Manafort's plea bargain deal required him to cooperate with Mueller as well as other DOJ investigations that Mueller was not in charge of. So ... That means Mueller did not need to extend his investigation because of matters already handed off to the SDNY. I'm beginning to think anonamom is right, and that interacting with you will go nowhere.

BTW you didn't answer the 100% literal/deception question either. I answered at 5:11 PM.

Ridiculous? Nice strawman by the way. I never said Podesta, Craig and Weber were Mueller's targets. You said the Monmfort's lack of cooperation regarding Podesta, Craig, and Weber was the reason Mueller's investigation went on so long. How does that make sense if they weren't his targets? Just Mueller's idle curiosity?

Obviously Mueller and Weissman did not see eye to eye on the obstruction of justice finding and that is why Mueller overruled Weissman and chose to allow Barr and Rosenstein to make the final decision. If Mueller wanted to damage Trump and give the Democrats some ammunition for impeachment he could have allowed Weissman to do whatever Weissman wanted to do but that DID NOT happen. That's true, and I don't know why Mueller did what he did. But what Mueller also DID NOT do, is simply say that the investigation found no obstruction. Mueller was Weissman's boss. It wasn't up to Weissman to decide what legal theories to accept.

PS Do you take Trump literal 100% of the time or do you acknowledge he resorts to deception on a frequent basis? I will be surprised if you actually answer the question. You don't seem to understand the meaning of literally. When people say Trump should be taken seriously, but not literally, they mean that because Trump tends to speak off the cuff, he may exaggerate or get some facts wrong, but he means what he says, and the underlying point is correct. They don't mean what Trump is saying may intentionally be the complete opposite of the truth.

IMO one of the primary reasons the Mueller SC lasted so long was because Manafort refused to comply with his plea bargain deal and testify against Podesta/Craig/Weber or anyone else involved with the Ukranian/Democrat collusion. Honestly, I think that's ridiculous. There's no reason to believe Podesta, Craig, or Weber were ever Mueller's targets. In fact, there's plenty of reason to think they weren't. Mueller handed off those investigations (perhaps with the intent of burying them) to the SDNY, and Craig's indictment is from the DoJ's DC office. And if Mueller wanted to get Podesta, he would have gone after him, with or without Monfort's cooperation. Podesta's involvement in the Ukrainian stuff wasn't exactly some deep, dark secret.

Warren and AOC are politicians. Mueller is a prosecutor working for the DOJ. Slightly different circumstances. Since Mueller is a prosecutor, I'd think that should make him less likely to make decisions based on deceptive strategies. That's the sort of thing that's expected of politicians. Almost every time someone you want to push as a good guy does something that makes them look like a bad guy, you claim it was done to rile up Trump's supporters or his opponents. But virtually any action against Trump can be justified in the same way. Sometimes a hostile action is just a hostile action. Unless you you can tell us how to tell which is which, your argument is worthless.

At the risk of becoming tiresome, each time Tom R. trots out the argument that some apparently anti-Trump action was actually done to rile up Trump's supporters, or provoke the Democrats to overreact, I plan to call him on it. At least until he provides some clear criteria to distinguish between actually-hostile-actions and seemingly-hostile-actions-that-are-intended-to-be-beneficial.

Have you ever considered the full impact of the Mueller team having nothing but Angry Democrats on it? That composition allowed Trump to send out several hundred "witch hunt" tweets that were extremely effective in allowing him to create the narrative he wanted to create. How often are you going to fall back on this sort of argument? How do you differentiate between seemingly hostile actions toward Trump that are done for hidden good reasons, and those that are done for hostile reasons? How do we know that Elizabeth Warren and AOC aren't secretly working for Trump when they call for his impeachment? Lots of people, including Nancy Pelosi, think Trump would benefit from impeachment. Why would these supposed Trump enemies push for something that helps him?

... won't be ... Good grief. At least I don't drop tags. (Now watch me drop one.)

... bunch of ... I need to proofread more carefully.

I was thinking about the new SAT adversity score, and realized there should be a bunch bright Asian kids from lower-class backgrounds whose combined scores will higher than the moon. But I suspect the people who cooked up the adversity score saw to it that that won't the case. I see lawsuits in the SAT's future.

True MJW - Guess I may have overreacted but the headline set me off TLG, I admit that, though I try to keep things in perspective, I also tend to be annoyed when a 5-4 decision goes to the liberals, even if it's on some arcane point of law.

Pardon me if this has already been posted but I find this very worrisome. Are there ever cases where a Dem appointed Justice turns out to be more conservative???? I don't think so... Though it's certainly true that conservatives have been crossed up (Kennedy), and even betrayed (Souter), much more often than liberals, I really don't think there's reason to get too exercised about Gorsuch siding the the liberals on whether statehood negates the treaty hunting-rights of Indians on certain lands.

I’m perfectly fine with you not believing Trump had a long term strategic plan to drain the Swamp and defeat his political enemies. My first reactions is, Thank goodness! I'll sleep better tonight! But more seriously, doubting Trump has a plan, and doubting he has Dawson Field's plan, involving a complex strategy of deception, and Comey as a good guy, are not the same thing. You seem to like straw-man arguments and false dichotomies.

Dawson Fields nails it again. I don't think those are nails. I think those are square pegs being pounded into round holes.

It came across as a coverup that once again demonstrated that Democrats and the Clintons specifically enjoy a different justice system than everyone else. Overall that ended up being a major boon for Trump because it motivated conservatives and independents to vote for him. If you want to disagree and believe Comey helped Hillary gain votes then that is fine by me. Just last night you were challenging JMH to show where you'd claimed Comey was a good guy, and now you seem to be saying he very well might be. Also, good job on once again trotting out the he's-just-giving-them-enough-rope excuse for seemingly bad behavior. It never gets old. The good part is, it allows you to claim any behavior whether negative or positive is actually intended to help Trump. The bad part is, the only way you can tell that the seemingly negative actions are designed to help Trump is by assuming the person's motivation. When Adam Schiff does something particularly stupid that in the end helps Trump, you don't suddenly assume he's part of Trump's Army.

Where did I say anything about Comey being a good guy? I assume JMH meant more precisely: Comey working on Trump's side?

They'd never have the chutzpah do do it, and perhaps it's just as well, but imagine what would happen if a Senate committee subpoenaed all the financial records and tax returns of Judge Mehta (the judge in the Trump subpoena case, in order to help them legislate on judicial conflict-of-interest rules. I think the courts might see a problem that isn't presently clear to them

The theory of punctuated equilibrium took Evolution down a peg. Evolution is pretty humdrum and of reduced significance when, for example, mass extinction events clear things back to scratch every so often. Mass extinctions do not, "clear things back to scratch every so often"; as if every living thing were eradicated. As I recall, most mass extinctions resulted in a loss of around 70% of species. Worse than Infinity Wars, but still plenty of species to fill the newly-opened niches.

I hope we don't get another whitewash like the last IG report. I disagree it was a whitewash. The conclusion that the IG couldn't say with certainty that the FBI investigators' opinions didn't influence their actions was disappointing, and even whitewashish, but the evidence he revealed about Strzok, Page, and others was devastating. It was the IG who dug out the phone messages after the FBI tried to hide them.

If you can watch Levin, you should They talked about something I mentioned earlier: that the President also has the power to request tax returns.

People argue that some members of congress, by law, have the right to see Trump's tax returns. What's seldom mentioned is that the President has a similar right: Disclosure to President and certain other persons.-- (1) In general. --Upon written request by the President, signed by him personally, the Secretary shall furnish to the President, or to such employee or employees of the White House Office as the President may designate by name in such request, a return or return information with respect to any taxpayer named in such request.  Any such request shall state-- (A)  the name and address of the taxpayer whose return or return information is to be disclosed, (B)  the kind of return or return information which is to be disclosed, (C)  the taxable period or periods covered by such return or return information, and (D)  the specific reason why the inspection or disclosure is requested. Do those same people believe it would be proper for Trump obtain his political opponents' tax returns, as long as he could contrive a plausible reason?

Tom R:Any doubts still that Rosenstein protected Trump by appointing Mueller to get McCabe out of the picture? I thought MaCabe was Rosenstein's subordinate. That would seem to provide opportunities to get him out of the picture less drastic then appointing a special counsel.

One more thing. Though I think Mueller doesn't like Trump, and was out to get him on whatever he could, I believe the main thrust of his report was to defend the FBI and others who investigated Trump; to say, maybe Trump, in the end, wasn't guilty of colluding with Russians, but the investigations were justified and proper.