Open Letter To The Black Community – Part 1

Featured

BishopEWJackson

From the desk of Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr.

Dear Fellow Americans (of African descent):

I write to you with great concern for the future of our country and the black community. Like most Americans, I too am angry over the killing of George Floyd. His death was a monstrous act, and former police officer Derek Chauvin deserves to have the full weight of the law brought against him. If the video we witnessed is accurate, Mr. Chauvin must be imprisoned for a long time.

However, my sadness reaches well beyond this single tragedy. The riots, looting and violence which have occurred in cities across the country will not reform, heal, unify or improve the lives and safety of black Americans. In fact, these actions are radically regressive and self-destructive.

Black businesses are burned down, the owners are assaulted and essential grocery stores and pharmacies are destroyed. Cops and innocent bystanders are victimized and killed. The irony is that the victims are primarily those for whom the rioters claim to be seeking justice. History teaches us that communities wracked by riots and looting do not recover easily, if at all. They tend to become more impoverished and dangerous than they were before the upheaval.

The Proverb says, “where there is no vision, the people perish.” The last time curfews were necessary to quell violence across the country was fifty-two years ago in 1968. A half a century later, we face the same destructive reaction to racial grievance. It will not lead to one black child getting a better education. Not one black worker will get a better job, and not one inner city family will live in a safer community. If police departments are defunded, as Black Lives Matter is demanding, look for an outbreak of crime and violence in the inner city like nothing we have ever witnessed before.

The purpose of peaceful protests should be to secure a better life for those trapped by inner-city violence, drugs, gangs, and lack of educational and economic opportunity. If we are having the same violent protests over the same issues with the same negative consequences as 50 years ago, something is wrong with our approach.

There is a way out of this vicious cycle, but it is hard medicine. Black citizens must stop voting for a political party that espouses nothing more than racial demagoguery. Al Sharpton, a proven charlatan with zero credibility, is trotted out to speak for the victims. No solutions are offered and no long term progress is ever made. Social and racial justice are popular slogans, but they are not a strategy for improving the lives of people.

Education has been used to uplift every demographic group that has come to America. However, inner city children whose ancestors are among the earliest to arrive on this continent, are trapped in failing schools. Educational choice offers a real solution, but black Democratic politicians block it at every turn. They send their children to the finest schools available while leaving the children of their constituents trapped in dead-end institutions.

Their betrayal doesn’t end with education. These black politicians go to church every Sunday, and some of them are pastors. Yet they disregard the sin of abortion and its impact on the black community. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was a rabid racist who admired Adolph Hitler and consorted with the Ku Klux Klan. She would have liked to exterminate black people, but satisfied herself with suppressing the growth of the black population through abortion. When eugenics proved unmarketable, she changed her brand to “planned parenthood” which sounds benign unless you know the truth. With the full cooperation of many black leaders, Sanger’s genocide against the black community continues to this day.

Finally, the single greatest social problem facing the black community is the destruction of the nuclear family. The out-of-wedlock birth rate has exploded to 72%. In some cities such as Richmond, Virginia it is 80%. The young men, born to single mothers, unwanted by their fathers, grow up with anger and abandonment issues. Desperately wanting to be wanted, they are easy recruits into a brotherhood of gangs, crime and violence. The streets are an outlet for their anger.

Leftists complain that the criminal justice system tracks young black men from the school house to the jail house. But the “progressive” welfare policies of the Democrat Party put them on that track. Instead of encouraging stable, two-parent families, they incentivize single, female-headed households. They’ve been doing this since the 1960s, with horrific results.

Where is the plan for reversing the crisis of these communities? Where is the vision for a better future? Democratic leaders have led the black community to the brink of destruction with no hope for a better life. The black Democrat elites on the other hand experience the best America has to offer while leaving their fellow black citizens utterly hopeless.

Living posh lives, these so called black leaders and their white leftist counterparts tell black voters to hate and fear Donald Trump because he is their problem. He is the enemy. His rhetoric does at times make it easy for them to mischaracterize him. Nevertheless, Donald Trump has accomplished some remarkable things to benefit the black community. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s) have faced financial hardship for decades, and he is the first president to provide a permanent funding solution.

He established Opportunity Zones for the inner cities to help spur economic development. He presided over an economy that saw the lowest unemployment rates ever for black and Hispanic Americans. He shepherded the Criminal Justice Reform Bill through Congress, correcting the legacy of the Clinton era overreaction to the crack cocaine epidemic.

President Trump is actually doing something about the problems the black community faces while Democrats do nothing.

Democrats hope that if they can keep black voters fixated on hating Donald Trump and the boogey man of racism, they won’t notice that the leaders they elected and the party they support are doing nothing. The voters won’t notice that over 7000 young black people die in inner city violence every year. They won’t notice the failing schools or the dropout rates. They won’t notice the the continuing decimation of the nuclear family, once the bedrock of the black community. The black Democrat politicians do not want black voters to notice that they are enriching themselves with blood money from Planned Parenthood. That organization kills around 400,000 black babies every year. The black population would be double what it is today were it not for the abortion industry and the Democrats they pay to keep quiet about the genocide.

It is time for black citizens to turn away from such corrupt leaders. It is time to denounce the rioting, violence and the anti-Christian philosophy of the Democratic Party which is only destroying black people.

We must come together with other citizens around a vision for the future of our community and our country that is rooted and grounded in faith. We’ve come this far by faith, but Democrats would have us burn the bridge that brought us over. That is suicide.

As America goes, so goes the black community. Black veterans fought under the same American Flag and took the same oath to the Constitution. While they did not always receive the respect and gratitude they were due, it is nonetheless true that no people of African heritage anywhere on earth are more free or better off than we who are blessed to be Americans. America is still the last best hope for all of us, regardless of race.

We cannot change the past. However, we can change the future. It is time to come together across all racial and cultural lines to renew the American vision of “one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” It is within our grasp if we do not allow the radical elements among us to destroy it forever. We are at the precipice. There are those who would like to push us over the cliff into chaos. They think they will be there to pick up the pieces and create a socialist utopia, but history proves it will be a totalitarian nightmare.

Let us, as free black Americans, pull back from the precipice, push back against the anarchists and embrace the legacy of freedom, justice and hope for ourselves and the generations to follow.

Restoring America’s Vision,
EWJacksonSignature

Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr.

Bishop E.W. Jackson is the President and Founder of STAND – Staying True to America’s National Destiny; Presiding Bishop of The Called Church and host of The Awakening on American Family Radio.

For the original of this letter, go to https://www.standamerica.us/.

Two instances of police violence that did not cause riots

Featured

  1. Tony Timpa died pinned to the ground by Dallas police

With a hat tip to the NWO Report, we find that the Dallas Morning News reported in 2016 that an unarmed White man was killed by Dallas police in a method similar to that employed against George Floyd.

Tony TimpaTony Timpa wailed and pleaded for help more than 30 times as Dallas police officers pinned his shoulders, knees and neck to the ground.

“You’re gonna kill me! You’re gonna kill me! You’re gonna kill me!”

After Timpa fell unconscious, the officers who had him in handcuffs assumed he was asleep and didn’t confirm that he was breathing or feel for a pulse.

As precious minutes passed, the officers laughed and joked about waking Timpa up for school and making him waffles for breakfast.

Body camera footage obtained Tuesday by The Dallas Morning News shows first responders waited at least four minutes after Timpa became unresponsive to begin CPR. His nose was buried in the grass while officers claimed to hear him snoring — apparently unaware that the unarmed man was drawing his last breaths.

The officers pinned his handcuffed arms behind his back for nearly 14 minutes and zip-tied his legs together. By the time he was loaded onto a gurney and put into an ambulance, the 32-year-old was dead.

The News obtained Dallas Police Department body camera footage after a three-year fight for records related to Timpa’s death. A federal judge ruled Monday in favor of a motion by The News and NBC5 to release records from his death, saying “the public has a compelling interest in understanding what truly took place during a fatal exchange between a citizen and law enforcement.”

Timpa called 911 on Aug. 10, 2016, from the parking lot of a Dallas porn store, saying he was afraid and needed help. He told a dispatcher he suffered from schizophrenia and depression and was off his prescription medication. The News first reported Timpa’s death in a 2017 investigation that showed Dallas police refused to say how a man who had called 911 for help ended up dead.

The newly obtained video and records, part of a lawsuit filed by Timpa’s family in federal court alleging excessive force, contradict key claims Dallas police have made in defending the officers’ actions.

Police incident reports recounting the officers’ version of events claim Timpa’s behavior that night was aggressive and combative. The video shows Timpa writhing at times and clearly struggling to breathe, asking the officers to stop pinning him down.

(Read more at the Dallas Morning News)

Similarly, the neck of Timpa was pressed into the ground

Unlike George Floyd, Tony Timpa was not listed as a criminal. George Floyd had the police called on him because a cashier suspected that he had passed a counterfeit $20 bill.

Tony Timpa felt that his schizophrenia might be resurfacing and he had not taken his medications; therefore, he called police for help.

Why weren’t there riots in response to this death? Certainly Mr. Timpa’s life was precious. Furthermore, his life was important to someone with some degree of power, since the police took some sport at pointing out the high-class neighborhood indicated by his drivers license.

The first reason that nobody rioted or protested in response to Tony Timpa’s death centers on how well it aligns with the current goals of the Democrat party (or whatever the liberal cause du jour has surfaced within the press). We did not get outraged over this death because we never heard about it. Additionally, there is the possibility that we only hear about it now because it helps advance the narrative that police are acting altogether too violently and causing the deaths of too many.

A second reason, however, that the conservative (as opposed to the liberal) might have a large Christian component. Due to this leaning, Christians within the conservative movement might consider that the government as ministers of general justice (as outlined in Romans 13:1-5 below).

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. (Romans 13:1‭-‬5 NASB)

Additionally, Christians would (hopefully) follow the command of God to not exact our own revenge (as given in Romans 12:19-21 below).

Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine , I will repay ,” says the Lord. “But if your enemy is hungry , feed him , and if he is thirsty , give him a drink ; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head .” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:19‭-‬21 NASB)

Finally, (although Christians are not sinless, only forgiven) I would hope that Christians might work to avoid the fleshly tendencies listed in Galatians 5:19-21.

Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19‭-‬21 NASB)

Of course, the commands often fall into the realm of ideals (because, yes, Christians fail). And the deeds of the flesh sometimes turn into a litany of events from the previous night. Still, for the most part, I believe that many Christians do hold to these actions.

That is why conservatives don’t riot.

  1. Justine Damond was shot by Mohamed Noor

As posted on this blog last year, OneNewsNow originally reported on the murder of Justine Damond.

Justine DamondJustine Damond was shot by Mohamed Noor through the driver’s side window of the police car while he was seated in the passenger side.

Damond had called 911 about what she thought sounded like a sexual assault.

Noor, who has refused to explain why he shot Damond when she approached the squad car, is charged with third-degree murder and second degree manslaughter.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Marches for Justine Damond may have occurred, but not riots

Maybe because she was Australian-American. Maybe because she was a pretty, blonde 40-something woman who was about to get married, she did not fit with the press narrative or the Democrat talking points.

Since her death occurred as the Kavanaugh hearings were in the beginning of their death throws and the public was getting tired of hearing claims from women (even though Damond’s case was a straight-forward victimization by a Muslim cop and Blasey-Ford’s case was a unsubstantial case that even her closest friends would not back up).

Otherwise, I am not sure why #MeToo did not pick up the case of Justine Damond (other than maybe they felt they could not juggle the ball of Blasey-Ford and Damond at the same time).

Then again, maybe the press did not want to take a stand against a Muslim even when he shot a defenseless woman.

Good news that went unreported in main stream media


74 Miles of Border Wall Completed, 158 More Under Construction

In a 26 October 2019 Breitbart article, we get a report on the 74 miles of border wall completed and the 158 miles still under construction.

WallBorder Patrol officials say communities along the border are safer following the completion of 74 miles of improved border wall systems. Those systems include 30-foot bollard walls, new border-access roads, lighting, and electronic surveillance. Construction on an additional 158 miles is underway with 450 miles scheduled to be completed by the end of 2020.

Construction crews under the direction of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a report on Friday showing the completion of 74 miles of replacement border wall systems along the southwestern border with Mexico. Officials stated that 158 miles of additional walls are currently under construction and 276 miles are in a “pre-construction phase,” according to information provided to Breitbart News by CBP officials.

The new border wall system in Calexico, California, is the first section of replacement wall to be completed, El Centro Sector Assistant Chief Patrol Agent Joshua C. Devack said in a video presentation on Friday. “Since the border wall system was completed in this area, local business and commerce is thriving and areas once considered dangerous are now secure,” Devack stated. “In addition, overall crime in this area has been significantly reduced thus making our community a safer place to live and work.”

Prior to the new wall systems installed in January 2017, many sections of the border were relatively unsecured. Those areas consisted of landing mat walls that could easily be cut or climbed and other barriers designed only to stop vehicle traffic, Devack reported. The newly completed wall system includes 30-foot high bollard walls, new border-access roads allowing faster response by agents, additional lighting, and electronic surveillance systems, which provide advance warning and faster detection of border-crossing activities.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Nobody in the main stream press will report this win

humantraffickingJust as they will not report the reduction in human trafficking due to the construction of the border wall, main stream media outlets refuse to credit President Trump for building the wall.

Oddly, in the age of #MeToo, none of the main stream media want to champion a wall that reduces forced prostitution, forced marriage, child abduction, and other similar crimes.

Although their hypocrisy sticks in my craw, the opportunity for news distribution by alternative news sources does find support with me. In other words, I like supporting outlets like Breitbart, One America News, and Newsmax by visiting their websites and buying products there.

Lives saved: nine illegal aliens rescued from Texas border river

Breitbart continues its tradition of reporting on the heroics of Customs and Border Control agents.

Del-Rio-Migrant-RescueBorder Patrol agents assigned to the Texas-Mexico border region rescued nine migrant family members in two incidents from possibly drowning while illegally crossing the border from Mexico. The incidents occurred in the El Paso and Del Rio Sectors.

Del Rio Station Marine Unit agents patrolling the Rio Grande near the Del Rio Port of Entry on October 17 encountered a group of six Haitian migrants attempting to wade across the swiftly moving river currents. The group included two infants, according to information obtained from Del Rio Sector Border Patrol officials.

The agents observed the group appearing to struggle during the crossing and maneuvered their boat into position to affect a rescue. The agents pulled the Haitian migrants, including two children under the age of one, into their boat and transported them to the bank where ground-based agents evaluated their medical condition. The agents determined none of the migrants sustained injuries and transported them to the Del Rio Station for processing under current U.S. Customs and Border Protection guidelines.

Again, the main stream will not report heroics of the Border Patrol

Served_Congress_twice_subpoenaed_Bryan_PaglianoJust as Jeff Sessions would not prosecute Bryan Pagliano because he was “too close to Hillary,” the main stream media will not cover the saving of illegal aliens by Border Patrol agents because those agents are “too close to Trump.” Acknowledging the heroics of the Border Patrol would, in effect, provide a win for President Donald Trump in their eyes.

And, as the unhinged headlines on the Washington Post show, those members of the main stream media will not give an inch to President Trump.

Durham’s probe into possible FBI misconduct expanded based on new evidence, sources say

According to a 22 October 2019 article at Fox News, several sources report that Durham’s investigation into FBI misconduct has been based on new evidence.

U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the FBI’s 2016 Russia probe has expanded based on new evidence uncovered during a recent trip to Rome with Attorney General Bill Barr, sources told Fox News on Tuesday.

The sources said Durham was “very interested” to question former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, an anti-Trump critic who recently dismissed the idea.

The two Obama administration officials were at the helm when the unverified and largely discredited Steele dossier, written by British ex-spy Christopher Steele and funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, was used to justify a secret surveillance warrant against former Trump adviser Carter Page.

In Italy, Barr reportedly told embassy officials he “needed a conference room to meet high-level Italian security agents where he could be sure no one was listening in.”

A source in the Italian Ministry of Justice told The Daily Beast earlier this month that Barr and Durham were played a taped deposition made by Joseph Mifsud, the professor who allegedly told ex-Trump aide George Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Mifsud reportedly was explaining to authorities in the deposition why people would want to harm him, and why he needed police protection.

Papadopoulos has suggested he was connected with Mifsud as part of a setup orchestrated by intelligence agencies.

Additionally, reports have it that FBI top lawyer James Baker may be turning

According to the Washington Examiner and other sources, the FBI’s former top lawyer James Baker (pictured at the top of this post) may be cooperating with the investigation. If this is true, James Comey and other players in the Obama-FBI soft coup against Trump might want to have their own deals in place (or be in a country that has no extradition treaty with the United States).

Texas Right to Life got a voice outside the Texas Democrat debate

According to Texas Right to Life, they were able to provide a strong pro-life voice outside of the Houston Democrat Debate (even though it was totally embargoed by the main stream media and the local press).

Pro-life-democratic-debate-billboard-abortion-1Today, 10 of the most radical anti-Life Democrats will take the debate stage in Houston, trying to convince America — and more importantly, Texas — to vote pro-abortion in 2020.

But the media and the Democratic Party want to hide the issue of abortion at all costs! They know their position is out-of-step with most Americans; that’s why moderators didn’t ask about abortion in the last debate, and other than crazy Kamala Harris, none of the candidates dared to bring up their stance.

Analysts agree that Democrats have a real chance at turning Texas blue. You must expose them now… before we’re too late.

Thanks to your support thus far, Texas Right to Life will launch a Pro-Life billboard truck outside tonight’s Houston debate.

The message “Abortion separates children from their families” will make candidates and voters consider the issue, but only YOU can make them pick a side: Life or death. Biblical truth or anti-Life lies.

Your gift today can expose Democrats’ abortion agenda.

The Democratic Party platform calls the decision to murder an innocent unborn child a “right,” and every major candidate in the field supports totally unrestricted abortions until birth (sometimes even after birth!) with taxpayers like you footing the bill!!

And these Democrats are cunning. They know that only 6% of Americans agree with this rabidly anti-Life platform, so the mainstream media covering tonight’s debate will do everything possible to hide and disguise the abortion holocaust.

(Read more at Texas Right to Life)

If I had not seen this truck, I would not have known to search the news venues for it

Had I not been required by my daily commute to drive by the outskirts of TSU on the day of the debate, I would not have known about the presence of this truck. Additionally, had the Texas Right to Life not posted a picture of their truck on Facebook, I would not have been able to provide a picture (since I’m not so good at taking pictures on the fly while driving).

Therefore, I have to both scold local media for not covering the whole story provided by the Democrat debate and thank Texas Right to Life for their getting the word out themselves.

President Trump is “stacking” the 9th Circuit

We hear through the Daily Caller that President Trump has been accused of “stacking” a court that continually gets overruled.

TrumpWinningPresident Donald Trump named two nominees for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, tapping a federal prosecutor and a conservative appellate lawyer for the west coast court.

The nominees, Patrick Bumatay and Lawrence VanDyke, are likely to elicit strong opposition for Democrats. If confirmed, the pair would raise the number of Trump’s 9th Circuit appointees to nine, with one other nomination pending.

Trump has clashed frequently with the 9th Circuit, which upheld injunctions against top administration policy priorities like the travel ban. His criticisms drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who rejected Trump’s charge that judges are sometimes motivated by politics.

Friday’s nomination is the latest twist in Bumatay’s meandering path to the federal bench. Trump nominated Bumatay to the 9th Circuit in October 2018 over the objections of California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, but his nomination lapsed with the end of the previous Congress. Thereafter, Trump nominated Bumatay to a federal trial court in southern California. That nomination was pending before the Senate until Friday, when the president changed course and named Bumatay to the 9th Circuit.

Bumatay currently advises senior officials at the Department of Justice on organized crime, incarceration and the national opioid strategy, according to a dossier compiled by supporters of his nomination. In that capacity, he helps manage federal law enforcement agencies like the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Before coming to Washington D.C. in 2017 he was a federal prosecutor in southern California.

“Patrick Bumatay will make a terrific judge on the 9th Circuit,” former Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement following his nomination. “He has dedicated his career to upholding the rule of law. Patrick’s many fine qualities, including his integrity, intellect, and collegiality, make him exceedingly worthy of this position. And his fidelity to the text of the Constitution is exactly what this country needs.”

(Read more at Daily Caller)

News to the Left: It is the President’s prerogative to provide judicial nominees

As much as I did not like the nominations made by Obama, I tolerated them and prayed for them to gain wisdom. Likewise, when Obama made appointments to predominantly conservative courts, I did not protest (but just prayed and hoped for a turning of the political tide). However, now that the court that has done more to overturn President Trump’s actions is being “fixed” — now the lefties cry out.

‘It is exactly what Hillary Clinton’s campaign did’: Newt Gingrich turns the tables on The View

The Daily Caller details how Newt straightened out the story-line the women of The View were trying to spin.

HuntsmanGingrich sat in for Joy Behar, and Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich turned the tables Tuesday on “The View,” laying out the differences between President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton with regard to impeachment.

Abby Huntsman pressed him to revisit the Clinton impeachment — over which he presided — for the sake of comparison.<

Huntsman began by pointing out that Gingrich had once occupied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s seat. “You did go down the impeachment road,” she said. “If you were Nancy today and you had a president that did exactly what Trump did that was a Democrat, what would you do?”

“Well first of all, I’m sitting here trying to be Joy and now you want me to be Nancy. All I can tell you is this is getting to be a pretty heavy load to carry psychologically,” Gingrich laughed. “But there are two big differences.”

Gingrich then laid out the fact that an independent counsel had delivered a report indicating that Clinton was guilty of a felony. “I think had speaker Pelosi referred the Ukrainian phone call to a special counsel, they could do a lot of things,” he added.

The former speaker also mentioned sending someone to interview former Democratic House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, who spearheaded the Nixon impeachment inquiry, in order to ensure that the process was fair.

“Rodino had a set of rules that were very bipartisan and we brought them back and implemented exactly what Rodino did,” Gingrich explained. “Today, the White House doesn’t have a lawyer in these hearings. Secretary Pompeo’s staff went into a hearing, he has no lawyer there, has no idea what they’re saying.”

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Thanks to Newt Gingrich for going to hostile venues like this to spread a message of logic

As much as Newt did a great job of explaining how the current hearings are unjust, you have to wonder about how much of the message got through to the audience. That is, one has to wonder whether the audience just responds to a “cheer” sign that got turned on once or twice too often.

Religious liberty cases reaching nation’s highest court

According to s 33 October 2019 article at OneNewsNow, a number of religious liberty cases have made it to the Supreme Court.

Supreme-CourtExpect to hear a lot more about the Supreme Court and religious freedom cases in coming months.

“There are two big religious freedom cases at the Supreme Court right now,” advises attorney Luke Goodrich of Becket, a religious liberty law firm. “One involves federal employment discrimination laws, and the question is whether employers can be punished if they discriminate against their employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

That case is R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Oral arguments took place Oct. 8.

“The religious freedom issue there is there are thousands of religious organizations across the country that have traditional beliefs about sexuality and they often expect their employees to uphold those traditional religious beliefs,” says Goodrich. “If the Supreme Court goes the wrong way, all of those religious organizations would suddenly be exposed to new lawsuits and new potential liability.”

Another religious freedom case at the Supreme Court is Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. At issue is government funding for religious schools.

Goodrich says that issue is over a state program that provides tax breaks to Montanans who donate to a scholarship program. Those scholarship funds can be used at private schools, both religious and secular.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Pray for wisdom and God’s will

Pray that, through whatever may need to happen, God’s wisdom will be granted to the justices and that we will see God’s will prevail.

Under the heading of liberal hypocrisy that went unreported:

Democrats compared Clinton’s impeachment to lynching

As reported in the Daily Caller, Democrats used the term “lynching” multiple times when defending Bill Clinton.

Democrats compared President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial to a lynching as they debated whether to impeach him in 1998.

President Donald Trump similarly compared the impeachment inquiry he’s facing to a lynching, and Democrats quickly condemned his comment as racist.

“It makes you no better than those who burn crosses. It makes you no better than those who wear hoods and white robes,” Democratic Texas Rep. Al Green said Tuesday.

In December 1998, congressional representatives debated whether or not to impeach a president for the first time since the House voted to impeach President Andrew Johnson on Feb. 24, 1868, according to The New York Times. Multiple representatives compared Clinton’s impeachment to a lynching, and several others condemned it as a Republican attempt to remove Clinton from office.

Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny K. Davis condemned the impeachment trial as “a lynching,” and former Democratic Rhode Island Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy called it “a political lynching.”

Former Democratic Michigan Rep. John Conyers Jr. said that he was seeing a “Republican coup d’etat” — a phrase that Democratic Reps. Jerrold Nadler of New York and Maxine Waters of California both used as well.

Watch:

{Read more at Daily Caller)

Rather than reporting the peoples’ ideas, Pew pushes polling propaganda

OneNewsNow reports on Pew, saying that they seem less interested in reporting the thoughts of the people than in molding those thoughts.

Pollsters are at it again, pushing sketchy polls – not to reflect public opinion, but to shape it. This is called propaganda, a popular tool for dictators who want to control the information flow from an all-powerful government to their subjects, the people.

What once passed for journalism is now mostly propaganda, an effort by major media organizations to insert themselves into the political process, to push their agenda, even if it means throwing any pretense of journalistic principle and integrity to the wind. Look at the Project Veritas undercover videos of CNN for the latest example.

Polls of any type are designed to take a scientific snapshot of opinion at a particular point in time. A small sample is taken from a larger population – and if the sample is representative of the entire population, then the poll should be valid.

When cooking a sauce, the chef might taste a bit to determine if additional seasoning is needed. If the sauce is mixed properly, then the small sample represents the entire sauce. Polls work the same way. A skewed sample will produce bogus results. This may be accidental or intentional. Which is it? I’ll report, you decide, to coin Fox News’s latest catch phrase.

Pew Research Center is the latest pollster to weigh in on President Trump and impeachment. Let’s see whether their polling sample sauce was well stirred before they took a taste.

analyzing-poll-resultsPew sampled 3,487 “randomly selected” adults between October 1-13. That may or may not be representative of the general population, but given that only about half of eligible voters actually vote in presidential elections, a better sample would be registered, or even likely, voters.

Who was in that sample? Of the 3,487 total sampled, 1,453 were or leaned Republican, 1,942 were or leaned Democrat. In other words, 56 percent Democrat and only 42 percent Republican, a 14-point difference favoring Democrats.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Odd thing is that Pew doesn’t think that we notice

Pew must think of the general public the same way that a con artist thinks of the mark.

During my years as an undergrad, I took a course on marketing writing and, as I researched another topic, ran across a study of the attitudes that con artists hold toward those who they attempt to fool and swindle. According to that study, con artists almost across the board think of their “marks” as being stupid and beneath contempt. In fact, these con artists often might assign nick names to the “marks” that might thinly veil the contempt the con artist holds.  Based on this, one wonders what the original versions of the graphs at Pew might be labelled.

MadJoeWould we see a resurrection of Hillary’s “deplorable” or Biden’s “dregs of society?”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lets her hypocrisy shine as bright as the sun

Breitbart reports in a 21 October 2019 article on the hypocrisy of AOC as she calls out income inequality just after endorsing the multi-millionaire Bernie Sanders.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on Sunday decried income inequality and the “top one percent” just one day after endorsing a millionaire.
Ocasio-Cortez tweeted a Business Insider report, which found that an individual needs to make “at least $500,000 a year” in order to make the “top one percent” in the United States.

“A lot of people think that folks like your typical lawyer or doctor are in ‘the 1%.’ That may be bc it’s hard to conceive how bad runaway inequality has gotten,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote.

“Even this number – $500k – reflects top income, & even THAT doesn’t hold a candle to recognizing concentrated wealth,” she added:

{tweet https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1185992674517626880 ]

The socialist lawmaker’s public complaint regarding the reality of “income inequality” comes just one day after she endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) – a millionaire – for president.

According to Forbes, Sanders has a $2.5 million fortune, which he acquired via “estate, investments, government pensions—and earnings from three books,” many of which lament the very system that made his wealth possible. While his senator’s salary is $174,000 per year, Forbes notes that the socialist lawmaker has made a “six-figure annual salary since he joined Congress in 1991”:

With 28 years in office and a current salary of $174,000, Sanders is entitled to around $73,000 a year from the federal government for the rest of his life. If he were to sell that guaranteed income stream for a lump-sum pile of cash, Forbes figures he could get around $650,000 for it.

In 2016, Sanders purchased a $575,000 lake house – dubbed a “summer home” – in the Champlain Islands, making the socialist the proud owner of not one, not two, but three homes.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Hopefully, if the only news of AOC is bad news, she will go away

Since this woman see-saws from demanding that climate change will destroy us in 12 years to insisting that this demand was a joke, maybe the electorate will see through her. However, since she knows how to apply make-up and has a large Twitter following, this may take some work.

Cases where left-wingers were so unhinged that they did crazy things

WaPo calls al Baghdadi an “austere religious scholar”

As reported in a 28 October 2019 article in USA Today, Twitter erupted in mocking tweets in response to the Washington Post obituaary that announced “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.”

The Washington Post is facing backlash after a headline characterized the Islamic State leader who was killed in a U.S. raid over the weekend as an “austere religious scholar.” The headline was quickly changed, but critics say it sugar coated the terror inflicted by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

President Donald Trump announced Sunday morning that al-Baghdadi was killed when he detonated a vest he was wearing after being cornered by U.S. forces on Saturday evening.

The Post article says that when al-Baghdadi first rose as a leader of ISIS, he was a relatively unheard of “austere religious scholar with wire-frame glasses and no known aptitude for fighting and killing.”

Its original headline read, “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Islamic State’s ‘terrorist-in-chief,’ dies at 48.” But it was later changed to “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.”

As of Monday morning, the headline was “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48.”

As noted later in the article, al-Baghdadi encouraged followers to commit acts of violence and terror. He was also perhaps the most wanted terrorist leader in the world and the highest ranking since the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011.

(Read more at USA Today)

The weirdest thing about all this seems to be the way WaPo writers persisted

In addition to the obituary issues, it seems that Max Boot went to the mat for al-Baghdadi, saying that the rapist and murderer who committed suicide while killing three children was “not a coward.”

‘Angry’ Katie Hill Blames Right-Wing Media for ‘Electronic Assault’ Leading to Her Resignation

Breitbart reports in a 28 October 2019 article how Katie Hill doesn’t blame either her affair with a female staffer or another affair with a male staffer for her having to resign, but blames “right-wing” conspirators.

Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA) released a statement on Monday formally announcing her resignation following allegations of inappropriate sexual relationships with congressional staffers, blaming “right-wing media” and “hateful political operatives” for “enabling and perpetuating my husband’s abuse by providing him a platform.”

Hill confirmed the reports of her resignation in a video announcement released Monday. Her resignation comes weeks after mounting allegations of inappropriate sexual relationships with congressional staffers, including a “throuple” relationship with a female staffer and a separate affair with a male staffer.

While Hill issued a relatively ambiguous statement confirming a relationship with a staffer the day after denying an affair with a male member of her congressional staff, she directly blamed her departure on a “coordinated campaign carried out by the right-wing media and Republican opponents,” accusing both of “enabling and perpetuating my husband’s abuse by providing him a platform” and calling it “disgusting and unforgivable.”

“They will be held accountable, but I will not allow myself to be a distraction from the constitutional crisis we’re faced with and the critical work of my colleagues, and so I have to take my personal fight outside the halls of Congress,” she said, stressing the importance of legislative policies — ensuring “quality health care, housing we can afford, and a government that works for the people” — that Democrats have largely ignored due to their endless pursual of impeachment.

“I cannot let this horrible smear campaign get in the way of that work,” she continued, telling her supporters that they “showed the nation that there is hope even in the darkest of moments.”

Hill added that she will “take on a new fight” to “ensure that no one else has to live through what I just experienced.”

“Some people call this electronic assault, digital exploitation. Others call it revenge porn. As the victim of it, I call it one of the worst things that we can do to our sisters and our daughters,” she said, adding that she will “not allow my experience to scare off other young women or girls from running for office.”

“For the sake of all of us, we cannot let that happen,” she added.

“I’m hurt. I’m angry. The path that I saw so clearly for myself is no longer there,” Hill continued. “I’ve had moments where I’ve wondered what the last three years of my life were for and if it was worth it.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

This comes right out of Hillary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” playbook

When you (or your philandering hubby) gets caught red-handed, throw the stained blue dress in the corner and start screaming about the right wing. It works every time for some Democrats.

House Democrats to Vote on Impeachment Procedures Thursday

Within the words of a 28 October 2019 Breitbart article, it seems that San Fran Nan has capitulated to the demands of Republicans within the Senate (or there will be no trial after the “impeachment”).

house-to-vote-on-impeachment-inquiry-processHouse Democrats will vote on Thursday to establish the procedures for their ongoing impeachment investigation against President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced Monday afternoon.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), chairman of House Rules Committee, said he will introduce the resolution’s text for approval on Tuesday and the panel will move to mark it up by Wednesday.

“As committees continue to gather evidence and prepare to present their findings, I will be introducing a resolution to ensure transparency and provide a clear path forward,” McGovern said in a statement. “This is the right thing to do for the institution and the American people.”

The development comes as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) faces pressure from House and Senate Republicans to bring the impeachment probe from out of the shadows.

In recent weeks, the House intel panel has interviewed several current and former Trump administration officials inside Capitol Hill’s SCIF room, also known as a sensitive compartmented information facility. Arguing against the secret bunker’s use, Republicans say no discussions involving classified information have occurred inside and assert Democrats are using it to selectively leaking excerpts of witnesses’ testimony to the media. Nearly 30 House Republicans attempted to storm the chamber on Wednesday as Laura Cooper, a senior Department of Defense official working on Ukraine, was scheduled to testify.

“Behind those doors they intend to overturn the results of an American presidential election. We want to know what is going on,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who led the group of frustrated Republicans, said at a press conference prior to attempting to enter the secured room.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have introduced a resolution to condemn Pelosi and Schiff’s handling of the impeachment inquiry, which has already garnered 50 Republican cosponsors. Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) do not support the measure.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Will Pelosi actually hold a vote or will she try to fool the Senate?

Can we expect a Kabuki theater between the lying Democrats that want to deny due process and the Never-Trumper Republicans that want to accomplish their globalist dreams? Or can we expect Pelosi to drop the pretense of a vote when she just decides to keep holding her closed-door hearings?

Lenient Democrats have effects


Teens’ Bond Set To Measly $1 After Burglarizing Home In Spring

Spring Happenings reports through a 15 October 2019 article that the lenient sentencing and policies of the newly-elected Democrat judges have continued to have effects.

sevengatearrestsc4

Officials with the Harris County Precinct 4 Constables say seven suspects who allegedly broke into a home and caused $2,800 worth of damage only received a $1 bond.

On October 12, 2019, deputies responded to the 5500 block of Ashgate Drive in reference to a burglary in progress.

When deputies arrived they found the front door forced open. Two suspects later identified as Hiley Robertson and John Jackson were attempting to flee the scene but were captured and arrested.

While clearing the inside of the home, deputies located five other suspects who were identified as Dominic Biggs, Logan James, Terrell Lacy, Marselena James, and Matthew Francis.

Deputies say $2,800.00 worth of damage was done inside of the residence.

“All seven suspects were arrested and booked into the Harris County Jail, charged with Burglary of a Habitation. Dominic Biggs, Logan James, Terrell Lacy, Marselena James, and John Jackson received a $1.00 bond out of the 351st District Court. Hiley Robertson and Matthew Francis received a $1,000.00 bond each out of the 351st District court.” – Constable Mark Herman

(Read more at Spring Happenings)

This starts teens on a road to crime

The Democrat judge who gave these criminals a $1 bail may think that he or she has given them a break; however, unless there is some type of resistance to their criminality (maybe a concerned parent), then this judge has just greased the tracks to continued criminality.

Crime Stoppers addresses issue of low bond for repeat offenders

Houston’s CBS affiliate KHOU reported on 22 October 2019 that the Houston Crime Stoppers has taken a stand against the low bond for repeat offenders.

CrimeStoppers.png

Crime Stoppers of Houston held a press conference to educate the public on the issue of felony offenders being released on bond who continue to commit offenses while out on bond.

Crime Stoppers says public safety is at a higher risk when career habitual offenders are continuously released and commit new offenses.

Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo and local business owners spoke at the press conference.

You can watch the full press conference below.

(Read more at KHOU)

Odd that Kim Ogg and Art Acevedo were allowed to make proposals in a situation they created

Considering that this problem has popped up since the 2018 election that swept Democrats into Harris County public office (especially in judgeships), these two have a lot of chutzpah to make their part in this presentation.

Crime Stoppers, HPD address safety issue on push for bail reform in Houston area

Houston’s NBC affiliate KPRC reported on 22 October 2019 on the multiple cases of Him Ogg letting violent criminals out on bail. Thus, this article provided a slightly different slant on the above press conference.

Law enforcement officials say there is an ongoing public safety issue in Harris County due to a broken bond system that allows for violent offenders to be easily released back on the street.

Crime Stoppers of Houston victim advocate Andy KahnCrime Stoppers of Houston victim advocate Andy Kahn said there is a staggeringly high number of violent offenders on the street.

“There are roughly around 3,000 defendants currently out on bond for aggravated offenses included capital murder, murder aggravated robbery and aggravated assault,” Kahn said.

He said many of the violent offenders have committed more crimes while out on bond. Kahn said the recent murder of taco truck owner Enrique Ayala was at the hands of 21-year-old Anthony Conway who was out on bond for assault.

(Read more at KPRC)

What can you expect when the primary driver for Kim Ogg’s election was billionaire George Soros?

SorosOggYes, Kim Ogg has allowed numerous felons onto the streets of Houston. That cannot be denied. In fact, murderers have been released under her watch. Under her watch, a Sikh deputy sheriff was killed by an abusive felon who had been reported as dangerous by the felon’s wife.

Why is this trend ongoing under Ms. Ogg? Could it be due to the baggage that she gained when she accepted campaign funding from George Soros? Did he demand certain policies in return for the monies invested in her 2016 campaign?

He was out on bond for another crime, now he’s wanted for a pregnant woman’s murder

Houston’s CBS affiliate KHOU reported on 6 August 2019 that a felon was let out on bond and is now suspected of murder.

felon_murderedwomanPolice are searching for a suspected killer after a pregnant 18-year-old was found shot to death in a northwest Houston motel room early Monday.

Justin Herron, 31, was initially identified as a person of interest in the case, but on Tuesday police announced he was charged with capital murder.

The victim was identified by police as Patra Perkins, 18.

Herron, who has a lengthy criminal history and was out on bond after a previous arrest, is said to be the one who rented the room where Perkins was found dead.

It was 2:30 a.m. Monday when a man flagged down an officer patrolling the Tinseltown across the street from a motel located in the . The man said there was a woman who had been shot multiple times at the motel.

The officer, along with hotel management, went to the room and found the victim’s body with at least four gunshot wounds.

(Read more at KHOU)

So a felon was given a ridiculously-low bail, who does it hurt, Ms Ogg? It hurts a pregnant 18-year-old woman

It ends the life of a child before it can start. It stops a young woman from experiencing the ups and downs of parenthood.

Capital murder suspect walks free after not paying for ankle monitor

Houston’s ABC affiliate KTRK reported on 3 October 2019 how a murder suspect was released by Kim Ogg with an ankle monitor and then he got his ankle monitor repossessed by not paying for it.

A man is back behind bars after his GPS ankle monitor was repossessed by the company who owned it for non-payment.

gpsarrestfeatureIn June, Clint Walker was released on a $100,000 surety bond.

Walker is accused of shooting and killing 59-year-old Enrique Garcia during an attempted robbery at a north Harris County game room in November of 2016.

The Harris County District Attorney’s Office said Guarding Public Safety, the company who owned the monitor, did not alert the court that they took the monitor back on September 19th until afterward.

“The vendor that was monitoring Mr. Walker was upset with him being $305 behind in his fees,” David Mitcham, assistant district attorney, said.

When defendants are required to wear ankle monitors, they are able to choose between four companies to facilitate it.

Walker used Guarding Public Safety to provide his GPS monitor. He was unmonitored for about two weeks before he was arrested again on Oct. 2.

Dr. Teresa May, Department Director for the Harris County Community Supervision and Corrections Department, said their contract with the vendors, including Guarding Public Safety, requires them to get authorization from her office before removing a monitor. She said they did not.

(Read more at KTRK)

Surely Ms Ogg would keep the murderers in jail, wouldn’t she?

In a word, no. It would take the murder of a minority-community policeman for Democrats to start (at least for a while) getting tough on crime.

Convict accused of killing Sikh Texas deputy will likely face death penalty, judge says

In a case of journalistic too-little/too-late, NBC News reported in a 30 September 2019 article on the loose supervision of parolees.

robert-solisRobert Solis, 47, was arrested on suspicion of capital murder in connection with the shooting of Harris County Deputy Sandeep Dhaliwal during an afternoon traffic stop on Friday. Evidence does not suggest the “ambush-style” attack was a hate crime, police said.

Solis, who was convicted of kidnapping in 2002 and was wanted for violating parole at the time of the shooting, will be held without bond, Harris County Judge Chris Morton said during a court hearing Monday morning.

(Read more at NBC News)

Man with multiple parole violations has his wife warn many agencies, then he kills an ethnic-minority policeman. Then Democrats get tough.

If you researched the case of Robert Solis, you know that he was thankfully denied bail, had a long history of law breaking (including having kidnapped his son), and there were a number of known parole violations. After all of that, the Democrats finally got tough on crime.

For second time in three weeks, arresting a wanted parole ends tragically

In a 16 October 2019 article by Fox affiliate KRIV, we are told of the arrest of a gang member with four parole violations.

“He was a ticking time bomb and now someone has Piaf the price for it,” said Andy Kahan with Crime Stoppers.

CanizalezGeovany Canizalez, 30, a documented gang member, was granted parole in December of 2028.

Documents indicate he repeatedly violated his parole and on three occasions issued warrants for his arrest only to turn around and withdraw them.

“He had not one, not two, not three, this is his fourth parole warrant is less than a year,” Kahan said.

Last July, parole officials finally issued a blue warrant believing Canizalez had absconded.

This past Saturday, he led Precinct 4 deputies on a high-speed chase.

“We try to pull him over for a traffic violation. The guy immediately starts running,” said Precinct 4 Constable Mark Herman. “There is a pursuit speeds get pretty high to the point where a supervisor terminated the pursuit.”

Moments later Herman says Canizalez hit and critically injured a bicyclist.

“He knew that the probability of him going to the penitentiary was pretty high,” said Herman.

(Read more at KRIV)

Sadly, a biker lost his life

When this nut decided to run, he killed a biker. Ogg had better not give him bail again. However, there is nowhere to know how this turns out, since nobody tracks every petty criminal.

GOP lawmakers storm closed-door impeachment session, as Schiff walks out


GOP lawmakers storm closed-door impeachment session, as Schiff walks out

According to a 23 October 2019 Fox News article, GOP lawmakers stormed a closed-door impeachment session.

House Republicans led by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., on Wednesday essentially stormed a closed-door session connected to the impeachment investigation of President Trump, prompting House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff to suspend the proceedings in a remarkable scene.

The standoff happened Wednesday morning after lawmakers held a press conference in which they accused House Democrats of lack of transparency.

“We’re going to try and go in there, and we’re going to try to figure out what’s going on, on behalf of the millions of Americans that we represent that want to see this Congress working for them and not obsess with attacking a president who we believe has not done anything to deserve impeachment,” Gaetz said.

The Republicans specifically called out Schiff, D-Calif., who is leading the investigation.

(Read more at Fox News)

Matthew Gaetz and the Freedom Caucus stand up to the closed-door Democrats

The following video and table chronicle the speeches of the Representatives who spoke at Matt Gaetz’s gathering.

Speaker Testimony
Gaetz: I’ve gathered here with dozens of my congressional colleagues underground in the basement of the Capitol, because (behind those doors) they intend to overturn the results of an American presidential election.

We want to know what’s going on and it’s only reasonable that we would have questions. Because (so far) Adam Schiff’s impeachment inquiry has been marked by secret interviews; selective leaks; weird, theatrical performances of transcripts that never happened, and lies about contacts with a whistleblower — I’m going to have a few of my colleagues give remarks. Then we’re going to try and go in there. We’re going to try to figure out what’s going on. On behalf of the millions of Americans who we represent, who want to see this Congress working for them and not obsessed with attacking a President who we believe has not done anything to deserve impeachment. Now the Republican Whip. Steve Scalise.

Scalise: Thank you, Matt. What is Adam Schiff trying to hide? I think that’s a question so many people have, so many of my colleagues have, so many people in the press should have. Through those hidden, closed doors over there, Adam Schiff is trying to impeach a President of the United States behind closed doors – literally trying to overturn the results of the 2016 election a year before Americans get to go to the polls to decide who’s going to be the President. Frankly, it should be the people of this country who decide who’s going to be the President. Not Nancy Pelosi and not Adam Schiff (in secret, behind closed doors).

The fact that Adam Schiff won’t even let the press in (you can’t even go in and see what’s going on in that room) …

Voting members of Congress are being denied access from being able to see what’s happening behind these closed doors where they’re trying to impeach the President of the United States with a one-sided set of rules. They call the witnesses. They don’t let anybody else call the witnesses. They don’t even let the President’s legal counsel question people who are making baseless allegations. Maybe, in the Soviet Union, this kind of thing is commonplace. This shouldn’t be happening in the United States of America where they’re trying to impeach a president in secret, behind closed doors.

The American people deserve better. We will demand better for the American people.

With that, I will bring up … Where is Jim Jordan? Is he here? He’s probably in that room right now, fighting. … Mark Meadows … Mark Walker’s up.

Walker: Thank you, Whip. Thank you, Matt. The American people are being shut out. House Democrats are bypassing Constitutional norms and basic standards of due process with their impeachment obsession. It has been said, but bears repeating: the President is not above justice, but — as you know — neither is he below it. Facing your accusers; the ability to call rebuttal witnesses; cross-examinations; the right to object to evidence; and the ability to attend hearings, depositions, and interviews — these are basic standards that every American should expect (including the President of the United States, who is currently being the target of an angry mob, a willing media machine, and a twisted version an an impeachment process that didn’t begin two months ago. It began day one of this administration.)

It is a sham and it’s time for it to end.

Mr. Biggs.

Biggs: Thanks, Mr. Gaetz. Thanks, Mr. Scalise, for putting this together. Let me just tell you something. You should be outraged, if you are an American, at what’s happening here. You should be allowed to confront your accusers. This is being held behind closed doors for a reason: because they don’t want you to see what the witnesses are like. Let me give you an example. Recently, we had the Mueller (testimony). Mr. Mueller came in to give a report in the Judiciary Committee. You were there. You saw it. The American people saw it. You know why Mr. Mueller’s report fell apart and why we knew there was nothing there? Because we got to observe Mr. Mueller himself as he testified. Because, when he was asked questions, you could see he didn’t understand what had happened in his own investigation. You saw him flipping through pages.

(In the American justice system) You get to see who is accusing you. When you’re denied that, you might as well be living in the former Soviet Union. This is a Soviet-style impeachment process. This is closed doors. It is unfair in every way and I don’t care if you are the President of the United States or any other citizen of this country — you should be allowed to confront your accuser. Absent that (absent that), you get nothing but tyranny and that’s what’s going on with Mr. Schiff. We’re going to go in there today and demand that we get our rights as members of Congress. And with that … Zelden.

Zelden: I’ve sat through all the depositions. I’m about to go back in Adam Schiff’s bunker, here in the Capitol basement to sit through another deposition today. I want all of my colleagues to know every single question that’s been asked and every answer that’s been told. I want all my constituents and their constituents to know every question that’s been asked and every answer that’s been told. What is happening behind closed doors is unclassified. There’s no reason why the American public shouldn’t be able to watch this in real-time, live.

This is a process lacking legitimacy, credibility, and fairness. We have a huge problem with that. One fun fact from yesterday: I saw that the opening statement leaked. This is what happens. This is the Democrats’ strategy — they like to cherry-pick leaks. Turn to page 12: the only reference to Joe Biden (other than the one reference to the July 25th transcript). In that one reference, it’s not firsthand from Ambassador Taylor. It’s not secondhand from Ambassador Taylor. It’s not thirdhand from Ambassador Taylor. You all make it a big deal of Ambassador Taylor telling him that Tim Morrison told him that Sandlin told Morrison that the President told Sandlin that the President told Szalinski … Give me a break.

On the process and the substance, this whole thing has been a joke.

I appreciate my colleagues for having today’s press conference. They deserve answers. My constituents deserve answers. I would like to bring up Mo Brooks.

Brooks: Let me focus on just one of the defects foisted on the American people by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff. They used the secretive, infamous Star-chamber-type proceedings in the Capital’s basement rather than public proceedings where the American people can see for themselves, firsthand, the railroad job being presided over by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Chairman Adam Schiff. The American people deserve a public and open process. Bear in mind the significance of what we’re talking about here today. We are a republic. Close to a million Americans have fought in wars, beginning with the Revolutionary War, to give us the rights to control our own destiny.

What the Socialist Democrats seek to do today is to thwart, to disregard, to repudiate the votes of 60 million Americans in the 2016 elections. By golly, if they’re gonna do it, do it in public. Don’t hide it from the American people. Show your face where we can all see the travesty that you are trying to foist on America and the degradation of our republic that you are engaged in.

We demand open proceedings. The American people deserve nothing less. Their representatives in Congress deserve nothing less.

Next is Jim Jordan.

Jordan: I would just say this: why don’t we know? Why don’t we know know who the person is who started this whole charade that Adam Schiff is now doing in the bunker of the basement of the Capitol? If you look at the whistleblower’s complaint (page one of the complaint) he talks about more than half a dozen individuals he’s used to form the basis of his complaint. We have no idea who these folks are.

As I said last night on the floor of the House, there are 435 members of the House representing over 300 million Americans, and the only one of those 435 who know the individuals who started this whole thing — the only one — is Adam Schiff.

Why don’t the rest of us know? More importantly, why don’t the American people know?

The American people — they understand fairness and they instinctively know that what is happening here is not fair. That’s why I want to applaud my colleagues (Whip Scalise, Matt Gaetz, and the rest of the team here) for standing up and saying, “Look, it’s time that we know who started this whole thing.”

The more than a half a dozen folks he references “said over the past four months more than a half dozen people have informed me about the complaint the he filed.” Who are those people? We’ve had seven witnesses. To date, I don’t think any of them have been the ones that the whistleblower (the so-called whistleblower) was referring to.

So we need to hear from them and we need this done in the open so the American people can see. Thank you.

Adams: For two years, Adam Schiff told the American people that he had evidence (proof) that President Trump had colluded with Russia. Then we find out after two years, 25 million dollars spent, twenty-eight hundred subpoenas, 500 interviews that no, that was not the case. Then Adam Schiff, on public TV, says “No, our office didn’t have any coordination — we didn’t hear at all from this whistleblower.” Then that turns out to be false. And then, in a committee hearing, he makes up a totally made-up conversation between President Trump and the Ukrainian president (I assume to try to deceive the American public).

Now, he wants us to believe that he’s like a special counsel in these closed-door meetings over here? … That I can’t go into as a member of the Judiciary Committee and that even Republican members on the committee can’t even see the transcripts???

This is totally unjust. It is totally unfair. There was no vote on the floor of the House of Representatives — as hs been done in the past — to authorize this impeachment inquiry with a standard set of rules and due-process procedures that any American citizen should get. (Let alone the President of the United States.)

So, I say to you, this is unfair and it is a total political hit job on the President of the United States. This is unjust. I hope the American people see it for what it is. Thank you.

: It’s time for Congress to get to work for the American people. The people of my district sent me here to get things done that they care about. Their healthcare costs are too expensive. Their prescription drugs are becoming unaffordable. Roads are crumbling. We need to continue to rebuild our military. Look at the threats from Russia and China.

Yet what does Nancy Pelosi want to do? What do the Democrats want to do? They want to continue America on this terrible road of impeaching our President for something that he hasn’t even bene indicted on or found guilty of. To show you how unfair this process is, we can only look at what happened when President Nixon and President Trump were starting down the road of impeachment. First, there was an indictment. There was a finding of guilt first and then there was a vote in the House of Representatives to start the process. A process was established and the American public had an opportunity to view and to hear from the witnesses — to see the evidence (or not).

The President had an opportunity to have his counsel there by his side. He had the opportunity to ask questions. He had the opportunity to bring other witnesses.

My colleagues on this committee can’t even bring their own witnesses back and they can’t even speak about what is going on in there. Yet the Democrats come out and they tell what is going on.

They leak certain quotes that they select to create a narrative that they want to control, that they want to put forth to the American public as a lie — with one goal in mind: to undo the election — to undo the voice of the American people from a few years ago and to deny the American people the truth, to deny us the truth, and to deny me the truth.

As a member of Congress, I cannot see the testimony that was provide there from Ambassador Volker. I have requested it. I am a member of Congress. I represent over 760 thousand Missourians. I represent their views. So it is time and I call and my colleagues call upon the Democrats to open up this process, to be fair, to shine a light on it for the American people for posterity and because there’s so much at stake. I call upon them to get things done, like pass the USMCA (which will create 176 thousand jobs 63 billion dollars of economic activity). I think that is what we should be focusing on and not trying to impeach a President for something he hasn’t even been found guilty of.

: This is supposed to be the people’s house. We, the legislative branch, cannot make a bill a law without a vote.

That is how the people of Tennessee, the people of America, have a voice. Remember, Speaker Pelosi, this government, through its legislature, is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Speaker Pelosi has tyrannically commandeered the House of Representatives. It is as if she thinks the founders wanted a government of Pelosi, by Pelosi, for Pelosi.

America, whatever you believe about our President, you must realize that senior Democrat leadership in the House is ignoring the founding principles of our democracy.

We need the House to vote on this and it must be done in transparency.

As the Good Book says, those things done in secret are from darkness. These elites, who care nothing for the people, must hear from the people. Call Speaker Pelosi and demand an end to this threat, this violation of freedom and democracy. Thank you.

Waltz: Representative Mike Waltz from Florida. I’m a green beret. I’m a proud veteran. This process does not make me proud. I have fought from Afghanistan to West Africa. I have operated in countries — in third-world countries — who have fairer processes to deal with their elected leadership than what we’re seeing today.

I talked to veterans at home. I talked to veterans abroad. We have operators and special operators in 60 to 70 countries today as we speak.

They’re ashamed of this process. They don’t have a defense bill, yet.

We’re on a continuing resolution (which means all of the new programs that they need to face China, to face Russia, to face Iran, to face North Korea, to continue to combat terrorism can’t start yet), because we can’t seem to get it done in this Congress — because we have six committees (SIX COMMITTEES) dealing with this investigation.

We have our intelligence professionals, all over the world, trying to keep this country safe and we have the Intelligence Committee (day after day after day) dealing with this nonsense, dealing with this unfair process. I, as a sitting member of Congress have been asking for weeks to have access to these transcripts, to have access to Volker’s transcript and you all know more about it than I do. You all, who are not elected in the media.

I am representing nearly a million Floridians and I can’t see it.

Is that fair? Is that worthy of the sacrifice of the men and women who have died for this country?

I would think not and you know what rings loud and clear to me is a veteran back home who said “All you politicians do is fight. All you do is fight amongst each other. You’re doing nothing for me. You’re doing nothing for the care that I fought to deserve. You’re doing nothing to defend this country. You’re doing nothing to move my family’s life forward to a better place.”

And here we are, all fighting over this unfair process.

It’s a shame. It’s not worthy. We can do better as Americans and Americans expect us to do better. Thank you.

Carter: I’m Buddy Carter. I have the honor and privilege of representing the first Congressional District in Georgia. Ladies and gentlemen, if you’re an American and you’re within the sound of my voice (regardless of whether you’re a Democrat, regardless of whether you’re a Republican, or regardless if you consider yourself an independent — regardless if you hate Donald Trump or if you love Donald Trump) — if you’re an American, you have to be outraged by what is going on here.

Since day one, the Democrats have not accepted the fact that Donald J. Trump is President of the United States.

Now, we find ourselves with them behind closed doors, trying to impeach a sitting president. Ladies and gentlemen, if a government can do this to the President of the United States, they can do it to you, as well.

You need to be scared. You need to be very scared. This needs to stop. It needs to stop right now.

We need open government. This is the United States of America.

Please, I beg of you, pay attention. Stay focused. Keep your eye on the ball. What is happening here.

We cannot allow this to go on. Adam Schiff has to stop. Nancy Pelosi has to stop. This process has to stop and it has to stop now.

: Ladies and gentlemen, what makes America the greatest country on Earth?

It’s the fact that we believe in justice. We believe in equal justice under the law.

How is that achieved? It’s acheived though transparancy and it’s achieved through fairness. This is simply not … is not the process that is occurring now. We have secret hearings that are going on that we, as te elected members of the United States Congress (435 members) are not privy to.

That is simply not fair. That is simply not what makes America the greatest country on Earth.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are about the law. We are about justice. We are about doing what is right. This is not right. This is not the right process.

So, ladies and gentlemen, I call upon you to call upon Adam Schiff, to call upon the Speaker, to make these puppet … these processes public.

We hae great work to be done in the United States. We were elected to serve the people and to do their work.

We’re not doing that now. We’re doing a grave injustice to this nation.

Who benefits? North Korea. Russia. China. They’re looking at us and laughing at us making a mockery of democracy. That’s what this is. It’s a mockery. Please, for the sake of America, let us end this miss … this injustice and move on with the work of the people.

Gaetz: We’re going to go and see if we can get inside. So let’s see if we can get in.

Three of four members of “The Squad” caught in campaign finance violations — The media imitates crickets


Ilhan Omar Continues To Divert Campaign Funds To Alleged Boyfriend’s Company

According to the Daily Caller, Ilhan Omar continues to divert her campaign funds to her former campaign worker’s company.

Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar’s political campaign ramped up its spending to a firm owned by the man she’s alleged to be having an extramarital affair with in the third quarter of 2019, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records.

Ilhan-Omar-Campaign-Finance-Violations
Mynett & Omar

Omar’s campaign disbursed about $146,713 to Democratic consultant Tim Mynett’s E Street Group LLC between the beginning of July and the end of September, according to records the campaign filed with the FEC on Tuesday. The payments were primarily for digital advertising and consulting services, however, about $3,000 were payments for “travel expenses.”

The third-quarter spending figures from Omar’s campaign represent a significant uptick in the spending it has dedicated to Mynett’s firm. In the 10-month period prior, from August 2018 to June 2019, her total spending with the firm was $223,000.

About 30% of Omar’s spending in the third quarter went to Mynett’s firm, according to The Washington Free Beacon, which first spotted Omar’s filing Tuesday.

Omar began reporting payments for E Street Group’s travel expenses in April, around the same time Mynett’s wife alleged in a divorce filing that he had admitted to having an affair with the congresswoman, the Daily Caller News Foundation previously reported.

Mynett’s “more recent travel and long work hours now appear to be more related to his affair with Rep. Omar than with his actual work commitments,” his wife’s divorce filing stated.

Omar faces an FEC complaint alleging she illegally used campaign funds to pursue a romantic affair with Mynett.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

By the “continues to divert” part of the above headline, we can see we have an internal problem with Congress

We should have long ago dethroned this little queen. From her 9/11 speech where she tried to make Islamists the victim of the attacks to her attacks on the press who would dare to ask this privileged Democrat questions to her attacks on Jewish-American representatives, this woman has earned her right to be drummed out of the House.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign team illegally funneled thousands of dollars to her boyfriend through an allied PAC

Fox News reports that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez illegally funneled over $885,000 to her boyfriend through a political action committee that she helped set up.

Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez-and-Saikat-Chakrabarti-Associated-Press-640x480New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Saikat Chakrabarti, the progressive firebrand’s multimillionaire chief of staff, apparently violated campaign finance law by funneling nearly $1 million in contributions from political action committees Chakrabarti established to private companies that he also controlled, according to an explosive complaint filed Monday with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and obtained by Fox News.

Amid the allegations, a former FEC commissioner late Monday suggested in an interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation that Ocasio-Cortez and her team could separately be facing major fines and potentially even jail time if they were knowingly and willfully violating the law by hiding their control of the Justice Democrats political action committee (PAC). Such an arrangement could have allowed Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign to receive donations in excess of the normal limit, by pooling contributions to both the PAC and the campaign itself.

The FEC complaint asserts that Chakrabarti established two PACs, the Brand New Congress PAC and Justice Democrats PAC, and then systematically transfered more than $885,000 in contributions received by those PACs to the Brand New Campaign LLC and the Brand New Congress LLC — companies that, unlike PACs, are exempt from reporting all of their significant expenditures. The PACs claimed the payments were for “strategic consulting.”

Although large financial transfers from PACs to LLCs are not necessarily improper, the complaint argues that the goal of the “extensive” scheme was seemingly to illegally dodge detailed legal reporting requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which are designed to track campaign expenditures.

“It appears ‘strategic consulting’ was a mischaracterization of a wide range of activities that should have been reported individually,” the complaint states.

(Read more at Fox News)

While reports were that Ms Cortez was not involved in her own campaign finances, …

If this woman can keep track of all of the issues involved in “climate change,” then certainly she can keep track of the finances of her campaign. If that is asking too much, then we are trusting too much in her. She needs to go.

Additionally, with AOC’s hypocrisy on climate change well known, we might also consider how this woman has abandoned constituencies , has needlessly sensationalized topics to the point of being mocked, and hasa history of going soft on socialism. We need to jettison this load.

Rep. Tlaib May Have Violated Campaign Finance Rules With Post-Election Salary

The Daily Caller reported in a 2 March 2019 article how Rashida Tlaib paid herself $17,500 from her election campaign funds.

Democratic Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib reportedly paid herself $17,500 from her election campaign funds — after she won her midterm election in November 2018.

TlaibPaidHerselfThat appears to be a violation of campaign finance rules, the Washington Free Beacon reported Friday. In total, campaign records reveal that the congresswoman paid herself a salary of $45,000 before and after the election.

FEC rules state that campaign funds can no longer be transferred to a candidate once that person ceases to be a candidate.

“If the candidate loses the primary, withdraws from the race, or otherwise ceases to be a candidate, no salary payments may be paid beyond the date he or she is no longer a candidate,” the rules state.

Tlaib first gained notoriety for promising to “impeach the motherf****r” [Donald] Trump” shortly after winning her election.

Just this week, during former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony, Tlaib noted the presence of Lynne Patton, a Housing and Urban Development official who is black. Patton was standing behind Republican North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows and this apparently provoked Tlaib to say that Meadows was a racist and that the congressman was merely using Patton as “a prop.”

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

This vain and contemptuous woman must be thrown out

Remember that Ms. Tlaib said that:

  • Thinking on the Holocaust “gave her a calming feeling,”
  • The critics of her Holocaust distortion were “racist idiots,” and
  • Palestinians created a “safe haven” for Jews (as if Jews have not been in the Israel since the time of Moses and in the City of David since the time of King David).

There’s No Need To Bait ‘The Squad’; Their ‘Values’ Tell Us What We Need To Know

Red State points out how the values of “The Squad” seem a little skewed.

TrumpVSTheDump.pngFollowing Trump’s questionable tweets suggesting “The Squad” — i.e. the vocally critical Democratic congresswomen with ties to, and activist policies regarding, other nations — should “go back” to their favored countries or countries of origin to fix their problems, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) insisted the tweets were racist and “clapbacked” they had no fear of Trump.

The unfortunate result of Trump’s tweets (I’m not willing to call them racist but they were certainly thoughtless) is it makes people who are otherwise critical of the policy positions of these ladies pause to defend them when they ought to be evaluating the congressladies’ own questionable statements, like this one from a day or so before Trump’s tweets.

“One thing I tell women of color is that we never needed to ask for permission or an invitation to lead,” [Rep. Ilhan] Omar said in a keynote panel at the Netroots Nation conference, which included Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Deb Haaland (D-NM). “We were sent to Washington to lead with our values and have an agenda that really pushes that forward.”

She continued: “There is a constant struggle with people who have power about sharing power and we’re not in the business of asking to share that power, we’re in the interest of grabbing that power,” Omar said. “We are not carrying the water for this cruel administration. We are doing the job that people in this country put us forward to do.”

Omar is touting her “values” as a reason she seeks to “grab” power. I mean, yikes.

The power grab thing is weird enough, but let’s examine her values for a second. This is a woman who is being investigated for campaign finance violations, has an odd first marriage which may have led to IRS fraud, and recently flat-out fabricated a story of racial injustice and told it to schoolchildren. In short, she lied to kids.

Then there’s AOC, who recently posted a picture to twitter of VP Mike Pence and compared him to Hitler stooge Heinrich Himmler, likes to say the world will end in 12 years to compel people to support her climate change hysteria, and also pulled this quaint little stunt the other day:

Then there’s Tlaib, who bangs the drum of racism over Israel’s relationship to Palestinians, and uses the American struggle with equality to do it (thereby demonizing both countries in one fell swoop).

In an interview published Saturday by Jacobin, a democratic socialist quarterly magazine based in New York that offers American leftist perspectives on politics, Tlaib – America’s first Palestinian-American in Congress – compared the happenings in Israel with racial segregation in the United States.

Playing the intersectionality card – the idea that different forms of oppression and discrimination and its effects overlap – Tlaib said that, “Just like we looked at the struggle for black Americans for true equality and access to opportunity to thrive. The same thing that has happened to the LGBTQ community. All of that is why I say free Palestine, that Palestinians deserve human rights. I see young people understanding that. When I see young Black Lives Matter activists with t-shirts that say ‘Free Palestine,’ and I’m wearing the Black Lives Matter t-shirt, I know it’s working.”

For her part, Pressley seems the least willing of The Squad to race-bait and outright lie, but she sure does like abortion.

(Read more at Red State)

The Biden problem


 

Vanity Fair calls the Biden nepotism as a 2020 scandal

Vanity Fair recognizes the political-dynasty-wrecking potential of the Biden problem.

hunter-biden-at-daddys-podium
Hunter Biden at V.P. Joe Biden’s lectern

In a move sure to trigger 2016 P.T.S.D., The New York Times has published a nearly 3,000-word tale of intrigue involving the Biden family’s various entanglements in Ukraine. In short, the story is this: in the final year of the Obama presidency, Vice President Joe Biden “threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders did not dismiss the country’s top prosecutor”—Viktor Shokin—“who had been accused of turning a blind eye to corruption in his own office and among the political elite.” The pressure campaign also just so happened to benefit Biden’s younger son, Hunter, who was then getting paid as much as $50,000 to sit on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company that was in Shokin’s sights. The question the Times raises, but does not answer, is: were Joe’s and Hunter’s overlapping interests in Ukraine coincidental, or corrupt?

The Bidens say Joe acted “without any regard” for the impact on his son, and that Hunter never discussed private business with his father. But of course, that seems unlikely to put this story to rest. The current Ukrainian prosecutor general recently decided to reopen the investigation into Burisma, which could unearth new details about Hunter’s work. No surprise, the story is also being heavily promoted by Donald Trump and his allies, including lawyer Rudy Giuliani. According to the Times, Giuliani has met repeatedly with both the ousted Ukrainian prosecutor and the new prosecutor, and has discussed his findings with Trump—who then suggested he would like Attorney General William Barr to look into the matter. (Perhaps that is why Barr was at a loss for words on Wednesday, when Senator Kamala Harris asked whether “the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone.”)

Times reporter Ken Vogel, presumably seeking to pre-empt accusations of water-carrying, explained on Twitter that the paper’s interest in the subject predates Trump. “TO BE CLEAR: Independent of @RudyGiuliani’s efforts, the intersection of @JoeBiden & HUNTER BIDEN in Ukraine warrants scrutiny,” he said, noting that the Times had begun reporting on the Burisma story in 2015. Some within the Obama State Department, too, were concerned with the appearance of impropriety, or the possibility that Hunter’s business could complicate his father’s diplomatic efforts. (“I have had no role whatsoever in relation to any investigation of Burisma, or any of its officers,” Hunter Biden told the Times in a statement. “I explicitly limited my role to focus on corporate governance best practices to facilitate Burisma’s desire to expand globally.”)

Nevertheless, the Times report dovetails with Trumpworld efforts to get the Biden-Ukraine story in the news. The Hill reported in April on Joe Biden’s 2020 Ukrainian nightmare. More recently, the right-wing American Greatness and conservative-leaning Fox News both highlighted stories about the Biden family’s entanglements in Ukraine. MAGA-friendly outlets Breitbart and The Daily Wire made hay of the story on Thursday, leveraging the journalistic credibility of the Times.

The Burisma affair—whether coincidence or scandal—may be just the first volley in what is likely to become a broader war over Joe Biden’s conduct and record. Past speculation about Biden family drama has centered on Hunter’s documented struggle with drug use and his recently ended relationship with his late brother’s widow. But the bigger threat might actually be Hunter’s past business enterprises. Already, there’s another attack line looming on the horizon: in his latest book, Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, Breitbart editor-at-large Peter Schweizer describes how a private-equity firm managed by Hunter Biden, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, negotiated a $1.5 billion investment deal with the state-owned Bank of China at the same time that his father, then the vice president, was conducting high-level diplomacy with Beijing. (On one of his trips, Hunter allegedly made use of Air Force Two.) Whether or not the Chinese hoped to curry favor with Hunter’s father, Trump allies are sure to make note of the issue, especially given Joe Biden’s controversial remark this week downplaying China as an economic competitor. (A spokesman for Hunter Biden disputed Schweizer’s claims to the Journal.)

(Watch the normally-liberal media rip Biden a new one at Vanity Fair)

The central part of the Biden problem is Joe Biden

Much as Joe Biden did much to deep-six race relations by fighting for segregation in the 1970’s and by stumbling verbally around his 2008 running mate (when he called Obama “the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy“), Joe Biden has worked as his own worst enemy. Whether we consider the corruption centering on Crowdstrike (the Democrats’ private online investigators) or just his stumbling comments on the campaign trail, Joe Biden continually does more to destroy his campaign than his opponents could ever hope to do.

Giuliani Promises To Release Incriminating Evidence On Biden

A 23 September 2019 article in the Daily Caller describes some of the steps former Mayor Giuliani has promised to take in dealing with the Biden problem.

NYMayorGuilliani
Former NYC Mayor Giuliani

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Monday that he has “a lot more evidence” on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s dealings with Ukraine, adding in that Biden’s son Hunter is “drug challenged.”

After telling CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Thursday that he asked Ukraine to look into Biden, Trump’s personal lawyer went after Biden for multiple alleged offenses related to Ukraine. He tweeted Monday that Ukraine paid Hunter $3 million in laundered money while his father and Obama looked the other way.

Giuliani told Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo on Monday that he would continue to unearth evidence against the Bidens.

“There’s a lot more evidence I’m going to put out,” Giuliani said on “Mornings with Maria.” “I put one out today — money-laundering. I’ve got a bigger one for tomorrow, a bigger one for the day after.”

Trump’s personal attorney added that the situation is a positive for Trump because it puts the spotlight on Biden.

“It’s the only way you can get this out,” Giuliani said. “The only way that they [the media] would cover this story is by punching the president in the face, and then the president deflects the punch — which he’s done — the story’s come way down from where it was, and then he hits ’em with a right hand that’s more powerful.”

During the conversation about Biden’s alleged conversations with Ukraine, Giuliani took a hit at Hunter, saying he is “drug challenged,” adding in that Joe Biden “fails at everything.” Hunter has struggled with drug and alcohol addiction throughout his life, according to an interview published in The New Yorker in July.

As the criminals who beleaguered New York would know, Giuliani does not make idle threats

Although I cannot tell you what the surprise might be, if Giuliani tells us that Biden has a surprise coming, then you can make book on that surprise appearing.

Biden’s Nepotism and Hypocrisy in Ukraine

Canada Free Press provided an op-ed comment by James A. Lyons, Jr. Admiral, USN (ret.) on the problem of nepotism created by Joe Biden.

joe-biden-hunter-biden-ukrainian-oil
With no oilfield experience, Hunter Biden got a job at a Ukrainian oil company paying $50K/month for years

U.S. relations with Ukraine have dramatically flourished under President Trump, in contrast to the poor state of the Washington-Kiev strategic alliance under former President Obama. While the Trump national security team approved the sale of Javelin anti-tank missile systems and sniper rifles to Ukraine, the Obama administration vetoed similar sales of lethal weapons, leaving Ukraine to face Russia alone. An equally important aspect of U.S. support for Ukraine has been in reforms and the fight against corruption, which the Obama administration also undermined by nepotism and hypocrisy.

Former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Robert Gates famously wrote in his memoir that Joe Biden “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” Now that the former vice president is considering yet another presidential run, voters should always remember some of Amtrak Joe’s golden oldies, including: dismissing North Korea as a “paper tiger”, stating that the Taliban is not America’s enemy, and embracing China’s one-child policy. But, it would be hard to name another sitting vice president whose reckless nepotism impacted another country, as Biden did with Ukraine.

Vice President Biden routinely complained about “backsliding” over Ukraine’s fight against corruption, while at the same time, his son, Hunter, with no background in the gas industry, earned a huge salary as a consultant to gas mogul Mykola Zlochevsky’s Burisma Holdings, which is mired in allegations of corruption. This example of nepotism is, as reported in The Washington Post, a problem for U.S. soft power as Hunter Biden’s appointment “looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst.” Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer said the lack of due diligence in the Vice President’s office was surprising as Hunter Biden’s employment by Burisma “undercut that message of anti-corruption.”

Prior to Burisma, Hunter Biden teamed up with his Yale roommate, Devon Archer to create Rosemont Capital and Rosemont Seneca*. Their first forays were in China, including in a nuclear company under FBI investigation. But the good times did not last, as Archer was charged in May 2016 with “conspiracy to commit securities fraud” against Native Americans.

(Read more about he mafia-like Burisma at the Canada Free Press)

Everybody knows that governments do not hire drugged-out, inexperienced sons for no reason

If it looks like nepotism and smells like nepotism and tastes like nepotism and feels like nepotism, it is probably nepotism.

Joe Biden bragged about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor who investigated his son fired

The Hill reported in a 1 April 2019 article that Joe Biden really stuck his foot in his mouth by bragging on the way he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired. To magnify the situation, he did it in front of the world’s power players (all surrounded by cameras and recorders).

Two years after leaving office, Joe Biden couldn’t resist the temptation last year to brag to an audience of foreign policy specialists about the time as vice president that he strong-armed Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor.

In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.

BidenAdmits“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event, insisting that President Obama was in on the threat.

Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden’s account, though they claim the pressure was applied over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day. Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine’s parliament obliged by ending Shokin’s tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired.

But Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn’t mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.

(Read more at The Hill)

When you hear the Vice President say this, what else needs be heard?

With this bragging on tape, what other proof do we need?

Trump to release whistleblower complaint to Congress: report

According to a 24 September 2019 article at The Hill detailed how President Trump planned to release the whistleblower report to Congress.

The White House is expected to give Congress the whistleblower complaint at the heart of a brewing scandal that has led to a formal House impeachment inquiry against President Trump, a source confirmed to The Hill on Tuesday.

reportPolitico first reported that both the whistleblower complaint and Inspector General report will be released to Congress by the end of the week. The decision marks a reversal for the White House, which had previously declined to provide the documents to lawmakers, even as Trump decried the impeachment inquiry sparked by the controversy as a “witch hunt.”

The official emphasized to Politico that the decision and timing could change, but that the president has agreed to the move.

The White House declined to comment on the record about the matter.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday announced the House would launch an official impeachment inquiry amid concerns that the president sought to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a July talk to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter by threatening to withhold military aid.

Trump admitted this week that he mentioned Biden during the call and that he cut off aid to Ukraine days before the conversation. However, he has maintained that there was no quid pro quo discussed during their conversation.

Trump and Republican allies have claimed Biden abused his power during his time as vice president when he pressed Kiev to dismiss a prosecutor who was investigating a natural gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch, whose board members included Biden’s son. No evidence has emerged that Biden was acting to protect his son.

The president has already promised to release the official transcript of his phone call with Zelensky, saying it will reveal a “very friendly and totally appropriate call.” However, congressional Democrats say the transcript is insufficient and that the whistleblower complaint, which first expressed alarm over the phone call, is needed to fully flesh out the details of the discussion.

(Read more at The Hill)

Another Democrat scheme bites the dust

The President has placed the information out where it can be seen, has been open to answering questions, and has gone to the public with the President of Ukraine. How will the Democrats deny this in light of the many things they have done (via Biden, as mentioned above, and via a set of senators, mentioned below).

Democrats Wrote to Ukraine in May 2018, Demanding It Investigate Trump

Breitbart points out in a 24 September 2019 article how three Democrats demanded that the Ukrainian government investigate Trump. (Hat tip to the Chris Salcedo Show)

Democrats wrote to the Ukrainian government in May 2018 urging it to continue investigations into President Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign — collusion later found not to exist.

Durbin-Leahy-MenendezThe demand, which came from U.S. Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), resurfaced Wednesday in an opinion piece written by conservative Marc Thiessen in the Washington Post.

Ironically, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declared Tuesday that the mere possibility that President Trump had asked Ukraine to continue an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden — even without a quid pro quo — was enough to trigger an impeachment inquiry. (Biden boasted in 2018 that he had forced Ukraine to remove its prosecutor by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid; he did not tell his audience at the Council on Foreign Relations that the prosecutor was looking into a firm on whose board his son, Hunter Biden, was serving.)

Thiessen observed (original links):

It got almost no attention, but in May [2018], CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

The Democrats’ letter is available online here. In it, Menendez, Durbin, and Leahy demanded that the Ukrainian government answer their questions about the Mueller probe, and issued an implied threat: “This reported refusal to cooperate with the Mueller probe also sends a worrying signal — to the Ukrainian people as well as the international community — about your government’s commitment more broadly to support justice and the rule of law.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

If demanding investigation from Ukraine of political opposition is impeachable, these senators must be impeached

Senators Leahy, Durbin, and Menendez must be impeached if, as the accusers of President Trump are correct. If using the United States governmental power to compel a foreign government to investigate a political opponent is impeachable — then impeach them.

If it is not an impeachable offense, please bug off.

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.

A petition to hold Obama administration law breakers to task


It’s Time to Bring Accountability to Obama Era Government

Strzok

Please consider supporting the rule of law by signing a White House petition urging the investigation of law breakers from the Obama administration. Although I did not originate this petition, I wholeheartedly support its goals (which are stated below in the preamble to the petition).

“We the People,” are calling on elected officials, from both parties, to dedicate the same effort, resources and attention to bringing accountability to the Obama Administration, that was used in the Mueller probe and investigations in the House and Senate. We believe, unlike the fake predicate used to justify the Mueller probe, there is actually evidence of law breaking in the previous administration. We also believe the malfeasance ensnares both appointed and elected Democrats. We the people DO NOT WANT TO MOVE ON. Those who worked to divide this country because they lost an election MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

Please help by signing this petition (linked above).

Why No Outrage Over Murder of 19-Year-Old By Jihadist in New Jersey


 Facts of the Case

During the early morning hours of 25 June 2014, police found the body of Brendan Tevlin in his parked SUV at the corner of Ridgeway Avenue and Northfield Avenue in West Orange, New Jersey. On 28 July, police arrested Muhammad Brown for robbery in West Orange, New Jersey. On 20 August, Muhammad Brown confessed to murdering Brendan Tevlin and three other individuals across America only because of his need to have “vengeance for the actions of the United States in the Middle East.”  Therefore, this seems to be the most recent actions of a murderous jihadist on American soil.

 Questions concerning a Lack of Consistency within the Obama Administration

Recently, certain events have elicited specific actions and comments from the Obama administration.  Therefore, the questions that come to many peoples’ minds are these:

  1. In response to the 9 August shooting of Michael Brown, Obama issued a 12 August statement.   Although the legal system has not ruled on the events which led to the death of Michael Brown, Obama both inserted himself in the situation and instructed Attorney General Holder to go to Ferguson.  Additionally, Attorney General Holder has announced investigation of police departments in the area.

    In contrast to the quickly-commented upon Michael Brown case, there has not been a peep out of the Obama administration regarding the murder of Brendan Tevlin (even though the confession was offered on 20 August and the murder occurred on 25 June).

    Mr. Obama, why can’t you comment on the murder of an innocent 19-year-old?

  2. In contrast to the still-in-question status of the Michael Brown case, this case involves the confessed murder by a jihadist.

    Mr. Obama, why can’t you speak out against this jihadist and send Mr. Holder to search out those of Muhammad Brown’s ilk?

  3. In contrast to your speech after the murder of James Foley, I see no way that you can make a blanket statement that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

    Have you never heard of Surah 2:191?

    And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

    Why can’t you denounce the murder of an American on American soil by an admitted jihadist?

Disturbing Points of Consistency within the Obama Administration

Although the Obama administration has demonstrated inconsistency in their reactions to the Michael Brown and the Brendan Tevlin cases, there has been some consistency within their reactions:

  1. As noted by Eric Holder in his reference to “my people” comment to Representative Culberson, members of the Obama administration seem to have a very limited constituency. Currently, there is some doubt as to whether “my people” include Muslims; however, there is no doubt that “my people” does not extend to all Americans.
  2. When it comes to the suffering of outsiders (Catholic journalists, Middle-Eastern Christians, and other groups), the Obama administration will not give up their golf game or send a representative to a funeral.

Court Documents

The linked document below comes from the Superior Court of Washington for King County and contains the confession of Muhammad Brown.

My Sources

This post requires a hat tip to Wounded American Warrior and Heavy.com.

God’s Word

In this case, the weak ones that we must protect would include all unsuspecting citizens.

Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. (Psalm 82:3-4 NIV)