Either unfortunately or thankfully the Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots seem to forget that something called the “internet” exists.
Despite their best intentions and the focus of Google and other fact-eliminating social media Mega-Censors, some videos and facts have managed to escape complete and utter digital liquidation.
You see, it would appear that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry “The Hutt” Nadler has called for and acquired committee contempt orders for Attorney General William Barr despite those orders being illegal and, well, in direct contravention of what he precisely wanted in a prior situation involving a Demorat.
Let’s check our internet on this for comparison, shall we? Because, as we shall hear, “flip-flopping for abject political line purposes, thy name is Nadler.”
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, thankfully the genius named Hank Johnson weighed in and revealed the true intentions of the Demorats, Leftists and American Media Maggots. By the way, what the hell happened to Johnson’s lower jaw? Bad gauze? A serious Band-Aid accident? Shaving?
Just asking: did Hank Johnson happen to pass a few years ago, and was subsequently replaced by a Disney Audioanimatronics robot that still somehow can’t pronounce the English ranguage or, minimally, the word “obfuscation”?
Let’s not forget that this is the same Hank Johnson who called President Trump a white supremacist, a Nazi, and compared him to Hitler.
And let us not forget that this is the same Hank Johnson who — thank God — forewarned us about the island nation of Guam because he was sniffing paint out of a paper bag that day.
And who could forget this wonderful HJ video (H/T to Rick!) about helium:
So please, let’s attempt to acquire a semblance of a perspective. It is the Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots who couldn’t care less about
Facts
Logic
Rationality
Prorportion
Common sense
Context, or
History
Until it uplifts and furthers their own narrative. Period.
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.
In California, beginning July 19th of 2019, all ammunition in the state must be purchased through a vendor licensed by the Department of Justice and every potential purchaser of ammunition will be required to undergo a background check via a state system before receipt of said ammunition.
We all know that the corruptive, Leftist, oppressive liberty-and-freedom-killing practices in California bleed over into other areas, states and venues. So should this be shocking to anyone? From Guns.com:
National bullet control bill would add background checks to ammo sales
by Chris Eger
Democrats introduced a bicameral proposal this week to force those who would buy bullets to first go through a background check process.
In measures proposed in the House by Florida’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Senateby Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal, would-be ammunition buyers would have to be first vetted by the FBI’s National Instant Background Check System. The lawmakers say the move to add controls to bullet sales would help leave criminals with empty guns.
“Ammunition sales should be subject to the same legal requirements as firearm sales, and that includes instant background checks,” Blumenthal said. “The same laws that prevent dangerous individuals from purchasing firearms also prohibit them from amassing arsenals of ammunition, with one major loophole: there are no background checks for ammunition sales to enforce the law.”
But wait; it gets better. Don’t think this isn’t purposeful.
The move would force potentially millions of ammunition purchases into the already swamped NICS clearinghouse where transfers would be approved, delayed or denied. While the language of the proposals is not available, a statement from Wasserman Schultz’s office said that federally licensed gun dealers could use their existing system to process checks for ammo buyers while those who did not have an FFL would either work through an existing licensee or seek a license of their own.
Gosh, this wouldn’t be some kind of retributive reaction after DWS demanded “her laptop” back form the US Capitol Police after its chief refused to return it — and she threatened him — because of an investigation into her Pakistani I.T. staffer, would it? Nah. Didn’t think so either.
Wasserman Schultz’s bill, H.R.5383, has 34 Dems signed on as co-sponsors and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Blumenthal’s companion measure, S.2627, has likewise been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee and is co-sponsored by U.S. Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn, and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI.
So let me tell you how this will work: it will work as well as background checks for firearms. And we know the efficacy of that program. I’d wager that few if any mass shootings in the past, say, two or three years would have been avoided by firearms background checks. In fact, many suspects did pass prior checks. Or: they acquired the firearms from other persons and places. Or the federal government didn’t do its own job — in the case of Devin Kelley.
One thing we know for certain: not one mass shooter — not one — has been an NRA member. If you know of one, I’d like a name and evidence, not just hearsay.
Just as Barack Obama was one of the greatest firearms sellers in the history of the United States, this law will be one of the greatest ammunition sellers. Only now, just as homes are burglarized and firearms stolen, so now will be ammunition.
Who does this hurt? Criminals? Of course not. That’s their day job. It’s in their job description. It will instead hurt Americans who adhere to the laws
And that is purposeful. The point isn’t to keep ammunition out of the hands of criminals. The point is to keep ammunition out of the hands of every civilian in the US, to the point where firearms become meaningless. As we all know, the terminus of gun control is firearms confiscation and utter proscription. Translated: a purely defenseless society.
Translated: you can have the car, golly yes. Who’d ever take away your cars, your independence and your ability to drive wherever you want whenever you want? Don’t be daft! We’re just going to remove your ability to acquire rubber and linked compounds so you can’t purchase tires. But hell, you still have your car, right? So it’s not about car control, you see? Don’t be unreasonable. (Don’t think we’re not writing a bill to make sure you won’t be able to purchase wheels. C’mon. Baby steps. After all, you’ll still have your car.)
Who would have firearms, then? The government. Only. Period. And, oh yeah. Politicians and judges and celebrities and “high ranking officials” would still somehow magically manage to keep the firearms for their civilian bodyguards. Can’t have you lowlifes, you proles, you serfs, you groundlings, you grubbers, you deplorables, you vassals, you chattel, you underlings, you lackeys, you bond servants, you puppets interfering with your intellectual and political betters. Can we?
Incremental. Baby steps.
Think frog. Think boiling pot.
The logic will be this: hey, we’re coming for your guns because, after all, what use are they really without bullets?
Next up to bid?
Handloaders.
Trust me on this.
BZ
P.S.
“You don’t really need that gunpowder, do you? It’s an environmental hazard, after all. Those cute little machines and presses? Sure, you can keep ’em. Oh, and those bullet thingies have to go, also.”
Jabba or Jerry? Which is the true Hutt?
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.
In California, beginning July 19th of 2019, all ammunition in the state must be purchased through a vendor licensed by the Department of Justice and every potential purchaser of ammunition will be required to undergo a background check via a state system before receipt of said ammunition.