(And another guy to be named later.) 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 continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursday nights, thanks to my shameless contract — as well as appear on the Sack Heads: Against Tyranny Show every Wednesday night.
Hour 1: BZ spoke with RAY J, an up-and-coming star in social media proffering the voice of Black Conservatism. You can reach him here on Twitter (@raymysterio305), and here on his very own YouTube channel. Ray Johnson (Ray J) can also be found here on Facebook. What does RAY J do or say? Let’s listen:
You just watch and mark my words: Ray J is soon to be a major force in the Conservative arena.
Hour 2: BZ continued with an article by Kurt Schlichter — and an article penned by none other than Hugh Hewitt, who now thinks that Trump is going to kick jackwagons in 2020. SHR Media co-owner Sack Heads SHAUN eventually slouched into the studio and we dissected and analyzed the Wednesday press conference — sans questions — by Robert Mueller because, after all, he cannot stand scrutiny in the light of day.
If you want to listen to the show on Spreaker, audio only, click on the yellow button below.
If you care to watch the show on the SHR Media YouTube channel, click on the red arrow below. We kindly ask you to SUBSCRIBE to the SHR Media channel. Please NOTE: For DISH subscribers: your Hopper has recently been wired to play YouTube videos. You can now toss ol’ BZ onto your massive flatscreen TV and watch him in all of his obese, biased and politically-egregious, lamentable goodness — for free!
You can watch the show here on the SHR Media Facebook page. Please like us and follow us on Facebook!
Join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin(on Twitter @BZep, Facebook as Biff Zeppe and the Bloviating Zeppelin, 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 booze are not.
As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.
Please remember we only monitor the chat room at SHRMEDIA.COM — though there is chat available on both Facebook and YouTube. Come on over to the SHR chat room where you’ll meet great friends!
Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives on Spreaker? Go here.
We also had DAVE MILNER in the second hour with an update regarding the English Defence League (EDL), Facebook and abject censorship of the EDL.
SHR co-owner Sack Heads SHAUN appeared in the second hour in order to weigh in on the Mueller Report and — be advised — tonight’s show was a full three hours and fifteen minutes in length!
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 continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursday nights, thanks to my shameless contract — as well as appear on the Sack Heads: Against Tyranny Show every Wednesday night.
On January 17th, it was the second anniversary of BZ broadcasting on the SHR Media Network. BZ has held his show, the Berserk Bobcat Saloon, on SHR continuously since January 17th of 2017.BZ is forever in debt to the co-owners of SHR, Sack Heads SHAUN and Sack Heads CLINT for believing in me and providing me with air time, a studio and unparalleled support. God bless them for that. I had a message, and they allowed me to become something of a messenger.
Hour 1: BZ spoke for a second time (the first being on 12-11-18) to CAPTAIN ED ENOS, a harbor pilot in Hawaii, certified to pitch huge ships into all six major Hawaiian ports — keeping the island chain well stocked with vehicles, electronics, furniture, wood, steel, fuel, food, and anything the islands need.
We talked about the maritime industry, the transportation of goods on the high seas, security, shipping, ship and crew design and future trends.
As Captain Ed Enos made quite clear, being a harbor pilot requires lengthy training, numerous tests, years of experience and maritime academy training. It also involves jumping from a small motor boat, coming alongside a ship and stepping onto a ladder dangling down from a massive moving ship.
Harbor pilot Dave Lyman lost his life doing this in 2006 and a scholarship program was created behind him. Please go to DAVELYMAN.COM in order to donate.
The Dave Lyman Memorial Scholarship provides approximately $2500 to every recipient, for each year they attend The California Maritime Academy (Cal Maritime), for a maximum of four years.
Hour 2: BZspoke about the 400+ page Mueller Report released today by US Attorney General William Barr — which clearly and finally states there were no reasons for criminal charges on either “collusion” or “obstruction” by President Donald Trump. PERIOD. Of course, the LDAMM — Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots — are entirely unsatisfied because the report was 1) redacted at all, and 2) didn’t set President Trump on fire, political or otherwise. Read the full report here.
If you want to listen to the show on Spreaker, audio only, click on the yellow button below.
If you care to watch the show on the SHR Media YouTube channel, click on the red arrow below. We kindly ask you to SUBSCRIBE to the SHR Media channel. Please NOTE: For DISH subscribers: your Hopper has recently been wired to play YouTube videos. You can now toss ol’ BZ onto your massive flatscreen TV and watch him in all of his obese, biased and politically-egregious, lamentable goodness — for free!
Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin(on Twitter @BZep, Facebook as Biff Zeppe and the Bloviating Zeppelin, 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.
As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.
Please remember we only monitor the chat room at SHRMEDIA.COM — though there is chat available on both Facebook and YouTube. Come on over to the SHR chat room where you’ll meet great friends!
Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives on Spreaker? Go here.
In a nutshell: haters gonna hate. And ain’ters gonna ain’t.
Nothing short of a video showing President Trump fellating Vladimir Putin — which Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots are fully convinced beyond the shadow of any doubt truly exists — it’s all one big cover-up.
Nadler, Pelosi, other Dems blast DOJ ahead of Mueller report release
by Samuel Chamberlain
Democrats in Congress attacked Attorney General William Barr Wednesday evening ahead of the Justice Department’s planned release of a redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.
Barr is set to hold a 9:30 a.m. news conference Thursday accompanied by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversaw the Mueller investigation after the special counsel’s appointment in May 2017. Neither Mueller nor other members of his team will attend, according to special counsel spokesman Peter Carr. Democrats have criticized the timing of the news conference, saying that Barr would get to present his interpretation of the Mueller report before Congress and the public see it.
But here’s the crux of the biscuit:
At a news conference Wednesday evening, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the panel was expected to receive a copy of the report between 11 a.m. and noon, “well after the attorney general’s 9:30 a.m. press conference. This is wrong.”
And therein lies the PSH factor. Demorats hate that the AG is going to release — to us terribly unwashed citizens — an amount of information prior to The Anointed Ones.
As a result there is a new Twitter hashtag trending — #BoycottBarr — in which “journalists” (and I wield that word quite loosely since there are only a handful of real living journalists extant) are advocating the boycott of the AG Barr release.
As if anyone gives the most remote fuckish semblance should “journalists” refuse to attend said press conference. Note to AMM: there will ALWAYS be one of you there to cut the knees off other “journalists.” Guaranteed. So piss on your flintlock.
This week’s continuing problem is now truly twofold: you’re dealing with a president who doesn’t really need the job, and an attorney general who doesn’t really need the job either. And neither one of them really quite care what the rest of the planet thinks of them. They’ve already done their bit. They couldn’t care less if you think they’re unimpressive.
They’re there to do a job.
Late Wednesday, Nadler and four other Democratic committee chairs released a joint statement calling on Barr to cancel the Thursday morning news conference, calling it “unnecessary and inappropriate.”
Uh, no. Bad Orange Man doesn’t care what you think. Neither does man who said this:
“Spying did occur. And I need to explore that.” Those subsequent few words instigated the explosion of hundreds of heads, more camshafts were thrown, and a future path was revealed. As in: “I’m going to backtrack a lot of this. Starting today.”
Footsteps. Certain personnel can hear footsteps. Because it would appear that, unlike the completely inadequate and milktoast Jeff Sessions, William Barr is an adult with a sense of history, America, law, justice and responsibility. With the authority to dive deep. Translated: he’s not recusing shit.
As Barr’s four page summary revealed:
In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.
Meaning: Mueller utilized the tools provided to his best advantage.
As I worked for the FBI myself, let me define two things. “Pen registers” are captured phone numbers from either landlines or cellular, and Title III — included but not mentioned here — are actual wiretaps. Guaranteed those occurred. No matter what anyone tells you.
Ten post-Mueller questions that could turn the tables on Russia collusion investigators
Soon, the dust will settle from special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, and Americans will have a fuller understanding of why prosecutors concluded there wasn’t evidence to establish that Donald Trump and Russia colluded to hijack the 2016 election.
At that point, many voters exhausted by the fizzling of a two-year scandal, once billed as the next Watergate, will want to move on like a foodie from an empty-calorie shake.
But a very important second phase of this drama is about to begin, as Attorney General William Barr, Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) put the Russia collusion investigators under investigation.
Their work will be, and must be, far more than just a political boomerang.
Really? Do tell. And I hope John Solomon understands when I reproduce all of his salient questions here — with clear attribution: John Solomon.
1.) When did the FBI first learn that Steele’s dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party and written by a partisan who, by his own admission, was desperate to defeat Trump? Documents and testimony I reviewed show senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr first told his colleagues about Steele’s bias and connections to Clinton in late summer 2016. Likewise, sources tell me a string of FBI emails — some before the bureau secured its first surveillance warrant — raised concerns about Steele’s motive, employer and credibility.
2.) How much evidence of innocence did the FBI possess against two of its early targets, Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page? My sources tell me that agents secured evidence of the innocence of both men from informants, intercepts and other techniques that was never disclosed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges in the case. I’m told learning exactly the sort of surveillance used on Page also may surprise some people.
3.) Why was the Steele dossier used as primary evidence in the FISA warrant against Page when it had not been corroborated? FBI testimony I reviewed shows agents had just begun checking out the dossier when its elements were used as supporting evidence, and that spreadsheets kept by the bureau during the verification process validated only small pieces of the dossier while concluding other parts were false or unprovable. And, of course, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted that, after nine months of investigation, the dossier’s core allegation of Trump-Russia collusion could not be substantiated.
4.) Why were Steele’s biases and his ties to the Clinton campaign — as well as evidence of innocence and flaws in the FISA evidence — never disclosed to the FISA court, as required by law and court practice?
5.) Why did FBI and U.S. intelligence officials leak stories about evidence in the emerging Russia probe before they corroborated collusion, and were any of those leaks designed to “create” evidence that could be cited in the courts of law and public opinion to justify the continuation of a flawed investigation?
6.) Did Comey improperly handle classified information when he distributed memos of his private conversations with Trump to his lawyers and a friend and ordered a leak that he hoped would cause the appointment of a special counsel after his firing as FBI director?
7.) Did the CIA, FBI or Obama White House engage in activities — such as the activation of intelligence sources or electronic surveillance — before the opening of an official counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016?
8.) Did U.S. intelligence, the FBI or the Obama administration use or encourage friendly spy agencies in Great Britain, Australia, Ukraine, Italy or elsewhere to gather evidence on the Trump campaign, leak evidence, or get around U.S. restrictions on spying on Americans?
9.) Did the CIA or Obama intelligence apparatus try to lure or pressure the FBI into opening a Trump collusion probe or acknowledge its existence before the election? Text messages between alleged FBI lovebirds Strzok and Page raised concerns about “pressure” from the White House, the “Agency BS game,” DOJ leaks and the need for an FBI “insurance policy.” And, as Strzok texted at one point in August 2016, quoting a colleague: “The White House is running this.”
10.) Did any FBI agents, intelligence officials or other key players in the probe provide false testimony to Congress? McCabe already has been singled out by the inspector general for lying about a media leak to an internal DOJ probe, and evidence emerged this year that calls into question Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson’s testimony about his contacts with Ohr.
Throughout most of southern Ohio, residents who watch cable news are predominantly glued to one channel: Fox News.
People there don’t watch Fox News to know what to think; they already know what they think, and they avoid news channels that insult their intelligence and core beliefs. Yes, Fox News is an echo chamber for the right, but no more than CNN and MSNBC are for the left, as far as conservatives are concerned. To be fair, when a Democrat is in the White House, the networks switch places, with Fox News criticizing every move, and MSNBC and CNN defending the Oval Office fortress.
That was the setup. Now comes the truth.
But for now, while partisans on the left may quibble, the fact remains that on the subject of collusion with Russia by President Trump or his campaign, Fox News was right and the others were wrong.
I’ve said this since late 2016, all through 2017 and 2018, with the March 2019 Mueller report now confirming:
What we experienced in America, instigated by the Barack Hussein Obama 44 administration, the DNC, Hillary Clinton and her campaign, the DOJ and the FBI plus other abetting actors like John McCain (and many others), was a soft coup against a presidential nominee, a president-elect and a sitting president of the United States.
Donald John Trump.
This soft coup was, yes, against him but by extension was aimed directly at you and me. Us. American voters. Anyone who dared not to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Here’s what happened in a nutshell: the counterintelligence divisions of the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, the DIA and the NSA were all arrayed — in concert with the DNC, the Demorats, Hillary Clinton, Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, John McCain, Glenn Simpson — while working hand-in-hand with the American Media Maggots in a week-by-week, day-by-day, hour-by-hour hammering of the situation — and in concert with the Barack Hussein Obama administration and the then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch — were working overtime with all possible available resources in order to not only derail the candidacy of an individual for president but, further, to smear the person in such a way as to make them a pariah, a leper, forevermore in the minds and eyes of the United States and the world.
This was spying on a political campaign. Spying on a private citizen. With the full weight of the US government behind.
This is something a tinpot dictatorship does. This is something a totalitarian society does. Not a Republic. Not a nation that abides by laws and operates by the rule of law.
Then there was the dirty bought-and-paid-for “dossier” financed by the DNC, the FBI, Hillary Clinton and aforementioned Russian oligarch. You want actual “Russian collusion”? Want to mix in Jimmy The Leak?
The fuckery was afoot, the plot drawn, and even “insurance” formulated by FBI agents Lisa Page and Peter Strzok in case Hillary Clinton failed to win the presidency. The Russia investigation was just that “insurance.” There was no way, of course, this could happen. But “just in case.”
Page first entered the spotlight in December 2017, when it was revealed by the JusticeDepartment inspector general that she and then-FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok exchanged numerous anti-Trump text messages. The two were involved in the FBI’s initial counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 election, and later served on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team.
Among their texts was one concerning the so-called “insurance policy.” During her interview with the Judiciary Committee in July 2018, Page was questioned at length about that text — and essentially confirmed this referred to the Russia investigation while explaining that officials were proceeding with caution, concerned about the implications of the case while not wanting to go at “total breakneck speed” and risk burning sources as they presumed Trump wouldn’t be elected anyway.
Further, she confirmed investigators only had a “paucity” of evidence at the start.
Then-Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., kicked off that section of questioning by asking about the text sent from Strzok to Page in August 2016 which read: “I want to believe the path you threw out in Andy’s [McCabe’s] office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
The former FBI lawyer explained how the FBI was trying to strike a balance with the investigation into the Trump campaign—which agents called “Crossfire Hurricane.”
“So, upon the opening of the crossfire hurricane investigation, we had a number of discussions up through and including the Director regularly in which we were trying to find an answer to the question, right, which is, is there someone associated with the [Trump] campaign who is working with the Russians in order to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton,” Page said. “And given that it is August, we were very aware of the speed and sensitivity that we needed to operate under.”
You caught that, correct? “The Director” is none other than Jimmy “The Leak” Comey who had been keep in this loop. And there was a “paucity” of evidence. Lisa Page said that, even prior to the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel by Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — the same Rosenstein who wrote a letter to President Trump outlining the various and numerous reasons to fire James Comey — there was no evidence to indicate Trump-Russia “collusion.” From September of 2018:
More than nine months after the FBI opened its highly classified counterintelligence investigation into alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, FBI lawyer Lisa Page said investigators still could not say whether there was collusion, according to a transcript of Page’s recent closed-door deposition reviewed by Fox News.
“I think this represents that even as far as May 2017, we still couldn’t answer the question,” Page said.
“I cannot provide the specifics of a confidential interview,” Ratcliffe told Fox News when asked for comment. “But I can say that Lisa Page left me with the impression, based on her own words, that the lead investigator of the Russian collusion case, Peter Strzok, had found no evidence of collusion after nearly a year.”
May 2017 is a key month because FBI DIrector James Comey was fired by President Trump and Mueller was designated special counsel. In August, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, wrote the still-secret “scope memo” spelling out the boundaries for the special counsel investigation.
Comey testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017 that he leaked memos he wrote after conversations with Trump in order to force the appointment of a special counsel.
“I asked a friend of mine to share the content of a memo with the reporter, I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel,” Comey testified June 8, 2017. (RELATED: James Comey Denies Being A Leaker)
Comey instructed his friend, Daniel Richman, to give the Times a memo he wrote about a conversation he had with Trump on Feb. 14, 2017. Comey claimed Trump asked him to shut down an investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Comey’s ploy worked, as Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel May 17, 2017.
Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:
As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.
The Special Counsel’s Report
On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c). This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.
The report explains that the· Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.
The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.
Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans -including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
[Footnote from letter: In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”]
The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.
The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple. offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.
Obstruction of Justice. The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction .. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Stop. Alan Dershowitz has something to say about this point.
Excellent questions. May I be so base as to suggest that Mueller lacks the political cojones to draw the distinction, and may I also suggest that Mueller essentially “Comey’ed” the situation (using the name as a verb) insofar as he drew clear and numerous points but failed to do his job. Either there are events and situations worthy of prosecution or there are not. This was Mueller’s job. He equivocated. You see, Robert Mueller and Jimmy The Leak are not just friends, but they are former FBI Directors.
The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves itto the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of¬justice offense.
37,040-41 (July 9, 1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6( e ), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to “matter[ s] occurring before [a] grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6( e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function. Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6( e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6( e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.
As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of’ notifications to your respective Committees “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.
The reactions, as you might guess, came pouring forth. Here are Steve Hilton, Gregg Jarrett, Sara Carter and Kayleigh McEnany.
Is there anyone here who believes that Barack Obama is stupid, ill-educated, unaware of politics and was so incredibly laissez-faire that he was completely oblivious as to what occurred in his administration? Particularly with regard to what became the number one target of the Demorats, Donald John Trump?
Here is ABC’s George Stephanopoulis speaking with Representative Jim Jordan:
Democrats want to keep the distractions going.
But to date there is not one bit of evidence of coordination, conspiracy, or collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election.
The American Media Maggots did indeed shit car parts following AG Barr’s summary of the Mueller report.
So somehow this Steven Colbert video isn’t aging so well any more.
Here are the American Media Maggots in full-on continuous Trump Derangement Mode. Let’s listen.
Yet: I have a question. An obvious one. Perhaps so incredibly obvious that no one seems to have thought of it.
Dear Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Jerry Nadler, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, James Comey, et al. You all swear you have proof of President Trump “colluding” with Russia or Russia having influenced our election for Trump, against Clinton. I believe you have index fingers. Or at least you have staff with index fingers. Why is it that you didn’t utilize said device and dial up the Mueller team?
“Say Bob, ol’ buddy, have I got some evidence for you.” And then give it to him.
You could have done this every day for the past two years. Yet either one of two things happened: 1) You simply forgot to, in the daily rush of your hectic lives, or 2) You never had any fucking evidence in the first place. Me? I’m going with number two.
We know the FBI was biased. There are numerous facts in evidence regarding that.
The Mueller report summary is out. The Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots, having been thwarted once more by facts, are busy resetting goalposts, changing equations, reframing accusations and generally shitting car parts. The question is: what next? Does the report itself get released?
Lindsay Graham, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has some thoughts.
Further: why not release just about all the documents relevant to the case? President Trump could declassify a host of documents.
For example: why can’t we see just what it was that the FBI provided to the FISA courts in order to acquire their searches of Trump, the tower and his associates?
One thought is this. And it is a damning one. A massive reason why Leftists and Demorats want no further documents uncovered.
Does anyone understand the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine? If, for example, an investigation is conducted and it is found that a FISA judge signed off on an affidavit packed with specious, unverified information such as the salacious “dirty dossier” — up to and including outright falsehoods — everything in terms of evidence subsequently procured is illegal and therefore inadmissible in court.
That would mean: convictions and indictments on Michael Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, et al, would have to be vacated.
One final point, something I’ve always wondered.
Where was the benefit of the doubt for Donald Trump?
As in: “Mr Trump, I’m Agent Smith from the FBI and we have information to indicate your campaign may have been subject to some kind of infiltration attempt by foreign powers, to possibly include the Russians. Would you work with us to try to get to the bottom of this?”
You know. Like what happened to Kalifornia Senator Diane Feinstein when it was discovered that she had a Chinese operative as her driver and personal attache for ten years, in her office, with access to highly sensitive documents and information.
The FBI managed to afford Senator Diane Feinstein the benefit of the doubt.
Feinstein was ‘mortified’ by FBI allegation that staffer was spy for China: report
by Lukas Mikelionis
U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein fired a staffer a few years back who was allegedly part of an effort to spy and pass on political intelligence to the Chinese government.
The FBI informed Feinstein, the then-chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, about five years ago about the staffer and allegations that the staffer was a spy. The source who confirmed the incident to the San Francisco Chronicle said “Dianne was mortified” upon learning about it.
Certainly Donald Trump would have been “mortified” to discover such a thing in his campaign.
But let’s ask ourselves a fundamental question. Could it be remotely possible that the Chinese determined to insert an agent directly into Feinstein’s vehicle because she was the Chair of the Senate Committee on Intelligence — a committee upon which she still sits?
The suspected spy served as the lawmaker’s driver in California, but took on other roles as well, including helping out in her San Francisco office and being Feinstein’s liaison to the Asian-American community in the state. He attended Chinese Consulate events on behalf of the senator.
This is worth a chortle:
A former official said that the spy’s handler “probably got an award back in China” for his efforts to penetrate Feinstein’s office and pass on intelligence.
Taxpayer money paid this Chinese mole or spy. Yours and mine. First question: did he get a pension? How would we know? Wouldn’t it behoove the Demorats to keep such a cock-up quiet? Of course it would. What a great job. Steal secrets, spy on the gweilo, then take a cushy retirement.
Then let’s break this down as well:
The suspected spy served as the lawmaker’s driver in California, but took on other roles as well, including helping out in her San Francisco office and being Feinstein’s liaison to the Asian-American community in the state. He attended Chinese Consulate events on behalf of the senator.
He was a driver and, apparently, much more. Let’s be serious. After her husband’s close associations with China and her comfort factor in dealing with same, would it not be logical that the amount of time spent with her day after day, week after week, year after year, a bit of a confidant, would result in her guard letting down? Of course. It turns out that Russell Lowe wasn’t just her driver — he was her office manager as well.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s warm relationship with and advocacy for Communist China go back decades and involve millions, if not billions, of dollars.
As media, intelligence agency, and political scrutiny of foreign meddling is seemingly at its apex, a story with big national security implications involving a high-ranking senator with access to America’s most sensitive intelligence information has been hiding in plain sight.
The story involves China and the senior U.S. senator from California, and former chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Democrat Dianne Feinstein. It was buried eight paragraphs into a recent Politico exposé on foreign efforts to infiltrate Silicon Valley, as a passing example of political espionage.
Did the senator expose herself to potential blackmail, or the public to danger through leakage of sensitive, highly classified information? Is firing really the proper punishment for providing political intelligence to a foreign power?
By now you get my point. The FBI decided to do Senator Feinstein a solid by notifying her and her staff of the potential threat from within due to this individual. They told her something similar to “we think you have a Chinese spy problem.”
That is precisely what the FBI did not do for the Donald Trump campaign. They could have taken the staff and then-candidate/nominee Donald Trump aside and said something similar to “eh, just thought you should know, we think you have something of a Russia problem,” as with Feinstein.
But no.
Gosh. I wonder what the difference was? And wasn’t Robert Mueller the FBI director during that time, in 2013? Why yes, he was. Comey wasn’t appointed until September of 2013.
The difference was Donald John Trump.
This was a soft coup against President Trump.
But in truth it was and is a soft coup against the American people. The American voters.
Truer words, as above, have not recently been written. It’s all about James Comey.
And the testimony of FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday before the US Senate Judiciary Committee on FBI Oversight only serves to underline and prove one thing: Mr Comey needs to be forced to resign, and immediately.
Certainly Hillary Clinton thinks so. It was Comey and the Russians who did her in despite saying she is taking “absolute personal full responsibility” for her loss. Uh, no. She doesn’t take full responsibility. She spoke to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday.
“If the election had been on October 27, I would be your president,” she told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour at a Women for Women International event in New York.
“I take absolute personal responsibility. I was the candidate, I was the person who was on the ballot. I am very aware of the challenges, the problems, the shortfalls that we had,” Clinton said, before adding that she was “on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey’s letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off.”
This is the same Hillary Clinton who was enraged that the election wasn’t simply handed over to her as required by us underlings, proles. commoners, serfs and unwashed rabble.
[It’s interesting to note that Hillary Clinton is writing a book about her loss, Huma Abedin is writing a book and Barack Hussein Obama is making $400,000 speeches to Wall Street.]
The very next day following Clinton’s fuzzy softball interview, Director Comey’s testimony in the Senate was jam-gepacked with bursting volumes of self-serving and contradictory statements. (The full testimony can be read here. Full video is here.) Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley originally called the Wednesday oversight hearing of the FBI to examine what the agency knows about a 2015 terrorist attack in Garland, Texas. Things got a bit off-topic, however.
Comey: Anthony Weiner Received Classified Clinton Emails
by Kristina Wong
FBI Director James Comey hit back Wednesday against Democratic criticism of his decision to reopen the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails 11 days before the 2016 election.
He said although it made him “mildly nauseous” to think he could have had some impact on the election, he believes he did the right thing and to this day, would not change his mind.
In explaining his decision to reopen the investigation, he said investigators found metadata on the seized laptop of Anthony Weiner — top Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s husband — that showed there were “thousands” of Clinton’s emails on the device, including classified information.
Investigators believed the emails could include emails missing from her first three months as secretary of state.
Comey said after repeatedly telling members of Congress that the FBI had concluded its investigation into Clinton, the only right thing to do was to let Congress know the case was reopened.
“I could see two doors and they were both actions. One was labeled ‘speak,’ the other was labeled ‘conceal,’” he said.
But wait. Was classified information really involved in any of those emails?
He said Abedin forwarded “hundreds of thousands” of emails to Weiner, 40,000 of which they reviewed. Three thousand of those were work-related, and 12 of them contained classified information, he said.
But he said Abedin and Weiner were not charged with any wrongdoing since investigators did not find a general sense of criminal intent — a decision that Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) scoffed at.
The hearing conducted on Wednesday featured Senator Diane Feinstein asking a question that, in retrospect, she wished she never touched.
She received a lot more information, damning information, than she wanted. She opened the door and FBI Director James Comey walked right through it. I suspect she was hoping Comey would simply reply that the information was classified. Sorry, senator. Feinstein was just pissed, regarding 702 data**, that her Demorat ox got gored.
But what really happened here? Again, just like July of 2016, Comey makes an argument for prosecution — first, against Hillary Clinton now, here, against Huma Abedin — and then does nothing about it. How did Weiner come to be in possession of classified information? Huma Abedin sent it to him. This is a violation of 18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, to wit:
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
As I wrote in July of last year regarding Director Comey’s decision to refuse sending the Hillary Clinton case on to DOJ:
To me it is quite clear that FBI Director James Comey, about whose probity I wrote quite a number of times on the blog, has dishonored his law enforcement oath, showing that he has no fidelity, no bravery and no integrity with regard to his decision to not recommend prosecution of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But in today’s hearing with Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz as documented at Politico, James Comey revealed his flawed and craven, cowardly political thinking when one is familiar with law enforcement prosecutorial thresholds as I am.
Director Comey determined a manner in which to weasel his way out of recommending the prosecution of Clinton. At Thursday’s hearing he went out of his way — again, just like Wednesday — to make his own case and then fall back on a position/decision that isn’t his to make.
But the most insightful part has arrived. Comey outs himself:
Chaffetz then asked whether it was that he was just not able to prosecute it or that Clinton broke the law.
“Well, I don’t want to give an overly lawyerly answer,” Comey said. “The question I always look at is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute, and my judgment here is there is not. “
And this is how James Comey attempts to rationalize his decision. He states he does not believe his case established guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
NEWSFLASH: It is not UP to YOU, Director Comey, to assemble a case that yields a determination of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That threshold is up to the DOJ or more pointedly a Grand Jury, not you or your organization. All you need to compile a case for submission is “probable cause.” That’s what real cops and real DAs in America do. Their jobs. They stay in their lanes and do their jobs.
As noted about Comey’s wrong-headed decision to give a pass to Hillary Clinton regarding the classified information on her server and in her emails, there are crimes of specific intent and general intent. Comey insists he must have specific intent before forwarding a case to DOJ. That’s wrong. There are sections, as above, that demand no such thing. Watch:
“She had no sense that what she was doing was a violation of the law.” Really, Mr Comey? “We couldn’t prove any sort of criminal intent.” You might try reading the law, Mr Comey. Federal law. The law you’re tasked with following and upholding.
Senator Ted Cruz had questions.
The fact patterns in Hillary Clinton’s case and Huma Abedin’s case do violate federal law as indicated by Senator Cruz above and common sense.
Director Comey’s job is not to be the attorney, but to be the compiler, and assembler of cases and, then, submitting a case to the Department of Justice. He essentially has and is usurping the function of prosecutors by withholding cases from the DOJ.
Tucker Carlson, below, interviews Democrat Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio and, more pointedly, former US Attorney Jim Digenova. Listen to Digenova’s clear and cogent case against FBI Director James Comey.
On Wednesday, for good measure, Director Comey decided to throw former US Attorney General Loretta Lynch under the bus — deservedly but quite willingly.
Now there is information from RightScoop.com, announced by Catherine Herridge of Fox News:
REVEALED: FBI found email that Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from CRIMINAL CHARGES
Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge says this is one of the biggest headlines out of the hearing today with the FBI director, pointing out that the FBI had found an email was obtained by Russian hackers that indicated that former DOJ hack Loretta Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from prosecution:
This was the story from Wednesday. And who covered it? Anyone but Fox?
Note how Director Comey refuses to answer. The fix was in. Comey is a disreputable political hack and has proven himself time and again to be so.
FBI Director James Comey must go. He is too self-centered, too much the political animal and, frankly, too narcissistic to continue in his current position. He insists he is apolitical but every movement he makes and statement he gives proves otherwise.
Section 702 permits the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly authorize targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, but is limited to targeting non-U.S. persons. Once authorized, such acquisitions may last for periods of up to one year.
Under subsection 702(b) of the FISA Amendments Act, such an acquisition is also subject to several limitations. Specifically, an acquisition:
May not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;
May not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;
May not intentionally target a U.S. person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
May not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States;
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 continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursday nights, thanks to my shameless contract — as well as appear on the Sack Heads: Against Tyranny Show every Wednesday night.
Hour 1: BZ spoke with RAY J, an up-and-coming star in social media proffering the voice of Black Conservatism. You can reach him here on Twitter (@raymysterio305), and here on his very own YouTube channel. Ray Johnson (Ray J) can also be found here on Facebook. What does RAY J do or say? Let’s listen:
We also had 
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 continue to proffer my thanks to the 
On January 17th, it was the second anniversary of 
Hour 1: 
We talked about the maritime industry, the transportation of goods on the high seas, security, shipping, ship and crew design and future trends.
As Captain Ed Enos made quite clear, being a harbor pilot requires lengthy training, numerous tests, years of experience and maritime academy training. It also involves jumping from a small motor boat, coming alongside a ship and stepping onto a ladder dangling down from a massive moving ship.
If you want to listen to the show on Spreaker, audio only, click on the yellow button below.
In a nutshell: haters gonna hate. And ain’ters gonna ain’t.
As if anyone gives the most remote fuckish semblance should “journalists” refuse to attend said press conference. Note to AMM: there will ALWAYS be one of you there to cut the knees off other “journalists.” Guaranteed. So piss on your flintlock.
I’ve said this since late 2016, all through 2017 and 2018, with the March 2019 Mueller report now confirming:
This soft coup was, yes, against him but by extension was aimed directly at you and me. Us. American voters. Anyone who dared not to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Truer words, as above, have not recently been written. It’s all about James Comey.
But wait. Was classified information really involved in any of those emails?
The hearing conducted on Wednesday featured Senator Diane Feinstein asking a question that, in retrospect, she wished she never touched.