A large, but assorted crop today. Feast on what you like.
It all ties together in a giant Gordian Knot, from Breitbart, Emails: Obama State Dept. Official Introduced Christopher Steele to Clinton Foundation-Tied Execs. I can't wait for sea level rise to drown Washington D.C. But at Human Events, Robert Farnam asks Do Republicans Have The Will To Win The Russia Hoax? History suggests that they will accept half measures to continue to be invited to all the right parties, to be paraded around as lonely examples of diversity. They never miss the opportunity to miss the opportunity.
Via Wombat's In The Mailbox: 06.19.19, according to Daniel John Sobieski at AmThink, it's Time to Indict McCabe, Not Impeach Trump. I agree. But we'll see honor among thieves and all, while Margot Cleveland at Da Fed lists 5 Ways Michael Flynn’s New Lawyer Could Expose More About Spygate. Her conclusion that withdrawing his plea is unlikely, but a motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct is much higher. I like it.
Elizabeth Vaughn at Red State shows how a Wyoming Rancher Sums Up The Mueller Report In Language Every American Can Understand
The Hill’s Kevin Brock published a quote from an anonymous Wyoming rancher. This shrewd man said, “We know that old boy didn’t actually steal any horses, but he’s obviously guilty of trying to avoid being hanged for it.” I don’t think I’ve ever read a better, more understandable explanation of what the Mueller Report is all about.And speaking of Fat Jerry Nadler, House Dem: The Mueller Subpoena Is Coming. I sort of doubt it. Democrats probably wouldn't approve of the questions Republicans would pose. It's much more fun to bloviate solo. Marc Thiessen at WaPoo (30 day pass), On Russia collusion, Trump is right and George Stephanopoulos is wrong. How the hell did they let that get published there?
And now on to something new, Hillary Clinton's emails? Now this is collusion Judicial Watch Releases Testimony of Clinton Email Administrator – Clinton Lawyer Cheryl Mills Communicated with Him a Week Prior to Testimony. Getting their cover stories straight? And the WaT finally notices, State Department: 15 broke rules in mishandling Hillary Clinton emails. Is that all?Also via Wombat's In The Mailbox: 06.19.19, at AmGreat Why Wasn’t Everybody Looking For Hillary’s Missing E-Mails?
“Trump’s call was another bizarre moment in the mystery of whether Vladimir V. Putin’s government has been seeking to influence the United States’ presidential race,” the New York Times warned on July 28, 2016.At the Epoch Times (from now on ET) Trump Says Hillary Clinton ‘Should be in Jail’. I'd settle for exile. A nice polar island to save her from global warming. One with plenty of hungry polar bears. Don Surber, Hillary's henchmen investigated. At WaPoo (30 day pass), Dana Milbank whines, Let’s talk about what really matters in 2020: Hillary Clinton’s emails.
But the accusation, not Trump’s comment, is what’s bizarre.
The accusation suggests that if Clinton’s contraband communications—emails she claimed were non-work related—had been unearthed before the election, the trove could have influenced the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. But how could that be if Clinton was telling the truth? This should have raised suspicions that Clinton’s deleted emails involved questions that risked implicating her in deeper scandals just months before Election Day. (Talk about interference!)
Instead, the media immediately criminalized any attempt to locate the emails that Clinton’s aides erased from her server—that is correspondence she sent and received during her tenure as secretary of state. Never mind that the files were material to pending lawsuits and an ongoing congressional investigation.
Operation Charlemagne, the Silent Ones, Obama Scared, Global Coup Against Trump Revealed: Capt. Dave Bertrand, Ret. +Video A little tin-foil hat, but fun:
Sundance at CTH, Why The Delay in Public Release of Key Documents?… His list of things he wants to see is growing faster than things are being crossed off. Stay tuned.
At the Leavenworth Times a letter to the editor that the WaPoo would never publish: Crazy hoax. NYT, cited at Hot Air, Pelosi Dismisses Censuring Trump: Impeachment Or Bust. Bust. Also from Karen Townsend at Hot Air Et Tu, Jared? Dem Congressmen Ask For Another Hatch Act Investigation. Sure why not, but I'm sure we can find a few Democrats to investigate for Hatch Act violations too.
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of the Hatch Act. Does anyone, though, think that President Trump will fire Jared, the husband of his beloved daughter Ivanka, even if he is found to be in violation of the Hatch Act? If he’s willing to give Kellyanne a pass, at least so far, then I can only assume he’ll do the same for his son-in-law.
Democrats said Hicks' responses during the eight-hour session to questions from members of the House Judiciary Committee, who want to determine whether her former boss broke the law, were restricted to the point of absurdity.
Democratic Representative Ted Lieu posted on Twitter what he called a sample exchange, with the questions modified because the content of the interview was private. Lieu's tweet said:
"Chair: Ms. Hicks, was it a sunny day on your first day of work?
|Rocking the yoga pants
"Ridiculous DOJ Attorney: OBJECTION!
"Chair: Where was your office located?
"Ridiculous DOJ Attorney: OBJECTION!"
House of Representatives Democrats and Trump have been fighting a running battle for months over their power to investigate him, with aspects of it spilling into the courts.
Hicks' appearance was hailed by Democrats as a breakthrough for the Judiciary Committee's broad inquiry into Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election to help Trump, and Trump's attempts to impede the probe.
Republicans who attended the interview, arranged and led by the majority-Democratic panel, said it yielded little or no new information, and they accused Democrats of political harassment of Trump, a criticism that Republicans have long voiced.
|and the Tux!
"It appears to be Democrats trying to relitigate the Mueller report," said Republican Representative Matt Gaetz.
Democrats wanted to ask Hicks, 30, about six instances in which they believe Trump may have obstructed justice during the 2016 campaign and while in the White House.
White House lawyers argued that Hicks was "immune" from having to testify about her 14 months in the White House, a strategy in line with Trump's general refusal to cooperate with investigations in the Democratic-led House.
|Hilary Rhoda, but who can tell the difference?
Not democrats that's for sure.
Hicks was directed not to answer questions about material she had already told Mueller, the lawmakers said.Monica Showalter at AmThink, Manhattan prosecutors cave in on Manafort Rikers scheme after DoJ
Democrat Steve Cohen said he learned nothing new from Hicks and added that she did not answer a single question about her time in the While House.
Lieu said Hicks did answer questions about the campaign, but he did not elaborate.
Maybe we really do have a Department of Justice that's serious about reforming itself. Attorney General William Barr deserves applause for this one.The Wombat has Rule 5 Monday: Camila Cabello up and running.
Here's the latest news, spotted on Conservative Treehouse. . .