"We have a mob mentality now in this country when it comes to the Congress as nearly half of the Progressive Socialist Democrats in the House of Representatives want to continue with this coup, #IMHOPEOPLE ."
The Mueller report cost you the taxpaying voters in excess of $35 MILLION and counting.
Volume 1 took 200 pages and $35 MILLION to tell us all what we knew from the beginning of this attempted political coup of the US President.
There was NO COLLUSION.
“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
This whole idea that there was collusion. You and I knew it from day one that it was phoney -- phoney. But they used Federal law enforcement, Federal intelligence and then they appoint a Special Counsel.
There's no collusion says the Special Counsel that takes one sentence. It doesn't take 200 damn pages; it doesn't take $35MILLION. One sentence, "No collusion," he says by the President, by the campaign, by his staff, by the White House, by his family, by any American.
No collusion.
Mueller and more precisely his “TEAM” by introducing the concept of “exoneration” into the legal system presents a grave and frightening danger under the US and International Law.
It suggests that a person may still be presumed guilty even if the decision was made not to prosecute him or her, or even if a jury rendered a verdict of not guilty. And this is crazy!
Exoneration is not the job of our legal system. And Mueller’s attempt to introduce it is an extraordinary and dangerous innovation that would endanger the presumption of innocence we all have under the law and as guaranteed by the Constitution.
As exoneration is NOT Part of the American Legal system and as such Mueller and all lawyers of his team, in fact, should be disbarred from practising law anywhere in the USA or World, #IMHOPEOPLE
As for this collusion issue it was however pushed by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Obama administration. There are things that have been done in the last three years to candidate Trump, President-elect Trump and President Trump that should not occur in the United States of America.
You had the Hillary campaign, the Obama administration trying to take out the Republican candidate for President of the United States under their preposterous notion that he was conspiring with Vladimir Putin.
Donald Trump has never in his entire life shown a dislike for his country. He loves his country. It is the people who have set this up who despise their country and despise our election system.
Senior levels of the FBI, senior intelligence officers, the Obama White House, the Democrats they did everything they could to prevent Donald Trump from being President of the United States, but you decided otherwise. You elected a President of The United States. They wanted their third term of Obama.
Well, they got their first term of Trump and they are furious.
Some senior levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation planted a spy -- that's right, a spy -- in the Trump administration. They lie to Federal courts not once, but four times -- the FISA Court -- in order to get a counterintelligence warrant and they got it. And who are they spying on? Page? It was a backdoor effort to go after the Trump campaign.
These same senior levels of the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- these individuals should be charged. They're the ones who interfered with our election even more effectively than the Russians. And they along with the Democrats are still at it.
Suddenly, this part of the report --COLLUSION-- that's out. Now, they go after obstruction!
Then let me ask you a question, how the hell did “MUELLER” get appointed? How did he get appointed? McCabe: The Deputy Director of the FBI does an interview on "60 Minutes." It's all about collusion.
That Trump, well maybe he is a spy, that Trump -- well we think, he was working with the Russians. You had the media -- the media in this country. We don't have a free press in this country. We have an unfree press in this country and they're at it as I speak.
This is a disgrace what's being done to this country by the Democratic Party and by the media -- one and the same. It is a disgrace. We don't have news reporters, not on CNN and MSNBC. "New York Times" you can't tell the editorial page from the news page. Mistake after mistake after mistake in reporting. "Washington Post," "New York Times" -- oh they get Pulitzer prizes and they got more Pulitzer prizes.
CNN must fire three fools for putting out information that was fake and yet the head of CNN, Zucker -- you think -- what do you expect us to do?
We must investigate these things. That is CNN's answer to the American voters!
This is the greatest scandal in American history, not that the Russians tried to interfere with our election. They did, and they always do, the way Obama interfered with the Israeli election, but the Obama administration also interfered with this election and I've been saying for two years, there is no way in hell the President of the United States and the people in the Oval Office didn't know something about this.
Now, how do we know?
Because it was in the newspaper.
The system isn't working. The checks and balances aren't working.
Where are these Federal judges that were appointed as FISA Court judges? Where are they? They see what has taken place. They see they were lied to. They see that was opposition research and dishonest -- lying opposition research -- that was put in a dossier used by the FBI to get a warrant.
Where are the evidentiary hearings? Where is the contempt hearings? Where are these Federal judges?
They ought to abolish the FISA Courts because they don't work. Because the only people in that courtroom -- in that secret courtroom -- is the FISA judge and the government -- and the government. The targets, they have no say whatsoever.
Which brings me back to this pathetic joke of a report. Four hundred -- four hundred pages of what? BS. We already knew there was no collusion. No evidence whatsoever and yet they conduct a Federal investigation.
When Mr. Mueller came up to other violations, he says, tax fraud, this fraud -- those are U.S. Attorney investigations. You don't have a Special Counsel for that.
So basically, there was no reason to appoint Mueller and Mueller found nothing. That's the headline. No collusion.
Despite what the FBI did.
Despite what the Department of Justice did.
Despite what these FISA judges did.
Despite what the Obama administration did.
Despite the Hillary campaign and the DNC.
No collusion. That's the headline and instead obstruction of justice.
There was obstruction of justice. Was the President charged? No. Well, why wasn't he charged? Well, you can't indict a sitting President. Really? Who came up with that idea?
If you can't indict a sitting President, so if you can't indict a sitting President, why do you appoint a Special Counsel to conduct a criminal investigation of a President?
If we all agree you can't indict a sitting President, well, they appoint one anyway. Why did they appoint one?
Because Chuck Schumer demanded it. The Democrats demanded it. James Comey, Mr. Leaker, he demanded it. So, they demand it and you get a Special Counsel? And who do they pick? Mueller. And who is Mueller? He is best friends with Comey. Oh, that makes sense.
With all due respect, Mr. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, if the President was under investigation, you should have been, too, because you're one of the ones who recommended that he fire Comey and let's be honest, Comey should have been fired. His conduct was outrageous, whether it's Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
The whole senior level of the FBI is gone. Almost all of them are under criminal or independent counsel investigation.
Trump didn't do that. They're under investigation. The senior level of the FBI -- I've never seen anything like it. We were told, the President of the United States was going to fire Mueller. We've even had some Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee join with Democrats and said we need to pass legislation to protect Mueller.
Did the President fire Mueller? No.
We were told that there would be a Saturday Night Massacre like there was in Watergate. That once the President fired Comey, he'd go right down the list and fire the rest of them. Did he? No, he didn't. We were told the President would assert this privilege and that privilege to prevent his staff and others -- others -- from assisting in this all-important investigation. Did he?
Let me tell you something, he is the only President in modern history who did not once assert any Presidential privilege including the executive privilege to prevent documents or of people around him, including his own White House lawyer from talking to Mueller as much as they wanted to talk to Mueller and as much as Mueller wanted to talk to them.
He was an open book. They could see everything they want.
You even have reporters going through, "Oh, Volume 2, look how embarrassing. Look at this. Look at that." They wouldn't even know about any of that if the President of the United States didn't waive every single privilege and then the report is sent to the Attorney General.
The President still didn't assert the privilege.
Let us not forget, the President is the Executive Branch, not Mr. Mueller and not the Attorney General. He is there to protect the Executive Branch and the office of the President. You know what this President said? No recent President in history has said this, he said, "The way for me to protect the office of the presidency, the way for me to protect the Executive Branch against all these allegations is to make sure everything is available. Everything is out there." Everything is out there.
Now, this Volume 2 of obstruction of justice, there's not a lot of redaction. You know why? Because it's not a legal investigation. It's pablum. It's gossip. This staffer said this. This one saw this. We have this one's notes who said this. This one said that. The only reason you know that is because the President of the United States did not assert a privilege.
Now, Mr. Mueller didn't write this report all by himself. I doubt he's read this report all by himself. He had help. Probably from Weisberg or Weissmann and probably some of the other Democrats on his staff. No question about this. Who was this report written for? Who was it written for? He didn't even try to charge the President with anything. He knew what would happen to this report.
Bill Bar, when he was nominated to be Attorney General of the United States. During his confirmation hearing in the Senate, he said, "I'm going to release as much of this report as I possibly can." Wow. Cover up. Redactions. Very little is redacted. So, they're wrong again.
Mueller wasn't fired. Minimal redactions. But he says, "I'm going to release as much as I can," so what does Mueller think? And what do all his prosecutors think? Including the ones who supported Hillary Clinton and Obama including Weissman who was at the Hillary Clinton victory party. Sorry, pal, you lost. Who was that written for?
When this thing was finished, they also knew that Democrats took over the House of Representatives. They also knew that under Article 2 Section 4, the Democrats were hungry for impeachment. How do we know? The day after the President was elected, Donald Trump, they were talking about impeachment. He sees it. We all see it. The Mueller team saw it and so the Mueller team wrote particularly, Volume 2 for the Democrats in the House of Representative.
This is an impeachment report. This is an abuse of power by a prosecutor. This is the only prosecutor in the entire country who writes a report. Under the Justice Department regulations, a report that is only supposed to go to the Attorney General who then makes decisions about whether to release any of it or all of it, the Attorney General decides because there's no requirement that this report be released at all.
But Mueller knew the Attorney General was going to release most of it because the Attorney General said so, so they wrote the report. They wrote it for CNN. They wrote it for MSNBC. They wrote it for Nadler and Schiff and all the other reprobates. They wrote the report for them.
Now, is that what a prosecutor supposed to do? Is that an abuse of power? Is that the proper use of our tax dollars? Let's get back to fundamentals here. When you accuse somebody of an offence or you suggest that you can exonerate them -- now we have a prosecutor who claims to be able to exonerate people -- another first. That's not his job. How do they defend themselves?
This runs completely contrary to a civilized society, to our constitutional system -- completely contrary to it. Is there a single Democrat member of the House of Representatives, who give a damn? No. Is there a single host or guest on CNN or MSNBC, a single so-called news person at the "New York Times" or "Washington Post" or any of these outlets who cares about the constitutional system?
Who cares about the justice system? Not one. Suddenly, they like those police state tactics.
Have we all forgotten what Snowden, the whistleblower, showed us years ago?
"The Snowden phenomenon was far larger than the man himself, larger even than the documents he leaked. In retrospect, it showed us the first glimmerings of an emerging ideological realignment—a convergence, not for the first time, of the far left and the far right, and of libertarianism with authoritarianism. It was also a powerful intervention in information wars we didn’t yet know we were engaged in, but which we now need to understand."
Sources: Alan Dershowitz https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/alan-dershowitz-mueller-wrongly-introduces-dangerous-concept-of-exoneration-in-review-of-trump-actions
Mark Levin https://video.foxnews.com/v/6028573066001/#sp=show-clips
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your thoughts, comments and opinions, will be in touch. Peter Clarke