16 thoughts on “News/Politics 5-30-19

  1. Shameful, deceitful, disgraceful, unAmerican, underhanded…. no matter the term used, they all describe Mueller’s final, universally criticized act.

    He’s a coward, with an agenda to cast shade on those now investigating his and his teams actions. Plus he’s trying to protect his deep state buddies with a distraction from their treasonous acts.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445983-dershowitz-shame-on-robert-mueller-for-exceeding-his-role#.XO7RNRd2GnU.twitter

    “Dershowitz: Shame on Robert Mueller for exceeding his role”

    “The statement by special counsel Robert Mueller in a Wednesday press conference that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said that” is worse than the statement made by then FBI Director James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. Comey declared in a July 2016 press conference that “although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information.”

    Comey was universally criticized for going beyond his responsibility to state whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Clinton. Mueller, however, did even more. He went beyond the conclusion of his report and gave a political gift to Democrats in Congress who are seeking to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump. By implying that President Trump might have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings. Obstruction of justice is a “high crime and misdemeanor” which, under the Constitution, authorizes impeachment and removal of the president.

    Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.

    Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor, and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different.”

    ————————

    https://nypost.com/2019/05/29/muellers-final-statement-was-a-disgraceful-mess/

    “Robert Mueller’s ‘final statement’ was a disgraceful mess”

    “His statement was only 8 minutes long. The report is 400 pages long. It matters what he chose to repeat from it and what he did not. He wanted the American people to hear him speak those words. He wanted to emphasize this point.

    The “I couldn’t exonerate him” point is discomfiting for another reason, which is: Since when do prosecutors exonerate people? That isn’t a prosecutor’s job. Maybe in the aftermath of a wrongful conviction, with irrefutable physical evidence, prosecutors will say something exculpatory. But even in most of these cases, they usually drop charges on grounds of insufficient evidence, not positive proof of innocence.

    The obvious rejoinder here is that the president of the United States isn’t just any person and that it is bad for our government and our country for a dark cloud to hang over the president’s head. Therefore, in theory, dissipating that cloud would be a good thing (even if such a purpose was not in any way Mueller’s charge when he was hired in 2017).

    Mueller wanted the American people to hear him say he couldn’t dissipate the cloud. And by announcing that, he just spread it out over the president’s head again. This is why his peculiar locutions and soothsayer ambiguity represent a terrible failure of his mission as a public servant in this case.

    He hasn’t clarified. He has muddied.”

    ——————

    As was his intent.

    Like

  2. Robert Mueller, partisan fraud.

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/robert-mueller-partisan-fraud.php

    “Much has been written about Robert Mueller’s appearance before the press today, in which spoke briefly and nervously, repeating points that have already been made ad nauseam in his own report and elsewhere. Why did he do it? And why did he appear so nervous while he did it? Speculation has been rampant.

    Scott posted a transcript of Mueller’s remarks earlier today. Much could be said about them, but I want to focus on just one aspect of Mueller’s characterization of his own investigation.

    Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel’s office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

    The key word there is “included.” What else did Mueller’s charge include? Nothing, apparently. But we actually know that there were “links” between a presidential campaign and Russians who (if they existed at all) likely were associated with Putin’s regime. The campaign was Hillary Clinton’s, and the Russians were those on whose reports Christopher Steele based his infamous dossier.

    Hillary Clinton’s campaign went looking for Russians who could serve up dirt on Donald Trump. In a futile attempt to avoid illegality, the campaign told its lawyers at the Perkins Coie firm to contract with Fusion GPS, run by fervent Democrat Glenn Simpson, who in turn contracted with Christopher Steele to try to find Russians who had (or could make up) useful information on Trump. The Clinton campaign used these multiple cut-outs so it could falsely report the money it paid to Steele as “legal expenses” incurred at Perkins Coie. Maybe somewhere there is a U.S. Attorney who would like to take a look at this.

    Just kidding. Christopher Steele obliged the Clinton campaign by finding several Russians who, based on the information they pretended to have, almost certainly were associated with Putin’s regime. Or maybe he didn’t find them at all; maybe he just made up all of the nonsense in the “dossier” and charged the Clinton campaign for his fantasies. Probably neither Steele nor the Clinton campaign cared one way or the other.

    If we assume Steele didn’t fabricate the whole thing, then he colluded on behalf of the Clinton campaign with Russian officials or insiders who told him lies. He fed these lies back to the Clinton campaign, which, as Byron York reminds us, did its best to use these Russian fables to win the presidential election.”

    Like

  3. Questions

    After listening to everything yesterday

    1. Have you changed your opinion on anything?
    2. Are you more confident that our leaders know what they’re doing?
    3 Do you think anyone cares?

    Like

  4. And the whole thing looks more fraudulent by the day. And now we know why they had to go after Gen. Flynn with a trumped up process crime.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/446050-did-brits-warn-about-steeles-credibility-before-muellers-probe-congress#.XO8REW2b-dk.twitter

    “Did Brits warn about Steele’s credibility, before Mueller’s probe? Congress has evidence”

    “One of the deepest, darkest secrets of Russiagate soon may be unmasked. Even President Trump may be surprised.

    Multiple witnesses have told Congress that, a week before Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, Britain’s top national security official sent a private communique to the incoming administration, addressing his country’s participation in the counterintelligence probe into the now-debunked Trump-Russia election collusion.

    Most significantly, then-British national security adviser Sir Mark Lyall Grant claimed in the memo, hand-delivered to incoming U.S. national security adviser Mike Flynn’s team, that the British government lacked confidence in the credibility of former MI6 spy Christopher Steele’s Russia collusion evidence, according to congressional investigators who interviewed witnesses familiar with the memo.

    Steele, of course, was the political opposition researcher-turned-FBI-informant whose dossier the FBI and Obama Justice Department used to justify spying on the Trump campaign in the final days of the 2016 election cycle. The dossier was funded by Fusion GPS, a research firm hired by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

    Congressional investigators have interviewed two U.S. officials who handled the memo, confirmed with the British government that a communique was sent, and alerted the Department of Justice (DOJ) to the information. One witness confirmed to Congress that he was interviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller about the memo.

    Now the race is on to locate the document in U.S. intelligence archives, to see if the witnesses’ recollections are correct. And Trump is headed to Britain this weekend, where he might just get a chance to ask his own questions.

    “A whistleblower recently revealed the existence of a communique from our allies in Great Britain during the early days of the Russia collusion investigation,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, told me.

    “Based on my conversations with that individual, and the credible timelines that are supported by other events, I made a referral to Attorney General William Barr and Inspector General Michael Horowitz for further investigation,” he added. “There now is overwhelming evidence to suggest that on multiple occasions the FBI was warned that Christopher Steele and the dossier had severe credibility issues.””

    ———————–

    And Mueller knew it too, yet continued his witch hunt for 2 years anyway.

    Like

  5. Claims of doctored audio in 3, 2, 1…..

    That’s what they always say when they’re caught letting the truth slip out.

    —————-

    Like

  6. More fake news.

    —————————–

    Quickly debunked.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/47816/reporter-claims-name-uss-john-mccain-covered-ryan-saavedra

    “A Wall Street Journal reporter with a history of anti-Trump bias claimed on Wednesday that the White House covered the name of the USS John McCain during President Donald Trump’s recent visit to Japan — which was later disputed by multiple sources.

    In a tweet that went viral, WSJ reporter Rebecca Ballhaus wrote that “a tarp was hung over the ship’s name ahead of the trip, and sailors—who wear caps bearing the ship’s name—were given the day off for Trump’s visit.”

    “A tarp was hung over the ship’s name ahead of the president’s trip, according to photos reviewed by the Journal, and sailors were directed to remove any coverings from the ship that bore its name,” Ballhaus wrote in her report. “After the tarp was taken down, a barge was moved closer to the ship, obscuring its name. Navy officials acknowledge the barge was moved but said it was not moved to obscure the name of the ship.”

    Ballhaus’s tweet and report went viral and were used to immediately attack the president before any additional information was able to come out.

    A couple of hours later, the Navy Chief of Information tweeted: “The name of USS John S. McCain was not obscured during the POTUS visit to Yokosuka on Memorial Day. The Navy is proud of that ship, its crew, its namesake and its heritage.”

    Like

  7. —————–

    Like

  8. Like

  9. This new narrative is already busted.

    ———

    https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/05/29/march-5-mueller-told-barr-three-times-non-decision-obstruction-nothing-olc/

    “On March 5, Mueller Told Barr THREE Times His Non-Decision On Obstruction Had Nothing To Do With OLC”

    “In his statement this morning, Robert Mueller said “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” He also said that, because of Office of Legal Counsel guidance, his team did not have the option of charging a sitting president with a crime.

    This is the opposite of what he told Attorney General William Barr and several other DOJ officials at a meeting which took place on March 5th.

    Barr was asked about why Mueller had failed to come to a conclusion on the question of obstruction of justice during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1st. He said, “We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this. Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”

    Barr made a similar remark at the press conference he held prior to the public release of the redacted Mueller Report. He told reporters, “We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that was not his position.””

    Like

  10. Like

  11. Says the reporter caught changing quotes related to Trump in the past..

    You forgot that part. That’s her interpretation of what he said.

    —————-

    Like

  12. And just a reminder, the USS McCain is named for the late Senator’s father, not the McCain Trump had a problem with.

    Like

  13. More…..

    https://hotair.com/archives/2019/05/30/mystery-week-ordered-uss-mccain-sight-trump/

    “Not me, says Donald Trump. Not me either, says Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan. However, the Wall Street Journal reports that they have an e-mail from a Navy official who ordered the USS McCain to remain out of Trump’s sight during his recent visit to Japan. That order resulted from a White House request, the officer explained in his message:

    In a May 15 email to U.S. Navy and Air Force officials, a U.S. Indo-Pacific Command official outlined plans for the president’s arrival that he said had resulted from conversations between the White House Military Office and the Seventh Fleet of the U.S. Navy. In addition to instructions for the proper landing areas for helicopters and preparation for the USS Wasp—where the president was scheduled to speak—the official issued a third directive: “USS John McCain needs to be out of sight.”

    “Please confirm #3 will be satisfied,” the official wrote.

    When a Navy commander expressed surprise about the directive for the USS John S. McCain, the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command official replied: “First I heard of it as well.” He said he would work with the White House Military Office to obtain more information about the order.

    The WSJ points the finger at Shanahan:

    Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan was aware of the concern about the presence of the USS John McCain in Japan and approved measures to ensure it didn’t interfere with the president’s visit, a U.S. official said.

    Absolutely untrue, Shanahan responded this morning, saying it was the first he’d heard about the issue:”

    CBS News has a copy of the same e-mail, confirming the WSJ report but carries Shanahan’s denial. They also report the Navy’s denial about a rumor that the WSJ started last night about the USS McCain covering its name with a tarp during Trump’s Memorial Day visit. The picture that started the rumor was taken days earlier, the Navy says:”

    Like

  14. More lies exposed.

    —————

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/47868/breaking-new-damaging-info-comes-out-disgraced-fbi-ryan-saavedra

    “New Damaging Info Comes Out On Disgraced FBI Agent Peter Strzok”

    “Fox News’ Catherine Herridge reports that the FBI’s mid-August 2016 counterintelligence “defensive briefing” for the Trump campaign did not notify campaign officials that Mike Flynn and George Papadopoulos were under investigation. Fox News reports:

    Strzok, who was later removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team for sending anti-Trump texts, was a central coordinator for the FBI on the defensive briefing, which included multiple agencies. Three weeks earlier, Strzok opened an FBI counterintelligence investigation into campaign aide George Papadopoulos.

    A source familiar with sensitive records documenting the August briefing told Fox News that Strzok was in a unique — and apparently conflicted — position. Strzok opened the FBI investigation into Russian outreach to Trump campaign aides, while at the same time he was supposed to be warning the Trump campaign about Russian activities.

    During a segment on Fox News, Herridge noted that the time of the events is significant as days before the briefing Strzok and Page spoke about their “insurance policy” against then-candidate Donald Trump.

    “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok texted FBI lawyer Lisa Page, whom he was having an affair with.”It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.””

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.