Op-Ed: A House of Cards Comes Tumbling Down

Comments

1. Paul Plante says

   June 30, 2019 at 12:57 pm

   This thread on the Democrat House of Cards coming tumbling down around their ears is in the nature of a retrospective, which is to say, looking back on past events or situations, and it ostensibly (apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually) begins back in 2016, as we can clearly see from an NBC News article entitled “President Obama Heaps Praise on Hillary Clinton at DNC” by Alexandra Jaffe on July 28, 2016, as follows:

   President Barack Obama offered an optimistic vision of the country and a strong indictment of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump Wednesday night in a speech that also cast Hillary Clinton as the best candidate to carry on his legacy and complete his unfinished business.

   end quotes

   As we consider the implications of what the Mullet might say on July 17 in what the media is hyping as “the most-anticipated congressional hearing in years that represents a huge moment for House Democrats who have wrestled with whether to dive into a politically divisive impeachment process following the Mueller investigation, there is where we must start, with Hussein Obama stating three years ago now that Hillary Clinton was the best candidate to “carry on his legacy” and “complete his unfinished business,” as if we had somehow, during his administration, become a country where the “rulers” like Hussein Obama got to hand-pick their successors to the throne.

   And when Hillary did not become the person to carry on the “legacy” of Hussein Obama, and to complete Obama’s “unfinished business,” which was to make Mother Russia stronger at the expense of the United States of America, as we can see from an article in the Washington Examiner entitled “Obama saw the 2016 loss of Hillary Clinton as a ‘personal insult’” by John Gage on 3 May 2019, that loss of Hillary to Trump made Hussein a bit berserko, as follows:

   Former President Barack Obama was unhappy with Hillary Clinton and her failed “soulless campaign” in 2016, saying he saw her loss as a “personal insult.”

   Obama found himself shocked by the election results, thinking before Nov. 8 there was “no way Americans would turn on him” and “[h]is legacy, he felt, was in safe hands.”

   The book details that Obama could not believe Americans had “decided to replace him with a buffoonish showman whose calling cards had been repeated bankruptcies, serial marriages and racist dog whistles.”

   Obama allegedly told his speechwriter Ben Rhodes after meeting Donald Trump that the future president “peddles in bulls—.”

   Rhodes responded, saying he thought Trump was a character right out of the book “Huckleberry Finn.”

   “Maybe that’s the best we can hope for,” Obama said.

   end quotes

   Getting back to the 28 July 2016 NBC News article:

   Obama vouched for Clinton in personal terms, telling a cheering crowd that because of his work with her as secretary of state “I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.”

   end quotes

   And that statement by Obama three years ago in 2016 that he could say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America, then takes us to an article in The Hill, where we see the basis for that claim by Obama entitled “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow” by John Solomon and Alison Spann on 10/17/17, as follows:

   Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

   Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

   They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

   end quotes

   In the estimation of Hussein Obama, that was what made Hillary such an outstanding presidential candidate – her willingness to sell out the United States of America in order to strengthen Mother Russia while at the same time making Democrat Bill Clinton a rich man.

   And that then takes us to an article in the Washington Examiner entitled “Rosenstein hits at Obama for hiding that Russian trolls were infiltrating 2016 election” by Allison Elyse Gualtieri on April 26, 2019, where we have as follows in this convoluted mess, to wit:

   Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Russian election meddling, had a few things to say about the way it started.

   Starting with the Obama administration.

   “The previous Administration chose not to publicize the full story about Russian computer hackers and social media trolls, and how they relate to a broader strategy to undermine America,” he said.

   “There was overwhelming evidence that Russian operatives hacked American computers and defrauded American citizens, and that is only the tip of the iceberg of a comprehensive Russian strategy to influence elections, promote social discord, and undermine America, just like they do in many other countries,” he said.

   end quotes

   So, there are some of the roots of this present controversy some three years later, as the Democrats continue to try to keep our attention diverted elsewhere, as which point we will pause for station identification.

   Reply

2. Paul Plante says

   June 30, 2019 at 10:37 pm

   Talk about a convoluted mess, alright, which is a perfect example of that saying “What A Tangled Web The Democrats Weave When First They Practice To Deceive,” which takes us back to the article in The Hill entitled “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow” by John Solomon and Alison Spann on 10/17/17, for more essential background, as follows:

   The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

   Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.

   end quotes

   And that statement about corruption benefiting Russia and Bill Clinton occurring on Obama’s watch while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state takes us to a VOX.com article entitled “James Comey’s self-righteousness is what American institutions need to survive Trump – Comey is a creation of the deep state. That might be a good thing.” by Dara Linddara@vox.com updated Apr. 17, 2018, as follows:

   President Donald Trump and his Republican allies are right about one thing: Former FBI Director James Comey really is the embodiment of the “deep state.”

   In his book, A Higher Loyalty, and the media blitz that has accompanied it, Comey has made it clear that even though he’s spent most of his career in government — as a federal prosecutor who went after Mafia families, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York (the most powerful US attorney in the country), deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush — he sees himself as a different, more noble creature than the politicians around him.

   But Comey doesn’t characterize himself as the only noble man in Washington.

   He’s part of a brotherhood of noble public servants — law enforcement and intelligence officials — whose internal code of honor supersedes their loyalty to the agenda of the government officials they ostensibly serve.

   Comey’s Sam the Eagle-like rectitude is an embodiment of the attitude the FBI has often had toward politics in general, and even toward the political appointees who oversee it at the Department of Justice and the White House: an aloof superiority that, when challenged, stiffens into prickly independence.

   It’s this institutional culture that’s put the FBI, which is usually characterized as Republican-leaning, in the odd position of being seen as a bastion of the anti-Trump “deep state.”

   The investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, and now into whether the president obstructed justice by firing Comey, is led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller.

   Comey has become a leading critic of the president.

   Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was hounded out of the bureau and stripped of his pension; agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page have become leading figures in a conservative conspiracy theory.

   The FBI might take down President Trump; it’s inevitable that they would be the ones to do it.

   One of the most striking things about Comey’s public comments in his new life as an author-pundit is his willingness to describe current or former Trump administration officials — his former colleagues — as corrupt or complicit.

   end quotes

   That, people, is some very necessary background here as to the motivations of the various players here, including the Mullet himself, who is a part of that bastion of the anti-Trump “deep state,” as we are reminded by this following sentence from that same article, to wit:

   If Trump were the sort of person willing to learn things, he might have interpreted the FBI’s reaction to Comey’s firing, and the appointment of Mueller, as a brushback pitch — a reminder of where the boundaries are.

   end quotes

   Getting back the corruption that the FBI did not see when it was occurring during the Obama administration, we go back to The Hill article as follows:

   The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.

   In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp.

   Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.

   “The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns.”

   “And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.

   end quotes

   As has been stated in here before, by going after Trump so hot and heavy as they are, there is what the Democrats are trying to keep covered up and out of sight, which takes us to a CNN article entitled “Trump raised prosecuting Clinton with top White House, Justice officials” by Pamela Brown, Jeremy Herb, Laura Jarrett and Eli Watkins updated November 20, 2018, as follows:

   Washington (CNN) — President Donald Trump on multiple occasions raised with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Matt Whitaker, who was then-chief of staff to Jeff Sessions, whether the Justice Department was progressing in investigating Hillary Clinton, according to a source familiar with the matter.

   Anticipating the question about Clinton would be raised, Whitaker came prepared to answer with what Justice was doing on Clinton-related matters, including the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One investigations, the source said.

   end quotes

   But in 2018, or by 2018, there were no investigations of either the Clinton Foundation or the Uranium One deal that benefited Russia at the expense of the United States of America, as we can see from this excerpt from p.54 of “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweitzer, as follows:

   The Russian purchase of Uranium One was approved by CIFUS on October 22, 2010.

   Hillary’s opposition would have been enough under CIFUS rules to have the decision on the transaction kicked up to the president.

   That never happened.

   The result: Uranium One and half of projected American uranium production were transferred to a private company controlled in turn by the Russian State Nuclear Agency.

   Strangely enough, when Uranium One requested approval from CIFUS by the federal government, Ian Telfer, a major Clinton Foundation donor, was chairman of the board, a position he continues to hold.

   In 2010, in reporting to the U.S. government, Russian officials said they were looking to buy just slightly more than 50 percent of the company and promised “not [to] increase its share in Uranium One, Inc.”

   But by the beginning of 2013, the Russian  government moved to buy out the company’s other shareholders entirely.

   Today it owns the company outright.

   The Russian purchase of a large share of America’s uranium assets raised serious national security concerns for precisely the same reasons Hillary had condemned previous deals.

   A foreign government would now have direct control over a very valuable commodity; the Russian government would reap hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues every year; and it would allow the Russian government to use Uranium One assets to honor supply contracts with US reactors while freeing up other uranium assets to send to more dangerous regions of the world – where Russia was already known to be involved.

   Lawmakers in Washington had raised these concerns.

   Still, despite a long record of publicly opposing such deals, Hillary didn’t object.

   For Moscow, the approval was a major victory.

   Kiriyenko, the head of Rosatom, told Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that the United States would now become “a key market” for Rosatom.

   *****

   In 2013 Rosatom announced plans to take 100 percent control of Uranium One.

   It didn’t even bother to ask the Obama administration for approval this time, because the transaction “involved the same parties” and the move did not technically “change the corporate structure of Uranium One.”

   Pravda hailed the move with an over-the-top headline: “RUSSIAN NUCLEAR ENERGY CONQUERS THE WORLD.”

   end quotes

   Which takes us back to the CNN article as follows:

   In March, then-Attorney General Sessions revealed that Utah’s top federal prosecutor, John Huber, was looking into allegations that the FBI abused its powers in surveilling a former Trump campaign adviser, and claims that more should have been done to investigate Clinton’s ties to a Russian nuclear energy agency, which have not been proven.

   And in January, CNN reported that the US attorney and FBI in Arkansas were investigating allegations of corruption related to the Clinton Foundation.

   The FBI and federal prosecutors are looking into whether donors to the foundation were improperly promised policy favors or special access to Clinton while she was secretary of state in exchange for donations to the charity’s coffers, as well as whether tax-exempt funds were misused, the official said.

   end quotes

   And POOF, all of that has disappeared from our radar screens, likely forever, because if there is one person in America who is above the law, it is Barack Obama’s chosen successor for the office of U.S. president Hillary Rodham Clinton.

   Reply

3. Paul Plante says

   July 2, 2019 at 8:58 pm

   That unlike Trump, who is a detested Washington outsider being taken on by the corrupt “system” Trump mistakenly thought he was going to take on to “drain the swamp,” a pipe dream on Trump’s part at best, Hillary Rodham Clinton is above the law, is made patently clear in a
   VOX.com article entitled “Exclusive: Trump loyalist Matthew Whitaker was counseling the White House on investigating Clinton – Whitaker advised the president on launching a new special counsel while working as chief of staff for Attorney General Jeff Sessions.” by Murray Waas on Nov 9, 2018, as follows:

   Trump wanted the Justice Department to investigate the role that Clinton purportedly played, as secretary of state, in approving the Russian nuclear energy agency’s (Rosatom) purchase of a US uranium mining company.

   The FBI had earlier investigated the allegations, concluded that there was no evidence of wrongdoing, and closed out its investigation.

   end quotes

   Now, that really is an incredible statement given what we now know about the Rosatom deal, and it serves to reveal the political nature of how the FBI actually conducts its bidness – not seeing what it is not supposed to see, which takes us back to that VOX article as follows:

   To placate the president’s demand that a special counsel be named to investigate Hillary Clinton’s role in the uranium deal, Rosenstein and other Justice Department officials came up with a similar compromise: Instead of naming a special counsel, Sessions agreed to appoint John Huber, the US attorney for Utah, to review the department’s earlier investigation.

   If he found evidence of any serious wrongdoing, Huber could then recommend the opening of a formal criminal investigation or even the appointment of a special counsel.

   Sessions wrote to several Republican members of Congress in March to say that Huber’s review was a top priority: “I receive regular updates from Mr. Huber and upon the conclusion of his review,” so as to consider “whether any matters merit the appointment of a special counsel.”

   At the highest levels of the Justice Department, Huber’s review has been considered to be little more than a publicity or political stunt to placate Trump.

   end quotes

   So, outsider Trump was merely being fed a line of bull**** by his own so-called “Justice” Department that never intended to investigate Hillary Clinton, at all, well, because Hillary is special and precious and above the law, because she is Hillary Clinton, and that is that, which takes us back in time again to the article in The Hill entitled “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow” by John Solomon and Alison Spann on 10/17/17, for a further look at what the “Justice” Department and the political police of the FBI failed to see in the matter of Hillary and Rosatom, to wit:

   The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015.

   That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

   The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.

   end quotes

   And since both Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton said to the Justice Department and the FBI that everything they did was alright, the “Justice” Department and the FBI simply closed their eyes and did the smart thing by going back to sleep, because they know that you do not cross the Clintons if you want a future in the snake-pit of Washington, D.C., which takes us back to that article and the cover-up the Democrats today are trying to keep covered up, to wit:

   But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.

   Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved.

   Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.

   Spokesmen for Holder and Clinton did not return calls seeking comment.

   The Justice Department also didn’t comment.

   end quotes

   HUSH!

   MUMS the word!

   It’s the Clintons!

   Look the other way!

   Getting back to that portion of the story, we have as follows, to wit:

   Mikerin was a director of Rosatom’s Tenex in Moscow since the early 2000s, where he oversaw Rosatom’s nuclear collaboration with the United States under the Megatons to Megwatts program and its commercial uranium sales to other countries.

   In 2010, Mikerin was dispatched to the U.S. on a work visa approved by the Obama administration to open Rosatom’s new American arm called Tenam.

   Between 2009 and January 2012, Mikerin “did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire confederate and agree with other persons … to obstruct, delay and affect commerce and the movement of an article and commodity (enriched uranium) in commerce by extortion,” a November 2014 indictment stated.

   His illegal conduct was captured with the help of a confidential witness, an American businessman, who began making kickback payments at Mikerin’s direction and with the permission of the FBI.

   end quotes

   So when the FBI concluded that there was no evidence of wrongdoing, and closed out its investigation of Hillary and the Rosatom deal, it in fact had evidence of wrongdoing that then got flushed down the political toilet, to protect Hillary Clinton, which takes us back to that story of wrongdoing, as follows:

   The first kickback payment recorded by the FBI through its informant was dated Nov. 27, 2009, the records show.

   In evidentiary affidavits signed in 2014 and 2015, an Energy Department agent assigned to assist the FBI in the case testified that Mikerin supervised a “racketeering scheme” that involved extortion, bribery, money laundering and kickbacks that were both directed by and provided benefit to more senior officials back in Russia.

   “As part of the scheme, Mikerin, with the consent of higher level officials at TENEX and Rosatom (both Russian state-owned entities) would offer no-bid contracts to US businesses in exchange for kickbacks in the form of money payments made to some offshore banks accounts,” Agent David Gadren testified.

   “Mikerin apparently then shared the proceeds with other co-conspirators associated with TENEX in Russia and elsewhere,” the agent added.

   The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now the deputy FBI director under Trump, Justice Department documents show.

   end quotes

   And enter Rod Rosenstein, who is going to shine Trump on in 2018, along with Andy McCabe, who we were told in the VOX.com article entitled “James Comey’s self-righteousness is what American institutions need to survive Trump – Comey is a creation of the deep state. That might be a good thing.” by Dara Linddara@vox.com updated Apr. 17, 2018 was part of a brotherhood of noble public servants — law enforcement and intelligence officials — whose internal code of honor supersedes their loyalty to the agenda of the government officials they ostensibly serve and who was “was hounded out of the bureau and stripped of his pension,” which takes us back to The Hill article as follows:

   Both men now play a key role in the current investigation into possible, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election cycle.

   McCabe is under congressional and Justice Department inspector general investigation in connection with money his wife’s Virginia state Senate campaign accepted in 2015 from now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe at a time when McAuliffe was reportedly under investigation by the FBI.

   The probe is not focused on McAuliffe’s conduct but rather on whether McCabe’s attendance violated the Hatch Act or other FBI conflict rules.

   end quotes

   Nothing to see there, people, everybody go back home!

   And getting back to essential background here, and to get the whole cast of characters out onto the stage, we have:

   The connections to the current Russia case are many.

   The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director.

   And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year.

   end quotes

   So is it any kind of coincidence that Rod Rosenstein would then select the Mullet to be the special prosecutor of outsider Trump, who is detested by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and the “Deep State” that the FBI and “Justice” Department are a vital part of, according to VOX. com?

   Getting back to the article in The Hill, we have further as follows:

   Its many twist and turns aside, the FBI nuclear industry case proved a gold mine, in part because it uncovered a new Russian money laundering apparatus that routed bribe and kickback payments through financial instruments in Cyprus, Latvia and Seychelles.

   A Russian financier in New Jersey was among those arrested for the money laundering, court records show.

   The case also exposed a serious national security breach: Mikerin had given a contract to an American trucking firm called Transport Logistics International that held the sensitive job of transporting Russia’s uranium around the United States in return for more than $2 million in kickbacks from some of its executives, court records show.

   One of Mikerin’s former employees told the FBI that Tenex officials in Russia specifically directed the scheme to “allow for padded pricing to include kickbacks,” agents testified in one court filing.

   Bringing down a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme that had both compromised a sensitive uranium transportation asset inside the U.S. and facilitated international money laundering would seem a major feather in any law enforcement agency’s cap.

   But the Justice Department and FBI took little credit in 2014 when Mikerin, the Russian financier and the trucking firm executives were arrested and charged.

   The only public statement occurred a year later when the Justice Department put out a little-noticed press release in August 2015, just days before Labor Day.

   The release noted that the various defendants had reached plea deals.

   By that time, the criminal cases against Mikerin had been narrowed to a single charge of money laundering for a scheme that officials admitted stretched from 2004 to 2014.

   And though agents had evidence of criminal wrongdoing they collected since at least 2009, federal prosecutors only cited in the plea agreement a handful of transactions that occurred in 2011 and 2012, well after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States’s approval.

   The final court case also made no mention of any connection to the influence peddling conversations the FBI undercover informant witnessed about the Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation, sources confirmed to The Hill.

   end quotes

   Now, there is what a successful Democrat cover-up looks like in real life, people, which takes us back to The Hill, as follows:

   The lack of fanfare left many key players in Washington with no inkling that a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme with serious national security implications had been uncovered.

   On Dec. 15, 2015, the Justice Department put out a release stating that Mikerin, “a former Russian official residing in Maryland was sentenced today to 48 months in prison” and ordered to forfeit more than $2.1 million.

   Ronald Hosko, who served as the assistant FBI director in charge of criminal cases when the investigation was underway, told The Hill he did not recall ever being briefed about Mikerin’s case by the counterintelligence side of the bureau despite the criminal charges that were being lodged.

   “I had no idea this case was being conducted,” a surprised Hosko said in an interview.

   Likewise, major congressional figures were also kept in the dark.

   Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill that he had never been told anything about the Russian nuclear corruption case even though many fellow lawmakers had serious concerns about the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal.

   “Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them,” he said.

   “The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”

   end quotes

   And yes, they certainly were!

   Reply

4. Paul Plante says

   July 3, 2019 at 8:37 pm

   And with that necessary background established of how the Clintons, Bill and Hillary, and Hussein Obama conspired and colluded to obstruct justice and to aid Mother Russia at the expense of the United States of America and our national security, let us go to an AOL article entitled “FBI Director James Comey to publicly testify on Trump-Russia investigation” by Doina Chiacu and Jonathan Landay on Mar 15th 2017, where we see the beginning of the formal assault on Trump that resulted in Rod Rosenstein having such a serious conflict of interest that he had to appoint the Mullet as a special prosecutor, to wit:

   WASHINGTON, March 15 (Reuters) – U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia conducted cyber attacks on Democrats in an effort to influence the 2016 U.S. election on Trump’s behalf.

   Russia has denied this.

   At the same time, Trump has been dogged by allegations that his advisers or associates had ties to Russian officials.

   end quote

   Now, when we consider all the ties Bill and Hillary Clinton had to Russian officials, right on up to Putin himself, that statement about Trump being dogged by allegations that his advisers or associates had ties to Russian officials is mockable and ridiculous.

   Getting back to that article, we have:

   Comey and Admiral Mike Rogers, the head of the National Security Agency, have agreed to testify before the House committee on issues related to Russia’s role in the election.

   Schiff said he expected the Federal Bureau of Investigation to cooperate and was “prepared to support the use of the coercive process” if they did not, referring to the issuing of subpoenas.

   Congressional Democrats want a special prosecutor or nonpartisan select committee to investigate any Russian ties.

   end quotes

   And there is the key statement right there made before Comey’s testimony to that same committee, that Congressional Democrats want a special prosecutor or nonpartisan select committee to investigate any Russian ties, as opposed to Comey and the FBI, which is interesting, given the timing here, which takes us back to that article again as follows:

   But Trump’s fellow Republicans, who control majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives, say the probes by congressional committees are sufficient.

   Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, appearing on CNN, said he believed Comey will say the FBI was “looking at” Russia connections to Trump.

   “We have to understand everything about the ties between Russia, the Trump campaign, the Trump transition, the Trump administration,” said Kaine, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s running mate.

   “Especially the degree to which Russia tried to invade the American election, because we have to protect future elections.”

   end quotes

   You go, Tim!

   And that takes us to the beginnings of the Mullet investigation, as follows:

   And what is the significance of that hearing today?

   Simply this:

   ORDER NO. 3915-2017

   APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

   By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

   (a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

   (b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

   (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

   (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

   (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

   (c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

   (d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

   DATE: 5/17/17

   Signed: Rod J. Rosenstein, Acting Attorney General

   Reply

5. Paul Plante says

   July 4, 2019 at 7:10 pm

   So, by way of review here as we wait with bated breath for the Mullet to testify before Congress on July 17, 2019, a move that paves the way for a reluctant special counsel to answer questions publicly for the first time about his 22-month investigation into President Donald Trump with Democrat House Judiciary Chairman “Jumping Jerry” Nadler and smarmy and unctuous House Intelligence Chairman Democrat from Hollywood, California Adam Schiff, voted by popular acclaim the most obnoxious Democrat in the whole House of Representatives telling us in a joint statement that “Americans have demanded to hear directly from the Special Counsel so they can understand what he and his team examined, uncovered, and determined about Russia’s attack on our democracy, the Trump campaign’s acceptance and use of that help, and President Trump and his associates’ obstruction of the investigation into that attack,” in 2009 when this same Mullet who is going to testify before Nadler and Schiff on July 17 was still FBI director under Hussein Obama, who was cozy with Russia, he was conducting what was known as the “Mikerin Probe,” which involved influence peddling conversations an FBI undercover informant witnessed about the Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons and FBI agents gathering documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation, which investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who shoved all of that under the rug for the Obama administration and the Clintons, whose bad side is not good to get on.

   That Hussein Obama was cozy with the Russians, of course, was never any kind of state secret, and in the March 20, 2017 congressional hearing that resulted in the issuance of ORDER NO. 3915-2017, APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS, Democrat Congressman Peter King referred to Obama being cozy with the Russians, and Putin, as follows:

   KING: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

   If you could yield me a few minutes into the next round — I’ll just start with this — make the comment.

   First of all, let me thank Director Comey and Admiral Rogers for being here today.

   Director Comey, I think we’re in a predicament here today.

   I understand your situation where you can’t comment on the investigation.

   And yet we’ve can have various scenarios laid out which can go on for months and months and months without anyone be able to disprove them until the investigation is completed.

   I just like to use the example, for instance we could’ve said that in 2012 President Obama was overheard on microphone telling Medvedev that I’m reelected, tell Vladimir we can work out better arrangements.

   We know that he ridiculed candidate Romney in the 2012 election when Romney said that he thought Russia still a threat.

   And then in 2013 we saw that basically President Obama invited the Russians into Syria when they’ve been pretty much removed from the Middle East 40 years before.

   And also as far as aid to Ukraine, far as I recall, the Obama administration always refuse to give the lethal aid to Ukraine and it can be argued that the Republican platform in 2016 was actually stronger than the Democratic platform on that.

   So again if we — if there was investigation going on with the Obama administration, we can lay out all these scenarios and say well that proves something or it might prove something.

   Until the investigation was completed, that type of almost possibly slanderous comments could be made.

   So I would just, again, if — I’m not asking you to hurry the investigation along, you have to do what you have to do.

   But I guess I could ask you just in the remaining moments I have in this round, I know that — I guess it was just two weeks ago that Director Clapper said that as far as he knows, all the evidence he’s seen, there’s no evidence of any collusion at all between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

   Now obviously a detailed, exhaustive report was put out talking about Russian influence in the campaign along with the intelligence apparatus had input into that.

   Do either you or Admiral Rogers have any reason to disagree with the conclusion of General Clapper that there’s no evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

   COMEY: Mr. King, it’s not something I can comment on.

   ROGERS: Likewise, I’m not going to comment on an ongoing investigation’s conclusions.

   end quotes

   So, before there was collusion between Trump and the Russians after March 20, 2017, there was no collusion between Trump and the Russians before March 20, 2017, which was very bad for the fundraising efforts of the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff, so the finding of no collusion before March 20, 2017, became a finding of collusion by Adam Schiff after March 20, 2017, and over 2 years later, in July of 2019, the Democrats are still singing that same song, as we clearly see when “Jumping Jerry” Nadler and smarmy Adam Schiff tell us in 2019 that “Americans have demanded to hear directly from the Special Counsel so they can understand what he and his team examined, uncovered, and determined about Russia’s attack on our democracy, the Trump campaign’s acceptance and use of that help, and President Trump and his associates’ obstruction of the investigation into that attack.”

   And even though on 5/17/17, fifty-eight (58) days after the March 20, 2017 Hearing, Rod J. Rosenstein, Acting Attorney General informed the American people in writing that Special Counsel Mullet was authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, the fact of the matter is that before Comey ever testified, the House Democrats were already calling for a special prosecutor, so we are clearly being gamed in here, people, with this carefully constructed but flimsy nonetheless House of Cards the Democrats constructed in an effort to take down Trump and score a coup for Mother Russia in the doing so.

   Talk about a perfect set-up. as far as Washington politics goes, this one is pretty slick, indeed, and Trump, ignorant of the ways of Washington and how dirty they play the game of politics, walked into it face first.

   And that brings us to an article analyzing that March 20, 2017 hearing by James W. Carden, a contributing writer at The Nation and the executive editor for the American Committee for East-West Accord in THE NATION entitled “The House Intelligence Committee Hearing on Russia Was Political Theater – The nature of the committee’s enterprise was clear from the start: to provide House members a public platform to play to their respective bases” on March 21, 2017, as follows:

   On Monday, Gallup released its latest tracking poll, which showed Donald Trump’s popularity at an all-time low, with an approval rating of just 37 percent.

   Interestingly, his approval rating remains 10 points higher than that of Congress.

   Indeed, last year, Gallup found that between 2006 and 2016 the percentage of Americans who expressed confidence in Congress as an institution fell from 19 percent to 9 percent.

   There is a reason for this.

   end quotes

   And as an American citizen over seventy years old who is totally disgusted with all this political theater and drama from the Congressional Democrats coming out of Washington, D.C. about Trump and the Russians long after the matter should have finally been put to bed, while this nation and the situation on the southern border continues to go to Hell, I am one of those in this country who has absolutely no use whatsoever for the useless House of Representatives, now “The People’s House,” since Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took charge and brought our governmental operations to a screeching halt with all their witch hunts of Trump.

   Getting back to that article in THE NATION, we have:

   Yesterday morning (March 20, 2017), in a crowded, cavernous hearing room on Capitol Hill, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held what was supposed to be a hearing on allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

   FBI Director James Comey made headlines by confirming to the committee that the bureau is conducting a counterintelligence investigation into some of the allegations, though he could not say which.

   Of perhaps greater import was confirmation from Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers that neither had any evidence that any votes were changed due to Russian meddling.

   end quotes

   Now, people, focus in on that last sentence: neither Comey nor NSA Director Mike Rogers had any evidence that any votes were changed due to Russian meddling.

   So WTF is going on here, people two years later in 2019, where we are still hearing the same old **** that was totally debunked in March of 2017?

   Ah, right, fundraising!

   If Adam Schiff lets loose of this now and has to admit that it is nothing more than a scam, which it is, and a cover-up of corruption and collusion during the Obama administration involving Hillary Clinton and the Russians, his fundraising days are over, along with his standing in the Democrat party, which is based on how much money one raises for the Democrat party, so the show must go on, which takes us back the THE NATION, as follows:

   Those two developments aside, the nature of the committee’s enterprise was clear from the start: to provide House members a public platform to play to their respective bases.

   Schiff’s opening was replete with evidence-free assertions and innuendo.

   Though, as Schiff told NBC over the weekend, facts aren’t really necessary to the enterprise.

   For Schiff “circumstantial evidence of collusion” will do just fine.

   end quotes

   That was over two years ago in 2017, and over 2 years later, Adam Schiff is still pursuing his “circumstantial evidence of collusion,” which for him will do just fine, even though it is nothing more than hot air mixed with horse**** with a leavening of some genuine potent pig **** to give it both flavor and spice, which again takes us back the THE NATION as follows:

   In addition to recycling the claims of the infamous and largely discredited “piss dossier” (much of it made up of unproven hearsay from a former British intelligence officer’s sources which — as the NYT’s Scott Shane noted, “journalists have been unable to confirm”) Schiff rattled off a series of meetings that Trump associates are said to have had with the Russian ambassador, Sergei Kislyak, casting aspersions on routine diplomatic encounters while giving seemingly no thought as to how this might affect our own diplomats — who are already operating in a difficult environment in Moscow.

   In this respect, the line of questioning pursued by Representatives Jackie Speier and Eric Swalwell deserves special mention.

   Speier ran through a list of Trump advisers and appointees who she alleged to have unseemly, perhaps even treasonous, ties to Russia.

   She accused Secretary of State Rex Tillerson of doing “Putin’s bidding” and darkly noted that former Trump campaign adviser Michael Caputo was once “married [to] a Russian woman.”

   Trump foreign-policy adviser Carter Page drew Speier’s ire for having once worked at Merrill Lynch in Moscow and, perhaps worse, for having written articles “critical” of US foreign policy.

   Neither Caputo or Page have been charged with a crime but are being dragged through the mud because Speier has a political axe to grind.

   Even NSA Director Rogers seemed taken aback by Speier’s reliance on innuendo, and explained to the congresswoman that, after all, “lots of American companies do business in Russia.”

   California Democrat Eric Swalwell went one better than Speier and insinuated that the mere act of traveling to Russia ought to be enough to jump-start a counterintelligence investigation.

   “Are you aware,” he asked Comey, “that Donald Trump Jr has traveled to Russia six times?”

   In short, the hearing was political theater and showed that we need an independent, bipartisan 9/11-style commission to investigate the allegations of Russian interference.

   Yesterday’s hearing proved once and for all that Congress is not up to the task.

   end quotes

   And what we ended up with was the Mullet, instead.

   And now we pause for a word from our sponsors as we take a moment for a station break. but don’t go away from your viewing screen for this story still has plenty of legs, so we will be right back!

   Reply

6. Paul Plante says

   July 6, 2019 at 9:12 pm

   In what is now known as the First Speech of June 21 of Alexander Hamilton to the New York Ratifying Convention in Poughkeepsie, New York on June 21, 1788, Mr. Hamilton stated thusly concerning “democracy” as a form of government, to wit:

   It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government.

   Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this.

   The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government.

   Their very character was tryanny; their figure deformity: When they assembled, the field of debate presented an ungovernable mob, not only incapable of deliberation, but prepared for every enormity.

   In these assemblies, the enemies of the people brought forward their plans of ambition systematically.

   They were opposed by their enemies of another party; and it became a matter of contingency, whether the people subjected themselves to be led blindly by one tyrant or by another.

   end quotes

   Which very much describes where we are here in the United States of America today, with respect to this concerted effort by the congressional Democrats to take down by any means Republican Donald Trump: the very character of their democracy is tryanny and when they assemble, the field of debate presents us with an ungovernable mob, not only incapable of deliberation, but prepared for every enormity, and yes, as we can clearly see by following this sick saga along, it is in these assemblies, these Democrat hearings, that the enemies of the people bring forward their plans of ambition systematically, which brings us back for the moment to the CNN article entitled “Mueller to testify publicly on July 17 following a subpoena” by Jeremy Herb and Manu Raju on June 25, 2019, as follows:

   “Americans have demanded to hear directly from the Special Counsel so they can understand what he and his team examined, uncovered, and determined about Russia’s attack on our democracy, the Trump campaign’s acceptance and use of that help, and President Trump and his associates’ obstruction of the investigation into that attack,” House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff said in a joint statement.

   end quotes

   “Americans have demanded to hear directly from the Special Counsel so they can understand what he and his team examined, uncovered, and determined about Russia’s attack on our democracy,” which is a total bull**** statement because in America, we are supposed to have a Republic, and the so-called “democracy” of the Democrats in America ain’t worth spit, because it is only for them, and those of us who are not Democrats, as Hillary Clinton proved emphatically with her statement about a “Basket of Deplorables,” are second-class citizens.

   And to say the Russians “attacked” our “democracy” sounds so stupid and it is a statement only an idiot would make, because “democracy” is a concept, a mental construct, and thus cannot be attacked, except by comparing it to another form of government, which the Russians never did.

   And besides, three years ago, back in 2016, when this supposed Russian attack occurred, no vote tallies were changed, so our so-called democracy is untouched and unscathed, at least to a rational person; but the rabid Democrats are far from rational, and so they press on, trying harder and harder to keep their House of Cards, which is held together by a cheap paste of bull**** and pig****, from falling down around their ears, which takes us back to that article once more as follows:

   Democrats have been talking about bringing Mueller in to testify since his investigation wrapped in March, and their decision to issue subpoenas comes more than a month after the initial date that Nadler had floated for Mueller to appear.

   Since then, Democrats have continued to negotiate with Mueller, holding out hope he would agree to testify voluntarily.

   end quotes

   When the Mullet does testify on July 17, as an American citizen, I would very much like to hear the Mullet grilled extensively about those “negotiations” between him and the congressional Democrats to find out exactly what it was the congressional Democrats were negotiating with the Mullet, and I hope those questions get asked of him.

   Getting back to that article:

   While Mueller stated he did not wish appear before Congress, Democrats — and some Republicans — have said they still believe Mueller should testify.

   “I hope the special counsel’s testimony marks an end to the political gamesmanship that Judiciary Democrats have pursued at great cost to taxpayers,” said Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

   “May this testimony bring to House Democrats the closure that the rest of America has enjoyed for months, and may it enable them to return to the business of legislating.”

   end quotes

   And no, I am not a Republican, but nonetheless, I am very much with Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee when he says he hopes, as do I, that the special counsel’s testimony marks an end to the political gamesmanship that Judiciary Democrats have pursued at great cost to taxpayers, which is us, people, so yes, may this this testimony of the Mullet finally bring to the House Democrats the closure that the rest of America has enjoyed for months, and may it enable them to return to the business of legislating, although that is something I truly thin k they are incapable of doing, legislating, because they are too incompetent and ignorant to do, only knowing how to play silly little political games at our expense as American citizens, which again takes us to the CNN article for more Democrat horse****, as follows:

   “This will be an opportunity to amplify the message of the report, and then, you know, we’ll let the chips fall where they may,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat on the Judiciary Committee who has pushed for opening an impeachment inquiry.

   end quotes

   Memo to Jamie: Dude, believe me, the chips fell where they may over two years ago now, in that sham hearing you Democrats held on March 20, 2017, which resulted 58 days later in Rod Rosenstein declaring on 5/17/17 that he had a serious conflict of interest and therefore, it was in the interest of the American people, which happens to be all of us and not just the Democrats, that the Mullet as Special Counsel be authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, and when the chips ,landed, as we are exploring in here, you had a great big nothing-burger, Jamie – just a HOUSE OF CARDS!

   Getting back to the CNN article:

   “There’s been a campaign of misrepresentation from Attorney General Barr, who misrepresented what was in the report; by the President — the President saying they found no collusion, that’s not true,” Nadler told CNN.

   “So it’s important that he answer a lot of specific questions.”

   end quotes

   Except back on 20 March 2017, we had Representative Peter King, a Republican committee member, making it clear on the record that there was NO COLLUSION, so when is that debunked story ever going to be stopped circulating as if true by the Democrats?

   end quotes

   And that takes us back to the CNN article, because there is always more to come, as follows:

   Schiff said Democrats on his committee have questions about the counterintelligence portion of the investigation and the prosecutorial decisions made.

   “There’s no limitation on confining his testimony to the four corners of the report,” Schiff said.

   end quotes

   So in other words, as was the case with that sham hearing over 2 years ago on 20 March 2017, the Democrats are going to try to lead the witness, as they did with Comey back in 2017, all over the board as they try to score some cheap political points in an endeavor which is going nowhere fast, because it has nowhere else to go.

   Reply

7. Paul Plante says

   July 7, 2019 at 9:06 pm

   And as the Democrats today cry and whine and scream and holler and snivel about the way Trump is running the Executive branch of our federal government, I am reminded of the following from CHAPTER XIV of THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC, entitled POLITICAL TENDENCIES, by Orestes Brownson in 1866, to wit:

   Congress, during the rebellion, clothed the President, as far as it could, with dictatorial powers, and these powers the Executive continues to exercise even after the rebellion is suppressed.

   They were given and held under the rights of war, and for war purposes only, and expired by natural limitation when the war ceased; but the Executive forgets this, and, instead of calling Congress together and submitting the work of reconstruction of the States that seceded to its wisdom and authority, undertakes to reconstruct them himself, as if he were an absolute sovereign; and the people seem to like it.

   He might and should, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, govern them as military departments, by his lieutenants, till Congress could either create provisional civil governments for them or recognize them as self-governing States in the Union; but he has no right, under the constitution nor under the war power, to appoint civil governors, permanent or provisional; and every act he has done in regard to reconstruction is sheer usurpation, and done without authority and without the slightest plea of necessity.

   His acts in this respect, even if wise and just in themselves, are inexcusable, because done by one who has no legal right to do them.

   Yet his usurpation is apparently sustained by public sentiment, and a deep wound is inflicted on the constitution, which will be long in healing.

   The danger in this respect is all the greater because it did not originate with the rebellion, but had manifested itself for a long time before.

   There is a growing disposition on the part of Congress to throw as much of the business of government as possible into the hands of the Executive.

   The patronage the Executive wields, even in times of peace, is so large that he has indirectly an almost supreme control over the legislative branch of the government.

   For this, which is, and, if not checked will continue to be, a growing evil, there is no obvious remedy, unless the President is chosen for a longer term of office and made ineligible for a second term, and the mischievous doctrine of rotation in office is rejected as incompatible with the true interests of the public.

   Reply

8. Paul Plante says

   July 8, 2019 at 7:07 pm

   So, yes, people, “leading the witness,” which is defined as a “method of questioning” a witness by which s/he is directed to answer them in the way expected by the attorney.

   In other words, the query suggests to the witness how it is to be answered or puts words into the mouth of the witness, and in such questioning the answers will be apparent in the questions itself.

   And in the case of these SHAM public hearings put on by the Democrats, and here I am referring specifically to the 20 March 2017 FARCE where Jimmy Comey must have said “I’m not going to answer that,” at least a hundred times, it seemed, that is what we had and that is all we had , and no better example of that can be found, I think, than the portion of the hearing devoted to questioning by Democrat Congresswoman Terrycina Andrea “Terri” Sewell, born January 1, 1965, an American lawyer and politician who has served as the U.S. Representative since 2011 for Alabama’s 7th congressional district.

   A native of Selma, Sewell is a graduate of Princeton University, Harvard Law School, and Oxford University, and before entering politics, she was a securities lawyer for Davis Polk & Wardwell.

   Her questioning of Jimmy Comey at that COMICAL FARCE begins as follows from the transcript, to wit:

   SEWELL: I’d like to continue my questioning — the line of questioning on Michael Flynn.

   I’m sure you can understand my concern that Mr. Flynn not only failed to disclose the contacts with the Russian ambassador, but he said he did not remember whether he discussed sanctions against Russia with that ambassador and I find that really hard to believe.

   And wouldn’t you think that at the height of our concern about Russian hacking, that Mr. Flynn would have remembered meeting with the Russian ambassador and would have been –and would have told him to stop meddling in our affairs, but that didn’t happen, did it?

   end quotes

   Now, pardon me, people, but isn’t that a REAL STUPID QUESTION, and of course it is, first telling Jimmy Comey that Mr. Flynn would have remembered meeting with the Russian ambassador and would have told him to stop meddling in our affairs, which meets with HUH?, and then asking Comey, as if he were privy to these kinds of details as head of the FBI, acting as literal thought police, “but that didn’t happen, did it?, again, as if Comey could possibly know what happened some place where he wasn’t present, to which Jimmy answered as follows:

   COMEY: Mrs. Sewell, that’s not something I can answer.

   end quotes

   That of course, is but one of the multitude of times when Jimmy Comey said he couldn’t answer, but you know what, people – the Democrats only had him there as a prop so they could use him to load the record with accusations and innuendo, so it didn’t make a difference to them what Comey said; mit only made a difference that they could get to say what they said in a public hearing to sway public opinion, which takes us back to Ms. Sewell, as follows:

   SEWELL: Not only did Mr. Flynn not remember talking to the Russian ambassador and not only did he not remember what they talked about, he also appeared to have lied to Vice President-elect Mike Pence all about it.

   Now, Mr. Comey, do you think that Mr. Flynn’s failure to disclose the communication and contact he had with the Russian ambassador and their topic of conversation along with a blatant lie to Vice President Pence meet the standard for an investigation by the FBI?

   COMEY: I have to give you the same answer, I’m not going to comment.

   end quotes

   And there we can see that Ms. Sewell has pre-empted the hearing to make it about herself, which of course, it was, since it was not a real hearing; to the contrary, it was SHOW BUSINESS, and Ms. Sewell was the STAR, while Jimmy Comey was the bit actor in the drama, which takes us to this gem from Ms. Sewell, and in all truth, people, having read this whole transcript, of which this is but a part, it is easy to see how those enterprising actors were able to turn it into a Saturday Night Live-type farce, because all they had to do was follow the script the Democrats like Ms. Sewell handed them ready-made, as follows:

   SEWELL: Now, I know, Director Comey, that you probably can’t comment on this as well but I think it’s really important that we review a short timeline and — that’s based on press reportings because we need to get this for the public record, I think.

   end quotes

   And there is a real clear measure of just how ludicrous and ridiculous that 20 March 2017 FARCE was, which is an indication of how ludicrous and ridiculous this upcoming testimony of the Mullet is going to be, because clearly, if something is based on “press reportings,” then there is no need for Congresswoman Sewell to “get this for the public record,” because those press reportings already are the public record.

   But again, Ms. Seweel did not care, because she was there to speechify, and be the star of her own show, as follows:

   So on December 25, 2016, Mr. Flynn reportedly exchanged text messages with the Russian ambassador.

   On December 28, 2016, Mr. Flynn reportedly spoke on the phone with the Russian ambassador.

   By then, it was pretty clear that the Obama administration was going to take actions against Russia.

   On December 29, 2016, Mr. Flynn reportedly spoke on the phone with the Russian ambassador again.

   That day, the Obama administration expelled 35 Russian operatives from the United States and announced new sanctions.

   We also know from press reportings that sometime in December, Mr. Flynn met in person with the Russian ambassador at Trump Tower and that Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner was also there.

   The purpose of the meeting was to quote “Establish a line of communication” end quote, with the Kremlin.

   I should add that the White House and Mr. Flynn didn’t disclose this December face-to-face meeting until this month.

   On January 20 — January 12, sorry — 2017, press reported that Mr. Flynn contacted the Russian ambassador again.

   And on January 15, 2015 vice President-elect, Mike Pence stated on several Sunday morning shows regarding Mr. Flynn’s conversation with ambassador quote, “What I can confirm, having spoken to him about it, is that those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions,” end quote.

   On January 26, the — the acting Attorney General, Sally Yates reportedly told president Trump’s White House counsel, who immediately told President Trump that Mr. Flynn was vulnerable to Russian blackmail because of discrepancies between Vice President-elect Pence’s public statement and Mr. Flynn’s actual discussions.

   On February 10, President Trump denied knowledge of this, telling reporters on Air Force One, quote, “I don’t know about that,” end quote, in response to questions about Mr. Flynn’s conduct.

   The White House also publicly denied that Mr. Flynn and the Russian ambassador discussed sanctions.

   And of course on February 13, 2017, Mr. Flynn resigned as national security advisor.

   Now, Director Comey, all of these accounts are open source press reportings.

   Given Russian’s long-standing desire to cultivate relations with influential U.S. persons, isn’t the American public right to be concerned about Mr. — Mr. Flynn’s conduct, his failure to disclose that contact with the Russian ambassador, his attempts to cover it up and what looks like the White House’s attempts to sweep this under the rug.

   Don’t we, as the American people, deserve the right to know and shouldn’t our FBI investigate such claims?

   COMEY: I can’t comment.

   I — I understand people’s curiosity about our work and intense interest in it, and as Mr. King said, oftentimes, speculation about it.

   But we can’t do it well or fairly to the people we investigate if we talk about it.

   So I can’t comment.

   end quotes

   And with that we will take a break for station identification and a word from our sponsors and after the break we will be back with more Congresswoman Sewell, because having read the script, I can tell you that she is on a rambling roll that leads us to everywhere but home, so don’t change that dial!

   Reply

9. Paul Plante says

   July 10, 2019 at 6:55 pm

   And as we pause for a moment to ponder the above testimony of Democrat Congresswoman Terrycina Andrea “Terri” Sewell,  an American lawyer and politician who has served as the U.S. Representative since 2011 for Alabama’s 7th congressional district, born January 1, 1965 and a graduate of Princeton University, Harvard Law School, and Oxford University, who before entering politics was a securities lawyer for Davis Polk & Wardwell, Shakespeare’s phrase, “hoist with his own petard”, an idiom that means “to be harmed by one’s own plan to harm someone else” or “to fall into one’s own trap”, implying that one could be lifted (blown) upward by one’s own bomb, or in other words, be foiled by one’s own plan, comes right to mind, because as they wove their web to deceive the American people in a vain effort to get our minds off of Hillary Clinton’s DIRTY DEALS with the Russians, who she was strengthening to the detriment of the United States of america, while her hubby, “Big Bubba,” an intimate friend of Putin’s, was being enrichened by the Russians, that is what the Democrats have done to themselves, which takes us back in time to 2017, two days before this DEMOCRAT FARCE on 20 March 2017 where Democrat Congresswoman Terrycina Andrea “Terri” Sewell,  a graduate of Harvard Law School was testifying on the record in order to vilify Donald Trump while using FBI director Jimmy Comey as a political prop, to an Associated Press article entitled “Young Americans: Most see Trump as illegitimate president” by Laurie Kellman and Emily Swanson on 18 March 2017, where we see the Democrats setting the hook they are then going to use to hoist themselves high, as follows:

   A majority of young adults — 57 percent — see Trump’s presidency as illegitimate, including about three-quarters of blacks and large majorities of Latinos and Asians, the GenForward poll found.

   GenForward is a poll of adults age 18 to 30 conducted by the Black Youth Project at the University of Chicago with the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

   end quotes

   So, for the Democrats, that’s it – that’s enough – **** the law and the Constitution, who needs them, a majority of young adults, 57 percent of them, in fact, this based on their emotions and passions and feelings of what they think is right, versus what the Constitution says is right, see Trump’s presidency as “illegitimate,” which is a majority of the small sample of young people polled, so it is up to the Democrats, who are for majority rule notwithstanding that all the Democrats in America make up only a third of the population of registered voters, to get Trump out of office for those young people by any means, because that is what those young people want the Democrats to do, which brings us back to that article, where the hook that hoists the Democrats high is being set, as follows, to wit:

   Trump’s legitimacy as president was questioned earlier this year by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.: “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected.”

   “And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.”

   end quotes

   And right there starts the narrative that led to the Mullet being appointed special counsel, and leads in an unbroken line to this upcoming hearing where the Democrats are going to have the Mullet there before him so they can grill him on all the stuff we already know about, on the specious that despite it having been in the news since 2016, unless we hear from the Mullet on July 17, we won’t really know what has been going on, which is both stupid and ridiculous, and so Democrat it isn’t funny.

   And talk about getting the hook set, and set hard, back we go to a Chicago Tribune article entitled
   “Citing Russian meddling, Rep. John Lewis says Trump not a ‘legitimate president'” by Tribune news services on Jan. 13, 2017, to wit:

   Democratic Rep. John Lewis says he’s doesn’t consider Donald Trump a “legitimate president,” blaming the Russians for helping the Republican win the White House.

   “I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president,” Lewis said in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” that will air on Sunday.

   “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected.”

   “And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton,” Lewis said.

   Republican Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, who met with Trump Friday, said he considered Lewis a friend and great man, but “the idea of constantly looking for ways to delegitimize the results of an election, no matter how unhappy you are about it, isn’t the best example we set.”

   end quotes

   That was two years and six months ago on Jan. 13, 2017, and two years and six months later, on 10 July 2019, the Democrats are still at it, and will not quite, because they are now in too far and they can’t back down, so they hoist themselves higher still, which takes us to a Chicago Tribune article entitled “Democrats accuse FBI’s Comey of stonewalling on Trump-Russia ties” by Karoun Demirjian, Washington Post, on Jan 13, 2017, where the Democrats are turning up the heat and trying to bring matters to a boil to intentionally disrupt the functioning of our nation government to harm our Republic, as follows:

   More Democrats are calling for FBI Director James Comey’s resignation after a closed-door briefing on the intelligence community’s Russian hacking report Friday, during which members say Comey stonewalled them about whether the FBI is investigating alleged links between President-elect Donald Trump and the Russian government.

   Democrats accused Comey of being “inconsistent” for refusing to confirm or deny whether or not the FBI was investigating alleged links between Trump and the Kremlin, despite his willingness to frequently update Congress on the status of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

   They described the exchange with Comey as “contentious” and even “combative,” while leaders accused him of using a double standard.

   “One standard was applied to the Russians and another standard applied to Hillary Clinton,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who one member described as “just outraged” at Comey’s resistance to questions.

   Pelosi “really let Comey have it” during the meeting, the member said, who spoke on background because the meeting was classified.

   Pelosi and other Democratic leaders excoriated Comey for his stubbornness, but stopped short of calling for his head — pressing the FBI director to take up an investigation into what “leverage” Russia might have over Trump, even as they questioned Comey’s integrity.

   “I think the American people are owed the truth,” Pelosi said.

   “And for that reason, the FBI should let us know whether they’re doing that investigation or not.”

   But some Democrats previously willing to give Comey the benefit of the doubt said that his performance during Friday’s briefing eviscerated their faith in his ability to lead the agency going forward.

   “He should pack his things and go,” said Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., expressing concerns that Comey “will continue to erode the credibility of the FBI in the eyes of the public” if he stays on as FBI director.

   Prior to the meeting, “I had not even considered joining the call for his resignation,” Johnson said, but decided that “I don’t have confidence in this man to lead the FBI in the coming weeks and months ahead, with all the work that must be done to get to the bottom of Russian hacking into our electoral process.”

   Several rank-and-file Democrats had called for Comey’s resignation after he alerted Congress about new emails potentially related to the Clinton investigation in late October, arguing that it was too close to the election for him to take such a step.

   end quotes

   And then the HYPOCRITICAL DEMOCRATS turn around and attack Trump for getting rid of Jimmy Comey, calling it obstruction of justice when Trump does it, but if the Democrats had done it, it would be no big thing, which is the double-standard horse**** the Democrats employ where everything they do is right and proper, but if someone not a Democrat does the same thing, why, then, it is a crime, which takes us back to that article, as follows:

   Some argued that Comey was politically biased and inconsistent, as weeks before, he had refused to sign onto President Barack Obama’s administration’s assessment that Russia was behind a series of hacks of the Democratic National Committee, claiming it was too close to the election to make such a politically-charged accusation.

   Johnson said the “frustration” he and others felt “boiled down to Jim Comey” and “his handling of the email controversy, coupled with the discovery by the FBI of Russian hacking into democratic institutions. . .and what happened between the time of discovery and the period after the election.”

   Comey drew a distinction between the two investigations during public testimony on Tuesday before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, when he told Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, that “we never confirm or deny a pending investigation.”

   Comey was responding to a question about whether the FBI was investigating any connections between the Trump campaign and Russia.

   Comey said his decision to tell Congress in late October that the FBI was looking into new emails related to their probe of Clinton’s private server was different because that investigation was closed.

   King described Comey’s argument for why he wouldn’t disclose whether the FBI was digging into Trump-Russia ties as “irony.”

   House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ranking member Adam Schiff, D-Calif., likened Comey’s posture during Friday’s briefing to that Tuesday exchange with King.

   “Senator King found that ironic,” Schiff said.

   “I think there are many members who would use stronger language than that.”

   For his own part, Schiff said he “didn’t find [Comey’s] argument very persuasive,” adding that Comey seemed to be “very flexible” with his terminology in describing Clinton’s case.

   “The Clinton investigation seemed both open and closed at the same time,” Schiff said.

   “So I don’t think that distinction holds up.”

   While he stopped short of calling for Comey’s resignation, Schiff said “there are profound questions raised about whether the director can restore the credibility that has been lost” and that “it’s an open question” whether he could restore the credibility.

   House Oversight and Government Reform ranking member Elijah Cummings, D-Md., struck a similar tone about Comey’s continued tenure as FBI director.

   “I think this is a point in the FBI’s history where we’ve got to have a mirror put up to the organization to make sure it maintains its credibility and that it is the elite of the elite,” Cummings said.

   As to whether Comey was fit to continue leading the bureau, Cummings said that “before. . .there was no jury in my mind.”

   “Now there is a jury in my mind, and the jury is out.”

   But many Democrats who claim to have already lost faith in Comey believe it’s better to keep the flawed FBI director in office than whomever Trump might pick to replace him.

   “What I heard in the briefing made me not trust him,” Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., said, noting that he had tried to give Comey the benefit of the doubt before the briefing.

   “It’s not that I don’t think he should step down or not, it’s just that I don’t trust the Trump administration to appoint somebody that would be any better.”

   end quotes

   And that was Jan 13, 2017.

   And two months and seven days later, notwithstanding the Democrats having no faith or trust in Jimmy Comey on 13 January 2017 and wanting him fired and removed from office, by 20 March 2017, Comey had been completely rehabilitated by the same Democrats who were vilifying him in January of 2017, and he became their star political prop so that Democrats like Democrat Congresswoman Terrycina Andrea “Terri” Sewell,  an American lawyer and politician who has served as the U.S. Representative since 2011 for Alabama’s 7th congressional district, born January 1, 1965 and a graduate of Princeton University, Harvard Law School, and Oxford University, who before entering politics was a securities lawyer for Davis Polk & Wardwell, could have a platform from which to make speeches denouncing and vilifying Trump, and then on 5/17/17, fifty-eight (58) days after the March 20, 2017 Hearing where Jimmy Comey was the star political prop for the Democrats gunn ing for Trump, Rod J. Rosenstein, Acting Attorney General, informed the American people in writing that Special Counsel Mullet was authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, with the fact of the matter being that before Comey ever testified, the House Democrats were already calling for a special prosecutor, so as said above, we are clearly being gamed in here, people, with this carefully constructed but flimsy nonetheless House of Cards the Democrats constructed in an effort to take down Trump and score a coup for Mother Russia in the doing so, and with that said, stay tuned, for much more of this sick Democrat sage is yet to come.

   Reply

10. Paul Plante says

    July 12, 2019 at 6:54 pm

    And with it now firmly and indelibly established on the record above here that before they loved Jimmy Comey on 20 March 2019, the Democrats hated Jimmy Comey on 13 January 2017, as we continue to follow this FARCE along here as we approach that GREAT DAY in American history when we, the American people, will finally get to hear the actual voice of the famed Mullet tell us in his own words, not the words of Trump lawyer Bill Barr, lets go back to 20 March 2017 and the testimony of Democrat Congresswoman Terrycina Andrea “Terri” Sewell,  an American lawyer and politician who has served as the U.S. Representative since 2011 for Alabama’s 7th congressional district, born January 1, 1965 and a graduate of Princeton University, Harvard Law School, and Oxford University, who before entering politics was a securities lawyer for Davis Polk & Wardwell, where we have as follows, to wit:

    SEWELL: I’d like to turn to another topic about Mr. Flynn, his failure to disclose until pressured last week, by my colleagues on the House Oversight and Government Relations Committee, Government Reforms Committee, payments he received from Russia for his 2015 trip to the 10th anniversary Gala of RT, the Russian owned propaganda media outlet.

    According to the January 2017 declassified IC assessment report, RT’s criticism of the United States was quote, “The last facet of its broader and long-standing anti-U.S. messaging likely aimed at undermining viewer’s trust in the U.S. Democratic procedures,” end quote.

    end quotes

    And right there, I would have stopped the proceedings to ask Terrycina this pertinent question, to wit: “Uh, Congresswoman Sewell, when you utter the phrase ‘likely aimed at undermining viewer’s trust in the U.S. Democratic procedures,’ exactly WTF are you talking about, because that sounds so stupid!”

    “Are you proposing, Congresswoman, that RT News should be censored or banned here in the United States of America because it dares to question the actions of the government of the United States or America and dares to make statements that are critical of that government?”

    “Are you saying, Congresswoman, that Americans today are so weak-willed and stupid that the Russians can use RT News to lead them around by the nose to undermine viewer’s trust in the U.S. Democratic procedures, whatever on earth those might be outside of your imagination?”

    “Don’t you trust the judgment of the American people, Congresswoman Sewell?”

    “Did they make a mistake then, in putting you in office?”

    Getting back to the 20 March 2017 testimony of Congresswoman Sewell, a Harvard law school graduate, people, we have:

    This January assessment points out that this was a strategy that Russia employed, going back to before, the 2012 elections, according to the IC assessment.

    end quotes

    Now, there is some important confirmation from Democrat Congresswoman Sewell that long before 2016, and going back perhaps all the way to the 1920s and the first “RED SCARE,” the Russians, or Communists, have been trying to influence public opinion in this country to use our democratic processes in this country to turn it first socialist and then Communist, so all of this hobble-gobble from the Democrats about the Russians using the 2016 presidential election to undermine our trust in the U.S. Democratic procedures, whatever on earth those might be outside of Congresswoman Sewell’s fertile imagination is just that, pure hog ****!

    And with that established, it’s time for a word from our sponsors as we pause for station identification and after the break, Congresswoman Sewell will be right back with more inane gems for your viewing pleasure.

    Reply

11. Paul Plante says

    July 13, 2019 at 8:25 pm

    And before we get back to what has to be one of the most stupid and inane lines of questioning by a Congressperson in a public hearing in the history of our Republic, that being the 20 March 2017 testimony of Democrat Congresswoman Terrycina Andrea “Terri” Sewell, an American lawyer and politician who has served as the U.S. Representative since 2011 for Alabama’s 7th congressional district, born January 1, 1965 and a graduate of Princeton University, Harvard Law School, and Oxford University, who before entering politics was a securities lawyer for Davis Polk & Wardwell, where she was complaining and whining to then-FBI Director Jimmy Comey, who before they loved him on 20 March 2017, the Democrats hated him in January of 2017 as an enemy of the Democrat party because Comey cost Hillary Clinton the election which put Trump in power over the Democrats, which left them both seething and furious, about RT News actually daring to criticize the United States, testifying to Comey that this was the last facet of its broader and long-standing anti-U.S. messaging likely aimed at undermining viewer’s trust in the U.S. Democratic procedures,” the big news just out of the nation’s capital in the pestilential ****hole of Washington, D.C., the home of gridlock, is that the Mullet will not be testifying on July 17, 2919, as was previously promised to the people of America still following this FARCE to the bitter end by the Democrats who are staging this show, and while I can understand what a let-down that is for everybody in America who was perched on the edge of their seat waiting with bated breath to hear what the Mullet will say in his own words, which are being scripted for him as we speak by the Democrats, who need the Mullet to say what they need said to convince the American people the Democrats aren’t just jerking our chains, when it is so very transparent that that is exactly what they are doing, we’re just going to have be patient, as we wait for further developments in this breaking oddball story that now spans more than two years of our contemporary history as a nation.

    As to what is going on with the delay in the Mullet’s testimony, let’s go over to the POLITICO article entitled “Mueller testimony delayed by one week” by Andrew Desiderio, Kyle Cheney and John Bresnahan on 13 July 2019, where we have as follows:

    Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s highly anticipated Capitol Hill testimony will be delayed one week under an arrangement he reached with House Democrats, the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees announced Friday evening.

    end quotes

    And notice the necessary hype there, people, which is so essential these days in a news story to capture the fleeting attention of the American consumer/citizen, where we are told that former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony is highly anticipated, which wording is intended to get us worked up and excited as if the circus was about to come to town, and with the upcoming Mueller testimony on Capitol Hill, the circus actually is coming to town, and we will be able to see it, free of charge, which is a bargain at twice the price, anyway you care to look at it.

    Getting back to POLITICO, we have more of the breaking story, as follows, to wit:

    The arrangement, first reported by POLITICO, extends to three hours Mueller’s time facing questions from the Judiciary Committee.

    Junior members of that panel had grown increasingly frustrated that the initial two-hour time frame would have prevented many of them from having a chance to question Mueller.

    In fact, under the arrangement, half of the Judiciary Committee’s 41 members would have been excluded.

    It remains unclear whether the Intelligence Committee, too, will be granted an extra hour.

    Multiple lawmakers said a separate closed-door session with Mueller’s deputies had been called off.

    end quotes

    And that last sentence about the closed-door hearing with the Mullet’s deputies being called off has one wondering if it was because they couldn’t get those deputies to follow the script, so the Democrats cut their loses and gave up on that gambit, which takes us back to POLITICO as follows:

    The July 24 hearing puts Mueller’s testimony on the calendar just one day before lawmakers are scheduled to depart for a month-long summer recess.

    Democrats who favor impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump have hoped that Mueller speaking directly to Americans about the findings in his report — including evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct his investigation — would reinvigorate their effort, but the timing leaves impeachment advocates little room to seize on any momentum before lawmakers scatter to their districts.

    end quotes

    And there is really what it is all about, people, silly little political games being played by the desperate Democrats as they are confronted with a looming presidential election where their only strategy is getting Trump by any and every means possible.

    And now we pause for station identification and a word from our sponsors and when we return, it will be back to the testimony of Democrat Congresswoman Terrycina Andrea “Terri” Sewell, an American lawyer and politician who has served as the U.S. Representative since 2011 for Alabama’s 7th congressional district, born January 1, 1965 and a graduate of Princeton University, Harvard Law School, and Oxford University, who before entering politics was a securities lawyer for Davis Polk & Wardwell, where we will hear Democrat Congresswoman and Harvard Law School graduate Sewell ask the following stupid question on the record, “Aren’t I right to assume then, that the former Director of DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency Mr. Flynn, would have been aware that RT’s role as an anti-U.S. Russian propaganda outlet when he agreed to speak at their anniversary Gala in 2015, isn’t it reasonable to assume that he would know?,” to which director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Rogers. will reply, as follows, to wit:

    ROGERS: I’m not in a position to comment on the knowledge of something else from another person, ma’am.

    Reply

12. Paul Plante says

    July 15, 2019 at 11:38 pm

    And while we wait for the Democrats and the Mullet to get straight what it is that the Democrats want to have the Mullet testify to when he comes before their committee later this month in an effort to help the Democrats hang Trump high because he is president instead of Hillary Clinton, the woman scorned in this on-going political drama with a cast of thousands, it seems, let’s go back to 20 March 2017 and the testimony of Democrat Congresswoman Terrycina Andrea “Terri” Sewell,  an American lawyer and politician who has served as the U.S. Representative since 2011 for Alabama’s 7th congressional district, born January 1, 1965 and a graduate of Princeton University, Harvard Law School, and Oxford University, who before entering politics was a securities lawyer for Davis Polk & Wardwell, where we pick up the colloquy, as follows:

    SEWELL: So Admiral Rogers, am I right that the RT is essentially owned by the Russian government?

    And how long has the intelligence community been looking at RT as an arm of the Russian government?

    end quotes

    Now, if that line of questioning in a hearing about alleged “Russian interference” into our 2016 presidential election seems silly, it is because it is silly.

    What difference to anything does it make, people, that RT News, which on Jul 15, 2019 is running headlines freely available to U.S. citizens here in the United States of America, such as “Europeans talk big but ‘not ready’ to invest in saving nuclear deal – Iranian FM Zarif,” or “Russian S-400 benefits NATO, US should do what strategic partnership entails – Erdogan,” or “Netanyahu compares EU approach to Iran with ‘appeasement’ of Nazi Germany before WWII,” is owned by the Russian government?

    How is that any different than Voice of America (VOA), which is a U.S. government-funded state owned multimedia agency which serves as the United States federal government’s official institution for non-military, external broadcasting, with VOA being the largest U.S. international broadcaster?

    For those unfamiliar with it, VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in more than 40 languages which it distributes to affiliate stations around the globe.

    It is primarily viewed by foreign audiences, so VOA programming has an influence on public opinion abroad regarding the United States and its leaders.

    So why should Congresswoman Sewell be complaining or whining and crying about RT News?

    Getting back to the colloquy:

    SEWELL: Director Comey, would be unusual for a foreign government official to be — to get paid by a foreign adversary to attend such an event?

    And would it be unusual and raise some questions at the FBI, if that person failed to disclose the payments received for that trip?

    COMEY: I don’t know in general and as to the specific, I’m — I’m just not gonna comment.

    end quotes

    What a load of real stupid questions Comey had to put up with at that hearing, and this is a preview of the type of stupid and inane questions we will be seeing when and if the Mullet finally comes out of hiding to say in his own words what the Mullet Report already says in his own words, which again takes us back to the colloquy, as follows:

    SEWELL: Yes, sir.

    I understand that you can’t comment.

    But I’d like to read an exchange between Mr. Flynn and a Yahoo news correspondent from July 2016 regarding his trip to Russia, during the RT event.

    The correspondent asked, “Were you paid for that event?”

    Then, there was back and forth for a bit.

    And then Mr. Flynn said, quote, “Yeah.”

    “I didn’t take any money from Russia if that’s what you’re asking me,” end quote.

    So Director Comey, isn’t it true that the House Oversight Committee last week, received information and released publicly that Mr. Flynn accepted nearly $35,000 in speaking fees and traveling fees from RT, this government — Russian government owned media outlet.

    COMEY: I believe I’ve seen news accounts to that effect.

    SEWELL: Moreover, isn’t it also true that according to the emoluments clause of the United States Constitution, a person holding any office of profit or trust cannot accept gifts or payments from a foreign — from a foreign country.

    And doesn’t the DOD, the Department of Defense prohibit retired military officers from taking any consulting fees, gifts, traveling expenses, honorariums, a salary from a foreign government, including commercial enterprises owned by or controlled by a foreign government like RT?

    COMEY: That’s not something I can comment on.

    end quotes

    This in the face of all the money Bill “Bubba” Clinton, Hillary’s husband, got from the Russians, but of course, that was alright, because “Bubba” was Hillary’s husband and a good Democrat, to boot.

    And now, the colloquy starts to turn distinctly bizarre, as follows, as Congresswoman Sewell appears to be getting a bit hysterical, to wit:

    SEWELL: Can you — can you speak to whether or not the emoluments clause would apply to someone like Mr. Flynn, a retired three-star general?

    COMEY: I can’t.

    SEWELL: So isn’t is — I just find be really hard to believe that given the emoluments clause does apply to retired officers like Mr. Flynn.

    I can’t believe that Mr. Flynn, a retired military officer would take money from the Russian government in violation of the United State Constitution.

    And I believe that such violations worthy of a criminal investigation by the FBI.

    What level of proof do we need in order for us to have a criminal investigation by the FBI of Mr. Flynn?

    COMEY: I can’t comment on that.

    SEWELL: Shouldn’t the American people be concerned what — I think that it’s really hard for us to fathom that he wouldn’t know that he should’ve disclosed that he received $30,000 as a part of — of a speaking engagement to RT, the Russian U.S. anti-propaganda outlet.

    COMEY: I can’t comment on that Ms. Sewell.

    end quotes

    Do the Democrats honestly think that the Federal Bureau of Investigation acts in the capacity of thought police in this country to tell us what it is we should or should not be concerned about?

    Apparently Democrat Congresswoman Sewell is of that opinion.

    Getting back to the colloquy:

    SEWELL: My final line of questioning is in regard to Mr. Flynn working as an agent of a foreign power.

    Now Director Comey, following on Mr. Himes’s line of questioning, am I correct that the Foreign Agents Registration Act requires that individuals who lobby on behalf of a foreign government must register with the United States government?

    COMEY: I believe that’s correct.

    I know keep saying I’m not an expert.

    The reason I’m saying that is, I don’t know exactly how they define things like lobbying in the statute.

    But as a general matter, if you’re going to represent a foreign government here in the United States, touching our government, you should be registered.

    SEWELL: And isn’t it true that just last November 2016, Mr. Flynn was working as a foreign agent doing work that principally benefited the government of Turkey and yet reported until just last week?

    COMEY: I can’t comment on that.

    SEWELL: Isn’t it true that Mr. Flynn was reportedly paid over half $1 million for this work?

    COMEY: Same answer.

    SEWELL: And isn’t it true that the Trump White House, on at least two occasions, was asked by Mr. Flynn’s lawyers whether he should report that work, the work that he was doing on behalf of the Turkish government.

    And yet the administration didn’t give him any advice to the contrary.

    Do you know anything about that?

    COMEY: I have to give you the same answer.

    SEWELL: So Director Comey, I know you I cannot discuss whether any investigations are ongoing with U.S. persons, and I respect that.

    I think it’s important though that the American people understand the scope and breath of what, in public open source press reportings of Mr. Flynn’s actions that led to his resignation.

    And while we can’t talk about whether there are an investigation, I believe that we here at HPSCI, at the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence must put those facts into the public domain.

    And they are one, that Mr. Flynn lied about his communication with the — with the Russian ambassador.

    Secondly, That Mr. Flynn lied about taking money from the Russian government and thirdly, that Mr. Flynn at a minimum did not disclose work as an agent of a foreign — of a foreign power and that the White House did not help in this concern.

    So gentlemen, it’s clear to me that Mr. Flynn should be under criminal investigation.

    And I know you cannot comment but I believe it is my duty as a member of this committee to comment to the American people that this — that his engagement of lying and failure to disclose really important information and contacts with a foreign ambassador do rise to the level of — of disclosure and to me, criminal intent.

    So I say this to say that the American people deserve to know the full extent of Mr. Flynn’s involvement with the Russians and the extent to which it influenced the 2016 election.

    I believe our democracy requires it.

    Thank you, I yield back to my ranking member.

    end quotes

    And, uh, okay, people, for those of you who tuned in late to the broadcast, that was Democrat Congresswoman Congresswoman Terrycina Andrea “Terri” Sewell,  an American lawyer and politician who has served as the U.S. Representative since 2011 for Alabama’s 7th congressional district, born January 1, 1965 and a graduate of Princeton University, Harvard Law School, and Oxford University, who before entering politics was a securities lawyer for Davis Polk & Wardwell, and with that, we will take a station break for a word from our sponsors, and after the station break, we will be right back with more of this FARCE for your viewing pleasure.

    Reply

13. Paul Plante says

    July 16, 2019 at 10:03 pm

    And while we, the American people, are supposed to be getting all freaked out about RT News, it just came out, interestingly enough, with a bizarre story entitled “Former Steele dossier fan Isikoff says Russia planted story about Clinton hitmen killing Seth Rich” published 12 Jul, 2019, which reads as follows:

    The man who first reported on the discredited Steele dossier has a brand new conspiracy theory about Russia.

    The idea that DNC staffer Seth Rich was killed on the order of Hillary Clinton was invented by – guess who?

    Yahoo News Chief Investigator Michael Isikoff, who is also the co-author of hit Russiagate book ‘Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump,’ has a new example of how the nefarious Russians supposedly subverted democracy in the US.

    end quotes

    Now, it seems to me from reading that, that the Russians are considering all this fluttering around by the Democrats in this country as amusing and silly, which in fact it is.

    The fact of the matter is that the nefarious Russians no more “subverted” democracy in the United States than did the man in the moon, precisely because democracy in nothing more than an idea, and ideas cannot be subverted, and besides if one were to google the form of government in Russia, one would find that according to its own constitution, Russia was to be declared a democratic federal republic and the fundamental basis of the state was representative democracy.

    So in that, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between democracy in America versus democracy in Russia, but the Democrats in this country obviously aren’t aware of that reality as they screech and holler about the Russians interfering in our 2016 presidential election.

    Getting back to that bizarre RT story:

    According to him (Yahoo News Chief Investigator Michael Isikoff), it was Russian intelligence that started a conspiracy theory about the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich on July 10, 2016 during an apparent botched robbery.

    The supposed Russian disinformation showed up three days after Rich’s death on a website called WhatDoesItMean.com.

    Befitting of the site’s ‘90s design, it is, well, a badly written thriller fiction about Rich trying to expose the corruption of the Clinton campaign to the FBI, and instead being ambushed by her hit team.

    It is complete with a gun battle “just blocks from the White House” – all based on a ‘report’ by the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR).

    The unbelievable story, Isikoff says, was actually planted by the SVR and propagated by Russian government agents on social media.

    The ‘Russian connection’ was revealed by Deborah Sines, who was the former assistant US attorney in charge of the Rich case until her retirement last year.

    She “used her security clearance to access copies of two SVR intelligence reports about Seth Rich that had been intercepted by US intelligence officials.”

    Sines even wrote a memo about it and “personally briefed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors on her findings,” but for whatever reason they apparently didn’t make it into Mueller’s final report despite fitting perfectly with the narrative about Russian election meddling.

    end quotes

    Talk about a convoluted drama here, people this takes the cake, but then, we are talking the Clintons and master impressario Lanny “He’s the man” Davis and the Democrats, so when it comes to bizarre and surreal drama, the sky is the limit, and then some.

    And then RT jumps all over the MSM in this country who have been obsessed with this alleged “Russian meddling” since the end of 2016, as follows:

    Some US media outlets gladly gobbled up Isikoff’s fresh Russia-did-it allegations.

    A few took it with a grain of salt: after all, it is factually incorrect and completely misses the point, which is that the US ratings-obsessed and highly partisan media have been increasingly embracing the wildest conspiracy theories in recent years.

    end quotes

    I am an American, and I have been saying the same exact thing for years, because it is true, and you don’t need to be a Russian to see that.

    Getting back to the RT News story:

    Fox’s Sean Hannity, for example, peddled the one about Rich’s murder, but was forced to retract it with great embarrassment.

    But pointing the finger at him and others in the conservative camp would be hypercritical for many on the left wing of the US media landscape, who were just as zealously pushing the false conspiracy that claimed Donald Trump had colluded with Russia to get elected.

    Isikoff played a major role in that one, since he was the first to report the existence of the so-called Steele dossier, a Democrat-funded collection of unsubstantiated accusations against the Trump campaign.

    end quotes

    And there is why the Democrats are so paranoid about RT News – because it tells us some uncomfortable truths that the Democrats would rather have kept buried.

    Reply

14. Paul Plante says

    July 17, 2019 at 8:43 pm

    So, when we, the American people, hear Democrat Congresswoman Terrycina Andrea “Terri” Sewell, an American lawyer and politician who has served as the U.S. Representative since 2011 for Alabama’s 7th congressional district, born January 1, 1965 and a graduate of Princeton University, Harvard Law School, and Oxford University, who before entering politics was a securities lawyer for Davis Polk & Wardwell whining about RT News actually daring to criticize the United States, testifying to Jimmy Comey on 20 March 2017 about what she called the last facet of its broader and long-standing anti-U.S. messaging likely aimed at undermining viewer’s trust in the U.S. Democratic procedures, what she is referring to can be seen in this following from the RT News story entitled “Former Steele dossier fan Isikoff says Russia planted story about Clinton hitmen killing Seth Rich” published 12 Jul, 2019, as follows:

    Some US media outlets gladly gobbled up Isikoff’s fresh Russia-did-it allegations.

    A few took it with a grain of salt: after all, it is factually incorrect and completely misses the point, which is that the US ratings-obsessed and highly partisan media have been increasingly embracing the wildest conspiracy theories in recent years.

    Fox’s Sean Hannity, for example, peddled the one about Rich’s murder, but was forced to retract it with great embarrassment.

    But pointing the finger at him and others in the conservative camp would be hypercritical for many on the left wing of the US media landscape, who were just as zealously pushing the false conspiracy that claimed Donald Trump had colluded with Russia to get elected.

    end quotes

    There, people, is what has Democrat Congresswoman Terrycina Andrea “Terri” Sewell, an American lawyer and politician who has served as the U.S. Representative since 2011 for Alabama’s 7th congressional district, and a graduate of Harvard Law School, so very upset with RT News – that RT News would actually dare to tell us that we have been getting fed a total bunch of pure bull**** from the left wing of the US media landscape, who have been zealously pushing the false conspiracy theory on behalf of Hillary Clinton that claimed Donald Trump had colluded with Russia to get elected.

    Terrycina wants us to believe that the left wing of the US media landscape, who were zealously pushing the false conspiracy that claimed Donald Trump had colluded with Russia to get elected, really tell us the truth instead, which of course, is a blatant lie, and that takes us back to the 20 March 2017 congressional hearing that led to the Mullet Report, and the questioning of Jimmy Comey by Republican congressman Michael Ray Turner, born January 11, 1960, who has a Bachelor of Arts in political science from the Ohio Northern University in 1982, a Juris Doctor from Case Western Reserve University in 1985, and an M.B.A. from the University of Dayton in 1992, and who serves as U.S. Representative for Ohio’s 10th congressional district, serving in Congress since 2003, as follows:

    TURNER: OK, well I’m very concerned, Mr. Comey, about the issue of how an investigation is opened and — and how we end up at this situation once again where Mr. Clapper, had (ph) the director of national intelligence, just said that when he left there was no evidence of collusion and yet, as Admiral Rogers said, we’re sitting now where the Russians’ goal is being achieved of causing a cloud or undermining our electoral process.

    So I certainly hope that you take an expeditious look at what you have undertaken because it affects the heart of our democracy.

    Mr. Comey, I have a question against — again concerning classified information.

    Now, I know that if I attend a classified briefing and I receive classified information and I go and tell someone that classified information, if I leak it, I release it, then I’ve committed a crime.

    But what if someone goes to a classified briefing, walks out of that briefing, and openly lies about the content of that briefing?

    Because it’s unclear to me what happens then.

    And it’s important because, as you know, this committee and certainly both of you gentlemen have handled a lot of classified information and recently, more recently, the purported classified information is put out in the press, The Washington Post, The New York Times reports information.

    And you know and I know and we all know, having handled classified information, that some of that information is not true.

    Are the sources of that classified information, if they come out and lie about the content of classified information, have they committed a crime?

    end quotes

    Now, there, and this is 2017 now, two years ago, is the Washington Post and the New York Times, both firmly in the anti-Trump camp of Hillary Clinton, both being called out in public for lying to us, which takes us back to Comey’s response, as follows:

    COMEY: That’s a really interesting question.

    I don’t think so.

    If all they’ve done is lie to a reporter, that’s not against the law.

    If they’ve done it, I don’t wanna break anybody’s hearts with that but that’s not against the law.

    But it is not and the reason I’m hesitating is, I can imagine a circumstance where it’s part of some broader conspiracy or something, but just that false statement to a reporter is not a crime.

    TURNER: And I just wanna underscore that for a — just for a second, because I agree with you.

    I think it’s no crime.

    And so every reporter out there that has someone standing in front of them and saying oh, I’m taking this great risk of sharing with you U.S. secrets, besides them purporting to be a traitor, are committing no crime if they lie to them.

    So all of these news articles that contain this information that we know is not — not the case, are being done so at damage to the United States but without the risk of a crime.

    And my next aspect of your question to Mr. Comey, is this.

    What is the obligation of the intelligence community to correct such falsehoods?

    Some of this information that we read in the Washington Post and the New York Times, is extremely false and extremely incendiary and extremely condemning of individuals and certainly, our whole system.

    What is your obligation, Mr. Comey, to be that source to say I can’t release classified information, but I can tell you, it’s not that?

    end quotes

    Yes, people, and while this might freak the bejeesus out of Democrat Congresswoman and Harvard Law School graduate Terrycina Andrea “Terri” Sewell, some of this information that we read in the Washington Post and the New York Times is extremely false and extremely incendiary and extremely condemning of individuals and certainly, our whole system, but you know what?

    They don’t care, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, because under our system, the Washington Post and New York Times are as free as a bird to tell all the lies and falsehoods they wish, which is known as freedom of the press, which takes us back to Jimmy Comey on 20 march 2017, as follows:

    COMEY: Yeah, it’s a great question, Mr. Turner, because there’s a whole lot out there that is false.

    And I suppose some of it could be people lying to reporters.

    I think that probably happens.

    But more often than not, it’s people who — who act like they know when they really don’t know.

    Because they’re not the people who actually know the secrets, they’re one or two hops out and they’re passing along (ph) things they think they know.

    There is — we had not only have no obligation to correct that, we can’t, because if we start calling reporters and saying hey, this thing you said about this new aircraft we’ve developed, that’s inaccurate actually, it’s got two engines.

    We just can’t do that because we’ll give information to our adversaries that way and it’s very, very frustrating but we can’t start down that road.

    Now, when it’s unclassified information, if a reporter misreports the contents of a bill that’s being debated in Congress or a policy, we can call him and say hey, you ought to read it more carefully.

    You missed this or missed that.

    We cannot do that with classified information.

    It’s very, very frustrating because I have read a whole lot of stuff, especially in the last two months, this is just wrong.

    But I can’t say which is wrong and I can’t say it to those reporters.

    end quotes

    Now, there is a very interesting response from Comey that not surprisingly did not make it into the reportage of the hearing by the Washington Post or the New York Times, and it is those falsehoods in the New York Times and Washington Post, along with the bogus Steele Report paid for by the Democrats in a vain effort to smear Trump with more intentional falsehoods that have now been thoroughly debunked that form the basis for the Mullet Report and all these charges of criminal con duct being hurled at Trump by the Democrats, who have never needed facts or evidence in order to level charges again st someone for political purposes – to a Democrat, bringing charges based on lies and falsehoods is good enough for them, which takes us back to Congressman Turner, as follows:

    TURNER: Mr. Comey, if you could help us on this issue, I would greatly appreciate it because what happens, is that you come into a classified briefing with us and you tell us, perhaps what something that is absolutely false, it really shouldn’t be classified because you’re telling us it’s not true.

    But yet, we can’t go tell it’s not true because you told us in a classified setting.

    If there’s a way that we can at least have some exchange as to what’s not true so the American people don’t listen to false stories in The Washington Post and The New York Times that we all know are not true, that would be helpful.

    COMEY: Yeah, I don’t…

    TURNER: If you could think about how you could help us with that.

    COMEY: I’d love to invent that machine, but we can’t because where do you stop that on that slope?

    TURNER: Well, false is false, Mr. Comey.

    COMEY: Because then, when I don’t call The New York Times to say you got that one wrong, bingo, they got that one right.

    And so I — it’s just an enormously complicated endeavor for us.

    We have to stay clear of it entirely.

    end quotes

    So,l the lies will keep coming, but hey, who is surprised at that?

    Reply

15. Paul Plante says

    July 22, 2019 at 9:05 pm

    And the HUGE news out this weekend, of course, was the upcoming testimony of the Mullet before the Democrats in the House or Representatives, and as can be expected, they had all their surrogates like AM Joy on MSNBC faithfully parroting their lines from the script as the Democrats continue to try to beat life into a dead horse, as we can clearly see from an irresponsible, incendiary and hyperbolic (of, relating to, or marked by language that exaggerates or overstates the truth) NBC News article entitled “Mueller hearings to highlight ‘shocking evidence of criminal misconduct’ by Trump, Democrats say – The former special counsel is set to appear before the Judiciary and Intelligence committees Wednesday” by Alex Moe on July 19, 2019, where we are fed the following dose of pure, unadulterated hog ****, as follows:

    WASHINGTON — Democrats on the House committees set to hear testimony next week from former special counsel Robert Mueller believe the hearings will help Americans understand “the gravity of the president’s misconduct,” staff members told reporters.

    end quotes

    And what a dose of hog **** that is, given that the Democrats have been at this same game since at least March of 2017, over two years ago now, where they keep telling us that everything the Democrats are doing is to “help Americans understand ‘the gravity of the president’s misconduct,'” which takes us back to March 20, 2017, and the questioning of then-FBI Director Jimmy Comey by Congressman Christopher Douglas Stewart, born July 15, 1960, who currently represents Utah’s 2nd congressional district in the United States House of Representatives and who graduated from Utah State University in 1984 before joining the United States Air Force, to wit:

    STEWART: Mr. Comey, you confirmed that there’s an investigation in the Trump campaign officials.

    The fact that there is an open investigation does not indicate guilt though, does it?

    COMEY: Certainly not.

    STEWART: And in fact many times in an investigation may find that there is no wrongdoing.

    COMEY: That’s one of the reasons we don’t talk about it, so we don’t smear people who don’t end up charged with anything.

    STEWART: I appreciate that and I would say that is especially likely to have, when I say especially talking about have the finding of no wrongdoing when there is a political motive.

    And if there’s one thing that we’ve seen here today, I think, from some of the line of questions is clearly been a certain political motive in some of the questions that have been asked to you.

    end quotes

    Now, there is some understatement, indeed, from Congressman Stewart, one of the few Congressman to sound rational during that hearing on 20 March 2017 that was dominated by Democrats like Congresswoman Jackie Speier, proudly Representing San Francisco, who bills herself publicly as a “fearless fighter for women’s equality, LGBTQ rights and the disenfranchised who has dedicated her life to eliminating who has dedicated her life to eliminating government corruption while working to strengthen America’s national and economic security” who asked such inane and downright stupid questions such as “Is it disconcerting to you as the director of the FBI that a U.S. CEO would say publicly that he is very close friends with President Putin and has had a 17-year relationship with him,” to which Comey answered, “That’s not a question I can answer,” and Admiral Rogers responded, as if she didn’t have a clue, “Ma’am, lots of American corporations do business in Russia,” and Eric Michael Swalwell Jr., born November 16, 1980, who is a member of the Democrat party and American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for California’s 15th congressional district since 2013, which district covers most of eastern Alameda County and part of central Contra Costa County who attended Campbell University in North Carolina on a soccer scholarship from 1999 to 2001, but he broke both of his thumbs in 2001, his sophomore year, ending the scholarship, so that he then transferred to the University of Maryland, College Park, as a junior, where in 2003, he completed his bachelor’s degree in government and politics at Maryland, and he then enrolled at the University of Maryland School of Law and earned his Juris Doctor in 2006, who asked Jimmy Comey such notable gems as, “Were you aware that Donald Trump tried to market his Trump Vodka brand in Russia,” and “Were you aware that Donald Trump ran Ms. Universe 2013 out of Moscow,” which questions now serve as the basis for the claims by the Democrats this weekend that Trump is a dastardly criminal, which takes us back to Congressman Stewart on 20 March 2017, as follows:

    Mr. Clapper, the former DNI, and we all know who he is, this is someone who should know.

    I want to read what he said just a few weeks ago.

    Mr. Clapper then went on to say that to his knowledge there was no evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.

    We did not conclude any evidence in our report and when I say “our report,” that is the NSA, FBI, and CIA with my office, the director of national intelligence said anything — any reflection of collusion between the members of Trump campaign and the Russians, there was no evidence of that in our report.

    Was Mr. Clapper wrong when he said that?

    COMEY: I think he’s right about characterizing the report which you all have read.

    STEWART: Well, I want you to know I agree with Mr. Clapper.

    And at this point, everyone on this dais should agree with Mr. Clapper because we in the committee have seen no evidence, zero, that would indicate that there was collusion or criminal wrongdoing between any members of the previous administration or campaign and Russian officials.

    end quotes

    And despite that fact of no evidence on 20 March 2017 of collusion or criminal wrongdoing between any members of the Trump campaign and Russian officials, 58 days later, Rod J. Rosenstein, Acting Attorney General, informed the American people in writing that Special Counsel Mullet was authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, which brings us back to the present moment and the NBC article, which continues as follows, to wit:

    “It is not that that there will be a big, dramatic new revelation necessarily, we’re not expecting that,” a Democratic staffer on the Judiciary Committee said Thursday in a briefing ahead of the hearings.

    “What’s important is there is truly shocking evidence of criminal misconduct by the president — not once but again and again and again — that would result in any other American being criminally charged in a multiple count indictment.”

    end quotes

    And talk about the ability of the Democrats to hurl huge amounts of fresh horse**** in our faces, there is a glaring example of it right there, because you cannot start out with no evidence of criminal misconduct, which was clearly the case over two years ago on 20 March 2017, and then all of a sudden, over 2 years later, end up with, GASP, “truly shocking evidence of criminal misconduct by the president — not once but again and again and again — that would result in any other American being criminally charged in a multiple count indictment,” a point that was really being hammered by some distraught woman who was doing a lot of shouting about that on the AM Joy show on MSNBC Sunday morning, but that doesn’t faze the Democrats in the least, because the Democrats need neither facts nor evidence to make the false and specious and unsupported claims they make, which is the hallmark of that particular political party here in OUR America.

    Getting back to that NBC article:

    The committees are anticipating that “not everybody is reading the book (Mueller’s report) but people will watch the movie,” an aide said.

    end quotes

    And sorry to bust your bubble, dude, but nobody gives a damn about the book or the movie, and especially they don’t care for all these endless re-runs based on nothing but hot air and horse****.

    Getting back to NBC:

    The Judiciary Committee hopes to show that if any other American had engaged in the same conduct as Trump did as detailed in the 400-plus page Mueller report, they would be charged for obstruction of justice.

    end quote

    HUH?

    Are these Democrats crazy?

    Or are they insane?

    There is only one person who could have done what Trump is alleged to have done and that is Trump, as president.

    No other American citizen could have done what Trump is alleged to have done, which according to Democratic lawmakers who plan to highlight at least five instances they believe clearly show Trump committed a crime, include:

    * repeatedly directing his then-White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller;

    * telling McGahn to deny that he had been ordered to fire Mueller;

    * asking former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to deliver a message to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the investigation to exclude the president;

    * telling Lewandowski to let Sessions know that he’s fired if he doesn’t meet with Lewandowski; and

    * potential witness tampering with Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen.

    end quotes

    Now, according to the logic of the Democrats, if any other American other than Trump had repeatedly directed then-White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller, they would be charged with obstruction of justice, but how in hell was any American citizen other than Trump going to make his or her way into the maze of the Washington White House to find Don McGahn to tell him to fire the Mullet without ending up in an insane asylum?

    The same with telling McGahn to deny that he had been ordered to fire Mueller, or asking former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to deliver a message to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the investigation to exclude the president, or telling Lewandowski to let Sessions know that he’s fired if he doesn’t meet with Lewandowski?

    Getting back to NBC News, which is a real treasure trove here, we have:

    Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, for their part, believe the public has a “slanted” view of the Mueller report and plan to highlight interactions involving the Trump campaign and Russia and WikiLeaks, including that the report indicates that Trump himself knew that Wikileaks possessed emails damaging to Hillary Clinton before they were released to the public and then touted Wikileaks during the campaign.

    end quotes

    REAL BIG YAWN!

    How very tedious this all is, after over two years of the same bull**** from the Democrats being hurled and slung at us over and over and over again, which again takes us back to NBC News, as follows:

    “We have never prepared for one the way that we have prepared for this,” one staffer said about the highly anticipated hearing, noting that Mueller likes to give short answers to questions so the committees are taking that into account as they prepare.

    end quotes

    Yes, people, show business.

    And on that note, we pause for station identification, but don’t go away, but the show that never ends is just getting going, and it promises to be a doozy, and lucky you, you have a front row seat, free of charge, and with the price of things today in America, that is a bargain at twice the price!

    Reply