"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?
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/09/13/edward-snowden-reconsidered/
