RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

วิธีเล่นสล็อตออนไลน์ให้ได้กำไร_สล็อตทุกรูปแบบ_ดีที่สุดบนมือถือ_บา คา ร่า ใน กรุงเทพ_888 สล็อต

sbobet แจกเครดิตฟรีJump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Doubling Down On Mueller Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • ***-----------***
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 49,947
  • Joined: 28-February 03

  Posted 16 November 2018 - 06:17 PM

Doubling Down On Mueller

The Wall Street Journal
Kimberley A. Strassel
November 15, 2018

Excerpt:

With the midterms over, Washington returns to its regular programming: Russia. Trump critics should consider the risk of betting their political fortunes on special counsel Robert Mueller.

The Mueller probe has lost its political potency, as Democrats acknowledged on the midterm trail. They didn’t win House seats by warning of Russian collusion. They didn’t even talk about it. Most voters don’t care, or don’t care to hear about it. A CNN exit poll found 54% of respondents think the Russia probe is “politically motivated? a 46% plurality disapprove of Mr. Mueller’s handling of it.

That hasn’t stopped Democrats from fixating on it since the election, in particular when President Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions and named Matthew Whitaker as a temporary replacement. The left now insists the appointment is unconstitutional or that because Mr. Whitaker once voiced skepticism on the Russia-collusion narrative, he is unfit to oversee the Mueller investigation and must recuse himself.

The joke here is that neither Mr. Whitaker nor anybody else is likely to exercise any authority over Mr. Mueller—and more’s the pity. The probe has meandered along for 18 months, notching records for leaks and derivative prosecutions, though all indications are it has accomplished little by way of its initial mandate.

As a practical matter, Mr. Mueller should have been brought to heel some time ago. As a political matter, that won’t happen. The administration has always understood that such a move would provoke bipartisan political blowback, ignite a new “coverup?scandal, and maybe trigger impeachment. It’s even more unlikely officials would risk those consequences now, as Mr. Mueller is said to be wrapping up.

Democrats know this, as does the grandstanding Sen. Jeff Flake. Yet they demand a Whitaker recusal and are again pushing legislation to “protect?the special counsel’s probe. Senate Republicans rightly blocked that bill this week, partly on grounds that it is likely unconstitutional. They also made the obvious point that if Mr. Trump intended to fire Mr. Mueller, he’d have done so months ago and wouldn’t need to ax Mr. Sessions to do it. And while the president tweets ceaseless criticism of the probe, he has never threatened to end it.

Democrats are nonetheless doubling down on the probe for political advantage. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared members of his caucus will demand that language making it more difficult to fire Mr. Mueller be included in a spending bill that needs to pass before the end of the current legislative session. Mr. Flake is offering an assist, saying that he will block any judicial nominees in committee until a Mueller protection bill gets a Senate floor vote. Over in the House, incoming Democratic committee chairmen, led by soon-to-be Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, are vowing an investigation blitz focused on collusion with Russia.

Mr. Schumer’s last shutdown—a year ago—was a bust even though it was waged over the emotionally compelling issue of Dreamers, illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as children. He now proposes shutting down the government over a probe few people outside of Washington care about. Mitch McConnell should be so lucky.

Mr. Flake, should he run for president, will struggle to explain to conservative voters his obstruction of Trump judicial nominees, who’ll be confirmed in 2019 anyway when the Republicans expand their Senate majority.

Democrats?other problem is that this strategy hinges in large degree on an expectation that Mr. Mueller ultimately finds something. There’s no reason to believe he has turned up any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

*snip*

Full Commentary
0

#2 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 53,331
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 16 November 2018 - 06:31 PM

LOLOLOLOL

1 - The "Russian collusion" nonsense is a silly myth, and everybody knows it. (Or at least nonsense concerning the Trump campaign. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, is another story.)

2 - The Mueller "investigation" into the collusion myth is a purely-partisan witch-hunt, and everybody knows it. (If it wasn't purely partisan, Hillary would've been in prison long ago.)

3 - Trump has never given any indication whatsoever of firing Mueller, and everybody knows it.

Please, Dems - PLEASE - keep harping on this. Make it a central issue in public as loudly and as often as possible.

:rolleyes:
0

#3 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 19,464
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 16 November 2018 - 06:53 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 16 November 2018 - 06:31 PM, said:

1 - The "Russian collusion" nonsense is a silly myth, and everybody knows it. (Or at least nonsense concerning the Trump campaign...)


FACT - Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, and Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort met with Russian agents promising opposition research on Trump's opponent which was known to be from the Russian government.

Quote

2 - The Mueller "investigation" into the collusion myth is a purely-partisan witch-hunt


FACT - A Trump-nominated Deputy Attorney General appointed the Special Counsel, whose investigation has garnered at least thirty indictments and six guilty pleas so far.

Quote

3 - Trump has never given any indication whatsoever of firing Mueller, and everybody knows it.


FACT - Trump is reported to have attempted to fire the Special Counsel at least twice.

This post has been edited by That_Guy: 16 November 2018 - 07:01 PM

0

#4 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,282
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 16 November 2018 - 08:16 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 16 November 2018 - 06:53 PM, said:

FACT - Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, and Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort met with Russian agents promising opposition research on Trump's opponent which was known to be from the Russian government.



FACT - A Trump-nominated Deputy Attorney General appointed the Special Counsel, whose investigation has garnered at least thirty indictments and six guilty pleas so far.



FACT - Trump is reported to have attempted to fire the Special Counsel at least twice.


Your facts are #1: incomplete and #2: self serving because of #1.

Spin and twirl your defunct talking points and wave your so-called facts around all you want to.

People who are aware of the real world and not the packaged garbage your comrades like to churn out know that you're just a really ugly cheerleader sans underwear to pull a Sharon Stone to help your cause, and it ain't workin'...
0

#5 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 53,331
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 16 November 2018 - 10:23 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 16 November 2018 - 06:53 PM, said:

FACT - Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, and Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort met with Russian agents promising opposition research on Trump's opponent which was known to be from the Russian government.


Yup, LOL, the 20 minute meeting where they talked about adopting Russian children and the Magnitsky Act, a law that authorizes sanctions on Russians who have committed human rights abuses. Hillary Clinton was only very briefly mentioned at all, and no documents or meaningful pieces of information were exchanged whatsoever.

Strike one.


View PostThat_Guy, on 16 November 2018 - 06:53 PM, said:



And as your own linked article specifically acknowledges, NONE of the charges are related to any misconduct by the president's campaign.

Strike two.


View PostThat_Guy, on 16 November 2018 - 06:53 PM, said:

FACT - Trump is reported to have attempted to fire the Special Counsel at least twice.


"Attempted"? You realize, of course, that Trump has the authority to fire "special counsel" Mueller at any time he pleases, for any reason at all, or even for no reason whatsoever. If Trump dislikes the color of Mueller's socks, Mueller can be fired. Therefore any assertion that Trump has "attempted" to fire Mueller is clearly proven incorrect by the fact that Mueller hasn't been fired.

Strike three.

:comfort:

Look T_G, I realize you desperately wish there had been some sort of "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russians (you know, like there actually was between the Hillary campaign and the Russians.) Hey, here's a suggestion: Why not hold your breath until some actual evidence thereto is finally discovered!

;)
0

#6 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,037
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 17 November 2018 - 02:23 AM

View PostThat_Guy, on 16 November 2018 - 06:53 PM, said:

FACT - Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, and Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort met with Russian agents promising opposition research on Trump's opponent which was known to be from the Russian government.



FACT - A Trump-nominated Deputy Attorney General appointed the Special Counsel, whose investigation has garnered at least thirty indictments and six guilty pleas so far.



FACT - Trump is reported to have attempted to fire the Special Counsel at least twice.

FACT- that_guy loves the taste of blowback from 10+ years of pissing into the wind. You gotta big yellow stain on your shirt for your reward.
0

#7 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,316
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 17 November 2018 - 02:31 AM

/b46/forums/uploads/1540273186/gallery_6133_220_45781.jpg
0

#8 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 19,464
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 17 November 2018 - 07:37 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 16 November 2018 - 10:23 PM, said:

Yup, LOL, the 20 minute meeting where they talked about adopting Russian children and the Magnitsky Act, a law that authorizes sanctions on Russians who have committed human rights abuses. Hillary Clinton was only very briefly mentioned at all, and no documents or meaningful pieces of information were exchanged whatsoever.


First - There is no way for anyone NOT in the meeting (or listening in on it via electronic surveillance) to know what was talked about, what information was/wasn't exchanged, or if anyone from the campaign knowing and willingly accepted any information.

Second - Despite your claim, Trump Sr. has already articulated the purpose of the meeting. Twice:

"Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent." --Donald Trump (Jul7 17, 2017)
"This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!" --Donald Trump (August 5, 2018)

Quote

And as your own linked article specifically acknowledges, NONE of the charges are related to any misconduct by the president's campaign.


Except Richard Pinedo and the bank accounts he opened on behalf of Russian nationals using stolen identities - most likely used to funnel foreign money into American campaigns on behalf of the GOP.

Quote

"Attempted"?


Twice - which is more than an "indication," it's two actual attempts at firing the Special Counsel.

The takeaway: All three of your "points" are provably (and proven) incorrect.

This post has been edited by That_Guy: 17 November 2018 - 07:42 AM

0

#9 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,037
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 17 November 2018 - 08:40 AM

View PostThat_Guy, on 17 November 2018 - 07:37 AM, said:

First - There is no way for anyone NOT in the meeting (or listening in on it via electronic surveillance) to know what was talked about, what information was/wasn't exchanged, or if anyone from the campaign knowing and willingly accepted any information.

Second - Despite your claim, Trump Sr. has already articulated the purpose of the meeting. Twice:

"Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent." --Donald Trump (Jul7 17, 2017)
"This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!" --Donald Trump (August 5, 2018)



Except Richard Pinedo and the bank accounts he opened on behalf of Russian nationals using stolen identities - most likely used to funnel foreign money into American campaigns on behalf of the GOP.



Twice - which is more than an "indication," it's two actual attempts at firing the Special Counsel.

The takeaway: All three of your "points" are provably (and proven) incorrect.

The takeaway: You still got nuttin but spray in your face.
0

#10 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,417
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 17 November 2018 - 10:24 AM

It’s interesting that when it comes to Russian collusion, any innuendo is proof to TG.

Of course, Blasey-Ford’s anecdotal innuendos were proof to TG as well.

In the meanwhile, facts about Hillary’s email scandal or Barry’s $150 billion bribe money to Iran are just hearsay.

It’s certainly an interesting way to go through life.
0

sbobet แจกเครดิตฟรี

#11 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 53,331
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 17 November 2018 - 12:39 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 17 November 2018 - 07:37 AM, said:

First - There is no way for anyone NOT in the meeting (or listening in on it via electronic surveillance) to know what was talked about, what information was/wasn't exchanged, or if anyone from the campaign knowing and willingly accepted any information.

Second - Despite your claim, Trump Sr. has already articulated the purpose of the meeting. Twice:

"Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent." --Donald Trump (Jul7 17, 2017)
"This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!" --Donald Trump (August 5, 2018)



Except Richard Pinedo and the bank accounts he opened on behalf of Russian nationals using stolen identities - most likely used to funnel foreign money into American campaigns on behalf of the GOP.



Twice - which is more than an "indication," it's two actual attempts at firing the Special Counsel.

The takeaway: All three of your "points" are provably (and proven) incorrect.


Thank you for proving my points correct.

...No way to know...nothing came of it..."most likely"...etc...In other words, you (& Mueller) still have exactly nothing whatsoever to support this stupid partisan witch-hunt. Something everybody already knows anyway.

As for the third point: I REPEAT: Trump has the authority to fire Mueller any time he pleases for any reason he pleases, or even for no reason at all. AND YOU KNOW IT. Therefore any suggestion he has "tried" to fire Mueller is laughable at best, as proven by the fact that Mueller hasn't been fired.

As I said, I realize you (& the rest of the mindless leftist autobots) desperately wish there was some sort of actual evidence of "collusion"...Oh wait! There is! There's irrefutable proof of collusion between the Russians and the Hillary campaign.

So how come you're not hollering for Hillary's head on a platter?

Never mind, LOL, it's a rhetorical question. Just as everybody knows the Trump "investigation" is a partisan witch-hunt, everybody also knows why the partisans are ignoring Hillary's treasonous crimes.

B)
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users