Christmas for the Democrats: Socks and Underwear

Millions Of Hopeful Children Left Profoundly Disillusioned By The Golden Promises Of Muellermas

Earl of Taint

A Review of the Barr “Principal Conclusion” Notification, Overlaying Three Years of Background Research…   [The Conservative Tree House] is going to break down the AG Barr Principal Conclusion notification letter against more than three years of background research.  Yes, more than “three years“, is the correct time-frame here.  The origin of the DOJ/FBI operation against Donald Trump goes back to 2015; the Mueller probe was a 2017 concluding chapter in the seditious conspiracy effort.

"I’m going to cite as much background as possible; however, this review encompasses so much granular history that some parts might be too complex for a person who only recently jumped into the story.  Disclaimer: this outline does not fit the narrative from those who claim Mueller and Rosenstein are honorable men.  They ain’t.

"The first part that matters is a few paragraphs into the letter.  Here we find the scale of the investigative group, and a description of some of the investigative paths they traveled:" . . .

Sheila Jackson Lee refuses to accept Mueller finding  . . . "She just couldn’t do it, couldn’t give a straight answer. Watch, in a tweet from RNC Research:" . . .
MSNBC's Joy Reid hoped for an anti-Trump conclusion

BAM: Tucker Runs Down a List of Democratic Party Shills Who 'Lied' When They Pushed Collusion Theory  "During his Friday night show, Fox News' Tucker Carlson took viewers on a trip down memory lane. He played various clips from Congressmen, former CIA directors and talking heads that claimed President Donald Trump and others would be indicted for alleged collusion with Russia." . . .

Brit Hume in 2012 referred to Trump as "zany; so don't count out this crop of Democrat characters

Beto on his road trip

O'Rourke's 'Medicare for America' plan just another government takeover of health care  "Presidential candidate [Bobby] O'Rourke is proposing an alternative to the socialist "Medicare for all" plan being pushed by Bernie Sanders and several other major candidates. He's calling it "Medicare for America" - a stealthy attempt to eventually bring about full government control of the health care industry." . . .
. . . "In reality, even O'Rourke admits his plan gets us to total government control eventually.

"It's the boiling frog scenario where we, the health care consumer, are the frogs. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain taking over your health care." Meanwhile, bureaucrats will look to sabotage the private insurance industry, making sure that "Medicare for America" morphs quickly into "Medicare for all' ".

By golly, Beto could be the guy in this movie!

Dems Go Third Party  "I’ve long been forecasting that the Democratic Party was headed for a replay of its last big crackup, when it nominated George McGovern for president in 1968, and he carried only one state. So far, the Dems’ big field of candidates makes me think something slightly different:
"I still think the Dems are headed for a debacle, but it seems to me that the party has already splintered.  The candidates attracting the most attention look to me like third-party candidates, the sort who run against “mainstream” politicians only to vanish from sight and memory. The difference is that, this time, one of these characters may well win the nomination." . . .

We got a foretaste of this third-partyism during the Obama years, from the error-drenched global pronouncement in Cairo to the quest for a strategic alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran.  The new candidates invent history as it suits their mood, and many of them want to defend tyrants like Maduro and Khamenei.

. . .

Please allow this digression: "SPECIAL TO ADAM SCHIFF: You represent Los Angeles, where people are defecating in the streets and living in tents. Why don't you try to do something about that instead of lying every day about Donald Trump?" Roger L. Simon — co-founder and CEO emeritus of PJ Media 

The state of American media; 78 Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: The Definitive List

The American Media Destroyed Themselves over the Mueller Investigation

"With only a few exceptions — Fox News, the editorial pages (not the front pages) of the Wall Street Journal, and a handful of websites — the better part of the American media has spent the last two years fulminating about Trump-Russia collusion we now know never existed.

"Actually, we always knew that, but finally, it's official. It was always a bunch of — excuse the expression — trumped up baloney that made no sense except to those who wished so deeply to believe it was true.

"Which makes the people who were doing that fulminating — media, politicians and (usually retired) intelligence figures, who were, as is becoming increasingly clear, betraying the American Constitutional system with impunity — sick and evil.

"That may sound extreme, but it's the all-too-obvious truth. What they did is unforgivable, particularly since few, if any of them, will have the honesty or basic morals to apologize.  Some, however, may go to jail." . . Keep reading, or millions could DIE!

Sharyl Attkisson

"We the media have “fact-checked” President Trump like we have fact-checked no other human being on the planet—and he’s certainly given us plenty to write about. That’s probably why it’s so easy to find lists enumerating and examining his mistakes, missteps and “lies.”

But as self-appointed arbiters of truth, we’ve largely excused our own unprecedented string of fact-challenged reporting. The truth is, formerly well-respected, top news organizations are making repeat, unforced errors in numbers that were unheard of just a couple of years ago.

"Our repeat mistakes involve declaring that Trump’s claims are “lies” when they are matters of opinion, or when the truth between conflicting sources is unknowable; taking Trump’s statements and events out of context; reporting secondhand accounts against Trump without attribution as if they’re established fact; relying on untruthful, conflicted sources; and presenting reporter opinions in news stories—without labeling them as opinions."

. . . 

"What’s worse, we defend ourselves by trying to convince the public that our mistakes are actually a virtue because we (sometimes) correct them. Or we blame Trump for why we’re getting so much wrong. It’s a little bit like a police officer taking someone to jail for DUI, then driving home drunk himself: he may be correct to arrest the suspect, but he should certainly know better than to commit the same violation.

"So since nobody else has compiled an updated, extensive list of this kind, here are:" . . .

78 Notable Mistakes and Missteps in Major Media Reporting on Donald Trump
. . . 

Schadenfreude: Watch Democrats, Media Predict Trump's Impeachment for Collusion  . . . "In a very big way, the crow-eating by Democrats, liberal pundits, and various loony lefties was entirely predictable. Trump was a "Russian agent," went one prominent storyline. He conspired with Putin to steal the election. He's a crook and is going to jail. He violated campaign finance laws and will be thrown into the hoosegow.
"For two years, the hysteria has built to unbearable levels. But one thing was certain; whatever Mueller had, it would be enough to impeach the president.
"Watch as these Democrats confidently predict Trump's downfall. Wouldn't you love to have seen their faces yesterday?" . . .

Dark Angel Politics

J. Marsolo Declares, No Collusion, No Obstruction

Rich Terrell, one of the sane Californians

American Thinker  "Attorney General Barr has summarized Robert Mueller’s report: no collusion, collaboration, conspiracy, or whatever term the Hate Trump media chooses to use, between Russia and the Trump campaign.  We knew this before Mueller wasted 40 million dollars. But Mueller threw a desperate bone to the media and to the Nadler/ Schiff Democrats.

"Mueller refused to conclude as to whether Trump obstructed justice.  This was a cowardly act to allow the Dems and the media to say, as they are saying, that Mueller did not exonerate Trump on the obstruction charge. Trump, like every American, is presumed innocent unless convicted.  He does not need Mueller’s Obama-Hillary lawyers to “exonerate” him.

"Presumably the obstruction of justice is firing James Comey, also known as “St. James.”  There is no evidence that the multitude of investigations of President Trump were affected in any way by firing Comey.  In fact, the investigations were more rigorous because Trump fired Comey.

"The Democrats, led by Crooked Hillary, wanted Comey fired after he reopened the investigation of Hillary in October, 2016.  But when Trump fired Comey... that was soemthinge lse again. 

"Mueller and his staff of 19 attorneys knew that if they did not reach a conclusion on the obstruction of justice allegation to exonerate President Trump,  then the attorney general would have to do so. Give AG Barr and Rod Rosenstein credit for stepping up to do their job that Mueller refused to do.

"AG Barr’s letter reads:"   ...Read on...

Vox Symposium on Attorney General Barr's Summary of the Mueller Report 
"Fifteen legal scholars weigh in, including the VC's own Keith Whittington, and myself."
Via The Volokh Conspiracy, reposted from Reason.

Vox said to be "left-biased"  . . . "In review, Vox looks at the issues from a progressive liberal perspective and there is also an anti-Trump tone in their reporting. Therefore, the majority of stories are pro-left and anti-right. Further, Vox publishes stories with emotionally loaded headlines such as “Are Democrats brave enough to run a woman against Donald Trump?” and “The most depressing energy chart of the year- Coal has got to go” When it comes to sourcing, Vox typically utilizes credible sources such as the NY Times, Associated Press, and Bloomberg. A factual search reveals they have never failed a fact check.

"Overall, we rate Vox Left Biased due to wording and story selection that favors the left and highly factual based on proper sourcing. (5/15/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 6/16/2018)"
Vox rated here on this media bias chart:

Source:  Media Bias Fact Check

Election Integrity and the Electoral College; One underappreciated benefit of voting by states.

Volokh Conspiracy  "With the Electoral College still in the news, I thought I'd note one small argument for keeping it that I haven't seen much elsewhere. (Though I'm quite sure it isn't original to me.)

"As Ross Douthat suggests, the stakes in the electoral college debate may be smaller than we think. Today's institution may not have the deliberative advantages the Founders hoped for, but it also may not produce quite as many democratic costs as critics fear. (Cf. Lyman Stone's argument that the U.S. electoral system actually has less structural bias than those of peer countries.)

"Ross's claim is that a state-by-state vote in the electoral college encourages broad electoral coalitions, as opposed to regional parties chasing 51% majorities. With the country so polarized, he writes, both parties are chasing 51% anyway—so maybe all the electoral college does is to delegitimize the occasional winner.

"My suspicion, though, is that it's precisely in these circumstances—with high degrees of polarization and partisan distrust—that the electoral college does the most for election integrity.

"In a nationwide popular vote, every false vote that's cast anywhere in the country adds to the vote total in exactly the same way. For the same reason, every true vote that's suppressed anywhere in the country will subtract equally from an opponent's numbers. (Thus the concerns about nationwide recounts: as Keith noted, "we might need to be prepared to deal with the new incentive to shade the vote count in every county in the Union.")

"A world of highly polarized states makes the problem even worse. In a deep-red or deep-blue state, where one party occupies the vast majority of state offices, there'd be means, motive, and opportunity for serious fraud. The whole nation would be at stake, and fewer people would be in positions of power to discover or punish any shenanigans. And if you think your political opponents might be rigging a national election somewhere halfway across the country, well, you're just a sucker if you don't beat them to it.

"By contrast, in a districted system like the electoral college, widespread election fraud in Alabama or Massachusetts would be entirely pointless. " . . .

The media profession takes a hit to its reputation

Ann Althouse: How any good news for Trump will be reported — the rule is quite clear.  "I'm seeing 2 big examples of how the media are reporting good news for Trump this weekend. It's really embarrassing for them because the 2 stories are very big and very good for Trump and, in both, the same move is made to turn it into something negative and ominous." . . .
From the NYT: "1. The Mueller investigation has concluded, and though we can't read it yet, we know that it means that there will be no charges against Trump or any of his people that have to do with colluding with Russians to affect the election. " . . .
. . . "It all but ensures that a legal threat will continue to loom over the Trump presidency."
"2. Under Trump, the Islamic State has been ousted entirely from the territory it had taken over. This is a distinct, satisfying military victory in what has been a long and difficult war. It is the second story on the NYT front page right now, where it looks like this: . . .
"Its Territory May Be Gone, but the U.S. Fight Against ISIS Is Far From Over"
. . . "So watch for it. The rule is: When something good for Trump happens, find the nearest bad thing and make that the focus of the news report." . . .

Lara Logan’s Response To Mueller Report Is An Indictment Of American Media
"Journalist Lara Logan said Saturday that the response to the Mueller report was striking because of what was not happening: there were no blaring headlines boldly proclaiming the vindication of President Donald Trump."
. . . “ 'As a journalist, I find it disappointing that people will create one impression with their reporting, correct it later and then claim that they have been honest and objective,” Logan concluded." . . .

Tony Branco

Forget "Forty-five", impeach Maxine waters!

Maxine Waters is a prime example of how power corrupts. The woman has been in office for nearly three decades and her reputation as a Congresswoman is abysmal. Waters’ situation is bigger than Democrats vs. Republicans. It speaks to a system which allows the elites to get away with scandals, corruption, and dishonesty. There must be serious changes put in place if we are to ever evolve as a nation.  Gabrielle Seunagal, 2017

Maxine Waters Named Most Corrupt Member of Congress 4 Times & Passed Just 3 Bills.  "Maxine Waters was elected to Congress in the year of 1990. During her time in Congress, her family has made over a million dollars in revenue from Waters’ government connections. Throughout Waters’ 27 years in Congress, she only managed to pass three bills: a Haiti relief bill, the renaming of a post office, and a modification of the national flood insurance program. Additionally, Waters failed to gain much popularity in Congress. Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington labeled her as the most corrupt member in Congress during the years of 2005, 2006, 2009, and 2011."

Indicted: Democrat Maxine Waters Indicted On 3 Counts Of Violating Federal Ethics Codes & Congressional Rules  . . . "The panel said Waters, who sits on the Financial Services Committee, broke a House rule requiring members to behave in a way that reflects “creditably” on the chamber. The committee said that by trying to assist OneUnited, she stood to benefit directly, because her husband owned a sizable amount of stock that would have been “worthless” if the bank failed." . . .

Fact check:  No. The California Democrat was investigated for ethics violations following a 2008 meeting, but she was found to have broken no rules. 

. . . "The investigation of potential ethical violations concluded that Waters did not violate any rules or laws, because she didn’t know that OneUnited would figure so prominently in the meeting that she arranged.

“Representative Waters reasonably believed she was arranging the Treasury meeting on behalf of a broad class of minority banks, and that in doing so she did not violate any House rule, law, regulation, or other applicable standard of conduct,” the final report said.

"The committee did, however, issue a letter of reproval to Waters’ chief of staff, Mikael Moore, for his role in facilitating help for OneUnited. Moore is also her grandson.

"When the recent story mentioning the investigation showed up on Facebook, users of the social media site flagged it as potentially false.

"It’s true that there was an investigation, but the story is misleading since it never discloses that the investigation concluded with a finding that Waters didn’t violate any rules." . . .

Judicial Watch: House Ethics Comm. Clears Another Corrupt Lawmaker

First JW discusses the above issue, then moves on to the following: 

In the 1980s Waters accused the CIA of selling crack cocaine to blacks in her south central Los Angeles district to raise millions of dollars to support clandestine operations in Latin America, including a guerrilla army. During the infamous 1992 Los Angeles riots she repeatedly excused the violent behavior that destroyed the areas she represents in the House. She dismissed the severe beating of a white truck driver by saying the anger in her district was righteous. She also excused looters who stole form stores by saying they were simply mothers capitalizing on an opportunity to take some milk, bread and shoes.

In the 1990s Waters convinced Cuba’s communist dictator to harbor cop-murdering Black Panther fugitive Joanne Chesimard, who is also known by her Black Panther name of Assata Shakur. In 1979 Chesimard killed a New Jersey State trooper and a jury convicted her of murder and sentenced her to life in prison. In a daring breakout with the help of fellow cult members, Chesimard escaped from prison and fled to Cuba. U.S. lawmakers insisted she be extradited but Waters always stood by her side, even likening her to civil rights leader Martin Luther King.

More recently, Waters threatened to nationalize the oil industry and she was embroiled in a fundraising scandal for skirting federal election rules with a shady gimmick that allows unlimited donations from certain contributors. Instead of raising most of her campaign funds from individuals or political action committees, Waters sells her endorsement to other politicians and political causes for as much as $45,000 a pop.  

Maxine Waters Attended Nation Of Islam Convention Where Farrakhan Defended Suicide Bombers . . . "Farrakhan is a notorious anti-Semite who has called Jews “Satanic” and said that white people “deserve to die.” The Nation of Islam holds that white people are inherently inferior to black people and its leaders have criticized inter-racial marriage as unholy and wrong. (No report yet on Water's reaction to Farrakhan's insult of Jews and gays)  

"Waters’ office did not return repeated requests for comment. An interview request submitted to the Nation of Islam was not returned.

"Waters’ appearance at the Nation of Islam convention is just the latest tie to emerge between the hate group and Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)."