38 thoughts on “PJM: Mukasey Op-ed Should Strike Fear in Democrats

  1. Public Service Alert:

    Almost every source you use is clearly defined by unbiased evaluation as “right-of-right”.

    I’d encourage you to broaden your exposure to other media outlets across the board.

    It can be very enlightening and help provide you with a more balanced perspective.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “I’d encourage you to broaden your exposure to other media outlets across the board.”

      No thanks. My exposure to media outlets doesn’t need any improvement, but since your criticism of sources I choose to share is categorical, as opposed to substantive, I might recommend your own advice back to you.


      1. RE: “they are not honest”

        That’s ridiculous. But if there’s something dishonest in the PJM piece, you’re welcome to point it out.


        1. Treating an article by this partisan hack Mukasey as if were a bit of serious analysis is not honest. This fellow could not even take a stand against torture as an instrument of American policy.

          Promoting the phony baloney Durham “investigation” as anything other than a whataboutism snipe hunt on steroids is not honest. The real story is covered by the New York Times. Trump was repeatedly warned that conspiracy theories about Ukraine were bull.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. RE: “Treating an article by this partisan hack Mukasey as if were a bit of serious analysis is not honest…Promoting the phony baloney Durham “investigation” as anything other than a whataboutism snipe hunt on steroids is not honest.”

          Got it. Anything you disagree with is dishonest. Perhaps we should alert the media.


          1. You got it? No, you don’t.

            What you have got is an inability to open your mind to the fact that you have been played. And you seem to love it – it makes thinking unnecessary.

            You keep pushing this deep state nonsense. Do you never stop and THINK – Why did they only hurt Clinton while keeping Trump’s entanglements a secret?


      2. “My exposure to media outlets doesn’t need any improvements”.

        That says and explains a lot.

        I can try to educate, but I accepted the fact years ago, that I cannot make people who refuse to learn…learn.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “I accepted the fact years ago, that I cannot make people who refuse to learn…learn.”

          There’s an old saying, from the Middle East I believe: “The requirement in the teacher is that he possess what the student needs.”

          Perhaps there is something in that which accounts for your frustration.


          1. Any teacher who fails to reach a student should be frustrated.

            However, as another old saying goes, “you can lead a horse to water, but…”

            I got to most of them, but sometimes there was a lack of ability or interest, and of course; you can’t fix stupid,

            Liked by 3 people

  2. According to the transcript Trump was asking to have Ukraine work with Barr and Giuliani to investigate Biden. Yet Barr claims he knew nothing about such an investigation. Two months later.

    Lack of communication? Lying?

    Manafort cheated us taxpayers out of millions in taxes, that alone would be a worthy reason to investigate him and his pro-Russian clients in the Ukraine. Remember that the Ukraine is in a hot war with Russia. Considering Trump’s professed love for Putin during the campaign along with Papadopolus, et. al, it would be shirking the duty by the FBI not to investigate.

    I think the opinion is stretching really hard to excuse Trump’s obvious abuse of office.


    Liked by 4 people

    1. RE: “I think the opinion is stretching really hard to excuse Trump’s obvious abuse of office.”

      Why do you think the opinion is trying to excuse anything?


      1. “ I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

        The President: I would like you to do us a favor THOUGH (caps mine) because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.”

        Quid pro quo, and not really subtle either.


        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “Quid pro quo, and not really subtle either.”

        So you say, but that really has nothing to do with Mukasey’s comments that Roger Simon reports on. Mukasey is focused on the DOJ statement that was released on the same day as the transcript of the phone call.


        1. You asked what the article was trying to excuse.

          So DOJ did not get the word that Trump was sending Barr to the Ukraine in a couple of months. Why?

          The arms and money were being withheld personally by Trump before the conversation. A Congressional appropriation, BTW. Why?

          Durham has been sitting on his investigations for a while now. Time to get some info. The impeachment inquiry might move things along. Stonewalling is going to be much more difficult.


          Liked by 3 people

        2. RE: “Time to get some info.”

          I agree. I’m looking forward to the reports from Horowitz and Durham. I expect Mukasey is correct, though, that the pro-impeachment camp won’t like the results.


  3. And you believe that crap?

    Here’s the BS: “A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which … Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign…”

    Here’s the tell: “While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine…”

    Now go read that Treaty you found the other day, and come back when the AG has.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Perhaps you missed the part where Mukasey quotes the DoJ statement: “While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating.”


      1. Sounds to me like second hand info….. Just saying.

        Also, the Ukrainians told Giuliani that if the FBI started an investigation into wrongdoing and it led to information that could be found in Ukraine, they would cooperate. And why is Giuliani involved anyway? He is the PERSONAL attorney for Trump. He is NOT a government employee and should have no dealings with other governments. UNLESS it is of a personal/business nature wrt Trump. And then we get back to the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. OOPS!

        Do you see the issue here, Mr. Roberts? Giuliani should have nothing to do with any of this. If Trump wants him involved, assign him to a post at the State Department

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Giuliani’s role is a political representative of President Trump. He is not there as a government employee.

          It would be improper to use government resources for opposition research(as his predecessor did) but Trump’s campaign can do opposition research anywhere he chooses.


          1. “It would be improper to use government resources for opposition research(as his predecessor did) “…

            What? Explain that one, if you can. As Obama was NOT running against Trump, but an investigation was opened into alleged illegal activities that fall under the auspices of the ART II powers as chief law enforcement office. It helped uncover the PROVEN allegations of Russian interference and it also showed how Trump obstructed or attempted to obstruct justice on at least 10 occasions.

            Also, Bill Barr is NOT part of the Trump campaign. Can’t have it both ways, Don.

            I was also under the impression that the DOJ investigation being conducted by Durham was supposed to have been completed weeks ago. Could it be he found nothing and needs additional time to make stuff up to appease Trump and Barr? (See. I can say crazy stuff, too).

            Liked by 1 person

          2. @Tabor
            Your laughable defense of this bull ignores the law – It is ILLEGAL for a candidate or campaign to solicit or accept ANYTHING of value from ANY foreign foreign person or entity. That would include foreign governments. Whether Trump asks for political favors from foreign governments or has Rudy do it – there is no defense. It is an impeachable offense. And it is even more blatantly so when the requests for favors follows on the heels of blocking the funds Congress had provided to help defend against – guess who – the Russians.


          3. Baloney.

            Candidates can accept opposition research form any source.

            Were that not the case, Hillary would be in deep trouble, would she not? The Steele Dossier, which she paid for, was prepared by a British agent using (fraudulent) information from Russians.


          4. Baloney?

            Good grief. The difference between buying a service and soliciting a favor is not hard to understand. Does not understanding this obvious difference come easy to you or do you have to work hard at not understanding?

            Yes, a campaign can purchase services from foreigners. That is what Clinton’s campaign did.

            No, a campaign cannot solicit nor accept ANYTHING of value – including information – from a foreign person or entity.

            If Rudy as Trump’s “political representative” is asking foreign governments to dig for dirt on his opponents he is breaking the law. If Trump tasked him with that, then he has committed an impeachable offense. If Pompeo acted as a cut-out between Trump and Rudy (as Rudy claimed on CNN) then he, too, should be impeached.


          5. Do you realize how ridiculous your position is?

            You are saying it is OK for a campaign to pay a foreign entity for a falsified document to use against an opponent, and to turn it over to corrupt officials to use to defraud a FISA court, but it’s not OK to ask a foreign government for information about a possible crime committed in their country.

            Not to ask them to fabricate a crime, just to tell us if they have truthful information if one occurred.

            Your hatred is blinding you.


        2. @Tabor
          One of us is blind. Not me.

          And one of us has to bolster their opinions with lies. Not me.

          Here are some of your latest . . .
          The Clinton campaign did NOT buy a falsified document. It continued a contract for PAID opposition research that had been initiated by GOP fat cats.

          The Steele Dossier is not a false document. It is a legitimate work product which clearly stated the sources, methods and reliability of the information gathered. Most of it has been corroborated.

          The Steele Dossier was not the reason that our intelligence services were surveilling Russian actors and the Americans they were interacting with. They were doing their job and we now know that there was plenty of Russian interference in our election to attract their interest.

          Asking a favor of ANY foreign actor on behalf of a candidate is a crime. Especially when the quid pro quo was made obvious – resumption of desperately needed military aid.

          And, by the way, with Trump’s ugly behavior over the military aid, Ukraine has little choice but to cave to Russia’s demands for territorial concessions. Or backing was removed from the cards they had to play. Russia is getting its money’s worth with Trump in the Oval Office.

          There is no legitimate criminal investigation of Joe Biden’s family. If you think there really is, then you are a bigger fool than you seem.


      2. RE: “Do you see the issue here, Mr. Roberts?”

        No, I don’t. There is nothing explicitly illegal or even Constitutionally dubious in Rudi Giuliani’s involvement here. The president is entitled to have his personal attorney look into anything he wishes.


        1. None are so blind that choose not to see.

          If this is supposed to be an official government investigation, Giuliani has no business being involved. AG Barr, sure. But then again, he is acting not as an Attorney General, but as a Trump puppet.


          1. There are two rolls to be played here.

            Barr can ask for cooperation in an official investigation, but he cannot do opposition research.

            Giulinani’s job is to do opposition research not using government resources.


      1. It’s always amazing when the most simple investigation turns up something really unexpected. I look forward to see where Mr. Durham’s inquiry leads.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s