~ Featuring ~  
Mueller's Disgraceful Exit
Political Editors  
No Credit Where Credit Is Due
by Cal Thomas } ~ The quote is attributed to President Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan kept it on his desk: “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.”.. It is even more amazing what has been accomplished with the American economy, but Democratic presidential candidates, the media, and economists such as Paul Krugman of The New York Times refuse to give President Donald Trump any credit. Recall that it was Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner, who predicted that Trump’s election would trigger “a global recession.” One continues to wait in vain for an “I was wrong” statement from him. The Economist, a center-left British magazine that includes coverage of events in the U.S. and is no fan of the Trump administration, recently published a remarkable editorial that contains gems Republicans should quote between now and the next election. They include a strong rebuke to the contention of many Democrats that “working people” are still struggling and that the improved economy continues to benefit only the wealthiest 1%. The bleak picture painted by Democrats, the editorial says, “is at odds with reality.” The Economist refers to a worldwide “jobs boom” and note to commie-Bernie Sanders and others promoting socialism asserts that, “Capitalism is improving workers’ lot faster than it has in years … the zeitgeist has lost touch with the data.” Noting that U.S. unemployment at 3.6% is the lowest in 50 years, the magazine says, “Less appreciated is the abundance of jobs across most of the rich world.” A more educated population, the matching by websites of jobs to qualified applicants, and, yes, economic stimulus efforts that helped fuel the emergence of economies from the last recession have all contributed to the American economy and many European economies. Then there is this, which has been the gospel of conservatives for decades when it comes to welfare and its disincentive for many to find work: ” … reforms to welfare programs, both to make them less generous and to toughen eligibility tests, seem to have encouraged people to seek work.”...  
Trump Pardons Troublemaking Cadets During 
Air Force Commencement Speech  
by Amber Athey } ~ President Donald Trump revved up the crowd during his commencement address at the U.S. Air Force Academy on Thursday... issuing a “pardon” to troublemaking cadets and providing a special salute to two high-achieving students. The president traveled to Colorado Springs, Colorado for the special address and praised the service of the young students at the academy. In one part of the speech that garnered laughs from the audience, Trump called out cadets who were involved in “mischief” and were undergoing disciplinary proceedings. “A few cadets are still on restriction for pranks and other fairly bad mischief. You know what I’m talking about, right, and you all know who you are. So, keeping with tradition, and as your commander-in-chief, I hereby absolve and pardon all cadets serving restrictions and confinements,” Trump said as the crowd roared. The president also gave a special honor to two cadets, including one who won the college baseball home run derby and another who fought a battle with cancer, inviting them on stage to salute them. “I wanna feel this guy’s muscles,” Trump joked about the baseball player. President Trump delivered the 2018 commencement address at the U.S. Naval Academy. His Air Force address, however, contained far less praise of his own policy accomplishments and focused more on the graduating class.
The Mueller Investigation Was 
Always an Impeachment Probe
by Andrew C. McCarthy } ~ Why mention the OLC guidance at all? That is the question for Bob Mueller, left hanging by the statement his office jointly issued with Justice Department flacks on Wednesday... clarifying as it were remarks he had made hours earlier at his parting-shot press conference. At issue is Mueller’s decision to punt on the question of whether President Trump should be indicted for obstruction of justice. In his startling remarks, Mueller sought to justify himself by citing instruction from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. The longstanding OLC opinion, an outgrowth of Nixon- and scumbag/liar-Clinton-era scandals, holds that a sitting president may not be indicted. The two press offices were struggling to reconcile (a) Mueller’s pointed reliance on this OLC guidance at the presser with (b) his prior disclaimers of such reliance. According to Attorney General Bill Barr, in a meeting over two weeks before Mueller submitted his final report, the special counsel emphatically denied that his refusal to render a prosecutorial judgment on obstruction hinged on the OLC guidance. Naturally, in their continuing quest to frame Barr as the most diabolical villain since Lex Luthor, the media-Democrat complex insisted that the AG must be lying. This is what derangement will do to you. I do not think Mueller’s contradictory assertions are that hard to figure out. But if you were inclined to blame sleight of hand, the culprit would be Mueller. You’ll notice that when we finally heard from him on Wednesday, he lauded Barr’s good faith, never claiming that the AG had misrepresented him. Moreover, the conversation between them on the OLC guidance was not a one-on-one affair. There were other people in the room when Mueller denied that the OLC guidance was his rationale for abdicating.The unimpeached evidence is that Mueller said what Barr says he said. Nevertheless, with the media howling that somebody — Barr — had to be fibbing, the press offices got busy. By early evening, DOJ and Mueller’s shuttering shop put out this joint statement: The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement made clear that his office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements. Well, okay, that’s fine as far as it goes. If you somewhat selectively read the carefully crafted lines of Mueller’s report, he said he would not reach a determination on obstruction. And he did not reach one. Therefore, the reasoning goes, it cannot be said that the OLC guidance was determinative: Since Mueller technically did not make a recommendation one way or the other, the OLC guidance was never actually triggered.  But if that’s the case, then the obvious question — to go back to where we started — is: Why mention the OLC guidance at all? Answer: Because Mueller’s brief speech on Wednesday was not a matter of reading the lines of his report; it was about reading between the lines...  
Lock them up? Dems seeking to jail top Trump administration officials face big obstacles
by Hans A. von Spakovsky  
{} ~Some congressional Democrats want nothing more than to hand Attorney General William Barr and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin among others a “GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL” card... like the ones you find in the game of Monopoly. But calls to lock them up are unjustified and uncalled for. What would jailing two Cabinet members be based on? The attorney general’s handling of the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been in accord with federal law, the federal rules of criminal procedure and Justice Department regulations. There is no “cover-up” by President Trump going on, as wrongly claimed by House Speaker Nancy Pulosi, D-Calif. Nor are Cabinet officials engaged in a cover-up. Congressional leaders have all but 2 percent of the Mueller report, which was redacted to comply with grand jury secrecy rules and protect material that could threaten national security if disclosed. And the Justice Department has even agreed to give the House Intelligence Committee highly confidential counterintelligence and foreign intelligence materials from the Mueller investigation. Mnuchin’s refusal to violate the right of a taxpayer (President Trump) to the privacy and confidentiality of his tax returns by handing them over to a congressional committee is also based on a credible and legitimate legal claim. Numerous federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have held that the oversight and investigative authority of Congress is limited to inquiries that have a legitimate legislative purpose. There is “no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure,” said the Supreme Court in 1957 in Watkins v. U.S., a case involving a subpoena issued to a target of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Mnuchin has told Congress that its demand for the Trump tax returns serves no legislative purpose. Whether that is a valid claim in this particular case is a question that only the courts can decide, as they have in past instances where the targets of congressional investigations have claimed that Congress has overstepped its constitutional authority. Some Democratic members of Congress are also angry that the White House refuses to allow the president’s former White House counsel, Don McGahn, to testify about the Mueller report. Reps. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, and Diana DeGette, Colo., claim that this is grounds for impeaching the president... Sorry rinos you are wrong.  
Iran’s rulers feel the pain
by Clifford D. May } ~ Defenders of the nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran predicted that President Trump’s sanctions would have little impact unless our European friends joined in. They were dead wrong... That same crowd is now in a frenzy over President Trump deploying military assets to the Middle East to deter or, if necessary, punish attacks on Americans by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or its many proxies. They have been claiming – including in paid advertisements – that Mr. Trump is leading a “march to war.” What’s really happening is less dramatic but more intriguing: Iran’s rulers are feeling intense pain from Mr. Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, and they are no longer sure they can wait for what they hope will be a more conciliatory occupant of the White House in 2021. So they’ve been floating the possibility of negotiating with the Trump administration. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is soon to visit Switzerland where the fluctuating price of chocolate will not be the main topic of discussion. Swiss diplomats represent the U.S. in Iran. Javad Zarif, the Islamic Republic’s foreign minister, has proven himself a skilled negotiator. When he sat down at the table with Secretary of State hanoi-John Kerry, it was like Doc Holliday playing poker with a greenhorn in Dodge City. The pot Mr. Zarif raked in was the Iran deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which promised Iran’s rulers sunset clauses — patient pathways to nuclear weapons as key restrictions disappear. What if the Islamic Republic remains, as it’s long been, the world’s leading state sponsors of terrorism? It won’t matter. Mr. Zarif now wants to play a few hands against Mr. Pompeo, but doesn’t want to seem too eager. So he routinely insults Mr. Trump — he recently called him a “terrorist” – and demands that the president show “respect” for Iran’s ruling mullahs before any new talks begin. What he really wants is for the U.S. to ease restrictions on Iranian oil exports, and lift other sanctions as well – akin to what President scumbag/liar-nObama did in 2013 after the conclusion of an interim agreement. Following that, Mr. Zarif made no serious concessions. Mr. hanoi-Kerry made one after another...  
WOW! CNN’s John King SMASHES scumbag-
Adam Schiff’s Russia Probe Comments
by Mike Brest from The Daily Caller reports, CNN’s John King questioned comments from California Democratic Rep. scumbaqg-Adam Schiff Friday saying the probe into the origins of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is “un-American.”
Mueller's Disgraceful Exit
Political Editors:  Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in remarks that demonstrate how once-admirable FBI directors become power drunk on Potomac political water, declared that his investigation was over and that he was closing his office and retiring. And not a minute too soon…

Mueller used his Wednesday press conference to take a few final partisan digs at President Donald Trump, encouraging House Speaker Nancy Pulosi (D-CA) and House Judiciary Chairman scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler (D-NY) to move forward with their obstructionist impeachment charade based on some conjecture about obstruction of justice. Again, “obstructing” something neither Mueller nor his water carrier, scumbag/liar-Clinton-supporting FBI Director scumbag-James Comey, nor his coup co-conspirators could find.

Of course, the latter is a key element of the Demos’ 2020 campaign strategy to undermine Trump’s MAGA economic success.

Responding to Mueller’s dog whistle, Pulosi said, “We do want to make such a compelling case, such an ironclad case [for impeachment] that even the Republican Senate would … be convinced of the path that we have to take as a country.”

scumbag liar-Nadler insists, “Special Counsel Mueller reaffirmed his report … that the president sought to obstruct Mueller’s investigation over and over again. He also confirmed three central points: he did not exonerate the president of the United States of obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice is a serious crime that strikes at the core of our justice system, and the Constitution points to Congress to take action to hold the president accountable.”

“Nothing changes,” Trump responded. “The case is closed!”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board thoroughly rebutted Nadler’s nonsense:

Mr. Mueller’s analysis of the obstruction evidence in his own report makes clear that no investigation was obstructed. Not the FBI’s counterintelligence probe, and not his own. No witnesses were interfered with, and Mr. Mueller was allowed over two years to issue nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants and interview anyone he wanted, including anyone in the White House.

Mr. Trump sometimes showed his exasperation, and bad judgment, in suggesting to more than one adviser that Mr. Mueller be fired, but no one acted on it. The special counsel probe rolled on without interference.

According to Mark Alexander: “In Mueller’s statement, he noted up front that his charge was ‘to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election,’ including ‘investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.’”

“In fact,” Alexander continues, “the origin and motives of Mueller’s investigation were based on a fake dossier  funded by the scumbag/liar-Clinton campaign. The resulting investigation was an attempt by a handful of Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s corrupt deep-state actors at the top of the DOJ and CIA to set Trump up for a takedown in the unlikely event he was elected. But, in the final analysis, as made clear by Attorney General William Barr in his summary upon releasing Mueller’s report, there was no Trump/Russia collusion. A rookie beat cop could have determined that on Day One of Mueller’s political hit job masquerading as an ‘investigation.’”

Alexander concludes, “As it turns out, there is a much better case for scumbaqg/liar-Clinton/Putin collusion with the complicity of scumbag-Comey and former CIA Director scumbag/commie-John Brennan — which should be the subject of a legitimate special prosecutor investigation. And the greatest of ironies: The result of this investigative subterfuge is that, by several orders of magnitude, it did more to undermine the integrity of American elections than Vladimir Putin’s puppets could ever have hoped to achieve. Or, in the end, perhaps that is exactly what he achieved. Watergate pales in comparison to the scumbag/liar-Clinton/DoJ/CIA collusion to take down Trump…”

On the foundational question of American criminal justice, Thomas Gallatin says, “Innocent until proven guilty? Mueller may have paid lip service to America’s bedrock principle of justice, but it was clear that his view of jurisprudence is quite the opposite. After admitting that his team found no evidence that Trump committed a crime, Mueller dropped this twisted statement: ‘If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.’ He then equivocated, ‘We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.’ In other words, Mueller believes Trump is guilty but could not find sufficient evidence to support such a charge, so he instead declared him ‘not exonerated.’ This is not how our justice system works.”

Moreover, Gallatin argues, “What may be the most disconcerting aspect of this whole fiasco is that our nation’s past two top law men — scumbag-Comey and Mueller before him — blatantly display such a flawed view of jurisprudence. The two men have done more to sow public distrust in the FBI than anything Trump or the media have ever said.”

As Alan Dershowitz keenly notes, Mueller’s statement “is worse than the statement made by then-FBI Director scumbag-James Comey regarding scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign.” How? “By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias.” Moreover, Dershowitz said, “I cannot imagine a plausible reason why Mueller went beyond his report and gratuitously suggested that President Trump might be guilty, except to help Democrats in Congress and to encourage impeachment talk and action. Shame on Mueller for abusing his position of trust and for allowing himself to be used for such partisan advantage.”

So where do Democrats go from here? Nate Jackson predicts, “Democrats will simply continue to imply Trump is guilty without ever actually impeaching him. At least not until 10 minutes after his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021. After all, the Demo objective is to keep Trump on the ropes to make him beatable in 2020.”

Mueller teed them up nicely, however they wish to proceed. “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” he said. He gave no discernible wink and nod, but Mueller could only mean for Congress to take up impeachment.

The 2020 Democrat presidential candidates each ran for the nearest microphone to pontificate on their solemn duty to do so. scumbag-Cory Booker called it a “legal and moral obligation.” Elizabeth dinky-Warren invoked the Constitution, which “leaves it up to Congress to act.” Kirsten Gillibrand likewise insisted, “We can’t let the president defy basic accountability measures built into our Constitution.” Such cynical appeals to the Constitution are par for the course with Democrats. And this whole sorry affair is exactly why so many Americans wanted Trump to drain the swamp.  ~The Patriot Post  

Views: 37


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Angry Dem Impeachment ‘Witness’: Pam Karlan Donated Thousands To Hillary And Was On Clinton’s List For Potential SCOTUS Nomination

Image result for Pam Karlan

The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, kicked off its first impeachment circus Wednesday morning.

The four ‘witnesses’ testifying have never actually witnessed any of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine firsthand — the four witnesses are law professors offering legal analysis.

One of the witnesses the Dems rolled out is an angry Hillary Clinton donor who was on Crooked’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination.

No wonder why this unhinged, dowdy woman is so pissed off!

“Professor Pam Karlan donated thousands of dollars to Democrats and was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination. So she certainly has no vendetta against President Trump,” GOP Rep. Mark Walker said.

Congressman Walker also pointed out that Noah Feldman, the Dems first partisan witness in Wednesday’s hearing tweeted about impeaching Trump right after he was sworn in.

Rep. Mark Walker   RepMarkWalker

Meet Noah Feldman, House Democrats first partisan witness.

Look at the date of this tweet. He has been trying to get @realDonaldTrump impeached since 46 days into his presidency.

His reason? Trump criticized President Obama.

This is a sham impeachment with sham witnesses. 

Noah Feldman @NoahRFeldman

Trump's wiretap tweets raise risk of impeachment  via @BV

Rep. Mark Walker   RepMarkWalker

The next witness, Karlan, has donated thousands to Democrats and was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination.

So she certainly has no vendetta against @realDonaldTrump.

These witnesses are as serious as House Democrats impeachment case: not at all.

The entire sham show trial is stacked with partisan hacks who have wanted to impeach Trump from the moment he won in November of 2016.

Norm Eisen, the Democrats’ counsel who is blasting Trump and questioning witnesses in Wednesday’s show trial, tweeted about impeaching Trump before Donald Trump was even sworn into office!

Infantilization of Popular Culture

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service