~ Featuring ~  
McConnell's Strategy: Ensure SCOTUS Protects the Constitution" width="290" height="145" />
Nate Jackson" />
Former US Attorney Strongly 
Criticizes Mueller’s Statement Today
by S.Noble } ~ Robert Mueller made some astounding statements today, basically accusing the President of crimes while saying he didn’t have “sufficient evidence” to charge... 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.
Dershowitz condemns Mueller 
for bias & distorting the role of prosecutor
by Alan Dershowitz } ~ The statement by special counsel Robert Mueller in a Wednesday press conference that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime... 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...  
The Mullahs’ Chief Liar, and 
Their Most Effective Weapon" width="273" height="181" />
by Aaron Kliegman } ~ Iran's most effective weapon is not a missile or a tank, but rather a middle-aged, bespectacled man. Sure, Mohammad Javad Zarif, the affable foreign minister of Iran, does not seem threatening, but that is precisely the point... With 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."...   
The New Smear Machine: Guilt by Association" width="274" height="182" />
by Douglas Murray } ~ One of the favourite tactics of the far-left in the West today is to carry out hit-jobs by utilising the tool of 'adjacency.' This is the new only slightly fancy term for what has usually been known as 'guilt by association'... Where 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.'...   
Robert Mueller and the Art of Innuendo" width="265" height="120" />
by David Catron } ~ Robert Mueller’s Wednesday morning press conference provided more evidence that President Trump has been right about him all along... 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 a dirty cop.   
." />
McConnell's Strategy: Ensure SCOTUS Protects the Constitution" width="290" height="145" />
Nate Jackson:  One of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s greatest triumphs was holding the line against Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s choice of Merrick Garland to succeed the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court in 2016. McConnell refused to even hold hearings on Garland’s nomination, arguing that voters should weigh in on whether to utterly change the Court’s make-up when the White House and Senate were held by different parties. It was the same argument Democrats had made in presidential elections past. But now the Democrat-Leftmedia Complex is in hysterics over McConnell’s supposed hypocrisy after he announced Tuesday that he would fill any SCOTUS vacancy in 2020 despite it being an election year because the same party controls the Senate and White House.

It is true that the Republican calculation in 2016 was hardball politics. Almost no one thought Donald Trump would actually defeat scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton, but McConnell’s big gamble paid off, big time. Instead of scumbag/liar-nObama substantively changing the Supreme Court with Garland, or scumbag/liar-Clinton picking him or someone else, Trump chose Neil Gorsuch, an originalist who would follow in Scalia’s large footsteps and take seriously his oath to “support and defend” the U.S. Constitution.

“What can’t be undone,” McConnell said, “is a lifetime appointment to a young man or woman who believes in the quaint notion that the job of the judge is to follow the law.”

And that’s the whole point here. Ultimately, this isn’t just “political.” It’s the essence of the struggle between Rule of Law and rule of men; of Liberty and tyranny. Democrats want justices who will rule according to a “living” Constitution that just happens to comport with current “progressive” sensibilities. Republicans want justices who will uphold the Constitution as written. McConnell’s move in 2016 and his pledge for 2020 are borne of the same strategy — to ensure constitutionalists join the Supreme Court.  ~The Patriot Post  

Views: 4


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

Join Tea Party Command Center



Political Cartoons by Chip BokPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Joe Biden Vows: Give Taxpayer-Funded Obamacare To All Illegal Aliens In U.S.

Former Vice President and 2020 Democrat presidential primary candidate Joe Biden is vowing to give Obamacare, funded by American taxpayers, to all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens living in the United States.

During an interview with Telemundo’s Jose Diaz-Balart, Biden forgot that Obamacare technically bans illegal aliens from enrolling in healthcare plans — although illegal aliens are still able to obtain subsidized and free healthcare at Americans’ expense — and promised that under his plan, all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens would be able to get Obamacare.

The exchange went as follows:

DIAZ-BALART: When I … NBC moderated that first debate with you, I didn’t … I don’t recall a clear answer, under your plan should … would the 11, 12 million undocumented immigrants that live in the United States, that have been here many for generations, would they have access …


DIAZ-BALART: — to health insurance.

BIDEN: Yes, they … if they can buy into the system like everybody else.

DIAZ-BALART: Because you know, in [Obamacare] they can’t.

BIDEN: Yeah. Yeah, I know. Well they can, that’s my point. They continue to be able to do that.

DIAN-BALART: They cannot under the ObamaCare.

BIDEN: Well and that’s my point, they will though. They will be able to buy into … [illegal aliens] would be able to buy in, just like anyone else could.

Biden joins Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg — among other 2020 Democrats — in committing to forcing American taxpayers to pay for healthcare for illegal aliens who arrive in the U.S.

Already, due to loopholes, American taxpayers are spending nearly $20 billion every year to provide illegal aliens with subsidized healthcare, emergency room visits, and other health services.

Under the 2020 Democrats’ plan to provide taxpayer-funded healthcare to all illegal aliens living in the U.S., Americans would be billed potentially $660 billion every decade just to cover the costs. Other research has found that the plan would cost Americans at least $23 billion every year.

As Breitbart News has reported, experts have said that giving taxpayer-funded healthcare to effectively all foreign nationals who can make it to America’s borders would drive “strong incentives for people with serious health problems to enter the country or remain longer than their visas allow in order to get government-funded care.”

Despite 2020 Democrats’ continued push for taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens, American voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the plan. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey revealed that the healthcare-for-illegal-aliens plan is the least popular policy position, with opposition from 62 percent of U.S. voters.

Similarly, a CNN poll from July discovered that 63 percent of likely swing voters oppose providing healthcare to illegal aliens, along with nearly 6-in-10 of all likely U.S. voters and 61 percent of moderates. A Rasmussen Reports survey also found that likely voters, by a majority of 55 percent, oppose giving healthcare to even the most low-income illegal aliens.

Infantilization of Popular Culture

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service