We were told Trump’s inquisitor was a calm, even-handed Republican with impeccable credentials who was trusted by everyone. What we learned yesterday was that the inquisition was run by the Democrat lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s aide who destroyed evidence with a hammer.
We were told that the evidence of alleged Russian collusion was rock solid, the work of America’s top intelligence agencies. In reality, it was pure fiction cooked up by a Clinton-funded foreign contractor on the payroll of a sanctioned Russian oligarch.
We were told the Trump campaign was never spied on or wiretapped by U.S. spy agencies. We now know the campaign was indeed wiretapped, that honeypots were deployed to entrap campaign affiliates, that overseas intel assets were used to set up meetings as pretexts for more spying.
We were told our nation’s intel agencies would never use false information to justify secret surveillance of American citizens. In reality, DON and the FBI peddled lies to the FISA court that were cooked up by a foreign spy and a DOJ official’s wife, both funded by Clinton.
We were told that our government’s top secret keepers would never leak classified or confidential information to the media. What actually happened is that top intel officials repeatedly leaked, often illegally, to cement a false narrative to support further spying on citizens.
Finally, we were told that America’s top cops and spies would never foment a coup to overturn election results they didn’t like. We now know the most powerful unelected people in government cooked up lies as part of an orchestrated scheme to overthrow the duly elected president.
Is this America?
Paul Plante says
It supposedly remains “America,” just a markedly different version of it that seems more like the Soviet Union for those of us who remember such things.
Who has clearly won here is Putin and Russia, this thanks to the House Democrats including Nadler and Schiff aided and abetted by Robert Mueller, with the result that the 2020 presidential election along with our “democracy” is now fatally tainted by charges of criminality leveled against Trump by the Democrats, without any grand jury action in between, along with further charges that Trump is a Russian dupe, and the Russians are going to interfere in our 2020 presidential election big-time to keep Trump in office, so the only way we can “beat the Russians” at their own game and defeat them is to elect a Democrat as president, because everybody now knows, thanks to the Democrats and Jimmy Comey, that Putin HATES Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, which is all horsecrap.
I have seen a lot of horse**** coming out of Washington, D.C. in my lifetime, but never something as incredible and insulting to our sense of justice as American people as this travesty, where Bob Mueller has taken on the role of judge and jury, skipping over the requirement of a grand jury, in order to fatally taint the 2020 presidential election to put the Democrats in full control of our government, which should incense every American citizen who cares that our elections are fair and free, which they now no longer are with these charges leveled against Trump, that he has no way of exonerating himself of.
If we bother to look at the Grand Jury Handbook – Handbook for Grand Jurors Serving in the United States District Courts, we find this, to wit: The grand jury as an institution was so firmly established in the traditions of our forebears that they included it in the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides in part that “(n)o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . .”
An “infamous crime,” according to the handbook, is a federal crime with a penalty of at least a year, so what has happened here is that in their zeal to destroy Trump and thus, swing the 2020 presidential election their way, the Democrats have stripped Trump of his constitutional rights, period, by charging him with criminal activity in a public forum as they did, which is plain disgusting.
Consider the Los Angeles Times article “Democrats hope Mueller’s testimony will make more Americans want to impeach Trump” by Jennifer Haberkorn on 22 July 2019, for example:
WASHINGTON — House Democrats hope to boost public support for impeaching President Trump when former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III testifies to Congress for the first time Wednesday about investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and alleged obstruction of justice.
Mueller has warned he doesn’t intend to deliver any bombshells beyond those detailed in the 448-page report released in mid-April.
But Democrats hope he will summarize its findings in short, digestible TV soundbites that will spur new outrage, especially among lawmakers on the fence about whether to try to force Trump from office.
For House Democrats already committed to impeachment, Mueller’s back-to-back testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees may be their last best chance to muster a majority short of dramatic new misconduct by the president — or an about-face by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who has steadfastly opposed impeachment proceedings for now.
Democrats acknowledge that they need a televised moment to counter Trump’s claim of “complete and total exoneration” shortly after Atty. Gen. William Barr gave a public summary of Mueller’s report on March 24.
But Mueller decided that Justice Department rules barred indictment of a sitting president, adding, “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
end quotes
Which was followed by a Reuters article entitled “Mueller report shows evidence Trump committed crimes, House Judiciary chairman says” by Sarah N. Lynch on 22 July 2019, where we were treated to the following:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The top Democrat on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee said Sunday he believes there is “substantial evidence” that President Donald Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and he plans to ask former Special Counsel Robert Mueller to present those facts at a congressional hearing on Wednesday.
“The report presents very substantial evidence that the president is guilty of high crime and misdemeanors, and we have to let Mueller present those facts to the American people and then see where we go from there,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said on “Fox News Sunday.”
“The administration must be held accountable, and no president can be above the law.”
Nadler’s comments are significant because evidence of such crimes would be required if Democrats pursue impeachment proceedings against the president.
end quotes
BUT evidence of alleged crimes committed by Trump would come to us, not from Democrat “Jumping Jerry” Nadler, who lives up to his name by jumping to conclusions here and trying to take us with him, as if we were all quite stupid, or Bob Mueller, as we clearly see by returning mto the Federal Grand Jury Handbook, as follows:
The grand jury normally hears only that evidence presented by an attorney for the government which tends to show the commission of a crime.
The grand jury must determine from this evidence, and usually without hearing evidence for the defense, whether a person should be tried for a serious federal crime, referred to in the Bill of Rights as an “infamous crime.”
An infamous crime is one which may be punished by imprisonment for more than one year.
As a general rule, no one can be prosecuted for a serious crime unless the grand jury decides that the evidence it has heard so requires.
In this way, the grand jury operates both as a “sword,” authorizing the government’s prosecution of suspected criminals, and also as a “shield,” protecting citizens from unwarranted or inappropriate prosecutions.
Furthermore, a federal grand jury is not authorized to investigate situations involving the conduct of individuals, public officials, agencies or institutions that the grand jury believes is subject to mere criticism rather than a violation of federal criminal statutes.
Its concern must be devoted solely to ascertaining whether there is probable cause to believe that a federal crime has been committed and to report accordingly to the court.
end quotes
And ALL of that was thrown right out the window by the Democrats and Bob Mueller min their zeal to get Trump and by fatally tainting the 2020 presidential election, to impose one-party rule on us as they have over in Putin’s Russia.
So this is a perverted power-grab by the Democrats, plain and simple, which takes us back to the Nadler accusation article, as follows:
Nadler said Democrats plan to ask very specific questions about Trump’s obstructive conduct and ask Mueller to read passages from the report aloud.
“We hope it won’t end up being a dud,” he said of the hearing.
end quotes
So much for truth, justice and RULE OF LAW in America, people – they are gone, and we are a lesser nation and people, as a result, which should concern every single person here in the United States of America, which then takes us to a CBS News article entitled “Pelosi distributes memo to House Democrats ahead of Mueller hearing” by Emily Tillett on 23 July 2019, to wit:
Ahead of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony to Congress on Wednesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has distributed a 6-page memo to House Democrats telling them to “fight for our national security” by safeguarding the U.S. election process.
“Nothing less than the integrity of our democracy, the rule of law and national security are at stake,” the memo, titled “Exposing the Truth,” reads.
“Our Democratic House Majority will continue to fight for our national security by securing our elections, safeguarding our democracy and holding the President accountable – because no one is above the law,” the memo read.
end quotes
Except none of that is true, at all.
The Democrats have not “secured” our elections – they have fatally tainted them with their accusation of criminality against Trump that were never submitted to a grand jury for review.
And the Democrats, by doing so, have not “safeguarded” our democracy; to the contrary, by their actions, they have fatally tainted and destroyed our democracy, which is supposed to give us FREEDOM OF CHOICE over who we elect to public office.
And that makes the Democrats clearly above OUR laws, which they simply do not give a damn about, which then takes us to a Washington Examiner article entitled “Comey: Trump did obstruct justice, but Mueller won’t say that” by Mike Brest on 24 July 2019, where we have a vindictive Jimmy Comey further violating Trump’s right to due process and equal protection of law, as follows:
Former FBI Director James Comey shared his opinion that President Trump obstructed justice regarding the special counsel investigation, but added that he would be surprised if Robert Mueller said that during his upcoming testimony.
Comey was on MSNBC’s Deadline Tuesday afternoon to discuss the testimony of Mueller, who is scheduled to appear in front of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.
“A former colleague of mine from the Bush White House said they’re lucky Robert Mueller wasn’t forced to render a decision because it looks to this individual like he would have said, fine I recommend prosecution.”
“Is it your sense that might be true?” Nicolle Wallace asked.
“Do you agree with the 800-plus prosecutors who have said if Donald Trump were anyone other than the president of the United States, he would have absolutely been charged with obstruction?”
“So, I think the second question first: Yes, I agree.”
“If this were a case about someone other than the president, they’d have already been indicted on several of these obstruction incidents, maybe all of them, I don’t know.”
“But Director Mueller, I think, if pressed, would reach a decision at least on some of them there is sufficient basis to charge the president,” Comey answered.
end quotes
Is Jimmy Comey totally unaware of federal law and the Constitution?
That answer seems to be that in the case of getting Trump, and in the process, strengthening Russia at the expense of the American people, which is a BIG WIN for Putin, the answer is yes.
Is Nicolle Wallace of MSNBC’s Deadline nothing more than an ignorant party hack who knows nothing about America or OUR laws and OUR Constitution?
Of course.
And have the Democrats finally succeeded in making our “democracy” nothing more than a disgusting spectacle reminiscent of the Athenian Greeks voting to ostracize people from Athens, simply because they did not like them?
Yes, and it stinks!
Paul Plante says
By way of what I think is necessary background here, to understand these claims of alleged FBI wrongdoing in the matter of Trump, we need to drop back in time a bit over two years ago to 20 March 2017, to the opening statement of then-FBI Director Jimmy Comey testifying under oath to a House Committee which had the smarmy and unctuous Hollywood, California Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff, who has been fundraising off of having Trump as his personal punching bag and bete noire, as one of its members, to wit:
COMEY: Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Schiff, members of the committee, thank you for including me in today’s hearing.
I’m honored to be here representing the people of the FBI.
end quotes
As a side note, however, later in the hearing, in colloquy with Democrat Congressman Denny Heck (WA-10), who incidentally just released a statement on 28 July 2019 announcing his support for a formal impeachment inquiry, Jimmy Comey stated as follows, to wit:
I’m not here voluntarily.
Right?
I would rather not be talking about this at all.
end quotes
With that said, back to his opening statement we go, aware that he is there under duress, to wit:
I hope we have shown you through our actions and our words how much we at the FBI value your oversight of our work and how much we respect your responsibility to investigate those things are important to the American people.
Thank you for showing that both are being taken very seriously.
end quotes
Pardon me here, but HUH?
I hope we have shown you through our actions and our words how much we at the FBI value your oversight of our work and how much we respect your responsibility to investigate those things are important to the American people?
The American people?
Which American people. Jimmy?
The 33% who are died-in-the-wool Democrats and Trump haters?
Or the rest of us who are watching this show, waiting to see where the next turn in the road of this convoluted path is going to take us?
Getting back now to the essential meat of Jimmy’s opening statement on 20 March 2017 which ties it to today, we have:
As you know, our practice is not to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations, especially those investigations that involve classified matters, but in unusual circumstances where it is in the public interest, it may be appropriate to do so as Justice Department policies recognize.
This is one of those circumstances.
I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.
end quotes
So there is the confirmation of an on-going FBI “investigation” or surveillance operation of the Trump campaign that goes back to when Trump was a candidate and Hussein Obama was still in the oval office, and fifty-eight (58) days later, Rod Rosenstein was going to declare that he had a major conflict of interest that required him to appoint Bob Mueller to take over that very investigation that Jimmy Comey just exposed there, which takes us back to Jimmy on 20 March 2017, as follows:
As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.
Because it is an open ongoing investigation and is classified, I cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are examining.
At the request of congressional leaders, we have taken the extraordinary step in coordination with the Department of Justice of briefing this Congress’ leaders, including the leaders of this committee, in a classified setting in detail about the investigation but I can’t go into those details here.
I know that is extremely frustrating to some folks.
I hope you and the American people can understand.
The FBI is very careful in how we handle information about our cases and about the people we are investigating.
We are also very careful about the way we handle information that may be of interest to our foreign adversaries.
Both of those interests are at issue in a counterintelligence investigation.
Please don’t draw any conclusions from the fact that I may not be able to comment on certain topics.
I know speculating is part of human nature, but it really isn’t fair to draw conclusions simply because I say that I can’t comment.
Some folks may want to make comparisons to past instances where the Department of Justice and the FBI have spoken about the details of some investigations, but please keep in mind that those involved the details of completed investigations.
Our ability to share details with the Congress and the American people is limited when those investigations are still open, which I hope makes sense.
We need to protect people’s privacy.
We need to make sure we don’t give other people clues as to where we’re going.
We need to make sure that we don’t give information to our foreign adversaries about what we know or don’t know.
We just cannot do our work well or fairly if we start talking about it while we’re doing it.
So we will try very, very hard to avoid that, as we always do.
This work is very complex and there is no way for me to give you a timetable as to when it will be done.
We approach this work in an open-minded, independent way and our expert investigators will conclude that work as quickly as they can but they will always do it well no matter how long that takes.
I can promise you, we will follow the facts wherever they lead.
And I wanna underscore something my friend Mike Rogers said, leaks of classified information are serious, serious federal crimes for a reason…
(AUDIO GAP)
COMEY: … they should be investigated and where possible prosecuted in a way that reflects that seriousness so that people understand it simply cannot be tolerated.
And I look forward to taking your questions.
end quotes
And that takes us then to the colloquy between Congresswoman Elise Stefanik and Jimmy Comey, to wit:
STEFANIK: My first set of questions are directed at Director Comey.
Broadly, when the FBI has any open counter-intelligence investigation, what are the typical protocols or procedures for notifying the DNI, the White House, and senior Congressional leadership?
COMEY: There is a practice of a quarterly briefing on sensitive cases to the chair and ranking of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
And the reason I hesitate is, thanks to feedback we’ve gotten, we’re trying to make it better.
And that involves a briefing of the Department of Justice, I believe the DNI, and the — some portion of the National Security Council at the White House…
STEFANIK: So if that’s quarterly…
COMEY: … to brief them before Congress is briefed.
STEFANIK: So it’s quarterly for all three then, senior congressional leadership, the White House, and the DNI?
COMEY: I think that’s right.
Now that’s by practice not by rule or by written policy which is why, thanks to the chair and ranking giving us feedback, we’re trying to tweak it in certain ways.
STEFANIK: So since, in your opening statement, you confirmed that there is a counter-intelligence investigation currently open and you also referenced that it started in July.
When did you notify the DNI, the White House, or senior congressional leadership?
COMEY: It’s a good question.
Congressional leadership, some time recently.
They were briefed on the nature of the investigation in some detail as I said.
Obviously the Department of Justice has been aware of it all along.
The DNI, I don’t know what the DNI’s knowledge of it was because we didn’t have a DNI until Mr. Coats took office and I briefed him his first morning in office.
STEFANIK: So just to drill down on this, if — if the open investigation began in July and the briefing of congressional leadership only occurred recently, why was there no notification prior to the recent — to the past month?
COMEY: I think our decision was it was a matter of such sensitivity that we wouldn’t include it in the quarterly briefings.
STEFANIK: So when you state our decision is that your decision?
Is that usually your decision what gets briefed in those quarterly updates?
COMEY: No, it’s usually the decision of the head of our counter-intelligence division.
STEFANIK: And just again, to get the detailed — on the record, why was the decision made not to brief senior congressional leadership until recently when the investigation had been open since July?
A very serious investigation — why was that decision to wait months?
COMEY: Because of the sensitivity of the matter.
end quotes
So, who knew about the FBI investigation into Trump in 2016, besides Obama?
And why was it kept secret?
Is the answer because Obama wanted it kept secret?
Questions form then left unanswered that demand answers now.
Why was the FBI conducting what appears to be an OFF-THE-BOOKS surveillance operation on the Trump campaign in 2016?
Because Obama ordered it?
Was Obama using the FBI for political purposes to spy on Trump?
The candid world would like to know!