Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Election 2016 category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Election 2016’ Category

I’m normally a fan of HotAir’s Allahpundit. This isn’t one of those times. After reading this post, I can’t help but object to some of AP’s statements.

For instance, I must object when AP says “Here’s my question for Kushner, though: What would he have had Rod Rosenstein and Bob Mueller do? Granted, the Russiagate probe was bitterly divisive and contributed to Trump’s delegitimization among his critics. But given all the contacts between Trump officials and Russians during the campaign, given Trump’s weird apologetics for Putin and Wikileaks, given the fact that his campaign did benefit to some negligible degree from Russian interference, how could the DOJ not look into it?”

The answer is simple. The DOJ shouldn’t have named a special counsel since it hadn’t identified a crime that was committed. So what if Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats whine all day long? Who cares if Adam Schiff and other Democrats lie about having seen evidence of Trump-Russia collusion? I don’t care if these Democrats stomped their feet and held their breath until they were blue in the face.

The special counsel law is pretty precise. If Shepard Smith wants to throw a hissy fit, that’s his problem. When his contract expires, here’s hoping he isn’t rehired and that they replace him with Trace Gallagher or Ed Henry. They’d be miles ahead if they did that. Listen to Smith’s temper tantrum:

Why is anyone surprised that Putin tried contacting both campaigns or that Putin tried interfering in our election? That’s as surprising as finding out that Bill Gates is rich.

Here’s a question for lefty Smith: why isn’t he interested in the Clinton campaign’s using Russian sources for the infamous discredited dossier? It isn’t news that both parties compile an opposition research file. What is news is that the Clinton campaign, then the FBI, relied on the dossier to trash a man with unverified information. Why isn’t Shepard Smith upset about that? Why aren’t other Democrats upset, too?

It’s time for that no-talent hack (Smith) to get fired.

In his quest to return the House majority to Republicans in 2020, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler subpoenaed former White House Counsel Don McGahn, saying “The Special Counsel’s report, even in redacted form, outlines substantial evidence that President Trump engaged in obstruction and other abuses. It now falls to Congress to determine for itself the full scope of the misconduct and to decide what steps to take in the exercise of our duties of oversight, legislation and constitutional accountability.”

Frankly, I can’t wait for that hearing. The Democrats are operating from the premise that President Trump’s telling McGahn to fire Mueller right after the ‘investigation’ began is obstruction. It isn’t. Without an underlying crime to charge President Trump with, there’s nothing to obstruct. Further, there are mountains of proof that President Trump cooperated with Mueller’s partisan investigators. The definition of cooperate is “to work or act with another or other persons willingly and agreeably.” I can’t wait to hear Democrats explain, especially Chairman Nadler, how a person can work “with another person willingly and agreeably” while obstructing, which means “delaying or preventing of business before a deliberative body.”

Democrat Nadler then said “His [McGahn’s] testimony will help shed further light on the President’s attacks on the rule of law, and his attempts to cover up those actions by lying to the American people and requesting others do the same.” Chairman Nadler, what attacks? I know Democrats (now) think that firing Jim Comey was an attack on the rule of law but it wasn’t. Firing a corrupt and incompetent FBI director isn’t an attack on the rule of law. It’s the right decision. This video highlights the Democrats’ hypocrisy on the issue of President Trump’s firing of Comey:

My question to Nadler and other Democrats is simple: which spin will you stick with? With all the Democrats’ spinning, you’d think that it isn’t easy to determine what’s truth and what’s spin. Actually, it’s quite simple. If a Democrat’s lips are moving while talking about President Trump, that Democrat is lying.

The “Media Wing of the Democratic Party”, aka the MSM, is painfully, albeit only partially, admitting that they might’ve gotten the Trump-Russia collusion story wrong. Other Democrats, especially Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff and Maxine Waters, haven’t admitted the obvious. It isn’t likely they will.

Nonetheless, articles have surfaced that give us clear-eyed analysis. One such article was written by John Kass. He writes “When the report was released, if you walked past a news screen, you would have heard them babbling. CNN had several panels of experts channeling Blanche DuBois, and none of them said anything about depending on the kindness of strangers. Instead they damned Attorney General William Barr, a longtime friend of Mueller’s, as a creature of evil.”

He continued, saying:

Some of the more tribal residents of the left might want to condemn me for conservative thinking. But it’s not about left or right. It’s about reality. And the journalist Glenn Greenwald is not a conservative by any measure.

Greenwald’s article is both detailed and devastating to Democrats:

The key fact is this: Mueller, contrary to weeks of false media claims, did not merely issue a narrow, cramped, legalistic finding that there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump associates for conspiring with Russia and then proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That would have been devastating enough to those who spent the last two years or more misleading people to believe that conspiracy convictions of Trump’s closest aides and family members were inevitable. But his mandate was much broader than that: to state what did or did not happen.

That’s precisely what he did: Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence, not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.”

By this point, Democrats should have started crying “No mas, no mas” in the finest tradition of Roberto Duran in his 2nd fight against Sugar Ray Leonard.

Then there’s Andy McCarthy’s article:

Democrats claim Barr’s determination on obstruction was the equivalent of acting as Trump’s defense lawyer. But the only way for any prosecutor to assess the question of whether a suspect had corrupt intent is to catalogue the evidence that cuts against it — since, if corrupt intent cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, there can be no criminal case. Barr did not claim that Trump had conducted himself admirably; he said that proving corrupt intent would have been difficult, if not impossible, thanks to (a) the president’s extensive cooperation with the investigation (making White House witnesses available, disclosing over a million documents, asserting no claim of privilege) and (b) the non-corrupt thinking that fueled the president’s frustration (i.e., his belief that his presidency was being destroyed by a bogus collusion allegation). That Democrats do not like this outcome does not make it wrong.

The Democrats’ accusations aren’t terribly persuasive. How can you obstruct when you’re cooperating? President Trump didn’t attempt to forbid his staff from being interviewed by claiming executive privilege. President Trump didn’t claim executive privilege to redact parts of Mueller’s report.

Finally, if President Trump fired Jim Comey for being corrupt and incompetent, which Comey was, obstruction all but disappears. If Democrats want to continue beating this dead horse, they have the chairmanships to do it with…for now. I wouldn’t predict that they’ll have them much longer, though.

After this morning’s House Intel Committee meeting, it’s impossible to think that Democrats will be able to defend Committee Chairman Adam Schiff much longer.

The article opens by saying “Every Republican on the House Intelligence Committee is calling on Chairman Adam Schiff to resign Thursday, accusing the California Democrat of weaving a ‘demonstrably false’ narrative of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and ‘undermining’ the credibility of the panel.”

Literally, for years, Chairman Schiff insisted that he’d seen proof that President Trump had colluded with Russians during the 2016 election. After Mike Conaway read the GOP letter, Schiff responded “A visibly emotional Schiff, who did not know this broadside from Republicans was coming, had a strident response. At times raising his voice, he listed a litany of known and controversial interactions between the Trump campaign and Russia – including Donald Trump Jr.’s involvement in the Trump Tower meeting and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s sharing of polling data with a Russian associate. “You might think it’s OK,” Schiff said. ‘I don’t.'”

Actually, Mr. Schiff does think it’s ok — if Democrats are employing those tactics. If he thought these things were wrong, why didn’t Schiff present legislation making President Trump’s actions illegal? As chairman of a powerful committee, that legislation, at minimum, would get a hearing. Most likely, that legislation would pass the House.

At this point, there’s no reason to think this isn’t just a stunt. Watch this video and tell me he wasn’t playing to the cameras:

Speaker Pelosi issued this preposterous statement in defense of Schiff:

I’d love to know what type of drugs Ms. Pelosi is taking because they must be powerful if she thinks that a liar like Schiff is a patriot.

Now that the Mueller Report has morphed into the Barr Letter, it’s time to put 2 and 2 together. First, the Mueller Report emphatically stated that the Trump administration didn’t interfere with any request from the special counsel. Next, Attorney General Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein announced in their letter that Special Counsel Mueller hadn’t reached a decision on obstruction of justice. Then they announced that they had concluded that President Trump hadn’t obstructed justice.

Immediately, House Judiciary Chairman Nadler hinted that Barr and Rosenstein were stooges for President Trump:

I can’t wait to hear Chairman Nadler explain how a president (or any other member of the executive branch) could obstruct justice when a) there wasn’t an underlying crime and b) the special counsel’s funding requests were granted each time he made one. It’s difficult to obstruct when the acting AG is saying yes all the time.

There’s no doubt that Mueller should’ve made the decision on whether President Trump had obstructed justice but it’s also true that he all but made that determination that President Trump didn’t obstruct justice in his Friday report.

The naysayers have been wrong all along. They were either declaring that “the walls are closing in” on President Trump or that some journalistic rag had just published “a bombshell” report that would surely sink President Trump.

For the past 2 years, we’ve heard one “bombshell” report after another, often reported on the pages of Buzzfeed. Friday afternoon, Robert Mueller delivered his report on alleged Russian-Trump collusion. Now we know that the Democrats’ last great hope of impeaching President Trump fizzled out, though Democrats are certain to keep attempting to find the bombshell that finally takes President Trump down.

Good luck with that.

In the end, William Barr’s summary of the Mueller report turned into an historic dud. Think of the crow that CNN, MSNBC, Adam Schiff, John Brennan and Buzzfeed will have to eat as a result of Attorney General Barr’s summary report to Congress. For them, it’s truly a bombshell. Buzzfeed should take the heaviest hit because they ran major stories that couldn’t be verified. First was the article about the dossier. Finally, they published the article saying that President Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress. That went over like a fart in church.

Adam Schiff once said that he had evidence of collusion:


Chairman Schiff should be censured for lying to Congress. What he’s done is beyond disgraceful:

Pelosi and Schumer are failing in their attempt to spin this:

The Mueller report stated clearly that they didn’t find any evidence of collusion between President Trump’s campaign and Russia. That’s dramatically different than saying President Trump isn’t guilty. Saying that he and his investigators couldn’t find any evidence is especially strong.

When Special Counsel Robert Mueller transmitted his report to US Attorney General William Barr, speculation started as to what the report might say. Some speculation stated that there might be sealed indictments against President Trump sitting in New York’s Southern District. Other speculation said that President Trump had been vindicated, though those rumors were a bit tempered because of potential investigations in state courts as well as in federal courts in New York and Virginia.

Trey Gowdy set things straight on what’s about to happen during his interview with Harris Faulkner. During the interview, Gowdy said that he had seen the exact same evidence as Rep. Adam Schiff and that Rep. Schiff had reached a totally different conclusion than Gowdy. Gowdy then explained that the only way that that’s possible was if Schiff was viewing things through a totally political lens:

Later in the evening, a report came out that there weren’t any additional indictments and that Robert Mueller was leaving the office of special counsel and that only a handful of low-level staffers would be sticking around to finish closing the office. If that’s true, the Democrats’ ‘bombshell’ just blew up in their face.

Nonetheless, Corey Booker is attempting to raise money off the report, first telling supporters to sign a sheet if they think Attorney General Barr should release the entire report. If they sign up to have Gen. Barr do what he’s promised to do, then the supporter is directed to a page where they can contribute to Sen. Spartacus’s campaign.

One final thing worth noting:

In the second paragraph, it’s stated that nobody in the Trump administration interfered with Mueller’s investigation. Now that we know that there wasn’t collusion, that the Trump administration didn’t get in Mueller’s way and that the special counsel investigation is essentially finished, Democrats are in a helluva pickle.

Crisis: a dramatic emotional or circumstantial upheaval in a person’s life.

Saying that Democrats have too many drama queens is understatement. This afternoon, Judith Miller employed the Democrats’ favorite phrase while talking about President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency when she said this created a “constitutional crisis.” Judith Miller is a Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist so she should know the definition of the word crisis.

Honestly, Ms. Miller should know that a crisis only happens when there’s a life-or history-changing event. Even if the Supreme Court rules against President Trump’s declaration, it’s difficult to picture how their ruling changes the course of history.

My definition of a constitutional crisis is when the Supreme Court makes a ruling but the president refuses to obey the ruling. Pushing the envelope over a policy difference isn’t a constitutional crisis. That’s what I’d define as a constitutional question.

Democrats love throwing the constitutional crisis term around because it makes President Trump sound like a certifiable villain. When President Trump is re-elected, the American people will send the verdict that they’re tired of the Democrats’ drama queen antics.

PS- The Democrats’ other ‘drama queens are Mazie Hirono, Chuck Schumer, AOC and Speaker Pelosi.

After President Trump announced that he was declaring a national emergency, CNN and MSNBC went into full spin mode. Virtually immediately, we were told by pundits that most drugs came through ports of entry. Ditto with teenage girls that eventually get sold into child pornography, though they don’t talk much about that. The ‘pundit experts’ (I’m using that term very sarcastically) insist that the coyotes and cartels go through well-equipped ports of entry rather than through unprotected areas that aren’t fenced.

That’s insulting to our intelligence. Why should people think that these cartels and coyotes try smuggling drugs through well-protected ports of entry rather than through the porous parts of the border? Do these reporters think that the cartels want to get caught and their drugs confiscated?

These are the stories of some of the people whose lives have been forever changed by illegal aliens:

MaryAnn Mendoza tried meeting with Speaker Pelosi just a couple weeks ago. Pelosi’s staffer told Mrs. Mendoza that she wasn’t in the office. In fact, Ms. Pelosi consistently refuses to meet with Angel families. Suffice it to say that Ms. Pelosi is one of the coldest hearted bitches ever to serve in Congress. Even Jim Acosta met with Angel moms after yesterday’s presidential press conference:

The woman that Jim Acosta interviewed is Agnes Gibboney. I’ve interviewed her, too. She’s a legal immigrant who came here from Europe via South America. Acosta’s interview didn’t last long but at least he didn’t entirely avoid her like Ms. Pelosi always does.

What’s most aggravating is the fact that Ms. Pelosi totally ignores these Angel moms and that Democrats and their allies in the Agenda Media insist that there isn’t a crisis. (Yesterday, Ms. Pelosi called it a “challenge.”)

What I’m predicting is that President Trump will prevail. I’m basing that mostly off of this information:

Since this is my first time on the computer since the SOTU Address, here’s my take on what happened. The biggest thing I took from it is that President Trump looked big by using history effectively. This was one of those moments:

Here’s another:

By using history, President Trump made Democrats look petty. He looked strong, too. When Democrats play legislative small-ball, he’ll look like the man with the plan. Democrats won’t have a defense.

Another thing I took from the speech was how petulant Democrats looked. One particular moment that struck me was when Democrats looked indecisive on whether to stand or whether to sit after President Trump rattled off an impressive list of economic successes. Real Americans don’t hesitate in that moment — they stand and applaud.

Finally, when President Trump talked about Alice Johnson, he brought the house down:

And just weeks ago, both parties united for groundbreaking criminal justice reform. Last year, I heard through friends the story of Alice Johnson. I was deeply moved. In 1997, Alice was sentenced to life in prison as a first-time non-violent drug offender. Over the next two decades, she became a prison minister, inspiring others to choose a better path. She had a big impact on that prison population — and far beyond.
Alice’s story underscores the disparities and unfairness that can exist in criminal sentencing — and the need to remedy this injustice. She served almost 22 years and had expected to be in prison for the rest of her life.
In June, I commuted Alice’s sentence — and she is here with us tonight. Alice, thank you for reminding us that we always have the power to shape our own destiny.
When I saw Alice’s beautiful family greet her at the prison gates, hugging and kissing and crying and laughing, I knew I did the right thing.

This brought tears to my eyes:

Joining Melania in the gallery this evening is a very brave 10-year-old girl, Grace Eline. Every birthday since she was 4, Grace asked her friends to donate to St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. She did not know that one day she might be a patient herself. Last year, Grace was diagnosed with brain cancer. Immediately, she began radiation treatment. At the same time, she rallied her community and raised more than $40,000 for the fight against cancer. When Grace completed treatment last fall, her doctors and nurses cheered with tears in their eyes as she hung up a poster that read: “Last Day of Chemo.” Grace — you are an inspiration to us all.

All in all, I’d say that President Trump changed minds, even if it’s just for a little while.