Tag Archives: Soft coup against America

Leftists: “It’s the worst time in US history!”

Posted on by

Just ask the LDAMM — the Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots. They’re all colluding and have been doing so, ever more cemented than before, since November 9th of 2016, when the worst calamity in the history of history occurred: Hillary Clinton was not elected as 45th president of the United States.

Despite every possible lever having been thrown, every shitty deal cut, every corner clipped, every US counterintelligence agency up and alerted then thrown against the OMB himself: the Orange Man Bad. Yes. Despite all that, Hillary Clinton was not anointed president, as was her official right. After all, it was “her turn.” Don’t you guys get that?

He should never have won. Ever. You know, the guy with the dead orange cat on his head: Donald John Trump.

The mantra now, besides the explosion of every -ist, -ism and -obe on the planet laid at the feet of Donald Trump, is that the United States is clearly plummeting towards doom.

With, eh, a couple of exceptions.

From CNSNews.com:

Hispanic Unemployment Rate Sets New Record Low in April

by Craig Bannister

The national seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate for Hispanics and Latinos in the U.S. labor force fell to a record low of 4.2% in April, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data released Friday show.

In April, the unemployment rate for Hispanics and Latinos, aged 16 and up, was 4.2%, down from 4.7% in March – breaking the record low of 4.3% set two months earlier in February. BLS began tracking Hispanic-Latino employment data in 1973.

The number of unemployed Hispanics fell to 1,198,000 – the fewest unemployed since August of 2007 (1,190,000) and a decline of 165,000 from 1,363,000 in March of 2019.

The number of Hispanics employed fell to 27,348,000 from 27,566,000 in March and off from its record high of 27,701,000 in December 2018. The number of Hispanics participating in the workplace increased as Hispanics’ labor force participation rate fell to 65.9% from 67.0% in March.

Job Creators Network President and CEO Alfredo Ortiz says Hispanics’ job opportunites have benefited greatly from President Donald Trump’s pro-business policies:

“One of the biggest beneficiaries of the Trump economy has been Hispanics, whose entrepreneurial talents have been harnessed in this climate of deregulation and tax cuts. While Democrats play class warfare and identity politics, President Trump’s policies are creating a booming economy that is lifting all boats.”

Some more numbers?

Hispanic-Latino employment statistics for February 2019:

  • Unemployment rate: 4.2%, down from 4.7% in March.
  • Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population (16+ years old): 43,289,000 up from 43,205,000 in March.
  • Number Participating in Labor Force: 28,546,000 down from 28,929,000 in March.
  • Labor Force Participation: 65.9, down from 67.0% in March.
  • Number Employed: 27,348,000 down from 27,566,000 in March.
  • Number Unemployed: 1,198,000, down from 1,363,000 in March.

From Breitbart.com:

Unemployment Rate for Women Falls to Lowest Since 1953

by John Carney

The unemployment rate for women in the U.S. workforce fell to 3.4 percent in April, the lowest rate since September 1953.

The unemployment for women fell below 4 percent in March 2018 for the first time since the dot com boom in 2000. It has remained below 4 percent in 12 out of the last 13 months.

The longest streak of below 4 percent unemployment was 18 months starting in 1952. The record low was 2.7 percent in May 1952.

Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter, cited a slightly different statistic that is also at the lowest level in over 60 years. Unemployment for women over 20 years old fell to 3.1 percent.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Lowest unemployment in 19 years for workers without bachelor’s degrees in April

by Joseph Lawler

Unemployment for workers without bachelor’s degrees fell to the lowest rate in 19 years in April, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday, a sign the recovery is benefiting the people most in need of help as it stretches toward a 10th year.

Unemployment for workers without four-year or graduate degrees fell to just 3.5% in April, the lowest such mark since the 3.4% rate in April 2000, which was the lowest recorded, with data going back to 1992.

That statistic, which is adjusted for seasonal variations, represents workers above the age of 25 without associate’s degrees or who didn’t finish college, people with only high school degrees, and high school dropouts. Those groups generally have much higher unemployment rates.

From the Associated Press:

Unemployment hits 49-year low as US employers step up hiring

by Christopher Rugaber

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hiring accelerated and pay rose at a solid pace in April, setting the stage for healthy U.S. economic growth to endure despite fears of a slowdown earlier this year.

Employers added 263,000 jobs, with the unemployment rate dropping to a five-decade low of 3.6% from 3.8%, though that drop partly reflected an increase in the number of Americans who stopped looking for work. Average hourly pay rose 3.2% from 12 months earlier, matching March’s year-over-year increase.

Friday’s jobs report from the government showed that economic growth remains brisk enough to encourage strong hiring nearly a decade into the economy’s recovery from the Great Recession. The economic expansion, which has fueled 103 straight months of hiring, is set to become the longest in history in July.

“All of the recession talk earlier in the spring was much ado about nothing,” said Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC.

Read that again. You know, the crap that exited the pie-holes of the LDAMM. “Recession recession recession.” Except:

“All of the recession talk earlier in the spring was much ado about nothing,” said Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC.

From CNBC.com:

Jobs surge in April, unemployment rate falls to the lowest since 1969

by Jeff Cox

  • The U.S. added 263,000 new hires in April, easily beating Wall Street expectations of 190,000.
  • The unemployment rate fell to 3.6% vs. 3.8% expected and the lowest since December 1969.

The U.S. jobs machine kept humming along in April, adding a robust 263,000 new hires while the unemployment rate fell to 3.6%, the lowest in a generation, the Labor Department reported Friday.

Nonfarm payroll growth easily beat Wall Street expectations of 190,000 and a 3.8% jobless rate.

Average hourly earnings growth held at 3.2% over the past year, a notch below Dow Jones estimates of 3.3%. The monthly gain was 0.2%, below the expected 0.3% increase, bringing the average to $27.77. The average work week also dropped 0.1 hours to 34.4 hours.

Unemployment was last this low in December 1969 when it hit 3.5%. At a time when many economists see a tight labor market, big job growth continues as the economic expansion is just a few months away from being the longest in history.

From RasmussenReports.com:

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-seven percent (47%) disapprove.

ABC kept the good news pretty much quiet. Can you blame them? Everything else Leftist is falling down around Demorat heads.

Bad News for Liberals? ABC Can Barely Speak of 50-Year Low in Unemployment

by Tim Graham

The news was shocking on Friday morning when the Labor Department reported the economy added 263,000 new jobs — higher than expected — lowering the unemployment rate to 3.6 percent, the lowest in fifty years. Would the networks acknowledge this news, or try to dodge it like last Friday’s surprisingly strong 3.2 percent growth in GDP? ABC and CBS skipped that, and NBC gave it ten seconds. This Friday, Curtis Houck noted on Twitter that CBS and NBC had full reports on Friday night, but ABC’s World News Tonight was done with it in 18 seconds. 

Nah. No bias there. Uh-oh. Neil Irwin of the New York Times said:

After more than two years of the Trump administration, warnings that trade wars and erratic management style would throw the economy off course have proved wrong so far, and tax cuts and deregulation are most likely part of the reason for the strong growth rates in 2018 and the beginning of 2019 (though most forecasts envision a slowing in the coming quarters as the impact of tax cuts fades).

In particular, it now appears that recession fears that emerged at the end of 2018 were misguided — especially once the Fed backed off its campaign of rate increases at the start of 2019.

But beyond the assigning of credit or blame, there’s a bigger lesson in the job market’s remarkably strong performance: about the limits of knowledge when it comes to something as complex as the $20 trillion U.S. economy.

He’s clearly going to Leftist Hell. At minimum, he’ll be receiving no more Christmas cards. Oh wait. The New York Times doesn’t believe in Christmas. Or is it that Christ doesn’t believe in the New York Times?

And that from just one day’s news this past week.

Question: did you hear this good news hammered home by the American Media Maggots? CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC? Of course you didn’t. Why? Because it would tend to make President Trump look good — and none of those outlets can afford to allow President Trump to look good. They run in lockstep with the Demorats and the DNC. The Demorats and DNC cannot allow President Trump to look good.

You didn’t hear about this story either, from Investors Business Daily, did you?

Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows

Media Bias: Ask journalists, and they’ll likely tell you they play things right down the middle. They strive to be “fair.” They’re “centrists.” Sorry, not true. The profound leftward ideological bias of the Big Media is the main reason why America now seems saturated with “fake news.” Journalists, besotted with their own ideology, are no longer able to recognize their own bias.

If you ask “journalists” how they voted, well, they won’t tell you. They’ll fall back on

  • What does that matter, and
  • We can do our jobs in a vacuum.

Except they can’t. And yes, it matters greatly. Because the bulk of them are Leftists.

Despite journalists’ denials, it’s now pretty much a fact that journalism is one of the most left-wing of all professions. But until recently, that wasn’t thought to be true of financial journalists — who have a reputation for being the most right-leaning and free-market-oriented among mainstream journalists.

If that was ever true, it sure isn’t today, a new study  suggests.

Researchers from Arizona State University and Texas A&M University questioned 462 financial journalists around the country. They followed up with 18 additional interviews. The journalists worked for the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press and a number of other newspapers.

From the DailyWire.com:

462 Financial Journalists Were Asked Their Political Leanings. Guess How Many Said They Were Conservative.

by Ashe Schow

“First, financial journalists have stronger incentives to produce original information and analysis than to disseminate information already in the public domain, and they rely heavily on private communication with company management for information. Second, sell-side analysts play an important role in informing financial journalists, many of whom lack financial sophistication. Third, the incentives for sensationalism in the business press assumed in prior research are dominated by incentives for accurate, timely, in-depth, and informative reporting, while the quid pro quo incentives assumed in prior literature (e.g., putting a positive spin on company news to maintain access to inside sources) are substantial.”

Let’s translate the pablum speech.

Get that? Journalists covering the financial industry don’t know the industry and give favorable coverage to keep access. Sounds like pretty much every other type of journalist.

Here’s the crux of the biscuit:

The journalists surveyed by the scholars come from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Associated Press, Washington Post and other highly respected outlets, as well as other smaller outlets.

One other thing the researchers found was that the surveyed journalists overwhelmingly described themselves as liberal. Of those surveyed, 17.63% said they were “very liberal,” and 40.84% said they were “somewhat liberal,” for a total of 58.47% saying they lean left.

On the other side of the spectrum, just 0.46% said they were “very conservative” and 3.94% described themselves as “somewhat conservative,” for a total of 4.4% of respondents leaning right. The other 37.12% said they were moderate.

“Moderate.” I suppose like a “moderate Muslim.” Or “kinda pregnant.” Or “I had part of a colonoscopy.”

Simultaneously, from Newsbusters.org:

Journalism Institute Poynter Tries to ‘Blacklist’ 29 Conservative Outlets as ‘UnNews’

by Corinne Weaver

The attack on the conservative internet has reached a new low.

Poynter, the journalism institute responsible for training writers and reporters, decided to promote a left-wing smear of conservative groups online. The result was a hit job written by someone who works for the anti-conservative Southern Poverty Law Center for a journalism organization funded by prominent liberal billionaires such as George Soros and Pierre Omidyar.

Poynter, which has started the International Fact-Checking Network, shared the new report and dataset called “UnNews,” declaring at least 29 right-leaning news outlets and organizations to be “unreliable news websites.”

Report author and SPLC producer Barrett Golding combined five major lists of websites marked “unreliable.” That result, which consisted of 515 names, included many prominent conservative sites —  Breitbart, CNSNews.com, Daily Signal, Daily Wire, Drudge Report, Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, LifeNews, LifeSiteNews, LifeZette, LiveAction News, the Media Research Center, PJ Media, Project Veritas, Red State, The Blaze, Twitchy, and the Washington Examiner.

Let’s stop here for a moment. The microsecond I see the DRUDGE REPORT on ANY Leftist list I know they’re ignorant and lying. Why? Because the DR doesn’t write any content whatsoever. Matt Drudge hasn’t written a word on his site for years. The DR is nothing more than an aggregator of news. It carries stories written by other outlets and frequently includes New York Times, LA Times, CNN and other Leftist stories. Every. Day.

Judicial Watch is a site that essentially sues for information via FOIA requests and, AGAIN, doesn’t create original content. It only publishes what the government releases.

Project Veritas has video to back up every claim it makes.

The Washington Examiner has been part of the DC scene for literally decades.

This where we are today.

But remember: it’s all about footsteps.

I can hear them.

Can’t you?

BZ

 

 Share

Thoughts prior to the Mueller report release

Posted on by

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.

No one will be much changed. The LDAMM are already shitting car parts over the “timing” of the release.

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.

An interesting point is the recent article by John Solomon:

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.

It’s time to start asking clear questions.

  • How did this begin?
  • Who demanded it?
  • What was its purpose?
  • When did it start?
  • Who was involved?

One guess:

Barack Hussein Obama.

A soft coup against America.

But wait; there’s more. This from the WashingtonPost.com:

Admit it: Fox News has been right all along

by Gary Abernathy

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.

Correct.

BZ

 

 Share

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, Tuesday, 3-26-19, with KEN McCLENTON and an SHR Media Special Report: “Mueller Reveals A Soft Coup”

Posted on by

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 spent the first hour with KEN McCLENTON, The Exceptional Conservative himself and owner of TECN, The Exceptional Conservative Network. Ken is a force to be reckoned with in the DC area, where he lives and broadcasts, and is a beacon of Conservatism for black Americans. He fights the good fight every day in the face of ridicule and hatred for daring to be a black Conservative. Come listen to what he had to say!

Hour 2: BZ featured an SHR Media Special Report: “Mueller Reveals a Soft Coup Against America.” Great depth and detail in an examination of Attorney General William Barr’s release of his summary of the Mueller investigation into Trump, concluding that there was no collusion or conspiracy involved between Trump and Russia. Finally!

BZ says: “Prepare for retribution. You can’t turn this nation upside down and not expect any fallout, Leftists, Demorats and American Media Maggots.” Retribution hell; I want decimation. This is a thousand times worse than Watergate because the situation involved the deaths of four Americans, and the attempt to turn this nation into a dictatorship from the interference of Barack Hussein Obama and his Leftist annihilists.

If you want to listen to the show on Spreaker, audio only, click on the yellow button below.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, Tuesday, 3-26-19” on Spreaker.

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.

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.
  • Want to watch past shows on Periscope? Go here.
  • Want to watch past shows on the SHR Media Facebook page? Go here.
  • Want to watch past Berserk Bobcat Saloon shows on YouTube? Go here.

Thank you one and all for listening, watching and supporting the SHR Media Network: “Conservative Media Done Right.”

BZ

 

 Share

The Mueller report confirms: a soft coup against America and Trump

Posted on by

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 Justice Department 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.

Do we remember why I call Comey “Jimmy the Leak“?

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.

So what occurred this past Sunday, March 24th?

Let’s get back to the letter issued on Monday by Attorney General William Barr, which states the Mueller report indicates there is no Trump-Russia conspiracy:

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.

Who knew of this? Who do you think knew of this?

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:

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.

I wrote this back in August of 2018.

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.

What of this?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Ties To China Go Way Deeper Than An Alleged Office Spy

by Ben Weingarten

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.

The story is just unfolding.

But wait; there’s more.

BZ

 

 Share