Friday, May 31, 2019

Mueller effect already fading away to nothing?

When you've lost Nadler, you've lost period. 

Boy oh boy, but the crazy anti-Trump pro-impeachment liberals were all in a tizzy when Mueller stepped up for his uninspired eight minute speech. But it seemed like that limited excitement was short lived.

54% do not want USSC to uphold Roe V Wade?

46% of respondents said the high court should uphold the ruling in Roe if the issue comes before the justices, while 36% said the Supreme Court should modify the ruling. 18% wanted the ruling to be overturned altogether. 36+18=54%

Pelosi, Schiff, others still cool on impeachment.

Well perhaps the big Mueller moment will be the "turning point" for impeachment, or perhaps not. The major problem with the Mueller moment (all eight minutes of it) is that it still doesn't change what was stated in the report, and it basically offered nothing new.

The problems with impeachment still exist. Most notably, the fact that several polls now has gauged  the general public's mood at about a two to one majority "against" impeachment, additional investigations, or additional hearings.

The public would generally like our elected leaders to move on from this, and move on to what they were elected to do. I am not convinced that this eight minute speech from Robert Mueller is going to make any of that sentiment go away. In fact, it would be a better argument to say that the stammering Mueller, looking less than relaxed, less than self assured, and walking off into the sunset demanding he would answer no questions does not make a compelling case for reopening this can of worms.

Prior to the Mueller moment, less than ten percent of our elected leaders were pushing for impeachment. Forty six Democrats and one Republican had been on board. You would have to almost triple that number, just to get a majority of the Democratic majority to favor impeachment.

More to the point, even those who favor impeachment, are making a political (not legal) case. Everyone knows it's an exercise in futility, and everyone knows that the only reason to do it is for politics (good or bad). This is largely the same issue that Republicans had with Clinton. Even though their case was more iron clad (Starr openly stated that Clinton committed felony crimes) the fact that it was never going to end up with Clinton being removed made it a blatant political move.

Sometimes the American public is just a little smarter than politicians believe.

So far I have not seen one legal expert...

who believes that Mueller did the right thing with his eight minute dialogue. 

So he takes 22 months, hires a few dozen investigators and prosecutors, spend tens of millions of dollars... and then he doesn't make any actual decisions. He comes out for eight minutes, says a whole bunch of nonsensical baloney, and then demands that he will not answer any questions nor agree to go before Congress to answer any questions.

Ironically, nobody from the liberal MSM seemed to have a problem with this.

Now these same media members demanded that Bill Barr was non-forthcoming for his part in all of this. But of course, Barr provided several updates, released the report when he didn't have to, and spent most of a day being personally insulted and answering questions from Senators.

Not enough, according the media.

Oh, and the media accused Bill Barr of lying about a meeting he had with Mueller, Rosenstein, and O'Callaghan, even though nobody from that meeting has contradicted what Barr stated. Apparently our media is so corrupt, partisan, and full of themselves that they are willing to simply take themselves at their own reasoning as to why it is that Barr must have lied. Without any actual evidence or proof of any kind other than their own partisanship.

On the flip side, a whole slew of legal experts (including many who have defended Mueller throughout this) found the whole charade to be below the office of a Special Counsel and well outside all established norms of the Department of Justice and law enforcement in general.

In eight minutes, what we learned from Robert Mueller is two things:
  • The Russians who hacked our election are innocent until proven guilty.
  • The President of the United States (who was cleared of the underlying crime of election conspiracy) is guilty of something else until Mueller (and apparently only Mueller himself) says he is exonerated.
You can't make this shit up, folks. 

Thursday, May 30, 2019

Mueller's boss says Mueller "could have" reach a decision...

Barr criticizes Special Counsel 
Attorney General William Barr said he believes special counsel Robert Mueller could have reached a decision on whether President Trump committed obstruction of justice, regardless of long-standing Justice Department policy that prohibits the indictment of a sitting president.
"The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office, but he could've reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity," Barr added. "But he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained and I am not going to, you know, argue about those reasons."
When he became aware that Mueller would not make a determination in his obstruction of justice probe — which investigated 11 instances in which Mr. Trump tried to derail the Russia investigation — Barr said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "felt it was necessary" for them to make decision on the issue.
In a letter to Congress after Mueller submitted his report, Barr said he and Rosenstein concluded that the nearly two-year investigation did not contain sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Trump obstructed justice.
Meanwhile, Barr takes a second shot at Mueller:
Mueller said the U.S. Constitution "requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing." Many Democrats said the special counsel's remarks represented a referral of his investigation to Congress, which has the power to impeach and remove a president from office.
Barr said Thursday he did not know what Mueller was "suggesting" in his statement. "The Department of Justice doesn't use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress," he added.

This has been a clear message that William Barr has sent throughout this process, and it's obvious that he believes Mueller "used" the Department of Justice to do things that were clearly not within the scope of his appointment.

Barr has stated in the past that the DOJ does not sit Grand Juries to turn information over to Congress. He reiterates this point to a greater degree by pretty much stating that the DOJ does not appoint Special Counsels to do investigative work to turn over to Congress.

Its obvious that Barr sees Mueller as overstepping his authority. It's also obvious that Mueller "knew" that Barr would see it that way, which is why he closed up shop within a matter of weeks after Barr became the Attorney General.

I would offer that if Jeff Sessions was still A.G. and Rod Rosenstein was still the person overseeing the Special Counsel, that Robert Mueller would still be digging, leaking, and conniving to undercut the Trump Presidency. Likely planning to unload a bigger pile of crap than he did, sometime right around election time 2020.

Joint statement walks back some of Mueller's misleading statements

The truth is that Mueller was hinting at just enough of a false narrative to get the Democrats and liberal media to outright push it for him. Mueller was providing what he liked to call a "misleading statement". Truth is that what Bill Barr said about Mueller and the OLC opinion was 100% accurate. There are witnesses and likely transcripts.

The statement is a direct admittance that Mueller did not believe (what he implied without saying yesterday) that the President was guilty of a crime, but he just couldn't charge him. The statement reflects that he did tell his superiors at the end of the investigation that he did not (in fact) believe that the President would be indicted if DOJ policy allowed it.
If you read the report, there are many places where Mueller suggests that charging the President for obstruction would be an uphill climb. He offers that finding obstruction in otherwise legal actions can be done if there is corrupt intent. But Mueller admits that proving such intent is already a high bar, but even higher when the person was not found to have committed the underlying crimes.

All that being said, it's unlikely that this joint statement from the Attorney General and Special Counsel will gather much press. Most of your liberal lying fake news press will make believe it doesn't exist, and spend their time "breathlessly" lying to their dwindling fan base, who cannot function without some reason to hate the bad orange man. It must be sad when you have to ignore the truth and embrace lies in order to feel better about yourself.

This sort of says it best...

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Did Mueller Contradict Barr?

Not according to Special Counsel
"He [Mueller] did not contradict. We went back to the Special Counsel’s Office today and said, “Did you contradict what the attorney general said when he said that ‘if it had not been for that opinion, you would have charged’?” NBC News' Julia Ainsley said on MSNBC.
"And they said, 'We’re not contradicting, but we’re providing more context that' — It’s not even the point. They didn’t even make a decision because they didn’t look at this like a prosecution. They didn’t walk down that road because they stopped because of this opinion," she added.

Stupid is as stupid does, and in this case there are plenty of people doing stupid quite well. I think the problem is that people "really" don't pay much attention to details, and some people are just way too emotionally involved to think clearly about these events.

This was Bill Barr's statement in question:
But I will say that when we met with him, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I met with him, along with Ed o’Callaghan [sic], who is the principal associate deputy, on March 5th. We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.

So let's be clear here. If Robert Mueller denied that he stated this to Barr, Rosenstein and O'Callaghan, then he would be accusing Barr of lying. Ultimately then, someone would have to go ask Rosenstein and O'Callaghan how they recall the meeting, assuming that the meeting was not otherwise taped or a transcript otherwise created.

But what Robert Mueller stated today, does not contradict what Bill Barr stated in the hearings. Mueller did not deny meeting with Barr, Rosenstein, and O'Callaghan. Mueller did not deny that he made the statements in question.

Furthermore, Robert Mueller was not explaining why he didn't recommend an indictment, nor did he even suggest that he found evidence of any crimes. Rather he was specifically explaining why it is that he did not enter into the realm of making a normal prosecutorial decision. His argument was that since he could not prosecute, he did not want to make a normal prosecutorial decision. 

That certainly can easily fall into the wheelhouse of both statements and both situations. He decided not to make a prosecutorial decision (because of the longstanding policy against indicting a President), but he also did not take a position that if not for that policy, that he would have found that the President committed a crime.

Bottom line: Bill Barr did not commit perjury in his testimony. Anyone telling you he did, is completely out to lunch.

Missing the bigger picture here?

Mueller to speak today

A few things to keep in mind: 

Trump's twitter feed is fairly quiet in spite of the White House knowing about this in advance. Traditionally if Trump thinks that things are going to go bad for him, he will get out in front of it with a barrage of twitter remarks (or twitter insults, or twitter attacks). 

Secondly, this is being "hosted" by the Department of Justice (led of course by William Barr). So one shouldn't expect that what Mueller has to say will be too terribly negative about his boss or the manner in which the DOJ handled things. I doubt whether the DOJ would promote something that will be critical of the DOJ, and it's even less likely that they don't know what Mueller will say.

Thirdly, this appears to be something of a deflection for Mueller "not" agreeing to a public hearing in front of Congress. He is giving a statement, but refusing to take questions. Whether or not this will squash the eagerness of those who want to hear him testify is tough to say, but it may sway many in the mushy middle who might be a bit curious, but still want to move on. 

Lastly, if this is a form of a deflection to move himself further away for calls of a public hearing, then I wouldn't expect anything in terms of any new bombshells. Anything that moves us further away from what is on the report will feed the desire for people to have him testify in an open forum. So I suspect that the statement will likely be in sync with the report, with some clarifications. He may also challenge certain rhetoric regarding the report, that isn't really coming from the report. 

But, again, I think if people are expecting Mueller to offer a different conclusion than he offered in the report, or to provide us with some breaking new bombshell information, I think they will be deeply disappointed.  

This will ruffle a few feathers!

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Nate Silver disagrees! Says models don't work?

But they seem to be more accurate than poor Nate, who always misses wide left! 

When your liberal propaganda comes up against reality!

The liberal talking points memo has been that White Supremacy groups like the KKK are growing like wildfire since the election of Donald Trump. Of course, there is no actual proof of this particular talking point, which is why it's considered little more than a talking point.

There was only nine people who showed up at recent KKK rally

One of the many ways this lie has been spread is by liberals suddenly taking a fond interest in an otherwise obscure organization called the Southern Poverty Law Center, who claims to investigate and identify "hate groups". The Southern Poverty Law Center will tell you that there is a growing number of hate groups and therefore a growing number of people who belong to these hate groups. 

Of course what the SPLC will not tell you is that the new hate groups are not really new groups. They are groups that have existed for some time and for the most part have the same amount of members (or even less members). They simply were not identified as a hate group until just recently. 

So what has prompted the large increase in these so called "hate groups" identified by the SPLC? 

Well, it's quite simple. Most of these new groups are associated with the overall hate organizations from the various groups of Americans who are affiliated with the larger hate group otherwise known as Christianity. So if a Christian organization has ever been opposed to gay marriage, then SPLC has likely added them to their list of hate groups. If a Christian group opposed abortion and supported defunding of places like Planned Parenthood? Yep. They are now a hate group.

The truth is that the KKK holding a rally and nine members show up is not that unusual today. The Unite the Right rally last year ended up seeing a whopping total of about two dozen KKK members. When the Grand Pumba himself held a national rally a few months back, he got about a hundred KKK members to come join his conference.  

So no, the KKK and White Supremacy is not a growing force. The only way you can claim a rise in hate groups is to redefine what is a hate group. This is just another piece of liberal propaganda that is nothing more than a lie, attempting to make the President look bad. 

Monday, May 27, 2019

Memorial Day! Never forget where your freedom came from!

Roger's Uncle killed in Italy fighting the Germans

The Times need to go back to American Government 101

Potential Clash Over Secrets Looms Between Justice Dept. and C.I.A.
President Trump’s order allowing Attorney General William P. Barr to declassify any intelligence that led to the Russia investigation sets up a potential confrontation with the C.I.A. It effectively strips the agency of its most critical power: choosing which secrets it shares and which ones remain hidden.

The ultimate power to declassify any information resides with the President of the United States. It always has and it didn't change because the bad orange man is President. The CIA has never had exclusive power to keep secrets hidden, nor should they ever have exclusive power to keep secrets hidden. All that would do is provide for the opportunity to hide any or all misdeeds and other embarrassing actions.

Moreover, for all the powers that the CIA is given to help aid our Country, what information regarding old investigations to keep secret probably falls down the list into the second tier of thing that are really, really important for the CIA to do the job. We are not talking about outing someone undercover, or exposing a dangerous foreign mission here.

We are wanting to see (retroactively) what part the CIA played in the investigation into the President's campaign during the 2016 election. Given John Brennan's open partisanship and hatred of the President since leaving his post as Director of the CIA, it makes understanding what part Brennan and his organization played in this a valid question.

At the end of the day, the post election behavior of Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and McCabe since Trump has become President has probably caused much of this. Had these nincompoops laid low, kept a lid on their opinions, and drifted off into the sunset like most former cabinet officials and directors, then perhaps some of this could have been avoided.

But these former officials decided to write books, do tours, go on television, and state openly that they believe the President was going to be indicted, was a criminal, and acted treasonously. It's hard to believe that this sort of raw anger and aggression was not a part of their motives for investigating Trump in the first place, and it's not hard to believe that such emotions would either cause blind spots and/or prompt corrupt decision making.

The reality is that there is nothing dignified or decent about the post-election actions of the four stooges. In many ways, they can be held personally accountable for any and all investigations into the activities of the departments that they ran, and they certainly are going to be held personally responsible for any and all damage caused by what is found.

RCP Trump Presidential Approval Rating remarkably stable...

Over the past seventeen months or so, the President's approval rating average on Real Clear Politics has remained pretty much within a five point swing between 40-45%. Only once has he dipped below 40% (39.9% in March of 2018) and only once has he jumped over 45% (45.1% earlier this month). In fact, over the entire term of his Presidency he has stayed within 37% and 46%. The lows coming in the late summer of 2017 (right around the time of the Charlotteville protests) and the highs coming very shortly after he was sworn in.

I find it amusing when I read stories (like one today in the Guardian) where someone insists that the President's supporter are "deserting him in droves". The truth is that this President (probably more than any other) has both a floor and a ceiling of support that has very few people undecided. 

Right now the President sits at approximately 43%. So just above the middle area of the 40-45 range, and at the upper end of his 46-37 range. Considering how much drama follows this President around, it seems remarkable that we do not see the sorts of swooping numbers that other President's saw. George W Bush, for instance had approvals in the eighties (and at least one poll in the nineties) after 9-11, only to see approvals down into the twenties by the time he left office. 

The two factors that seem to guarantee Trump remain in this sweet spot (and I only mean that as a matter of consistency - not to suggest that mid to low forties is a good approval rating) are the economy and his personal actions. It seems for many (like myself) I tend to judge the politicians in power by what is happening in the country more than anything else. When the country does well, people approve. But for others, no matter how well the country does, they will be forever put off by his actions (tweets, public disagreements, etc) or fall into the whole "rumor" mill run by our MSM.

So it's like Trump is sort of playing chicken. What breaks first. If the economy stays strong over the next year or so, then it would seem that Trump could have a real good shot at reelection if he simply stayed disciplined like he did for the last 2-3 months of the 2016 campaign. While that would not likely raise his overall approvals all that much, it might get people to still vote for him, even if they are not enamored with his actions. How Trump won the 2016 election was by winning a large share of the electorate who did not have a good opinion about either candidate.

But if the economy falters, then I doubt Trump acting more Presidential would be enough for him to win reelection. His appeal to most people is in the results. If he fails to be seen as the results guy, who brought back the economy from the dead, then he definitely will not win over those who do not approve (or did not approve) of his actions. It's possible if there is a bad economy, and Trump continues to be Trump, that he could lose by a significant margin.

The wildcard, of course, is who the Democrats nominate. We can almost be guaranteed that whoever it is will be wildly mocked, undercut, nicknames, and rode hard for the entire election campaign. There is no candidate on the left without significant warts. Those warts will only be amplified during a national Presidential run. Bottom line is that it's very likely that voters will walk into the voting booth in 2020, not particularly liking either candidate. Not all unlike what happened in 2016.

I suspect that the economy will not still be seeing consistent 3% growth, but neither am I expecting a major recession between now and then. The Feds leaving the rates alone (or possibly even lowering them once or twice before the election) should be enough to keep the economy growing, and unemployment low. I will go out on a limb and suggest that Trump approvals will be in the same 40-45% range as they are today. I will also go out on a limb and predict that most polls will show Trump down to the Democrat by similar margins we saw in 2016.

But that's all the further I go right now with my predictions.

Sunday, May 26, 2019

Maybe this will start a precedent?

Trump engaged in lousiest attempt at a cover up in history

Think about it:
  • The President has been under several investigations dating back to before being elected President. 
  • The President has been investigated multiple times by both chambers of Congress.
  • The President gave 1.4 million documents to special counsel Robert Muller. 
  • Everybody around the president was allowed to testify to both Congress and Special Counsel. 
  • This included family members, top aides, White House counsel, and personal counsel.
  • He never once claimed executive or attorney client privilege during these investigations or during the Special Counsel investigation.

But somehow Democrats and their liberal collaborators demand that he is involved in the biggest cover up in the history of the world! Why? Because he refuses to comply with their attempts to start over, like they just didn't spend the past three years investigating the President and coming up empty? 

It's time, ladies and gentlemen, for the country to move past investigating the President and move forward with our Congressional and executive leaders working together to pass legislation. I don't think it's just me who thinks this.

Sunday Funnies

Saturday, May 25, 2019

Funny how certain people cannot handle a debate...

Debate is pretty simple concept that certain people just don't understand. You have an issue. You take different sides of the issue. You present your arguments, your logical conclusions based on those arguments. You might present facts, data, or relevant information. You question the other person's conclusions with logical arguments.

But this only works when both Parties are willing to present an actual argument.

When it comes to arguments, most political on-line debates are simply rhetoric, personal ad hominen attacks, logical fallacies, pushed to the edge by cognitive dissonance, bias confirmation, and partisan prejudice.

In the case of someone like Roger, you give him multiple chances to answer the same questions, and every time he ignores them and decides to retort with childish insults and irrelevant subject changes. Someone like Roger doesn't want to answer questions, because he has to think. Rather, he will simply repeat the same statement again, and again, and again, and again, growing more and more frustrated as to why this debate style doesn't work.

It's crystal clear that Donald Trump is the trigger that has pushed thousands and thousands of Americans to the brink of insanity. Someday, psychologists will look back in awe at the power one man has to drive so many others completely crazy.

Most of us are in control of our own lives, and political debate is just something we do in our spare time (or in my case on a holiday weekend when I am tied to my desk because I am on-call during a major new software release). But for others, things will overwhelm them. They can only find comfort in those who agrees with them, and find overwhelming frustration with those who do not.

I feel sorry for these people who get so angry that they stomp off like children who want to take their ball and go home. They must have serious problems in their life for them to get so emotionally attached to this sort of thing that they take flight every time they start losing.

Intolerance might come back and bite the people responsible...

Here We Go: Federal Investigations Begin Into San Antonio, Buffalo Airport Bans On Chick-Fil-A
“The Department of Transportation has received complaints alleging discrimination by two airport operators against a private company due to the expression of the owner’s religious beliefs,” the agency said in a statement provided to Fox News.
According to the agency, federally funded airports cannot discriminate on the basis of religion. “The FAA notes that federal requirements prohibit airport operators from excluding persons on the basis of religious creed from participating in airport activities that receive or benefit from FAA grant funding,” it said.
In response to the San Antonio move, Texas Attorney General (R) Ken Paxton ordered his office to investigate the actions of the city council. In the letter he sent to San Antonio’s mayor and city council members, Paxton copied U.S. Dept. of Transportation Sec. Elaine Chao.

So the bottom line here folks, is that the millions in funding that comes from the Federal Government for these two airports could be in jeopardy if they find that the Airports discriminated against Chick-Fil-A based on the owner's religious beliefs.

The problem for these commissions or city counsels is that as a matter of legal merit, they would be required to show that the business of Chick-Fil-A was discriminatory against the parties they claim that Chick-Fil-A has harmed. But pretty much everyone suggests that the businesses are run without any discrimination of any kind.

The complaints are very specific to the religious beliefs of the owners involved, and the fact that those owners gave money to organizations that shared their religious beliefs. The entire motive for banning Chick-Fil-A is because the religious beliefs of the owners "trigger" certain people, and then those people become "offended".

The motive to ban Chick-Fil-A was entirely to push the new political view that is looking to mainstream the intolerance and exclusive nature of the liberal left. You know, the sort of intolerance and exclusion that become the normal of those who see themselves as "woke".

The whole collusion delusion and obstruction obsession is wearing thin

Certainly, we have seen some twists and turns to all of this. Pretty much the entire time the investigation was taking place, the general public was pretty split on whether or not there was (or there would be) clear evidence of collusion. Then shortly after the report came out, the numbers flipped to about 3-1 believing that there was no collusion (with less than 20% still saying there was collusion).

But that number (led almost entirely by Democrats changing their opinion) has gradually been moving back. While less than 15% of Republicans and just over 30% of Independents believe there is evidence of collusion, Democrats are back up over 50% in their religious belief of said collusion.

As you can see, there really isn't as big of a difference between how people view the idea of conspiracy and the idea of obstruction as one might believe. Americans are only slightly more likely to believe that Trump committed obstruction, than they are to believe that he conspired with the Russians. 

My guess is that much of this is rooted in deeply held partisanship, along with a fairly consistent belief that if Trump was not guilty of  the underlying crime, it's difficult to find him guilty of obstruction justice. Reality is that no matter what he did, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the investigation. It really doesn't surprise me a lot that there isn't as much crossing over of opinions as one might think, in spite of the way the report was written.

This is likely due to Democrats slowing move away from the Mueller conclusion that there was no evidence of collusion, while Republicans and independents (who see no collusion) seem fairly prone to falling in line with the Barr/Rosenstein conclusion on obstruction. But make no mistake, the constant drumbeat from Democrats declaring a conspiracy cover up, along with the constant claims of exoneration from the President are what is driving the partisanship in the way this is being viewed.

Just tells us that all facts are still subject to partisan opinion.

Friday, May 24, 2019

Schiff calls the declassification of intelligence information un-American?

One of the leading collusion delusion hoax conspirators shows his hypocrisy!

Now Ironically, Schiff is demanding that the President is the one being hypocritical, because Trump is looking to release information that everyone assumes will look good for him and bad for the Obama DOJ, FBI, and possibly even taint Special Counsel... while simultaneously fighting subpoenas.

I suppose there is some truth to that, but the irony of calling Trump hypocritical is the fact that Schiff is being just hypocritical, just for the opposite reason. Quite literally the two of them are on the opposite side of the same hypocrisy coin.

The difference here is that we have had soooo much information tossed in our faces about Trump and Russia that the general population is so tired of hearing about it that they want it to just go away. Meanwhile, we have quite literally been held in the dark, regarding much of the things that have been going on behind the scenes in out intelligence community.

We are now up to 25 different intelligence employees who have been fired or demoted based on behavior during the election time investigations, and the general public neither knows who or why or whether or not these actions may have been more than just against rules and regulations. More to the point, much of our MSM (led around by the Democratic TPM) is horribly uninterested in any of that.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. People like James Comey have illegally leaked information, people like John Brennan and James Clapper have been on every television show they can get on, telling us how they believe the President has committed crimes. They opened themselves up for this, now the worm is finally turning. I have no tolerance for their noise about how it's un-American to expose their antics.

I feel like dancin, dancin, dancin the night away!

Fake news!!

Read the story, and you will realize that the courts (not the President) determined this ruling, and that the previous Administration is responsible for this mess. Just another example of blatant political bias in the media. 

The federal laws provide protection from discrimination for sex. In other words, you cannot discriminate against women or men. But the laws in question never provided protection for people who identify by different genders.

The Obama administration created an executive "guidance" that ordered the federal employees to include protection against gender as sort of an amendment to the law. The problem is that the courts ruled against Obama's executive "guidance" in this case, because the guidance was considered a change (rather than an interpretation) of the existing law.

So Trump didn't change this, or do anything to make anything harder on anyone. He is undoing a previous executive action that was deemed unconstitutional by the Courts. He literally had no choice.

Bottom line:  The courts have resisted allowing the President (any President) to simply "change" a law via executive action or executive guidance. Rather they have correctly ruled that such changes to laws need to be done through Congress. If you want these new gender identifications to have legal standing at a federal level, then those genders and protections for such need to be legalized at a federal level with an actual law.

Not with a phone and a pen... Sorry Obama.

Bye, bye, bye!!!

Poll: Majority say Dems should move on from Russia investigations
A majority of Americans believe that congressional Democrats should drop their investigations into Russian election meddling in 2016 and move onto other matters, according to a CBS News poll released Wednesday. 
About 53 percent of Americans say Congress should stop its Russia investigations, while 44 percent say the probes should continue. Similarly, 58 percent of Americans say they’ve heard enough about special counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusions, while 37 percent want to hear more.

This is a CBS poll, hardly a bastion of pro-Trump attitude. If CBS says 50 percent plus of Americans want to move on and are sick and tired of hearing about Russia, then the real number is probably ten fifteen points higher. Frankly, from what I can tell, only the most mind numbingly idiotic partisans still want to keep this in the news. 

So "this" is where Roger gets his "you lost it" line!

Our favorite liberal is trying to emulate the President! 

Thursday, May 23, 2019

This will be..... DEVASTATING!!!!!

Trump gives Barr authority to declassify info in surveillance probe of his 2016 campaign despite objections from top officials

Keep in mind, 25 members of the FBI have been fired or demoted over their handling of these investigations. That is 25 members we know did something wrong. Only the most desperate partisan anti-American irrational immature haters, would not want to know what these people did, whether the actions are criminal, and whether others committed the same infractions. 

Well his argument cannot be totally without merit

Ironically, this decision to hear the case comes a day late, and one bank already started turning over information. 

This is what passes for art?

The big lie

So quite literally up is down, black is white, and losers are winners 

This is a very interesting article. While I never quite like any comparisons to people like Hitler, it is quite amazing how the bigger the lie, the more the loony left seems to embrace it. In their collective minds, Hillary Clinton won in 2016, Trump conspired with Putin, Stacy Abrams won the Georgia Governorship, and slew of other things that didn't really happen are reality.

This was the strategy of Adolf Hitler. The bigger the lie, the better chance he had of selling it to the hapless masses! Democrats in 2019 prove that he would have had fertile ground with them.

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

I have been saying the same thing since Trump became President

“Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the executive branch — that’s more than one a month,” Barr said during a Tuesday evening speech to the American Law Institute.
“According to the [Justice] Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions­ in all of the 20th century,” he added, before bristling at the notion that the disparity is a function of the president’s “lawlessness.”

So let's go to the "way back machine" and go "way back" to the national legal debate over gay marriage that took place during the Obama administration. As you should recall, the lower courts were split on the issue. Judges disagree at the district level, and judges disagreed at the appeals court level. By the time that the USSC got the case in their docket half the country was being allowed to keep their laws or constitutional amendments in place regarding gay marriage, while the other half had been ordered by the courts to toss them aside.

This happened, because just a few short years ago, even an appeals court felt that there was geographical limits to their powers. They could only rule and issue orders to the States that fell within their particular jurisdiction. This was is how it is designed to work and is how it had aways worked. So that is why it was that states that fell under certain circuits had to abide by the rulings of their judges, while state that fell under other circuits had to abide by the rulings of other Judges. 

Part of the job of the USSC was to consolidate national laws, where such a consolidation was felt necessary. It was widely held that if you wanted a national decision that was going to be followed by all fifty states, that you had to go to the USSC to get there. It wasn't that a nationwide injunction was unheard of, it's just that they were very rare, and most would involve situations where there was little choice.

But the bottom line is that we went from having one of these national injunctions approximately every four years, to now seeing them more than once a month. An increase of around forty fold.

These nationwide injunctions included (among others) the goofy Judge from San Francisco who suggested that the Department of Homeland Security and their 250,000 employees were wrong because he had read (and ultimately believed true) an opinion piece in the Washington Post. So on an area of National Security, this Judge imposed a nationwide injunction against the executive branch, because he personally felt he was better informed than the DHS to make a national security decision.

As pointed out by William Barr and others, these Judges are not elected. There is nothing within the constitution that requires that laws or EA be "approved" by the Judicial branch. There is also nothing in the constitution that technically provides a simple District Judge the forum to make National decisions. They are appointed to make district decisions within the districts that they represent.

The problem is that there may be no way to put the genie back into the bottle here. Newly appointed Judges will see nationwide injunctions as just part of the job. At least, that is, unless the higher courts start slapping them down as a matter of basic principle.

Yeah, preemptive strike?

So the question becomes? What would Durham have to do to remain "apolitical"? 
Certainly it would appear that CNN is foreshadowing their own coverage of this. Durham finds something, and it's immediately going to be deemed "political".  This has apparently been predetermined without any knowledge of the process, the facts, or the outcome. 

In other words, typical CNN coverage!

Will he or won't he?

Mueller To Congress: I’ll Pass On Being Politicized, Thanks Just The Same
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has expressed reticence to him testifying publicly in front of the House Judiciary Committee, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The special counsel’s team has expressed the notion that Mueller does not want to appear political after staying behind the scenes for two years and not speaking as he conducted his investigation into President Donald Trump. One option is to have him testify behind closed doors, but sources caution numerous options are being considered in the negotiations between the committee and the special counsel’s team.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but it's unlikely that Robert Mueller has much to say that is going to help the Democrats here. Pretty much everything they might "want" him to say, is exactly what their "faithful" believe anyways. So him saying it (or not saying it) really will have no relevance to much of anything. Democrats and the anti-Trumpers read a 440 page report that said there was no evidence of conspiracy or coordination, took a couple of days to absorb that, and then came back and insisted that there still was conspiracy and coordination.

You cannot fix stupid.

The truth is that Mueller signed his name to a 440 plus page report that was nearly two years in the making. He isn't going to take the time to write out such a detailed report only to come back a few weeks later and tell us that he really meant to write something else, but just didn't.
  • Mueller would testify that he did not find evidence of conspiracy or coordination, because that is what he wrote in his report.
  • Mueller would testify that he did not come to a conclusion about obstruction, because that is what he wrote in his report.
The reality is that Mueller wouldn't really have much choice but to stand by his report 100% even if he really didn't, and there is actually no tangible reason to suggest that he doesn't still stand by his report 100%. Mueller does not seem like the sort of person who would put in all of this work and then write something he didn't believe. Moreover, to the degree that Mueller's report was swayed by other opinions, it's likely those opinions came from people who are more anti-Trump than he is. If anything, his personal opinions might be on the conservative side of all of this. 

The real problems for Mueller and his testimony would not come from Democrats hammering him on why he didn't recommend obstruction charges, but rather from Republicans who would hammer him on why he picked special counsel investigators who worked personally with the Clintons, were attorneys for the Clintons, or were big donors and supporters of the Clintons. He would be asked to what degree "he" relied on opposition research to fuel his investigation, and he would be questioned rather harshly on when it became clear that there was not going to be a finding of conspiracy, and why it took him so long to share that with the public. 

The potential for Democrats to "score points" during a Mueller hearing would rely on the pipe-dream that Mueller doesn't believe what he wrote. The potential for Republicans to "score points" would rely on the fact that he probably "does" believe what he wrote. 

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Republican overperforms in special election

Pennsylvania state Rep. Fred Keller was projected to easily defeat Democrat Marc Friedenberg in Tuesday's special election to represent the Keystone State's 12th District in the House of Representatives. With 48 percent of precincts reporting, Keller had received 72 percent of the vote, compared to 28 percent for Friedenberg.

Even the liberal analysts are suggesting that the Democrat underperformed almost across the board from how Hillary did in 2016.  Keep in mind, we are not talking about the Democrat underperforming their 2018 victory, we are talking about Democrat underperforming their 2016 loss.

This was an open seat where the first time GOP candidate might actually out perform a multi-term incumbent who faced token opposition.

The majority of Americans Agree with Barr!

Most Americans support inquiry into FBI decisions to monitor former Trump campaign officials: poll

In a new Hill-HarrisX survey, a majority of registered voters said they support a new Department of Justice inquiry into whether official procedures were followed when the FBI began examining allegations of connections between Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.
Sixty-two percent of respondents to the May 17-18 survey said they support Attorney General William Barr's decision to name a U.S. attorney to determine whether law enforcement officers had obeyed regulations governing surveillance of U.S. citizens while 38 percent said they opposed the new inquiry.

So apparently the majority of the country (including nearly half of Democrats) do not see William Barr as someone attempting to attack the FBI for the sake of protecting the President. A vast majority wants to know whether or not the FBI engaged in any abuse of their power.

This poll comes on the heels of a CNN poll that suggested nearly 70% of the public also wanted "congress" to investigate Obama's DOJ behavior in the lead up to the 2016 election. So this is hardly a partisan issue being pushed by a handful of right wing Trump supporters.

The problem is that the crazy Trump hating Democrats and their faithful tin-foil hat brigade cannot get past themselves. They still believe that we should continue to investigate Trump over a dead issue or impeach William Barr for doing exactly what the American public wants him to do.

Time for Trump haters to admit that they lost on this whole investigation deal. They believed something that wasn't true, they backed the bad guys, and they will end up on the wrong side of history on this one. The people who have "lost their minds" are the ones aimlessly and breathlessly defending the Obama law enforcement team, as if their shit doesn't stink, and they are above the concept of being oversighted.

The main reason why Democrats in Congress (and the true Trump hating crazies) are preaching this as a hateful partisan thing being done by a horrible A.G. who is looking to protect the bad orange man... is because deep down they are afraid of what we "will" actually find.

Because they had such a negative effect on our economy?

More good economic news!  

What Congressional Democrats are proposing...

To be clear, I have no idea how the current legal battle between Trump and the Democrats in the House will end up, in terms of these subpoenas regarding Trump's personal finances.

I suspect that Congress has both a better standing to subpoena the financial institutions as well as a better chance to garner those records, than they do with their subpoena to the Treasury department to garner Trump's tax returns.

The reason for this would be at least some suggestion from "whistleblowers" that some of Jared Kushner's financial records were flagged as suspicious activity. Of course, that statement sounds worse than it probably is. Banks are obligated to flag a whole range of transactions as "suspicious" based on timing, size, and other generic factors. Those "suspicious" activities are then singled out and looked over to see if the flag found something. By all accounts, a very small percentage of those flagged are actually unlawful. Moreover, if these transactions were a problem, and the bank didn't report them, then they would be on the hook for criminal liability as well. Unlikely any banks would be considering cooperating with Congress if they had criminal liability to hide.

All that being said, the argument could be made that these "suspicious" activities might raise the sorts of questions that would satisfy a Judge who believes that it provides some probable cause to review. The case to demand tax returns is a much murkier one, and the law that Congress is using is dubious at best.

Either way, let's assume that Congress is able to garner all of Trump's financial records, as well as the financial records of all of his close associates (such as Donald Jr, Jared Kushner, and others)... then look what precedent that sets. Everyone and anyone looking to run for President would not only be exposing his or her own financial records for Congressional dissection, but they would be exposing the financial records of anyone close to them as well.

Imagine Joe Biden wins the 2020 election. Knowing what we know about possible conflicts with political decisions made regarding Ukraine (when Biden was V.P.) and business interests of his son and others in Ukraine, there would be the same probable cause for Congress to garner any and all of Joe Biden's records, as well as that of his Son and possibly anyone else loosely associated with any of this. Joe Biden would not only be sacrificing his own right against unreasonable search and seizure, but would be sacrificing the rights to those close to him. Him becoming President puts his own son at risk.

Imagine the decision any person would have to make to run for President, if they knew that they were putting themselves and everyone around them in jeopardy not of just the normal political attacks, but allowing the opposition Party to dig through all of their financial records (and those of their loved ones) to find political fodder to attack.

That would place an overwhelming burden on anyone who would choose to run for President. I suspect that many, many qualified people would shy away from the job if they knew it came with this sort of political probing of everyone around them. 

Should becoming President mean you have to give up your constitutional rights?
Because what ever happens to Trump WILL happen to every President moving forward.

Well somebody is lying?

Is it the former "protector" of Obama, Loretta Lynch?
Or the former FBI dunce and serial leaker, James Comey?

Look folks, we now have Comey against, Brennan, Brennan against Clapper,  Lynch against Comey. It's a virtual musical chairs of cover your ass. But at the end of the day, someone is going to get left without a place to sit.

It has now quite literally become impossible to believe that the people within the Obama administration handling the Clinton Email investigation, and the collusion delusion hoax were all on the up and up. Someone, probably multiple people, are simply not telling the truth.

The fact is that with an IG report due out in the next few weeks, and an actual real live prosecutor working on possible charges, people are starting to panic. As the old saying goes, time to grab some popcorn and enjoy the show.

Monday, May 20, 2019

Brennan on the hook for perjury?

Brennan claimed under oath that he did not have any knowledge of the CIA being involved with the dossier or any knowledge that it was used in any court filing. 

Last week, Fox News reported on the existence of a late 2016 email chain in which former FBI Director James Comey told his staff that Brennan insisted that British ex-spy Christopher Steele's unverified research on President Trump's ties to Russia — calling it the "crown material" — be included in the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Now this falls into the category of he said he said. Comey, Brennan (and Clapper) have been pointing their finger at each other as to whom was responsible for the inclusion of the dossier in the FISA warrants and for the use of the dossier in starting the investigation. Obviously this email did not come form Brennan himself, but there would be little reason back then for Comey to have been lying about it. So while it doesn't provide smoking gun evidence that Brennan has been lying under oath, it certainly makes Comey more believable. Knowing Comey, he probably had most of these conversations documented to some degree or the other.

This is also just what we know so far. There certainly could be more direct evidence that Brennan knew about the use of the dossier and that Brennan specifically knew that the dossier was used in the FISA warrants. If such evidence is available, then Brennan will likely face charges. What a shame that would be.

Flynn under a bogus investigation?

Bottom line: Flynn was never a Russian agent 
The president tweeted that he did not realize Michael Flynn, his first national security adviser, had been under investigation on suspicion of being a Russian agent and that he should have been warned.
This is a puzzling complaint. First, a report issued by a Republican-led House committee — often touted by Trump — disclosed in 2018 that there had been an ongoing counterintelligence investigation of Flynn. So that’s not new information. Second, Trump was warned by President Barack Obama not to hire Flynn — and the report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III says that warning actually soured Trump on Flynn.
Here’s what we know about the warnings Trump received about Flynn. In a narrow, technical sense, Trump was not warned that Flynn was being investigated as a possible Russian agent. But there were plenty of other flashing lights that Flynn was trouble — warnings that Trump chose to ignore.

This is one of those arguments that just sort of misses the entire point of things. So did Obama know that Flynn was being investigated when he told Trump not to hire him? If Obama did know, then why would he have not said anything? Certainly if the outgoing President is privy to information such as this, the incoming President should be provided with the same information.

Either way, Trump should have been told. The fact he wasn't stinks of corrupt intent.

But more to the point, the Mueller Report clearly shows that General Flynn was never actually an agent of Russia. The question we should be asking isn't why Flynn was hired, but under what pretense was Flynn being investigated? The fact is that whatever reasons they had to suspect him, turned out to be completely invalid.

People tend to forget that Flynn worked for Obama and was let go because Flynn and Obama never saw eye to eye on policy. After the fact, General Flynn became a big critic of Obama, his administration, and his foreign policy. It seems awfully coincidental that a former employee, big critic, and advocate for a political opponent... suddenly finds himself on double secret probation with the deep state law enforcement investigating him as a possible foreign agent.

If I didn't know any better, it looks alot like either paranoia, or payback. Either way, there was apparently no reason to ever have been investigating Flynn, so what we can determine for certain is that it wasn't justified.

Eric Holder lives in a glass house...

Me thinks he doth protest too much
(what does Holder have to hide?)

Let's be clear... the only investigation started without a predicate was the Russian collusion delusion investigation. Apparently Eric Holder doesn't trust the Inspector Generals that his administration nominated and confirmed. Because what we already know from Horowitz is more than enough to "predicate" a more formal look.

Sunday, May 19, 2019

Wouldn't it be something if...

- Robert Mueller had to be subpoenaed to testify before Congress
- Robert Mueller decides to invoke his 5th Amendment right to remain silent
The wheels began to come off this past Wednesday. Originally, it had been reported that Mueller would testify on that may date... 
Mysteriously, even with no legal or procedural impediment, Mueller elected to not testify and the earliest he will testify is next month. This even though Barr has seemed to throw down the gauntlet to Mueller by his direct criticism of Mueller’s unethical stunt of devoting half his report to allegedly investigating “obstruction” by President Trump and then failing to arrive at a conclusion.
Now, some frustrated Democrats say his testimony could slip into June, while others are beginning to doubt he’ll ever show, saying Mueller has no desire to become a political pawn in an ugly, partisan fight that’s become a proxy battle for the 2020 presidential race. “He doesn’t want to be trashed by the Republicans,” said Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who serves on the House Intelligence Committee and is close to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a fellow California Democrat.
Right now the US Attorney for Connecticut, John Durham, has been tapped by the Attorney General to determine how the Russia hoax investigation came to be. One of the obvious lines of inquiry there will be what did Mueller know about the roots of the investigation, the provenance of the Steele Dossier, and the amazing coincidence that found him hiring a Hillary Clinton partisan, Andrew Weissmann, as his deputy an detailing to his team people who had been involved in pushing the Steele Dossier for months.

So it's an interesting legal dilemma. What if Robert Mueller knew that the Steele Dossier was fake, but chose to hire Weissmann to further the hoax? Not that anyone would admit such, but what "would" be the legal ramifications? Obviously, if Mueller knew early on that there was no conspiracy or coordination, and hid it from the public for nearly two years, there is something blatantly unethical with that. But is there also something that could be considered "illegal"?

What we do know is that there is a much better chance that Mueller did something illegal during his investigations, than Donald Trump did during the election campaign.

Sunday Funnies

Saturday, May 18, 2019

When politics takes over everything!

Polls get it wrong in Australia....

Filed under: what else is new?
SYDNEY, Australia — Scott Morrison, Australia’s conservative prime minister, scored a surprise victory in federal elections on Saturday, propelled by a populist wave — the “quiet Australians,” he termed it — resembling the force that has upended politics in the United States, Britain and beyond.
The win stunned Australian election analysts — polls had pointed to a loss for Mr. Morrison’s coalition for months. But in the end, the prime minister confounded expectations suggesting that the country was ready for a change in course after six years of tumultuous leadership under the conservative political coalition.
Of course, the loser in this case  (Bill Shorten) was expected to win the election and establish a new liberal order that at the heart would concentrate on "global warming" and other liberal policies. Polling showed the liberal gaining steam down the stretch and exploding into insurmountable polling leads, mainly based on polling that showed everyone in Australia was concerned with Global Warming, and pretty much not much else.

Another real life loser (after thinking he won because of polling) politician named Al Gore was in the house. Gore was there to help Shorten lose a race he was expected to win. Of course, Gore was probably flew there on a jet complete with his hockey stick graphs and silly movies to tout the spectacle that is global warming. Isn't it odd that Americans think nothing of going to another country and attempting to influence an election?

I once knew a sad boy who suffered from down syndrome. This boy would so want someone to text him on his phone that he would make the "sound" that an incoming text would make in order to prompt it. Of course, after he made the sound himself (with a whistle), he would be deeply disappointed when he actually looked for the new message that wasn't there.

This is sort of how liberals are with their polling. They "make the sound" of a resounding election victory with these polls showing everyone wanting what they want. But then when they open the ballots they see that the polling was nothing but their own noise pretending to mean something.

Friday, May 17, 2019

The problem with the polls...

So I was interested in the latest round of Fox News polls. Contrary to popular belief, Fox News does not do their own polling. Rather they commissions a pollster to do the actual polling (in this case a polling company called Braun Research). So I am not expecting a conservative "bias" simply because the poll is released by Fox News.

Does Sanders really lead by five points?

Fox polled five Democrats against Trump. Biden and Sanders both hold leads against Trump, while the other three (Warren, Harris, Buttigieg) are all basically tied (plus or minus 2%). For purposes of discussion I am looking specifically at the results between Trump and Sanders, where it shows Sanders with a not insignificant lead of five points.

Now checking through a fairly robust cross tabs, you would see that Trump gets a higher percentage of his Republican base than Sanders gets with Democrats. Bernie holds a slight lead with Independents, but over 40% of Independents are either voting for someone else, not voting, or are still undecided. None of this is very surprising, but it also doesn't fit in with the idea of Bernie Sanders basically running away from Trump

Now the one crosstab that hit home with me (due the binary nature) was in relation to the 2016 voters. Trump is garnering 90% of those who voted for him in 2016, while Sanders is only getting 82% of those who voted for Clinton. Moreover, only 3% of those 2016 Clinton voters are still undecided. The rest have made up their minds to vote for Trump, a third Party candidate, or simply stay home. Each picks up a small amount of the other voters. 6% of 2016 Trump supporters would vote for Sanders, while 5% of 2016 Hillary supporters would vote for Trump.

Now it doesn't take a statistical genius to know that these numbers do not add up to a five point Sanders polling lead. A quick mathematical formula shows that if that held true that returning voters would favor Trump by a margin of approximately 1.6%. Since first time voters generally make up around 10% of a Presidential election (and new voters favored Clinton by just under 20 points in 2016) there is not going to be nearly enough "new" voters to push Sanders to any sort of lead. Realistically those first time voters (at best) push the needle by 1.5-2.5 percent.

In other words, the cross tabs of this poll between Trump and Sanders suggests race very similar to the 2016 race, with Sanders probably squeezing out a very small popular vote margin, but falling well short of the 2.1% popular vote margin that Clinton got in 2016.

This is (and has been for several cycles) the problem with these polls. The underlying cross tabs just don't add up to the top line results. I was able to (in 2016) create a spreadsheet that simply used the crosstabs of about 15 major pollsters, and this spreadsheet allowed me to project the popular vote within 0.2% of the final result. Had I used the same polls and simply averaged their toplines, I would have been off by more than ten time that margin.

Looking through the cross tabs, the Democrats have one Candidate (Joe Biden) who seems capable of doing as well or better than Clinton did in 2016.  That's assuming that the Biden bump doesn't go away, and that he doesn't undercut his own candidacy (as he has done repeatedly in the past). The others (Sanders, Warren, Harris, Buttigieg) would have a lot of work to do and would still have to stand up to being singled out by Trump and the media. Trump has that way of finding a weakness, hammering on that weakness, and beating it to a pulp.

Bottom line: I remain skeptical of the early polling so for for the 2020 election. My skepticism has been justified now for several cycles, and there is no reason at this point to believe I am going to be  wrong this time.

Thursday, May 16, 2019

So yeah these golden shower hooker allegations could be a secret... or not.

It's up to you Mr President! 

I am curious as to why this was never considered. Is it because James Comey is just such an honorable man that nobody would ever think it possible. But it's not like he brought forward an of the important stuff from the dossier. Only the embarrassing stuff that Trump might not want released.