Sheriff Joe
DA
Maybe, I'm good with pence. The Trump family deserves a vacation after all the lies they have been dealing with.
The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread
- Thread starter Nonononono
- Start date
Sheriff Joe
DA
Because you don't matter.
Sheriff Joe
DA
NEWS MARCH 23, 2019
Rep. Swalwell says anything Trump says about Mueller report should be 'deemed irrelevant'
(Image source: CNN screenshot)
CALEB HOWE
CNN had a weird Friday night after Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded his Russia investigation and delivered his report. Analyst Jeffrey Toobin repeatedly had to explain to viewers and fellow contributors that, yes, the investigation really is over and no, there are no arrests forthcoming.
But it wasn't just the contributors and analysts, Democrats from the House and Senate appeared on CNN to discuss the implications of the report and their reactions to it, among them Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, also known as "the Starbucks Martyr."
Swalwell was noticeably angry in the wake of the report, and the reporting about the report, and testily told CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer how angry he was about President Trump never going under oath before the investigation. He also said that Trump will "taint" the report by looking at it, that they can't take Attorney General Barr's "word for it" when it comes to conclusions in the report, and, most amazingly, that we shouldn't even listen to any response from Trump, and that such response should be "deemed irrelevant."
Blitzer pressed Swalwell on why the congress should get the report before or to the exclusion of the executive branch, and that's when the temper kicked in.
"The president is a subject. He's a subject of an investigation," said Swalwell. "There is an honor code that presidents when they are subject to investigations back off but they followed the rule of law. It is inappropriate he would even touch this."
"If he didn't do anything wrong he would keep his hands off of it, say the public can read every word, every sentence, every comma, every period. He's not going to do that. I think it will taint its release," said Swalwell. This is a Democrat member of congress stating in advance that the report will be "tainted", laying the groundwork to not accept it. A trial balloon?
Blitzer then asked the angry congressman if he has confidence in Barr to give congress the maximum amount of detail from the report that he legally can. Swalwell answered that he could trust but verify, and dismissed the caveat about what is permissible under the law by saying that Democrats "outnumber" the president and can subpoena what they want.
"I also think we'll have to hear from Bob Mueller himself. I don't know how we could just accept it at Mr. Barr's word without the lead investigator telling us whether he was limited in any way," said Swalwell. Rep. Adam Schiff on Friday already floated the idea of a subpoena for Mueller.
Swalwell added without prompting by Blitzer that Trump's opinion and comments about the report about him and his campaign, which followed a two-year investigation into him and his associates and family and campaign, should be considered irrelevant.
"I just want to say this, Wolf. I do not want to hear from a president who was unwilling to go under oath as a subject of this investigation, attack a report where others so willingly did go under oath," said Swalwell. "He has no credibility. The state of the evidence will not include his testimony, so anything he says about it I think should be deemed irrelevant."
Later in the exchange Blitzer notes that if there are no indictments forthcoming the Justice Department guideline is that you don't "release negative information about someone who is in charge."
Swalwell said, "that's a guideline I think that we're going to fight."
Rep. Swalwell says anything Trump says about Mueller report should be 'deemed irrelevant'
(Image source: CNN screenshot)
CALEB HOWE
CNN had a weird Friday night after Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded his Russia investigation and delivered his report. Analyst Jeffrey Toobin repeatedly had to explain to viewers and fellow contributors that, yes, the investigation really is over and no, there are no arrests forthcoming.
But it wasn't just the contributors and analysts, Democrats from the House and Senate appeared on CNN to discuss the implications of the report and their reactions to it, among them Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, also known as "the Starbucks Martyr."
Swalwell was noticeably angry in the wake of the report, and the reporting about the report, and testily told CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer how angry he was about President Trump never going under oath before the investigation. He also said that Trump will "taint" the report by looking at it, that they can't take Attorney General Barr's "word for it" when it comes to conclusions in the report, and, most amazingly, that we shouldn't even listen to any response from Trump, and that such response should be "deemed irrelevant."
Blitzer pressed Swalwell on why the congress should get the report before or to the exclusion of the executive branch, and that's when the temper kicked in.
"The president is a subject. He's a subject of an investigation," said Swalwell. "There is an honor code that presidents when they are subject to investigations back off but they followed the rule of law. It is inappropriate he would even touch this."
"If he didn't do anything wrong he would keep his hands off of it, say the public can read every word, every sentence, every comma, every period. He's not going to do that. I think it will taint its release," said Swalwell. This is a Democrat member of congress stating in advance that the report will be "tainted", laying the groundwork to not accept it. A trial balloon?
Blitzer then asked the angry congressman if he has confidence in Barr to give congress the maximum amount of detail from the report that he legally can. Swalwell answered that he could trust but verify, and dismissed the caveat about what is permissible under the law by saying that Democrats "outnumber" the president and can subpoena what they want.
"I also think we'll have to hear from Bob Mueller himself. I don't know how we could just accept it at Mr. Barr's word without the lead investigator telling us whether he was limited in any way," said Swalwell. Rep. Adam Schiff on Friday already floated the idea of a subpoena for Mueller.
Swalwell added without prompting by Blitzer that Trump's opinion and comments about the report about him and his campaign, which followed a two-year investigation into him and his associates and family and campaign, should be considered irrelevant.
"I just want to say this, Wolf. I do not want to hear from a president who was unwilling to go under oath as a subject of this investigation, attack a report where others so willingly did go under oath," said Swalwell. "He has no credibility. The state of the evidence will not include his testimony, so anything he says about it I think should be deemed irrelevant."
Later in the exchange Blitzer notes that if there are no indictments forthcoming the Justice Department guideline is that you don't "release negative information about someone who is in charge."
Swalwell said, "that's a guideline I think that we're going to fight."
Sheriff Joe
DA
What stupid fuck did this commie work for?
WATCH: John Brennan’s Hilariously Bad Predictions on Mueller Probe Just Two Weeks Ago
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/20...-prediction-mueller-probe-just-two-weeks-ago/
WATCH: John Brennan’s Hilariously Bad Predictions on Mueller Probe Just Two Weeks Ago
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/20...-prediction-mueller-probe-just-two-weeks-ago/
Sheriff Joe
DA
Here are your marching orders/talking points,
Dummies.
Pelosi Holds Emergency Call With Democratic Caucus Over Mueller Report. Here's What Transpired.
13 hours ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...DMAN6BAgJEBE&usg=AOvVaw3xwPjIFTGpB8NyMVsqct_Q
Dummies.
Pelosi Holds Emergency Call With Democratic Caucus Over Mueller Report. Here's What Transpired.
13 hours ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...DMAN6BAgJEBE&usg=AOvVaw3xwPjIFTGpB8NyMVsqct_Q
Sheriff Joe
DA
Pretty stupid, even for this queer bashing whore.
Although the contents of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report have not been released, Lefties, including MSNBC's Joy Reid, are convinced the Department of Justice is "covering up" for President Donald Trump. They have come to this conclusion because Mueller is not indicting anyone else, including Trump.
Although the contents of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report have not been released, Lefties, including MSNBC's Joy Reid, are convinced the Department of Justice is "covering up" for President Donald Trump. They have come to this conclusion because Mueller is not indicting anyone else, including Trump.
Attachments
Sheriff Joe
DA
Bill Maher Used To Like Mueller — Now: ‘I Don’t Need The Mueller Report To Know Trump Is A Traitor’
16 hours ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...DMAh6BAgGECU&usg=AOvVaw2pCkNfX70ILJ9iVFcBxlSk
16 hours ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...DMAh6BAgGECU&usg=AOvVaw2pCkNfX70ILJ9iVFcBxlSk
Sheriff Joe
DA
Pelosi will reject classified briefing of Mueller's findings
MARCH 24, 2019
Why does Nancy Pelosi want to expose our intelligence sources and methods?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...classified_briefing_of_muellers_findings.html
MARCH 24, 2019
Why does Nancy Pelosi want to expose our intelligence sources and methods?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...classified_briefing_of_muellers_findings.html
Sheriff Joe
DA
The rare wisdom of our president is a gift
MARCH 24, 2019
We don't often get one like this.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/the_rare_wisdom_of_our_president_is_a_gift.html
MARCH 24, 2019
We don't often get one like this.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/the_rare_wisdom_of_our_president_is_a_gift.html
Sheriff Joe
DA
The inflection point: Mueller Report delivery will unleash the counter-narrative
MARCH 23, 2019
Soon enough, the story will be told of the biggest political scandal in the history of the Republic. For almost two years, all sorts of declassificat...
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...livery_will_unleash_the_counternarrative.html
MARCH 23, 2019
Soon enough, the story will be told of the biggest political scandal in the history of the Republic. For almost two years, all sorts of declassificat...
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...livery_will_unleash_the_counternarrative.html
Sheriff Joe
DA
Schiff on end of Mueller probe: 'We have to find the truth'
MARCH 23, 2019
Schiff is still digging through that manure pile looking for the pony.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._mueller_probe_we_have_to_find_the_truth.html
MARCH 23, 2019
Schiff is still digging through that manure pile looking for the pony.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._mueller_probe_we_have_to_find_the_truth.html
Sheriff Joe
DA
The truth is now out about those FISA warrants
MARCH 23, 2019
Operatives at the Justice Department weren't at all as convinced as the FBI was about the merits of spying on Trump's campaign. Devin Nunes noticed.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/so_the_truth_is_now_out_about_those_fisa_warrants.html
MARCH 23, 2019
Operatives at the Justice Department weren't at all as convinced as the FBI was about the merits of spying on Trump's campaign. Devin Nunes noticed.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/so_the_truth_is_now_out_about_those_fisa_warrants.html
Andy Dukes
PREMIER
Actually that did happen. Of the many indictments from the Mueller team there are dozens of Russians who ran sophisticated social media campaigns targeting very specific voters in very specific geographical areas. These social media campaigns used false and misleading information about HRC. Like the completely ridiculous stories of the child sex ring in DC that only a complete fool who should not be allowed anywhere near a voting booth would believe. These campaigns were effective. The ,unknown this morning, is where did those Russians get the data to target so specifically the exact areas to switch what had been Obama districts to Trump districts. This is no small thing since it was roughly 70,000 votes across a few states in these districts that swung the election to Pussy Grabber.
Cigar anyone?
Sheriff Joe
DA
Yeah, no. They gave Corsi a plea deal, he declined and they didn't indict.
Witch hunting brownshirts.
Russia gave Clinton 145 million and trump is in bed with Russia? Keep it coming.
Andy Dukes
PREMIER
I like that you used one of the Russian fake stories to prove my point. Thank you.
Having confirmed Russian influence in the election without proving Trump actually colluded with them, we are left with many liars and crooks in jail...and the prospect of many more to come.
Should be interesting.
But having fulfilled his promises of building a wall with Mexican money and reducing the federal deficit, I'm still a believer...
Should be interesting.
But having fulfilled his promises of building a wall with Mexican money and reducing the federal deficit, I'm still a believer...
Andy Dukes
PREMIER
What did Corsi have to do with the polling data?
Sheriff Joe
DA
Nothing.
Just like Trump.
Sheriff Joe
DA
From a left wing rag.
The last paragraph is telling.
Complex tale involving Hillary Clinton, uranium and Russia resurfaces
By Samantha Putterman on Friday, December 7th, 2018 at 4:06 p.m.
A controversial tale involving Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, uranium and Russia continues to rear its ugly head years after it came out.
We previously reported on what we know about the Uranium One deal and to this day the details remain murky.
The charge: That Hillary Clinton sold roughly 20 percent of America’s uranium supply to Russia in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
A recent social media post that takes the accusation a bit further by lumping in former FBI Director Robert Mueller, special counsel in the continuing special counsel investigation.
The post has a picture of Hillary Clinton with text saying, "I sold 20 percent of America’s uranium to Russia. Then the Russian government gave $145 million to Clinton Foundation." Underneath is a picture of Mueller, with text saying, "I delivered it."
The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)
As secretary of state, Clinton did serve on a government board that ultimately approved a transfer of uranium, but she wasn’t the deciding vote. And the Clinton Foundation did receive $145 million from parties involved in the transaction — but the dates of a large share of the donations and the deal don’t add up to suggest a quid pro quo.
Mueller was the FBI director at the time, and the FBI was investigating corruption by the Russian company involved in the deal before the transfer was approved. But he played no role in delivering anything that we could find.
The Uranium One deal
The story stems back to the 2015 book Clinton Cash, an investigation by Breitbart News editor-at-large Peter Schweizer. A chapter in the book suggest a pay-for-play scheme between the Clintons and Russia, accusing them of transferring uranium in exchange for donation money.
According to our previous story, in 2007, a Clinton Foundation donor, Frank Giustra, sold his company UrAsia, to another — Uranium One — and unloaded his personal stake in it. The merged company kept Uranium One as its name and was based out of Toronto.
Though it was based in Canada, Uranium One has mines, mills and land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of the U.S. uranium production capacity. It’s actual production, though, is actually a smaller portion of the uranium produced in the U.S., at 11 percent in 2014, according to Oilprice.com.
Under the terms of the deal, UrAsia shareholders kept a 60 percent stake in the new company until June 2010, when Russia’s nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51 percent stake.
But the deal had to be approved by multiple U.S. agencies first, including the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, or CFIUS — on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits.
The committee approved the proposal, and in 2013, Russia assumed 100 percent ownership of the company and renamed it Uranium One Holding.
The deal, however, was not Clinton’s to approve alone. The CFIUS panel also includes the attorney general and the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The claim makes it seem like Clinton had the power of vetoing or approving the deal, which she did not.
Clinton has said that she was not personally involved and, in a New York Times article, then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, who represented the State Department on the panel, said Clinton "never intervened" in CFIUS matters.
The Clinton Foundation donations
It is accurate that nine individuals related to the company donated to the Clinton Foundation but the bulk of the money —$131 million — came from Giustra.
And Giustra said he sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and about 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.
We couldn’t independently verify Giustra’s claim, but if he is telling the truth, the donation amount to the Clinton Foundation from Uranium One investors drops significantly — from $145 million to $4 million.
The last paragraph is telling.
Complex tale involving Hillary Clinton, uranium and Russia resurfaces
By Samantha Putterman on Friday, December 7th, 2018 at 4:06 p.m.
A controversial tale involving Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, uranium and Russia continues to rear its ugly head years after it came out.
We previously reported on what we know about the Uranium One deal and to this day the details remain murky.
The charge: That Hillary Clinton sold roughly 20 percent of America’s uranium supply to Russia in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
A recent social media post that takes the accusation a bit further by lumping in former FBI Director Robert Mueller, special counsel in the continuing special counsel investigation.
The post has a picture of Hillary Clinton with text saying, "I sold 20 percent of America’s uranium to Russia. Then the Russian government gave $145 million to Clinton Foundation." Underneath is a picture of Mueller, with text saying, "I delivered it."
The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)
As secretary of state, Clinton did serve on a government board that ultimately approved a transfer of uranium, but she wasn’t the deciding vote. And the Clinton Foundation did receive $145 million from parties involved in the transaction — but the dates of a large share of the donations and the deal don’t add up to suggest a quid pro quo.
Mueller was the FBI director at the time, and the FBI was investigating corruption by the Russian company involved in the deal before the transfer was approved. But he played no role in delivering anything that we could find.
The Uranium One deal
The story stems back to the 2015 book Clinton Cash, an investigation by Breitbart News editor-at-large Peter Schweizer. A chapter in the book suggest a pay-for-play scheme between the Clintons and Russia, accusing them of transferring uranium in exchange for donation money.
According to our previous story, in 2007, a Clinton Foundation donor, Frank Giustra, sold his company UrAsia, to another — Uranium One — and unloaded his personal stake in it. The merged company kept Uranium One as its name and was based out of Toronto.
Though it was based in Canada, Uranium One has mines, mills and land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of the U.S. uranium production capacity. It’s actual production, though, is actually a smaller portion of the uranium produced in the U.S., at 11 percent in 2014, according to Oilprice.com.
Under the terms of the deal, UrAsia shareholders kept a 60 percent stake in the new company until June 2010, when Russia’s nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51 percent stake.
But the deal had to be approved by multiple U.S. agencies first, including the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, or CFIUS — on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits.
The committee approved the proposal, and in 2013, Russia assumed 100 percent ownership of the company and renamed it Uranium One Holding.
The deal, however, was not Clinton’s to approve alone. The CFIUS panel also includes the attorney general and the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The claim makes it seem like Clinton had the power of vetoing or approving the deal, which she did not.
Clinton has said that she was not personally involved and, in a New York Times article, then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, who represented the State Department on the panel, said Clinton "never intervened" in CFIUS matters.
The Clinton Foundation donations
It is accurate that nine individuals related to the company donated to the Clinton Foundation but the bulk of the money —$131 million — came from Giustra.
And Giustra said he sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and about 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.
We couldn’t independently verify Giustra’s claim, but if he is telling the truth, the donation amount to the Clinton Foundation from Uranium One investors drops significantly — from $145 million to $4 million.