Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
Friday, May 25, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Sorry, But Obama White House, Not Dossier, Was Behind Trump Investigation
SpyGate: Did the Obama administration spy on the Donald Trump campaign because it feared Russian hacking of the 2016 election? Or was it merely a smokescreen to cover up the real reason: to keep Trump from winning the presidency or take him down if he did?
As the saying goes, timing is everything. Recent revelations keep pushing back the beginning of the CIA and FBI investigation into "Russian hacking" or "meddling" in the 2016 election further and further in time.
This is significant, since the farther back in time the actual origin of the spying on Trump, the less likely it is that it had anything to do with Russian involvement in the 2016 elections, but everything to do with stopping the surprising surge of Trump during the GOP primaries and beyond.
Increasingly, a political motive seems not only likely, but almost certain.
In a recent piece that warrants a thorough reading, Andrew C. McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney who now writes for the National Review, painstakingly dismantles the multiple lies told about how and when the spying on Trump began.
There is what he calls "The Original Origination Story" that involves little-known Trump adviser Carter Page. He visited Moscow in July 2016, three months after hooking on to the Trump campaign.
According to former MI6 British spy Christopher Steele's now infamous dossier on Trump, Page's trip was when the alleged Trump-Russia plan to hack the Democratic National Committee was born.
The only problem is, the Steele dossier has been exposed as a fanciful product of the Clinton campaign and the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which hired Steele. And the main assertions were based on hearsay from Russian officials, and never validated.
Even so, the FBI and Justice Department used the dossier to apply to the FISA court to tap Page's communications and, as a result, much of the rest of the Trump campaign.
In doing so, the FBI broke its own rules and, worse, the Obama Justice Department withheld the fact from the FISA court that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee were responsible for the dossier.
Then there was what McCarthy calls "Origination Story 2.0."
This involves George Papadopoulos, a young, also little-known Trump aide. At a May 2016 meeting in a London pub, he told Australian diplomat Alexander Downer about an academic named Josef Mifsud with Kremlin ties who told Papadopoulos that the Kremlin had a huge number of emails that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton.
Democrats point to this as proof that Trump had colluded to hack the DNC. But as McCarthy notes, there's a major flaw in that logic: "If Russia already had the emails and was alerting the Trump campaign to that fact, the campaign could not have been involved in the hacking."
Moreover, Democrats insist Mifsud's comments about emails referred to the DNC emails that were, in fact, hacked by Russians.
But that's not the case. Papadopoulos has said he thought Mifsud was talking about the more than 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton "accidentally" had deleted from her illegal unsecured home email server.
So if those didn't set up the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, what did?
In fact, says McCarthy, the real origin of the investigation appears to have been in Spring of 2016, before Papadopoulos' conversation with the Australian ambassador in May and also before Page's visit to Moscow in July.
It started with James Comey briefing President Obama's National Security Council about Carter Page, likely sometime in mid-Spring.
Why? Well, both Page and Paul Manafort, another Trump adviser, had business ties to Russia, which, perhaps justifiably, concerned the FBI.
But rather than telling the Trump campaign about their concerns, or even moving against the Russians, the Justice Department and the FBI starting treating Trump's campaign like a criminal enterprise.
Instead of continuing to interview Page, or Manafort, or Papadopoulos, they inserted a spy, Stefan Halper, in the campaign, and tapped its phones. It had the earmarks of a political hit, not an actual investigation.
As for the CIA, another line of inquiry finds they also were busy early on pursuing Trump.
George Neumayr, writing in The American Spectator, notes that CIA Director John Brennan used the flimsy excuse of a tip from the Estonian intelligence agency that Putin was giving money to the Trump campaign to form an "inter-agency task force" on supposed Trump-Russia collusion in 2016. It met at CIA headquarters, spy central.
The Estonian tip didn't pan out, but the task force remained.
"Both before and after the FBI's official probe began in late July 2016," wrote Neumayr, "Brennan was bringing together into the same room at CIA headquarters a cast of Trump haters across the Obama administration whose activities he could direct — from Peter Strzok, the FBI liaison to Brennan, to the doltish (Director of National Intelligence) Jim Clapper, Brennan's errand boy, to an assortment of Brennan's buddies at the Treasury Department, Justice Department, and White House."
It eventually led, on July 31, 2016, to the creation FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" program to spy against the Trump campaign.
What we're discovering is that the investigations and spying on the Trump campaign for evidence of possible collusion with Russia appear to have begun well before the CIA and FBI said they did.
And it all arose from progressive, pro-Hillary embeds deep within the Deep State and at the top of key Obama agencies, people who could use their positions of supposed Olympian objectivity to mask their political bias — and to ignore years of evidence that Hillary Clinton had colluded with the Russians for her own financial benefit.
As McCarthy concluded: "The Trump-Russia investigation did not originate with Page or Papadopoulos. It originated with the Obama administration."
Revealed: Fusion GPS Closely Tied to Russian Lobbyist at Trump Jr. Meeting
John Moore/Getty, Pablo Martinez MonsivaisNEW YORK — Email transcripts and other information disclosed in testimony released by the Senate Judiciary Committee reveals a significant relationship between Russian-born Washington lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshi and the controversial Fusion GPS firm that produced the infamous, largely discredited anti-Trump dossier.
Akhmetshi was one of the participants at the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with President Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. and other campaign officials.
The meeting has been the subject of much news media coverage related to unsubstantiated and collapsing claims of collusion with Russia. All meeting participants generally agree the confab focused largely on the Magnitsky Act, which sanctions Russian officials accused of involvement in the death of a Russian tax accountant, as well as talk about a Russian tax evasion scheme and alleged connections to the Democratic National Committee.
Trump Jr. previously explained that he took the meeting thinking it was about “opposition research” on Hillary Clinton and was disappointed that it wasn’t.
The Russia collusion conspiracy was sparked by the dossier produced by Fusion GPS, which was paid for its anti-Trump work by Trump’s primary political opponents, namely Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) via the Perkins Coie law firm.
Akhmetshi’s November 14, 2017 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, released last week and reviewed in full by this reporter, contained numerous sections that detail his past relationship with Fusion GPS and the company’s co-founder, Glenn Simpson. Some of that relationship spanned the period just prior to the meeting with Trump Jr.
In one instance, Akhmetshi was asked about an email obtained by the Senate committee in which he described Fusion’s Simpson as a “colleague.”
The email related to the Russian-linked Prevezon Holdings Ltd., a firm that had settled a case in the U.S. involving the purchase of real estate with allegedly laundered money, accusations that centered around the Magnitsky Act.
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who countered the Magnitsky Act along with Akhmetshi, was an attorney for Prevezon. Veselnitskaya was also present at the meeting with Trump Jr. Fusion GPS was involved in the case since it investigated financier Bill Browder, who successfully lobbied Congress to pass the Magnitsky Act and was a witness in the Prevezon legal matter. Fusion GPS investigated Browder for another client and their findings were used in the Prevezon trial.
In his testimony, one Senate griller asked Akhmetshi about a December 2015 email from a Bloomberg News reporter that states he was told that Akhmetshi was “handling media calls” for Prevezon and its owner.
Akhmetshi’s email reply, in which he calls Fusion GPS’s Simpson “my colleague” was read aloud: “I am traveling this week, but my colleague Glenn Simpson, cc’d , will be able to brief you on the particulars of the case.”
Another email read in the testimony described plans for a February 4, 2016 dinner meeting between Simpson, Akhmetshi and Veselnitskaya, with Akhmetshi confirming that he did have a meeting with Simpson and Veselnitskaya around that time, possibly dinner. This puts Simpson in person with two participants in the Trump Jr. meeting just four months before the June 2016 Trump Tower meet, although Akhmetshi described the meeting with Simpson as being about the Prevezon case.
A major theme of the testimony is Akhmetshi’s self-described working ties to numerous members of the “Western” media.
He describes pitching stories directly to Simpson while Simpson was a journalist prior to his co-founding of Fusion GPS. Simpson previously worked for the Wall Street Journal.
Akhmetshi also relates a previous working relationship with Simpson’s wife, pitching her stories while she served at the Wall Street Journal.
Akhmetshi stated that he helped Veselnitskaya set up her widely circulated NBC News interview in which she claimed she was an “informant” for the Russian government. That interview prompted a flurry of news media coverage attempting to draw connections between the Trump Jr. meeting and the Russian government.
Throughout the testimony, Akhmetshi denied any foreknowledge of Fusion’s anti-Trump dossier. However, he did say that he had heard the salacious charges about Trump from friends in the news media prior to the dossier’s public release by BuzzFeed in January 2017.
The meeting with Trump Jr., meanwhile, was reportedly set up by publicist Rob Goldstone, who claimed in an email to Trump Jr. that Veselnitskaya had opposition dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Veselnitskaya told the Wall Street Journal that she approached Russian real estate magnate Aras Agalarov, whom she was representing, to help set up a meeting with the Trump campaign as part of her efforts opposing the Magnitsky Act. She was also looking to spread information about Browder, she said.
Agalarov organized the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow when the pageant was partially owned by Donald Trump.
Agalarov’s son Emin, a Russian singer who also knows the Trumps, reached out to Goldstone, his publicist, to contact the Trump campaign on behalf of Veselnitskaya, according to the Journal report.
Speaking to Fox News, Trump Jr. explained that he took the meeting thinking it was about “opposition research” on Clinton and was disappointed that it wasn’t.
“For me this was opposition research,” Trump Jr. said. “They had something, you know, maybe concrete evidence to all the stories I’d been hearing about … so I think I wanted to hear it out. But really it went nowhere and it was apparent that wasn’t what the meeting was about.”
Trump Jr. spoke about the contents of the meeting: “It was this, ‘Hey, some DNC donors may have done something in Russia and they didn’t pay taxes.’ I was like, ‘What does this have to do with anything?’”
Trump Jr. told Fox News that Goldstone apologized for wasting the campaign’s time with the meeting.
“I think what happened [is] he sort of goosed up, he built up, there was some puffery to the email, perhaps to get the meeting, to make it happen,” Trump Jr. said. “In the end, there was probably some bait-and-switch about what it was really supposed to be about.”
Speaking to the Journal, Veselnitskaya indicated there was a mix up about the intent of the meeting: “My expectation before the meeting was he read my letter of information, he got interested, and he was going to help me. His expectations were totally different, as I can understand now.”
“By the time I stepped into the meeting room to talk with Donald Trump Jr., all I knew was that I approached the elder Mr. Agalarov with a request to help,” Veselnitskaya said. “And I knew his son Emin communicated with Donald Trump Jr.”
Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.
Written with research by Joshua Klein.
President Trump pardons late black boxing champion Jack Johnson
Reuters Staff
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday issued a posthumous pardon to boxer Jack Johnson, the first African-American heavyweight champion who was jailed a century ago after having a relationship with a white woman.
Boxer Jack Johnson. “I believe Jack Johnson is a worthy person to receive a pardon, to correct a wrong in our history,” Trump said.
In a case that came to symbolize racial injustice, Johnson was arrested in 1912 with Lucille Cameron, who later became his wife, for violating the Mann Act. The law was passed two years earlier and made it a crime to take a woman across state lines for immoral purposes.
Johnson died in 1946.
Actor Sylvester Stallone, famous as the star of the “Rocky” boxing-movie franchise, and boxer Lennox Lewis flanked Trump for the pardon in the Oval Office. In April, Trump tweeted that he was considering the pardon after talking to Stallone.
Earlier on Thursday, Stallone posted a photo of himself at the White House on Instagram with the caption “Waiting for the moment to go into the oval office for the pardon...”
Reporting by Susan Heavey and James Oliphant; writing by Lisa Lambert; Editing by Cynthia Osterman
BOMBSHELL: FBI Spy Stefan Halper Made False Allegations About General Flynn
Stefan Halper, the FBI informant who was planted inside the Trump campaign was exposed for making false allegations about General Flynn.
The Daily Caller reports:
The FBI informant who made contact with members of the Trump campaign has made allegations of Russian spy infiltration at the University of Cambridge that people involved in the matters have called “false” and “absurd.”
A Russian academic who worked at Cambridge with the informant, Stefan Halper, said he made “false allegations” about her interactions with former national security adviser Michael Flynn at an event the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar (CIS) hosted in February 2014.
Halper’s claim in December 2016 that Russians infiltrated CIS has also been called “absurd” by Christopher Andrew, the official historian for MI5 and head of CIS, the Financial Times reported.
Halper made contact with Trump campaign advisers Carter Page, George Papadpoulos and Sam Clovis during the campaign to gather intelligence about their involvement with Russia.
Halper’s credibility is in serious question given recent revelations in the Obama spying scandal.
Stefan Halper has also been exposed for his anti-Trump motive and his work for the Clinton Foundation, connection to the corrupt Clinton family. On top of all that, he received a shady $400,000 payment plus other payments for his work spying on the Trump campaign.
President Trump has coined the Obama Administration spying scandal as “Spy Gate.”
Yesterday, the President tweeted, “SPYGATE could be one of the biggest political scandals in history!”
The Daily Caller reports:
The FBI informant who made contact with members of the Trump campaign has made allegations of Russian spy infiltration at the University of Cambridge that people involved in the matters have called “false” and “absurd.”
A Russian academic who worked at Cambridge with the informant, Stefan Halper, said he made “false allegations” about her interactions with former national security adviser Michael Flynn at an event the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar (CIS) hosted in February 2014.
Halper’s claim in December 2016 that Russians infiltrated CIS has also been called “absurd” by Christopher Andrew, the official historian for MI5 and head of CIS, the Financial Times reported.
Halper made contact with Trump campaign advisers Carter Page, George Papadpoulos and Sam Clovis during the campaign to gather intelligence about their involvement with Russia.
Halper’s credibility is in serious question given recent revelations in the Obama spying scandal.
Stefan Halper has also been exposed for his anti-Trump motive and his work for the Clinton Foundation, connection to the corrupt Clinton family. On top of all that, he received a shady $400,000 payment plus other payments for his work spying on the Trump campaign.
President Trump has coined the Obama Administration spying scandal as “Spy Gate.”
Yesterday, the President tweeted, “SPYGATE could be one of the biggest political scandals in history!”
SPYGATE could be one of the biggest political scandals in history!
In another tweet, he said: “Look how things have turned around on the Criminal Deep State. They go after Phony Collusion with Russia, a made up Scam, and end up getting caught in a major SPY scandal the likes of which this country may never have seen before! What goes around, comes around!”
Look how things have turned around on the Criminal Deep State. They go after Phony Collusion with Russia, a made up Scam, and end up getting caught in a major SPY scandal the likes of which this country may never have seen before! What goes around, comes around!
Things are rapidly falling apart for the political elite and Deep State. With the Inspector General’s report looming, big trouble is potentially on the horizon for Obama, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and many more.
General Flynn’s son, Michael Flynn Jr, shot massive warning shots at the Deep State on Monday: “You’re all going down. You know who you are. Mark my word….”
You’re all going down. You know who you are. Mark my word....
Emails Show Obama WH Planned to Use Sandy Hook Shooting for Political Gain
By Tim Pearce
Former President Barack Obama’s education secretary and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel were planning to turn a national tragedy into a legislative victory for the administration two days after the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
On the morning of Dec. 14, 2010, a 20-year-old man killed his mother in their home then traveled to Sandy Hook Elementary School with a semi-automatic rifle and two pistols in tow.
The man broke into the school and killed another 26 people — 20 of whom were first-grade students. The gunman committed suicide after authorities arrived on the scene.
Two days later, on the evening of Dec. 16, former-Education Secretary Arne Duncan emailed Emanuel under the subject line, “CT shootings,” seeking advice on pushing gun reform legislation, according to The Baltimore Post.
The complete exchange took place between 6:57 p.m. to 7:08 p.m. It follows as first reported by The Post:
Duncan: “What are your thoughts?”
Emanuel: “Go for a vote this week before it fades. Tap peoples’ emotion. Make it simple assault weapons.”
Duncan: “Yup- thanks.”
Emanuel: “When I did Brady bill and assault weapons for Clinton, we always made it simple: Criminals or war weapons.”
Duncan: “Gun show loophole? Database? Cop-killer bullets? Too complicated?”
Emanuel: “Cop killer maybe. The other no.”
Duncan: “Got it.”
At the time of the shooting, Newtown was the second most deadly mass shooting on a school campus after a 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech where 32 students and teachers were killed.
Emanuel served as an adviser to former-President Bill Clinton from 1992 to 1998. He worked with Clinton to push Congress to pass the 1993 Brady bill that imposed a five-day waiting period for purchasing a handgun.
Emanuel also worked in the White House when Congress passed the 1994 federal assault weapons ban that made 18 specific firearms illegal, along with some gun features and modifications.
The weapons ban timed out after 10 years.
Hayward: NFL Anthem Rules Expose the Left’s Warped View of Patriotism
AP Photo/AJ Mast
When President Donald Trump praised the NFL on Thursday for requiring players to stand during the National Anthem and suggested players should quit the game – or perhaps even the country – if they cannot abide by the rule, he put his finger on the vital pressure point in America’s great social divide: the definition of patriotism.
“You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn’t be playing, maybe you shouldn’t be in the country,” Trump reflected.
Democrats outraged by Trump’s challenge to the patriotism of the players should recall that their own political leaders have accused fellow Americans of lacking patriotism for a variety of reasons.
For the left, disagreeing with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton was grounds for challenging patriotism and comparing Republicans to terrorists. Opposition to tax increases was branded unpatriotic by no less than Joe Biden when he was running on Barack Obama’s presidential ticket. Governor Andrew Cuomo, a major figure in the Democrat Party, told pro-life and pro-gun rights conservatives they have “no place in the state of New York,” which is different in degree but not spirit from wondering if the NFL kneelers might be happier somewhere else.
For the left, patriotism means loyalty to their policy agenda; you’re “unpatriotic” if you don’t want to give them more money. Patriotism is loyalty to the government, not the nation. This idea is expressed in their endless prattle about “who we are,” defined largely through policy choices. Left-wing patriotism is loyalty to a future nation that never quite manages to rise above the horizon.
The left thinks traditional patriotism means respect and loyalty for a horribly tainted past filled with “isms” – racism, sexism, etc. Their patriotic loyalty looks forward, as embodied in the term “progressive.” Their most vicious accusations of unpatriotism are directed at those who oppose something they want to do.
Likewise, the left’s concept of patriotism is deeply hostile to borders and the concept of America as a distinct nation-state with legitimate interests it can honorably pursue with vigor. They think that’s selfish “nationalism,” xenophobia, and blind loyalty to an unworthy memory.
For the left, ostentatious displays of contempt for American symbols is a declaration of war against a filthy past, from the Revolution to the day before yesterday, that no one should be defending.
The left knows their version of patriotism is utterly incompatible with the traditional variety, which emphasizes the common bonds between Americans instead of bitter policy differences. There is no sound the left hates more than Lincoln’s “mystic chords of memory.”
When people who have serious disagreements and strong complaints against current government policies stand together in respect for the flag and anthem, they are saying: “We are brothers and sisters despite all this, and I love those I oppose.” That’s poison to collectivists.
Patriotism means enduring loyalty and respect for America even if you feel betrayed or neglected by some, or even all, of its current leadership. Yes, patriots draw strength from the past, and it gives them confidence in the future.
Traditional displays of patriotism unite reverence for the past, brotherhood in the present, and confidence in the future. That’s bad medicine for those who wish to “fundamentally transform” an unworthy nation, as President Barack Obama said near the conclusion of his first presidential campaign.
The left knows traditional patriotism is an obstacle, so they must attack and replace it with their version of patriotism, hunting it down wherever it flourishes. That’s why the anthem is suddenly “controversial” in football and the left’s “compromise” is to get rid of it.
There is growing pushback from those who don’t want to be “fundamentally transformed.” The left caricatures this as mindless jingoism, but in truth, it’s far more thoughtful than their blind loyalty to utopian policies. Who is more jingoistic than a bumper-sticker liberal?
The traditional patriot has a very deep thought indeed: that our brotherhood is more important than our disagreements. A bond of national pride is the vital ingredient to curing social ills. The left only wants to treat the symptoms badly, forever, at staggering expense.
Drawn from that patriotic pride in America is another very deep thought: we are sovereign citizens and our government must be loyal to us, not the other way around. You cannot view the state as subordinate to the people without revering a nation stronger and older than the state.
The state has no moral right to transform the people, and its efforts to do so are an unbroken string of embarrassing failures and hideous tragedies. No elite has the right to force a vision upon the unwilling or change the electorate to suit its tastes.
Politicians are below the people, and we are all part of something bigger and older than any one of us, or even any million of us. That’s what standing up for the flag and anthem mean. It is not an act of submission, but of elevation.
We hear a lot of talk about the nation breaking up over social issues and policy disagreements. Patriotism rejects that outcome. Those who show contempt for the anthem are the ones who say it’s on the table. They won’t be our brothers and sisters unless we agree with them.
The left wants a monopoly on contempt, but we should refuse to grant it. We should have contempt for the view that patriotism means loyalty to policy agendas and our differences are what define us. We should not sacrifice the strength of past and present for hollow promises of a glorious future.
I would much prefer President Trump had stopped short of saying “maybe you shouldn’t be in the country,” because I think the point of patriotism is that we remain one country no matter how strongly we disagree. The question is, what outcome do the anti-patriots envision? What would persuade them to stand for the anthem?
If they’re saying they won’t stand until their preferred policy agenda is enacted, that’s cheap and unworthy of respect. If they’re saying they will never stand for it, then what reasons do they have for staying beyond selfish materialism?
Most likely they mean they won’t stand for the anthem unless the country is dramatically transformed to address their grievances. Well, what if the country resists your transformation? What if the forces necessary are beyond what our constitution allows?
The ultimate outcome will involve someone “leaving” America, maybe a lot of people, and maybe not peacefully. It’s probably better if you just leave now, well-heeled kneelers. Show the strength of your conviction by decamping to the better country. You have the means to do so easily, and live comfortably wherever you choose.
If you passionately support a policy agenda, lay it out and persuade the rest of us to agree. If you have a righteous grievance, lay it out and show a little respect for everyone else’s sense of righteousness. You can do that while standing for the anthem. You’ll do it better that way.
But if you truly, honestly believe America is so fundamentally corrupt that you can’t show a modicum of respect, if you’re not just throwing a tantrum to get some policy passed, then why are you here? What will inspire you to stand with us?
Law Student Asks Nancy Pelosi: Shouldn’t There Be Proof Of Russian Collusion By Now?
Robert Mueller’s special investigation has officially passed the one-year mark, and he has yet to turn up any proof of Russian collusion. If you’re wondering why that is, you’re not alone.
At a CNN town hall with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Wednesday night, a Georgetown law student named Joshua Gonzalez asked Pelosi point blank: “If Trump actually colluded with the Russians, why isn’t he found guilty of it after a year of investigation? “Wouldn’t there be some kind of concrete proof by now?”
Gonzalez’s question was also the first of the night.
Of course, Pelosi didn’t have a good answer. “Well you know there is an investigation going on under counsel Mueller,” she said. “And that is where — we wouldn’t have any idea what is going on in that, and nor should we know what’s going on in that investigation. But it takes time, and I trust counsel Mueller and his work.”
Apparently, it just “takes time” to completely undermine Donald Trump’s presidency.
However, after Gonzalez asked his very good question, host Chris Cuomo inadvertently exposed the Democratic agenda. That is, they want Mueller to release his findings as late as possible in order to influence the November primaries. Here’s what Cuomo asked Pelosi:
“To Joshua’s question, when we get closer to the election, you wind up having a new problem with the probe, which is, what does Mueller do? If he gets too close, there are DOJ guidelines that says he has to wait until after the elections before anything comes out. Do you believe that Mueller should put out whatever he has before the election to give voters some sense of where he is?”
Pelosi’s answer? “Well, I think that Mueller should do what he thinks is right.”
Never mind that, as Cuomo said, Mueller is required by law to “provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.” But illegality has never really been a problem in the Democratic playbook, has it?
Mueller is grasping at straws and chasing white rabbits – that’s why he hasn’t found any proof of collusion yet. But Democrats still aren’t over the 2016 election, and they’ll do whatever it takes to make it “right,” even if that means illegally making up nonsense.
Ciao…….Helen and Moe LauzierThus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2018/05/www_25.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment