Trump War Room

Updated,

6.1.19:

3:37 pm:

The argument in support of CNN is:  "I didn't know she was nasty." equals "She is nasty".

Anybody ought to be able to see that there is a difference in meaning.  That is, unless you are under the influence of the mob.


3:14 pm:

A few takeaways....

1. It's a war room, you see. Evidently, people sense something important is going on there. You cannot reason with a mob.  I got through the thread and I realized to try to respond to their "reasoning" was going to get nowhere.

2. Hey, it is democracy in action.  It has been said in more than one place that a democracy commits suicide.  If you cannot reason through a thing, you cannot have reason as your guide.  There is no sense of reason in a mob.  A mob is like lemmings, they'll all go over the cliff.  If one does it, they all do.

3. An army is a mob, it has been said.  They don't get their courage from within, but from their numbers.  So, here is the thing that happens.  A mob will lynch their victim.  They can do it because they can.  That is, they can provided that the guy they go after is scared of them.  If he is not, then the mob has a problem.


The mob could erase those who disagree by simply complaining about one guy who disagrees with them.

If that is how Twitter works, then they are encouraging mob behavior.  Lynching bees could be around the corner.

Fake News CNN is at it again, falsely claiming President Trump called Meghan Markle "nasty." Here is what he actually said. Listen for yourself! pic.twitter.com/kLuPXBLMhf

— Official Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) June 1, 2019

Mueller looks more and more like a hired gun...

Updated,

6.1.19:


A trick to conceal exculpatory evidence?  No discovery allowed to defendant, which is a right.  The DOJ is trying to weasel out of the judge's order for this evidence because Flynn pleaded to a different crime.

It would be incredible that they could be using two false charges against each other in order to prevent discovery of the exculpatory evidence to clear Flynn of either one!  Flynn pled guilty of false statements as a lesser charge than the one they were asking him questions about, but DOJ claims that the judge cannot have the original charge because it isn't the same charge--- get it?  There is doubt that Flynn lied, remember?  Flynn may not have been guilty of this other thing either, but the judge is not allowed to see that either?

They're asking the judge to sentence a man that may not be guilty of anything.   Judge Sullivan can do what thinks he should, but if there was justice, the charges should be dropped with prejudice.

I can't wait to see Sullivan's response if DOJ says they aren't going to provide him with other transcripts. They pled out the case the way they did to avoid discovery on Flynn's statements under Rule 16. But they have a different obligation to the Court as part of sentencing.

— shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) May 31, 2019

5.31.19:

But I repeat myself.

The Mueller edited this to make it appear worse than what it really was.  Of course, by the time we figure out all of the irregularities in Mueller's report, the Dems will be on a different attack plan.

Notice how collusion is slowly going down the memory hole?  But the white hats are still trying to prove how the collusion was a fraud.  The black hats have moved the goal posts toward "obstruction".

Once again #MuellerReport edited messages to make them appear more damaging, full transcript of this phone call reveals Dowd’s message was pretty typical for a lawyer and he clearly states he’s not interested in any confidential info. What else did they manipulate🙄 pic.twitter.com/7JHRzgmh3Y

— Rosie memos (@almostjingo) May 31, 2019

....and this....


Mueller and Co. has attempted to keep exculpatory evidence out....  Hired gun?  You betcha!

They don't want judge to know that Flynn's lawyer advised Flynn that he didn't need to register under FARA ( the law they used to get him with ).

 Developments in the Flynn Intel Group (FIG) FARA case:

FIG lawyer stated "it was not necessary to register under FARA and that FIG should register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act instead"

DOJ is trying to keep this advice out of trial. pic.twitter.com/PQOYfiGzWs

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 29, 2019

Evidence of prosecutorial abuse

Updated,

6.1.19:

This post is updated with the news that Judge Sullivan is being stonewalled yet again.  This is like a red idiot light on your dash panel, folks.  Here's the government actively working to railroad innocent men on the basis of none other than political disagreement.  It is an abuse worthy of jail time for the perpetrators.

This isn't just hot language here.  It is clear and definite what they are up to, and it is a massive conspiracy involving the entire Democrat party, and even some elements of the GOP.

This is the kind of thing that can start a war.  It is willful and malicious.  There must be a response, and it must be robust.

Trump has called it treason.   But is he serious?  If he is, then how does he fail to act?  Is he hoping that the public will correctly see it and vote accordingly?  How can the public act when the public is kept in the dark?

5.5.19:

In this recording here, which is all rather long-winded, the gold nugget of info worth mentioning was that Mueller changed the rules of evidence to favor the prosecution.  This was when Mueller was FBI director.

Rules were changed so that exculpatory evidence was to be excluded.  That is abusive.

An example of this abusive behavior occurred in the Cliven Bundy case.  So, this is documented that the Federal government prosecutors do this, as a matter of policy.  It was no accident.  It was no isolated event.

The Cliven Bundy case was dismissed with prejudice by the judge hearing the case.  Okay, where are the judges NOW?

Actually, this is about the Flynn case, which has still not be finished.  The judge keeps delaying the sentence.

There is exculpatory evidence available in the Flynn case, but it has probably been suppressed.  But it may be even worse than just withholding exculpatory evidence.  The prosecutors may have FALSIFIED evidence.  The 302s that were used to convict Flynn of lying to the FBI may have been altered.  There may be another 302 that will PROVE this.

CTH

Something's gotta give.  Either the tyrants win, or freedom wins.  It may sound melodramatic, but what these people are attempting is breathtaking in its mendacity and villainy.

This makes Sessions look really bad

Sessions refused to hire a special prosecutor, and he allowed a special prosecutor of his boss.

Man, Trump couldn't have done much worse.  Barr had better be better than Sessions, or Trump could be in trouble.

Confirmed: U.S. Attorney John Huber NEVER started the 'Spygate' probe Jeff Sessions assigned to him https://t.co/xVzlv85xMY via @TheNatSent

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 31, 2019

Yield curve watch

Evidently, there are a lot of people out there who seem to think Trump's economic policies are wrong.

However, the statistics on GDP and employment are still pretty good.  Something doesn't add up.

The yield curve is nearly fully inverted now.  It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  If the economy is growing this well without inflation, interest rates shouldn't be this depressed.

What gives?  Does somebody know something that I don't know?  As for basic economic theory, puhleeze.  I've seen it all before.  I don't need those kind of lectures.

The only thing I can figure is manipulation.  The manipulation may produce a self-fulfilling prophecy.  However, it is hard for me to believe that near zero interests rates are too high!

In other words, it's worth keeping an eye on, but not to panic over it.

Amash on Impeachment

Updated,

5.31.19:

Comment:

The rule-of-law crowd doesn't follow the rules.

Wants to see Congress 're-brand' its investigation as a 'criminal' investigation, which would involve Congress 're-branding' itself as the executive branch.https://t.co/VXxwofhTNp

— Byron York (@ByronYork) May 31, 2019

5.30.19:

Comment:

If you read the Federalist Papers, you will find that impeachment is a "political act".  Nevertheless, there are people who are attempting to hide it all behind a cloak of legality.

The Conus says there must be high crimes and misdemeanors.

CONUS

Impeachment is tried in the Senate.  Removal of office follows, if convicted.  There is nothing to prevent prosecution if the POTUS is removed.

Therefore, first impeachment and removal, then prosecution afterwards.

The removal of the POTUS is a political act.  Yet, there is a requirement for a crime to have been committed.  Hence the reliance upon a Special Counsel, such as Mueller.

But Mueller won't say if he believes that Trump committed a crime.  In fact, HE WON'T say it.  He leaves that up to Congress.

Without the evidence presented to impeach, it becomes a nakedly political act.  The Congress doesn't want to do that, so they hide behind Mueller.  But Mueller hides behind Congress, and claims he cannot indict.   Frankly, I think it is all an equivocation.

As for the investigation itself, it is a FRAUD.  In my opinion, Amash is just a useful idiot for those who have a political agenda to remove Trump at all costs.

Amash on Impeachment: You Can't 'Criminally Indict a Sitting President' But... https://t.co/OlEtfIDrK7 #Trending via @pjmedia_com

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 30, 2019

Follow the money, not the rhetoric

Comment:

Does Amash get reelected after this?  He has a primary opponent already.

Watch that money flow.  Follow the money.  Koch Bros. support Amash.   What are the Koch Bros about?  Open borders.   It's about the open-borders types and globalist's opposition to Trump.

Koch Bros Propaganda Promotes Justin Amash as Crusader 'Against FISA Surveillance Abuse' https://t.co/6P07qUPwXh via @BigLeaguePol

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 31, 2019

John Solomon:"Brits warned of Steele's unreliability"

Comment:

I'm reading this, and I'm thinking--- did Mueller and his team even investigate this at all?

That's what I'm talking about.  It wasn't about Russia.  By the time Mueller is hired, the Russia angle is played out.  There was no "there' there.

It makes perfect sense that the Brits warned about Steele.  But those who hatched this thing didn't care about that.  They were going after Trump no matter what the cost.

By the way, the above was written before I read the article.  Now that I have read it, further information may be needed to confirm.  If it is, then what does that say about the FISA warrant against Carter Page?

Breaking: Brits alerted US early in Russia probe to concerns about Steele, Congress told.https://t.co/geiUxkRn72

— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) May 29, 2019

Attkisson:"Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation"

Comment:

If she wishes to write of it that way, okay.  But, if the standards applied to Trump were turned on his accusers with the same force, how would they fare?

She is very generous.  I won't be.  If they call Trump a liar, and it is proven that he wasn't, then what does that make his accusers?  None of them appear to be 'fessing up to their lies.  Not only are they liars, but they are doubling down on their folly.

Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation

Read the full story:https://t.co/OsiRFgQcYe

Via: @SharylAttkisson pic.twitter.com/P4n2uvB2ea

— TheHillOpinion (@TheHillOpinion) May 29, 2019

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

As long as I am being "harsh", the Russia probe wasn't about Russia.  It was about framing Trump on a pretended investigation so that they could accuse him of obstruction of justice.

This conclusion isn't new.  I wrote that on the news that Mueller was hired.  The proof of what I wrote is there.  Look it up if you don't believe I predicted it.

McCabe started an obstruction file as soon as Comey was fired.  Within a few days, Mueller was hired.  Why?  Because they knew there was no "there" there with respect to Russia.  Get it?  In order to continue to hound Trump, they needed a pretext.  The firing of Comey gave them that.

I write this because people continue to say it was about Russia, which I now label as nothing but a damned lie.

People may be put off by the language I use

My audience numbers are lower than usual lately.  The inevitable thought for me is that those who come here from time-to-time may be somewhat offended by the fierceness of the language at times.

Let this be plain:  it isn't as fierce as it could be. 

Since the numbers are lower, I decided to double check my conclusions.  Almost all of what I write here comes from information sources not my own.  I have no first hand information, except for what I can see from the principles themselves.  There's plenty that goes on "behind the scenes" that I don't know about.

Sure, I can be wrong in my conclusions.  But I don't think so.  Time may prove that I am indeed wrong.  But until such time, I will continue based upon what I think is correct, regardless of whether or not people are offended by it.  Truth is my gold standard.  But I do not necessarily think I know everything.  However, I don't think I should sell out for better audience numbers.

Finally, I wanted to mention that I double checked what I have written lately with what Rush Limbaugh is saying.  I'm sure Rush is not nearly as harsh as I am.  He doesn't attack elements within the GOP that I do.  Rush is more of GOP party guy than I am.  In fact, I don't consider myself a party man even though generally speaking I favor what the GOP seems to pretend to be about.

The point is that Rush is saying pretty much the same as I am here, without the minor differences that I mentioned.  If anybody is offended by what I write here, it can only be the harshness, but not the accuracy of what I write.

If you cannot write the truth, the the truth is not honored in this culture anymore.  That is, if it ever was.

The real Memorial Day

No intention to get into a contest here.  It is just to remember when it was on a different day.  This change happened during my lifetime.  It was considered a good move to put it on a Monday so it could become a three day weekend.

That shows the priorities now, doesn't it?

Normally, my own priorities are to do more work.  Whatever floats your boat, as the saying goes.  However, it is also not good to always be so self-absorbed.  Perhaps it would be a good habit of thinking of others from time-to-time.

It is also good to practice being more aware of one's own faults, and to resolve to do better.

Bongino deconstructs Mr. Integrity's op-ed

This post will reference the tweet from NRO's Andy McCarthy.  Bongino references it in his video.  McCarthy distinguishes the difference between "source" and "informant", and shows why the conflation of the terms is used to confuse people.

Mr. Integrity and company are playing with words, and counting on people not to reason this out, nor to be able to figure it out.  In other words, Mr. Integrity and his pals think you people are too stupid to get it.

The evidence that Bongino presents against Mr. Integrity is overwhelming.  Mr. Integrity and company cannot win on this unless the GOP lets them.  Yes, and they just might.

Bongino says Comey is in "cover his ass" mode.  Actually, he is beyond the point where he can cover himself.  Comey is counting on the usual suspects to bail him out.  That would be the Democrats and their hacks in the media.  Not to mention the usual "cucks" in the GOP.

Was Brennan’s ‘Intelligence Bombshell’ the Steele Dossier? - my @NRO column: https://t.co/qr2v1Vg7CK

— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) May 29, 2019

Evil Empire Strikes Back

Updated,

5.29.19:

Here's the proof of what I said yesterday.  The Democrats are going to brazenly lie their way through this.

SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner Tells Intelligence Community to Defy Barr and Democrats Will Protect Them... https://t.co/wiisQqnvjL via @thelastrefuge2

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 29, 2019

5.28.19:

Comment:

Not really.  I can't back that up.  However, Bongino makes an impassioned plea to those who follow Democrats.

However, I am one to question whether such a plea could yield anything useful.  Why?  I submit that the Democrats already know they are lying, and don't care.  Not only do they NOT care, but are happy to lie, if that helps them.

They are dedicated to the lie.  There.  I said it.

The "Evil Empire" that Reagan referred to has moved from the Soviet Union to the United States.

The left is the "Evil Empire".  There.  I said that too.

Ep. 989 The Swamp Fights Back https://t.co/KGT1yuIqnM

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 28, 2019

Daily Update:


 Sure you could follow what Bongino said, and attempt to reason with the left.  By all means, if you feel you must, then go right ahead.  But I'm done with that.  There is no reasoning with people like this.  I'm just saying that it is a waste of time.  They are at war with those who disagree with them.  With the left, it is their way or the highway.  Sure, they will "negotiate".  But it is phony as with everything else about them.  If you concede anything to them, you will give up something, but you will get nothing in return.

Mueller Statement

The Special Counsel has made a statement regarding the recently completed investigation into the so-called Russian collusion case.

It doesn't have anything new that hasn't been said already.  In fact, Mueller wants to let the report stand on its own.  He did not indicate any pressure or so forth.

He reiterated what was said before, that the counsel's office could not exonerate POTUS ( but that is not his job ), nor could there be a criminal charge against the POTUS.  That responsibility has been left up to Congress.

Comment:

As noted in one parenthetical comment, the part where they could not exonerate the POTUS, is a completely irrelevant line.  It is an insinuation of guilt.  Nor would he claim that there was clear evidence of a crime, but could not indict.  I think that this was an equivocation.  It is not his job to exonerate.  It was his job to find the crime and report it back as such.  He did that for collusion/conspiracy, but has refused to do that for obstruction.

I think that is was a disgraceful thing for him to do.  He's pretty much encouraging the continuation of this Star Chamber treatment of the POTUS.  For Congress' part, they do have the power of impeachment under the CONUS, but it is a political act.  This statement was political, but doesn't give the Congress the legal cover that they want.  There is no clear crime to indict, so Congress is going to want to investigate further.  That's what Mueller is encouraging.  A despicable trick.

Barr and the rule of law

Updated:

5.29.19:

Is Congress trying to set themselves up as a Star Chamber?  Looks like it to me.


5.27.19:

Here's a tweet, seemingly from the left, also seeming to argue that Barr is in violation of the law.

You don’t get to choose whether to comply w a subpoena. If you think the subpoena is unlawful you can ask a court to say so (called a “motion to quash”). But you can’t just ignore it. Trump’s attempted normalization of the idea you can is yet another attack on the rule of law. https://t.co/wCfyvy0nSk

— Ian Bassin (@ianbassin) May 26, 2019

What power does Congress have, exactly?

Let's look at the CONUS ( Constitution ).  After all, it is the "supreme law of the land".  What does it say about Congressional powers?

The one pertaining to the Barr situation that would best fit is this one:

The clause that sets up the District of Columbia

So, Congress can legislate "exclusively" over the District of Columbia.  This does not mean that they can set up their own little tyranny there, as they have to abide by the Bill of Rights as well as any other jurisdiction.   They can set up a court, a police department, and so forth.  That would be like any other jurisdiction.  But I never heard of any jurisdiction that could summon people to come and give testimony, unless it was a part of a legal proceeding.  A legal proceeding would mean court.  The Congress is not a court.  It is not the police.

Barr could be expected to testify with respect to budgets, priorities, and policies.  However, they cannot truly be expected to have the power that Mueller had to hold a Grand Inquisition.

Congress has the power of the purse, and the power of legislation.  They can do other things as well, but as far as arresting Barr, I think that would be a stretch.

The tweet mentioned "motion to quash".  Seems like the left is showering this administration with a multitude of legal maneuvers, which could amount to frivolity.  If a jurisdiction really doesn't have the power that it claims, then to fail to respond to their frivolous moves would not threaten the "rule of law".

Put the thinking caps on, people

Updated,

5.29.19:

If Mueller doesn't testify in public, doesn't that imply that his testimony is political?  So far, to my knowledge, he has not mentioned sources and methods.  That defense won't fly, and a political defense isn't valid.

Besides, Mueller opened the door on this himself.  He could have exonerated Trump completely.   Yet, the law says you have to prove your case, and it isn't up to Mueller to exonerate.  Therefore, the Mueller statement was political in itself, and yet he won't testify because of politics.

5.27.19:

Trust or not trust Mueller!  So, if Mueller has all the facts, why isn't he testifying????  Come off it people.  Also, if he is not testifying openly, then what does that tell you?  You cannot claim to be open, and then hide in the woods.

The following thread is an example of the shallowness of some people, who insist on believing the Mueller/Democrat fairy tales.

This is from the Mueller report, I trust Mueller to have the facts! You may be hearing propaganda! pic.twitter.com/pCPUfsUow4

— valentina (@yaldi00) May 24, 2019

thank u for making my point. Gpap was the recipient of a rumor from Mifsud. so WHO did our intel agencies spy on? The foreign nat'l purveyor of that info or the US Citizen who repeated the claim? The fact that they interviewed Mifsud& then let him disappear tells you everything

— Michael (@MBlake1771) May 24, 2019

MIFSUD has those EXACT same tangential relationships with WESTERN intelligence too. And as i said, no matter how TANGENTIALLY he's associated with Russia he is still not the "Russian Government" as he's been (laughably) identified.

— Michael (@MBlake1771) May 24, 2019

What are they hiding?

Updated,

5.29.19:

There's a real problem here.  The article mentions that they don't need to prove probable cause of a crime in order to get a FISA warrant.  Excuse me, but when did the 4th Amendment get repealed?

All warrants are based upon probable cause, or they aren't legal.

I realize that national security is an issue here.  If you have probable cause for a wiretap, then a FISA warrant could be quite similar.  I'm thinking though, that these people may have exploited the apparatus which was intended for national security, and turned it into political advantage.

That's the real issue here.  The national security function must be protected, yet at the same time, those who violate the rules need to be held accountable for having done that.

That's why the Woods Procedures exist.  They are very extensive, and it was Mueller himself who created them.  Now these same people are trying to say that the Woods Procedures don't apply to them.  That's a big red flag right there.

It should be obvious how something like this can be abused, and how they can possible skate on it.  In fact, that appears to be their defense right now.

AG Barr Battles Intel Community And FBI. Illegal Surveillance Had Been Going On For Years. https://t.co/zcP3z2sjBF via @SaraCarterDC

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 29, 2019

5.28.19:

The Last Refuge has discussed the 702 FISA abuses once again.  This has jogged my memories of what happened shortly after the 9-11-2001 terrorist attacks.

POTUS Bush's response to that was somewhat controversial, at least in some circles.  One controversy was warrantless phone taps.  Is this not what the 702 FISA abuses are about today?  The abuse of this program in order to monitor terrorists?  Why was it adapted to supposedly monitor Trump vis-a-vis the Russians?  Are the Russians terrorists, then?

According to the Wikipedia article linked to above, critics were complaining that this was meant to silence the critics of Bush's policies.  Also, as a result of this criticism, Bush ended the program in 2007.  If Bush ended the program, did Obama renew it in order to spy upon his political enemies?  If so, then this shows the utter cynicism of their criticism against Bush.  At least Bush was fighting terrorists who attacked America on America's own soil.  Whatever you may say against the Russians, they haven't done anything like this yet.

Perhaps this is what they are hiding.  They do not wish for Americans to see how they are deceiving us into believing things that they say, when they say things that are actually hostile to this country, and its freedoms.

After all, why would these people oppose tracking terrorists, but be okay with tracking American citizens?  Why would these people want to politically destroy innocent Americans who are only exercising their civil rights?  Are they traitors, who sympathize with our enemies, and attack our own people?

Is this what they are hiding?

So, Avenati thinks he's David?

He calls Trump the "ultimate Goliath".  Hmm.  It doesn't look likes he's David, cuz the Trumpster is still standing.

By the way, the metaphor isn't apt.  The lefties cannot be allowed to claim that they're the "chosen people" even if they really believe they are.  If you aren't Jewish, then don't claim to be David.  I don't know if the Jews are bothered, since many of them are lefties, too.

What about Christians?  Christians have a Jewish "connection", so maybe that would work.  But is Avenati a Christian?  Let's see if there is anything about Avenati out there.  Here's his Wikipedia entry.  Wikipedia is claimed to be biased, by the way.  Nothing there about his religious beliefs.  He has a personal website.  His bio mentions nothing about his religious beliefs.

In the AP/Yahoo article, Avenati seems to be blaming Trump for his legal battles.  That's the "goliath" reference.  However, the article mentions that it is New York that is prosecuting him, not the Federal government.  Whatever his legal troubles are, it isn't Trump causing them.

Avenati is not David, but he is one strange dude.

Who believes Jennifer Rubin?

Updated,

5.28.19:

Rubin is running interference for this cabal.

Shame on you because you’re an embarrassment to journalism:

—Both Strzok and Page were Senior Executive Service (SES)

—Strzok was a Deputy Assistant Director (who wrote AND approved decision to open Crossfire CI probe)

—Page was Counsel to the Deputy/Acting Director of the FBI https://t.co/Mwteu8VSuX

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) May 27, 2019

5.27.19:

She describes herself as a conservative.  How can she possibly be a conservative?

Anybody who is conservative should be concerned about the use of spies against political opponents.  Yet, somebody was definitely spying.  Rubin goes after Trump and the administration, but it isn't just Trump and his administration who is saying these things.  Rosemary Collyer found some serious irregularities in the use of the NSA 702 about queries.  This was based upon a finding by Admiral Rogers, who brought this to the attention of the FISA court.

You cannot be a conservative and be okay with those kind of abuses.

Rubin makes this all about Trump, but these abuses took place well before he was elected, and may have begun even before he was a candidate.

These abuses were unlawful, and that is what is being investigated.  If the investigation shows the details of how the law was violated and who did it, and it turns out that Trump was correct, then what does Rubin have to say about that?  Is she not for the rule of law, as all good conservatives would be?

Since the law was violated in that 702's case, there is already ample "probable cause" for a full-blown investigation.  More "probable cause" exists for such an investigation than the one supplied as the pretext for the Mueller investigation.  Is Rubin familiar with the Bill of Rights, especially the one about searches and warrants being based upon "probable cause"?  Barr is quite right to be looking into this, and more.

It is hard to see Rubin as anything but a shill for the Democrats.  She is no conservative, and she is no Republican either.  Even a liberal Republican would at least be in support of the party.  She is definitely outside of the party now.  Her purpose at this point is to deceive.  For it is impossible for her to unaware of these basic facts if she had been paying attention at all to what conservative information sources have been saying.  If she's not listening to other conservatives, who does she listen to?

Powerline:"Brussels consensus" suffers setback in EU elections"

The center-right and center-left had a majority.  Now they don't.

I don't get the attraction of the Greens.  They ought to be called "watermelons".  Green on the outside, and red on the inside.

"Brussels consensus" suffers setback in EU elections https://t.co/K6zmdyaA47 via @powerlineUS

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) May 27, 2019

Sara A. Carter: 'Nothing Was Done By The Book' Under Comey

Updated:

5.27.19:

What does this tell you?

And here it is!!
Theresa May's spy chiefs were briefed on explosive Chistopher Steele dossier before Donald Trump https://t.co/PIzUe2VCH1

— Bill Larp-Smith (@Bill_LarpSmith) May 20, 2019

It didn't come from internal CIA channels.  It was UK "intel".  Actually, they may have been repeating Russian disinformation.

By the book?  If this is by the book, then we need a new book.

5.11.19:

By the book?  Nope.

“The former FBI director is not a stupid man and he’s acting awfully stupid,” @DevinNunes told “Fox & Friends” Friday. Do you think Comey should use his right to remain silent? Read Here: 'Nothing Was Done By The Book' Under Comey https://t.co/yFxP0lY4iR via @SaraCarterDC

— Sara A. Carter (@SaraCarterDC) May 10, 2019

Wikipedia

Here's Sharyl Attkisson delivering a hammer blow on Wikipedia.

Since I use it a lot, I'll qualify its use for now on.  However, they can be handy.  Whatever is handiest is likely to be used.

Wikipedia is used for propaganda?  It is worth considering.  It does appear that loaded terms are used from time-to-time.  I looked at Jim Acosta's wiki page, and there was a mention of a "far-right" media member, who does not seem so extraordinary to me.  As far as I am concerned, the use of the word "right" in politics is a loaded term anyway.  It conjures up images of fascism, if not the actual accusation itself.

Attkisson's wikipedia page has some criticism of her, but praise as well.  As for the government itself, there is ample reason to be suspicious.

No, PR firms and propaganda groups operate anonymously under protected pseudonyms. Broken system. #WIkipedia https://t.co/XZYdP1efuE

— Sharyl Attkisson🕵️‍♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) May 27, 2019

Schiff happens

Updated,

12:30 pm:

An amazing feat.  Let's make everything transparent, and hide the truth in plain sight.  Who'd a thunk of that one.  /sarc

SERIOUSLY ? @RepAdamSchiff says @realDonaldTrump is ‘Stonewalling the Truth’ By Declassifying Information || **RETWEET** || https://t.co/QXAR9HGy0l

— Sara A. Carter (@SaraCarterDC) May 26, 2019

Daily Update @ 3:41 pm:

You can make money off this idea.  Ooops!  Somebody thought of it already.

Democrats are beaten

Hillary was in Houston recently.  What was reported sounded a lot like the usual words coming from the Democrats these days.  It is the blatant denial of reality that stands out.  The old battlewagon claims to have Trump on the run.  Something is familiar about this story.

It is almost as if she is the reincarnation of Baghdad Bob, who boasted of great victories at the moment the tanks were rolling down Baghdad's streets.

The fact is that they are beaten on the merits.  The only thing that can keep this zombie going is the constant drib and drab of obvious falsehoods.

For instance, the Mueller wants to testify behind closed doors.  But why?  Wasn't the Mueller Report supposed to have been suppressed?  If Barr's suppression was real, then Mueller should want be in front of those cameras, and he would be shouting at the top of his voice in order to get the truth out.  One doesn't whisper behind closed doors that which should disclosed for all to hear.  If you want to be heard, then speak up!  But Mueller wants to keep it all quiet.  The Democrats, who cited Barr for contempt, are all too happy to oblige Mueller.  That logical contradiction doesn't hold up.

The Democrats are complaining that Trump is sending the full power of the state after them.  But why should that disturb them?  It was the Democrats who sent the full power of the state after Trump.  What should they be afraid of, if truth is their friend?  Isn't that what they said about Trump?  Indeed they are afraid, for if it is a fact that Democrats who abused power, then they would be shown to be in the least favorable position to complain about it.  The judgement they showered upon Trump would be redoubled upon themselves.

The Democrats are an empty shell of falsehoods and decrepitude.  That empty shell is starting to show huge cracks from the light of truth, and the warhorses are tired and old.

There is nothing left but the old guard, like Hillary, which holds them up. But the old guard is dying off, while teetering and senile.  The ones waiting in the wings cannot win, and the Establishment knows it.  The only things they got left are falsehood, and a old worn Establishment that is on the verge of dying off.

The Democrats are literally on their last legs.  Evidently, they don't know it yet.