Debate two

This looks much like the last debate, only one of the frontrunners (Biden) is actually part of what one pundit described as "the white guy crowd who sounds Republican". Last night it was Delany, Ryan, Hickenlooper who fell into that category, while tonight it is Biden and Bennet (with one t).

But basically it's the high flying liberals who stress things have to be bold vs the more pragmatic Democrats who want to be more realistic. Then there are the court jesters. Last night you had a kooky book author who wants everyone to join a yoga class, tonight you have a goofy guy who wants to give everyone a $1000.00 a month (where do I sign up?).

Who's winning?

There is a difference if you watch the passion of someone like Harris (who continues to finish her points over the moderator calling for time) vs Biden who stops at the end of his time like he has been chastised for talking too loud in church. The "bold" liberals are getting the louder response from the audience, while the pragmatics are making points that garner polite applause.

That being said, Biden said the word "malarkey" which scored him lots of style points with the senior citizen crowd. Moreover, Biden sounds "more" like someone I would vote for, which unfortunately for Biden means that he probably isn't making much sense to most of the Democratic primary voters.

The losers so far are those being left out. I am not surprised that Yang, Inslee, Gabbart and Gillibrand are not getting much time. But Cory Booker being left out of the mix is sort of surprising. Meanwhile Bennet is getting tons of talking time for someone in his position. Not sure if it's helping or hurting, but nobody will be able to say he wasn't given a chance.

But Harris so far is dominant in time (for a ten way field), with Biden a close second. Those two keep sparing back and forth and I would guess that whichever one you favored coming in is probably the one you see winning those exchanges.

_______

Seriously? More about bussing and Eric Garner? Eric Garner died in 2014 and a grand jury refused to bring any indictments against the police involved... way back in 2014.  Funny how they all point their fingers at each other as well as at Donald Trump (who apparently had some odd control over the Justice Department before he was President).  The idea that a different President would simply order the Justice Department (seven years later) to bring Federal charges against a police officer who a NY grand jury failed to indict is the "very" misuse of the legal system that many on the left accuse Trump of doing. Oh, and let's be fair. It wasn't a federal crime, and it's not going to be revisited. Why are they talking about it? 

Oh and btw... Biden has been running out of steam slowly but surely while those around him are getting stronger. He's become the weak jr high kid being picked on by all the bullies.

_______

Booker got a lot more time during the second half of the debate, and Harris sort of fell off. Biden (largely because he was constantly being attacked ended the night with the most time on the microphone).  Bennet, Wang, Castro, De Blasio, Gabert, and Inslee ended up at the bottom of the barrel. 

Biden was mediocre at best. He failed finish many thoughts (in some cases he almost seem to welcome the time coming to a close to make it seem like was forced into stopping short of making a point). Harris had a tougher time tonight, as she was attacked as much as she was the attacker. Cory Booker "might" have bumped himself up into the mix. I guess plenty were impressed with Castro, but time will see if he can make it out from the bottom of the barrel polling wise. 

Perhaps the biggest winner of the second debate was those from the first debate (Warren and Sanders), and quite frankly the winner of it all might be Trump, who sat back while these Democrats spent more time attacking each other (and at times Obama) than the President himself. 

I would think we will see some people drop out, but then again.... it's so much more fun to have twenty plus candidates than six or seven! 

Judge to order New York to "not" turn over tax returns

Judge leaning toward order that would keep Trump's tax returns with NY for now

A federal judge in the District of Columbia said Wednesday that he's leaning toward issuing an order under which New York wouldn’t provide President Trump's state tax returns to House Democrats while the state argues certain motions.

“That is my current thinking,” Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, said during a teleconference with lawyers for New York officials, Trump and the House Ways and Means Committee — the parties in a lawsuit Trump filed last week.

This week's court proceedings stem from Trump having filed an emergency motion asking the court to bar the Ways and Means Committee from requesting his state tax returns until his case can be heard in court. The committee objected to this motion, saying that its decision about whether to request Trump's state returns is protected from litigation under the Constitution.

Sort of an odd headline for the story in question. It's almost as if The Hill wants to confuse people into thinking that this was not actually a win for the President. Since there are no real "physical" documents to be turning over, the idea that New York would "keep them" is confusing, if not downright misleading.

The fact is that Democrats in Congress are suggesting that there is no judicial oversight to the request that they are making of both the Federal and State tax authorities. An awful ironic claim for those who sue the President over pretty much everything he does. The judge here is disagreeing, and basically allowing the President to pursue a judicial review of the Ways and Means committee request before his returns are actually turned over.

Now the President may or may not ultimately prevail on this one. It's clear that the Ways and Means committee does have the authority to request tax returns as part of their oversight. However, the law in question is based on their inherent oversight of the IRS (not oversight of any American tax payer).

The same law that they are referencing, also includes language that forbids the Ways and Means committee from sharing anything within those tax returns with anyone else, without the consent of the taxpayer. Which sort of brings us right back to the beginning. If they want to actually allow the full Congress to review these returns, or ultimately release them to the public, they still need the President's official permission.

My best guess is that Democrats want to use the part of the law that allows them to garner the returns, but ignore the part of the law that requires the permission of the citizen to release them. Or they are planning on breaking the law by leaking them to the media.

But as we all know. Democrats in Congress have repeated acted as if they are above the law! There is no legal principle that cannot be ignored in the pursuit of bringing down the "bad orange man".

Here is a judge that just doesn't understand liberals

Federal Judge To DNC: Your Russia-Collusion Lawsuit Over 2016 Hack “Entirely Divorced From The Facts”

A federal judge in New York on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee against the Russian government, President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Wikileaks that alleged a vast, international conspiracy to tip the scales of the 2016 presidential election.

“The DNC argues that the various meetings and conversations between the defendants in this case and with persons connected to the Russian government during the time that Russian GRU agents were stealing the DNC’s information show that the defendants conspired with the Russian Federation to steal and disseminate the DNC’s materials,” Koeltl wrote. “That argument is entirely divorced from the facts actually alleged in the Second Amended complaint.”

Yeah, well here is how an actual judge views the plain sight conspiracy theory pushed by Adam Schiff and others on the left. Apparently the Judge is not impressed by the argument that Person A spoke with Person B while Person C committed a crime, and because Person B and Person C lives in the same country, they all must be in cahoots.

So not only is the main conspiracy argument not able to withstand the burden of being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal charge), or being able to prove it by the preponderance of evidence (civil suit), it couldn't even make it passed the dismissal stage (which only requires a reasonable argument).

The reality here folks, is that he argument (which is actually the mainstream argument not only of Democrats, liberals, but to some degree people working on Mueller's special Counsel) is completely void of any reasonable logical thinking. Or as this judge suggests: "entirely divorced from the facts". To some degree, this Judge could have been saying the same thing to the underlying "implications" of Volume 1 as loosely interpreted by conspiracy nuts.

If people want to get a better understanding of why Mueller's Special Counsel team could not come up with the means to allege an actual conspiracy that they would have to prove, this ruling might be a good guideline. For those of you who desperately want to hang on to the idea that Trump members talking to one of the 150 million Russian citizens, or even just some London Professor who is suggested to have "ties" to Russia,  means that they must have been conspiring with the GRU might want to take a pass. It would make your head explode!

Debate one

Either it was:

A big night for Warren or a big night for Bernie? Or maybe both? The reality is that the only things that had a big night was the idea that big socialist government plans where the cost starts in the trillions, and the idea that racism is worse today that at any times in our country's history.

You want to be a frontrunner for the Democrats in 2020, then you better be promising everything to anyone. You want to fall to the wayside and become irrelevant, then talk about the reality that we cannot actually pay for any of it.

You want to be a frontrunner for the Democrats in 2020, then you better be prepared to call society as a whole racist, demand that we are still living in the Jim Crow era, and work under the assumption that our current President is Hitler. You want to fall to the wayside and become irrelevant, then talk about the reality of urban plight and the failures of liberal policies to help.

If anyone from this debate had any sort of breakout, it might have been John Delaney, who almost nobody heard of, but at least some people are talking about. The problem is that he is pragmatic, and that sort of thinking seems completely out of step with the 2020 candidates.

No Problem Alexandria... you're a radical!

This is real fact checking! 

So yeah, Baltimore "is" rat infested

and I don't mean infested with Rat Bastards 

So now, according to liberals, even the simple "truth" is racist. Or at least the term "racist" is going to be used in an attempt to cover up the conditions of liberal cities like Baltimore, Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, San Francisco (and on and on). But you can scream racism till you are blue in the face and it still doesn't change the truth.

City is even sending out pamphlets to Baltimore residence as to how to deal with it 

On being 'Rat Infested':

- *Every* person I spoke with *confirmed* that the district was rat infested
- This man told me that rats the “size of cats” run through his house regularly
- One woman told me rats have “taken over” her neighborhood
- One called it a "plague of rats" pic.twitter.com/Sccxl2qRjh

— Benny (@bennyjohnson) July 29, 2019

Case in point!

TDS sufferer Lawrence Tribe is still stoking the impeachment flames!

Savvy House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to spare the Democrats in red and purple congressional districts from facing electoral revolt, gave Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler the go-ahead without first holding a floor vote on whether to conduct hearings into the president’s impeachment. And you can be sure Trump’s lawyers will argue in court that the absence of that politically costly floor vote means the impeachment inquiry does not have the legal superpowers such an inquiry normally acquires — and that are needed to prevail on judicial unsealing of secret grand jury materials and ordering fact witnesses like former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify under oath to what they know Trump did to win office and to cover up what he did to stay there.

That argument could succeed but shouldn’t, and probably won’t. There’s no way courts could avoid the reality or the appearance of being blatantly partisan if they were to muck around in the details of how the speaker of the House chooses to orchestrate the initiation of an impeachment inquiry. And Pelosi’s critics who call her a coward for being subtle about how she is launching this particular inquiry seem to be more interested in the political optics than in the reality of holding this president accountable for his grave offenses against the United States.

Well let's start with the reality that Lawrence Tribe is zero for however many legal predictions he made so far in terms of the investigations into the President.  When Tribe admits that the opposition argument "could" succeed, I would generally put money on the idea that it actually will (just based on Tribe's track record). The reality is that the so-called superpowers of Congressional oversight are not all that super, whereas laws regarding things like Grand Jury testimony are pretty much set in stone.

Tribe seems somewhat unaware that there was a recent decision regarding the release of Grand Jury information that is relevant to this case. The 11th circuit appeals court ruled that Judges had no authority to order the release of Grand Jury information "unless" it specifically related to the named exceptions listed in the law regarding Grand Jury secrecy.

Now I understand that judges being forced to actually follow a law as it's written is a novel concept for many courts (particularly those courts in the 9th circuit), but that is currently what the latest and greatest opinion is stating. That opinion has been appealed, and by most people's guess would likely make it to the USSC, where they will likely side with the most conservative view taken (one that adheres to the law). If one wants to change the law to provide the judicial branch with more power, then by all means give it a try. But good luck with that.

Now one of the six exceptions is providing it to another "judicial proceeding" that is covering the same issues and facts. So if there happens to be another court case where grand jury testimony is deemed relevant, it can quite obviously be provided to the judge and other parties in another case. This is where Congress believes that it can claim that impeachment is a "judicial proceeding" and they would get little argument from legal experts.

But because there is no actual exception for "congressional oversight" of a President, it has to be officially related to an actual impeachment hearing. The question at this point in time is whether or not the Democrats can simply declare an "impeachment inquiry" without actually doing what Congress generally does (which is voting on it and making it official).

The obvious questions are:

• How does this inquiry differ from other inquiries that would otherwise fall under the broader area of simple congressional oversight? 
• Does simply calling an inquiry an "impeachment inquiry" make it so?  
• Isn't it possible that all inquiries could eventually lead to impeachment?  
• Couldn't any and all future congressional oversight inquiries be labeled an "impeachment inquiry" in order to gain extra access to information?

There has to be something more... official or legal... that separates a general inquiry from an impeachment inquiry.

Consider how strange it would be for a court to determine that the Judiciary Committee did not possess whatever special investigatory powers accompany a full-on impeachment proceeding. The law then would absurdly require the House to exercise its “sole power of impeachment” in the dark, without access to the information it needs to make the most serious and fateful decisions. Silly as the legal system sometimes seems, it’s just not that stupid. 

The idea that it would be "partisan, silly, and stupid" to declare that a Judicial Committee impeachment inquiry (which has not gone through any normal congressional channels) is not one of the named exceptions of the grand jury secrecy laws is pretty bold. Tribe is making the emotional argument that liberal attorneys and liberal law experts hang their proverbial hat on. Of course, this very strategy is what has made Lawrence Tribe a big O-for in this one.

Now this is one of those cases that could go either way. But the bigger trouble comes from the fact that Mueller and his merry band of special counsel minions have already seen the grand jury testimony and already wrote a report that included what they knew. There is almost no chance that anything in the secret grand jury testimony that would make much of a difference. Moreover, if congress did garner that information it would still not be made "public". So this looks like little more than an excuse to "extend" talk of impeachment further out into future because certain people just refuse to give up on it.

Go figure

The Iranian White Supremist!

So this California Shooter (Santino Legan) is of Iranian/Italian descent. Little is known about him, other than he apparently had a instagram post that included a quote taken from a Nietzsche influenced book largely based on social darwinism that apparently digs into the Master/Slave and herd mentalities. The book is being described as misogynistic, anti-semitic, and racist.

Quite obviously the press is actually now tying both the shooter (who is not white) as a white supremacist, and the book quote itself as being about "white supremacy".

You can't make this shit up, folks!

A minority of the majority?

Pelosi’s Nightmare Advances As Nearly Half Of House Democrats Support Impeachment

A host of Congressional Democrats have joined the movement to impeach President Donald Trump, bringing the total number to 107 Democrats. That means we’re just 11 shy of half the caucus being in favor of something the leaders of the party are desperately trying to avoid.

Let's be clear here folks, there are 435 House Representatives. If only 107 of them are "for" impeachment, that means that those pro-impeachment congressional members are outnumbered by approximately 3-1 overall.  Being 11 people shy of a majority of Democrats in the House? Well that and five dollars will buy you a cup of coffee.

Moreover, we can go back to May 31st and find a NYT article that shows that 105 members of Congress were in favor approximately two months ago. So it really doesn't appear (as some people are suggesting) that there was a groundswell of new support after the Mueller hearing.

The truth is that there has been, are currently, and will be members of the Democratic Caucus who want to impeach Trump. Most of those would have voted to impeach Trump the day he was sworn in. They didn't even need a reason. They only needed an excuse.

So which should be our priority...

Trump has successfully changed the narrative

There seems to be a lot of rhetoric smashing back and forth regarding the conditions of our detainment centers on the southern border, as well as the conditions of our larger cities. This started off as a one sided attack on the detention centers, but the President has now made inner city conditions a big thing as well.

From Pelosi's Oakland district - her constituents are living like this?
Wouldn't you rather be inside with food, medicine, & running water?

Of course, the media and Democrats has been suggesting that the President is being "racist" talking about how Baltimore is "rat infested" or how people are "pooping in the streets" in San Francisco. But the fact of the matter is that not many people are actually denying that either Baltimore is "rat infested" or arguing that people are not "pooping in the streets".

The idea that the President is being "racists" is, of course, another deflection from the overall issue that our inner cities are crumbling, and that those living there continue to put their trust in the Democratic Party to fix them. It's also the knee jerk reaction whenever the President makes a point that the left doesn't want to address. Meanwhile Trump seems hellbent on calling out every critic out there on the conditions of the people they represent.

Make no mistake here, folks, this is all part of the plan. If people (even those TDS infected liberals) took a deep breath and opened their eyes, they would see the serious problem with a House Representative who complains about the conditions of a southern detention center, when his or her own constituents are living in tents, rummaging through garbage for food, and yes... pooping in the streets.

Who is Cummings or Pelosi to worry about whether or not illegal aliens are having to drink water out of the same device that houses a toilet, when many of those whom they represent would love nothing more than to be living inside, sleeping on cots, being provided food & medicine, with access to showers, real toilets, and running water. Probably no more or no less crowded than the typical tent city.

The MSM will do their best here to push the rhetoric of the left. To pretend that somehow the country's real interest should not lay with helping people in Baltimore, San Francisco, Seattle, or Los Angeles who are living on the streets. Rather our main priority should be that the illegal aliens crossing our border should be given better care than they are already receiving.

How can anyone "really" believe that?

Mueller Testimony didn't help impeachment cause

So to be clear, the movement was largely partisan and likely reflected a solidification of their viewpoint rather than a change in their viewpoint:

The public hearings had opposing impacts based on partisanship: among Democrats, 48% said they are more likely to support the process of impeachment that could ultimately lead to Trump’s removal from office, 8% said they are less likely to support impeachment and 44% said they feel the same as they did prior to Mueller’s testimony.

Whereas for Republicans, only 3% said they were more likely to support impeachment, 42% said they were less likely, and 54% were unchanged. Independents were split, with 26% saying they are more likely to support impeachment and 29% saying less likely. 45% of Independents said they feel the same as they did prior to Mueller’s testimony.

The Democrats had pinned their impeachment hopes on the Mueller testimony. Not only would they need to "move the needle" but it would have required a somewhat significant move. At the end of the nearly three quarters of the public was unimpressed by the Mueller testimony, with slightly more than a quarter of Americans so unimpressed that they lost interest.

Moreover, it's clear even without the crosstabs, that this poll sample included more Democrats than Republicans and Independents which bumped up the top line on those who are "more likely".  With just a bit of quick math we can see that nearly two thirds of those who are "more likely to support" impeachment came from the Democratic sample.

A majority of self-described Independents -- 60% -- described the testimony as a waste of time and taxpayer money or questioned Mueller’s fitness. About one in five -- 19% -- of Independents mentioned that the testimony proved or confirmed Trump’s guilt. The remaining 20% of Independents had more mixed assessments.

Look for the idea of impeachment to slowly ride away into the sunset, but not without many kicking and screaming along the way. If you believed that Nancy Pelosi and others within the Democratic leadership was going to see the light after the Mueller testimony, I suspect you've been deeply disappointed (which is a feeling that anti-Trumpers have been feeling quite a bit since 2016).

Sunday Funnies

ELO with with special guest Dahni Harrison

If you cannot figure out who Dahni Harrison is from this video... well! 

(Scroll over video for volume bottom right)

Anyways, Jeff Lynne decided to play a song from his "other band" and invited the lead singer from the opening act to sing George Harrison's part of the song! One of the highlights of a wonderful show. If you get a chance to secure ELO tickets with the Dahni Harrison band opening, I highly recommend it. 

Omar marriage confusion continues...

Rumors are that Ilhan Omar has taken up her own residency and romantically separated from Ahmed Hirsi, who is either her first and third Husband or second husband depending on your view of being married and divorced according to Muslim faith tradition.

Either way Omar has apparently left the father of her three children, and is apparently waiting for Hirsi to seek a legal divorce (as I guess it would be shameful for her to be the one seeking it). Some rumors are that they have already divorced according to their "faith tradition". So none of that makes sense in an overall concept of things.

But according to all sources, Ilhan Omar is currently living alone in a luxury penthouse apartment, and it would seem that she has left her three children in the care of her soon to be ex-husband. One might guess that those children are replaced by Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Pressley. Hard pressed to be around six children at all times, huh?

'Obviously we are proud that a Somali-American has been elected — but we just think it is the wrong Somali-American,' a community leader told DailyMail.com

The chances that Omar might be challenged by another Democrat coming up for 2020 has become a more distinct possibility. Many in the Somali community were very happy to see a Somalian elected to Congress. But she is not exactly the sort of person you want representing what Muslin Somalian refugees are all about.

Want the "real" difference here?

Why are the Democrats so upset?

• Donald Trump may have "welcomed" help from the Russians
• Hillary Clinton and the DNC "sought" help from the Russians

• The help Donald Trump received was effective, because it was real information that actually mattered.
• The help Hillary Clinton and the DNC "sought" and received was ineffective because it was quite literally fake irrelevant gossip.

So when it boils down to it, Donald Trump got real help in the form of real dirt coming out against his opponent, but did literally nothing to secure it. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton and the DNC got fake help in the form of fake information, and paid good money to secure it. 

The reason Democrats are mad is because they tried to cheat, their cheating didn't work, and they lost to someone who benefitted from the truth. Oddly, they believe that this entitles them to investigate the real information that worked, and even if they cannot tie Trump to any of it... they still want to impeach him for basically doing little more than winnning.

USSC overrules 9th Circuit Court on wall funding!

BREAKING: Supreme Court rules in favor of wall funding

The vote was 5-to-4, with the more conservative justices prevailing. The majority said that the plaintiffs, assorted environmental groups, likely had no cause of action to bring the case.

 

Justice Breyer said that he would allow the government to finalize contracts that depend on the funding but not yet begin construction.

The ruling effectively reverses the Ninth Circuit, which had blocked the administration from touching the money on the grounds that Congress had consciously denied President Trump wall funding. While Friday’s decision isn’t technically on the merits, it is, in practice, a big win for Trump, since there will be no way to “unspend” the money once construction begins.

Obviously the court doesn't make this decision unless they believe that the Trump Administration has a better than average chance to beat this thing on it's merits when the time comes. The fact that Breyer seemed to agree (to some degree) with the conservative members doesn't leave much hope for the resistance to ultimately prevail.

The legal reality is that the President quite literally followed the law to a "T" on this one. The "legal" grounds for bringing the suit only prevail if you quite literally ignore the law written by Congress that allows for a President to do this, and has a congressional legislative means to overrule him. That cannot be stressed enough.

The law is 100% on his side.

The argument from others is that he is going against Congress (which he is) and that he is spending money that Congress doesn't want him to spend (which he is). But none of that Trumps the fact that a President (any President) can issue an emergency based on his or her personal call. The law does not provide for any judicial review to the President's decision (as much as some Judges would like to do it anyways). The law allows for the funds to be moved at the discretion of the President. He doesn't need permission and it doesn't require the move to be popular with Congress.

The law quite literally allows the President to bypass Congress. Period.

Congress went to court once before (pre-Trump) in an attempt to change the review of this to allow for a simple majority in both chambers to overrule the President. The Judge told them if they didn't like the law, then they needed to repeal or amend it. The Courts were not going to change it for them.

Time for the investigations into the investigators to take center stage!

First it was a giant conspiracy between Trump and Putin!

Then, then, then, then, then, then, and then, then, then, and then...

The Russian investigation was not a "witch hunt" because Robert Mueller stated so!

(Literally a CNN headline)

My how our expectations of wrongdoing have fallen.

Next day takeaways

Even the liberal media was disappointed. While there were a handful of liberals out there demanding that the day was win for them (E.J. Dionne), the bulk of them were admittedly disappointed. I watched both Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon last night, and you would have thought someone had died by the mood of these broadcasts. The only happy person was the one conservative from the Anderson Cooper panel. Everyone on the Don Lemon show looked like they sucked on one of Don's namesakes.

Was Mueller even in charge? The fact that Mueller looked like a guy who didn't understand the report he "carefully wrote" suggested to many that in fact he may have not actually written the report himself. More to the point, if Mueller didn't write the report itself, how involved in the actual investigation was he? He admitted to only being involved in a handful of the interviews and seemed fuzzy on many details. Obviously one doesn't expect the person in charge to be doing all the work himself, but Mueller left the impression that perhaps he was left out of the loop on many, if not most things. The concept that he would refuse to move off from what was in the report may have been a defensive move, in order to prevent him from making contradictions or exposing himself as not being up on the facts within. The entire "if it is in the report, then I stand by it" remarks he repeated could have been answered by most anyone, even without any familiarity with the report itself.

Mueller didn't know the make up of his own team? One of the times where Mueller showed genuine frustration was when he didn't seem to know exactly how to respond to the idea that of the seventeen attorney's that were hired for the team, that fourteen of them were registered Democrats, most gave money to Hillary, one was a former Clinton Foundation attorney, one attended Hillary's election night "victory" party, and not a single one was a registered Republican. His excuse that he doesn't ask political affiliation was not very convincing. Not only does a political investigation like this warrant the optics of a fair investigative make up, there is no way that you got fourteen Democrats and no Republicans by pure chance. The obvious intent was to stack the team with anti-Trump attorneys. Whether that was actually done by Mueller or done by Weissmann is anyone's guess.

Mueller didn't know what Fusion GPS was? It's inconceivable that anyone involved with politics would not know who Fusion GPS was, much less someone leading the investigation into Russian interference, which relied much on a dossier that they were largely responsible for. He looked confused by the reference several times, and then literally stated that he wasn't aware of who they were. Another sign that Mueller's personal involvement in this investigation was questionable.

Mueller parrotted the Democrat talking points, even when they were not true? While Mueller did a pretty good job not answering anything in the first hearing, he let things get away from him in the second. Repeatedly he agreed with statements to the effect that George Papadopoulos received information from "the Russians" or that Paul Manafort shared information with "the Russians". From a legal (under oath) sort of matter, those statements are false, and under different circumstance could leave Mueller vulnerable to charges. Papadopoulos received his information from Joseph Mifsud who is not Russian. Manafort shared polling information with one of his own employees (Konstantin Kilimnik) is either Ukrainian or Russian depending on which reports you read. The fact is that Mueller's own report (which he stated he would stick to) never established that either Mifsud or Kilimnik had any direct contact with anyone associated with the Russian Government, the GRU, or the Trolling farm. Referring to these people as "the Russians" was either because he didn't know better, he was too tired by that point to repute, or he was looking to throw the Democrats a bone or two.

Judge exposes another Mueller report false narrative? This was unrelated to the hearings, but very relevant to the overall situation. A Judge overseeing the prosecution of the trolling farms requested the "evidence" that the Mueller prosecutors had in regards to ties between the trolling farm operations and the Russian government. Under oath and within the legal proceedings Special Counsel attorneys had to admit that they literally had no evidence what-so-ever that the trolling farms were associated with the Russian government. The judge is currently deciding how to proceed, but it may end up that Special Counsel attorneys could be sanctioned in some form. This also means that one of the larger narratives of the report itself is not actually true (or at least not provable by any known evidence).

What now? With so many hopes pinned on the Mueller testimony, Democrats and liberals in the media were asking "what now"? Oddly, the idea of moving on and simply having Democrats work to accomplish something was only suggested as somewhat of a political move to help retain House power so that something could still be done about Donald Trump if he wins reelection. Pelosi stated already that they are looking to follow up and finish up with their various legal fights before looking at anything else. There was some suggestion that Don McGahn was the great white hope and if they could just get him in front of congress. But as Cooper suggested, they (Democrats and liberal media) just keeps moving the goalposts. First it was the report, then it was the Mueller testimony, now it's Don McGahn (who 90% of the country has never heard of)?

He's finally done it!

Officially polling at zero percent! 

(okay, he's polling at zero percent in New Hampshire, but still...)

I want to thank my family for all their support as I fall from relevancy!

Hmmm... and some people actually thought this guy was going to be the one. The next JFK, the next WJC, the vanilla Obama! Well he had a good run giving Ted Cruz a scare down in Texas, but something tells me that the mustard has fallen off that Texas weiner as well.

No need to fret. Perhaps there is a City Council campaign in his future?

Part II

If this was about optics, then Democrats and especially Mueller lost the day

Starts off correcting the misstatement regarding whether or not he would have "indicted" the president if not for the OLC opinions. That was likely the biggest "talking point" that the left was excited about (even if it was clear to most that it was a misstatement).

Bottom line: He took back the idea that he would have indicted the President.

Apparently the second hearing is going to involve the Democrats trying to talk about Volume I. This is the area that people really are pretty set on. The fact of the matter is that this is where the Democrats will find themselves arguing with Mueller. He is already disagreeing with them on their characterization of events.

They are attempting to tell him he was wrong about his charging decisions. He will continue to disagree.

_______

I will say that the one thing that the Republicans (so far) have let go is not forcing Mueller and the Democrats to clarify as to whom Papadopoulos and Manafort were talking to. Papadopoulos got his information not from "the Russians" but from a London based Professor. Manafort did not share information with "the Russians" but rather with one of his employees.

Democrats keep referring to these people as if they might as well be Vladimir Putin himself, and Mueller is failing to correct (and Republicans are not following up).

_______

Democrats are clearly struggling to gain traction here. The obvious strategy was to allow the House to work on the obstruction portion, while the Senate worked on the conspiracy side. Perhaps things will change in the second half of things here.

Mueller doesn't look quite as bad as he did earlier (or maybe we are just getting used to the fact that he is a bumbler), but the Democrats have adopted a strategy of questioning the legal aspects of why there was a lack of indictments. This puts them in an adversarial situation.

_______

The portion where Democrats suggested that Trump Jr sending out a link being a crime is not taken kindly by media members who all pretty much relinked the wikileaks information. As one person stated, if that was a crime, half of Washington DC would be in jail.

_______

Curious that Mueller determined that the two dozen plus leaks that could only come from his investigation, didn't come from his investigation. It seems like an odd (and somewhat naive) viewpoint that these leaks must have come from someone outside of his investigation.

_______

I thought that maybe after the break that Democrats would switch gears and not necessarily try to get Mueller to state that there was some "conspiracy" that he otherwise had not previously found. But they are right back to questioning Special Counsel on the idea that there really "was" a conspiracy that was missed. Sort of the plain sight conspiracy that Adam Schiff is so fond of suggesting. Mueller made the call that none of this was criminal. Democrats seem like people who believe if they ask the same question nine times and get a "no", that the tenth time just might be a "yes".

______

BOMBSHELL  - Congressman Welsh read the report and repeated the same things that we have all heard about 1000 times!  This is what it has gotten down to. Repeating the same things over and over and over and over... and hoping someone will care "again".

_______

So Adam Schiff finishes up by talking about the Moscow Trump Tower deal?

It would be sad if I didn't find it so funny!

If you want an objective opinion of how liberals are seeing this:

Politico analysis updates etc...

They are not very pleased with Mueller. That being said, the whole idea is what the larger media will draw from this. Already MSNBC and CNN are digging hard to come up with some real "zingers" including what appears to be a "misstatement" from Mueller in regards to the OLC guidelines.

But ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX are basically falling in line with the fact that Mueller looks less than in control, and is not the man they expected him to be. More than anything else Mueller does or says today, the overall take is Mueller himself. No doubt, not in a good way.

Mueller Testimony

President Trimp! 

Opening Statement:

• He will not talk about the opening of the investigation or the Steele report, as those are now part of a separate ongoing investigation. Republicans will be upset.
• He will not rephrase or change any of the conclusions from his report. Any idea that he would tell Democrats something different appears to have gone into the shitter. Democrats will be upset.
• Basically he will not actually answer any real questions that he doesn't want to answer and quite clearly has legitimate legal reasons for not providing anything in addition to or outside the scope of the investigation.

OMG!!! So far, Mueller looks like an old man who can barely keep up. 
Did the guy sleep over the past 24 hours? He's a fucking mess! 

Disaster! pic.twitter.com/jwnB550S8L

— C.H. Truth (@C_H_Truth) July 24, 2019

Will you repeat that? You're going a little fast? 
Can you repeat that? Where did I write that? 

He's only about 20 minutes into this thing, and he looks like he's about to cry! 

Things are not going any better for him. He seems bumbling, stumbling, and they keep having to remind him to talk into the microphone. So far, it's just congresspeople reading portions of the report that they see as relevant. 

When did Robert Mueller become the grampa who spends 50% of any conversation asking you to repeat yourself?

Mueller just committed perjury!

Mueller says he had no expectation that the report would be made public, only that it would be delivered to the attorney general as ordered to by statute.

Nobody really believed this for a second.  What a maroon! 

Democrats keep bringing up NY Times reports as if they are actually evidence of anything. Do they not realize that media reports are quite literally irrelevant to any legal proceeding? 

Volume II of the report had 250 references to Media Reports. 250 references to Media Report as reason why the President committed obstruction? A typically confused and befuddled Mueller was "saved by the bell" as Nadler would not allow him to answer the questions regarding the excessive reliance on NYT and WaPo as legal evidence. 

Mueller just said he didn't know prosecutor Jeannie Rhee represented Hillary Clinton (or the Clinton Foundation) before she came on to Mueller's team. If that's true, it's surprising, says reporter @joshgerstein.

More live analysis: https://t.co/A3Lgdmo0Np

— POLITICO (@politico) July 24, 2019

This is a disaster for Mueller. No question about it!!! 

OMG - This Stone Cold Idiot actually stated that he wasn't familiar with Fusion GPS. These people were pretty much responsible for the entire investigation. Jeepers, this goes from bad to worse in every passing moment. 

Republicans are discrediting Mueller to the point that Dems will start saying the only reason collusion wasn’t found is that Mueller was incompetent. #MuellerHearings

— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) July 24, 2019

Now Mueller is literally disagreeing with statements he made earlier in the hearing. He cannot even keep track of his own rhetoric?

At the end of the day, Mueller had to admit that his investigation was not actually hampered, obstructed, or otherwise interfered with in any way.

This is like a bad "Who's on first" bit... 

Now he is looking around like he wants a way out! 

Done! Finally! With Round one. Not sure I can watch more of this. It's very painful to watch this man literally fall apart in front of us! 

Robert Mueller bringing a back up?

Mueller just a figurehead. Never really ran investigation?

Baaaahhh... I don't know?

Former special counsel Robert Mueller asked Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee to swear in his longtime deputy as a witness at a congressional hearing Wednesday, according to multiple reports.

Mueller asked that Aaron Zebley, who served as deputy on the special counsel’s probe, be sworn in as a witness in order to address any questions that he is not able to answer, according to a source familiar with the matter, The New York Times and CNN reported.

So there has been much speculation as to why Mueller really never wanted to testify or provide much of anything outside of what is already on the report. Well, the answer could very well be that he simply doesn't have a handle on what the investigation was all about.

Many people suggest that it's been Andrew Weissmann who was ultimately running the investigation. It was Weissmann who put together much of the staff, it was Weissmann who chose to ignore anything that tied the Russians to any Democrats, and it was Weissmann who was mostly responsible for putting together the controversial Volume II.

In fact, if Democrats had their way on the subject, there would have been no real need for Robert Mueller to even exist as a figurehead. Weissmann was the guy they wanted, and it appears by many accounts is that he was the guy who ran things.

William Barr suggested as much when he got the letter from Robert Mueller regarding the release of the report. Barr strongly suggested that letter was not only out of character for his long term friend to have written, but Barr actually openly suggested (under sworn testimony) that he felt that it was likely written by someone "other" than Mueller.

Barr also seemed completely perplexed at Mueller's decision not to draw a conclusion on obstruction, while simultaneously releasing a report of "allegations" that nobody in the DOJ felt rose to the level of actual criminal behavior. In fact, if rumors are true, Mueller himself might have been the hold-out on suggesting that the behavior really was criminal, but wasn't willing to come right out and say that.

Barr seemed genuinely disappointed with Mueller, when in fact, much of this was likely not Mueller's doing. This was the inmates running the asylum. Now that it comes time to actually answer questions about the investigation, Mueller feels the need to bring a sidekick to answer the questions he may not be able to answer?

Seems counterintuitive to the suggestion that Mueller was the guy running the show.

Does this go too far?

Transgender Woman Files Complaints When Women’s Salons Won’t Wax Her Male Genitalia

A transgender woman in British Columbia, Canada, has filed complaints with a human rights tribunal because a woman who owns a home-based salon refused to wax her male genitals. Other salons also are being targeted. Is anyone else getting tired of this madness?

So let's be clear. A Brazilian wax (unlike a bikini wax) pretty much removes "all" of the hair of a women's private area. Quite obviously this is a delicate procedure, both physically and one would think emotionally. I have no qualms about the fact that most Beauty Salons that do Brazilian waxes probably have women perform these on other women. I could understand if a woman (or even a woman's husband) would not want a man waxing their genitals.

While men have been known to get their own genitals waxed, I would generally suspect that this is either done by other males, or by women who otherwise would not take issue with it. (I do know that there are salons where this is the case). But certainly I would think that neither the employer or the customer could force a women to perform the service on a male if that woman preferred not to. Call me "old fashioned" but I suspect I am not alone here.

In this case, the salon in question was a one women operation, and she only accepted women clients for this particular procedure. But a biological man, with male genitals requested the full wax under the pretense that she identifies as a woman. This particular one woman salon has been forced to close for refusing to service the transgender in question.

Is it just me, or does this one take it just a little too far?

Is the squad purposely acting stupid?

Do I hear a $25/hour? Going once, going twice... 

Rashida Tlaib calls for minimum wage to be $20 an hour https://t.co/z3owaDtMRJ pic.twitter.com/9OGcX58537

— The Hill (@thehill) July 23, 2019

Horowitz Report - Comey spying on and lying to the President of the United States

Justice Dept. Watchdog Has Evidence Comey Probed Trump, on the Sly

Now an answer is emerging. Sources tell RealClearInvestigations that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz will soon file a report with evidence indicating that Comey was misleading the president. Even as he repeatedly assured Trump that he was not a target, the former director was secretly trying to build a conspiracy case against the president, while at times acting as an investigative agent.

An actual conspiracy - not a fake Russian one

Two U.S. officials briefed on the inspector general’s investigation of possible FBI misconduct said Comey was essentially “running a covert operation against” the president, starting with a private “defensive briefing” he gave Trump just weeks before his inauguration. They said Horowitz has examined high-level FBI text messages and other communications indicating Comey was actually conducting a “counterintelligence assessment” of Trump during that January 2017 meeting in New York.

In addition to adding notes of his meetings and phone calls with Trump to the official FBI case file, Comey had an agent inside the White House who reported back to FBI headquarters about Trump and his aides, according to other officials familiar with the matter.

Although Comey took many actions on his own, he was not working in isolation. One focus of Horowitz’s inquiry is the private Jan. 6, 2017, briefing Comey gave the president-elect in New York about material in the Democratic-commissioned dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Reports of that meeting were used days later by BuzzFeed, CNN and other outlets as a news hook for reporting on the dossier’s lascivious and unsubstantiated claims.

Comey’s meeting with Trump took place one day after the FBI director met in the Oval Office with President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to discuss how to brief Trump — a meeting attended by National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who would soon go to work for CNN.

So in essence, Comey was conspiring with the outgoing Administration in an attempt find dirt on the incoming President and undermine his reputation and legitimacy. He wasn't acting on his own. He wasn't acting in good faith. It was a coordinated effort to smear Donald Trump by spreading a conspiracy theory that he was in cahoots with the Russians to steal an election. Something they had no evidence of, and something that they still have no evidence of after five separate investigations.

This is a matter of fact. If Comey put covert people on the inside of the Administration in order to report back to him, then that constitutes spying. If he did so without a warrant to justify the actions, then that is likely a criminal action. If he did so at the request of the previous Administration, then all hell should break loose. I would wait for a bit more information and analysis from those who understand this better. But at best, it's a shameless act of political conspiracy (to whatever level), even if it doesn't rise to criminal conspiracy.

Let's be clear. The idea of an outgoing administration and existing FBI and others meeting about how the incoming President should be lied to and deceived regarding internal spying that they denied was taking place should be outrageous to even the worse Trump haters. Not because it happened to Trump, but because it happened to any President. It's a literal coup that shows a corruption that far exceeds anything (including Watergate) that has ever happened in our Government annals.

Of course, the Trump haters will okay Comey's actions, because they hate Trump and even breaking the law and committing treason are small prices to pay to undermine the bad orange man. But make no mistake, the idea that firing Comey was some sort of "obstruction" should be tossed in the garbage and burned. He wasn't an FBI director. He was a double agent acting against the President.

Will anything come out of this? Part of me says that it's time to move on even if Comey and others are likely dead to rights guilty of treason. People are tired of Russia and the 2016 election (not that Democrats seem to notice). But most certainly the fact that Barr has assigned a second prosecutor to handle the fall out of the Horowitz report strongly suggests that there will be indictments of former officials. Whether those officials could include Comey or others with high profiles remains to be seen.

Kathy Zhu stripped of Miss Michigan title for being conservative

Interestingly, I had an argument with a liberal on Twitter who insisted she was engulfed with white privilege. He also saw the same issues with Michelle Malkin.

Former Miss Michigan Kathy Zhu: "I think it's really, really awful how the left thinks that statistics and facts are racist. So I don't think anything I said was remotely wrong. I stand by every tweet that I post." https://t.co/8k4SSuY5fA pic.twitter.com/RC4sGn28vz

— The Hill (@thehill) July 22, 2019

Statement from the office of Ilham Omar

Welcome to politics! Can't stand the heat? 

When asked about the ongoing controversy surrounding Omar filing tax returns with one person while legally married to another:

“Whether by colluding with right-wing outlets to go after Muslim elected officials or hounding family members, legitimate media outlets have a responsibility not to fan the flames of hate. Continuing to do so is not only demeaning to Ilhan, but to her entire family.”

The fact of the matter is that Omar broke American tax laws, and then broke American campaign finance laws. Local authorities have determined both, and Omar has suffered the indignity of having to pay a fine.

But it's funny how everything that the President does, the President's immediate family does, or anything anyone loosely President does is constantly under scrutiny. But when it comes to Omar, the fact that she was apparently legally married to a gay man who may have been her brother, while cohabitating with her current husband isn't something that anyone should care about.

At this point, Omar should accept the fact that with her new prominence as a major political player comes a new scrutiny into her personal and professional life, especially when there are parts of her life where laws have been broken, and she refuses to tell anyone why she broke them.

Playing the race/victim card here isn't going to work.

Interesting video on how dumb most liberal college students are

To liberals - facts don't really matter

In Trump’s First Two Years, Border Deaths Declined

Former Vice President Joe Biden also tweeted about the tragic photo: “This image is gut-wrenching. The cruelty we’re seeing at our border is unconscionable. History will judge how we respond to the Trump Administration’s treatment of immigrant families & children — we can’t be silent. This isn’t who we are. This is not America.”

But the reality is that deaths at the U.S.-Mexico border decreased after Donald Trump became president, according to data from the United States Border Patrol. During the 2017 and 2018 fiscal years they averaged 291 per year, down from 372 during the Obama/Biden administration and 382 under Bush.

So first sleepy Joe suggested that there was no election interference on his watch (obviously forgetting the 2016 Russian stuff that spurned off five investigations, including a Special Counsel). Now he is suggesting that all of this death and stuff at the border is unconscionable.

The problem is that it was actually worse under his and Obama's watch. In fact it was 20% worse during his Administration than it has been under Trump. Although you could likely search google for 10 years and not find a single MSM story about those deaths.

Bottom line is that Trump is succeeding at the border where Obama and Biden failed. Illegal border crossings have been down, more illegals have been sent back, and less people are dying in their quest to come live in a concentration camp.

While all of this should be good news, the problem is that these facts get in the way of the narrative that Democrats and their buddies in the MSM would like to push. But as we should all understand by now. Facts simply don't matter to liberals.

RNC doubles the DNC fundraising haul

RNC more than doubles DNC's fundraising haul in June

The Democratic National Committee raised $8.5 million in June, the month of the party's presidential debates in Miami — less than half of the $20.7 million the Republican National Committee pulled in during that time period, new disclosures show.

The DNC also spent almost as much money as it raised — $7.5 million — during that time and finished the month with $9.3 million cash on hand. The RNC is meanwhile building a larger war chest during the lead-up to 2020 and had $43.5 million cash on hand at the end of the month.

Not only that, but the President is on pace to destroy the fundraising totals of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (possibly put together). Meanwhile the 24 dwarfs beat each other over the head with the money they are raising.

Now we can bicker and argue over what good money will do you, but what we cannot bicker and argue about is whether or not the rank and file Republicans are fired up for 2020. They obviously are. Next time you see a poll talking about Democratic enthusiasm, ask yourself why these enthusiastic Democrats are not investing in their product?

I feel bad for James Comey

It's become increasingly clear that has James Comey lost his way. Moreover, he is now working overtime to help prove the allegations that he was not just an impartial FBI director looking to run an objective investigation into the President, but that he was clearly biased and driven by a strong dislike for the man who was elected to be his boss.

He recently provided "his opinion" as to what he would ask Robert Mueller if "he" was given five minutes. The entire tone of his questions read like someone who is sorely disappointed that the actual facts presented by Mueller were not written out by Mueller as if they were something actually criminal. Ironically, most of the criticism regarding Mueller's report is exactly the opposite. Many long term prosecutors and attorneys feel that the Mueller report is already sensationalising actions that were not illegal in any way, in order to give an underlying opinion of wrongdoing. 

In fact, I am not 100% sure that Comey is not so far gone that he might believe that these actions were actually criminal, proving that Comey is not only biased and driven by a strong dislike of Trump, but that his TDS has possibly clouded his actual cognitive thinking. A man so full of hatred and anger, that he can no longer distinguish between legal fact, and political nonsense. 

Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians who allegedly worked to disrupt and interfere with our 2016 election. His report is quite clear on this as that basic fundamental truth is repeated in two different areas (the summary and the charging report). Because Mueller found no evidence of conspiracy, there is simply no way to write a report that can possibly suggest he did.

But if we wade into a couple of Comey's points, I think his TDS will become self-evident. One I find particularly interesting is:

“Did you find that the Trump foreign policy adviser said the Trump campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton?”

Now, let's be clear here. This question refers to George Papadopoulos talking in a bar with a Maltese Professor named Joseph Mifsud who lives in London. Neither Comey and his FBI investigation or Mueller and his Special Counsel investigation has come up with any evidence that Papadopoulos received anything of "actual" substance from the Professor, because neither came up with any evidence that Milsud actually had any actual information. Neither the FBI or SC has provided us with any evidence of Milsud's alleged involvement with the Russian Government, much less any evidence that he had anything to do with the GRU (who allegedly hacked the emails).

Papadopoulos was thoroughly investigated. He was questioned multiple times. He was not charged with anything associated with being an agent, aiding and abetting, or any sort of conspiracy. The former FBI director coming out and demanding that Papadopoulos still should be seen as committing a crime (when he was never charged) runs afoul to absolutely every standard our law enforcement stands for.

Why is a former FBI director who would like to be seen as some sort of righteous person out there making allegations that an innocent American is guilty of treason, even as that person was investigated and found not to be? Not because he has anything against Papadopoulos, but because by accusing Papadopoulos he accuses Trump (who is obviously hates with the fiery white-hot passion of a 1000 burning suns).

Or how about this one:

“Did you find that senior members of the Trump campaign met with Russian representatives at Trump Tower after being told in an email that the meeting was part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump?”

Yes, the Trump Tower meeting. Once again, this meeting was not with any sort of representative of the Russian Government, but it was a meeting with an attorney/lobbyist. Neither Comey and the FBI or Mueller and his Special Counsel was able to actually tie this attorney to anyone in the Russian Government, much less anyone associated with the GRU. The fact that Comey is still wanting to pretty much flat out lie about this, tells us everything we need to know about the man.

Moreover, the information was was supposed to provide was in regards to Clinton supposedly channeling Russian money into her campaign. It didn't even have anything to do with anything that the Russians allegedly did to help Trump. So it quite literally had nothing to do with the so called conspiracy being investigated and is no more relevant to that investigation than anyone else they spoke to that day.

Either way, neither the FBI or the Special Counsel found anything within their investigation that could possibly lead to any charges against anyone. We are right back to James Comey openly wanting to accuse people of committing the very crimes that they were investigated and not charged for. Again, something that no FBI director in history would have ever thought to have ever done under any circumstance.

Let's be clear here folks. When the best James Comey can do here is try to realledge that there was something criminal about the George Papadopoulos contacts or the Trump Tower meeting, when five separate investigations have already cleared everyone associated, then James Comey cannot be taken seriously anymore. What could happen (and possibly should happen) is that James Comey could be sued (or charged) with defamation (libel/slander) for accusing innocent people of crimes, when investigations have cleared them of such crimes. We already know that he knows he is in every violation of FBI protocol, which he probably is still required to follow as a former FBI director. He is fully aware that his actions are wrong, and yet cannot help himself.

Truly sad...