Can you keep a straight face?

So if the rumors are to be believed, it would seem that Robert Mueller has considered the possibility that Donald Trump could be guilty of obstruction for among other things, firing James Comey.

However, as everyone should know by now, the President had his Deputy Attorney General provide for him an evaluation of James Comey for his review, and then used that evaluation as his primary justification for firing the FBI Director.

As far as the evaluation is concerned, it has been also rumored that President Trump asked his Deputy A.G. to make reference to Comey's lack of public acknowledgement that he (Trump) was not under investigation. This was something that the Deputy A.G. decided against doing.

Now it would seem that the Deputy A.G. would be one of the first people questioned in regards to the Comey firing. After all it would seem that this person would have been one of the last people to correspond with the President regarding the decision that was made, and quite certainly this person would be someone with a particularly important insight to the President's thinking.

So how does a Special Prosecutor such as Mueller justify the idea that he can somehow determine what the President's motivations was, and how important this particular evaluation was to the decision, without actually interviewing the person who wrote the evaluation?

But isn't that the quandary here? Mueller would be derelict in his duty to attempt to make that evaluation without the input of the Deputy A.G.  But yet, he cannot ask this person to provide any testimony or be a witness, because this person is supervising his probe.

Under every conceivable normal, by the books, situation in law enforcement, someone who is not only a possible witness, but someone who is potentially a key witness can not be personally involved in any part of the case. They would most certainly recuse themselves immediately under these circumstances.

But of course if Rosenstein would have recused himself, or if were to recuse himself before the end of the probe, that would put someone else in charge, and likely blow much of the cover that Rosenstein has provided for the expansion of the probe's scope. A new supervisor of the probe might actually put a halt to some of these other "secret expansions" and require Mueller to get back to the original scope of the investigation. A new supervisor would ultimately be responsible for determining how much (if any) of the Special Counsel findings are made public.

Can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that Rosenstein and Mueller are skirting this conflict of interest because it's the most professional and by the books manner of going about these things?

Unless Comey was lying under oath?

Testimony of former FBI Director James Comey to the House Intelligence Committee on March 20, 2017

“I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

Why is this important? Because it admits that the investigation the FBI was waging was not just a counterintelligence probe into the actions of the Russians, but it was a counterintelligence probe investigating the links between individuals with the Trump campaign as well.

So when the FBI (and their apologizers) suggest that the Informant(s)/Spy(ies) that they sent to make contact and gather information from members of the Trump campaign were simply investigating "Russia", it would seem rather inconsistent with the actual investigation that they were running. 

It would seem that we are to believe the following:

• That the FBI was officially investigating members of the Trump Campaign
• That the FBI sent a "human resource" to make contact with members of the Trump campaign.
• But that the FBI "human resource" was just investigating the Russians, not the Trump campaign. 

Why would (or should) anyone really believe that? 

And the survey says.....

MS-13 Gang Members are Animals!  

A majority of Americans think it is fair to characterize MS-13 gangbangers as "animals," according to a new poll.

Taken in the wake of a controversy that swirled around President Donald Trump for using the term at an immigration meeting, the Harvard CAPS/Harris survey — released to The Hill — found 56 percent of adults think the word was acceptable, while 44 percent said it was unfair.

I guess I would like an explanation from someone who believes the term is actually unfair? Murder, torture, human trafficking? What more do they have to do, before you are willing to condemn them?

Hard to disagree with much of this...

Would have been in his second term had we elected him

“I don’t think that I would point to the president as a role model for my grandkids, on the basis of his personal style. He has departed, in some cases, from the truth, and has attacked in a way that I think is not entirely appropriate. I believe his policies have been, by and large, a good deal better than I might have expected, but some of the things he’s said are not ones that I would aspire for my grandkids to adopt.”

“[W]here the president’s right, in my view, on policy for Utah, and for the country, I’ll be with him. And he’s exceeded my expectations with regards to tax policy, regulatory policy, public land policy. There are some other places where we disagree. I’d like to see a greater effort on the TPP agreement. … I’ll point that out and do my best to convince him of the rightness of my thinking.”

Steyer believes that opposition to impeachment is "normalizing" Donald Trump

Tom Steyer says the Democrats telling him to call off his impeachment crusade are like those who told civil rights activists to be patient, and he says Nancy Pelosi and others holding back on calling for impeachment are “normalizing” Donald Trump’s presidency.

Steyer doesn’t care that Democratic leaders are worried that he could blow their chance at winning the House by talking up impeachment around the country and in his TV ads—though he argues he’s actually helping Democrats. He says he’s the only person willing to tell the truth. And the thing about a self-made billionaire with nothing to lose: It’s hard for anyone to convince him he might be wrong, or to get him to stop.

I hate to tell you this, Tom, but Trump has been President now for nearly a year and a half. We have not had the economy implode, there is no WWIII on the horizon, Putin is not running our country, and there is no zombie apocalypse. Moreover, in spite of the Special Counsel investigation looming over his head, Trump's approvals have remained steady (if not improved slightly).

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Trump has already been "normalized" as President. The concept that you should simply impeach him for not being worthy of the office has come and gone. 

Disney Stock Drops !!!

Cancel your #1 show + box office bust for latest Star Wars Movie = drop in stock price...

Roseanne Cancelled

For tweet insulting former Obama official Valerie Jarrett, claiming she looked like... well, the caption says it all!

"Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby"

To be clear, it's never appropriate to take a shot at someone's appearance. It doesn't surprise me (or really upset me) that Roseanne was cancelled because of it. The sad part is that the rest of the cast and crew now suffer because of her behavior. No way they can just fire her, and go on with the show. She pretty much "was" the show.

Of course, people will see some hypocrisy here. If you fired all of the movie and television personalities who have made disparaging comments about other politicians who might have an orange tint to their skin or bad hair... you wouldn't be able to make a show or a movie.

A concern about the so called "deep state" ?

Monmouth Poll

32. As it stands right now, do you think that unelected or appointed officials in the federal
government have too much influence in determining federal policy or is there the right balance of influence between elected and unelected officials?

• Unelected or appointed officials have too much influence - 60%
• Right balance of influence between elected and unelected officials -26%
• Don’t know -14%

(Democrats (59%), Republicans (59%) and independents (62%) agree that appointed officials hold too much sway in the federal government.)

34. The term Deep State refers to the possible existence of a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy. Do you think this type of Deep State in the federal government definitely exists, probably exists, probably does not exist, or definitely does not exist?

• Definitely exists 27%
• Probably exists 47%
• Probably does not exist 16%
• Definitely does not exist 5%
• Don’t know 5%

37. If the U.S. government ever monitors or spies on American citizens do you think its

reasons are usually justified, sometimes justified, or rarely justified?

• Usually justified 18%
• Sometimes justified 53%
• Rarely justified 26%
• Never justified 2%
• Don’t know 2%

Drain the swamp...

The reality here folks is simple. Donald Trump was elected in large part because a very significant portion of our citizenship has been fed up with politics as usual. This portion of the citizenship felt that there had become a "deep state swamp" of corruption and self preservation in our Federal Government that needed a total overall. To a large degree, there is an overriding consensus that the main stream media has been (and still is) in cahoots with this deep state swamp.

To the degree that this is the truth, or just a conspiracy theory is obviously a matter of both opinion and something to be determined.

Now whether or not you agree with the basic idea that our federal bureaucracy has become too large, too self serving, and too corrupt is irrelevant. Trump was elected to do whatever he could to throw a wrench into this bureaucracy, put an end to self serving policies, and expose any corruption. What Donald Trump did in calling out the previous intelligence community leadership was nothing more and nothing less than what he was elected to do. It is just one of many steps that Trump has taken and probably will take in the future.

This will not make him popular with anyone who is in favor of "business as usual". This will bring him the wrath of everyone associated with the so called "deep state". This has been, and will continue to perturb many members of the main stream media as well. You will see these forces "circle the wagons" and demand that Trump is running amok in an attempt to destroy democracy.

The irony, of course, is this was what he was elected to do. Isn't that the foundation of democracy? It's not just that the people get to choose their leaders, but a real Democracy demands that these leaders should be willing to and able to follow through with what they promised their voters. Moreover, nobody "elected" James Comey, James Clapper, or John Brennan. They are fundamentally not part of the "democracy".

There already has been multiple investigations, and there will be more investigations into the actions of our so called "deep state" intelligence community. So far, the investigations have uncovered disturbing behavior by people we are supposed to be able to trust to objectively run our intelligence and law enforcement.

There is going to be a sliding tipping point. Those who already believe that there is a corrupt deep state, will not require much evidence to reaffirm their suspicions. Many who are sort of on the fence will need more convincing. Many on the left will probably not be convinced by much of anything that we find out from our Inspector Generals or other future investigations. We even have a criminal referral for the person who was second in charge of the FBI.

But the only way these questions will be answered is by looking into these allegations and getting to the bottom of what is really going on. Not sure why anyone would "not" want to see these allegations checked out? Certainly if we can spend two plus years chasing down some collusion conspiracy, we can spend a little bit of time looking into a longstanding issue with allegations of a "deep state".

After all... the people have spoken!

Preemptive preemptive strike?

So, critics of the President argue, the President is "acting guilty" because he continues to deny wrong doing and continues to attack the Mueller investigation.  The logic is that he is attempting to preemptively delegitimize Mueller, in order to cast doubt on all of the horrible criminal charges that are sure to come.

But if denying wrongdoing and attacking people is a sign of guilt, then most certainly the same logic must hold true for the three stooges of the Intelligence agency, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey. Even Donald Trump appears amateur in comparison to these three as it pertains to demanding innocence and declaring themselves above accusation. Not even the President can match the constant barking at the moon about how much damage to the country will be garnered by simply assigning an inspector general to look into these issues. 

Let's be clear here too. The President has endured four different investigations that have been going on for upwards two years. So far there is nothing from any of these investigations to disprove the President's demand that there was "no collusion" and that the investigation into Russia/Trump collusion is little more than a "witch hunt".  Let's stop to consider that he has not had a day of being President that has not had the cloud of an "investigation" over his head. He is the only President in history to ever come into office being investigated, and there seems little factual evidence provided by anyone that this investigation was started (and continues) for good reason.

On the flip side, the Brennan, Clapper, Comey complaints are that any investigation at all is not only unnecessary, but also would lead to a wide variety of concerns that include fundamental damage to the country, a constitutional crisis, widespread anarchy in the streets, and quite possibly a Zombie apocalypse. They couldn't possibly be any more hysterical as it pertains to their demands that the inner workings behind the Trump investigation "not" be looked into.

Again, this is a key point that demands repeating. The President has been investigated by four different entities, and so far nothing has come up to make us believe that there was ever any good reason to investigate Trump and his Administration. The President would just like these investigations to end with a report of whatever "findings" were uncovered over the past two years. This is entirely different from the Intelligence stooges to be sending out requests to Senators to "stop" attempts to have anyone look into their possible wrongdoings, along with a wall to wall media appearances, demanding how awful it is that anyone is considering looking at whether or not the intelligence community was acting properly and ethically.

The argument continues to be made that nobody, including the President, is above the law. This has been proven by the fact that the President has been under investigation. But if nobody is above the law, then that would also mean that our intelligence community is also not above the law. The American public deserves to understand that everyone (not just the President) can be taken to task, investigated, and held accountable for whatever wrongdoings are found. That means following up on what appears to be very strong suggestion that there was partisan, unethical, and possibly even criminal behavior by our intelligence community.

Open Mic

Another argument of semantics...

So I tend to believe that when you start arguing semantics, it's because you lost the actual argument on merit. That is what appears to be happening in the latest war of the words between the President and media (led by the NY Times).

• The issue started when the NY Times reported that a Senior White House official had stated that reengaging the June 12th summit at this time would be impossible. 
• The President shot back with the tweet (provided in the previous post) that the meeting could still take place and that such a White House official doesn't exist. 
• So some others in the media raced to the NY Time defense, by suggesting that the White House official "did" exist, stating that the official in question was Matt Pottinger from the National Security Counsel, Eventually there was audio provided that sure enough had an official named Matt Pottinger who discussed the on again off again summit with the media (including the NY Times reporter in question). 
• Gotcha!!! Right!!!
• Well almost. The reality is that if you actually listen through the whole audio, Pottinger doesn't actually claim that the June 12th date was impossible. According to the audio he suggested that there was not a lot of time, that valuable time had been lost, and that the ball was in North Korea's court. 
• More to the point, if the June 12th date was impossible, the White House would not have sent a team to Singapore to start making the arrangements if the summit officially is back on. 

So, the reality is that the NY Times provided a quote from an unnamed source that didn't exist. Now we can quibble about whether it was the "quote"  or the "official" that didn't exist, but the truth is that without a quote that backs up the NY Times story, then there cannot possibly be an official that provided the quote (can there be?). Obviously providing the actual quote would have made for a much different story (or possibly no story at all). If that was the case, then the President would not have questioned the story.

Bottom line: the media is providing a semantic argument as an attempt to cover up the fact that the Times provided "fake news". The problem is that I am not 100% sure that they even realize that they are doing so. It makes you wonder how often they simply provide a "quote" that never actually was made to an unnamed source who said something close enough to being similar that they can justify the story they wanted to write?

Trump: Talks on Korean summit going "very well"

So North and South are talking again, and it appears that the on again, off again June 12th summit may be back on again. The White house is sending a "pre-advance team" to Singapore to prepare as if the summit is happening in order to be prepared. 

Obviously the letter Trump sent Kim wasn't a deal breaker as many suggested. It seems to have been part of a larger plan by the Administration to set the tone, stay on the offensive, and remain in control. Kim was chastised, and in his own way it appears that Kim has apologized and asked for a second chance. 

The whole back and forth was an important gambit to see how married North Korea is to making something happen. Kim threatened to cancel. So Donald Trump did. Kim didn't get the reaction he wanted. Trump did. It would appear that Kim needs this more than Trump needs this. Understanding this is an extremely important part of any negotiation. 

Open Mic

Liberals hypocritically complain that Trump is branding issues.

President Trump's 'Spy' and the Dark Art of Branding

President Trump has many limitations, to put it mildly, but he is brilliant at the dark art of branding. Those seeking to hold him accountable had better study his technique — and learn to fight fire with fire.

Witness how Trump is trying to use the word “spy” as a weapon against the FBI, the Justice Department and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the election. The president’s performance this week has been totally dishonest — and, let’s be honest, quite effective.

Well it's been effective for a simple reason. It's an easily understandable description of the story that has been surfacing over the past week or so. The other descriptions (offered by the left) are much more convoluted, semantically challenged, and quite obviously defensive.

Let's start with the textbook definition of a spy:

a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.

Sure sounds like that fits the description of the FBI secretly sending someone to make contact with Trump associates, gather information on possible activities, and then report those activities back to them. Doesn't it?

But that doesn't stop the left from attacking the term:

• You have James Comey stating that Stefan A. Halper wasn't a "spy" but a "confidential human source". 
• You have James Clapper stating that Halper wasn't spying, but rather was gathering information to protect the Trump campaign. 
• You have numerous people on the left purposely confusing the term "mole" with the term "spy" insisting that Halper wasn't a spy because he was not embedded in the campaign. 

But at the end of the day, you are still left with the reality that the FBI sent a person to effectively gather information about the Trump campaign, and report it back to the FBI, all without disclosing to anyone that they were doing it. By definition, folks... that's spying. 

So the reason that Donald Trump is winning this little war of the wording is because Trump is correct, by both definition and conventional wisdom, about what a spy actually is and what a spy actually does. The reason that the left is losing this little war of the wording is because they are attempting to redefine people's understanding of the term in a manner that is inconsistent, confusing, and (contrary to the opinion of Eugene Robinson) less than honest.

Food for thought...

So this morning, as I am driving to work I heard three different Jon Bon Jovi songs on three different radio stations. Not that it matters, but the three songs were "Runaway", "Living on a prayer", and "I’ll be there for you". Now as everyone knows, or should know, hearing three different Bon Jovi songs for no apparently reason on three different radio stations is one of the seven signs of the apocalypse. Or maybe it’s one of the seven signs of the zombie apocalypse, I’d have to double check.

Now many people forget that Jon Bon Jovi is also an actor. For most of the 2002 season, Bon Jovi was on the Ally McBeal show, with among other people, Lucy Liu. Of course we all know that Lucy Liu was in the Charlie’s Angels movies with Cameron Diaz, who of course was in My Best Friend’s Wedding with Julia Roberts. I hate to scare you with this last revelation, but Julia Roberts was in Flatliners with none other than Kevin Bacon, meaning there is only four degrees of separation between the Rock star Jon Bon Jovi and Kevin Bacon. Coincidence? I think not.  And come to think of it, it just might be that the zombie apocalypse only has four signs, and not seven? Perhaps this is now all just coming together.

If there are indeed, four signs of the apocalypse, and the Bon Jovi Lucy Liu Kevin Bacon connection is just one of them, am I that sure what the other three are?  We know that an NHL team from Las Vegas being in the Stanley Cup finals has to be one of them. Sun Country airlines is doing away with first class (any good reason other than to facilitate people being eaten by zombies?). I hate to even say it, so I will whisper it… Kanye West...

So that’s one, two, three… um… chomp chomp, bang bang!!

So this morning’s riddle is both simple and complex. Do zombies and zombie killers work over holiday weekends? Would it be possible that the zombie apocalypse could start today, or would everyone just take the long weekend to rest up, and then start fresh with flesh eating zombies being killed at close range with shotgun blasts to the head on Tuesday?

Kim Jong Un blinks

Looks like Un really wants the attention to meet with Trump and try to work something out. Sometimes taking something away, makes the other person want it more. Perhaps, it's all part of the negotiation dance?

Do these gloves make me look fat?

North Korea said it was surprised by President Donald Trump’s decision to cancel a June 12 summit with Kim Jong Un and that the country remains willing to meet with the U.S. at any time.

In a statement Friday by state-run KCNA that cited Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan, North Korea vowed to continue to pursue peace and signaled it would give Washington more time to reconsider talks.

“Our goal and will to do everything for peace and stability of the Korean peninsula and mankind remains unchanged, and we are always willing to give time and opportunity to the US side with a big and open mind,” according to the statement. “We express our intent that there is a willingness to sit at any time, in any way to resolve issues.”

What was the "real" reason for an informant (or two) in the Trump camp

So let's review the argument, as it's made by the Obama lovers slash Trump haters.

Apparently the Russians were not sophisticated enough to hack the DNC and Hillary Campaigns without the help of the Trump campaign team (and/or) the Russians were not savvy enough to figure out how to get that hacked information to Wikileaks without the help of the Trump campaign team.

Otherwise, what would the Russians need with the Trump campaign team? If they were otherwise capable of hacking these campaigns, and otherwise capable of making sure that information was released by Wikileaks, there would be no real incentive for the Russians to collude with the Trump campaign.

More to the point, why would the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA director, and the FBI director all believe that the best way to prevent the Russians from interfering with our election, was to send informants to go gather up intelligence on members of the Trump team? Why not go after the Russians directly? Clapper, Brennan, and Comey must have seen Guccifer 2.0 and the rest of the Russian hackers as dim bulbs, who required the help of Carter Page or George Papadopoulos to actually accomplish their obvious goal of election meddling. Perhaps Page is a computer hacking whiz, and Papa George is good buds with Julian himself?

Of course, other logical explanations regarding why they sent an informant to go gather intelligence on the Trump campaign would be either to engage in some sort of nefarious spying, or they made a decision that Russian meddling was only important if it involved some sort of collusion with the opposition Presidential candidate. But either of those explanations would shed a poor light on the Obama Administration and the previous leadership of our intelligence community. Certainly we can't have that.

Trump preemptively cancels summit...

Kushner Kleared!

Kushner receives permanent security clearance, an indication he is no longer a focus of the special counsel

Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, was notified Wednesday that he has been granted a permanent security clearance to view top-secret material - an indication that he may no longer be under scrutiny by the special counsel, who had been investigating his foreign contacts and other activities.

Last month, Kushner sat for about six hours of questioning by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team on a wide range of topics, including his meetings with foreign officials during Trump's transition and Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, according to Abbe Lowell, Kushner's attorney.

Yeah, very unlikely that Kushner would be give permanent security clearance if he was about to be indicted for international espionage. Another liberal wish list frog march that's not going to happen.

The latest explanation makes no sense?

So the latest attempt by former Obama officials to justify the use of human intelligence in order to spy on "investigate" the Trump campaign, is that the FBI and CIA were attempting to "protect" the Trump campaign from being infiltrated by the Russians.

"We were not spying, we were protecting!"

Of course, if the idea of using an informant to spy on "investigate" the Trump campaign in order to protect the Trump administration makes little sense. If our intelligence "really" believed that there were people within the Trump campaign that might either have secret ties to the Russians or be susceptible to being compromised, why wouldn't they have brought up their concerns with Trump and his campaign leadership?

Btw, my message to James Comey would be simple. If this was "business as usual" for the FBI when he was in charge (as he suggests), then it's a very good thing that James Comey is no longer in charge.

Democrats are having all sorts of issues with "semantics"

Pollster to Dem Candidates: Focus on Mueller Indictments

A new survey by Navigator Research, a group of top Democratic strategists and public opinion experts, finds that while 97 percent of Americans have heard about the Mueller probe, nearly 60 percent don't believe it has uncovered any crimes.

The ongoing investigation has so far resulted in two dozen indictments, including that of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and a couple of campaign associates have pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators. But the findings of the Navigator survey indicate that while most Americans say the investigation should continue, they don't think it has produced much so far.

"There is a real information and education challenge for progressives to make sure more people learn that there is a 'there' there," says Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson. "Does it mean it's going to be the focus of an entire ad campaign? Probably not. But there are real arguments that are impactful to voters and ways we can win this argument if we engage."

There are two reality problems with this approach.

The first is that the 60% of Americans are correct: Mueller hasn't actually "uncovered" anything. He has simply made a series of decisions to prosecute process crimes and to follow up and prosecute previously known actions. The reality is that a prosecutor cannot "uncover" a process crime. By nature, the process crime was created by the investigation, not the other way around. Since every single guilty plea Mueller has garnered involves "making misleading statements" it seems reasonable for people at this point to see this for what it is. He also did not "uncover" the Paul Manafort situation. It was an "inherited" case. All Mueller has done is draw up indictments against Manafort and Gates for actions that were already known to the FBI.

Hey America!!!  There was no collusion!!!

The larger issue is that, in the eyes of most Americans, Mueller was appointed special counsel to do a specific job. He was supposed to investigate Russian's role in the election and what (if any) role that the Trump team might have had.  Since we had already concluded that the Russians attempted to interfere in the election (and didn't need Mueller's help to make that conclusion), it fell to Mueller to prove the other half of that equation. Bottom line: he was supposed to investigate the possibility of Russia/Trump collusion. That is how most of the American public saw this investigation, and on that level, Robert Mueller has seemingly uncovered "nothing" to push that narrative forward.

Again, most Americans are not going to fall for the argument that Mueller has been successful, or buy into the semantics of redefining his quest. They are not going to be swayed by Rosenstein's claims that he provided a secret grant of plenary authority to Mueller to investigate other things. They are not going to be impressed with diplomats who are sentenced to 30 days for a process crime. They are not going to sing the praises of Mueller for indicting random Russians he apparently refuses to prosecute. Unless there is a connection otherwise unknown at this time, the prosecution of Manafort will only placate those who simply want to punish anyone and everyone who associates themselves with Donald Trump. The lion's share of Americans will likely see it as a distraction from his main purpose.

There would be no support (nor should there be any support) for a Special Prosecutor with unlimited resources to be appointed to chase down old money laundering allegations against someone who had twice previously been investigated for those crimes. We didn't need a Special Prosecutor to charge General Flynn for misleading statements that the FBI didn't even feel were misleading. We didn't need a Special Prosecutor to charge George Papadopoulos, or some foreign diplomat for misleading statements. We didn't need a Special Prosecutor to read a magazine expose, and draw up indictments from it. But so far, that's what the millions of dollars has gotten us.

Unfortunately for Mueller (and the Democrats) Americans continue to be swayed by the President's continuous pounding on Special Counsel for not finding collusion. Expect him and his team to continue to do so. The reason that this strategy works and will continue to work, is because finding collusion was the ENTIRE justification for a Special Counsel to be appointed. If Mueller fails to uncover any collusion, then by the most reasonable standard of this investigation, he will have failed. At least that is how the majority of Americans will see it and for good reason.

Mueller trying to stall Russian trial

Mueller Rejects Speedy Trial Law To Delay Russian Collusion Trial

Special Counsel Robert Mueller asked a federal judge Tuesday to reject the four-decade-old speedy trial law in the case against 13 Russians and three Russian companies and has asked for an indefinite delay to the Russian collusion trial.

It is the second time Mueller tried to delay the trial. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich, a Trump appointee, rejected the earlier request without comment and ordered the case to go forward.

One of the Russian companies — Concord Management and Consulting — entered the U.S., hired American lawyers, and demanded a speedy trial. The Speedy Trial Act is a 44-year old federal law that dictates that a federal criminal case must begin within 70 days from the date of the indictmnet.

The “complexity” of the case warrants excluding the speedy trial law and delaying the trial, Mueller argued in Tuesday’s court filing.

I guess if Mueller wasn't ready to prosecute the case, then he shouldn't have brought forward the indictments. What was the rush if he didn't have his ducks in row? Certainly it wasn't a political move to garner some positive news at a times when his counsel was under scrutiny?

But hey, I guess the law is the law is the law, unless you are law enforcement in 2018. Then apparently they all see themselves as "above" the law. At least when Donald Trump is concerned.

NFL Bans kneeling

Apparently they will be allowed to stay in the locker room. But if on the field, they must remain standing. Apparently the NFL has come around to the reality that political correctness is not always logical correctness. 

Bud Grant made the Vikings "practice" standing for the National Anthem

The "Taxi King" causes buzz among the liberal hopeful?

So the latest "headline" is that someone else has flipped in the Mueller probe and is now cooperating with investigators. Gene "Taxi King" Freidman has plead guilty in Federal Court to charges (that no longer matter) and has agreed to cooperate with "any ongoing investigation." This (according to the faithful) pretty much must mean that Freidman must have Russian Trump dirt, especially considering (get this) Freidman immigrated here in 1975 from (wait for it) Leningrad. Coincidence? Certainly not!

But here is the rub:

• The Freidman investigation has nothing to do with Mueller. 
• Freidman is a Democrat, who was a large fundraiser for Bill de Blasio. 
• His ties to Cohen are that he sells his Taxi medallions to Cohen's Taxi fleet. 
• Freidman has no known ties to Trump or the Trump organization.
• Freidman has previously legal troubles, paying over a million dollars in restitution and fines in 2013 for swindling Taxi drivers.
• Freidman also paid another quarter million in a lawsuit over the same issue.
• Friedman was investigated and accused of forging his wife's signature on loans he defaulted on.
• Friedman was ordered to jail in 2017 for criminal contempt of court.

The current charges (because they do actually matter) were filed nearly a year ago. They involve and larceny and tax fraud because he supposedly pocketed five million from specific fees, while obviously not reporting or paying taxes on the money. Sure, there is speculation that Michael Cohen might somehow be involved, but the "partnership" seems to be more of a business client relationship than anything else. Does anyone believe that taxi medallions and user fees are the stuff of abrupt, no knock, federal raids? At least one hopes not.

Since we don't know for sure what the US Attorney is actually investigating Cohen for, it's impossible to know whether or not any of Freidman's legal problems are tied to Cohen, or whether or not he has any information regarding the Cohen investigation. What we can be fairly certain of is that the "Taxi King" is not likely to have much information on Russian election interference, or Trump's association with it. Much to the disappointment of those rooting for the Trump downfall.

Look, they lock from the outside!

H/T - RRB

Oh how the mighty have fallen!!

Sorry Liberals, but the "whole truth" needs to come out

So for some reason, the liberals are all up in arms over the concept that our intelligence community is accountable to provide valid reasons for starting a counterintelligence investigation into an opposition campaign, along with whether or not they properly (or improperly) used a CIA/FBI informant to make contact with Trump campaign members in a clandestine attempt to gather information.

I am not sure what the actual logic is behind this?

• You can only investigate Republicans?
• You can only run one investigation at a time?
• You are not allowed to investigate anyone in the intelligence community?

The reality is that the American public deserves "all" of the truth. If we can spend two years investigating the Trump administration, we should at least be provided with a reasonable explanation as to why and how the previous Administration came to the conclusion that their opponents in the next election needed to be monitored, have surveillance placed on them, and ultimately be placed under the scope of a clandestine FBI counterintelligence investigation.   At least we should be provided with a reasonable time frame for when it began?

We should also find out if anything improper or illegal was done. If so, then action should be taken and those responsible should be held accountable.

I am not sure why this is so hard for some to accept?

Papadopoulos angle collapsing?

So based on what we now know, the Obama intelligence community hired a well established CIA Operative (known for political spying) as an FBI informant to make contact with Trump campaign officials. This was supposedly done in an attempt to find out what the Trump campaign might know about Russian election interference.

Now we can argue all day long about the semantics of how you describe that activity. Spying, investigating, infiltrating, informing. Really doesn't matter how you describe it, the FBI hired a CIA operative to go make contact with and then snoop around into members of the Trump campaign. Just as he had done in previous elections.

But here is the rub. According to what is being divulged at this point, the contacts between the spy/informant and Trump officials predated the Papadopoulos meeting with the Clinton affiliated Australian Diplomat. So without the means for time travel, that would suggest that the Papadopoulos excuse to start a counterintelligence campaign is a pile of bunk. The FBI had already been spying/infiltrating/investigating the Trump campaign.

Moreover, there is now some buzz (unconfirmed at this point) that the information regarding the missing Clinton emails that Papadopoulos allegedly shared with the Australian Diplomat may have been provided to him either directly or through the assistance of the FBI informant in question.

Either way, the reality is now there is absolutely zero excuse for the DOJ/FBI to withhold from Congressional oversight the actual true origin of the counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign. No more delays, no more redaction, no more excuses.

Rosenstein does the right (and constitutional) thing.

Look, I get it. There are a whole bunch of crazy liberals who don't understand that the President runs the Administrative branch, including the DOJ. Rosenstein answers to the President. That rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Sure, they understood that Holder and Lynch were just a couple of lackeys carrying Obama's water. But somehow, when Trump is President, the DOJ is supposed to be a separate independent branch, who somehow does not answer to the President.

Sorry. But Rosenstein is a bit smarter. A refusal to follow this directive leaves him jobless and leaves Mueller under the supervision of an actual adult, who might set an actual limit or two. Heck the probe might actually end in the near future if Mueller had actual supervision.

“If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action,” Rosenstein said, unusually vowing action seemingly based on a tweet."

In a separate statement, DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores added that “the Inspector General will consult with the appropriate U.S. Attorney if there is any evidence of potential criminal conduct.” Flores also noted the probe will “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.”

Majority now say Mueller probe politically motivated

Officially turning the corner on this whole deal?

Some hear "Laurel". Some claim to hear "Yanni". Many liberals hear "collusion".

There was no spying, there was no spying, there was no spying, there was no spying...

Okay, there was spying, but we had good reason. Okay, we had reason. Sort of.

Anyone really remember why Watergate was such a huge scandal?
Because Nixon was using his power to spy on his political opponents!

But the professor was more than an academic interested in American politics — he was a longtime U.S. intelligence source. And, at some point in 2016, he began working as a secret informant for the FBI as it investigated Russia’s interference in the campaign, according to people familiar with his activities.

The role played by the source is now at the center of a battle that has pitted President Trump against his own Justice Department and fueled the president’s attacks on the special counsel’s investigation. In a Thursday tweet, he called the probe “a disgusting, illegal and unwarranted Witch Hunt.”

In recent days, Trump and his allies have escalated their claims that the FBI source improperly spied on the campaign.

“Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president,” he tweeted Friday. “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!”  (link)

Here is the reality, whether anyone on the left "really" wants to admit it. There should be almost no reason what-so-ever where the administration in power actually plants/infiltrates intelligence sources into the opposition Presidential campaign. To the degree that this reason might exist, it should only be at the most extreme and obvious situations where it would literally be malfeasance on the part of the intelligence community to ignore. In the other 99.99% of the time, discretion is the better part of valor.

Controversial informant Stefan Halper previously
 accused of spying in the 1980 Presidential campaign.

Having the Intelligence community secretly monitor your political opponents are things we expect from Vladimir Putin and Russian authorities, or Richard Nixon. We certainly don't expect them from modern era American leadership (especially after Watergate). We certainly would not put up with the Trump intelligence community spying on his next political opponent. Why would we put up with this happening in 2016.

Let's also be clear here. The intelligence source in question made contact with the Trump campaign, not the other way around. This was not someone posing as a Russian agent, attempting to entrap them. This was a guy who was likely feeding Page and Papadopoulos with ten times more information (real or not) than they had themselves.

The "proof is in the pudding" and "put up or shut up" are sayings that come to mind here. If there was good reason to be spying on members of the Trump campaign, they better show that they got something very tangible for their efforts. Either Carter Page or George Papadopoulos better be actual Russian agents, rather than the effective nobodies that they appear to be. Because if they are the effective nobodies that they have always appeared be, then there was zero reason to be spying on them.

Certain Animals should not be let into this country!

Shooter in Texas

Unfortunately... right away the media started reporting that the shooter was carrying an assault rifle, was wearing a Trump campaign shirt, had a made America great again hat on his head, and was chanting anti-immigration and pro-life themes as he went on his shooting spree... what we actually have from eye-witness accounts is this.

Other witnesses told KTRK-TV that the shooting happened in an art class, and one student told the television station that a girl was shot. “There was someone that walked in with a shotgun and started shooting,” the student said, “and this girl got shot in the leg.” That student did not get a good look at the shooter, because she was running to hide.

“A kid came out. He had a black-like trench coat on, a sawed-off shotgun with a pistol grip, and I seen something sharp on his chest,” recalled student Damon Rabon. “Then, he turned, and instead of looking our way, he just grabbed the backpack and went right back into the art room.”

By all accounts the backpack was filled with explosives, which the lunatic was planning on using to create the most damage.  He was said to be carrying a shot-gun (which is hard to confuse with an assault rifle). His ancestry is apparently Greek, not Russian as some people quickly assumed.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that 10 more children are dead, and not a single proposed gun law would have prevented it. Just last week another shooter was stopped by an armed police officer who is stationed as a school resource (much like they have at my son's high school).

The faster we admit that gun laws are not going to prevent these killings, and the faster we admit that we need to make sure our kids are protected, the faster these shootings will decrease. We should make it a federal law to train and post additional police officers at every High School and Jr High in the country. Anyone actually serious about preventing these sorts of shootings should have no reason to disagree.

Cohen bank report leaker apparently known...

The identity of the law enforcement official who supplied details of Michael Cohen’s banking activities to media-savvy lawyer Michael Avenatti probably won’t remain secret for long, according to people who work in the field.

Anyone who gains access to the government’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network database of bank-generated suspicious activity reports, known as SARs, leaves an audit trail, they explained. So whoever searched for FinCEN reports filed against personal or business accounts associated with Cohen, President Donald Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, left a digital record that is almost certainly under review.

The individual provided an explanation for the leak in an interview with Ronan Farrow of the New Yorker, who referred to the person as an official and not as a man or woman. The official says that he grew alarmed that he was unable to find two earlier reports made by First Republic Bank about transactions in Cohen’s consulting account and that he feared information was being withheld from law enforcement officials.

According to people involved in SARs work, reports don’t vanish from the FinCEN database, either. Sometimes they are restricted, for example when the disclosure might compromise a criminal investigation, or when they involve a law enforcement employee who might himself be suspected of corruption or other wrongdoing.

So, the bottom line was that it was (as suspected) a Government official who leaked the information about Michael Cohen's bank records. The Government official apparently sees themselves as some sort of whistle blower who felt they were exposing some sort of cover up. But according to their own procedures and guidelines, the more plausible explanation would be that the reports were not missing, but rather had restricted access due to a possible criminal investigation.

It becomes increasingly difficult to trust and defend our law enforcement community when they continue to see themselves as above the law.

Media purposely lies about Trump statement

SHERIFF MIMS: Thank you. There could be an MS-13 member I know about -- if they don’t reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it.  

 THE PRESIDENT: We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in -- and we're stopping a lot of them -- but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals. And we're taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that's never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It's crazy.

 What did the media do? Well they simply decided that the reference and prefix to MS-13 gang was unimportant to the tweet... letting everyone believe that the President was simply calling "all" illegal aliens "animals".

All that being said, it doesn't appear that the media actually was getting away with it this time. They were called out by numerous outlets. Deservedly so.

Blue Wave?

Democrats 38%

Republicans 37%

Mueller will not indict Trump...

"Was that a Russian I  just saw over there?"

"They (the special counsel's office) acknowledge the fact that they can't indict us," Giuliani told NBC News on Wednesday, indicating that the information had been conveyed to Trump's lawyers. "They know they don't have that power. So their function is to write a report. We would like it to be the fairest report possible. But even if it isn't, we're prepared to rebut it in great detail, so we'd like them to do it."

So this is sort of the double edge sword here. If you are defender of Robert Mueller, you are likely making the argument that he is a straight shooter, someone who works by the book, and someone with the integrity that we should all respect.

But if that is the case, then Robert Mueller actually has to follow the rules. You cannot argue that he is by the book, while simultaneously arguing that he should ignore the Justice department and special counsel guidelines.

This means that Robert Mueller cannot indict a sitting President. This also means that whatever report he writes will be a non-public report written to the Department of Justice. The rules govern that it is not up to him to hold a James Comey style press conference to divulge his findings and recommendations, unless specifically told to do so by the acting Attorney General. He certainly would not be writing a book, or doing the media circuit, such as what we see James Comey doing.

There is no actual law that even suggests that any of his findings would be required to be released (although nearly everyone expects that they will be).  By the laws of Special Counsel, any report release or press conferences or public statement and pretty much everything else falls under the authority of the Justice Department. Unless of course he wrote everything else down in his own private diary, which by Comey precedent would allow him to divulge any of his actions as special counsel as personal recollection.

Btw: A little birdy told me that the plan is to let Mueller finish his probe, fire Ron Rosenstein, then have the new acting Attorney General release a highly "redacted" report, in typical modern day DOJ fashion, all while putting a virtual gag order on Mueller. Then have the new acting AG declare that the DOJ will not be extorted if asked for the full unredacted version!

May we live in interesting times!

Terrible primary results for Democrats?

It's been no secret that Democrats have won some special elections precisely by putting forth moderate (if not conservative) candidates. The Democrats put forward pro-gun candidates, former military candidates, and basically ran "away" from the Bernie Sanders revolution. Many pundits have suggested that the Democrats had found their blue print for the 2018 midterms.

So how did it go last night?

Let's just say that two registered "socialists" defeated incumbent Democrats in Pennsylvania. That might have been the least of their worries! They also had another former Republican military candidate lose. They had two "medicare and marijuana for all" candidates win in districts they were hoping to pick up. In one case the candidate is so extreme, that many don't believe that the DNC will even fund the race.

Trump Tower meeting hearing transcripts released

So the less than anticipated transcripts from the Senate hearings regarding the Trump Tower meeting were released to little or not fanfare yesterday. The lack of big headlines can be attributed to the fact that there wasn't anything worthy of big headlines.

But between the main stream media and the official Democratic released statement, they did provide some details that they believed could be seen as nefarious (if you look at it from "just the right angle"). Some examples of questionable behavior reported by the media?

• The Trump team looked to (gasp) coordinate public statements
• The President himself worked with his son and others on the public statement
• The attorneys representing the Trump campaign reached out to those being interviewed prior to the interviews to talk about their memories of the testimony
• People who attended the meeting were upset and thought that the meeting was "dumb".
• Nobody admitted to talking about hacked emails. Even the translator who attended stated there were no discussions about emails. Troubling.
• Trump Jr did not want to talk about adoption issues, instead suggesting Veselnitskaya take their concerns to the Obama Administration. 
• President Trump "almost" met with Putin during the campaign.

The Democrats provided their own official response (and unofficial reponses) that included similar themes.

• "Top Trump campaign officials were frustrated and angry that the meeting did not produce enough damaging information on their opponent” (apparently they should have hired Richard Steele if they wanted dirt from Russians)."
• “Their efforts to conceal the meeting and its true purpose are consistent with a larger pattern of false statements about the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia.”
• "To call the Senate Judiciary Committee's Trump-Russia investigation halfhearted is too generous."
• There are "seemingly contradictory and evasive responses that need to be resolved." (Perhaps with bright lights and advanced interrogation techniques?)

So, the bottom line here seems to be a combination of two themes. The first is that while the Trump campaign didn't actually break any laws or actually do much of anything that the media or Democrats can really "pounce on", they apparently almost did so and probably wanted to. The second is the ongoing theme that Democrats admit that they have found zero actual evidence of anything even close to being illegal in the meeting, but want to "keep digging".

at least through November.

How the Jewish community see things...

 NO HOLDS BARRED: JERUSALEM ON FIRE WITH GRATITUDE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP

By the time this column is published the United States will have moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It has been an incredible few days in Jerusalem, leading up to the embassy move. Americans from all over the US – of every religion and affiliation – have gathered in Jerusalem for the move. Most of us can scarcely believe this is actually happening. We remember the repeated broken promises of successive American presidents over a quarter of a century to move the embassy and we’re still in shock that this time the promise has been kept.

President Donald Trump has electrified the State of Israel with the embassy move. You have to see the excitement on the streets, especially Jerusalem, to understand the depth of gratitude. Flags are flying from every street light. Massive signs around the capital show the American and Israeli flags intertwined with giant thank yous to President Trump. In the US many Jews have hesitations about the president, but among Israelis and among the American Jews who crossed the Atlantic to be here for the historic opening, he is a hero and the man of the moment.

In a single week President Trump has not only established America’s embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, but also rid America of the shame of the Iran nuclear deal, which completely overlooked all of Iran’s sins. In doing so, he has created the potential for reining in the rogue regime in Tehran, curbing the ascendance of radical Islamists and advancing a foreign policy that recognizes evil and holds belligerent government accountable. Simultaneously, Trump has emerged as a great champion of the Jewish people and a protector of Israel.

I was in Europe when I watched Trump announce he was stabbing the Iran nuclear deal in the heart and killing it once and for all. Immediately, the condemnations of Trump began. A warmonger. A man who breaks America’s promises and commitments. In their hypocrisy, they did not disclose that European companies were the first to run to Tehran to negotiate tens of billions of dollars’ worth of deals, which they stood to lose because Trump would no longer legitimize or fund a government that called for the annihilation of the Jewish people.

The Iran deal was traumatic because it was a catastrophic deal that allowed the Iranians to pocket billions of dollars in benefits to finance terrorism, ballistic missile development and intervention in its neighbors’ affairs in exchange for biding its time before building nuclear weapons. Former US president Barack Obama promised Iran’s behavior would change, but instead it got worse and escalated threats to American interests. President Obama ignored its lies and their threats in search of a foreign policy achievement to attach to his legacy.

To his great credit, Trump has proven to be a man of action when it comes to responding to evil. Unlike Obama he responded with force to the brutal Syrian regime’s use of poison gas against its own people. As in the case of Iran, Obama preferred to take the easy way out and made a deal with Russia to remove Syrian President Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons. Of course, Assad lied and did not dispose of the weapons, but he undoubtedly took the measure of Obama’s naiveté watching him get played by the Iranians.

Supporters of the flawed Iran deal pooh-poohed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s revelations about Iran’s past nuclear activities and maintenance of a secret archive of information designed to help it resume its nuclear program the moment Obama’s deal expired. If they knew Iran was lying all along, why didn’t they speak up? If they knew about Iran’s intentions, why didn’t they insist the archive be destroyed and close the loopholes that allow Iran to ultimately reduce its breakout time – in Obama’s words – “almost down to zero” by the end of the deal?

Trump rightly pointed out that Iran is a threat to the US. One day it could have missiles that could hit the US, but it already has the capability to target our bases, and those of our allies, in Europe and the Middle East. Let’s not forget, as most people have, that the largest number of Americans murdered by terrorists other than on 9/11 were killed by Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah. That organization continues to attack our allies in Syria.

Commentators have been quick to attack Trump’s decision based on the opposition of our European allies to withdrawing from the deal. They have largely ignored the Middle Eastern allies who are directly and immediately threatened by Iran. The Saudis have been calling for tougher action against Iran for years. In fact, they are the only ones to publicly suggest the need to use military force. Iran not only threatens the Gulf states, it also targets other moderate, pro-Western states. Just last week, Morocco cut ties with Iran because Hezbollah sent missiles to the Polisario Front that is engaged in a terrorism campaign against the kingdom.

There is only country, however, that Iran has threatened with annihilation, and that is Israel. The mullahs have repeatedly made genocidal threats against the Jewish state. Iran has also helped Hezbollah amass more than 100,000 rockets in Lebanon aimed at Israel and financed and armed Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Iran is trying to establish bases in Syria from which to threaten Israel and recently launched a drone from Syria that targeted Israel.

President Trump is proving to be Israel’s great defender. He has stood up to the antisemitic president of the Palestinian Authority and said he will not tolerate his policy of paying terrorists for trying to kill Israelis. He ignored apocalyptic warnings about the supposed consequences of recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving America’s embassy there from Tel Aviv. Now the president has made clear he will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons that could pose an existential threat to Israel.

The decision to tear up the Iran deal was bold and courageous. More important, it demonstrated a moral clarity that Trump’s predecessor lacked. This is an evil regime that must be confronted, not placated. One can only hope the Europeans will sacrifice their desire to advance their economic interests in Iran to the greater good of imposing draconian sanctions on Iran aimed at the full range of what the president rightly called their “destructive” and “destabilizing” activities.

One can also hope that whatever misgivings American Jewry has about President Trump they will be unanimous in their praise and gratitude for his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s eternal capital and for destroying the abominable Iran deal which legitimized a government that sworn to the annihilation of the first Jewish state in 2,000 years.

Where is the proof?

I know this is not an uncommon question or an uncommon theme today....

But we are now 15 months into the Trump Presidency, and even many of his biggest critics are grudgingly admitting that his Presidency has actually experienced some successes, without bringing about the destruction of modern society.

At some point in time, the argument about what horrible things Trump is going to do, needs to be replaced with a tangible reflection on what he actually "has" done... or more importantly what he hasn't done.

• He hasn't started WWIII
• He hasn't brought down the economy
• He hasn't turned over our autonomy to Putin 
• He hasn't ignored court orders
• He hasn't ruled with a pen and phone
• He hasn't seen his approvals drop into the twenties
• He hasn't alienated the Republican voters 

So what exactly has Trump done to justify the Trump resistance, other than turning many liberals into stark raving mad lunatics, who have been collectively relegated into doing little more than barking at the moon 24/7?

Is it "really" the fact that he goes on twitter and occasionally provides us with a classic political whopper that makes him a danger to society? Or is the resistance still insistent that they just know he is going to do something, sometime in the future?

Really curious...

Where is the outrage from the left?

So as facts continue to emerge in the never ending quest for what actually "triggered" the investigation into the possibility that the Donald Trump campaign colluded with the Russians responsible for meddling in the election... the evidence is starting to point fairly strongly that our Department of Justice, FBI, and the British Government were working in tandem to spy on the political campaign of a Presidential Candidate.

Why doesn't this bring outrage to the left?