[PJ] Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) has been trying unsuccessfully to get a hearing on Russia, Manafort and the Clintons for months because Special Counsel Robert Mueller has a major conflict of interest in his Russia probe that casts into doubt his ability to conduct the investigation fairly. He vented his frustration on Tucker Carlson Tonight on Monday evening.
Manafort is alleged to have laundered $18 million of the $75 million that flowed through his offshore accounts. Rohrabacher pointed out that this is chump change compared to the Clintons' money grubbing.
"What about Hillary, who got 150 million dollars for the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton, who got 500 thousand dollars in his pocket by these very same Russian oligarchs?" the congressman asked, referring to the massive kickbacks the Clintons allegedly received while the Uranium One deal was being negotiated.
"And guess who was supposed to investigate that?" he added. "Mr. Mueller himself! He was the director of the FBI!"
Rohrabacher told Carlson about the FBI informer who had been part of an FBI probe of the corruption surrounding the deal and who was placed on a gag order. "Mueller kept him under a gag order all this time, although no charges were ever filed against the Clintons," Rohrabacher complained.
#1
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has a major conflict of interest in his Russia probe that casts into doubt his ability to conduct the investigation fairly
Yes, but what can be done to obtain a fair investigation? IMO, Mueller was put in place for several reasons: 1. Comey was ticked off by Trump and decided to have a snit, 2. Mueller was put in place by the Deep State to block Trump and set the table for a knee-capping and possibly a later impeachment, 3. Put in place to slow Trump's agenda--a bottleneck, and 4. To provide protection for former admin. and current Deep State members.
#2
Is Mueller a "Moving Roadblock" for the Deep State? (quote) Investigating (un-quote) people/groups so that they will be protected from any real scrutiny by Congress or any other investigation?
[FoxNews] The head of National Public Radio’s news department was placed on leave Tuesday after he was accused of sexual harassment by two women who claimed he made unwanted advances toward them while he worked at the New York Times nearly 20 years ago.
Both women claimed Michael Oreskes kissed them and stuck his tongue in their mouths after they had approached him about working at the Times in the late 1990s, when Oreskes was the paper’s Washington bureau chief.
NPR reported Tuesday that Oreskes was formally rebuked following a separate incident two years ago where a female producer complained she was made to feel uncomfortable after a dinner in which Oreskes talked about sex and inquired about her personal life. The woman, Rebecca Hersher, said on the NPR report that "it undercut my confidence."
NPR said in a statement on Tuesday: "We take these kinds of allegations very seriously. If a concern is raised, we review the matter promptly and take appropriate steps as warranted to assure a safe, comfortable and productive work environment. As a matter of policy, we do not comment about personnel matters."
#2
By inductive reasoning yes, but otherwise I don’t know.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/01/2017 10:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Is he part of the GOPe?
I've looked that GOPe up and all the discussion assumes you know what it means. I've never heard it before. Congressman Hensarling is my representative and I've always found him to be a straight shooter. Please explain what you mean by GOPe.
#4
GOP(establishment) I'd say Hensarling is not GOPe, but he may be fed up with the prospects for overcoming GOPe.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
11/01/2017 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I read a different article on this and it is very ambiguous as to his GOPe status (thanks MM for including the definition).
He sounds like a Tea Partier but has very bad grades from conservative groups. My guess is that he's an ineffective dweeb with a conservative philosophy who gets whipsawed by the establishment environment.
[Reuters] White House Chief of Staff John Kelly said on Monday a special counsel should be appointed to investigate Democrats over a uranium deal during the Obama administration and a dossier compiled on Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.
"I think probably as a layman looking at this kind of thing we need to find someone who is very, very objective who can get to the bottom of these accusations," Kelly said in an interview on Fox News.
A special counsel would be appointed by the Justice Department.
Republicans in Congress last week launched an investigation into an Obama-era deal in which a Russian company bought a Canadian firm that owned some 20 percent of U.S. uranium supplies.
Some Republicans have said Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the deal after her husband’s charitable foundation received a $145 million donation. The New York Times has reported that Clinton, a Democrat who lost to Republican Trump in the 2016 election, did not participate in the decision.
#5
A special counsel would be appointed by the Justice Department.
This still has to get by "Speed Bump" Sessions. I have my doubts this will happen. A special counsel investigating of Uranium One and Rosatom ought to be good to break loose the constipation.
#6
Aw, c'mon. Can't we have Chris Christie? Please?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/01/2017 11:15 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I still prefer Cruz. Not only would heads explode, but he has the necessary zeal I think. Alternatively, we could put Sheriff Joe in the AG seat. The demonrats would get might nervous then.
[Daily Wire] Employees within the Democratic National Committee are looking for new employees in the Technology Department. However, the DNC is apparently not interested in your resume if you happen to be a white male.
In an email issued to DNC insiders on Monday, Data Services manager Madeleine Leader announced that the Technology Department is looking to fill several positions and asked interested parties to forward the openings to their colleagues.
She included the following caveat:
I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they're already in the majority.
In response to this email, an anonymous DNC source told The Daily Wire the following:
Clearly the DNC is doubling down on a failed strategy that has alienated staffers and voters alike. We want to be judged based on the quality of our work, not on identity politics. How can we trust the leadership of the DNC if they don’t even trust us?
The Daily Wire contacted Ms. Leader about the contents of her email, but she declined to comment.
After the latest scandals to plague the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential election, the new leadership under Tom Perez and Keith Ellison (D-MN) seek to rebrand the party as a more inclusive and welcoming community. Unfortunately, this email doesn't exactly help their case.
#1
anonymous DNC source.... We want to be judged based on the quality of our work, not on identity politics. How can we trust the leadership of the DNC if they don’t even trust us?
About 30 years late for that, and not just at the DNC.
#8
And the continuation of this insanity is why the demoncrats will lose the next election. If they keep this up, they can expect to lose 2020, 2022 and 2024 as well.
#10
Of course, hiring ladyboys and shims may keep the next Imran Awan away. Or maybe not. The next Chelsea Manning or Reality Winner? Almost certainly will be hired.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
11/01/2017 10:38 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I think Imran Awan would qualify as a person of color and would therefor still be eligible, even if he's not LGBT or whatever other letters they want added to that acronym. Look for more security breaches and IT system failures at the DNC. It's a good thing.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/01/2017 11:12 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I just meant maybe his muzz sensibilities would keep him away. But then there's that "dancing boys" thing and animal husbandry issues...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
11/01/2017 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
#13
What in the hell is a cisgender? I had to google it. Whatever happened to simply put male and female?
To ask for workers based on sex, race, color etc used to be wrong. Now it's only wrong if you ask for someone that is white and male.
I am so sick of this crap.
Posted by: Jan ||
11/01/2017 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#14
It’s like knowing the numbers in the lawsuit lottery. Just be white male and apply. Settlement ATM.
#16
Oh, this is just the appetizer. The shadow of that statement is that the current serving members of the current down group, white dudes who like ladies, will be at first passively then aggressively forced out to make room for the current up groups.
Following that purge, the next down group is likely white women who like guys and have not virtue signaled past level 14, or Asian guys who like gals, whatever the purge demands this cycle of volcanic sacrifices.
Then, imagine the toxicity of that workforce culture. Going to work everyday, wondering if you are the next to be shat upon all day until you quit or have a heart attack. Even the high level Pokeman SJW! monsters will wonder if a long knife is behind the curtains.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Reuters] White House Chief of Staff John Kelly said on Monday a special counsel should be appointed to investigate Democrats over a uranium deal during the Obama administration and a dossier compiled on Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.
