December 26-28, 2019

Dec 26 00:58 Will Florida go blue in 2020?
Dec 26 01:03 The Democrats' impeachment gamesmanship theories
Dec 26 12:36 2020 is about getting things done vs. endless investigations, pointless partisanship

Dec 27 00:55 Joe Biden's moderation
Dec 27 08:07 The Democrats' witness fight
Dec 27 09:17 Democrats' economic disasters
Dec 27 15:59 Black Voices for Trump

Dec 28 23:22 Unappreciated story of the year

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Will Florida go blue in 2020?

Democrats know that winning the White House in 2020 is difficult if they get swept in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. At this point in the campaign, Ohio is pretty much out of the Democrats' reach so let's scratch that state off the battleground list. Pennsylvania is still definitely a toss-up state, which brings us to Florida.

Andrew Gillum, the Democrats' gubernatorial candidate, "has played a vocal role in registering voters in Florida through 2019." Despite that high-profile help in registering voters, "state data shows Republicans in the swing state are far outpacing Democrats when it comes to the raw number of registered voters. Between January and September 2019, the latest month for which data is available, Republicans registered a net 23,084 new voters in the state, compared to 10,731 Democrats, according to the Florida Division of Elections."

Though those are impressive statistics important to Florida, this is important nationwide:


When Democrats argue, as they did at last week's debate, that the Trump-GOP economy helps only the 1%, this refutes the Democrats' lies. Listening to this BS is difficult:
[Video no longer available]
President Trump isn't just rallying his base. He's growing that base through one great policy after another. Policies that are lifting African-Americans out of poverty will extend President Trump's base. The people benefiting from President Trump's policies know that the stuff Biden is peddling is BS. Without a coherent economic message, the Democrats are sunk, in Florida and elsewhere.

Democrats will undoubtedly spend lots of money trying to win Florida. That's a losing strategy because of this:


The DNC literally can't afford to get into a spending fight with the RNC. That's a losing fight if ever there was one. At this point, the Trump-RNC campaign is hitting on all cylinders. Here's proof:


Adding 600,000 new small dollar donors equals 600,000 additional GOP voters. Whatever genius thought it smart to impeach President Trump is likely looking for a new job right now. That wasn't the brightest decision in presidential campaign history.

The Democrats were already fighting an uphill fight to unseat President Trump. That's thanks to the power of incumbency and a great economy. With Democrats moving even further left and with them impeaching President Trump with just hearsay testimony, Democrats just made that steep hill a little more difficult to climb.

Posted Thursday, December 26, 2019 12:58 AM

No comments.

The Democrats' impeachment gamesmanship theories

This article highlights the stupidity of Washington, DC's political class. It offers 13 theories from DC insiders on why Speaker Pelosi hasn't sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Let's look at the ones that are best characterized in polite society as foolish. Let's start here:

Impeachment has gone badly for the Democrats. Pelosi was forced into impeaching the president by liberals in her caucus. She's wanted to apply a hand brake and halt the process now in order to protect vulnerable freshmen Democrats who supported impeachment.

The votes have been cast. The time to protect those freshmen was before they voted. If Ms. Pelosi wanted to apologize to these freshmen (and others in Trump-won districts), the thing to do is to buy each of them a nice Christmas present.

That being said, impeachment has gone badly for the Democrats. Imagine Ms. Pelosi's fear in picking impeachment managers, where your top 3 choices are Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff or Steve Cohen. That's like picking between a heart attack, a stroke and major blood clots. I haven't had a stroke. I've had the others. There aren't any good choices in that bunch.

Pelosi feared a Senate trial. The president and many Republicans have said they wanted to summon her, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the Bidens and the whistleblower as witnesses in a Senate trial. Nothing good would come from a wide-open Senate trial for Democrats.

Holding onto the articles of impeachment wouldn't prevent the Senate from calling these witnesses. They'd be called during regular committee hearings. In the case of Adam Schiff, they wouldn't need to call him. President Trump could beat him up on the campaign trail.

Pelosi wanted to hold the articles of impeachment through the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. This would delay a Senate trial until the field of 2020 Democrats settled - and would protect senators running for president.

This is totally stupid. Let President Trump embarrass these candidates during his State of the Union Address on national TV. Anyone that thinks that President Trump's speechwriters wouldn't figure out a way to highlight the corrupt process while hurting House vulnerable freshmen is kidding themselves.

By holding the articles, Pelosi was daring McConnell to advance some sort of resolution (which wouldn't have direct parliamentary bearing on the articles of impeachment approved by the House) to condemn the House's action. Support for such a resolution could be a challenge, and politically dangerous, for vulnerable Republican senators facing re-election in 2020: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Martha McSally of Arizona and Cory Gardner of Colorado.

Either that or Sen. McConnell could just set a date for the trial to start. After that, Sen. McConnell could tell Ms. Pelosi that the Sixth Amendment guarantees President Trump a right to a speedy trial. He then tells her to comply or else.

By holding the articles, Pelosi could dictate when a Senate trial could begin. After all, the Senate is pretty much bound to go through the motions of a trial at least. Perhaps Pelosi could send the articles in the early fall - right before the presidential election.

What idiot camp up with this idea? Whoever it was is constitutionally illiterate and a terrible political strategist. President Trump's lawyers would've filed a lawsuit long before the Democrats had picked their nominee. They would've won that lawsuit for a speedy trial. President Trump's legal team would've won his acquittal by then, too.

From a strategic standpoint, it's stupid. President Trump would be attending. The senators would be though, one of whom might be the Democrats' nominee. Further, we're back to highlighting the fact that President Trump was impeached solely on hearsay testimony. We're back to highlighting the fact that Adam Schiff or Jerry Nadler would be the Democrats' lead prosecutor. Any day or week that Adam Schiff is the face of the Democratic Party during the campaign's stretch drive is a win for the GOP.

By keeping the articles in the House, Pelosi would maintain control, instead of Trump. McConnell wouldn't have control either. With the articles of impeachment in limbo, everyone else would be off balance - except Pelosi.

Anyone that's studied Trump and thinks that he'd sit idly by without upsetting that applecart is kidding themselves. It's foolish to think that Pelosi is this magical creature that controls DC with her magical powers. Finally, anyone that thinks that President Trump wouldn't greenlight his attorneys to file a lawsuit forcing a trial is foolish.

This article highlights the thinking of DC insiders. If that's the case, then it's easy to see why Washington, DC is nicknamed the Swamp. The facts speak for themselves.

Posted Thursday, December 26, 2019 1:03 AM

Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 26-Dec-19 10:27 AM
The scenario I think most likely is that Pelosi holds on a bit longer, trying to milk the crisis long enough to turn the public against McConnell for being "unfair." As if that farcical statement is anything but. McConnell then announces the start of the trial, and if Pelosi doesn't send the articles over and name prosecutors, he simply files a motion to dismiss all charges based on "failure to prosecute." If Pelosi does respond, the prosecutors go first, present their exceedingly weak case, and then a motion is taken to dismiss for lack of evidence, especially of a "high crime and misdemeanor."

2020 is about getting things done vs. endless investigations, pointless partisanship

This year's campaign is about choosing candidates who are committed to getting sensible things done vs. rehiring the politicians that signed onto Adam Schiff's endless investigations. The only bill that passed the House was the USMCA trade agreement. It sat on Speaker Pelosi's desk for almost a year.

USMCA was used to bribe freshman Democrats into voting for impeachment. Speaker Pelosi was corrupt enough to hold that over their heads until they'd ruined their political careers. But I digress.

Adam Schiff's mission has been to hurt President Trump. In March, 2017, he told NBC's Chuck Todd that he had proof that was "more than circumstantial" that proved President Trump conspired with Russia to throw the 2016 election. After Special Counsel Mueller spent $40,000,000 and 22 months investigating Russia's interference into US elections, Mueller's team didn't find proof of Rep. Schiff's accusations. That isn't surprising. Schiff appears to be a sociopath.

What proof has been found is proof that Adam Schiff is pathological. This is what Chairman Schiff said :

We've been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have, but you know what, I don't see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though. And I'm going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent."

Here's the video of Schiff's opening statement/lie:
[Video no longer available]
There are so many lies in Chairman Schiff's opening statement that it isn't worth going through all of them. It's worth highlighting the fact that President Trump never asked President Zelenskiy to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. It's also worth noting that Chairman Schiff and other Democrats told the nation that President Trump had a personal favor to ask. The truth is that the transcript said this :

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.

Adam Schiff is currently the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He's utterly corrupt. Schiff now says that it was a parody. That's a lie. The definition of a parody is "a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing." Schiff just made things up in his attempt to portray President Trump as guilty of extortion. There isn't a thing in Schiff's statement that's accurate. Democrats have been obsessed with investigating President Trump. The legislation they've passed is highly partisan garbage that would either hurt our economy or limit our freedoms.

Senate Republicans have confirmed judges that rule on what the Constitution says or what the law says. These judges don't rule that the law says something that it doesn't say. Republicans have also tried passing bills that would tighten asylum laws, close immigration loopholes, some of which were created by House Democrats during the Trump shutdown and fix our immigration laws. Republicans are tirelessly working to fix the opioid crisis. Republicans, not Democrats , were the chief authors of criminal justice reform.

Resist activists control the Democrats. What the Resist activists say, Democrats do. The 8 years of Obama showed how that failed. The policies being proposed by today's Democrats would ruin this fantastic economy while hurting families. No thanks. I want all families to thrive, including rich families. There's a ton of socialist Democrat candidates running that think we wouldn't have poverty if we didn't have billionaires. The leading House socialist is AOC. She hates prosperity. She proved that by chasing Amazon HQ, along with 25,000 high-paying jobs , away from New York. Then she rejoiced about their decision.

She's the ideological leader of the Democratic Party. Is that the type of leader we want? I prefer a leader who delivers on increasing prosperity, increasing security and strengthens communities. You won't find that in the Democratic Party. Democrats are about endless investigations. They're also about thoughtless partisanship.

Posted Thursday, December 26, 2019 12:36 PM

No comments.

Joe Biden's moderation

Joe Biden's Democrat moderate credentials aren't rock-solid. They're situational or comparative more than solid. For instance, President Trump's energy credentials are mostly mainstream. Joe Biden's energy credentials, especially in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, would be seen as extremist.

At last week's Democrat presidential debate, Biden was asked "Vice President Biden, I'd like to ask you. Three consecutive American presidents have enjoyed stints of explosive economic growth due to a boom in oil and natural gas production. As president, would you be willing to sacrifice some of that growth, even knowing potentially that it could displace thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of blue-collar workers in the interest of transitioning to that greener economy?" He replied "The answer is yes."
[Video no longer available]
That's the Democrats' definition of a moderate? That isn't the only example of Vice President Biden's immoderation. Here's another unserious answer:
[Video no longer available]

JUDY WOODRUFF: Vice President Biden, what is your argument to the voter watching this debate tonight who may not like everything that President Trump does but they really like this economy and they don't know why they should make a change?
BIDEN: Well, I don't think they really do like the economy. Go back and talk to the neighbors in the old middle class neighborhoods that you grew up in. The middle class is getting killed. The middle class is getting crushed. The working class has no way up as a consequence of that.

If Biden is the Democrats' nominee, he'll get crushed spewing such stupidity. I quoted from Marc Thiessen's column in this post . In his article, Thiessen quoted from a Marist poll:

A Marist poll asked voters whether 'the economy is working well for you personally.' Nearly two-thirds of Americans said yes. This includes large majorities in almost every demographic group. Sixty-seven percent of college graduates and 64 percent of those without a college education say the economy is working for them. So do 68 percent of whites and 61 percent of nonwhite people.

So do Americans of every generation: 63 percent of Generation Z and millennials; 69 percent of Generation X; 63 percent of baby boomers; and 69 percent of Greatest Generation and Silent Generation voters. So do supermajorities in every region in the country: 60 percent in the West, 65 percent in the Northeast, 67 percent in the Midwest, and 68 percent in the South. So do most voters in every type of American community: 63 percent of both big and small city voters; 64 percent of small-town voters; 66 percent of rural voters and 72 percent of suburban voters.

Joe should contact some of these voters who he thinks don't like the Trump economy. He's losing credibility spewing that type of stupidity. Telling large majorities of virtually every demographic group that they really aren't doing as well as they think they're doing is foolish.

How does Biden explain this?

Super Saturday's sales reached $34.4 billion, beating out Black Friday spending by 10%. The research firm says job growth, more disposable income, and stronger household finances contributed to the boosted buying mood this holiday season, and that mega-retailers like Walmart, Amazon, Costco and Target saw their best traffic in years.

Notice that the most popular retailers weren't Nieman-Marcus and Macy's. They were Walmart, Amazon, Costco and Target. If the Trump economy had left the middle class high and dry, these retailers wouldn't have set records. Put bluntly, do you want Biden paying attention to the economy or would you prefer the man who helped put this economy into high gear running the show? This isn't a close choice, is it?

Posted Friday, December 27, 2019 12:55 AM

No comments.

The Democrats' witness fight

Democrats keep fighting a dishonest fight in their attempt to force Senate Republicans into letting John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney testify at President Trump's impeachment trial. Republicans should stick together and tell Democrats that the rules that were used during Bill Clinton's trial are the rules for this sham trial/impeachment. What's omitted by Democrats is important.

The writer said "McConnell criticized the House process as rushed and harked back to the good ol' days of 1999 and the trial of then-President Clinton as the correct model to follow. No witnesses testified in-person then, either, though McConnell advocated for it and three witnesses were deposed at the Senate's request. As Schumer has pointed out, the witnesses Republicans wanted to appear had already given grand jury testimony. In contrast, this time around none of Schumer's requested witnesses have been heard from in any form or forum. What's clear is that Republicans fear what White House officials might say about Trump and Ukraine; Democrats fear that Trump will not only walk away from the impeachment but also win reelection."

What's omitted is that House Democrats called these witnesses. They refused to testify. The omitted part is that House Democrats didn't think that their testimony was that important so they didn't ask a court to compel these witnesses to testify. It isn't the Senate's job to strengthen the Democrats' weak case. If House Democrats thought Bolton's and Mulvaney's testimony was important, they shouldn't have rushed the impeachment vote. Democrats should've filed a lawsuit to compel their testimony.

What isn't said is that there's a pretty good possibility that the judge would've ruled against the Democrats. Another thing that isn't said is that the Democrats' case is based almost entirely on hearsay testimony. The only testimony from a legitimate witness came from Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the EU. During his testimony, Sondland said "that there was [a quid pro quo]. He even testified that Trump told him there was no quid pro quo but that he understood Trump to mean that the aid and White House visit were conditioned on announcing investigations - in other words, a quid pro quo."

That's totally meaningless. Sondland testified that President Trump told him directly that there was no quid pro quo and that he wanted President Zelenskiy to "do what he'd campaigned on." Saying that it was his understanding that there really was a quid pro quo is worthless because it isn't based on verifiable fact. Here's that important exchange:
[Video no longer available]
If truth be told, at minimum, Sondland's testimonies cancel each other out. It's unreliable. The hearsay testimony is worthless, too. That's why Democrats are pushing so hard for Bolton and Mulvaney.

The Democrats' problem is that this is a trial, not an investigation. If House Democrats wanted these presidential advisers' testimony admitted at trial, they should've filed the lawsuit and compelled their testimony. Democrats made the decision that they didn't need this testimony. Now that their case has been exposed as weak, it's the Democrats' fault it's weak.

That's what happens when you're making decisions based on timing instead of taking the time to build a strong case. That's what happens when you put impeachment in the hands of Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff.

Posted Friday, December 27, 2019 8:07 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 27-Dec-19 07:09 PM
Democrat solution, Pelosi holds, does not deliver anything to the Senate regarding impeachment unless Schumer indicates satisfaction, procedurally. It hangs together nicely. You want somebody to litigate; what about Mitch and White House, hand in glove, who together can contest that delivery is a ministerial and not discretionary part of the House process, so that a court could compel a delivery without breaching separation of powers. And the Senate can compel witnesses - in a fair process, witnesses either party specified.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Dec-19 07:25 PM
Action: Pelosi holds articles > a week after recess ends. GOP solution: Sen. McConnell changes Senate rules so the Senate can start without Pelosi transmitting Articles of impeachment. After rule changes are passed, Sen. McConnell sets the trial date, transmits message to Pelosi that trial will start Jan. 21, 2020. Pick your impeachment managers & prepare for trial. That gives her 2 weeks to get her s--t together.

Use the same rules that were used with Clinton impeachment trial. If D's complain that those rules don't guarantee the witnesses they want, tell them they need to make the case for why this isn't a fishing expedition.

After that, wish them luck. They'll need it.

Comment 2 by eric z at 28-Dec-19 08:39 AM
Mitch holds a hearing by himself? Pelosi seeks an injunction? Mitch acquits w/o Dem participation? What's that get you, unless the press cooperates? Schumer keeps then talking about all the House-assed bills McConnell will not give to committee, bottled up, do nothing Senators playing pure GOP obstructionist politics. The filibuster? All kinds of distraction - ultimately letting the voters decide. The media control what the public hears and believes, so it is back to business as usual. Biden out because of Trump's playing the Ukraine gain, anyone of the other Dems is a better choice than Trump and voters will recognize it. And in all that McConnell's meat in the fire is doing whatever he thinks will keep him majority leader. Circus maximus. The consultants vacuum up all the money churning out negative advertisement, status quo ante, one or the other party getting House, Senate, Executive; and back to the regular diddling where when the Dems hold sway nothing decently progressive gets done, the GOP gets into and gives the rich more tax cuts while starting devastating Middle East war, again, ostensibly blamed on "terror."

The real question is will Bloomberg gain any traction. If so, the billionaires will realize they don't need to buy Republican intermediaries, Dem intermediaries, they can step in and own the game itself at lower cost with greater control.

Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Dec-19 10:56 AM
If Mitch sets a reasonable date & tells her the trial starts on that date, that's when the trial starts. If Pelosi doesn't name prosecutors, the public will take that to mean that impeachment was a partisan Democrat sham. The truth is that people are already reaching that conclusion.

Details matter. Detail 1: Schiff impeachment hearings filled with hearsay testimony. Detail 2: Media screams "bombshell testimony" in morning. Detail 3: "Bombshell testimony falls apart on cross-examination by Jim Jordan, Elise Stefanik, John Ratcliffe, Devin Nunes or Mike Turner.

People don't care about bills that don't get hearings. Is Mitch going to stop bills that Trump would sign from getting to his desk? Of course, he isn't.

As for the rest of your comment, it's gibberish.

Democrats' economic disasters

For about the past decade, Democrats have proposed economic policies that've been based on fairness rather than policies that add value to the economy. As a result, jobs have been lost. As a result, communities have been ruined and institutions have gotten injured.

One such example of wrong-headed economic thinking is the Democrats' push to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr. Wherever it's tried, it's failed. It doesn't bring me joy knowing that it's failed in progressive Seattle . It's just that it wasn't surprising.

This city's minimum wage is rising to $16.39 an hour on Jan. 1. Instead of receiving a bigger paycheck, I'm left without any pay at all due to the policy change. That's because the restaurant where I've worked for six years is closing as a consequence of the city's harmful minimum-wage experiment.

I work for Tom Douglas, one of the best-known restaurateurs in Seattle. Mr. Douglas is in many ways responsible for the city's reputation as a foodie paradise, and he recently celebrated his 30th anniversary in business. He's a great boss, and his employees tend to stay at the company for a long time.

But being an established chef and a good employer doesn't save you from the burden of a sharp minimum-wage increase, up 73% from $9.47 in 2015. For large-scale employers like Mr. Douglas, there's no separate rate for workers who earn tips. In Washington and a handful of other states, tips aren't counted as income earned on the job. That means restaurateurs are expected to pay servers like me the full minimum wage in addition to our considerable tip income.

Eventually, capitalism slaps everyone in the face. The difference between socialism and capitalism is simple. Socialism just requires government's brute force, usually in the form of intrusive regulations. A perfect example of this was the ACA's individual mandate.

With the ACA, the government told people what's best for their families. They'd never met these families so they didn't actually know what was best for them. A small group of progressives disconnected from reality told the nation what's best for them.

This small group of autocrats anticipated that their product wouldn't go well so they created the individual mandate to force people into buying a product they didn't want. That's a picture of socialism.

With capitalism comes competition, innovation and outstanding products that people want to buy. Capitalism gave us the iPhone and iPads. Socialism gave us the ACA and the individual mandate.

When socialists took over city councils, they started implementing policies like the $15.00/hr. minimum wage, which immediately hurt the hospitality industry. This is the end result:

I've lived in this city for almost 20 years, supporting my family thanks to the full-service-restaurant industry. Today I'm struggling because of a policy meant to help me. I'm proudly progressive in my politics, but my experience shows that progressives should reconsider minimum-wage laws that hurt the very workers they're trying to protect.

This election is a clash between good intentions vs. great results. Wouldn't people want bulging checking accounts and fat 401(k)s rather than empty checking accounts?

This election, Democrats have to fight against a well-funded incumbent and top-tier congressional candidates preaching the gospel of capitalism and a roaring economy. Democrats have to defend policies like the Push for $15, California's homelessness and decisions like impeachment.

Posted Friday, December 27, 2019 9:17 AM

Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 27-Dec-19 09:58 AM
Ever notice that nobody ever answers the question, "why not $20/hour, or $50/hour, or $100/hour?" We could all be rich!

Black Voices for Trump

Former Minnesota Gopher and Minnesota Viking football player Jack Brewer has made a major change in recent years. He used to raise money for President Obama. Now he's advocating for President Trump .

When asked why he switched, Brewer said "I'm going to take the guy who's actually putting in the policies that are going to make life better for my young black son and my young black daughter, versus somebody who gives me lip service - like, unfortunately, the Democrats have done for our community for years."

Results have made the difference with changing minds. This is what's changing minds:

Mr. Trump and his reelection team are aggressively courting black voters amid a strong economy that has reduced black unemployment to 5.5%, lowest in history. The Trump campaign launched its "Black Voices for Trump" coalition in Atlanta last month.

It isn't just the Trump campaign. The GOP is touting what President Trump has done for the black community, too:


Then there's this:

"Donald Trump will get over 20% of the black vote," Mr. Brewer said in an interview. "That is what's going to win the election. Why? Because there hasn't been a Republican to even try to go in and talk to the black community. They don't go there. They don't even try. I think he's trying, finally."

If President Trump gets 15% of the black vote in Pennsylvania or Michigan, he'll be re-elected easily. If President Trump got 15% of the black vote nationally, he'd win with 375+ electoral votes.

The lessons that Republicans should take from this is that they should fight for every voting group in the nation. When Chip Cravaack defeated Jim Oberstar in 2010, the GOP powers-that-be in Minnesota told him not to waste time on the Iron Range, that it was a lost cause. The first place he campaigned was the Iron Range. Because he had union roots, his story played well with Iron Rangers.

After Chip's big win in 2010, he lost his re-election bid. Each year after that, the races were tight. In 2018, Pete Stauber won. This year, he's expected to win re-election as a Republican. That will mark the first time a Republican has won re-election in MN-8 since before WWII. I know the situations aren't the same but the principles are transferable.

The point is that, bit-by-bit, Republicans will make inroads with communities of color if they work at it . They just need to show up and do the work.

Posted Friday, December 27, 2019 3:59 PM

Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Dec-19 08:46 AM
Jack Brewer? Preparation to run against Omar? Good luck. He will get 37% of the CD5 vote, if he does.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Dec-19 10:45 AM
Who said anything about that?

Comment 2 by Chad Q at 29-Dec-19 09:54 AM
No, Mr. Brewer is just pointing out the failures of the democrat party and why he will no longer vote for them. Simple as that.

Joe Biden said that the GOP will put blacks back in chains when in reality it is the democrats who continually put larger and thicker chains on blacks through programs that require dependency on the government. Democrats don't think blacks (or anyone for that matter) can do things on their own and that government is the solution to all problems when it really is the source of all problems.

Unappreciated story of the year

The most unappreciated story of the year is the least reported story of the year. When the Mueller Report was published, the MSM didn't report the fact that Special Counsel Mueller knew on Day 1 that the Clinton campaign had paid for the Steele Dossier and that the information in the dossier was unverified. Despite that, Robert Mueller's team ignored this exculpatory information and kept 'investigating' for 2 additional years.

While they kept 'investigating', Mueller's team divided the nation while crippling the president. This wasn't just unnecessary. It was destructive to President Trump's negotiations with dangerous foreign governments. It hung like a cloud over our economy, too.

As destructive as those things were, they aren't the most disturbing aspect of the Mueller investigation. Despite spending 2 years and virtually $50,000,000 on the faux investigation, they didn't investigate the FBI. Despite the fact that FBI hid exculpatory evidence from the FISC, despite the fact that an FBI lawyer doctored an email from the CIA from saying that Carter Page was a CIA source to saying that Carter Page wasn't a CIA source, it's inexcusable that Mueller didn't investigate the FBI.

When Carter Page sues the FBI, he should also sue Mueller personally for protecting the agency he once directed. There's no justification for not investigating the FBI when the special counsel was tasked with investigating Russian interference into the 2016 US presidential election. The Steele Dossier was nothing without Russian disinformation. That isn't my opinion. That's the finding of the Horowitz Report.

That's the definition of cronyism . Compare the blind spot in the Mueller Report with the detailed work done by Michael Horowitz. IG Horowitz didn't protect the FBI the way that Director Mueller protected the FBI. Horowitz told the truth about the FBI and the truth hurt.

Had people listened to Rep. Louie Gohmert, we might've gotten spared this lengthy national nightmare. This article lays out the case that Rep. Gohmert put together against Mueller:

Gohmert's criticism of Mueller did not begin with Mueller's FBI directorship, but rather, hearkened back to when Mueller was an assistant U.S. attorney in Boston in the 1980s, then Acting U.S. attorney, during the time that FBI agent John Connolly, who is now in prison on an unrelated conviction, protected Whitey Bulger, thereby allowing four innocent men to spend decades in prison , where two of them would later die before all were exonerated by a federal judge.

That's the personification of corruption. Letting 4 innocent men languish in prison, with 2 of them dying while unjustly incarcerated, is the nastiest civil rights violations I've heard of in half a century. That shouldn't ever have happened. As a Christian, it's difficult to give Mueller the benefit of that doubt.

Lindsey Graham summarizes things nicely in his closing statement:
[Video no longer available]
Once the Russian sub-source said "everything in the dossier, I disavow." The minute that's revealed, what's the justification for continuing the Mueller Investigation? The minute Mueller learned that Carter Page wasn't a Russian asset should've been the instant Mueller should've stopped the investigation.

If we'd had a press that cared about civil rights and doing the right thing, this would've been a highly publicized story. Because we've got corrupt media organizations dotting the landscape, it was mostly overlooked. Here at LFR, I'll just say this: not on my watch . The fact that Democrats sat silent says everything. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted Saturday, December 28, 2019 11:22 PM

No comments.

Popular posts from this blog

January 19-20, 2012

Image
Jan 19 02:57 Minnesota Majority report an indictment against Minnesota's election integrity Jan 19 03:41 Ron Paul's Logic Jan 19 08:08 Newt thrives despite Mitt's hatchet job efforts Jan 19 09:19 Potential Game-Changer: Perry dropping out this am Jan 20 05:12 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Jan 20 00:56 ABC, CNN, crawl into bed with National Enquirer Jan 20 04:00 Child Care small businesses file federal lawsuit Jan 20 04:41 Mitt's biggest policy blunder Jan 20 18:58 Gingrich, Reagan re-united Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Rick Santorum was really feeling it Thursday night. Then he said something that's certain to cause him pain this morning. Here's what he said that got him in trouble: SANTORUM: But you also have to admit that this freshman congressman who wasn't supposed to win a race came and did something you never did, which is blew the li...
Read more

March 21-24, 2016

Image
Mar 21 01:28 SCSU's budget cuts? Mar 21 02:29 When will the Range change? Mar 21 08:54 DFL's Marty in charge of environment Mar 21 11:45 OLA report, DFL & Meyer Associates Mar 23 12:48 Liberals' definition of moderate Mar 23 14:37 DFL activists: Government is racist Mar 24 08:59 IRRRB: Revamping vs. scrapping Prior Months: Jan Feb Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SCSU's budget cuts? Cuts in Athletics at SCSU - Will it Really Save Money? by Silence Dogood With a $6,000,000 "structural deficit" and the need to "rebuild reserves by at least $3 million," SCSU has a $9,000,000 hole in its' FY17 budget. It doesn't take a Noble Prize in economics to figure out that reductions in expenditures (i.e., cuts) are going to be made at SCSU. On the Wednesday before Spring Break, SCSU President Dr. Earl H. Potter sent an email to the campus community announcing cuts to the athlet...
Read more

October 31, 2007

Oct 31 01:01 Media Matter's Alter Ego? Oct 31 03:32 Iraqi Civilian Casualties Dropping Oct 31 10:52 Hillary's Panderfest Blows Up in Her Face Oct 31 13:15 Brod, Emmer Call For Investigation of Mark Ritchie Oct 31 19:43 Ritchie's 'Episode' a Tempest in a Teapot? Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Prior Years: 2006 Media Matter's Alter Ego? One Media Matters-like organization is already too many. It appears as though there's another liberal apologist blog out there. Their name is News Hounds . The post that caught my attention dealt with last weekend's interview of Justin and Darryl Sharraltt on Hannity's America. To say that their post didn't attempt to refute Justin's story is understatement. In fact, they jump right into criticizing Mr. Hannity: Last night's (October 27th) Hannity's America was a strange magazine format which combined stories about mediums and haunted houses...
Read more