The Nadler-Schiff Gallery Of Fine Art

Tony Branco

CNN panel laments failure of Dems to bring down Trump: ‘Certainly seems like Trump is winning’  . . .“ 'I agree with everything that you’re saying and I think it’s — the process is being driven by obviously political interests by wanting to please the base that are very animated, understandably, about Donald Trump and really want to see him go and really want to see him be held accountable,” she said.

“Nancy Pelosi, if she thought that this was going to work, I think she would support it. There is no question this is not a person who is a fan of Donald Trump and I think she feels the same way,” she added, referring to Democrats’ efforts to impeach Trump." . . .

Jerry Nadler is Going to Have a Meltdown When He Finds Out Mueller Requested Barr Limit His Testimony  . . . " But it was Mueller who requested the Department of Justice send the letter, not Attorney General Bill Barr." . . .

Ian Macfarlane

Bad day for Robert Mueller and Democrats

"Of course, Mueller’s lackluster testimony doesn’t change anything about Trump’s underlying conduct, which isn’t, in our view, criminal or impeachable, though it often was untoward and dishonest. With an election less than 18 months away, though, most people believe that the voters can render a verdict on the president one way or the other without Jerry Nadler’s attempting to do it for them. Robert Mueller’s testimony didn’t change that calculus, nor should it." National Review editors 

Rich Terrell

Bob Mueller’s Bad Day  . . . "Where does this leave us? If Democrats are going to impeach Trump, they will now have to do so without the hope of Mueller’s making their case for them — and with less hope then ever of rallying most of the public. As for the Republicans, they will understandably be even more motivated to learn more about the origins and the conduct of the investigation, given that Mueller performed more like a poorly briefed figurehead for a staff-driven operation rather than its leader."...

The Mueller Fizzle  . . . "It was always a mistake for Democrats to stake so much on Mueller, both by relying on his investigation to do the hard work of making the political case against Trump for them and by elevating him into an oracle who would pronounce authoritatively and unquestionably on the investigation." . . .

Media Meltdown Montage Over Mueller Mess "Following the bumbling congressional testimony of Mr. Mueller, the media was forced to admit what an epic disaster the special counsel's testimony truly was, and, naturally, it was compiled into a video montage with the song "Bad Day" playing over it, which can be viewed below. The video was posted by conservative Tim Young."   blob:Watch this video montage

Babylon Bee, the more trusted name in news than CNN even commented:  'I'm Still Sharp As A Tack,' Insists Mueller Moments Before Taking Phone Call On A Banana

. . . "Before testimony could resume, however, Mueller interrupted the proceedings, appearing to reach for his cell phone. "I really have to take this," he said apologetically as he reached into his pocket and pulled out a banana. "Yeah, go for Bob."

"Mueller proceeded to have what appeared to be a five-minute conversation on the fruit as bewildered congresspeople looked on. "Well, tell them I don't want to be there this Friday. Matlock's on, you know that. You know I don't go out when Matlock is on." He shrugged apologetically at those in the room, mouthing "sorry."

" 'Look, if the consulate has a problem with that, tell them they can call me themselves," he concluded, slamming the banana back down on the table.

"At publishing time, Mueller was seen giving clear, concise, lucid testimony to a soap dispenser in the restroom."

If California Democrat Ted Lieu wasn't mean, he wouldn't get mentioned, refuted, and repudiated so much.

Mueller issues clarification, takes back bombshell statement about indicting Trump 
. . . “ 'I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

"Mueller made it clear that he did not intend to support Lieu’s implication that Mueller would have indicted Trump if not for the OLC opinion. That would have meant that Mueller determined that Trump committed a crime, but could not do anything about it. What Mueller meant was that the OLC opinion kept him from even deciding if an indictment would be warranted in the first place." . . .

Remember this time when Lieu arrogantly tried to trash Candace Owens of Turning Point USA?  "But Owens soon made clear she felt Lieu had intentionally misrepresented her views to drive a false narrative not just against Owens, but also Trump and Republicans in general.  . . . "Turning to her 75-year old grandfather seated behind her, Owens remarked, “My grandfather grew up on a sharecropping farm in the segregated South. He grew up in an America where words like ‘racism’ and ‘white nationalism’ held real meaning.”

Mr. Lieu registered no emotion whatever as he looked Owens in the face during her remarks.

You can't help almost feeling bad for Robert Mueller

Remember that word "gravitas"? Well, it's in here.

American Thinker  . . . "If Mueller's main purpose in accepting the position of special counsel was to provide the appearance of integrity, fairness, impartiality, and gravitas, he bludgeoned those concepts by allowing Andrew Weissmann, a mendacious and highly partisan former prosecutor, to select a staff of Clinton donors, defenders, and supporters to conduct the investigation.

"If Mueller was more of a figurehead than leader of an investigation conducted by rabidly partisan Democrats, then it is clearer than ever that there was no evidence linking Donald Trump or his presidential campaign to corruption or collusion with Russian interests.  Indeed, it is surprising that Trump, with his flamboyant lifestyle, business manipulations, and ethical lapses not only wasn't indicted, but was given near exoneration on complicity with Russia.  It must have greatly pained the investigators to admit their lack of evidence.

"The big losers in the special counsel investigation and in yesterday's congressional hearings were Democrats; the anti-Trump media; and, perhaps most of all, the formerly respected Robert Mueller.  I almost feel sympathy for him."

Washington Post: A weary old man with a warning  . . . "Would America pay attention to Mueller? This question was also outside his purview. But when asked by Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) if the Trump campaign had normalized an openness to foreign interference in American elections, Mueller spoke directly into the microphone.
“ 'I hope this is not the new normal,” he said, “but I fear it is.' ”

Mueller’s serial senior moments revealed he was a front-man for Trump-haters

. . . "Under the Mueller brand, dodgy prosecutor Andrew Weissmann could work with his Trump-hating cabal of Hillary supporters, Mueller’s right-hand man Aaron Zebly there to keep an eye on things for him. Wrapped in a Mueller’s cloak of prestige and legitimacy, the cabal could take down a president, they thought." . . .

Today, Impeachment Died Another Death. . . "But here is the way things are: There is no wave of public support for impeachment, and this hearing isn’t going to create one. In hyper-polarized times, I find myself agreeing with Nancy Pelosi. “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path,” Pelosi has said. And she’s right.

"Or, if you prefer the words of Alexander Hamilton from Federalist No. 65, impeachment will “connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” It will “seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community.' ” By David French, a never-Trumpist.

Discussing the Mueller Hearings of today

What this contemptible Democrat party wanted to do to Justice Kavanaugh and President Trump they did to the reputation of Robert Mueller instead.  Let's see how the late-night talkweasels handle this. TD

Jeffrey Lord: Mueller: An Unmitigated Disaster  . . . "The nation watches a confused, halting Robert Mueller in what will be the saddest moment in an otherwise stellar career. But without question, this Mueller performance clearly illustrated one very important reality.
"There is no way in the world the confused, uncertain man testifying today actually ran the investigation he was charged with running. Mueller even had Members saying “over here” to let him know the physical location of his questioner of the moment. At times his aides seated behind him had to point him to his questioner, Mueller’s face a mask of confusion." . . .
. . . "So the reality of the Mueller investigation is now laid bare. This investigation was run by his staff of Trump-hating zealots, led by Andrew Weissmann. The same Weissmann the New York Times described as “Mueller’s Legal Pit Bull.' ” . . .

Guy Benson: Bottom Lines: As America Yawned, Mueller's Testimony Damaged Him, Made Impeachment Less Likely  . . . "I suspect that Chairman Nadler secretly knows that he would have been better off never holding the hearing in the first place, and letting this remain as Mueller's last word." . . .
. . . "Ironically, both the president and the House Speaker may be smiling today, as both oppose impeachment, albeit for different reasons."

Exchange between Rep. Steve Chabot and Robert Mueller raised eyebrows 

UK Daily Mail: PIERS MORGAN: Shambolic Mueller’s train wreck testimony has left his reputation trashed, the dumbstruck Democrats dead as dodos and President Trump laughing all the way to a second term
I'd rather stay pessimistic; pessimists are never disappointed. TD

Rep. Mike Turner: “Where’s the office of exoneration?” I loved this question: 
Wait for it...Who has the power to exonerate?

Andrew C. McCarthy: With Collusion Collapse, Public Loses Interest in Mueller Theatrics  . . . "Once Mueller concluded that there was no “collusion” scheme, however, public interest ebbed. After finally being told that the narrative of a traitorous president in a corrupt pact with a hostile foreign power was just a political narrative, Americans were not inclined to hop aboard the Democrats’ new and improved obstruction narrative.
"This is not to say the conduct outlined in the obstruction volume of Mueller’s report is admirable. Some of it is disturbing. It is understandable that Democrats would want the public to focus on it. But it does not rise to the level of a prosecutable obstruction case and it did not, in any event, present to the slightest impediment to Mueller’s completion of the investigation — with which the president cooperated extensively, for all his ranting and raving about a “witch hunt.' ” . . .

Mueller Has A Reputation

Crickets From The Left

Ann Coulter "It is apparently part of Robert Mueller's contract with the media that he must always be described as "honorable" and a "lifelong Republican." (After this week, we can add "dazed and confused" to his appellation.) 

"If it matters that Mueller is a "lifelong Republican," then I guess it matters that he hired a team of left-wing zealots. Of the 17 lawyers in Mueller's office, 14 are registered Democrats. Not one is a registered Republican. In total, they have donated more than $60,000 to Democratic candidates. 

"Congressman Steve Chabot listed the Democratic political activism of nine of Mueller's staff attorneys at a December 2017 House hearing. 

"Here are a few from Chabot's list: 

-- Kyle Freeny contributed to both Obama campaigns and to Hillary Clinton's campaign. 
-- Andrew Goldstein donated $3,300 to both Obama campaigns. 
-- Elizabeth Prelogar contributed to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns. 
-- Jeannie Rhee donated $16,000 to Democrats, contributed $5,400 to the Clinton campaign -- and represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in several lawsuits. 
-- Andrew Weissmann contributed $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee, $2,300 to the Obama campaign and $2,300 to the Clinton Campaign. 

"None had donated to the Trump campaign. 

"The media brushed off the conspicuous anti-Trump bias in Mueller's office with platitudes about how prosecutors are, "allowed to have political opinions," as Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assured the public that their "views are not in any way a factor in how they conduct themselves in office." 

"Obviously, no one believes this -- otherwise "lifelong Republican" wouldn't be spot-welded to Mueller's name. 

"In a fiery rebuke at the hearings this week, Mueller denounced complaints about all the diehard Democrats on his legal team, saying, "I've been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done.' " . . .

Google Engineer: Google News, Sourced From CNN, Search Results Are Intentionally Biased Against Trump

Tony Branco

PJ Media "In an explosive video released by Project Veritas Wednesday morning, Google software engineer Greg Coppola blew the whistle on Google News, explaining how it is biased against President Donald Trump. This confirms the results of an unscientific test on Google News bias run by PJ Media editor Paula Bolyard last year (tweeted out by Trump himself), and a more scientific study also suggesting bias. The Google News slant is not a conspiracy theory, though Google of course denies manipulating results. After all, Google employees heavily favor Democrats in their political donations.

" 'Google News is really an aggregator of just a handful of sites and all of those sites really are vitriolically against President Trump, which I would really consider to be interference in the American election," Coppola tells Project Veritas's James O'Keefe in the video. "Like for example, CNN is the most commonly used source in Google News: 20 percent of all results for Donald Trump are from CNN, when that’s the entire internet of millions of sites."

" 'CNN is something that Donald Trump and his supporters would call 'really fake news,'" the software engineer rightly noted. He was not necessarily endorsing the accusation, and even Trump supporters who rightly attack CNN for its bias should acknowledge that its news is often based in fact, but embellished or twisted.

" 'I think it’s ridiculous to say that there’s no bias. I think everyone who supports anything other than the Democrats — anyone who’s pro-Trump or in any way deviates from what CNN and The New York Times are pushing — notices how bad it is," Coppola says.

Mueller's turn in the Democrat-led star chamber

Robert Mueller soon may be exposed as the 'magician of omission' on Russia

Giuliani: Anything new during Mueller's testimony would be 'highly questionable'
. . . “I can’t imagine he’s going to say anything that we don’t know,” Giuliani said during an interview that aired Monday. “If he does, it would be highly questionable — how come you’re saying it now and you didn’t say it in the report.” . . .Video

‘This is Painful’: Pundits Question Mueller’s ‘Frail’ Performance at Hearing
. . . "Napolitano agreed he didn’t seem as sharp as he has in previous hearings. Other pundits and political observers have expressed similar thoughts:" . . .

Terrell Aftermath

Alan Dershowitz: If the Special Counsel Decides Not to Indict, 'Then Shut Up'

. . . "He said the entire controversy shows why special counsels should never be appointed again.

" 'This creates such a terrible precedent," Dershowitz said:

What it means is that for every American who is subject to a criminal investigation and the prosecutor decides not to indict, then they can be called in front of Congress and say, 'Well, you didn't indict him but tell us how bad he really is. Tell us how many terrible things he did. Tell us all the things that you were told that maybe you didn't believe.'

 Robert Mueller ended the obstruction question in the first 30 minutes of the hearing

. . . "Democrats have all but dropped any hope of finding a conspiracy between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russia, perhaps because Mueller’s report definitively stated that it found none, so their fever dreams rest on the assertion that Trump, at least in his heart, wanted to obstruct and stop the special counsel’s investigation.  "Well, now they have their answer, for the 100th time."

Pictured: MSNBC and CNN confer with Democrats on the Judiciary committee: 

How thugs get away with dumping water on NYPD cops

What this all boils down to is a case of misfocused justice.  Rather than target the hoodlums for committing crimes, NYC's mayor is determined to target police for how they treat perpetrators and suspects. 

Joseph Imperatrice, an NYPD sergeant and founder of Blue Lives Matter NYC, told Fox News that the incidents made him "sick to my stomach" and that "this is how cops get killed."

American Thinker  "Although I have witnessed firsthand the precipitous decline in the quality of life in the Big Apple (please see here, and trust me: it has only gotten worse), even I was shocked to see footage of uniformed New York City policemen beingdrenched with water and attacked with flying objects by laughing and jeering residents of Harlem.  Although many have attempted to explain the causes of this utterly outrageous and disgraceful scenario, noting the atmosphere of disrespect for police and the damaged police morale, courtesy of New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, one glaring factor has been absent from the conversation.  In fact, the concluding section of the Harlem video footage demands further explanation, as we view policemen actively ignoring the repeated dousing of water all over them, as they slowly walk soaking wet to their patrol car, heads down, as if they are not allowed to react to the grave offenses committed against them.

"Remove "as if" in the above sentence, and you have the answer.

"Not only have de Blasio and his City Council decriminalized a serious selection of quality of life violations in New York City, but de Blasio has instructed police to call off drug raids, not to arrest for low-level crimes in schools, and not to arrest narcotics suspects below age 40 or subway fare evaders — while hooligans who brutally attack NYC police are not even charged (!).  Please also see here and here; it is gruesome." . . .

. . . 

"Aside from de Blasio setting the city back decades, lowering the heightened quality of life and feeling of safety that was achieved in the Giuliani and Bloomberg years, his twisted value system hearkens back to the incident of Bernard Goetz, who in 1984 shot four hooligans on a New York City subway as they were about to mug and assault him.  Rather than focus on the actions of the criminals, the city placed Goetz in its crosshairs, charging him with the commission of all sorts of felonies.  Who should be the focus of the criminal justice system — the criminals or those who must deter them?"

Georgia Lawmaker RECANTS 'Go Back Where You Came From' CLAIM

Socio-Political Journal
"Tired of Hysterical Claims of Racism By African/American, Hispanic/American Lawmakers and Other Minorities.  We are just beginning to see who the Real Racists are... " ...tmiraldi

"A Georgia state lawmaker has walked back a significant part of her viral claim that a white man told her to "go back where you came from" during a testy argument in a supermarket checkout lane, after the man denied the encounter unfolded the way she described.
"The episode, hot on the heels of a national controversy over President Trump's remarks directed at four progressive Democrats, quickly made the rounds on social media.
"Multiple news organizations on Sunday portrayed the episode as a plausible instance of racism, though the lawmaker already had tried to clarify her accusations."

Video posted by Erica Thomas contains profanity

. . .  He said, 'go back,' you know, those types of words," Thomas said on Saturday. "I don't wanna say he said 'go back to your country,' or 'go back to where you came from,' but he was making those types of references, is what I remember."
"So, you don't remember exactly what he said?" a reporter pressed. 
 "Thomas answered: "No, no, definitely not. But I know it was 'go back,' because I know I told him to 'go back.'"
. . . 
"Sparkes has forcefully denied making the racially charged comment, and in a dramatic moment, showed up in the middle of a television news interview featuring Thomas outside the Atlanta-area Publix store where the initial confrontation had unfolded."

Erica Thomas Police Report Released: No Criminal Charges, She Told Him to "Go Back"  . . . "In other words, the footage shows that the Democratic lawmaker was the one with the aggressive, bullying body language. The supposed aggressor, on the other hand, appeared perfectly calm and even stepped back when the supposed victim approached him in what can be called an aggressive manner.

In fact, from the looks of it, Thomas did to Sparkes that which she accused him of doing to her.

"That's confirmed by an eye-witness report:" . . .

The Other Case against Reparations

National Review

They wouldn’t work. And they would go on forever.

"Reparations are an ethical disaster. Proceeding from a doctrine of collective guilt, they are the penalty for slavery and Jim Crow, sins of which few living Americans stand accused. An offense against common sense as well as morality, reparations would take from Bubba and give to Barack, never mind if the former is an insolvent methamphetamine addict or the latter a dweller in near-pharaonic splendor. That reparations are a hopeless cause, supported by only a quarter of Americans, makes them more of an affront to reason rather than less, for it illustrates the enthusiasm with which Democratic politicians will bang their heads against the wall in an attempt to purchase votes.

"Even in pragmatic terms, reparations fail. As Michael Tanner argued on NRO last month, the real-world difficulties that would attend such payments “are obvious enough to suggest that the sudden support for reparations amounts to little more than pandering.” These difficulties are so extraordinarily compelling that one wonders how the call for reparations retains any support at all. Since the money used to pay for them would have to be raised alongside “the taxes needed to finance [Democrats’] grandiose spending plans,” reparations would “totally wreck the economy,” sentencing Americans of all races to a future of “higher unemployment, slower wage growth, and less entrepreneurship.” Because potential awardees would have to prove their eligibility in some manner, reparations would “be an invitation to perpetual litigation” and would subject America to the spectacle of government officials deciding who counts as black. (Rachel Dolezal, your moment has come.)" . . .
. . . 
"To believe that it can, one has to believe that the political apparatus currently pursuing reparations would simply cease to exist upon their being awarded. That no further expiation of the nation’s sins would be necessary. For the Left, however, reparations are merely the icing on the existing cake of admissions preferences, minority-contracting requirements, and an eternally expanding welfare state. Ask a progressive if the $97 trillion would make unnecessary any further gestures in the direction of affirmative action, and he will laugh nervously and pretend not to understand the question. If you’re lucky, that is. These days, he might very well call forth a Twitter mob to smite you."
Emphasis added by TD

Biden: 'I Got 150,000 Troops Out of Iraq.' WaPo Fact-Checker: 'Um, no.'

Stephen Green

"Two Pinocchios. That's what Washington Post fact-checker Salvador Rizzo figured Joe Biden's claim was worth, that the former Veep was personally "responsible" for getting 150,000 combat troops out of Iraq." . . .

. . . "But that's not what happened.

"In 2008, President Bush had made a temporary Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, "with the expectation that the next president would seek an extension that after 2011 would leave in place 40,000 service members for training and logistics." But Obama more or less sabotaged the negotiations on the follow-up agreement. Obama allowed the talks to stall on the single issue of legal immunity for U.S. troops in Iraq, claiming that "there was no support in the Iraqi parliament for that." Immunity is boilerplate stuff, standard issue for our troops in Europe, Korea, Japan, etc, but the Obama Administration refused to press it. In fact, immunity could have been made part of an executive codicil not subject to the whims of the Iraqi parliament.

"But Obama wanted out before his reelection campaign, and sabotaging the Status of Forces Agreement was a underhanded way to get just that. Biden however, Rizzo reports, was "apparently was one of the officials arguing to keep troops in Iraq," but eventually came along to Obama's position." . . .