiracy. It’s still illegal to hack emails and then be complicit in using them to help himself become President. What was promised in exchange? Maybe to lift the Magnitsky sanctions? It’s pretty clear now what happened, it’s going to become even clearer as the months go by. Papadopolous probably wore a wire. Interesting times ahead.

Qwinn said...

Hillary is being held to a standard?

What standard, exactly, would that be? Because "the law" certainly isn't it.

Drago said...

"What was promised in exchange?"

Uranium?

More fake information to be added to a fake dossier that could be used to improperly spy on an opposing campaign?

Lots of possibilities here.

Unknown said...

“I do not see where the Trump campaign knew before they were released that the DNC had been hacked. Where is that?”

“But "[o]n or about" April 26, 2016, Papadopoulous again met with the Professor in a London hotel. The complaint reads that the Professor told him he had "just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian government officials" where he learned that the Russians "have dirt" on Hillary Clinton; "the Russians had emails of Clinton" -- "they have thousands of emails."
This date is important because The Washington Post only first reported on June 14, 2016, that the hackers working for the Kremlin had penetrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee. And while this correspondence, first published by WikiLeaks in late July, days before the Democratic National Convention, was distinct from Clinton's personal emails and those she turned over to the FBI as part of the investigation into her use of a personal server to conduct government business while she was secretary of state, it nonetheless caused a scandal within the Democratic Party.”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/opinions/how-team-trump-heard-russians-hacked-clinton-opinion-weiss/index.html

Michael K said...

"A defense attorney for the Enron sleaze bags may not be the most reliable witness on the planet."

How about the appeals courts that reversed every conviction ? Dope.

It’s collusion and it’s called criminal conspiracy.

Dope #2 still beating that dead horse.

Drago said...

"It’s collusion..."

Or its not.

Perhaps its just a Tuesday.

But then, in lefty world, that is enough, isn't it?

CStanley said...

So the criteria now is that everyone Trump associated must have been "squeaky clean", forever?

No, the criteria is that we shouldn't pretend that things are not what they obviously are.

Look, you can even see this as a positive for Trump, if you assume he used Manafort (a crooked person) for a limited time and cut him loose before he could gain anything by being part of the administration. That fits with Trump's claim that he was uniquely positioned to clean up government because he himself had used the corrupt system so he knew how things worked.

Kevin said...

In particular why he took on these two sleaze bags in the first place. Another own goal.

Trump was not a seasoned politician. He did not have years of experience with people in political circles to know (a) who could get things done and, (b) of the people who could get things done, who had integrity.

As such, he did not know to surround himself with people like DWS, Anthony Weiner, the Podesta brothers, Harvey Weinstein, and other upstanding people like Hillary did due to her decades of public service.

Drago said...

CStanley: "No, the criteria is that we shouldn't pretend that things are not what they obviously are."

You could apply that standard to Mueller and have no time left over to talk about anything else.

CStanley said...

The "thousands of emails of Clinton" that were already public knowledge were her the ones she deleted from her secret server. That had nothing to do with the DNC.

Drago said...

CStanley: "The "thousands of emails of Clinton" that were already public knowledge were her the ones she deleted from her secret server. That had nothing to do with the DNC."

Shhhh. Inga is on a roll.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

alan markus said...

The narrative trying to be proven is that "the Russians interfered with the election to elect Trump". My narrative would be "There may be 145 million reasons that the Russians did not want Clinton elected President".

I suspect for the Russians it was "anybody but Clinton". Perhaps they would have supported Pee Wee Herman if he had been the candidate - anybody but Clinton.

I think the Russians did not get the deliverable that they expected for $145 million dollars. Indications of a double-cross. Motive to take out a particular candidate.

Unknown said...



“Two things are true about the indictments unsealed by special counsel Bob Mueller Monday:

They don’t provide a “smoking gun” proving collusion between Donald Trump’s operation and Russia.

They make it almost impossible to believe that there wasn’t collusion between Trump’s operation and Russia.

Here is what we now know: The Trump campaign was filled with operatives connected in shady ways to the Russian government. It included individuals who knew that the Russians had obtained Clinton-related emails and who lied about that knowledge to federal investigators. Top campaign officials (and Trump family members) dropped everything to meet with Russian operatives when they believed there was useful opposition research on offer. Trump publicly asked Russia to hack into Clinton’s computers to find and release her missing emails.

We also know the Russians really did hack into John Podesta’s and the DNC’s email accounts and found and released emails that damaged Clinton. They really did conduct social media operations designed help Trump. Both their targets and their timing were extremely sophisticated for a foreign government that has traditionally shown itself to have a poor understanding of American politics. After winning the White House, Trump attacked the CIA and fired the director of the FBI in an effort to discredit or end their investigations into Russia’s role in the election.”

CStanley said...

Trump was not a seasoned politician. He did not have years of experience with people in political circles to know (a) who could get things done and, (b) of the people who could get things done, who had integrity.

As such, he did not know to surround himself with people like DWS, Anthony Weiner, the Podesta brothers, Harvey Weinstein, and other upstanding people like Hillary did due to her decades of public service.


Yeah I don't buy this either. I mean yes, he was a political naïf but really the reason he had to resort to hiring people who had less than stellar reputations wasn't that he didn't know better. It was because all of the people in the political class who were fixers- who themselves were sleazy people but knew how to insulate themselves and their candidates from scrutiny- shunned him.

I think we're the naïveté showed most was with people like Donald Jr, and possibly this Papadopolous guy (though I'm not convinced he wasn't a plant.)

Gospace said...

The Washington Post only reported July 14....

But internet blogs were talking about it long before then.

mccullough said...

Trump fired Comey because Comey is a weasel.

Michael K said...

The level of leftist theory here is declining if anything.

Look, Trump was elected by a lot of people who think that EVERYONE in DC is corrupt. I do.

You think that we are enamored of Republicans like you are of Democrats. That's not it at all. Chuck may be enamored but most of us are not.

The think tanks and little magazines like TWS and NR are funded by the donors who fund the politicians. That's why they hate Trump.

The only Republicans that I think are probably clean are Tom Coburn and he left, and maybe Cotton because he seems new enough to have not yet found the teat.

You are very mistaken if you think we are Republican loyalists. Its just that Trump was the only one who looked like he could resist the usual suspects and had enough money to avoid the donors.

William said...

I don't have a background in law. Can someone explain why Manafort has to be placed under house arrest and has to post $10 million bond. Is he such an extreme flight risk, or are those terms punitive? You don't get the sense that Mueller is even trying to appear to be fair and even handed.

Unknown said...

1) Russia stole Democratic emails. US intelligence agencies have confirmed that emails from the Democratic National Committee and from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta were stolen by Russian hackers. The emails were ultimately released in a smartly sequenced way to maximize damage to Hillary Clinton.

2) At least one Trump adviser knew of the theft in advance, and lied about it. Shortly after the emails were hacked, George Papadopoulos, one of Trump’s five listed foreign policy advisers, was told of their existence by a Russian professor whom he knew to have deep contacts in the Russian government. Papadopoulos subsequently lied to investigators about the timing of the revelation. This is from the indictment (emphasis mine):

Papadopoulos acknowledged that the Professor had told him about the Russians possessing dirt on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails but stated multiple times that he learned that information prior to joining the campaign. In truth and in fact, however, defendant Papadopoulos learned he would be an advisor to the campaign in early March and met the Professor on or about March 14, 2016; the professor only took interest in defendant Papadopoulos because of his status with the Campaign, and the Professor told defendant Papadopoulos about the thousands of emails on or about April 26, 2016.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/30/16571114/trump-russia-mueller-indictments-manafort-gates-papadopolous

Fabi said...

If Trump and his idiot relatives were half as smart as they think they are then he'd be the president by now!

Original Mike said...

"It’s pretty clear now what happened,..."

You never cease to amaze (and amuse), Inga.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

“3) Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, was a paid operative of a Russia-linked political party in Ukraine. According to Mueller’s indictment, Paul Manafort, who would go on to lead Trump’s campaign, was a longtime paid operative of a Ukrainian political party with deep ties to the Kremlin. Manafort hid both the extent of his payments and the extent of his work on behalf of this party; ultimately, more than $75 million flowed through offshore accounts related to the work, and at least $18 million was laundered by Manafort.

4) In June 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with a Russian operative who promised them dirt on Clinton. The email Trump Jr. received was crystal clear. It came from Rob Goldstone and alleged that a Russian prosecutor had “offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful.” Trump Jr. wrote back, “if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

Trump Jr. then set up a meeting, and on an email thread titled “Russia - Clinton - private and confidential,” he invited Kushner and Manafort. The meeting took place on June 9. As Andrew Prokop wrote, “it’s hard to read these emails and not conclude that the top echelons of the Trump campaign were well aware of the Russian government’s support for Trump and willing to collaborate in the effort.”

At it happens, “later in the summer” is exactly when the hacked emails would ultimately be released.

5) In July 2016, Trump publicly asked the Russian government to find and release other emails Clinton deleted. Separately from the hacked emails of the DNC and Podesta, another Clinton email scandal related to 33,000 messages her team had judged unrelated to her work as secretary of state and deleted. In late July, Trump said during a press conference, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” He said this after Papadopoulos was informed by the Russians that they possessed Clinton-related emails.“

Original Mike said...

"Trump publicly asked Russia to hack into Clinton’s computers to find and release her destroyed emails."

FIFY

Unknown said...

“6) Russians released emails to help Trump, planted fake news and social media bots to help Trump, and tried to hack election systems in 21 states. What’s most striking about the Russian operations on Trump’s behalf is how sophisticated they were about American politics. As the Democratic National Convention began, for instance, Russia released hacked DNC emails meant to stoke conflict among Bernie Sanders’s supporters. The Podesta emails were dribbled out in the campaign’s final weeks and were laundered through WikiLeaks, which made them irresistible to the media. The social media efforts were far-reaching and surprisingly savvy for a foreign government. Both the timing of the operations and the specific points of attack chosen reflected the Trump campaign’s needs and obsessions.

7) After being elected president, Donald Trump fired the director of the FBI to end his investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election. President Trump has certainly acted like someone with much to fear from the various investigations into Russia’s role in the election. After taking office, he lashed out at the CIA, which had concluded that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election on his behalf — "these are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," the Trump administration said.”

rehajm said...

Papadopoulos acknowledged that the Professor had told him about the Russians...

...and The Skipper hit Gilligan with his hat.

Unknown said...

The above was posted because most of you only hear news and read news from news outlets that are still trying to decieve you and distract you with fake news...like the stuff that Drago pushes daily. It’s time you Trumpists woke the hell up.

mockturtle said...

Michael K observes: Mueller looks like a fanatic who is certain of his virtue.

And few things are as dangerous as overweening virtue.

rehajm said...

Official portraits (to be hung in all Federal offices, etc.) of Trump/Pence

I wished they'd gone with the You're Fired! Trump. Historic.

Matthew Sablan said...

The Trump campaign was filled with operatives connected in shady ways to the Russian government. It included individuals who knew that the Russians had obtained Clinton-related emails and who lied about that knowledge to federal investigators. Top campaign officials (and Trump family members) dropped everything to meet with Russian operatives when they believed there was useful opposition research on offer. Trump publicly asked Russia to hack into Clinton’s computers to find and release her missing emails.

-- If *that's* all it takes for collusion, then both Trump and Clinton are going to jail. Probably Obama too. Maybe about half the Congress.

mccullough said...

So Russia stopped Hillary from campaigning in Wisconsin and Michigan? They probably just relied on her stupidity and arrogance. She lost. Get over it.

wwww said...

You are very mistaken if you think we are Republican loyalists. Its just that Trump was the only one who looked like he could resist the usual suspects and had enough money to avoid the donors.


I find this interesting because NYC real estate is notoriously corrupt. All are innocent until guilty, but when I hear someone is involved in NY real estate & casinos...

On the other side of it, Conservative twitter is under the mistaken impression that people care about Podesta's brother or anyone else who might be caught up in Mueller's investigation. If Mueller finds something illegal, people are good with it.

Martin said...

2 things to keep in mind:

1. Leaks, even when true, are leaked for a purpose and are at best a narrow attempt to manipulate the audience. Someone decided to leak X to Y, and not leak Z. Every step had a purpose that may or may not be your purpose or interest as the reader. It's all really just gossip through the media. And remember what your mother told you about engaging in gossip.

2. Them that know don't talk, and them that talk don't know. Except in Washington, for which see #1, above.

Matthew Sablan said...

“6) Russians released emails to help Trump, planted fake news and social media bots to help Trump."

-- Factually incorrect. The goal was electoral chaos, and we know this since several of their planted stories and bots were to help Clinton.

"7) After being elected president, Donald Trump fired the director of the FBI to end his investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election."

-- Factually incorrect. Comey was fired for many reasons, and both Comey and McCabe have testified that it in no way hampered the investigation.

"4) In June 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with a Russian operative who promised them dirt on Clinton."

-- This is not a crime, and is not much different than paying Russian spies for intelligence on your political opponent. In fact, it is nowhere near as bad, since the Trump campaign ended the meeting early. Also, the "Russian operative," was one the Obama administration cleared for entry to the country and used to brief Congress. There's no reason to think she was a spy at the time.

"2) At least one Trump adviser knew of the theft in advance, and lied about it. Shortly after the emails were hacked"

-- This is untrue. The files were stolen at least after May; Papadolopus' initial contact was in April. Unless he also travels in time, he could not have known of stolen emails that were not yet written. Also, they were not released in a "smartly sequenced way." As with most, they were dumped sequentially and then the juicy bits were crowdsourced.

Can we *please* stop the ugly copy and pasting without providing an original link?

Pretty much all 7 of the points Unknown listed are *factually wrong*. Not just "in my opinion" or "skewed." FACTUALLY WRONG. We deserve to at least know WHERE the information is coming from before wasting time with it.

Unknown said...

“On the other side of it, Conservative twitter is under the mistaken impression that people care about Podesta's brother or anyone else who might be caught up in Mueller's investigation. If Mueller finds something illegal, people are good with it.”

YES! Exactly.

Unknown said...

“Can we *please* stop the ugly copy and pasting without providing an original link?“

I gave you the link, read more carefully.

Michael K said...

" It’s time you Trumpists woke the hell up."

Do you realize how stupid you sound ? You are reciting a litany of speculation.

By the way, the Wikileaks emails were most likely provided by an insider, Seth Rich who was found dead being the most likely suspect.

There is considerable evidence, which you ignore perhaps because you cannot understand it, that the DNC download was done to a thumb drive. Others here have explained it. Take a course, Inga.

Unknown said...

“Do you realize how stupid you sound ? You are reciting a litany of speculation.”

No more so than what I read from you daily. With all your degrees too, that is sad.

Matthew Sablan said...

The link should be associated with all of the points.

But, yes. Vox is a terrible source.

Michael K said...

I find this interesting because NYC real estate is notoriously corrupt. All are innocent until guilty, but when I hear someone is involved in NY real estate & casinos...

You might get the idea that that someone knows how to deal with corrupt counter parties.

Why he got elected reason 254.

Unknown said...

“By the way, the Wikileaks emails were most likely provided by an insider, Seth Rich who was found dead being the most likely suspect.”

The good doctor thinks this makes him sound smart.

Unknown said...

“But, yes. Vox is a terrible source.”

That’s your opinion, which I don’t hold in high regard, sorry.

Michael K said...

"No more so than what I read from you daily. With all your degrees too, that is sad."

Inga, try to understand about things like download speed. You would sound smarter.

It's not easy to find a MSM source for the truth about the email "hack but I found one.

Here's the difference:

Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or other cyber-protection systems and then extracts data. Our own considerable experience, plus the rich detail revealed by Edward Snowden, persuades us that, with NSA's formidable trace capability, it can identify both sender and recipient of any and all data crossing the network.

Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization — on a thumb drive, for example — and gives it to someone else, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did. Leaking is the only way such data can be copied and removed with no electronic trace.

Because NSA can trace exactly where and how any "hacked" emails from the Democratic National Committee or other servers were routed through the network, it is puzzling why NSA cannot produce hard evidence implicating the Russian government and WikiLeaks. Unless we are dealing with a leak from an insider, not a hack, as other reporting suggests. From a technical perspective alone, we are convinced that this is what happened.

Lastly, the CIA is almost totally dependent on NSA for ground truth in this electronic arena. Given Mr. Clapper's checkered record for accuracy in describing NSA activities, it is to be hoped that the director of NSA will join him for the briefing with Mr. Trump.

William Binney (williambinney0802@comcast.net) worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still used by NSA. Ray McGovern (rrmcgovern@gmail.com) was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials from 1981-85.


Sorry Inga. You're a dope.



Gospace said...

By the way, the Wikileaks emails were most likely provided by an insider, Seth Rich who was found dead being the most likely suspect.

Found murdered by persons unknown. In a low crime neighborhood. AKA, another Clinton associate murdered or suicided.

Unknown said...

Here’s one from Politico, no pardons! Not yet anyway. Wait until Don Jr. gets indicted. Pardons and the firing of Mueller would bring a massive amount of blowback.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/31/jay-sekulow-trump-no-pardons-244359

“President Donald Trump’s personal attorney said Tuesday that “pardons are not on the table” in the wake of the first wave of indictments announced Monday by special prosecutor Robert Mueller.

“I have not had a conversation with the president regarding pardons and pardons are not on the table,” Jay Sekulow, Trump’s attorney, told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Tuesday.

Sekulow also repeated what he had said on CNN a day earlier, that there has been no discussion in the White House of firing Mueller, whose investigation is probing Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election and the possibility that the Trump campaign colluded with those efforts. But while Sekulow said that there was no talk of firing Mueller, he declined to rule it out as a possibility.”

pacwest said...

"The above was posted because most of you only hear news and read news from news outlets that are still trying to decieve you and distract you with fake news...like the stuff that Drago pushes daily. It’s time you Trumpists woke the hell up."

Shorter Unknown: It's a vast right wing conspiracy I tell you.

Everyone here is familiar with the twisted talking points you keep putting out. We've read them on various sites since we are intellectually honest, and make judgments based on both sides of the story.

It is glaringly obvious that YOU are the one that consumes only one side of the news. Try opening yourself up to both sides. It only hurts for a little bit.

Once again proof that if a lefty accuses you of something it is something they are guilty of. Wake up!

Yancey Ward said...

"Fourth, the plea agreement makes clear the Trump campaign knew about the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails well before it was publicly revealed...."

Charitably, this is simply wrong. Uncharitably, it is a bold-faced lie. The details of Papadopoulos' plea simply says that he knew about the "Clinton e-mails" that this "Professor" told him his sources had access to. Now, do you think the essayist really doesn't understand that "Clinton's e-mails" is not synonymous with "DNC and John Podesta e-mails"?

Unknown said...

“It is glaringly obvious that YOU are the one that consumes only one side of the news. Try opening yourself up to both sides. It only hurts for a little bit.”

LMAO! Yesterday I posted a couple of links from Gateway Pundit and Hotair. I often look for right wing sites to post links from because I know you people suffer terribly from epistemic closure.

Qwinn said...

NOT firing Mueller will bring a huge amount of blowback, unless another investigator/prosecutor is established to look into Uranium One, including Mueller's role in covering it up.

Drago said...

Unknown: "The above was posted because most of you only hear news and read news from news outlets that are still trying to decieve you and distract you with fake news.."

LOL

Yes, by all means lets discard sworn congressional testimony, under oath, that:

1) Clinton hired the same firm to smear Trump that Putin reportedly used to smear Magnitsky

2) The Fusion GPS dossier included inputs from senior Russian government officials and included “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure” and a “former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.”

But hey, that's just sworn testimony before congress. It's not nearly as believable as some Vox juice-boxer doodling in the sand.

Thanks for "keeping it "Vox" real" Inga!

BTW, when, exactly, did sworn testimony before congress become "fake news"?....

Trick question: The answer is always: if it deviates from the daily dem/lefty/LLR narrative!

Thanks for playing Vox juice-boxers!

Yancey Ward said...

And this idea that Papadopoulos is a cooperating mole is pretty damned unlikely. If he were, you can be absolutely certain that his plea deal would not have been revealed yesterday. If I had to wager what happened, it is this- they wanted to use him as a mole, but realized very quickly that Papadopoulos was an empty barrel simply because he was a nobody that no one of importance would have ever revealed incriminating evidence. It is abundantly clear to me that Papadopoulos' main value to Mueller was revealed yesterday- it was the only piece of meat he could throw to the Collusion theorists since the Manafort indictments were all related to things he did prior to 2015.

William Chadwick said...

Inga may in fact be a dope (you have to be pretty dopey at this point in history to buy into any form of State-cultism and really believe that Der Staat is our best friend); but more likely she, like so many "liberals" and other such creatures, operate under the old leftist dictum, "There is no truth but socialist truth."

Unknown said...

“NOT firing Mueller will bring a huge amount of blowback, unless another investigator/prosecutor is established to look into Uranium One, including Mueller's role in covering it up.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/30/lindsey-graham-there-will-be-holy-hell-to-pay-if-trump-fires-mueller.html

“There “will be holy hell to pay” if Mueller is dismissed, Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News on Monday, unconcerned about rumblings of the ongoing threat Mueller poses to the president. He said there is zero evidence from the White House that Mueller’s investigation will be stopped or curtailed.

Asked to elaborate, Graham continued: “I've heard nothing from the White House to suggest that the president's going to try to replace Mr. Mueller. Zero evidence from anybody I've talked to. It would be wrong to do so unless there were cause.””

Michael K said...

Inga, calm down. The Podesta indictments are coming if Mueller has any concern to appear less than a partisan.

His prosecutor has a bad reputations and that will help Manafort to make the case that this is political.

The whole Ukraine, Manafort thing is so muddy that I cannot decide who are the good guys and who the bad guys in this story.

The Ukrainian president was elected and overthrown buy an Obama inspired and supported coup. Obama tried to do the same in Honduras to support a Chavez ally.

Maybe they will get into these facts in a Manafort defense. That would be interesting.

Drago said...

Yancey: "it was the only piece of meat he could throw to the Collusion theorists since the Manafort indictments were all related to things he did prior to 2015."

That's pretty much what every thinking analyst is saying.

This guy was an unpaid volunteer that didn't know anyone. He gets in one picture somewhere (remember that Abramoff photo in the back of some large room during a GW Bush fundraiser?) and that proves some big-time insider connection!

By next week, Inga and her voice-actuated automatons will be telling us that this unpaid volunteer was running the campaign!

Which would be consistent with the lefty and their LLR allies tactics of each week claiming some new person is running the entire republican/conservative "show".

Drago said...

Michael K: "The Podesta indictments are coming if Mueller has any concern to appear less than a partisan."

The indictments are not coming because at this point Mueller gains nothing by appearing less than partisan.

In fact, every single incentive points the other way.

The more partisan he is the more he will be praised.

Drago said...

MK: "The whole Ukraine, Manafort thing is so muddy that I cannot decide who are the good guys and who the bad guys in this story."

There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" here.

They are all "bad" in the sense that the US govt has been for sale to foreign entities thru their US lobbying arms for as long as anyone can remember.

That's the point.

It's both sides of the aisle as evidenced by the fact that Manafort used both the Podesta Group on one side and Vin Webers firm on the other.

This is the Washington trough that was tipped over when Trump was elected and they piggies on both sides are moving as rapidly as they can to put the trough back in place and run all those upstart "outsiders" out of town on a rail.

Unknown said...

Another “cooperating” witness! They are going to be coming out of the woodwork I suspect, lol. They might need an extra long wire to wire up this guy.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/31/sam-clovis-senate-russia-investigation-244370

“Sam Clovis, President Donald Trump’s controversial nominee to be the Agriculture Department’s chief scientist, has been “a fully cooperative witness” in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts told POLITICO.

Clovis, a former co-chair and policy adviser to Trump’s campaign, knew that another campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, was talking to Russians, according to news reports based on documents released Monday as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.“

Achilles said...

Fourth, the plea agreement makes clear the Trump campaign knew about the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails well before it was publicly revealed

The whole article is written by an ignorant fool pedaling lies. The DNC wasn't hacked. It was proven beyond any doubt to be an inside job.

But this is the NYT and it's readers need the lies.

Unknown said...

“The whole article is written by an ignorant fool pedaling lies. The DNC wasn't hacked. It was proven beyond any doubt to be an inside job.”

So much wishing and hoping won’t make it true.

Dan Hossley said...

Maybe we could find out exactly what lie he told the FBI. I've read that is was nothing more than getting a date of a meeting wrong. "Lie" hardly seems the word to describe that.

Qwinn said...

Papadopoulos talked to Russians!

Hillary took $145 million in an obvious quid pro quo for giving the Russians control of 20% of our uranium supply!

How much longer do we need to pretend that anybody calling the former treason (on somebody else's part) and the latter nothing worth investigating are arguing in good faith? The lies are so obvious I would literally like to see Unknown and ARM eventually indicted as co conspirators.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

William said...

Can someone explain why Manafort has to be placed under house arrest and has to post $10 million bond. Is he such an extreme flight risk, or are those terms punitive?

Since he has significant financial resources, plus significant foreign contacts in countries with whom we are not on the best of terms, this seems pretty reasonable to me.

Achilles said...

Michael K said...
Inga, calm down. The Podesta indictments are coming if Mueller has any concern to appear less than a partisan.

Mueller is covering up his own illegal activities. He has been corrupt for a decade and is dirty himself. He buried the Rosatom investigation in 2010 when they were bribing Clinton. There is no way that Mueller turns on Clinton. If she goes to jail he will not be far behind.

Matthew Sablan said...

Low level functionaries in Republican presidential campaign are clearly in with everything and know it all; an actual terrorist helping to launch a Democrat's presidential campaign is "just a guy from the neighborhood."

Standards: They shouldn't be different.

Achilles said...

Unknown said...
“The whole article is written by an ignorant fool pedaling lies. The DNC wasn't hacked. It was proven beyond any doubt to be an inside job.”

So much wishing and hoping won’t make it true.

You are an amoral loser who refuses to accept facts.

That is The Nation. The truth is not hard to find. You have to willfully ignore the truth and willfully decide to be a traitorous piece of shit to keep supporting the Stalinist Mueller investigation.

Unknown said...

“Maybe we could find out exactly what lie he told the FBI. I've read that is was nothing more than getting a date of a meeting wrong. "Lie" hardly seems the word to describe that.”

Statement of the Offense, George Papadopolous. Go see for yourself.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download

Matthew Sablan said...

"Can someone explain why Manafort has to be placed under house arrest and has to post $10 million bond. Is he such an extreme flight risk, or are those terms punitive?"

-- On one hand, he's been completely cooperative with the investigators and willingly gave himself up.

On the other, the government believes he has millions hidden offshore with foreigners in his pocket willing to help him escape. So, even if it IS just to be punitive, you can't say there's not a legit cause.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Unknown said...


Why are you just lying and lying? It doesn't achieve anything. Make us believe you? Well, we don't. Hurt our feelings? We already know you hate us and want us to die.


As I recall it, people were busy hating on Corey Lewandowski and wanted Trump to get an establishment guy for his campaign manager. This Manafort fit the bill. (Last I heard he had been working for Scott Walker, so maybe Trump presumed that Walker's people had done the due diligence.)

There's nothing here. There's never been anything here.

Would it help if you knew you would be punished for false accusations when nothing is found? Because I think the reason you throw out this nonsense is precisely and only because it costs you nothing.

Meanwhile you begged and prayed for the death of the Republic and the election of Hillary Clinton, but I repeat myself.

Mike Sylwester said...

William at 11:43 AM
You don't get the sense that Mueller is even trying to appear to be fair and even handed.

Trying to appear to be fair and even-handed is not a high priority for Robert "The FBI White-Washer" Mueller. He knows that his findings will be held in contempt -- because they are not fair and even-handed -- by a large portion of the population, but he does not care.

Mueller's top priorities are:

1. White-wash the FBI.

2) White-wash his BFF "Crazy Comey the Leaker".

3) Convict and imprison a scapegoat (someone like Scooter Libby) in order to create an illusion that the FBI's "investigation" was valid and worthwhile.

Far, far below those top three priorities is "trying to appear to be fair and even-handed".

Drago said...

The charges against Papadopolous are classic "Scooter Libby" stuff.

Such weak tea stuff.

And why would a bunch of Russians have to go through some nobody volunteer if there was a high level collusion going on at the top.

The goal here is to lob so many accusations so fast for so long that the other side simply gets exhausted and gives up, leaving the field to those who have everything to hide.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

But it's fascinating that the lefty/LLR playbook never really changes does it?

Unknown said...

“Not. Gonna. Happen“

How many years after the end of the second WW were those Japanese soldiers living in those caves? Denial is a strong emotion.

Drago said...

Unknown: "How many years after the end of the second WW were those Japanese soldiers living in those caves?"

Not as long as the lefts enduring romance with mass murdering communist dictators, which is ongoing...when they aren't busy defending/remaining silent about leftists in Hollywood sexually assaulting people...and defending and supporting a woman candidate for President who personally helped attack the female victims of her husbands predations...when she wasn't busy handing over 20% of our uranium to Vlad Putin and pals for a cool $145 Million.

FullMoon said...

Unknown said...

“Not. Gonna. Happen“

How many years after the end of the second WW were those Japanese soldiers living in those caves? Denial is a strong emotion.
10/31/17, 1:00 PM


That is hilarious. The Japanese soldier did not know the war was over, just as you do not know the election is over. Will you be the last hold out?

Drago said...

I can't help but notice that the "dossier" isn't much of a "thing" anymore on the left.

Sort of how the left stopped calling GW Bush "literally Hitler".

I wonder why that stopped?

Matthew Sablan said...

The more we learn, the more it seems like Russians tried to provide "dirt" to both campaigns.

Clinton's campaign paid them for it; Trump's campaign eventually walked away.

COLLUSION!

Michael K said...

You guys may be right about Mueller but I still think he may be concerned with his rep. Thats why his fanatic look, to me at least, suggests he may think taking down at least Hillary's corrupt underlings like Podesta, will bring absolution from history.

The Ukraine story might be part of Manafort's defense and that would be interesting.

The point about Lewandowski and Manafort's relationship with Walker are interesting, I had not thought about that.

Poor Inga. That dead horse is gonna fall apart with that treatment,

Drago said...

MS: "Clinton's campaign paid them for it; Trump's campaign eventually walked away."

In fact, obama's OFA fellas also contributed to this.

So, yes, obama and Hillary paid a firm directly connected with Putin to collect information from Putin's henchmen to create a fictional document used by the obama admin to spy on Hillary's domestic political opponent using the resources of our intelligence services.

Other than that everything was on the "up and up"!

Mike Sylwester said...

Unknown at 11:45 AM
Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, was a paid operative of a Russia-linked political party in Ukraine.

The "Russia-linked political party" won the 2010 presidential election by campaigning openly on the issue of improving relations with Russia.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent around 60 long-term and 600 short-term observers to observe the election and found the election to be "transparent and honest".

Russia and Ukraine are neighboring countries with an extremely long mutual border. Many Russians live in Ukraine, and many Ukrainians live in Russia. Practically all Ukrainians speak Russian fluently.

Saying that a Ukrainian political party is "Russia-linked" is as silly as saying that some Canadian political party is "USA-linked".

Although Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych was elected in an election that was "transparent and honest" (the OSCE's words), the Obama Administration encouraged the overthrow of that legitimately elected president.

Michael K said...

"The Japanese soldier did not know the war was over, just as you do not know the election is over. Will you be the last hold out?"

There are lots of them on facebook. Living in caves, I expect.

Drago said...

Michael K; "You guys may be right about Mueller but I still think he may be concerned with his rep."

He sold his "rep" covering up for Hillary in the sale of uranium to Russia, amongst other...."activities".

Kevin said...

Shorter Inga: "I have no idea if this could be true, but wow, if it is."

Drago said...

"There are lots of them on facebook. Living in caves, I expect."

Hillary is one of them and she ain't livin' in no cave.

She is the leading candidate for the dems in 2020. The dems just haven't had it fully "explained" to them yet....but they will.

Kevin said...

There are lots of them on facebook. Living in caves, I expect.

Tuning today's equivalent of short-wave radios to the proper frequency to listen for coded messages to fight on!

Mike Sylwester said...

Unknown at 11:45 AM
Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, was a paid operative of a Russia-linked political party in Ukraine.

The public story is that Manafort was a paid consultant.

I myself happen to speculate that he was not really a consultant. I happen to think that he was hired to smuggle assets out of Ukraine so that the assets would not be seized by the rebels who were being encouraged by the Obama Administration to overthrow the legitimately elected government.

If my speculation is correct, then I suppose that Manafort indeed was a paid operative.

Other than my own speculation, however, I am not aware of any evidence at all that Manafort was an OPERATIVE rather than a mere consultant.

Drago said...

Kevin: "Shorter Inga: "I have no idea if this could be true, but wow, if it is."'

That, by the way, fully describes the Vox media "editorial" process.

You know, there is a reason why Vox cannot attract any "big" media names even though it has been sufficiently flush with cash for quite sometime. It's considered a college-level intellect and "insight" joke, even among the lefties.

One of my all-time favorites was the article written by the Vox middle east "expert" Zach Beauchamp who actually believed there was a bridge that connected the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and those dastardly Israelis wouldn't let Palestinians use it!!

Which is almost as "middle-eastern-y" funny as Vox's other middle east rocket scientist who couldn't figure out how to read simple data tables.

But hey, this time they've got it right and they are just the gang of "informed" "insiders" Inga will latch onto in a pinch!

But always remember, Inga is very much against "fake news"! LOL

In the same way that LLR and "Accidental Leftist" Chuck is really always looking out for the best interests of the conservatives!

Birches said...

This thread has been very amusing. Inga is at about chemtrails levels.

Matthew Sablan said...

Sidenote: Tucker Carlson reading Tony Podesta's impotent threats on the air are sounds like prime YouTubing tonight if it wasn't "watch Ghostbusters and give kids candy" night.

pacwest said...

"LMAO! Yesterday I posted a couple of links from Gateway Pundit and Hotair. I often look for right wing sites to post links from because I know you people suffer terribly from epistemic closure."

And I can find a few articles on TPM and Vox that are favorable to Trump. (Very few admittedly). All you are doing is proving my point. Right sites, except the most extreme ones, tend to look at facts and include pro/con. Assumptions are given and conclusions are laid out from those. Left sites, almost unfailingly, lay out the conclusions an make their assumptions fit. Sorry dude, finding a couple of articles from righty sites that point out this investigation is problematic to Trump (duh) is not evidence of your unbiased stance. It simply points out your bias to search out assumptions that will support your conclusions. Wake up. Premisis first. Conclusions second.

Inknown, you have not proven yourself to be an unbiased arbitrator of the facts. A wonderful example for all of us to avoid.

Drago said...

BTW, here is a "Free Beacon" (yes, them!) link to their take down of Vox Middle East reporting "Superstars" Max Fisher and Zach Beauchamp.

Be prepared to laugh yourself silly.

And then remember that Inga thinks these guys are reporting "gods", though without as much "messiah-y-ness" as obama.

http://freebeacon.com/blog/in-praise-of-vox-media-max-fisher-and-zack-beauchamp/

Unknown said...

LOL!

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/31/media/fox-news-employees-russia-mueller-coverage/

'I want to quit': Fox News employees say their network's Russia coverage was 'an embarrassment'

Some employees at Fox News were left embarrassed and humiliated by their network's coverage of the latest revelations in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election meddling, according to conversations CNN had with several individuals placed throughout the network.

"I'm watching now and screaming," one Fox News personality said in a text message to CNN as the person watched their network's coverage. "I want to quit."

"It is another blow to journalists at Fox who come in every day wanting to cover the news in a fair and objective way," one senior Fox News employee told CNN of their outlet's coverage, adding that there were "many eye rolls" in the newsroom over how the news was covered.

The person said, "Fox feels like an extension of the Trump White House."

This kind of coverage does the viewer a huge disservice and further divides the country," one Fox News personality told CNN.
Fox News journalists took significant issue with their network's opinion hosts, who deflected from the news and, in Sean Hannity's case, characterized Mueller's investigation as a "witch hunt," a term Trump used on Sunday in a angry tweet to describe the probe.

"That segment on Outnumbered [questioning Mueller's integrity] was absurd and deserves all the scorn it can get," a Fox News employee told CNN, referring to the network's noontime talk show.

The person added that it was "laughable seeing Hannity and [Laura] Ingraham," two Fox News opinion hosts who are openly supportive of Trump, "tripping over themselves saying [Mueller's team has] found nothing thus far.”

"It's an embarrassment," another Fox News employee echoed to CNN. "Frankly, there are shows on our network that are backing the President at all costs, and it's that short term strategy that undermines the good work being done by others."

Original Mike said...

"Inknown, you have not proven yourself to be an unbiased arbitrator of the facts. A wonderful example for all of us to avoid."

There's something to that. Inga's example helps me moderate my initial reactions.

Unknown said...

“...you have not proven yourself to be an unbiased arbitrator of the facts. A wonderful example for all of us to avoid.”

Unlike you, hmmm?

Drago said...

OMG, Inga finds an anonymously sourced report from CNN which characterizes Fox News!

I wonder if any of the CNN reporters had to cross the "West Bank/Gaza Bridge(!)" to get that "story"!

I wonder if some Fox "insider" provided the information to CNN in "dossier" form, so to speak?

Meanwhile, Rosie O'Donnell admits she knew all along about sexual assaults in Hollywood...but "courageously" said.......nothing.

So much "courage". So, so much.

Unknown said...

As a matter of fact, are there any unbiased commenters here at Althouse? Try to be honest.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Unknown said...

4) In June 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with a Russian operative who promised them dirt on Clinton. The email Trump Jr. received was crystal clear. It came from Rob Goldstone and alleged that a Russian prosecutor had “offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful.” Trump Jr. wrote back, “if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

Trump Jr. then set up a meeting, and on an email thread titled “Russia - Clinton - private and confidential,” he invited Kushner and Manafort. The meeting took place on June 9. As Andrew Prokop wrote, “it’s hard to read these emails and not conclude that the top echelons of the Trump campaign were well aware of the Russian government’s support for Trump and willing to collaborate in the effort.”

At it happens, “later in the summer” is exactly when the hacked emails would ultimately be released.


Note that you left a little thread dangling here. Watch while I pull the thread, and the whole thing unravels...

What incriminating information was revealed about Hillary and here dealings with Russia during the campaign?

That's right, none. So this initial offer of information was a lie, and the Trump campaign learned that it was a lie. So it’s hard to read these emails and not conclude that the top echelons of the Trump campaign were well aware of the Russian government’s lack of support for Trump. Of course, it is possible that the Trump campaign was actually colluding with the Russian government, aside from this meeting. But this meeting actually undercuts that notion: if the Trump campaign already had established contacts with Russian government operatives who were actually helping them, they wouldn't risk trying to set up new, parallel, contacts that would increase their risk of exposure.

Michael K said...

" "I want to quit."

As long as it is Shepard Smith, I'm OK with it. He and Juan are embarrassments. The Murdoch kids are pulling Fox to the left and will kill off the franchise. Typical of rich kids. Trump is an exception to that rule.

Chinese proverb. First generation coolie. Second generation Merchant. Third generation rich man. Fourth generation coolie.

Michael K said...

"As a matter of fact, are there any unbiased commenters here at Althouse? Try to be honest."

Yes. I hate them all and think they are all corrupt.

Trump is the blind Samson pulling down the pillars.

Drago said...

IIB: "Note that you left a little thread dangling here. Watch while I pull the thread, and the whole thing unravels..."

Doesn't matter. There's always another assertion to lob out there.

Possibly backed up by the intrepid reporters of Vox News, which, apparently, is now ALMOST as authoritative as World Famous and "Must-Be-Listened-To" Charlie Sykes of the Galactically Important Greater Milwaukee Talk Radio Market!

Achilles said...

Michael K said...
You guys may be right about Mueller but I still think he may be concerned with his rep. Thats why his fanatic look, to me at least, suggests he may think taking down at least Hillary's corrupt underlings like Podesta, will bring absolution from history.

At this point they have to diffuse this before Trump appoints a special prosecutor to investigate the FBI/DNC collusion. The Comey memo proving he decided to absolve Hillary before the email investigation an Mueller's decision to bury the Rosatom investigation is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Trump will have to fire Rosenstein to do this because Rosenstein is part of the stonewall.

The FBI is an open sore. Mueller is doing his best to protect it.

Unknown said...

“Trump is the blind Samson pulling down the pillars.”

Good lord. Please tell me you aren’t this stupid Michael K?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 287   Newer› Newest»