Putting a little method to the Democrat madness

Featured

Democrat Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo extends “Stay Home, Work Safe” orders until 10 June 2020

As reported by the Houston ABC affiliate KTRK, Democrat Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo issued a ruling by judicial fiat:

idiotinamaskHarris County Judge Lina Hidalgo is expected to sign an order that will extend the county’s ‘Stay Home, Work Safe’ order until June 10.

Her office said the order will align with Gov. Greg Abbott’s current order. On Monday, Abbott announced additional reopenings that included bars and professional sports.

The decision has sparked an online debate, with some saying Hidalgo is trying to keep people safe, while others say the time has come to get on with our lives.

Earlier this month, Hidalgo issued a stay-at-home order just two days after the statewide stay-at-home order expired Thursday April 30. That has since expired on Wednesday.

In a tweet posted by Hidalgo, she wrote, “This is no time to tempt fate. As folks settle into a new normal please remember we don’t have a cure, and people are still getting sick. Keep yourself and your family safe by social distancing as best as you can and avoiding unnecessary contacts.”

Hidalgo19MayTweet

(Read more at the left-leaning KTRK)

This probably has more to do with convincing the population to vote by mail

When we consider the ways Democrat forces have worked to raise fear of  COVID-19, we could count:

From this pattern of trying to scare the American people and provide no hope, what will Democrats do?

We can see an overall pattern of trying to scare the population. But to what end? One possible end would be to push the use of mail-in ballots.

That’s right. Democrats think that you can stand in line at the grocery store and stand in line at the post office, but you cannot stand in line to vote.

Mail-in ballots have at least these shortcomings:

Additionally, Harris County Democrats have made certain that the fox is guarding the hen house

As reported in the Houston Chronicle explains that the bumbling Harris County Clerk Diane Trautman got Christopher Hollins (vice chairman for the Texas Democrat party) appointed as the interim Harris County Clerk.

A Houston lawyer and Texas Democratic Party official will serve as interim Harris County Clerk, taking the reins two months before voters cast ballots in primary runoffs in July.

Christopher Hollins
Christopher Hollins

Commissioners Court on Tuesday voted 3-2 along party lines to appoint Christopher Hollins, vice chairman for the state Democratic party. He will serve until a new clerk can be elected in November.

Incumbent Diane Trautman, who was elected in 2018, announced May 9 she would step down because of health issues. Trautman’s last day is May 31; Hollins will start the following day.

County Judge Lina Hidalgo and Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis said Hollins’ pledge to serve only on an interim basis factored in their decision.

“I’m committing to him with the understanding that he will bring his skill set to running the best election we can, for the sake of our county and democratic rights of all the residents, and not focusing on advancing personal political ambitions,” Hidalgo said.

Hollins, 33, was selected after 10 p.m., more than 12 hours after Commissioners Court convened, and did not address the body. He said in a statement Wednesday morning he was grateful for the opportunity.

(Read more at the Houston Chronicle)

Let’s see how appointing the chairman of the committee to defeat Lt. Governor Dan Patrick as election clerk over Dan Patrick’s district goes

Considering that Christopher Hollins most recently lead the committee to defeat Republican Dan Patrick and, now, he oversees the election in that politician’s district — it seems like there is a possibility for dirty tricks.

The Left uses the coronavirus scare to restrict rights and advance leftist causes

Featured

American Rights have been abridged

New Orleans Mayor issues coronavirus order allowing ban on sale, transportation of firearms

Breitbart reports on the action of the New Orleans Mayor as she works to restrict the ability of citizens to protect themselves during this crisis.

NewOrleansMayorLaToyaCantrellNew Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell (D) signed a coronavirus emergency order last week allowing her to ban the sale and transportation of firearms.

She signed a follow-up proclamation on March 16, 2020, further emphasizing her emergency powers to “suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation, of alcoholic beverages.”

The declaration declaring the mayor’s power to restrict gun sales and transportation says she is “empowered, if necessary, to suspend or limit the sale of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles.”

On March 16, 2020, the Second Amendment Foundation responded to Cantrell’s claims of emergency powers over firearms by reminding her that they sued over Second Amendment infringement following Hurricane Katrina and will do so during the era of coronavirus if needed.

(Read more at Breitbart)

What could the reason for this ban be, other than symbolic?

This does not stop any law-abiding gun owner from protecting his or her property. However, it might keep a cash-strapped gun owner from paying his or her mortgage or rent in the event that there have been coronavirus-related layoffs. Additionally, it would prevent a law-abiding person from buying a firearm in a time of need.

However, there will be criminals in New Orleans with new guns. There may be coyotes selling an array of firearms not available legally and LaToya will not have a thing to say about it.

Still, now that she has pulled this little stunt, she will later produce a Mike-Bloomberg-esque commercial claiming that she stood up to the National Rifle Association.

Harris County Democrat Judge Lina Hidalgo restricts the operation of restaurants and closes bars

Houston CBS affiliate KHOU reports that Democrat Lina Hidalgo unilaterally closed all bars in Harris county and restricted the operation of all restaurants.

On Tuesday, bars closed in Harris County and restaurants switched to take-out, drive-through or delivery only. Those are just two of the big changes underway as officials try to slow to spread of COVID-19.

On Monday, Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, alongside Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, announced the changes would take effect Tuesday morning and will be in place at least 15 days.

Since the county is under a public health emergency declaration, the county does have the authority to close down businesses, according to KHOU 11 legal analyst Gerald Treece.

“If the county deems that there is a health emergency, the county has the authority to close any establishment, including a bar,” Treece said. “You put the rules in neutral and general police power takes over. General police power: to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of that jurisdiction.”

During this time, if a business refuses to comply, the county does have authority to fine an establishment and then take the owner to court to seek an injunction, which would shut a business down, according to Treece.

If there are widespread compliance issues, the National Guard could step in.

“They can prevent violence, they can enforce the law, including injunctions, including an order from the city or county,” Treece said.

(Read more at KHOU)

Take this with a grain of salt, since this order comes from a left-wing ideologue

Before you come to the defense of this woman, remember that Houston Public Media pointed out that this little dictator also dedicated taxpayer funds to the creation of an illegal alien defense fund without any public input. On multiple occasions, she has spoken out against the border wall (a stance that has disappeared online now that the poll suggesting that Americans favor an open border has been discredited).

Additionally, Ms. Hidlago can be remembered as the politician who allocated Hurricane Harvey’s disaster-recovery funds on the basis of skin color rather than damage, citing her theory of “equity.” What’s more, this egotistical, left-wing Millennial also answers to  the moniker of the liberal who attempted to triple Harris County’s property taxes just after a disaster and during a time that no no extra funds were needed (refer to the first paragraph regarding her creation of the illegal alien defense fund).

So, here you have a liberal who stands against the border wall (somewhat silently now), but builds borders around our bars and restaurants. She complains about equiity, but directs disaster-relief funds by skin color and not need. She wants to take from the rich (that is, anyone making over the median wage), but doesn’t mind making us all poor.

Although I do not support disobedience in this case, it seems that this liberal would stand much watching (just based on her track record). Remember, Jesus told us to be as innocent as doves and as wise as serpents.

Is this the new standard Democrat?

Previous Democrats issued subpoenas for pastors’ sermons, this one shuts down all churches with an order

Not that many years have passed since Mayor Annise Parker issued subpeonas to Houston-area pastors to intimidate them into not preaching against her transgender bathroom bill. Thankfully, Annise Parker lost in the courts of public opinion, in the ballot box over her bathroom bill, and in the separation of church and state decision.

Still, this blanket closing of all churches seems to be an overreach and the meeting of the goal imagined by Houston’s previous mayoral administration. Admittedly, as Christians, we must take into mind the needs of the least powerful among us. In this case, the least powerful would be those with compromised immune systems and the aged (which, depending on the person’s health, may vary from 65 to 85 as a in-risk group). The problem with just submitting to the whims of a dictatorial Millenial is, of course, that we may not be submitting to the will of God unless we submit the whole issue to prayer.

Additionally, in light of the following article, we have to ask whether we are praying to God or our own hubris.

Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before stumbling. (Proverbs 16:18 NASB)

Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. (James 1:27 NASB)

Baton Rouge area pastor defies governor, welcomes large gathering into church service

Baton Rouge CBS affiliate WAFB reports that Reverand Tony Spell has chosen to hold church meetings in violation of the order by the governor of Louisiana.

The Louisiana National Guard says it has not been tasked with breaking up large gatherings in the state, including at churches.

The statement comes on the heels of a pastor of a Louisiana church defying government orders by welcoming in hundreds of people into his church service Tuesday evening (March 17).

The gathering directly defied an order by Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards that bans groups larger than 50 from gathering at any one time, including in churches. President Donald Trump has recommended no groups larger than 10.

TonySpellThe pastor, Rev. Tony Spell, says police showed up at the church after the service telling him the National Guard would break up any future gatherings that exceed 50 people.

However, Louisiana National Guard Colonel Ed Bush said Wednesday that is not accurate.

“The National Guard has not been tasked with enforcing any of the curfew, social distancing or meeting requirements as set by the governor,” Colonel Bush said. “Our focus right now is completely with helping state agencies with preparedness and medical readiness,” Bush added.

Numerous churches across the state have canceled services until further notice because of the governor’s proclamation, which he says aims to control the spread of the virus.

(Read more at WAFB)

Leftist causes get promoted

Harris Co. considers releasing inmates over COVID-19 concerns

According to Houston’s Fox affiliate, Democrat Sheriff Ed Gonzales wants to open the jails due to the coronavirus.

Jails and prisons can be breeding grounds for disease.

EdGonzales“We do have an aging population here we have several hundred that are above 55 years of age and also very sick,” said Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez.

With more than 8,000 inmates at Harris County Jail, social distancing is not possible.

“We operate in tight spaces,” the sheriff said. “So there’s not a lot of opportunity for social distancing.”

There have been no known cases of COVID-19 in the Harris County Jail, but that will likely change.

Remember, most inmates in the jail are pre-trial, meaning they have not been convicted of a crime.

“We are working on our compassionate releases that are smart, that make sense, that don’t put the community at harm,” Gonzalez said. “It’s important for us to balance this public health crisis with public safety. So we are working with our judges and other avenues to see how we could, in a smart way, release population, if it makes sense.”

“There are no cases of TDCJ in or connected to any TDCJ facility,” says TDCJ spokesman Jeremy Desel.

(Read more at Fox 26)

Take in mind I have blogged repeatedly about murderers being released on bail

On numerous occasions, I have blogged about the result of electing the social justice judges who continually let murderers and other violent criminals out on the streets based on their inability to pay for the bail bond that a sane justice system would require.

Just in case you have forgotten, there was the case where Chicago’s Mayor defended the release of an illegal alien who raped a 3-year-old.

There is the case in Houston where a man on bond for murder robbed a convenience store while wearing an ankle monitor. During that armed robbery, surveillance cameras show him jumping over the counter and threatening the clerk with a gun. This man has been accused of murder in 2017 and 2018.

On 14 February 2020, I blogged about seven stories that concerned the numbers and types of criminals released by our Democrat judges.

As early as 7 February 2020, I blogged about a career criminal who killed three family members because he was out on bail.

So, if these past blog posts warm your heart, get ready for more (thanks not only to the social justice District Attorney Kim Ogg and the social justice Democrat judges, but also the social justice Sheriff Ed Gonzalez).

Not to be outdone by Texas, New York Democrats release inmates

With a hat tip to sfcmac, we find from the New York Post that New York Democrats have announced the release of inmates from city jails.

Mayor Bill de Blasio plans to release “vulnerable” inmates from city jails to prevent the spread of the coronavirus pandemic into local lockups, he said Wednesday.

“In the next 48 hours, we will identify any inmates who need to be brought out because of either their own health conditions — if they have any pre-existing conditions, etc. — or because the charges were minor and we think it’s appropriate to bring them out in this context,” de Blasio said on WCBS radio Wednesday evening.

“That said, we still need our criminal justice system to function,” he added.

The announcement comes as a correction officer and an inmate both tested positive for the deadly illness in the past day.

The Correction Officers Benevolent Association union has called for new masks to protect its members and for all new detainees to be housed in facilities other than Rikers Island amid the outbreak.

Some city officials, including Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, have pushed for the city to begin releasing prisoners who are over 50 years old and at a low risk for reoffending.

(Read more at the New York Post)

What can I say?

I could ask that New York keep their criminals where they should be; however, the moving of criminals where they should be to other places seems to be the entire point of the article above.

The only thing I might suggest would probably be an impossibility in New York: vote conservative.

Twelve stories that show the danger of Sanders


  1. Sanders says he was briefed on Russian effort to help campaign

The Hill reports that Bernie Sanders knows that Russians have schemed to help his campaign.

BernieScreamsSen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Friday acknowledged that he was briefed by U.S. intelligence officials about Russian attempts to interfere in the 2020 elections, with The Washington Post reporting that Russia has sought to help his presidential campaign.

The Post’s report was published the day after The New York Times reported that House lawmakers were told by U.S. officials last week that Russia was also attempting to interfere in the 2020 elections to help the campaign of President Trump.

Sanders told reporters on the campaign trail Friday that he was briefed on Russian interference efforts “about a month ago,” speculating that the news of potential Russian interference efforts came out now because it was on the eve of the Nevada caucuses.

“It was not clear what role they were going to play. We were told that Russia, maybe other countries, are gonna get involved in this campaign,” Sanders said.

“The ugly thing that they are doing, and I’ve seen some of their tweets and stuff, is they try to divide us up. That’s what they did in 2016,” he added.

Sanders described Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “thug” in a statement on Friday, emphasizing that he stands “firmly against” Russian interference efforts.

(Read more at The Hill)

Other reports have Sanders claiming no involvement by the Russians

Other sources suggest that Sanders either denies or deflects any suggestion that Russians might be influencing people to vote for him (as we have heard about President Trump by the main stream media for over four years). This, along with a lack of questions from the main stream media on how many of his policies will limit our rights and kill our economy, show how journalists are actively covering for Bernie Sanders.

However, if the “journalists” wanted to scare up the real sleeper Soviet agents, why don’t they look at the guy who recently praised Fidel, who honeymooned in Moscow, and who claimed Russian-style bread lines were a good thing?

  1. Washington Post reports Russian help for Bernie

Townhall points to the Washington Post as they report on Russian help for the Bernie campaign.

Bernie_SandersAre we seeing a pattern here yet, liberal media? Are we starting to get it when it comes to Russia? No. You people are still a bunch of insufferable morons on this stuff. For years, you thought the Trump campaign and the Kremlin colluded during the 2016 election, despite there being zero evidence to back up that allegation. It was a myth. It was a hoax. It was based on a shoddy piece of political opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign that was exposed as bunk not by one, but two reports. Ex-Special Counsel Robert Mueller trashed it as did the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Still, the Left has been consumed by Russophobia. Collusion delusion is still a thing, but now the shots are being fired inside the ship. U.S. officials informed Sen. Bernie Sanders, the frontrunner for the 2020 Democratic nomination, that the Russians are trying to help his campaign (via WaPo):

U.S. officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia is attempting to help his presidential campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic contest, according to people familiar with the matter.

President Trump and lawmakers on Capitol Hill have also been informed about the Russian assistance to the Vermont senator, according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.

It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken. U.S. prosecutors found a Russian effort in 2016 to use social media to boost Sanders campaign against Hillary Clinton, part of a broader effort to hurt Clinton, sow dissension in the American electorate and ultimately help elect Donald Trump.

“I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president,” Sanders said in a statement to The Washington Post. “My message to Putin is clear: stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.

That’s it. Based on the Left’s rules on this nonsense, Bernie is a Russian agent. His trips to the USSR in the past were really meetings with his KGB handlers.

(Read more at Townhall)

It seems only fair that chants of “Bernie, Bernie, Bernie” should be countered with “Russia, Russia, Russia”

sandershoneymooninMoscowPhotos of Bernie in his underwear at a Russian restaurant should be unfurled at every Bernie rally. Chants of “Russia, Russia, Russia” should meet Bernie as he enters the stage.

Just to be fair, the protesters should also include some of Bernie’s words of wisdom like “bread lines can be a good thing,” “wartime occasionally necessitated undemocratic measures,” and other choice bits of knowledge.

  1. Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez push bill to ‘ban fracking nationwide’ by 2025

Breitbart reported in a 3 February 2020 article that Sanders and AOC want to ban fracking by 2025.

oilfieldAn anti-fracking bill crafted by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) aims to end the practice altogether, making it illegal “on all onshore and offshore land in the United States” by Jan. 1, 2025.

Left-wing actor Mark Ruffalo teased the bill last week, allowing Sanders to jokingly knock him for “ruining the surprise” of the new fracking legislation.

“I don’t mind if @MarkRuffalo spoils his own movies. But please, don’t ruin the surprise of our new legislation with Rep. @AOC, @SenJeffMerkley and @RepDarrenSoto,” Sanders wrote with an accompanying clip of the Avengers actor evidently “spoiling” the upcoming legislation:

The bill, according to the Hillaims to end fracking altogether, revoking permits for “wells where fracking takes place and that are within 2,500 feet of a home, school or other ‘inhabited structure’” beginning February 1, 2021. It would also “immediately prevent federal agencies from issuing federal permits for expanded fracking, new fracking, new pipelines, new natural gas or oil export terminals and other gas and oil infrastructure.”

It would make the practice, which Ocasio-Cortez has identified as the “leading contributor to our climate emergency,” illegal by January 1, 2025.

“Fracking is a danger to our water supply. It’s a danger to the air we breathe, it has resulted in more earthquakes, and it’s highly explosive,” Sanders said in a statement, according to the Hill. To top it all off, it’s contributing to climate change.”

“If we are serious about clean air and drinking water, if we are serious about combating climate change, the only safe and sane way to move forward is to ban fracking nationwide,” he continued.

Critics of Sanders have defended the practice, warning that its elimination would “spike household energy costs and hurt farmers and manufacturers.”

American Petroleum Institute spokeswoman Bethany Aronhalt told the Hill:

Banning a safe, successful method of developing energy would erase a generation of American energy progress and in the process destroy millions of U.S. jobs, spike household energy costs and hurt farmers and manufacturers.

“Thanks to fracking, the United States is the global leader in reducing carbon emissions,” Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) tweeted in response to the announcement:

Sanders has long maintained the need for the elimination of fracking, promising to ban it during his presidential bid in 2016.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Rather than banning fracking, maybe start by forcing all socialists to register their party affiliation at their employers

Maybe even the union leadership might want to know who has decided to vote away their Cadillac-health care packages. Surely the owners of the bus company or trucking company might want to know who voted to exponentially increase their costs of operation (electric buses and semi-trucks don’t fall off of the lemon tree). What’s more, I am sure that the biggest employers in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Louisiana would be interested in who voted to put them out of business.

  1. Bernie Sanders has already drafted ‘dozens of executive orders’ to bypass Congress if elected President

Lifezette pointed out in a 30 January 2020 article that Bernie had already drafted dozens of executive orders to bypass Congress.

BernieTweetDisturbing campaign documents have just come to light showing that 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ staffers have already begun preparing “dozens of executive orders” so that he can bypass Congress in the first days of his presidency, should he win the election in November.

The documents, which were obtained by the Washington Post, show that Sanders’ has executive orders prepared on a wide range of issues that include the environment, immigration, and the economy.

Sanders’ team has prepared over a dozen options for reversing President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, with one of them being the immediate halting of construction on the border wall. Another potential executive order would remove the limit for the number of refugees that could be admitted to the United States, while a third would reinstate Barack Obama’s DREAMER program, which granted legal status to undocumented immigrants who were brought to this country as children.

This is just the beginning of the executive orders that Sanders has planned. One order legalizes marijuana in the entirety of the United States, and another would allow the U.S. to import prescription drugs from Canada. Sanders would also declare climate change to be a national emergency as soon as he took office, and he would ban the export of crude oil.

This shows that Sanders is anticipating that Republicans will keep control of the Senate come November, and that he has no intention of letting this stop him from achieving his radical agenda.

Another document obtained by the post was written by Faiz Shakir, Sanders’s campaign manager; Warren Gunnels, a senior adviser; and Josh Orton, the campaign policy director, who all urge him to use the executive orders to undo the many “wrongs” of Trump’s presidency.

“We cannot accept delays from Congress on some of the most pressing issues, especially those like immigration where Trump has governed with racism and for his own corrupt benefit,” they said.

(Read more at Lifezette)

For all who claimed Trump to be a dictator, they had better speak up here

For all of the freedom-loving people who protested Obama’s and Trump’s use of executive order, I hope that you will stand up against this misuse of executive power.

However, I also have a number of issues against the things that it seems that Mr. Sanders would write his orders on. On these items, there are several contentions that I have with Mr. Sanders’ issue on the “Muslim ban.” First, Mr. Sanders knows that the restriction on travel to the United States only held back peoples from countries that acted as sources of terrorism (Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea, and Venezuela). Second, for Mr. Sanders to call this a “Muslim ban” ignores the majority religions of the last two countries on the list.

Regarding the rest of your laundry list of executive orders, Mr. Sanders, you need to go to Congress to propose laws and have them work their way through Congress. Despite your adoration of socialism, this is not a dictatorship, yet.

  1. A problem in the Nevada caucuses

Townhall mentions through a 22 February 2020 article the problems in the Nevada caucuses.

The results during the Iowa Caucuses were nothing shy of a mess and a large part of that had to do with the math worksheets used to calculate how delegates were awarded. There appeared to be some rounding errors and confusion about what happens when the number of potential delegates a precinct had versus how many were actually awarded.

Fast forward a few weeks later and we’re seeing issues yet again. This time they’re somewhat math-based.

According to MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki, Democratic voters’ initial preferences were for Sen. Bernie Sanders (35 percent), former Vice President Joe Biden (17 percent) and former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg (15 percent). Once votes had to be reallocated, Sanders’ preference spiked to 42 percent, Biden’s jumped to 19 percent and Buttigieg remained the same. Those numbers were based on 10 spotters throughout the state. As of now the Democratic Party has yet to call any precincts.

The National Election Pool, a consortium of various media outlets, have reporters stationed across the Silver State. According to Kornacki, six reporters have reported issues with the caucus process.

“They have reports from six of their reporters, six of their reporters out of 63 sites that they have these reporters at. Six out of 63 or about 10 percent, who have said that they have witnessed issues at precincts with incorporating the early vote with the same-day caucus activity,” the MSNBC reporter explained. “Remember, 75,000 early votes cast statewide. They’re trying to take those results from folks who voted days ago and merge it with what’s happening in real-time with the people who show up and break up with these groups. So at 10 percent of these locations where the National Election Pool has folks witnessing this activity, they say they have been seeing this issue.”

Kornacki said those issues could be part of the reason the Nevada Democratic Party has failed to call any precincts. The projects are based on spotters who watched the vote take place, recorded the results and called it into the National Election Pool.

(Read more at Townhall)

The article above more accurately points to a Democrat party where nobody got 50% of the votes from socialist Democrats

With Joe Biden in the headlines weeks ago due to his bragging about forcing the Ukraine government into firing the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma and Biden’s son, Hunter — one wonders how many moderates who would have voted for him have now decided to throw in the towel.

Considering that Buttigieg wrote an essay praising the socialist Bernie (or all of the similar answers that came from any of the Democrat contenders at the debates), maybe we should not expect a dime’s worth of difference between Bernie and Mayor Pete.

  1. Three of the five takeaways from the Nevada caucuses

The Hill points to five takeaways it thinks can be derived from the Nevada caucuses. Here are excerpts from the first three takeaways that The Hill supposes.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) won a resounding victory at the Nevada caucuses on Saturday, putting together a coalition of young people, Latinos and working-class voters to cement his status as front-runner in the race for the Democratic nomination.

Here are five takeaways from the Nevada caucuses.

Sanders has a diverse coalition that could carry him to the nomination

In the 2016 primary, Sanders struggled mightily with voters of color, who broke in large numbers for Hillary Clinton and ultimately propelled her to the nomination.

Since then, Sanders has invested heavily in outreach to racial minorities and he’s accumulated a diverse team of dynamic surrogates.

Those efforts are paying off in 2020, as Sanders has built a diverse coalition of Latinos, young people, and union members, who drove him to a huge victory in Nevada, the most diverse state to vote so far.

With 60 percent of precincts reporting, Sanders stood at 46 percent support, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 19.6, former South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 15.3, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 10.1.

And Sanders’s diverse base of support makes him even more imposing heading into Super Tuesday on March 3, when about one-third of the delegates will be allocated, with most of them coming from the racially diverse states of California and Texas.

Rivals have an uphill climb in stopping Sanders after decisive Nevada victory

There is not much positive news coming out of Nevada for the also-rans.

Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg has dramatically outperformed expectations so far, narrowly winning more delegates at the Iowa caucuses and barely falling short in New Hampshire.

But those predominantly white states are not reflective of the racial make-up of the states that have yet to vote. Buttigieg, along with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the third-place finisher in New Hampshire, have not shown an ability to make inroads with voters of color.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) raised an astonishing amount of money in the days since she took down former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg at the Las Vegas debate. But she’s poised to finish a distant fourth place in Nevada, and it’s unclear where she’ll be able to defeat Sanders, who will be looking to win in her home state of Massachusetts on Super Tuesday.

Biden’s support among black voters appears to be on the decline.

Bloomberg has unlimited money and is the only candidate on the airwaves in all 14 Super Tuesday states, but his disastrous debate performance raises real questions about whether he’ll be able to compete.

The Buttigieg and Bloomberg campaigns are already warning that Sanders might be headed for an “insurmountable” delegates lead by March 3.

Democrats are enthusiastic and turning out in record numbers

Democrats can breathe a sigh of relief — the lower than expected turnout for the Iowa caucuses was a mirage.

More than 176,000 people caucused in Iowa earlier this month, a slight increase from 2016, but nothing close to the blowout numbers from 2008, when the Hawkeye State sent former President Obama on his way to the nomination.

Democrats assumed that caucus and primary turnout would be gangbusters, driven by grassroots energy to defeat President Trump.

But New Hampshire painted a different picture, with a record 300,000 people turning out, blowing past the 288,000 who voted in the 2008 primary.

(Read more at The Hill)

In many ways, this paints too rosy a picture for Bernie

However, a too-rosy picture of Bernie might motivate Trump supporters to get off of dead center. That would be one of the better outcomes of this article.

  1. MSNBC contributor calls Bernie supporters racist liberals

One America News Network reports how Jason Johnson called Bernie supporters racist liberals.

An MSNBC contributor sparked backlash this week after he referred to some of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (D-Vt.) campaign staffers as “an island of misfit black girls.”

During a recent interview, Jason Johnson spoke at great length about Sanders’ supporters and, more specifically, the demographics involved.

“I do find it fascinating that racist, liberal whites seem to love them some Bernie Sanders. (They) consistently and always have a problem with any person of color who doesn’t want to follow the orthodoxy of their lord and savior, Bernie Sanders. The man cares nothing for intersectionality. I don’t care how many people from the island of misfit black girls you throw out there to defend you on a regular basis, it doesn’t mean your campaign is serious.” – Jason Johnson, MSNBC contributor

(Read more at the One America News Network)

This assessment fits with the words of the Bernie staffer

If you refer back to the words of Kyle Jurek, Bernie staffer who was recorded by Project Veritas, this assessment somewhat fits.

  1. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews compares Sanders’ Nevada win to France’s fall to Nazis, draws calls for his firing

Fox News relays the words of MSNBC‘s Chris Matthews who suggested Sander’s Nevada win was like the Nazi win over France.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews drew ire on social media Saturday after he compared the Nevada Democratic caucus victory of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders to France’s fall to the Nazis during World War II.

“I’m reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940,” Matthews said during the network’s caucus coverage. “And the general calls up Churchill and says, ‘It’s over,’ and Churchill says, ‘How can it be? You got the greatest army in Europe. How can it be over?’ He said, ‘It’s over.’”

The backlash on Twitter was swift and severe, with many commenters calling for Matthews to resign or be fired. Many pointed out that Sanders’ family includes survivors of the Holocaust.

(Read more at Fox News)

Here, however, Mr. Matthews could have made his point without using a Nazi reference

If he had just said “the race is over” or told a story about the ending of some central event, he could have made the same point. Reference to Nazis cannot be justified.

  1. Buttigieg takes aim at intractable socialist Sanders

Townhall comments on Mayor Pete’s suggestion that Bernie is an intractable socialist.

It did not take long for the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, to target the winner of Saturday’s Democratic caucuses in Nevada. Socialist Bernie Sanders is projected to win a decisive victory in the Silver State, sending the media into a frenzy over renewed concerns that nominating a socialist would all but guarantee a second term for President Trump. In a speech following his apparent loss in Nevada, Buttigieg told a crowd of supporters that nominating Bernie Sanders would not sit well with the American people.

Buttigieg said he believes the best way to defeat President Trump “is to broaden and galvanize the majority that supports [Democrats] on the critical issues.”

“Senator Sanders believes in an inflexible, ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats, not to mention most Americans,” Buttigieg warned. “I believe we can defeat Trump and deliver for the American people by empowering the American people to make their own health care choices with medicare for all who want it. Senator Sanders believes in taking away that choice, removing people from having that option of a private plan and replacing it with a public plan whether you want it or not. … but that is different from Senator Sanders’ vision of capitalism as the root of all evil that would go beyond reform and reorder the economy in ways that most Democrats, not to mention most Americans, don’t support.”

It’s going to be harder for Pete Buttigieg to say most Democrats don’t support the Vermont socialist the longer Sanders remains the party’s front-runner. Buttigieg called for an end to the so-called “viscousness and bullying” of the Trump era, warning that a Sanders’ presidency would only continue the toxicity and polarization of our nation’s politics.

(Read more at Townhall)

Prior to the Bernie wins, Buttigieg and Sanders were singing from the same sheet

In the last few weeks, both Mayor Pete and Bernie suggested that Democrats must be exclusively pro-abortion. Both Mayor Pete and Bernie (and all of the Democrats on the debate stage) want to extend health benefits to illegal aliens.

  1. Bernie Sanders Says U.S. Is Worse than Communist China in Jailing People

Breitbart quotes Bernie Sanders in a 22 February 2020 article where Bernie says the USA is worse than the communist Chinese in jailing people.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said during a rally in Texas on Saturday evening that the United States was worse than Communist China in regards to the number of people in jail — a figure that does not count Muslim Uyghurs and others detained in China’s detention camps.

“This is the United States of America. We should not be having more people in jail than any other country on earth including Communist China four times our size,” the self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist said.

According to the World Prison Brief’s website, the U.S. has more than two million people in jail, while China has 1,700,000 in jail.

However, China’s figure does not count pre-trial detainees and those in administrative detention. The website said that China had more than 650,000 people held in detention centers in China in 2009, and if still true, that would mean the total prison population would be at least 2,350,000 — surpassing the U.S.

NBC News reported in October that approximately a million Uyghur Muslims are detained in China, according to the U.S. government and human rights organizations.

Nonetheless, Sanders suggested the U.S. was worse than China, for its “racist and broken criminal justice system.”

“The people in jail, as everybody here knows, are disproportionately African American, Latino, and Native Americans,” he said.

He said he would invest in more education for kids instead of “more jail and incarceration,” and he would end the cash bail system in the U.S.

(Read more at Breitbart)

This is nothing but a lie

Considering that this lie about the level of jailing is so blatantly false, it is amazing that it comes from the guy who says “the president lies all the time.”

  1. Sarah Sanders warns Trump backers about Bernie’s momentum: ‘We can take nothing for granted’

Fox News quotes Sarah Sanders in a 23 February 2020 article where Sarah Sanders reminds us that we cannot take anything for granted (since we know of the Democrat penchant for election fraud, counting “hanging chads,” and other issues).

Former White House press secretary Sarah Sanders warned supporters of President Trump on Saturday night not to underestimate Sen. Bernie Sanders following his projected victory in the Nevada Democratic caucuses.

“I think [Bernie Sanders] is looking like the presumptive Democrat nominee at this point. He’s certainly moving in that direction,” Sanders said on “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “And I think Republicans have to be extremely careful. We can take nothing for granted at this point. The stakes have literally never been higher.”

Bernie Sanders, who is no relation to Sarah Sanders, will win the Nevada caucuses, Fox News projected Saturday, furthering the democratic socialist’s lead over his Democratic rivals and raising the question of whether he can be stopped on his path to the Democratic nomination.

Sarah Sanders noted the importance of Republicans voting in November to combat Bernie Sanders.

“If crazy socialist Bernie Sanders is the Democrat nominee, as he is well on track to be, literally the way of life and our very freedom is at stake at the election in November and Republicans have to come out in full force and make sure that they get Donald Trump reelected,” Sanders said.

(Read more at Fox News)

As I said before, we must work to the end

We can never take anything for granted. We have to work to the moment that the polls close.

  1. New FEC Filings Show Financial Woes For Democratic Candidates

The Daily Caller reports in a 21 February 2020 article how the FEC filings show how Democrat presidential candidates have experienced financial woes.

Democratic presidential candidates spent more money than they raised in January, new Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings show.

Independent Vermont Bernie Sanders stood out as the leading fundraiser thanks to a high volume of small donations while billionaire Michael Bloomberg continued to spend away, The Washington Post reported. Democratic Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren struggled financially early on but is showing signs of recovering, while the more moderate candidates appear to be sinking financially, Politico added.

Here’s how each campaign did financially.

Bernie Sanders

Sanders, who is the current frontrunner in the race, had the most funds of any non-billionaire candidate going into February with nearly $17 million, according to The Washington Post.

Sanders spent $26 million and raised $25 million in January, with a majority of donations being less than $200, The Post reported. The only other candidate to raise more than $10 million was Warren.

Elizabeth Warren

Warren had a rollercoaster of a month, starting with the lowest amount of money headed into February with only $2.3 million, according to Politico. The shortage of funds led her to pull ads from Nevada and South Carolina while also taking out a $3 million line of credit.

Still, Warren spent the second-most excluding the two billionaire candidates. To help cover this, Warren turned to PACs. Persist PAC was formed Tuesday to help aid her campaign. This is a flip from her previous opposition to taking PAC money. She told reporters that she would support efforts to weaken PACs in the future, but that in the current state of the campaign, taking money from PACs is “how it has to be.”

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

This all sounds good, but we still need to work

If you look at all the numbers (especially Trump’s), this can be encouraging. Still, we don’t need to take anything for granted.

Seven stories on the problem with electing Democrats


  1. District Attorney Kim Ogg calls quoting statistics on her performance “hate speech”

The Houston Chronicle reports on the conflict between District Attorney Kim Ogg and Houston Police Officers’ Union President Joe Gamaldi.

Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg’s campaign on Tuesday criticized the Houston Police Officers Union president for a blog post soliciting donations to a political action committee with the goal of the prosecutor’s re-election defeat.

Ogg told union President Joe Gamaldi in a news release to “get with the program” of keeping residents safe. And she called his post, written for a Febuary 2020 issue of the HPOU publication “Badge & Gun,” a “misguided” attempt to get contributions via inflammatory rhetoric and “hate speech.”

“I ask Mr. Gamaldi to work along with us,” Ogg said. “Instead, he is trying to raise money and play election-year politics while being paid for working as a police officer. His efforts to undermine the District Attorney’s office, which is the people’s law firm in criminal court, does not make anyone safer. Evidence-based prosecution is the way to build community trust in law enforcement.”

Gamaldi responded to the press release on Twitter, criticizing Ogg’s supposed definition of hate speech and alleging — as he did in his blog — that she lets violent criminals off with easy sentences.

“According to DA,when pointing out her countless failures, it equals ‘hate speech,’” he tweeted.

He also challenged her to a debate.

“She should be much more concerned about the implosion of her office than what the union president has to say about her failures,” Gamaldi said in a phone call.

In her press statement attacking Gamaldi’s statements about her, Ogg said she considers law enforcement a partner in her fight to make Harris County safer.

The union’s blog post referenced Ogg and her management team as “nothing short of a train wreck.” He titled the article, “Kim Ogg must go! Here are the early stages of our coordinated Plan to defeat the most criminal-happy district attorney in history”.

“They have completely dismantled a once-proud office and contributed to a revolving-door justice system that reduces the safety of our officers, the community, and erodes the faith of the public in our criminal justice system,” he wrote.

Gamaldi said the union has already begun running targeted digital ads against Ogg and several judges, under the title “Harris County Deserves Better.”

The union this month endorsed its legal counsel, Mary Nan Huffman, in the Republican district attorney primary. It endorsed Todd Overstreet, a long-time criminal defense attorney, in the Democratic primary.

(Read more at the Houston Chronicle)

Thanks, Houston Chronicle for defanging Officer Gamaldi’s arguments by not quoting the statistics

Thanks to the Houston Chronicle for not including the tweets that provide the numbers on Kim Ogg’s failure (even going so far as to call it a blog post). Now I remember why I cancelled my subscription in 1996.

Since this a public safety issue, why didn’t you (Houston Chronicle) include Officer Gamaldi’s numbers on how many offenders Kim Ogg and the social justice judges have released to our streets?

To fill the hole left by the Houston Comical Houston Chronicle, I have included interviews, tweets, and tables that explain the facts.

  1. Listen to the Chris X show as he interviews Joe Gamaldi on the Kim Ogg situation

  1. Joe Gamaldi tweets statistics on Ogg failure

The tweets in this section are the tweets mentioned in the Chris X interview (and the blog post mentioned in the Houston Chronicle article). For all of the tweets, I have included both links to the original Joe Gamaldi tweets and pictures of those tweets (since Twitter has a habit of deleting tweets from conservatives when liberals like Ogg complain).

Because the third tweet is so central, I also took the information of the tweet (a graphic) and split it out into a larger graphic and a table. Hopefully, this will help more people get the information out.

Joe Gamaldi tweet 1 of 4

GamaldiTweet1of4

Joe Gamaldi tweet 2 of 4

GamaldiTweet2of4

Joe Gamaldi tweet 3 of 4

Because the graphic within Joe Gamaldi’s tweet may display a little blurred and because Twitter may delete the tweet, I have both included the graphic from the tweet below and transcribed the numbers of the graphic in a table.

GamaldiTweet3of4

GamaldiNumbers

In the event the tweets are deleted and graphics cannot be found, here are the stats

The following table provides the numbers of Mr. Gamaldi’s graphic.

            # of cases with defendants on Deferred Adjudication / Probation
Offense: Number
Sexual Assault (Agg & Non-Add, Sex Crimes Against Children) 305
Sexual Offender Offenses (Fail to Comply, Fail to Register) 46
Promotion / Compelling Prostitution (Human Trafficking) 35
Murder, Manslaughter, Solicitation of Capital Murder 92
Felony DWI (3rd Offense), DWI w/ a Child (Felony>, Other Felony DWI 1763
Felon Possession of Firearm, Felon Poss of Body Armor 303
Deadly Conduct, Disorderly Conduct (w/ a Weapon) 190
Child Porn (Possess / Distrib), Indecency w/ a Child, Online Solic of a Minor 639
Burglary of Habitation (including Armed Home Invasions) 512
Assault Against Public Servant, Disarming Police Officer 259

Joe Gamaldi tweet 4 of 4

GamaldiTweet4of4

  1. Joe Gamaldi challenges Kim Ogg to a debate. Cricket imitations ensue.

GamaldiTweetChallengingDebate

MissPRAlexanderTweetOggDangerous

MatthewJDexterTweet

  1. What happens when the county asks violent suspects to pay for their own ankle monitor?

In the following video by Houston ABC affiliate KTRK, a report explains how certain violent criminals have gamed the liberal judges by not paying for their ankle monitors.

  1. Ogg refused to fire her lieutenant until national pressure mounted

GamaldiTweetOnOggLt

  1. The alternative to this free-the-criminals District Attorney

What alternatives do we have to Kim Ogg? The Houston Police Officers’ Union endorses both Democrat and Republican challengers to Ogg. However, as for myself, I will only include the endorsement of the Republican challenger. From my research, the Democrat challenger to Ogg promises to be worse than Ogg has been.

MaryNanHuffmanTweet

Houston-area shake-ups


FBI Questions Mayor Turner’s corrupt Hurricane Harvey debris cleanup schemes

Some truly in-depth investigative reporting at Dolcefino Consulting has unearthed the FBI’s review of shady practices during Hurricane Harvey clean-up and some resulting probe of the mayor’s office.

The Office of Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security is investigating Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner and the campaign contributions that he has received from disaster contractors.

sylvesterturner-hurricaneTurner has received more than a $350,000 from companies benefiting from the damage done by Hurricane Harvey.

The Code of Federal Regulations says that “The officers, employees and agents of the non-Federal entity may neither solicit or accept gratuities, favors or anything of monetary value from contractors or parties to subcontracts.” The question for the feds is this: Do campaign contributions violate this statue?

Turner’s relationship with three specific hurricane subcontractors may raise the most questions.  Just look at the political contributions to Mayor Turner that came from three of the companies, their leadership, and the leadership’s families:

Ardurra Group: $40,000

IMS Engineers, Inc.: $69,250

Isani Consultants, LP: $59,537

In June of 2019, the company Tetra Tech was awarded a new $4.9 million debris monitoring contract with the Solid Waste Department. Subcontractors on the contract have given Mayor Turner nearly $100,000 in campaign contributions since his first run for office.

The contract was given despite Tetra Tech’s growing scandal in California. In August of 2018, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi complained that Tetra Tech had manipulated and falsified records in the cleanup of a radioactive shipyard in San Francisco. The company was sued this month for exposing hundreds of people to hazardous materials as a result.

Tetra Tech was paid $300 million for the California job they’re accused of botching. $23 million has been paid out on Tetra Tech’s City of Houston disaster contracts.

While the Office of the Inspector General investigation deals with disaster debris removal, it is important to note that hurricane housing contracts also brought campaign contributions to the Mayor too.  Subcontractors on the contract with the company APTIM have donated nearly $200,000 to Sylvester Turner. The APTIM contract is worth up to $14 million. As has been previously reported, the Mayor’s former law partner, Barry Barnes, is also on that contract and has been awarded $7 million.

(Read the final details at Dolcefino Consulting)

Houstonians cannot blame Turner for flat land & poor drainage, but can blame him for telling us to “ignore ‘rumors'” and for the profiteering

We cannot blame the mayor for our topography or the slow-moving bayous. However, telling the people to ““ignore ‘rumors‘” and (after the flood) limiting the number of contractors allowed to clean up the streets while you rake in the contributions from the “winning” contractors — that will not be forgotten.

Five rescued from sex trafficking & 75 arrested in Woodlands sting

The left-leaning Houston Chronicle finds time to report on a prostitution sting that resulted in the release of 5 sex trafficking victims and the arrest of 75.

FiveVictims&75arrestedA human trafficking and prostitution sting in The Woodlands area last month netted 75 arrests and the recovery of five trafficked individuals, one of which was a juvenile.

During a press conference Monday, the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office released the details of Operation Cross County where officials work with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to address the growing problem of human trafficking in Montgomery County. Several non-governmental organizations were also involved in the operation.

Agencies working with sheriff’s office were the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office, Houston Police Department, Conroe Police Department, Montgomery County Precinct 3 Constable’s Office, the Department of Public Safety, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Attorney General’s Office, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. State Department.

According to sheriff’s Lt. Tim Cannon, the sting ran from Oct. 15-30. Undercover agents, Cannon added, posed as sex workers and Johns, using the Internet to find individuals who were seeking sexual favors for money.

“It was created to actively oppress sexual exploitation and human trafficking in and around Montgomery County,” Cannon said. “We also focused on possible victims and underage person who might have been involved as well. These concerns have been brought to light through law enforcement investigations and citizens’ complaints.

“Many persons in this illicit industry are forced into trafficking themselves by other through force, fraud or coercion.”

Of the 75 arrests, Cannon said 32 were men, 11 of which were pimps. He added 28 were woman, with some of the women in possession of controlled substances and/or handguns.

Sheriff Rand Henderson said he was “so proud” of the work that was done. He said when he took office in 2017, his department recognized different growing crime trends including human trafficking with a goal to address them aggressively.

“This was a great opportunity,” Henderson said of working with other agencies.

(Read more and see more photos at the Houston Chronicle)

I commend the law enforcement for taking on this project

In other forums, I have seen law enforcement actions like this criticized. They say “It’s a victim-less crime.”  I say that, for the pre-teen girl who ran away from an abusive home to what she thought was a supportive boyfriend (now pimp), there are definite victims. I say that, for the illegal alien who her handlers keep locked in a room for fear she will run, this is modern slavery.

God calls on us to defend the weak (Psalm 82:3). If someone who has been forced into prostitution or kept in it against their will does not qualify as weak, I don’t know what does.

 

Bad news for Democrats


Bad news related to the Democrat impeachment effort

Contradictions in Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s Past Testimony

Breitbart provides a timeline of the Vindman account (along with the contradictions).

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman will testify Tuesday morning in the third public hearing before the House Intelligence Committee in the impeachment inquiry.

alexander-vindmanVindman serves on the National Security Council as the director of Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, the Caucuses, and Belarus. In this capacity, he prepared talking points for Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and was listening into the call along with five other officials at the White House.

Vindman also has a twin brother who works at the NSC as an ethics lawyer. They are Ukrainian immigrants, who arrived in the U.S. as young children, who both joined the Army. Vindman was awarded the Purple Heart after being wounded by a roadside bomb in Iraq.

Vindman arrived at the NSC in July 2018, and is slated to be there until July 2020, when he takes an assignment at the Army War College. He showed up to his closed-door deposition in his full military dress uniform, despite wearing civilian clothes to work at the NSC, thrilling liberal pundits. He previously served at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as an adviser on Russia.

He is primarily important, however, because he was the first witness to testify who had actually heard President Donald Trump’s telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25. He immediately told NSC counsel John Eisenberg about the call (without informing his direct supervisor, Tim Morrison, who testifies later Tuesday).

Vindman might appear to be a good witness for Democrats, in that he is a patriotic citizen whose concern about the Trump-Zelensky call mirrors the concerns expressed by the so-called “whistleblower”: namely, that the president appeared, to Vindman, to be placing his personal or political interests above the national security of the U.S.

However, what emerged in Vindman’s closed-door testimony was also a resentment at the fact that the president was determined to conduct his own foreign policy, independent of the bureaucrats and the “interagency consensus.”

Morrison would later testify that he did not trust Vindman’s judgment, and the witness often seemed evasive. Democrats were determined to prevent him from answering any questions that could lead to the identity of the whistleblower, which he said he did not know — though it was not clear how widely he had shared information. As Washington Examiner columnist Byron York observed:

The Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman’s approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions.

(Read on for the contradictions at Breitbart)

For a military man who did not go up the chain of command, but went to a lawyer

Considering that Mr. Vindman (who insisted on being called “Lt. Col. Vindman” by someone who out-ranked him — a member of Congress) went to a lawyer and to a number of anti-Trump individuals (including the “hoaxblower”) rather than the chain of command — how can we trust any of his judgments?

As the Democrats’ start the second week of impeachment hearings, contradictions surface in testimony

Fox News mentions the many hiccups in the first few days of impeachment testimony.

Beginning Tuesday morning, in a rush of five hearings ahead of the Thanksgiving recess, nine witnesses — including several who have provided inconsistent accounts of key events — are set to testify over three days in what could be a make-or-break week in House Democrats’ impeachment investigation.

Less than 24 hours before the proceedings are set to be gaveled in at 9 a.m. ET, President Trump floated the idea of testifying, rather than tweeting, during the inquiry. A top Republican called for a last-minute postponement, citing secretive new developments behind closed doors. And, the Trump campaign has pointed out apparent inconsistencies in some testimony already on the record.

gordon-sondlandThe key witness to focus on amid the rapid-fire series of developments is likely to be Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, the wealthy donor who has bragged about his proximity to President Trump — and who repeatedly has frustrated Democrats’ narrative by contradicting several other key witnesses in the probe. Though he won’t testify until Wednesday, Sondland will loom large in Tuesday morning’s proceedings.

In part, that’s because Sondland previously testified behind closed doors that Trump directly told him there were to be “no quid pro quos of any kind” with Ukraine, and that he didn’t recall any conversations with the White House about withholding military assistance in return for Ukraine helping with the president’s political campaign. Democrats have alleged that Trump held up the aid to ensure a public probe into the Ukraine business dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Then, William Taylor, the U.S. chargé d’affaires for Ukraine, told lawmakers that Sondland himself said “everything” — a White House visit for Ukraine’s new leader and the release of military aid to the former Soviet republic — was contingent on a public announcement of investigations into the 2016 election and into Ukraine gas company Burisma. (Hunter Biden held a highly lucrative role on the board of Burisma, despite having little relevant experience, while his father oversaw Ukraine policy as vice president.)

Weeks later, after testimony from Taylor and National Security Council [NSC] official Tim Morrison placed him at the center of key discussions, Sondland suddenly amended his testimony and claimed his recollection had been “refreshed.” Sondland said he now could recall a September conversation in which he told an aide to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky that military aid likely would not occur until Ukraine made public announcements about corruption investigations. Sondland said he came to “understand” that arrangement from other sources.

Morrison, the NSC’s outgoing senior director of European and Russian affairs and White House deputy assistant, is to testify Tuesday afternoon. In his closed-door deposition, which Democrats released over the weekend, Morrison said Trump didn’t want tax dollars funding Ukrainian corruption, and remarked that he wasn’t concerned Trump’s calls with Ukraine’s leader were tied to his political interests.

(Read more at Fox News)

The facts have been forgotten. These people want to be rid of the Deploralbes

They want to be rid of a deplorable President that fights back and exposes their tripe. They want to be rid of the people who would dare to vote against their beloved programs. If they weren’t so deeply involved in abortion up to and beyond the third trimester, they would be beating us with their former marching orders of “do it for the children.”

Barr: Democrats have tried to ‘sabotage’ the Trump Presidency from before the start

According to a 16 November 2019 article in the Daily Caller., Attorney General Barr has accused Democrats of sabotaging the Trump presidency.

William-Barr-Federalist-SpeechAttorney General William Barr came out swinging in a speech Friday night against the “resistance” and House Democrats whom he accused of “using every tool” to bring down President Donald Trump.

Speaking to the Federalist Society’s dinner in Washington, D.C., Barr also said the legislative branch of government is increasing its powers beyond its Constitutional parameters and is usurping the executive branch.

The attorney general said the “sabotage” inflicted by an increasingly aggressive Congress is establishing a dangerous precedent for American government by suggesting a the president is illegitimate, Fox News reported Saturday.

“I deeply admire the American presidency as a political and constitutional institution,” he began. “Unfortunately over the past several decades, we have seen a steady encroachment on executive authority by the other branches of the government.”

Barr cited an “avalanche of subpoenas” and constant interference in presidential appointments as examples of how the House has maneuvered to “incapacitate” the executive branch.

“Immediately after President Trump won the election, opponents inaugurated what they called the ‘resistance’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch and his administration.”

“The cost of this constant harassment is real,” he said.

Barr said Trump’s opponents are referring to his presidency as if it were established illegally in a coup and must be overthrown and returned to normal rule.

Impeachment hearings began this week with House Intelligence Committee Chairman and Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff reprimanding the executive branch of government. “The president has instructed the State Department and other agencies to ignore Congressional subpoenas for documents. He has instructed witnesses to defy subpoenas and refuse to appear. And he has suggested that those who do expose wrongdoing should be treated like traitors and spies.”

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

The night after Podesta told Hillary supporters to go home, Waters was resisting

Maxine Waters called for violence against Trump supporters in November 2016 (as shown in the video below). On the day of Trump’s inauguration, Antifa went on a rampage, smashed car windows, broke store windows, and trashed DC streets.

Adam Schiff Lies About Vindman Testimony in Next Hearing

For those not paying attention to the impeachment sham, Breitbart reports in a 19 November 2019 article how Adam Schiff lied about the Vindman testimony.

ShiftySchiff1House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) lied openly Tuesday about the earlier testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, falsely claiming that Vindman thought the president might have broken the law.

Schiff, delivering an opening statement at the fourth public hearing in the impeachment inquiry, claimed that Lt. Col. Vindman had reported his concerns about President Donald Trump’s telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to a National Security Council lawyer because he thought Trump might have done something illegal.

“Lt. Col. Vindman’s fear was that the president had broken the law, potentially,” Schiff told the committee.

That statement flatly contradicts what Vindman told the committee earlier that day, as well as in his closed-door testimony before the committee last month.

When he was asked in October whether he thought anything illegal had occurred, Vindman told the committee: “I wasn’t prepaned to necessarily make that kind of judgment. I thought it was troubling and disturbing, but, you know, I guess, I guess I couldn’t say whether it was illegal. I’m not an attorney.”

On Tuesday, in his prepared remarks, Vindman said he found the call “inappropriate” and “improper” — but not “illegal.”

In both the closed-door and public hearings, Vindman testified that he was not a lawyer.

Rep. Chris Stewart summed up Vindman’s testimony — which Vindman did not contradict: “Your concerns regarding this phone call were not legal. They are based on moral, ethical and policy differences.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

I am tired of the lies

I am tired of the lies from Schiff, Vindman, and everyone else involved in the conspiracy that causes Schiff to stop any Republican questioning and insert the observation that he does not want to expose the “hoaxblower.”

I am tired of the lies created by those who just stand silently by.

I am tired of the lies created by the absence of a lack of due process. If anyone were able to defend the non-Democrat version of events, there might be some balance.

Democrats say Trump tweet is “witness intimidation”

The Hill reported on how Democrats claim a tweet is witness intimidation that fuels the impeachment push.

TwitterLogoHouse Democrats wasted no time Friday saying President Trump’s real-time Twitter attack on a top U.S. diplomat — as she was testifying on Trump’s dealings with Ukraine — was more evidence of presidential misconduct as they charge ahead with their impeachment probe.

“The president in real time is engaging in witness intimidation and witness tampering,” an exasperated Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters during a break in the hearing with Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who was removed abruptly in May.

“I don’t know how much more egregious it has to get before the American people are going to recognize we have someone in the White House who conducts himself in a criminal manner on a day-to-day basis.”

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), another member of the Intelligence Committee, described the tweet as “real-time intimidation” and suggested it could become a part of articles of impeachment against Trump.

“I think it speaks for itself,” he said. “Everything the president does, from obstruction to intimidation, becomes part of the record. And we’ll decide later — or not — whether it’s part of the articles.”

Other Intelligence Committee Democrats said Trump’s intimidation tactics are simply evidence of his guilt.

“Innocent people don’t intimidate witnesses. Guilty people do,” Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) leadership team. “It should be considered for obstruction. It’s evidence of more obstruction, intimidating the witness, tampering with the witness’s testimony.

(Read more at The Hill)

If people are intimidated by a tweet, so be it. What happened to Free speech?

What happened to due process? The statements of Adam Schiff seem to indicate that he has already made up his mind (although the hearings are far from over).

What happened to being able to face your accuser? At one point, even mafia bosses were given this right in the past. Now, Schiff continually interrupts hearings to ensure that the “hoaxblower” identity does not see the light of day.

What happened to letting both sides ask any question of the witnesses?

What happened to letting both sides call witnesses?

Mark Meadows: ‘We’re here to get the facts — and they haven’t changed’

Breitbart reported in a 15 November 2019 article how Mark Meadows pointed toward the facts behind the Ukrainian case.

mark-meadowsRep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) joined SiriusXM host Matt Boyle on Thursday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily, where he slammed Democrats for their impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump.
Meadows stated he believes Democrats risk losing support and run the “potential of not reaching 218 because the evidence is so incredibly weak.”

“Let me tell you who the big losers were,” Meadows said. “There are 31 freshmen Democrats that won in Trump districts, or 31 of the Democrats who actually have the most to lose because what they’re gonna do is they’re gonna be forced into a vote not based on evidence but based on politics.”

Meadows went on to explain how the newer Democrat members of Congress will have a hard time explaining their actions against Trump.

“A lot of them do not realize how difficult it’s going to be to explain to the American voter why this has all been a partisan attack on the president of the United States, trying to chill the voice of the American people. But it didn’t just start with Ukraine, as you know it started with the Russian collusion narrative,” Meadows said.

“Now, after almost three years, they’re going to bring something to the floor of the House to undo the will of the American people,” Meadows added. “We shouldn’t be doing anything close to this, and I think the Democrats, ultimately, a few more of them will side with the Republicans and say, ‘Enough is enough.’”

Meadows then shifted focus to the Democrats’ legislative accomplishments, referring to a conversation he recently had with President Trump.

In his discussion with the president, Meadows said Trump is having a hard time finding a Democrat to work on issues for the American people because most are only concerned with impeachment.

In a tweet Friday, Meadows called out the Democrats who felt “moved” by former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.


(Read more at Breitbart)

We need more fighters like Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Matt Gaetz

However, we need them to show up in the House and Senate. I don’t care when they show up on TV and radio shows. I do care (and support) when they support conservative ideals in the halls of Congress.

Trump campaign raises $3.1M on first day of impeachment hearings

Fox News discusses in a 16 November 2019 article the way Trump raised $3.1 million on the first day of impeachment hearings.

donald-trump-dollar-billPresident Trump’s reelection campaign announced that on Wednesday it raised over $3.1 million in donations – the same day as the first public hearing of the House’s impeachment inquiry into Trump.

“$3,144,257 RAISED YESTERDAY!” Brad Parscale, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, tweeted Thursday. “’[Trump] loves these huge numbers. He knows that it isn’t enough to end this IMPEACHMENT SCAM.”

Even before the public hearings began, Trump fundraisers reported seeing a surge in donations in response to impeachment talk. Parscale tweeted in September that donors gave $5 million in the 24 hours after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry.

Other pro-Trump groups also saw a spike in donations. Linda McMahon, chair of the America First Action PAC board of directors, previously told FOX Business’ Neil Cavuto that the group had raised about $1 million each day in the week after Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry.

“That speaks, I think, volumes to how people are rallying around the president,” she said.

(Read more at Fox News)

As of 29 September 2019, surge in impeachment acts surges donations to Trump

As reported by the Telegraph, donations to President Trump started to surge as the impeachment effort got off of the ground.

Donald Trump and the Republican party are using the prospect of impeachment to raise a record election war chest, firing up supporters and hauling in unprecedented amounts of money.

Republican officials said there had been a “groundswell” of support from the party’s rank-and-file in the days after Democrats in Congress announced an impeachment inquiry into the president over the Ukraine scandal. It looks set to spur Mr Trump to an extraordinary total for the 2020 campaign, which could ultimately hit $2 billion.

In the 72 hours after Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat House speaker, announced the impeachment inquiry Mr Trump’s re-election campaign took in $15 million, which his campaign manager Brad Parscale described as “amazing”.

The more significant figure was that it included money from 50,000 new small donors, who were from all 50 states.

At one point Mr Trump sent out an email saying “I’ve done nothing wrong, trust me,” asking for support for an “Impeachment Defense Task Force”. Around $1 million arrived in the next three hours.

(Read more at the Telegraph)

These two stories must cause significant problems for the Democrats and Never-Trump crowd

I would love to see President Trump deliver a thank-you note to San Fran Nan at the end of all of this (that is, just after winning the election).

Chris Stewart takedown of Yovanovitch shows Democrats have ‘no case,’ GOP says

Fox News reports how the Stewart takedown of Yovanovitch shows how Democrats have no case for impeachment.

Image: Former Ambassador To Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch Interviewed By Intel Committee In Impeachment Inquiry

From the view of the White House and some top Republicans, U.S. Rep. Chris Stewart’s questioning of former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch on Friday was the point where House Democrats’ impeachment argument showed the party had “no case” against President Trump.

During Friday’s public hearings, Yovanovitch told Stewart, a Utah Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, that she could supply the panel with no information regarding criminal activity or bribes that President Trump  may have been involved with.

Stewart: “I would now feel compelled to ask you, Madam Ambassador, as you sit here before us, very simply and directly, do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?”

Yovanovitch: “No.”

Stewart: “Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with at all?”

Yovanovitch: “No.”

Stewart thanked Yovanovitch before predicting that public support for impeachment would decrease after the hearings.

“The American people know this is nonsense,” Stewart said. “The American people know this is unfair.”

Both the White House and some top Republicans reacted to the exchange, saying it proved their argument that the impeachment inquiry was without merit.

“In 30 seconds,” a White House message on Twitter read, “@RepChrisStewart got the answers that House democrats have spent 7 hours trying to avoid.

(Read more at Fox News)

Thanks to Rep. Chris Stewart

Thank you for your homework, your tenacious questioning, and your results.


Yovanovitch caught in lie under oath

World News Daily reports on how Yovanovitch lied under oath to Congress.

Did former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch perjure herself during her appearance before the House impeachment inquiry? It sounds like political mudslinging — and yet, the evidence says that Yovanovitch definitely did something she says she didn’t.

According to Fox News, emails obtained by the network show Yovanovitch communicating with a congressional staffer in the days after the whistleblower complaint.

The report, published late Thursday, said Yovanovitch “communicated via her personal email account with a Democratic congressional staffer concerning a ‘quite delicate’ and ‘time-sensitive’ matter — just two days after the whistleblower complaint that kickstarted the inquiry was filed, and a month before the complaint became public.”

The reason this is important: In her testimony, Yovanovitch responded to a question from Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin of New York by saying she’d never had contact with the staffer, Laura Carey.

Yovanovitch, who was fired by President Trump allegedly because she wouldn’t go along with his Ukraine policy, told Zeldin during her testimony that she had received an email from the staffer but had never responded to it.

So, even though Fox News “is told it is a breach of normal procedure for congressional staff to reach out to a current State Department employee at their personal email address for official business,” Carey mailed it anyway, apropos of nothing.

Yovanovitch said the email was a communication “from the Foreign Affairs Committee,” and “they wanted me to come in and talk about, I guess, the circumstances of my departure.”

“I alerted the State Department,” she said, “because I’m still an employee, and so, matters are generally handled through the State Department.

“So, she emailed me. I alerted the State Department and, you know, asked them to handle the correspondence. And, she emailed me again and said, you know, ‘Who should I be in touch with?'”

End of story, right? Not exactly. Tucker Carlson of Fox News managed to get ahold of the email in which Carey talks about the “delicate/time sensitive” issues.

“I’d appreciate the chance to ground-truth a few pieces of information with you, some of which are delicate/time sensitive and thus, we want to make sure we get them right,” Carey wrote.

Here’s the important part: Yovanovitch had responded to the email in question, telling Carey she “would love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you.”

“Could you let me know if you have any time this week or next to connect? Happy to come to a place of your choosing, or if easier, to speak by phone at either of the numbers below. I’m also around this weekend if meeting up over coffee works,” Carey responded on Aug. 15.

“Thanks for reaching out — and congratulations on your new job. I would love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you. I have let EUR [Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs] know that you are interested in talking and they will be in touch with you shortly,” Yovanovitch said the same day.

Carey, Aug. 19: “Great — thanks for the response and I look forward to hearing from them. As mentioned, it would be ideal to connect this week… assuming this week is doable for you schedule-wise?”

Zeldin was not happy with the revelation.

“I would highly suspect that this Democratic staffer’s work was connected in some way to the whistleblower’s effort, which has evolved into this impeachment charade,” he told Fox News.

“We do know that the whistleblower was in contact with [House Intelligence Committee Chairman] Adam Schiff’s team before the whistleblower had even hired an attorney or filed a whistleblower complaint even though Schiff had lied to the public originally claiming that there was no contact,” Zeldin said. “Additionally, while the contents of the email from this staffer to Ambassador Yovanovitch clearly state what the conversation would be regarding, Yovanovitch, when I asked her specifically what the staffer was looking to speak about, did not provide these details.”

It’s unclear whether Yovanovitch perjured herself. This could just be a case where she forgot about the email thread.

(Read more at World News Daily)

The standard that was applied to Flynn and others should be used here

If equal under the law means anything, the same standard that was used against Flynn should be used here. A lie is a lie.

Obama warns 2020 Dems Americans don’t want to ‘tear down the system’

Could it be that Obama sees how impeachment hearings favor the President? According to Fox News. Obama has warned 2020 Democrats that Americans don’t want to “tear down the system.”

Former President Barack Obama on Friday warned 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls to pay attention to what voters actually think — warning that most of them don’t want to “tear down the system.”

Obama“The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think it’s important for us not to lose sight of that,” Obama said.

“There are a lot of persuadable voters and there are a lot of Democrats out there who just want to see things make sense. They just don’t want to see crazy stuff,” he said. “They want to see things a little more fair, they want to see things a little more just. And how we approach that I think will be important.”

The two-term Democratic president made the remarks at a gathering of the Democracy Alliance, a group of wealthy Democratic donors. He was interviewed by Stacey Abrams, who lost Georgia’s gubernatorial race last year.

Obama has largely stayed on the sidelines on the 2020 Democratic primary, and has not yet backed a candidate — even as former Vice President Joe Biden has invoked his name on numerous occasions. But Obama has made remarks indicating he is nervous about the drift to the extreme left on a number of issues by parts of the Democratic Party.

On Friday, he did not mention any candidates by name, but did cite immigration and health care reform as examples of where Democrats may be out of sync with the broader electorate.

Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who have both released plans on immigration and “Medicare-for-all” respectively in recent weeks. Warren’s government-led overhaul of the health care system would eventually abolish private insurance and cost $52 trillion, while Sanders’ immigration plan includes radical policies including welfare for illegal immigrants and a moratorium on all deportations.

“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality and the fact that voters, including the Democratic voters and certainly persuadable independents or even moderate Republicans, are not driven by the same views that are reflected on certain, you know, left-leaning Twitter feeds,” Obama said.

The comment about Twitter feeds echoes remarks he made last month, when the former president took a swipe at “woke” virtue signalling and cancel culture, telling a Chicago audience to “get over” their obsessions with ideological purity tests.

(Read more at Fox News)

Democrats reject being called “too far left”

One America News Network reported in a 19 November 2019 article that Democrat presidential candidates have rejected being called “too far left.”

Bernie SandersDemocrat presidential contenders are rejecting recent criticisms of falling too far left. This comes after former President Barack Obama warned the White House hopefuls not to alienate voters by becoming too radical. He pointed out they don’t have to completely tear the system down in order to remake it.

While he did not direct his comments at anyone specific, Obama alluded to controversial proposals by progressive candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. He cited immigration and health care reform as examples where Democrats may be out of sync with voters. The former president’s comments became talking points at Democrats’ campaign events over the weekend.

“When I talk about health care being a human right and ending the embarrassment of America being the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care for every man, woman and child — that’s not tearing down the system, that’s doing what we should have done 30 years ago,” said Sanders. “I’m not tearing down the system, we’re talking about justice.”

(Read more at One America News Network)

No matter what Obama says, Bernie and the rest of the contenders will not moderate

The reason that Bernie and the rest will not moderate is that the base of the Democrat party has gone so far left. Either Bernie, Warren, and the rest of the socialists need to break off and create a new socialist party or there will be yet another continued mass exodus from the Democrat party (refer to #Blexit, #WalkAway, and similar movements.)

Democrats demonstrate tyranny

Mark Levin: Democrat Impeachment Inquiry ‘an Outrageous Violation of the Constitution’

Breitbart provides an outline of how Democrats have violated the Constitution.

Friday during Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” conservative talker Mark Levin, author of “Unfreedom of the Press,” slammed the day’s so-called impeachment inquiry proceedings underway in the House Intelligence Committee.

shredded-constitutionLevin called them an “outrageous violation of the Constitution” for being devoid of due process, and also attacked the media for its claim of wrongdoing regarding President Donald Trump’s tweet earlier in the day during the proceedings.

“You know, Sean, this is amazing,” Levin said. “I hope the American people know what you are witnessing is tyranny. You can have tyranny of the legislature. You can have tyranny of the executive branch. You can have tyranny of the judiciary. You are witnessing tyranny in the House of Representatives in the Intelligence Committee that doesn’t do intelligence work anymore. This is an outrageous violation of the Constitution. Here’s the constitution. How often is the Constitution read during these hearings? Never. Never. And it’s never going to be because they are destroying the Constitution of the United States. They are undermining the franchise. By they, I not only mean the Democrats on this committee, I mean the media.”

“To listen to the media analysis of what’s taking place in these hearings is absurd,” he continued. “It’s disgraceful. They talk about Russia. They sound like the Russian media. The Democrat Party and the media are like this. That’s why I wrote the book. They are like this. So, the president is never going to get a break from the media. So, he tweets. So due process — even though it’s not a criminal case. Even though it’s not a civil case, due process. Western civilization believes in due process. Due process even before the Bill of Rights does not apply to the president because Congress can do whatever it wants. Is what the Constitution says? Is that what that says? No, that’s not what that says. The president is not allowed to tweet to defend himself. Well, then he can’t defend himself. You name one newsroom, in this country that is calling it straight here? None of them. I’m not picking on anyone. I’m saying none of them.”

(Read this at Breitbart)

Bad news related to Democrat officials

Buttigieg Claiming Black Support That Doesn’t Exist

The Daily Caller outlines in a 18 November 2019 article how Pete Buttigieg seems to have claimed Black support that does not exist.

PETESouth Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg has gone to great lengths to promote his Douglass Plan for black Americans — reportedly including enlisting bogus endorsements from prominent black people from South Carolina.

The campaign also used a picture from Kenya to promote his platform that also includes legalization of marijuana and the abolition of the death penalty.

The Buttigieg campaign heralded the news in a news release that was picked up by the HBCU Times— a journal devoted to black colleges and universities.

The article uncritically lauds the Douglas Plan, Buttigieg’s proposed affirmative action plan for blacks, as a policy initiative on the scale of the Marshall Plan that will ignite black progress in America. Buttigieg has virtually no support from black voters — in South Carolina or anywhere. The mayor’s own focus groups are telling him that many male Southern blacks are uncomfortable with Buttigieg’s open homosexuality.

Research conducted by The Intercept discovered that two of the black politicians allegedly in Buttigieg’s corner aren’t supporters and 40% of the 400 people supposedly backing his Douglass Plan are white. The list itself is composed of people who Buttigieg hopes will endorse his plan, and people had to indicate any opinion to the contrary by asking for their names to be removed.

Democratic State Rep. Ivory Thigpen told the Intercept: “Even though I had had conversations with the [Buttigieg] campaign, it was clear to me, or at least I thought I made it clear to them, that I was a strong Bernie Sanders supporter—actually co-chair of the state, and I was not seeking to endorse their candidate or the plan,”__

Interesting. And if this comes in after this lack-luster campaign, there must be more.

There must be more things wrong with the Buttigeig candidacy that will certainly come out.

Pete Buttigieg lost black support between 2 mayoral runs, data shows

As published in Politico, Buttigieg lost Black support between his mayoral runs.

Buttigeig_dataAs Mayor Pete Buttigieg contends with the fallout from the shooting of a black man by a white police officer in his city, a POLITICO analysis of data from his earlier mayoral elections shows he struggled to win the confidence of the city’s black voters following a series of controversies in his first term.

Detailed precinct results from South Bend’s 2011 and 2015 mayoral races show Buttigieg repeatedly lagging in contests against black primary challengers in many of western South Bend’s predominantly black neighborhoods. And though Buttigieg still managed to win those precincts in two general elections against white Republican opponents, his support in these areas fell after his first term.

In the 2011 general election, Buttigieg had some of his highest margins of victory in these neighborhoods — a typical result for a Democrat facing a Republican opponent in South Bend. But by 2015, western South Bend gave him his weakest results after his support plunged more than 20 points in some precincts.

Interviews with city council members, former political opponents and local residents suggest that Buttigieg’s management style — heavy on outside expertise and top-down implementation — may have alienated grassroots voices, a complaint that registered strongly in South Bend’s black communities, where the desire to be heard and consulted has historic resonance.

“Because he’s the smartest guy in the room, he’s gonna tell you that what you believe is true is not factual, and that his study and his understanding of it is better than yours,” said Henry Davis Jr., a former city council member and Buttigieg’s primary opponent in 2015. Davis won 22 percent of the vote against the incumbent Buttigieg citywide, but ran even with Buttigieg in South Bend’s predominantly black precincts.

(Read more at Politico)

Tlaib frantically asked campaign for personal money, messages show, as ethics probes announced

Fox News reports that Rep. Tlaib has been caught using campaign finances for personal expenses.

TlaibPaidHerselfThe House Ethics Committee on Thursday released a trove of striking internal campaign communications sent in 2018 by Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, in which Tlaib urgently requested money from her congressional campaign to defray personal expenses — and, a government watchdog said, possibly violated federal law in the process.

The document dump was related to the committee’s ongoing ethics probe into Tlaib, which the panel said on Thursday would be “expanded” based on a referral from the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). Additionally, the Ethics Committee acknowledged for the first time on Thursday an investigation into Florida Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings concerning a “personal relationship with an individual employed in his congressional office.”

Texts and emails released by the Ethics Committee show Tlaib frantically contacting members of her staff for financial help.

In one April 2018 email offered as an exhibit by OCE, Tlaib wrote that she was “struggling financially right now” and was “sinking.” She continued: “So I was thinking the campaign could loan me money, but Ryan said that the committee could actually pay me. I was thinking a one time payment of $5k.”

In another email, on April 4, 2018, Tlaib wrote: “I am just not going to make it through the campaign without a stipend.”

“With the loss of a second income to lean back on,” she wrote. “I am requesting $2,000 per two weeks but not exceeding $12,000. The cost of living stipend is going towards much needed expenses due to campaigning that includes car maintenance, child care and other necessities. Please let me know if I can proceed.”

In August of that year, Tlaib texted her future chief of staff Ryan Anderson at 6:38 a.m.: “Sorry for the early text but do you think the campaign can still pay me a stipend until the general. Trying to get out of debt.”

“I think we definitely afford to do so. But we need to really clearly define your time and space,” Anderson responded, noting that the arrangement could arouse “concern” among the media.

The OCE also attached scans of checks made out to Tlaib from her campaign, totaling thousands of dollars.

(Read more at Fox News)

We need to have Ms. Tlaib follow the law

Laws have been enacted for a purpose. She needs to follow them. Our representatives and senators need to make certain that the laws are applied.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib may test Democratic claims that no one is above the law

Fox News recounts how the actions of Rashida Tlaib might test the Democrat claims that nobody is above the law.

Rep.-Rashida-Tlaib-mouthOpenFreshman House Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., reportedly received payments from her campaign while running for office in 2016. While such unusual arrangements can be legal under narrow guidelines during the campaign season, Tlaib allegedly continued to take money from the campaign after the election, potentially violating federal law. Any payments prior to the election also must meet stringent requirements regarding legitimate campaign expenses.

In a report last week, the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) announced that the House Ethics Committee would extend its investigation into Tlaib after finding “substantial reason to believe” she violated campaign finance laws.

It was unusual and significant that specific documentation, including emails from Tlaib, was released to the public.

The OCE wrote, “(If Tlaib) converted campaign funds from Rashida Tlaib for Congress to personal use, or if Tlaib’s campaign committee expended funds that were not attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes, then Tlaib may have violated House rules, standards of conduct, and federal law.”

In April 2018, Tlaib allegedly wrote, according to the OCE, that she was “struggling financially right now” and was “sinking.” She added, “So I was thinking the campaign could loan me money, but Ryan said that the committee could actually pay me. I was thinking a one-time payment of $5k.”

It is my understanding that payments made from a campaign to a candidate because someone needs extra money does not meet the standards requiring reimbursement or payments only if there is a legitimate campaign expense. While some of the facts have emerged, not all the facts have been exposed. This is what the House Ethics Committee has historically done well.

Unlike the kangaroo court impeachment proceedings run by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the House Ethics Committee is truly bipartisan – with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans on the committee. That means that no one party can stack the deck in favor of one side or another as Schiff is able to do on the House Intelligence Committee.

It is imperative the committee embrace the long-standing tradition of holding members of Congress accountable on both sides of the aisle.

There will be no recommendation for action unless there is bipartisan support. The fact that the committee has agreed to expand the investigation indicates that these allegations are strong and they are serious.

It also means there is real evidence that can lead to a variety of recommendations including no action, criminal referral, or a host of options somewhere in between.

(Read more at Fox News)

‘No discipline. No plan. No strategy:’ Kamala Harris campaign in meltdown

Politico reports in a 15 November 2019 article how the presidential campaign of Senator Harris has descended to a meltdown.

KamalaHarrisKamala Harris’ campaign is careening toward a crackup.

As the California senator crisscrosses the country trying to revive her sputtering presidential bid, aides at her fast-shrinking headquarters are deep into the finger-pointing stages. And much of the blame is being placed on campaign manager Juan Rodriguez.

After Rodriguez announced dozens of layoffs and re-deployments in late October to stem overspending, three more staffers at headquarters here were let go and another quit in recent days, aides told POLITICO. Officials said they’ve become increasingly frustrated at the campaign chief’s lack of clarity about what changes have been made to right the ship and his plans to turn the situation around. They hold Rodriguez responsible for questionable budget decisions, including continuing to bring on new hires shortly before the layoffs began.

Amid the turmoil, some aides have gone directly to campaign chair Maya Harris, the candidate’s sister, and argued that Rodriguez needs to be replaced if Harris has any hope of a turnaround, according to two officials.

“It’s a campaign of id,” said one senior Harris official, laying much of the blame on Rodriguez, but also pointing to a leaderless structure at the top that’s been allowed to flail without accountability. “What feels right, what impulse you have right now, what emotion, what frustration,” the official added. The person described the current state of the campaign in blunt terms: “No discipline. No plan. No strategy.”

This account is based on interviews with more than a dozen current and former staffers as well as others close to the campaign, including donors. The sources were granted anonymity to speak freely about the turmoil within the organization and protect them from repercussions.

(Read more at Politico)

Bad news related to Democrat support groups

Judge rules that US-born Alabama woman who joined ISIS is not an American citizen

Fox News reports that a woman who once renounced the US and embraced ISIS has been denied entry to the US.

A federal judge ruled Thursday that an American-born woman who traveled to Syria to join the Islamic State (ISIS) group and now wants to return to her family in Alabama is not a U.S. citizen.

U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton dismissed a lawsuit brought by the family of Hoda Muthana to force the federal government to let her in the country.

Hoda-MuthanaMuthana, 25, currently lives with her 2-year-old son in a refugee camp in Syria and has since repudiated the terrorist group. A court motion said she and child, identified only as John Doe, were moved from the Roj refugee camp after receiving death threats from ISIS supporters and that their lives are in danger, The New York Times reported.

“The citizenship status of minor John Doe depends upon the status of Ms. Muthana; accordingly, regardless of the choices made by his mother, the health and survival of a young U.S. citizen depends upon the expeditious resolution of Ms. Muthana’s civil case,” the claim said.

In addition to dismissing a lawsuit, Walton also ruled that Muthana’s father, Ahmed Ali Muthana, could not provide financial support to his daughter or grandson without being subject to charges of providing material support of terrorism.

Walton ruled that Ali Muthana, who formerly represented Yemen in the United Nations, is still a diplomat. Children born to diplomats are not granted automatic citizenship in the U.S.

Ali Muthana left his post before his daughter was born in 1994 in Hackensack, N.J., according to The Times. However, the federal government said it wasn’t notified of the change until 1995 and stopped recognizing his diplomatic status only then.

Muthana’s lawyer, Christina Jump, told BuzzFeed News that there was a “likely basis” to appeal Walton’s ruling.

“While we are disappointed with and disagree with the court’s ruling today, this is not the end of our client’s legal options,” Jump said.

In 2014, Muthana withdrew from college and left her home in Alabama to travel to Syria after being radicalized by ISIS online. She promoted the group’s ideology on social media and called on Muslims to commit attacks in America, such as drive-by shootings and attempts to assassinate former President Barack Obama.

(Read more at Fox News)

Bad things happen to bad people

If you promise to kill Americans, if you join ISIS (who was in the practice of beheading and otherwise killing thousands of Christians), if you burn your passport and renounce your citizenship in the USA — don’t expect America to lose all judgement and just forgive you.

Bad news for projects Americans care about

Border Patrol Agent Shoots Russian Migrant After Being Assaulted

Breitbart reports in a 15 November 2019 article how a border agent shot a Russian illegal alien after the agent was attacked.

RussianA Tucson Sector Border Patrol agent shot a Russian migrant during a struggle near the Arizona-Mexico border. Neither the agent nor the migrant sustained life-threatening injuries.

A Lukeville Station Border Patrol agent responded to a report of a single migrant crossing the border just east of the border community of Lukeville, Arizona, on November 14. After the agent arrived on the scene, he attempted to take the migrant into custody, according to a statement from Tucson Sector Border Patrol officials.

As the agent attempted to place the migrant under arrest, the migrant became combative and “a physical altercation ensued,” Tucson Sector officials stated. During the fight, the Border Patrol agent discharged his firearm striking the suspected illegal alien. Border Patrol officials reported the agent identified the migrant as a citizen of Russia.

A helicopter aircrew transported the migrant to a Phoenix-area hospital for treatment of “non-life threatening injuries,” officials stated. The Russian illegal alien remains hospitalized for treatment of his injuries.

Officials report the Border Patrol agent did not sustain a serious injury during the altercation.

The FBI and a CBP Use of Force Incident Team will investigate the agent-involved shooting incident.

A couple of weeks earlier, a Border Patrol agent returned fire after being attacked by a group of migrants near Dryden, Texas. The agent struck one of the attacking migrants while the remainder of the group fled the scene, Breitbart Texas reported.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Thirteen bits of the Mueller testimony “we can’t get into”


  1. Doug Collins: Why do you change your testimony on collusion and conspiracy?

The full transcript was extracted from NBC News (except for the transcript for Representatives Roby and Cline, who NBC ignored) and then compared to the audio provided by CSPAN.

This exchange between Representative Collins and Mr. Mueller showed how even the definitions of words within the report could be bent by the true author of the report to benefit Democrats and confuse the purported author of the report.

Speaker Testimony
Collins: In your press conference you said any testimony from your office would not go beyond our report. “We chose these words carefully. The word speaks for itself. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.” Do you stand by that statement?

Mueller: Yes.

Collins: Since closing the special counsel’s office in May of 2019, have you conducted any additional interviews or obtained any new information in your role as special counsel?

Mueller: In the — in the — in the wake of the report?

Collins: Since the — since the closing of the office in May of 2019.

Mueller: And the question was, have we conducted…

Collins: Have you conducted any new interviews, any new witnesses, anything?

Mueller: No.

Collins: And you can confirm you’re no longer special counsel, correct?

Mueller: I am no longer special counsel.

Collins: At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?

Mueller: No.

Collins: Were you or your team provided any questions by members of Congress (inaudible) the majority ahead of your hearing today?

Mueller: No.

Collins: Your report states that your investigative team included 19 lawyers and approximately 40 FBI agents and analysts and accountants. Are those numbers accurate?

Mueller: Could you repeat that, please?

Collins: Forty FBI agents, 19 lawyers, intelligence analysts and forensic accountants; are those numbers accurate? This was in your report.

Mueller: Generally, yes.

Collins: Is it also true that you issued over 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records and 50 pin registers?

Mueller: That went a little fast for me.

Collins: OK. In your report — I’ll make this very simple — you did a lot of work, correct?

Mueller: Yes, that I agree to.

Collins: A lot of subpoenas, a lot of pin registers…

Mueller: A lot of subpoenas.

Collins: OK, we’ll walk this really slow if we need to.

Mueller: A lot of search warrants.

Collins: All right, a lot of search warrants, a lot of things, so you are very thorough.

Mueller: What?

Collins: In your opinion, very thorough, you listed this out in your report, correct?

Mueller: Yes.

Collins: Thank you. Is it true, the evidence gathered during your investigation — given the questions that you’ve just answered, is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the president was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference as stated in Volume 1, page 7?

Mueller: We found insufficient evidence of the president’s culpability.

Collins: So that would be a yes.

Mueller: Pardon?

Collins: That would be a yes.

Mueller: Yes.

Collins: Thank you. Isn’t it true the evidence did not establish that the president or those close to him were involved in the charged (ph) Russian computer hacking or active measure conspiracies or that the president otherwise had unlawful relationships with any Russian official, Volume 2, page 76? Correct?

Mueller: I will leave the answer to our report.

Collins: So that is a yes. Is that any (ph) true your investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian government in election interference activity, Volume 1, page 2; Volume 1, page 173?

Mueller: Thank you. Yes.

Collins: Yes. Thank you. Although your reports states, “collusion is not some (ph) specific offense,” — and you said that this morning — “or a term of art in federal criminal laws, conspiracy is.” In the colloquial context, are collusion and conspiracy essentially synonymous terms?

Mueller: You’re going to have to repeat that for me.

Collins: Collusion is not a specific offense or a term of art in the federal criminal law. Conspiracy is.

Mueller: Yes.

Collins: In the colloquial context, known public context, collusion — collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms, correct?

Mueller: No.

Collins: If no, on page 180 of Volume 1 of your report, you wrote, “As defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 USC 371.”

Mueller: Yes (ph).

Collins: You said at your May 29th press conference and here today you choose your words carefully. Are you sitting here today testifying something different than what your report states?

Mueller: Well, what I’m asking is if you can give me the citation, I can look at the citation and evaluate whether it is actually…

Collins: OK. Let — let me just — let me clarify. You stated that you would stay within the report. I just stated your report back to you, and you said that collusion — collusion and conspiracy were not synonymous terms. That was your answer, was no.

Mueller: That’s correct.

Collins: In that, page 180 of Volume 1 of your report, it says, “As defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in general conspiracy statute 18 USC 371.”

Mueller: Right.

Collins: Now, you said you chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now?

Mueller: Not when I read it.

Collins: So you would change your answer to yes, then?

Mueller: No, no — the — if you look at the language…

Collins: I’m reading your report, sir. These are yes-or-no answers.

Mueller: (inaudible) Page 180?

Collins: Page 180, Volume 1.

Mueller: OK.

Collins: This is from your report.

Mueller: Correct, and I — I — I — I leave it with the report.

Collins: So the report says yes, they are synonymous.

Mueller: Yes.

Collins: Hopefully, for finally, out of your own report, we can put to bed the collusion and conspiracy. One last question as we’re going through: Did you ever look into other countries investigated in the Russians’ interference into our election? Were other countries investigated…

Mueller: (inaudible)

Collins: … or found knowledge that they had interference in our election?

Mueller: I’m not going to discuss other matters.

Collins: All right. And I yield back.

  1. John Ratcliffe: When did the US standard change from “innocent until proven guilty?”

One place where a defendant had to be proven innocent that we could consider was Bernie Sander’s honeymoon spot: good old Soviet Russia. However, since this investigation was supposed to be laser-focused on only things that would either indict or embarrass the Trump administration, then we won’t mention that.

Speaker Testimony
Ratcliffe: Good morning, Director. If you’ll let me quickly summarize your opening statement this morning, you said in Volume 1 on the issue of conspiracy, the special counsel determined that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. And then in Volume 2, for reasons that you explained, the special counsel did not make a determination on whether there was an obstruction of justice crime committed by the president. Is that fair?

Mueller: Yes, sir.

Ratcliffe: All right. Now, in explaining the special counsel did not make what you called a traditional prosecution or declination decision, the report, on the bottom of page 2, Volume 2, reads as follows: “The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Now, I read that correctly?

Mueller: Yes.

Ratcliffe: All right. Now, your report — and today, you said that at all times, the special counsel team operated under, was guided by and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?

Mueller: Can you repeat the last part of that question?

Ratcliffe: Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Can — let me make it easier. Is…

Mueller: May — can I — I’m sorry, go ahead.

Ratcliffe: … can you give me an example other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated…

Mueller: I — I…

Ratcliffe: … because their innocence was not conclusively determined?

Mueller: I cannot, but this is a unique situation.

Ratcliffe: OK. Well, I — you can’t — time is short. I’ve got five minutes. Let’s just leave it at, you can’t find it because — I’ll tell you why: It doesn’t exist. The special counsel’s job — nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence, or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It not in any of the documents. It’s not in your appointment order. It’s not in the special counsel regulations. It’s not in the OLC opinions. It’s not in the Justice Manual. And it’s not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together because, respectfully — respectfully, Director, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him. Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it. Now, Director, the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that I can’t find and you said doesn’t exist anywhere in the department policies. And you used it to write a report. And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says, as you read this morning, it “authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution of declination decisions reached by the special counsel.” That’s the very first word of your report, right?

Mueller: That’s correct.

Ratcliffe: Here’s the problem, Director: The special counsel didn’t do that. On Volume 1, you did. On Volume 2, with respect to potential obstruction of justice, the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning, and in your report, that you made no determination. So respectfully, Director, you didn’t follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says, “Write a confidential report about decisions reached.” Nowhere in here does it say, “Write a report about decisions that weren’t reached.” You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged or decided. And respectfully — respectfully, by doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra-prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren’t charged. So Americans need to know this, as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle, as they do dramatic readings from this report: that Volume 2 of this report was not authorized under the law to be written. It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the Justice Department. And it was written in violation of every DOJ principle about extra-prosecutorial commentary. I agree with the chairman this morning, when he said, “Donald Trump is not above the law.” He’s not. But he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law, which is where Volume 2 of this report puts him.

  1. James Sensenbrenner: Why did you drag the investigation out if you started with a determination not to prosecute a sitting president?

Representative Sensenbrenner gets Mueller to recognize the fact that the investigation was dragged out beyond the point where he determined he would not prosecute the President.

Speaker Testimony
Sensenbrenner: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by reading the special counsel regulations by which you were appointed. It reads, quote “At the conclusion of the special counsel’s work, he or she shall provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declamations decisions reached by the special counsel,” is that correct?

Mueller: Yes.

Sensenbrenner: OK. Now when a regulation uses the words “shall provide,” does it mean that the individual is in fact obligated to provide what’s being demanded by the regulation or statute, meaning you don’t have any wiggle room, right?

Mueller: I’d have to look more closely at the statute.

Sensenbrenner: Well, I just read it to you. OK, now Volume 2, page 1, your report boldly states, “We determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment,” is that correct?

Mueller: I’m trying to find that citation, Congressman.

Nadler: Director, could you speak more directly into the microphone, please?

Mueller: Yes.

Nadler: Thank you.

Sensenbrenner: Well, it’s Volume 2, page…

Mueller: Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry.

Sensenbrenner: Yeah, it’s Volume 2, page 1. It says, “We determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.”

Mueller: Yes.

Sensenbrenner: That’s right at the beginning. Now, since you decided under the OLC opinion that you couldn’t prosecute a sitting president, meaning President Trump, why do we have all of this investigation of President Trump that the other side is talking about when you know that you weren’t going to prosecute him?

Mueller: Well, you don’t know where the investigation’s going to lie, and OLC opinion itself says that you can continue the investigation even though you are not going to indict the president.

Sensenbrenner: OK, well if you’re not going to indict the president then you just continue fishing. And that’s — you know, that’s my — my observation. You know, sure — sure you — sure you — my time is limited — sure you can indict other people but you can’t indict the sitting president, right?

Mueller: That’s true.

Sensenbrenner: OK. Now, there are 182 pages in raw evidentiary material, including hundreds of references to 302, which are interviews by the FBI for individuals who have never been cross-examined, and which did not comply with the special counsel’s governing regulation to explain the prosecution or declamation decisions reached, correct?

Mueller: Where are you reading from on that?

Sensenbrenner: I’m reading from my question.(LAUGHTER)

Mueller: That — could you repeat it?

Sensenbrenner: OK. If — you have 182 pages of raw evidentiary material with hundreds of references to 302s who are — never been cross-examined, which didn’t comply with the governing regulation to explain the prosecution or declaration — declination decisions reached.

Mueller: This is one of those areas which I decline to discuss…

Sensenbrenner: OK, then let… … and would direct you to the report itself for what…

Mueller: (CROSSTALK)

Sensenbrenner: … 182 pages of it. You know, let me switch gears. Mr. Chabot and I were on this committee during the Clinton impeachment. Now, while I recognize that the independent counsel statute under which Kenneth Starr operated is different from the special counsel statute, he, in a number of occasions in his report, stated that the — “President Clinton’s actions may have risen to impeachable conduct, recognizing that it is up to the House of Representatives to determine what conduct is impeachable.” You never used the term “raising to impeachable conduct” for any of the 10 instances that the gentlewoman from Texas (inaudible) — did. Is it true that there’s nothing in Volume 2 of the report that says that the president may have engaged in impeachable conduct?

Mueller: Well, we have (inaudible) kept in the — the center of our investigation the — our mandate. And our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct, our mandate goes to what — developing the report and putting the report in to the attorney general.

Sensenbrenner: With due respect, you know, it — it seems to me, you know, that there are a couple of statements that you made, you know, that said that, “This is not for me to decide,” and the implication is this is — this was for this committee to decide. Now, you didn’t use the word “impeachable conduct” like Starr did. There was no statute to prevent you from using the words “impeachable conduct.” And I go back to what Mr. Ratcliffe said, and that is is that even the president is innocent until proven guilty. I — my time is up.

  1. Steve Chabot: If you focused on the Trump Tower meeting on 9 June 2016, why didn’t you focus on the Russian lawyer/Fusion GPS meetings on 8 June and 10 June?

Representative Chabot gets stonewalled by Mr. Mueller on questions as to why the Democrat-led team could not devote the same interest on the meeting on 8 and 10 June 2016 as they did on the 9 June meeting.

Speaker Testimony
Chabot: Thank you. Director Mueller, my Democratic colleagues were very disappointed in your report. They were expecting you to say something along the lines of he was (ph) — why President Trump deserves to be impeached, much as Ken Starr did relative to President Clinton back about 20 years ago. Well, you didn’t, so their strategy had to change. Now they allege that there’s plenty of evidence in your report to impeach the president, but the American people just didn’t read it. And this hearing today is their last best hope to build up some sort of groundswell across America to impeach President Trump. That’s what this is really all about today. Now a few questions: On page 103 of Volume 2 of your report, when discussing the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, you referenced, quote, “the firm that produced Steele reporting,” unquote. The name of that firm was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?
Mueller: And you’re on page 103?
Chabot: 103 (ph), that’s correct, Volume 2. When you talk about the — the firm that produced the Steele reporting, the name of the firm that produced that was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?
Mueller: Yeah, I — I’m not familiar with — with that. I (inaudible)
Chabot: (inaudible) It’s not — it’s not a trick question, right? It was Fusion GPS. Now, Fusion GPS produced the opposition research document wide — widely known as the Steele dossier, and the owner of Fusion GPA (sic) was someone named Glenn Simpson. Are — are you familiar with…
Mueller: This is outside my purview.
Chabot: OK. Glenn Simpson was never mentioned in the 448-page Mueller report, was he?
Mueller: Well, as I — as I say, it’s outside my purview and it’s being handled in the department by others.
Chabot: OK. Well, he — he was not. In the 448 pages the — the owner of Fusion GPS that did the Steele dossier that started all this, he — he’s not mentioned in there. Let me move on. At the same time Fusion GPS was working to collect opposition research on Donald Trump from foreign sources on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, it also was representing a Russian-based company, Probison (ph), which had been sanctioned by the U.S. government. Are you aware of that?
Mueller: It’s outside my purview.
Chabot: OK, thank you. One of the key players in the — I’ll go to something different. One of the key players in the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was Natalia Veselnitskaya, who you described in your report as a Russian attorney who advocated for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Veselnitskaya had been working with none other than Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS since at least early 2014. Are — are you aware of that?
Mueller: Outside my purview.
Chabot: Thank you. But you didn’t mention that or her connections to Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS in — in your report at all. Let — let me move on. Now, NBC News has reported the following: quote, “Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya says she first received the supposedly-incriminating information she brought to Trump Tower describing alleged tax evasion and donation to Democrats from none other than Glenn Simpson, the Fusion GPS owner.” You didn’t include that in the report, and I assume you (inaudible).
Mueller: This is a matter that’s being handled by others at the Department of Justice.
Chabot: OK, thank you. Now, your report spends 14 pages discussing the June 9th, 2016 Trump Tower meeting. It would be fair to say, would it not, that you spent significant resources investigating that meeting?
Mueller: Well, I’d refer you to the — the report.
Chabot: OK. And President Trump wasn’t at the meeting…
Mueller: No, he was not.
Chabot: … that (ph) you’re aware of (ph)? Thank you.

Now, in stark contrast to the actions of the Trump campaign, we know that the Clinton campaign did pay Fusion GPS to gather dirt on the Trump campaign, from persons associated with foreign governments. But your report doesn’t mention a thing about Fusion GPS in it, and you didn’t investigate Fusion GPS’ connections to Russia (ph).

So let me just ask you this. Can you see that from neglecting to mention Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS’ involvement with the Clinton campaign, to focusing on a brief meeting at the Trump Tower that produced nothing, to ignoring the Clinton campaign’s own ties to Fusion GPS, why some view your report as a pretty one-sided attack on the president?

Mueller: Well, I’ll tell you, this is still outside my purview.
Chabot: All right. And I would just note, finally, that I guess it’s just by chance, by coincidence that the things left out of the report tended to be favorable to the president?

  1. Martha Roby: If you worked together with Attorney General Barr on the redacted report, why did you complain about the redacted report?

First, Representative Roby confirmed that Mueller did work with Attorney General Barr to redact the Mueller report. Then she asked why Mr. Mueller complained about the tone of his own work.

Speaker Testimony
Roby: Director Mueller, you just said in response to two different lines of questioning that you would refer as it relates to this firing discussion, that I would refer you to the report in the way it was characterized in the report. Importantly, the President never said, “Fire Mueller” or “End the investigation,” and one does not necessitate either. McGann in fact did not resign, but stuck around for a year and half. On March 24, Attorney General William Barr informed the committee that he had received special counsel’s report.– It was not until April 18 that the attorney general released the report to the congress and the public. When you submitted your report to the attorney general, did you deliver a redacted version of the report so that he would be able to release it to congress and the public without delay (pursuant to his announcement of his intention to do so during his confirmation hearing)?
Mueller: I am not getting engaged in discussion of what happened after the report was prepared.
Roby: Had the Attorney General asked you to provide a redacted version of the report?
Mueller: We worked on the redacted versions together.
Roby: Did he ask you for a version where the grand jury material was separated?
Mueller: I cannot get into details.
Roby: Is it your belief that an unredacted version of the report could be released to Congress or the public?
Mueller: That’s not in my purview.
Roby: (Video and audio loss) … Rule 6c material. Why did you not take a similar action? So Congress could view this material?
Mueller: We had a process that we were operating on with the Attorney General’s office.
Roby: Are you aware of any Attorney General going to court to receive similar permission to unredact 6c material?
Mueller: I’m not aware of that being done.
Roby: The Attorney General released the special counsel’s report with minimal redactions to the public and any even lesser redacted version to Congress. Did you write the report with the expectation that it would be released publicly?
Mueller: No. We did not have tbat expectation. We wrote the report understanding that it was demanded by the statute and would go to the Attorney General for further review.
Roby: And pursuant to the special counsel’s regulations, who is the only party that must receive the charging decision resulting from the special counsels investigation?
Mueller: With regard to the President or generally?
Roby: Generally.
Mueller: The Attorney General.
Roby: At Attorney General Barr’s confirmation hearing, he made it clear that he intended to release your report to the public. Do you remember how much of your report had been written at that point?
Mueller: I do not.
Roby: Were there significant changes in tone or substance of the report made after the announcement that the report would be made available to Congress in the public?
Mueller: I can’t get into that.
Roby: During the Senate testimony of Attorney General William Barr, Senator Kamala Harris asked Mr Barr if he had looked at all the underlying evidence that the special counsel’s team had gathered. He stated that he had not. So I’m gonna ask you. Did you personally review all of the underlying evidence gathered in your investigation?
Mueller: Well, to the extent that it came through the special counsel’s office, yes.
Roby: Did any single member of your team review all the underlying evidence gathered during the course of your …
Mueller: (interrupting) As as has been recited here today, substantial amount of work was done whether it be be search warrant or …
Roby: (interrupting) My point here is that there is no one member of the team that looked at everything.
Mueller: That’s what I’m trying to get at.
Roby: (interrupting)It’s fair to say that in an investigation is comprehensive is your’s, it is normal that different members of the team would have reviewed different sets of documents amd few, if anyone, would have reviewed all of the underlying.
Mueller: Thank you, yes.
Roby: How many of the approximately 500 interviews conducted by the special conference – do you attend personally?
Mueller: Very few.
Roby: On March 27, 2019, you wrote a letter to the Attorney General essentially complaining about the media coverage of your report. You wrote (and I quote) “the summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work in conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department n the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about the critical aspects of the result of our investigation.” Who wrote that March 27th letter?
Mueller: I can’t get into who wrote the internal deliberations …
Roby: But you signed it?
Mueller: What I will say is a letter stands for itself, okay?
Roby: Why did you write a formal letter, since you had already called the Attorney General to express those concerns? Did you authorize the letters release to the media or was it leaked?
Mueller: I can’t get into that. Internal deliberations.
Roby: Did you authorize the letters release to the media or was it leaked?
Mueller: I have no knowledge on either.
Roby: Well, you went nearly two years without a leak. Why was this letter leaked?
Mueller: I can’t get into that.
Roby: Was this letter written and leaked for the expressed purpose of attempting to change the narrative about the conclusions of your report and was anything in Attorney General Barr’s letter referred to as “principled conclusions?”

Answer the question, please.

Mueller: Repeat the question.
Roby: Was anything in attorney general bars letter referred to as the principal conclusions letter dated, March 24th innaccurate?
Mueller: I am NOT going to get into that.

  1. Matt Gaetz: Was the Steele dossier part of the Russian disinformation program?

Representative Gaetz probes to find why Mr. Mueller did not look to see whether the Steele dossier was part of a Russian disinformation program.

Speaker Testimony
Gaetz: Director Mueller, can you state with confidence that the Steele dossier was not part of Russia’s disinformation campaign?
Mueller: No. I said they – my opening statement that part of the building of the case predated me by at least 10 months.
Gaetz: Yes. I mean, Paul Manafort’s alleged crimes regarding tax evasion predated you. You had no problem charging them, and a matter of fact, this Steele dossier predated the attorney general and he didn’t have any problem answering the question when Senator Cornyn asked the attorney general the exact question I asked you, Director. The attorney general said, and I’m quoting, “no. I can’t state that with confidence, and that’s one of the areas I’m reviewing. I’m concerned about it and I don’t think it’s entirely speculative.”

Now, something is not entirely speculative that it must have some factual basis, but you identify no factual basis regarding the dossier or the possibility that it was part of the Russia disinformation campaign. Now, Christopher Steele’s reporting is referenced in your report. Steele reported to the FBI that senior Russian foreign ministry figures among with other – along with other Russia’s told him that there was a – and I’m quoting from the Steele dossier – “extensive evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign team and the Kremlin.”

Gaetz: So here’s my question. Did Russians really tell that to Christopher Steele or did he just make it all up and was he lying to the FBI?
Mueller: Let me back up a second if I could and say as I’ve said earlier, with regard to Steele, that’s beyond my purview.
Gaetz: No it is exactly your purview Director Mueller and here’s why. Only one of two things is possible, right? Either Steele made this whole thing up and there were never any Russians telling him of this vast criminal conspiracy that you didn’t find or Russians lied to Steele. Now if Russians were lying to Steele to undermine our confidence in our duly elected president, that would seem to be precisely your purview because you stated in your opening that the organizing principle was to fully and thoroughly investigate Russia’s interference but you weren’t interested in whether or not Russians were interfering through Christopher Steele and if Steele was lying then you should have charged him with lying like you charged a variety of other people. But you say nothing about this in your report.
Mueller: Well, sir…
Gaetz: Meanwhile, Director, you’re quite loquacious on other topics, you write 3,500 words about the June 9 meeting between the Trump campaign and Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya. You write on page 103 of your report that the president’s legal team suggested and I’m quoting from your report, “that the meeting might have been a set up by individuals working with the firm that produced the Steele reporting.” So I’m going to ask you a very easy question Director Mueller, on the week of June 9, who did Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya meet with more frequently, the Trump campaign or Glenn Simpson who is functionally acting as an operative for the Democratic National Committee?
Mueller: Well what I think is missing here is the fact that this is under investigation and — elsewhere…
Gaetz: I get that…
Mueller: And if I could finish, sir. And if I could finish, sir. And consequently it’s not within my purview, the Department of Justice and FBI should be responsive to questions on this particular issue.
Gaetz: It is absurd to suggest that a operative for the democrats was meeting with this Russian lawyer the day before, the day after the Trump Tower meeting and yet that’s not something you reference. Now Glenn Simpson testified under oath he had dinner with Veselnitskaya the day before and the day after this meeting with the Trump team. Do you have any basis as you sit here today to believe that Steele was lying?
Mueller: As I said before and I’ll say again, it’s not my purview. Others are investigating what you…
Gaetz: It’s not your purview to look into whether or not Steele is lying? It’s not your purview to look into whether or not anti-Trump Russians are lying to Steele? And it’s not your purview to look at whether or not Glenn Simpson was meeting with the Russians the day before and the day after you write 3,500 words about the Trump campaign meeting so I’m wondering how — how these decisions are guided. I look at the inspector general’s report. I’m citing from page 404 of the inspector general’s report. It states, “Page (ph) stated, Trump is not ever going to be president, right? Right?” Strzok replied, “No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Also in the inspector general’s report there’s someone identified as “Attorney Number 2.” Attorney Number 2, this is page 419 replied, “Hell no,” and then added, “viva la resistance.” Attorney Number 2 in the inspector general’s report and Strzok both worked on your team, didn’t they?
Mueller: Pardon me, can you ask…
Gaetz: They both worked on your team didn’t they?
Mueller: I heard Strzok. Who else are we talking about?
Gaetz: Attorney Number 2 identified in the inspector general’s report.
Mueller: OK. And the question was?
Gaetz: Did he work for you? The guy who said, “Viva la resistance.”
Mueller: Peter — Peter Strzok worked for me for a period of time, yes.
Gaetz: Yes, but so did the other guy that said, “Viva la resistance.” And here’s what I’m kind of noticing Director Mueller, when people associated with Trump lied, you threw the book at them. When Christopher Steele lied, nothing. And so it seems to be when Simpson met with Russians, nothing. When the Trump campaign met with Russians, 3,500 words. And maybe the reason why there are these discrepancies in what you focused on because the team was so biased…
Nadler: Time of the — time of the gentleman has expired.
Gaetz: … (inaudible) resistance, pledged to stop Trump.

  1. Tom McClintock: Were political facts left out of your report in order to cast the President in a negative light?

Representative McClintock questions whether Mueller used political facts to cast the President in a bad light.

Speaker Testimony
McClintock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mueller, over here. Thanks for joining us today. You had three discussions with Rod Rosenstein about your appointment as special counsel May 10, May 12, and May 13, correct?
Mueller: If you say so, I have no reason to dispute that.
McClintock: Then you met with the president on the 16th with Rod Rosenstein present. And then on the 17th, you were formally appointed as special counsel. Were you meeting with the president on the 16th with knowledge that you were under consideration for appointment of special counsel?
Mueller: I did not believe I was under consideration for counsel. The — I had served two terms as FBI director…
McClintock: We consider (ph) the answer’s no.
Mueller: The answer’s no.
McClintock: Gregg Jarrett describes your office as the team of partisans. And additional information’s coming to light, there’s a growing concern that political biased caused important facts to be omitted from your report in order to cast the president unfairly in a negative light.

For example, John Dowd, the president’s lawyer, leaves a message with Michael Flynn’s lawyer on November 17 in 2017 — November 2017. The edited version in your report makes it appear that he was improperly asking for confidential information, and that’s all we know from your report expect that the judge in the Flynn case ordered the entire transcript released in which Dowd makes it crystal clear that’s not what he was suggesting. So my question’s why did you edit the transcript to hide the exculpatory part of the message?

Mueller: I will answer and I will agree (ph) with your characterization as we did anything to hide…
McClintock: Well, you omitted — you omitted it. You quoted the part where he says we need some kind of heads up just for the sake of protecting all of our interests if we can, but you omitted the portion where he says without giving up any confidential information.
Mueller: Well, I’m not going to go further in terms of discussing the…

McClintock: Well, let’s go on.
Mueller: … what’s — what the (ph)…
McClintock: You — you extensively discussed Konstantin Kilimnik’s activities with Paul Manafort. And you described him as, quote, “A Russian/Ukrainian political consultant,” and, “longtime employee of Paul Manafort, assessed by the FBI to have ties to Russian intelligence.”

And again, that’s all we know from your report, except we’ve since learned from news articles that Kilimnik was actually a U.S. State Department intelligence source, yet nowhere in your report is he so identified. Why was that fact omitted?

Mueller: I don’t — I don’t necessarily credit what you’re saying occurred.
McClintock: Were you aware that Kilimnik was a — a… (CROSSTALK)
Mueller: I’m not going to go into the…
McClintock: …State Department source?
Mueller: … ins and outs — I’m not going to go into the ins and outs of what we had in the — in the course… (CROSSTALK)
McClintock: Did you interview…
Mueller: … in the course of our investigation.
McClintock: … did you interview Konstantin Kilimnik?
Mueller: Pardon?
McClintock: Did you interview Konstantin Kilimnik?
Mueller: I can’t go into the discussion of our investigative moves.
McClintock: And — and — and yet that is the — the — the basis of your report. Again, the problem we’re having is we have to rely on your report for an accurate reflection of the evidence and we’re starting to find out that’s — that’s not true.

For example, you — you — your report famously links Russian Internet troll farms with the Russian government. Yet, at a hearing on May 28th in the Concord Management IRA prosecution that you initiated, the judge excoriated both you and Mr. Barr for producing no evidence to support this claim. Why did you suggest Russia was responsible for the troll farms, when, in court, you’ve been unable to produce any evidence to support it?

Mueller: Well, I am not going to get into that any further than I — than I already have.
McClintock: But — but you — you have left the clear impression throughout the country, through your report, that it — it was the Russian government behind the troll farms. And yet, when you’re called upon to provide actual evidence in court, you fail to do so.
Mueller: Well, I would again dispute your characterization of what occurred in that — in that proceeding.
McClintock: In — in — in fact, the judge considering — considered holding prosecutors in criminal contempt. She backed off, only after your hastily called press conference the next day in which you retroactively made the distinction between the Russian government and the Russia troll farms.

Did your press conference on May 29th have anything to do with the threat to hold your prosecutors in contempt the previous day for publicly misrepresenting the evidence?

Mueller: What was the question?
McClintock: The — the question is, did your May 29th press conference have anything to do with the fact that the previous day the judge threatened to hold your prosecutors in contempt for misrepresenting evidence?
Mueller: No.

McClintock: Now, the — the — the fundamental problem is — is that, as I said, we’ve got to take your word, your team faithfully, accurately, impartially and completely described all of the underlying evidence in the Mueller report.

And we’re finding more and more instances where this just isn’t the case. And it’s starting to look like, you know, having desperately tried and failed to make a legal case against the president, you made a political case instead. You put it in a paper sack, lit it on fire, dropped it on our porch, rang the doorbell and ran.

Mueller: I don’t think you reviewed a report that is as thorough, as fair, as consistent as the report that we have in front of us.
McClintock: Then — then why is contradictory information…
Nadler: (CROSSTALK) The time of the gentleman has expired…
McClintock: … continuing to come out?

  1. Guy Reschenthaler: Although our legal system is built on innocent-until-proven-guilty and the right to face our accusers, haven’t you smeared the President and prevented him from facing his accusers?

Representative Reschenthaler points out how Mueller seems to have smeared the President without allowing him to face his accusers.

Speaker Testimony
Reschenthaler: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mueller. I’m over here, I’m sorry. Mr. Mueller, are you familiar with the now expired independent counsel statute. It’s a statue under which Ken Starr was appointed.
Mueller: That Ken Starr did what? I’m sorry.
Reschenthaler: Are you familiar with the independent counsel statute?
Mueller: Are you talking about the one we’re operating under now or previous?
Reschenthaler: No. Under which Ken Starr was appointed.
Mueller: I am not that familiar with that but I’d be happy to take your question.
Reschenthaler: Well the Clinton Administration allowed the independent counsel statute to expire after Ken Starr’s investigation. The final report requirement was a major reason why the statute was allowed to expire. Even President Clinton’s A.G. Janet Reno expressed concerns about the final report requirement and I’ll quote A.G. Reno. She said, “On one hand the American people have an interest in knowing the outcome of an investigation of their highest officials. On the other hand, the report requirement cuts against many of the most basic traditions and practices of American law enforcement. Under our system, we presume innocence and we value privacy. We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most cases be made public only if there’s an indictment and prosecution not any lengthy and detailed report filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute. The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target’s dirty laundry and it also creates yet another incentive for an independent counsel to over investigate in order to justify his or her tenure and to avoid criticism that the independent counsel may have left a stone unturned.”

Again, Mr. Mueller, those are A.G. Reno’s words. Didn’t you do exactly what A.G. Reno feared? Didn’t you publish a lengthy report unfairly airing the target’s dirty laundry without recommending charges?

Mueller: I disagree with that and …
Reschenthaler: OK. Did any — did any of your witnesses …
Mueller: Can I finish?
Reschenthaler: … have the chance to be cross examined?
Mueller: Can I just finish my answer on that?
Reschenthaler: Quickly. My time…
Mueller: We operate under the current statute not the original statute so I’m most familiar with the current statute not the older statute.
Reschenthaler: OK. Did any of the witnesses have a chance to be cross examined?
Mueller: Did any of the witnesses in our investigation?
Reschenthaler: Yes.
Mueller: I’m going to answer that.
Reschenthaler: Did you allow the people mentioned in your report to challenge how they were characterized?
Mueller: I’m not going to get into that.
Reschenthaler: Given that A.G. Barr stated multiple times during his confirmation hearing that he would make as much of your report public as possible, did you write your report knowing that it would likely be shared with the public?
Mueller: No.
Reschenthaler: Did knowing that the report could and likely would be made public, did that alter contents would you include it?
Mueller: I can’t speak to that.
Reschenthaler: Despite the expectations that your report would be released to the public, you left out significant exculpatory evidence. In other words, evidence favorable to the president correct?
Mueller: Well, I actually would disagree with you. I think we strove to put into the report exculpatory (inaudible) as well…
Reschenthaler: (inaudible) got into that with you where he said there was — you said there was evidence you left out.
Mueller: Well, you make a choice as to what goes into a indictment.
Reschenthaler: Isn’t it true — Mr. Mueller, isn’t it true that on page 1, Volume 2 you state when you’re quoting the statute the obligation to either prosecute or not prosecute?
Mueller: Well, generally that is the case.
Reschenthaler: Right.
Mueller: Although most cases are not done in the context of the president.
Reschenthaler: In this case you made a decision not to prosecute, correct?
Mueller: No. We made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute or not.
Reschenthaler: So essentially what your report did was everything that A.G. Reno warned against?
Mueller: I can’t agree with that characterization.
Reschenthaler: OK, well what you did is you compiled a nearly 450 — you compiled nearly 450 pages of the very worst information you gathered against the target of your investigation who happens to be the President of the United States and you did this knowing that you were not going to recommend charges and that the report would be made public.
Mueller: Not true.
Reschenthaler: Mr. Mueller, as a former officer in the United States JAG Corps I prosecuted nearly 100 terrorists in a Baghdad courtroom. I cross-examined the Butcher of Fallujah in defense of our Navy SEALS. As a civilian, I was elected a magisterial district judge in Pennsylvania, so I’m very well-versed in the American legal system. The drafting and the publication of some of the information in this report without an indictment, without prosecution frankly flies in the face of American justice and I find those facts and this entire process un-American. I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague Jim Jordan.

  1. Jim Jordan: When Mr Mifsud lied three times to the FBI, why didn’t you charge him the way you charged people associated with the Trump campaign who lied once?

Although they charged Trump-related individuals for lying to the FBI, they did not charge the guy who started it all who lied three times to the FBI. Why is this allowed?

Speaker Testimony
Jordan: Director, the FBI interviewed Joseph Mifsud on February 10th, 2017. In that interview, Mr. Mifsud lied. You point this out on page 193, Volume 1, Mifsud denied, Mifsud also falsely stated. In addition, Mifsud omitted. Three times, he lied to the FBI; yet, you didn’t charge him with a crime. Why…(CROSSTALK)
Mueller: Excuse me — are…
Jordan: … Why not?
Mueller: … did you say — I’m sorry, did you say 193?
Jordan: Volume 1, 193. He lied three times, you point it out in the report, why didn’t you charge him with a crime?
Mueller: I can’t get into internal deliberations with regard to who or who would not be charged.
Jordan: You charged a lot of other people for making false statements. Let’s remember this — let’s remember this, in 2016 the FBI did something they probably haven’t done before, they spied on two American citizens associated with a presidential campaign.

George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. With Carter Page they went to the FISA court, they used the now famous dossier as part of the reason they were able to get the warrant and spy on Carter Page for a better part of a year. With Mr. Papadopoulos, they didn’t go to the court, they used human sources, all kinds of — from about the moment Papadopoulos joins the Trump campaign, you’ve got all these people all around the world starting to swirl around him, names like Halper, Downer, Mifsud, Thompson, meeting in Rome, London, all kinds of places.

The FBI even sent — even sent a lady posing as somebody else, went by the name Azmiturk (ph), even dispatched her to London to spy on Mr. Papadopoulos. In one of these meetings, Mr. Papadopoulos is talking to a foreign diplomat and he tells the diplomat Russians have dirt on Clinton. That diplomat then contacts the FBI and the FBI opens an investigation based on that fact. You point this out on page 1 of the report. July 31st, 2016 they open the investigation based on that piece of information.

Diplomat tells Papadopoulos Russians have dirt — excuse me, Papadopoulos tells the diplomat Russians have dirt on Clinton, diplomat tells the FBI. What I’m wondering is who told Papadopoulos? How’d he find out?

Mueller: I can’t get into the evidentiary filings.
Jordan: Yes, you can because you wrote about it, you gave us the answer. Page 192 of the report, you tell us who told him. Joseph Mifsud, Joseph Mifsud’s the guy who told Papadopoulos, the mysterious professor who lives in Rome and London, works at — teaches in two different universities.

This is the guy who told Papadopoulos he’s the guy who starts it all, and when the FBI interviews him, he lies three times and yet you don’t charge him with a crime. You charge Rick Gates for false statements, you charge Paul Manafort for false statements, you charge Michael Cohen with false statements, you charge Michael Flynn a three star general with false statements, but the guy who puts the country through this whole saga, starts it all for three years we’ve lived this now, he lies and you guys don’t charge him. And I’m curious as to why.

Mueller: Well I can’t get into it and it’s obvious I think that we can’t get into charging decisions.
Jordan: When the FBI interviewed him in February — FBI interviews him in February, when the Special Counsel’s Office interviewed Mifsud, did he lie to you guys too?
Mueller: Can’t get into that.
Jordan: Did you interview Mifsud?
Mueller: Can’t get into that.
Jordan: Is Mifsud western intelligence or Russian intelligence?
Mueller: Can’t get into that.
Jordan: A lot of things you can’t get into. What’s interesting, you can charge 13 Russians no one’s ever heard of, no one’s ever seen, no one’s ever going to hear of them, no one’s ever going to see them, you can charge them, you can charge all kinds of people who are around the president with false statements but the guy who launches everything, the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can’t charge him. I think that’s amazing.
Mueller: I’m not certain I — I’m not certain I agree with your characterizations.
Jordan: Well I’m reading from your report, Mifsud told Papadopoulos, Papadopoulos tells the diplomat, the diplomat tells the FBI, the FBI opens the investigation July 31st, 2016.

And here we are three years later, July of 2019, the country’s been put through this and the central figure who launches it all, lies to us and you guys don’t hunt him down and interview him again and you don’t charge him with a crime.

Now here’s the good news, here’s the good news, the president was falsely accused of conspiracy. The FBI does a 10 month investigation and James Comey when we deposed him a year ago told us at that point they had nothing. You do a 22-month investigation, at the end of that 22 months you find no conspiracy and what’s the Democrats want to do, they want to keep investigating, they want to keep going. Maybe a better course of action, maybe a better course of action is to figure out how the false accusations started, maybe it’s to go back and actually figure out why Joseph Mifsud was lying to the FBI. And here’s the good news, here’s the good news, that’s exactly what Bill Barr is doing. And thank goodness for that. That’s exactly what the attorney general and John Durham doing, they’re going to find out why we went through this three year…

Nadler: The time of the gentleman…
Jordan: …three year saga and get to the bottom of it.

  1. Ben Cline: How many of your team’s witch-hunt tactics have been overturned on appeal?

Representative Cline rightfully asks how many of the team’s tactics have been turned over on appeal.

Speaker Testimony
Cline: Thank You Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kolbe. Mr. Mueller, we’ve heard a lot about what you’re not going to talk about today. So let’s talk about something that you should be able to talk about: the law itself (the underlying obstruction statute and your creative legal analysis of the statutes in Volume 2, particularly an interpretation of 18 USC 1512 C). Section 1512 C, is an obstruction of justice statute created as part of auditing and financial regulations for public companies.

As you write on page 164 of Volume 2, this provision was added as a floor amendment in the Senate and explained as closing a certain loophole with respect to document shredding and to read the statute:

“Whoever corruptly alters destroys mutilates or conceals a record document or other object or attempts to do so with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in a fit in an official proceeding or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so shall be fined under the statue or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both.”

Your analysis and application of the statute proposes to give Clause C2 a much broader interpretation than commonly used. First, your analysis proposes to read Clause C2 in isolation: reading it as a free-standing, all-encompassing provision prohibiting any act influencing a proceeding if done with an improper motive. Second, your analysis of the statute proposes to apply the sweeping prohibition to lawful acts taken by public officials exercising their discretionary powers if those acts influence a proceeding. So, Mr. Mueller, I would ask you, in analyzing the obstruction you state that you recognize that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these issues. Correct?

Mueller: Correct
Cline: You’d agree that not everyone in the Justice Department agreed with your legal theory of the obstruction of justice statute. Correct?
Mueller: I’m not going to be involved in the discussion on on that at this juncture.
Cline: In fact, the Attorney General himself disagrees with your interpretation of the law, correct?
Mueller: I leave that to the Attorney General to identify.
Cline: You would agree that prosecutors sometimes incorrectly apply the law, correct?
Mueller: I would have to agree with that one.
Cline: … and members of your legal team, in fact, have had convictions overturned because they were based on an incorrect legal theory, correct?
Mueller: I don’t know to what you advert. We’ve all (CROSSTALK)
Cline: Well, in time, … (CROSSTALK)
Mueller: … in the trenches. We have all had one of those cases.
Cline: Well, let me ask you about one in particular. One of your top prosecutors Andrew Weissman obtained a conviction against auditing firm Authur Anderson in lower court which was subsequently overturned in a unanimous Supreme Court decision that rejected the legal theory advanced by Weissman, correct?
Mueller: Well, I’m not gonna get into delve into …
Cline: Let me read from that.
Mueller: May I just finish?
Cline: Yes.
Mueller: I’m not going to be involved in a discussion on that. I will refer you to that citation that you gave at the outset for the lengthy discussion on just what you’re talking about and to the extent that I have say anything to say about it. It is what we have already put into the report on that.
Cline: I am reading from your report when discussing this section now. I’ll read from the decision of the Supreme Court unanimously reversing Mr. Weissman, when he said, “Indeed, it’s striking how little culpability the instructions required. For example, the jury was told that even if petitioner honestly and sincerely believed as conduct was lawful, the jury could convict. The instructions also diluted the meaning of ‘corruptly’ such that it covered innocent conduct.”
Mueller: Let me just say …
Cline: No. Let me move on. I have limited time. Your report takes the broadest possible reading of this provision in applying it to the president’s official acts and I’m concerned about the implications of your theory for over criminalizing conduct by public officials and private citizens alike. So to emphasize how broad your theory of liability is, I want to ask you about a few examples. On October 11, 2015, during the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, President Obama said, “I don’t think it posed a national security problem.” And he later said “I can tell you that this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

Assuming for a moment that his comments did influence the investigation, couldn’t President Obama be charged under your interpretation with obstruction of justice?

Mueller: Well again, I’d refer you to the report, but let me say with Andrew Weissman is one of the more talented attorneys that we Haven’t have on board.
Cline: Well, I’ll take that
Mueller: …over a period of time. He is run a number Units

Cline: I have very little time. In August 2015, a very senior DOJ official called FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe expressing concern that FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe. The DOJ official was apparently “very pissed off.” McCabe questioned this official asking “Are you telling me I need to shut down a vallidly predicated investigation?” to which the official replied, “Of course not. This seems to be a clear example of somebody within the executive branch attempting to influence an FBI investigation.” So, under your theory, couldn’t that person be charged with obstruction as long as a prosecutor could come up with a potentially corrupt motive?
Mueller: I refer you to our lengthy dissertation on exactly those issues as it appears in the at the end of the report.
Cline: Mr Mueller, I argue that it says above the Supreme Court “equal justice…”

  1. Greg Steube: Multiple times, you call the Steele dossier “unverified.” When did you determine it was unverified? When did you become aware that the unverified Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page?

Representative Steube asks Mueller why he based his investigation on what was known to be an unverified dossier.

Speaker Testimony
Steube: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mueller, over here. Mr. Mueller did you indeed interview for the FBI director job one day before you were appointed as Special Counsel?
Mueller: My understanding I was not applying for that job, I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job, which triggered the interview you’re talking about.
Steube: So you don’t recall on May 16th, 2017 that you interviewed with the president regarding the FBI director job?
Mueller: I interviewed with the president and it was about…
Steube: Regarding the FBI director job?
Mueller: …it was about the job and not about me applying for the job.
Steube: So your statement here today is that you didn’t interview to apply for the FBI director job?
Mueller: That’s correct.
Steube: So it – did you tell the vice president that the FBI director position would be the one job that you would come back to – for?
Mueller: I don’t recall that one.
Steube: You don’t recall that?
Mueller: No.
Steube: OK. Given your 22 months of investigation, tens of million dollars spent and millions of documents reviewed, did you obtain any evidence at all that any American voter changed their vote as a result of Russia’s election interference?
Mueller: I’m not going to speak to that.
Steube: You can’t speak to that after 22 months of investigation, there’s not any evidence in that document before us that any voter changed their vote because of their interference and I’m asking you based on all of the documents that you reviewed…
Mueller: That was – that was outside our purview.
Steube: Russian meddling was outside your purview?
Mueller: But the impact of that meddling was undertaken by other agencies.
Steube: OK, you stated in your opening statement that you would not get into the details of the Steele Dossier. However multiple times in Volume 2 on page 23, 27 and 28 you mentioned the unverified allegations. How long did it take you to reach the conclusion that it was unverified?
Mueller: I’m not going to speak to that.
Steube: It’s in – it’s actually in your report multiple times that its unverified and you’re telling me that you’re not willing to tell us how you came to conclusion that it was unverified?
Mueller: True.
Steube: When did you become aware that the unverified Steele Dossier was included in the FISA application to spy on Carter Page?
Mueller: I’m sorry, what was the – what was the question?
Steube: When did you become aware that the unverified Steele Dossier was intended – was included in the FISA application to spy on Carter Page?
Mueller: I’m not going to speak to that.
Steube: Your team interviewed Christopher Steele, is that correct?
Mueller: Not going to get into that. I said it – I…
Steube: You can’t – you can’t – you can’t tell this committee as to whether or not you interviewed Christopher Steele in a 22 month investigation with 18 lawyers?
Mueller: As I said at the outset, that is one of those – one of the investigations that is being handled by others in the Department of Justice.
Steube: Yes but you’re here testifying about this investigation today and I am asking you directly did any members of your team or did you interview Christopher Steele in the course of your investigation.
Mueller: And I am not going to answer that question, sir.
Steube: You had two years to investigate, not once did you consider it worthy to investigate how an unverified document that was paid for by a political opponent was used to obtain a warrant to spy on the opposition political campaign. Did you do any investigation in that way (ph)?
Mueller: I do not accept your characterization of what occurred.
Steube: What would you – what would be your characterization?
Mueller: I’m not going to speak any more to it.
Steube: So you can’t speak any more to it but you’re not going to agree with my characterization? Is that correct?
Mueller: Yes.
Steube: The FISA application makes reference to Source 1, who is Christopher Steele, the author of the Steele Dossier. The FISA application says nothing Sources 1’s reason for conducting the research into Canada 1′ (ph) ties to Russia. Based on Source’s 1 previous reporting history with FBI, whereby Source One provided reliable information to the FBI. The FBI believes Source One’s reporting herein to be credible. Do you believe the FBI’s representation that Source 1’s reporting was credible to be accurate?
Mueller: I’m not going to answer that.
Steube: So you’re not going to respond to any of the questions regarding Christopher Steele or your interviews with him?
Mueller: Well as I said at the outset this morning, that was one of the investigations that I could not speak to.
Steube: Well I don’t understand how if you interviewed an individual on the purview of this investigation that you’re testifying to us today that you’ve closed that investigation, how that’s not within your purview to tell us about that investigation and who you interviewed.
Mueller: I have nothing to add.
Steube: OK well the – I can guarantee that the American people want to know and I’m – and I’m very hopeful and glad that A.G. Barr is looking into this and the inspector general is looking into this because you’re unwilling to answer the questions of the American people as it relates to the very basis of this investigation into the president and the very basis of this individual who you did interview, you’re just refusing to answer those questions.

Can – can’t the president fire the FBI director at any time without reason under the Article I of the Constitution?

Mueller: Yes.
Steube: Article II.
Mueller: Yes.
Steube: That’s correct. Can’t he also fire U.S. Special Counsel at any time without any reason?
Mueller: I believe that to be the case.
Steube: Under Article II.
Mueller: Well hold on just a second, you said without any reason, I know the Special Counsel can be fired, but I’m not certain it extends to for whatever reasons is given.
Steube: Well then you’ve testified that you weren’t fired, you were able to complete your investigation in full. Is that correct?
Mueller: I’m not going to add to what I’ve stated before.

  1. Kelly Armstrong: Why did you assemble a team of 18 Democrats that included the lawyer who destroyed Hillary Clinton’s mobile devices?

Here, Representative Armstrong asks Mr. Mueller why only Democrats (especially those who had formerly worked for Hillary) investigated on this team.

Speaker Testimony
Armstrong: Mr. Mueller, how many people did you fire – how many people on your staff did you fire during the course of the investigation?
Mueller: How many people…
Armstrong: Did you fire?
Mueller: I’m not going to discuss that.
Armstrong: You fired – according to inspector general’s report, attorney number two was let go and we know Peter Strzok was let go, correct?
Mueller: Yes, and there may have been other persons on other issues that have been either transferred or fired.
Armstrong: Peter Strzok testified before this Committee on July 12, 2018 that he was fired because you were concerned about preserving the appearance of independence. Do you agree with this testimony?
Mueller: Say that again if you could?
Armstrong: He said he was fired at least partially because you were worried about – concerned about preserving the appearance of independence with the special counsel’s investigation. Do you agree with that statement?
Mueller: And the statement was by whom?
Armstrong: Peter Strzok at this hearing.
Mueller: I am not familiar with that.
Armstrong: Did you fire him because you were worried about the appearance of independence of the investigation?
Mueller: No. He was transferred as a result of instances involving texts.
Armstrong: Do you agree that – do you agree that your office did not only have an obligation to operate with independence but to operate with the appearance of independence as well?
Mueller: Absolutely. We strove to do that over the two years.
Armstrong: Andrew…
Mueller: Part of that was making certain that…
Armstrong: Andrew Weissmann’s one of your top attorneys?
Mueller: Yes.
Armstrong: Did Weissmann have a role is selecting other members of your team?
Mueller: He had some role but not a major role.
Armstrong: Andrew Weissmann attended Hillary Clinton’s election night party. Did you know that before or after he came onto the team?
Mueller: I don’t know when I found that out.
Armstrong: On January 30, 2017, Weissmann wrote an email to Deputy Attorney General Yates stating, “I am so proud and in awe regarding her disobeying a direct order from the president.” Did Weissmann disclose that email to you before he joined the team?
Mueller: I’m not going to talk about that.
Armstrong: Is that not a conflict of interest?
Mueller: Not going to talk about that.
Armstrong: Are you aware that Ms. Jeannie Rhee represented Hillary Clinton in litigation regarding personal emails originating from Clinton’s time as Secretary of State?
Mueller: Yes.
Armstrong: Did you know that before she came on the…
Mueller: No.
Armstrong: Aaron Zelbley, the guy sitting next to you, represented Justin Cooper, a Clinton aide who destroyed one of Clinton’s mobile devices, and you must be aware by now that six of your lawyers donated $12,000 directly to Hillary Clinton. I’m not even talking about the $49,000 they donated to other democrats, just the donations to the opponent who was the target of your investigation.
Mueller: Can I speak for a second to the hiring practices?
Armstrong: Sure.
Mueller: We strove to hire those individuals that could do that job.
Armstrong: OK.
Mueller: I have been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done. What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job and do the job quickly and seriously and with integrity.
Armstrong: But that’s what I’m saying, Mr. Mueller. This isn’t just about you being able to vouch for your team. This is about knowing that the day you accepted this role you had to be aware no matter what this report concluded half of the country was going to be scheduled – skeptical of your team’s findings, and that’s why we have recusal laws that define bias and perceive bias for this very reason.

28 United States code 5218 (ph) specifically lists not just political conflict of interest but the appearance of political conflicts of interest. It’s just simply not enough that you vouch for your team.

The interest (inaudible) demand that no perceived bias exists. I can’t imagine a single prosecutor or judge that I have every appeared in front of would be comfortable with these circumstances where over half of the prosecutorial team had a direct relationship to the opponent of the person being investigated.

Mueller: Let me one other fact that I put on the table, and that is we hired 19 lawyers over the period of time. Of those 19 lawyers, 14 of them were transferred from elsewhere in the Department of Justice. Only five came from outside, so we did not have…
Armstrong: And half of them had a direct relationship, political or personal, with the opponent of the person you were investigating, and that’s my point. I wonder if not a single word in this entire report was change but rather the only difference was we switched Hillary Clinton and President Trump.

If Peter Strzok has texted those terrible things about Hillary Clinton instead of President Trump, if a team of lawyers worked for, donated thousands of dollars to, and went to Trump’s parties instead of Clinton’s, I don’t think we’d be here trying to prop up an obstruction allegation.

My colleagues would have spent the last four months accusing your team of being bought and paid for by the Trump campaign and we couldn’t trust a single word of this report. They would still be accusing the president of conspiracy with Russia and they would be accusing your team of aiding and embedding with that conspiracy, and with that I yield back.

  1. Mike Johnson: Why did your team include 14 Democrats and 0 Republicans? Why did you hire Democrat bundlers who raised $60,000 for the Hillary campaign?

Finally, Representative Johnson asked why each of the Democrats hired for Mueller’s team each raised at least $60,000 for Hillary Clinton.

Speaker Testimony
Johnson: Mr. Mueller, you’ve been asked — over here on the — on the far right, sir — you’ve been asked a lot of questions here today. And to be frank, you performed as most of us expected. You’ve stuck closely to your report and you have declined to answer many of our questions on both sides.

As the closer for the Republican side, I know you’re glad to get to the close, I want to summarize the highlights of what we have heard and what we know.

You spent two years, and nearly $30 million taxpayer dollars and unlimited resources to prepare a nearly 450-page report which you describe today as very thorough. Millions of Americans today maintain genuine concerns about your work, in large part, because of the infamous and widely publicized bias of your investigating team members, which we now know included 14 Democrats and 0 Republicans.

Campaign finance reports later showed that team… (CROSSTALK)

Mueller: Can I…
Johnson: … Excuse me, it’s my time. That team of Democrat investigators you hired donated more than $60,000 to the Hillary Clinton campaign and other Democratic candidates. Your team also included Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, which have been discussed today, and they had the lurid text messages that confirm they openly mocked and hated Donald Trump and his supporters, and they vowed to take him out.

Mr. Ratcliffe asked you earlier this morning, quote, “Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?” unquote. You answered, “I cannot.” Sir, that is unprecedented.

The president believed from the very beginning that you and your special counsel team had serious conflicts this is stated in the report and acknowledged by everybody. And yet, President Trump cooperated fully with the investigation. He knew he had done nothing wrong, and he encouraged all witnesses to cooperate with the investigation and produce more than 1.4 million pages of information, and allowed over 40 witnesses who are directly affiliated with the White House or his campaign.

Your report acknowledges on page 61, Volume 2 that a volume of evidence exists of the president telling many people privately, quote, “The president was concerned about the impact of the Russian investigation on his ability to govern, and to address important foreign relations issues and even matters of national security.”

And on page 174, Volume 2 your report also acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held, quote, “The president’s removal powers are at their zenith with respect to principal officers — that is, officers who must be appointed by the president and who report to him directly. The president’s ‘exclusive and illimitable power of removal’ of those principal officers furthers ‘the president’s ability to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed,'” unquote. And that would even include the attorney general. Look, in spite of all of that, nothing ever happened to stop or impede your special counsel’s investigation. Nobody was fired by the president, nothing was curtailed and the investigation continued unencumbered for 22 long months.

As you finally concluded in Volume 1, the evidence, quote, “Did not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” unquote. And the evidence, quote, “did not establish that the president or those close to him were involved in any Russian conspiracies or had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official,” unquote. Over those 22 long months that your investigation dragged along, the president became increasingly frustrated as many of the American people did with its effects on our country and – and his ability to govern.

He vented about this to his lawyer and his close associates and he even shared his frustrations, as we all know, on twitter. But while the president’s social media accounts might have influenced some in the media or the opinion of some the American people, none of those audiences were targets or witnesses in your investigation.

The president never affected anybody’s testimony. He never demanded to end the investigation or demanded that you be terminated and he never misled Congress, the DOJ or the special counsel. Those, sir, are her undisputed facts. There will be a lot of discussion I predict today and great frustration throughout the country about the fact that you wouldn’t answer any questions here about the origins of this whole charade, which was the infamous Christopher Steele dossier, now proven to be totally bogus, even though it is listed and specifically referenced in your report.

But as our hearing is concluding, we apparently will get no comment on that from you. Mr. Mueller there’s one primary reason why you were called here today by the democrat majority of our committee. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle just want political cover. They desperately wanted you today to tell them they should impeach the president but the one thing you have said very clearly today is that your report is complete and thorough and you completely agree with and stand by its recommendations and all of its content. Is that right?

Mueller: True.
Johnson: Mr. Mueller, one last important question. Your report does not recommend impeachment, does it?
Mueller: I’m not going to talk about recommendations.
Johnson: It does not conclude that impeachment would be appropriate here, right?
Mueller: I’m not going to talk – I’m not going to talk about that – about that issue.
Johnson: That’s one of the many things you wouldn’t talk about today but I think we can all draw our own conclusions. I do thank you for your service to the country and I’m glad this charade will come to an end soon and we can get back to the important business of this committee with its broad jurisdiction of so many important issues for the country. With that, I yield back.