GOP Snakes Join Democrats – Will Introduce Bill to Protect Dirty Cop Robert Mueller

GOP snakes Lindsey Graham and Thom Tillis from North Carolina will join with Democrats to introduce a bill to protect Dirty Cop Robert Mueller.

This is why Republicans will lose in a landslide in November.
They can’t keep attacking the president and defending crooked cops and expect voters to turn out to support them.

And, of course, they will blame President Trump for their losses.

The Hill reported:

A group of bipartisan senators is introducing new legislation to limit President Trump’s ability to fire special counsel Robert Mueller.

Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.). Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) will introduce the legislation, the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, on Wednesday.

The legislation would let Mueller, or any other special counsel, receive an “expedited judicial review” within 10 days of being fired to determine if it was for a “good cause.” If it was determined it wasn’t, he would be reinstated.


It would also codify regulations that only a senior Justice Department official can fire a special counsel and that they must provide the reason in writing.

“We need to ensure not only that special counsel Mueller can complete his work without interference, but that special counsels in future investigations can, too,” Coons said.

Tillis added that the “compromise bipartisan bill helps ensure that special counsels — present or future — have the independence they need to conduct fair and impartial investigations.”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/04/gop-snakes-join-democrats-w...

Views: 80

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

They cannot write law that supercedes the Constitution. He has the authority as Chief Executive, to fire and appoint as he sees fit, those who oversee the agencies that fall under his authority,.

Article 1 Section 2.

They can pass it all they want, POTUS has VETO powers and I'm sure this won't get passed his desk. We really need to rid ourselves of these establishment TRAITORS in our party. FUCK'EM!!

WE NEED TO VOTE EM ALL OUT IN THE MIDTERMS AND PUT IN BETTER CONSERVATIVES WHO WON'T TREAD ON PRESIDENTIAL POWERS THEY ALREADY DO THAT W/THE STATES.
OUR GOVT HAS GONE BEYOND WHAT WE WANT AND COULD CARE LESS. RE-WRITE THE CONSTITUTION THEY HAVE NOT EVEN READ IT.

THEY DO NOT CARE ANYMORE AND WE NEED TO REMOVE THEM.

Please tell me how? How can they introduce a bill to protect this guy??? I want to know?????

nice if they took this kind of time to undo ohitlercare or protect the border w/the WALL wouldn' t it

time they all are FIRED

 I asked this for a reason, How can they introduce a bill to protect this guy? I have sent this to the network team, so far we have not found any legislation to where they can present a bill to Congress to protect criminal activity.

 If they was to do this, it would spark a resistance against this system right here and now!!!

Sens. Graham, Tillis, Booker and Coons, all traitors, are stupid and Mueller agrees. Mueller is trying to get Trump to fire him and these ignorant fools are helping Trump by making it impossible. He (Mueller) thinks he can save face if the investigation is ended this way.

save face he has little to show for his scam of an investigation into what

what is the statute Trump broke?  what is being investigated?  manafort for money laundering seriously don't be insulting

these clowns need to go we need to fire them all 

$7,000,000 Mueller’s Spent on Trump Could Prosecute 15,000 Everyday Criminals

Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe targeting President Trump has cost the American taxpayer $7 million in five months, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

And, if the media reports are any indication, there’s no end in sight.

So, who have Mueller and his people ensnared so far? Michael Flynn, the former national security advisor, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. This is hardly a surprise; given Flynn’s lobbying for Turkey and undisclosed relationship with Russia, he probably could have gotten worse.

Paul Manafort and his business partner were charged for financial misdeeds that happened before Manafort became Trump’s campaign manager (and Manafort, whom Trump fired relatively quickly, only got the position because the GOP establishment wanted “adult supervision” once it became clear Trump would win the nomination).

Then there was George Papadopoulos, a weird, minor volunteer staffer who lied about his relations with a shifty, self-aggrandizing professor who claimed to have Kremlin connections.

Seven million dollars for that. Money well spent, you say? You probably do, if you’re a liberal.

If you’ve ever had your car broken into, however, you might want to think again.

If you don’t see the connection, let me explain with a little help from the Rand Corporation.

In 2016, the non-profit policy think-tank released a study called “First Estimates of Judicial Costs of Specific Crimes, from Homicide to Theft.” It revealed what it cost to prosecute certain crimes in our judicial system.

“When considering the costs of crime, policymakers and the general public typically think about the tens of thousands of dollars spent annually to house a single prisoner,” the report reads.

“The outlays in judicial and legal services have received far less attention, depriving taxpayers of a broader picture of the dollar impact of major crimes and potential savings from crime reduction measures, according to researchers.”

So, how much does prosecuting these crimes cost?

“Researchers found that every reported homicide, for example, cost the judicial system $22,000 to $44,000. In other categories the costs were estimated at $2,000 to $5,000 for a rape or other sexual assault, $600 to $1,300 for a robbery, $800 to $2,100 for an aggravated assault, $200 to $600 for a burglary, $300 to $600 for larceny/theft, and $200 to $400 for a motor vehicle theft.”

At the low end, that means five months of Mueller’s fishing expedition could have prosecuted 35,000 burglars or car thieves, over 11,000 robbers, 8,750 individuals who allegedly committed aggravated assault, 3,500 alleged rapists, or 318 murderers.

The median judicial cost of larceny/theft is $455. That means 15,000 criminals that could be prosecuted with the money we’ve spent on trying to tie Trump to Russia.

Instead, that $7 million has netted four individuals, two of whom are charged with things that had nothing to do with the Trump campaign, one whose alleged misdeeds led to his firing almost as soon as he was hired, and one minor staffer who lied about contact with a weird academic who claimed he could make meetings happen with the Russians that never materialized.

continued

https://conservativetribune.com/mueller-trump-15000-criminals/

 Dad has been looking into Mueller and one other, there is something missing, no one is so clean that is involved in this Democratic System. Its like be for real, all the scandals posted all over the net and on the news, and the FBI is basically still under the Democratic Control.

 So, Trump has not or will not be able to keep his promise.

Shameful of these RINO so called republicans!! They are all Anti-Christian and Jewish People / Anti-USA Capitalism and Constitution!!

Please Pray for our Judeo-Christian Nation United States of America and Israel-Yisrael and our Christian Earth Everyday!! "Pray Without Ceasing." ( 1 Thessalonians 5:17 KJV )!!

Agree, this is the only answer for this country!

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service