Wednesday, November 28, 2018

thumbnail

Cindy Hyde-Smith wins Mississippi senate unoff

There was really no contest, although it was closer than it should have been.

President Trump late Tuesday congratulated incumbent Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith for handily defeating an insurgent challenge by Democrat Mike Espy in Mississippi's contentious special election runoff to become the first woman ever elected to Congress from the state.

Hyde-Smith, 59, is an ardent supporter of Trump who was appointed earlier this year by Mississippi's governor to fill retiring Sen. Thad Cochran's seat. She will finish out the remaining two years of Cochran's term in the deep-red state that went for Trump by nearly 20 percentage points in the 2016 presidential election.

"Congratulations to Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith on your big WIN in the great state of Mississippi. We are all very proud of you!” Trump tweeted.

With 95 percent of precincts reporting, Hyde-Smith had 446,927 votes to Espy's 374,880 -- a commanding margin of 54.4 percent to 45.6 percent, according to state election officials. The race marks the final midterm contest of 2018.

“I want everybody to know, no matter who you voted for today, I’m gonna always represent every Mississippian,” Hyde-Smith said at her victory party late Monday night. "Being on that MAGA-wagon, the Make American Great Again bus, we have bonded, we have persevered, we have gotten through things, we were successful today."

Hyde-Smith's win gives Republicans more leeway to ensure the confirmation of Trump's federal judicial and Cabinet nominees that require Senate approval and strengthens the party's chances of holding the majority in 2020.

"She has my prayers as she goes to Washington to unite a very divided Mississippi," Espy said in his concession speech.

This brings the Senate total for Republicans to 54, a critical number given the sometimes ify voting of Susan Collins, Lisa Ann Murkowski, making them less of a factor, that should mean clean saling for Trump judicial nominees and a possible Supreme Court pick if a retirement occurs.

Monday, November 26, 2018

thumbnail

Dershowitz: Mueller’s Trump Report Will Be ‘Devastating’ But Won’t Lead To Charges

A bit of overselling?

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday that he does not believe Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on President Donald Trump will show any criminality.

Dershowitz told George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC’s “This Week,” that he does think Mueller’s impending report about Trump and Russia will be politically “devastating.” However, he guessed that there will not be anything in the report that will lead to charges against the president.

“I think the report is going to be devastating to the president and we know the president’s team is already working on a response,” Dershowitz explained. “The critical questions are largely political — when I say devastating, I mean it’s going to paint a picture that’s going to be politically very devastating.”

“I still don’t think it’s going to make a criminal case because collusion is not criminal,” he asserted, adding that conspiracy is “too much of a stretch.”

First, Dershowitz really has no clue in the matter. He's lately made himself a regular on cable news as a reluctant defender of Trump in the Mueller farce, but he has no clue what the final report will be. In fact, no one will until the AG determines whether to release it.

Mueller is expected to wrap things up now that the midterms have concluded, and so far no proof of conclusion or interference in the 2016 election has occurred. Remember the primary reason this mess began is really just because people simply believed that something had to occur to allow Trump to beat Clinton in 2016. The decision to appoint a Special Council was based as we know now on false evidence and election meddling, most illegal activities of the FBI and IC (spying on Trump) during the campaign. Strong evidence that the Obama administration was behind most of it.

The "politically devastating" reference Dershowitz makes is likely to how the media and the newly minted Democrat congressional majority will attempt to use it to hound Donald Trump out of town(impeach?), or at least paralyze his remaining term and kill chances at a 2020 run.

While that may be true, I doubt it based on polls that the American public, except those with their minds made up (Democrats), will really buy it. Recent polls show Americans mostly believe the probe is politically motivated.

Friday, November 23, 2018

thumbnail

Media Prounouces Trump Re-election DOA (again)

Well you knew this was coming - right?

Donald Trump insists the GOP’s midterm election shellacking had nothing to do with him. Things will be different, he says, when his name is actually on the ballot in 2020.

While it’s true that most presidents who see their party suffer major losses in their first midterm election get reelected anyway, Trump isn’t most presidents — and there are lots of blaring-red warning lights in this month’s election results for his bid for a second term.

Unlike most of his predecessors, he’s been persistently unpopular, with approval ratings mired in the 40-percent range — so far, he’s the only president in the modern era whose job approval ratings have never been over 50 percent, according to Gallup.

Some of Democrats’ biggest gains came in the states that powered Trump’s Electoral College victory in 2016: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And while a president’s base has stayed home in previous midterm elections, leading to losses, the record turnout in this year’s races suggests 2018 was more like a 2016 re-run than Trump voters standing on the sidelines.

Thus far, even Trump loyalists in the party haven’t seen the president expand his electoral base beyond core Republicans.

Well I like when the media labels these groups, like, "core Republicans" and "beyond his base".


New Gringrich on Twitter gives us some stats.







Of course the first paragraph tells us that "most presidents" win reelection (except for Democrat Jimmy Carter), but that Trump is somehow "different". We've heard this since he announced his run in 2015. Remember this montage?



thumbnail

Should Trump Bust up Tech Monopolies?

The question, "Should a conservative even entertain the idea of being anti-business?"

Perhaps it depends, especially when it comes to the juggernaut that has become modern day technology companies. Glenn Reynolds writes.

I’ve just finished reading Columbia Law professor Tim Wu’s new book on antitrust, "The Curse of Bigness," and my biggest takeaway is that President Donald Trump has an opportunity to follow in former President Teddy Roosevelt’s footsteps.

Roosevelt built a strong reputation by going after the trusts, huge combinations that placed control of entire industries in the hands of one or a few men. He broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Google of its day. He shut down J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Co., which would have monopolized rail transportation in much of the United States. And he pursued numerous other cases (45 in all) that broke up monopolies and returned competition to markets.

Roosevelt operated against a Gilded Age background in which a few companies had, by means both fair and foul, eliminated virtually all competition. This was bad for consumers, as it drove prices up. It was also, surprisingly, bad for shareholders: Wu notes that Standard Oil’s value actually increased post-breakup, as it went from inefficient monopoly to a collection of competitive companies. Most of all, it was bad for American society.

It's an interesting question, but then the size and spread of tech companies far outweigh that of Standard Oil of the time. Oil was used, but not did not infiltrate the lives of people that Amazon, Facebook, and other tech giants do now.

In any case does the Trump administration risk a potential hit to the economy? A look at the crashing of tech stocks in October of this year shows it's volatility. Technology is still a relatively young commodity. Twenty years ago, no one saw the beginning of Amazon - basically a computer driven mail-order company - would rise to the monster it is today, nor the rise of basically a college chat program grow into a system where billions of people connect to one another.

Yet it may force itself to be regulated and broken up especially taken the controversies it's become embroidered with, privacy and political advocacy.

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

thumbnail

Don't Blame California Fires on Climate Change

As with any previous disaster, hurricanes, flooding, wildfires in the western US, such as the recent fires in California get the usual push from Climate Change enthusiast, clamoring for more awareness, and yes, change.

However is it the Climate, or simply the way it is in a dry climate that needs only a spark or strike of a match to get going. According to Chuck DeVore writing in the Federalist, it's more the latter.

Climate change is a danger to us all and President Trump must be stopped — that’s the chorus we always hear when new climate reports are released and destructive fires ravage California. But is it true?

On Oct. 31, six days before the midterm elections, the journal Nature published an article suggesting that the world’s oceans were absorbing much more heat from climate change than previously calculated. The research, by scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, and New Jersey’s Princeton University, was obligingly picked up by the national media with alarming headlines such as:

Study: Oceans warming faster than anticipated giving humanity even less time to stave off worst impacts of climate change — San Diego Union-Tribune

Oceans warming faster than anticipated, giving even less time to stave off worst impacts of climate change, study finds — Los Angeles Times

Startling new research finds a large buildup of heat in the oceans, suggesting a faster rate of global warming — The Washington Post

Oceans Warming Much Faster Than Thought, Study Finds – The New York Times

Politicians and their campaigns quickly followed suit. California’s senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, running for re-election against a fellow Democrat, tweeted this on Oct. 31: “New science shows the oceans are warming more than we thought. We may have to cut emissions 25% faster to avoid a disastrous 2°C of global warming. It’s time to stop pretending climate change isn’t a real threat—our future depends on it.”

As with many scientific studies in the climate science realm, this one had been weaponized in the service of politics. But the study was deeply flawed. On Election Day, after five days of extensive and frequently breathless media treatment of the ocean warming study, British mathematician Nicholas Lewis posted some doubts on Dr. Judith Curry’s blog:

I was asked for my thoughts on the Resplandy paper as soon as it obtained media coverage. Most commentators appear to have been content to rely on what was said in the press release. However, being a scientist, I thought it appropriate to read the paper itself, and if possible look at its data, before forming a view.

… A quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.

Soon, the authors of the study admitted to fundamental errors in math that unraveled their frightening conclusions. Many of the stories in the mass media were corrected and, in some cases, editors felt the need to change their headlines. The New York Times now heads their shortened story from Oct. 31 with the pedestrian, “Scientists Find a New Way to Take the Oceans’ Temperature.”

His point is very valid. First, more and more of the wealthy are moving more and more into the "woods" and therefore more collateral damage happens. Secondly, President Trump was criticized for blaming much of the fires on lack of proper forest management.

President Trump’s critics are belittling him for not buying the lefty narrative that global warming is to blame for the California wildfires. Instead, Trump points to decades of mistakes by government agencies that caused the woodlands to become overly dense and blanketed with highly flammable dead wood and underbrush.

Turns out he’s exactly right.

Just ask California officials. Two months ago, the state legislature enacted a measure that would expedite the removal of dead trees and use “prescribed burns” to thin forests. In other words: the very same reforms that Trump is now being mocked for proposing. The September law followed a Gov. Jerry Brown executive order earlier this year that also called for “controlled fires” to improve forest health.

This scientific approach isn’t easily conveyed in Trump’s preferred mode of communication, the 280-character tweet. But University of California forest expert Yana Valachovic conceded in a Washington Post interview that Trump’s “general sentiment is correct — that we need to manage fuels.” That is, to get rid of dangerous buildups of dead and dying trees.

Read more.

thumbnail

Report: House GOP 'Working With Whistleblowers' In Clinton Foundation Probe

Trick to see is whether how long this will last with Democrats taking the House in January 2019.

Meadows - chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Government Operations, told The Hill that it's time to "circle back" to former Utah Attorney General John Huber's probe with the Justice Department into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in improper activities, reports The Hill.

"Mr. [John] Huber with the Department of Justice and the FBI has been having an investigation – at least part of his task was to look at the Clinton Foundation and what may or may not have happened as it relates to improper activity with that charitable foundation, so we’ve set a hearing date for December the 5th.," Meadows told Hill.TV on Wednesday.

According to a report by the Dallas Observer last November, the Clinton Foundation has been under investigation by the IRS since July, 2016.

Meadows says that it's time for Huber to update Congress concerning his findings, and "expects him to be one of the witnesses at the hearing," per The Hill. Additionally Meadows said that his committee is trying to secure testimonies from whistleblowers who can provide more information about potential wrongdoing surrounding the Clinton Foundation.

"We’re just now starting to work with a couple of whistleblowers that would indicate that there is a great probability, of significant improper activity that’s happening in and around the Clinton Foundation," he added.

The Clinton Foundation - also under FBI investigation out of the Arkansas field office, has denied any wrongdoing.



More at Zerohedge.

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

thumbnail

No Comparison between Hillary Clinton and Ivanka's private Emails

Big huffing and puffing in liberal media today. It's been discovered that Ivanka Trump used private email - you know just like Hillary Clinton! Well, not so much.

White House ethics officials learned of Trump’s repeated use of personal email when reviewing emails gathered last fall by five Cabinet agencies to respond to a public records lawsuit. That review revealed that throughout much of 2017, she often discussed or relayed official White House business using a private email account with a domain that she shares with her husband, Jared Kushner.

The discovery alarmed some advisers to President Trump, who feared that his daughter’s practices bore similarities to the personal email use of Hillary Clinton, an issue he made a focus of his 2016 campaign. Trump attacked his Democratic challenger as untrustworthy and dubbed her “Crooked Hillary” for using a personal email account as secretary of state.

Some aides were startled by the volume of Ivanka Trump’s personal emails — and taken aback by her response when questioned about the practice. Trump said she was not familiar with some details of the rules, according to people with knowledge of her reaction.

In a statement, Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Lowell, acknowledged that the president’s daughter occasionally used her private email before she was briefed on the rules, but he said none of her messages contained classified information.

“While transitioning into government, after she was given an official account but until the White House provided her the same guidance they had given others who started before she did, Ms. Trump sometimes used her personal account, almost always for logistics and scheduling concerning her family,” he said in a statement.

...

Austin Evers, executive director of the liberal watchdog group American Oversight, whose record requests sparked the White House discovery, said it strained credulity that Trump’s daughter did not know that government officials should not use private emails for official business.

“There’s the obvious hypocrisy that her father ran on the misuse of personal email as a central tenet of his campaign,” Evers said. “There is no reasonable suggestion that she didn’t know better. Clearly everyone joining the Trump administration should have been on high alert about personal email use.”

Ivanka Trump and her husband set up personal emails with the domain “ijkfamily.com” through a Microsoft system in December 2016, as they were preparing to move to Washington so Kushner could join the White House, according to people familiar with the arrangement.

The couple’s emails are prescreened by the Trump Organization for security problems such as viruses but are stored by Microsoft, the people said.


A few problems with this story.

1. Ivanka wasn't a Secretary of State, running an undeclosed email server from her basement, in a highly classified position.

2. The White House discovered this and corrected the issue - more of training than of something nefarious as Clinton was.

3 Ivanka wasn't a first lady, former Senator on the Arms Services Committee, and four other committees, and Secretary of State who knew full well of what classified and unclassified meant.

Ignorance isn't an excuse for violating law, but there is no evidence any law was violated. Ivanka's email was more of a personal family nature. Not state secrets, and most important Ivanka's emails are present and accounted for. Not like the 33,000 missing from Hillary's server.
thumbnail

Acosta Files: Careful that you don't get what you wished for

As you know Jay Acosta and CNN sued - and won - to get his White House press pass back. The judge in his ruling didn't rule on Acosta's right to free speech, but that his supposed 5th amendment rights were violated. The ruling dinged the White House for not giving him advanced knowledge and allowing him to defend himself against the charge of being disruptive - and violent- during press briefings.

So....

The transcript of the Nov. 16 court session in which Kelly delivered his oral ruling was released in a group of court papers on Monday. Kelly declared that the White House could not eject Acosta without first providing him due process — specifically, notice of the revocation of his press pass, a chance for Acosta to respond, and a written decision.

In short, the judge said to the White House: You can't throw out a reporter without going through a process. But if you go through a process — which you, the White House, can design — then you can throw the reporter out. In the end, it could be that Kelly's ruling will make it easier for the White House to oust reporters in the future — and to make the decision stick.

Throughout the court session, Kelly referred to the only real precedent in the Acosta matter, a 1977 case from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called Sherrill v. Knight. In that case, the court ruled that the White House — specifically the Secret Service — could not deny a press pass to a "bona fide journalist" without due process. The court defined due process as "procedures whereby an applicant is given notice of the evidence upon which the Secret Service proposes to base its denial, [and] the journalist is afforded an opportunity to rebut or explain this evidence, and the Secret Service issues a final written decision specifying the reasons for its refusal to grant a press pass."

In court, Kelly told lawyers for CNN and the government that he would use Sherrill as a guide in the Acosta matter. In his view, the due process arrangement outlined in Sherrill should apply to the Trump White House's treatment of Acosta or any other White House reporter. "The court in Sherrill held that this process must include notice, an opportunity to rebut the government's reasons, and a written decision," Kelly said.

The judge's clear implication was that if the White House takes those actions if it jumps through those hoops in the future, it can expel a reporter without raising due process concerns.

So the White House has created such rules and procedures as the judge indicated.

The White House has halted efforts to bar CNN journalist Jim Acosta but has introduced a wave of new rules for reporters attending news conferences.

According to a letter sent to Mr Acosta, reporters will now only be allowed one question each if called on at future news conferences and are only allowed to ask follow-up questions at the discretion of the US leader.

Guidelines state journalists are compelled to physically surrender microphones if Mr Trump has not granted a follow-up question.

Failure to abide by the new guidelines could result in reporters losing their passes.

It comes after the White House previously accused Mr Acosta of manhandling an intern who tried to take his microphone away as he questioned Donald Trump during a heated news conference. He was subsequently banned from the White House.

Mr Trump's administration warned his credentials could be pulled again if he failed to adhere to the new guidelines for journalists.

This will no doubt cause friction between Acosta and other journalists in the room. It reminds me of the military where one guy would screw up and the rest of us would pay. Mr. Acosta's rights aren't being violated, he's simply an ass who shows his ass every chance he gets.

Monday, November 19, 2018

thumbnail

Whitaker Appointment is Constitution - So Why are the Democrats Freaking out

Here they come again.

A group of Senate Democrats is suing to block Matt Whitaker from serving as acting attorney general on grounds that his placement in the post was unconstitutional.

The suit, which is being filed by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI) in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is the latest and most aggressive salvo against the Whitaker appointment. Last week, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel defended Whitaker’s promotion in a memo that drew immediate criticism for its expansive understanding of the president’s power. That view is in hot dispute, including from the state of Maryland, which petitioned a federal judge to stop him from serving on constitutional grounds.

The latest suit, which was brought by the groups Protect Democracy and the Constitutional Accountability Center for the Senators, argues that Whitaker’s appointment violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause because the U.S. Senate did not confirm him to his prior post. Whitaker was chief of staff to now-former Attorney General Jeff Sessions before President Trump elevated him to his current gig. Trump did so through the Vacancies Reform Act, which allows the staffing of vacant positions for up to 210 days. But many constitutional scholars have argued that the Vacancies Reform Act doesn’t let the president appoint people to cabinet-level positions who haven’t been senate confirmed. The Senate confirmed Whitaker in 2004 as a U.S. Attorney in Iowa, but his opponents—most prominently George Conway, the husband of White House senior staffer Kellyanne Conway, and former Solicitor General Neal Katyal—say that confirmation has effectively lapsed.

First, the appointment is legal. The appointment passed muster with the DOJ:


The Justice Department told President Donald Trump that Matthew Whitaker could hold the post of acting attorney general, before Trump appointed him to that post.

News of that preapproval comes as critics have said Trump violated the Constitution by installing the 49-year-old Whitaker on a temporary basis as the nation's top law enforcement official without first getting Senate approval.

That argument was based on the fact that Whitaker had not held a Senate-approved position before he was appointed acting AG. The state of Maryland cited that claim when it filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging Whitaker's appointment, calling him an "unqualified" partisan.

But NBC News reported Wednesday that the department told Trump, before he tapped Whitaker for the job, that he could appoint Whitaker as acting head of Justice.

Whitaker was named to the post a week ago, after Trump forced out Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

His temporary appointment immediately sparked concerns that he will squelch the ongoing investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller's office into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, and possible coordinating with the Trump campaign in that effort.

Whitaker before joining the Justice Department had been a critic of Mueller's probe. He now has oversight of Mueller's office, due to his appointment as acting attorney general.

Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, had been Sessions' chief of staff. He will be allowed to serve as acting attorney general for at up to at least 210 days.

Steven Engel, assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, said in a written opinion cited by NBC News that his office told the White House — before Whitaker was appointed — that the president "could designate a senior Department of Justice official, such as Whitaker, as acting attorney general."

According to Engel's opinion, the Justice Department has identified more than 160 occasions in which a president appointed government officials who not been confirmed by the Senate to serve in high-level positions, NBC News reported.

The larger question is why are Democrats so against the appointment? Well the obvious answer is Democrats believe Whitaker, who previouly critized the Special Counsel investigation in 2016 election interference by Russia, will fire Mueller and end the investigation, or somehow protect Trump should Mueller throw down the hammer. That is an obvious concern not only to Democrats but Republicans as well. For Republicans they are so concerned that Senator Flake and a few others want to protect Mueller though legislation. That alone is a constitutional concern, as Trump constitutionally can fire Mueller at any point, for any reason and be within his constitutional authority.

Is is no indication that's going to happen at this point.

I think Democrats are worried about something much more and that's is Whitaker might - finally - take the action againt Hillary Clinton's email scandal, Unranium deals with Russia along with a litany of other scandles that gathered dust during Session's tenure. That's the last thing they would want to happen entering into 2020, but more to the point, Hillary's alledged crimes could bring down a large part of the Democrat apparatus, along with components of the FBI, CIA, and the rest of the "dark state", that on a continual basis endangers the Trump administration.

Sessions was too weak, along with an anemic GOP house and Senate over the last 8 years that produced nothing of merit in investigations. No, what Democrats really fear is a new sheriff in town and the wrath - long too overdue - he may bring.
thumbnail

Democrat Fraud in the 2018 Election - Investigate and Expose Before 2020

Hard to believe that two weeks after the 2018 midterms, races are still be decided by "found votes", votes that exceed registered people to produce that number, and Republican candidates announced as winners were suddenly losers as more ballots were discovered. This isn't a new occurrence, it happens time to time in election history. Democrats who have decried voter-ID (for obvious reasons), shout their mantra of "count every vote", while it's countered with "count every LEGAL vote", have spread across news stories coast to coast.


No other hotbed compares to the confusion than the usual suspects of Broward and Dade County Florida, but specifically Broward County. Current elections supervisor Brenda Snipes is under fire for what appears to be the largest example of incompetence in the history of elections. It's not the first time for Snipes either. Example.

"For 15 years, Snipes has served as Broward County’s elections chief, with mixed results. Long lines and vote counts that continued long after polls closed marred elections in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2012, 2016 and, of course, this year.

Among other issues:

-- A court ruled she had broken election law when she destroyed ballots from the 2016 election 12 months after it, instead of the 22 months required by federal law.
Broward elections supervisor illegally destroyed ballots in Wasserman Schultz race, judge rules

-- A medical marijuana amendment was left off some ballots in 2016.

-- Election results in the 2016 primary were posted on the elections office’s website before polls closed, another violation of election law.

-- In 2012, almost 1,000 uncounted ballots were discovered a week after the election

-- In 2004, some 58,000 mail-in ballots were not delivered to voters, leaving election officials to scramble to send new ones."

Now after numerous starts and stops and a failure to properly submit results, and two law-suits who ruled against her, one, for violating Florida law, she is again at the end of a complete screw up the recount of Florida.

Now that the counting is done and both DeSantis and Scott have come out victorious, the looming question remains is how to prevent Democrats from pulling the same election-games in 2020. I have no doubt that Florida election results would have been very different had conservative media, bloggers, activist not descended on Broward County - and even Palm Beach counties and put eyes on what was going up.

More specifically Broward County where an astounding 80,000 votes "appeared" just days after the election where Rick Scott's lead of 55,000 was reduced to 12,000 vote, which is nearly mathematically impossible.

This "magic" happened all around the country in the days after the election. True, some expansion of votes is due to absentee and mail-in ballots, but as we saw in Florida some of it is also because of malfeasance, and just plain cheating. I believe that if it had not be for the expanded focus on South Florida by media, the GOP of Florida and activists the end result may have been much different.

That needs to be fine-tuned as we move to 2020 so the Democratic Party is on notice that it won't be tolerated, it will be exposed and we will fight back.

Wednesday, May 30, 2018

thumbnail

Liberal Hypocrisy: Rosanne Reboot Canceled after Rosanne Barr Tweet about Valerie Jarrett

ABC reboot Rosanne has been canceled after Roseanne Barr sent out a tweet comparing ex-Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett to the Planet of the Apes.


"Roseanne's Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show," ABC Entertainment president Channing Dungey said Tuesday.

ABC, in a stunning move, has decided to cancel its Roseanne revival following star Roseanne Barr's racist tweet Tuesday.

"Roseanne's Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show," ABC Entertainment president Channing Dungey said Tuesday.

Early Tuesday, star, head writer and executive producer Barr attacked Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to former President Barack Obama, in a since-deleted tweet in which she said "Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj." Barr subsequently apologized: "I apologize to Valerie Jarrett and to all Americans. I am truly sorry for making a bad joke about her politics and her looks. I should have known better. Forgive me — my joke was in bad taste."

Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Iger also weighed in on the decision to cancel Roseanne: "There was only one thing to do here, and that was the right thing," he tweeted."

While the tweet was dumb and guaranteed to produce consequences as mentioned, one could also state the liberal outrage was mostly faux. Liberal entertainers, writers, and others have consistently referred to both conservative blacks and whites in racist and derogatory tones. The is especially true for black comedians and use racism against whites and yet are lauded, and even give greater avenues for spewing their hate.

For instance, a black writer, Monica Judge used a "monkey reference" to refer to HUD Secretary Ben Carson in October of last year.


During the Bush administration constant derogatory racism references, we used on Condi Rice, and went unpunished by the media.

Some of these references were made by ABC's The View by castmate Whoopie Goldberg. In fact, more often racist comments are more often produced by the liberal entertainers than by anyone conservative. Again most the outrage is selective and hypocritical.

Monday, May 28, 2018

thumbnail

REPORT: Right-wing activist Tommy Robinson reportedly jailed after filming outside child grooming trial

In Britain, like in a lot of Europe democracy is a farce, especially when it comes to free speech and a free press. Via Fox News:


"U.K. right-wing activist and journalist Tommy Robinson was arrested and reportedly jailed Friday after he filmed members of an alleged child grooming gang entering a court for trial -- but the details of his purported sentence remain murky after the judge ordered the press not to report on the case.

Robinson, the former head of the English Defense League and a longtime activist against Islam and Islamic migration, was arrested after he was filming men accused of being part of a gang that groomed children. Britain has been rocked by a series of child sex scandals perpetrated by gangs of predominantly Muslim men.

Video shows Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Lennon, being surrounded by as many as seven police officers as he live-streamed the incident on his phone. The police informed him he was being arrested for “breach of the peace.”

But shortly after his arrest, a source with knowledge of the case told Fox News that he had been jailed for 13 months on a contempt-of-court charge.

A court listing indicated the case was “closed” by Friday afternoon.

One source said he was jailed in Hull Prison. The prison declined to comment to Fox News on whether Robinson was there. Leeds Crown Court also did not return a request for information.

According to The Independent, Robinson was already on a suspended sentence for contempt of court over a gang rape case in 2017.

The judge in the case on Friday slapped a reporting ban on the case. The order bans reporters from reporting on a case if there is reason to believe the reporting could prejudice a trial. The order prevents reporting until the conclusion of the trial Robinson was reporting on.

The gag order led to news outlets in the U.K. removing their reporting from their websites to comply with the order. Most remaining reporting in the U.K. comments on Robinson’s arrest, but not on his purported sentencing.

Sources with knowledge of Robinson’s case spoke on condition of anonymity in part because of fear they would be arrested for contempt. One told Fox that Robinson’s lawyer warned that, considering the presence of Muslim gang members in prison, a 13-month sentence was tantamount to a death sentence.

Unlike the US, the British court can issue gag orders on the media, preventing them from reporting on the case. Crowds have begun to form chanting "Free Tommy" outside the prison as well.




Thursday, May 24, 2018

thumbnail

REPORT: Obama Advisors' Emails In Immediate Sandy Hook Aftermath Reveal Anti-Gun Agenda: 'Tap Peoples Emotions'

Via Daily Caller:

"According to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, first reported by The Baltimore Post, advisors to then-President Barack Obama immediately strategized how to exploit the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary school to push their gun control agenda. "Tap peoples [sic] emotions," Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel advised then-Education Secretary Arne Duncan on December 16, 2012, just two days after the massacre that left 26 dead. The victims' bodies were yet to be laid to rest.

The two discussed how they could exploit the tragedy to bring about their anti-gun agenda. "What are your thoughts?" Duncan asked Emanuel on an email with the subject line, "CT shooting."

"Go for a vote this week asap before it fades," replied Emanuel. "TaBradyples [sic] emotion. Make it simple assault weapons."

"Yup- thanks," replied the education secretary.

"When I did brady bill and assault weapons for Clinton we always made it simple. Criminals or war weapons," wrote back Emanuel.

Duncan then inquired about the so-called "gun show loophole" and other talking points to push on the public.

"Gun show loophole? Database? Cop-killer bullets? Too complicated?" he wrote.

"Cop killer maybe," answered Emanuel. "The other no."

"Got it," Duncan agreed."

One thing that we have learned from the tragic gun violence at schools is how Democrats come crashing through the gates to push their gun control agenda, and this email proves it. No doubt the subject needs to be discussed, but for they don't even wait until the victims have been mourned. One thing always missed is that with most of this violence it occurs on Democrat-controlled ground where there is already the toughest gun control laws on the books.

To have Emanuel on this is, of course, he is the mayor of Chicago which has more per capita violence than anywhere else in the nation. Another is that not all those affected by the violence are Democrats, nor necessarily of the same opinion of what should be done.






Wednesday, May 23, 2018

thumbnail

REPORT: Another 'informant' attempted to infiltrate Trump campaign under Obama, campaign aide says

At least one additional government 'informant' attempted to infiltrate the Trump campaign under President Obama, former Trump campaign aide Michael Caputo revealed exclusively on Fox News' "The Ingraham Angle" Monday night.

"Let me tell you something that I know for a fact," Caputo told host Laura Ingraham. "This informant, this person that they tried to plant into the campaign -- and even into the administration, if you believe Axios -- he's not the only person who came at the campaign. And the FBI is not the only Obama agency who came at the campaign.

"I know because they came at me," Caputo added. "And I'm looking for clearance from my attorney to reveal this to the public. This is just the beginning."

Axios has reported that the suspected FBI informant in the Trump campaign was recommended for a senior post in the Trump administration.

"When we finally find out the truth about this, Director Clapper and the rest of them will be wearing some orange suits," Caputo told Ingraham, referring to former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

I'm sure that there will be more to come on this in the coming days.


UPDATE: Not a bit surprised that there are denials on this from those who made contact as has been the case with everything else we have learned.

"Former Trump adviser Michael Caputo’s suggestion that a second government informant may have been snooping on the president’s 2016 campaign came into question overnight, as two other individuals involved in the flagged discussions downplayed their role.

Caputo had told Fox News, in two televised interviews, that he was approached in 2016, likening the situation to revelations that another government informant made contacts with several other Trump advisers in the early stages of the Russia probe.

Caputo told Neil Cavuto Tuesday on “Your World” that he was approached in early May 2016 by an intermediary “who had been talking to a government official” looking to connect with the Trump campaign -- purportedly to hand off Hillary Clinton-related emails.

But when contacted by Fox News, the individual who supplied the information – a government contractor – denied having ever contracted for an intelligence agency and downplayed the interaction as “cocktail party talk about where to go do opposition research.” The individual claimed to have gotten the information in question after meeting with an NSA contractor who shared information about a purported email depicting ‘pay-for-play’ between the Clinton Global Initiative and State Department.

The individual stressed that they are not connected with any of the intelligence agencies and were not trying to reach out to the Trump campaign on behalf of any agency, but rather passing along unconfirmed information about the Clinton campaign they thought should be pursued."

Sure, um OK, "Should you be caught we will disavow any knowledge....." Clandestine bull crap, but we'll see, the damn has already broke, denials won't cut it.










Sunday, May 20, 2018

thumbnail

DOJ to look into Trump's claims Obama WH may have directed campaign 'infiltration'

As it's become know, especially after the news from The Daily Caller that the FBI informant in fact being University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, President Trump demanded that the DOJ investigate to get all the facts official. Demand met.

"The Justice Department asked its watchdog to look into any alleged "impropriety or political motivation" in the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, the DOJ said Sunday night -- hours after President Trump ordered a review looking into whether federal agents infiltrated or surveilled his campaign for political purposes.

"I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes -- and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!" the president tweeted."



The Department has asked the Inspector General to expand the ongoing review of the (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) application process to include determining whether there was any impropriety or political motivation in how the FBI conducted its counterintelligence investigation of persons suspected of involvement with the Russian agents who interfered in the 2016 presidential election. As always, the Inspector General will consult with the appropriate U.S. Attorney if there is any evidence of potential criminal conduct," DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores told Fox News.

She also released a response from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein: "If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action."

As I said before, ever since the NY Times story broke of Operation Cross Hurricane, they, and the rest of the media have been trying to backpeddle, disavow and generally change the story to say that it was basically a nothingburger, with John Brennan - a known perjurer - attempting to convince us that it was all for our own good.

The heat of the Russian investigation has now switched now that it's become apparent that the entirety of the situation was manufactured to discredit Candidate Trump, and then ramped up after he beat the odds and became President. Now apparently we'll find out the truth.












thumbnail

REPORT: Mole was planted inside Trump Campaign Indentified: Cambridge University Professor Stefan Halper

After several days of media coverup, it's now been reported that Cambridge University Professor Stefan Halper was indeed the FBI mole inserted into the Trump campaign. Via Fox News:

"University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper has been identified as an FBI informant in Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, multiple news outlets reported Saturday.

The 73-year-old academic reportedly has deep ties to American and British intelligence, having served in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, the New York Post reported.

President Trump tweeted Friday that confirmation of an FBI plant in his campaign would become the nation's "all time biggest political scandal."

“Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president,” Trump wrote. “It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a “hot” Fake News story. If true – all-time biggest political scandal!”

The New York Times and Washington Post reportedly have known of Halper’s identity for weeks, but chose not to reveal his name. Then on Thursday, the Daily Caller named Halper in the opening paragraph of its report.

The Washington Post said it received warnings from U.S. officials that revealing Halper’s identity posed a security risk.

Meanwhile, reports vary on when the FBI tapped Halper to snoop on the Trump campaign.

The New York Times reported in December that during “a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016,” Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had disclosed to an Australian diplomat the Russians had dirt on the Clinton campaign. The Australians then tipped off the FBI, prompting the agency to launch “Crossfire Hurricane” on July 31, 2016.

But Halper met with Page in early July that summer, contradicting the FBI’s claims of when the operation began, while Halper met Carter Page at a British symposium and remained in contact for more than a year.

In August, Halper met with Trump campaign co-chair Sam Clovis to offer his experience, the Washington Post reported.

A few days later, Halper reportedly offered Papadopoulos compensation in exchange for writing a paper about energy in the eastern Mediterranean region.

Sources close to Papadopoulos now say Halper was working for an intelligence agency.

Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, while Page was the subject of a federal surveillance warrant.

By May 2017, the “Cross Hurricane” operation had melded with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Halper was implicated in another campaign scandal when in 1980 he allegedly worked on behalf of the CIA to spy on the Carter campaign to provide information to George H.W. Bush’s campaign."

So all the covering up the media has been doing over the last couple of days was simply that - a cover, for well-seasoned informant.
thumbnail

Just How "Scandal Free" was Obama's Eight Years in Office

I love it when liberals try to present Obama's time in office as "scandal free". Progressives firmly believe that if you repeat something long enough and over and over it's somehow true. But does that claim hold up to scrutiny?


Well, let's review it. Via the Boston Globe:


"Operation Fast and Furious. In a botched “gunwalking” sting, the Justice Department allowed thousands of guns to be sold to suspected smugglers, in the hope of tracing them to Mexican drug cartels. But the Obama administration lost track of the weapons, many of which later turned up at crime scenes in which scores of people were murdered. Among the dead: US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, killed by drug gangsters in 2010. Compounding the scandal was Attorney General Eric Holder’s refusal to turn over documents relating to the operation, a refusal for which he was held in contempt of Congress."


Benghazi. When Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed in a terrorist attack on the US consulate in Libya in 2012, administration officials falsely blamed their deaths on an irrelevant YouTube video. That wasn’t fog of war, it was deceit. In public statements, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attributed the attack to “inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” But in private e-mails to her daughter and the Egyptian prime minister — e-mails not discovered until 2015 — she candidly acknowledged that the Americans had been assaulted and killed by “an al Qaeda-like group.


Veterans Administration. On Obama’s watch, tens of thousands of veterans were denied proper health care at VA hospitals. Their names were added to phony waiting lists and they were stonewalled for months or even years. More than 300,000 veterans may have died awaiting medical treatment that never came. According to the Veterans Affairs inspector general, thousands of veterans’ health care enrollment applications were deleted or buried. Eventually, VA Secretary Eric Shinseki resigned in disgrace."

Numerous other scandals plagued the Obama administration.

The IRS discriminated against politically conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, placing organizations on indefinite hold if their names contained such terms as “Tea Party” or “Patriots.”

The Office of Personnel Management suffered a catastrophic data breach that exposed the confidential records of at least 10 million federal employees to hackers. OPM’s director had repeatedly been warned that the agency was vulnerable to cyberattack, but had failed to take the warnings seriously.

The Obama administration, eager to promote “green” energy, lavished more than $500 million in loan guarantees on Solyndra, a high-risk startup. When the company went bankrupt, taxpayers ate the loss.

From letting Hezbollah funnel cocaine into the United States to secretly wiretapping AP reporters, there were scandals aplenty when Obama was president. The media reported them all, but never with the fury and frenzy that characterize coverage of Donald Trump’s schedule. Obama benefited from being a media darling."
Even after his time new scandals have come to light such as the growing story of how Obama reportedly used the DOJ and the FBI to investigate a Presidential candidate, and while still in an ongoing investigation it's veracity becomes even clearer each day.

Saturday, May 19, 2018

thumbnail

Media's Rediculous Explanation for FBI Spying on Trump Campaign - "We were trying to help him!"

Suddenly when it became apparent that Obama's FBI had been caught spying on the Trump campaign, the campaign of misinformation began. This is always planned as a backup when you are caught, or the plan is exposed.

A more rediculous explaination I've yet to see. The explaination by the FBI, suggested by known liars such as James Clapper, is that this was a counterintelligence operation or other such clap trap.

The New York Times in a moment of pure journalism uncovered the plan recently and now it's CYA time all around.

Former Director of Intelligence James Clapper said Thursday night on CNN that it was “a good thing” there was an FBI informant spying on the Trump campaign. Clapper admitted the FBI “may have had someone who was talking to them in the campaign,” referring to President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. He explained away the possibility of an FBI informant spying on the campaign as the bureau was trying to find out “what the Russians were doing to try to substantiate themselves in the campaign or influence or leverage it.”

Obama’s Director of National Intelligence then went on to say, “So, if there was someone that was observing that sort of thing, that’s a good thing.”

He also stated he believes “it’s hugely dangerous if someone like that is exposed because the danger to that person” and the potential “reluctance of others to be informants for the FBI” could possibly devastate the FBI.

Well, yeah Clapper, I guess.....

Again Clapper has provided cover and perjury ever since he left the position of Obama's handpicked DNI, and now works - of course for CNN.

Clapper on CNN:

"CLAPPER: This is hyperbole. They may have had someone who was talking to them in the campaign, but, y’know, the focus here, and as it was with the intelligence community, is not on the campaign per se, but what the Russians were doing to try to substantiate themselves in the campaign or influence or leverage it. So if there was someone that was observing that sort of thing, well, that’s a good thing! Uh, because the Russians pose a threat to the very basis of our political system."

Hyperbole my ass. If they were so concerned about Russian interference why then not send a "spy" into the Clinton campaign because it was known that they had been hacked as well. Of course it was targeted at Trump, there was no concern over Hillary because after all to them she was supposed to win.

The whole of the operation was to take out Trump before the election. But that didn't happen so they lauched a investigation into Trump via a Special Council. But then after a year nothing has been found and worse for them the operation has been exposed so now almost in unison all the media outlets speaking almost off the same script are trying to play it down and spreading a false narrative that this was all good for everyone, after all they were just doing their jobs.

Friday, May 18, 2018

thumbnail

BREAKING: Texas high school shooting leaves 8-10 dead; 1 in Custody

Via FoxNews


"A Texas high school student unleashed a hail of bullets inside one of his classes early Friday morning, gunning down eight to 10 people, police said.
The suspected shooter was taken into police custody and a second suspect has been detained. The suspect in custody and the suspect detained for further questioning were both students.

Police officers responded to Santa Fe High School around 8 a.m. CDT after reports that a shooter opened fire inside.

The Santa Fe School District stated possible explosive devices were found on and off the school's campus. Law enforcement officers were on the scene "rendering them safe." The school has been evacuated.

A school resource officer was shot and injured and another officer was also injured in the incident, CBS News reported.

President Trump addresses Texas high school shooting, vows his administration will do everything possible to protect nation's students.

The chief nursing officer at the University of Texas Medical Branch told reporters the center received two adult patients and one person under 18 years old.

Galveston County Sheriff's Maj. Douglas Hudson said units responded to reports of shots fired. Witnesses say a gunman opened fire inside an art class during first period. A student in the class told KTRK she witnessed at least one girl being shot.

"We thought it was a fire drill at first but really, the teacher said, 'Start running,'" the student told the news station."


More to come.


Authorities confirm that an explosive was found in the basement under the school. Additionally, terrorism hasn't been determined as of yet.

UPDATE: Explosives were found in various places, making it seem that this was a coordinated planned attack. But more information to come.
thumbnail

CONFIRMED: FBI covert spy was inserted into Trump campaign to frame him

As the so-called Trump campaign / Russian collusion narrative collapses, over the last month it's been discovered that the FBI created a covert operation in the Trump campaign to frame President Trump. Fired FBI director James Comey freely participated in the campaign along with other principle players, but also points to direct involvement by former President Barack Obama. All of this activity led to the creation of the Special Council which Robert Mueller has been running for over a year and still hasn't uncovered any collusion reference to Trump and Russia.

Newly installed Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani detailed a New York Times piece that confirmed that there was a spy or spies planted among the Trump campaign, to thwart his run for president.

"Giuliani, who is now assisting the president with the legal aspects of the ongoing Mueller probe, held up The Times piece as evidence of serious corruption.

“Well it would change a lot of things,” the former mayor began.

“First of all, we’re going to have to look into it as a result of The Times’ article. Thank you New York Times — they usually don’t help us,” he said.

In Giuliani’s view, “Operation Crossfire Hurricane” could mean that the entire Mueller investigation against the Trump administration may have been founded on false pretenses.

“In this case, I think we’re going to have to look into whether we can challenge the legitimacy of the entire investigation,” he pointed out. “Maybe a special prosecutor, a special counsel, never should’ve been appointed.”

RELATED: WSJ Reporter: We’ve Confirmed the Worst – US Intel Truly Was Spying on Trump Camp

The New York politician, who became famous for his leadership after 9/11, didn’t shy away from using the term “spy” to describe what the FBI allegedly did to Trump’s campaign.

“I’m shocked to hear that they put a spy in the campaign of a major party candidate or maybe two spies,” he acknowledged. “And now I’m going through my brain, because you know I was a big part of that campaign — I’m trying to figure out who was the spy.”

Giuliani also confirmed what was on everyone’s mind: The use of the FBI as a political enforcement wing of the Obama administration, with James Comey as head of the operation, would make the Nixon era look quaint in comparison.

“That would be the biggest scandal in the history of this town, at least involving law enforcement,” he declared."

It would, and I believe it is. However I doubt the liberal New York Times wouldn't reveal this without some underlying reason and with the coming IG report, my bet is that the Times is expecting the news to be worse and far more explosive and is trying to soften the blow.




Wednesday, May 16, 2018

thumbnail

Senate Intelligence Committee Wonky Report on Russian Meddling

Something is amiss with the Senate Intelligence report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Specifically that their last interviews are with many of the principles who are known to have participated to some degree in the meddling.


Via Fox News:


"Senate Intelligence Committee leaders on Wednesday backed the 2017 intelligence community report that formally accused Russia of trying to interfere in the U.S. presidential election to boost then-candidate Donald Trump.

Their statements followed a final closed-door interview on the matter with top Obama administration officials. The committee, led by Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., spoke Wednesday with former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan and former National Security Agenda Director Michael Rogers (who retired earlier this year).

Former FBI Director James Comey was invited but did not show up -- skipping the closed-door session due to a “previously scheduled engagement,” his attorney said. Comey, who was fired last May, has been on a media blitz in recent weeks promoting his memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” in which he is highly critical of now-President Trump.

Despite Comey’s absence, the committee leaders announced afterward they were able to complete the review of the intelligence community’s Russia assessment.

“Committee staff have spent 14 months reviewing the sources, tradecraft, and analytic work, and we see no reason to dispute the conclusions,” Burr said in a statement. “There is no doubt that Russia undertook an unprecedented effort to interfere with our 2016 elections. I look forward to completing the Committee’s inquiry and issuing our findings and recommendations to the American people.”

Warner said, “After a thorough review, our staff concluded that the ICA conclusions were accurate and on point. The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton.”


Note the last paragraph is exactly the Democrat talking points since the beginning. Read here. Again, all these players interviewed were in some way involved in somehow spiking Trump before the election as well.

Additionally, previously reporting showed that the Russians had actually played both sides of the fence to throw confusion by benefiting both candidates.


Let's also not forget that major player Fusion GPS who was behind the Trump Dossier was paid for the opposition research by the Clinton Campaign. Moreover the SIC report is in conflict with the reporting of the House Intel Committee report published last week.


Tuesday, May 15, 2018

thumbnail

Black Trump Supporter Harassed at South Florida Cheesecake Factory

You think opinionated employees would learn that this kind of stuff leads to the unemployment line by now.


"The Cheesecake Factory is investigating an incident at one of its Miami locations after a black customer claims he was verbally attacked by staff over his “Make America Great Again” hat, The Daily Wire reports.

Eugenior Joseph, 22, was reportedly dining with his girlfriend’s family at the Dadeland Mall location of the restaurant on Mother’s Day. His MAGA hat allegedly drew the attention of a female staff member, who gathered her co-workers to confront him, a witness told the site. The witness further claimed about a dozen of those employees circled his table, pointing fingers.

"So then all the employees started standing there, saying things out loud, like, 'I'm going to knock his head in so hard his hat's going to come off," the source said.

Other witnesses for The Daily Wire said some employees used the n-word in reference to Joseph when speaking among themselves, while another brandished his fists.

Joseph himself told The Daily Wire that one employee stood behind him, "balling his fists, smacking his fists, trying to scare me."

At one point, Joseph claims he and his girlfriend got up to use the restroom and, upon exiting, were greeted by the employees, who were “clapping and yelling, and just screaming things at me.”

The kitchen staff also allegedly booed him as he walked by."



Cheesecake factory has reportedly looked into the incident and found it has some merit, have to see how it works out. Since one of the employees used racial slurs it too may qualify under hate crime statutes as well.

Friday, May 11, 2018

thumbnail

Democrat's Midterm Generic Ballot advantage Bleeding - Down to One Point

Whatever the poll, the fact is that Democrats are losing their advantage, once in the double digits. For all the analysis, two factors can't be ignored on election day. First, Trump and his ability to command his supporters to show up and take over the polls, and two, well he's Trump. Remember in 2016 this was the guy who according to most polls was toast and couldn't win, and Hillary couldn't lose. Who is living in the woods now?

Some good, but generally stock analysis and wisdom here. But Trump broke the mold on elections in 2016 and so much stock analysis went into the crapper. Another point, and it's almost never that the party out of power was this far off the mark going into the midterms.

Thursday, May 10, 2018

thumbnail

Dershowitz to Mueller: Stop, Just Stop

It's pretty clear by now that the supposed mandate that Robert Muller ran with to investigate whether there was collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign has run it's course has ended. The House Senate Intelligence committee has concluded that while there were some knuckle-headed moves by the Trump campaign there was no collusion, and that ends the investigation and it's time to stop wasting money chasing dreams of such. It's the put up or shut up time for Mueller. Yet he goes on. Noted defense attorney and Democrat Allen Dershowitz wrote in the Hill:

"In this case, the appointment of a special counsel has done more harm than good. It has politicized our justice system beyond repair. The FBI deputy director has been fired for leaking and lying. His testimony appears to be in conflict with that of the former FBI director as to whether the leaks were authorized. Messages by high-ranking FBI agents suggest strong bias against Trump. A tweet by the former CIA director reveals equally strong negative views of the president. Perhaps these revelations prove nothing more than that law enforcement and national security officials are human and hold political views like everyone else.

But these views are not supposed to influence their decisions. In our age of hyperpartisanship, the public has understandably lost confidence in the ability and willingness of our leaders to separate their political views from their law enforcement decisions. This is not all attributable to the appointment of the special counsel, but the criminalization of political differences on both sides of the aisle has certainly contributed to the atmosphere of distrust in our justice system.

The public has lost faith in the leadership of the Justice Department and the FBI. They don’t trust congressional investigative committees. They don’t know whom to believe when they hear conflicting accounts. There are leaks galore followed by denials of leaks. It’s a total mess. And what do we have to show for it? Just a handful of low-level indictments based largely on alleged crimes that are either unrelated or only marginally related to Russia’s attempt to influence our presidential election in 2016."


Mueller appears to be only interested in nailing President Trump to the cross, a sort of vendetta for Trump firing his friend James Comey, even though there is hardly anyone except liberal maniacs who didn't think Comey should be fired. Prior to the election, just about all Democrats called for his head.

But at this point it should be wrapped up, even Vice President Pence called for it to end.




Monday, May 07, 2018

thumbnail

No, if Trump lied it's not the same as Bill Clinton lied about Monica Lewinski

The left is beginning to form the idea that IF Trump lied about Stormy Daniels - and that's a big if' it's somehow the same as Clinton's crime of lying about Monica Lewinski. The primary charge against Clinton was detailed in the articles of impeachment.

Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:

the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
his attempts to tamper with witnesses

Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:

encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses

None of these even come close to anything that Trump has done up to this point. Trump has not lied before a grand jury, been proven as had committed a high crime or misdemeanor or any other such crime. The left has been trying to payback the right for impeaching Clinton for the last 20 years and has never even come close, and it won't happen either.

Friday, May 04, 2018

thumbnail

Federal Judge Calls out Team Mueller "C'mon Man"

Ever since this fiasco that Mueller began the question has remained just how much power does Mueller possess and how far can he go. Originally his mandate was to investigate any conclusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. However, most of the indictments have been absent of that mandate except for some namby-pamby indictments of a few dozen Russians, unrelated to the Trump campaign which many questions whether they were ligitament or not.

Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort was indicted but crimes not related to the Trump campaign as well as a few others, but as of today Mueller has pretty much exhausted the investigation, yet he continues to march forward things not part of that original mandate. Via Fox News.


"A federal judge on Friday harshly rebuked Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team during a hearing for ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort – suggesting they lied about the scope of the investigation, are seeking “unfettered power” and are more interested in bringing down the president.

"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told Mueller’s team. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever."

Further, Ellis demanded to see the unredacted “scope memo,” a document outlining the scope of the special counsel’s Russia probe that congressional Republicans have also sought.
A round of Robert Mueller's Russia Investigation, who's been indicted, how are the tied to President Trump, and who's gotten plea deals? Video
Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort: Mueller's probe key moves

The hearing, where Manafort’s team fought to dismiss an 18-count indictment on tax and bank fraud-related charges, took a confrontational turn as it was revealed that at least some of the information in the investigation derived from an earlier Justice Department probe – in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Manafort’s attorneys argue the special counsel does not have the power to indict him on the charges they have brought – and seemed to find a sympathetic ear with Ellis.

The Reagan-appointed judge asked Mueller’s team where they got the authority to indict Manafort on alleged crimes dating as far back as 2005."

At last it would seem the cover of the Mueller investigation is beginning to peal.
thumbnail

Did Giuliani give up the goods on Stormy?


Opps?

"On Wednesday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Rudy Giuliani, a member of President Trump’s legal team, stated that President Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen for the $130,000 that Cohen paid to Stormy Daniels and that while, to his knowledge, the president didn’t know about the “specifics” of the deal, he knew a “general arrangement” that Cohen would take care of things like that.

Giuliani said, “That money was not campaign money. Sorry, I’m giving you a fact now that you don’t know. It’s not campaign money. No campaign finance violation.”

He added that the money was “funneled through the law firm and the president repaid it.”

Anchor Sean Hannity asked, “But, do you know the president didn’t know about this?”

Giuliani answered, “He didn’t know about the specifics of it, as far as I know. But he did know about the general arrangement that Michael would take care of things like this, like I take care of things like this for my clients. I don’t burden them with every single thing that comes along.”

In another segment, Giuliani said he hadn’t “investigated” whether Cohen asked the president before making the payment, but that there was no reason to doubt Cohen’s recollection of events."

Of course Trump had previous denied knowing about the payment, but this - in a twist - could have been just a denial of the specifics?

A possible explanation here.

Another although less palatable explanation comes from Trump's Tweet, but it gives hint to where the strategy is going.

"...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair,......"

Which I would imagine is very true. I'll bet a lot of celebrities have the same problem as Trump having people come forward and accusing them of different things and the standard it to pay them off and get rid of them. In the long run - with legal cost - it's likely the cheaper way. Trump is now taking Daniels to court saying she violated her NDA, although she is saying otherwise.


Nevertheless it would appear - if no other discosures are made - that no crime has been committed, but the optics could prove bad in the long run.

Wednesday, May 02, 2018

thumbnail

Mueller Threatening to Subpoena President Trump

Via FoxNews.


"Special counsel Robert Mueller told President Trump's legal team that he could subpoena the president to appear before a grand jury if Trump refuses an interview with Mueller's team, Trump's former lead attorney told The Associated Press Tuesday night.

John Dowd told the AP that Mueller raised the possibility of a subpoena during a meeting with Trump's legal team in March. According to accounts of the meeting first reported by The Washington Post and confirmed by Fox News, Dowd retorted: "This isn’t some game. You are screwing with the work of the president of the United States."

Dowd resigned as Trump's lead lawyer weeks later amid a dispute over how to answer Mueller's request for a presidential interview.

The meeting appears to have been the first time Mueller raised the possibility of compelling Trump to testify as part of his investigation into allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials ahead of the 2016 election."
The nature of the questions leaked this week, likely another leak from Mueller's office. This alone, repeated often from Mueller's office is but another example of prosecutorial misconduct, and in any other venue would be evidence enough of an out of control investigation. None of the leaked questions point to any specific misconduct, but look to be designed to trap Trump into lying under oath. More or less the "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no." Congressional investigations concluded showing absolutely no collusion took place, but Mueller apparently has gone past his mandate on that subject. I doubt that was the mandate at all at this point, this was simply an operation to get Trump at any cost.






About

Go here.
Powered by Blogger.

Followers

Total Pageviews

Search This Blog

Blog Archive

Pages

Macsmind - Official Blog of The MacRanger Show on Blog Talk Radio

Support our Vets!