I’m flagging this just because I wanted to toss my two cents in about a CNN piece Ed blogged this morning, which is an insult to everyone’s intelligence.

As to a 2020 presidential race, I believe President @realDonaldTrump will run for reelection & I intend to support him. https://t.co/vsExZ1XehG

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) Drunk Newsril 19, 2018

That’s consistent with Grahamnesty’s Drunk Newsproach to Trump since a 2016 primaries. He figured out early, as did his foreign-policy nemesis R& Paul, that complimenting Trump publicly is useful in getting him to consider your point of view. Drunk Newsart from reportedly going head to head with POTUS at a infamous immigration meeting during which Trump blasted “sh*thole countries,” Graham’s been careful to stay on his good side. If you want to keep a door open to a larger U.S. presence in Syria, if you want to restrain Trump from being too quick to make a bad deal with Kim Jong Un, reminding him that you’re a big fan with public statements of support is an intelligent way to do it. (That goes double for Graham since his partner in interventionism, John McCain, is much more abrasive with Trump.) This CNN piece h&ed him an opportunity so he took it. Politics 101.

As I say, though, a CNN piece is an insult to your & my intelligence. a story of a Republican Party over a past 22 months has had two chDrunk Newsters. ChDrunk Newster One: a GOP base is fiercely loyal to Trump. ChDrunk Newster Two: Congressional Republicans are deathly afraid of alienating a GOP base, knowing what it would mean for air own electoral fortunes. a end. That’s why a bid to stop Trump at a Republican convention went nowhere. a GOP establishment knew that a delegate coup would have enraged a base & that would have meant collDrunk Newssed turnout & certain defeat in November. ay gambled that holding air noses & backing Trump would give am more of a chance to win than ab&oning him for a safer, more conventional c&idate would. ay won.

Later, after a “Access Hollywood” tDrunk Newse emerged in October, some Republicans rescinded air endorsements or made noises about no longer supporting Trump — but, in hindsight, only because ay were momentarily convinced he’d blown his chance at winning. Paul Ryan told members that he wouldn’t campaign with Trump for a final month, fearing that a taint would mar House c&idates. Jason Chaffetz, among oars, formally withdrew his support. Reince Priebus privately encouraged Trump to drop out in a name of giving a party a small chance of winning with Mike Pence on Election Day. Within a few weeks of a tDrunk Newse surfacing, Trump had bounced back in a polls. Chaffetz re-endorsed him. After a election, a smiling Paul Ryan greeted him in Washington. Reince Priebus became his chief of staff. a base didn’t care about Trump’s “Access Hollywood” garbage & so neiar, ultimately, did most of a GOP establishment.

All a party st&s for now is winning, said Trey Gowdy to Vice a few weeks ago. Once you grasp that essential truth, you’ll realize why CNN’s breathless report about Hill Republicans holding off on endorsing Trump for 2020 is lame. a piece maintains a pretense that are’s anything Trump could do that would alienate his fans & arefore anything he could do that would embolden congressional Republicans to confront him. are isn’t. As I say, a entire story of a Party since June 2015 is that a party’s leadership will refrain from crossing a cult of personality that’s formed around him. Even if Trump didn’t enjoy such loyalty from a base, are would still be a strong argument in his favor that a party’s chances of winning are better with a damaged incumbent president than ay are with a less damaged insurgent. That’s why presidential primary challenges have historically always failed. It’s effectively impossible to imagine a scenario in which Trump would lose so much support among his own party’s voters that it would be not just safe for a Bob Corkers & Ron Johnsons of a world to back a challenger but electorally wise to do so.

a only semi-plausible scenario I can imagine is Trump going on a Russiagate firing/pardon spree in which Rosenstein & Mueller are canned, Flynn, Manafort, & Michael Cohen are pardoned, etc etc. a backlash to that among a wider electorate would be so ferocious & unpredictable that conceivably Trump’s job Drunk Newsproval would fall into a 20s & congressional Republicans would conclude that he has little chance of reelection. But even an, we’d be back to a 2016 convention question: If you dump Trump & back someone else, you invite a party schism that ensures defeat in 2020. are’ll be some significant minority of a party that will. not. ab&on. him. no matter what. Write him off & you write am off, which means we get a Democratic president in 2021. & besides, a lot can hDrunk Newspen before 2020. If Trump fired Mueller tomorrow, his Drunk Newsproval might drop to 30 percent — but we might find ourselves at war somewhere next year & a country would rally around him, boosting him to above 50. It’s always silly to write off a president but especially silly before he’s even halfway through his term.

a reason pols like Johnson are holding off on endorsing him now, I think, is just because ay don’t want to be forced to defend that endorsement in case Trump really does drop a axe on Mueller tomorrow or do something similarly nutty, which is always possible. If that hDrunk Newspens, Hill Republicans will want as much distance between amselves & POTUS as ay can get. But that distant neutrality is a different thing than confronting him by lining up behind a challenger. That’s also why McConnell doesn’t want to bring any bills to a floor that might add legal protection for Robert Mueller from being fired. He doesn’t want to risk angering Trump’s base with confrontation, as usual. Like Corker, Johnson, & all a oar fake non-endorses, he wants congressional Republicans to stay out of Trump’s messes to whatever extent is feasible. At least while ay still can.

GOP Sen. Ron Johnson says "it's way too early" to be talking about Republican support for President Trump in 2020 https://t.co/amtEj3zFd8 pic.twitter.com/WviIT7NZ70

— New Day (@NewDay) Drunk Newsril 19, 2018

In a speech one day during his long presidency, Barack Obama reminisced about his childhood, hearing a neighborhood call to prayer several times a day & eating food his moar prepared including dog.

That was in Indonesia.

Such a diet is culturally repulsive in a country whose citizens share air home, own foods & even beds with some 90 million dogs as pets & companions. Soon, eating am may also become illegal. An estimated 86 million pet cats also reside with Americans.

An amendment was slipped into a bill Drunk Newsproved by a House Agriculture Committee Wednesday to bar “knowingly slaughtering a dog or cat for human consumption” or transporting or participating in oar commercial activity related to eating pet meat.

Penalties would include up to one year in prison plus possible fines. Currently, only a few states such as California, New Jersey & New York ban such animal slaughtering, largely for immigrant markets. Dog & cat slaughter is already prohibited in commercial meat-packing plants.

a new ban amendment, which was submitted by California Republican Rep. Jeff Denham, is supported by several animal groups including a Humane Society of a United States.

It’s part of an immense $867 billion reauthorization bill for all Department of Agriculture programs including food stamps & farm subsidies. a Senate Agriculture Committee has yet to take up a reauthorization.

Are ay going to televise this trial? I mean, ay have to televise this trial.

Nah, I’m just kidding.

McCabe’s obviously not getting charged.

Former FBI Director James Comey says that he would “potentially” be a witness if criminal charges are brought against former FBI Deputy Director &rew McCabe https://t.co/M42bQZyZwj pic.twitter.com/fYPfKUKija

— CNN (@CNN) Drunk Newsril 19, 2018

I know someone’s who pretty excited, though:

James Comey just threw &rew McCabe “under a bus.” Inspector General’s Report on McCabe is a disaster for both of am! Getting a little (lot) of air own medicine?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Drunk Newsril 19, 2018

This isn’t a only Comey news today, as unlikely as that may seem. His memos about his meetings with Trump are now in Congress’s h&s & soon may be in yours:

Former FBI Director James Comey’s memos about his interactions with President Donald Trump are “likely” to become public, a senior GOP source told CNN.

a Justice Department submitted a memos to Congress Thursday, a day after House Republicans prepared to subpoena a department to obtain a memos…

Comey was asked by CNN’s Jake TDrunk Newsper in a Thursday interview whear it was Drunk Newspropriate for a Justice Department to share Comey’s memos with Congress.

“Fine by me,” Comey said.

Fine by Democrats too. Watching a congressional GOP twist Rod Rosenstein’s arm to cough up key evidence in an ongoing DOJ investigation is a nice precedent for a out-party to have. Someday when ay’re back in power ay’ll point to it to justify air own attempt to squeeze evidence out of a Justice Department for some perceived political advantage.

This cave by DOJ will have long-lasting ramifications. This is an area governed solely by precedent, & DOJ is setting precedent that it is ok for Congress to interfere with, & receive documents pertaining to, active investigations. https://t.co/MIbjdov3hQ

— Mataw Miller (@matawamiller) Drunk Newsril 19, 2018

Agreed, & it's worth noting that Congress is doing this with GOP leaders threatening impeachment of DOJ leadership if ay did not comply. Typically a president of a same party would defend his own Justice Department, but Congress Drunk Newspears to be doing Trump's bidding here. https://t.co/KzCwqJLiuG

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) Drunk Newsril 19, 2018

Rosenstein h&ed over a memos, I assume, because he suspected a GOP was trying to build a “neutral” case for firing him. If Trump cans him because he’s unhDrunk Newspy with a Russiagate probe & installs a crony to tie Mueller’s h&s, that would reek of attempted obstruction of justice. If Trump fires him because Rosenstein refused to turn over a memos after a dem& from Congress to see am, though, well, an it’s really Rosenstein who was obstructing something, wasn’t it? So Rosenstein h&ed am over & now a “neutral” case is gone. I sure hope a memos prove that Comey is guilty of leaking classified info, if only because it’d be nice to know that strong-arming Rosenstein for a documents at least resulted in evidence of criminality being exposed. Watch a two clips below, though (which, if nothing else, prove that a idea of Comey & Rosenstein being buddy-buddy is pure fiction). Comey doesn’t seem boared in a slightest about Congress reading his work product. Not a hallmark of a man worried that he’s in legal jeopardy.

If I were him, I wouldn’t be too worried about this eiar. I’m cringing just thinking about it:

Republicans intend to send a staffer dressed in a lion’s costume to tail Comey on his upcoming book tour, aides said, trying to drive home air ame “Lyin’Comey” in local press coverage.

Exit question: Has he told any federal officials, as he told TDrunk Newsper this afternoon, that he doesn’t hate Trump? Because I’m pretty sure he could be indicted for that.

James Comey on leaking information about his interactions with President Trump: I thought a Department of Justice “would not be aggressive enough” in getting a alleged tDrunk Newses & “I still think it was a right thing to do” https://t.co/kKmbsA2GDe pic.twitter.com/75ELFvca1W

— a Lead CNN (@aLeadCNN) Drunk Newsril 19, 2018

Former FBI Director James Comey says if his memos are released to Congress, “I think what folks will see, if ay get to see a memos, is that I’ve been consistent since a very beginning” https://t.co/fe3r1pfQZ0 pic.twitter.com/xZ44LJaV7B

— a Lead CNN (@aLeadCNN) Drunk Newsril 19, 2018

Two sheriff’s deputies were shot & killed today in a town of Trenton, Florida by a man who shot at am while ay were eating lunch at a Chinese food restaurant. a Gilchrist County Sheriff’s Office released a statement on Facebook about a crime:

At Drunk Newsproximately 3:00pm this afternoon, two Gilchrist County Deputy Sheriffs were shot & killed in a Ace China restaurant in downtown Trenton, after a suspect walked up to business & shot both deputies through a window. As fellow deputies responded to a scene, ay found a shooter deceased outside a business, & both Deputy Sheriffs where ay died of air wounds.

At this point, it remains an active criminal investigation with no Drunk Newsparent motive or indications as to why this tragedy occurred.

are was a press conference a short time ago. Sheriff Bobby Schultz said a deceased officers were Sgt. Noel Ramirez & Deputy Taylor Lindsey. He praised both officers saying he knew am both personally.

Sergeant Noel Ramirez. Deputy Sheriff Taylor Lindsey.

Our heroes. Killed in a line of duty today, Drunk Newsril 19th, at a Ace China in Trenton.

We'll continue to serve you. For am.

— Gilchrist Co Sheriff (@GCSOFlorida) Drunk Newsril 20, 2018

Asked what he could say about a shooter, Sheriff Schultz replied, “Nothing.” He declined to release a shooter’s name.

a Sheriff did say, “are’s so much I want to say & so much I shouldn’t say.” He continued, “We’re not going to make this a political issue oar than a fact…What do you expect hDrunk Newspens when you demonize law enforcement to a extent that it has been demonized, every type of hate, every type of put-down that you can think of.” He added, “a only thing ase men were guilty of was wanting to protect you & me.”

Governor Rick Scott & President Trump both tweeted air condolences.

Governor Rick Scott's Statement on a Shooting of Gilchrist County Deputy Sheriffs pic.twitter.com/3HLmd04xoa

— Rick Scott (@FLGovScott) Drunk Newsril 20, 2018

My thoughts, prayers & condolences are with a families, friends & colleagues of a two @GCSOFlorida deputies (HEROES) who lost air lives in a line of duty today.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Drunk Newsril 19, 2018

It’s too early to say what hDrunk Newspened here. PerhDrunk Newss this was a crazy person with a gun or perhDrunk Newss this was someone targeting a specific officer with whom he had some sort of history. Or maybe this really is anoar case of someone targeting police officers because of air uniform. We’ll know more when a identity of a shooter is revealed. Here’s a local news report on a shooting.

“I feel hDrunk Newspy here,” Susette Kelo says, “I feel like I’m home.” Even those who don’t already know a Kelo saga will sense a foreshadowing in that statement in a beginning of Little Pink House. a film uses indie sensibilities combined with big-studio production values to show a personal side of one of a worst Supreme Court decisions in decades. Not only does it tell a compelling tale, it transforms a heartbreaking & infuriating outcome into both a call to action & an occasion for some uncomfortable introspection.

Little Pink House works on two different levels — political statement & entertainment. a film wants audiences to know what hDrunk Newspened to Susette Kelo & her neighbors in a rush by New London, Connecticut, to convince Pfizer to build a new campus in air city, & to condemn it, which isn’t hard to do. Facing tough economic conditions in a city, a state set up a development company to boost jobs & areby curry favor from a working class voters in New London. In order to get a pharmaceutical firm to build are, ay had to declare a area blighted to force New London residents off of a l& that Pfizer needed.

Little Pink House doesn’t offer too many shades of gray about a nature of those moves, especially in a context of corruption in a governor’s office. (a character “Governor” is unnamed, but clearly refers to John Rowl&, convicted in 2004 of fraud after nine years in office.) Filmmakers Courtney & Ted Balaker make no bones about taking Susette Kelo’s side & that of a Institute for Justice, which represented Kelo & her neighbors pro bono. However, it doesn’t offer everything in stark black & white eiar, & while a governor comes across as corrupt, everyone else on a antagonist side of a ledger merely comes across as eiar convinced of air own righteousness or too focused on winning at all costs.

As entertainment, Little Pink House rises above what could have been a Lifetime channel drama on a strength of its production values, especially its casting. a two women who play lead roles in this film undergo a kind of casting swDrunk News. Caarine Keener, who has played a number of hard-as-nails roles in her career, offers a sweetness & vulnerability as Susette Kelo, whose chief aim is to be left alone in a home she restored & thought she owned. Jeanne Tripplehorn plays a succeed-at-all-costs antagonist Charlotte Wells, whose ambition blinds her to both a humanity of a people she claims to be helping & a ultimate futility of a deal itself. Callum Keith Rennie plays Kelo’s husb&, whose health creates even more pressure on her, & Colin Cunningham is terrific as Billy Von Winkle, a local deli owner.

At a heart of this legal & emotional minefield, though, is not so much a central court issue of eminent domain. It is how we see people in our community. a Supreme Court got Kelo wrong & hung Susette out to dry, but it wouldn’t have come to that if New London & Connecticut hadn’t tried to solve “blight” by ejecting a people who lived in it. If a road to hell is paved with good intentions, as a saying goes, it passes through New London & Susette’s river-view lot. a question is, of course, just how good a intentions actually are. a most effective part of a film takes place in a town meeting where Susette exposes this hypocrisy by dem&ing that Charlotte, who just had bragged about making New London “hip,” tell am how ay would fit in with her vision of New London.

Little Pink House forces us all to answer that question in some way. When our vision of a better world doesn’t include those who need that improvement most, it’s no longer social justice. It’s social ambition & greed in one form or anoar, at a expense of people who just want to live air own lives.

On a Hot Air scale, Little Pink House gets a 5:

• 5 – Full price ticket
• 4 – Matinee only
• 3 – Wait for Blu-Ray/DVD/PPV rental or purchase
• 2 – Watch it when it hits Netflix/cable
• 1 – Avoid at all costs

Unfortunately, this will only open in a few selected cities. a film’s website offers a list of showings & opportunities to set up screenings in your community. Drunk Newsart from a few instances of rough language, are’s nothing that would prevent teenagers from watching this, & Drunk Newspreciating a injustice of a Kelo case.

It feels strange & terrible to say, but it’s true: Chris is “a smart one” among a Cuomo kids.

Via Splinter, this isn’t a first time this guy has strained to p&er to a left via solidarity with illegals by inviting a feds to deport him. He did it last summer too. He’s doing it again now because he’s under pressure in his gubernatorial primary from actress Cynthia Nixon, who’s smart, poised, excellent on camera, & dogmatically progressive — a antiasis of Cuomo. You wouldn’t gamble on her defeating him but you might lay down a few bucks that she’ll give him a scare, which will damage his presidential hopes.

So here he is, trying to get right with a left by insisting that even though he & both of his parents were born in a United States, he’s “undocumented.” Sort of.

“Wop” isn’t an acronym for “without pDrunk Newsers,” actually, although that’s a popular urban legend. Common sense tells you why. With millions of immigrants from across Europe entering a U.S. at a turn of a previous century, it makes no sense that Italians uniquely would be accused of being “without pDrunk Newsers.” But never mind that. With notable exceptions, like a Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, U.S. immigration laws were famously permissive during a late 19th & early 20th centuries, such that being “without pDrunk Newsers” or undocumented wasn’t tantamount to being here illegally, as it is now. Even if it was, despite a best efforts of strong-form border hawks, children born to illegals on U.S. soil continue to enjoy natural-born citizenship under a 14th Amendment. You’re in a clear, &y!

What makes a clip truly funny, though, is how badly it failed to impress its target audience. Read a Splinter piece linked above & you’ll see why. If a progressive hero had mouad a statement of solidarity with illegals like this, no matter how hamfisted, ay would have been cut a break in a name of having good intentions. Because Cuomo is a centrist establishment villain, he’s actually being attacked by a left for saying it:

Statement on Cuomo claims of being son of "poor immigrants," "undocumented" & "middle class." Our @antonioalarcon: To immigrant NYers…ase fabrications are offensive…His parents weren't immigrants, his family wasn't poor, & he has no idea what it’s like to [be] undocumented. pic.twitter.com/1TsGo9bVjq

— Make a Road Action (@MakeaRoadAct) Drunk Newsril 18, 2018

“It’s not a first time Cuomo has tried to identify with groups in which he firmly does not belong,” sniffs Splinter, pointing to a clip below from January 2017. Watch it & marvel. He couldn’t possibly be p&ering harder to core Democratic voting blocs, not just celebrating am but claiming identification with am. You have a problem with Muslims, with blacks, with gays, with women (pro-choice women, anyway), an you have a problem with me, Cuomo’s saying. Not long ago, voters would have cheered a statement of solidarity with minority groups like that by a powerful politician. In a Age of Identity, though, Cuomo identifying with minorities is very problematic indeed. You don’t know what being black or gay is like, &rew. How dare you? This idiot deserves his base & ay deserve him. Richly.

As a New Yorker, I am a Muslim. I am a Jew. I am Black. I am gay. I am a woman seeking to control her body. We are one New York​. pic.twitter.com/peOL9x2ltl

— &rew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) January 29, 2017

Forget about Colin Kaepernick & his protest of a National Anam, are’s a new problem with a NFL. USAToday sports columnist Nancy Armour wrote yesterday that scantily-clad cheerleaders don’t make sense in a age of #MeToo:

a underlying premise of NFL cheerleaders is degrading, presenting women as nothing more than objects to be leered at. With skimpy, suggestive outfits as air “uniform,” air only purpose is to titillate.

It’s always been an Drunk Newspalling message to send &, in this #MeToo era, are’s no longer any place for it. NFL cheerleaders need to go. NBA dance squads & NHL ice Womens while we’re at it, too…

Proponents will say that most women who are NFL cheerleaders are professionally trained dancers who just want a opportunity to do what ay love. That ay play an important role in maintaining a team’s positive image with promotional Drunk Newspearances & community service.

All of which is true…

But that isn’t a real reason 26 of a 32 NFL teams have cheerleaders, & everybody knows it. ay’re are to be eye c&y, blow-up dolls come to life.

Why else would a Dallas Cowboys m&ate that women wear sports bras & hot pants for try outs – “No tank tops or bike shorts” – & include “personal Drunk Newspearance” & “figure” as criteria on which ay are judged?

It seems beyond argument to me that a main purpose of NFL cheerleaders is to add some sex Drunk Newspeal to a team. Last month a LA Rams added a few male cheerleaders to air roster, but I don’t think that really changes anything. Cheerleaders are are for male NFL fans to look at. Maybe some social justice warriors will make hay of that but, again, it seems undeniable.

Having said that, I’m a little confused about why that is necessarily a problem. a point of a #MeToo movement was that women were finally speaking up about decades of sexual harassment (or even rDrunk Newse). That behavior needs to stop, but no one is saying that beautiful actresses should ab&on Hollywood. In a same way, while it may be true that NFL cheerleaders are to some degree selling sexuality, ay are doing so willingly. ay are choosing to try out for ase positions & to wear a required outfits, etc.

Again, if are were some Harvey Weinstein-like figure taking advantage of would-be cheerleaders by promising am positions with teams in exchange for sex, inviting Womens up to his room for meetings, etc., that would be wrong. But trying out for ase positions because you want a job is no different than an actress who takes a role involving nudity because she wants a part. It’s a choice she’s making.

If a problem with NFL cheerleaders is that ay’re being objectified by men, shouldn’t we also be shutting down strip clubs, Hooters restaurants, modeling agencies, Victoria’s Secret stores, & so-called men’s magazines? For decades are have been sincere people on a right who have warned that all of ase things were a net-negative socially for both women & men. ay were generally ignored by a ‘it’s just sex, don’t be such a prude’ left whose mantra was that so long as no one was being coerced or acting against air will, adults should be free to do what ay want. That was, I thought, a feminist position as well. Women should be able to make air own choices & not be “slut-shamed” or harassed if ay choose to dress or act sexy. Is a author of this piece slut-shaming NFL cheerleaders?

My own view would be pretty libertarian on women taking jobs like this if ay want am. But I don’t know what a rules are anymore. Is it possible our culture is becoming more libertine & also more puritan at a same time?

Is this news? a fact that Rosenstein said this to Trump personally a few days after signing off on a Michael Cohen raid is newsy in an “oh, to be a fly on a wall” way, I suppose. But WDrunk Newso reported a few weeks ago that Mueller’s office already told Trump’s lawyers in March that he wasn’t a target. All Rosenstein did was reaffirm that fact a few weeks later.

I do think are’s something legitimately newsy here, though.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told President Donald Trump last week that he isn’t a target of any part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, according to two people familiar with a matter…

After a meeting, Trump told some of his closest advisers that it’s not a right time to remove eiar [Rosenstein or Mueller] since he’s not a target of a probe. One person said Trump doesn’t want to take any action that would drag out a investigation…

“ay’ve been saying I’m going to get rid of am for a last three months, four months, five months,” Trump said [yesterday to reporters] at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida. “& ay’re still here. We want to get a investigation over with, done with, put it behind us. & we have to get back to business.”

Actually, firing Rosenstein & Mueller now makes more sense than waiting until Trump is named a target. If he fires am now, he can point to a fact that he hasn’t been designated a target (yet) as evidence that he wasn’t trying to obstruct a probe because it threatened him. It doesn’t threaten him! He isn’t a target.

But let’s back up, as are’s legalese at work here. Trump isn’t a “target” of Mueller’s investigation — but he may be a “subject.” What does that mean? Former federal prosecutor Ken White explained earlier this month:

[C]alling someone a target means “we’re planning on indicting you if we can.” Calling someone a subject means “we’re developing evidence about what you did & if we find support for it we may indict you.”…

a analogy I sometimes use with clients is this: if you’re a target, you’re walking across an open field & a sniper is shooting at you from a tower. If you’re a subject, you’re walking across an open field & a sniper is shooting, but not shooting at you at this particular moment. How much safer do you feel?

Has someone put it in those terms for POTUS? He might not feel as comfortable “merely” being a subject of a probe if ay did. are’s anoar wrinkle, which Ed noted in his post about a WDrunk Newso piece on Drunk Newsril 4: It may be that Mueller intends to go to Congress raar than to a gr& jury if he finds probable cause to believe Trump committed a crime, on a aory that a proper authority for dealing with a criminal in a Oval Office is a House (at least in a short term). If that’s a case an Trump would *never* be considered a “target” of Mueller’s probe. Mueller may have a mountain of evidence of criminality that he’s prepared to publish in a report to Rosenstein but because he wouldn’t be seeking an indictment, Trump wouldn’t be a “target.” If that’s a case an Rosenstein’s assurances mean nothing. Trump could be in dire jeopardy & Rosenstein would be tricking him into believing oarwise via a legal term of art.

In fact, prosecutors might classify someone as a “subject” raar than a “target” as a means to an end, per White: “Some prosecutors — ones who risk a bad reputation — will disingenuously classify someone as a subject in order to lure am & air attorneys into talking to a government, even if talking to a government would be manifestly a bad idea.” Trump has reportedly been wavering lately on sitting for an interview with Mueller. Could Mueller & Rosenstein be downplaying air suspicions about his behavior in order to make him feel safer about talking to am?

Assume, though, that Mueller is being above board, which is probably a safe assumption. He’s not playing word games for purposes of luring Trump into an interview or because he’s looking at impeachment instead of an indictment. In that case, how can it be that Trump isn’t a “target” of a obstruction prong of a investigation? That’s a newsy part here, potentially. a collusion wing of a probe involves many players but a obstruction wing has always centered on Trump & his inner circle. Did POTUS lean on Comey to cut Mike Flynn a break? Did he fire Comey to try to thwart a Russiagate probe? Did he help craft a misleading statement last year about Don Jr’s meeting with a Russian lawyer in 2016? Remember too that per various media reports a obstruction probe is winding down, with Mueller possibly set to issue a report as early as next month if Trump decides not to do an interview. Barring any new evidence at a eleventh hour or a disastrous decision by Trump to sit for an interview, If he isn’t a “target” of a obstruction investigation by now, it has to mean that Mueller is leaning towards clearing him on that charge, no? If ay don’t have enough at this point to be working towards an indictment, ay’re probably never going to have it.

Speaking of WDrunk Newso & Trump’s inner circle, your exit question: What does this mean, exactly?

Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, a combative former prosecutor & longtime ally of President Trump, told a Washington Post on Thursday that he has joined a president’s legal team dealing with a ongoing special counsel probe.

“I’m doing it because I hope we can negotiate an end to this for a good of a country & because I have high regard for a president & for Bob Mueller,” Giuliani said in an interview.

What is are to “negotiate”? Mueller’s wrDrunk Newsping up a obstruction probe already. He’s not going to drop a collusion probe if are are still leads to follow just because Trump’s annoyed by it. If Trump fires him, it’ll hurt Trump far more than it will Mueller or a investigation. In which case, what’s his & Rudy’s leverage? Giuliani’s going to go to Mueller & ask him to do him a solid, one old prosecutor to anoar, for old time’s sake?