36 thoughts on “News/Politics 7-24-19

  1. This will just further the idea that Mueller didn’t write his own report, but instead had a conflicted, partisan Hillary supporter do it for him. And now he needs to be bailed out.


    “Mueller Makes Last-Minute Request Ahead Of Testimony, And Republicans Aren’t Happy About It”

    “Former special counsel Robert Mueller asked Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee to swear in his longtime deputy as a witness at a congressional hearing Wednesday, according to multiple reports.

    Mueller asked that Aaron Zebley, who served as deputy on the special counsel’s probe, be sworn in as a witness in order to address any questions that he is not able to answer, according to a source familiar with the matter, The New York Times and CNN reported.

    Mueller is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee for three hours and before the House Intelligence Committee for two hours Wednesday. He will be pressed for details of his 22-month investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and whether President Donald Trump attempted to obstruct the probe.

    In a report of the investigation, Mueller said his team was unable to establish that any Trump associates conspired with the Russian government to influence the election. But the report was vague on obstruction. Mueller declined to charge Trump on obstruction, but also said that the Republican was not exonerated by the investigation.

    In response to Mueller’s request for guidance ahead of his testimony, the Justice Department said Monday that the former FBI director has to stay “within the boundaries” of the public version of his report.

    It is not entirely clear why Mueller seeks Zebley’s assistance at the hearing. It is also unclear whether House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat, approved the last-minute change. The hearing schedule currently lists Mueller as the only witness.”

    Zebley was Mueller’s right-hand man on the special counsel’s team and also served as chief of staff to Mueller when he was FBI director. Zebley has been criticized by some Trump supporters because he represented former Clinton aide Justin Cooper in the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

    Republicans pushed back on Mueller’s request, calling on Democrats to leave Zebley off the witness stand.

    “If Democrats believe it is the special counsel’s responsibility to testify to his report, they have no ground for outsourcing that duty at the expense of our committee’s integrity,” Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary panel, said in a statement.”


    There’s little integrity in the Dem controlled House to begin with.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Time to put your big boy pants on.

    Republicans, Don’t Screw Up the Mueller Hearing


    “Robert Mueller is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee in a public hearing for a total of five hours on Wednesday—not nearly enough time to plumb the depths of his 448-page report or to grill Mueller about his tactics and partisan team of investigators. Republicans will need to make the most of the limited time they have.

    So, this seems like an appropriate time to remind Republicans that they are as much to blame as Democrats for foisting this costly, useless and destructive travesty on the American people.

    With few exceptions, Republicans capitulated to every single Democratic demand and the ongoing media-manufactured hysteria about the urgency required to investigate so-called “election collusion.”

    “Some of us very early on saw enormous conflicts [with Mueller], even conflicted as being a witness. We knew there was something wrong,” U.S. Representative Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), one of the few Republicans skeptical of the Mueller probe from the beginning, told me on Monday. “But once the inspector general report came out and revealed the bias and corruption at the top of DOJ and FBI, we started getting help.”

    But Republicans should have been wary before Michael Horowitz released his report in June 2018. By the time Robert Mueller was appointed in May 2017, Republicans on Capitol Hill knew that the collusion accusation had been concocted by Obama loyalists in the government and Democratic political operatives.

    Republicans knew that former FBI Director James Comey had been investigating the Trump campaign since July 2016 and tried to hide it from congressional leaders in violation of normal protocol.

    Republicans knew that the so-called “dossier” authored by Christopher Steele was loaded with unsubstantiated allegations and that Steele was working on opposition research paid for by anti-Trump partisans. Republicans knew that law enforcement and intelligence officials were illegally leaking classified information to the media to bolster the collusion storyline.

    Republicans also knew that Obama holdovers had attempted to criminalize phone calls between Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador with ludicrous accusations about Logan Act violations to animate the collusion fantasy.

    Yet despite the backdrop of malfeasance, most Republicans caved to pleas for a special counsel and defended the appointment of a clearly-conflicted Robert Mueller. (Mueller and Comey have been friends for nearly two decades.) Top GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate, including former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), slobbered over Mueller, greenlighting what would turn out to be a sham inquiry that essentially robbed Trump of the first two years of his presidency.

    When Mueller’s lengthy report was finished in March, it confirmed what a handful of independent observers—and the president—knew: There was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. But to divert from their failed mission and fuel the Democrats’ impeachment crusade, Mueller’s report outlined several instances of alleged obstruction of justice by the president

    House Democrats will hammer Mueller on the obstruction of justice section of the report, hoping for digestible soundbites to leverage in 2020. House Republicans need to follow their own script and resist playing into the Democrats’ hands. There are plenty of questions that Republicans could ask Mueller to expose the roots of the fruitless inquiry and numerous flaws in the report.

    Republican members, however, would be wise to focus on two key controversies: The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting and Trump’s alleged efforts to shut down the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. The media and the special counsel continue to mischaracterize those storylines, omitting crucial details and conflating separate circumstances to present an inaccurate depiction of both.”


  3. The footnotes are key.


    Eric Felten is a man of many parts. Among other things, he is a meticulous and literate reporter as well as one of my favorite analysts of the mysteries of Russiagate. Earlier this month we posted Eric’s July 1 RealClearInvestigations column “Insinuendo: Why the Mueller Report doth repeat so much.” Today Eric wades further into the Mueller miasma in the RCI column “The shaky foundations of Mueller’s footnotes.” RCI authorizes the republication of its articles with attribution and we are happy to take advantage of the opportunity here. Eric writes:

    “Who knew that the humble footnote would loom so large in some of the most consequential documents of our time? Those bottom-of-the-page annotations are supposed to impose rigor on authors by forcing them to cite justifications for what they assert. But in the age of collusion claims, footnotes have become so much more — places for officials to tuck away inconvenient information; discreet spaces in which to make dubious assertions; or fine print in which required disclosures can be hidden in plain sight.

    It was in the footnotes, for example, where the FBI appears to have misled the FISA court in its application to spy on Carter Page – obscuring its reliance on opposition research, the Steele dossier, financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

    The more than 2,000 footnotes included in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Trump-Russia collusion allegations are also illuminating. Most of the citations are matter-of-fact support for claims made in the main text. But a close reading reveals that many of the footnotes raise more questions than they answer, especially regarding Mueller’s methods and intent. Some footnotes show that key allegations often rely on the flimsy say-so of media accounts; others show a willingness to accept the claims of anti-Trump critics at face value. Mueller and his team also used the footnotes as the place to include unsubstantiated gossip and speculation.

    Mueller has made it clear that during his scheduled testimony before Congress on Wednesday, he will not discuss his investigation beyond the “four corners” of his official report. But those four corners encompass not only the main text, but thousands of footnotes.

    If Robert Mueller is going to defend his document, he will have to be prepared to defend the footnotes too. It is there where the strengths and weaknesses of the Mueller report are most clearly on display. Come Wednesday’s hearings, the advantage may go to the questioners who know where to look.””



    “Comey was also interviewed by the FBI and numerous are the footnotes — 68, 108, 109-112, 176-78, 180-82 and more — anchoring the narrative in his testimony.

    Mueller relied so heavily on Comey’s memos that he felt the need to argue the superior believability of the former FBI head’s version of events. He uses legal citations that “contemporaneous written notes can provide strong corroborating evidence” and that “a witness’s recitation of his account before he had any motive to fabricate also supports the witness’s credibility.” Perhaps. But Comey was not a disinterested observer. As Paul Sperry reports for RealClearInvestigations, citing sources familiar with an internal Justice Department review, the FBI director Trump inherited was secretly trying to build a conspiracy case against the president.

    Which means that Comey was writing his memos with an eye to swaying future legal and public opinion. Upon finishing a memo, he would run it by his top deputies (see footnotes 187 and 188 in Volume II) to make sure it served its purpose. Comey’s memos may or may not be the “strong corroborating evidence” Mueller claims, but Comey surely intended for those memoranda to establish his version of events. For all his suspicions and speculations about the president’s intentions, one former FBI director demonstrates a remarkable lack of curiosity about the motives of another former FBI director.”

    Mueller Report, Footnote 544
    This lack of skepticism about Comey’s motivation is especially jarring given footnote 544 in Volume II, which suggests a political motive and, perhaps, some lawbreaking. That’s where Mueller acknowledges that Comey arranged to have several of the aforementioned memos leaked: “Comey testified that he deliberately caused his memorandum documenting the February 14, 2017 meeting [with the president] to be leaked to the New York Times,” the footnote reads, “because he thought sharing the memorandum with a reporter ‘might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.’”


  4. The swim topless with teens pervert’s victims are coming forward.



  5. Bernie continues to shoot his own foot.


    “Sanders White House Campaign Hit with Federal Labor Complaint”

    “Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) 2020 presidential campaign has been hit with an unfair labor practice complaint alleging illegal employee interrogation and retaliation against staffers.

    The July 19 complaint to the National Labor Relations Board, filed by an unnamed individual in Indiana, was posted to the agency’s website late July 22. It comes as tense negotiations between the Sanders campaign and the union representing staffers recently boiled over publicly. The Washington Post reported July 23 that unionized organizers for the campaign had won a pay raise and reached a compromise to reduce the hours of some workers.

    A copy of the charge has not yet been made public, but the agency’s July 22 docket lists five potential violations of the National Labor Relations Act. The charge also alleges that the campaign unlawfully discharged an employee, modified a labor contract, and engaged in illegal discipline.

    Charges to the NLRB can be filed by “any person” and don’t have to come from a campaign staffer or someone directly affected by the alleged labor law violations, according to the board’s website. The NLRB has yet to make a determination about whether there is any merit to the allegations.

    News of potential labor unrest within the Sanders campaign has emboldened critics of the union-aligned lawmaker. Sanders has made worker rights a key part of this platform in the race for the Democrat White house nomination.”


    But has he really? Maybe they mean workers rights who don’t work for him.


  6. What’s a couple of anti-Semites to do?

    I mean besides take their toys and go whine?

    Notice I didn’t say “go home”. I wouldn’t want to be called a racist. 😉


    “House Condemns BDS Despite Protests From Reps. Omar, Tlaib

    Tlaib: “So I can’t stand by and watch this attack on our freedom of speech and the right to boycott the racist policies of the government and the state of Israel.”

    “The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives condemned the Global, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS) with a vote of 398-17 even though Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib campaigned against the measure.

    Five members voted present while 16 Democrats opposed the bill. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie was the only Republican to vote against it.

    From Politico:

    The vote had the potential to expose an ideological divide within the caucus, pitting progressives against moderates even after Democrats united against President Donald Trump’s racist tweets against four minority congresswomen.

    “BDS doesn’t seek social justice. It seeks a world in which the state of Israel does not exist,” Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) said on the floor Tuesday.

    “There is a chance for Congress to stand up and to point out that supporting a movement that doesn’t envision a two-state solution and that seeks to delegitimize the state of Israel is nothing that will advance peace and should be called out for what it is,” Deutch said in an interview later.

    Omar, who has a history of anti-Semitic comments, voiced objection against the measure because the government should not “condemn nonviolent” boycotts.

    Omar introduced legislation that affirms “all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights.” It does not specifically mention the BDS movement.”


  7. It’s way past time for the police to step in, but this is Portland, where the police have been neutered by PC politicians.


    “Public Library Deletes Pictures Of Drag Queens Fondling Children At Story Hour

    Parents complained about the event, showing the photos of children lounging atop of the costumed queens on the floor, grabbing at false breasts, and burying their faces in their bodies.”

    “The new trend of hosting “drag queen story hour” at children’s libraries has been touted as part of diversification efforts. The practice of librarians bringing drag queens to read to children has come under fire for sexualizing children. Librarians came to the defense of this programming, touting it as innocent and family oriented, but new photographs have emerged to belie that claim, of children obscenely draped over drag queens in a way that would be obviously disgusting if they were female beauty queens.

    Such photos taken at a Drag Queen Story Hour event at St. John’s Library in Portland, Oregon circulated on Facebook. Parents complained about the event, showing the photos of children lounging atop of the costumed queens on the floor, grabbing at false breasts, and burying their faces in their bodies.

    The library had uploaded the photos to their Flickr feed, but they’re not available there anymore. Lifesite News archived them. Multnomah County Library took the photos down, without a word.

    If the photos are innocent, showing inclusion and queer diversity, then why take them down? Even assuming these story hours were concocted with the best intentions, it seems crazy that librarians could be so blind to the reality that drag, as entertaining and culturally campy as it is for adult audiences, is not sex ed but sex entertainment, and not for kids.

    There’s a push to rebrand sex ed as gender and sexuality ed, programmed for younger and younger audiences. The idea is that divergent gender identities are so prevalent that kids need to be informed about them so that if they feel they fall outside of the gendered identity of their biological bodies they have ways to talk about it.

    This spring, Lindsay Amer, the host of YouTube channel Queer Kid Stuff, gave a TED talk called “Why kids need to learn about gender and sexuality.” In it, Amer offered what’s becoming a standard rationale for exposing children as young as toddlers to inherently sexual knowledge.

    “Most parents want their children to become kind, empathetic self-confident adults, and exposure to diversity is an important part of that social and emotional development,” Amer said. “And gender non-conforming kids, and trans kids, and kids with trans and non-binary and queer parents are everywhere.”

    Couched in the language of diversity, empathy, and kindness, which parents typically get behind, is how ideologues manipulate parental compassion because they see children as full participants in concepts of adult sexuality. If parents don’t get on board, they imply, then parents are doing their children a disservice. This is how ideas that feminists had been fighting to do away with come back in full force.”


  8. The magician of omission.


    “While most of the political world focused its attention elsewhere, special prosecutor John Durham’s team quietly reached out this summer to a lawyer representing European academic Joseph Mifsud, one of the earliest and most mysterious figures in the now closed Russia-collusion case.

    An investigator told Swiss attorney Stephan Roh that Durham’s team wanted to interview Mifsud, or at the very least review a recorded deposition the professor gave in summer 2018 about his role in the drama involving Donald Trump, Russia and the 2016 election.

    The contact, confirmed by multiple sources and contemporaneous email, sent an unmistakable message: Durham, the U.S. attorney handpicked by Attorney General William Barr to determine whether the FBI committed abuses during the Russia investigation, is taking a second look at one of the noteworthy figures and the conclusions of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report.

    The evidence I reviewed suggests Mueller’s handiwork may be exposed for glaring omissions that, when brought to public light, leave key questions unanswered, especially about how the FBI’s unprecedented probe of the Trump campaign started.

    Durham is focused on determining whether any government or private figures who came in contact with the Trump campaign in 2016 “were engaged in improper surveillance,” a U.S. official told me when asked about the Mifsud overture.”


    “The evidence, he told me, “clearly indicates that this was not only a surveillance op but a more sophisticated intel operation” in which Mifsud became involved.

    Roh has defended Mifsud in the media against various allegations, steadfastly denying Mueller’s claim that his client ever told Papadopoulos about Clinton emails in Russia. Roh wrote a book last year that first floated the idea of Mifsud as a Western intelligence op.

    If the FBI’s and Mueller’s portrayals are correct, Mifsud’s current story could be simply a Russian disinformation campaign or an exaggeration by a lawyer who seeks media attention and book promotion. Thus, everything Mifsud says must be given careful scrutiny.

    But a close examination of the Mueller report identifies significant gaps and omissions, and occasional inaccuracies, that pose troubling questions.”


  9. The other day, former WMB regular Kyle wrote this on Facebook:

    “A few people commented on my post about Jesus’s command to love our enemies. There was almost unanimous agreement that Jesus meant exactly and literally that–love your enemies. He also said to pray for them, as some of the commenters pointed out.

    Who are your enemies?

    Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez your enemy? Is Ilhan Omar your enemy? If so, do you love them? Do you pray for them?

    Is Donald Trump your enemy? If so, do you love him? Do you pray for him?

    Are hispanic refugees your enemy? If so, do you love them? Do you pray for them?

    Are white men in the halls of power your enemy? If so, do you love them? Do you pray for them?

    Are Muslim immigrants your enemy? If so, do you love them? Do you pray for them?

    I chose people who might be regarded as enemies by different political factions. I wonder if Jesus’s command matters more or if one’s political leanings matter more?

    I’m just wondering. I am asking myself the same questions, and my list would include a lot of other people who might qualify as enemies but whom I am commanded to love and pray for.”


  10. That thud you heard was the Democrats’ last hope hitting the floor.

    Told he never wrote it, that’s why he’s clueless about what it says. Not a good look for a special counsel.

    “Uncertain…… doesn’t seem to know what’s in his report….. raises questions about the degree to which he was in charge and control of this report…..”

    Good news on both counts. They lost their credibility long ago.



  11. How can he sit their and say he’s not familiar with Fusion GPS when they started this whole thing including the Steele Dossier?

    This looks awful for Mueller. He’s lying, or losing it.



  12. We already knew this, but along with no collusion with the Russians, there was no obstruction either.


    “Mueller: Investigation was “not at any time curtailed, stopped, or hindered”

    Mueller’s testimony is not going the way Democrats hoped.”

    “Amy Walter from the Cook Political Reported tweeted a comment on Robert Mueller’s testimony that pretty much sums up how damaging it has been to Democrats;

    We are only 30 mins into this thing but I don’t think that this is going the way Democrats were hoping it would.

    Robert Mueller under questioning by Republican Doug Collins admitted that the investigation was not actually obstructed:”


    Time to wrap this circus up.


  13. Too bad. 🙂


    Montage: Confused-Looking Mueller Repeatedly Asks for Questions To Be Repeated



  14. Now keep in mind they’re not done yet. The media is most disappointed.

    How many times has Robert Mueller deflected, declined or deferred a question? Live tracker

    141 times and counting.


    “All eyes and ears are on former special counsel Robert Mueller today. Republicans hope to highlight what they see as a faulty premise for the Mueller probe. Democrats hope he’ll say something to incriminate President Donald Trump, or at least bring more Americans to understand what they see to be the president’s wrongdoings. But how many times will Mueller refuse to say much at all? How many times will Mueller declare an answer “outside of my purview”?”


    The link has a handy dandy timeline where you can view each example. Nice job NBC, for once.


  15. Gaetz crushed it.



    ““You identify no factual basis regarding the dossier or the possibility that [the dossier] was part of the Russia disinformation campaign,” continued Gaetz.

    “Christopher Steele’s reporting is referenced in your report. Steele reported to the FBI that senior Russian foreign ministry figures along with other Russians told him that there was … ‘extensive evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign team and The Kremlin.’”

    “Here’s my question: Did Russians really tell that to Christopher Steele? Or did he just make it all up and was he lying to the FBI?” asked Gaetz.

    Mueller tried to toss this question aside by once again throwing up the excuse that this was beyond his purview, which he has done multiple times during this line of questioning. However, Gaetz wasn’t letting him have it.

    “As I said earlier, with regard to the Steele [dossier], that is beyond my purview,” Mueller responded.

    “No, it is! It is exactly your purview, Director Mueller, and here’s why: Only one of two things is possible. Either Steele made this whole thing up, and there were never any Russians telling him of this vast criminal conspiracy that you didn’t find, or Russians lied to Steele,” Gaetz said.

    “Now, if Russians were lying to Steele to undermine our confidence in our duly elected president, that would seem to be precisely your purview, because you stated in your opening that the organizing principle was to fully and thoroughly investigate Russia’s interference, but you weren’t interested in whether or not Russians are interfering,” Gaetz said.

    Gaetz was right. Mueller’s entire investigation is based on the Steele Dossier, and as such fits well within his purview. However, Mueller seems all too willing to dance around little facts like this.

    Gaetz put the finishing touches on his line of questioning by asking Mueller about his relationship with anti-Trump figures and noted that when it came to pro-Trump people, Mueller threw the book right at them while tip-toeing around anti-Trump figures.”


  16. Jordan too.


    “Jordan To Mueller: Why Wasn’t Joseph Mifsud Charged With Obstruction?”

    “The Robert Mueller hearings continue to grind on, and perhaps especially on Mueller himself. At times, Mueller acts as nothing more than a one-word validation for Democrats reading verbatim from his report. At other times, he appears lost and unfamiliar with it — especially in this tough cross-examination from Republican Jim Jordan. Jordan highlights the curious case of Joseph Mifsud in the Russia-collusion saga, whose name comes up 87 times in Mueller’s report, included repeated references to his lying to investigators.

    And yet, when Jordan asks why the FBI didn’t charge Mifsud for lying as he did with Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, and Paul Manafort, Mueller can’t immediately recall Mifsud or his role. When his memory gets refreshed, Mueller can’t offer any explanation for their decision not to press charges either:

    Mifsud’s not just a footnote in Mueller’s narrative. He first gets introduced on page 5 of Volume I as the man — as Jordan accurately notes — who tells George Papadopoulos that “the Russian government had ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of e-mails.” Papadopoulos’ indictment and conviction for obstruction by Mueller’s office directly relates to his interactions with Mifsud (pages 9 and 81 fn). On page 193, Mueller’s report outlines a number of false statements that Mifsud subsequently made to investigators:

    Papadopoulos’s false statements in January 2017 impeded the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Most immediately, those statements hindered investigators’ ability to effectively question Mifsud when he was interviewed in the lobby of a Washington, D.C. hotel on February 10, 2017. See Gov’t Sent. Mem. at 6, United States v. George Papadopoulos, No. 1 :17-cr-182 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2017), Doc. 44. During that interview, Mifsud admitted to knowing Papadopoulos and to having introduced him to Polonskaya and Timofeev. But Mifsud denied that he had advance knowledge that Russia was in possession of emails damaging to candidate Clinton, stating that he and Papadopoulos had discussed cybersecurity and hacking as a larger issue and that Papadopoulos must have misunderstood their conversation. Mifsud also falsely stated that he had not seen Papadopoulos since the meeting at which Mifsud introduced him to Polonskaya, even though emails, text messages, and other information show that Mifsud met with Papadopoulos on at least two other occasions-April 12 and April 26, 2016. In addition, Mifsud omitted that he had drafted (or edited) the follow-up message that Polonskaya sent to Papadopoulos following the initial meeting and that, as reflected in the language of that email chain (“Baby, thank you!”), Mifsud may have been involved in a personal relationship with Polonskaya at the time. The false information and omissions in Papadopoulos’s January 2017 interview undermined investigators’ ability to challenge Mifsud when he made these inaccurate statements.

    Why wasn’t Mifsud charged with the same crime as Papadopoulos? After all, they later got Papadopoulos to admit he’d lied and to cooperate with investigators. That would have cured the defects listed in this summary and allowed prosecutors to dig deeper into Mifsud, but it appears that they just let the matter drop. Mueller had no answer for this, and tried to claim that he couldn’t discuss declination and charging decisions. “It’s obvious, I think,” Mueller told Jordan, “that we can’t get into charging decisions.”


    Right, because if he does, this whole charade collapses.


  17. Right, because you threw out the standard and want to change the rules now because Orange Man Bad.

    What a hack.



  18. It’s dead…..

    Someone call it….


    And this lady wins the internet for today. 🙂


  19. Watched about 20 mins at the gym. Mueller was his usual evasive and overcautious self. Frustrating both sides I imagine. He’s definitely aged but his faculties are still intact.

    The Fusion GPS and Steele are prominent only in the right wing echo chamber. It’s not important in terms of evidence for obstruction and Russian interference.

    Here’s a left wing highlight collection of the testimony, different highlights than AJ s links. The elderly representative asking if Trump could be indicted after he is no longer president is a Republican ( the answer is Yes)

    Ignore the left wing commentator


  20. Could he be indicted after leaving office? is a hypothetical…

    Well, yes, if he actually commits a crime, which he hasn’t, and you have no evidence he did. Neither did Mueller.

    The next president could be indicted after leaving office, and the one after that too. But like here, without a crime, you have no chance.

    But hey, keep trying. You guys are bound to get that wascally wabbit eventually there Elmer.


  21. So it looks like Mueller is having health issues. And Democrats were aware of this, yet forced his testimony anyway. How sad to do that to someone obviously losing their faculties, which would make their testimony questionable at best. Disgraceful really.


    “Here We Go: Dems Heard Months Ago That Mueller Might Not Be “Up To” Testifying, Says Politico”

    ““A mystery yet to be solved: Weren’t Dems warned in advance that Mueller wouldn’t make a good witness?” I asked in the last post, noting the special counsel’s confusion at times this morning. According to Politico, they were. Or at least, that’s what some in their ranks are now eager for the world to believe.

    You would think they might have waited until the poor guy was done testifying for the day before starting to knife him in the press but I guess the clean-up effort couldn’t begin soon enough. In fact, this afternoon’s session before the House Intel Committee began with Mueller having to correct himself on one of his biggest admissions of the morning before the Judiciary Committee, when he claimed that he hadn’t indicted Trump because of the DOJ policy that sitting presidents can’t be indicted. That wasn’t the correct way to say it, Mueller noted in hindsight hours later, adding, “As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”


    Did you catch that last part HRW…..


  22. The Politico piece. It explains the last minute attempt to add a witness.

    Now I actually feel a little bad for the guy. But not too much.


    “House Democrats caught wind of Robert Mueller’s reluctance earlier this year: the special counsel may not be “up to” testifying after he concluded his Russia probe.

    The chatter was second-hand and cryptic. Staffers negotiating to get Mueller to appear on Capitol Hill weren’t sure where the messages were originally coming from. Were people close to Mueller sending a signal? Or was it just Justice Department officials who didn’t want the blockbuster hearing to go forward? Were there fears that Mueller’s reputation would be savaged in the hyper-partisan political circus of 2019? Were there stamina concerns?

    Those questions resurfaced on Wednesday morning amid Mueller’s halting performance before the House Judiciary Committee. At times, the former FBI director — who had earned a reputation as a studious and hard-nosed witness over dozens of congressional hearings in the 2000s — seemed unfamiliar with details from his nearly two-year-old investigation. He repeatedly asked lawmakers to pose questions again.

    Even as Mueller became more forceful in his afternoon testimony, the narrative seemed set. People across the political spectrum, even those who have worked with Mueller, were airing concerns that the 74-year-old longtime lawman, at a minimum, appeared out of practice.

    “This is delicate to say, but Mueller, whom I deeply respect, has not publicly testified before Congress in at least six years. And he does not appear as sharp as he was then,” David Axelrod, the former top Obama White House strategist while Mueller was FBI director, wrote on Twitter about 45 minutes into the nationally televised hearing.

    “Bob Mueller is struggling,” added Glenn Kirschner, a former federal prosecutor who worked under Mueller in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C. “It strikes me as a health issue. We need only look at footage of his earlier congressional appearances to see the dramatic difference in his demeanor and communicative abilities.”


  23. HRW,


    “You have to get all the way to the end of this clip to get to the faceplant here from Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), one of Nancy Pelosi’s leadership team — but it’s worth it. Jeffries attempts to walk Robert Mueller down a primrose path to endorsing an obstruction charge, complete with a handy chart with green check marks. Once Jeffries went through his five-minute question period, Jeffries declared that he had satisfied all of the elements of criminal obstruction by Donald Trump.

    That is, until Robert Mueller chimed in:”


    “To recap: We found out from Buck’s error that prosecutors theoretically could still file charges against Trump, and from Jeffries’ goof that there isn’t a case to charge. So why are we here again? Great job, everyone!”


  24. Mueller bombed.

    And it’s Democrats saying so too.

    Axelrod and Tribe.


    Chuck Todd even gets it.

    “On Optics, This Was A Disaster”


  25. More bad news for the left, and another win for Trump and law and order.


    “Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Trump’s New Policy Banning Most Asylum-Seekers”

    “A federal judge decided on Wednesday not to block the Trump administration’s latest restriction on asylum requests by migrants fleeing violence in their home countries.

    Judge Timothy J. Kelly of D.C. upheld the administration’s proposed rule, which was challenged on July 16 in a lawsuit brought by several migrant advocacy groups. Under the new rule, asylum-seekers who pass through another country on their way to the U.S. will be denied entry here, unless they were already rejected for asylum in that third country.

    It constitutes the most severe step taken by the Trump administration thus far to curtail asylum requests. It’s going to disproportionately impact people from Central American countries like El Salvador and Honduras—the majority of those seeking asylum on the southern U.S. border—as they have all passed through at least one other country, Mexico, on their way to the United States.”


    “The Trump administration has framed this rule as an attempt to make illegal immigration less appealing to those fleeing Central America, thereby discouraging immigrants from undertaking dangerous journeys through Mexico.

    The two nonprofits challenging the rule in court—the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition and the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services—argued that it violated the Immigration and Naturalization Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs said that these acts stipulate that once asylum-seekers reach the U.S., they are allowed to apply for refuge.

    Kelly, who was appointed by Trump, said that “I’m not sure it would cause no irreparable harm” to migrants if this rule was implemented. Still, he maintained that he ruled in favor of the policy because the immigrants’ rights groups could not quantify how many asylum-seekers would be turned away and how many would be accepted into the country as a result.

    Although this suit has now been struck down, the American Civil Liberties Union has brought another lawsuit in San Francisco, where a judge is going to hear arguments on Wednesday.”


    Let the judge shopping commence!


  26. I agree that there was ambiguity to the Republican gentlemen’s question about indictment…was it theoretical or specific to Trump. I’m not surprised Mueller clarified his answer later when he realised it could be a sound bite favouring indictment.

    I don’t this was a win or lose for either parties. Mueller managed to maintain his noncommittal stance, we could say he won. However, the Democrats did manage to drive home the point that Barr and Trump lied when they said completes exoneration. This is important in that some Democrats want to address Barr’s lack of impartiality.


  27. The change in refugee policy is fairly simple and not unusual . Refugees can’t apply for refugee status if they enter via a safe third country. In Canada that means anyone entering from the US can’t apply for refugee status since they already in a safe placd; ie the US. There is a way around this rule. Enter a country illegally surrender immediately, admit the offence and then claim refugee status. Since you are already in the country, your claim has to proceed. If you were to attempt to enter legally, you would be stopped prior to entering and can’t make a claim. With this change in policy, expect an increase in illegal entries and a decrease in claims a border crossing.

    The safe third country policy only works or is valid if you can argue the third country.is safe. The third country here is Mexico. Trump’s administration or lawyers will have a hard time arguing it’s safe. Claimants can simple quote Trump’s own words on Mexico to illustrate it’s danger.


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.