Post by The Peeler
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 05:59:07 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Professeur de merde, Shimon
Well, YES, you ARE a VERY VERY sick asshole, gay pedophilic Razovic!
Indeed the mangina is.
Now here is Jack Marshall writing about the Mueller investigation.
Robert Mueller’s Disastrous Testimony And Its Significance, Part One
JULY 25, 2019 / JACK MARSHALL
A transcript of the testimony is here.
The amazing thing is that the Democrats held the hearings at all. Mueller,
as a matter of legal ethics and client confidentiality, was severely limited
regarding what he could say beyond what was already in his investigation’s
report. Desperate to gain some public relations traction in their endless,
nation-rending determination to end a legal and duly elected Presidency
without the inconvenience of an election, one can only surmise that Mueller’s
ethically problematical press conference led them astray, and not only
astray, but into a disaster of their own making.
The first hint that something was amiss was Mueller’s request that an aide
sit by him and assist in his testimony. That was not only unusual but
ominous, and the Republicans on the committee quickly rejected it. Once
Mueller started answering questions, it was painfully clear why this request
had been made. He looked disoriented and confused. The 75-year-old Justice
Department veteran had to ask committee members to repeat their questions
repeatedly, as if he was having difficulty focusing. He often did not know
whether the representatives were asking him questions or if they were
reading from his own report. In the first 90 minutes of the hearing,
Mueller asked for clarification of questions more than 10 times. Under
questioning from Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), Mueller asked: “And
where are you reading from on that?” “I’m reading from my own question” was
the answer. “Then can you repeat it?” Mueller asked. The audience laughed.
By the end, the audience had stopped laughing. As Obama strategist David
Axelrod tweeted, the performance was “painful” to watch. Mueller asked Rep.
Sheila Jackson Lee to restate her question three times. Rep. Matt Gaetz
(R-Fla.) asked the 14 word question, “Attorney #2 in the Inspector General’s
report and Strzok both worked on your team, didn’t they?” and Mueller
appeared to be confused by it.“Pardon me?” Mueller replied. After Gaetz
restated his question, Mueller replied: “And the question was?” Asked by
Head Trump-hunter Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) to explain what
his investigation found “in plain terms,” Mueller answered: “Well, the
finding indicates that the president, uh, was not, uh, the president was not
exculping, uh, exculpated, uh, for the acts that he allegedly committed.”
Ah! Well thank you, sir, that explains everything! Nadler looked as if he
wanted to start banging his head on the table.
This was the same alleged super-lawyer, remember, that Senate Minority
Leader Chuck Schumer called “exactly the right kind of individual for this
job,” when he was appointed special counsel in 2017. For more than two
years, the news media repeated the mantra that Mueller was an icon within
the law enforcement establishment, master prosecutor, a trustworthy, dogged
pursuer of the truth wherever it might lead, the ultimate professional, and
best of all, a Republican, so there would be no partisan bias.
So how was it that this ultimate professional came into a Congressional
hearing completely unprepared to answer questions about the report that bore
his name? For example, when he was asked if any senior White House official
refused to be interviewed by himself or special counsel attorneys, Mueller
first said, “I don’t believe so,” then reversed himself, saying, “Let me
take that back. I would have to look at it, but I’m not certain that that is
the case.” This was a basic question he had to know or should have known
would be asked, and it isn’t a difficult one.
Not only did Mueller make it clear that he hadn’t written the report (and
despite the howling of right-wing pundits, there’s nothing wrong with that),
he raised doubts as to whether he had even read it. House Judiciary ranking
Republican Doug Collins of Georgia questioned Mueller regarding the
non-legal term “collusion,” which the report stated was synonymous with
“conspiracy.” Mueller said that the terms were not synonymous, and then was
forced to contradict himself when Collins read the words of his own report
back to him. Being so unfamiliar with basic assertions in the report is a
serious problem; indeed, if he did not read it thoroughly and still
presented the report as his work, Mueller breached his duties of competence,
diligence and honesty.
Many observers, not just on the Right, watching the fiasco unfold yesterday
questioned the Special Prosecutor’s health and mental competence. I’ll say
this: some of the moments I witnessed caused flashbacks of a horrible
afternoon I spent working with an older friend and colleague who was
beginning to exhibit signs of dementia.
When he wasn’t fumbling, missing questions or uttering confusing gibberish,
Mueller was giving short, perfunctory “yes” or “no” answers, if he chose to
answer questions at all. Mueller repeatedly replied that various questions
were outside his purview, touched on ongoing investigations, or had already
been answered in his report.
Several critics of the hearing compared Mueller’s performance to a bad
movie. Observed the editorial board of Issues and Insights,
Americans wouldn’t read the book, i.e,. Mueller’s report, but they’ll watch
the movie. That was the Democrats’ bet in forcing Mueller to appear before
the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees. But they lost big, and
Mueller’s appearance on screen is a shoe-in for the Golden Raspberry Award,
right down there with the very worst investments Hollywood has ever made,
such as “Heaven’s Gate,” “Ishtar,” and “Leonard Part 6.”
I would have added “The Pirate Move,” “Sergent Pepper’s Lonely Heart Club
Band,” and “Won Ton Ton, the Dog That Saved Hollywood,” but otherwise its
hard to disagree with that assessment.
More observations in Part 2…
Robert Mueller’s Disastrous Testimony And Its Significance, Part Two
JULY 25, 2019 / JACK MARSHALL
Part I is here.
Random Observations on the Mueller testimony and aftermath:
Observing the desperate spin offered by frustrated “resistance” members,
desperate Democrats and social media Trump-Haters has been almost as
revealing as Mueller’s performance. The most positive takeaway they could
muster is that Mueller clearly said that his investigation didn’t exonerate
the President. That’s meaningless. It is not a prosecutor’s job to exonerate
anybody, ever. An investigation’s goal is to determine whether there is
probable cause to determine that a crime or crimes have been committed, not
to prove anyone’s innocence. The hearts of the impeachment mob leaped for
joy briefly during the morning hearing of the Judiciary Committee when
Mueller answered “yes” to Rep. Ted Lieu’s (D–Calif.) question whether he had
declined to indict Trump because of an existing Department of Justice Office
of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion stating that a sitting president couldn’t be
charged with a crime. Ah-HA! Mueller had found evidence of illegal activity
committed by the President and was only prevented from indicting him by
Justice Department policy! Start those impeachment hearings!
Never mind. In the afternoon hearing before the House Intelligence
Committee, reversed himself, saying that that OLC opinion prevented him
from making any determination, period, of Trump’s culpability in obstructing
justice. “As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not
reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,”
Mueller told the Committee after specifically referencing the Lieu exchange.
“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,” Mueller said.
This did not prevent journalists, pundits and my Facebook friends from
ignoring the second statement so they could falsely promote the first. “They
got him to confirm that he didn’t make a charge because of the Justice
Department memo,” said “Meet the Press’s” Chuck Todd in an NBC panel. No,
they didn’t. That’s a direct lie, as well as fake news.
The contention that Mueller was only a convenient figurehead for what was
designed as a partisan hit job was made more credible by Mueller’s
confusion. Mueller’s chief deputy, the infamously over-zealous, partisan
and controversial prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, headed a group of mostly
left-leaning investigators. Complaints about the apparent rigged nature of
the investigation were met by reminders of Mueller’s party affiliation and
reputation for fairness and rectitude. That defense was left in the dust.
Now the anti-Trump tenor of the report no longer suggests the objective
conclusions of a political neutral, but the partisan bias of prosecutors
with an agenda.
Mueller’s weakness also suggests an answer to the persistent question of why
the investigation appeared to be so incompetently managed, as with, for
example, the involvement of Peter Strzok.
It didn’t appear that Mueller was capable of competent oversight, or even
The most damaging and disturbing Mueller answer by far was when he was asked
about Fusion GPS, which hired Christopher Steele to compile the infamous
Russian-sourced ‘dossier’ against Trump. Mueller said that he was ‘not
familiar‘ with it. KABOOM! How is this even possible, unless Weissman and
the other anti-Trump Jauberts on his team kept the old man locked in a
closet somewhere? The involvement of the Steele dossier undercut the
legitimacy of his investigation, and the investigation’s leader was that
uninformed about its origins? Was this wilful ignorance? Blatant
Finally, how could the investigators and Mueller justify following bread
crumbs that led to indictments of various Trump administration and campaign
figures for crimes unrelated to the subject of the investigation, but be
oblivious to the strong indications of wrongdoing—the FBI’s FISA fraud, the
conflicts of interest, the surveillance of Carter Page—related to the
In another ridiculous addition to the Ethics Alarms, “Nah, there’s no
mainstream media bias!” files—at this point, I cannot maintain any respect
for the intelligence and/or integrity of anyone who denies the obvious
partisan bias of CNN, MSNBC, and the major networks—I watched CNN for over
30 minutes this morning to see how they would cover the hearings. Over at
Fox News, of course, Mueller’s disturbing demeanor was being dissected in
detail. The “Fox and Friends” blonde of the day said, sympathetically, that
she would be “praying for him and his family,” since something is definitely
At CNN, however, there was just a crawl representing Mueller’s testimony as
straightforward, sticking to the report, and, of course, emphasizing the “no
exoneration” statement and his answer to Lieu, retracted though it was. CNN
showed no video of Mueller from either hearing, and its panels all focused
exclusively on “where the Democrats go from here.”
Incredible. (Can something be simultaneously incredible and
unsurprising?)The big news from the hearings, what those who didn’t have the
time or stamina to watch them needed to know, was unquestionably Mueller’s
frightening lack of preparation, clarity, or knowledge of the report he had
signed and the investigation he had supposedly overseen, and how this
undermined the report’s legitimacy, especially as an anti-Trump document.
Not only did he fail to give Democrats more ammunition for their coup as
they clearly hoped it would, he undermined the credibility of the entire
Spin is one thing; intentionally hiding what occurred to make spin easier is
something very different, and a major breach of journalism honesty and
Mueller’s repeated concern during his testimony regarding Russian
interference in our elections, past and future, is being largely ignored by
CNN and the rest because it directly points the finger of accountability to
Barack Obama. The Mueller report states that Russia began interfering in
American democracy in 2014, with the operation becoming full-blown during
the 2016 presidential election. The Obama administration knew this was going
on, and took no discernible action. In 2016, Obama’s National Security
Adviser Susan Rice told her staff to “stand down” and “knock it off” as they
drew up plans to “strike back” against the Russians, according to Michael
Isikoff and David Corn in their book “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of
Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump.”
Yet I continue to read attacks on Trump because he didn’t take adequate
steps to foil the Russians,
Where is the accountability? House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler had said
over the weekend that Mueller’s report showed “very substantial evidence”
that President Donald Trump is “guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors” — an
impeachable offense. “We have to … let Mueller present those facts to the
American people, and then see where we go from there, because the
administration must be held accountable,” Nadler, said on “Fox News
Sunday.” Yet Mueller’s testimony, orchestrated by Nadler, confirmed none
of this. Nadler was intentionally misleading the American public.
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.