Hillary & Leftists: the Electoral College must go

Posted on by

Why?

Because it did not work to their advantage.

Immediate question: had Hillary Clinton won the presidential election, would she and fellow Demorats, Leftists and the American Media Maggots be calling for the obliteration of the Electoral College? You and I both know the obvious answer to that question.

Hillary has publicly stated she wants the Electoral College removed wholesale. From CNN.com:

Clinton: It’s time to abolish the Electoral College

by Dan Merica

New York (CNN) Hillary Clinton told CNN on Wednesday that it is time to abolish the Electoral College, part of a sweeping interview where the former Democratic nominee sought to explain why she lost the 2016 election.

Clinton, in the interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, displayed her animus for fired FBI Director James Comey, reflected on her love for the people — namely former President Bill Clinton — who helped her get through the crushing loss and blasted the arcane election body that she believes helped Donald Trump win the presidency.

I think it needs to be eliminated,” Clinton said of the Electoral College. “I’d like to see us move beyond it, yes.”

Hillary, of course, also referred to the 2000 election in which Al Gore lost to George Bush. But again, had Gore won and had Hillary won, would we be having this conversation? Of course not. Leftists won’t be honest and clear.

Tucker Carlson weighed in on the topic with a Demorat opponent.

Wanting the Electoral College gone, is that fanciful conjecture or is there more? From FoxNews.com:

Still bruised from Clinton loss, left takes aim at Electoral College in court

A liberal-led push to overhaul the Electoral College could be moving from the op-ed pages to the courtroom, as a Harvard professor who flirted with a dark-horse Democratic presidential bid last year vows litigation to change the system.

Criticism of the Electoral College was resurgent in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss. Clinton recently said she wants the system eliminated.

The latest effort isn’t aimed at dismantling the structure entirely – but rather, the winner-take-all system used by 48 states in awarding electors, which ends up focusing presidential races on a handful of battlegrounds.

With a winner-take-all, most of America is ignored,” professor Lawrence Lessig said in previewing his legal case – which, like any challenge to the Electoral College, faces a steep uphill climb.

Does the phrase “Constitutionally Federated Republic” mean anything to anyone any more? Because, after all, we are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. It’s in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These are the same documents that Leftists and Demorats wish to eliminate wholesale, when they gather sufficient power to do so.

Hillary Clinton, Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots aren’t the only ones wishing to eliminate the Electoral College. So is a member of the US Supreme Court, and she makes no bones about it.

From TheHill.com:

Ginsburg: I would back changing the Electoral College

by Mark Hensch

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she would support changing the Electoral College.

“There are some things I would like to change, one is the Electoral College,” she said late Monday at Stanford Law School in California, according to CNN.

“But that would require a constitutional amendment, and amending our Constitution is powerfully hard to do,” she added.

Her words immured here.

Ginsburg’s remarks follow President Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court’s vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch sits on Colorado’s 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

The Demorats don’t understand the Electoral College — with purpose and, in this instance, due to outright ignorance.

Top Democrat Wrongly Asserts Electoral College Isn’t in Constitution

by Henry Rodgers

The head of the national Democratic Party incorrectly said the Electoral College is not “a creation of the Constitution.”

In  a lecture at Indiana University Law School, Tom Perez, a lawyer who is chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said the Electoral College “doesn’t have to be there” and asserted that the national popular vote should be the principal standard.

Once again, because Demorats have a recent history of losing the Electoral College. Plain and simple.

The above map, if the Electoral College were to be eliminated, indicates which population areas would choose the president. The rest of the country could go to hell and would make no difference. Are you ready to cede a minuscule portion of the country such power? Did you not hear or read of what our Founding Fathers warned?

Are the clouds starting to part? But let’s continue with the lies of Perez.

“The Electoral College is not a creation of the Constitution. It doesn’t have to be there,” said Perez, who was secretary of labor during President Barack Obama’s second term and is a former assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights.

Gospel, right? Stated by Demorat/Leftist Leslie Marshall so it must be true, correct?

Article II of the Constitution, however, clearly outlines the electoral process, dictating that states must appoint electors who meet and vote for the president:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Damn. Those pesky laws again. Those terribly inconvenient founding documents. Oh how they get in the way of a true political coup. And in the way of Tom Perez. Are you beginning to identify some kind of a trend or pattern?

The House of Representatives provides small states with some serious concern, as 435 humans representing the so-called popular vote overwhelm small states. Then the Senate weighs in with true equanimity: one state, two Senators. No matter what. Checks and balances, anyone?

Isn’t it odd how Marshall purposely fails to mention this aspect?

Here is another aspect that Demorats and Leftists conveniently decide to avoid.

In the election of 1992, Bill Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was the duly elected president, despite the fact that he received only a plurality (43 percent) of the popular votes. A third party candidate, Ross Perot, received almost 19 percent. In fact, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections, yet there was never any doubt—because he won an Electoral College majority—that he had the legitimacy to speak for the American people.

No kvetching there, eh wot, from the Demorats? Was there?

Then:

This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.

Uh-oh.

This means that, in California for example, Proposition 187 would have won. It would be the law of that land. Uh-oh.

It would also mean that Mexicans or Muslims could procreate to the extent that their sheer numbers overwhelmed the politics. Oh wait. That’s happening now in Europe and becoming entrenched in the US. Caucasoids are so free that they are choosing Free Cheese over procreation. Ain’t it great?

Demography is truly prophecy.

But what happens when demography overrules the Demorat Caucasoids now and in potential future power? How will they respond to the back of the bus?

Identity politics, y’all.

Even Slate.com, for fuck’s sake, advocates the retention of the Electoral College.

Can there be a true “democracy”? Of course there can’t. No one is thinking of dissolving the House or the Senate.

What we know now is: When Demorats and Leftist lose, every manner of cheating is back on the table.

Why do Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots demand elimination of the Electoral College?

Simple. Because it is one of the final steps impeding their being elected in perpetuity and taking control of the United States once and for all.

Our Founding Fathers were wise beyond their years.

Even then they saw this issue brewing.

BZ

 

 Share

A reminder: the truth about Islam

Posted on by

Not a fake photo. This is clearly a book that reads right-to-left. A Koran.

I suspect we need a bit of a refresher course on Islam.

On any number of levels, from any number of GOWP sources, we are constantly barraged by the Leftist meme that violent Islamist individuals and groups who carry out bombings, killings, beheadings, spilling blood in the name of Islam, are the exception and not the rule.

Allen West provides some initial insight.

Back in 2015, this was revealed:

The Center for Security Policy released the following information on June 23rd of 2015.

Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad

Press Releases |  | The Muslim Brotherhood in America, Understanding the Shariah Threat Doctrine

According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.

Read this very carefully, Americans.  What is portrayed by your government and Leftists appears to be in direct contravention to the truth.

The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities.

Overall, the survey, which was conducted by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), suggests that a substantial number of Muslims living in the United States see the country very differently than does the population overall.  The sentiments of the latter were sampled in late May in another CSP-commissioned Polling Company nationwide survey.

But wait; those “moderate American Muslims” you’re told are good and tolerant people — and are in your community?

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah.Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

People who look upon Islam as nothing but another religion are duped and ignorant.  Islam is much more than a mere religion; it is a way of life, a duty, a political entity, a social, cultural, economic, military ideology, something that crosses all aspects of Muslim life.  It crosses every aspect and influences and informs every decision made by a devout Muslim.

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

Understand this, however:

Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.

Note: please see the complete poll here.

Frank Gaffney wrote:

The findings of the Center for Security Policy’s survey of Muslims in America suggests that we have a serious problem.  The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year.  If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today.  That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”

These are all articles and issues and polls that have been purposely ignored by the American Media Maggots and GOWPs nationwide.

As WND.com wrote,

Poll: Most U.S. Muslims would trade Constitution for Shariah

‘Quran should be highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion’

by Leo Hohmann

Ben Carson’s comment that he would not support a Shariah-compliant Muslim for president because Islamic law is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution led to the former brain surgeon’s roasting among media talkers and politicians of all stripes.

He has been excoriated as “anti-Muslim,” “bigoted,” even “anti-American” and unfit for office.

Ignored by GOWPs and the American Media Maggots.

Further, where does the Muslim concept of “taqiyah” enter into the equation?  If you are unfamiliar with that term, you’d best click on the link.

This is important because Omar Ahmad, one founder of CAIR — and CAIR makes no bones about its representation of Muslims in the United States of America — has said, in “a conference hall packed with California Muslims in July 1998 that Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.  The Quran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” ”

CAIR denied Ahmad made the statement and said the newspaper that printed his statement retracted it, but that was proven false. In other words, Ahmad told the truth and CAIR lied.

This is another telling paragraph itself.

Ihsan Bagby of CAIR’s Washington office has said that Muslims “can never be full citizens of this country,” referring to the United States, “because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country,” Pipes reported in his 2006 article, “CAIR Islamists Fooling the Government.”

There are “moderate Muslims” in America, who would not survive their practice in the Middle East. Muslims who do not practice the Koran as strictly written. If you are a “moderate Muslim,” you’re not doing it right and you yourself may be in danger of an Islamic re-tuning.

Rand Paul points out the obvious: we need more extensive screening, but acceptance should also be based on allegiance. Are you, can you, be truly allegiant, considering your personal belief systems, to the United States of America? If not, you’re not accepted. How is that sensical?

If you point out a “moderate Muslim” to me, I’ll point out someone who cannot recite a minimum of five surahs and hasn’t been to a mosque in months or years, whose wife doesn’t wear hajib and who doesn’t not have a beard or fear Mohammad.  Someone the rest of non-moderate Islam would consider too Westernized.

I’ve recently found another clear-thinking individual who dares to speak not the politically-correct thing, but the factually-correct thing about Islam: there are no “moderate Muslims.” Those are merely MINOs who, according to the Koran and Mohammed, aren’t “doing it right.”

Then you have the CNN/Jake Tapper side of the coin: “Allahu Akbar is sometimes said under the most beautiful of circumstances.”

As I have said for some time and shall continue to say:

  • There is no such thing as a “moderate Muslim;”
  • There are simply Muslims who are not “doing it right;”
  • Islam is as Islam does, and
  • Islam is not a religion; it is instead a social, cultural, economic, military, and political ideology masquerading as a religion.

As it is not a religion, it is not due religious protections under our laws.

Now, discuss amongst yourselves.

BZ

 

 Share

Dan Butcher hosts BZ on the SHR Media Network

Posted on by

The SHR Media “internet service provider”– and I use that phrase very loosely — has been taking its merry time getting around to repairing our studio internet connection.

You see, customarily on Tuesday and Thursday nights I’d be featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia. I would continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly on those Tuesdays and Thursdays, thanks to my shameless contract, as well as my appearance on the Sack Heads Radio Show each Wednesday evening.

Such was not the case as the studio has been down for almost two weeks. Tuesday night Dan Butcher of High Plains Media fame was kind enough to step in and offer the use of his services and to run the Berserk Bobcat Saloon, such as it was.

Dan hosted the Saloon under his own aegis, and ran the board from Texas whilst ol’ BZ, in a twist of fate, called into his own radio program. Bizzareosity occurred.

Because of Tuesday events, it should come as no surprise that we spoke of the New York terror attack which killed 8 persons and injured over a dozen. No one was shocked when the suspect shouted “Allahu Akhbar” and it was shortly revealed that he was a Muslim who had links to ISIS.

Dan and I also contrasted and compared the NY terror attack to the Las Vegas mass shooting and illuminated the vast differences between both events — more differences than similarities.

When life settles down and the proper connections are made, please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here. Want to watch the past shows on YouTube? Please visit the SHR Media Network YouTube channel here. Want to watch the show live on Facebook? Go to the SHR Media page on Facebook here. Want to watch the show on Lone Star TV? Go here.

BZ

 

 Share

Muslim Benghazi attack coordinator captured, enroute US

Posted on by

What will he say?

Will he buttress the Hillary Clinton/Susan Rice insistence that the attack was the result of a poorly-produced video? Or will he substantiate that Hillary Clinton, Rice, and the rest of the then-Obama administration were all a pack of liars?

From AmericanMilitaryNews.com:

Benghazi attack organizer captured in Libya, now en route to US, officials tell AP

by Melissa Leon

U.S. Special Operations Forces have captured a top militant who was “instrumental” in the Benghazi attack in Libya in 2012 that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, an information management officer and two former Navy SEALs, according to a report by the Associated Press.

“The officials say U.S. commandos captured the unidentified man in Libya and are transporting him back to the U.S. The officials say the mission was approved by President Donald Trump and done in coordination with Libya’s internationally recognized government,” the AP reported, adding that the officials “weren’t authorized to speak” and “demanded anonymity.”

Do you suspect he will have a tale to tell? I believe so. And I think the Trump administration wants to hear that tale.

We already know that Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, lied nakedly to the families of the four Americans killed in the Benghazi attack. It was caught on video.

Family member of the four slain Americans — U.S. Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens; U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith; and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, both former Navy SEALs — were not only lied to their faces by Hillary Clinton, they had their integrity questioned and ridiculed by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Read the body language, the scorn, the arrogance, the utter contempt the positioning of Hillary Clinton illustrates. She believes this is so completely beneath her, that she answers to no one.

Hillary, as revealed by her emails to the Middle East and to her own daughter Chelsea, was fully cognizant that night of the fact that a video had nothing whatsoever to do with the Benghazi attack.

The 800-page report revealed that in the months leading up to the attack, there was worsening security in Libya, poor bureaucratic leadership and inadequate resources. The report showed Clinton and the State Department’s inadequacy to protect the Libyan diplomatic outpost. The report also revealed that the CIA missed the threat and wrote faulty intelligence after the attack.

Translated: Americans asked for more help but were rebuffed by Hillary and Obama because it failed to measure up to the meme of having “al Qaeda on the run.”

Clinton told a U.S. House committee that she was aware of the dangers in Libya but “there was no actionable intelligence” indicating a planned terrorist attack. The report showed that intelligence was available, but Clinton and her top aide, Patrick Kennedy, failed to realize the risk of a potential attack.

She then displayed this wretched contempt when under oath, as dismissive and insolent as a human can be. I utilize the word “human” rather loosely.

Hillary Clinton, the Demorats, Leftists and the American Media Maggots are oh-so-going to rue the day the decided to press the “Trump/Russia/collusion” meme. Bladed boomerang.

So yes, I will be quite very curious what the unnamed Muslim organizer of the Benghazi attack has to say. For all of those reasons and more.

BZ

 

 Share

Mueller, Manafort and Gates: where’s the beef?

Posted on by

So: where is the beef?

First, from the BBC.com:

Ex-Trump aide Manafort charged with US tax fraud over Ukraine work

Donald Trump’s former presidential campaign manager, Paul Manafort, has been charged with conspiring to defraud the US in his dealings with Ukraine.

The 12 charges brought against Mr Manafort and one of his business associates, Rick Gates, include conspiracy to launder money.

They stem from an inquiry into alleged Russian meddling in the US election.

It has emerged that another adviser to Mr Trump admitted this month to lying about his links to Russia.

George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents about his dealings with an unnamed overseas academic who allegedly informed him that the Russians possessed “dirt” on Mr Trump’s presidential opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Even the BBC admits:

The charges against Mr Manafort and Mr Gates do not relate to Mr Trump’s campaign but to the alleged concealment of payments from the pair’s Ukrainian business dealings up to 2016.

The BBC also states:

The good news for Mr Trump is these charges stem from Mr Manafort’s past business dealings, not his campaign efforts. He is being accused of working for years for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians and laundering millions in subsequent payments.

It certainly makes Mr Trump’s decision to cut Mr Manafort loose last August after details emerged of his Ukrainian ties seem a wise one.

Perhaps at this point I should have Captain Obvious step in and say: “Russia is not Ukraine. They are two separate countries, not particularly in love with each other.”

Odd how the American Media Maggots neglect that aspect of the charges.

Some NewsWeasels have declared the charges involving Manafort and Gates as an “opening salvo” by Special Prosecutor Mueller — he of the spic-and-span background.

Oh wait. Perhaps not so spic-and-span? From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Peter King wants Robert Mueller to answer Congress’ questions about 2009 uranium deal

by Kyle Feldscher

New York Rep. Peter King wants special counsel Robert Mueller to come to Congress to explain why the FBI didn’t sound the alarm louder about a deal to sell a company in control of uranium reserves to a Russian company.

King said Sunday on Fox News that Mueller, who was FBI director from 2001-2013, has some questions to answer about the deal that saw a Russian state-controlled company buy Uranium One, a company that controlled 20 percent of American uranium reserves.

The deal had to be approved by nine American government agencies, including Hillary Clinton’s State Department, and went through in 2009.

Uh-oh. That was under Mr Spic-and-Span’s tenure. What did he know and when did he know it? Was he complicit in that approval?

“Bob Mueller should come forward to the Congress and explain how he addresses [the deal] because it’s not only a question whether or not the Clintons, what involvement they had with uranium,” King said, “but it’s also the fact he was head of the FBI at a time we’ve been told an investigation is being conducted by the FBI as to bribery and collusion involving the Russians and yet, this was approved the Cabinet and the treasury secretary, secretary of state and the president.”

“Did the FBI notify the administration the Obama administration at the time this investigation was ongoing and all of the allegations are being made and, if so what was done and if they didn’t, why not?”

Unpaid advisor to the Trump campaign, George Popdopoulos, was arrested in July, we now find, for lying to the FBI.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A former campaign adviser to President Donald Trump has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russians, special counsel Robert Mueller said Monday, while Trump’s former campaign manager and that official’s business partner pleaded not guilty to felony charges of conspiracy against the United States and other counts.

We are told that Popadopoulos pleaded guilty and is “cooperating.” My first two thoughts? 1. Leverage, and 2. Wire.

During the daily press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders downplayed Papadopoulos’ role in the campaign, saying it was “extremely limited.”

“He was not paid by the campaign,” Sanders said, adding later: “Any actions that he took would have been on his own.”

Allahpundit of HotAir.com concurred with some of my thoughts.

According to the plea agreement, Papadopoulos was arrested on July 27 and signed his deal with the feds on October 5, although not until this morning was that publicly known. The court had sealed the files related to the case. How come?

So that’s why Mueller wanted to keep Papadopoulos’s arrest a secret. Papadopoulos may have been secretly working for the feds for the past three months, since his arrest, to gather evidence on suspects in related Russiagate matters in hopes of leniency. He was a perfect guy to try to recruit for that — young, in over his head, outside the Trump inner circle and therefore owing little loyalty to the administration. Mueller may have scared him senseless with threats of a long prison sentence for lying to the FBI and the promise of much reduced charges if he played ball. Possibly he enlisted Papadopoulos to reach out to some of the major players in Russiagate and get them on record confessing to … what, exactly? The problem with using Papadopoulos is that presumably he wasn’t a big enough cheese to make a guy like Manafort comfortable with discussing campaign secrets with him in the course of a “normal” conversation between them. He was a low-level guy.

As I said, 1. Leverage, and 2. Wire.

Monday’s revelations weren’t just of concern to Republicans. Demorats are hustling as well. Tony Podesta, brother of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta (complicit in the Hillary email scandal) was shitting Twinkies on Monday. From FoxNews.com:

Brother of Clinton campaign chair steps down from lobbying firm amid reports of scrutiny from special counsel

Tony Podesta, founder of the Podesta Group and brother of former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, is resigning from his lobbying company.

Podesta and his lobbying firm were subjects of a federal investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

The Podesta Group was one of several firms that worked on a campaign called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. The campaign was led by Paul Manafort and promoted Ukraine’s image in the West.

Uh-oh.

That said, all of this may be moot if a certain “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine is found to apply. Jerome Corsi writes:

FBI RELIANCE ON DISCREDITED FUSION GPS “RUSSIA DOSSIER” THREATENS MANAFORT PROSECUTION

by Jerome Corsi

FBI illegally obtained FISA wiretapping of Manafort based on dossier

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Special Counselor Robert Mueller’s case is in danger of being thrown out of court when the FBI is forced to admit FISA court authority to conduct electronic surveillance on former Trump campaign Paul Manafort was based on the fraudulent Fusion GPS “Russia dossier” that the FBI, the Clinton campaign, and the Democratic National Committee paid to be produced.

On Sept. 19, 2017, CNN reported that U.S. investigators conducted electronic surveillance on Manafort both before and after the election under a FISA court warrant.

The CNN article cites only unnamed sources, strongly suggesting the leak was based on an illegal leak to the press that could end up being traced back to the FBI, to Mueller’s Special Counselor office, or to both.

In other words, a case based on bullshite becomes bullshite.

The FBI and/or Mueller may have compromised their entire investigation of Paul Manafort by either using the fraudulent “Russia dossier” paid for in part by the FBI, or by illegally leaking information derived from the FISA-authorized electronic surveillance to CNN and other mainstream media publications known to be partisan “Never Trump” mouthpieces.

CNN reported the secret FISA warrant was obtained after Manafort became the subject of the FBI investigation that began as early as 2014 under then FBI Director James Comey, and centered upon work Manafort conducted consulting with Ukraine.

Further, will Mueller focus any aspect of his investigation on the clear felony charges that could be applied to those persons who leaked grand jury material?

From TheGatewayPundit.com:

Trey Gowdy: Mueller Team ‘Violated the Law’ Leaking Charges in Trump-Russia Investigation

by Joshua Caplan

Congressman and House Oversight Committee chair Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told “Fox News Sunday,” that Mueller’s team broke the law by leaking news of upcoming charges to CNN. Gowdy warned Mueller about leaking details of the investigation to the press.

Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, the leader of the House’s top investigative committee, slammed special counsel Robert Mueller  on Sunday for allowing the news media to learn that he and his legal team now have charges in their Russia investigation.

“In the only conversation I’ve had with Robert Mueller, I stressed to him the importance of cutting out the leaks,” Gowdy, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, told “Fox News Sunday.” “It’s kind of ironic that the people charged with investigating the law and the violations of the law would violate the law.”

On Friday night, CNN reported that Mueller’s team has filed the first charges in the case with a federal grand jury.

“Make no mistake, disclosing grand jury material is a violation of the law. Somebody violated their oath of secrecy,” Gowdy, a South Carolina lawmaker and former federal prosecutor, also told Fox News on Sunday.

Is the real story everything but the charges so far?

Let’s be honest. Mueller doesn’t give one shite about Manafort and Ukraine. He wants one thing: he wants Manafort and Gates and Papadopoulos to sing like birds. To me, it’s clear that Mueller got a tune out of Papadopoulos.

I don’t think he got much more than a goldfinch fart out of Manafort or Gates. Hence the charges.

Unfortunately for Mueller, their days of wearing wires are over. But perhaps this will encourage any number of individuals in DC to suck it up like buttercups and take massive gulps of STFU.

That rhymes.

“Round and round and round it goes; where it stops, nobody knows.”

BZ

 

 Share