.
Former US Attorney Strongly
Criticizes Mueller’s Statement Today
by S.Noble The former special counsel said he couldn’t charge the sitting President if he wanted to charge. Specifically, he said, “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse the President of wrongdoing,” eluding to the fact that they could not forma} ~lly charge a sitting president with a crime. Mueller told the media, “If we had confidence he did not commit a crime we would have said so. We did not, however, have confidence that the president did not commit a crime.” That is such a crock. If he found sufficient evidence that the President intended to lie, hide evidence, conspire with Russia, he would have moved ahead. Mueller didn’t have the evidence. Thanks to Mueller’s colored remarks, Democrats are blowing up all over the Internet, demanding impeachment. Fake Republican Justin Amash is calling for impeachment. Former assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy told Fox News that Mueller’s statement was “explosive.” “We’re going to be talking about impeachment from now for the foreseeable future. McCarthy continued, ‘What Mueller said, which runs against what we have heard up until now, but was certainly suggested in his report, was that the office of legal counsel guidance was essentially the reason why they didn’t make a conclusion about obstruction.” McCarthy refuted that saying, “On the legal merits of that, I think he’s completely wrong. I think it was his responsibility to make a decision about whether there was a prosecutable case, and then it would have been up to the attorney general and the Justice Department to decide whether to invoke the guidance or not that says that a sitting president can’t be indicted.”Hume added that Mueller was on a “fool’s errand” from the beginning if Mueller thought as he said that he couldn’t charge the President no matter what.
https://www.independentsentinel.com/former-us-attorney-strongly-criticizes-muellers-statement-today/ .
Dershowitz condemns Mueller
for bias & distorting the role of prosecutor
by Alan Dershowitz we would have said that” is worse than the statement made by then-FBI Director scumbag-James Comey regarding scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. scumbag-Comey declared in a July 2016 press conference that “although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary scumbag/liar-Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” scumbag-Comey was universally criticized for going beyond his responsibility to state whether there was sufficient evidence to indict scumbag/liar-Clinton. Mueller, however, did even more. He went beyond the conclusion of his report and gave a political gift to Democrats in Congress who are seeking to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump. By implying that President Trump might have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings. Obstruction of justice is a “high crime and misdemeanor” which, under the Constitution, authorizes impeachment and removal of the president. Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. 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. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system. Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different. Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one-sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes...
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445983-dershowitz-shame-on-robert-mueller-for-exceeding-his-role .
The Mullahs’ Chief Liar, and
Their Most Effective Weapon
by Aaron KliegmanWith his charm, fluent English, and American education, the former Iranian ambassador to the United Nations has successfully wooed journalists, think tank experts, and policymakers across the Western world, including in the United States. Indeed, if Washington's political and cultural elites made a formal club, they would grant Zarif honorary membership. Fraternizing and sharing disdain for American "chauvinism" can form such a bond. It is always quite a sight to observe certain think tanks welcoming Zarif to the United States with such fanfare. And when is the last time an American journalist made the smooth-talking diplomat at least a little uncomfortable during an interview? After all, he is the face of an Islamist theocracy that executes homosexuals simply for being homosexuals and that wreaks mayhem across the Middle East. Perhaps he should be challenged to defend those crimes. And here we get to the point: Zarif is not only Iran's chief diplomat, but also its chief liar. He charms overly comfortable, idealistic Americans into believing that he wants the same as them, and that the regime in Tehran is a benign, responsible actor. Of course, much of Washington's elite buys the shiny car that the greasy diplomat is selling them, and therefore will not challenge him, even if, under the thin layer of paint, there is a broken down, used vehicle. If only the United States stopped its own belligerence, Zarif tells his Western fans, Iran could flourish and the bilateral relationship would be peaceful. The reality is quite different, however. Take Zarif's tweet this week on the Iranian nuclear program. "Ayatollah @khamenei_ir long ago said we're not seeking nuclear weapons—by issuing a fatwa (edict) banning them," Zarif wrote, referring to Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. "#B_Team's #EconomicTerrorism is hurting the Iranian people & causing tension in the region. Actions—not words—will show whether or not that's @realDonaldTrump's intent." The so-called "B-Team," a term that Zarif began using earlier this month, consists of National Security Adviser John Bolton, United Arab Emirates Crown Prince Mohamed bin Zayed, Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Curiously, former top officials in the scumbag/liar-nObama administration began using the term after Zarif introduced it, amplifying the Iranian diplomat's talking points against President Trump. For years, Zarif has said that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons, using Khamenei's fatwa, or Islamic legal edict, against the development of the bomb as a primary piece of evidence. The problem is that literally every part of Zarif's claim is false. First, the world now has documentary evidence showing that, while Zarif was declaring Iran's nuclear innocence, the regime was planning to build weapons. A massive cache of secret Iranian files that Israel seized and publicized last year revealed that Iran had concrete plans to build at least five nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the fact that the regime kept and concealed mountains of such detailed plans suggests, at the very least, that, even today, Tehran wants to obtain nuclear weapons. Zarif also lied by touting the mysterious fatwa, which no one, including experts who spent extensive time looking for it, has been able to find. Nor has the regime been able to produce it. But regardless, fatwas can be revised under new circumstances and, as Mehdi Khalaji and Michael Eisenstadt noted in a report on the alleged edict, "nothing would prevent Khamenei from modifying or supplanting his nuclear fatwa should circumstances dictate a change in policy."...
https://freebeacon.com/blog/mullahs-chief-liar-most-effective-weapon/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=3a14a86008-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_29_08_41_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-3a14a86008-45611665 .
The New Smear Machine: Guilt by Association
by Douglas MurrayWhere there was once an agreement that people should be held responsible for their own views, now they can apparently be held responsible for the views of anyone beside whom they once stood. So for instance, last month Jordan Peterson was denied a visiting fellowship at Cambridge University because he had once been photographed at a post-speaking event meet-and-greet with somebody wearing a T-shirt saying 'I'm a proud Islamophobe'. Activists who wish to take decent people out of the parameters of legitimate discussion no longer merely smear them by trying to claim that their opponent is an extremist. Instead, they hint that even if their opponent might not be an extremist, here – for instance – is a photograph of him standing beside someone better able to be described as an extremist. Thus has the smear machine found a happy pastime and a fairly useful tool in its game of political warfare. This tactic is rarely used by the right against many on the left. Or if it is, its legitimacy is denied. For instance when the British Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn, for instance, is endlessly pictured with Islamist extremists or a whole range of anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, it is agreed that he is not 'adjacent' to these people, but merely to be pursuing his often strangely uncredited role as the international community's informal peace-keeper-in-chief. His proximity to the worst people is never evidence of 'adjacency': merely of saintliness at best, and bad luck at worst. If there is a reason for this, it is that the far-left utilises the 'adjacency' tool most readily on people it can claim to be far-right. It tends to have little interest in Islamist extremists let alone, for obvious reasons, far-leftists and would appear in general to have rather little interest in anti-Semites in general. So a recent event in London provides an interesting opportunity to return a favour in the arts of tactical political warfare. On May 11, in London there was a march – attended by around three thousand people – and organised under the banner 'National Demonstration for Palestine: Exist! Resist! Return'. The event was backed by – among others – the leader of the Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn. In Twitter and Facebook messages sent to marchers, he expressed his support. This message, read out at the rally said, among much else, 'We cannot stand by or stay silent at the continuing denial of rights and justice to the Palestinian people.'...
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14248/guilt-by-association .
Robert Mueller and the Art of Innuendo
by David Catron After asserting that his final report to the attorney general on Russian interference in the 2016 election “speaks for itself,” and that nothing he or the special counsel’s office would say in future would go beyond that report, he deliberately threw additional fuel on the “obstruction of justice” dumpster fire. Knowing full well that he was providing the headline-of-the-day for the anti-Trump “news” media and a fresh talking point for the impeachment zealots in the House, he said: As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that … It explains that under long-standing Justice Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view — that too is prohibited. For all intents and purposes, Mueller accused the President of obstructing justice then hid behind obscure DOJ memoranda to excuse his failure to make that prosecutorial call in his report to the AG. It was an utterly disgraceful performance. First, as anyone who has bothered to read Mueller’s report knows, his reluctance to officially accuse Trump of obstruction was about the dearth of real evidence to support the charge. Moreover, his claim that it is unconstitutional to indict the President is widely disputed by legal scholars. As Jonathan Turley, Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, writes: If Mueller is going to argue that he felt constrained by Justice Department memos, he was a failure as special counsel. I have argued, going back to my testimony in the scumbag/liar-Clinton impeachment hearings … Nothing in the Constitution says a president has immunity from criminal charges. Nevertheless, one can accept these memos and still see the illogic in reading them as a bar to reaching conclusions as a special counsel. In other words, even if one agrees with the DOJ memos, they don’t preclude a special counsel from reaching a finding of criminal conduct. Professor Turley goes on to point out that, by failing to make a prosecutorial decision on obstruction of justice, Mueller abjured his main responsibility as a special counsel, disregarded the federal regulations governing his investigation, and ignored the unambiguous directives of his DOJ superiors — Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and subsequently Attorney General William Barr. He ignored proper procedures and failed to fulfill his primary function...
He is still a dirty cop. https://spectator.org/robert-mueller-and-the-art-of-innuendo/?utm_source=American%20Spectator%20Emails&utm_campaign=692e25eccd-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_30_04_08&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_797a38d487-692e25eccd-104608113 
Nate Jackson 
Comments