Displaying the most recent of 90443 posts written by

Ruth King

While We All Have Mueller on the Brain . . . By Jack Fowler

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/while-we-all-have-mueller-on-the-brain/

You might want to get hold of Andy McCarthy’s timely and terrific forthcoming book, Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency, which you can pre-order from the publisher, Encounter Books, here (its official release date is August 13th). While we’re at it, here’s a snippet from Andy’s introduction:

As for collusion, that word we’ve heard so incessantly from pundits and leaky government officials, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has rendered his judgment that there was none — at least, not the collusion he was hunting for. There really was a collusion plot, though. And it really did target our election system. It absolutely sought to usurp our capacity for self-determination. It was just not the collusion you’ve been told about. It was not “Donald Trump’s collusion with Russia.” 

Here is the real collusion scheme: in 2016, the incumbent Democratic administration of President Barack Obama put the awesome powers of the United States government’s law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus in the service of the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, the Democratic party, and the progressive Beltway establishment. This scheme had two parts: Plan A, the objective; and Plan B, a fail-safe strategy in case Plan A imploded — which all the smartest people were supremely confident would never, ever happen . . . which is why you could bet the ranch that it would. 

 

Plan A was to get Mrs. Clinton elected president of the United States. This required exonerating her, at least ostensibly, from well-founded allegations that were both felonious and politically disqualifying. 

Plan B was the insurance policy: An investigation that Donald Trump, in the highly unlikely event he were elected, would be powerless to shut down. An investigation that would simultaneously monitor and taint him. An investigation that internalized Clinton campaign– generated opposition research, limning Trump and his campaign as complicit in Russian espionage. An investigation that would hunt for a crime under the guise of counterintelligence, build an impeachment case under the guise of hunting for a crime, and seek to make Trump un-re-electable under the guise of building an impeachment case.

Colorado State: Don’t Use the Word ‘America’ Because It’s Not ‘Inclusive’ By Katherine Timpf

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/colorado-state-dont-use-the-word-america-because-its-not-inclusive/

The whole goal of language is to communicate, and there’s little point to removing any of it when it’s not actually causing harm. 

Colorado State University’s Inclusive Language Guide instructs students “to avoid” using the words “America” and “American,” because doing so “erases other cultures.”

“The Americas encompass a lot more than the United States,” the guide states. “There is South America, Central America, Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean just to name a few of 42 countries in total.”

“That’s why the word ‘americano’ in Spanish can refer to anything on the American continent. Yet, when we talk about ‘Americans’ in the United States, we’re usually just referring to people from the United States. This erases other cultures and depicts the United States as the dominant American country.”

The guide advises students to use the words “U.S. citizen” or “person from the U.S.” instead of “American.”

Some of the other words and phrases deemed not inclusive by the guide include the words “male” and “female” (because this “refers to biological sex and not gender,” and “we very rarely need to identify or know a person’s biological sex and more often are referring to gender”), “cake walk” (because it apparently has origins in “the racism of 19th century minstrel shows”), “freshman” (because it “excludes women and non-binary gender identities”), “Hispanic” (“because of its origins in colonialization and the implication that to be Hispanic or Latinx/Latine/Latino, one needs to be Spanish-speaking”), “hold down the fort” (because “the U.S. the historical connotation refers to guarding against Native American ‘intruders’ and feeds into the stereotype of ‘savages’”), “no can do” (because it was “originally a way to mock Chinese people”), “peanut gallery” (because it “names a section in theaters, usually the cheapest and worst, where many Black people sat during the era of Vaudeville”), “straight” (because it “implies that anyone LGBT is ‘crooked’ or not normal”), “food coma” (because it “directly alludes to the stereotype of laziness associated with African-Americans”), and “war” or “battle,” when used any way other than to describe a literal war or battle (because “they evoke very real tragedy that can be problematic for survivors of war or Veterans”).

Cometh the Hour, Cometh the Man: A Profile of Boris Johnson written by Toby Young

https://quillette.com/2019/07/23/cometh-the-hour-cometh-the-man-a-profile-of-boris-johnson/

“The rational part of my brain is still full of doubts and uncertainties. What sensible person would look at Boris’s peripatetic career and rakish personality and conclude that he is the right man to lead Britain at this moment of maximum danger? But at a more primitive level, a level impervious to reason, I cannot help but believe. From the first moment I saw him, I felt I was in the presence of someone special, someone capable of achieving great things. And I’ve never quite been able to dispel that impression.”

I first set eyes on Boris Johnson in the autumn of 1983 when we went up to Oxford at the same time. I knew who he was since my uncle Christopher was an ex-boyfriend of his mother’s and he had told me to keep an eye out for him, but I still wasn’t prepared for the sight (and sound) of him at the dispatch box of the Oxford Union. This was the world famous debating society where ambitious undergraduates honed their public-speaking skills before embarking on careers in politics or journalism, and Boris was proposing the motion.

With his huge mop of blond hair, his tie askew and his shirt escaping from his trousers, he looked like an overgrown schoolboy. Yet with his imposing physical build, his thick neck and his broad, Germanic forehead, there was also something of Nietzsche’s Übermensch about him. You could imagine him in lederhosen, wandering through the Black Forest with an axe over his shoulder, looking for ogres to kill. This same combination—a state of advanced dishevelment and a sense of coiled strength, of an almost tangible will to power—was even more pronounced in his way of speaking.

He began to advance an argument in what sounded like a parody of the high style in British politics—theatrical, dramatic, self-serious—when—a few seconds in—he appeared to completely forget what he was about to say. He looked up, startled—Where am I?—and asked the packed chamber which side he was supposed to be on. “What’s the motion, anyway?” Before anyone could answer, a light bulb appeared above his head and he was off, this time in an even more orotund, florid manner. Yet within a few seconds he’d wrong-footed himself again, this time because it had suddenly occurred to him that there was an equally compelling argument for the opposite point of view. This endless flipping and flopping, in which he seemed to constantly surprise himself, went on for the next 15 minutes. The impression he gave was of someone who’d been plucked from his bed in the middle of the night and then plonked down at the dispatch box of the Oxford Union without the faintest idea of what he was supposed to be talking about.

Boris Johnson appoints new cabinet with Sajid Javid, Priti Patel and Dominic Raab in top positions

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sajid-javid-appointed-chancellor-as-boris-johnson-names-new-cabinet-a4197671.html

Sajid Javid has been appointed chancellor, Priti Patel home secretary and Dominic Raab foreign secretary as Boris Johnson named his new cabinet.

Mr Johnson met with his new ministers this evening after he was given permission by the Queen to form a government.

Mr Raab was also appointed first secretary of state, effectively making him Mr Johnson’s deputy prime minister. The new cabinet will also see the return of Stephen Barclay as Brexit secretary.

Arch-Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg has been made Leader of the House of Commons. He was also made Lord President of the Council and Downing Street said he would attend cabinet meetings.

Mr Johnson’s Tory leadership rival Michael Gove was named Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, while Ben Wallace was given the key role of defence secretary.

Gavin Williamson has returned to the government as education secretary after he was sacked by Theresa May earlier this year over leaked information about Chinese mobile giant Huawei.

David Harsanyi: Robert Mueller’s Testimony Has Been A Complete Disaster For Democrats Flustered and unprepared, Mueller undermined the Democrats case for impeachment

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/24/the-mueller-testimony-was-a-disaster-for-democrats/

If Democrats believed that Robert Mueller would provide them with additional ammunition for an impeachment inquiry, they made an extraordinary miscalculation. Not only was Mueller often flustered and unprepared to talk about his own report—we now have wonder to what extent he was even involved in the day-to-day work of the investigation—but he was needlessly evasive. In the end, he seriously undermined the central case for impeachment of President Donald Trump.

The often-distracted Mueller didn’t seem to know much about anything. The very first Republican to question him, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Rep. Doug Collins, forced Mueller to correct his own opening statement. In it, the former FBI director had asserted that the independent counsel “did not address collusion, which is not a legal term.”

Stressing the difference between the criminal conspiracy and the colloquial “collusion” is a popular way of obscuring the fact that the central conspiracy pushed by Democrats, one that plunged the nation into two years of hysterics and fantasy, had been debunked by Mueller. Moreover, as Collins pointed out, Mueller’s own report stated that “collusion” and criminal conspiracy were basically “synonymous.”

Robert Mueller Confirms His Investigation Was Not Curtailed, Stopped, or Hindered By Matt Margolis

https://pjmedia.com/trending/robert-mueller-confirms-his-investigation-was-not-curtailed-stopped-or-hindered/

During the Mueller hearing Wednesday, Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) questioned former Special Counsel Robert Mueller with a very specific and important question.

By Mueller’s own testimony, his investigation was not curtailed, stopped, or hindered at any point. In other words, there was no obstruction. This is quite remarkable because as I said, no other body besides Mueller and his investigative team would be able to say definitively that they were obstructed. Clearly, they were not. Yet Mueller and his team refused to say so in their report.

On Twitter, Dan Bongino sums it up perfectly.Dan Bongino

✔ @dbongino “If the hapless, hopeless Democrats had a collective brain among them they’d stop this embarrassing fiasco now. The #MuellerHearings are blowing up in their faces. Mueller’s credibility is completely decimated.

So far, Mueller’s performance today has been interesting. Mueller sounds nervous and can’t seem to hear questions being asked of him. Whether that’s a stalling tactic or not, I’m not sure, but it given Mueller’s record, it wouldn’t surprise me.

Mueller Says Trump Could Be Charged with Obstruction after He Leaves Office By Mairead McArdle

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/robert-mueller-says-trump-could-be-charged-with-obstruction-after-he-leaves-office/

ABC News

✔ @ABC”Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?” Robert Mueller: “Yes.”

“You could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?””Yes.” https://abcn.ws/2XWIELc  #MuellerHearings

During Wednesday congressional testimony, former special counsel Robert Mueller told lawmakers that President Trump could in fact be charged with obstruction of justice, but only after he leaves office.

“Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?” Republican representative Ken Buck asked Mueller during the latter’s appearance before the House Judiciary Committee.

“Yes,” Mueller responded simply.

“You believe you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?” the Colorado Republican asked.

“Yes,” Mueller answered. “The OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion says that the prosecutor, while he cannot bring a charge against a sitting president, nonetheless can continue the investigation to see if there are any other persons who might be drawn into the conspiracy.”

Pundits Fry Mueller for ‘Shaky’ Performance By Jack Crowe

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/pundits-fry-robert-mueller-for-shaky-performance/

Political pundits on both sides of the aisle criticized former special counsel Robert Mueller for appearing unprepared during his Wednesday congressional testimony, and questioned the utility of the hearing given Mueller’s refusal to speak to information not included in his final report.

Liberal CNN commentator Chris Cillizza called Mueller’s performance “shaky,” citing his repeated requests for clarification and repetition from lawmakers, as well as an apparent contradiction in his testimony, which occurred when he was asked if collusion was, in effect, a colloquial synonym for criminal conspiracy. Mueller answered that question in the affirmative in his report but testified Wednesday that the words were not synonymous before reverting back to the answer provided in his report.

Cilizza writes:

If Democrats hoped that Mueller would easily bat away Republican attacks — on him and on his report — they have been sorely disappointed in the opening moments of his testimony. Mueller seemingly contradicted himself (and the report) when he told Doug Collins, the ranking Republican member on the committee, that collusion and conspiracy were not the same thing.

Mueller Reiterates ‘The Report Is My Testimony,’ Calls Demand for a Prosecutor to Testify ‘Unusual’ By Jack Crowe

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/robert-mueller-reiterates-the-report-is-my-testimony-calls-demand-for-a-prosecutor-to-testify-unusual/

In his opening statement before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday morning, special counsel Robert Mueller again stated that he would not comment on aspects of his investigation into Russian election interference that were not included in his final report, and noted that it is “unusual” to compel a prosecutor to testify about an investigation.

“I do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the course of my testimony today. As I said on May 29: the report is my testimony. And I will stay within that text,” Mueller said in his opening statement. “And as I stated in May, I also will not comment on the actions of the Attorney General or of Congress. I was appointed as a prosecutor, and I intend to adhere to that role and to the Department’s standards that govern it.”

Mueller held a press conference in May to announce that he was stepping down as special counsel following a nearly two-year investigation. During the press conference, Mueller made clear that he would not provide any information related to the investigation that was not included in the report, prompting congressional Republicans and allies of the president to question the utility of his testifying before Congress.

With Collusion Collapse, Public Loses Interest in Mueller Theatrics By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/with-collusion-collapse-public-loses-interest-in-mueller-theatrics/

Democrats are at the point where continuing to press the Mueller probe hurts them more than it hurts the president.

Dear Sir, The public does not care.

If the Trump Justice Department were to write a letter in response to House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff’s Tuesday night tirade, that’s what it would say.

Well, okay, not exactly. I’m sure there’d be the obligatory “with due respect” throat clearing and whatever else decorum demands when camouflaging a flip of the middle finger. Make no mistake, though: The bird has been flipped.

The night before former special counsel Robert Mueller’s much anticipated (and certain to be disappointing) appearance before two congressional committees, Chairman Schiff fired off a letter to protest limitations the Justice Department, at Mueller’s request, has imposed on his testimony.

In essence, DOJ has ordered Mueller not to provide testimony outside the four corners of his report. This suits Mueller just fine since he does not want to testify at all. He made that clear in his May 29 press statement, attempting to foreclose a possible subpoena by insisting that he would have nothing to add to the two-volume, 448-page tome.

Further, he gave Democrats what, from their perspective, is the best spin that could be put on the obstruction aspect of his probe: He had not “exonerated” the president, even though he neither found crimes, nor even considered whether crimes had occurred — the prosecutor’s peculiar interpretation of Justice Department guidance that forbids indictment of a sitting president.

He was trying to tell them: This is as good as it gets. I am not going to say I would have indicted him if not for the guidance.

But Democrats cannot leave well enough alone. They hope against hope that Mueller will break down — that Schiff, a former prosecutor, will have a Perry Mason moment, in which Mueller throws up his hands and confesses that, yes, if he could, he would throw the book at Trump.