https://housely.com/dangerous-neighborhoods-baltimore/
10 of the Most Dangerous Neighborhoods in Baltimore
Orangeville.
Cherry Hill. …
Greenmount East. …
Greater Rosemont. …
Madison-Eastend. …
Berea. …
Grove Park. …
West Baltimore. Topping the list is the West Baltimore neighborhood. …
This is what Cummings an unrelenting “impeachnick” said on July 24 about the President after the Mueller meeting in Congress:
Cummings:
CUMMINGS: I first wanted to applaud Chairman Nadler and–who heads our judiciary committee and certainly our chairman of intelligence committee for what they did today and their committees. What they did was paint a picture for America.
One of the most chilling things that I have noticed that–that I’ve witnessed is when a member of–former member of our committee, Mr. Amash, a Republican, went to his town hall meeting and got a round of applause in a Republican district after he had said that he felt that the president should be impeached. But that wasn’t the thing that got me. What really got me was when a lady at the end of the–the town hall meeting said I didn’t know that there was anything negative in the Mueller report about President Trump. That says a lot.
And to her credit, our Speaker made it clear that we needed to paint a picture for America for they could–so that they could fully understand what is going on. This is a critical moment in–and our country’s history. Don’t–don’t be fooled. And it is a moment which people will be talking about and reading about 3, 400, 500 years from now. And they are going to ask the question what did you do when we had a president who–who knew the rules and knew that our founding fathers had done a great job of creating a constitution and had put in all the guardrails but never anticipated that we would have a president that would just throw away the guardrails.
And that’s why what happened today is so critical. It was a giant step in making sure that the American people were–got a picture of all of this and hopefully will look towards the future and say we’re not going to have this. Both Mr. Nadler and Mr. Schiff said something that’s very critical. This isn’t normal.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/resistance-inc/Why impeachment isn’t going away.
Trump supporters are right to feel vindication after Robert Mueller’s testimony before Congress. At times the special counsel seemed unfamiliar with the contents of his own report. He came across as aloof and confused and often unable to answer both Democratic and Republican questions to the lawmakers’ satisfaction. The same media figures that began the day saying Mueller’s appearance might be the game changer ended up calling it a flop. “Democrats now have one option to end Trump’s presidency,” read the headline of Dan Balz’s analysis in the Washington Post. “The 2020 election.” Trump, as always, put it more memorably: “truth is a force of nature!”
The real truth is Mueller’s testimony was never going to interrupt preexisting trends. Support for impeachment has been stable for a year at around 40 percent in the Fox News poll of registered voters. Fox asks, “Do you think President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, or not?” In June 2018, 39 percent of respondents answered yes. Last week, 42 percent said the same. Opposition to impeachment has hovered around 50 percent during all this time. When the most recent Fox News poll asked if Mueller’s testimony might cause voters to change how they felt about Trump, only 8 percent said there was a strong chance of that happening. Forty-nine percent said not at all.
Views of President Trump are cast iron. Mueller might have overturned this equilibrium by offering new evidence incriminating Trump or by saying definitively that Trump obstructed justice. He did neither. Nor was he going to. It was clear from his May press conference that Mueller did not want to appear before Congress and that he had said all he was willing to say in his report. The negotiations over his testimony that stretched into midsummer, the sudden delay of his testimony by a week, and the addition of his chief of staff as counsel further indicated his reluctance as well as his lack of assurance before the cameras. The presence on the committee of Republicans hostile to Mueller’s investigation and to his findings meant that the hearing would not be entirely favorable to Democrats. Sure enough, Mueller’s performance was a disappointment.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/trump-goes-nuclear-on-cummings-his-dist
It misinterprets the rule against indicting a sitting president.
Editor’s Note: This is the first article in a two-part series; the second will appear tomorrow.
Robert Mueller’s congressional testimony was such a bumbling fiasco that it was easy for a viewer to be confused — and stay that way — about the main bone of Democratic contention regarding his report: the “OLC guidance” that prevents the Justice Department from charging a president with crimes while he is in office. Specifically, how did it factor into the special counsel’s decision — or, rather, non-decision — on the main question he was appointed to answer: Did President Trump obstruct justice? How did the special counsel’s dubious reliance on it as a rationale for abdicating on this question affect the publication and ramifications of the Mueller report?
We’ve plowed this ground before, but it is worth revisiting. We will do that in this weekend’s two-part series. This is Part 1.
The OLC Guidance
The OLC is the Office of Legal Counsel, the lawyers’ lawyers in the Justice Department who formulate policies that guide federal prosecutors throughout the United States. The OLC guidance at issue in the Mueller investigation is the prohibition on indicting a sitting president. This rule is said to be derived from constitutional and prudential considerations.
I do not believe the guidance is sound. But that’s beside the point: The guidance is binding on Justice Department lawyers, period. That means it is also binding on special counsels. By regulation, they are firmly in the Justice Department chain of command.
Consequently, the OLC guidance applied to Mueller’s investigation of President Trump. In particular, it was relevant to the obstruction aspect of the probe, which was always a criminal investigation. (For reasons that need not divert us, the “collusion” part of the case was pretextually conducted as a counterintelligence investigation.)
Because (a) the president was the principal subject of the obstruction probe and (b) the objective of such a criminal investigation is to indict wrongdoers, the pertinence of the OLC guidance is obvious. The question is: What is the effect of its application?
https://pjmedia.com/trending/amazon-purges-reviews-of-bestselling-anti-obama-book/
Reports of Amazon purging reviews from conservatives books on their site have been made for some time now. PJ Media’s Megan Fox reported in March 2018 that many conservative authors noticed a mass deletion of reviews. Well, another purge has taken place. This one targeted my book, The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. This book was approaching 1,000 reviews until Amazon decided to clean house. On Tuesday, the book had 945 reviews. On Wednesday, the book had only 693 reviews. A whopping 252 reviews (approximately 27 percent) simply vanished. Worse yet, most of the purged reviews appear to have been positive ones, as the average rating went down from roughly 4.5+ to 4.2 stars.
I can prove this because I have screenshots:
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274432/weissmann-dossier-kenneth-r-timmerman
Anyone who watched more than a few minutes of Wednesday’s painful hearings with former Special Counsel Robert Mueller discovered a sad truth the Democrats and many in the media continue to hide: Mueller neither wrote his report nor did he master the content of it.
Repeatedly during the day, the former FBI director stumbled over what we had been told were his findings. He slowly leafed through a binder, searching for passages that lawmakers were quoting to him, only to say “okay” or “true” when he finally found them.
In the morning’s hearing at the House Judiciary committee, Rep. Doug Collins asked Mueller if “conspiracy” – the criminal law term used in the first part of his report about Russia – and the vernacular term, “collusion” were the same thing. Mueller replied, “No.”
Taken aback, Collins asked if he was changing his earlier testimony – ie, the report – which stated on page 180 that collusion and conspiracy were the same. When Mueller finally found the passage, he withdrew his earlier testimony and stood by the report.
Rep. Collins – and frankly, every member of the two committees who questioned Mueller – had the elegance not to state the obvious: Mueller was non compus mentis.
During the afternoon hearing, Rep. Peter Welch, D, Va, again asked whether he had found collusion. This time, Mueller was so far gone, he couldn’t find his words.
“We don’t use the word collusion,” he said. “The word we usually use is-ah-not collusion-ah. But one of the other-ah-terms that-ah-ah-that fills in when collusion is not used. In any event, we decided not to use the word collusion in so much as it has no relevance to the criminal law arena.”
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/nadlers-trump-hunt-is-dead-and-hes-the-only-one-who-doesnt-know/
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) on Friday outlined details of what he and the House Judiciary Committee will continue doing to further beat the dead horse that is his witch hunt investigation into President Trump.
To much of America, it came off as more of a cry for help. Here is a thirty-six second snippet of Nadler’s babble-fest:
House Judiciary Cmte. will file an application today for the grand jury material underlying the Mueller report, Chairman Nadler says.
For the past couple of years Democrats have been waiting for Robert Mueller to be their Santa Claus, delivering them a litany of impeachable offenses all neatly wrapped up with a pretty bow on top.
When Santa wrote them a letter in the form of the special counsel report and it didn’t include any clear mention of the presents, they were convinced that he would most definitely bring them in person.
So they subpoenaed him.
When Santa came down the Capitol Hill chimney on Wednesday all he brought with him to give the Democrats was a big bag of coal, which he then awkwardly delivered.
Almost everyone but the Democrats knew it was coal.
https://amgreatness.com/2019/07/25/the-day-
It wasn’t supposed to end this way.
Donald Trump, not Robert Mueller, was supposed to be broken and vanquished at the hands of his political foes. Donald Trump, not Robert Mueller, was supposed to suffer a legacy-ending humiliation on national television that would bury his tough-guy reputation and taint his past achievements. The supporters of Donald Trump, not the supporters of Robert Mueller, were supposed to slink away in embarrassment, desperately searching for any calcified crumb of credibility to salvage their beaten hero.
The climax of #TheResistance’s fantasy to take down Donald Trump wasn’t supposed to end with long faces at MSNBC and CNN, or with reporters at the Washington Post and the New York Times admitting defeat.
These are the kinds of things Washington Post opinionators write about Donald Trump, not about Mueller.
Panelists on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” were supposed to be ebullient after watching their savior in action, not ranting like lunatics about the need for someone to “punch” President Trump. The Lawfare folks were supposed to be popping champagne corks, not turning on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for refusing to play along with their impeachment crusade. And it was Team Mueller, not Donald Trump, who was supposed to declare victory.
Stumping the Prosecutor
But the dream died on July 24, 2019, when former Special Counsel Robert Mueller not only failed to deliver the goods against Trump but revealed that #TheResistance, once again, had pinned its hopes on a flawed actor not up to the task. Just like the cast of conquerors who came before him—Stormy Daniels, Michael Avenatti, Michael Cohen, and Omarosa, just to name a few—Robert Mueller slouched out of the spotlight after failing to best the Bad Orange Man.
The spectacle in front of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee was not what the Democrats expected but it was exactly what they deserved. After delaying the scheduled hearing for a week, Mueller reluctantly appeared but only after negotiating a deal that his chief of staff could attend alongside him. Aaron Zebley was sworn in as a witness by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), but Republican members refused to direct any questions to him.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-mueller-was-trying-to-hide-11564094510
Special counsel Robert Mueller testified before two House committees Wednesday, and his performance requires us to look at his investigation and report in a new light. We’ve been told it was solely about Russian electoral interference and obstruction of justice. It’s now clear it was equally about protecting the actual miscreants behind the Russia-collusion hoax.
The most notable aspect of the Mueller report was always what it omitted: the origins of this mess. Christopher Steele’s dossier was central to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe, the basis of many of the claims of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet the Mueller authors studiously wrote around the dossier, mentioning it only in perfunctory terms. The report ignored Mr. Steele’s paymaster, Fusion GPS, and its own ties to Russians. It also ignored Fusion’s paymaster, the Clinton campaign, and the ugly politics behind the dossier hit job.
Mr. Mueller’s testimony this week put to rest any doubt that this sheltering was deliberate. In his opening statement he declared that he would not “address questions about the opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment, or matters related to the so-called Steele Dossier.” The purpose of those omissions was obvious, as those two areas go to the heart of why the nation has been forced to endure years of collusion fantasy.
Mr. Mueller claimed he couldn’t answer questions about the dossier because it “predated” his tenure and is the subject of a Justice Department investigation. These excuses are disingenuous. Nearly everything Mr. Mueller investigated predated his tenure, and there’s no reason the Justice Department probe bars Mr. Mueller from providing a straightforward, factual account of his team’s handling of the dossier. CONTINUE AT SITE
https://www.wsj.com/articles/beyond-muellers-purview-11564097665
Having failed to prove collusion and obstruction of justice, the cheerleaders of the Robert Mueller investigation are now highlighting his claim this week that Russia is still trying to interfere in U.S. elections. No doubt the Russians are. Which makes it all the more important that the Justice Department finish the half of the Russian-meddling probe that Mr. Mueller didn’t.
We’re referring to the areas that Mr. Mueller said this week were not in his “purview.” We counted nine times the former special counsel resorted to that answer, all in response to questions about the origin story of the FBI counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.
Was Mr. Mueller familiar with Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that Democrats used to flog dirt about Donald Trump and Russia? “This is outside my purview,” he said.
Did he know that Fusion GPS was also representing a Russian-based company known as Prevezon while it was flogging that dirt? “It’s outside my purview,” Mr. Mueller said.
Top Stories @ Fox News