Category Archives: American Politics

Special prosecutor for Hillary Clinton, et al?

Posted on by

People mock “Hillary Clinton’s bathroom home server.” This is a photograph of Hillary Clinton’s bathroom home server. This is true and accurate. That’s an actual toilet. Why was its existence ignored completely by the American Media Maggots?

And that is an idea whose time has more than come. It is long past due.

First, from FoxNews.com, the article written by Representatives Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Reps. Jordan and Gaetz: Special counsel needed as questions mount on Clinton, Comey, Russian Dossier and more

Mr. Attorney General, it’s time to do your job.

Why in 2016 did FBI Director James Comey call the Clinton Investigation a “matter,” not an investigation? After all, Mr. Comey wasn’t Director of the Federal Bureau of Matters.

Why in 2016 did FBI Director Comey begin drafting an exoneration letter for Secretary Clinton, whom he called “grossly negligent” in an early draft of the letter, before completing the investigation?  Before interviewing several witnesses? And before interviewing Secretary Clinton?

Why in 2016 did James Comey and the Justice Department give Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff, an immunity agreement for turning over her laptop computer? Typically, the Department would issue a subpoena or get a warrant and seize it. Why in this case did the FBI agree to destroy the laptop?

Why in 2016—one day before the Benghazi report was released and five days before Secretary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI—did Attorney General Lynch meet with former President Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix?

All excellent questions deserving of answers but obviously ignored by the American Media Maggots and all-but-ignored by EstabliHack Republicans. Why?

Why in the days following the meeting, and when emailing with the public relations staff at the Justice Department, did Loretta Lynch use the pseudonym “Elizabeth Carlisle?” If your conversation with the former President was only about golf and grandchildren, then why not use your real name?

Why was the decision on whether to charge Secretary Clinton made by FBI Director Comey and not the Attorney General?

Why did James Comey publicize the Clinton Investigation?

Why in 2016 did the FBI pay for the Russian Dossier? It’s been reported that in addition to the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee paying FusionGPS for the dossier, the FBI also “reimbursed” Christopher Steele, author of the dossier.

Why was FusionGPS co-founder Glenn Simpson meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya both before and after her meeting with Donald Trump, Jr.? 

Why is the FBI so reluctant to tell Congress and the American people if the dossier was the basis for a FISA court order permitting the government to spy on Americans associated with President Trump’s campaign? If the dossier was a legitimate intelligence document relied on by the court, then why not just tell the country?

Why on January 6, 2017 did James Comey brief President-Elect Trump on the dossier? Again, if the dossier was a legitimate intelligence document, then why wait two months after the election to inform the President-Elect?

Oh my gosh, so please keep the questions coming. All necessary questions.

Why did the Obama Administration leak to CNN that Mr. Comey had briefed President-Elect Trump on the dossier? Several media outlets had the dossier prior to the briefing, yet no one would print it because most of the document could not be substantiated. In his Congressional testimony, Mr. Comey himself called the dossier “salacious and unverified.” As pointed out in The Federalist, did the fact that the FBI Director had briefed the President-Elect on the dossier give it the “legitimacy” the press needed to go ahead and print something they knew was not accurate?

Why did the intelligence community in the final months of the Obama Administration unmask names at a record rate? 

Why, after Mr. Comey was fired on May 9, 2017, was it so critical for a Special Counsel be named to examine possible Trump/Russia collusion? So critical that James Comey leaked a government document about his conversations with President Trump through a friend to the New York Times.

Why is the Special Counsel Robert Mueller? According to The Hill and Circa News, in 2009 and 2010, the FBI through an informant learned Russian companies seeking to do business in the United States were involved in kickbacks and bribes. Yet, FBI Director Robert Mueller did not inform Congress and did not inform the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the entity responsible for the decision on whether to approve the Uranium One deal.

Why did Robert Mueller not inform CFIUS? And why did the Justice Department put a gag order on the informant?

But most importantly:

Finally, why won’t Attorney General Jeff Sessions—the person with the visibility and responsibility to answer these questions—do his job?

On July 27, 2017, twenty House Republican members of the Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Attorney General calling for a Special Counsel to get answers to the above questions.

On September 28, 2017, five House Republican members of the Judiciary committee met with the Attorney General and Justice Department staff to inquire about the July letter.

The Justice Department’s response? Silence.

It’s time for Jeff Sessions to name a Special Counsel and get answers for the American people. If not, he should step down.

Indeed. It is past time for same.

Following that article there was something of a dam break. Did it require Jordan and Gaetz to weigh in with pressure, was it a chink in the Clinton armor, or a bit of freedom perceived by Jeff Sessions? I’m not sure we’ll know.

Because, after all, we are skirting the fringe of BZ’s DC Axiom here:

“It’s an institutional culture in government. We don’t want to go after our predecessors because we don’t want our successors to come after us.”

From the WashingtonPost.com:

Sessions considering second special counsel to investigate Republican concerns, letter shows

by Matt Zapotosky

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is entertaining the idea of appointing a second special counsel to investigate a host of Republican concerns — including alleged wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation and the controversial sale of a uranium company to Russia — and has directed senior federal prosecutors to explore at least some of the matters and report back to him and his top deputy, according to a letter obtained by The Washington Post.

The revelation came in a response by the Justice Department to an inquiry from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who in July and again in September called for Sessions to appoint a second special counsel to investigate concerns he had related to the 2016 election and its aftermath.

Really? No pressure from Jordan and Gaetz factored?

The list of matters he wanted probed was wide ranging but included the FBI’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, various dealings of the Clinton Foundation and several matters connected to the purchase of the Canadian mining company Uranium One by Russia’s nuclear energy agency. Goodlatte took particular aim at former FBI director James B. Comey, asking for the second special counsel to evaluate the leaks he directed about his conversations with President Trump, among other things.

In response, Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd wrote that Sessions had “directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate certain issues raised in your letters,” and that those prosecutors would “report directly to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, as appropriate, and will make recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.”

“Why did the intelligence community in the final months of the Obama Administration unmask names at a record rate?”

Laura Ingraham on her show discussed the issue on Monday with both Representatives Jordan and Gaetz. Please listen closely.

Things may be changing — on many fronts. This all, I should remind everyone, stems from the incessant bleat of Demorats, Leftists and the American Media Maggots of “Trump-Russia, Trump-Russia, Trump-Russia!”

Leftists, Dems and the AMM are getting what they want now — investigations. The problem is that these investigations are pointing most back to the Demorats and not the Republicans. Schadenfreude, heavy drinking, back-slapping all around.

In conclusion, there is this from TheAtlantic.com, indicating the reign of Bill & Hill may be over, perhaps to even include indictments on a criminal level.

Bill Clinton: A Reckoning

by Caitlin Flanagan

Feminists saved the 42nd president of the United States in the 1990s. They were on the wrong side of history; is it finally time to make things right?

The most remarkable thing about the current tide of sexual assault and harassment accusations is not their number. If every woman in America started talking about the things that happen during the course of an ordinary female life, it would never end. Nor is it the power of the men involved; history instructs us that for countless men, the ability to possess women sexually is not a spoil of power; it’s the point of power. What’s remarkable is that these women are being believed.

But then Bubba came along and blew up the tracks.

How vitiated Bill Clinton seemed at the last Democratic convention. Some of his appetites, at least, had waned; his wandering, “Norwegian Wood” speech about his wife struck the nostalgic notes of a husband’s fiftieth anniversary toast, and the crowd—for the most part—indulged it in that spirit. Clearly, he was no longer thinking about tomorrow. With a pencil neck and a sagging jacket he clambered gamely onto the stage after Hillary’s acceptance speech and played happily with the red balloons that fell from the ceiling.

Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger, stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones says, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.

There is much more in the article for you to read.

This is, obviously, heretical writing — much less thinking — on the part of any Leftist.

When a standard Leftist organ turns, like The Atlantic, you know things aren’t playing well for you.

BZ

 

 Share

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

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

Mueller’s Manic Monday

Posted on by

Here’s what happened.

Things were not going well for the DNC, the Demorats, Hillary, Bill, Obama, Holder, Lynch, DWS, Geithner, et al, so a few panicky phone calls were made. They went something like this:

“Bobby Three Sticks, dude, can’t you kick this shit into high gear? We’re getting killed by the dossier thing and the Uranium One thing. How about some charges? The threat of some charges? We don’t care if you really do indict a ham sandwich as long as it’s a Republican ham sandwich. Hell, indict a Republican hamster. You just gotta help us out here; we need a diversion and we need it now.”

With that in mind, Mueller’s first overt act was on Friday when this was leaked to CNN.

A federal grand jury in Washington, DC, on Friday approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources briefed on the matter.

The charges are still sealed under orders from a federal judge. Plans were prepared Friday for anyone charged to be taken into custody as soon as Monday, the sources said. It is unclear what the charges are.

A spokesman for the special counsel’s office declined to comment.

Pure coincidence. “Leaked to CNN”? Pure coincidence as well. Not like it’s branding or anything.

Five names have been thrown out, meat for the political wolves. Manafort, Flynn, Page, Kushner or Trump Jr.

Guesses as to which one?

Whatever charges are leveled will prove to be peripheral and not directly linked to Russian collusion influencing Trump or the election. Likely, I’m guessing — as with most anyone and everyone in DC — charges will be on the order of attempting some kind of coverup/lying or cash for personal gain. In Manafort’s case, wire transfers.

Mueller will do what the feds do customarily: break one person in order to get to another higher up the food chain. Leverage.

What kind of leverage is there truly?

We’ll see.

In the meantime, just when the investigations into Republicans and Russia began, the guilty parties have turned out increasingly to be Demorats.

How sad.

BZ

 

 Share

The ultimate DC political truth finally revealed

Posted on by

This may be the most important post I’ll write the rest of the year.

And trust me, it is the Underlying Truth that essentially drives ALL of DC, no matter the issue, no matter the party.

I should note, however, that the GOP is particularly sensitive to this as they still want to be loved more than do the Demorats.

I found someone with the balls to state the Politically Obvious when I began researching the decision made by Jeff Sessions not to prosecute Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Let’s listen.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano stated,

“It’s an institutional culture in government. We don’t want to go after our predecessors because we don’t want our successors to come after us.”

And now you know the central theme in DC decision-making, at least predominantly on the side of the Republicans.

You may apply this to every situation in which you ask the question “so why was nothing done and why is no one accountable in DC for anything at any time?”

You can thank Judge Andrew Napolitano for providing the obvious answer.

Many of us intuited this; now there is no question.

“Drain the swamp”?

Now you know why that will never happen.

BZ

 

 Share