Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Investigations category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Investigations’ Category

Seemingly each day, Nancy Pelosi issues another statement insisting that President Trump is a threat to our democracy. Each time, Ms. Pelosi steps up to the microphone to make these accusations, she makes the charge, then doesn’t offer proof that her accusations are substantive.

At other times, Ms. Pelosi insists that President Trump’s policies run contrary to America’s “values”. (That’s rather rich coming from someone who hasn’t ventured outside of the DC/New York/San Francisco beltway. She wouldn’t know what American values were if they bit her in the arse.)

Mrs. Pelosi, what do DC’s values have in common with Minnesota’s values or Indiana’s or Ohio’s values? What do San Francisco’s values have in common with Arkansas’s values or Mississippi’s values? What do New York’s values have in common with Utah’s values or Iowa’s values or Kansas’s values?

This time, Ms. Pelosi accused President Trump of undermining our democracy by answering George Stephanopoulos’ hypothetical question about whether to contact the FBI if a foreign government offered “dirt” on his 2020 Democrat opponent.

Democrats cried wolf — for the umpteenth time — because President Trump thought about this way about a hypothetical question. Those Democrats didn’t utter a peep when they found out that Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid for dirt on then-Candidate Trump from a foreign spy. I guess buying dirt from foreigners is acceptable? Here’s Pelosi making an ass of herself during her press conference:

Ms. Pelosi is right. She’s said multiple times that President Trump has been involved in a criminal cover-up. What the Democrat-leaning media hasn’t done is ask her for specific proof that she’s pointing to. That’s because they’re there to protect her highness. The Media Wing of the Democrat Party isn’t interested in being a journalist. They’re interested in being propagandists.

At this point, it’s impossible to conclude that former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean likes Republicans. He’s made a living since a) getting disbarred for obstructing justice and b) pleading guilty for obstructing justice by writing books insisting that one scandal or another was “worse than Watergate.” This week, he was back on Capitol Hill with his dog and pony show (my apologies to dogs and ponies) to verify for Democrats that Russiagate (wait for it) is “worse than Watergate.”

I don’t have a problem with Dean making a living by serving up this BS. It’s his right, thanks to the First Amendment. What I have a problem with is Democrats pretending that he’s got any credibility left. Dean’s credibility died when he pled guilty of obstructing justice. If it didn’t die then, it likely died when he insisted that Iran-Contra (sorry to younger readers; if you don’t know what that is, google it) was — wait for it — worse than Watergate.

Rep. John Ratcliffe did a masterful job utterly demolishing Monday’s hearing:

Ouch! If that didn’t utterly demolish Dean’s credibility and Nadler’s credentials, then perhaps Brit Hume’s comments will:

On Fox News Monday night, Brit Hume said it was “amazing” that House Democrats had Dean testify, adding, “Who is going to be next for the House impeachment horde? [Deceased mobster] Whitey Bulger, perhaps?”

Actually, to add context to Brit’s commentary, he said that the first star witness the House Judiciary Committee Democrats called was Michael Cohen and that the next star witness the House Judiciary Committee Democrats called was John Dean. It should be noted that Dean pled guilty for obstructing justice during the Watergate cover-up, which he masterminded. Furthermore, Cohen is in prison after pleading guilty to the charge of lying to Congress.

That’s when Brit Hume said “Who is going to be next for the House impeachment horde? [Deceased mobster] Whitey Bulger, perhaps?” Either that or Democrats might host a séance to call on the ghost of Richard Nixon to testify that Russiagate is “worse than Watergate.”

To get serious, though, what’s happening in the Democrat majority in the House is a clown show. (Again, my apologies to clown shows.) It’s a spectacle. The Democrats start the week with the Dean clown show. Over the weekend, the Democrat Speaker of the House said she didn’t want Trump impeached. She wanted him thrown in prison. She said that without mentioning if President Trump had committed a crime. Then yesterday, Adam Schiff insisted that the discredited Steele gossip column otherwise referred to as the Steele Dossier was Gospel truth.

Democrats running these ‘investigations’ are making fools of themselves. Democrats passing bills in the House are passing things that aren’t popular with the American people and that don’t fix important problems. To summarize, Democrats are too focused on dead-end investigations and they’ve passed legislation that would take us back to the pathetic Obama-Biden economy.

Frankly, Democrats deserve to get stuck with John Dean. CNN does, too. May they rot in hell together.

Let’s just be blunt about something. Adam Schiff is the Democrats’ political hack if choice. He’s been exposed as this generation’s Lanny Davis. (That isn’t a compliment.) This morning, Schiff called to order a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee. I’d call that hearing room a virtually intelligence-free zone but that’s obvious of any room with Schiff in it.

This article highlights how Devin Nunes blew Schiff’s smears to smithereens. This isn’t that difficult since Schiff’s premise was discredited months ago. Schiff is the partisan who just … can’t … let … go … of Russian collusion. They’ll have to pry Russiagate from his cold, dead fingers. He’s that desperate for a place in history. (The only thing that history books will remember about Schiff is that he’s the Democrats’ favorite partisan hack.)

Meanwhile, Nunes took Schiff apart. Here’s what Nunes said:

One would think the Democrats would simply apologize and get back to lawmaking and oversight but it’s clear they couldn’t stop this grotesque spectacle even if they wanted to. After years of false accusations and McCarthyite smears, the collusion hoax now defines the Democratic Party. The hoax is what they have in place of a governing philosophy or a constructive vision for our country.

Right after Democrats launched their first laughable investigation, Democrats insisted that they were perfectly capable of “walking and chewing gum at the same time.” That isn’t relevant. That question should be whether Democrats are interested in walking and chewing gum at the same time. HINT: They aren’t interested in “walking and chewing gum at the same time.”

This video contains Schiff’s intentionally misleading statements:

Here’s what Sara Carter quoted from the Mueller report debunking Schiff’s intentional lies:

Nunes Lists Democrats Favorite Debunked Conspiracy Theories (Below Is An Excerpt From Nunes Statement)

Unfortunately for Democrats, the Mueller dossier, as I call it, either debunked many of their favorite conspiracy theories or did not even find them worth discussing. These include:

  1. Mueller’s finding that Michael Cohen did not travel to Prague to conspire with Russians. No evidence that Carter Page conspired with Russians.
  2. No mention of Paul Manafort visiting Julian Assange in London.
  3. No mention of secret communications between a Trump Tower computer server and Russia’s Alfa Bank.
  4. And no mention of former NRA lawyer Cleta Mitchell or her supposed knowledge of a scheme to launder Russian money through the NRA for the Trump campaign. Insinuations against Mitchell originated with Fusion GPS chief Glenn Simpson and were first made public in a document published by Democrats on this committee.

Other than those major omissions, I’d treat Chairman Schiff’s statements as though they were Gospel truths.

WOW!!!:


That’s proof positive that Schiff is a partisan Democrat hack. Schiff couldn’t get President Trump so the vindictive wimp trashes innocent victims. What a patriot. Not.

It’s impossible to trust Neal Katyal’s spin-piece. It’s what you’d expect from an Obama official.

Katyal’s piece starts by saying “There are two big questions about the now-completed investigation into President Trump, and the answers will determine what happens next. First, why didn’t former special counsel Robert Mueller render a judgment on whether Trump had obstructed justice? And second, since Attorney General William Barr did render such a judgment, why isn’t that the end of the matter?”

Then the spinning starts:

The public appearances last week of Mueller and Barr answer both questions. We saw a hyper-careful special counsel who bent over backward to be fair to Trump. And we saw an attorney general who was acting as the president’s personal lawyer, not the lawyer for the American people.

Mueller explained in his news conference that he would not answer the obstruction question, just as his report didn’t answer the question except to say he could not clear Trump because the facts would not permit him to. Justice Department guidance held that he could not indict a sitting president, he said, so he did not reach a conclusion as to whether the president committed crimes. He said it would be unfair to attack someone as a criminal without indicting them because there would be no legal process for them to prove the accusations wrong. That didn’t mean Mueller was acting as some “angry Democrat” (a hard thing for a Republican to do, in any event), it meant he was being careful to protect Trump’s rights.

That last sentence is beyond laughable. Mueller trampled President Trump’s rights by insinuating that President Trump had to prove he was innocent when, in fact, he’s presumed innocent from the start. Supposedly, all Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Mueller’s team of partisan hack (Democrat) lawyers tried finding a crime to try Trump on but they couldn’t find a crime that he committed. These partisan Democrats tried finding Trump guilty of conspiracy but failed. Then they tried finding Trump guilty of obstruction of justice but that didn’t happen. (That’s what happens when the defendant keeps cooperating with prosecutors.)

Katyal lied through omission in this interview:

Katyal omitted the fact that Mueller later issued a joint statement saying that the OLC memo didn’t play a factor in his decision. Further, Katyal omitted the relevant DOJ rule about prosecutors not holding press conferences to say that a defendant was almost indicted. That’s what Mueller did. Mueller all but directed the House to start impeachment proceedings.

That’s hardly the way to protect a person’s civil rights.

If John Dowd’s accusations are accurate, then Bob Mueller is in trouble. This article contains the transcript of Dowd’s voicemail left on Rob Kelner’s phone. It says “Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I-‘m-I’m sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t … state it in … starker terms. If you have … and it wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh … I understand that you can’t join the joint defense; so that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there’s information that … implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don’t know … some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So … uh … you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of … protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any … confidential information. So, uhm, and if it’s the former, then, you know, remember what we’ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but — Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal.”

Here’s what the Mueller report says of Dowd’s voicemail:

The 448-page Mueller report, released last month with redactions, hints at the voicemail as part of a possible effort by Trump’s team to influence Flynn, who assisted Trump’s 2016 campaign and briefly served as national security adviser in 2017. “After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the President and began cooperating with the government, the President’s personal counsel left a message for Flynn’s attorneys reminding them of the President’s warm feelings towards Flynn, which he said ‘still remains’, and asking for a ‘heads up’ if Flynn knew ‘information that implicates the President,'” Mueller’s report said. “When Flynn’s counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the President’s personal counsel said he would make sure that the President knew that Flynn’s actions reflected ‘hostility’ towards the President.'”

According to Alan Dershowitz, this isn’t insignificant:

In accurately citing a lawyer’s quote, Mueller committed a terrible discretion. Portraying the edited voicemail as accurate and complete is unforgivable. Here’s hoping that Judge Sullivan throws the book at Mueller’s team, including Mueller himself. Whether he’s that sloppy or that corrupt, Mueller needs to pay the price.

This article highlights the things that the leftists want us to ignore.

It opens by saying “President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that his administration is the ‘most transparent in history,’ and that it has ‘cooperated totally’ with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, or words to that effect. But the truth is quite the opposite. No prior administration has pushed the envelope of the law to deflect outside scrutiny to the same degree as this one. In a recent letter from the White House to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the president, in effect, rejected the entire notion of congressional oversight as illegitimately political: ‘Congressional investigations are intended to obtain information to aid in evaluating potential legislation, not to harass political opponents or to pursue an unauthorized ‘do-over’ of exhaustive law enforcement investigations conducted by the Department of Justice.'”

This Democrat apparently thinks that whatever House Democrats do in investigating is fine even if the Mueller Report was supposed to be the be-all-end-all of investigations. When the report didn’t deliver the impeachment goods that Democrats were looking for, House Democrats launched a full frontal assault on the Trump administration, issuing 81 subpoenas for documents from people who either haven’t been in office ever or who aren’t in office anymore.

That’s the definition of a fishing expedition. Feel free to call it a witch hunt instead if that’s your preference.

By contrast, prior presidents understood that respect for the rule of law means, in the end, complying with the law, no matter what the cost. That was true even of those under investigation, such as President Bill Clinton. And I should know—I was a member of the team led by Independent Counsel Ken Starr that investigated him.

President Trump didn’t utilize executive privilege while the Mueller investigation was happening. The Clinton administration invoked executive privilege frequently. President Trump made his personal staff available for interviews. President Clinton didn’t allow his personal staff to meet with Mr. Starr’s investigators.

Mr. Rosenzweig should stop trying to rewrite history.

Consider, by way of example and comparison, Clinton’s use of executive privilege—a privilege that Trump has also invoked in recent days to frustrate the House’s effort to get the unredacted version of the Mueller report. Just what is executive privilege, and why do we have it?

Notice the subtlety. President Clinton invoked executive privilege while the grand jury was seated. President Trump invoked executive privilege after Mueller had wrapped up its investigation.

That’s a significant difference. President Clinton protected his high-ranking staff from grand jury exposure. President Trump didn’t protect his senior staff in that way.

It isn’t a matter of if in terms of whether Mueller, Clapper, Comey and Brennan testify. Mueller will testify before Congress. Comey, Clapper and Brennan will testify before a grand jury. Sen. Graham and Mr. Durham will have them sweating bullets.

Democrats know that they’re sort of fine if they stick to their talking points. Democrats know that they’re in trouble the minute they’re pushed off their talking points.

Anyone who objectively watched Robert Mueller’s ‘press conference’ knows that Mr. Mueller did some shady things. Rest assured that Mr. Mueller won’t like Jonathan Turley’s op-ed.

Professor Turley nails Mr. Mueller by saying that “His press conference captured his report perfectly. It was an effort to allude to possible crimes without, in fairness to the accused, clearly and specifically stating those crimes. Mueller knew that was incrimination by omission. By emphasizing he could not clear Trump of criminality, Mueller knew the press would interpret that as a virtual indictment.”

I wrote here that Democrats (and Mueller) have a “presumption of innocence problem.” They don’t seem to accept as fact that people are presumed innocent until a prosecutor presents evidence that proves that they’re guilty. They only accept it as fact when the person is a Democrat’s ally. Otherwise, the presumption of innocence is a relic from an outdated document (the Constitution.)

Mueller was appointed almost two years before he released his report. He was fully aware that Congress, the Justice Department, the media, and the public expected him to reach conclusions on criminal conduct, a basic function of the special counsel. He also was told he should do so by the attorney general and deputy attorney general. Yet, he relied on two highly controversial opinions written by a small office in the Justice Department.

Over those two years, Mueller could have asked his superiors for a decision on this alleged policy barring any conclusions on criminal conduct. More importantly, he could have requested an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel. That is what the Office of Legal Counsel does, particularly when its own opinions are the cause of confusion.

Mueller knows this. Why is he acting like a new hire fresh out of law school? He was the director of the FBI. Now he wants us to believe that he didn’t understand how main Justice functions? That’s insulting.

It’s also what political hatchet men do. Barr stung Mueller when he informed Mueller that special counsels weren’t hired to conduct Congress’s investigations. If Congress wants to investigate impeachment, they’re supposed to pay for the investigation. They’re also suppose to hire the investigators. Democrats insist that Mueller’s team was there to do their investigation. Democrats shouldn’t be taken seriously. They’re weasels, just like Mueller is.

Alan Dershowitz has a great idea on special counsels:

Restructuring the DOJ to include a special counsel’s unit is, potentially, a great idea. Otherwise, the special counsel needs to go the way of the passenger pigeon. Also, Mueller can go to hell if he thinks he served honorably as special counsel.

With Independence Day approaching faster than imagined, I’ve spent time reading the Declaration of Independence. As often as I read it, though, one line keeps jumping out at me. Here’s that part that I can’t get rid of:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

The men who declared their independence from England understood that governments “shouldn’t be changed for light and transient causes.”

The AOC wing of the Democratic Party won’t hesitate in dissolving their government for light and transient causes if it means acquiring or increasing political power. It’s apparent that the AOC wing of the Democratic Party isn’t just foolish. These Democrats are nuts. These Democrats are power-hungry maniacs who won’t hesitate to do corrupt things if it’ll help them win an extra election.

The truth is that Democrats haven’t thought about principled governance. They’ve only thought about power-filled governance. There’s a reason why Democrats prefer federal governance. It’s the furthest from the people. The people who debated and wrote the Constitution loved government closest to the people. In fact, the Tenth Amendment says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

AOC Democrats would likely side with the British in the Revolutionary War. AOC Democrats prefer control. They definitely are tyrants. Jerry Nadler is chief amongst the Democrats’ tyrants:

Nadler knows that President Trump broke the law without the special counsel listing a single instance when they found probable cause that President Trump had committed a crime. If a prosecutor can’t get a grand jury to find that there’s probable cause that a crime was committed, then there definitely isn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed.

Finally, the media continues saying that impeachment is a political matter. Alan Dershowitz disagrees, saying that the first threshold impeachment must meet is whether the articles of impeachment constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

In this instance, Mueller didn’t have his failed investigation obstructed. President Trump cooperated with Mueller’s investigation, handing over 1,400,000 documents, letting his White House Counsel answer questions for more than 30 hours and, generally speaking, cooperating with Mueller. If that sounds like obstruction, then you’ve got a warped sense of obstruction.

Gregg Jarrett’s opinion piece reached a stunning conclusion when Jarrett said “The special counsel publicly besmirched the president with tales of suspicious behavior instead of stated evidence that rose to the level of criminality. This is what prosecutors are never permitted to do. Justice Department rules forbid its lawyers from annunciating negative narratives about any person, absent an indictment.”

When Jim Comey announced that he wouldn’t indict Hillary Clinton, he first said that HRC had done some illegal things. Then he finished by saying that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against HRC. Back then, there were howls from the legal community, saying that the DOJ speaks in indictments. They don’t list things that a person did that were shady but that, in the end, the person wasn’t a criminal. Here’s Comey’s press conference ‘exonerating’ HRC:

Today’s performance by Bob Mueller was Act II of Jim Comey’s disgraceful exoneration of HRC. Mueller included in his report 10 instances of President Trump obstructing justice. In each of those instances, Mueller didn’t make a decision. Notice that I didn’t say that he didn’t indict. I said that Mueller refused to even make a decision.

Instead, in each of these instances, Mueller made the case for and against indicting President Trump of obstruction of justice. Then he essentially said that it was up to Congress to make the final decision. By comparison, when Kenneth Starr issued his report, he noted that then-President Clinton had committed 11 crimes, 6 of which were obstruction of justice charges.

Starr didn’t indict Clinton. He merely told the House of Representatives that Clinton had committed those crimes. Jarrett continues:

How can that person properly defend himself without trial? This is why prosecutors like Mueller are prohibited from trying their cases in the court of public opinion. If they have probable cause to levy charges, they should do so. If not, they must refrain from openly disparaging someone that our justice system presumes is innocent. In this regard, Mueller shrewdly and improperly turned the law on its head. Consider the most inflammatory statement that he leveled at the president in his report.

Again, Mueller’s thinking is out-of-step with the Constitution. The Bill of Rights presumes that a person is innocent until proven guilty. According to Mueller’s thinking, Trump was guilty until he was exonerated. That’s bassackwards and then some.

Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence. It is the bedrock on which justice is built. Prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To bring charges they must have, at minimum, probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The special counsel took this inviolate principle and cleverly inverted it. He argued that he could not prove the president did not commit a crime.

Today is a sad day for the rule of law. Today, a special counsel decided he had the right to ignore the Bill of Rights. Today, a special counsel thought he was Jim Comey’s stand-in.

Anyone that thinks that Nancy Pelosi is serious about both investigating President Trump and passing legislation that actually fixes problems like the asylum crisis at the border or building the wall is either naïve or stupid. This article highlights Ms. Pelosi’s partisanship and Ms. Pelosi’s motivations.

In the article, Ms. Pelosi said “The Congress holds sacred its constitutional responsibility to investigate and hold the President accountable for his abuse of power. The Congress will continue to investigate and legislate to protect our elections and secure our democracy. The American people must have the truth.”

Simply put, Ms. Pelosi is a partisan political hack who doesn’t give a damn about getting at the truth. Let me rephrase that. She’s selectively interested in getting at the truth. She isn’t the least bit interested in finding out if the Obama administration weaponized the Intelligence Community in its attempt to push Hillary Clinton’s pathetic campaign across the finish line. Ms. Pelosi isn’t the least bit interested in finding out whether the FBI used a discredited opposition research document in its application for a FISA warrant.

What have Ms. Pelosi’s Democrats done to fix the United States’ asylum laws? What have Ms. Pelosi’s Democrats done in terms of holding hearings featuring border patrol or ICE agents to find out from the experts what they need? As I’ve said hundreds of times, I don’t give a damn what a windbag politician has proposed. I’m only interested in what ICE and CBP experts have to say.

These questions have been treated like rhetorical questions by House Democrats. These House Democrats either aren’t interested in these experts’ expertise or they’ve been instructed by leadership not to call these types of witnesses. Either way, House Democrats haven’t passed legislation that fixes any of the aforementioned crises. They’ve failed miserably.

Ms. Pelosi’s House Democrats apparently aren’t interested in fixing crises. Therefore, they should be fired ASAP. House Democrats, including Ms. Pelosi, have earned their termination papers. Here’s the latest Democrat talking point:

“Despite Department of Justice policy to the contrary, no one is above the law – not even the President.”

Whatever. Nobody in the President’s campaign was indicted for campaign-related crimes. Why hasn’t Ms. Pelosi mentioned that? Meanwhile, this is what a real speaker of the House sounds like:

As a historian who was there on the spot when Bill Clinton was impeached, Newt Gingrich knows what Kenneth Starr said in his report. Starr wrote 11 times that Bill Clinton was guilty of crimes and that 6 of those times, Clinton was guilty of obstruction of justice. Gingrich didn’t say that Starr complained about not being able to indict Bill Clinton. Starr simply said that he’d reached the conclusion that Clinton obstructed justice.

There isn’t anything complicated about that. Starr simply told Congress what he’d found. Mueller didn’t do that. His decision to not make a decision on obstruction of justice is itself a decision. It isn’t a decision that Pelosi’s Democrats like but it’s a decision nonetheless. It’s time for Democrats to put on their big boy britches and deal with the consequences of the Mueller Report.

In the end, Democrats haven’t figured out that the American people have moved on because they’re convinced that nothing illegal happened. If Democrats want to keep beating this dead horse, that’s their decision. I just wouldn’t expect that proverbial dead horse to suddenly rise up and defeat Secretariat.

Finally, Democrats have proven that they aren’t interested in legislating and investigating. That’s because the Resist Movement’s activists won’t let them get interested in legislating. When Democrats aren’t interested in legislating, they’re utterly worthless. It’s time to throw them out.