The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread
- Thread starter Nonononono
- Start date
Did you do that all by yourself? Good boy!
Hüsker Dü
DA
Did he tell the one about the two Corinthians?
Sheriff Joe
DA
President Trump's SOTU Affirmed Liberty to Unresponsive Subversives
By E. Jeffrey Ludwig
An hour before Pres. Donald Trump's State of the Union Address, I opened my mail. It included a thank-you note regarding a contribution I had made to a right-wing organization. The author of the note quoted Nikita Khrushchev, who said, "You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright, but we'll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and find you already have communism." The author of the thank-you note was revolted by this remark by N.K. and knew I would be as well.
I grew up during the Cold War and understood that communism was not merely an alternative theory of politics and economics to that held by most Americans, but was a living and breathing threat to our freedom emanating 24-7 from the USSR, the PRC, and a determined fifth column of traitorous leftists living in these United States. Our conflict with communism was not a mere academic or drawing room debate between gentleman-scholars. Rather, the ardent supporters of communism wished to extract the essence of our freedom and opportunities from our society.
In the name of curbing the rich, they wish to curb us all, grab power, assert governmental force over every area of our lives, and make themselves arbiters of every life decision we make – where we live, what kind of work each of us does, where and when we can and cannot travel, how to heat our homes or even build our homes, where to go to school, how many children to have, how long we live and under what conditions we live, and even the thoughts we think. Almost all that we now consider "private" they would refashion and reconfigure to be seen as "public." Our individual rights would be subsumed under collective rights.
As Richard Overy relates in his remarkable volume, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, under the Soviet Union system of law, a person could be deemed guilty of a crime simply because he was documented to have had thoughts similar to the thoughts of those who actually plotted and committed a crime even if he had had no part in planning or carrying out the crime. Thus, when I see Bernie Sanders's bespectacled face, I see not just another person with whom I have some differences of opinion, but, behind his college professor visage, a hideous expression of hatred for all that we hold dear. In like manner do I perceive the other leftists of the Democratic Party with their pro-communism agenda despite their attempts to present those views as mainstream or make them sound less threatening by calling them socialistic.
Pres. Donald Trump spat in the face of the socialists and socialists in sheep's clothing of the Democratic Party during Tuesday evening's State of the Union address. "America was founded on liberty and independence and not government coercion, domination, and control," he said to Republican applause. He continued, "We are born free and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country." These sentences cleared the air. There is no hiding from the truth encapsulated in these words. Fresh air blew through the hall and could be felt over the airwaves.
The Democrats should be repudiating the extreme leftists in their party; instead, they are embracing the far left ideology. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Democrats went through a crisis where they had to repudiate the extreme left wing of the party, which roughly can be designated as those led by Henry Wallace. President Harry Truman fired Wallace from his position as secretary of commerce because he perceived Wallace as being too conciliatory toward the Soviet Union. Wallace subsequently formed the Progressive Party and ran for president against Truman and the Republican candidate, Thomas Dewey, in 1948 but garnered only 2.4% of the vote. Here was a case where the Democratic Party's leader repudiated the far-left wing of that party. Nevertheless, it was an ironic and striking reality that a large percentage of the Socialist Party platform of 1912 had been implemented in the U.S., including the graduated income tax, by the time Wallace was rejected. Most of the implementation came during the New Deal under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Only in their program of "Collective Ownership" were the goals of the Socialist Party not met over time. The people of the U.S. decided on regulation instead of ownership. The socialists wanted ownership of all banks, all transportation, all mines, all means of communication, and all land.
Similar trends can be seen in the labor movement in the 1940s era. Many unions that had been strongly supportive of Pres. Franklin Roosevelt because of his initiative in getting the Wagner Act through Congress at the same time tried to purge their ranks of communist leadership. My own father was a union activist with the Transport Workers' Union. That union had been formed both by men who were communist unionists and by non-communist unionists. Under the leadership of Michael Quill, whose base was staunchly Irish Catholic and still held many so-called "bourgeois values," repudiated and kicked out the communist wing of the union, also in 1948, as the Cold War picked up a head of steam.
Earlier in the century, Eugene V. Debs had run for president three times as leader of the Socialist Party, but his aggressive objection to World War I led to his imprisonment and severely set back the socialist-communist agenda in the U.S.
By E. Jeffrey Ludwig
An hour before Pres. Donald Trump's State of the Union Address, I opened my mail. It included a thank-you note regarding a contribution I had made to a right-wing organization. The author of the note quoted Nikita Khrushchev, who said, "You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright, but we'll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and find you already have communism." The author of the thank-you note was revolted by this remark by N.K. and knew I would be as well.
I grew up during the Cold War and understood that communism was not merely an alternative theory of politics and economics to that held by most Americans, but was a living and breathing threat to our freedom emanating 24-7 from the USSR, the PRC, and a determined fifth column of traitorous leftists living in these United States. Our conflict with communism was not a mere academic or drawing room debate between gentleman-scholars. Rather, the ardent supporters of communism wished to extract the essence of our freedom and opportunities from our society.
In the name of curbing the rich, they wish to curb us all, grab power, assert governmental force over every area of our lives, and make themselves arbiters of every life decision we make – where we live, what kind of work each of us does, where and when we can and cannot travel, how to heat our homes or even build our homes, where to go to school, how many children to have, how long we live and under what conditions we live, and even the thoughts we think. Almost all that we now consider "private" they would refashion and reconfigure to be seen as "public." Our individual rights would be subsumed under collective rights.
As Richard Overy relates in his remarkable volume, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, under the Soviet Union system of law, a person could be deemed guilty of a crime simply because he was documented to have had thoughts similar to the thoughts of those who actually plotted and committed a crime even if he had had no part in planning or carrying out the crime. Thus, when I see Bernie Sanders's bespectacled face, I see not just another person with whom I have some differences of opinion, but, behind his college professor visage, a hideous expression of hatred for all that we hold dear. In like manner do I perceive the other leftists of the Democratic Party with their pro-communism agenda despite their attempts to present those views as mainstream or make them sound less threatening by calling them socialistic.
Pres. Donald Trump spat in the face of the socialists and socialists in sheep's clothing of the Democratic Party during Tuesday evening's State of the Union address. "America was founded on liberty and independence and not government coercion, domination, and control," he said to Republican applause. He continued, "We are born free and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country." These sentences cleared the air. There is no hiding from the truth encapsulated in these words. Fresh air blew through the hall and could be felt over the airwaves.
The Democrats should be repudiating the extreme leftists in their party; instead, they are embracing the far left ideology. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Democrats went through a crisis where they had to repudiate the extreme left wing of the party, which roughly can be designated as those led by Henry Wallace. President Harry Truman fired Wallace from his position as secretary of commerce because he perceived Wallace as being too conciliatory toward the Soviet Union. Wallace subsequently formed the Progressive Party and ran for president against Truman and the Republican candidate, Thomas Dewey, in 1948 but garnered only 2.4% of the vote. Here was a case where the Democratic Party's leader repudiated the far-left wing of that party. Nevertheless, it was an ironic and striking reality that a large percentage of the Socialist Party platform of 1912 had been implemented in the U.S., including the graduated income tax, by the time Wallace was rejected. Most of the implementation came during the New Deal under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Only in their program of "Collective Ownership" were the goals of the Socialist Party not met over time. The people of the U.S. decided on regulation instead of ownership. The socialists wanted ownership of all banks, all transportation, all mines, all means of communication, and all land.
Similar trends can be seen in the labor movement in the 1940s era. Many unions that had been strongly supportive of Pres. Franklin Roosevelt because of his initiative in getting the Wagner Act through Congress at the same time tried to purge their ranks of communist leadership. My own father was a union activist with the Transport Workers' Union. That union had been formed both by men who were communist unionists and by non-communist unionists. Under the leadership of Michael Quill, whose base was staunchly Irish Catholic and still held many so-called "bourgeois values," repudiated and kicked out the communist wing of the union, also in 1948, as the Cold War picked up a head of steam.
Earlier in the century, Eugene V. Debs had run for president three times as leader of the Socialist Party, but his aggressive objection to World War I led to his imprisonment and severely set back the socialist-communist agenda in the U.S.
Sheriff Joe
DA
FEBRUARY 7, 2019
Jussie Smollet 'hate crime' looking more and more like a hoax
By John Dietrich
Coverage of the alleged attack on black homosexual entertainer Jussie Smollett will slowly fade into the sunset. Many prominent people in the media and politics have commented on the case, and when it is revealed as a hoax, as it almost certainly will be, their credibility will suffer further damage. It is best to let it quietly slide down the memory hole.
Smollett was supposedly attacked by two assailants at about 2:00 AM on the morning of 29 January. This was one of the coldest nights of the year at minus 12 degrees and a wind chill of minus 20. Smollett claimed that he was attacked by two men who called him "Empire f----- n-----," beat him, poured an "unknown chemical substance" on him, and put a rope around his neck. One report claims that the attackers "used their teeth as well as hands and feet as weapons." Yes, Smollett claims he was bitten. Even hillbillies should know that it is inadvisable to bite a homosexual. When police arrived at Smollett's residence, he was still wearing the rope his alleged attackers had given him.
Police claim they are withholding some information in order to verify reports from people still coming forward. A Smollett neighbor claimed to have seen a "redneck" with a rope. Unfortunately, this "redneck" with a rope did not fit the description provided by Smollett. An anonymous witness saw a "hillbilly looking" character in the area. How do rednecks and hillbillies dress in minus 12-degree weather? Apparently, these attackers were considerate enough not to interrupt Jussie's telephone conversation or damage his sandwich. His original police report did not mention the fact that the attackers shouted, "This is MAGA country." This was added later.
The Chicago Police Department is not sparing any expense to find the alleged perpetrators. Chicago Police Department spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said, "We are starting to search stores to see if any of this kind of rope was purchased in the area." The FBI is reportedly also involved. Video footage of the area is being viewed for evidence. Guglielmi said investigators would go "painstakingly" through footage to reconstruct what Smollett said happened. Two individuals have been found on video in the area about at the same time as Smollett's alleged attack. The video is worthless for identification purposes. For some reason, authorities are interested in whether these people are "homeless or otherwise." It has recently been reported that Smollett was on camera for all but about 60 seconds of his trip. This would make it almost impossible for the attack to take place.
Smollett said, "I am working with authorities and have been 100% factual and consistent on every level." Smollett did not tell police in his first interview that his attackers yelled, "This is MAGA country." Smollett's manager, Brandon Z. Moore, said that he was on the phone with him when the incident happened and that he heard the attackers shouting, "This is MAGA country!" On Friday, the head of the police department, Superintendent Eddie Johnson, said Smollett had been "very cooperative and we have no reason at this point to think he's not being genuine with us." The Chicago Police Department issued a statement claiming, "The victim is fully cooperating with investigators." Yet Smollett refused to surrender his phone in order to verify that he was talking to his manager during the attack.
A week after the attack the police superintendent was beginning to show signs of skepticism. He reported that Smollett was still being considered a victim, but if investigators found that he had made a false report, he would be held accountable.
President Trump was asked about this attack during a press conference. He responded, "That, I can tell you, is horrible. I've seen it, last night. I think that's horrible. It doesn't get worse as far as I'm concerned." Was a president ever asked about 13-month-old Antonio Santiago, who was shot in the face at point-blank range in front of his mother, or 12-year-old Jonathan Foster, murdered with a blowtorch, or 5-month-old Andre Jenkins, who was placed in a clothes dryer by his babysitter? These were all crimes that the media chose not to highlight.
The media's exaggerated promotion of stories allegedly revealing racial bias has consequences. The Tawana Brawley rape hoax, the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax, and numerous false claims of police brutality have enraged members of the black community. The murder of a 7-year-old black girl, Jazmine Barnes, was national news when it was reported that he murderer was white. When it was determined that the assailant was black, it was no longer news.
Jussie Smollet 'hate crime' looking more and more like a hoax
By John Dietrich
Coverage of the alleged attack on black homosexual entertainer Jussie Smollett will slowly fade into the sunset. Many prominent people in the media and politics have commented on the case, and when it is revealed as a hoax, as it almost certainly will be, their credibility will suffer further damage. It is best to let it quietly slide down the memory hole.
Smollett was supposedly attacked by two assailants at about 2:00 AM on the morning of 29 January. This was one of the coldest nights of the year at minus 12 degrees and a wind chill of minus 20. Smollett claimed that he was attacked by two men who called him "Empire f----- n-----," beat him, poured an "unknown chemical substance" on him, and put a rope around his neck. One report claims that the attackers "used their teeth as well as hands and feet as weapons." Yes, Smollett claims he was bitten. Even hillbillies should know that it is inadvisable to bite a homosexual. When police arrived at Smollett's residence, he was still wearing the rope his alleged attackers had given him.
Police claim they are withholding some information in order to verify reports from people still coming forward. A Smollett neighbor claimed to have seen a "redneck" with a rope. Unfortunately, this "redneck" with a rope did not fit the description provided by Smollett. An anonymous witness saw a "hillbilly looking" character in the area. How do rednecks and hillbillies dress in minus 12-degree weather? Apparently, these attackers were considerate enough not to interrupt Jussie's telephone conversation or damage his sandwich. His original police report did not mention the fact that the attackers shouted, "This is MAGA country." This was added later.
The Chicago Police Department is not sparing any expense to find the alleged perpetrators. Chicago Police Department spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said, "We are starting to search stores to see if any of this kind of rope was purchased in the area." The FBI is reportedly also involved. Video footage of the area is being viewed for evidence. Guglielmi said investigators would go "painstakingly" through footage to reconstruct what Smollett said happened. Two individuals have been found on video in the area about at the same time as Smollett's alleged attack. The video is worthless for identification purposes. For some reason, authorities are interested in whether these people are "homeless or otherwise." It has recently been reported that Smollett was on camera for all but about 60 seconds of his trip. This would make it almost impossible for the attack to take place.
Smollett said, "I am working with authorities and have been 100% factual and consistent on every level." Smollett did not tell police in his first interview that his attackers yelled, "This is MAGA country." Smollett's manager, Brandon Z. Moore, said that he was on the phone with him when the incident happened and that he heard the attackers shouting, "This is MAGA country!" On Friday, the head of the police department, Superintendent Eddie Johnson, said Smollett had been "very cooperative and we have no reason at this point to think he's not being genuine with us." The Chicago Police Department issued a statement claiming, "The victim is fully cooperating with investigators." Yet Smollett refused to surrender his phone in order to verify that he was talking to his manager during the attack.
A week after the attack the police superintendent was beginning to show signs of skepticism. He reported that Smollett was still being considered a victim, but if investigators found that he had made a false report, he would be held accountable.
President Trump was asked about this attack during a press conference. He responded, "That, I can tell you, is horrible. I've seen it, last night. I think that's horrible. It doesn't get worse as far as I'm concerned." Was a president ever asked about 13-month-old Antonio Santiago, who was shot in the face at point-blank range in front of his mother, or 12-year-old Jonathan Foster, murdered with a blowtorch, or 5-month-old Andre Jenkins, who was placed in a clothes dryer by his babysitter? These were all crimes that the media chose not to highlight.
The media's exaggerated promotion of stories allegedly revealing racial bias has consequences. The Tawana Brawley rape hoax, the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax, and numerous false claims of police brutality have enraged members of the black community. The murder of a 7-year-old black girl, Jazmine Barnes, was national news when it was reported that he murderer was white. When it was determined that the assailant was black, it was no longer news.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Racist? How could I be racist against the Kenyan? I hate the white bread part of him just as much as the black part.
Wise up.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Socialism, the gateway to communism.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Trump: Why did Schiff meet with Fusion GPS chief in Aspen?
Ed Morrissey Feb 08, 2019 9:21 AM
Top Pick
“Brief and social in nature”?
Ed Morrissey Feb 08, 2019 9:21 AM
Top Pick
“Brief and social in nature”?
Sheriff Joe
DA
Feel good story of the day,
A Customs and Border Protection agent shot a driver Thursday who attempted to run over an agent at a port of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, reports said.
Mexico’s border officers surrounded the vehicle after its momentum carried it across the border, and they found two men inside, according to the Arizona Republic. The driver had been shot in the head and a passenger was arrested, the paper reported, citing local outlet the Nogales International.
The driver's condition was not immediately available.
Nogales Mayor Arturo Garino told FOX10 Phoenix that he heard from other city officials that the driver was attempting to cross south into Mexico at the DeConcini Port.
Border Protection and Nogales police officials both alerted that the port of entry's outbound lanes were shut down due to an emergency, but did not elaborate. The agencies issued an update about an hour later stating the crossing had been reopened
A Customs and Border Protection agent shot a driver Thursday who attempted to run over an agent at a port of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, reports said.
Mexico’s border officers surrounded the vehicle after its momentum carried it across the border, and they found two men inside, according to the Arizona Republic. The driver had been shot in the head and a passenger was arrested, the paper reported, citing local outlet the Nogales International.
The driver's condition was not immediately available.
Nogales Mayor Arturo Garino told FOX10 Phoenix that he heard from other city officials that the driver was attempting to cross south into Mexico at the DeConcini Port.
Border Protection and Nogales police officials both alerted that the port of entry's outbound lanes were shut down due to an emergency, but did not elaborate. The agencies issued an update about an hour later stating the crossing had been reopened
Sheriff Joe
DA
Yeah, Roberts is a douche.
How is RBG feeling?
Sheriff Joe
DA
Someone get the net,
GUNS, GRUB AND DRIVEWAYS
Tax-happy Democrats around nation flex muscles with barrage of new levy proposals
GUNS, GRUB AND DRIVEWAYS
Tax-happy Democrats around nation flex muscles with barrage of new levy proposals
Sheriff Joe
DA
Best News Ever.
Russia Investigation
Published 46 mins ago
Hearing erupts as Acting AG Whitaker calls time on Dem chairman: ‘Your 5 minutes is up’
By Br
Acting Attorney General Whitaker and Chairman Nadler spar over Robert Mueller's investigation
Democratic Chairman Jerry Nadler presses Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker on his supervision of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe at a House Judiciary Committee hearing.
Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker stunned onlookers and lawmakers during an already-contentious House hearing Friday, when he tried to call time on the Democratic chairman after yet another line of questioning regarding Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.
The retort came after Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., first said he wanted Whitaker to appear for a private deposition after the hearing and went on to ask Whitaker whether he had been “asked to approve any requests or action” for the special counsel.
WHITAKER WILL TESTIFY BEFORE HOUSE PANEL AFTER TENSE BACK-AND-FORTH: NADLER AND DOJ
“Mr. Chairman, I see that your five minutes is up, so…” Whitaker replied as the hearing room broke out in gasps. “I am here voluntarily. We have agreed to five-minute rounds.”
Nadler, who even cracked a slight smile at the response, repeated his question, and Whitaker ultimately responded: “I have not interfered in any way with the special counsel’s investigation.”
The fiery back and forth follows a dramatic political prelude to the hearing itself, complete with threats by Nadler to subpoena the witness and threats by the DOJ to boycott. Democrats are acutely focused on Whitaker's oversight of the Mueller probe, in his acting AG status while awaiting confirmation of President Trump's attorney general pick William Barr.
“There has been no change in the overall management of the special counsel investigation,” Whitaker testified Friday, saying that he never offered any “promises or commitments” regarding the Mueller or any other investigation.
Nadler pressed Whitaker over whether he had shared information about the investigation with Trump, or any White House officials.
“I do not intend today to talk about my private conversations, but to answer your question, I did not talk to the president about the status of the investigation,” Whitaker answered. “Consistent with what I’ve already said. I have not talked about the special counsel’s investigation with any White House officials.”
Whitaker did not directly answer several of Nadler’s other questions, resulting in the chairman requested that the acting attorney general return to the committee at a later date.
“I’ve given you a fair opportunity so that we could avoid this fight in the first place, but you don’t appear to have done any of that,” Nadler said, referring to Whitaker’s preparations, while saying, “I do not believe issuing a subpoena here would correct the problem.” Nadler explained that the committee would “attempt to reach an accommodation with the department to receive answers,” so Whitaker can return for “deposition before the committee, under oath.”
Nadler said that, at that point, he expects “clean answers or proper assertion of privilege claimed by the president.”
Meanwhile, the top Republican on the committee blasted the hearing as a "dog and pony show."
“This hearing is a character assassination on Acting Attorney General Whitaker, all pure political theater, to go after the president,” Ranking Member Doug Collins, R-Ga, said in his opening statement while urging the committee to adjourn.
A vote was then taken on whether to abruptly end the hearing. The measure did not pass, and the hearing began as scheduled.
The hearing follows an intense back and forth between the Justice Department and the Judiciary Committee a day earlier.
The Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to give Nadler the authority to issue a subpoena if necessary, despite Whitaker having already agreed to appear before the panel voluntarily.
Nadler made clear early Thursday that he did not want to have to subpoena Whitaker, but said a “series of troubling events” suggested it would be better for him to be prepared with that authority, just in case he decided not to show up for the hearing.
But Whitaker then warned he would not show up unless lawmakers dropped the threat.
“Consistent with longstanding practice, I remain willing to appear to testify tomorrow, provided that the Chairman assures me that the Committee will not issue a subpoena today or tomorrow and that the Committee will engage in good faith negotiations before taking such a step down the road,” Whitaker wrote to Nadler.
Hours later, Nadler responded that if Whitaker appeared before the panel “prepared to respond to questions from our members, then I assure you there will be no need for the committee to issue a subpoena on or before February 8.”
Whitaker accepted the assurances and testified Friday.
The hearing Friday comes as the Senate is close to confirming Trump’s nominee for attorney general. The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted, along party lines, to advance Barr’s nomination to the full Senate for confirmation.
The president fired his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, the day after the 2018 midterm elections. Prior to Whitaker’s appointment as acting attorney general, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein oversaw the Russia investigation.
Nadler and other Democrats have criticized Whitaker for not recusing himself from the Mueller probe, as Sessions did due to his involvement with the Trump campaign in 2016, as Whitaker had made public comments criticizing the investigation.
The hearing is the committee’s first major oversight hearing looking at the Justice Department of this Congress. Whitaker told reporters last week that Mueller’s probe was “close to being completed,” the first official sign that the investigation may be nearing an end. His comments, though, were a departure for the Justice Department, which rarely comments on the status of investigations. Whitaker, though, said he had been “fully briefed” on the probe
Russia Investigation
Published 46 mins ago
Hearing erupts as Acting AG Whitaker calls time on Dem chairman: ‘Your 5 minutes is up’
By Br
Acting Attorney General Whitaker and Chairman Nadler spar over Robert Mueller's investigation
Democratic Chairman Jerry Nadler presses Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker on his supervision of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe at a House Judiciary Committee hearing.
Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker stunned onlookers and lawmakers during an already-contentious House hearing Friday, when he tried to call time on the Democratic chairman after yet another line of questioning regarding Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.
The retort came after Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., first said he wanted Whitaker to appear for a private deposition after the hearing and went on to ask Whitaker whether he had been “asked to approve any requests or action” for the special counsel.
WHITAKER WILL TESTIFY BEFORE HOUSE PANEL AFTER TENSE BACK-AND-FORTH: NADLER AND DOJ
“Mr. Chairman, I see that your five minutes is up, so…” Whitaker replied as the hearing room broke out in gasps. “I am here voluntarily. We have agreed to five-minute rounds.”
Nadler, who even cracked a slight smile at the response, repeated his question, and Whitaker ultimately responded: “I have not interfered in any way with the special counsel’s investigation.”
The fiery back and forth follows a dramatic political prelude to the hearing itself, complete with threats by Nadler to subpoena the witness and threats by the DOJ to boycott. Democrats are acutely focused on Whitaker's oversight of the Mueller probe, in his acting AG status while awaiting confirmation of President Trump's attorney general pick William Barr.
“There has been no change in the overall management of the special counsel investigation,” Whitaker testified Friday, saying that he never offered any “promises or commitments” regarding the Mueller or any other investigation.
Nadler pressed Whitaker over whether he had shared information about the investigation with Trump, or any White House officials.
“I do not intend today to talk about my private conversations, but to answer your question, I did not talk to the president about the status of the investigation,” Whitaker answered. “Consistent with what I’ve already said. I have not talked about the special counsel’s investigation with any White House officials.”
Whitaker did not directly answer several of Nadler’s other questions, resulting in the chairman requested that the acting attorney general return to the committee at a later date.
“I’ve given you a fair opportunity so that we could avoid this fight in the first place, but you don’t appear to have done any of that,” Nadler said, referring to Whitaker’s preparations, while saying, “I do not believe issuing a subpoena here would correct the problem.” Nadler explained that the committee would “attempt to reach an accommodation with the department to receive answers,” so Whitaker can return for “deposition before the committee, under oath.”
Nadler said that, at that point, he expects “clean answers or proper assertion of privilege claimed by the president.”
Meanwhile, the top Republican on the committee blasted the hearing as a "dog and pony show."
“This hearing is a character assassination on Acting Attorney General Whitaker, all pure political theater, to go after the president,” Ranking Member Doug Collins, R-Ga, said in his opening statement while urging the committee to adjourn.
A vote was then taken on whether to abruptly end the hearing. The measure did not pass, and the hearing began as scheduled.
The hearing follows an intense back and forth between the Justice Department and the Judiciary Committee a day earlier.
The Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to give Nadler the authority to issue a subpoena if necessary, despite Whitaker having already agreed to appear before the panel voluntarily.
Nadler made clear early Thursday that he did not want to have to subpoena Whitaker, but said a “series of troubling events” suggested it would be better for him to be prepared with that authority, just in case he decided not to show up for the hearing.
But Whitaker then warned he would not show up unless lawmakers dropped the threat.
“Consistent with longstanding practice, I remain willing to appear to testify tomorrow, provided that the Chairman assures me that the Committee will not issue a subpoena today or tomorrow and that the Committee will engage in good faith negotiations before taking such a step down the road,” Whitaker wrote to Nadler.
Hours later, Nadler responded that if Whitaker appeared before the panel “prepared to respond to questions from our members, then I assure you there will be no need for the committee to issue a subpoena on or before February 8.”
Whitaker accepted the assurances and testified Friday.
The hearing Friday comes as the Senate is close to confirming Trump’s nominee for attorney general. The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted, along party lines, to advance Barr’s nomination to the full Senate for confirmation.
The president fired his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, the day after the 2018 midterm elections. Prior to Whitaker’s appointment as acting attorney general, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein oversaw the Russia investigation.
Nadler and other Democrats have criticized Whitaker for not recusing himself from the Mueller probe, as Sessions did due to his involvement with the Trump campaign in 2016, as Whitaker had made public comments criticizing the investigation.
The hearing is the committee’s first major oversight hearing looking at the Justice Department of this Congress. Whitaker told reporters last week that Mueller’s probe was “close to being completed,” the first official sign that the investigation may be nearing an end. His comments, though, were a departure for the Justice Department, which rarely comments on the status of investigations. Whitaker, though, said he had been “fully briefed” on the probe
Sheriff Joe
DA
Reminder to Self-Important SJWs that People Can Celebrate Whatever Culture They Want
Posted at 11:00 am on February 8, 2019 by Brandon Morse
Cultural approrpiation or culturally appropriate?
If there’s one thing I can’t stand it’s the idea that one culture cannot participate or experiment with another. The social justice-obsessed call doing such a thing “cultural appropriation,” which revolves around the idea that a person — especially those dastardly white people — uses an aspect of a certain culture for personal gain or fun without the express permission or guidance of someone from that culture.
Those who do engage in this “cultural appropriation” are labeled racist, publicly shamed, a figuratively tarred and feathered.
A recent example is Gordon Ramsey who dared announce his plans to open up an authentic Asian restaurant called “Lucky Cat.”
“A revolutionary new venture and concept for the group, the restaurant is set to be an authentic Asian Eating House and a vibrant late-night lounge, inspired by the drinking dens of 1930s Tokyo and the Far East,” said Ramsay’s restaurant group according to London Eater. “Just as these nocturnal clubs were once the playground of urban dwellers seeking all things spirited and rebellious, Lucky Cat has woven these notions into the fabric of Lucky Cat, as showcased in everything from the menu concept to the innovative interior design.”
The opening up of a Ramsey restaurant should usually be cause for parades down main street, but of course, the SJWs went into full outrage m
Reminder to Self-Important SJWs that People Can Celebrate Whatever Culture They Want
Brandon Morse
Posted at 11:00 am on February 8, 2019 by Brandon Morse
Cultural approrpiation or culturally appropriate?
If there’s one thing I can’t stand it’s the idea that one culture cannot participate or experiment with another. The social justice-obsessed call doing such a thing “cultural appropriation,” which revolves around the idea that a person — especially those dastardly white people — uses an aspect of a certain culture for personal gain or fun without the express permission or guidance of someone from that culture.
Those who do engage in this “cultural appropriation” are labeled racist, publicly shamed, a figuratively tarred and feathered.
A recent example is Gordon Ramsey who dared announce his plans to open up an authentic Asian restaurant called “Lucky Cat.”
“A revolutionary new venture and concept for the group, the restaurant is set to be an authentic Asian Eating House and a vibrant late-night lounge, inspired by the drinking dens of 1930s Tokyo and the Far East,” said Ramsay’s restaurant group according to London Eater. “Just as these nocturnal clubs were once the playground of urban dwellers seeking all things spirited and rebellious, Lucky Cat has woven these notions into the fabric of Lucky Cat, as showcased in everything from the menu concept to the innovative interior design.”
The opening up of a Ramsey restaurant should usually be cause for parades down main street, but of course, the SJWs went into full outrage m
Reminder to Self-Important SJWs that People Can Celebrate Whatever Culture They Want
Brandon Morse
Sheriff Joe
DA
Bezos actually thinks a young hot thing wants the richest man in the world for his little prick?
Too funny.
BEZOS CLAIMS BLACKMAIL!
PECKER PIC DRAMA
RICHEST MAN IN PLAY OR PAY
FEDS PROBE
GOV'T BEHIND LEAK OF SEXTS?
Too funny.
BEZOS CLAIMS BLACKMAIL!
PECKER PIC DRAMA
RICHEST MAN IN PLAY OR PAY
FEDS PROBE
GOV'T BEHIND LEAK OF SEXTS?