The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread
- Thread starter Nonononono
- Start date
Same question I’m asking. Implicate the president in what? Why would trump’s lawyer be asking that question?
Sheriff Joe
DA
2024
Sheriff Joe
DA
Robert Mueller Purposely Edited a Phone Call From Trump’s Legal Team to Make It Seem Like Obstruction of Justice
Posted at 11:30 am on June 01, 2019 by Bonchie
Robert Mueller by DonkeyHotey, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original
This is a pretty big deal.
The issues with Robert Mueller’s report are apparent, especially given his decision to overstep DOJ guidelines and smear those who he had no intention of charging. Part two of the report reads like a roadmap too impeachment, full of insinuations and scatter shot “evidence” that doesn’t actually add up to anything but more speculation.
Mueller’s inability to do his job smacked of political gamesmanship. He winked and nodded at Congress but didn’t have the fortitude to just recommend charges against Trump. There was no regulation stopping him from doing so and in the end, he failed to complete the one task his special counsel was appointed to do.
We did not need Robert Mueller to investigate Facebook trolls or DNC emails. The only reason for his existence was to answer questions of criminality on the President’s part given the supposed conflict of interests at the DOJ. When Ken Starr was tasked with that during the Bill Clinton years, he had the courage to put in his report exactly the laws the former President had broken. Mueller chose not to because he didn’t have the goods but wanted to still leave a negative impression.
The more we learn, the worse Mueller looks and this newest revelation is pretty damning.
Remember a few weeks ago when the media and Democrats thought they had a bombshell based on a voicemail that supposedly showed Trump’s legal team trying to coordinate with Flynn’s legal team after he agreed to cooperate with the government? I wrote at the time what a garbage accusation it was.
Let’s just say that I’m getting tired of being right all the time.
Here’s the original source who caught this.
This is pretty crazy. The report is the size of a moderate length novel but Mueller just had to edit those lines out? And as the media ran crazy with accusations of obstruction of justice and witness tampering, Mueller sat idly by even though he’s been speaking out on other matters.
Sheriff Joe
DA
JUNE 2, 2019
Sexual Abuse and a Re-Examination of Martin Luther King
By Michael Curtis
Just friends, but not like before. To think of what the Rev, Martin Luther King, Jr. has seemed to be seems like pretending.
It is commonplace that prominent figures, like the U.S. Founding Fathers, are not devoid of faults, though they can be generally admired. Yet the allegations of sexual misconduct against King are surprising. He has been universally admired and is celebrated and memorialized all over the world in statues, names of streets and schools, a U.S. national holiday, a monument on the National Mall in D.C., and a bust in Westminster Abbey in London.
The exercise of power has always been fraught with anxiety and concern, as well as the source of privileges and admiration. The experiments conducted in the 1960s by Yale Professor Stanley Milgram revealing that people obey an authority who instructs them to conduct an act that can conflict with personal conscience or beliefs were disquieting. A large proportion obeyed instructions to inflict great personal pain. Though the experiments can be criticized, they made clear that obedience to the command of an authority is more common than not and that people abide by and are vulnerable to abuse of power. Recent studies in the U.S. have indicated that prominent men strive for and use their positions of personal authority not simply to gain privileges, but to illustrate their power. More specifically, sexual abuse by prominent men against women in less prominent positions may be more the result of desire more for exercise of power than for sex. The question has now been opened for discussion regarding Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
As a result of a recent publication, the question arises whether King abused the power and popularity he had to take advantage of women, and to disgrace both his profession and his religious and moral beliefs. The information, or alleged information, about King, appears in an article by David J. Garrow in Standpoint Magazine, May 30, 2019, about the orgies, solicitations, prostitutes, and affairs with 40 women with whom King was involved. Garrow's account depends on recently declassified FBI documents that summarize tape recordings of King in his home, office, and hotel rooms, such as the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. and the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas. The documents are under seal in the U.S. National Archives and will remain there until 2027. It is known that it was Robert F. Kennedy, then U.S. attorney general, who on November 8, 1963 allowed the FBI, headed by J. Edgar Hoover, 1924–1972, to bug King's phone calls.
Hoover was preoccupied with real or imaginary threats to American security. He had over 60 folders on public figures, which were destroyed after his death, but his files documenting the private lives of individuals survive. Irrespective of his animosity toward King on a personal level because of King's binge-drinking and compulsive sexuality, Hoover was concerned for two reasons: he suspected that King was associated with communists, and he thought King's adultery made him vulnerable to blackmail. The FBI in the 1960s, relying on domestic intelligence, not electronic surveillance, had a list of 4,453 suspected communists, of whom 336 were FBI informants.
Sexual Abuse and a Re-Examination of Martin Luther King
By Michael Curtis
Just friends, but not like before. To think of what the Rev, Martin Luther King, Jr. has seemed to be seems like pretending.
It is commonplace that prominent figures, like the U.S. Founding Fathers, are not devoid of faults, though they can be generally admired. Yet the allegations of sexual misconduct against King are surprising. He has been universally admired and is celebrated and memorialized all over the world in statues, names of streets and schools, a U.S. national holiday, a monument on the National Mall in D.C., and a bust in Westminster Abbey in London.
The exercise of power has always been fraught with anxiety and concern, as well as the source of privileges and admiration. The experiments conducted in the 1960s by Yale Professor Stanley Milgram revealing that people obey an authority who instructs them to conduct an act that can conflict with personal conscience or beliefs were disquieting. A large proportion obeyed instructions to inflict great personal pain. Though the experiments can be criticized, they made clear that obedience to the command of an authority is more common than not and that people abide by and are vulnerable to abuse of power. Recent studies in the U.S. have indicated that prominent men strive for and use their positions of personal authority not simply to gain privileges, but to illustrate their power. More specifically, sexual abuse by prominent men against women in less prominent positions may be more the result of desire more for exercise of power than for sex. The question has now been opened for discussion regarding Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
As a result of a recent publication, the question arises whether King abused the power and popularity he had to take advantage of women, and to disgrace both his profession and his religious and moral beliefs. The information, or alleged information, about King, appears in an article by David J. Garrow in Standpoint Magazine, May 30, 2019, about the orgies, solicitations, prostitutes, and affairs with 40 women with whom King was involved. Garrow's account depends on recently declassified FBI documents that summarize tape recordings of King in his home, office, and hotel rooms, such as the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. and the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas. The documents are under seal in the U.S. National Archives and will remain there until 2027. It is known that it was Robert F. Kennedy, then U.S. attorney general, who on November 8, 1963 allowed the FBI, headed by J. Edgar Hoover, 1924–1972, to bug King's phone calls.
Hoover was preoccupied with real or imaginary threats to American security. He had over 60 folders on public figures, which were destroyed after his death, but his files documenting the private lives of individuals survive. Irrespective of his animosity toward King on a personal level because of King's binge-drinking and compulsive sexuality, Hoover was concerned for two reasons: he suspected that King was associated with communists, and he thought King's adultery made him vulnerable to blackmail. The FBI in the 1960s, relying on domestic intelligence, not electronic surveillance, had a list of 4,453 suspected communists, of whom 336 were FBI informants.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Comey-ism. Or was it Mueller-ism.
Robert Mueller Purposely Edited a Phone Call From Trump’s Legal Team to Make It Seem Like Obstruction of Justice
Posted at 11:30 am on June 01, 2019 by Bonchie
Robert Mueller by DonkeyHotey, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original
This is a pretty big deal.
The issues with Robert Mueller’s report are apparent, especially given his decision to overstep DOJ guidelines and smear those who he had no intention of charging. Part two of the report reads like a roadmap too impeachment, full of insinuations and scatter shot “evidence” that doesn’t actually add up to anything but more speculation.
Mueller’s inability to do his job smacked of political gamesmanship. He winked and nodded at Congress but didn’t have the fortitude to just recommend charges against Trump. There was no regulation stopping him from doing so and in the end, he failed to complete the one task his special counsel was appointed to do.
We did not need Robert Mueller to investigate Facebook trolls or DNC emails. The only reason for his existence was to answer questions of criminality on the President’s part given the supposed conflict of interests at the DOJ. When Ken Starr was tasked with that during the Bill Clinton years, he had the courage to put in his report exactly the laws the former President had broken. Mueller chose not to because he didn’t have the goods but wanted to still leave a negative impression.
The more we learn, the worse Mueller looks and this newest revelation is pretty damning.
Remember a few weeks ago when the media and Democrats thought they had a bombshell based on a voicemail that supposedly showed Trump’s legal team trying to coordinate with Flynn’s legal team after he agreed to cooperate with the government? I wrote at the time what a garbage accusation it was.
Let’s just say that I’m getting tired of being right all the time.
Here’s the original source who caught this.
This is pretty crazy. The report is the size of a moderate length novel but Mueller just had to edit those lines out? And as the media ran crazy with accusations of obstruction of justice and witness tampering, Mueller sat idly by even though he’s been speaking out on other matters.
Bruddah IZ
DA
A lawyer asking questions. Shocking!
Bruddah IZ
DA
6 straight years of QE (a.k.a. Counterfeiting) to nearly double the national debt with average annual trillion dollar deficits. What rule of law? What system? Pretty formless. You Bozo’s crack me up.
A lawyer asking a guy if he's making a deal with the government and is aware of information that implicates his client?
What information could there be? How could his client be implicated?
That’s a lawyer with a guilty client.
I understand that’s too complicated for you to follow, Iz. No worries.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Lol!!
Bruddah IZ
DA
Sheriff Joe
DA
Biden Present at Russia Collusion Briefing Documented in ‘Odd’ Susan Rice Email
Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images
AARON KLEIN2 Jun 2019321
11:05
NEW YORK — Vice President Joe Biden was documented as being present in the Oval Office for a conversation about the controversial Russia probe between President Obama, disgraced ex-FBI chief James Comey, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and other senior officials including Obama’s national security advisor Susan Rice.
In an action characterized as “odd” last year by then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Rice memorialized the confab in an email to herself describing Obama as starting “the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’”
Grassley, in a letter to Rice, commented: “It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation.”
Grassley noted the unusual timing of the email sent by Rice to herself more than two weeks after the January 5, 2017 White House meeting on the Russia investigation, but mere hours before she vacated the White House for the incoming Trump administration.
The email, Grassley documented, was sent by Rice to herself on Trump’s inauguration day of January 20, 2017.
“If the timestamp is correct, you sent this email to yourself at 12:15 pm, presumably a very short time before you departed the White House for the last time,” Grassley wrote to Rice in a letter seeking clarification on a number of issues regarding the email and the Oval Office briefing at which Biden was documented as being present.
Also in the email, Rice used the “by the book” phraseology a second time, writing (emphasis added):
President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book.” The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.
From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.
The next part of Rice’s email was classified.
After that, Rice discussed the possibility of issues with sharing classified information with the incoming Trump administration — presumably referring to alleged concern that the Trump campaign had been colluding with Russia.
That part of the email reads:
The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.
The detail about Biden being present at the meeting with Rice and Comey is newly relevant amid questions about Biden’s possible role in the Russia collusion probe scandal. It comes after Breitbart News reported last week that Biden was reportedly one of the few Obama administration officials who participated in secretive meetings during the early stages of the Obama-era intelligence community’s initial operations regarding suspected Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.
That tidbit was contained deep inside a 7,700-plus word Washington Post article published June 23, 2017 in which the newspaper also detailed the highly compartmentalized nature of the original Russia interference investigation and the manner in which other U.S. intelligence agencies were deliberately kept in the dark. Part of the efforts eventually involved unsubstantiated and ultimately discredited charges made by the Christopher Steele dossier that Trump campaign officials were colluding with Russia.
Biden’s largely unreported role in the initial Obama administration meetings on the matter of Russian interference could spark further questions now that Attorney General William Barr has appointed a U.S. attorney to investigate the origins of the Russia collusion claims.
Two weeks ago, Barr commented that the intelligence community’s early handling of the Russia investigation may itself raise questions. He noted that it was first handled at a “very senior level” and then by a “small group.”
Meanwhile, Rice’s unusual email to herself stressing the “by the book” concept raised eyebrows for Grassley.
In his letter to Rice, Grassley wrote that “despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed ‘by the book,’ substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed ‘by the book.’”
An attorney for Rice responded to Grassley’s letter saying Rice wrote the email to herself with the goal of “memorializ[ing] an important national security discussion,” since “President Obama and his national security team were justifiably concerned about potential risks to the Nation’s security from sharing highly classified information about Russia with certain members of the Trump transition team, particularly Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.”
The attorney denied that the Steele dossier, financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, was discussed in the Oval Office meeting.
Regarding the time stamp on the email, the attorney said that noon was not accurate and that the email was sent in the morning “since Ambassador Rice departed the White House shortly before noon on January 20.”
Still, Rice waited two weeks after the meeting to memorialize the conversation and sent the memo as one of her final acts in the White House on the last day.
The attorney said that Rice waited until the last minute “because that was the first opportunity she had to do so, given the particularly intense responsibilities of the National Security Advisor during the remaining days of the Administration and transition.”
Meanwhile, as Biden’s possible role is being discussed, Barr, the attorney general, two weeks ago noted the intelligence community’s early handling of the Russia investigation may contain some red flags.
In an interview on Fox News, Barr stated:
The thing that’s interesting about this is that this was handled at a very senior level of these departments. It wasn’t handled in the ordinary way that investigations or counterintelligence activities are conducted. It was sort of an ad hoc, small group — and most of these people are no longer with the FBI or the CIA or the other agencies involved. I think there’s a misconception out there that we know a lot about what happened. The fact of the matter is, Bob Mueller did not look at the government’s activities.
The lengthy Washington Post article from 2017 detailed the closed circle of Obama administration officials who were involved in overseeing the initial efforts related to the Russia investigation — a circle than was narrowly widened to include Biden, according to the newspaper report.
According to the newspaper, in the summer of 2016, CIA Director John Brennan convened a “secret task force at CIA headquarters composed of several dozen analysts and officers from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI.”
Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images
AARON KLEIN2 Jun 2019321
11:05
NEW YORK — Vice President Joe Biden was documented as being present in the Oval Office for a conversation about the controversial Russia probe between President Obama, disgraced ex-FBI chief James Comey, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and other senior officials including Obama’s national security advisor Susan Rice.
In an action characterized as “odd” last year by then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Rice memorialized the confab in an email to herself describing Obama as starting “the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’”
Grassley, in a letter to Rice, commented: “It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation.”
Grassley noted the unusual timing of the email sent by Rice to herself more than two weeks after the January 5, 2017 White House meeting on the Russia investigation, but mere hours before she vacated the White House for the incoming Trump administration.
The email, Grassley documented, was sent by Rice to herself on Trump’s inauguration day of January 20, 2017.
“If the timestamp is correct, you sent this email to yourself at 12:15 pm, presumably a very short time before you departed the White House for the last time,” Grassley wrote to Rice in a letter seeking clarification on a number of issues regarding the email and the Oval Office briefing at which Biden was documented as being present.
Also in the email, Rice used the “by the book” phraseology a second time, writing (emphasis added):
President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book.” The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.
From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.
The next part of Rice’s email was classified.
After that, Rice discussed the possibility of issues with sharing classified information with the incoming Trump administration — presumably referring to alleged concern that the Trump campaign had been colluding with Russia.
That part of the email reads:
The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.
The detail about Biden being present at the meeting with Rice and Comey is newly relevant amid questions about Biden’s possible role in the Russia collusion probe scandal. It comes after Breitbart News reported last week that Biden was reportedly one of the few Obama administration officials who participated in secretive meetings during the early stages of the Obama-era intelligence community’s initial operations regarding suspected Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.
That tidbit was contained deep inside a 7,700-plus word Washington Post article published June 23, 2017 in which the newspaper also detailed the highly compartmentalized nature of the original Russia interference investigation and the manner in which other U.S. intelligence agencies were deliberately kept in the dark. Part of the efforts eventually involved unsubstantiated and ultimately discredited charges made by the Christopher Steele dossier that Trump campaign officials were colluding with Russia.
Biden’s largely unreported role in the initial Obama administration meetings on the matter of Russian interference could spark further questions now that Attorney General William Barr has appointed a U.S. attorney to investigate the origins of the Russia collusion claims.
Two weeks ago, Barr commented that the intelligence community’s early handling of the Russia investigation may itself raise questions. He noted that it was first handled at a “very senior level” and then by a “small group.”
Meanwhile, Rice’s unusual email to herself stressing the “by the book” concept raised eyebrows for Grassley.
In his letter to Rice, Grassley wrote that “despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed ‘by the book,’ substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed ‘by the book.’”
An attorney for Rice responded to Grassley’s letter saying Rice wrote the email to herself with the goal of “memorializ[ing] an important national security discussion,” since “President Obama and his national security team were justifiably concerned about potential risks to the Nation’s security from sharing highly classified information about Russia with certain members of the Trump transition team, particularly Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.”
The attorney denied that the Steele dossier, financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, was discussed in the Oval Office meeting.
Regarding the time stamp on the email, the attorney said that noon was not accurate and that the email was sent in the morning “since Ambassador Rice departed the White House shortly before noon on January 20.”
Still, Rice waited two weeks after the meeting to memorialize the conversation and sent the memo as one of her final acts in the White House on the last day.
The attorney said that Rice waited until the last minute “because that was the first opportunity she had to do so, given the particularly intense responsibilities of the National Security Advisor during the remaining days of the Administration and transition.”
Meanwhile, as Biden’s possible role is being discussed, Barr, the attorney general, two weeks ago noted the intelligence community’s early handling of the Russia investigation may contain some red flags.
In an interview on Fox News, Barr stated:
The thing that’s interesting about this is that this was handled at a very senior level of these departments. It wasn’t handled in the ordinary way that investigations or counterintelligence activities are conducted. It was sort of an ad hoc, small group — and most of these people are no longer with the FBI or the CIA or the other agencies involved. I think there’s a misconception out there that we know a lot about what happened. The fact of the matter is, Bob Mueller did not look at the government’s activities.
The lengthy Washington Post article from 2017 detailed the closed circle of Obama administration officials who were involved in overseeing the initial efforts related to the Russia investigation — a circle than was narrowly widened to include Biden, according to the newspaper report.
According to the newspaper, in the summer of 2016, CIA Director John Brennan convened a “secret task force at CIA headquarters composed of several dozen analysts and officers from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI.”
Sheriff Joe
DA
Report: Veterans Ditch Ocasio-Cortez After She Bashed Trump Foreign Policy
Alex Wong/Getty
KATHERINE RODRIGUEZ2 Jun 201975
1:21
Two military veterans stormed out of a private meeting with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) after she made a few remarks bashing President Donald Trump’s foreign policy.
The self-described Democratic socialist conducted the closed-door meeting, which was held in the Bronx section of New York City with Community Board 11 members on Wednesday evening, according to a Saturday report from the New York Post
Alex Wong/Getty
KATHERINE RODRIGUEZ2 Jun 201975
1:21
Two military veterans stormed out of a private meeting with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) after she made a few remarks bashing President Donald Trump’s foreign policy.
The self-described Democratic socialist conducted the closed-door meeting, which was held in the Bronx section of New York City with Community Board 11 members on Wednesday evening, according to a Saturday report from the New York Post
Sheriff Joe
DA
Barr’s Shrewd Decision To Speak To CBS; More Of This Please
Posted at 9:00 am on June 02, 2019 by Elizabeth Vaughn
Attorney General William Barr appears before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee to make his Justice Department budget request, Wednesday, April 10, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Last night, I held a dinner party. Most of my guests, predictably, leaned to the right. The conversation turned to how any American with a brain could believe that President Trump should be removed from office based on the evidence of obstruction contained in the Mueller Report. Although the Mueller team laid out eleven occasions where they alleged the President had obstructed justice, the incident Democrats frequently point to as the most egregious was Trump’s order to then-White House Counsel, Don McGahn, to fire Robert Mueller.
Yes, he became frustrated after then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed a Special Counsel at all, much less the conflicted Robert Mueller.
McGahn refused to carry out the request, even threatening to resign if Trump forced the issue. The President backed off. The Mueller investigation was in no way impacted by this episode and continued on its merry little way.
Further, even if McGahn had fired Mueller, Trump had the constitutional authority to do so. It would have been unwise, but it was not illegal.
Finally, Trump had been falsely accused of a crime he hadn’t committed. The ongoing investigation into the deep state’s manufactured charges was tainting his legitimacy and undermining his ability to govern. Can anyone blame him for his outrage?
Because most Americans receive their news from the mainstream media, which pushed the conspiracy story aggressively, they believed that Trump had both colluded with the Russians to win the election and obstructed justice by trying to end the probe.
What does that say to conservatives? It says that it’s time to start making their message heard in the places most Americans go to for their news.
PJ Media’s Roger Simon discussed Barr’s decision to appear on CBS as opposed to the more friendly Fox News. He said, Barr “clearly wanted his words to be heard by the skeptical or confused more than those who already believe the Russia probe was politically motivated from the beginning.”
Attorney General William Barr was smart to give his response to Mueller’s statement to CBS News. The network’s legal analyst, Jan Crawford, wasn’t exactly warm and fuzzy, nor was she disrespectful or rude. She conducted a fair interview and Barr was able to present his case to a large number of voters. Although he probably didn’t change the minds of any die-hard liberals, he may have given pause to the less extreme among them.
In his understated and goodnatured way, he let the public know that he is aware of what occurred in 2016 and plans to sort it all out.
Instead of dodging questions as many politicians and pundits do when pressed, he simply said, “That’s all I really will say. Things are just not jibing.”
The man is unflappable. I wrote about his performance shortly after the interview here. I wrote:
Barr did not engage in the analysis of Mueller’s motives, nor did he criticize Mueller for triggering a new round of calls for the President’s impeachment. (I posted about Mueller’s comments here, here and here.)
However, Barr did make it crystal clear that, despite the Office of Legal Counsel guidance, Mueller “could have made a decision about whether it was criminal activity.”
He expressed his surprise when Mueller informed him he had not come to a conclusion. Because that’s what he was hired to do. He was expected to determine if any of Trump’s behavior rose to the level of criminality and to make a recommendation to the Attorney General.
More conservatives need to follow his lead. This means crossing into enemy territory, presenting the facts and preventing the interview from turning into a fighting match.
Although CNN and MSNBC have recently experienced drops in viewership, many on the left will continue to tune in out of habit and because of their aversion to the logical alternative, Fox News. So, Republicans would be smart to follow the Attorney General’s example and wade into hostile terrain.
Posted at 9:00 am on June 02, 2019 by Elizabeth Vaughn
Attorney General William Barr appears before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee to make his Justice Department budget request, Wednesday, April 10, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Last night, I held a dinner party. Most of my guests, predictably, leaned to the right. The conversation turned to how any American with a brain could believe that President Trump should be removed from office based on the evidence of obstruction contained in the Mueller Report. Although the Mueller team laid out eleven occasions where they alleged the President had obstructed justice, the incident Democrats frequently point to as the most egregious was Trump’s order to then-White House Counsel, Don McGahn, to fire Robert Mueller.
Yes, he became frustrated after then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed a Special Counsel at all, much less the conflicted Robert Mueller.
McGahn refused to carry out the request, even threatening to resign if Trump forced the issue. The President backed off. The Mueller investigation was in no way impacted by this episode and continued on its merry little way.
Further, even if McGahn had fired Mueller, Trump had the constitutional authority to do so. It would have been unwise, but it was not illegal.
Finally, Trump had been falsely accused of a crime he hadn’t committed. The ongoing investigation into the deep state’s manufactured charges was tainting his legitimacy and undermining his ability to govern. Can anyone blame him for his outrage?
Because most Americans receive their news from the mainstream media, which pushed the conspiracy story aggressively, they believed that Trump had both colluded with the Russians to win the election and obstructed justice by trying to end the probe.
What does that say to conservatives? It says that it’s time to start making their message heard in the places most Americans go to for their news.
PJ Media’s Roger Simon discussed Barr’s decision to appear on CBS as opposed to the more friendly Fox News. He said, Barr “clearly wanted his words to be heard by the skeptical or confused more than those who already believe the Russia probe was politically motivated from the beginning.”
Attorney General William Barr was smart to give his response to Mueller’s statement to CBS News. The network’s legal analyst, Jan Crawford, wasn’t exactly warm and fuzzy, nor was she disrespectful or rude. She conducted a fair interview and Barr was able to present his case to a large number of voters. Although he probably didn’t change the minds of any die-hard liberals, he may have given pause to the less extreme among them.
In his understated and goodnatured way, he let the public know that he is aware of what occurred in 2016 and plans to sort it all out.
Instead of dodging questions as many politicians and pundits do when pressed, he simply said, “That’s all I really will say. Things are just not jibing.”
The man is unflappable. I wrote about his performance shortly after the interview here. I wrote:
Barr did not engage in the analysis of Mueller’s motives, nor did he criticize Mueller for triggering a new round of calls for the President’s impeachment. (I posted about Mueller’s comments here, here and here.)
However, Barr did make it crystal clear that, despite the Office of Legal Counsel guidance, Mueller “could have made a decision about whether it was criminal activity.”
He expressed his surprise when Mueller informed him he had not come to a conclusion. Because that’s what he was hired to do. He was expected to determine if any of Trump’s behavior rose to the level of criminality and to make a recommendation to the Attorney General.
More conservatives need to follow his lead. This means crossing into enemy territory, presenting the facts and preventing the interview from turning into a fighting match.
Although CNN and MSNBC have recently experienced drops in viewership, many on the left will continue to tune in out of habit and because of their aversion to the logical alternative, Fox News. So, Republicans would be smart to follow the Attorney General’s example and wade into hostile terrain.
Barr’s Shrewd Decision To Speak To CBS; More Of This Please
Posted at 9:00 am on June 02, 2019 by Elizabeth Vaughn
Attorney General William Barr appears before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee to make his Justice Department budget request, Wednesday, April 10, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Last night, I held a dinner party. Most of my guests, predictably, leaned to the right. The conversation turned to how any American with a brain could believe that President Trump should be removed from office based on the evidence of obstruction contained in the Mueller Report. Although the Mueller team laid out eleven occasions where they alleged the President had obstructed justice, the incident Democrats frequently point to as the most egregious was Trump’s order to then-White House Counsel, Don McGahn, to fire Robert Mueller.
Yes, he became frustrated after then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed a Special Counsel at all, much less the conflicted Robert Mueller.
McGahn refused to carry out the request, even threatening to resign if Trump forced the issue. The President backed off. The Mueller investigation was in no way impacted by this episode and continued on its merry little way.
Further, even if McGahn had fired Mueller, Trump had the constitutional authority to do so. It would have been unwise, but it was not illegal.
Finally, Trump had been falsely accused of a crime he hadn’t committed. The ongoing investigation into the deep state’s manufactured charges was tainting his legitimacy and undermining his ability to govern. Can anyone blame him for his outrage?
Because most Americans receive their news from the mainstream media, which pushed the conspiracy story aggressively, they believed that Trump had both colluded with the Russians to win the election and obstructed justice by trying to end the probe.
What does that say to conservatives? It says that it’s time to start making their message heard in the places most Americans go to for their news.
PJ Media’s Roger Simon discussed Barr’s decision to appear on CBS as opposed to the more friendly Fox News. He said, Barr “clearly wanted his words to be heard by the skeptical or confused more than those who already believe the Russia probe was politically motivated from the beginning.”
Attorney General William Barr was smart to give his response to Mueller’s statement to CBS News. The network’s legal analyst, Jan Crawford, wasn’t exactly warm and fuzzy, nor was she disrespectful or rude. She conducted a fair interview and Barr was able to present his case to a large number of voters. Although he probably didn’t change the minds of any die-hard liberals, he may have given pause to the less extreme among them.
In his understated and goodnatured way, he let the public know that he is aware of what occurred in 2016 and plans to sort it all out.
Instead of dodging questions as many politicians and pundits do when pressed, he simply said, “That’s all I really will say. Things are just not jibing.”
The man is unflappable. I wrote about his performance shortly after the interview here. I wrote:
Barr did not engage in the analysis of Mueller’s motives, nor did he criticize Mueller for triggering a new round of calls for the President’s impeachment. (I posted about Mueller’s comments here, here and here.)
However, Barr did make it crystal clear that, despite the Office of Legal Counsel guidance, Mueller “could have made a decision about whether it was criminal activity.”
He expressed his surprise when Mueller informed him he had not come to a conclusion. Because that’s what he was hired to do. He was expected to determine if any of Trump’s behavior rose to the level of criminality and to make a recommendation to the Attorney General.
More conservatives need to follow his lead. This means crossing into enemy territory, presenting the facts and preventing the interview from turning into a fighting match.
Although CNN and MSNBC have recently experienced drops in viewership, many on the left will continue to tune in out of habit and because of their aversion to the logical alternative, Fox News. So, Republicans would be smart to follow the Attorney General’s example and wade into hostile terrain.
Who is Elizabeth Vaughn?
Really.....!
Does that " RULE OF LAW " vanish when it comes to DEMOCRATS !
Please tell the Forum how it applies one way and not the other....!
Huli Huli Boi - you find your house on a bank balance sheet yet? Trade wars are easy, remember Huli Huli boi?
Meanwhile, who's the coolest alligator in the swamp?..
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/02/us/politics/elaine-chao-china.html