Mueller’s planned statue in the Capitol Rotunda has been dumped

  • Seen lying in the dumpster next to the Jussie Smollett visage, originally planned for the Great Hall of Civil Rights Martyrs.
  • Mueller could not find crime so he smeared

Poor Mueller. Imagine all the grief he has gotten in the past few weeks from his friends on Capitol Hill, Hollywood, the NY TIMES, WaPo, etc, etc. for bungling his mission, letting them down, and allowing that awful creep, Donald Trump to remain in office.

After many months being wined and dined all over Washington, reminded by pundits of both sides of the aisle that he is the greatest, most honest, smartest law enforcement genius who ever walked the earth, now told he is a big dud who couldn’t handle a simple overthrow of a presidential election!

Really hurts a guy’s feelings…Damn that Barr!        DLH

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

“The letter made a key request: that Barr release the 448-page report’s introductions and executive summaries, and it made initial suggested redactions for doing so, according to Justice Department officials.”

Except that letter was after Barr had announced he would expeditiously release every twittle of the report that he could. And he did. It was just that Mueller was not satisfied with the one news cycle that did not sufficiently sing Hosannas to him.

Questions and observations about Mueller and his report:

This particular article is from a publication that despite its name is not among our favorites.  We excerpt what we think are the most compelling questions (if rhetorical) and a couple of their readers responses:

15 Questions Robert Mueller Must Answer
Why the cryptic wording on the Steele Dossier? Why wasn’t Trump given an opportunity to defend himself in court?
By Peter Van Buren

2) Your Report did not refer any crimes to Congress, the SDNY, or anyone else. Again, tell us why. If the answer is “the evidence did not support it,” please say so again.

7) A cardinal rule for prosecutors is to not publicize negative information that does not lead them to indict someone—”the decision does the talking.” James Comey was criticized for doing this to Hillary Clinton during the campaign. Yet most of your Report’s Volume II is just that, descriptions of actions by Trump that contain elements of obstruction but that you ultimately did not charge. Why did you include this information so prominently? Some say it was because you wanted to draw a “road map” for impeachment. Why didn’t you just say that? You had no reason to speak in riddles.

14) Prosecutors do not issue certificates of exoneration. The job is to charge or drop a case. That’s what constitutes exoneration in any practical sense. Yet you have as your final line that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Why did you include that, and so prominently?

15) You also wrote, “if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.” You argue elsewhere in the Report that because Trump is a sitting president, he cannot be indicted, so therefore it would be unjust to accuse him of something he could not go to court and defend himself over. But didn’t you do just that? Why did you leave the taint of guilt without giving Trump the means of defending himself in court? You must have understood that such wording would be raw meat to Democrats, and would force Trump to defend himself not in a court with legal protections, but in an often hostile media. Was that your intention?

Excerpts from reader response (each bullet is a different respondent)

  • no prosecutor exonerates anyone. They either act or they don’t and Mueller was unethical in making such an absurd statement
  • In American law potential defendants are not exonerated. There is a presumption of innocence to start. They are found guilty or not guilty in court or, a prosecutor declines to prosecute because he thinks there is insufficient evidence.

Davis Limbaugh at Townhall had this to say:

The Worm Has Turned on the Democrats    (excerpt)

What a spectacle to behold — the Democrats and the media feigning outrage at the attorney general for merely formalizing what special counsel Robert Mueller found on the “collusion” charge, and for finishing what Mueller didn’t have the courage to finish on the obstruction charge.

As the facts and law are both against them, Democrats are again pounding the table — going on the offensive to distract from their excesses; shouting epithets and leveling slanders against Barr to obfuscate Mueller’s actual findings; playing semantic word games with the term “collusion”; and manufacturing a bogus complaint that Barr withheld the special counsel’s 19-page summary despite the subsequent release of that summary showing there’s still no “there” there.

The raw truth is that Mueller found no evidence that Trump colluded (non-legal term) or coordinated (legal term) with Russia to interfere with the election. After having used the term “collusion” for three years, Democrats are in a faux outrage that Republicans are throwing it back in their faces, saying there was none. They claim Republicans are trying to distort Mueller’s findings. They know better. Mueller explicitly found no actionable coordination either.

Then, Mueller got in a snit over Barr’s four-page summary, and Democrats brayed that Barr was misrepresenting Mueller’s 19-page summary and the full report. But when Barr followed up with Mueller on his quibbles, Mueller assured him he was emphatically not suggesting that Barr had misrepresented his findings. He just didn’t like the contextual presentation, which he thought led to an unflattering media narrative against him and his work. Herein lies the rub. The pristine and unflappable Mueller turns out not to be so unflappable after all. He just couldn’t abide by the media blowback after enjoying two years of high praise as the Saint of Pre-Impeachment.

Mueller’s apparently thin skin might give us insight into why he didn’t have the courage to issue a concrete finding that there was no actionable obstruction claim. Barr was obviously surprised and disappointed with the fecklessness of his lukewarm old friend. Probably fearful that he would go from hero to villain overnight upon the release of his lackluster report, Mueller hedged on the obstruction charge, which is appalling, especially considering that the chief executive has every right to cashier his FBI chief for any reason.

Democrats are as nervous as a criminal defendant at his sentencing, knowing the other shoe might be about to drop. Never did they imagine that their own conspiracy to hatch a false conspiracy against President Trump would not only yield them no fruit but also backfire in their smug faces. For Barr not only sealed shut their farcical investigation; he is signaling that the real investigation against the conspiracy conspirators is afoot.

Multiple criminal leak probes are underway, as well as an inquiry into whether the Steele dossier was part of a Russian disinformation campaign and whether the Democrats, not Trump, were coordinating with the Russians to interfere with the election. Further, Barr could be investigating whether a proper predicate existed for the Obama administration to investigate and spy on Trump and his campaign. Popcorn.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Mueller’s planned statue in the Capitol Rotunda has been dumped

Tucker Carlson disappoints on Venezuela interview

Tucker should know:

As to the question he asks in another segment ~~ when has our interference helped ~ ~ a counter reflection might have come to mind ~~ when has communism helped in South America? ~~

He lets this ComSimp (in red) go unchallenged: (see our annotations in blue)

Journalist Claims Media, Government Are Lying About Venezuela 

A freelance journalist who spent a month this year in Venezuela accused the U.S. government and media of distorting the ongoing crisis in the country, during a Tuesday night appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show.

Venezuelan Interim President Juan Guaidó called for a military uprising against socialist dictator Nicholas Maduro on Tuesday. Maduro is viewed by the Trump administration to be an illegitimate leader after they determined his re-election to be full of fraud and corruption. (RELATED: Firefights In Venezuelan Capital As Military Uprising Ensues)

“Your viewers won’t be shocked to hear this, Tucker, but the fake news media are lying about the situation in Venezuela,” stated Anya Parampil, who was in Venezuela in February. “Let me put it for you this way. Imagine if Hillary Clinton had refused to admit defeat after losing to President Trump in 2016 and banded together a group of 24 U.S. soldiers and attempted to take the White House by force. I don’t think that she would be walking freely on the streets the way that Juan Guaido is right now in Caracas and I certainly think that the news media will be calling it rightfully a coup.”

“The opposition has no popular support. Juan Guaido proves today once again that he will only ride into power on the back of the U.S. tank and what’s more we hear about a humanitarian crisis there, Tucker, but we never hear is that is the intended result of U.S. sanctions, which have targeted Venezuela since 2015,” she continued.

“President Trump if he truly cared about the American — or the Venezuelan people, and American people for that matter, he would end this disastrous policy, he would end the sanctions and he would look into John Bolton’s eyes, into Elliot Abrams’ eyes and Mike Pompeo’s eyes and say, you are fired.”

Members of the Bolivarian National Guard who joined Venezuelan opposition leader and self-proclaimed acting president Juan Guaido fire into the air to repel forces loyal to President Nicolas Maduro who arrived to disperse a demonstration near La Carlota military base in Caracas on April 30, 2019. – Guaido — accused by the government of attempting a coup Tuesday — said there was “no turning back” in his attempt to oust President Nicolas Maduro from power. (Photo by FEDERICO PARRA/AFP/Getty Images)

The Bolivarian National Guard of Venezuela, also called the Armed Forces of Cooperation, is one of the four components of the National Armed Forces of Venezuela.

Columbia, Peru and Brazil came out in support of the military uprising in Venezuela against Maduro. Following opposition forces beginning a military operation to overthrow Maduro, Venezuela’s neighbors endorsed Guaidó, and called for a meeting to address the military uprising.

Isn’t that rather significant Tucker?

The Daily Caller followed up with Parampil and asked her to explain why she believes the United States is backing Guaido. She said:

Regime change has had bipartisan support in countries that resist the US sphere of influence from Yugoslavia to Iraq to Libya to Syria, and now Venezuela. Because Guaido and his shadow administration have promised to privatize Venezuela’s natural resources, which include the largest oil reserves in the world, he satisfies foreign policy elites in both parties, as well as their corporate paymasters.

Bolton has even admitted that US companies would like to get their hands on Venezuela’s oil. It is their interests which many elected Democrats and Republicans both represent: not the desires of the Venezuelan people, and certainly not the US public, which elected Trump because he promised to end these wars. It is time for Trump to fire his national security team—which is lying to him—and abandon this failed and destructive coup policy.

Maduro’s regime is backed by nearby Cuba, as well as China and Russia.  So we should let them have their “influence”

Not only is his legacy as president at stake, but the lives of millions of Venezuelans hang in the balance. They will be the first casualties if the deadly sanctions continue or if the regime change operation escalates into a military intervention.

“Deadly sanctions” –  so a free country (USA) is required to trade with another country?? Further, oil is a fungible commodity and Russia and China are all the “trade” Venezuela needs – they would be happy to take it all and sustain the paradise that is there now!

R Mall

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Tucker Carlson disappoints on Venezuela interview

WHEN WILL “NAPPY” BE CALLED TO TESTIFY?

The background:

“President Donald Trump said Saturday evening that Fox News Channel senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano asked to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court and for a pardon for a friend of the former superior court judge in New Jersey.

“The president tweeted after his rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, that Napolitano turned “very hostile” once his request to be nominated to the highest court in the land was rejected.” (via Breitbart and others; Veritaspac, 4/29/19, “Trump exposes Da Judge”)

Our prediction:

– We’re betting that Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News’ “legal expert” will be called very soon to testify before any number of Democrat-led House Committees about his charge that President Trump is guilty of “Obstruction of Justice”.

– We also believe that “Nappy” will be tickled pink to get to testify.

– On Monday, the former New Jersey Superior Court judge again on Fox News, claimed that, with a few exceptions, the entire legal world was in agreement with him (and Sally Yates) that Trump did “obstruct” justice and the Mueller report provides more than ample evidence.

– In fact, there seems solid evidence that ‘all of legaldom’ does not agree with ‘Nappy’ and Ms. Yates (the Obama admin ‘holdover’, best known for her gross insubordination as Deputy AG in the Trump administration). For example, such legal observers as Andrew McCarthy, former federal prosecutor and Alan Dershowitz, renowned Harvard Law Professor, neither, of course, as smart as the the “Judge”, do not agree at all with him and ‘Sally’.

– Napolitano has become one of President Trump’s most outspoken critics, joining the ranks of Fox News’ “anti-Trumpers”, which include ‘Shep’ Smith, the ‘lovable cherub’, Neil Cavuto, Chris Stirewalt, Juan Williams, newly-hired Donna Brazile, and a few others.

– So, why do we think “Nappy” will be called to testify against President Trump?

Recall our earlier report that President Trump, somewhat annoyed with “Da Judge” tweeted:

“As now widely-known, immediately after the Judge first charged that the Mueller report had provided evidence that Trump had ‘obstructed justice’, the president tweeted that the 68 year old Napolitano had asked that Trump nominate him for the Supreme Court and had been told ‘no’. Trump said that “Nappy” also had asked that Trump intercede on behalf of a ‘mutual friend of theirs. He noted in his tweet that after telling “Nappy” ‘no’ to a SCOTUS nomination , the judge became quite “hostile.”

Since then, a piece by “HotAir” (not known as a big fan of Trump) dug deeper into this squabble     Napolitano hits back at Trump: He was the one who suggested a pardon for one of our mutual friends, not me 

It raises some interesting points: (however speculative)

“Whom do we believe about whether Napolitano “asked” Trump to appoint him to the Supreme Court, Trump or the judge? Politicoreported more than two years ago that Napolitano had been telling friends that he was on the president’s Supreme Court shortlist, an unlikely possibility given his age and relatively limited experience (eight years as a state court judge in New Jersey).

“The fact that he was chattering excitedly about it to confidants suggests that he really was lobbying POTUS for the job, possibly believing — and not without reason — that in Trump’s eyes the highest legal credential one could achieve in the United States is professional law bloviator on Fox News.

“Napolitano’s account of his conversations with Trump… casts their chats in a different light, though. Supposedly Trump was sounding him out about Supreme Court appointments, Napolitano mentioned Gorsuch, and then Trump started nudging the judge to make the pitch for himself. That *does* sound Trumpy, partly ingratiating himself to his audience, partly enjoying the spectacle of a courtier asking him for a job. Napolitano might have walked out of there sincerely believing he was on the shortlist.

“And you know what? Maybe he was, until Trump mentioned it to Don McGahn and Leonard Leo and they side-eyed each other and politely told him that they wouldn’t be doing that.

The dispute over the pardon is more interesting, especially since I feel like it should be relatively easy to figure out who their mutual acquaintance is. How many friends in common could Trump and Napolitano have who have been convicted of a federal crime?
And, Here’s The “Money Shot”!:

Anyway, Trump says the judge pitched him on pardoning their friend but Napolitano says it was more like the opposite, with the judge insisting that their friend had been justly convicted and Trump objecting. And then the judge says something interesting: “He said ‘You know this person as well as I do. Call this person up and tell this person he’s going to be on the list of pardons that I will seriously consider.’” That resembles some of the obstruction allegations in Mueller’s report, with Trump using go-betweens to carry messages and hinting at pardons for the likes of Paul Manafort while he was under pressure by the special counsel to cooperate.

Dah Dah! And there it is!

Does it seem improbable that the nest of snakes in the Democrat congressional caucus won’t pounce on this.

Imagine Nadler, Schiff, Maxine, and the assorted other nasty caricatures heading House committees wetting their pants over this opportunity to invite “Nappy” to appear and give his “credible” testimony on how Trump tried to lure him into criminal, impeachable acts!!
And, good old Nappy will be grinning all the way through it!      DLH

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

You can take what Napolitano didn’t say as truth

First a question:

Will “Nappy” be called to testify by the various Democrat House investigative committees?

We’re betting “YES”!

Of course the Democrat members will be “focused” on what is a statement by a guy who makes his living now by giving flamboyant opinions as a political analyst and who is now denigrated to the churlish and even mendacious. The latter is the focus of American thinker commentator Russ Vaughn in this article: Judge Nap, the mendacious magistrate.

At best Napolitano’s comments accusing Trump of  “obstruction” reflect a biassed prosecutor’s bent, not proper judicial temperament of analyzing the other side objectively and reflecting on law or precedent and presidential authority. His trading on his former mid-level state judgeship where he may never have had to seriously consider anything like what he accuses Trump of is grandiose and dismissible in its entirety.

But reading Napolitano’s rebuttal to Trump’s disclosure about Napolitano’s previously unrevealed importuning of Trump,  a disclaimer he should offer on every future commentary about Trump, one can see that what he doesn’t say is essentially an admission of what can be seen as score settling, wrapped in a robe.  Annotations provided by V’PAC

Andrew Napolitano Responds to Trump Twitter Attacks: ‘This Is the Way You Treat Your Friends’

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has responded to President Trump’s weekend Twitter broadside against him, expressing some surprise to Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo.

“This is the way you treat your friends? How do you treat your enemies?” the judge said while opening up the segment on Monday morning. “He wanted to divert attention from what Mueller had said about him and what I had commented about Mueller to his relationship with me. His relationship with me is not the story. He and I have been friends for 30 years and probably will be for the next 30 years.”

Seriously judge is what you said about Trump “how one treats his friends ”  no benefit of doubt given, a basic requirement of judicial temperament by the way.

Still, Napolitano characterized Trump’s attack on him as “brilliant.”

Only the brilliant can go head to head with you Nappy? – hardly. Trumps response was merely a presentation of facts which you admit and characterization which you can only spin.  Dare we say it looks bad, or is that unjudicious?  Judicious not being something you offer Trump, not to mention friendship.

The segment with Bartiromo came after President Trump denounced Napolitano on Saturday, saying the judge had turned nasty because he wasn’t appointed to the Supreme Court.

“Thank you to brilliant and highly respected attorney Alan Dershowitz for destroying the very dumb legal argument of ‘Judge’ Andrew Napolitano,” Trump tweeted after a Fox News segment. “Ever since Andrew came to my office to ask that I appoint him to the U.S. Supreme Court, and I said NO, he has been very hostile! Also asked for pardon for his friend. A good ‘pal’ of low ratings Shepard Smith.”

On set, the judge answered both charges — suggesting the president has mischaracterized the matter. Though Napolitano did confirm that he and Trump did have two separate 90 minute conversations in the immediate weeks after his 2016 election victory.

“mischaracterized”  Hmmm, a demand for judiciousness, objectivity even charity, . . .How now Jersey cow? Something Napolitano did not entertain as regards Trump especially given all the background to the Mueller “report” –especially 1) no underlying crime 2) Trump knew his innocence 3) a lot was at stake 4) to say the least — overzealous prosecution.

With “friends” like Napolitano Trump doesn’t need enemies.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

Government “shutdown” where is thy sting?

Article at The Daily Torch (Americans for Limited Government) Bold emphasis ours. Image not in original.

Government shutdowns don’t cause recessions. The Trump economy grew at 3.2 percent in the first quarter. 

By Robert Romano

The U.S. economy grew at an inflation-adjusted 3.2 percent annualized in the first quarter of 2019, putting it on track to get to 3 percent for the year for the first time since 2005, according to data compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The startling data undoubtedly caught official Washington, D.C. by surprise, who had been gleefully predicting that the partial government shutdown earlier this year would cause a slowdown particularly to government contractors who, unlike federal employees, were not awarded backpay after the shutdown ended.

Unfortunately for the establishment punditry, whatever effect slower spending might have had was more than offset by the strength of the Trump economy.

The Congressional Budget Office had estimated that the partial shutdown cost the U.S. economy $3 billion of output in the fourth quarter of 2018, and $8 billion of output in the first quarter of 2019, respectively.

But it did not matter.

Most of that came out of $245 million of government contracts a day not paid out during the shutdown. Again, federal employees who were furloughed during that time have already been awarded back pay, including for the last week of 2018, the output of which has been moved into the first quarter of 2019.

Because government spending is factored into the GDP, and the reduction was actually $8.1 billion, amounts to approximately 0.16 percent according to the Bureau, or 0.17 percent annualized that came out of the first quarter GDP’s growth rate.

So, instead of 3.2 percent (really, 3.17 percent rounded up), the economy might have grown at 3.34 percent in the first quarter without the government shutdown.

But that does not matter, either. It will be made up for in the second quarter and beyond as government contractor spending “grows” by $8 billion back to its normal level. As the CBO report noted, “In subsequent quarters, GDP will be temporarily higher than it would have been in the absence of a shutdown.”

Meaning, not only will it be a wash, but it could give the second quarter some breathing room. Now, to get to 3 percent for 2019 — the economy has not averaged more than 3 percent annual growth since 2005, and not above 4 percent since 2000 — assuming today’s number holds, the real GDP needs to grow at a little more than 2.99 percent each of the remaining quarters. Which should be a bit easier with the additional 0.17 percent boost supposedly coming in the second quarter.

All of which speaks to the continued vitality of the Trump economy as President Donald Trump’s third year in office begins. Growth is strong, unemployment is low, inflation is stable. The tax cuts, deregulation and better trade deals are all working. After a decade of stagnation under former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden, now the numbers are all headed in the right direction.

President Trump could not ask for a better recipe headed into 2020.

Make no mistake, if the economy was not performing well, Trump would most certainly get the political blame. That means when it does well, the President deserves the same measure of credit. But knowing the way official Washington, D.C. works, nobody should be holding their breath for plaudits.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Government “shutdown” where is thy sting?

Trump exposes Da Judge

A little “constitutional” perspective is in order on Da Judge   DLH

Via Breitbart and others:

President Donald Trump said Saturday evening that Fox News Channel senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano asked to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court and for a pardon for a friend of the former superior court judge in New Jersey.

The president tweeted after his rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, that Napolitano turned “very hostile” once his request to be nominated to the highest court in the land was rejected.

“Thank you to brilliant and highly respected attorney Alan Dershowitz for destroying the very dumb legal argument of “Judge” Andrew Napolitano,” wrote President Trump.

You can take the boy out of Jersey . . .

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Trump exposes Da Judge

If Trump Has Lost “Nappy” and “Miss Peggy”, He’s Lost the Nation! (?)

Seems that the slander section (Part 2) of the Mueller Report has given emotional license to some of President Trump’s longtime , thinly and obviously disguised critics to really cut loose this past week.

Perhaps most prominent among them is the aging, bitter, and wildly overrated ‘media princess’, Peggy Noonan and the hack former New Jersey Superior Court Judge and the Fox News’ Murdoch boys’ favorite “legal expert”, “Judge” Andrew Napolitano.

Each descended to their personal worst this week…unsurprising in her hatred for Trump was Noonan and for “Nappy” just a shocking progression of his unhidden hidden dislike for Trump.

In the case of Judge Napolitano, it appears that with the takeover of Fox by Rupert’s sons, the very liberal James and Lachlan Murdoch, the self-proclaimed Libertarian has “woke”. In recent months and years, Napolitano has evolved into one of Fox’s most prominent Trump critics. It has been somewhat of a race between “Nappy” and ‘Shep’ and Neil Cavuto to see who will eventually capture the “Maxine Waters Impeachment” trophy first.

In what to us was the “Judge’s” strongest, and we believe most embarrassing outburst yet, Napolitano, on Friday, termed “the president’s behavior as described in the Mueller Report “immoral,” “criminal,” “defenseless” and “condemnable” (“condemnable”? Wow! Nappy, that’s pretty strong stuff!).

“Prosecutors prosecute people who interfere with government functions and that’s what the president did by obstruction, where is this going to end? I don’t know, but I am disappointed in the behavior of the president,” Napolitano said during a monologue of his Fox Nation show “Judge Napolitano’s Chambers.”

“If he had ordered his aides to violate federal law to save a human life or to preserve human freedom, he would at least have a moral defense to his behavior,” he added. “But ordering them to break federal law to save him from the consequences of his own behavior, that is immoral, that is criminal, that is defenseless, that is condemnable.”

I don’t recall hearing in this diatribe that the judge acknowledged “in my opinion”. But, I believe that it was…and nothing more. Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and widely respected legal authority acknowledges that some details in Mueller’s report paint the president in an “unsavory” light but actually only provide “grist” for the Democrats to pursue impeachment. As to “obstruction” McCarthy convincingly disagrees with Napolitano…and doesn’t even feel a need to use words like “condemnable”.

It may be interesting to note that Napolitano is nothing if not ‘flexible’. He quickly picked up that Fox is under new management, and by golly, he’s ‘adaptable’. Some may recall that in 2017, the Judge was ‘pulled off the air’ for an indefinite period, related to a ‘conspiracy theory’ involving President Trump’s accusation that former President Obama had “wiretapped” him. Napolitano, at that time agreed that Trump’s accusation was accurate.

But then, “Nappy” got the “Lachlan/James memo”.

Ya think Napolitano will repeat that ‘wire tap’ thing’ , given it has since been proven?

The handsomely coifed legal expert and one time New Jersey judge also advised us that Attorney General William Barr’s views on the issue were out of step with “the obstruction statute” as well as “law enforcement.” We hope General Barr takes this “expert analysis” to heart.

Remember it comes from a refugee from that bastion of true justice, New Jersey, where the old joke used to be that “the economy is so bad in the Garden State that the Mafia had to lay off 12 judges.”
—–

As for “Miss Peggy”,  it is just the ‘usual’ invective and inaccuracy

In her outburst, little new, just more critical assessment from the left’s favorite ‘Republican’:

“How Trump Lost Half of Washington”

The title of her latest column on President Trump’s shortcomings, observes that “The old ambassadors were willing to give him a chance. He destabilized the whole town instead.”

Highlights:

“Donald Trump was not their type. But early on they were willing to give him a chance.

– “When he came in he was a shock to the system, almost literally. He didn’t act like a liberal or a Democrat, or a conservative or a Republican. It was not clear he thought, as opposed to felt. It was clear he was emotional—lots of resentments, wounds and complaints. As the first year went by and then the second the stories were out there, sometimes from his own aides. He doesn’t read, doesn’t like his briefings, he’s spending time tweeting and watching television. He’s picking fights with celebrities and haranguing the Boy Scout Jamboree about our rotten media. He’s firing people or they’re resigning—the chief of staff, chief strategist, then the generals. The travel ban, Charlottesville, he’s a “stable genius,” he’s shoving the prime minister of Montenegro and blowing up immigration talks.”

– “They feared Madness of King George-ism. They’d come to think the president was, irredeemably, a screwball. In the nuclear age this is a dangerous thing.”

– “And so a closing word on the Mueller report. I have thought since the
beginning that appointing a special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election was right and justified; that Robert Mueller was an excellent choice because of his experience and integrity. Also his age and stage. He was a patriot looking to finish a distinguished career with integrity. He hired killers, tough lawyers and investigators who were hunting the whale and intended to harpoon it. They did everything they could to get the story. What they produced is a more dreadful portrait of Mr. Trump than his supporters will know, because most Americans won’t read it.
I
n the end, Mr. Mueller did not bring charges. He left it to Congress.
Should the Democrats move to impeach? No, not for reasons of merit but of national interest.

Progressives will want to proceed with their usual blithe rage. But the investigation lasted almost two years. It was exhaustive and consumed daily headlines. Trump supporters, almost half the country, will feel, understandably, that its work is complete. They would experience an impeachment attempt as proof of what they always assumed: that this whole thing was a cynical attempt by the left to achieve by other means what it could not achieve at the ballot box.

They would see it as subverting democracy. And anything that damages faith in democracy at this point in our national life should be rejected. We need to build trust and faith, not lessen it.”

– “It is 2019. We elect a president in 2020. Democrats would be wise to spend the next year showing America that their party is capable of governing, up to leadership, that its ideas are not crazy but pertinent, that it actually has a philosophy.

Seriousness and calm would be nice, and after the past few years would serve as a welcome counterpoint. There is an unarticulated wish out there to return to some past in which things were deeply imperfect and certainly divided but on some level tranquil, and not half mad.”

——
And there it is…the ‘gospel’ according to ‘Miss Peggy’ , the person who “saved” the Reagan presidency (in her own mind)!:

“What they (Mueller & Co.) produced is a more dreadful portrait of Mr. Trump than his supporters will know, because most Americans won’t read it.”  (including so many of her readers who will rely on her reckless biased interpretation)

If you are a Trump supporter, it’s only because you’re ignorant of all the stuff Peggy, “Nappy”, Adam Schiff, and Bob Mueller know about “how Trump lost half of Washington”.

DLH

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on If Trump Has Lost “Nappy” and “Miss Peggy”, He’s Lost the Nation! (?)

Scandal was Obama /Biden MO —

– Touching virtually all of their “progressive” achievements particularly “Obamacare”, foreign policy (Iran),  “good government”, the environment, domestic spying and more.

– More will be coming out as various inquiries are finalized and issued

– And talk about obstruction of justice – the Obama /Biden Administration and Inspectors General SCANDAL

 

You of course heard JoeDumb Biden this week repeating Obama’s own claim near the conclusion of his time in office — words to the effect ~~ not a whisper of scandal ~~

Below are excerpts and links from various sources (some of our selections overlap) indicating more than a share of  lawless, high-handed reckless lying behavior by the Obama administration  – of course largely ignored by the selectively deaf liberal mainstream media. Visit the links for more fleshing out of each item.

Washington Times:

Former Vice President Joseph Biden says anyone looking to the Obama administration for a “whisper” of scandal will come up empty.

The 2020 presidential hopeful told the ladies of ABC’s “The View” on Friday that his proudest accomplishment while serving the White House is absolute avoidance of scandal.

“The thing I’m proudest of is, coincidentally, we were each in a different part of the country and we were each talking to groups of people that were being televised,” Mr. Biden said. “The same day, purely coincidentally, we were asked, ‘what are you proudest of from your administration?’ You know what I said — he said the same thing as I did. Not one single whisper of scandal. That’s because of Barack Obama.”

“That’s right,” responded co-host Joy Behar. “I know. He’s amazing.”

Conservatives have long argued otherwise regarding the Obama era.

“Mr. Obama has presided over some of the worst scandals of any president in recent decades,” The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky wrote in January 2017. “The president’s journalistic allies are happily echoing the ‘scandal-free’ myth. Time’s Joe Klein claims Mr. Obama has had ‘absolutely no hint of scandal’ in his presidency. The media’s failure to cover the Obama administration critically has been a scandal in itself — but at least the president can’t be blamed for that one.”

The conservative think tank’s partial list of Obama administration scandals include:

    • State Department email: “In an effort to evade federal open-records laws, Mr. Obama’s first secretary of state set up a private server, which she used exclusively to conduct official business, including communications with the president and the transmission of classified material. A federal criminal investigation produced no charges, but FBI Director James Comey reported that the secretary and her colleagues ‘were extremely careless’ in handling national secrets.”
    • Operation Fast and Furious: “The Obama Justice Department lost track of thousands of guns it had allowed to pass into the hands of suspected smugglers, in the hope of tracing them to Mexican drug cartels. One of the guns was used in the fatal 2010 shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Congress held then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt when he refused to turn over documents about the operation.”
    • IRS abuses: “Mr. Obama’s Internal Revenue Service did something Richard Nixon only dreamed of doing: It successfully targeted political opponents. The Justice Department then refused to enforce Congress’ contempt citation against the IRS’s Lois Lerner, who refused to answer questions about her agency’s misconduct.”
    • Benghazi: “Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed in the attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya. With less than two months to go before the 2012 election, the State Department falsely claimed the attack was not a terrorist attack but a reaction to an anti-Muslim film. Emails from the secretary later showed that she knew the attack was terrorism. Justice Department prosecutors even convinced a magistrate judge to jail the filmmaker.”
    • Hacking: “Mr. Obama presided over the biggest data breach in the federal government’s history, at the Office of Personnel Management.”
    • Veterans Affairs: “At least 40 U.S. veterans died waiting for appointments at a Phoenix VA facility, many of whom had been on a secret waiting list — part of an effort to conceal that between 1,400 and 1,600 veterans were forced to wait months for appointments.”

“All of these scandals were accompanied by a lack of transparency so severe that 47 of Mr. Obama’s 73 inspectors general signed an open letter in 2014 decrying the administration’s stonewalling of their investigations,” Mr. von Spakovsky added.

Daily Wire:

Obama Says He’s Had A Scandal-Free Administration. Here Are 11 of His Scandals.

1. Operation Fast and Furious.
2. Benghazi.
3. The IRS targeted conservative organizations.
4. The DOJ seized Associated Press phone records as well as phone and email records from Fox News reporter James Rosen.
5. The NSA conducted mass surveillance against American citizens without a warrant.
6. The Obama administration paid ransom to Iran for hostages, and lied to the American people about it
7. Hillary’s email scandal. Clinton’s use of a private email server
8. The Environmental Protection Agency poisoned a Colorado river.
9. The EPA also broke federal law in promoting a regulation. Environmental Protection Agency poisoned a Colorado river.
10. The GSA scandal. The General Services Administration
11. The Secret Service scandal.

ThoughtCo.com (more at the site)

The Biggest Controversies of Barack Obama’s Presidency

  • AP Phone Records Scandal
  • Illegal Immigrants and Obamacare
  • Sequestration and the Federal Budget
  • Use of Executive Power

Washington Examiner;

LIST: Obama’s 29 scandals and the media’s campaign to hide them

The Federalist:

Obama Says ‘I Didn’t Have Scandals.’ So What Are All These?  (Harsanyi)

As it was, the Obama administration persistently ignored courts and oversight, breaking norms because it was allowed to do so. The president was articulate, friendly, and progressive. He might have executed an American citizen without a trial (not a scandal!), but his contempt for the process could be forgiven.

It’s why Obama could secretly send planes filled with cash to pay a ransom to a terror state (using money earmarked for terror victims) and most reporters and analysts would regurgitate the justification they heard in the echo chamber. One Politico reporter might drop a 14,000-word heavily sourced investigative piece (two officials involved in the program went on the record) detailing how the Obama administration undermined law enforcement efforts to shut down an international drug-trafficking ring run by the terror group Hezbollah operating in the United States, and most major news organizations never even mentioned the piece.

When they did, it was usually to give space to former Obama officials to smear the reporter.

It needn’t be said, but if the names were changed to Trump and Russia, the president would be accused of sedition. But by any conceivable journalistic standard, it’s a scandal that should have triggered widespread coverage. So when we see mass indignation over every single hyperbolic statement from the current president, it’s a bit difficult to buy the outrage.

An Obama official famously bragged to The New York Times Magazine that he could rely on the ignorance, inexperience, and partisan dispositions of reporters to convey administration talking points to help push through preferred policy. Rather than being hurt or embarrassed by this kind of accusation of unprofessionalism, many reporters are more reliant on the same people than ever before.

Yet many professionals who supposedly deplore the authoritarian nature of an administration that doesn’t answer CNN’s questions were generally quiet when Obama spied on reporters. The Obama DOJ spied on the Associated Press in an attempt to crack down on internal leaks. The DOJ tapped around 20 different phone lines—including cell phone and home lines—that snared at least 100 staffers who worked for the outlet. The Justice Department spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen in 2010, collecting his telephone records, looking at his personal emails and tracking his movements. . . .

or, perhaps the most immoral, the Veterans Affairs’ negligence regarding veterans, they would never admit they faced a scandal.

American Thinker:

No scandals? Biden repeats an old Obama whopper   (Monica Showalter)

So let’s get this straight here: The Benghazi coverup never happened. The IRS targeting of dissidents never happened, either. The Gold River pollution on traditional Native American lands by the EPA never happened. Solyndra never happened. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never had an illegal private server in some guy’s bathroom. She never sold 20% of the U.S. uranium supply to Russia, and her bleachbitting of her subpoenaed emails was perfectly scandal-free, as well as her smashing of Blackberries with hammers. The fact that top-secret emails turned up in Anthony Weiner’s perverted computer, for the New York cops to read, was a nothingburger. And if you like your doctor…

Actually, the Obama administration was probably the most scandal-plagued of all administrations, and for one important reason: There was never any housecleaning. Do a bad act and let your Democratic Party affiliation be your protection. I have always suspected that former FBI director James Comey’s exoneration of Hillary Clinton for her private email legal violations was the big thing that made voters break for Donald Trump in 2016. The one set of laws for one elite, and the second set for everyone else, was what got Obama’s team thrown out.

Now we are coming off more Obama scandals from the Mueller report – with President Obama in possession of Clinton’s deleted emails, and questions raised about unmaskings and bad uses of FISA warrants, and Joe Biden brings up the years-old baloney about Obama being scandal free?

Fox News (via Gateway Pundit):

Gov’t watchdogs urge Congress to reverse Obama administration IG crackdown

WASHINGTON – Nearly six-dozen watchdog agencies are asking Congress to step in after the Obama administration clamped down on access to government records they say are vital for their investigations into waste, fraud and abuse.

The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency sent an Aug. 3 letter to congressional leaders ahead of a hearing scheduled for Wednesday where they will ask lawmakers to pass legislation reversing a controversial decision made July 20 by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. The OLC is now requiring investigators to get permission to review sensitive documents from the very agencies they are monitoring.

This decision, the letter said, “represents a serious threat to the independent authority” of all inspectors general.

IGs are assigned to audit and conduct internal reviews of federal agencies, and recently have been responsible for investigating the IRS targeting scandal, TSA security gaps, personal email use at the State Department and other issues.

The council represents about 70 IG offices across the government, including for the Federal Communications Commission, the National Security Agency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. While the July 20 ruling applies to the DOJ, some are worried it will prompt other departments to set similar restrictions.
More On This…

DOJ spokeswoman Emily Pierce countered the claims, saying the ruling still allows investigators to get sensitive information.

“The Department has long held the position that the Inspector General should have access to all the information it needs to perform its essential oversight function,” she said in a statement. “Consistent with this view, Department leadership has implemented procedures to ensure that the Inspector General receives sensitive law enforcement information in a timely manner. Additionally, the Department is committed to working with Congress and the Inspector General on legislation to address any gaps in the law that may hamper the Inspector General’s ability to access such information in a timely manner.”

The 68-page memo makes clear, though, that access IG investigators had in the past involving credit information as well as sensitive grand jury testimony could hinge going forward on whether the department allows it.

On Capitol Hill, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., as well as Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and John Conyers, D-Mich., said the DOJ rule is a clear violation of the Inspector General Act of 1978.

Grassley accused the DOJ of already denying and delaying IG access related to the notorious “Operation Fast and Furious” scandal as well as “sex parties” involving Drug Enforcement Administration agents.

In the Aug. 3 letter sent to lawmakers, the inspectors general asked Congress to pass a new law that would “unambiguously state and provide what we in the Inspector General community have long understood – that no law or provision restricting access to information applies to Inspectors General unless the law or provision expressly so states.”

“Without timely and unfettered access to all necessary information, Inspectors General cannot ensure that all government programs and operations are subjected to exacting and independent scrutiny,” the letter said. “Refusing, restricting, or delaying an Inspector General’s independent access may lead to incomplete, inaccurate, or significantly delayed findings and recommendations, which in turn may prevent the agency from promptly correcting serious problems and pursuing recoveries that benefit taxpayers, and deprive Congress of timely information regarding the agency’s activities.”

The letter goes on to say the restrictions could “impede or otherwise inhibit investigations and prosecutions” related to agency operations.

The backlash from the July 20 ruling was almost immediate – with the harshest criticism coming from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz himself.

“I strongly disagree with the OLC opinion,” Horowitz said in a statement following the ruling. “Congress meant what it said when it authorized Inspectors General to independently access ‘all’ documents necessary to conduct effective oversight. … Without such access, our office’s ability to conduct its work will be significantly impaired.”

Horowitz, who chairs the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, said the new rules might actually increase cases of fraud, waste and abuse.

The inspectors general of the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Capitol Police and the Government Printing Office did not sign the letter. Most IGs did.

Gateway Pundit:

HERE IT IS: Complete List of the Many Times Obama Spied on Candidate and President Trump and Numerous Others

HERE IT IS: Complete List of the Many Times Obama Spied on Candidate and President Trump and Numerous Others

(WikiLeaks released the following list on February 23rd (see link here) of Obama Administration wire taps.)* The US National Security Agency bugged a private climate change strategy meeting; between UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin;

* Obama bugged Chief of Staff of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for long term interception targetting his Swiss phone;

* Obama singled out the Director of the Rules Division of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Johann Human, and targetted his Swiss phone for long term interception;

* Obama stole sensitive Italian diplomatic cables detailing how Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implored Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to help patch up his relationship with US President Barack Obama, who was refusing to talk to Netanyahu;

* Obama intercepted top EU and Japanese trade ministers discussing their secret strategy and red lines to stop the US “extort[ing]” them at the WTO Doha arounds (the talks subsequently collapsed);

* Obama explicitly targeted five other top EU economic officials for long term interception, including their French, Austrian and Belgium phone numbers;

* Obama explicitly targetted the phones of Italy’s ambassador to NATO and other top Italian officials for long term interception; and

* Obama intercepted details of a critical private meeting between then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel and Berluscon, where the latter was told the Italian banking system was ready to “pop like a cork”.In addition to the above list we also noted that Obama wire tapped various individuals in the US media that were reporting information not flattering to the Obama Administration.  It is widely known that Obama’s Justice Department targeted journalists with wiretaps in 2013:* In 2013 the liberal Washington Post expressed outrage after the revelation that the Justice Department had investigated the news gathering activities of a Fox News reporter as a potential crime in a probe of classified leaks.  The reporter, Fox News’ James Rosen and his family, were part of an investigation into government officials anonymously leaking information to journalists. Rosen was not charged but his movements and actions were tracked.* Also in 2013, members of the Associated Press were a target of surveillance.  The ultra liberal New Yorker even noted that “In moderate and liberal circles, at least, the phone-records scandal, partly because it involves the dear old A.P. and partly because it raises anew the specter of Big Brother, may well present the most serious threat to Obama’s reputation.”* Reporter Sharyl Attkisson said in 2014 that her personal computer and CBS laptop were hacked after she began filing stories about Benghazi that were unflattering to the Obama administration.  A source who checked her laptop said the hacker used spyware “proprietary to a government agency,” according to an article in the New York Post.Finally, we reported that WikiLeaks tweeted that the Obama Administration spied on their journalists as well:

Now we know that Obama spied on the Trump campaign, Presidency and his team as well. 

Shortly after President-elect Trump won the election and before President Trump’s tweets in March 2017 noted above, it was reported that –

On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-Elect Donald Trump.

It is suspected that Rogers went to Trump Tower unannounced to share with him that he was being spied on.  President-elect Trump moved his transition team from Trump Tower to one of his golf courses the very next day after Admiral Rogers’ visit –

President-elect Donald Trump is moving the transition meetings Friday from Trump Tower in New York to Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, said transition team officials.

By March 22, 2017, it was confirmed by Congressman Devin Nunes that Trump associates were spied on by American intelligence (the Obama Administration) –

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., whose congressional committee is investigating whether Russia interfered with the U.S. 2016 election, said he had been given access to intelligence reports that confirm Trump’s associates were spied on by American intelligence – operating under the auspices of President Obama.

We know that Trump volunteer George Papadopoulos was spied on my multiple characters from US and foreign entities (none Russian) in Europe in early 2016, long before the FBI said they started their Trump-Russia sham investigation in July 2016. Papadopoulos was set up in his interactions with the Deep State spies in Europe and by Italian, Australian and UK related spies and spy entities all working with the Obama Administration.

We also know that General Mike Flynn, Carter Page, Sam Clovis and other Trump team members were spied on by Stefan Halper, one of the same spies who interacted with Papadopoulos.  The Trump team was spied on by others as well.

We know that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussed wearing a wire into the White House.  (We really don’t know if he did wear the wire or not.)

We also know that former and now fired FBI Director James Comey met with President-elect and then President Trump and took notes for the sole purpose of spying on Trump.  He then leaked his reports to the MSM.  President Trump responded with the following –

The MSM again went into overdrive speculating that President Trump had tapes like Nixon did during Watergate.  As it turned out the President had no tapes.  (What the MSM never asked is whether Comey wire tapped the meetings with Trump and if so, whether Trump knew it when he fired off the above tweet!  Time will tell.)

Now this past week we find out that Obama and his Deep State cronies appear to have spied on the President in the White House.  The wife of former Chief of Staff to Mike Pence Joshua Pitcock was working for dirty cop Peter Strzok and investigating into Hillary Clinton’s crimes.  This comes after it was reported that lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were “cultivating sources” to spy and inform them on President Trump.

The Obama Deep State gang of dirty cops and crooked diplomats spied on everybody.  The question is – who didn’t they spy on?


V’PAC

Posted in MEDIA BIAS, UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

No further comment

 

Yes, each at left, that’s two of NBC’s most celebrated and erudite political commentators

 

 

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on No further comment

Short takes

From DLH

McCain family to support Biden in 2020 race in bid to defeat Trump
THIS IS ‘NEWS’?!

McCain and the family Supported Hillary!, if the truth were known…

And, finally, who cares? We’re betting that if Biden fails to get the nomination, the “McCain family” will happily support whatever Democrat is nominated!

The late Sen. John McCain’s family plans to support former Vice President Joe Biden’s White House bid, backing the Democrat not only in his party’s crowded primary race but also in a general election matchup with President Trump, the Washington Examiner has learned.

In an extraordinary snub to Trump, who derided McCain’s Vietnam War service and mocked him even after his death last August at age 81, the McCain family is preparing to break with the Republican Party. McCain represented the party in Congress for 35 years and was chosen as its presidential nominee in 2008, losing to Barack Obama.

Sources close to both Biden’s presidential campaign and the McCains said that at some point during the White House race, McCain’s widow Cindy, 64, and daughter Meghan, 34, a host on “The View,” will offer their public support in the hope of removing Trump from office in 2020.


Speaking of The View —

Joy “The Oink” Behar
Another inane remark from probably THE dumbest, most malodorous  ‘personality’ (an oxymoron) on television (she has a lot of competition…on CNN alone)!

Why “newsbusters” would bother to publicize this psychologically crippled crank ‘s latest outburst is a mystery to me. But, if you want to read more, the link is provided.

Joy Behar Worries to Gillibrand, Trump Might Win in 2020 Because Dems ‘Won’t Play Dirty!’ 


“Late night TV is awash in liberal voices, and has been this way for some time now. Is there room for at least one right-leaning show?”

There already is a great “right-leaning” comedy show!
Unfortunately, it’s only on once a week but it shows how “right leaning” comedy can be done!

It’s the Greg Gutfeld Show on Fox on Saturday Night…and makes Fallon, Colbert, Kimmel, et al, look like ‘Amateur Night” at the Comeback Saloon.


Disclaimer: the Greg Gutfeld Show is not a sponsor of Veritaspac

LATE NIGHT RIGHT: WHERE ARE THE REPUBLICANS ON EVENING TV?

“Late night comedians pounced on the Mueller report with predictable results.
They either shredded Attorney General Bill Barr or claimed President Donald Trump was still guilty of something. No one cracked wise about the Democrats who screamed “collusion,” without evidence, for the past two years.

DLH

 

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Comments Off on Short takes