Sunday, March 31, 2019

This was not Barr's opinion

This is like one of those games of telephone where the first person tells the story to the second person, the second person tells the story to the third person, and eventually by the time it gets down the line, the entire story is different.

But, of course, this is being done "on purpose" by Democrats and the liberal media (desperately hanging on to their collusion delusion). They want you to believe that the primary conclusion is Barr's own personal opinion. But the reality here is that we can always go back to the Barr letter and read what he "quoted" from the Mueller report.

When you combine:
  • No indictments for conspiracy.
  • The Mueller quote that there was no conspiracy or coordination.
There can be no doubt what the investigation found (or in this case didn't find). The fact that people are arguing about this is nothing more than proof positive that Democrats and the liberal media are not willing to admit that they were wrong and/or have allowed themselves to be fooled by their own coordinated spin. It also shows that the minions at the grass roots level (Democratic voters) are still willing to allow their cognitive dissonance to lead them exactly where their fearless leaders would like them to go.

Tale of two polls

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 31% of all Likely U.S. Voters think congressional Democrats should do their own investigation even though the Mueller probe has failed to prove that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government. Sixty-one percent (61%) say Democrats in Congress should move on to other issues.
The Post-Schar School poll also shows there is now less overall support for Democrats’ investigating obstruction-of-justice claims against Trump than there was for investigations of Russia-related issues earlier this year. Just under half, 49 percent, say House Democrats should continue to investigate whether Trump interfered with the Russia investigation, while 48 percent say Democrats should stop investigating this issue.

So, there seems to be little support for a "fifth" investigation into whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. The Rasmussen report (of likely voters) has been consistently lower than other polls commissioned by WaPo and others. But in the latest WaPo poll, the question regarding continued investigation into Russian collusion was apparently not asked (or at least not reported).

I think it would be "silly" at this point to not accept the Mueller probe as the final arbitrator on the subject. Sometime in April we will be getting the larger report from Mueller (redacted with Mueller's assistance) and that should put the issue to rest. As much as Democrats will call for "everything" I believe that once the bulk of the information has been provided to the public, even more will be willing to "move on".

In terms of obstruction, I would ask what the reason would be to start another investigation. There is quite literally zero chance that Democrats could remove Trump from office over some vague legally unprecedented obstruction charge that was not recommended by Mueller and flat out rejected by the viewpoint of the Department of Justice.

Moreover, without spending a single penny on the subject, the House could hold a vote on the subject of obstruction and it would likely be entirely partisan. They could spend the next year, spend millions of dollars and use countless resources, and it will not change one vote in the House. Acting as if it would, is a waste and ultimately a dereliction of duty. Too many other important things out there.

Lastly, the only "real" reason to investigation Obstruction would be to take a vote for impeachment. While some Democrats might have a stomach for more investigations, how many would have the stomach to formally reject the findings of the Department of Justice on the very sort of legal question that the Department of Justice is tasked and provided authority to decide?

The impeachment question has been losing steam for some time, and with an election in less than two years, why not just leave it to the American public to make that determination at the ballot box?

Cognitive Dissonance and the loss of objective reasoning

Mueller report findings upend partisan views of probe, poll finds
Among Democrats, who long expressed faith in Mueller during the inquiry, 53 percent now say they are disappointed with its conclusions. And while most still approve of Mueller’s efforts, more than 6 in 10 Democrats do not accept his finding on whether Trump conspired with Russia.

Herein lies the main fact here. The partisanship at this point is divided among accepting reality and rejecting reality. This tells us exactly how married Democrats have been to the concept that Trump "colluded" with Russia and how they will continue to believe (with or without any factual evidence to back it up). Make no mistake, this is still entirely a lack of acceptance of the 2016 election.

But it exposes the deeper issue with our media, bias, and an increasingly strange viewpoint that facts are no longer objective. In what seems to be a very strange set of circumstances (which I can only hope is temporary) - our society is moving into the concept that all things factual being viewed subjectively (and allowing personal feelings to count) is something that is "normal" and "accepted" and somehow actually "relevant".

There is a fine line between allowing someone who is biologically one sex to "identify" as the opposite sex, and allowing someone to not accept other types of facts, based on the idea that those facts make them uncomfortable. We now find certain statistical information to be "hateful" or worse,  because it points out something that people don't want to accept.

It's as if we now have a dual means of verifying whether something is factual or true. It seems as if it not only has to be proven factually, but it also has to to pass a political correctness test before it can be seen as a fact. A certain subset of Americans might (for example) commit more capital crimes than other subsets. But that will not be accepted by many as a fact, as long as they deem that statistic to be somehow unfair or demeaning for that subset.

It's not even whether or not we allow that statistic to be reported. We (as a society) are quite literally at a place where people will simply not believe something to be true, if they don't want it to be true. So in essence, what this poll is saying isn't that 6 in 10 Democrats don't believe the report, it's that they don't "want" to believe it, and feel it is their right to believe what they want. Taking it one step further, these same people are upset that such a thing was even "allowed" to be reported, because of the information in the statement actually upset them.

To be clear, there is quite literally zero evidence that what they heard from the report is untrue (zero evidence), but they didn't want to hear it anyways. Their need to reject it is so blatant that not only will they "not" believe it, but they will do everything in their power to undermine the factual statements being made.

Now this is both a millennial thing and a liberal thing. More and more we see the liberal millennials such as Ocasio-Cortez purposely clouding up the differences between something that is desired and something that is possible. We cannot (for example) find nearly 100 trillion dollars to pay for the "Green New Deal".  But somehow the fact that it cannot be paid for, is simply lost on those who support it.  Paying for it, is quite literally not something they worry about. What they worry about is finding something rhetorical that sounds good, like "we cannot afford not to do it" as an argument.

Obviously rhetoric that plays to emotions is not an argument that will garner us 100 trillion dollars or change the fact that Trump did not collude with Putin in 2016.

We, as a country, are heading down a strange and dangerous path of cognitive dissonance, bias confirmation, and a wishful reality. Reality and facts cannot be not subjected to "polling". They are rooted in the basic concept of our existence. The further and further we, as a society, move away from objective facts and accepting the truth, the more dangerous things become.

Sunday Funnies

Saturday, March 30, 2019

The full Mueller Report

is being redacted for grand jury, classified, privileged, and other information as required by law, rules, and regulations. Barr is being assisted by Mueller himself, and the Administration has given Barr authority to release any Presidential materials that Barr does not believe would be privileged.

This couldn't be better for the Democrats. They have special counsel Mueller himself involved and the President on the outside looking in.

But yet, they will still complain. No matter what.

Moreover, even though 50 people worked for 22 months, spent 30 million dollars, 2800 subpoenas,  500 search warrants, and interviewed over 500 witnesses,  and even though the Special Counsel neither recommended any indictments for collusion or conspiracy or could point to any evidence of collusion of conspiracy between Trump and the Russians...

according to a NPR_PBS poll 45% of Democrats still believe he did something illegal with his dealings with Russia.

I guess there is no fixing stupid!

Sunday Funny Sneak Preview!

Is Joe Biden being swallowed up by "#MeToo"

An Awkward Kiss Changed How I Saw Joe Biden
As I was taking deep breaths and preparing myself to make my case to the crowd, I felt two hands on my shoulders. I froze. “Why is the vice-president of the United States touching me?”
I felt him get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified. I thought to myself, “I didn’t wash my hair today and the vice-president of the United States is smelling it. And also, what in the actual fuck? Why is the vice-president of the United States smelling my hair?” He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head. My brain couldn’t process what was happening. I was embarrassed. I was shocked. I was confused. There is a Spanish saying, “tragame tierra,” it means, “earth, swallow me whole.” I couldn’t move and I couldn’t say anything. I wanted nothing more than to get Biden away from me. My name was called and I was never happier to get on stage in front of an audience.

Well this one was a "shocker". Who knew that Joe Biden was touchy feely and that many women "just might not like" exactly how touchy feely creepy Joe really is? I suspect that would could find a unending trail of this sort of reported behavior and reported problems.

But Biden being seen as the most "electable" Democrat, it might not matter. Liberals might break with the #MeToo movement and support him anyways? But the bigger question is how much of this does creepy Joe Biden want to put up with? It goes away if he goes away.

Friday, March 29, 2019

Or Roger

2018 GDP growth 2.9%

Real GDP increased 2.9 percent in 2018 (from the 2017 annual level to the 2018 annual level), compared with an increase of 2.2 percent in 2017 (table 1)

Ooooohhhh.... Did you hear!



Mueller Report Exceeds 300 Pages, Raising Questions About Four-Page Summary
The still-secret report on Russian interference in the 2016 election submitted last week by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was more than 300 pages long, the Justice Department acknowledged on Thursday.

Now it's a "secret report" as if that matters. Of course, it's always been tasked by the law for Mueller to present a confidential report to the Department of Justice. The law (not the A.G) determines that the report is "secret" or using the legal term.... confidential.

You see, if the law required or even meant for the Special Prosecutor to turn over his investigation report to Congress... then the law would have...

wait for it...

wait for it...

Actually required that the report be turned over to Congress!!! 

But it doesn't.

And what sort of news is it that the report is 300 pages?  The indictment of the Russian trolling farm was 34 pages.  The indictment of  Paul Manafort 31 pages. The indictment of Roger Stone was 24 pages.  As long winded as Mueller tends to be, I would have expected a couple thousand pages. If one person being  charged with basically nothing important is given 24 pages, and Mueller is tasked by law to explain his various prosecutions, then how much of that 300 pages will be left over by the time he gets done with that?

The reality is that if someone were to have been asked for an over/under on the length of the report, I am guessing 300 pages would have been laughed out of the room.

But more to the point.  The report could be 3000 pages. It could be 30,000 pages. It could be 300,000 pages. The length does not "call into question" what the summary says. A summary is just that. A summary. The summary was made by Barr with input from a variety of people including Rod Rosenstein who has supervised the investigation from day one. It did not have to be 300 pages.

It was a summary.

All I can say is that CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, and others are doubling down on their collusion delusion by continuing to push more and more conspiracy theories. If the main report does no more than reinforce the summary of William Barr (and there is no reason to believe it didn't) - then these idiots will have sunk to even a deeper low than they have over the past two years.

Thursday, March 28, 2019

Laughing my f-ing a$$ off!!

CNN - no show over a million viewers? 
(good thing for those airports, huh)

MSNBC MADDOW 2,678,000

MSNBC HAYES 1,674,000
CNN CUOMO 900,000
CNN COOPER 865,000 (3.4 million less than Hannity!) 

People want freedom of speech!

Even on college campuses!  
Nearly three in four voters — 73 percent — favor Mr. Trump’s order last week that required U.S. colleges to protect free speech or risk losing federal research dollars, according to a poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates for the William F. Buckley Jr. Program at Yale.
Democratic lawmakers and liberal activists countered that suppression of speech on campus was rare and the executive order was actually intended to boost conservative thought in the U.S.
“President Trump doesn’t have a license to blackmail universities. He’s the president, not a dictator, and his empty threats are an abuse of power,” tweeted Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat whose district includes the Berkeley campus.
In the poll, support for the executive order came in slightly higher among Republicans (76 percent to 15 percent) than among Democrats (71 percent to 20 percent) and independents (72 percent to 19 percent).

Well Barbara Lee. The President may not be a dictator, but he certainly does have the authority to made a determination like this one. More to the point, the general public (across the board) actually agrees with him.

Considering the large amount of Americans who disagree with Trump as a unconscious knee jerk reaction, it's pretty amazing that he could get this sort of support for anything!

Democrats trying to undermine the process that they asked for?

The total of 300-plus pages suggests that Mr. Mueller went well beyond the kind of bare-bones summary required by the Justice Department regulation governing his appointment and detailed his conclusions at length. And it raises questions about what Mr. Barr might have left out of the four dense pages he sent Congress.
Democrats, who like all other lawmakers have not seen the report, have all but accused Mr. Barr of covering up damaging information it contains. They have specifically focused on an apparent difference between the views of Mr. Barr and Mr. Mueller on whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice. Democrats have demanded that the attorney general make the full report and evidence public.

So for the past two years plus, Democrats have brazenly (and falsely) accused the President of the United States of treason and worse...

With absolutely zero proof of any of their allegations.

To push their conspiracy, they called for (more like demanded) a Special Counsel. But apparently these same Democrats were not smart enough to actually look at the laws surrounding the appointment of Special Counsel and are now pissed off that those same laws are being followed.

More to the point, after pushing the false conspiracy theory that our President was conspiring with foreign powers, now they are pushing a new conspiracy theory. That the investigation that "they wanted" is all a big giant cover up.

With absolutely zero proof of any of this new allegation.

If at first your unsubstantiated lies don't succeed, try, try again?

Democrats never wanted a Special Counsel. They wanted the Federal Government and Law enforcement to act as their own personal private investigator and dig up dirt on the President and all member of the Administration.

Now that it turns out that Special Counsel apparently focused on the issue at hand (the original allegations of treason and conspiracy) and came up empty, the Democrats want to know "more" than what the Special Counsel was tasked to do.

The fact that Special Counsel didn't find evidence that the President (or any member so his inner circle or campaign) colluded or coordinated with the Russian hackers or Russian troll farms is now being called a "cover up" and worse.

The reality is that you need to be careful for what you wish for. They made allegations that many weak minded individuals fell for. Asking for "proof" of those allegations obviously turned up to be a bad decision as it proved those allegations wrong. I strongly suspect that asking for what is in the larger report, will be a another bad decision that will prove their latest conspiracy wrong.

In the meantime, the Democrats continue to undermine the credibility of the office of the President, the Justice Department, Special Counsel, and the Attorney General.

With absolutely zero proof.

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Poor Poor Rachel !!

Poor, poor CNN and MSNBC!
This is what happens when it turns out you have been pushing lies!
On Monday, Fox News had more than twice as many viewers — in both total numbers and in the preferred 25- to 54-year-old demographic — than MSNBC and CNN combined. According to Nielsen Media Research, FNC surpassed CNN and MSNBC combined in every hour on Monday from 5 P.M. to 12 midnight, while CNN had its second lowest weekday prime-time ratings of 2019 and its third lowest demo of the year.

Collusion for Dummies

So what is "collusion"?
What makes a criminal conspiracy?

Let's start with the basic premise that collusion or criminal conspiracy would not be investigated or proven any differently whether that accused collusion was between two Parties who both were American citizens or two Parties of different nationalities.

For some reason I think this is what confuses most liberals. They seem to quite honestly believe that the entire country of Russia (all 150 million) was in on the scam. Or at least that is how their mind works. On top of that, they are willing to toss in pretty much anyone loosely associated with Russia and are more than willing to treat someone from say Ukraine, as if they are actually Russian.

But the reality is that to prove collusion you have to prove a link between the people who actually committed a crime, and those you believe were in cahoots. In the case of the Mueller Russian Election interference probe, those people who committed the interference were limited to two distinct groups.

  • The Russian Hackers (Guccifer 2.0) 
  • The Russian social media "troll farm" 

So in very simple terms. If you believe that Trump "colluded" in regards to election interference, you must connect Donald Trump (or people associated to him) to either Guccifer 2.0 or to the Troll farm. Paul Manafort (for instance) providing polling data to a Ukrainian associate literally does "nothing" to connect Trump to either. It's in fact nothing more than red herring.  

To make a simple analogy. Let's say you wanted to prove that Trump was associated with a Mob syndicate located in Chicago. Would law enforcement attempt to investigate every person loosely associated with Trump who might have talked to anyone who is from Chicago?

The obvious answer to that would be of course not. It would be ridiculous to believe that everyone who lives in Chicago must have some affiliation with a mob syndicate based out of the same city. The baseline assumption would be that 99.999% of people from Chicago would have nothing to do with the Mob syndicate. 

But with the delusional paranoid fantastical confirmation bias of the left, they quite literally believed that everyone with a loose affiliation with Russia must be in association with someone who was responsible for election interference. Reality is that Americans are legally able to talk to as many Russians as they would like, and those conversations do not make them in danger of being arrested. 

More to the obvious point. When Mueller indicted pretty much any and all known members of the "troll farm" he made it a point to put into the indictment that this work was done without the aid or knowledge of any Americans. To the degree that any Americans were involved, it was unwittingly. 

This should have closed the door on possible collusion between the "troll farm" and Trump associates. It did for most of us. It just didn't for those with TDS who used a high degree of cognitive dissonance to ignore the most important finding of the indictment.

When it came to the Russian Hackers, our Law Enforcement has always been relying on the "word" of the DNC and Hillary Camps, who hired an outside source to investigate the hacking. Quite literally neither the FBI or the Mueller Special Counsel ever examined the servers to verify. Without the literal evidence of the servers, any charges against the hackers would never stick (even if they decided to come into America and willingly face charges).

If you can't make criminal charges stick to the people you believe committed the crime. You cannot possibly convict anyone of "conspiracy" or "aiding and abetting" that particular crime. 

Now on top of all of this, this is not a Kevin Bacon game of seven degrees of separation. Just being able to say someone knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who commited a crime does not implicate anyone other than the criminal. If there is conspiracy, the conspiracy would quite literally have to involve every player along the way. 

For instance, the Russian attorney lobbyist who came to the Trump Tower for that famous meeting, was at least four or five degrees of separation to Putin. Oh, and guess what, you would still need to conclusively tie Putin to either the Hackers or the Trolling Farm. Prosecutors don't get to simply allow "assumptions" to be considered fact in a court of law. So that puts her at least another degree of separation from the people who actually committed the criminal act.

Well guess what. Being five degrees of separation from someone who committed a crime would not make you part of a conspiracy. In the case of Natalia Veselnitskaya,  you would have to believe that her firm was in on the conspiracy, that the client in question was in on the conspiracy, and that he was working through his dad, who then worked his way up the government chain to Putin, who then worked his way back to the Hackers or Trolling Farm.

And you have to have actual real evidence that you can connect each and every dot.

So the reality is that Mueller was never going to find real criminal evidence of collusion. Heck, even if a real criminal conspiracy existed, it would be nearly impossible to prove it when the players are not part of this country.  I am not exactly sure how people (who otherwise seemed reasonably intelligent) were so certain that he would. I would love to hear "exactly" what they thought the links actually were, and how they believed Mueller would be able to identify them.

Was it "really" because they are confused by the idea that it was Russia? Did they really truly believe that there were 150 million Russians all hiding their involvement in "stealing" an American election?

Jussie "the hoax" Smollett

So I have been holding off on this one. Thought I would try to see both sides of the story before coming to an outright conclusion. The problem at this point is that the Smollett attorneys and the prosecutor who dropped the charges cannot even get their story straight.

The prosecutor suggested that because Smollett performed two days of community service and gave up his $10,000 bond, that this somehow provided them with a proper "outcome". Now had he plead guilty and the court gave him two days of community service and a $10,000 fine, I suppose there would have still been some angry people. But in this case, Smollett didn't have to plead guilty, and the charges were basically dropped (and the case "sealed").

That leaves Smollett and his attorneys free to suggest that he is still innocent of charges that everyone knows he is guilty of. Moreover, you have some Smollett supporters spreading rumors that the case was "falling apart". The only suggestion I have read regarding the case was that Smollett was suggesting that the $3500 was not payment for the attack, but rather payment for something else. But the "defense" offering a "defense" is not paramount to a case falling apart.

No surprise that both the prosecutor who made the deal, and the supervisor who approved the deal are known to be liberal political activist (and for the record, both are black). The Police Department and Mayor are besides themselves with anger. There have been many call for some sort of ethics probe or other oversight of this decision. Given the high profile nature of this and the public outrage, I am not sure how the Chicago DA office avoids one.

Time will tell how this turns out. But given the timing of all of this, it works to reinforce the 2019 idea of duel justice systems. One for the liberal Democratic elitists and their jolly band of "privileged" classes of people, and then one for the rest of us "deplorables".

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Let's Clintonize it!

Lack of evidence of a conspiracy is proof of a coverup

Whenever there is a really good tin foil hat conspiracy theory floating around (you know like when people believe that a Presidential Candidate conspired with a foreign power to steal an election) there is a certain formula that is generally used.

  • First there has to be some set of circumstances that would be more easily accepted if the obvious wasn't true. In the case of the 2016 election, many people didn't want to accept that their favored candidate lost. So they came up with the concept that the election had to have been somehow "stolen". 
  • Secondly, they must agree on a conspiracy that could be seen as plausible if you allow for a very limited use of logic and generous use of imagination.  In the case of the 2016 election, the  evidence that there was foreign interference made "conspiracy" between the winning candidate and that foreign power an easy conspiracy target.
  • Once the basis of the conspiracy is established. then you need to come up with your "plausible theories" and circumstantial evidence. For instance, it's plausible that because Trump said good things about Putin, that they must be in cahoots. Circumstantial evidence doesn't have to be any more specific than the idea that a campaign manager has a history with Ukrainian oligarchs. The fact that Russia and Ukraine are not the same country... well, why sweat the little things. 

But what happens when the conspiracy comes crashing down? What happens when the flat earthers go to the Antarctic and don't find the end of the world? Well, of course, you scream cover-up! Lack of evidence is never proof that you are wrong. It just means you either haven't looked hard enough or there is some sort of cover up that doesn't allow the real evidence to be found.

Last night I checked in with the Rachel Maddow show. If you wanted a case study in someone who cannot accept that the tin-foil hat conspiracy she has been pushing for two years now has come crashing down, last night's show would have made a good one.  She opened the show saying she had four questions. She ended with something like twelve. Most of them are clearly answered if you read the summary, but her go to move at this point is to "assume" everything said in Barr's letter is tainted,  incorrect, or an outright lie. So even if the letter specifically answered her question, she simply doesn't accept it. 

You see it's part of the coverup. Until she sees what she wants to see, Maddow will not be satisfied. Which is to say, that Maddow (and the rest of your political flat-earthers) are likely not going to be satisfied ever.

I am sure Maddow believed she had hit paydirt by booking two former Obama law enforcement administration officials to talk about the Mueller report and Barr letter. She could hardly contain her disappointment when neither really took her bait. Neither saw anything nefarious going on and both agreed that Barr has acted appropriately so far. The first official not only defended Barr's decision to make the judgement call on the question of obstruction, but suggested that it was pretty much necessary. The other explained that the fact that the A.G. went to other people within the Department of Justice (on the question of obstruction) was a good thing, rather than a sign of something troubling (as Rachel Maddow was implying). 

It's almost comical when an entertainer spouting a conspiracy theory attempts to interact with a government official more grounded in facts, regulations, and the truth. It's likely watching a homeless person dressed in rags try to interact at a formal black tie gala. 

Bottom line is that many on the left are doubling down on their conspiracy.  But as more and more mainstream Democrats and liberals start to move into the mainstream world of reality, those people sticking to their guns are going to find themselves further and further out on their own island. 

Monday, March 25, 2019

Democrats in Congress are spinning their wheels...

Congress could pass 617 different resolutions to get the "entire Mueller report" released and it wouldn't matter one bit. Polling could be 100% to 0% on the subject. Everyone and their brother could demand whatever it is that they want to demand, but at the end of the day, the law is the law is the law is the law.

Did I mention that the law is the law is the law?

Robert Mueller was a Special Counsel appointed by the acting A.G. as a sub employee of the DOJ.  The law passed to create a special counsel has legal guidelines in place. The job of William Barr and Rod Rosenstein is to follow that law.


I strongly suspect that William Barr will do exactly what he has promised he will do. He will release as much of the report as the law, regulations, and the standards of the Department of Justice allows. Moreover, I strongly suspect that what is released will completely reinforce what the summation states. Nothing in the Mueller report will show collusion or conspiracy, largely because there was no collusion or conspiracy. There will be no bombshells regarding obstruction, because there was not any obstruction.

Any subpoena that infringes on the rule of law will be fought by the DOJ. Any legal fight that ends up at the Supreme Court level will likely end with Barr and the DOJ winning.

That is not a partisan call. Exactly the opposite. The reality is that Congress wrote the laws of Special Counsel. Now they no longer want to follow what they wrote. The courts (at least the USSC) will stand behind the party that is following the rule of law, not the party that is trying to change the rule of law. 

Seriously, how many times have we seen this scenario rear its ugly head from the left recently? Democrats don't like the laws or rules as they exist? So they demand to change them.

Ironically everyone of these proposed changes in the rules and laws... all stem out of their hatred of Donald Trump and their frustration that there are no specific laws in place that would simply allow him to be removed.

Make no mistake. Democrats will continue to spin their wheels on this one. It's all they have left. But like a car stuck in the mud, the only thing that the spinning wheels will do is dig their hole deeper and make it even harder to unstuck.

What to say to those who claimed they had evidence of collusion...

Avanatti arrested

Will Democrats and the liberal press follow their own rules?

For the past two years we have been told that criticizing decisions made by the DOJ, the FBI, or Special Counsel was nothing short of an attack on our institutions and and affront to our American system of government.

These basic principles were so important to the left, that we were supposed to follow them, even when members of these organizations were fired for poor behavior and even recommended for possible criminal charges.

Democrats and the liberal media have repeated ad nauseum that these institutions are independent, beyond reproach, and should be allowed their independence without question (yes, even when accused of crimes). Any time the President said something negative he was accused of everything from treason to obstruction to bad taste.

So now the tables are turned. Special Counsel is done. They found no collusion or coordination between Trump, his inner circle, or his campaign and the Russians. There are no recommendations for any more indictments, and Special Counsel Mueller refused to recommend any charges against the President for what many suggested was "obstruction".

Moreover the top two law enforcement officials in the nation weighed in (in agreement and unison) that there was no behavior by the President that rose to the level of obstruction. The deputy Attorney General has been Mueller's supervisor and privy to this information from the beginning. Rosenstein has been given updates throughout. Contrary to popular political rhetorical spin, this was not a decision made over 48 hours.

The decision was on sound historical and procedural grounds, based entirely on the law, with independent guidance from others within the DOJ.

So now, Liberals. One question!

Do you accept it? Or are you going to prove your hypocrisy once again by ignoring everything you argued over the past two years by throwing a giant liberal hissy fit!!

Sunday, March 24, 2019

The question of obstruction...

The key to this is that Mueller apparently did not uncover much (if anything) regarding obstruction that was not public information.
"many of which took place in the public eye"
That means it boiled down the issue of "opinion". I long held the view that Mueller may try to declare the known issues some sort of story of obstruction as seen on CNN and MSNBC. But that Trump and his attorneys would just offer a different opinion.

I swear to make Democrats look stupid, really stupid
  and nothing but stupid. So help me god!

It would also just be a matter of opinion if the issue reached the House or Senate in any sort of impeachment hearing. Even had Mueller suggested these actions were obstruction, there would be little reason to believe that GOP Senators (most being lawyers themselves) would have not just made up their own minds.

Certainly Democrats can choose create their own opinions to proceed with impeachment and they may even find enough support in the House to indict/impeach as much as everyone knows it's an exercise in futility that ends badly for them in the Senate.

But at this point, with Mueller punting, the only official determination comes from Barr and Rosenstein, who determined that these actions did not rise to the level of obstruction. If the Democrats want to ask Barr or Rosenstein to testify in public, then they may want to be careful what they wish for. 

Reading the report, their logic seems more than solid. There has to specific actions to impede, there has to be specific intent to impede, and to some degree those actions had to have created some impediment. Obviously the investigation was given full reign. Awful hard to sell obstruction when nothing was obstructed. Hard to sell intent, when the target was innocent of the charges.

Moreover, the facts will show that Barr and Rosenstein played this all by the book, consulted those who should have been consulted, and stuck to basic precedent and historical examples of Obstruction. Had Mueller found that the President had performed the actions of traditional obstruction (perjury, tampering, destruction of evidence) then it would have been a different story.

But for now, the story is a fairy tale for the President and a horror story for the Democrats.  I am not sure why they want to have this story told for the whole country to see.  

No collusion - Conclusively

No obstruction (Barr and Rosenstein)

Bottom line. No Collusion between Trump and Russians. Nada. Nothing. No ambiguity. 

Special Counsel did not make any conclusions regarding obstruction, but Rosenstein and Barr made a determination that Trump did not do anything that would rise to the level of obstruction.

They found this irrespective to the fact that the President is immune to indictment. In other words, the decision would have been the same whether or not he was immune or not. They also considered the fact that since Trump had not committed any criminal action or even any unethical action (regarding collusion) that there would be no "incentive" for the President to obstruct.

To be clear, generally speaking decisions to charge or indict are always done within the confines of the DOJ. Investigators (FBI) do not generally "indict" anyone. They provide recommendations. They need to run things through the Justice department and generally go through a grand jury.

Obviously wonderful news for the President, for the Republicans, and for the Country!

Nothing to say, but what a day

How's your boy been!

The Barr summary

So according to everyone in the know, sometime today A.G. William Barr will send another letter to the ranking members of Congress, and one would assume allow for a public release of the same letter that will summarize the "conclusions" of Special Counsel.

Since the special counsel was tasked to look into Russian influence individually as well as look for coordination from any Americans the report will not necessarily focus as much on what people are interested in (even if they probably should be interested in other things).

Keep in mind that this letter will be heavy on what Mueller found, and I suspect that it will focus much on the 30 some people who "were" indicted.  Since any foreign influence of our elections is illegal, it's unlikely that there are other Russians to be named that were not part of the two sets of indictments that Mueller brought before the Grand Jury.

Those indictments, of course, would of the group of hackers who Mueller determined hacked the DNC and Podesta email servers, as well as the trolling farm who were illegally using our social media platforms to run political ads.

Had Mueller found the behavior of Natalia Veselnitskaya (for instance) at the Trump Tower meeting to be within the scope of a foreign agent manipulating our elections, then there is no reason to believe that she would have been indicted. The fact that she was never indicted suggests that Mueller did not find the meeting to rise to the level of election assistance, much less a criminal conspiracy.

So what we know is what is in the indictments. There are no more indictments coming. There are no sealed indictment that Mueller has been holding back and even if there had been, he would have unsealed them at the end of his investigations.

The two indictments that covered the Russian agents both made clear that there was no known coordination with any Americans. To the degree that Americans were involved, they were said to have been "unwittingly" involved. None of these Americans had any association with Trump or his campaign. People who know Mueller have suggested that his indictments are very comprehensive and would not leave anything out (certainly not earth shattering information). Had there been coordination between either Russian groups with known Trump associates we would have known.  This would also be criminal and would have led to more indictments.

To the degree that Mueller looked at obstruction is anyone's guess. It was no part of his original task, and much of what was talked about was purely speculative. One has to assume that if Mueller took a serious interest in "obstruction" that he would have at least attempted to subpoena the President. It would be blatant misconduct for him to suggest obstruction (having never talked to the President) and derelict for him not to have tried had he otherwise thought there was a strong case.

I suspect that Mueller may have been more in the Alan Dershowitz camp on the issue of obstruction. Possibly just too much of an old school straight shooter to attempt to get clever and cute with a new definition of obstruction (that would likely be seen as highly dubious and political). Better to err on the side of caution and look more strictly at whether or not the President obstructed in any traditional manner (lying, witness tampering, destruction of evidence).  The fact is that Mueller completed his investigation suggesting that he was not hampered in any manner. Similarly the President never sought to shut down the FBI investigation even though it was in his power to do so.

Should someone who had authority to shut this whole thing down two years ago, but chose to let it run its course be charged with obstruction? Objectively it makes almost no sense.

We'll see what the report says. I suspect that it will fall well short of what liberals are hoping for (even today as they have reenergized themselves after the shock of hearing there were no new indictments). But I wouldn't be surprised if Mueller had something negative to say about Trump. Just not anything that rises to the level of a criminal action (high crime or misdemeanor).

Sunday Funnies