Looks like entrapment to me

Opinion:

Not a lawyer here.  But what do you make of a government that provokes somebody, and then, on the basis of the response, claims a crime has been committed?  I say it is entrapment.

How was Trump provoked?  Wouldn't anybody be resentful of being falsely accused of something?  I find that to be a reasonable response to what the President faced.

The fact that an obstruction case was opened before Mueller was appointed shows that the Russian collusion allegation was false.  Moreover, this will likely be proven to be the case.  Not only was the allegation false, but those making KNEW it was false when they made it.

This thread to this tweet logically analyzes the evidence from the period between Comey's firing and Mueller's hiring, and deduces that the obstruction case was opened basically because of Comey's firing.  So, all Comey had to do was to provoke Trump into firing him, and then claim he was obstructing justice by doing so.  But should the mere firing of the FBI director be a cause for an obstruction of justice charge?

Trump's accusers are basing their entire position today on obstruction.  But it was entrapment even if Trump did do something (if it was a legitimate case) that might be interpreted as obstruction.  In any case, there should not have been an investigation like this at all.  It was politically motivated.

NEW: Transcript of previously secret proffer from Mueller's top appellate lawyer and counselor Michael Dreeben confirms Andy McCabe opened an obstruction of justice investigation into the president *before* the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel

THREAD

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 24, 2019

Crying wolf

Mollie Hemmingway reports how we have heard this before.

3 Times Media Claimed Russiagate Transparency Would End America https://t.co/WltbtwXO9x

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 25, 2019

World Salad Nancy

That's what this is: a big tossed salad of disconnected words and run-on sentences.

She needs a prepared text to read from.  She is trying to speak "off-the-cuff", but she is stumbling very badly.  If she read her prepared text, she would be coherent while she did.  She must be difficult to talk to.

Some psychological problems are associated with word salad speaking styles, but there is not enough here to categorize exactly what her problem is.  But she definitely has one.

Democrats are spinning this like crazy, but there's no denying that there's a problem here.

Instapundit:"He's taking the lead on this"

Sen. Ted Cruz is fighting for free speech on the campus.

Who'd a thunk this was necessary in the land of the free, home of the brave.

"were not going to fund discrimination..." https://t.co/laWXDvcMkS via @campusreform

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 25, 2019

When all else fails, have a milkshake

Comment:

Farage takes one for the team, and gets a milkshake for his troubles.

They are more civilized over the pond after all.  When lefties get upset on this side of the pond, they try to wipe out the opposition party with spies and bullets.

Milkshakes go well with that whopper.

Lunacy

Comment:

"Man" was pregnant, and gives birth to a stillborn baby.  But it turns out that it wasn't a man.  Just a gal pretending to be a man.  She haves sex in the usual way, gets pregnant, but the baby dies.

The baby died because of improper treatment.  The death was avoidable.  If the woman had been treated as a pregnant woman in the first place, the baby could have lived.

Yet, the story isn't written quite that way.  The headline is such that it could cause confusion, and maybe someone reading it would just pass it by without noting it.  I know.  I did it myself.

To write something like this might get you into trouble in some places today.  Or so I hear.

The world has gone nuts.

Baby Dies Because Doctors Were Told His Pregnant Mother Was A Man https://t.co/yh8HX2ryYQ

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 24, 2019

Sara Carter on Fox

Comment:

The film "All the president's men" comes to mind.  Not Nixon's, not Trump's, but Obama's.

The list of names get bigger all the time. 

This is going to change everything. Tonight discussing this with @dbongino on @seanhannity show. | for more check: https://t.co/SaSXnvrrgY pic.twitter.com/23pVXbvLDI

— Sara A. Carter (@SaraCarterDC) May 24, 2019

How many Plan B's do they have?

Updated:

5.24.19:

Top officials of the FBI knew that Steele's intel was false.  How far up the chain of command will this go? Obama himself?  Baker and Comey knew. 

5.19.19:

Comment:

Well, they must be through with Plan B a long time ago.  Plan A was to win the election.  Plan B was to frame Trump.  If they can't do either of these, then there must be a Plan C, D, E, and so forth.

I don't know if this is Plan C, or what this is with respect to a specific Plan.  But it does appear to be brazen dishonesty.  Yep, the coup plotters are going to try to brazen their way out of this.  Maybe Plan D is outright warfare.  I suppose we'll see.

Now pair with thishttps://t.co/K8WDlzVOu6

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 18, 2019

Perhaps you should read this first.  But I found it after finding the first one posted above.  This is posted about 45 minutes later.

The Steele Dossier and the ‘VERIFIED APPLICATION’ That Wasn’t - my weekend @NRO column ... https://t.co/XkvNENiHCT

— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) May 18, 2019

Where's the controversy?

Just a few questions here for those who may be interested...

Why is defending the border controversial?
Why is getting better trade deals controversial?
Why is getting better nuclear arms deals controversial?  ( This is reference to Iran )

Indeed, why is the pursuit of a better deal a controversial subject?

I don't get the opposition to Trump.

The accusations are not persuasive.  That's why there is no reference to the standard accusation of Trump and his followers.

In other words, why is it such a bad thing to pursue a better deal for the people of this country?

Democrat temper tantrum

Updated,

5.23.19:

7:10 am:

Here's a Hollywood production of years gone by.  It was about a young girl with a disability.  But her disability was the least of her problems.  Her main problem was that she was impossible to deal with.  One long temper tantrum after another.  Finally, a social worker was called in to see if they could do something with her.  It had a happy ending.  But that is Hollywood...  What we have here is real, and it may not have a happy ending.





6:30 am:

As I wrote yesterday, this blog can go on autopilot.  I see patterns, and I remember writing about them.  Why make a new post when this old post repeats the same story?

What we have with Pelosi is a temper tantrum.  The Democrats are not getting their way, and like the child that goes on a rampage, there is going to be trouble.

The only way to respond to a person in this spell of rage is to be firm.  If it requires physical restraint, then you have to be prepared to use physical restraint.

One thing that you cannot allow is to let them have their way.  You must be firm.


5.7.19:

3:17 pm:

Nancy Pelosi says "we" cannot accept another Trump term in 2020.  She is strongly implying that the Constitution didn't win in 2016.

Excuse me, Nancy.  The Constitution DID win.  At least, so far it has.  That's why your caucus collectively has its panties in a wad.  Since then, we have endured two years of your caucus' collective temper tantrum.  Yes, and it appears that you are threatening yet another.

Here's a message for Nancy and the rest of her caucus of wayward overgrown spoiled brats:  We aren't going to accept any of your nonsense for much longer.

At least, that is what the GOP caucus SHOULD be saying.  That includes Trump, by the way.  Instead, I fear that they are going to underestimate, ignore, or let themselves be intimidated by the blustering hoo-hah of these world-class jackasses.

And Pelosi is the more reasonable of her brood.  She and the rest of her bunch of nincompoops had better get a clue and soon.

5:05 pm:

Nancy Pelosi cannot possibly believe what she is saying, and still be SANE.  Either she is a liar, or she is CRAZY.

No double standards could exist without GOP approval

Updated,

5.22.19:

This blog could go on autopilot.  The reason is that nothing changes.  This post shows why.  The next election is coming up, and everybody is saying the same things.

Nobody learns.  The same patterns occur over and again.  The same causes, the same effects.  I could pull up a post like this every day, and it would be just like it was before.  No need to write anything new.

The GOP lost control of the House.  The POTUS, and the Senate is next.  It is almost preordained.  The same games get played over and again.

However, there is nothing written in stone that this has to be so.  But it may as well be.

The Democrats create fictions, the GOP types feel as though they are obligated to play this game of proving that the fictions are fictions.  If the GOP types succeed in proving the fiction, it doesn't change a thing.  It is on to the next fiction.  Such is the case now.  The Russian collusion fiction has been proven a fiction, now the GOP types feel the need to get sucked into the game of proving the obstruction fiction is false.

It should matter that there be consequences for creating the fiction in the first place.  Something makes me suspicious that there won't be.  In eighteen months, this post could be updated, and the same thing could be happening as today.

Nothing has changed.

9.16.18:


You hear about this lament that the GOP and the Democrats are judged by different standards.

It is only true because the GOP allows it.  It is a perfect excuse for failure.  It allows the blame to be shifted upon that over which there is no control.

However, there is some control over how you are treated.  If you allow this kind of treatment, it is only because you tolerate it.  Nobody has to tolerate being treated second class.

The left wont tolerate even the slightest things.  They even invent reasons to be offended.  But let the GOP be accused of anything, it is taken as given that they have to prove that it isn't so.

This doesn't have to be the case.  But evidently, the GOP seems to want it that way.

The GOP needs to fight in order to maintain morale.  When they don't fight, it depresses enthusiasm.  Perhaps that won't happen in this cycle, but it could.  If enthusiasm falls off, then turnout will fall off.

The Dems invented this Russian conspiracy in order to stir up their people.  Chances are, a lot of them will go to the polls because of the manufactured rage.

The GOP cannot afford to fall asleep this time.

This not rule of law, it is a political junta gone rogue

Ace makes an observation here that may need to be expanded upon.  This judge who ordered that Trump's accountants to turn over his tax record, has also fast tracked it so that it cannot be appealed.

Why would they do that?  So, one judge can issue a court order like this, and decide upon himself that it cannot be reviewed by anyone else?  Meanwhile, the jackals who ordered this can rifle through his private records in search of dirt that they can use for political purposes.

It smells a lot like using the NSA for political spying.  The records consist of tax years before Trump became president.   He was a private citizen at that time.  Congress does not have such power, as Ace points out.

How then can this be rule of law?

Report that impeachment is imminent

It seems that was somewhere in the reports this morning.  So, what to make of this? 

Some Democrat said that an impeachment would allow them to "seek information".  One may ask this:  if information is needed, then what was Mueller for?  If the information doesn't exist for their purpose at the moment, then the matter is political.

If the matter is political, then why should the administration be compelled to produce documents?  It must have a legal basis.  For instance, during the Watergate era, the legal basis for demanding the tapes was the burglary itself.  Without the burglary, what use were the tapes?  Investigators sought the tapes in order to determine if Nixon was trying to cover up any material participation in the crime.

As with the Mueller investigation itself, this is a fishing expedition.  There was no fish to catch in the Mueller investigation, so the Democrats have nothing but a political motive here in order to obtain information.  If the Democrats claim a cover up, then the cover up is of what?  No collusion was found.

If the accusation is based upon some violation of law in itself, they would have a legal basis.  But no crime has been established.  Basically, this is a political gimmick.

Daily Update:

1:38 pm:

By the way, could this be a distraction from the upcoming revelations from the phony Russian collusion investigation?  Actually, spygate is really no revelation at all.

Things seem to be going from bad to worse...

... and to think I was once optimistic.

If I had a wish list from God or Satan, I'd wish retroactive abortions upon all liberals.  Their existence is an error on somebody's part.

The thing is, if the likes of Booty gigger can become president, and God is on his side, then I would prefer the Devil.

Brit Hume said nice things about this weenie.  Have people lost their minds?

Just like you like it

Maybe they'll sell it to Whammy Burger.

Whataburger hires Morgan Stanley to explore possible salehttps://t.co/lef52wA59Z

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 20, 2019

They make a good burger today.  As long as it is still legal, that is.

Today's media can be described as a four letter word starting with "s", and ending with "t"

That's just for starters.  But I am exercising restraint.

.@marklevinshow: Why the founding fathers, Patriot press would be 'astonished' at what the media has become | https://t.co/k4zNd9juCE

— Sara A. Carter (@SaraCarterDC) May 20, 2019

Predictions are hard, especially about the future.

Updated,

5.20.19:

The bond market yields continue to fall.  Other stats seem to support a weakening economy.  The yield curve is getting more inverted.  Time to worry a bit.

5.16.19:

According to the late Yogi Berra, that is.   Stock market prediction is harder still.  More success might be attainable from throwing darts than in predicting stock market moves.

However, one method seems somewhat reliable.  That method is yield curve inversion.  When the yield curve inverts, long term interest rates are lower than short term rates.   The yield curve today shows a partly inverted yield curve.

On the near term end of the curve, the rate is at 2.40 percent.   The 30-year yield is at 2.84 percent.   It is flat, but not inverted.   However, the curve does invert very slightly at the 1-year maturity and continues until the 7-year maturity.

yield curve

This inversion is not likely to be significant.  However, a completely inverted yield curve is useful for predicting recessions.  Stock markets tend to follow recessions, so there you go.

The stock market may have its zigs and zags, but the bond market always bears watching.

No pun intended.

Bongino show 5.20.19

The big story here is that Surkov ( Steele Dossier's Russian source ) is connected to the Clintons.

Hey, a good defense is a good offense.  Accuse Trump of treason while you do it yourself.

Surkov was involved in plot to steal American defense secrets.  The Clintons cashed in big time.

Well, it is Bongino.  You may not believe him.  You can swallow the Media's blue pill, and believe whatever you want.  You can even believe that girls are boys, and vice versa.

However, I think Bongino is a good source.

Furthermore, I never believed the Russian collusion hoax.  I'm pretty sure I said so at the time, and why I didn't believe the Russian collusion nonsense.  My suspicions have been confirmed.  The Obama Administration was spying on Trump.  Why should this be a mystery?  Everybody knew Obama was doing this.  Obama even spied on allies.  Remember that one?  So, if Obama was spying on everyone already, and they had no evidence of Trump's guilt, then it didn't happen.

So, none of this should be a surprise to anyone.

To listen to Democrats, they love the truth...

Congress critter Amash says that Trump deserves to be impeached.

So, a twitter storm has ensued.  Reading through them, I am amazed to see that so many Democrats purportedly love themselves up a whole bunch of truthy truth.

Typical Dem mentality:  "Yep, we sho' does luv that twuth.  We's gonna git that orange man good!"

If they really believed in the truth, I would be encouraged.  But they don't.  They live in their bubble, and they call that "truth".  

I'd be willing that none of these people have bothered to read much of the criticism of the case against Trump.  But they "sho' does luv dat twuth!"

BTW.  People may think that this is racial.  Nope.  The Dems are in all colors, and they are equally just as stupid.

Here's a thought:  I wonder how many of these tweets were paid for astroturfing ops from the George Soros camp?  Let's call them rent-a-commies.

Who is delusional?

Comment:

Three years of this garbage, and counting.  Sure, I am all for getting the truth.  But, do the people responsible for this phony Mueller investigation care anything about the truth?

It is very, very much like Aesop's Fable of the wolf and the lamb.  The lamb can be 100% right, but the wolf will gobble him up anyway.  The Moral: Force has the better of the argument. 

Liberals have no compunction about using force in order to get their way.  The truth is only useful to them when it favors them.  Otherwise, it can be discarded.  Not only discarded, but maybe even laughed at for those who trust in it.

The lefties are said to be delusional when they believe in this garbage.  But aren't those who trust in the truth a bit delusional as well if they think that the disclosure of the truth will make the least bit of difference to these people?

Why is this so hard to understand??????????

Gowdy: FBI has Papadopoulos transcripts that are potential 'game-changer' https://t.co/2ZOz072TiJ

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) May 19, 2019

Forget the Alamo?

Comment:

One question that I have, and it is irrelevant as to the actual news.  Why the devil is it that you have to click through a lot of other stuff first before you get to the actual story?!?

You may not have the patience to click through everything, so here's the story ( I think ).  There may be a movement to remove the Alamo, and replace it with something else.  There is a lot of controversy on each side of the story.  One might imagine so.

Given all the PC garbage that is out there, one might hope that the real significance of the place is not blotted out.  I say leave it the hell alone.

The new Battle of the Alamo. Sunday @FullMeasureNews @ScottThuman https://t.co/JXlopy5BOU

— Sharyl Attkisson🕵️‍♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) May 18, 2019