JUST IN: Acting AG Whitaker Says Mueller’s Investigation “Close
to Being Completed”
Acting Attorney General Matthew
Whitaker said in a presser on Monday that he has been fully briefed on
Mueller’s investigation and that it is close to being completed.
“I’ve
been fully briefed on the investigation and I look forward to Director Mueller
delivering the final report,” Whitaker said.
“The
investigation is, I think, close to being completed, and I hope that we can get
the report from Mueller as soon as we — as possible,” Whitaker added. Robert
Mueller was appointed special counsel by DAG Rod Rosenstein in May of 2017 to
investigate if Donald Trump colluded with the Russians during the 2016
presidential election.
Mueller
is also seeking to ‘get Trump’ on obstruction of justice charges for exercising
his Presidential authority when he fired James Comey as FBI Director.
A
crime was never even named and we still have not seen Rosenstein’s scope memo
which gave Mueller the ability to rove around as a rogue prosecutor.
Mueller’s
team of lawyers is a who’s who of angry Democrat donors seeking to destroy
Trump because he stopped Queen Hillary’s coronation.
Mueller’s
crime spree disguised as an investigation has churned out indictments over
process crimes.
Flynn,
Cohen, Manafort, Papadopoulos and Stone have all been charged for making false
statements or charged with crimes totally unrelated to Russian collusion.
Mueller’s corrupt report on
Trump will be used as fodder to further destroy Trump’s presidency.
Sidney
Powell is an expert of Department of Justice corruption and has followed the
career of Democrat hatchetman Andrew Weissmann who has destroyed thousands of
lives during his career as federal prosecutor only to see his cases overturned
years later by superior court rulings.
Sidney Powell wrote LICENSED
TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice after seeing a core group of
federal prosecutors break all the rules, make up crimes, hide evidence, and
send innocent people to prison in the Enron case.
On
Sunday Mark Levin and Sidney Powell discussed the upcoming release of the
Mueller report.
Sidney warned that the report, which will
likely be authored by Andrew Weissmann, will destroy Trump. That is the goal
and that is why Democrats are looking forward to its release.
Bernie Disses Hillary Clinton When Asked If He Will Seek Her
Advice For His 2020 Presidential Bid “I Think Not”
Socialist Senator Bernie
Sanders (VT) appeared on the “The View” Friday morning and dissed Hillary
Clinton when Meghan McCain asked him if he would be seeking Clinton’s advice
for his 2020 Presidential bid.
“We’re
hearing about a lot of Democratic candidates who are meeting with Hillary
Clinton for advice like people like Amy Klobuchar — do you think you’ll do the
same?” McCain asked Bernie.
“I
suspect not…no, she has not called me,” Sanders said. “Look we have fundamental
differences.”
When
McCain pressed Bernie on if he will seek advice from her he responded, “I think
not — Hillary and I have fundamental differences.”
Hillary
Clinton completely took over the DNC in 2016 and rigged the primaries in her
favor — leaked DNC emails which ended up on WikiLeaks showed how the Dems
screwed over Bernie Sanders.
Although
Bernie Sanders eventually buried the hatchet and campaigned for Hillary Clinton
for the last few months of the 2016 presidential campaign, it appears there may
still be some bad blood.
Who Comes after Trump?
Halfway through President Trump's first
term in office, the jury is still out on his effectiveness in his quest to
"make America great again."
Trump has had some apparent successes: the
confirmation of Supreme Court justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the opening of
relations and denuclearization talks with North Korea, a national tax cut, and
a simplified set of tax deductions.
He has, however, failed to pull the U.S.
out of NATO. Though he has announced troop reductions in Afghanistan
and Syria, he has not yet ended American involvement in either
war. And in his biggest humiliation to date, Trump brazenly promised
to shut down the government for "years" if necessary to build the
wall on the southern border but capitulated after only weeks.
The fact that Trump was willing to even
mention these issues in public — along with his opposition to abortion and gun
control — has been a victory of sorts for conservatives, given the alternative.
Until now, the fact that Trump is
"not Hillary" has been enough. But it will not be enough
forever. If the election of 2016 was the "Flight 93 Election" (as Michael Anton wrote in the Claremont Review
of Books under the pseudonym Publius Decius Mus), a vote for Trump was a
no-brainer. Had Hillary stormed the cockpit and seized the controls,
America as we understood it would have been finished. At this point
in his presidency, it might be said that Trump wrestled control of the left
seat and has succeeded in keeping the plane stable and level, but it is not clear
that he knows how to land it (a possibility Anton admitted in his essay) — and
the terrorists are still beating on the cockpit door, trying to break it
down.
Trump could lose his grip on the yoke in a
number of ways. He could be impeached; he could lose in 2020; he
could — God forbid — be the victim of a Deep State plot worse than what the FBI
and Department of Justice have already attempted to do to him.
He could be re-elected and serve a second
term. But the probability of that happening is hardly guaranteed.
Whatever happens, it is worth asking:
"Who comes after Trump?"
We know what comes
after Trump if the Democrats gain control. The Trump presidency, be
it a success or failure in terms of fulfilling his stated campaign promises,
has had the salutary effect of unmasking the Democrats.
They have revealed themselves as the party
of late-term abortion if not infanticide; the party of using the national security state apparatus to spy
on political opponents and attempt to overturn elections; the party of violating attorney-client privilege to get an opponent; the party
of radical gays and transgenderism; the party of radical gun control and Australian-style forcible gun confiscation; the party of anti-white racial demagoguery and "reparations" for slavery; the party of hate crime hoaxes; the party of open borders, unlimited immigration,
and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the party of seventy- to ninety-percent income taxes on the rich; the party of socialized
medicine and making private insurance illegal; the party of outlawing all fossil fuels
(and eliminating airline travel) within ten years, and the party of telling people not to have children to "save the planet."
In other words, they are the party of
unlimited socialist dictatorship — the United States Constitution, the
enumerated powers, and the Bill of Rights be damned.
But who comes after Trump on the right, to
continue his efforts to stave off the disaster that a Democratic-controlled
government will surely bring?
Here, the situation is almost equally
grave. To a large extent, Trump is a man without a
party. Republican support for Trump has been tepid at best, if not
outright hostile. Failed 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney's
first public act as U.S. senator from Utah was not to call out the baby-killers
and the gun-grabbers in the Democratic Party, but rather to disparage
Trump. The Republican Party lost its biggest House majority since
the 1920s in last year's midterms and barely hung on to the
Senate. Speaker Paul Ryan failed to deliver border wall funding for
Trump before voluntarily leaving office — the second Republican speaker in a
row to simply quit rather than continue the fight. (Contrast that
with the indefatigable Nancy Pelosi, who like a vampire rose from the crypt to
reclaim the title of speaker after losing it in 2010). The
Republicans have proven to be the party of go-along-to-get-along country-clubbers,
not political street fighters.
It is, in fact, useful to think of Trump
not so much as a Republican, but as if he were a third-party candidate who came
out of nowhere and won the presidency to the surprise of both established
parties.
The last actual third-party candidate to
do that was Lincoln, the first president from the then-upstart Republican Party
in 1860. Lincoln's victory put the Whigs out of business forever —
but it also sparked the Civil War and ultimately cost him his life. Nonetheless,
Lincoln's Republicans went on to national dominance, wining fourteen of
eighteen presidential elections between 1860 and 1928.
But it is far from clear that Trump has
Lincolnesque coattails. Trump was sui generis in
2016. He had money and name recognition, two things needed to
succeed in politics. Most candidates need the media and a party to
supply those things; Trump didn't. How many other people out there
have Trump's notoriety, money, pugilistic attitude, and willingness to take on
The System if Trump fails — or is taken out? Who else is willing to
sacrifice his own money and public image to the unfathomable abuse the left and
the media have heaped upon Trump?
No one that I am aware
of. Trump needs to establish a long-term movement and a permanent
majority — and it is not certain that he is able to do
so. Meanwhile, demographics are steadily favoring a Democratic
future.
With Democrats in control of the House, it
is evident that Trump's wall to stop illegal immigration will not get
built. Nor will legal immigration be limited — in
fact, Trump is in favor of it. Yet immigration, both legal and
illegal, will eventually flip Texas and Florida blue and ensure Democratic
hegemony for the foreseeable future.
So the question remains: will the Trump presidency
"make America great again," or will it be a temporary stay of
execution from what the Democrats have planned the next time they gain power?
The stakes remain as high for 2020 as they
were in 2016. Maybe higher.
America itself still hangs in the balance.
The Blurry Line between
Party and Country
The latest summit between President Trump
and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un highlights the ever-increasing chasm between
Democrats and Republicans. The rivalry and animosity has become so intense
between warring political factions that the economy/employment, energy
production, world events and international relations are no longer judged by
the big-picture yardstick of whether or not it’s good for the country, but
instead, through the myopic, competitive lens of how any particular development
or occurrence affects one’s favored political allies.
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on
December 7th, 1941, there was an immediate patriotic rush to enlist
in the armed forces and strike back at the enemy. People weren’t asking what
party you belonged to, nor were the major media outlets (in those days, radio
and newspapers) questioning whether Pearl Harbor was actually the fault of
Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt. There was some muted criticism of his
handling of Japanese relations in the months leading up to the attack, but it
did not dominate the media coverage.
Likewise, when the Soviets placed
offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba in October 1962, everyone in this country --
Republicans and Democrats alike -- was transfixed and riveted on the crisis,
hoping that President John F. Kennedy could extricate us from the mess and find
a way out that spared the world from a potentially disastrous nuclear exchange.
There was exceedingly little talk of “this was a Democratic President’s fault.”
Instead, there was an overriding feeling within the country that we -- as one
nation -- had to be successful.
As recently as 9/11/01, the country
reacted as one to the terror attacks on the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon
and Flight 93 in Shanksville, PA. The anger over the attack was almost
universally directed at the attackers and their mastermind, Osama Bin Laden.
Who can forget the image of our Washington D.C. lawmakers, standing as one
body, singing God Bless America in the immediate aftermath of the attack?
Does anyone think that such a show of
national unity would be repeated today?
The first thing that would happen in the
event of another crippling multi-thousand-casualty terror attack would be
party-based finger-pointing:
“Trump is
more interested in giving tax cuts to his rich buddies than he is in keeping
the country safe.”
“Yesterday’s
terror attack highlights the Democrats’ weakness on national security.”
Today, seemingly every comment or analysis
is party-based. Since President Trump is a Republican, any positive results
from his policies that benefit the entire country -- or worse yet, accrue
largely to the benefit of a Democratic voting bloc -- are either ignored by
Democratic politicians and the Democratic-leaning media or dismissed by them as
not resulting from his administration’s actions at all.
There are many such examples:
Black, Hispanic and female unemployment is
at an all-time low, yet because it’s the result of President Trump’s
common-sense business-friendly policies, it’s overlooked.
The stock market, GDP growth/job creation
and energy production -- real indicators of the general quality of life for
average Americans -- are all uniformly excellent, but because these positive
developments are occurring under the Trump administration, no Democratic
politician or commentator will credit President Trump’s policies with any of
these positive results, lest such public credit strengthen Trump’s electoral
chances in 2020. The Pelosis and Schumers of the world would rather see their
constituencies suffer a reduced quality of life than give President Trump any
credit at all. Let that thought settle in.
The liberal media and hyperpartisan
Democratic politicians openly root for President Trump to be unsuccessful when
he meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un or China’s Premier Li Keqiang or
when he meets with a NATO country or a Middle East oil producer. President
Trump’s political enemies would actually rather see an adversarial foreign
nation continue to be a destabilizing threat on the world stage or for France
to criticize us or for Saudi Arabia to raise oil prices than to cede any credit
to President Trump for improving an international situation. Democrats will
gladly accept a disadvantageous foreign policy circumstance for America if it
means gaining political advantage over the Republicans.
The same holds true with border security.
Democrats are well-documented as being in favor of a physical wall and strong
border security as recently as during the Obama administration, but now that
President Trump wants the wall, the Democrats are against it, wailing in their
pathetically disingenuous voice that it’s “immoral” as they hide in their
walled-in private residences. The Democrats -- bolstered by the Democratically-dominated
media, as always -- would gladly take uncontrolled illegal immigration with all
of its drugs, violence, and negative economic upheaval to the country’s
detriment than allow President Trump to achieve what they deem is a political
“victory.”
Although throughout history both
Republicans and Democrats have been guilty at times of allowing party-based
favoritism to take precedence over national common interests, there is very
little question that today such behavior is far more prevalent and deeply-held
among Democrats. Their open personal disdain and their nonacceptance of Donald
Trump’s legitimacy as President has no previous analogue in modern American
political history. While Republicans certainly didn’t hide their disregard for
the hapless Jimmy Carter, the slick-talking, womanizing Bill Clinton or the
socialist/politically-correct, anti-military Barack Obama, the presence of
those Democratic presidents just motivated Republicans to offer a stronger
candidate next time and endeavor to defeat the Democrats within the rules -- by
winning the election.
Democrats -- office-holders, liberal media
members and rabid partisan supporters alike -- would much rather see President
Trump “fail,” even if that means that the economy worsens, employment prospects
for their pet constituencies decline, the country becomes less safe and we
become more dependent on unstable, anti-American foreign sources of energy, as
long as that failure and its concomitant short-term misery portends a
near-future Democratic Presidential victory. And they will rationalize and
justify their own behavior all day long, indefensible and disgraceful as such
behavior is.
Today’s Democrats epitomize the lowest
standard of political conduct: “Party before Country.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment