DONATE

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

A Democratic Party Dark Scheme



Justin Smith sums up Robert Mueller’s decrepit testimony indicating law-breaking conspiracies perpetrated by Dem comrades against President Donald Trump.

JRH 7/31/19
Your generosity is always appreciated: 


**********************
A Democratic Party Dark Scheme
A Seditious Conspiracy Demands Grave Consequences

By Justin O. Smith
Sent 7/30/2019 10:30 PM

The July 24th 2019 testimony of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, before Congress, only further illuminated the fact that charges against President Trump of "Russian collusion" were nothing less that part of the Stop Trump Project initiated by President Obama and Hillary Clinton, who had their myrmidons, such as James Comey, James Clapper and John Brennan, orchestrate and enact it through the FBI, CIA, DOJ and the Democratic Party National Committee and the presstitutes of the various mainstream media outlets that screamed "RussiaGate" and "impeachment" at the top of their lungs. Furthermore, the six hours of excruciatingly painful testimony made it clear that this two yearlong "investigation" was just one more part of a public playing-out of dark schemes intent on aiding the traitorous coup d’├ętat attempted against President Trump.  

Most of Mueller's perfidious testimony came straight from his 450 page great tome, which asserted the Russian government interfered in "a sweeping and systematic fashion" to influence the 2016 election, despite the fact that it contains absolutely zero evidence to support the claim. This was even noted by a greatly annoyed U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich in her May 28th 2019 ruling, as she threatened Mueller and his team of lawyers with sanctions if they persisted with public statements asserting "Russian collusion" by the Internet Research Agency and its parent company Concord Management, owned by Russian oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, after the discovery process in this case showed Mueller had no evidence.  

In other words, Mueller presented a false indictment before a federal court. If that's not a felony, it should be.  

Even as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein attempted to subvert President Trump's July 16th Russian Summit, by announcing the Mueller Investigation's indictment of twelve Russian intelligence officers on July 13th 2018, during this same press conference, Rosenstein acknowledged that "no American was a knowing participant" in Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election.  

Robert Mueller folded on collusion and conspiracy before moving into the absurd on obstruction and volume two of his report, that read like a legal Chinese finger-trap. Mueller's "not exonerating" Trump inverted "innocent until proven guilty" into "guilty until proven innocent" and demonstrated the Special Counsel's extremely palpable political prejudice.  

Certainly all intellectually honest Americans can see that Mueller's aspersion aimed at President Trump, suggesting Trump "might have obstructed justice", lacks any evidence to support such a charge. Honest Americans will note just how corrupt American law has become when it is possible to obstruct justice in the absence of a crime, according to fools such as Mueller and his team of Hillary Democrat lawyers. [Bold text Blog Editor’s]  

It is also important to note that the "fictional online personas" allegedly linked to Russian intelligence, according to the Mueller Report, were created after-the-fact in order to conceal the true source of the DNC leaks; and furthermore, in 2017, veteran intelligence whistleblowers reported that the Democratic National Committee servers were not hacked by Guccifer 2.0 and released to WikiLeaks and the data actually originated via an external storage device.  

Also, the subsequent release of 'The Largest Publication of Confidential CIA Documents Ever', information recovered in the DNC hack, revealed the UMBRAGE program. [Blog Editor: Of interest WND article] This was a top-secret program that gave American intelligence agencies the ability to mimic internet hacks from other countries, including Russia. Yet, none of this was revealed in the Mueller Report. Why?  

One glaring omission during the Congressional hearing, not one Congressman asked Mueller why U.S. computer forensic experts were never sent to seize the DNC servers. This was only one of many such omissions.

Questioning by Republicans revealed that Mueller's Report amounted to nothing less than political opposition research on behalf of the Democratic Party and a concerted effort to gaslight America by way of its bizarre and Orwellian deceptions, and Mueller could not have possibly run this investigation, much less been briefed on it. Mueller had apparently never heard of Fusion GPS [Blog Editor: Meaning Mueller is an incompetent idiot or an inveterate liar --  Either way it discredits Mueller Report as a legal investigation] and the other useful idiots who delivered the whole shebang's predicate documents in the Steele Dossier simultaneously to the FBI, The Washington Post and The New York Times, beginning in 2016. Mueller's testimony on July 24th gives new meaning to the term "useful idiot".  

Chris Stewart (R-Utah) asked Mueller why his team of angry Democrats always leaked information detrimental to President Trump but never leaked one single item that placed the President in a positive light. Other Republicans questioned the extra-special "kid-glove" treatment Mueller's team gave Hillary's "Dirty Dossier".

After Mueller's fumbling, bumbling testimony destroyed the basis of the Democrat's sacred narrative, it was a curious thing to see Rep. Jerold Nadler blubbering to Anderson Cooper on CNN about the supposed imminent Russian takeover of America, as he continued on his fool's errand of impeachment, which will only serve to further expose the criminal culpability of the Democratic Party in this entire goddamned treasonous misadventure against this America I love so well. And painful looks aside, it speaks volumes that Cooper didn't once challenge any of Nadler's mendacious pratings.

Anyone remotely paying attention understands that the Steele "Russian" Dossier on President Trump was financed by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, and it was used to obtain the illegal FISA warrants to spy on Trump's campaign and Carter Page, in order to find political dirt to prevent Trump from winning the presidency. And then these FISA warrants were illegally used to undermine President Trump's presidency.  

Anyone paying attention now understands unequivocally that this two year inquisition was run by attorneys Andrew Weissmann and Jeannie Rhee, two arch Hillary Clinton partisans, leading to the conclusion that Mueller was merely a senile figurehead [Senator Graham, Rush Limbaugh & James Clapper] for the investigation and the investigation itself was no less a Clinton operation than the Steele Dossier. No one should be surprised if it is later found that Hillary Clinton was in regular communication with Weissmann and Rhee, either directly or through intermediaries, during the course of the investigation.  

Surely U.S Attorney General William Barr and his lead investigator John Durham are acting as we speak to discover exactly who was in contact with the Mueller team, and this must include the seizure of the Mueller team's phone records to see who was in contact with them. They are already reviewing everything that transpired from Comey's warped "investigation" of the Clinton Email Security Breach to the present coup d'├ętat attempt against President Trump by the Deep State. A seditious conspiracy of this size and scope demands the most severe punishments and grave consequences for all involved.  

President Trump must use the initiative in his hands to prevent the Deep State and media whores from ever again attempting a coup against our government, and good and decent Americans must not allow this colossal damned mess to die in the fretful silence of the media whores, as RussiaGate is now totally discredited and the momentum of history shifts against the perpetrators of it. It is absolutely imperative that President Trump moves the official, elected government back in full charge, by bringing the full weight of American justice to bear against the conspirators and indicting the rogues and traitors and their accomplices, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and making heads roll, in order to prevent the executive branch, legislature and judiciary from becoming stage props for the Deep State. President Trump must see the traitorous culprits brought to justice. 

By Justin O. Smith
_____________________
Edited by John R. Houk
Text embraced by brackets and all source links are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith


Monday, July 29, 2019

Clarion Project Promotes Terrorist Designation for Antifa

John R. Houk
© July 29, 2019


Senators Ted Cruz and Bill Cassidy have filed a Resolution to name the Communist organization Antifa a terrorist organization. Only if you are a blind or indifferent Dem if you deny the violence being conducted against Americans Patriots.

In my email alert today from the Clarion Project I discovered a petition to support the Cruz/Cassidy Resolution. To be honest the Clarion Project might be making an effort to collect email subscribers; however imagine what the Clarion Project might do if the petition response is immense.

I signed it!

Below is the cross post of the Clarion Project asking you to support the petition. OR if you are pinched for time, you can go HERE to directly add your name.

JRH 7/29/19
Your generosity is always appreciated: 
Please Support SlantRight 2.0
*******************
Sign Our Petition to Designate Antifa as a Terror Organization

July 29, 2019

Antifa members burn an American flag at a protest in Washington, D.C. in August 2019 (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

President Trump tweeted over the weekend that he is considering designating Antifa as a terror organization.



Trump’s tweet comes on the heels of a resolution proposed on July 19, 2019 Senators Ted Cruz and Bill Cassidy to designate Antifa a terrorist group.

“Antifa is a terrorist organization composed of hateful, intolerant radicals who pursue their extreme agenda through aggressive violence,” Cruz said.

As noted by the president, Antifa is a radical Leftist group known for using violence to propel their agenda. Most recently, they targeted and attacked conservative journalist Any Ngo — among others — at a demonstration in Portland, Oregon, sending Ngo to the hospital with a brain bleed.

The violent group also bashed heads of other conservative demonstrators, including two elderly men who were severely hurt by Antifa members.

Antifa has a history of using violence against those who disagree with them. They previously commandeered streets in downtown Portland while the police were given orders to stand down, a decision supported by the mayor. At one point, activists chased down a 74-year old man after protesters pounded on his car and broke a window. A woman in a wheelchair was verbally harassed.

At another demonstration, Antifa was even more violent [Blog Editor: The below Clarion quote is from a Tweet removed by Twitter or its author]:

Portland Antifa beats an elderly man bloody with a crowbar. As another man attempts to help, he is hit in head with crowbar then sprayed in face with mace.


Slowed video down slightly for better visual.

Twitter now hiding the hashtag pic.twitter.com/QgbhWTWR8d

— Priscilla ♀⭐️ (@Lucet_Veritas) June 30, 2019

Antifa was also responsible for the 2017 violent demonstration and subsequent riots in Berkeley. Its members were reacting to conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos being invited to speak on campus. During the riots, Antifa members smashed the windows of a Marine Corps recruiting office after sucker-punching someone who voiced opposition to them.


________________________
Clarion Project Promotes Terrorist Designation for Antifa
John R. Houk
© July 29, 2019
________________________
Sign Our Petition to Designate Antifa as a Terror Organization

The Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating both policy makers and the public about the growing phenomenon of Islamic extremism. The Clarion Project is committed to working towards safeguarding human rights for all peoples.

ABOUT CLARION PROJECT

Clarion Project is a non-profit organization that educates the public about the dangers of radical Islam.

Clarion’s award-winning films, seen by more than 125-million people, expose how radical Islamists use terrorism, murder, subjugation of women, indoctrination of children, religious persecution, genocide of minorities, widespread human rights abuses, nuclear proliferation and cultural jihad — to threaten the West.

The ClarionProject.org web site delivers news, expert analysis, videos, and unique perspectives about radical Islam, while giving a platform to moderate Muslims and human rights activists to speak out against extremism.

Clarion Project engages in grassroots activism to achieve its goals.

Clarion Project is a registered 501(c)(3) organization based in Washington, D.C.




Sunday, July 28, 2019

Intro to ‘… A “Soft Coup” Against President Trump’


Intro by John R. Houk

Intro © July 28, 2019

One of my favorite WordPress blogs is Ares and Athena (let’s abbreviate that as A & A). A & A often does the same thing I do in cross posting from others subject matter that I find interesting.

A & A picked up a fascinating perspective from RedState blogger streiff. To be honest I’m not exactly a frequent flyer at RedState, so I’m unfamiliar about streiff writing. So I attempted to find something about the person.

I quickly realized that streiff is a pseudonym. I have no idea if streiff is male or female. I discovered that streiff is a pro-Trump blogger of some notoriety at RedState and seems to have been a part of the controversy of a RedState purge of pro-Trump bloggers but has managed to find his/her way back to RedState. If you are unaware of the RedState firing of bloggers, I’ll let you research the controversy because I really don’t care. As I said, I’m not a RedState frequent flyer.

HOWEVER, this streiff post picked up by A & A does disseminate a perspective on the Deep State coup attempt against President Trump that more people should be aware of to note the tactics probably will continue by other means.

Streiff builds his narrative by sharing some facts that I’ll let you read in the cross post, but here is an excerpt of the streiff wants you to grasp:

One could speculate that it was more than a soft coup against Trump. If all the reports we’ve received are correct, this resembles more of a decapitation strike aimed at taking out all resistance to the Democrat party. If the Republican President, the NRA, and other conservative groups can be alleged to have all been under the influence of a foreign power, albeit a Third World kleptocracy with an GDP smaller than New York State, then the entire opposition to the Democrats is discredited for years to come. The reason I don’t find this far fetched is that four years ago I would never have believed that the FBI and CIA would have interjected themselves into a presidential election on the side of one of the candidates and I never would have believed the UN Ambassador would be unmasking the personal communications of American citizens at the rate of one per work day.

If that is the case, then a lot of very powerful people need to be sharing a cell with … BE TANTALIZED AND READ THE CROSS POST.

Ares and Athena introduced the streiff post with this (posted today 7/28/19):

Trump’s  election threw a huge roadblock on the highway to dystopia. Thus, a desperate elitist/leftist attempt ensued to paint all opposition, especially Trump, as Russian lackeys via false accusations and naked propaganda.

If they were successful, his election would be invalidated. Thus, the festivities of the politically and morally corrupt DC machine and their selling out of America for their own gain  could continue.

The following article reveals some interesting information regarding one aspect of the plan and its implication.

And now the cross post below.

JRH 7/28/19
Your generosity is always appreciated: 


*************************
Secret FBI Informant In The Maria Butina Case Says He Was Part Of A “Soft Coup” Against President Trump

July 27, 2019


One of the saddest episodes to emerge from the anti-Russia hysteria the Democrats and NeverTrump weenies managed to generate after the 2016 election is the case of Maria Butina. (You can chant “Russia is not our friend” under your breath to create the correct ambiance.) Butina, a member of a nascent Russian gun rights movement, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for failing to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. She was never accused of being an intelligence agent. She is in prison for doing what Tony Podesta did for years and got White House invitations. Butina’s misfortune was to be Russian and to be interested in working with the NRA. Because the NRA supports Republicans, this became a convenient tool to claim the NRA was a Russian influenced organization…a charge that was actually made on this very site…and therefore illegitimate.

Yesterday, a pretty amazing thing happened. According to an exclusive report by Sara Carter (who seems to be one of the very few political journalists, liberal or conservative, not using Jake Tapper’s Twitter timeline for story ideas) the FBI aimed an informant at Butina with orders to begin a sexual relationship with her and then lied to Butina’s defense team about the informant and what the informant said about her intent because his reports undermined the government’s case.
This is the set up:

[Overstock.com CEO Patrick] Byrne was a keynote speaker on July, 8, 2015 at Freedom Fest, a yearly Libertarian gathering that hosts top speakers in Las Vegas. Shortly after his address, Butina approached him. She was flattering and repeatedly told him she was a fan of his, saying she was a graduate student that had studied the famous libertarian Militon [sic] Friedman.

He spoke to her shortly and “brushed her off.”

The young redheaded Russian graduate student then approached him again over the course of the conference and explained that she worked for the Vice Chairman of the Central Bank of Russia and sent by them to make contact with Byrne.

She also said “did you know you’re a famous man in Russia, we watch videos about you and your relationship with Milton Freeman.”

She said she was appointed to lead Russia’s gun right’s group by Lieutenant-General Mikhail Kalashnikov, who was a Russian general, most notably known for his AK-47 machine gun design. The designation by Kalashnikov is considered a huge honor and Byrne then had an “extensive conversation about Russian history and I understood her designation about Kalishnikov was significant.”

She wanted to invite Byrne to Russia to speak at the Central Bank before dignitaries. The speaking engagement would be at a major resort for three days. Butina told Byrne the event would offer him the opportunity to meet senior Russian officials and oligarchs. He didn’t accept the offer because of his security clearance. He then reported Butina and her offer to the FBI.

Byrne was a little suspicious of everything because Butina confided that she was afraid she was being monitored and thought it would be best if they disguised their meetings as a romantic relationship. He also reported it because Byrne was a part-time FBI informant.

When he contacted the FBI and then subsequently for the next few months “instead what I got was vague instructions that it would be ok to get to know her better.”

He said there was very little response from the FBI after his initial contact, until Butina asked him to come meet her in New York City. He told the FBI he didn’t want any vague instructions on whether to meet Butina or not because “I didn’t want my security clearance to get pulled.”

At that point the FBI gave him an explicit “green light” to meet with her. He rented a hotel room with two bedrooms because he was under the impression that the romantic texts were simply her way to cover for communicating with him. However, she arrived at the hotel beforehand, occupied the room before Byrne’s arrival, and when he arrived, she made clear that her flirtatious texts were not simply a disguise.

Byrne said that the FBI agents made clear they were skeptical that Butina might be of interest, dismissing her as simply a normal 26 year old Russian graduate student. Over time, Byrne and Butina developed an intimate relationship but at the same time he alleges he was continuously reporting on Butina to the FBI in an effort to convince them that it might be worthwhile to introduce her to some of his contacts at the Council on Foreign Relations. He also noted he reported to the FBI his interactions more frequently with Butina starting in December, 2015, both out of a desire not to lose the possibility of something good coming from this encounter, but also, because Butina was starting to speak more frequently of meeting with big shots in Republican circles.

Ultimately, Byrne became convinced that Butina was basically a very enthusiastic person doing exactly what she claimed to be doing: trying to build linkages between this Russian gun rights group and the NRA and conservative groups in the US and that she was not acting on behalf of the Russian government.

After her arrest, her lawyer made a demand for so-called “Brady” material and the FBI told them there was none. The FBI lying to sandbag a defense attorney…can you see my shocked face?
But this is the interesting part:

Oddly, Byrne’s name was not disclosed by prosecutors in the case or by the FBI. And despite the government’s earlier efforts to paint Butina as a Russian spy attempting to infiltrate Republican circles she was never investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe, which charged 25 Russian agents with interfering in the U.S. election. Further, the FBI, unlike convicted Russian bombshell spy Anna Chapman, did nothing to stop Butina from meeting with high level Republican and conservative figures. The bureau also didn’t warn those conservative figures she had made contact with,  even though they had her under surveillance and allegedly Byrne had been reporting on her during that time. As noted in a column by The Hill’s John Solomon Chapman’s actions were handled differently than Butina. When one of Chapman’s associates, who went by the name of Cynthia Murphy, made contact with Alan Patricof, a major Democratic donor close to Hillary Clintonthe FBI acted swiftly to arrest the entire cell.

[Butina attorney Robert] Driscoll said there was suspicion that the FBI did not disclose all the information it had on Butina and he stated that he believed “Patrick is not the only one” who was giving information to the FBI.

Why does this matter?

We’re seeing a pattern. When the FBI suspected that Carter Page was possibly compromised by the Russians, instead of following normal procedure and giving then-candidate Trump a defensive briefing and the opportunity to remove Page from the campaign, what did the FBI do? Nothing. We know they did that service for John McCain in 2008 and why they elected not to in 2015-16 is a question that needs to be answered. If Page had been fired from the Trump campaign in 2015 much of what happened since then would not have taken place.

Earlier this week the attorney for Joseph Mifsud intimated that his client, the guy who allegedly kicked off “Crossfire Hurricane” by telling George Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton, worked for western intelligence agencies. Bolstering this is the fact that Robert Mueller never claims that Mifsud was working for the Russian government and Mueller never charged Mifsud with lying to the FBI in interviews despite the fact that he did (see Jim Jordan Fillets Mueller On Joseph Mifsud Not Being Charged, Exposes Serious Credibility Issues With The Probe).

Recall that the New York Times confirmed that a woman dangled in front of Papadopoulos as a possible romantic liaison was, in fact, working for some US agency. We hope it was the FBI because if it was the CIA a boatload of laws were broken (see FBI Does Preemptive Damage Control By Confirming The Trump Campaign Was The Target Of A Spying Operation).

And so the push by John Durham to interview Joseph Mifsud and rumors that extensive exculpatory information existed on Page and Papadopoulos that would have put their activities in a different light brings new significance.

Back to Byrne. Why did he come forward?

Byrne’s decision to come forward didn’t come lightly. However, he said it was necessary after watching what had transpired between the FBI, the intelligence community and the probe into President Trump’s campaign over the past several years.

“It was something I knew I had to do,” he told this reporter. “Those running the operation were not honest and in the end I realized I was being used in some sort of soft coup.”

One could speculate that it was more than a soft coup against Trump. If all the reports we’ve received are correct, this resembles more of a decapitation strike aimed at taking out all resistance to the Democrat party. If the Republican President, the NRA, and other conservative groups can be alleged to have all been under the influence of a foreign power, albeit a Third World kleptocracy with an GDP smaller than New York State, then the entire opposition to the Democrats is discredited for years to come. The reason I don’t find this far fetched is that four years ago I would never have believed that the FBI and CIA would have interjected themselves into a presidential election on the side of one of the candidates and I never would have believed the UN Ambassador would be unmasking the personal communications of American citizens at the rate of one per work day.

If that is the case, then a lot of very powerful people need to be sharing a cell with Tiny the White Supremacist Biker and their organizations need to be burned to the ground. If it isn’t a global conspiracy and just a series of events carried out by politically motivated law enforcement and intelligence agents, they need to do hard time and everyone associated with them reduced to penury.

Streiff: Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.
Follow @streiffredstate

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
_____________________
Intro to ‘… A “Soft Coup” Against President Trump’
Intro by John R. Houk
Intro © July 28, 2019
___________________
Secret FBI Informant In The Maria Butina Case Says He Was Part Of A “Soft Coup” Against President Trump

Copyright RedState.com/Salem Media. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.


Friday, July 26, 2019

Trump-Pelosi Budget and Fiscal Sabotage



I have to be honest. Working with the reality of numbers often hurts my brain. I’m not good at. Justin Smith seems to have a great grasp of number realities when it comes to deficit spending, the National Debt, Gross Domestic Product and the need of a Balanced Budget.

Justin is displeased with the results of the Trump Administration/Pelosi budget agreement and urges a Presidential veto. No matter how much the numbers are painful, the inevitable result will be catastrophic if this Federal accounting disparities continue.

However, the realities of America’s political divide demonstrated by near even splits of opposing ideologies in Congress means neither the Socialists nor the fiscal Conservatives will get what they want. Perhaps an idiotic budget compromise keeps the government operating rather than frozen. EVEN THOUGH it’s doom and gloom, if voters DO NOT opt soon for fiscal responsibility a national catastrophe will occur.

Trump’s hands are tied by political realities, if voters want a different outcome untie divisive politics – OR ELSE.

JRH 7/26/19
Your generosity is always appreciated: 


********************
Trump-Pelosi Budget and Fiscal Sabotage
A Coward's Financial Agreement

By Justin O. Smith
Sent 7/25/2019 7:06 PM

A coward's financial agreement is the phrase that best describes the budget deal recently agreed upon by President Trump and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that just passed the House with a vote of 284 to 149 at 2:14 CST on July 25th, since it avoids any real battle over government spending by suspending the debt ceiling until July 2021. It raises spending caps and lifts the debt ceiling in the name of avoiding a fiscal crisis, but in reality and ignoring any lessons from 2008, this explodes U.S. debt in a way never seen in U.S. history, and it exhibits President Trump's willingness to meekly surrender to another massive expansion of the federal budget, that creates a short term political "win" for the DC Establishment of both parties and a long term loss for the American people. 

This deal received 65 Republican votes, and it spends $2.7 trillion over the next two years. It commits President Trump to signing spending bills that add $320 billion above spending limits set in a 2011 agreement that established automatic spending cuts. This Pelosi Dream Deal also says there will be absolutely no limit on how much new debt the federal government can accumulate between now and July 31rst 2021. 

The Washington Post was absolutely correct, when it recently wrote that the budget and debt deal would not contain actual spending cuts, since the $150 billion in new spending cuts demanded by White House budget director Russell Vought soon materialized as only [about] 70 billion in actual cuts, that don't go in effect for ten years and are likely to be reversed by Congress at a later date. This marks a retreat for the White House.

Reported by the Wall Street Journal, Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, stated on July 22nd: "This deal would amount to nothing short of fiscal sabotage." [Blog Editor: I found quote at USA Today]  

And yet, rather than debate the most serious issue of the day and seek real solutions, the cowards of both parties hid behind "bipartisanship", in an erroneous, corrupt and wrong-minded fashion, and cooperated to serve their own personal political interests, as DC's supposed "elite" elected class. 


Incredibly, the federal government spent $3,355,970,000,000, in the first nine months of this fiscal year, while running a $747,115,000,000 deficit. President Trump's Treasury is currently issuing U.S. dollars faster than it did in fiscal 2009 -- even when adjusted for inflation -- when President Bush signed the bailout legislation for failing banks and President Obama signed a Stimulus bill focused on ending our economic recession.  

Noted by The Hill, grave concerns on the economy were expressed by the Congressional Budget Office on July 23rd [Blog Editor: I could not confirm a 7/23/19 date, the links in thos paragraph relate to a 6/25/19 date], and the CBO wrote in its budget projection that U.S debt is on track to increase from 78 percent of the GDP to an "unsustainable" level of 144 percent of the GDP over the next thirty years, even if spending caps aren't lifted and taxes are raised. Now, with the passage of this bill, we are on track to see the debt rise to 219 percent of the GDP, unless President Trump can be persuaded to send the bill back with a demand that more actual spending cuts must be made.

Representative Chip Roy (R-TX) was upset with President Trump for negotiating through Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, rather than Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Roy exclaimed, "The president should be listening to (White House Chief of Staff) Mick Mulvaney and Russ Vought, and he should not be listening to Steven Mnuchin, period." Roy added that "Senate Republicans will never find a corner where they can go and hide", implying that Senate Republicans are untrustworthy regarding fiscal responsibility.  

Once consumed by fiscal worries, this coward's agreement is one more sign that makes it more than clear, both houses of Congress and both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have become Big Spenders, and Congress is no longer concerned about the extent of the budget deficits or the debt they add. The DC Establishment no longer cares, even as our national debt hits one trillion annually and rapidly approaches $23 trillion.  

According to the Washington Post, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently stated: "Nobody has lost an election by spending too much money", in regard to Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney's effort to pay for the spending deal.  

After the last massive spending deal, President Trump vowed never to sign another one. And yet, here he is again, at the ready and far too willing. He just keeps confirming to the American people that he really is a Big Government Guy and a Big Spender.  

Today, America barely hears any objections over the exorbitant debt. When Trump campaigned in 2016, he bragged about his ability to prosper from his own debt. He told CNN, on May 4th 2016: "I'm the king of debt. I love debt." ... adding the next day ... "if the economy crashed, you could make a deal ... if the economy was good, it was good ... you can't lose." 

But that's not just the reality of matters for most Americans who live paycheck to paycheck, and it is just not smart for anyone or any nation to accumulate debt; at some point another bubble will burst in our economy, since Wall Street hasn't stopped any of the bad business practices that caused the 2008 crisis. And, an economic collapse of 2008 magnitude will pale in comparison to the coming economic catastrophe that deals such as this one are sure to create. Most of our national debt has been monetized, and any bailout for the American people will be virtually non-existent.  

Niall Ferguson, senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institute, has warned that empires fall when interest on their debt equals what they spend on defense. According to the Office of Management and Budget, this will happen around 2024. If interest rates increase, it could arrive much sooner. 

Unfortunately, America is currently a nation focused on instant gratification, selfishness and greed, and seems oblivious to the dangerous path it is on. Whether or not the nation can afford all the current government benefits, plus the desired additional costs of free university educations and free healthcare for all, and even though our credit card is maxed out, Americans seem intent on voting for politicians who promise to borrow money to give them what they want.  

Everyone would do well to recall that in Psalm 37:21 it says, "The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth."  

Noting that Congress's out-of-control spending "is ripping off the American family", former Congressman Dave Brat recently delivered the following observation to Tony Perkins at Washington Watch, as he looked across the Atlantic: "There's evidence you can be pathetic for a long time. And the evidence is called Europe. ... eventually ... debt will impinge on your economic growth rate as it has been. And what's really missed in the point is it's intergenerational theft. And I mean that quite literally. We are stealing from our kids and the next generation to the extent that our deficit is $1 trillion. We're spending $1 trillion and getting the goods from it right now -- and the kids are going to have to pay for [everything] we're consuming. And so it is literally theft. So they're going to have to work hard, pay their taxes, get tax increases, pay off the debt, and pay all their own personal bills for our runaway spending binge."  

America has embraced reckless spending and She doesn't even pretend to repay what She owes. She incurs more debt daily at an unprecedented rate and most of Her current leaders do not acknowledge that this is even a problem. And so, if our leaders have one shred of human decency and honesty, of a personal or intellectual kind, rather than pander for votes, their bipartisan action should warrant a majority of both parties to end this deal and move forward on a deal that truly cuts all unnecessary spending, or President Trump must reconsider this deal and veto it, rather than continue on a path that watches our deficit soar and attacks our nation's solvency and the future prosperity of America.  

By Justin O. Smith
______________________
Edited by John R. Houk
Source links and text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith


Thursday, July 25, 2019

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


John R. Houk
© July 25, 2019

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

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

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

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

JRH 7/25/19
Your generosity is always appreciated: 
Please Support SlantRight 2.0
********************

Posted by PBS NewsHour
Published on Jul 24, 2019

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

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

Posted by theunitedwest
Published on Jul 24, 2019

Humorous post please!

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

+++++++++++++++++++
8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress

July 24, 2019


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

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

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

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

He also asked constantly for lawmakers to repeat their questions.

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

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

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

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

“True,” Mueller said.

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

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

1. ‘Cannot’ Cite DOJ on Exoneration

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

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

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

Mueller appeared not to be clear about the question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mueller responded: “No.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Indicting a President

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

Other Democrats said much the same during the day.

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

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

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

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

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

Mueller: “Yes.”

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

Mueller: “Yes.”

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

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

Mueller: “That is correct.”

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

Mueller tried to clarify this at the beginning of the later intelligence panel hearing, referring to what he had told Lieu. 
“That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said in wrapping up his opening remarks. “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

3. ‘Collusion’ and ‘Conspiracy’

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

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

Mueller’s initial answer was “No.”

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

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

“Not when I read it,” Mueller responded.

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

“No,” Mueller said, seeming somewhat unclear.

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

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

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

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

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

Welch jumped in: “The term is conspiracy?”

Mueller: “That’s exactly right.”

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

4. Allusions to Impeachment 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 5. On When He Put Conspiracy to Rest 

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We were ongoing for two years.”

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

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

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

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

6. What Else He Didn’t Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mueller responded:  “They have a different case.”

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

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

7. Defending Alleged Conflicts

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

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

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

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

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

Mueller said he was only advising Trump.

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

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

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

8. Trump’s Responsibility and ‘New Normal’

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

WikiLeaks is an online operation that made its name on releasing confidential and secret government information
After hesitating, Mueller said: “Problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some, I don’t know, hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.”

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

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

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

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

Ken McIntyre contributed to this report. 

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of "The Right Side of History" podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred.
+++++++++++++++++++++
MUELLER HAS A REPUTATION
Ann Coulter mocks bureau whose attitude is never having to say you're sorry

July 24, 2019

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

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

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

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

·       Andrew Goldstein donated $3,300 to both Obama campaigns.
·       Elizabeth Prelogar contributed to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.

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

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

None had donated to the Trump campaign.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________
My 2¢ What Mueller Could-a Should-a Done
John R. Houk
© July 25, 2019
___________________
8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress

The Daily Signal HOMEPAGE
_______________________
MUELLER HAS A REPUTATION

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