BREAKING: Cable is nothing but chatter now!


The Times IDs its source:
As major news orgs conduct The Chase, an amazing amount of what we read and hear is now pure novelization and chatter now.

It's stories we're asked to take on faith. Just consider Monday night's explosive bombshell report.

Monday's night's explosive bombshell came from the New York Times. On cable, the children leaped into action. Michael Schmidt's report started like this:
SCHIMDT (4/30/18): Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia’s election interference, has at least four dozen questions on an exhaustive array of subjects he wants to ask President Trump to learn more about his ties to Russia and determine whether he obstructed the inquiry itself, according to a list of the questions obtained by The New York Times.

The open-ended queries appear to be an attempt to penetrate the president’s thinking, to get at the motivation behind some of his most combative Twitter posts and to examine his relationships with his family and his closest advisers. They deal chiefly with the president’s high-profile firings of the F.B.I. director and his first national security adviser, his treatment of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and a 2016 Trump Tower meeting between campaign officials and Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.

But they also touch on the president’s businesses; any discussions with his longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, about a Moscow real estate deal; whether the president knew of any attempt by Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to set up a back channel to Russia during the transition; any contacts he had with Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime adviser who claimed to have inside information about Democratic email hackings; and what happened during Mr. Trump’s 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant.
Fascinating! According to Schmidt, Mueller wants "to penetrate the president’s thinking" about a range of issues!

Presumably, everyone already suspected that. Schmidt's explosive claim was this—the New York Times had obtained an actual list of the questions Mueller wants to ask.

Mueller "has at least four dozen questions," according to Schmidt's report. On its face, that seemed like a rather fuzzy census.

Where the heck had that number come from? Possibly more to the point, what sort of list had the Times obtained? And where had this list come from?

In paragraph 5, Schmidt described his source. Who except the New York Times ever writes something like this?
SCHMIDT: “What efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon?” Mr. Mueller planned to ask, according to questions read by the special counsel investigators to the president’s lawyers, who compiled them into a list. That document was provided to The Times by a person outside Mr. Trump’s legal team.
Say what? According to that account, investigators had read a bunch of questions to the president's lawyers. Those lawyers then "compiled the questions into a list"—and the list was given to the Times "by a person outside Mr. Trump’s legal team."

"A person outside Trump's legal team?" We're not sure that formulation qualifies as English. But if it does, could the person in question have been Kanye West?

He's "outside Trump's legal team." Of course, except for maybe four or five people, so is everyone else!

Does anyone write like that but the Times? Please understand why this matters:

The press corps settled on 49 as the number of Mueller's questions. Schmidt is asking us to believe that these questions really did come from Mueller, and that there aren't maybe 49 more which somehow got lost in the shuffle.

Why should anyone believe such things? Schmidt's attribution, which was laughable, seemed to suggest that this explosive bombshell list had been compiled by Trump's lawyers. Why are we supposed to believe that any such list is authentic and complete?

We don't have the slightest idea. On cable, nobody cared!

Did Mueller's team really read 49 prospective questions to Trump's lawyers? If so, are we really sure that a bunch of other prospective questions didn't get disappeared on their way to Schmidt?

Schmidt made no attempt to explain—and on cable, nobody cared. They mainly wanted to get the evening's excited chatter under way. Schmidt made his usual cable stops—and no one pushed him in any serious way about these obvious questions.

Here's the way prime time "cable news" currently works:

Some time after 4 PM, some news org publishes the evening's "explosive bombshell report." Everyone immediately accepts the report as accurate, even when its accuracy is in no way clear.

Last night, everyone ran with Dr. Bornstein's latest claims, even though he seems to be out of his mind and even though, in the course of telling his latest story, he admitted that he had lied in the course of telling his previous tale.

Consider another example:

On Monday, NBC's phlegmatic Carol Lee issued a bombshell report about General Kelly allegedly calling Trump an "idiot." That afternoon, on Deadline White House, everyone enjoyed the original story since it made Kelly look bad.

But uh-oh! Just like that, Heidi Przybyla said "this feels like the kitchen sink," like a cabal inside the White House had decided to try to "kill Kelly." In short, she was suggesting that the bombshell report was just a bunch of bull being peddled to NBC by an anti-Kelly cabal.

On Deadline White House, no one acknowledged the contradiction. Instead, Nicolle Wallace's panel got to thrill to two tribally pleasing stories:
1) Kelly has been calling Trump an idiot.

2) A bunch of *ssholes in the White House are pimping some bullsh*t around.
Each story was tribally pleasing. The fact that one story undercut the other didn't intrude on the fun.

Has Kelly been calling Trump an idiot? Are there really 49 questions, no more? Was Dr. Bornstein's office "raided" in the way the fellow described?

No one cares anymore! Cable news is all chatter now. They wait for the day's explosive report. Then the blather starts.

Our thoughts on Dr. Bornstein: Dr. Bornstein is visibly nuts. Our thoughts on his latest story:

1) He said a patient in his office was frightened during the raid. We're frightened by the thought that Bornstein still has patients!

2) Apparently, Bornstein frequently asks for donations to his alma mater, Tufts Medical School. By way of contrast, we'd like to see the school shut down pending a federal probe.

3) Trump was Bornstein's patient for 35 years, followed by one year with Dr. Ronny Jackson. Question:

Does the fact that Trump is still walking around qualify as a medical miracle? If he ever gets an actual doctor, Trump may live for two hundred years!

Tomorrow: After she figures out who he is, Chozick assesses Obama


  1. "By way of contrast, we'd like to see the school shut down pending a federal probe."

    Really, the one in Boston, downtown? Been there, looked like any other medical facility. What's wrong with it, aside from the usual: being a US medical mafia profit center?


      Our loans are well insured for maximum security is our priority, Our leading goal is to help you get the service you deserve, Our Loan program is the quickest. We give out loan in any currency of your choice {Us Dollar, pounds, Euro, Dinar, etc} and duration of 1 to 60 years to pay back the loan (secure and unsecured).

      Do you need any kind of loan and have low credit score, Have you find it difficult to get loans
      from local banks and other financial institutions? solution to your financial problem is PROSPER LOAN FIRM. The terms and conditions are very reasonable and considerate.

      We offer a wide range of financial services which includes: Xmas Loans, Business Loans, Debt Consolidation Loans, Personal Loans, Car loans, Hotel loans, Student loans, Home Refinancing Loans with low interest rate @2% per annul for individuals, companies and corporate bodies.

      Interested applicants should Contact us via email: OR call/text +1(816) 366-8769 . Apply and be free from financial bondage.==

  2. "By way of contrast, we'dlike to see the school shut down pending a federal probe."

    This is an example of why that comedy career didn't pan out, Bob.

    1. Do you prefer dick jokes?

    2. Has Bob got laid lately? This post is the funniest one he has written this year.

  3. As the Times accurately reports, The open-ended queries appear to be an attempt to penetrate the president’s thinking. That's remarkable. They want to know if Trump had the wrong thoughts. Special Prosecutors might indict the President for a thought crime.

    This term was popularized in the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, first published in 1949, wherein thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question Ingsoc, the ruling party. The Mueller investigation has become something out of 1984.

    1. David in Cal - Do you honestly believe that intent ("wrong thoughts") in your view should have no bearing on whether something is or isn't criminal or otherwise wrongful? Let's use a real-world example - the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

      The articles of impeachment against Clinton included allegations that he attempted to secure a job for Monica Lewinsky in an effort to influence her testimony. Certainly it's not illegal for someone to try to help someone else get a job, right? But, at least according to the House of Representatives back in 1998, it was worthy of impeachment if Clinton took that action with an improper motive.

      Do you understand the difference?

    2. mm - Trump is trying to allow Congress to see information being withheld by the Justice Department. If Trump were guilty he would be trying to hide information, rather than make it more widely available.

      The Justice Dept. is evading their legal and Constitutional obligation to send this information to Congress. If you like the word "desperately", you might say Trump is desperately trying to make the Justice Dept. obey the law.

    3. It's all a waste of time. Indict Trump, put him on the stand under oath, and tell him he's too stupid to commit treason.
      After he cops to the treason (because he is too smart), imprison him and throw away the key.
      Why get Congress involved at all?

    4. Jonny - I'm not a lawyer, but Alan Dershowitz has said that obstruction of justice cannot come into play unless the person has done something wrong. Trump had the legal right to fire Flynn and Comey for any reason or for no reason. Thus, Deshowitz contends there cannot be obstruction of justice.

      I think if Congress ever were to charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we'd have a constitutional crisis. You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power to fire [former FBI Director] James Comey and his Constitutional authority to tell the Justice Department who to investigate, who not to investigate. That's what Thomas Jefferson did, that's what Lincoln did, that's what Roosevelt did.

      We have precedents that clearly establish that. When George Bush, the first, pardoned Casper Weinberger in order to end the investigation that would have led to him, nobody suggested obstruction of justice. For obstruction of justice by the president, you need clearly illegal acts. With Nixon, hush money paid. Telling people to lie. Destroying evidence.

      Even with Clinton they said that he tried to influence potential witnesses not to tell the truth. But there's never been a case in history where a president has been charged with obstruction of justice for merely exercising his constitutional authority.

    5. Trump might be desperately trying to confuse the rubes, but as DavidinCal is showing all, Trump needn't put in too much effort.

    6. David, go fuck yourself again, sideways with a rusty chainsaw.

      Everything you stated is gibberish:

      Trump is trying to allow Congress to see information being withheld by the Justice Department

      Trump is trying to allow? What the fuck does that mean? There's supposed to be a wall of separation between the president and the justice department. That's exactly what you people insisted on with President Obama, do I have to remind you again, you lying sack of shit?

      And it is not "Congress" you fucking disingenuous treasonous bastard. It is your fucking treasonous fellow GOP traitors in Congress who are doing their level best to discredit the investigation into your president's treason who want to take the unprecedented action of demanding documents that the DOJ cannot release solely to upend the investigation. We've seen this movie before David, you scum.

    7. mm, after an exchange with DAinCA (now lost in the mists of time), I concluded that his willful ignorance, sheer gullibility, and ideological rigidity rendered him incapable of making ethical judgments. I called him a moral idiot. It’s no more use trying to get him to understand than it would be to explain to your dog the difference between the fundamental theorem of arithmetic and the fundamental theorem of algebra. And just as you wouldn’t scold your dog for his failure to understand, there’s no sense in your berating DAinCA.

      Of course it’s reprehensible for someone with moral judgment to charge Mueller with acting out a scenario from 1984. Reasonable people (that is, people capable of reason) understand that “thoughtcrime” is a crime of thought only. People who can make disinterested judgments on public issues understand that mens rea is an important part of our legal codes. Few crimes don’t require intent or negligent abandonment of intent.

      Sure Trump has the legal right to fire the FBI director, just as I have the legal right to sell my property, e.g., stock that I hold, but if I do so with the intent of exploiting insider information, then my protestations that I have the right to sell my property will be of no avail. Dershowitz has been out of his mind for a while now, but he’s making a Constitutional argument, namely that Presidential power trumps (pun intended) ordinary legal restrictions. This is the Nixonian school of thought: when the President does it, it’ not illegal.

      When your dog understands arithmetic and algebra, come back and try to enlighten DAinCA. Until then, save your breath.

    8. mm is frequently enlightening a bunch of lurkers, not just David.

    9. deadrat, thank you, I needed that. I know I need to calm down. Your calm reason is much appreciated. I apologize if I have offended anyone.

    10. mm: There's supposed to be a wall of separation between the president and the justice department.

      First of all, I don't think there's a wall. That's why a special prosecutor is necessary when the President is being investigated.

      Second, Trump was not talking about Trump getting information from the Justice. His threat involved Congress getting information from the justice dept.

    11. No, Comrade DinC, the special prosecutor became necessary when president numbnuts fired FBI Director, James Comey, and then proceeded to invite Russian goons into the oval office to laugh about it. Hahaha.

      Now, please try to explain to us what is crucial for the GOP cretins in the House to see? And why the explicitly stated reason and DOJ policy to not to release such sensitive documents unredacted in the middle of a criminal investigation should not control in this case.

      Please include in your answer an explanation for why these very same house members who just recently concluded their whitewash and sham conclusion would do such a thing if they were sincerely interested in learning the facts of the matter. I mean the goddamn ink isn't even dry on the final report. They had the power of congress and subpoena to investigate this matter to a fair thee well yet chose not to. Now they want to stick their noses into the SC's files to learn what he really has. How is that fair in any sense of the word?

      One thing this shows us is how truly professional Mueller is conducting this investigation and how frustrated president traitor is that he can't find out what they know yet.

      Finally, anyone who believes that this information would not make it over to the WH on the Devin Nunes midnight express and then get leaked to the NY Times in about 10 seconds please send me a crisp $5 bill and I will return to you a 2018 solid gold American Eagle 1 ounce proof coin.

    12. What business does the President have threatening the DOJ or congress? Threats have no place in government. If the president has a conflict, he should discuss and negotiate, not threaten like a thug. Trump has no respect for the dignity of his office.

      There is a wall and there is also the need for objectivity, which is why a special prosecutor is appointed, usually someone recognized for impartiality and lack of partisan ties, like Mueller.

    13. mm - you seem to be conflating the Special Prosecutor with the rest of the Justice Dept. Trump's threat involved Congress getting information from the Justice Dept., not from the SP.

      The SP may have the right to withhold information demanded by Congress, for the reasons you state. But, not the rest of the Justice Dept. They report to Trump. The President doesn't need leaks from Congress to get information from the Justice Dept. He can simply order the Justice Dept. directly to give him the information he wants. And, Congress has the Constitutional duty of overseeing the Justice Dept., so they have every right to demand information from them.

    14. Let's not get ahead of the 8 official Democratic party-led investigations into Trump's corruption, David.
      Or are you not a big believer in "both sides" anymore?

    15. Anyone else here old enough to remember when Conservatives/ Republicans used to make believe they had a problem with treason?

    16. The Right-wing cowardice in the face of treason is the most predictable thing to happen in politics in my lifetime.
      It was obvious the moment they accused me of being a traitor because I didn't want to waste $3 Trillion to kick over the hornets nest in the Middle East.

    17. No, I am not conflating anything.

      This is how you want it to end, isn't it? You want the president to order the DOJ to hand him all the files from the ongoing investigation in which he a subject. You have no problem with that? That is the very definition of obstruction of justice. You really have gone full autocratic cheer leader. This isn't fucking Russia, Comrade.

      You have studiously avoided addressing any of the questions I have posed. Why would Rosenstein sabotage the SP now, in the middle of the investigation by releasing information that is certain to compromise it? Why? Why do these congresscritters so desperately need to see it now? Their motive is so transparent. Their entire objective from day 1 is to throw a monkey wrench into the gears. This is why I call you a traitor, because you support the people who have absolutely no interest into investigating what actually happened. The damn investigation is barely a year old and they're already investigating the investigation.

      You are completely in denial. There is no point in going any further.

  4. I'd opt for additional federal probes:

    The Wharton School, for turning out unethical shitbags like Trump, and

    Harvard, for turning out "philosophy" majors who become failed teachers/comedians, who pretend to be liberal bloggers, but stopped being liberal a long time ago, so much so that their blog posts are identical to the right wing op-ed columns in my local newspaper, who admit that their blogging is futile and without effect, and whose blog posts, intentionally or not, make common cause with Trumpism, one of the gravest threats to our democracy, and whose blindness makes them unable to differentiate 1998 from 2018, and incapable of correctly analyzing current events, or assigning any blame to the Republicans and the voters who have gotten us here.

  5. "A person outside Trump's legal team" is a fine English phrase. It's just saying that the leaker wasn't one of Trump's lawyers. Was it Kanye West? Like you, I have no way of knowing, but I wouldn't put it past him. Leaking is a choice.

    In other news, the coroner disagrees with Stephon Clark's private autopsy.

  6. Somerby has confused the standards by which a reader might decide whether to believe a story or not with the very different standards used by the media to decide whether to run a story or not.

    Readers decide for themselves whether to believe a cable or print/internet news story. They consider the sources and the likelihood of a report being true, including the past truthfulness and integrity of the source.

    The media only decides whether a story is newsworthy or not. In this case, the importance of the topic dictates that readers should hear the list of questions, regardless of where they came from, because they are part of this ongoing mess. They clearly said the questions didn't come from Trump's attorneys. If they had come from the investigation, they would have said so too. That leaves Trump's staff or some third party (maybe Russians, maybe RNC, maybe Roger Stone or Alex Jones, etc.). The reporter may know who the source is but was provided the questions off the record. The leaked questions are part of the ongoing events.

    No one believes everything they read in the newspaper or hear on cable without some evaluation like this.

    Once again I find myself wondering why Somerby wants to suppress what the public is allowed to hear in the news. You put up with all the chaff in order to have a free press. Somerby seems to be coming down on the side of censorship on the basis of "accuracy" without telling us who would decide what is accurate and what is not, and to what standard, and to what end? Truth isn't as easy to determine as Somerby suggests. For example, this may be Mueller's list in its entirety without having a clear provenance. You don't assume its wrong any more than you can assume it is right. But Somerby wants things gone unless sources are clearly identified, which undermines the way our press operates and would have blocked all of the Watergate coverage, for example. Not a step in the right direction!

    1. It came from John Dowd, and there is no indication it resembles anything that came from the Mueller team.

      Idle speculation is not news, it is just content filler.

    2. Your reading of BS is very irrelevant to what he actually wrote. He is not trying to suppress reporting the news, but asking that the cable talking heads be more circumspect before devoting the entire prime time coverage to what may or may not be BS. He is like Don Quixote tilting at something that doesn’t exist: cable news that provides worthwhile news coverage, but at least his heart is in the right place, I guess.

  7. "Last night, everyone ran with Dr. Bornstein's latest claims, even though he seems to be out of his mind and even though, in the course of telling his latest story, he admitted that he had lied in the course of telling his previous tale."

    By this logic, nothing that Trump says or does should be reported anywhere because he has lied before and in fact lies every time he speaks.

    Bornstein is important because he lied about the president's health. Despite his being a liar, does anyone believe the White House followed procedures to obtain Xerox copies of Trump's records, as any doctor would do? Does anyone have any trouble picturing Trump's body guard doing exactly what Bornstein claimed?

    Why isn't Somerby clamoring for the release of an actual medical report on Trump's health? Why are we all silently accepting that we will never find out what medications he is taking?

  8. LORD.

    First Bob convincingly berates a book that, after all, he shouldn't complete after even talking about. Then he commits and embarrasing error equal to anything Maddow is likely to match in the remainder of her podcast.
    Duh. the problem, BOB, you incredible nincompoop, was that Trump ADMITTED MUELLER WAS HANDLING COHEN FOR HIM, something he hadn't previously denied. I know this subject makes Bob a little crazy, and Avenatti's effective seeming on air of Stormy Daniels hasn't ruduced Bob to frazzled name calling, but this is justified gross incormetence on Bob's part. Glad his big attorney is on client privilege, which always does not by the way, does not allow always to protect illegal activity.

  9. I think TDH makes valid points. I think that CNN, NYT etc coverage of Mueller and the Russia probe has gone off the rails. Why not wait and see what Mueller ultimately comes up with? From my standpoint as a trial lawyer for over 40 years, the evidence that seems to have everyone so convinced that Trump should be impeached is weak. But let's wait for the report. I don't see Mueller as a hero. He's a real establishment figure, and no liberal (all the more ridiculous that the right wing nut jobs keep going after him). It was really bad that Trump got elected. (Hint to one of the commenters here, TDH is not to blame for that). I agree with TDH basically, that this "chase" likely will do more harm than good for the anti-Trump side. If he gets impeached, what good would that do? - you want President Pence? Trump is as bad as any of the Republicans who ran against him. There will be a huge backlash if he gets impeached (say if dems take control of Congress) Just hope Dems can take control of Congress, and not screw things up (hard not to do) and beat Trump in 2020, not that Utopia will arrive even then. And mm, over the top invective isn't the best way to argue; boring as it is, calm reasoning is best (or it should be).

    1. Trump will win in 2020. Full stop. Plan on it. Don't even read the papers. It's a done deal. I will alert you if anything changes though.

      I told you last time I'm telling you again. I will alert you if anything changes though.

    2. @AC/MA: you say TDH isn't to blame for Trump. Yet TDH has said that he is the fault of liberals. Not just the elites...all of us. Thus, he, by his own reckoning, is indeed partly culpable. He doesn't get to pretend to be liberal and escape the blame that he is eager to throw around.

    3. To the extent that Somerby failed to support Clinton and kept calling her a weak candidate, expressing his support for Bernie, he is to blame for Trump. Third party voters surely helped put Trump in office. Many who voted for Trump did so because they disliked Hillary. That dislike arose because liberals failed to defend her actively against Comey and the flood of Russian fake news (pizzagate, CGI paid for Chelsea's wedding, etc.). He deserves more blame than those of us who worked hard to elect Clinton.

    4. AC/MA-You offer a few good points.

      However, you are a lawyer that thinks impeachment no matter the evidence will be a bad outcome. Then what is the point in waiting to see what Mueller “ultimately comes up with?” Not seeing the point of your post, seems like a conclusion in search of evidence.

    5. "Trump will win in 2020."

      Just like 2016, when we were continuously told "We're better than this." Oops, not so much.
      Alas, elections are held with the citizens you have, not with the citizens you wish you have.


    6. Anon 8:36 - TDH has through the years been a major defender of both Clinton's, although perhaps not a worshiper. You are deluded. Anon 12:27, I suppose if valid evidence comes out against the current POTUS that would be a convincing reason to impeach him, so be it - but it would be bad and exacerbate the already crazy divisiveness, and it's hard to conceive of it being a good thing. Anon 1:23 - I don't think it was the same as Truman beats Dewey; and were you also the same anonymous seer who predicted here that Roy Moore was going to win? anything can happen in 2020 - might depend on the economy, but could be other factors.

    7. Thank you AC, I have been saying the same thing for awhile...that we need to let Mueller finish his job. No one in the press or on this comment board could possibly know if there was or was not collusion or other crimes based on what has been accurately/or inaccurately leaked to the press. The only one that knows all the facts and circumstances in the special prosecutor...let him finish before we rush to judgement one way or the other.

      I also tend to agree with your assessment of impeachment. The waters have been so muddied that a large number of people won't believe Mueller even if he does come up with evidence of crimes. The best course of action imho for democrats would be to try and take control of congress and block the more extreme portions of the president's platform, then put up a viable, middle of the road candidate in 2020.

    8. How will you stop Bernie and his Bros from torpedoing that perfectly reasonable middle of the road candidate?

  10. the WH is now calling a DOJ supervised investigation..."the Russia witch hunt".

    A witch hunt is defined as "the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (such as political opponents) with unpopular views"

    Is the Special Prosecutor harassing Trump or making a valid investigation? Well, the justification for the investigation was the Trump campaign's suspected collusion with Russia. So far, not a scintilla of evidence has been released showing collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet, the investigation goes on and on and on. To me, that looks like harassment.

    1. Lots of evidence released, including the meeting at the Trump tower with Russian representatives, all the Trump staff who met with Kislyak and other Russians without disclosing it, the backchannel meeting in Prague between Cohen and Russians, the claim by Roger Stone that he was talking with Assange and his foreknowledge about the leak of Podesta's emails, the coordination of use of hacked info from DCCC computers for use in state and local campaigns by Republican candidates, the special favor shown by Trump himself to the Russians (refusing to impose sanctions, giving them back their spy compounds), wiretaps of Carter Page and Flynn. I'd say there is a lot of evidence so far. The main harassment has come from Trump aimed at the investigation.

    2. "A witch hunt is defined as "the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (such as political opponents) with unpopular views"

      Regarding the corporate-owned media's witch hunt against the Clintons, is there any legal actions which can be taken against the media?

    3. 8:42,
      You forgot about Mitch McConnell not wanting to protect the Mueller-led investigation because he (McConnell) is also complicit in the treason.

    4. You're right, mm. I will approve of the President refusing to answer Mueller's questions. IMHO Mueller (and the Obama Justice Dept. before him) have had more than enough time to find illegal collusion with the Russians, if there had been any. At this point, I see Mueller as simply trying to get something on Trump -- anything at all, even if it requires forcing someone to commit perjury.

      Have I mentioned that this actually happened to a friend of mine? Ronald Ferguson, who had been CEO of General Reinsurance, was convicted based on testimony of an underling. That testimony was later proved to be false, because the underling was out of the country when he claimed to be present at the key meeting.

    5. David, this is exactly what AC is talking about above. You don't know if Mueller has a scintilla of evidence or not. How can you be so sure that there is none. That's the same as the other side being so sure that there is. Keep an open mind until Mueller presents his findings.

    6. DavidinCal is a man of integrity. His call for the Mueller probe to end because nothing has been announced yet, is just like his call to the MSM and GOP to stop the 25-year plus charade that Hillary is "corrupt".
      The question he continuously repeated here during the entire 2016 Presidential campaign: "8 official GOP-led investigations have found nothing on Clinton, how many more before we admit she's as pure as the virgin snow?", shows he's not just a tribal shitbrain who can be played by his "team" to repeat nonsense.

      Good on David, and his principled stance that criminal investigations should be wrapped up in weeks, or they are just witch hunts.
      The fact that he's not just a troll, who repeats anything some moron like Hannity spouts, is good enough for me.

      Good job. When the time comes, the guillotine blade will be sharp for your neck. Quick and easy. No dull blade, half-chopping your head off and leaving you to die in pain, if I have anything to do with it.

    7. David, thank you for letting us know about the shady friends you have who practice fraudulent business activities.

      (Reuters) - Five former executives of American International Group Inc and Berkshire Hathaway Inc unit Gen Re admitted to conducting a fraudulent reinsurance transaction on Friday as part of a deal to end a years-long criminal case against them.

      All five entered into deferred prosecution agreements, meaning their indictments will be dismissed in a year if they stay out of trouble. They also agreed to fines ranging from $100,000 to $250,000.

      The deal brings to an end a high-profile case that has worked its way through the courts since May 2006.

      In 2008, former Gen Re Chief Executive Ronald Ferguson, Chief Financial Officer Elizabeth Monrad, Senior Vice President Christopher Garand and Assistant General Counsel Robert Graham, as well as AIG Vice President Christian Milton, were convicted of engineering a reinsurance deal to fraudulently boost AIG’s reserves.

      In August 2011, a federal appeals court threw out the convictions and ordered a new trial, citing errors by the judge in the case. The five had been sentenced to anywhere from one to four years in prison, though they were all out on bail, pending their appeals.

      Last February, a new judge overseeing the case set a January 2013 date for their retrial.

      As part of the deal, all five agreed to recognize “that aspects of the (reinsurance) transaction were fraudulent,” that there were signs it would be improperly accounted for and that they each should have taken steps to stop it.

      You will note that the overturned conviction had fuck all to do with an "underling" (how very pompous of you, those damn underlings always ruining it for the Masters of the Universe) giving false testimony.

      A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan said in an opinion issued Monday that the trial judge had unfairly prejudiced the defendants by admitting certain evidence related to fluctuations in A.I.G.’s stock price.

      Once again, David, you are shown to be a lying sack of shit. But it's good to know you endorse frauds, that explains you love for president pussygrabber.

    8. So DavidinCal "pals around" (Hat tip: Sarah Palin) with felons.
      Is there a word for the opposite of "shocking"?

  11. Hello everyone,
    i wanna use this opportunity to reach out to anyone out there facing infidelities doubts in their relationship, i was suspecting my husband cause his been acting up lately, but i have no visible evidence to proof his infidelities until i was introduced to this site ( by a colleague at work.
    i now have a hold of my husband and we resolved the whole issue after enough evidence from Almond on his phone.
    you can contact him any time you need to know the truth about your relationship status if your suspecting anything snoopy…you can get everything like the text, call logs, fb, whastap and other activities and location.
    you can also call or text them on 4088189369
    whatspp only 628204 3675

    tell him Cass referred you he will surely help you out

  12. Hello Every One Out Here

    I'm from United States North Bergen(US). I read some testimony about Dr. Iyaryi on how he has helped people in bringing back there ex within 48 hours i was just thinking if that was real,And decided to call a lady who made a testimony and also dropped her number,So i called her and ask her about Dr. Iyaryi she said Dr. Iyaryi is a trustworthy man and he his ready to bring back my lover for me,i was just so happy and a little bit relief that my lover will be back to me soon,Then i decided in contacting Dr. Iyaryi which i did,And before i could share him my problem he has already told me what i came for,And he said everything will be okay within 48 hours that my lover will be back to my arms,So he said he would be casting the spell and that within 48 hours my lover would call me,So i hoped so truly before the 48 hours i got a call from a man who has left me for the past 6 years saying he is sorry and he wants me back,i was happy and i said i also want him back,Then i traveled to Canada to meet him up,And he apologized for what he has done to me now he proposed to marry me and we are both preparing for our wedding soon, All thanks to the great and World best spell caster, Dr. Iyaryi His private mail And also Reach him on WhatsApp Number: +2349057915709 Thanks Dr. IyaryI