Comey is a parody of himself. Seriously, what a tool. Show facts? Justice? Clueless douche.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

This man is a patriot. God Bless WILLIAM BARR. We finally have a real AG.

You ain't just a'kiddin'.

Night and day from milquetoast Sessions, eh?

Statements from such characters as Comey above, who has the odd perspective of talking about facts, given his peculiar, or should I say 'pecuLIAR' presentation of his version of them, which seems to be at considerable variance with the actual legal facts, make me wonder just what I may have missed in forming my opinion.

Possibilities:

1) there really is evil & demonic possession in DC;
2) there are alternative realities with separate rules;
3) Either Comey is wrong/delusional/etc, or my entire exploration of the Rules of Evidence/law/Constituionality/Civics over the last 6+ decades as a diligent Citizen, has been a waste of time.

I don’t understand this article at all. Devin Nunes is a proven good guy, and I like the opening (Devin Nunes has called the Mueller report a 'fraud'). But after that things get fuzzy. Maybe I just need more coffee…

“US Representative Devin Nunes has called the Mueller report a 'fraud' after learning parts that suggest obstruction of the probe from President Trump's team were redacted.

This week more information from the investigation led by Robert Mueller was made public.

A Twitter account shared on Friday, grabs alleging that in the report some vital details were missing from of a November 2017 voicemail left by former Trump lawyer John Dowd for a legal representative for former national security adviser Michael Flynn in the Russia investigation.

In the report it included that Dowd said: 'If there's information that implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, …so, you know, … we need some kind of heads up'.

But it didn't state that the 'heads up' would help them 'deal with' anything that could be presented as a problem for Trump or the United States…”

https://mol.im/a/7093881

pipe smoker,

this topic gets a bit tricky.

Michael Flynn and his lawyer were either in a joint defense agreement w President Trump or about to enter into one. The 2 teams were sharing information.

Then Flynn's lawyer (Rob Kelner) informed a Trump lawyer (John Dowd) that they had to stop participating in the "joint defense".

Dowd didn't know why, but suspected Flynn had made some agreement w Mueller.

Dowd called Kelner, but didn't get through. He left a message. That message was turned over to Mueller.

In the Mueller report there is this :



Mueller used this as one of the 11 items in Vol 2 that were indicative of obstruction. (in Mueller's view)

Recently the judge in Flynn's case made the Mueller team release some of the prosecutor info. In that release was a more complete transcript of the phone call from Dowd to Kelner.


Here is the more complete transcript. I have broken it out into 3 pieces to understand it. Dowd sometimes talks in ways that are hard to understand.

Phone message from John Dowd to Flynn's lawyer




Dowd says if you have made an agreement w the govt, that's one thing



"on the other hand" (if he hadn't made an agreement ?), Dowd wanted a heads up if something re national security had come up. Dowd wanted input but w/o Flynn team giving up any confidential info





"So if it's the former" (agreement w govt), remember what we've always said ....


In the report Mueller deleted some key words from the transcript and made it look particularly ugly. Cherry picking was a very common tactic of the Mueller team.

I should mention that a lady using the blogger name "Rosie memos" appears to be the first blogger to catch the diff between the Mueller report and the full transcript

If Mueller really thought this was obstruction, why didn't he indict Dowd ?

Pipe Smoker,

It is hard for me to follow many of Nunes' statements when I watch him speak directly on many issues.

Most times, it seems he is stuck in the vocabulary of "partial speak" - a condition where someone knows a lot more but can't say yet.

So, he can merely point out things that will become very significant once more facts are declassified but can't lay out all necessary to fully understand at a given time.

2 cents. It will all likely become clearer in time.

Is this a particular attack on Mueller? Attack on the report? A piece of the overall proof of Mueller's expressed bias?

"Fraud" implies a deception or bad faith scale-thumbing.

I suspect Nunes did not accidentally come upon that word.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

If Mueller really thought this was obstruction, why didn't he indict Dowd ?

That's the trouble Mueller and the Dems have with trying to make an"obstruction" charge stick.

It reminds me of a cartoon one of my employees put up in the office:

A prospective employer asked for a reference for a different owner's former employee. The previous employer said, "We don't give employee references." "Well, since I have you on the phone, how's the weather where you are?"

The former employer said, "The clouds move lazily across the sky and most of our employees think it's stupid."

So, was that a weather report or a reference?

Hard to nail that down. It seems the same with Trump doing things to protect the presidency as a defensible explanation for his actions against a State-sponsored frame up.

The left is all stoked up on making, at best for them, uncertain things certain.

Thanks much guys. sdy’s post in particular makes this report much more understandable. I hope Nunes, Graham, and Barr can make it clear to the American public.

John Huber, assigned by Sessions to commence a wide ranging investigation, did nothing and has been burning the statute of limitations in the spygate matters.

Barr replaced Huber with John Durham - a corruption expert.

" OUTRAGE: John Huber, U.S. attorney Jeff Sessions assigned to investigate Hillary Clinton, NEVER even started his probe.
05/31/2019 / By JD Heyes

If ever there was a reason to fire a U.S. attorney on the spot — not tomorrow, not next week or next month, but today — this is it. You may recall that about a year into failed Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ tenure with the Trump administration he rebuffed several calls from members of Congress to appoint a U.S. attorney ‘outside the Beltway’ to investigate abuses by the Obama regime and the 2016 Clinton campaign regarding “Spygate.”

Calling that attorney, John Huber of Utah, a ‘special prosecutor in all but name,’ Sessions claimed Huber would be using “his prosecutorial powers” to conduct a wide-ranging investigation into alleged abuses that extend well beyond suspected FISA court improprieties. “I am confident that Mr. Huber’s review will include a full, complete, and objective evaluation of these matters in a manner that is consistent with the law and the facts,” Sessions announced in late March 2018.

But by January of this year, several Republican lawmakers complained in a letter to Huber that they still had not heard from him, had never been briefed about his progress, and had no idea what it was he was doing, if anything at all.

The letter from House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins, Rep. Jim Jordan (ranking member of the House Oversight Committee), and Freedom Caucus chair Representative Mark Meadows, “begins the formal process to expose a widely believed fraud.”

“Your investigation has been ongoing for more than nine months,” the letter said. “During the course of our extensive investigation we have interviewed more than a dozen current and former DOJ and FBI personnel, and were surprised to hear none of these potentially informative witnesses testified to speaking with you.”

Come to find out, there is a reason why these lawmakers — and Congress, in general, as well as the American people — never heard a peep from Huber: He never even started his assigned probe.

During an exclusive interview with CBS News broadcast on Friday, current Attorney General William Barr said that Huber’s probe never got off the ground and as such it was reassigned to Connecticut-based U.S. Attorney (and corruption specialist) John Durham.


(Related: Huber, Horowitz ‘probes’ of Hillary Clinton, Spygate nothing but cover for the Deep State.)

Huber should be dismissed immediately.

Reporter Jan Crawford asked Barr:

“What’s the status of Huber’s investigation in Utah? I think the former Attorney General Sessions had asked him to look at this.”

“Right, so Huber had originally been asked to take a look at the FISA applications and the electronic surveillance but then he stood back and put that on hold while the Office of Inspector General was conducting its review, which would’ve been normal for the department,” Barr said.

Okay. Fair enough…so far.

“And he was essentially on standby in case [DoJ Inspector General Michael] Horowitz referred a matter to him to be handled criminally. So he has not been active on this front in recent months and so Durham is taking over that role (emphasis added).

The other issues he’s been working on relate to Hillary Clinton. Those are winding down and hopefully we’ll be in a position to bring those to fruition.”

Crawford responded, “So he (Huber) won’t be involved in this really at all then?” “No,” Barr stated. “This is his role, it’s done?”

Crawford pressed. “Right,” said Barr.

Question: If Huber was “on standby” for months and months on end just waiting for Horowitz to ‘refer’ something to him, how come Durham has been working on the probe for months already, even as Horowitz continued his investigation into Spygate?

Huber couldn’t investigate…but Durham could? Why? They’re both U.S. attorneys. Something doesn’t smell right.

In fact, it seems an awful lot like Huber was sitting around on his hands after Sessions handed him the probe and now that Barr has taken over for Sessions, he is ‘reassigning’ the investigation to a prosecutor who actually will investigate.

If Huber dropped the ball here, he should be fired for insubordination today. There is no excuse (other than political partisanship) for him not to have started his probe.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on the statute of limitations for many of these alleged Spygate crimes. Link

Rep. Tom McClintock on new calls for impeachment proceedings
Jun. 01, 2019 - 7:01 - House Democrats ramp up impeachment calls after hearing from former special counsel Robert Mueller; reaction from Republican House Judiciary Committee member Tom McClintock.

Fox News Video >> https://video.foxnews.com/v/60...59001/#sp=show-clips

Now THIS is the kind of Pope the Catholic church needs back! Good to see President Trump recognizing his contribution to the defeat of communism. Not to mention it's great to see a president who speaks of the evils communism/socialism leads too, unlike the other side of the isle.

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...urtain-of-communism/

Trump Hails St. John Paul for Tearing Down ‘Iron Curtain of Communism’
Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.

President Donald Trump commemorated the 40th Anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s first trip to Poland, calling him Sunday “a champion for human dignity and religious liberty.”
In a Presidential Message released on June 2 “in Commemoration of the 40th Anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s First Pilgrimage to Poland,” Mr. Trump said that St. Pope John Paul II’s nine-day visit to Poland in 1979 “changed the course of history.”

“As we remember the long struggle of the Polish people against communism, we also acknowledge that millions of people now live in freedom because of St. Pope John Paul II and his extraordinary life as a follower of Jesus Christ and a champion for human dignity and religious liberty,” the president said in his message.

In that first homily as pope delivered on Polish soil, St. John Paul “delivered a powerful message of hope to the crowd gathered in Warsaw, to all of Poland, and to the world,” Trump said. “His words stood tall against the repressive forces of communism throughout Poland and the rest of Europe” and he “inspired courage in the hearts of millions of men and women to seek a better, freer life.”

On that occasion, while Poland was still under the rule of atheistic communism, Pope John Paul insisted that Jesus Christ is the key to understanding the nature and meaning of the human person and cannot be excluded from society.

“Christ cannot be kept out of the history of man in any part of the globe, at any longitude or latitude of geography,” John Paul said during his homily. “The exclusion of Christ from the history of man is an act against man. Without Christ it is impossible to understand the history of Poland, especially the history of the people who have passed or are passing through this land.”

When President Trump visited Poland in July 2017, he praised Pope John Paul’s heroic witness that helped the Polish people reassert their identity as a nation.

“And when the day came on June 2nd, 1979, and one million Poles gathered around Victory Square for their very first mass with their Polish Pope, that day, every communist in Warsaw must have known that their oppressive system would soon come crashing down,” the president said. “They must have known it at the exact moment during Pope John Paul II’s sermon when a million Polish men, women, and children suddenly raised their voices in a single prayer.”

“A million Polish people did not ask for wealth. They did not ask for privilege. Instead, one million Poles sang three simple words: ‘We Want God,’” Mr. Trump said.

In his presidential message, Mr. Trump said that the United States stands behind the religious freedom that John Paul fought for.

“Today, we celebrate this historic moment and reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that freedom always prevails,” he said. “The United States and our allies stand united against the shackles of communism and as a beacon of liberty and prosperity throughout the world.”

“Melania joins me in remembering St. Pope John Paul II, whose poignant address stirred the soul of the Polish people and eventually helped tear down the Iron Curtain of communism in Europe,” the president said.

“May we continue to be strengthened by his words and his call to God’s abundant compassion, strength, and glory,” he concluded.

Agreed. This type of Pope people only get to experience about once a lifetime. I’m 47, so time will tell how the other 2 or maybe three turn out.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Good to see President Trump recognizing his contribution to the defeat of communism.

Absolutely! These sorts of things need to be recognized loudly and clearly, and as often as possible.

1980s: Ronald Reagan; Maggie Thatcher; John Paul 2.

2010s: Merkel; May; Macron, Francis 1.

My, how the world has changed in 30 years.

Adam Shithead says impeachment 'is destined for failure'

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...ithout-their-support

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said that impeachment "is destined for failure" without Republican support, while blasting the party as “the cult of the president’s personality" and stating that he is actually against "putting the country" through impeachment proceedings.

Schiff, on ABC News’ “This Week,” said that while he believes House Democrats could impeach the president, the move would likely fail, due to a lack of support from Republicans in the House and Senate.

"I think we're going to do what is right for the country, and at this point, the speaker has not reached the conclusion, and I haven't either that it's the best for the country to put us through an impeachment proceeding that we know will, is, destined for failure in the Senate," Schiff said.

Schiff added that the president's "conduct qualifies" as "high crimes and misdemeanors," but said: "at the same time, we have to recognize that the reality — that one party, the Republican Party, has turned itself into the cult of the president’s personality and is not likely to act consistent with its constitutional obligations."

Schiff added, however, that if Trump "continues to stonewall" Congress, and "demonstrate his unfitness for office," congressional Democrats could move forward.

"There may be little additional cost to going through that process, even if unsuccessful in the Senate," Schiff said. "But we're not there yet and I think if it is a close call, close calls go against putting the country through that."

Schiff’s comments come as rank-and-file congressional Democrats have ramped up their calls for impeachment, following a rare public statement by Special Counsel Robert Mueller last week, who announced it was “not an option” for his team of prosecutors to charge the president with a crime due to longstanding Justice Department policy.

Mueller detailed the findings in his probe, maintaining that there was “not sufficient evidence to charge a conspiracy” with regard to whether members of the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election.

But Mueller did not mince words on his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that,” Mueller said. “We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime.”

Mueller explained the longstanding Justice Department policy, which states that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, and thus said “charging the president was not an option we could consider.”

Mueller added that “it would be unfair to accuse someone of a crime when there could be no court resolution of the charge.”

But Mueller said that while the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion blocks a president from indictment while in office, “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse the president of wrongdoing.”

Some on the left took that comment as a green light to ramp up talks about impeachment proceedings against the president.

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., also compared Mueller's remarks to an "impeachment referral," and said, "We need to start impeachment proceedings. It's our constitutional obligation."
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., who is also running for president, said now that Mueller's job is done, "Impeachment hearings should begin tomorrow."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose committee would oversee impeachment proceedings, said that there "certainly is" justification to begin impeachment, but said it was critical to first gain the support fo the American people.

“Impeachment is a political act, and you cannot impeach a president if the American people will not support it,” said Nadler, D-N.Y. “The American people, right now, do not support it because they do not know the story. They don’t know the facts.”

Nadler added: “We have to get the facts out. We have to hold a series of hearings, we have to hold the investigations.”

But despite growing calls from rank-and-file Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has tread lightly on the topic, vowing to investigate allegations against the president, but stopping short of calling to begin impeachment proceedings.

Pelosi, this week, also said that Democrats “want to do what’s right and what gets results.”

“We’re legislating, we’re investigating and we’re litigating,” Pelosi said. “Everybody wants justice, everybody wants the president to be held accountable.”

But House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., despite Pelosi’s resistance to the idea, said Sunday he feels Democrats have “already begun” impeachment proceedings.

“We’ve got all these committees doing their work, we’re having hearings, we’ve already won two court cases and there are other cases that are still to be determined, so why should we get out in front of this process?” Clyburn said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“It’s kind of interesting to me when you talk to people and ask them what they think we ought to do,” he added. “They agree with what we’re doing, it’s just that, emotionally, they would like to see something done and see it done quicker.”

Trump, though, blasted the idea as a “scam.”

“I don’t see how they can,” Trump said Thursday. “It’s a dirty, filthy, disgusting word, impeach. It’s high crimes – there was no high crime. So how do you impeach?”

The White House also has ignored the discussion, and seized only on Mueller's move to announce the official conclusion of the Russia probe. Mueller, last week, said the investigation was officially complete, his office would close, and said he was resigning from the Justice Department to return to private life.

But even without launching official impeachment proceedings, congressional Democrats are leading several high-profile Trump-focused investigations. The House Judiciary Committee, which would oversee potential impeachment proceedings, is investigating the administration’s handling of Mueller’s report, and even voted to hold Attorney General Bill Barr in contempt for defying a subpoena requiring that he turn over an unredacted version of Mueller’s report, and its underlying evidence and documents. The president, in turn, asserted executive privilege over the files in a bid to protect them from release.

Meanwhile, the House Intelligence Committee, Oversight Committee, Ways and Means Committee and Financial Services Committee are all investigating the president and have aggressively sought his financial statements and documents for their probes, as well as testimony from high-profile Trump administration officials.

Thus far, the White House has directed the officials to defy their subpoenas to appear before Congress, and the president has vowed to block “all” subpoenas.

But Republicans, like House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins, R-Ga., are shifting their focus to Barr’s review of the origins of the Russia investigation. Barr appointed U.S. attorney from Connecticut John Durham to lead an investigation into the FBI’s original Russia probe, and alleged misconduct related to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, as well as the FBI’s use of informants against the Trump campaign in 2016.

“It’s time for us to find out how this started and go from there,” Collins said on “Fox News Sunday.”

^^^^

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Just like the drunk at the bar that could kick everybody's ass, but he's not going to do it because he doesn't want to get all sweaty and have to take another shower.

quote:

Originally posted by Bigboreshooter:
Schiff, on ABC News’ “This Week,” said that while he believes House Democrats could impeach the president, the move would likely fail, due to a lack of support from Republicans in the House and Senate.

Perhaps this is oversimplified but what is proper behavior for a president under false fire?

Impeachment is a political action, not a classic legal action. How does a president fight off a political attack? Words, pressure and public sentiment.

If falsely accused by those abusing government power, I’d want anyone to fight back. I feel no less for a president.

I’m not seeing Mueller and his team as either seeking or doing “justice” but, rather, as seeking a political goal – no matter how it’s labeled. The more we see, it seems that they were on the prowl to FIND any way to denigrate or remove our duly-elected president.

As a citizen, I’d want my president to dissuade that injustice in any way he could. It’s our money that gets wasted. It’ our country’s opportunities that get squandered. And, such errant pursuits set a terrible precedent for destroying future electoral stability.

I am in favor of obstructing a partisan hunt to bag our president. I don’t think I’m alone.

Saying the president illegally obstructed an illegal pursuit boils down to a non-starter for most fair-minded people. Schiff and others can see how they’ll never get over that hurdle.

What’s worse for Schiff is that it’s hard to see how Schiif gets through an investigation of leaked secret material unscathed when he attended secret meetings and would rush himself to cameras to leak information.

Maybe Schiff finally sees the coming cliff and has now decided to slowdown because what he sees coming quickly is his own political mortality.

AG Barr said, words to the effect, that a government actor can delude him/herself into believing that his or her personal political view is the only one in the country’s best interest - and to act on it. Perhaps such self-delusion explains much of what has happened.

But, an explanation is not an excuse.

Schiff, as a politician, may get around to explaining more of his actions too, but it will never excuse him. Schiff seems to be trying to position himself for the future as a “reasonable” guy.

He’s actually just trying to climb the ecclesiastical stairs to join the clergy with Comey, Brennan and the rest of the echo-chamber cult.

Trump Shakes Each Hand in Class of 1,000 Air Force Academy Graduates: ‘You Chose a Harder Path and a Higher Calling’

Of all the jobs and responsibilities of the president, there is one that stands high above the rest: serving as commander in chief of the U.S. military.

Each president has had a different relationship with the troops. Some are more stand-offish, while others seem to relish any opportunity to spend time with American servicemen. If President Donald Trump’s visit to the U.S. Air Force Academy this week is any sign, he’s definitely in the second camp.

On Thursday, Trump arrived in Colorado Springs, Colorado, to deliver the commencement address for some thousand cadets who are graduating to become officers. Although it wasn’t a requirement — he is a busy man, after all — the president stayed to shake the hand of every graduating classmate.

“They gave me a choice, they said: ‘Sir, you don’t have to shake any hands.’ Some people do that,” Trump told the sharply dressed cadets as he addressed the graduating class.

“‘You can shake the one hand, the top of the class. You can shake 10, 50 or 100,'” the president continued, recalling what advisers had told him. “‘Or you could also stay for 1,000.’ And I’m staying for 1,000, OK?” he said to cheers.

Trump was clearly enjoying himself, but there was also a serious tone to his commencement address. The president referenced the responsibilities of being an officer in the U.S. military and took time to thank parents who had raised such high achievers.

“You are the ones who will invent and define the next generation of air warfare. You’ll win so much you’re gonna get tired of winning,” Trump said, before also commenting that the cadets had the inner strength to “vanquish any menace that dares to threaten our country or our people.”

“To the thousands of moms and dads and grandparents and family members beaming with joy: Thank you for raising rock-ribbed, American patriots,” the president also said.

ABC News reported that true to his word, Trump spent more than an hour saluting each graduating cadet and shaking his or her hand. His appearance seemed to go over well with families of the graduating class, judging from their comments to reporters.

“I think it’s just a huge honor to the cadets that he [Trump] would take the time. He supports the military and this is his way of showing it,” the mother of one Academy graduate told ABC. Another described the president as “pro-military.”

Sure enough, he has fairly solid marks among members of the military. Just prior to the 2018 midterm election, Military Times conducted a detailed survey and found that Trump had a 44 percent positive rating overall among the troops. That might not look stellar, but it’s exceptional compared to Barack Obama’s abysmal 15 percent approval rating from the military in 2014.

“Troops surveyed continue to give high marks to [President Trump] for his handling of military issues specifically,” Military Times reported in 2018. “More than 60 percent said they believe the military is in better shape now than it was under President Barack Obama, and nearly the same number have a favorable view of his handling of the military.”

The importance of America’s men and women in uniform is one area where partisan politics can be set aside. Regardless of the ups and downs of Washington, there’s little doubt that President Trump respects the troops — and it’s great to see him making the next generation of military leaders a top priority.

https://www.westernjournal.com...tent=libertyalliance

Focusing on the really important news, the critical debate of the day is brought forth....

Fox News > https://www.foxnews.com/politi...tion-on-social-media
===========================================


Trump’s hairstyle at church service prompts speculation on social media
===========================================

Valerie Jarrett Quote :

Valerie Jarrett: Obama would have been impeached in a 'nanosecond' if he behaved like President Trump

>> https://www.foxnews.com/politi...impeached-nanosecond