Xtra News Community 2

the left went completely mad and lied to the people oh those poor deluded msn followers forced to eat crow

trump was right

revenge and hammer time payback will be a real bitch,mr trump show us all the truth and expose the government corruption
of the deep state ktj thinks deep state is a conspiracy theory
ktj what a dumb cunt you are ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga9rScvxmeE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMOFvshdKaw

https://www.facebook.com/ijrredpresents/videos/401442003967661/

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2xDW_QXgAEQdZy.jpg)

A wise man has the power to reason away but a fool believes

https://thedailyconspiracy.com/2017/11/09/operation-mockingbird-cia-media-mind-control/

Show the world the entire report.

The Attorney General (Trump's appointed arselicker) has summarised the report but refused to release it (no doubt on Trump's orders).

Therefore, he is obviously hiding something.

Fortunately, the Democratic-controlled Congress has the power to subpoena both Mueller and the AG to produce the entire report to congress.

Watch to see if the White House fights that subpoena. If they do, that will be proof they are hiding something they desperately don't want the world to see.

I want a special counsel to investigate all aspects of the attempted overthrow of the elected us gov and all the Dems drug tested because they seem to be mentally deranged.

I want to see the unelected real creeps in handcuffs

Trump did say he wanted everyone to see the report so lets wait and see

Mueller's full-report is more than three-hundred-pages long and is the “real deal”.

Trump's arse-licking Attorney-General's summary is four-pages long and is therefore “fake news” which is hiding something.

So until the full-report is opened up to public summary, all we have is Trump's professional liar spouting lies on behalf of the liar Trump.

It's like Trump's tax-returns which are likewise hiding something.

Fortunately, the Democrat-controlled Congress has the power to subpoena those tax-returns and shine some daylight on them for everybody to see.

1 million documents to rat though I am sure it will take a while first they need to redact the things that their laws call for them to do.
then we all get to see it lol

Trump said he is all for it

next a special counsel to investigate the whole corrupt hoax and exposing the FISA report

meanwhile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7mzoZvSbAM

Yeah, what you'll see is after they have removed all the stuff incriminating Trump.

The Attorney General is using a period of time to white-wash everything which shows Trump in a bad light.

Trump has a lot to hide, so the arse-licking Attorney General is hiding all the criminal stuff involving Trump.

Hopefully, Robert S. Mueller III has a copy stashed away in some secret place so the Democrat-controlled Congress can seize it with a subpoena and shine some daylight on the entire report, including all the stuff Trump desperately wants to hide.

There is currently a HUGE CONSPIRACY underway involving Trump and the Attorney General.

Why else wouldn't they release the entire report?

from The New York Times…

Mueller Report Exceeds 300 Pages, Raising
Questions About Four-Page Summary

The page count suggests the special counsel detailed his conclusions
beyond Justice Department requirements. And it raises questions
about what the attorney general might have left out of his summary.

By NICHOLAS FANDOS, ADAM GOLDMAN and KATIE BENNER | Thursday, March 28, 2019

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/03/29/us/politics/28dc-report/28dc-report-jumbo.jpg) (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/03/29/us/politics/28dc-report/28dc-report-superJumbo.jpg)
William P. Barr, the attorney general, delivered his summary of the special counsel investigation to Congress on Sunday.
 — Photograph: Sarah Silbiger/The New York Times.

WASHINGTON D.C. — The still-secret report on Russian interference in the 2016 election submitted last week by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was more than 300 pages long, the Justice Department acknowledged on Thursday.

Mr. Barr wrote to Congress on Sunday offering what he called the “principal conclusions” of the report (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html) — including that Mr. Mueller had not found that the Trump campaign had taken part in a conspiracy to undermine the election. But he had notably declined to publicly disclose its length.

The total of 300-plus pages suggests that Mr. Mueller went well beyond the kind of bare-bones summary required by the Justice Department regulation governing his appointment and detailed his conclusions at length. And it raises questions about what Mr. Barr might have left out of the four dense pages (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html) he sent to Congress.

Answering those questions is likely to prove difficult for lawmakers and the public. Mr. Barr has indicated to two congressional chairmen that it will most likely take weeks to redact the report for classified and grand jury information the department deems unfit for public consumption.

But Justice Department officials, including some from the attorney general's office, could examine the report before sending any documents to Congress for possible material the president could claim as privileged, according to a department official.

The practice is not unusual, but it would most likely create another tranche of material from Mr. Mueller's investigation to be withheld from Congress and kick off a fight between lawmakers and the administration that would further delay a resolution. No plans have been made for a review, the official said, and it was not clear whether Mr. Barr would be personally involved.

If the Justice Department were to deem certain aspects of Mr. Mueller's report to be subject to executive privilege, Democrats in Congress would almost certainly contest the assertion and force Mr. Trump to actually claim the privilege — and risk a court challenge — or not. Law enforcement officials had no plans to show White House officials the report before it was sent to Congress, the Justice Department official said.

Democrats, who like all other lawmakers have not seen the report, have already all but accused Mr. Barr of covering up damaging information it contains. They have specifically focused on an apparent difference (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/27/us/politics/obstruction-of-justice-trump-mueller.html) between the views of Mr. Barr and Mr. Mueller on whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice. Democrats have demanded that the attorney general make the full report and evidence public.

“For Mr. Barr to quickly issue a four-page report in his attempt to try to exonerate Mr. Trump, and now to delay the release of an over 300-page report written by Mueller so the American people and we senators and congressmen can see what was written, has too much of the odor of political expediency to help the man who appointed him, President Trump,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said in a speech on the chamber floor.

Republicans have adopted a more trusting stance of Mr. Barr, indicating that they believe he will make appropriate judgments about what should and should not be shared.

The new ballpark page length came about a week after a senior Justice Department official told reporters that the report was “comprehensive.”

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, added the description “very substantial” after talking to Mr. Barr on Wednesday, although neither he nor any other member of Congress has seen the report and he declined to give a page count. Andrew Napolitano, a legal analyst for Fox News and a favorite of Mr. Trump, caused a stir on Wednesday when he said multiple times on the air that the report was 700 pages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_XY62Pws-Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_XY62Pws-Y)

Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, confirmed the length of the document after The New York Times reported it, citing American officials who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss details of the report.

Mr. Barr had told Mr. Nadler on their Wednesday call that the report was more than 300 pages long, Ms. Kupec said.

Other blockbuster government reports in recent decades have been lengthy. At 445 pages, the independent counsel Ken Starr's report on President Bill Clinton had to be trucked to Capitol Hill in September 1998.

The 9/11 commission report ran 567 pages (https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf) with notes on the circumstances and fallout of the September 11 attacks.

Even the Justice Department inspector general seems to have outwritten Mr. Mueller of late. Michael E. Horowitz released a scathing report (https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download) last summer on the F.B.I.'s handling of an investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state that preoccupied Congress for weeks.

Mr. Horowitz's report was 568 pages.

By contrast, the Watergate “road map” (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5025374-Road-Map.html) sent to Congress by the grand jury investigating President Richard M. Nixon and his associates was only 62 pages. Sent to lawmakers in 1974, the court report was not unsealed by a federal judge and made public until last year.

Mr. Mueller probably collected and generated hundreds of thousands if not millions of pages of paper during his investigation. Congress has made clear it would eventually like access to all of them, but the Justice Department could have good reason to block the release of some, leaving it once again to the courts to determine who sees what.

Members of Mr. Barr's and Mr. Mueller's teams are currently reviewing the full report to redact information that they do not believe should be made public for intelligence or other reasons. Mr. Barr has told lawmakers in recent days that it will take weeks to make more of Mr. Mueller's findings public.


• Nicholas Fandos (https://www.nytimes.com/by/nicholas-fandos) is a reporter at The New York Times' Washington bureau covering Congress.

• Adam Goldman (https://www.nytimes.com/by/adam-goldman) reports on the F.B.I. for The New York Times and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for national reporting on Russia's meddling in the presidential election. Previously, he covered national security for The Washington Post and worked on the investigative team at the Associated Press, where he and his colleagues revealed the New York Police Department's Muslim spying programs. Their reporting on the department won the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting. Adam is the co-author of “Enemies Within: Inside the NYPD's Secret Spying Unit and bin Laden's Final Plot Against America” (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1476727945) He lives in Washington D.C.

• Katie Benner (https://www.nytimes.com/by/katie-benner) covers the Justice Department for The New York Times. ​She has worked in The N.Y. Times' San Francisco Bureau covering Apple, venture capital and startups. She helped steer the paper's coverage of the encryption fight between Apple and the FBI and investigated how tech employees chasing the Silicon Valley dream are short-changed by executives and investors. Most recently she's written about sexual harassment in the tech industry and the legal contracts used to keep that behavior a secret​. Before coming to The N.Y. Times, Katie was a tech columnist at Bloomberg. She also spent nearly a decade at Fortune, where she covered financial markets, private equity and hedge funds. Her work includes profiles of Hank Paulson, Robert Schiller and Reid Hoffman as well as features on the 2008 financial crisis and financial fraud investigations.

• A version of this article appears in The New York Times on Friday, March 29, 2019, on Page A15 of the New York print edition with the headline: “Between Four-Page Summary and a 300-Page Report, Tantalizing Questions”.


Related to this topic:

 • Read Attorney General William Barr's Summary of the Mueller Report (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html)

 • The Many Problems With the Barr Letter (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/opinion/barr-mueller-report.html)

 • Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy, but Stops Short of Exonerating President on Obstruction (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/us/politics/mueller-report-length.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/us/politics/mueller-report-length.html)

from The New York Times…

Some on Mueller's Team Say Report Was More Damaging
Than Barr Revealed

Members of the special counsel's team have told associates that their findings
are more troubling for President Trump than the attorney general indicated.

By NICHOLAS FANDOS, MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MARK MAZZETTI | Wednesday, April 03, 2019

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/04/02/us/politics/03dc-mueller/02dc-mueller-jumbo.jpg) (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/04/02/us/politics/03dc-mueller/02dc-mueller-superJumbo.jpg)
Attorney General William P. Barr has shown hints of frustration with how the rollout of the special counsel's chief findings has unfolded.
 — Photograph: Sarah Silbiger/The New York Times.

WASHINGTON D.C. — Some of Robert S. Mueller III's investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.

At stake in the dispute — the first evidence of tension between Mr. Barr and the special counsel's office — is who shapes the public's initial understanding of one of the most consequential government investigations in American history. Some members of Mr. Mueller's team are concerned that, because Mr. Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel's findings, Americans' views will have hardened before the investigation's conclusions become public.

Mr. Barr has said he will move quickly to release the nearly 400-page report but needs time to scrub out confidential information. The special counsel's investigators had already written multiple summaries of the report, and some team members believe that Mr. Barr should have included more of their material in the four-page letter (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html) he wrote on March 24 laying out their main conclusions, according to government officials familiar with the investigation. Mr. Barr only briefly cited the special counsel's work in his letter.

However, the special counsel's office never asked Mr. Barr to release the summaries soon after he received the report, a person familiar with the investigation said. And the Justice Department quickly determined that the summaries contain sensitive information, like classified material, secret grand-jury testimony and information related to current federal investigations that must remain confidential, according to two government officials.

Mr. Barr was also wary of departing from Justice Department practice not to disclose derogatory details in closing an investigation, according to two government officials familiar with Mr. Barr's thinking. They pointed to the decision by James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, to harshly criticize Hillary Clinton in 2016 while announcing that he was recommending no charges in the inquiry into her email practices.

The officials and others interviewed declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel's investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging for the president than Mr. Barr explained, although the report is believed to examine Mr. Trump's efforts to thwart the investigation. It was unclear how much discussion Mr. Mueller and his investigators had with senior Justice Department officials about how their findings would be made public. It was also unclear how widespread the vexation is among the special counsel team, which included 19 lawyers, about 40 F.B.I. agents and other personnel.

At the same time, Mr. Barr and his advisers have expressed their own frustrations about Mr. Mueller and his team. Mr. Barr and other Justice Department officials believe the special counsel's investigators fell short of their task by declining to decide whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed the inquiry, according to the two government officials. After Mr. Mueller made no judgment on the obstruction matter, Mr. Barr stepped in to declare that he himself had cleared Mr. Trump of wrongdoing.

Representatives for the Justice Department and the special counsel declined to comment on Wednesday on views inside both Mr. Mueller's office and the Justice Department. They pointed to departmental regulations requiring Mr. Mueller to file a confidential report to the attorney general detailing prosecution decisions and to Mr. Barr's separate vow to send a redacted version of that report to Congress. Under the regulations, Mr. Barr can publicly release as much of the document as he deems appropriate.

A debate over how the special counsel's conclusions are represented has played out in public as well as in recent weeks, with Democrats in Congress accusing Mr. Barr of intervening to color the outcome of the investigation in the president's favor.

In his letter to Congress (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html) outlining the report's chief conclusions, Mr. Barr said that Mr. Mueller found no conspiracy between Mr. Trump's campaign and Russia's 2016 election interference. While Mr. Mueller made no decision on his other main question, whether the president illegally obstructed the inquiry, he explicitly stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump.

Mr. Mueller's decision to skip a prosecutorial judgment “leaves it to the attorney general to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime,” Mr. Barr wrote. He and his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, decided that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that Mr. Trump had committed an obstruction offense.

Mr. Barr has come under criticism for sharing so little. But according to officials familiar with the attorney general's thinking, he and his aides limited the details they revealed because they were worried about wading into political territory. Mr. Barr and his advisers expressed concern that if they included derogatory information about Mr. Trump while clearing him, they would face a storm of criticism like what Mr. Comey endured in the Clinton investigation.

Legal experts attacked Mr. Comey at the time for violating Justice Department practice to keep confidential any negative information about anyone uncovered during investigations. The practice exists to keep from unfairly sullying people's reputations without giving them a chance to respond in court.

Mr. Rosenstein cited the handling of the Clinton case in a memo the White House used to rationalize Mr. Trump's firing of Mr. Comey.

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/04/02/us/politics/03dc-mueller2/merlin_152636661_4dc26048-e096-48e0-bcac-a307c407a50c-master768.jpg) (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/04/02/us/politics/03dc-mueller2/merlin_152636661_4dc26048-e096-48e0-bcac-a307c407a50c-superJumbo.jpg)
The attorney general is preparing the report of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, for Congress.
 — Photograph: Tom Brenner/for The New York Times.

Though it was not clear what findings the special counsel's investigators viewed as troubling for the president, Mr. Barr has suggested that Mr. Mueller may have found evidence of malfeasance in investigating possible obstruction of justice. “The report sets out evidence on both sides of the question,” Mr. Barr wrote in his March 24 letter.

Mr. Mueller examined Mr. Trump's attempts to maintain control over the investigation, including his firing of Mr. Comey and his attempt to oust Mr. Mueller and Attorney General Jeff Sessions to install a loyalist to oversee the inquiry.

The fallout from Mr. Barr's letter outlining the Russia investigation's main findings overshadowed his intent to make public as much of the entire report as possible, a goal he has stressed since his confirmation hearing in January. He reiterated to lawmakers (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/us/politics/barr-mueller-report.html) on Friday that he wanted both Congress and the public to read the report and said that the department would by mid-April furnish a version with sensitive material blacked out. He offered to testify on Capitol Hill soon after turning over the report.

Mr. Barr, who took office in February, has shown flashes of frustration over how the unveiling of the investigation's findings has unfolded. In his follow-up letter to lawmakers (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/us/politics/barr-mueller-report.html) on Friday, he chafed at how the news media and some lawmakers had characterized his March 24 letter.

Mr. Barr and Mr. Mueller have been friends for 30 years, and Mr. Barr said during his confirmation hearing in January that he trusted Mr. Mueller to conduct an impartial investigation. He said he told Mr. Trump that Mr. Mueller was a “straight shooter who should be dealt with as such.” Mr. Mueller served as the head of the Justice Department's criminal division when Mr. Barr was attorney general under George Bush, and their families are friends.

Mr. Barr's promises of transparency have done little to appease Democrats who control the House. The House Judiciary Committee voted on Wednesday to let its chairman use a subpoena (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/mueller-report-subpoena-house.html) to try to compel Mr. Barr to hand over a full copy of the Mueller report and its underlying evidence to Congress. The chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, has not said when he will use the subpoena, but made clear on Wednesday that he did not trust Mr. Barr's characterization of what Mr. Mueller's team found.

“The Constitution charges Congress with holding the president accountable for alleged official misconduct,” Mr. Nadler said. “That job requires us to evaluate the evidence for ourselves — not the attorney general's summary, not a substantially redacted synopsis, but the full report and the underlying evidence.”

Republicans, who have embraced Mr. Barr's letter clearing Mr. Trump, have accused the Democrats of trying to prolong the cloud over his presidency and urged them to move on.

Mr. Trump has fully embraced Mr. Barr's version of events. For days, he has pronounced (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/trump-exonerated.html) the outcome of the investigation a “complete and total exoneration” and called for the Justice Department and his allies on Capitol Hill to investigate and hold accountable those responsible for opening the inquiry.


• Katie Benner and Adam Goldman contributed reporting to this story.

• Nicholas Fandos (https://www.nytimes.com/by/nicholas-fandos) is a reporter at The New York Times' Washington bureau covering Congress.

• Michael S. Schmidt (https://www.nytimes.com/by/michael-s-schmidt) is a Washington correspondent for The New York Times who covers national security and federal investigations. He was part of two teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 — one for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues and the other for coverage of President Donald Trump and his campaign's ties to Russia. For the past year, Michael's coverage has focused on Robert S. Mueller III's investigation into Mr. Trump's campaign and whether the president obstructed justice. From 2012 to 2016, Michael covered the F.B.I., Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon. Michael spent 2011 in Iraq chronicling the last year of the American occupation. From 2007 to 2010, he covered doping and off-the-field issues for the sports section. He started his career at The N.Y. Times in 2005 as a clerk on the foreign desk. Michael has broken several high profile stories. Among them was that former F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, wrote a series of memos on how the president asked for his loyalty and tried to interfere with the F.B.I.'s investigations. Mr. Mueller was appointed after those disclosures. Michael was first to reveal the fact that Hillary Clinton exclusively relied on a personal email account when she was secretary of state. In sports, he broke the stories that Sammy Sosa, David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez had tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs and wrote about the treatment of young baseball players in the Dominican Republic who were exploited by American investors and agents. In 2017, Michael co-authored the stories that outlined how the former Fox News host, Bill O'Reilly, paid off a series of women who made sexual harassment allegations against him. For that coverage, he won the Livingston Award for national reporting, which recognizes the best work of journalists under the age of 35. Michael is a graduate of Lafayette College.

• Mark Mazzetti (https://www.nytimes.com/by/mark-mazzetti) is Washington Investigations Editor, a job he assumed after covering national security from The New York Times's Washington bureau for 10 years. In 2009, he shared a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on the intensifying violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Washington's response. The previous year, he was a Pulitzer finalist for revelations about the C.I.A.'s detention and interrogation program.  He is the author of “The Way of the Knife” (https://www.amazon.com/dp/014312501X), a New York Times best-selling account of the secret wars waged by the C.I.A. and Pentagon since the September 11 attacks. He is a two-time recipient of the George Polk award.

• A version of this article appears in The New York Times on Thursday, April 4, 2019, on Page A1 of the New York print edition with the headline: “Barr Understated Mueller Findings”.


Related to this topic:

 • Read Attorney General William Barr's Summary of the Mueller Report (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html)

 • Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy, but Stops Short of Exonerating President on Obstruction (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html)

 • Glimpses of the Mystery That Is the Mueller Investigation: Here are some pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. The full picture is missing. (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/21/us/the-mueller-report-photos.html)

 • Mueller Has Delivered His Report. Here's What We Already Know. (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/20/us/politics/mueller-investigation-people-events.html)

 • Robert Mueller and His Prosecutors: Who They Are and What They've Done (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/30/us/mueller-investigation-team-prosecutors.html)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/mueller-findings-barr.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/mueller-findings-barr.html)

Some on Mueller's Team Say Report Was More Damaging
Than Barr Revealed

whats the names of these bullshitters

oh that's right they are anonymous sources they are lawbreakers

more of the hot air from the dumb lefty MSN delusion conspiracy theory   ;D hahahaha

I guess Attorney General William P. Barr and Mueller must be working for Putin(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww32/XtraNewsCommunity2/Animated%20emoticons/17_Clapping.gif)

Face facts: Donald J. Trump is a liar and a fraud and a crook.

I don't think he even knows how to tell the truth ... he lives in a fantasy world and is either totally deluded or totally dishonest.

He is a failure as a businessman too: just look at the number of times he, and/or his businesses have been declared bankrupt.

He is so desperate to hide his failures that he is terrified of the possibility of the public of America getting a look at his tax returns.

Every over American president over the past several decades has opened up their tax returns to public scrutiny. Trump is obviously hiding something.

Only the terminally stupid are gullible enough to believe anything spouted by Donald J. Trump.

Such as Americans of the dumb variety and stupid dumbcunts living in places like Woodville in NZ.

Face facts: communism is dead

butthurt election losers don't want trump winning

Dems are eating their own 2020 they lose hahaha

How does it feel to be so stupid that you are gullible to Trump's lies?

Hilarious ... somebody should put a sign up outside your place declaring you to be a stupid, gullible Trump-supporter.

Then the general public can stand outside your place and laugh at you every day.

I don't give a fuck if people laugh at me

you are a follower of MSN bullshit
              you rant like a brainwashed fool
                                        hello idiot shit for brains
                                                       how does it feel to be a drongo?

Donald J. Trump is a liar and a crook.

He is also a failed businessman who has been declared BANKRUPT seven times.

Successful businessmen don't end up being declared bankrupt.

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/SBtM4N_KUrUCv-OqFW9iftPWZrY=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/6UIYALVUGRHX3PIP4ZFY3F6HQ4.jpg) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/07/william-barr-is-auditioning-head-spinner)

the ALT- LEFT is full of white trash hate mongers that are much worse than Nazi's, all they have are retarded lies where they take words out of context by selecting a sentence taking out a couple of words and twisting those words to suit their argument then pretending we are all enemies, their program is to name and shame and cause division.
their brainwashing tool, it tries to convince everyone that they are poor deprived victims, it's a cheap trick to make them fight each other.

this is nothing new

Briton used this same system to build their empire

the same program was used by the Romans

some understand these cheap tricks others follow the alt-left and act worse than Nazi's.

Truth is their enemy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a3-Z73gIHY

The TRUTH is that Donald J. Trump is a liar and a crook.

And a failed businessman ... he has been declared bankrupt multiple times.

Successful businessmen don't get declared bankrupt.

everybody is a liar and you are the worst of them all
because you lie to yourself and wanting to be right all the time you believe it.

people don't care bout trump telling porkies because they wanted a change from the normal political lying bullshit artists.
and that what they got hahaha

• Take a bow, New Zealand for showing those Jesuslanders how its done… (http://xtranewscommunity2.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,15977.0.html)

---

from The Washington Post…

EDITORIAL: It took New Zealand 26 days to act on gun control.
Congress has been stalling for years.

Less than a month after a terrorist attack, the nation bans most semi-automatic firearms.

By THE WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL BOARD | 6:06PM EDT — Wednesday, April 10, 2019

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/DU027j3qlPlXlARAQ0VfLYA1YIs=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/VVIXHUS33AI6TFRFAHKI2UHPOU.jpg) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/DU027j3qlPlXlARAQ0VfLYA1YIs=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/VVIXHUS33AI6TFRFAHKI2UHPOU.jpg)
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern speaks at a news conference in Christchurch on March 28. — Photograph: Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images.

FIFTY VICTIMS. Twenty-six days. That — along with common-sense leadership from government officials — is what it took for New Zealand to pass a law that bans most semi-automatic weapons (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/new-zealand-passes-law-banning-most-semiautomatic-weapons-less-than-a-month-after-mosque-massacres/2019/04/10/38e2c202-5b6b-11e9-b8e3-b03311fbbbfe_story.html) in the country. The contrast with the United States is both inescapable and striking. Despite the loss of far more lives in far more mass shootings — more than 2,000 mass shootings (https://www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-america-sandy-hook-gun-violence) since the slaughter of elementary school children in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012 — Congress has refused to make any significant change in federal gun law, including a needed reimposition of the ban on the assault rifles that are often the weapons of choice of mass murderers.

“I can recall very vividly the moment I knew that we would need to be here, doing what we are doing right now,” New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Wednesday as Parliament voted to outlaw military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles. Attacks on two mosques in Christchurch by a white nationalist on March 15 had killed 50 people and, she said, “I could not fathom how weapons that could cause such destruction and large-scale death could have been obtained legally in this country.” She put a temporary ban in place (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/20/new-zealand-bans-military-assault-rifles-after-massacre/3230544002) just days after the terrorist killings. Legislation to make the ban permanent and authorize a buy-back of the banned weapons moved swiftly through Parliament, passing with the support of all but one of the 120 lawmakers.

New Zealand's form of government makes it easier for the ruling party to pass legislation. There also is no constitutional right to own guns (https://www.vox.com/2019/3/15/18267093/new-zealand-gun-control-laws-christchurch-mosque-shooting), as exists in the United States with the Second Amendment. But the most significant difference between the two countries — even as the vast majority of Americans favor sensible gun laws (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx) — is the outsize and malign influence of the National Rifle Association.

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/iC-SsjUlF_yN2OsowRRT2ZyGRrA=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/FNG5V4HWB5CDHPJ5LUI3WKHWEU.jpg) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/22/guns-us-is-just-different-new-zealand)

There have been some encouraging signs that the gun lobby's control over lawmakers may be waning in the face of growing effectiveness of grass-roots movements for gun safety. Hopefully, the resolve shown by New Zealand will serve as a model. It is notable, for example, that the government there consulted with the country's hunting and rural communities about the impact of an assault-weapons ban and the general consensus was that military-style weapons were not really necessary. Indeed, even before the ban was enacted, some gun owners surrendered their semi-automatic weapons (https://nypost.com/2019/03/18/new-zealand-gun-owners-voluntarily-giving-up-firearms-in-wake-of-mosque-massacre). Tweeted one farmer: “Until today I was one of the New Zealanders who owned a semi-automatic rifle. On the farm, they are a useful tool in some circumstances, but my convenience doesn't outweigh the risk of misuse. We don't need these in our country.”


• Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the Editorial Board (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-posts-view). The board includes: Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/fred-hiatt); Deputy Editorial Page Editor Jackson Diehl (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/jackson-diehl); Deputy Editorial Page Editor Ruth Marcus (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/ruth-marcus); Associate Editorial Page Editor Jo-Ann Armao (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/jo-ann-armao), who specializes in education and District affairs; Jonathan Capehart (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/jonathan-capehart), who focuses on national politics; Lee Hockstader (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/lee-hockstader), who writes about immigration, and political and other issues affecting Virginia and Maryland; Charles Lane (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/charles-lane), who concentrates on economic policy, trade and globalization; Stephen Stromberg (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/stephen-stromberg), who specializes in energy, the environment, public health and other federal policy; David Hoffman (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-e-hoffman), who writes about foreign affairs and press freedom; Molly Roberts (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/molly-roberts), who focuses on technology and society; and editorial cartoonist Tom Toles (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/tom-toles). Op-ed editors Michael Larabee, Robert Gebelhoff (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/robert-gebelhoff) and Mark Lasswell; letters editor Jamie Riley; international opinions editors Elias Lopez, Karen Attiah (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/karen-attiah) and Christian Caryl (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/christian-caryl); international opinions writer Jason Rezaian (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/jason-rezaian); digital opinions editor James Downie (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/james-downie); operations editor Becca Clemons (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/becca-clemons); editor and writer Christine Emba (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/christine-emba); and digital producer and writer Mili Mitra also take part in board discussions. The board highlights issues it thinks are important and responds to news events, mindful of stands it has taken in previous editorials and principles that have animated Washington Post editorial boards over time. Articles in the news pages sometimes prompt ideas for editorials, but every editorial is based on original reporting. News reporters and editors never contribute to editorial board discussions, and editorial board members don't have any role in news coverage.


Related to this topic:

 • VIDEO: New Zealand passes law banning most semi-automatic weapons (https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/world/new-zealand-passes-law-banning-most-semiautomatic-weapons/2019/04/10/dc5f37a8-1b44-48f2-9e87-49ff5a4d11b8_video.html)

 • New Zealand passes law banning most semi-automatic weapons, less than a month after mosque massacres (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/new-zealand-passes-law-banning-most-semiautomatic-weapons-less-than-a-month-after-mosque-massacres/2019/04/10/38e2c202-5b6b-11e9-b8e3-b03311fbbbfe_story.html)

 • The Washington Post's View: New Zealand is showing America how to respond to mass shootings (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/new-zealand-is-showing-america-how-to-respond-to-mass-shootings/2019/03/20/237df6a0-4b41-11e9-93d0-64dbcf38ba41_story.html?utm_term=.3601e9a17736)

 • Elizabeth Bruenig: The New Zealand attack and the fundamental thoughtlessness of evil (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/15/new-zealand-attack-fundamental-thoughtlessness-evil)

 • The Washington Post's View: Trump sends the wrong message on New Zealand. World leaders must denounce the attack. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-massacre-streamed-live-impelled-by-bigotry/2019/03/15/a373568c-475b-11e9-aaf8-4512a6fe3439_story.html)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/it-took-new-zealand-26-days-to-act-on-gun-control-congress-has-been-stalling-for-years/2019/04/10/d553e33e-5bc8-11e9-9625-01d48d50ef75_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/it-took-new-zealand-26-days-to-act-on-gun-control-congress-has-been-stalling-for-years/2019/04/10/d553e33e-5bc8-11e9-9625-01d48d50ef75_story.html)

american gun rights are for people to protect themselves from out of control power hungry mad government dictators

scary picture gun buyback how much will this cost us, taxpayers,
the silly cow is spending money that doesn't belong to her shes on fool's mission 

a typical leftist spending spree that leaves a debt that the next generation will need to pay

it's like the old prison system where they punished everyone for one man's crime

it won't get those off the book guns from criminals, it will just create a lucrative black market.

Over time, as people squeal, the cops will gradually catch up with a large proportion of the people who keep illegal guns, both licensed firearm owners and non-licensed owners. And guess what? Under the new legislation, all of those people will be going to jail. It may take a decade or two, but most of those illegal guns will gradually be swept up and a lot of pig-ignorant arseholes will be doing jail time.

Good fucking job too!!

Mind you, I have a theory about men who feel the need to keep military-style assault weapons. They obviously have a tiny penis, so use their guns to compensate. There are obviously a lot of American men with tiny penises who compensate by having big guns to make them feel like a man.

hey ktj lil cuck a semi-automatic does not mean its an assault rifle, an ar15 is not an assault rifle
it's just scary looking unless it's pink, it's light and easy for a woman to handle

I have an American lady friend she has a pink ar15 for her and the kid's protection in her home
if anyone tries to attack her in her home bad luck to them

and she is just a little girl who has no penis
guns are just tools like a hammer or a knife or a shovel or a car
now if some idiot drives a car through a crowd of people and kills them, will they ban cars, hammers, shovels or any tool?

I guess when we have a pussy ruling our country she's our new mommy and needs to wrap us all up in cotton wool like babies
and protect us all from the bad man.


by the time to police come to try and save us it's too late we all dead

also under our stupid laws, an idiot can kill someone to be jailed and then be let out in about 7 to 14 years depending on the case.

police can't protect everyone they mostly arrive when its too late

I can't understand why you're so stupid

tell me ktj are you feeling like a man or a pussy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJL4UGSbeFg

2 years of Dem bullshitters and the fake news media Russia Russia Russia

it was all a big hoax  ;D haha

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4fM9vqUUAArifd.jpg)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgyYMyMSNMk

You are obviously living in the same la-la land as Donald J. Trump.

'cause even with Barr's attempts to hide all the incriminating stuff from Mueller's report, it is still full of incriminating stuff about the criminal mafia boss Donald J. Trump and his crime family's attempts to use Russia to illegally win an election as well as his attempts to pervert the course of justice and obstruct justice.

And now the Democrat-controlled congress has subpoena Robert S. Mueller III to put him under oath and question him about all the incriminating stuff in his report which Trump's lackey Barr has blacked out in a desperate attempt to hide the truth.

The truth WILL come out, whether Trump or you like it or not.

wake up you're dreaming a losers dream

yes the truth will come out that Hillary's mob colluded with the Russians to create a fake hoax about trump
so they could spy on him
and the special counsel of corrupt lawyers were all lying Hillary supporters that couldn't prosecute and convict a ham sandwich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOOXZMrd8Rk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzQL0cH635I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn9q7JEscqY

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4avjnlUIAA-HvA.jpg) (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4avjnlUIAA-HvA.jpg)

Truth Is Like Garlic To Vampires
time to drag them kicking and screaming into the light of day

Autopsy of a Dead Coup

By Victor Davis Hanson| February 17th, 2019

(https://amgreatness.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/GettyImages-1129879089-1024x576.jpg)

The illegal effort to destroy the 2016 Trump campaign by Hillary Clinton campaign’s use of funds to create, disseminate among court media, and then salt among high Obama administration officials, a fabricated, opposition smear dossier failed.

So has the second special prosecutor phase of the coup to abort the Trump presidency failed. There are many elements to what in time likely will become recognized as the greatest scandal in American political history, marking the first occasion in which U.S. government bureaucrats sought to overturn an election and to remove a sitting U.S. president.

Preparing the Battlefield
No palace coup can take place without the perception of popular anger at a president.

The deep state is by nature cowardly. It does not move unless it feels it can disguise its subterranean efforts or that, if revealed, those efforts will be seen as popular and necessary—as expressed in tell-all book titles such as fired FBI Directors James Comey’s Higher Loyalty or in disgraced Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s psychodramatic The Threat.
In candidate and President Trump’s case that prepping of the battlefield translated into a coordinated effort among the media, political progressives and celebrities to so demonize Trump that his imminent removal likely would appear a relief to the people. Anything was justified that led to that end.

All through the 2016 campaign and during the first two years of the Trump presidency the media’s treatment, according to liberal adjudicators of press coverage, ran about 90 percent negative toward Trump—a landmark bias that continues today.

Journalists themselves consulted with the Clinton campaign to coordinate attacks. From the Wikileaks trove, journalistic grandees such as John Harwood, Mark Leibovich, Dana Milbank, and Glenn Thrush often communicated (and even post factum were unapologetic about doing so) with John Podesta’s staff to construct various anti-Trump themes and have the Clinton campaign review or even audit them in advance.

Some contract “journalists” apparently were paid directly by Fusion GPS—created by former reporters Glen Simpson of the Wall Street Journal and Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post—to spread lurid stories from the dossier. Others more refined like Christiane Amanpour and James Rutenberg had argued for a new journalistic ethos that partisan coverage was certainly justified in the age of Trump, given his assumed existential threat to The Truth. Or as Rutenberg put it in 2016: “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable. But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?”

I suppose Rutenberg never considered that half the country might have considered the Hillary Clinton presidency “potentially dangerous,” and yet did not expect the evening news, in 90 percent of its coverage, to reflect such suspicions.

The Democratic National Committee’s appendages often helped to massage CNN news coverage—such as Donna Brazile’s primary debate tip-off to the Clinton campaign or CNN’s consultation with the DNC about forming talking points for a scheduled Trump interview.

So-called “bombshell,” “watershed,” “turning-point,” and “walls closing in” fake news aired in 24-hour news bulletin cycles. The media went from fabrications about Trump’s supposed removal of the bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office, to the mythologies in the Steele dossier, to lies about the Trump Tower meeting, to assurances that Michael Cohen would testify to Trump’s suborning perjury, and on and on.

CNN soon proved that it is no longer a news organization at all—as reporters like Gloria Borger, Chris Cuomo, Eric Lichtblau, Manu Raju, Brian Rokus, Jake Tapper, Jeff Zeleny, and teams such as Jim Sciutto, Carl Bernstein, and Marshall Cohen as well as Thomas Frank, and Lex Harris all trafficked in false rumors and unproven gossip detrimental to Trump, while hosts and guest hosts such as Reza Aslan, the late Anthony Bourdain, and Anderson Cooper stooped to obscenity and grossness to attack Trump.

Both politicos and celebrities tried to drive Trump’s numbers down to facilitate some sort of popular ratification for his removal. Hollywood and the coastal corridor punditry exhausted public expressions of assassinating or injuring the president, as the likes of Jim Carrey, Johnny Depp, Robert de Niro, Peter Fonda, Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Snoop Dogg, and a host of others vied rhetorically to slice apart, shoot, beat up, cage, behead, and blow up the president.

Left wing social media and mainstream journalism spread sensational lies about supposed maniacal Trump supporters in MAGA hats. They constructed fantasies that veritable white racists were now liberated to run amuck insulting and beating up people of color as they taunted the poor and victimized minorities with vicious Trump sloganeering—even as the Covington farce and now the even more embarrassing Jussie Smollett charade evaporated without apologies from the media and progressive merchants of such hate.

At the same time, liberal attorneys, foundations, Democratic politicians, and progressive activists variously sued to overturn the election on false charges of rigged voting machines. They sought to subvert the Electoral College. They introduced articles of impeachment. They sued to remove Trump under the Emoluments Clause. They attempted to invoke the 25th Amendment. And they even resurrected the ossified Logan Act—before focusing on the appointment of a special counsel to discredit the Trump presidency. Waiting for the 2020 election was seen as too quaint.

Weaponizing the Deep State
During the 2016 election, the Obama Department of Justice warped the Clinton email scandal investigation, from Bill Clinton’s secret meeting on an airport tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to unethical immunity given to the unveracious Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, to James Comey’s convoluted predetermined treatment of “likely winner” Clinton, and to DOJ’s Bruce Ohr’s flagrant conflict of interests in relation to Fusion GPS.

About a dozen FBI and DOJ grandees have now resigned, retired, been fired, or reassigned for unethical and likely illegal behavior—and yet have not faced criminal indictments. The reputation of the FBI as venerable agency is all but wrecked. Its administrators variously have libeled the Trump voters, expressed hatred for Trump, talked of “insurance policies” in ending the Trump candidacy, and inserted informants into the Trump campaign.

The former Obama directors of the CIA and National Intelligence, with security clearances intact, hit the television airways as paid “consultants” and almost daily accused the sitting president of Russian collusion and treason—without cross-examination or notice that both previously had lied under oath to Congress (and did so without subsequent legal exposure), and both were likely knee-deep in the dissemination of the Steele dossier among Obama administration officials.

John Brennan’s CIA likely helped to spread the Fusion GPS dossier among elected and administrative state officials. Some in the NSC in massive and unprecedented fashion requested the unmasking of surveilled names of Trump subordinates, and then illegally leaked them to the press.

The FISA courts, fairly or not, are now mostly discredited, given they either were willingly or naively hoodwinked by FBI and DOJ officials who submitted as chief evidence for surveillance on American citizens, an unverified dossier—without disclosure that the bought campaign hit-piece was paid for by Hillary Clinton, authored by a discredited has-been British agent, relied on murky purchased Russian sources, and used in circular fashion to seed news accounts of supposed Trump misbehavior.

The Mueller Investigation
The Crown Jewel in the coup was the appointment of special counsel Robert Muller to discover supposed 2016 Trump-Russian election collusion. Never has any special investigation been so ill-starred from its conception.

Mueller’s appointment was a result of his own friend James Comey’s bitter stunt of releasing secret, confidential and even classified memos of presidential conversations. Acting DOJ Attorney Rod Rosenstein appointed a former colleague Mueller—although as a veteran himself of the Clinton email scandal investigations and the FISA fraudulent writ requests, Rosenstein was far more conflicted than was the recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Mueller then packed his investigative team with lots of Clinton donors and partisans, some of whom had legally represented Clinton subordinates and even the Clinton Foundation or voiced support for anti-Trump movements.

Mueller himself and Andrew Weissmann have had a long record of investigatory and prosecutorial overreach that had on occasion resulted in government liability and court mandated federal restitution. In such polarized times, neither should have involved in such an investigation. Two subordinate FBI investigators were caught earlier on conducting an affair over their FBI-issued cell phones, and during the election cycle they slurred the object of their subsequent investigation, ridiculed Trump voters, and bragged that Trump would never be elected. Mueller later staggered, and then hid for weeks the reasons for, their respective firings.

The team soon discovered there was no Trump-Russian 2016 election collusion—and yet went ahead to leverage Trump campaign subordinates on process crimes in hopes of finding some culpability in Trump’s past 50-year business, legal, and tax records. The point was not to find who colluded with whom (if it had been, then Hillary Clinton would be now indicted for illegally hiring with campaign funds a foreign national to buy foreign fabrications to discredit her opponent), but to find the proper mechanism to destroy the presumed guilty Donald Trump.

The Mueller probe has now failed in that gambit of proving “collusion” (as even progressive investigative reporters and some FBI investigators had predicted), but succeeded brilliantly in two ways.

The “counterintelligence” investigation subverted two years of the Trump presidency by constant leaks that Trump soon would be indicted, jailed, disgraced, or impeached. As a result, Trump’s stellar economic and foreign policy record would never earn fifty percent of public support.

Second, Mueller’s preemptive attacks offered an effective offensive defense for the likely felonious behavior of John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, and a host of others. While the Mueller lawyers threatened to destroy the lives of bit players like Jerome Corsi, George Papadopoulos, and Roger Stone, they de facto provided exemption to a host of the Washington hierarchy who had lied under oath, obstructed justice, illegally leaked to the press, unmasked and leaked names of surveilled Americans, and misled federal courts under the guise of a “higher loyalty” to the cause of destroying Donald J. Trump.

The Palace Coup
All of the above came to a head with the firing of the chronic leaker FBI Director James Comey (who would lie to the president about his not being a target of an FBI investigation, lie to House investigatory committees by pleading amnesia and ignorance on 245 occasions, and repeatedly lie to his own FBI bureaucrats).

In May 2017, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe took over from the fired Comey. His candidate wife recently had been a recipient of huge Clinton-related campaign PAC donations shortly before he began investigating the Clinton email scandal. McCabe would soon be cited by the Inspector General for lying to federal investigators on numerous occasions—cynically stooping even to lie to his own New York FBI subordinates to invest scarce resources to hunt for their own nonexistent leaks as a mechanism for disguising his own quite real and illegal leaking.

The newly promoted McCabe apparently felt that it was his moment to become famous for taking out a now President Trump. Thus, he assembled a FBI and DOJ cadre to open a counterintelligence investigation of the sitting president on no other grounds but the fumes of an evaporating Clinton opposition dossier and perceived anger among the FBI that their director had just been fired. In addition, apparently now posing as Andrew McCabe, MD, he informally head counted how many of Trump’s own cabinet members could be convinced by McCabe’s own apparent medical expertise to help remove the president on grounds of physical and mental incapacity under the 25th Amendment. This was an attempted, albeit pathetic, coup against an elected president and the first really in the history of the United States.

At one point, McCabe claims that the acting Attorney General of the United States Rod Rosenstein volunteered to wear a wire to entrap his boss President Trump—in the manner of Trump’s own attorney Michael Cohen’s entrapment of Trump, in the manner of James Comey taking entrapment notes on confidential Trump one-on-one meetings and leaking them to the press, and in the manner of the Department of Justice surveilling Trump subordinates through FISA and other court authorizations.

McCabe was iconic of an utterly corrupt FBI Washington hierarchy, which we now know from the behavior of its disgraced and departed leadership. They posed as patriotic scouts, but in reality proved themselves arrogant, smug, and incompetent. They harbored such a sense of superiority that they were convinced they could act outside the law in reifying an “insurance policy” that would end the Trump presidency.

The thinking of the conspirators initially had been predicated on three assumptions thematic during this three-year long government effort to destroy Trump:

One, during 2016, Hillary Clinton would certainly win the election and FBI and DOJ unethical and illegal behavior would be forgotten if not rewarded, given the Clintons’ own signature transgressions and proven indifference to the law;

Two, Trump was so controversial and the fabricated dossier was so vile and salacious, that seeded rumors of Trump’s faked perversity gave them de facto exemptions to do whatever they damned pleased;

Three, Trump’s low polls, his controversial reset of American policy, and the general contempt in which he was held by the bipartisan coastal elite, celebrities, and the deep state, meant that even illegal means to continue the campaign-era effort to destroy Trump and now abort his presidency were felt to be moral and heroic acts without legal consequences, and the media would see the conspirators as heroes.

In sum, the Left and the administrative state, in concert with the media, after failing to stop the Trump campaign, regrouped. They ginned up a media-induced public hysteria, with the residue of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s illegal opposition research, and manipulated it to put in place a special counsel, stocked with partisans.

Then, not thugs in sunglasses and epaulettes, not oligarchs in private jets, not shaggy would-be Marxists, but sanctimonious arrogant bureaucrats in suits and ties used their government agencies to seek to overturn the 2016 election, abort a presidency, and subvert the U.S. Constitution. And they did all that and more on the premise that they were our moral superiors and had uniquely divine rights to destroy a presidency that they loathed.

Shame on all these failed conspirators and their abettors, and may these immoral people finally earn a long deserved legal and moral reckoning.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/02/17/autopsy-of-a-dead-coup/

More stupid-white noise from pig-ignorant Trump-supporting fuckheads who are too stupid to comprehend the truth.

from The Seattle Times…

Mueller report's “not guilty” is not the same as innocent

President Trump claims the redacted version of the Mueller report absolves him of any wrong-doing.

By DAVID HORSEY | 9:02AM PDT — Friday, April 19, 2019

(https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Mueller-report-ONLINE-COLOR-1020x689.jpg) (https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Mueller-report-ONLINE-COLOR.jpg)

A REDACTED VERSION of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference with the 2016 American presidential election has been released and, though President Trump has claimed it absolves him and his campaign of any wrong-doing, the investigation clearly shows (https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/key-takeaways-from-robert-muellers-russia-report) Trump's campaign operatives were happy to benefit from Russian dirty work and that, while Trump's efforts to interfere with the investigation may have failed, it was not for lack of trying.


• See more of David Horsey's cartoons at The Seattle Times HERE (https://www.seattletimes.com/author/david-horsey).

https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/mueller-reports-not-guilty-is-not-the-same-as-innocent (https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/mueller-reports-not-guilty-is-not-the-same-as-innocent)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4d-dMyW0AAHlTn.jpg) (https://twitter.com/MatttDavies/status/1119002081531133957)

First Trump claimed the Mueller report vindicated him as being not guilty of collusion and obstruction.

Now Trump is claiming the Mueller report is bullshit.

So if the Mueller report is bullshit, then how can it vindicate Trump being not guilty of collusion and obstrution, therefore he must be guilty.

Sometimes Trump's stupidity is the funniest thing on the planet.

I know one shouldn't laugh at dumb simpletons, but in Trump's case it doesn't matter because he is such a mental retard that one cannot but help laughing at him.

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times…

Democrats seek full report, now decried by Trump

House Judiciary chairman subpoenas the unredacted text as president dismisses associates' testimony.

By ELI STOKOLS | Saturday, April 20, 2019

(https://misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-AFP-Getty_Preside_2_1_A6574G6E.jpg) (https://misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-AFP-Getty_Preside_2_1_A6574G6E.jpg)
President Trump signaled on Twitter from West Palm Beach, Florida, that he was in damage-control mode over embarrassing details in the Mueller report,
which he previously claimed had exonerated him. — Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images.

WASHINGTON D.C. — President Trump blasted special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's final report on Friday as “total bullshit,” while the Democratic leader of the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for the unredacted report and its underlying materials.

Although he previously claimed that Mueller's report amounts to a “total exoneration,” Trump angrily dismissed the myriad claims by senior White House aides and associates throughout the 448-page report as false, and cast the document itself as politically motivated.

“Statements are made about me by certain people in the Crazy Mueller Report, in itself written by 18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters, which are fabricated & totally untrue,” Trump tweeted on Friday in his most detailed comments since the redacted report was released Thursday.

“Watch out for people that take so-called ‘notes’, when the notes never existed until needed,” he continued, apparently referring to former White House Counsel Don McGahn, who provided his contemporaneous notes to investigators.

Despite months of negotiations between the White House and Mueller's team, Trump refused to sit down for an interview with Mueller and provided only written responses to questions in which he mostly claimed not to recall many of the episodes and conversations under scrutiny.

Mueller called the president's written answers “inadequate,” but said he decided not to seek a subpoena because it likely would spark a lengthy court battle that would delay the release of the report.

On Friday, however, Trump complained that he was unable to push back on the claims made by his aides in Mueller's report.

“Because I never agreed to testify, it was not necessary for me to respond to statements made in the ‘Report’ about me, some of which are total bullshit & only given to make the other person look good (or me to look bad),” he said in a second tweet before heading off for a round of golf in Palm Beach, Florida.

After issuing only terse comments about the report's release on Thursday, Trump's tweets at the outset of the Passover and Easter weekend signaled that he remains in damage-control mode, fixated on embarrassing details in the report and frustrated that he will continue to govern beneath a cloud of investigations in Congress and elsewhere.

Democrats, already investigating Trump's tax returns, business dealings and relationship with Russia, wasted little time in asking to see Mueller's full, unredacted report.

In his subpoena request on Friday, Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, asked for the information by May 1. That's the same day that Attorney General William Barr is scheduled to testify before a Senate committee and one day before Barr is set to appear before Nadler's panel.

The subpoena is the opening shot in what could be a lengthy legal and political battle. A number of the pages in the report had blacked-out material from grand jury testimony, intelligence sources and methods, and other protected information.

“Even the redacted version of the report outlines serious instances of wrong-doing by President Trump and some of his closest associates,” Nadler said in announcing the subpoena. “It now falls to Congress to determine the full scope of that alleged misconduct and to decide what steps we must take going forward.”

A spokesperson for Barr called Nadler's request “premature and unnecessary” given that the Justice Department released the report with what they called “minimal redactions,” but vowed to work with Congress to accommodate “its legitimate requests.”

If the Justice Department doesn't respond to the subpoena, Democrats could hold officials in contempt of Congress or eventually fight the battle in court.

The Judiciary Committee voted 24 to 17 earlier this month to give Nadler permission to issue subpoenas for the full report, its exhibits and any underlying evidence or materials prepared for Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Mueller concluded that Trump's campaign did not knowingly coordinate with Russian officials who sought to help him during the 2016 election. But the special counsel left it to Congress to determine whether his efforts to curtail and mislead investigators, many of which are detailed in the report, amount to obstruction of justice.

One Republican, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, said in a statement that Mueller's determination that Trump did not conspire with Russian officials is “good news” in that a potential constitutional crisis can be avoided. But he also said he was “sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the president.”

(https://misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-AFP-Getty_Rep_4__2_1_A6574GAM.jpg) (https://misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-AFP-Getty_Rep_4__2_1_A6574GAM.jpg)
Jerrold Nadler, head of the House Judiciary Committee, said that “even the redacted version of the report outlines serious instances of wrong-doing.”
 — Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images.

Trump's legal team had prepared its own “counter report” responding to Mueller, but indicated on Friday that it no longer planned to release it. “At this point unnecessary,” Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani wrote in a text message.

According to two administration aides, Trump was pleased with Barr's news conference on Thursday, during which the attorney general repeatedly stated that Mueller's team found no “collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia, and said the evidence did not merit charging Trump with obstruction of justice.

But Barr's attempt to characterize the evidence as favorable to Trump at a news conference 90 minutes before he released the report to Congress or the public troubled Nadler and many Democrats.

In a radio interview on Friday, Nadler challenged Barr's claim that Mueller's decision not to make a recommendation on whether Trump obstructed justice was unrelated to a longstanding opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. Mueller wrote that the guidance was a major consideration.

“They stopped the investigation on obstruction at a certain point because [Mueller] didn't want to be in a position where he had so much damning material that he would have to indict, except he couldn't because of the policy,” Nadler said.

About 12% of the report released on Thursday was redacted. It largely corroborated two years of journalistic accounts of a White House beset by infighting under an executive with a penchant for lying to his staff and an expectation that they would lie for his benefit.

It is based on interviews with scores of current and former administration officials, all of whom are named in the report. Among the aides who provided Mueller with notes are McGahn, former staff secretary Rob Porter, former Chief of Staff John F. Kelly and former deputy national security advisor K.T. McFarland.

Mueller's finding that Trump instructed McGahn to fire Mueller in 2017, an order the attorney ultimately refused to carry out, is based on McGahn's own firsthand account.

In one exchange depicted in the report, Trump questioned McGahn about his note-taking.

“Why do you take notes? Lawyers don't take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes,” Trump reportedly said. McGahn responded that a “real lawyer” does.

Trump shot back that he'd had “a lot of great lawyers,” including Roy Cohn, who he argued “did not take notes.”

Cohn, who won notoriety as chief counsel for Senator Joseph McCarthy's communist-hunting committee in the 1950s, ultimately was disbarred for unethical practices.

The White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, was also on the defensive on Friday.

The report revealed that she admitted to investigators that she lied when she told reporters during a briefing in May 2017 that the White House had heard expressions of gratitude from “countless” FBI agents after Trump fired James B. Comey, the agency's director at the time.

Sanders told Mueller's team that her claim was a “slip of the tongue,” even though she repeated it several times to reporters in the days after Comey's firing.

Mueller determined that Trump fired Comey out of frustration that he wouldn't publicly defend the president and that he forced Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to draft a letter recommending Comey's firing to use as pretext.

On Friday, Sanders sought to retain credibility as the administration's top spokesperson, disputing Mueller's determination that her claim of hearing from countless FBI agents “was not founded on anything.”

“Actually, those were Mueller's words that they weren't founded on anything,” Sanders said on ABC's “Good Morning America”. “I said that it was in the heat of the moment, meaning it wasn't a scripted thing. It was something that I said and which is why that one word has become a big deal. But the big takeaway here is that the sentiment is 100% accurate.”


• Los Angeles Times staff writers Chris Megerian and Jennifer Haberkorn in Washington contributed to this report.

• Eli Stokols is a White House reporter based in the Los Angeles Times Washington, D.C., bureau. He is a veteran of Politico and The Wall Street Journal, where he covered the 2016 presidential campaign and then the Trump White House. A native of Irvine, Stokols grew up in a L.A. Times household and is thrilled to report for what is still his family's hometown paper. He is also a graduate of UC Berkeley and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=98d99432-3b40-455b-9e3a-db48d58e0a1f (https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=98d99432-3b40-455b-9e3a-db48d58e0a1f)
https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=e45a6b97-6a8e-48a8-be08-9d48c5a8483f (https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=e45a6b97-6a8e-48a8-be08-9d48c5a8483f)

from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times…

On obstruction, Mueller walked fine line

In not rendering judgment against Trump, special counsel focused on three areas of law.

By DAVID G. SAVAGE | Saturday, April 20, 2019

(https://misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-APphoto_Trump_Rus_2_1_565755D2.jpg) (https://misc.pagesuite.com/3630c326-c935-42f5-b0da-daebc36b7646/images/IMG_LA-APphoto_Trump_Rus_2_1_565755D2.jpg)
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was unable to clear President Trump of attempting to illegally interfere with the government's Russia investigation.
 — Photograph: Andrew Harnik/Associated Press.

WASHINGTON D.C. — The crime of “obstruction of justice” is familiar to many because it drove the impeachment proceedings of two presidents.

President Nixon resigned when he faced impeachment for obstructing justice by covering up the White House role in the break-in at the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee. And President Clinton was impeached in the House for allegedly lying and obstructing justice to hide his sexual relationship with a White House intern.

The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III lifted part of the cloud over President Trump by concluding his campaign had not conspired with Russians to tilt the 2016 election.

But Mueller said he was unable to clear Trump of attempting to illegally interfere with the government's Russia inquiry. Even so, the special counsel stopped short of charging Trump with obstruction of justice. His report offered at least three reasons for doing so.

First, Mueller said Justice Department policy forbids the “indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president.” Because Mueller was acting as a special prosecutor within the Justice Department, he said he had to follow this policy. This suggests Mueller believed that no matter what the evidence showed, he did not have the authority to charge the president with a crime.

“It is quite clear that Mueller did not make a final prosecution decision because of the [Justice] Department's policy that presidents cannot be criminally prosecuted,” said Noah Bookbinder, a former federal prosecutor and the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Second, unlike a case in which an official seeks to cover up a crime, “the evidence we obtained did not establish the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” Mueller's report said.

In theory, defendants can be charged with criminal obstruction of justice even when they have not committed the underlying crime. However, it would strike many as wrong-headed to charge Trump with obstructing the Russia inquiry after a lengthy investigation concluded he and his campaign had not conspired with Russians in the first place.

“If there had been an underlying crime, there would have been a much stronger case,” said Laurie L. Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “But there's no break-in at the Watergate Hotel that needed to be covered up.”

Third, Trump may have been spared further trouble because his top aides ignored him at key moments.

“The president's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful,” the report said, “but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out his orders or accede to his requests.”

Among other things, Mueller cited Trump's failed attempts to pressure Attorney General Jeff Sessions to curtail the probe and force White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller. Both men refused Trump's demands.

“What ends up saving him is that others in the White House did not follow through on his orders,” Levenson said. “This was not a clear-cut case of obstruction, but the report is not a clean bill of health, either.”

This mixed conclusion — outlining at times what Mueller calls “substantial evidence” of Trump's efforts to obstruct without making a recommendation on charges — made for a perplexing outcome and left legal experts divided.

The law against obstructing justice is quite broad, as the report notes. It is illegal to hide evidence, intimidate witnesses, lie to investigators or “endeavor to influence, obstruct or impede” a pending investigation.

For about half the nation, that appeared to be exactly what Trump had been doing since shortly after taking office.

But motives are also critical. The law requires obstruction of justice be linked to a “corrupt” intent, such as urging a witness to lie under oath to mislead the grand jury.

Attorney General William Barr — who controversially concluded that the president's actions as described by Mueller did not constitute illegal obstruction — insisted that Trump was merely trying to defend his reputation out of a “sincere belief” that he didn't conspire with Russia and therefore was being unfairly attacked.

But critics say Trump's actions — firing FBI Director James B. Comey, trying to fire Mueller, moving to limit the scope of the inquiry and pressuring intelligence officials to speak out in his defense — laid out a clear case of illegal obstruction for Congress, or for future prosecutors after Trump leaves office.

“The Mueller report lays out a vast body of evidence of obstructive conduct by the president,” Bookbinder said.

“This was a classic pattern of threats, firings and use of power to undermine an investigation. It is a danger if this is somehow normalized. It's now up to Congress to take it from here.”

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, disagrees, saying he did not see a clear case of obstruction of justice. He said Mueller portrayed the president as angry about being under investigation.

“In my view, the report reveals more obsession than obstruction,” Turley said. “Trump comes across as someone who is obsessed with the investigation and its impact on his presidency. He was angry that Comey would not say in public that he was not under investigation. Had he fired Mueller, they might have a case. But what you are left with here is that the president issued orders and no one listened.”


• David G. Savage has covered the Supreme Court and legal issues for the Los Angeles Times in the Washington D.C. bureau since 1986. He has covered the Senate confirmation hearings for all of the current justices. In addition to writing about the court's work, he has written on the legal battles that have raged in Washington. He joined the Los Angeles Times in 1981 and was an education writer on the Metro staff for five years. He has degrees from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Northwestern University.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=2d83c3e1-a3ee-4770-bbaf-50ae643a3271 (http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=2d83c3e1-a3ee-4770-bbaf-50ae643a3271)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyHzXWI6plM

First Trump claimed the Mueller report vindicated him as being not guilty of collusion and obstruction.

Now Trump is claiming the Mueller report is bullshit.

So if the Mueller report is bullshit, then how can it vindicate Trump being not guilty of collusion and obstrution, therefore he must be guilty.

Sometimes Trump's stupidity is the funniest thing on the planet.

I know one shouldn't laugh at dumb simpletons, but in Trump's case it doesn't matter because he is such a mental retard that one cannot but help laughing at him.

The Mueller Report: summarised in pictures…


(https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/iqGqmyglDdRoT_iHi3dUxQ328Ic=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/JSWSY2Y3KFBGNNKRNKTGGO2LXM.jpg) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/22/if-mueller-report-included-pictures)

 ;D

(https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4114/34904211264_f56f879910_b.jpg)

(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F0f%2F04%2Fe5%2F0f04e53c3d491a5dfb02b65ebc63c10b.jpg&f=1)

Yep ... the total & utter DESPERATION of the morally-bankrupt Trump-supporting brigade continues.

They are too mentally-retarded to refute FACTS, so they simply resort to abuse.

Trump-supporters are even dumber than the dogshit on the footpath down the road from my place.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5oJNw7UcAUdL1W.jpg) (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5oJNw7UcAUdL1W.jpg)

Duh no Russian collusion no obstruction so 2 years of Dem shit-stream media fake news

Trump wins again yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ;D

Barr can bullshit and cover up parts of the Mueller report all he likes.

Mueller will end up testifying to Congress and telling the TRUTH about what was in the report and which Barr covered up.

The Feds will be waiting with the handcuffs the instant the 46th president is sworn into office.

Trump knows it, and Nancy knows it. That's why she is advising her fellow Democrats against impeachment. Far better to simply lock up Trump when he is no longer Prez.

we keep hearing these stories and they keep on turning out to be total bullshit from the losers

Yeah, you just keep on believing your delusional shit.

When the handcuffs get slapped on Trump's wrists as soon as the 46th president is sworn into office, you'll be able to screw your eyes tightly shut, stick your fingers in your ears, and chant over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, “It's not happening!”

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6FCHPAWwAIX9Gl.jpg)[/ur]
 (https://twitter.com/MatttDavies/status/1126254082518335488)

(https://assets.infowars.com/2019/05/barr-tabb1-768x559.jpg)

(https://qanon.pub/data/media/55f970e2297b26994ec0d11119e16d9cfd85a5974d69e33ee443f610f465d22a.png)

THE FIRST BATTLE SQUADRON OF DREADNOUGHTS, 1910 — oil painting by A.B. Cull.

With the commissioning of HMS ST VINCENT on 3 May 1910, the First Division, Home Fleet, was complete. Composed now of 7 dreadnoughts, this was the first such all-dreadnought squadron in the world: Cull's painting therefore marks an important event in naval history and although three similar oil paintings by Cull are in the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich, this one, most unusually, has been in private ownership for at least half a century.

 In the foreground, leading the dreadnoughts of the First Division, Home Fleet and flying the cross of St George of the Commander-in-Chief Home Fleet, Admiral Sir William May GCVO KCB, is the ship who gave her name to this new breed of super battleship, HMS DREADNOUGHT (Captain H.W. Richmond RN). Astern of her are HMS BELLEROPHON (Captain H. Evan-Thomas MVO RN), HMS TEMERAIRE (Captain A.L. Duff RN) and HMS SUPERB (Captain F.C.T. Tudor RN) all of the Bellerophon Class. Next, and flying the flag of Rear Admiral Home Fleet, Rear Admiral F.C.D. Sturdee CVO CMG, is HMS ST VINCENT (Captain D.R.L. Nicholson RN) who is leading the other two ships of the St Vincent Class, HMS VANGUARD (Captain J.B. Eustace RN) and HMS COLLINGWOOD (Captain W.C. Pakenham CB MVO RN). Out on the starboard beam of the Commander-in-Chief is the world's first battle cruiser, then still known as an armoured cruiser, HMS INDOMITABLE (Captain C.M. de Bartolome RN) flying the flag of Rear Admiral Commanding First Cruiser Squadron, Rear Admiral the Hon Stanley Colville CVO CB. Back in the summer of 1908 INDOMITABLE had beaten INFLEXIBLE into commission by four months: so she and DREADNOUGHT were indeed the first of their respective types at sea anywhere in the world. Out to port of the battle Squadron and making white smoke is the 2nd Class protected cruiser HMS DIDO (Captain H.G.G. Sanderson RN) who was attached to the First Division. This was indeed a remarkable sight and the old lugger beating down between the lines can be excused for momentarily taking his eye off his course as he apprehensively looks at the approaching wall of steel — never before had such a powerful force of ships been gathered at sea.

Alma Burlton Cull was a contemporary of W.L. Wyllie, athough his pictures are much rarer as a large number of them were lost in an air raid in Portsmouth in 1940. He painted many and varied subjects, mostly with a maritime flavour, exhibited at the Royal Academy and was commissioned by HM King Edward VII to execute several paintings. He is widely accepted as being a marine artist second only in his day to Wyllie.


(https://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo227/Kiwithrottlejockey/Miscellaneous/7DreadnoughtBattleships_zpsqofkfc8a.jpg~original) (http://little-wonders220.blogspot.com/2013/05/dreadnoughts-first-battle-squadron-of.html)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7xGcdnVUAAfeMf.jpg) (https://twitter.com/davidhorsey/status/1133858679420121088)