Not Harvey, BUT Reflective of Honest Americans


John R. Houk

© August 10, 2019

My lovely wife (BUY Coffee – Make MONEY) sent me an email to me I suspected was chain email. The chain purports to be from Comedian/Game Show host Steve Harvey expressing why Americans are supportive of President Donald Trump.

 

Typically I abhor passing along chain emails these days that seem to have a home on Facebook. So I checked up on the validity of the Harvey authorship. I was not surprised that all the Left-Wing (therefore unreliable pertaining to all things Conservative) Fact-Checking websites list as FALSE for Steve Harvey being the author.

On the other hand I can see how the Chain Email started with someone putting Harvey’s name to it. Back in January 2017 just before Trump’s Inauguration as President, Steve Harvey had a meeting with Trump at the Trump Tower to discuss Housing for low income inner city folks. Harvey walked away with positive feedback. BUT Harvey received such BLACKlash over the meeting, he publicly walked back any tone of Trump support just prior to the 2018 midterm elections.

 

BUT I GOT TO TELL YA, the chain email expresses perfectly why enough Americans voted for Trump in 2016 to get the Electoral College (reflective of Middle America rather than the Left-Coast or the North-Eastern States) to secure a Trump victory. I suspect the Dems being exposed more everyday as LIARS relating the fictional Steele Dossier utilized to begin the Mueller team witch hunt will be reelected by Middle America as President.

 

AND SO, I cross post this chain email not as something from Steve Harvey, but rather something from HONEST AMERICANS weary of corrupt Left-Wing government.

 

JRH 8/10/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

**********************

HOW I FEEL ABOUT TRUMP

 

[Chain Email probably not] by Steve Harvey

Sent by Diana Houk

Sent 8/8/2019 7:27 PM

 

You’ve been on vacation for two weeks, you come home, and your basement is infested with raccoons.. Hundreds of rabid, messy, mean raccoons have overtaken your basemen. You want them gone immediately!.. You call the city and 4 different exterminators, but nobody can handle the job. But there is this one guy, and he guarantees to get rid of them, so you hire him.

 

You don’t care if the guy smells, you don’t care if the guy swears, you don’t care if he’s an alcoholic, you don’t care how many times he’s been married, you don’t care if he has a plumber’s crack, you simply want those raccoons gone! You want your problem fixed!.. He’s the guy.. He’s the best!

 

Here’s why we want Trump: Yes, he’s a bit of a jerk; Yes, he’s an egomaniac; but we don’t care! The country is a mess because politicians suck, the Republicans and Democrats can be two-faced and gutless, and illegals are everywhere. We want it all fixed!

 

We don’t care that Trump is crude, we don’t care that he insults people, we don’t care that he has changed positions, we don’t care that he’s been married 3 times, we don’t care that he fights with Megyn Kelly and Rosie O’Donnell, we don’t care that he doesn’t know the name of some Muslim terrorist.

 

This country became weak and bankrupt, our enemies were making fun of us, we are being invaded by illegals, we are becoming a nation of victims where every Tom, Ricardo, and Hasid is a special group with special rights to a point where we don’t even recognize the country we were born and raised in; “AND WE JUST WANT IT FIXED”.

 

And Trump is the only guy who seems to understand what the people want.

 

We’re sick of politicians, sick of the Democratic Party, sick of the Republican Party, and sick of illegals! We just want this thing fixed. Trump may not be a Saint, but we didn’t vote for a Pope. We voted for a man who doesn’t have lobbyist money holding him back, a man who doesn’t have political correctness restraining him.

 

We all know that he has been very successful, he’s a good negotiator, he has built a lot of things, and he’s also NOT a politician, NOT a cowardly politician!

 

And he says he’ll fix it. And we believe him because he is too much of an egotist to be proven wrong, or looked at and called a liar. Also, we don’t care if the guy has bad hair. We just want those raccoons gone, out of our house, NOW!!!

 

You are welcome to copy/paste/share this [But dear God in Heaven, don’t send it as a chain email from Steve Harvey]. Thousands of people who haven’t voted in 25 years seem to be getting involved. And the more people get this message, the more that will understand why Trump was elected. The raccoons have got to go!!!

_______________________

Not Harvey, BUT Reflective of Honest Americans

John R. Houk

© August 10, 2019

 

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

______________________

HOW I FEEL ABOUT TRUMP

A chain email that may have been in many forms by now.

 

My 2¢ What Mueller Could-a Should-a Done


John R. Houk

© July 25, 2019

 

I watched Mueller’s entire testimony before two House Committees Chaired by reprehensible Dems. The Dems pushed an Obstruction of Justice theme committed by President Trump with Mueller – often cryptically – agreeing Dem assertions. BUT as much as President Trump wanted to interfere in Mueller’s witch hunt, the relevant Aids involved essentially did their jobs in protecting the President from bad judgment calls but not doing the errors. Which means as much as the President wanted to meddle in Mueller’s investigation NOTHING obstructive HAPPENED relating to Trump’s righteous indignation of being falsely accused of working with Russians to win the 2016 Election.

 

The Dems persisted though. As far as the Dems on the Committees were concerned, thinking about interfering when you know you are innocent is an obstruction crime. Going after the President for thought crimes smacks of Orwell/Huxley inventing crimes to fulfill the agenda of an all-powerful State. A Big Brother scenario updated to today’s DEEP STATE.

 

The Republicans on both Committees kept asking questions essentially pointing to Russian interference BUT with the Dems and Crooked Hillary paying a foreigner getting disinformation from Russia as if it were facts. In ALL cases Mueller’s answer was not his purview or not getting into that. Hmm… The Mueller Mandate from Rod Rosenstein ORDER NO. 3915-2017 dated 5/17/17:

 

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE

2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

 

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.

  • § 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

 

  • Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

 

  • The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

 

  1. any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

 

  1. any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

 

  • any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

 

  • If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

 

  • Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

 

Once Mueller determined that President Trump did not conspire with Russians to win the 2016 election, Mueller should have moved on to (b) ii. Which states “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”.

 

It is evident Mueller chose to pursue any crime by people who has any association with Donald Trump before the President’s election even if the crime had NOTHING TO DO with Russian interference in the 2016 Election. If Mueller was actually investigating Russian interference HE SHOULD HAVE LOOKED into the Dem Campaign managed by Crooked Hillary Clinton paying money to a foreign agent in Christopher Steele acquiring Russian disinformation for the purpose of insuring Crooked Hillary’s election as President.

 

Instead Mueller utilized false Russian information to remove a duly elected President Donald J. Trump from Office. NOW THAT HAS TO BE A CRIME of conspiracy committed by Robert Mueller and his team of Clinton Donors/Supporters angry Democrat prosecutors.

 

Now below are some observations from Conservative sources (Dems are unreliable) on the Robert Mueller House testimony. All of the GOP Committee members did a great job demonstrating Mueller bias and witch hunt agenda, but I begin with Rep. Jim Jordan pointing out the obvious. Then I follow the Jordan/Mueller interchange with a quite humorous The United West parody of the same interchange.

 

Then after the video fun, read further criticism of Mueller’s from Fred Lucas and Ann Coulter.

 

JRH 7/25/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

VIDEO: WATCH: Rep. Jim Jordan’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony

 

Posted by PBS NewsHour

Published on Jul 24, 2019

 

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, questioned former special counsel Robert Mueller during his July 24 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee about how the investigation began. Mueller said in his opening statement that he could not address those questions. Mueller, who led an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible ties to President Donald Trump’s campaign, agreed to appear before Congress, but warned he would not go beyond what was already documented in his final report.

 

READ THE REST

+++++++++++++++++

VIDEO: TUW Exclusive: Robert Mueller Testimony with Congressman Jim Jordan

 

Posted by theunitedwest

Published on Jul 24, 2019

 

Humorous post please!

 

Could this be the real Judiciary Committee testimony???? Sure looks like this was pretty darn close to what actually happened!

 

READ THE REST

+++++++++++++++++++

8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress

 

By Fred Lucas

July 24, 2019

The Daily Signal

 

Mueller Testifying to House Committee 7/24/19

 

Former special counsel Robert Mueller on Wednesday defended his investigation of President Donald Trump and Russia before two House committees.

 

“It is not a witch hunt,” Mueller said at one point in his sworn testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

 

He was referring to his probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election that resulted in a 448-page, partially censored report released in May to the public.

 

But many of Mueller’s responses were some version of “I can’t speak to that,” “That’s out of my purview,” or “I can’t answer that.”

 

He also asked constantly for lawmakers to repeat their questions.

 

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee tried to drive home the report’s conclusion that Trump wasn’t “exonerated” for obstruction of justice.

 

Democrats on the intelligence panel stressed that Russian election meddling was aimed at helping Trump.

 

But neither of these points is new. The special counsel’s report concluded that neither Trump, nor his campaign, nor any Americans conspired with Russians to influence the presidential election, but also laid out 10 matters of presidential conduct regarding the investigation that could be construed as obstruction of justice.

 

Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked: “When the president said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn’t it?”

 

“True,” Mueller said.

 

Trump repeatedly has called political enemies’ allegations that his campaign conspired with Moscow “a hoax,” but sometimes conflates that with the Russian interference itself.

 

Here are eight key takeaways from Mueller’s testimony before both committees.

 

  1. ‘Cannot’ Cite DOJ on Exoneration

 

With regard to obstruction of justice, the Mueller report states: “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”

 

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, asked Mueller, a former FBI  director, when the Department of Justice ever had had the role of “exonerating” an individual.

 

“Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence of criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe asked. “Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?”

 

Mueller appeared not to be clear about the question.

 

“Let me make it easier,” Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, said. “Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not determined?”

 

Mueller responded: “I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”

 

Ratcliffe followed up by talking about the “bedrock principle” in American law of innocence until proven guilty.

 

“You can’t find it because, I’ll tell you why, it doesn’t exist,” Ratcliffe said, adding:

 

The special counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him.

 

It’s not in any of the documents. It’s not in your appointment order. It’s not in the special counsel regulations. It’s not in the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion. It’s not in the Justice [Department] manual. It’s not in the principles of prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together, because, respectfully, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him.

 

Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. Because there is presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it.

 

“Donald Trump is not above the law, but he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law,” Ratcliffe said.

 

“You wrote 180 pages about decisions that weren’t reached,” Ratcliffe said, referring to the second volume of the Mueller report, devoted to evidence of obstruction of justice.

 

Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., pushed the point in his opening question after Mueller was sworn in, saying the report specifically did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice.

 

“Did you actually ‘totally exonerate’ the president?” Nadler asked at the beginning of the hearing, quoting Trump.

 

“No,” Mueller responded, adding: “The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.”

 

Regarding obstruction, ranking Judiciary member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., asked: “At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?”

 

Mueller responded: “No.”

 

Later, to drive the point of a lack of obstruction further, Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., asked: “Were you ever fired as special counsel, Mr. Mueller?”

 

Mueller began by saying, “Not that I … ” then answered more directly: “No.”

 

Later that afternoon during the intelligence committee hearing, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, asked about exoneration.

 

Mueller initially said, “I’m going to pass on that.”

 

When pressed on the question, Mueller said, “Because it embroils us in a legal discussion and I’m not prepared to do a legal discussion in that arena.”

 

Turner noted that the headline from Mueller’s morning testimony was that he did not exonerate Trump.

 

“You have no more power to declare Trump exonerated than you do to declare him Anderson Cooper,” Turner said, referring to the CNN personality.

 

  1. Indicting a President

 

Nadler, the Judiciary chairman, asserted: “Any other person who acted in this way would have been charged with crimes, and in this nation, not even the president is above the law.”

 

Other Democrats said much the same during the day.

 

At first, during the morning hearing before the Judiciary Committee,  it appeared that Mueller was contradicting Attorney General William Barr.

 

That impression was left hanging for well over an hour before he clarified the issue at the outset of the Intelligence hearing.

 

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued two legal opinions, most recently in 2000, stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The second one reaffirmed a 1973 opinion at the height of the Watergate scandal.

 

Barr has stated on multiple occasions that those official opinions were not the sole reason that Mueller decided against seeking a grand jury indictment of Trump for obstruction of justice. Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein later decided the evidence was insufficient to make a case.

 

During the Judiciary hearing, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., asked: “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?”

 

Mueller: “Yes.”

 

Buck: “You believe that you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?”

 

Mueller: “Yes.”

 

Later in the hearing, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., followed up, citing the Office of Legal Counsel opinions to determine whether Trump’s being president is the only reason he wasn’t indicted.

 

“The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of [an] OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president. Correct?”

 

Mueller: “That is correct.”

 

It wasn’t clear whether Mueller was talking about indicting Trump, or speaking about legal theory behind indicting any president under existing Justice Department policy.

 

Mueller tried to clarify this at the beginning of the later intelligence panel hearing, referring to what he had told Lieu.

“That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said in wrapping up his opening remarks. “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

 

  1. ‘Collusion’ and ‘Conspiracy’

 

The first part of the Mueller report concluded there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, which meddled in the 2016 presidential campaign.

 

“Collusion is not a specific offense or a term of art in federal criminal law. Conspiracy is,” Collins, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said. “In the colloquial context, collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms, correct?”

 

Mueller’s initial answer was “No.”

 

Collins then referred to page 180 in Volume 1 of the Mueller report, which states the two words are “largely synonymous.”

 

“Now, you said you chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now?” Collins asked.

 

“Not when I read it,” Mueller responded.

 

“So, you would change your answer to yes, then?” Collins asked.

 

“No,” Mueller said, seeming somewhat unclear.

 

“I’m reading your report, sir,” Collins said. “It is a yes or no answer. Page 180, Volume 1. This is from your report.”

 

Mueller: “Correct. And I leave it with the report.”

 

During the Intelligence hearing in the afternoon, Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., asked about evidence of collusion with Russia.

 

Mueller, criticized on social media and by cable news pundits for seeming a little off his game, had some trouble answering.

 

“We don’t use the word collusion. We use one of the other terms that fills in when collusion is not used,” he said haltingly.

 

Welch jumped in: “The term is conspiracy?”

 

Mueller: “That’s exactly right.”

 

“You help me, I’ll help you,” Welch said, prompting laughter in the chamber.

 

  1. Allusions to Impeachment 

 

Nadler, the Judiciary chairman, made what seemed like a vague reference to impeachment during his opening remarks.

 

“We will follow your example, Director Mueller,” Nadler said. “We will act with integrity. We will follow the facts where they lead. We will consider all appropriate remedies. We will make our recommendation to the House when our work concludes.”

 

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who noted he was also a member of the Judiciary Committee during the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton, asked why Mueller didn’t specify in his report whether there was impeachable conduct–as then-independent counsel Ken Starr had in his report.

 

“We have studiously kept in the center of the investigation our mandate, and our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct,” Mueller said. “Our mandate goes to developing the report and turning the report in to the attorney general.”

 

Mueller, given many openings by Democrats, refused to state that impeachment was what the report means in referring to other venues to pursue evidence of obstruction of justice.

 

Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said Congress must do it’s duty to ensure Trump isn’t above the law. Other Democrats made similar vague comments, but most did not outright call for impeachment.

 

Later, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., asked, “Mr. Chairman, was the point of this hearing to get Mr. Mueller to recommend impeachment?”

 

Nadler responded: “That is not a fair point of inquiry.

 

  1. On When He Put Conspiracy to Rest 

 

Mueller asserted early on that he would not talk about the origins of the Russia investigation–currently under review by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General.

 

“It is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited,” Mueller said.

 

“These matters are the subject of ongoing review by the department. Any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the FBI or the Justice Department,” he said, referring to the contested origins of the investigation.

 

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., a Judiciary member, asked when the special counsel’s team determined there was no conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign.

 

Many Republicans argue that Mueller could have issued that conclusion before the midterm elections, in which Republicans lost control of the House.

 

“As you understand, when developing a criminal case, you get pieces of information as you make your case,” Mueller said. “When you make a decision on that particular case depends on the factors. I cannot say specifically we reached a particular decision on a particular defendant at a particular point in time.”

 

“We were ongoing for two years.”

 

Biggs pressed: “That’s my point, there are various aspects that happen. But somewhere along the pike, you come to the conclusion there is no there there for this defendant.”

 

Mueller finally said: “I can’t say when.”

 

The former special counsel said he did not have knowledge of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, who compiled the so-called Steele dossier, an unverified, salacious collection of information about Trump, including during a visit to Moscow. Both the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign paid for that work.

 

Although President Barack Obama’s Justice Department and FBI used the Steele dossier as the basis for spying on Trump campaign aide Carter Page, and the dossier is mentioned in the Mueller report, the investigation apparently did not look into its origins.

 

  1. What Else He Didn’t Answer

 

Mueller declined multiple times before both House committees to answer why his team did not prosecute Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic who Republican lawmakers said had lied to investigators. Mifsud in spring 2016 told Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that Moscow had some of Hillary Clinton’s emails.

 

Mueller also declined to answer questions about whether he interviewed Steele or Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson.  During the Intelligence hearing, he refused to answer whether he even read the Steele dossier.

 

Mueller repeatedly answered that such questions were “outside of my purview.”

 

Among Democrats’ questions Mueller didn’t answer: whether the Trump campaign had turned its back on the country, whether Trump told associates his 2016 campaign was an “infomercial” for the Trump businesses, what would happen if Trump wins a second term and serves beyond the statute of limitations for obstruction of justice, and whether Trump had potential illegal ties to foreign banks.

 

He also declined to speculate whether Russian meddling swayed the outcome of the presidential election.

 

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., asked Mueller whether he agreed with an open letter in May signed by about 1,000 former federal prosecutors that said Trump would be prosecuted for obstruction of justice if he were anyone else.

 

Mueller responded:  “They have a different case.”

 

Swalwell seemed a bit surprised, and asked whether Mueller would sign the letter.

 

Mueller again responded: “They have a different case.”

 

  1. Defending Alleged Conflicts

 

Mueller responded to questions about the number of Democratic lawyers, many of whom donated to Democratic candidates, who worked on his staff.

 

“I’ve been in the business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask someone about their political affiliation,” Mueller said at one point. “What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job.”

 

Trump has said several times that after he fired James Comey as FBI director, he met with Mueller, who wanted the job back.

 

Mueller testified that he talked to Trump, but “not as a candidate” for the job, in response to a question from Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.

 

Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., later asked: “Did you interview for the FBI director job one day before you were appointed as special counsel?”

 

Mueller said he was only advising Trump.

 

“My understanding, I was not applying for the job. I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job,” Mueller said.

 

He also defended Clinton supporter Andrew Weissmann, a lawyer on his team and one of the hires Trump and other Republicans criticize Mueller for.

 

“Let me say that Andrew Weissmann is one of the more talented attorneys we had on board,” Mueller said.

 

  1. Trump’s Responsibility and ‘New Normal’

 

Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., brought up Trump’s tweeted support of WikiLeaks and its hacking of Clinton campaign staff emails. He quoted Trump as a candidate saying, “I love WikiLeaks” and tweeting similar sentiments, then asked Mueller for his response.

 

WikiLeaks is an online operation that made its name on releasing confidential and secret government information

After hesitating, Mueller said: “Problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some, I don’t know, hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.”

 

The Mueller report said the Trump campaign was aware of Russian election meddling and expected to benefit from it.

 

Welch, the Vermont Democrat and member of the intelligence panel, said he was concerned that Trump may get away with not reporting Russian interference in the future.

 

“If we establish the new normal for this past campaign that is going to apply to future campaigns, so that if any one of us, running for the U.S. House, any candidate for the U.S. Senate, any candidate for the presidency of the United States are aware that a hostile foreign power is trying to influence an election, has no duty to report that to the FBI or other authorities …, ” Welch began to ask, before Mueller interrupted.

 

“I hope this is not the new normal, but I fear it is,” Mueller said.

 

Ken McIntyre contributed to this report. 

 

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred.

+++++++++++++++++++++

MUELLER HAS A REPUTATION

Ann Coulter mocks bureau whose attitude is never having to say you’re sorry

 

By ANN COULTER

July 24, 2019

WND

 

It is apparently part of Robert Mueller’s contract with the media that he must always be described as “honorable” and a “lifelong Republican.” (After this week, we can add “dazed and confused” to his appellation.)

 

If it matters that Mueller is a “lifelong Republican,” then I guess it matters that he hired a team of left-wing zealots. Of the 17 lawyers in Mueller’s office, 14 are registered Democrats. Not one is a registered Republican. In total, they have donated more than $60,000 to Democratic candidates.

 

Congressman Steve Chabot listed the Democratic political activism of nine of Mueller’s staff attorneys at a December 2017 House hearing. Here are a few from Chabot’s list:

 

  • Kyle Freeny contributed to both Obama campaigns and to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

 

  • Andrew Goldstein donated $3,300 to both Obama campaigns.

 

  • Elizabeth Prelogar contributed to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.

 

  • Jeannie Rhee donated $16,000 to Democrats, contributed $5,400 to the Clinton campaign – and represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in several lawsuits.

 

  • Andrew Weissmann contributed $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee, $2,300 to the Obama campaign and $2,300 to the Clinton Campaign.

 

None had donated to the Trump campaign.

 

The media brushed off the conspicuous anti-Trump bias in Mueller’s office with platitudes about how prosecutors are “allowed to have political opinions,” as Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assured the public that their “views are not in any way a factor in how they conduct themselves in office.”

 

Obviously, no one believes this – otherwise “lifelong Republican” wouldn’t be spot-welded to Mueller’s name.

 

In a fiery rebuke at the hearings this week, Mueller denounced complaints about all the diehard Democrats on his legal team, saying, “I’ve been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done.”

 

No kidding. He’s been director of the FBI. He’s been acting U.S. deputy attorney general. He’s been a U.S. attorney. He’s never been an independent counsel investigating the president before.

 

An independent counsel investigation isn’t the kind of job where you want the hungriest prosecutors. You want drug enforcement agents who are hungry to bust up drug rings. You want organized crime prosecutors who are hungry to take down the mob.

 

But lawyers on a special counsel’s investigation of the president of the United States aren’t supposed to be hungry. They’re supposed to be fair.

 

As for Mueller being “honorable,” Steven Hatfill and the late Sen. Ted Stevens might beg to differ.

 

After the 2001 anthrax attacks, the FBI, under Director Mueller’s close supervision, spent SEVEN YEARS pursuing Hatfill, a U.S. Army biodefense researcher. Year after year, the real culprit went about his life undisturbed – until he committed suicide when, at last, the FBI zeroed in on him.

 

Mueller was deeply involved in the anthrax investigation, recruiting the lead investigator on the case and working “in lockstep” with him, according to a book on the case, “The Mirage Man” by David Willman.

 

During this multi-year investigation of the wrong man, Mueller assured Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as two U.S. senators, that Hatfill was the anthrax mailer. Presciently, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz asked then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey if he was sure Hatfill wasn’t another Richard Jewell, an innocent man who, a few years earlier, had been publicly identified by the FBI as the main Olympic bombing suspect. Comey replied that he was “absolutely certain that it was Hatfill.”

 

The hounding of Steven Hatfill finally ended in 2008, with the bureau paying the poor man millions of dollars. In open court, a federal judge, Reggie B. Walton, assailed Mueller’s FBI for its handling of the case.

 

Far from apologizing, the director stoutly defended the bureau’s relentless pursuit of the blameless Hatfill, saying: “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation.” He said it would be incorrect “to say there were mistakes.”

 

Maybe he can use that line to defend the similarly monomaniacal zealots he put on the Russia investigation.

 

Eight days before the 2008 elections, the government convicted Sen. Stevens of failing to properly report gifts on his Senate financial forms. The longest-serving Republican in Senate history lost his re-election by less than 2 percent of the vote.

 

Months later – too late for Stevens’ political career – Obama Attorney General Eric Holder moved for a dismissal of all charges against Stevens after discovering that the government had failed to turn over crucial exculpatory evidence. The trial judge not only threw out the charges, but angrily ordered an independent counsel to investigate the investigators.

 

Unlike the disastrous Hatfill case, the extent of Mueller’s oversight of the Stevens investigation is less clear. Was he aware of the bureau’s malicious pursuit of a sitting U.S. senator on the eve of his re-election? Either he was, which is awful, or he wasn’t – which is worse.

 

In addition to “honorable,” another way of describing Mueller is: “Too Corrupt for Eric Holder.”

 

[Blog Editor: Help keep WND an independent Internet source BY DONATING.]

__________________

My 2¢ What Mueller Could-a Should-a Done

John R. Houk

© July 25, 2019

___________________

8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress

 

The Daily Signal HOMEPAGE

_______________________

MUELLER HAS A REPUTATION

 

© Copyright 1997-2019. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

 

#WalkAwayCampaign


Here is a Facebook post originating from a former Dem demonstrating how reality woke her up to the Dem agenda.

 

Ok, full disclosure: This is an obvious chain email. However I enjoyed reading so much I decided not to verify its authenticity. My guess is this has been passed around for some time and perhaps even updated to fit the times. This version is at least updated through Donald Trump’s election as President in 2016.

 

I doubt it is an exaggeration that 90% of the thoughts are accurate at least in spirit. If a Dem reads this, they should do a thorough self-examination. If you – a Dem – refuse to wake up to where your political party is taking you, you deserve the future of economic slavery to the government and the despotism of believing what you are told to think.

 

JRH 7/1/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

************************

#WalkAwayCampaign

 


Latinas for Trump photo

 

Shared by Lee Harper 

June 29 at 1:12 PM

Liberal Media Lies Protest Group

 

By Jackie Lisjuan

June 28 at 11:31 PM

 

I am a minority, I’m not a Democrat
I am a woman, I’m not a Democrat
I am Latina, I’m not a Democratic
I was born in New York,
I’m not a Democrat
I was raised without a father,
I’m not a Democrat
I have lived most of my life paycheck to paycheck,
I’m not a Democrat
I am a Christian,
I’m not a Democrat
I come from an all-female household,
I am not a Democrat
I believe in equality for all,
I am not a Democrat.

 

But I was……

 

I voted for Bill Clinton, I voted for Al Gore, I voted for Obama twice. I didn’t know any better.

 

I wasn’t paying attention. I did what my family did, voted uninformed.

 

But then in the whole messy and nasty deal between Hillary and Trump, I started paying attention, and realized the direction our country had been going.

 

Deleting, not emails, but evidence. Lying about our dead soldiers in Benghazi, allowing the death of babies in the most sacred and safe place they could be: i.e. their mother’s womb. The huge growth on Latinos in census 2010, which wasn’t expected till 2050 and we are only used when our vote is needed.

 

Obama promoting little boys to go in little girls bathrooms in school was the final straw. We had been turning our backs on Israel, when we are supposed to bless them. Instead we were paying the Muslim brotherhood.

 

Welfare recipients increasing, companies leaving the country, increasing number of homeless veterans, immigration laws need to be revamped, health insurance forced on us, police are no longer respected or valued, jails are over-crowded particularly with minorities, high school dropout rates continue to increase among Blacks and Hispanics, crime is increasing, especially in cities and states where the government officials don’t back the police or give them the tools they need in these violent times. Lawsuits raining from the sky, and people getting offended over stupid things.

 

We used to be strong, we used to be respected, we used to be the place everyone wanted to be. Nobody wanted to mess with us.

 

But we became weak, soft, scared, politically correct, pussified.

 

Sadly Obama’s 8 years didn’t bring change for the good. it bought more lies, deceit, cover ups, division, and so on. NOT the “change” I was hoping.

 

I don’t need to bad mouth Obama, or Hillary or anyone who prefers them. I simply don’t agree with their views. So when Trump came along, I wasn’t impressed. I thought he talked too much, and talked before thinking. He was careless with his words, and he had that IDGAF attitude, which made him NOT the candidate I desired.

 

But after much prayer, and much thought, I realized: You know what? He IS exactly what we need in these times. We need a firm hand, a hardworking man, someone who doesn’t back down, someone who is a smart ass and will talk back and fire back, someone who brushes off his shoulders and keeps it moving.

 

I know I have a voice. I realized my vote does matter. I make a difference. And I am brave to tell my own Democratic friends and family. I don’t agree with some of the things they believe in, but I love them the same. I don’t have an us against them mentality, and I am wise enough to know that we can agree to disagree and get along civilly.

 

Yeah, I lost and continue to lose so called friends because I am woke, and I am making the best decision I can make, uninfluenced by my family but because I know what’s right.

 

I work hard, I don’t want nothing for free. I earn my keep and I am teaching my kids to do the same.

 

Don’t depend on welfare, housing assistance, unemployment, or anything free unless you have no other choice because of certain circumstances and there is no other way. This way you don’t owe anybody anything.

 

I’m not easily offended but it did bother me that Hillary and Michelle thought that just because I am a woman I should vote for a female. I don’t need to vote for someone who looks like me.

 

I want to vote for someone who represents what is important to me, female, Male, White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc., doesn’t matter.

 

We need somebody who isn’t scared to step on people’s toes, someone who isn’t perfect and doesn’t claim to be. I am not deplorable, sexist, homophobe, racist, or any names they’ve called us. The USA is my home. Why wouldn’t I want it to be great?

 

My advice to Democrats? Don’t lose the message because of the messenger. Get past your hate for Trump, and open your eyes to the bigger picture. I voted Republican in 2016, and I will again.
* And don’t get me started on my second Amendment rights!

God bless you all, and God bless the USA.

#walkaway
#latinasfortrump

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

Probable Chain Email

 

Ranks within CIA reportedly ‘anxious’ as DOJ plans to dig deeper on suspicious origins of Russia probe


As the Mainstream Media keep their heads between the cheeks of their own gluteus maximus with fake outrage after fake outrage of President Trump falsely accused of breaking the law, it appears the true colluders AGAINST the U.S. government might be getting nervous. (The latest false outrage is President Trump would look at unsolicited voluntarily offered oppo research and on an opposing candidate, BUT pooh-pooh solicited and paid for FICTITIOUS information manufactured from foreign sources – RUSSIA – and composed by a former MI6 Agent Christopher Steele.)

BizPac Review has the story that Federal Prosecutor John Durham and AG William Barr is investigating the CIA working with the FBI on sources and actions to frame President Trump for Election interference.

 

JRH 6/14/19 (Hat Tip Ares and Athena)

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

Ranks within CIA reportedly ‘anxious’ as DOJ plans to dig deeper on suspicious origins of Russia probe

 

By Samantha Chang 

June 13, 2019

BizPac Review

 

 

US Attorney John Durham plans to question two CIA officers about the suspicious origins of Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. (screenshots)

 

The Department of Justice plans to interview two CIA officers for its investigation into the suspicious origins of Robert Mueller’s fruitless Russia collusion investigation.

 

Specifically, U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut will question a senior counterintelligence official and a senior analyst who investigated Russia’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 election, according to the New York Times.

 

Sources say that the Deep State anti-Trump operatives within the CIA are worried about the potential fallout from this.

 

Did Obama FBI conspire with the CIA?

 

US Attorney General William Barr is trying to learn more about the sources that the Obama CIA and FBI relied on before deciding to spy on Trump campaign officials.

 

CIA Director Gina Haspel said her agency will cooperate with the investigation, but will ensure that CIA sources, methods, and intelligence are protected.

 

Basically, this is the first of a long line of inquiry to determine why bogus FISA warrants were issued to spy on 2016 Trump campaign officials and how the Obama FBI coordinated with the CIA to conclude that Russia allegedly tried to help Trump get elected and undermine Hillary Clinton.

 

This is all ironic since President Trump has been far tougher on Russian President Vladimir Putin than Barack Obama ever was.

 

(Source: Fox News)

 

Obama holdovers in CIA are worried

 

So far, the Barr investigation is not a criminal inquiry, but could lead to charges if wrongdoing is uncovered.

 

Sources told the Times that ranks within the CIA are anxious about the probe, since it could reveal the coup they were plotting against a sitting U.S. president — both before he took office and since.

 

Not surprisingly, Democrats are foaming at the mouth to protest AG Barr’s inquiry. This is especially ironic since Democrats have been investigating Trump and everyone associated with him around the clock — even for tangential matters unrelated to election meddling.

 

Former Obama CIA director John Brennan lashed out on Twitter, writing: “This is just the latest example of what Vice President Biden meant when he said that Mr. Trump is an existential threat to our country. “Unfit to be President” is a gross understatement. Donald Trump is undeserving of any public office, and all Americans should be outraged.”

 

This is just the latest example of what Vice President Biden meant when he said that Mr. Trump is an existential threat to our country. “Unfit to be President” is a gross understatement. @realDonaldTrump is undeserving of any public office, and all Americans should be outraged. https://t.co/vi0gYUxi67

 

— John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) June 12, 2019

 

Brennan monetized access to nation’s top Secrets

 

Meanwhile, in March 2019, Brennan meekly admitted that he pushed the Russia collusion hoax, citing “bad information” he received from his dubious (imaginary) sources.

 

John Brennan has shamelessly monetized his security clearance to get rich and to foment public hysteria that a sitting US president was secretly an agent of the Russian government.

 

In August 2018, President Trump revoked Brennan’s security clearance after he was caught leaking intel to the media.

 

Naturally, Brennan got enraged and repeatedly trashed President Trump on MSNBC, where he’s employed as a contributor.

__________________

Samantha Chang

Senior Staff Writer
Samantha@bizpacreview.com

 

Copyright © 2019. All Rights Reserved. BizPacReview

 

About BPR

 

BizPac Review is a top-rated political news website that provides breaking news and analysis unfiltered by the liberal bias that has eroded the media’s credibility. With public trust in the press sputtering at an all-time low, BizPac Review fills the void with its unparalleled coverage of current events that the mainstream media intentionally ignore.

 

Founded in 2009 and headquartered in West Palm Beach, BizPac Review is comprised of an experienced team of accomplished editors and reporters in Chicago, New York, and across the key battleground state of Florida.

 

We give you the straight scoop and provide news and insights for the patriotic American who unabashedly loves their country and refuses to be silenced. BPR has broken important stories that have been spotlighted on Fox News and on the Rush Limbaugh show.

 

Our analysis has been touted by the top conservatives in the world, including Donald Trump Jr., Dan Bongino, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Kris Paronto, Candace Owens, Larry Elder, and Sarah Palin.

 

Internet censorship and social-media suppression of conservative voices is READ THE REST

 

Poll: Justin Amash Trails Primary Challenger by Double Digits After Impeachment Call


RINOs beware! Primaries are coming AND your voters know who you are.

 

JRH 6/13/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

Poll: Justin Amash Trails Primary Challenger by Double Digits After Impeachment Call

 

Justin Amash

 

By Joshua Caplan

June 12, 2019

BREITBART

 

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), the first Republican on Capitol Hill to call for impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, trails primary challenger State Rep. Jim Lower by a sizeable margin, according to a poll released Tuesday.

 

A Practical Political Consulting/MIRS poll shows Amash (33 percent) behind Lower (49 percent) by 16 percent. The poll was conducted between June 5th-9th and served 360 likely Republican voters. Amash’s other primary challenger, Army National Guardsman Tim Norton, was not included in the poll.

 

 

The poll comes amid a Politico report stating President Trump has discussed the possibility of backing an Amash primary challenger with Vice President Mike Pence, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), and Republican National Committee (RNC) chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. However, no firm decision has been made on the matter.

 

The Michigan Republican shocked the Beltway when he accused President Trump of committing “impeachable” offenses stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report and claimed Attorney General William Barr misrepresented the special counsel’s key findings. Team Mueller found no criminal conspiracy occurred between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia, and shortly after, Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein determined that the president did not commit obstruction of justice during the sweeping investigation.

 

President Trump and top Republicans blasted Amash over his remarks, accusing him of being an attention-seeker with an unimpressive legislative track record to show for his four terms in Congress. “Never a fan of @justinamash, a total lightweight who opposes me and some of our great Republican ideas and policies just for the sake of getting his name out there through controversy,” the president tweeted last month. “If he actually read the biased Mueller Report, ‘composed’ by 18 Angry Dems who hated Trump, he would see that it was nevertheless strong on NO COLLUSION and, ultimately, NO OBSTRUCTION.”

 

“Justin is a loser who sadly plays right into our opponents [sic] hands!” he concluded.

 

On Monday evening, Amash resigned from the House Freedom Caucus, the conservative congressional group he helped start in 2015, after 30 of his now-former peers voted to condemn his remarks on impeachment.

 

“I have the highest regard for them and they’re my close friends,” he told CNN of the decision to leave. “I didn’t want to be a further distraction for the group.”

____________________

Copyright © 2019 Breitbart

 

The Sad Truth


Super PACs.

This informative article provides a good reason to contribute directly to your candidate of choice rather than a Political Action Committee (PAC). For that matter I stopped donating money to the National Republican Party because of the influence of Establishment RINOs who consistently vote with Dems. In 2020 I’ll be giving my money directly to a Conservative candidate, especially if a RINO needs defeated in a Primary. Indeed, RINOs are the reason I’m a registered Independent rather than a Republican.

 

JRH 6/10/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*****************

The Sad Truth: Political Hucksters Harm the Conservative Movement

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent  6/9/2019 4:02 AM

 

All of Conservative America would not be surprised to hear that money given to the Democratic Party, a largely immoral and criminal party, and its political action committees (PACs) is misspent and goes into the pockets of the organizers more so than it gets to any candidate, but they expect much more from the Republican Party which claims to represent the “Moral Majority”. The sad truth is that conservatives are being defrauded and scammed by PAC operators and fundraisers on or near every election cycle and during every major unfolding political crisis. And a lot of self-proclaimed watchdogs sound one false alarm after another rather than expose the efforts of former allies of President Trump to line their own pockets, diverting funds away from endeavors that would actually facilitate President Trump’s agenda, a major problem that is also experienced in many other Republican campaigns.

 

Each new election and each new political cause finds Americans inundated by repetitive pleas for money that can and often do quickly change focus to the scandal of the day, whether it is pertaining to illegal immigration, Obamacare, Hillary Clinton escaping justice or Benghazi and Islamic terrorism. Old PACs associated with dormant issues or newly neutralized politicians are shifted to newly perceived money making issues.

 

These groups run all sorts of polls and studies, and they know where the profit is to be found among conservative base voters who are searching for outsider candidates, and their scams eventually take their toll. Conservatives think they are giving to a greater cause than themselves, but when results are short due to the lion’s share of the money being siphoned off by so-called “consultants”, everybody soon gets burned out and quits donating money, even to the legitimate causes.

 

Just prior to the 2018 elections, the Tea Party Majority Fund raised $1.67 million and donated $35,000 to candidates. During this same period, Conservative Majority Fund raised $1 million and donated $7500, while Conservative Strike Force raised $258,376 and donated nothing to any candidate.

 

Put Vets First raised approximately $4 million, in 2018, and only gave $9000 to candidates.

 

In 2014, out of $43 million raised by thirty-three separate political action committees, supposedly affiliated with the Tea Party, only $3 million was spent on ads and candidates facing tough campaigns often highlighted in the appeals. The rest went to operating expenses, including $6 million to companies owned or managed by the operators of the PACs, according to a study by Politico.

 

Also in 2014, the Black Republican PAC raised $700,000, and it only spent one percent of those contributions on candidates and ads supporting them, according to government filings.

 

It’s also worth noting that the 2015 National Draft Ben Carson for President PAC raised thirteen million dollars, none of which went to Mr. Carson. Armstrong Williams, business manager for Carson, said: “People giving money think it’s going to Dr. Carson and it’s not … Our hands are tied. We don’t want people exploited.”

 

In 2016, Roger Stone’s Committee to Restore America’s Greatness raised $587,000 and only spent $16,000 for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

 

Great America PAC raised nearly $29 million from small donations, in 2016, and donated $30,125 to candidates running for federal office. In 2018, donations totaled $8.3 million with almost $32,000 going to candidates.

 

Some PACs also make large payments to vendors they own or are run by people who work for them, as an unscrupulous means to hide how much the PAC consultants are making, which is exactly what the Senate Conservatives Fund and American Crossroads were caught doing one year. Such payments don’t have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission, so nobody really knows where the money goes, and all of this should set off red flags for donors, as it represents a huge conflict of interest and facilitates fine and decent Americans being separated from their hard earned dollars through the perpetration of a fraud.

 

Even worse, most of these PACs prosper off of outright, blatant lies they tell conservatives. Milwaukee’s Sheriff David Clarke didn’t want to run for the Senate in Wisconsin, and Laura Ingraham, Fox News host, wasn’t interested in running for the Senate in Virginia. The PACs play the hero for conservative values and freedom against the many real threats of today, and some they invent, when they’re actually nothing more than coastal political operatives keeping most of the money for themselves.

 

All of this has severely hurt the Conservative Movement in America, by possibly being a large factor in the GOP’s loss of control of the U.S. House of Representatives. This loss has severely damaged President Trump’s policy agenda and has him wasting too much valuable time on defense.

 

Imagine how different results might have been in 2018, if only $10 million of the roughly $177 million raised by PACs had been spent on real campaigns in the twenty House districts that Republicans lost by five percentage points or less. The extra $500,000 per campaign might just have made the difference in Mia Love’s district in Utah, where she would have won, if she had only received 625 more votes.

 

In Maine’s 2nd District, Bruce Poliquin needed about 3500 more votes. Karen Handel, running in Georgia’s 6th, needed 8000 more votes; and, in California’s 21st District, David Valadao lost by a mere 900 votes. [Ibid.]

 

Day after day, year after year, little old ladies are called and emailed with dire news and warnings that America’s future is at stake if a certain amount of money isn’t raised in a specific time frame — that the nation is doomed — and so, these little old ladies donate money that many of them really can’t afford, because they love America and believe they’re making the world better. Unfortunately all they are doing is making these telemarketers wealthier. And in the meantime, conservative candidates are losing elections, biting the dust, convinced that if they had just had another few hundred thousand dollars, they might have been victorious.

 

Any Trump supporter or conservative should be livid.

 

Going into the 2020 election season, Conservatives must do their dead level best to make contributions directly to the candidate’s campaign office, or better yet the candidate himself. Stop handing your hard earned money over to the political hucksters seeking to cash in on the angst of conservative voters and end this terrible blight on the Conservative Movement, ridding it of those self-interested confidence men acting at cross purposes to America’s best interests.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links provide by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Mueller/Dem Horse-Pucky


John R. Houk

© May 30, 2019

 

I was not surprised Dems – especially in the House – reacted to Robert Mueller’s news conference with “impeach Trump”. The Dems and their propaganda MSM wing have twisted, misrepresented facts and downright lied about President Trump before, after and right up to the very present.

 

Mueller was forced to admit there was no crime of Donald Trump working with the Russians to insure a 2016 election victory. Mueller did inform what everyone has known for a long time – the Russians made an evil effort to influence the 2016 election cycle. MUELLER’S EPIC FAILURE of what is probably closer to the truth: The Russians gave aid to the Clinton campaign to influence the election and aid to the Dems to make the effort to impeach President Trump after the election.

 

Trump committed NO election crime but because the President wouldn’t fall for the perjury trap set for others involved in the 2016 campaign with a personal interview, Mueller implied Trump made an effort to obstruct an investigation where no crime existed.

 

AND THAT MY FRIENDS is why Mueller, Mueller’s 13 angry Dem/Hillary donating Prosecutors AND the Dems are full of horse-pucky.

 

Since it is doubtful most news sources – spoken or written – will let you know about Mueller/Dem horse-pucky, here are a series of commentaries on the Mueller news conference.

 

JRH 5/30/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Special Counsel Mueller Gives Final Back Stabbing To Trump In Press Briefing To Help Democrats

 

By Jim Kouri

May 30th, 2019

News With Views

 

Special Counsel Robert Mueller held a special news conference on Wednesday saying he couldn’t reach a conclusion on whether Donald Trump obstructed justice, as he stopped short of delivering a full exoneration of the president. Mueller, using the craftiness of a career lawyer and political operative chose his words to allow Democrats in Congress to continue their deranged pursuit of destroying the President using the criminal justice system and the impeachment process.

 

“If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so,” Mueller said. His briefing — which denied questions from reporters — on the investigation showed he was disappointed in not proving anything against Trump.

“That’s why Mueller left open the obstruction question, something the Democrats are using to harass a President they despise,” said political strategist Mike Barker. “The only good news I heard was Mueller announcing that he was closing his office and resigning from public service,” he added.

 

Mueller sent a clear signal to House Democrats who have demanded his testimony that he won’t provide any information that hasn’t already been made public. “Any testimony from this office would not go beyond this report,” he said.

 

The special counsel also said he found “insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy” on election interference.

 

President Donald Trump’s newly appointed Attorney General, while keeping a relatively low profile in his first days on the job, now appears to have hit the ground running in his investigation of what many are now calling The Trump-Russia Hoax.

 

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the Trump-hating Democrats and news media were taken-aback when they discovered Barr had already begun his probe of the now-famous Hillary Clinton bought and paid for “dirty dossier.”

 

Barr selected U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham to investigate the origins of the Justice Department’s and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe of — and spying on —

the Trump presidential campaign in 2016. The questionable investigation continued into the Trump transition and his early weeks as Commander-in-Chief.

 

John Durham, who is the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut, was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr. He will examine the FBI’s decision to open a counterintelligence investigation into the actions and motives for interfering in the election and “chasing” members of President Donald Trump’s campaign team using arguably misleading or false evidence to obtain warrants. The now famous “dirty dossier” is based on lies and innuendo provided by a foreign agent, a former British MI6 officer Christopher Steele.

 

Deep State Suspects in Conspiracy to Overthrow an Elected President

 

Robert Mueller is the leader of the Trump ouster who are now trying to defend the Deep State’s control over American politics from Donald Trump’s assault on its tyrannical vision. In the process Mueller also hopes to atone for the firing of his friend and fellow conspirator, James Comey.  Unfortunately many Americans cannot see that this man is not a “pillar of impartiality” as the corrupt media paint him. He is deeply committed to Deep State corruption while impersonating a Republican.

 

Rod Rosenstein is the Deputy Attorney General appointed by Obama. This is one reason for his insistence on appointing Robert Mueller as a Special Counsel to investigate Trump for alleged collusion with the Russians. His agenda is preservation of the Deep State as is Mueller’s. He would have been much happier if Hillary had won. In fact he was surely expecting it, as were FBI personnel such as Andrew McCabe.

 

Andrew Weissmann is the primary “witch hunter” on the Mueller team assembled to investigate Russian collusion. He is a notorious pit bull prosecutor with a record of suppressing exculpatory evidence in overreaching prosecutions that have been overturned by judges. He was a “Gung-Ho” Obama supporter. He is known to use questionable tactics in bullying a target’s underlings to force their testimony.

 

Peter Strzok was another Obama-loving FBI agent employed by Mueller because of his experience in counterintelligence. He is known as a devout Hillary Clinton supporter and one of the agents who interviewed Hillary about the email scandal, which turned out to be a phony powder-puff interview. He also edited Comey’s Clinton investigation resolution by replacing the words “grossly negligent” with “extremely careless” because the former action can be prosecuted in the handling of classified information while the latter cannot. His investigation gave almost all of Clinton’s subordinates blanket immunity even though none of them testified against Clinton.

 

Is this, as the media claims, a professional and objective team of crimefighters committed to solving an alleged crime? or was this is a coup d’etat to destroy the election of Donald Trump and and move to impeach him, which Mueller and his cronies had hoped would discredit the “people’s revolution” against the Deep State that Trump has fashioned.

 

“This horrendous nightmare is taking place because of the collectivist corruption of the DOJ and the FBI under Obama, Clinton and the two Bushes. Corruption in practice takes place in men’s institutions only after corruption of ethics and ideology takes place in their minds. Moral relativism (along with political collectivism) took over the minds of our professors, politicians and prosecutors in the aftermath of World War II and exploded throughout our culture from the 1960s to today. The chickens are now coming home to roost and usher in an authoritarian society,” said Jeffrey Longeran, a former criminal/civil investigations manager.

 

Conservatives in Congress should show they have spines and they should counterattack Hillary Clinton a[t] the Deep State with an investigation of the egregious “Uranium One” money grab in which she authorized the sale of 20% of America’s uranium to Russia, which brought tens of millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation from Russian sources.

 

The fingerprints of Mueller, Weissmann and Rosenstein are also on the Uranium One deal, for they worked assiduously to facilitate and protect its completion, knowing full well but not caring that it compromised American security. Because their stalwart political horse, Hillary Clinton, was benefiting. Thus the Deep State’s aggrandizement was benefiting.

 

“This scenario is unbelievable. The Mueller Probe corruption is something we would expect to find in an African or Latin American country, or one of the Nazi Show Trials under judges who took an oath to serve Adolph Hitler in the 1930’s. It is the result of obsessively partisan FBI leaders that have let their ideology and hatred influence their role as policemen.

_______________________

Mueller: ‘I couldn’t find a Trump-Crime…so it’s Time to Impeach him!’

 

Trump-Barr-Mueller

 

By Sher Zieve 

May 30, 2019

Canada Free Press

 

I have never before witnessed such a sham of a legal system or—even worse—experienced the horror that the real criminals were the ones running it.  The additional horror is that other gangsters have and/or are replacing those who have been fired (some likely awaiting the day when they will be arrested) or have run for the proverbial hills upon realizing what may soon be revealed.  Having personally experienced this lifetime for not quite—but getting closer each day—a century, I do have some small perspective with regards to history.  Mueller—with all of the Trump-haters on his staff—could find that President Trump committed no crime.  So, in his own rather sleazy way, he turned it over to Congress to impeach him.  This is the caliber of human being we currently have in upper management within the bowels of the US government.

 

I, and certainly others, have written about Robert Swan Mueller III and his apparent crimes committed over the years under the color of law.  One of these was sending 4 innocent people to prison, in order to protect the murderer Whitey Bulger who had been designated “an informer” to and for Mueller’s FBI.  Mueller had also interviewed with President Trump to get his old job as FBI Director back.  But, President Trump didn’t choose him.  Uh-oh!  However, Mueller was chosen by Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as “Special Counsel” to head up the investigation of President Trump; whom he at the very least intensely disliked.

 

To briefly recap, this investigation was built upon a foundation of sand which included the following:

 

  • A self-proclaimed Trump-hater and (former?) British MI-6 agent who worked with some Russians to create (out of whole cloth) the now-infamous “Trump Dossier”:

 

  • The Clinton Campaign and DNC funded the “dossier”:  “The DNC and Clinton campaign-funded research continued through the end of October 2016, according to the Post’s report.

 

  • The “dossier” was requested and paid for by the Clinton Campaign.  Excerpt:  “According to the report, lawyer Marc E. Elias, who represented both Clinton’s campaign and the DNC, and his law firm Perkins Coie retained the firm Fusion GPS in April 2016 to investigate any connections, according to the Post. Before then, a still-unknown Republican client funded Fusion GPS’ research during the Republican primaries. Fusion had hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to conduct the research.”

 

  • The Mueller investigation began as a counter-intelligence investigation which metastasized into a full-blown criminal investigation…with NO CRIME mentioned!  As a stated crime is required by law before this type of investigation may begin, Mueller’s investigation…was illegal from its inception.  As a very large side-note “collusion” is still not a crime.

 

  • If there is no underlying crime…there can be no “obstruction of justice!”

 

The crimes which were committed by members within our own governmental agencies (DOJ/FBI, CIA, NSA etc.) are the greatest uncovered in the history of our country and are vast to the point that the uncovering of the worldwide Deep State conspiracy against POTUS Trump continues.  Note:  Within the UK, it appears to reach the very highest levels of government.

 

IMO, Mueller has been a dirty cop for decades (also remember his “Uranium One” activities indicating alleged treason) and he doesn’t appear to have any intention of changing.  Our country was close to demise before Donald J. Trump was resoundingly elected to the presidency of the USA.  Considering all of the blocks placed in his way by the DNC, RINOs and US government “intelligence” agencies Trump’s accomplishments are nothing less than remarkable…and legendary.  Think what he will accomplish in his second term of office…

 

“There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers”—Proverbs 6:16-19

 

_______________________

Judicial Watch President Calls for Investigation Into Mueller

 

By TTN Staff

2019-05-30

Trump Train News

 

VIDEO: Tom Fitton Discusses Mueller Statement With Lou Dobbs

[Posted by TheDC Shorts

Uploaded on May 29, 2019] 

 

The president of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, who investigates government corruption, is calling for an investigation into Robert Mueller.

According to The Daily Caller:

 

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton called for an investigation into Robert Mueller for suggesting “wrongdoing by an innocent person without any foundation.”

“Well, I don’t know what reputation he had that deserved any credence until now, but it’s no longer there,” Fitton told Dobbs. “He’s really destroyed whatever reputation he’s had with this political attack on the president, turning the rule of law on its head, suggesting the president is guilty and, because he can’t prove otherwise, we should conclude that he should be impeached.”

Calling it “an abuse of power,” Fitton said that Attorney General Barr has been “too deferential” to Mueller and should have “shut down” the “report before it was even written.”

“[I]t’s been abuse piled on top of abuse targeting President Trump,” Fitton said. “And this Mr. Mueller, he needs to be investigated as well. The office of professional responsibility should be asking, ‘Why did this Justice Department prosecutor come out and suggest wrongdoing by an innocent person without any foundation?’ Because there is no foundation. If there was a foundation, there would have been indictments or requests for an indictment while highlighting that. Outrageous.”

 

Fitton claims that there is a strong possibility that Mueller and Comey could have colluded in order to direct the investigation in a negative way against the president.

_____________________

DERSHOWITZ BLASTS MUELLER FOR ‘EXCEEDING HIS ROLE’

Statement ‘worse’ than Comey’s regarding Hillary scandal

 

May 29, 2019

WND

 

Then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, left, acknowledges applause during then-President Barack Obama’s remarks on June 21, 2013. Obama had announced James Comey, right, as his nominee to succeed Mueller as FBI director (Official White House photo)

 

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s statement Wednesday that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said that” is worse than then FBI Director James Comey’s statement about the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton, said Alan Dershowitz, emeritus professor at Harvard Law School.

 

“Comey was universally criticized for going beyond his responsibility to state whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Clinton,” he wrote Wednesday in The Hill. “Mueller, however, did even more.”

 

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.”

 

Dershowitz said Mueller, at his news conference at the Justice Department announcing his resignation as special counsel, “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,” he said.

 

Dershowitz noted that obstruction of justice is a “high crime and misdemeanor” which, under the Constitution, authorizes impeachment and removal of the president.

 

WND reported earlier Wednesday Mueller’s claim that the Office of Legal Counsel guidance specifying that a sitting president cannot be indicted was the reason for not coming to a conclusion about obstruction conflicts with Attorney General William Barr’s testimony.

 

Barr told Congress on May 1 that at a March 5 meeting with Mueller, the special counsel told him “that he emphatically was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found obstruction.”

 

No longer defending Mueller

 

Dershowitz said he no longer is defending 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.”

 

The law professor said Mueller revealed his bias by putting his “elbow” on the scale of justice.

 

Mueller also has distorted the role of a prosecutor who “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,” Dershowitz said.

 

He pointed out that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by nature one sided, hearing only evidence of guilt.

 

“They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.”

Dershowitz said he “cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action.”

 

“Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage,” he wrote.

_______________________

Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law

At a hastily arranged Wednesday press conference, Special Counsel Robert Mueller proved that he was never interested in justice or the rule of law.

 

Robert Mueller

 

By Sean Davis

May 29, 2019

The Federalist

 

If there were any doubts about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s political intentions, his unprecedented press conference on Wednesday should put them all to rest. As he made abundantly clear during his doddering reading of a prepared statement that repeatedly contradicted itself, Mueller had no interest in the equal application of the rule of law. He gave the game, and his nakedly political intentions, away repeatedly throughout his statement.

 

“It is important that the office’s written work speak for itself,” Mueller said, referring to his office’s 448-page report. Mueller’s report was released to the public by Attorney General William Barr nearly six weeks ago. The entire report, minus limited redactions required by law, has been publicly available, pored through, and dissected. Its contents have been discussed ad nauseum in print and on television. The report has been speaking for itself since April 18, when it was released.

 

If it’s important for the work to speak for itself, then why did Mueller schedule a press conference in which he would speak for it weeks after it was released? The statement, given the venue in which it was provided, is self-refuting.

 

Let’s start with the Mueller team’s unique take on the nature of a prosecutor’s job. The standard American view of justice, affirmed and enforced by the U.S. Constitution, is that all are presumed innocent absent conviction by a jury of a specific charge of criminal wrongdoing. That is, the natural legal state of an individual in this country is innocence. It is not a state or a nature bestowed by cops or attorneys. Innocence is not granted by unelected bureaucrats or federal prosecutors.

 

At one point in his remarks, Mueller seemed to agree. Referring to indictments against various Russian individuals and institutions for allegedly hacking American servers during the 2016 election, Mueller said that the indictments “contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant.”

 

“Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”

 

Had he stopped there, he would have been correct. But then he crafted a brand new standard.

 

“The order appointing the special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of our work,” Mueller said. “After that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

 

According to Mueller and his team, charged Russians are presumed innocent. An American president, however, is presumed guilty unless and until Mueller’s team determines he is innocent. Such a standard is an obscene abomination against the rule of law, one that would never be committed by independent attorneys who place a fidelity to their oaths and impartial enforcement of the law ahead of their political motivations.

 

The contradictions and double standards didn’t stop there, though.

 

“It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge,” Mueller said, after all but stating that Trump committed a crime for which Mueller never charged him. Just as Mueller’s own words and actions at the Wednesday press conference prove that he didn’t want his team’s report to speak for itself, the report itself proves that Mueller and his team don’t believe it’s unfair to accuse somebody of something a court cannot resolve.

 

If they actually believed that, then the 240-page volume II of their report on their obstruction investigation of the president would never have been authored. After all, according to Mueller’s own statement, such an operation would be patently unfair. And if it’s unfair to air dirty laundry against a target who was never charged, surely it’s doubly unfair to do so in writing and on camera during a press conference whose mere existence refutes the very claims of its host.

 

Mueller revealed himself as little more than a clone of James Comey—the smarmy, scheming politician who replaced Mueller as the head of the FBI. Recall that it was Comey who assumed for himself powers that did not belong to him by law when he declared at a 2016 press conference no “reasonable prosecutor” would charge Hillary Clinton with criminal wrongdoing in her mishandling of classified information and unsanctioned use of a secret, private email server to evade public records laws. Just as Mueller did in his report and Wednesday press conference, Comey followed up his declaration that Hillary would not be charged with statement after statement after statement of all the awful things Hillary Clinton did.

 

“There is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” Comey said of Clinton. He excoriated her for repeatedly sending and receiving top secret information on her unsecured server which had never been authorized to process classified information. He even said it was possible, due to her “extreme” carelessness, that hostile foreign actors had penetrated her system and obtained highly classified information about U.S. national security programs.

 

Regardless of how you feel about Clinton, Comey’s display at that press conference was an embarrassment. He did an extreme disservice to the nation and the rule of law by unilaterally declaring himself the primary arbiter of prosecutorial decisions in the federal government when that authority belongs solely to the Department of Justice. And he did an extreme disservice to Clinton herself by dragging her through the mud in such a manner that clearing her name would be impossible.

 

In fact, DOJ guidelines expressly prohibit the actions of both Comey and Mueller in naming and shaming individuals who were never formally charged with any wrongdoing.

 

“As a series of cases makes clear, there is ordinarily ‘no legitimate governmental interest served’ by the government’s public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party, and this is true ‘regardless of what criminal charges may . . . b[e] contemplated by the Assistant United States Attorney against the [third-party] for the future,’” states DOJ’s formal policy manual on the duties of federal prosecutors and principles of federal prosecutions.

 

Nationwide bar rules governing all practicing attorneys in the United States also explicitly prohibit Mueller’s display during Wednesday’s press conference.

 

“The prosecutor in a criminal case shall … refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused,” states Rule 3.8(f) of the American Bar Association’s rules of professional conduct.

 

Multiple federal agents and prosecutors reached out to The Federalist after Mueller’s press conference to express dismay at the former FBI director’s behavior.

 

“I’d have been crucified under this rule for a ‘not innocent’ comment about an uncharged party,” a former federal prosecutor told The Federalist. “I literally cannot fathom holding a press conference to say that an uncharged person was not innocent.”

 

“I wish these former FBI directors would learn their lessons: keep your mouths shut unless you’re referring a case for prosecution,” Jeff Danik, a retired FBI supervisor, said during a phone interview with The Federalist on Wednesday.

 

Mueller’s performance made it clear for all to see that what he ran for the last two years wasn’t an independent investigation pursuant to the rule of law so much as an inquisition motivated by political animus. Mueller and his team refused to charge prominent Democrats for crimes he charged against Republicans. Paul Manafort was charged with unregistered lobbying for foreign governments, while Mueller left alone long-time Democrat donor Tony Podesta and former Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig.

 

George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn were charged with making false statements to federal investigators, while Clinton campaign cronies Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele’s false statements to Congress and the FBI were ignored. Trump’s nonexistent Russian connections were plumbed while a dubious Clinton campaign-funded dossier sourced directly to Russian officials was used as a prosecutorial roadmap rather than rock-solid evidence of actual campaign collusion with the Kremlin.

 

Mueller claimed his report spoke for itself, then put together a completely unnecessary press conference more than a month after his report’s public release, in which he not just spoke for the report, but expounded on the new legal standards he created to govern its conclusions.

 

These are the actions not of an impartial and independent investigator, but of a scheming political operative. None of this is any surprise to anyone who has followed Mueller’s tenure in government. As FBI director, Mueller repeatedly misused and abused the authority granted to him by Congress.

 

Mueller and Comey utterly bungled the federal investigation into the 2001 Anthrax attacks, resulting in a $5.8 million judgment against the government after the two men falsely accused an innocent man of being behind the attacks.

 

Even after the court judgment against him, Mueller was defiant.

 

“I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,” Mueller said afterward. He then doubled down and said it would be wrong to say there were any mistakes in how he handled the investigation.

 

Then there was Mueller’s handling as FBI director of a case in which FBI agents framed innocent men of murders the FBI knew had been committed by their own informants. One of the innocent men died in prison awaiting justice for a crime he never committed.

 

Then, as special counsel to investigate Russian collusion during the 2016 campaign, Mueller promptly hired partisan Democrats to run his investigation. He tapped as investigators FBI personnel who openly discussed their hatred of Trump and his voters, as well as their plans to keep him out of office.

 

There’s no longer any doubt about who Robert Mueller is or why he conducted himself the way he did. As abominable as his press conference was, we should in many ways be thankful that Mueller so willingly displayed for all to see his disdain for basic rules of prosecutorial conduct, his total lack of self-awareness, and his naked desire to stick it to Trump.

 

Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist.

++++++

Other voices noting the horse-pucky:

 

Bogus Mueller Investigation Ends With His Sudden Retirement; By Judi McLeod; Canada Free Press; 5/30/19

 

Mueller is a Coward; By M. Noonan; Blogs For Victory; 5/29/19

 

DEMOCRATS INSULT TRUMP, ACCUSE, THEN WONDER WHY HE WALKS AWAY; By Timothy Benton; Ocensor; 5/29/19

 

Bob Mueller Runs and Hides in Eight Minutes to Avoid Having to Answer One Key Question; By ROGER L. SIMON; PJ Media; 5/29/19

 

Limbaugh on Mueller Remarks: ‘Do You Realize What an Abomination of the Justice System That Is?’ By JEFF POOR; Breitbart; 5/29/19

 

Robert Mueller’s abuse of our legal system continues – He didn’t need to speak Wednesday; By Tom Del Beccaro; Fox News; 5/29/19

____________________

Mueller/Dem Horse-Pucky

John R. Houk

© May 30, 2019

___________________

Special Counsel Mueller Gives Final Back Stabbing To Trump In Press Briefing To Help Democrats

 

© 2019 NWV – All Rights Reserved

_________________________

Mueller: ‘I couldn’t find a Trump-Crime…so it’s Time to Impeach him!’

 

Content is Copyright 1997-2019 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2019 Canada Free Press.Com 

_____________________

Judicial Watch President Calls for Investigation Into Mueller

 

© 2016 TrumpTrainNews

________________________

DERSHOWITZ BLASTS MUELLER FOR ‘EXCEEDING HIS ROLE’

 

© Copyright 1997-2019. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

___________________

Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law

 

Copyright © 2019 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.