Image 01 Image 03

Mueller found the man (Trump), now he’ll find the crime

Mueller found the man (Trump), now he’ll find the crime

If Bloomberg News report is accurate as to expanded probe of Trump, then we’re heading into Soviet territory.

The NY Times has published excerpts of its interview yesterday with Donald Trump.

While there were several newsworthy comments, most focus is on the criticism of Jeff Sessions recusing himself from the investigation and the resulting appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Sessions’ recusal is the most consequential event of the Trump presidency so far, because it resulted in what appears to be a wide-ranging investigation into Trump.

As posted earlier, the Mueller team appears to be larger in size than would be needed for an investigation into Russian meddling in the election, something I pointed out in Mueller legal team approaching size of entire US Attorney’s Office for Rhode Island.

That team and its staffing suggest that Trump would be at risk even if there was no underlying crime, Trump at risk from Comey/Mueller: If “they don’t get you on the crime, they get you on the process”.

There is the added problem that Trump’s conversations with James Comey appear to be part of the investigation, something that raises significant issues, Robert Mueller should step aside: Friends shouldn’t be investigating friends.

Recall that the Order from Acting Attorney General appointing Mueller did not authorize an investigation into everything Trump, but was restricted to matters related to Russian interference in the election (empasis added):

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

Thus, Mueller is limited to continuing the pre-existing Comey investigation into Russian interference. That could include possible obstruction of justice in the course of that investigation, but would not expand to anything Trump ever did, even with regard to Russia.

Here are the pertinent excerpts from the Times interview on the issue of Mueller, and how investigating Trump family and business financial transactions not directly related to alleged Russian meddling in the election could cross a line in Trump’s view:

BAKER: What would cause you — what would be the line beyond which if Mueller went, you would say, “That’s too far, we would need to dismiss him”?

TRUMP: Look, there are so many conflicts that everybody has. Then Rosenstein becomes extremely angry because of Comey’s Wednesday press conference, where he said that he would do the same thing he did a year ago with Hillary Clinton, and Rosenstein became extremely angry at that because, as a prosecutor, he knows that Comey did the wrong thing. Totally wrong thing. And he gives me a letter, O.K., he gives me a letter about Comey. And by the way, that was a tough letter, O.K. Now, perhaps I would have fired Comey anyway, and it certainly didn’t hurt to have the letter, O.K. But he gives me a very strong letter, and now he’s involved in the case. Well, that’s a conflict of interest. Do you know how many conflicts of interests there are? But then, then Comey also says that he did something in order to get the special prose— special counsel. He leaked. The reason he leaked. So, he illegally leaked.

* * *

SCHMIDT: Last thing, if Mueller——

TRUMP: And I couldn’t have been better than the stuff I had. Obviously, because I won.

SCHMIDT: Last thing, if Mueller was looking at your finances and your family finances, unrelated to Russia — is that a red line?

HABERMAN: Would that be a breach of what his actual charge is?

TRUMP: I would say yeah. I would say yes. By the way, I would say, I don’t — I don’t — I mean, it’s possible there’s a condo or something, so, you know, I sell a lot of condo units, and somebody from Russia buys a condo, who knows? I don’t make money from Russia. In fact, I put out a letter saying that I don’t make — from one of the most highly respected law firms, accounting firms. I don’t have buildings in Russia. They said I own buildings in Russia. I don’t. They said I made money from Russia. I don’t. It’s not my thing. I don’t, I don’t do that. Over the years, I’ve looked at maybe doing a deal in Russia, but I never did one. Other than I held the Miss Universe pageant there eight, nine years [crosstalk].

SCHMIDT: But if he was outside that lane, would that mean he’d have to go?


HABERMAN: Would you consider——

TRUMP: No, I think that’s a violation. Look, this is about Russia. So I think if he wants to go, my finances are extremely good, my company is an unbelievably successful company. And actually, when I do my filings, peoples say, “Man.” People have no idea how successful this is. It’s a great company. But I don’t even think about the company anymore. I think about this. ’Cause one thing, when you do this, companies seem very trivial. O.K.? I really mean that. They seem very trivial. But I have no income from Russia. I don’t do business with Russia. The gentleman that you mentioned, with his son, two nice people. But basically, they brought the Miss Universe pageant to Russia to open up, you know, one of their jobs. Perhaps the convention center where it was held. It was a nice evening, and I left. I left, you know, I left Moscow. It wasn’t Moscow, it was outside of Moscow.

HABERMAN: Would you fire Mueller if he went outside of certain parameters of what his charge is? [crosstalk]

SCHMIDT: What would you do?


TRUMP: I can’t, I can’t answer that question because I don’t think it’s going to happen.

Bloomberg News is reporting this morning that Mueller indeed is looking at a wide range of Trump business relations with Russia going back many years, Mueller Expands Probe to Trump Business Transactions:

The U.S. special counsel investigating possible ties between the Donald Trump campaign and Russia in last year’s election is examining a broad range of transactions involving Trump’s businesses as well as those of his associates, according to a person familiar with the probe.

The president told the New York Times on Wednesday that any digging into matters beyond Russia would be out of bounds. Trump’s businesses have involved Russians for years, making the boundaries fuzzy so Special Counsel Robert Mueller appears to be taking a wide-angle approach to his two-month-old probe.

FBI investigators and others are looking at Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial SoHo development with Russian associates, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008, the person said.

John Dowd, one of Trump’s lawyers, said on Thursday he was unaware of this element of the investigation. “Those transactions are in my view well beyond the mandate of the Special counsel; are unrelated to the election of 2016 or any alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and most importantly, are well beyond any Statute of Limitation imposed by the United States Code,” he wrote in an email.

Agents are also interested in dealings with the Bank of Cyprus, where Wilbur Ross served as vice chairman before he became commerce secretary. They are also examining the efforts of Jared Kushner, the President’s son-in-law and White House aide, to secure financing for some of his family’s real estate properties. The information was provided by someone familiar with the developing inquiry but not authorized to speak publicly.

The roots of Mueller’s follow-the-money investigation lie in a wide-ranging money laundering probe launched by then-Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara last year, according to the person.

If Mueller is moving in this direction, then he has crossed — or is very close to crossing — the line into what isn’t supposed to happen in this country, finding the person then finding the crime. Even Kevin Drum at Mother Jones notes this problem:

I’ll confess to some mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, this stuff is all semi-related to Russia, and might therefore be relevant to the campaign issue. On the other hand, we’ve all seen what happens when special prosecutors get out of control and start investigating everything under the sun. So far this looks like it’s still legitimately tied to Mueller’s original brief, but it’s a close call.

There is a place where the doctrine was to find the person, then find the crime. It was in Russia’s predecessor, the Soviet Union. How ironic and inappropriate it would be if that is the direction Mueller is heading.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Exact M.O. used to get Bill Clinton. No charges related to ‘Whitewater’ were ever filed.

You guys were already trumping up charges against Hillary. “lock her up”.

There will be no tears from me – especially because Trump has always played fast and loose with the law. He always had good lawyers, but he is in a new game.

    Ragspierre in reply to YellowSnake. | July 20, 2017 at 12:13 pm

    NObody had to “trump up” anything against Hellary. She was…is…one of the most corrupt people in American history.

    She should be locked up. And so should Dollar Bill.

      YellowSnake in reply to Ragspierre. | July 20, 2017 at 3:46 pm

      When it comes to corruption, it is hard to beat Trump. You know that. So I won’t waste my time enumerating his seedy dealings. Hell, his first consigliere was Roy Cohn and he did his dirt with democrats because NYC is a democratic stronghold. It doesn’t matter to the YellowSnakeInChief as long as he gets the moola and the notoriety.

      Did it stop because he ran for president? Has it stopped now that he is president? LOL

        DaveGinOly in reply to YellowSnake. | July 20, 2017 at 4:05 pm

        Well, no, we “don’t know that.” But even presuming its true, there’s a world of difference between Trump and the Clintons. The Clintons leveraged their power while in positions of public trust (political offices) in order to effect their corruption. This does injury to those offices and to the entire body politic. The same can’t be said of Trump’s presumed corruption – he has never before held a political office, and hasn’t had time to benefit from the office of the president in the way the Clintons benefited from their offices.

          YellowSnake in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 21, 2017 at 12:27 am

          Trump has admitted as much in his various books. But deny it if it makes you feel better. As to whether the corrupter is less culpable than the corrupted – say that for a law review article. You can’t have one without the other.

        heyjoojoo in reply to YellowSnake. | July 20, 2017 at 6:03 pm

        Trump up against Hillary?! Bahahahahaha… Hillary was the epitome of robotic, wannabe corruption with no heart. Trump has fervor and genuineness that has made him not only effective but clever.

          Ragspierre in reply to heyjoojoo. | July 20, 2017 at 9:16 pm

          So… Corruption with verve…???

          That’s just pathetic. PLUS immoral.

          YellowSnake in reply to heyjoojoo. | July 21, 2017 at 12:35 am

          Yes, he started out his career by systematically discriminating by race. Then he moved on to lying to his partners and using his father’s political influence to gain unprecedented tax breaks from the state when the city denied them. You may wish to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but corruption is corruption. In the end, the other taxpayers in NYC footed the bill.

          Do yourself a favor. Stop justifying the grifter and just admit that you don’t mind because you think he is your grifter. So you got a Supreme Court Justice. But you did a deal with the devil and he has your soul.

        nordic_prince in reply to YellowSnake. | July 20, 2017 at 8:24 pm

        Ignore that thumbs up; it was intended to be a thumbs down to all your baloney.

        Milhouse in reply to YellowSnake. | July 20, 2017 at 8:24 pm

        The Bible bans taking bribes, but not paying them. I think that’s because God understands that those who pay bribes generally have no choice in the matter; it’s the cost of doing business. Those who take bribes always have a choice.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | July 20, 2017 at 9:13 pm

          I can’t speak for gawd, but the law rightly holds both the corrupter and corrupted liable.

          You can’t have one without the other, Milhouse.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 20, 2017 at 9:49 pm

          The one paying the bribe is not a corrupter, he’s the victim of corruption. When someone with power over you makes a demand, you pay up.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | July 20, 2017 at 10:00 pm

          First, maybe you do. I don’t.

          Second, you assume a demand, rather than acknowledging that sometimes it’s an offer from the corrupter.

          YellowSnake in reply to Milhouse. | July 21, 2017 at 12:39 am

          The bible? So you are defending the ultimate Philistine with the bible. Besides, the Constitution is based on the Enlightenment; not the bible.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 21, 2017 at 1:03 am

          An offer doesn’t have to be accepted. The person being offered the bribe has no reason to fear any consequences for turning it down. The same is not true in reverse. People in power have ways of making it understood that they expect an offer to be made, or else.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 21, 2017 at 10:22 am

          No, I’m not defending the philistine. I’m making a point about principles, which is something you wouldn’t know anything about.

          And I don’t care what the constitution is based on; this discussion isn’t about the constitution, it’s about ethics, which derive from the Bible, not from the constitution.


        You blew it on “Trump has admitted as much in his various books.”

        I read every one of them. You never read a word of them.

        Re-check your daily leftist ‘how to think’ email for your next ‘useful idiot’ instruction.

    Sam in Texas in reply to YellowSnake. | July 20, 2017 at 1:08 pm

    That is not really correct re Whitewater and Slick Clinton

    1. Independent Counsel Ken Starr was appointed under and operated under a specific Independent Counsel Statute, which has long since expired. That statute was passed by a Democrat controlled House and Senate. A Democrat President, Slick himself, signed it into law on the recommendation of his Democrat AG, Janet Reno. All against the advice of Republicans.

    2. All of the areas Starr investigated were pursuant to matters referred to him for investigation by Democrat AG Janet Reno pursuant to the Independent Counsel Statute. And that, those matters referred by Reno to Starr for investigation, specifically include Slick’s “performances” in the Paula Jones case which led to all “the sex stuff” with Monica Lewinsky, The Portly Pepperpot.

    In short, the investigation was not a free range, not a go find what you can find thing, and not a this is the guy you are to find it on thing.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Sam in Texas. | July 20, 2017 at 1:11 pm

      Thanks for that info and the reminder Sam in Texas.

      YellowSnake in reply to Sam in Texas. | July 20, 2017 at 3:53 pm

      In the end all they got him for was perjury in regard to Lewinsky. You better hope Trump never testifies under oath about about the Russian affair or anything else. He can’t utter a sentence without lying. He can’t keep his story straight for 24 hours. Even his supporters admit that.

      He finally admitted he had nothing on Obama’s birth. Then he was asked the next day and he hedged. You guys got us a real winner. /sarcasm

        alaskabob in reply to YellowSnake. | July 20, 2017 at 4:30 pm

        “ONLY” for perjury and that only because he focuses grouped how he should answer and got it wrong. He could have skated and not lied.

        The Clintons had major interaction with the Russians. There is no evidence at any level of Russians hacking into electronic voting, stuffing mailboxes, nor preventing people from entering the polling areas. That is a time honored occupation of the Democrat Party.

          YellowSnake in reply to alaskabob. | July 21, 2017 at 12:42 am

          “because he focuses(sic) grouped” There is no because unless you are omnipotent and you clearly are not.

        heyjoojoo in reply to YellowSnake. | July 20, 2017 at 5:53 pm

        Trump is awesome. Is cool. Has swag. And is President. (Yours too)
        Don’tcha just looove it!

          YellowSnake in reply to heyjoojoo. | July 21, 2017 at 12:51 am

          I’ll bet you thought Obama was your president.

          Just what is it that you love about a man with no principles? Trump has betrayed everyone else in his life. Do you really think it will work out differently for you? I don’t need to win an argument; you are going to wake up one day and realize for yourself.

        Milhouse in reply to YellowSnake. | July 20, 2017 at 9:01 pm

        The thing most people seem to have forgotten about the Lewinsky perjury is that the trail on that wasn’t supposed to lead directly to Clinton. Starr’s big problem all along had been, not finding out what Clinton’s crimes were, but getting someone to testify. When he found out that Lewinsky had perjured herself in Paula Jones’s suit, he thought he’d finally found a witness who could be cracked, so he asked her who had told her to lie, thinking that she’d give him Vernon Jordan, Betty Currie, or both. Then he hoped to use that as leverage to flip them on Clinton, since between them they knew most of his secrets. But he was knocked off course when Lewinsky told him Clinton himself had told her to lie; since he could hardly flip the president on himself, the whole line of inquiry fizzled, and all that was left in it was the perjury. Neither Jordan nor Currie ever spoke about the real stuff.

          gospace in reply to Milhouse. | July 20, 2017 at 11:44 pm

          Yep. The people surrounding the Clintons made Rose Mary Woods look like an amateur when it comes to covering things up.

          YellowSnake in reply to Milhouse. | July 21, 2017 at 12:58 am

          “Neither Jordan nor Currie ever spoke about the real stuff” But you know it and somehow you don’t know anything about Trump’s corruption. Considering that Trump can’t tell the same story 2 days in a row, your spidey sense must be used up.

          Now tell me that Trump is consistent. I heard 3 different versions of when, why and how Trump fired Comey. They can’t all be true. So some of them were lies.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 21, 2017 at 1:07 am

          Yes, I know it, and so did the whole country. Nobody ever seriously tried to argue that Whitewater wasn’t what it appeared to be; the only issue was proving it. Ditto for the Cattle Futures scandal; I defy you to come up with an innocent explanation for it, but knowing what happened is different from proving it.

    davod in reply to YellowSnake. | July 20, 2017 at 5:37 pm

    I once listened to an interview with the Democratic, yes Democratic, lawyer who ran the House investigation. He was quit upset with the final charges. It was his view that they had collected, and I would imagine presented, evidence of far more serious crimes.

      gospace in reply to davod. | July 20, 2017 at 11:47 pm

      Apparently none of the U.S. senators at the time examined the evidence. And a few congresscritters who went to examine it with skepticism came away convinced he was guilty, and voted to impeach. Things that are down the memory hole.

    Milhouse in reply to YellowSnake. | July 20, 2017 at 8:21 pm

    No charges related to ‘Whitewater’ were ever filed.

    BS. The nature of the Whitewater transaction was transparent from the very beginning, and nobody has even bothered seriously denying it. The question was always only whether anyone with actual knowledge of it could be persuaded to testify against the Clintons, and in the end they managed to keep everyone’s mouths shut.

    James McDougal eventually did agree to talk after he was convicted, but soon afterwards had a convenient heart attack in prison. Susan McDougal served 18 months for contempt rather than testify, but she was rewarded by having a friendly judge knock 20 months off her sentence for her fraud conviction, and then Clinton gave her a full pardon.

    Despite the multiple layers of cover-ups to the cover-ups, Starr did eventually manage to put together a viable case against Hillary Clinton, but it would have to be tried in DC, and he found that DC juries were refusing to convict anyone associated with the Clintons regardless of how strong the evidence was, so there was no point in trying her.

    Nevertheless the investigation resulted in (IIRC) 40 convictions including a sitting governor. It was probably the most successful such investigation ever.

Trump will eventually have to fire Herr Mueller. A Special Counsel effectively acts independently of the checks the Justice Department has in place to avoid prosecutorial overreach. The position is inherently dangerous.

Fortunately Republicans in Congress lack the moxie to stop the Democrats. That lack of courage also means they won’t do anything other than caterwaul when Meuller is fired.

    Rick in reply to sidebar. | July 20, 2017 at 2:06 pm

    Maybe you are correct, but the GOPe may finally show some action if it has a chance to go after Trump.

    heyjoojoo in reply to sidebar. | July 20, 2017 at 6:00 pm

    I was thinking the same thing but do you think he will do that? He will fire Mueller? Mueller’s wanting to expand the probe to include other possibilities seems very much like a witch hunt to me.

“The U.S. special counsel investigating possible ties between the Donald Trump campaign and Russia in last year’s election is examining a broad range of transactions involving Trump’s businesses as well as those of his associates, according to a person familiar with the probe.”

So, this whole piece is predicated on a leak from an anonymous source…???

Jeeeeebus, Prof.

    rdmdawg in reply to Ragspierre. | July 20, 2017 at 1:36 pm

    Accidentally gave this one an upvote. What do you think Mueller and company are doing, Rags, baking cookies? There isn’t a whole lot there between Trump and Russia. How do I know? If there was, it would’ve leaked to the media long before now (try last summer) and it would’ve been the only thing we’ve been hearing on the news, 24 hours a day, for the last 8 months instead of the steady stream of innuendo from anonymous sources without a shred of evidence.

    I don’t care what one anonymous source says, this entire enterprise is prosecutorial fishing, nothing more.

      Ragspierre in reply to rdmdawg. | July 20, 2017 at 2:06 pm


      Then why is T-rump (PRESIDENT T-rump) so defensive about the whole deal, keeping the matter in the news cycle?

      OK, I get that he is obsessively stupid about his own self-interests, but damn…!!!

      This would have died LOOOOOOOOONNNNGGGGG ago if he’d have let it.

      Just shaddup, fer cryin’ out loud…!!! So it makes you say….”Hmmmm…”

        rdmdawg in reply to Ragspierre. | July 20, 2017 at 4:33 pm

        My best guess is that Trump is doing this simply because it’s making the media to look like the asses that us conservatives have always known they are. More people than ever are seeing this.

        rdmdawg in reply to Ragspierre. | July 20, 2017 at 5:17 pm

        “This would have died LOOOOOOOOONNNNGGGGG ago if he’d have let it.”

        Just like they let Bush alone when he refused to respond to media provocations?

          Ragspierre in reply to rdmdawg. | July 20, 2017 at 6:16 pm

          Dawg, there’s a happy medium, and there are surrogates to strike it.

          Stupid, self-defeating fits of pique via Twatter are not the answer.

          As demonstrated.

        heyjoojoo in reply to Ragspierre. | July 20, 2017 at 6:01 pm

        Silly ranting as usual.

Reminds me of Inspector Renault in the classic movie Casablanca who, after Ugarte “died” in Renault’s custody, was pondering whether the official cause of death would be suicide or shot while attempting to escape.

Not too far removed from the Queen of Hearts, either.

Is this an inappropriate “cultural appropriation” of Kibuki Theater?

Makes one wonder…but not for long.

    YellowSnake in reply to pilgrim1949. | July 20, 2017 at 4:02 pm

    Ugarte did steal the ‘Letters of Transit’ by killing two German agents. Did you miss that part?

    If Trump with help of the Putin stole the election, the charge may not be clear. But the specifications certainly are.

      DaveGinOly in reply to YellowSnake. | July 20, 2017 at 4:18 pm

      We already know that Trump didn’t “steal” the election in any way, with or without Putin’s help. The initial claim was that the Russians “hacked” the election, meaning that they literally hacked into the voting infrastructure and changed results. This has already been debunked by experts in the field. This is why the term “hacked” later morphed into a claim of some kind of unspecified interference with the process. The boosters of the claim didn’t want to admit defeat on the initial claim of “hacking,” so they continued to use the term as if the claim hadn’t been debunked. By changing the claim to some kind of nebulous, unspecified interference, they also made it impossible to refute the claim. Nobody can say what kind of interference occurred, therefore nobody can investigate it to prove that it didn’t (or did) happen.

      Trump won the election (with or without Putin’s help). That’s not illegal. If Hillary had won we may never have heard of her dealings with Ukraine, much less be hearing accusations of “treason” and threats of impeachment.

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 20, 2017 at 9:10 pm

        The initial claim was that the Russians “hacked” the election, meaning that they literally hacked into the voting infrastructure and changed results.

        I don’t recall anyone ever claiming that. There’s never been any indication of it. The most I remember is several experts worrying out loud that this can be done, not necessarily by the Russians, and if we don’t look for it we’ll never know it’s happening.

        YellowSnake in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 21, 2017 at 1:07 am

        No we don’t already know that. Just like we don’t know that 5 million illegals voted.

        While we are at it, did Cruz’s father really kill Kennedy?

        I’ll bet Christie knew he was going to be AG. Just about now, Trump may wish he had chosen him.

          Milhouse in reply to YellowSnake. | July 21, 2017 at 10:20 am

          I don’t think Trump meant to insinuate that Cruz Sr killed Kennedy. I think he meant to insinuate that Cruz Sr killed Oswald, not being clear on exactly who Oswald was.

Fire Sessions. Fire Mueller. End this traitorous attempt to deny the peaceful transfer of power. Before this gets out of hand.

If you sucessfully handicap or remove Trump on these baseless charges, the retaliation will be fierce. Harris, McAuliffe and Sanders will never make it to the Democrat convention. As for Hillary, what is the most effective way to punish a mother?

You folks in the MSM and Establishment grossly underestimated the resolve and anger of the American people.

    dystopia in reply to Fen. | July 20, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    Are you saying that if Eric Trump is fair game based on this ridiculous meeting, then Chelsea Clinton is fair game because of her association with the Clinton foundation?

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | July 20, 2017 at 1:22 pm

    “Harris, McAuliffe and Sanders will never make it to the Democrat convention.”

    Here’s Killer McBigballs, threatening people who are in politics.

    He’s a coward of the lowest order. I doubt very seriously he ever served in uniform, and I’d bet he become incontinent in a gun fight. But he will use the internet to say things to people he would never have the guts to say in their presence.

    (I, OTOH, would say anything I’ve ever said to anyone right to their faces…and I’d be prepared to back it up. Right up to the heart attack.)

      dystopia in reply to Ragspierre. | July 20, 2017 at 1:37 pm

      The statements of Depp, O’Donnell, Madonna, and Griffin don’t rise to the level meriting prosecution. I am as charitable to Fen and the government was too these celebrities. I took his statement too mean that they would be defeated in the primaries.

        Ragspierre in reply to dystopia. | July 20, 2017 at 1:47 pm

        Moan-a McBigballs will not say anything prosecutable, either.

        It may get itself kicked off this site, however. MUCH lower threshold.

        “As for Hillary, what is the most effective way to punish a mother?”

        What do you suppose that was meant to hint at? A nasty thread on Reddit?

      Sunhawk2 in reply to Ragspierre. | July 20, 2017 at 3:15 pm

      You mean like you are a spineless pewling coward hiding behind a screenname referencing one of the first of history’s great genocidal maniacs hurling puerile invective at our President and those who support him? All of your posts insulting and smearing Trump supporters should be read as threats of violence considering that your screenname references somebody who gleefully murdered anybody he considered an opponent…

      See, we can go there too, Rag-eboy.

        Ragspierre in reply to Sunhawk2. | July 20, 2017 at 3:34 pm


        ROBSpierre was the guy you stupidly referenced.

        RAGSpierre is his opposite (me).

        What kind of assine snowflake are you, lying about me like this and suggesting anything I’ve said suggests violence?

        I’ve mostly asked questions you can’t answer. What a pussy (that’s a T-rump term. HEH!)

          Sunhawk2 in reply to Ragspierre. | July 20, 2017 at 4:17 pm

          Hrmmmm… ‘referencing’ rather than ‘identical’… you seem to have a very shaky grasp on the English language, Rag-eboy. Do you not know what the term ‘referencing’ means? I will give you a very large hint, and even buy you a vowel… it has ‘refer’ as a root… your welcome! As for your typical incoherent screeching noises… Nethinks thou dost protesteth too much, Rag-eboy.

          Considering that you are always the one who starts the rabid ad hominem assaults on the character, morals, and intelligence of anybody who disagrees with you the amount of care or concern I have for you is negligible to none. The amount of effort I intend to expend on anything more than mocking you is similarly limited. Because, Rag-eboy, you are meaningless. Your inchoate and incoherent rage is amusing, and it appears you can be made to dance whenever it is pointed out.

          But I’ll again point out that your screen name directly references a psychopath who massacred everybody who disagreed with him. Considering the spittle-flecked invective you regularly spew… seems appropriate.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 20, 2017 at 4:26 pm

          Yeah, you’re a snowflake graduate of a NE liberal arts college.

          And a pussy.

          BTW “inchoate” means something, and it isn’t what you want it to.

          I see you can’t deal with direct questions, but ARE very happy to lie.

          An excellent addition to the T-rump sucking turd-swirl here!

        Ragspierre in reply to Sunhawk2. | July 20, 2017 at 3:41 pm

        Since you dipped your crooked lil’ oar in this water, answer this…

        “As for Hillary, what is the most effective way to punish a mother?”

        What do you suppose that was meant to hint at? A nasty thread on Reddit?

        Unless, of course, you are too much a chickenspit and are made afraid of rational questions. In which case, we’ll understand and just put you in the T-rump sucking myrmidon gallery of idiots.

          Walker Evans in reply to Ragspierre. | July 20, 2017 at 6:03 pm

          Rags, we all know the most effective way to punish a mother – a ‘normal’ one at least – is to harm her child. The mother in question here is Hillary; since she has never in her adult life shown any normal responses to anything, a threat against Chelsea might not have the expected impact.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 20, 2017 at 6:34 pm

          Let’s say, arguendo, that what you said is correct.

          Fen was lodging a clear threat against Chelsea, as you tacitly admit.

      heyjoojoo in reply to Ragspierre. | July 20, 2017 at 6:30 pm

      Yes there is lad.

      I only bring it to the best mess.

    YellowSnake in reply to Fen. | July 21, 2017 at 1:12 am

    Trump is his own handicap. The sooner he gets back to his daughter girlfriend, the sooner the country can be put in the hands of someone with an ounce of integrity – even Pence.

4th armored div | July 20, 2017 at 12:40 pm

whereas Nixon was heartily disliked (unfairly IMHO) Trump has
a very LOYAL following of at least 40% of the electorate.
if come(d)ygate tries to hurt DJT there will be riots –
just ain’t gonna happen.

If they continue to go after Trump they will turn a “cold civil war” into a hot civil war real quick.

    YellowSnake in reply to Kaffa. | July 21, 2017 at 1:19 am

    “They” will continue to go after Trump as long as he is in office and there will be no hot war. So stop threatening what are lawful acts.

    Besides, you don’t think liberals can learn to shoot. What law is going to stop them from buying guns. If you were really smart you wouldn’t make such threats. They alert the very people you want to overwhelm. How do you know there aren’t a bunch of liberals taking target practice right now?

    I guess you are so historically challenged that you think lefties never fought.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | July 20, 2017 at 12:49 pm

Mueller may also be found to be part of the Democrat-Uni-Party Colluders…….


The comments there make some good reading also. For example:
“What Trump doesn’t realize is that this goes far beyond Obama. The deep government has launched an all out assault on him because they have taken on a life of its own and are not about to be bothered with voting, elections, democracy, human life, or the Constitution. Trump talked about reorganizing the CIA, reigning them in. Trump also talked about dropping the sanctions against Russia and ending the cold war that they created and have a vested interest in continuing.”

    If the ‘Deep State’ is so powerful, how did Trump win? Just wonderin’

      alaskabob in reply to YellowSnake. | July 20, 2017 at 4:34 pm

      Fortunately bureaucracies can’t vote … although the Post Office did try to support Hillary… illegally.

      heyjoojoo in reply to YellowSnake. | July 20, 2017 at 6:31 pm

      Because even their system is flawed at times.

      tom swift in reply to YellowSnake. | July 20, 2017 at 10:17 pm

      Because the Republicans aren’t as good as the Democrats at freezing out any outsider who might rock their nice, comfortable, and profitable boat. Someone like Trump (or, for that matter, someone like Tovarich Sanders) could never have gotten anywhere as a Democrat.

      I expect the Republican Party will work to clean up its act, and will eventually be able to match Democratic standards of corrupt control. Then the American political future will belong to safe nobody candidates like Jeb. And the Deep State won’t be bothered by monkey wrenches tossed into the gears by those pestilential voters.

      YellowSnake in reply to YellowSnake. | July 21, 2017 at 1:22 am

      So which is it? Is the deep state running everything or is it incompetent. I know you guys, like Trump, want to have it both ways. Unfortunately, even with god on your side, you can’t.

        Milhouse in reply to YellowSnake. | July 21, 2017 at 10:25 am

        Please explain how a deep state, running everything, can win elections.

        Milhouse in reply to YellowSnake. | July 21, 2017 at 10:26 am

        PS: The whole point of the deep state is that it ignores elections, that it continues exactly the same despite elections. Anyone who’s seen Yes, Minister is familiar with the idea.

So … Mueller may (based on “information” from those ol’ anonymous leaks) plan to investigate everything Trump ever did (or maybe didn’t do but was considering thinking about doing) which has any possible connection with Russia … all because of some other activity involving Trump (maybe) and Russia (maybe) which nobody has managed to show, even after six months of very noisy investigation, ever even happened.

Right, that makes perfect sense.

Respectfully it’s called Saul Alinsky Rule #12 which is playbook 4 turning America into the Soviet

Between Comey and Mueller I don’t know which id worse. Both are dishonerable men. No wonder the FBI is a mess. FBI=F$%#ing Bunch of Idiots.

Doesn’t Mueller need a crime first? Comey and Jeh Both testified that they have no evidence that the DNC was even hacked, they “know” it but can’t prove in court. Wouldn’t that have to be the first step? All they have is a guy associated with Ukraine was hired by the DNC to tell them it was hacked and the Russians did it.

They will find the baby even if it means hanging every witch and warlock to do it.

The MSM probably hopes that Trump will fire Mueller so they can go on a 24/7 hysterical rant calling for impeachment for obstructing justice.
So Trump shouldn’t fall into that trap. However, he can fatally damage M’s probe by exposing the names of all the Clinton lawyers he has hired and demanding that M hire an equal number of Trump lawyers. M won’t do it, or can’t. A non-stop assault on the M team will cause it to break up when those partisan lawyers run for cover. Put M on the defensive regarding his hires and the scope of his probe. Make him testify before Congress. The guy can’t be allowed to destroy this presidency.

Since Chrome won’t let me reply in line to your latest spewings… oh Rag-eboy, ‘rudimentary and unformed’ is a perfect description of the squalling rage you spew out at those of us who support Trump and disagree with you. Therefore inchoate is a wonderfully concise way to express that sentiment. Some of us have the intelligence and aptitude to actually learn the English language and wield it effectively. Every attempted insult just makes you look even more like an underwater basket-weaving major. Or perhaps gender-studies given that your incoherence seems to match the standards of that field of study.

Oh, and rag-eboy? Simply blindly asserting that an opinion of a person’s character and behavior is a ‘lie’? A lie in this case would mean I do not believe you to be a blithering idiot who hides behind asinine invective and rage to conceal the depths of your incoherence. And since I most certainly do believe these things, it is therefore a truth that in my opinion you embody the aforementioned characteristics. An example of a lie as pertains to my opinion of you would be ‘Ragspierre engages in respectful and genteel disagreement with those who disagree with him’. That, my dear rag-eboy, would be a ‘lie’.

    Ragspierre in reply to Sunhawk2. | July 20, 2017 at 5:26 pm

    “Considering that you are always the one who starts the rabid ad hominem assaults on the character, morals, and intelligence of anybody who disagrees with you…”

    No, honey. THAT’S a lie. As you’ve just proven.

    AND you were caught with your linguistic and historic pants around your fat lil’ ankles, too…!!!

    I love you T-rump sucking idiots…!!! So much fun. And SOOOOOOOOOooooo easy…!!!

      Sunhawk2 in reply to Ragspierre. | July 20, 2017 at 6:22 pm

      Funny, so far you’ve been wrong on every single one of your feeble attempts to insult me based on vocabulary, have engaged in endless ad hominem attacks (please remind me who started with them, yes? Oh you precious snowflake you). Moreover your grasp on the english language continues to elude you, as I’ve demonstrated multiple times already.

      Give up, rag-eboy, your schtick has run thin and I am starting to truly wonder if you are in fact simple a sock-puppet parody account meant to discredit intelligent Trump critics with your incessant and rampant lunacy.

Look, Mueller’s purpose is still to protect the Democrats, HRC and Co., Barack Obama and the Establishment. To accomplish this, he has to do two things. The first is to essentially ignore any connect between HRC, the Dems, the Establishment and the Russian government or any other foreign government, as well as any evidence which was collected in violaiton of the law [electronic surveillance without a warrant comes to mind]. The second thing he has to do is to find a way to keep pressure on the Trump administration, through various “reported” scandals, to prevent the DOJ, and others, from mounting a reliable investigation on the activities of the members of the former Obama Administrations and their families and friends.

It is interesting that Session recused himself from supervision of the Trump/Russia Collusion “investigation”, then had Rosenstein hired, who almost immediately lobbies for the firing of Comey and then appoint Mueller [a close Comey friend and former member of the Obama administration] as the SC to investigate the Trump/Russia collusion charges. And, now Trump is saying that he trusted Sessions [a long time Establishment politico] who took a walk during this attack on Trump and his administration without consulting Trump. Everyone in DC was arrayed against Trump, even his own party. So, this is no surprise. It is good to see that Trump is finally waking up to the extent of those arrayed against him and his agenda.

Football analogy: it’s 4th and 3 on the Dem 45. The Dems have ball with 1:58 left in the fourth quarter and three time outs.

There is almost no way the DDems are going to hike the ball, but they are going to draw you offside. So you should make sure not to flinch.

Meuller is just trying to get Trump to “obstruct justice” by firing him.

Now in the football analogy a smart coach will actually have the Dems snap the ball to catch the defense off guard. So Trump has to be careful.

The thing to do is not panic and do something rash, but to make sure that you do things by the book crossing your T’s and dotting your I’s.

Get a lawyer really familiar with the scene, but one you trust. ( Talk to Rudy. ) Have him go through the process. have him file papers about conflicts of interest. Have him get injunctions preventing Meuller from investigating anything beyond his jurisdiction. If Trump decides that Meuller needs to be fired, he should make sure that he has just cause.

He sold real estate to Russians and that’s a crime? That’s what he does. Investigating a real estate transaction from 2008 is over the line. No one including Trump in 2008 could possibly believed he would be President in 2016. If Meuller and his team of Democrats go there Rosenstein has to fire them. Obviously Comey had nothing on Trump because he would have leaked it.

Pres. Trump is right. He should waste no time in denouncing Mueller’s conflicts of interests. Whatever Mueller finds, Pres. Trump cannot be indicted as the sitting President. The political question will be is it relevant enough to impeach?

    Ragspierre in reply to davidfarrar. | July 20, 2017 at 10:30 pm

    Ummm…didn’t he do that in his extended interview with the NEW YORK TIMES…???

    Why, yes. Yes, he DID. He also gave his patented, “Boy, have I got a load of other stuff. It’s wonderful, great stuff. You won’t even believe all the stuff” bullshit statement…that never seems to materialize.

    If you don’t believe me, listen to the tape.

healthguyfsu | July 20, 2017 at 11:10 pm

This thing is going to be dragged out until midterms…gotta keep this fresh for the polls.

Fire this democrat Mule, and be done with it.

Let the left and fake news rage?

Who cares but nuts who will NEVER vote GOP anyway!

Fire Mueller. Then appoint a special prosecutor to investigate clinton, obama, holder, lynch, etc.

    Ragspierre in reply to | July 21, 2017 at 9:27 am

    There’s no need for a special prosecutor to conduct those investigations.

    What’s needed is a POTUS that will give the regular prosecutors the word, and then back them up.

    After barfing all over Sessions to the NEW YORK TIMES, I doubt many prosecutors will feel confident about how they’ll be supported.

Anyone know what Mueller is supposed to be investigating???

Open warrants are barred by the Fourth Amendment. Mueller doesn’t just need to be fired, he needs to be prosecuted. By criminally violating the civil rights of the president Mueller is violating the civil rights of everyone who voted for our president. He is trying to illegally vitiate the votes of half the nation. It is a monstrous act of usurpation and he must be held responsible.

What disturbs me is the Republicans don’t defend Trump. It’s obvious they want him gone. There are so many reasons this investigation doesn’t follow the law yet nothing from members of his own party. The Republicans never wanted him to win and obviously they liked being the opposition with no power. Under Obama they could please their base with bills that Obama would veto. Now when they can actually do something they are paralyzed. The Republicans could shut down all these phony investigations in a minute. I don’t believe anyone in either party believes Trump made a deal with Putin. The whole idea that Trump is Putin’s Manchurian Candidate is just plain ridiculous.