the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Easy Call

Posted by Jeff Id on June 17, 2017

America is not allowed to elect a conservative president of any form.  The deep state, fourth branch of government has declared that they now have critical mass to enforce their will upon us independently from our elected officials.  Liberal feeders have infected every branch of government, media and education to the point where even without any evidence, a conservative president will be impeached.  There is zero evidence that Trump has done anything wrong, yet we are surrounded by openly visible liberal crimes that go un-prosecuted.   Comey leaking to get a fake prosecutor, Hillary selling the US for personal gain, Obama fast and furious, Hillary’s dead ambassador to Lybia and the lies to cover it, instead we have fake prosecution recommended by deputy ag Rosenstein for Trump firing Comey, the very act that Rosenstein recommended in a public letter.  Now we have a fake ‘public’ trial by partisan judges where every witness admitted that there is no evidence of wrongdoing.   A trial which hasn’t ended because now the prosecuting liberals have switched from the proven false ‘Russia stole the election’ charges to different FAKE charges of obstruction of justice.  Obstructing the investigation of the proven fake Russia stole the election charge by the way.

How does one obstruct justice regarding the non-investigation of a fake crime?

Only in America methinks.

Trump could order the investigation of something he was guilty of, stopped,  without being guilty of obstruction by the way, because he’s actually the boss.  He’s completely allowed to do that.  Any common sense in America?  No, instead, Muller hired 13 lawyers to prosecute a crime which by definition cannot exist.   Trump is in charge of the FBI.  He can stop any investigation at any time, yet he did NOT.

13 LIBERAL lawyers. Hillary and Democrat donors, Investigating a president without even a potential crime.  YES they will make something up.  We don’t know what but LAWYERS lie for a living.  They twist fact into innuendo as a matter of duty.  They find crime and innocence where none exist, and innuendo is their primary weapon.  Having so many liberals paid to find a problem with the president is a huge issue.

But it got worse today.


“All Americans, regardless of party, agree on the fundamental principle that no one is above the law,” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) told MSNBC Friday. “And if President Trump were to fire Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, and then [get] special counsel Mueller fired, I believe Congress would begin impeachment proceedings.”

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) echoed Lieu’s sentiments, saying that Congress would come together to make sure they overrule Trump’s authority on the matter.

“Congress will not allow the president to so egregiously overstep his authority,” Schiff said in a statement.

America is in trouble when the left, with no evidence can issue a statement to THREATEN the boss of the FBI with impeachment if he doesn’t allow his own employees to prosecute him for something that DID NOT HAPPEN. Obstruction of false politically motivated liberal attacks is the true crime and that is nothing but a job well done.

It seems Trump has little choice.  In his place, I would fire them all right now with the statement that it is in our country’s best interest that these idiots move on.  Muller, Rosenstein, and about 2500 other Obama swampmongers would leave right at this exact moment if I had the ability.   Trump gets the same result either way, prosecution, innuendo and nonsense.  Chuck them to the curb with extreme prejudice and put in someone who will investigate Comey, Clinton, Muller’s fake investigation and Obama.  Because those folk all actually did obstruct “justice”.

Clinton lied to investigators–obstruction.

Clinton destroyed evidence–obstruction.

Clinton bribed and manipulated office holding investigators — obstruction.

A democrat operative who was apparently leaking to Wikileaks was shot.   obstruction.

NO REAL INVESTIGATIONS of any of these things.





47 Responses to “Easy Call”

  1. jinghis said

    This is the same Deep State that is pushing Climate Change and the War on Terror, etc. etc.

  2. Jeff id said

    I’m concerned this time. Violence is being condoned on the left Muslim bad guys being supported. Media lying to promote the situation instead of their readership. White folk actively being ridiculed and opressed with impunity. Looks like the early stages of a really bad war.

    • jinghis said

      I agree the optics are horrible and if Trump is impeached it will be a shooting war that will make the Civil War look like a warm up for the main event. The left has to know this, so the real plan is to just dig in, obstruct and outlast Trump which is fair enough.

      However, I don’t believe anything the MSM says and I think the Probe will truly be aimed at the Russian hacking of the election and that means Hillary’s emails, Foundation, uranium deal, DNC, Unmasking, Wiki Leaks, leaks in general, Seth Rich, etc. There is absolutely nothing that leads to Trump or his people. Instead it is clearly a major scandal for the Democratic party and the Deep State.

      I think we need to let this play out and see where it is headed. A real investigation as compared to a political show trial, is invisible during the investigation phase. This phase has all the earmarks of a well thought out strategy typical of Trump and his team. I have a feeling that in a couple of months all of the people screaming for the investigation to go on are going to be screaming for it to be shut down.

  3. paullinsay said

    I’d wait and fire them all on the morning of July 4, strip and lock their offices, then tell them to drop dead.

  4. Lieu’s premise is critically flawed. It is clear that Democrats are above the law. Comey detailed the laws Hillary broke – no prosecution. Nixon was forced to resign for allegations he did what has been admitted that Obama did. No repercussions.

    Democrats are not only crooks, they are liars.

    • Frank said

      Phil: Comey explained that HRC had mishandled secret information, but that mishandling isn’t a crime unless there is INTENT to disclose that information. (By keeping her email on a private server, Hillary was trying to keep her email secret, not disclose anything!) Other people who mishandle secret information can lose their security clearance or job, but they don’t go to jail. When David Petraus gave secret reports to his biographer/lover, he warned her that she wasn’t supposed to see these reports (intent) and lied to the FBI (obstruction). He was prosecuted.

      Comey discussed charging HRC for gross negligence in handling secret material, a crime that doesn’t require any proof of intent. Only one person in a century has ever been charged of this crime, and Comey asserted that no reasonable prosecutor would have brought this case. As best I can tell, many high-level State Department officials are guilty of gross negligence in the handling of secret information, because they don’t have secure email away from the office in a world where 24/7 communication is the norm. High level intelligence officials have secure email at home, but not the SoS. Information obtained from the secure email system was commonly discussed on the non-secure system. Most of the sensitive email Hillary had on her server was improperly sent to her by others, not sent to others by her.

      You can find the Articles of Impeachment that were approved by the Judiciary Committee two weeks before Nixon resigned. 6 of 17 Republicans voted for two of the three articles. Which of these activities has Obama admitted doing?

      FWIW, I be happy to consider prosecuting HRC for perjury in testimony to Congress. (Comey unambiguously agreed that several of HRC’s statements to Congress about the email server conflicted with her statements to the FBI, but her intent to lie would still need to be established.) I think the existence of her server demonstrated her intent to hide her email from State Department attorneys who respond to FOI. FOI was obstructed. And the whole Clinton Foundation was a massive influence peddling operation which earned the Clintons millions of dollars. Probably plenty of crimes there if a special prosecutor had several years to investigate Clinton insiders and “convince” them to testify.

      • Jeff Id said

        Comey discussed things he did not do. Comey discussed a lot of his ‘feelings’ and is currently where he belongs. I would have fired him on day 1, no matter what “discussion” he wanted to have because he is a flat moron who thinks he is not. Hillary is quite guilty of far more than neglegence. She literally was busted destroying evidence during an actual investigation, unlike the fake investigations of CNN, and got away with it totally free of charges. In addition, there were reports that when Huma came up with the same information on her computer, the FBI intentionally smashed it for her along with immunity.

        It is not obstruction when the FAKE cops help you destroy the evidence I guess. Even if this particular report were wrong, they fully allowed Hillary to sell the Uranium to our largest adversary and she had many tens of millions show up in her personal charity. REAL conspiracy, not nonsense Trump people talked to the Russian ambassador after the election (which his people should effing do or they are FIRED) — because Hillary actually sold the uranium and probably everything else she could find to whomever would buy it. — Bluntly stated by me — obviously!! Pay attention for crap sake. This isn’t about kissing the pretty girl, it is reality and our oversized government is out of control.

        Please pay attention and be more critical. You clearly like the imagined goals of the Democrat party, but the truth of it is blatantly misrepresented.

        Even this block of fake, unenforced law would lead to Hillary’s incarceration.

        (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

      • Sorry Frank, you are dead wrong. The statute under which Hillary is guilty has already sent many to jail. It says NOTHING about intent. It explicitly omits it. Comey is not the judge, jury, executioner AND legislator. He is merely the investigator. He found he broke the law. He refused to recommend prosecution. But that is not his job! His job is simple. Investigate and turn over to the DOJ all information he finds. Period. It is then up to Lynch (who would not have prosecuted either, but that is irrelevant) to then decide to prosecute, NOT Comey.

        Second, on the Articles of impeachment, which ones did Nixon admit doing?

        Here’s a clue. The exact sames ones that Obama admitted.

        You need to learn to do better research. YOu really sucked an egg on this one.

    • Frank said

      And I’d give Lois Lerner immunity and force her to testify. Just before her testimony, I’d announce the “discovery” of more of her email.

  5. page488 said

    As a child, I lived in Pensacola, FL, during the run up to the Cuban Missile crisis. At school, we had repeated drills in the event of a bombing. I was damn scared at the age of 8 or 9.

    I lived in Birmingham, AL, during the civil rights movement of the sixties. Being within the city, proper, our house was very close to all the action – Bull Connor, his fire hoses and the like. I was scared then, too.

    Now, because of the leftists’ pursuit of absolute power by any means, whatsoever, I am so frightened that I actually went out and bought a gun a few days ago. A hand gun. A rifle will likely be my next purchase. I may be an elderly woman, but I’m not going down in a civil war without a fight.

    The left clearly has become unhinged…..and dangerous. They tacitly, if not explicitly, have now determined that they must eliminate all their enemies one way or another, whether it be by the political (destruction by the media) or real assassinations of Trump, you, me or anyone else, or by the creation of an out and out civil war. Fundamentalist liberals (socialists, communists) no longer care about the people of the US, at all, but only about implementing their Utopian ideology. It’s their way or the highway; they want what the want and they want it now, and anyone who gets in their way is toast.

    What’s even worse, they’ve been fomenting unrest among poor blacks for quite some time to further their goal of a civil war. And, I do believe that civil war is their current goal, since they have failed, both in the media and at the ballot box, to peacefully implement their agenda. At present, I think they believe that their only path to power is destruction of the country as a whole. I think they see themselves as rising from the chaos to grab grab power and implement Utopia .

    I don’t think that anyone on the left gives one rat’s ass about the circumstances of the average black woman/child in the projects. Whether or not the liberals consciously planned to create a “breeder caste” for votes could be up for debate, but the fact remains that the caste does exist, votes en masse as expected, and liberals happily accept their votes and the tragedies of their lives. The left uses these people shamelessly, and appears to have no interest in improving their lives.

    I stand behind President Trump. Hopefully, the President will continue to do his job, no matter what kind of garbage the media/ leftists have on the agenda for him.

    I am so grateful that he won!

    • Jeff Id said

      Page, if you are just buying a hand gun now, it sounds like you haven’t practiced much with one. If that is the case, find some training that involves safety and actually firing the gun. I’ve been shooting my whole life and typically don’t like being around inexperienced and even some experienced people with firearms. Constant vigilance regarding the handling and pointing of a firearm are absolutely required. Quick access to a loaded weapon is a necessity in a defense scenario, but loaded weapons in instant reach for everyone are a bad deal so a quick release mechanism like a coded box that allows owners to access the weapon quickly is my preference. Even when secured, I don’t keep a round in the chamber. With practice, I can access in about 5 seconds after I decide it is required. It did work for me one time when someone was trying to break in. The sound of the slide racking a round was enough to convince them to leave at maximum tennis-shoe speed. I figure if the badguy can get to me quicker than that, I lose. If you already know all this, I’m sorry to write it – take care.

      Unrest does play into the authoritarians hands. They call Nazi’s right wing, but they had many of the same policies as the socialists. They call Muslims right wing but again many of the same policies as the socialists. They call both conservative but it isn’t anything resembling an American conservative – who the Dems like to falsely call facists. They should look up the meaning of the word in my opinion. To me it seems like a better description of the evil forms of government can be lumped into the word authoritarian. And whatever form of authoritarian government individual Dem’s, Muslims, Nazi’s, communists prefer, it is all the same thing to me. Someone else having more power to decide what you can and cannot do. Universally, it becomes a system which benefits the boss over the citizen.

      Our freedom put us ahead of the rest of the world and our gradual decline into socialism is pulling us right into the mire with the rest of them. I agree that unrest plays into their hands, and masses of impoverished people are beneficial to the Dems goals. Despite the incredible amounts of evidence as to what happens with authoritarian government, lots of people still believe in it.

  6. gallopingcamel said

    The FBI is so corrupt. They can not indict anyone for the crimes committed by the the last administration. Here a re just a few:
    1. Fast & Furious
    2. IRS targeting of political opponents.
    3. Twenty percent of US uranium sold to Russian oligarchs.
    4. NSA and other three letter agencies spying on Americans.

    It is time to rebuild from the bottom up. There is a precedent……Ronald Reagan fired the air traffic controllers and rebuilt from the bottom up.

  7. jmarshs said

    I came across this link on Willis’ Blog, Skating Under the Ice. It offers an interesting take on what may be happening with regards to the Trump investigation. Comey could be in for a heap-of-hurt….

  8. Hunter said

    The news is starting to emerge that the entire Russian-Trump gambit gas been a cynical democrat trick. Hang in there. Blowback should be huge
    Think on this: Schumer knew it is a scam but kept pushing the lie that Trump had been colluding. Long past time for censorship.

  9. Steve borodin said

    I really dislike the way Americans abuse the word liberal. These people are simply socialists with a thin veneer of respectability. For that matter they are not very democratic either.

  10. Frank said

    Jeff writes: “Trump could order the investigation of something he was guilty of, stopped, without being guilty of obstruction by the way, because he’s actually the boss. He’s completely allowed to do that.”

    Or he could pardon General Flynn rather than quietly twisting Comey’s arm to go easy on him. Trump could even pardon himself!

    In any of these situations, Trump could (and probably would) be impeached for failing to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. As president, Trump is in charge of the executive branch, including the DoJ – but that doesn’t mean he is all-powerful. Impeachment is the Constitution’s way of checking and balancing the President’s power. The grounds for impeachment were deliberately left vague for this reason. And everyone in the impeaching House of Representatives stands for election within two years, providing a check on their power to capriciously over-rule the electorate. And Trump supporters will take revenge on any Republican who deserts the President they elected.

    Following your theory of absolute authority over DOJ investigations, Nixon ordered the firing of Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor his DoJ had appointed. The AG and deputy AG resigned rather than carry out Nixon’s orders. The #3 in the department – Robert Bork – came up with a reason for executing the president’s order and his poor judgment cost him a seat on the Supreme Court. If Nixon’s tapes had not contained evidence of Nixon’s involvement in payment of hush money, Nixon probably would have been impeached, but probably not convicted, for interfering with the investigation. However, Nixon was respected by many Republican senators – an advantage Trump lacks.

    And when President Ford pardoned Nixon, he testified under oath to Congress about the pardon, especially about Haig’s efforts to get Nixon to resign in return for a pardon. IIRC, this was the first time any President agreed to testify under oath to Congress. The power of Presidents is constrained by the power to impeach.

    Comey told the president (and later Congress) that the FBI wasn’t investigating Trump. The problem was that Flynn has been guilty of lying on his disclosure forms, lying to the VP (not a crime) and allegedly lying to FBI investigators. Apparently some suspected that Hillary’s private email server (in addition to the DNC’s) was hacked, probably by Russians. Now we learn that Flynn was associated with efforts to obtain those unreleased emails from hackers. Once Flynn or anyone else cooperates with the FBI and implicates Trump, then an investigation of Trump will begin. We haven’t reached that point yet – and may never get there.

    Several intelligence officials have testified in front of Congress that they received information that people associated with the Trump campaign were in contact with Russians, but declined to discuss the information in public. They have in private and have provided documents to Congress. The FBI has investigated and provided their results. The absence of leaks so far is amazing, but Republicans would be shouting that the investigation has turned up nothing – if that were true. So I’m betting that there will be somebody to prosecute.

    Much of the above is speculative. Some facts: 1) During the campaign, President Trump’s remarks about Putin were absurdly favorable and naive. 2) Trump’s sons bragged about the size of their investments inside Russia and investment funding from Russian sources for other projects. 3) Paul Manafort and Flynn lobbied for Russian affiliated groups. 4) Jeff Sessions dissembled about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. 5) Kushner admitted trying to set up a secret back channel to Russia that would circumvent US intelligence services. 6) The Russians are experts at recruiting others to assist them by entrapment, blackmail, corruption, etc. 7) Flynn lied about his relationship with Russian on his disclosure forms and allegedly to the FBI. 8) Trump fired Comey over the investigation of his campaign. Plenty of facts suggesting – but not proving – that Trump has something to hide.

    AG Rosenstein recommended firing Comey for exceeding his authority during the HRC server investigation – not for Comey’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Full text of Rosenstein statement to Congress:

    • Jeff Id said

      This one is kind of fun because the law isn’t perfectly clear.

      “Or he could pardon General Flynn rather than quietly twisting Comey’s arm to go easy on him.”

      the President “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

      Doesn’t that imply that Flynn would have had to do something wrong in order to be pardoned? I think that if you were to review your own thinking more carefully, it might be possible that Trump would fire the guy for not being honest, or perhaps not capable rather than having committed a crime. In my opinion, if there were a crime committed, I’m personally certain that the current FBI leadership would have had a political field day with it.

      Can a non-criminal, no accusation, nothing but 100% service to this country to protect our wives and children, accused ONLY by fake liberal media, which the compliant leftists in government started a knowingly fake investigation for, be pardoned.

      Seriously, that is what Trump should do?

      Your concept is not reasonable. I would love to hear why it is.

      • Frank said

        Jeff asked: “Doesn’t that imply that Flynn would have had to do something wrong in order to be pardoned?”

        How we know if someone has done something wrong? Normally, there has been a trial that established wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt. However, Richard Nixon was pardoned by Gerald Ford without a trial or any admission of wrongdoing by Nixon. The pardon covered “all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974”. Marc Rich was fighting extradition from Switzerland to stand trial on 51 counts of tax evasion worth $48M when he was pardoned by Bill Clinton (with the help acting AG Eric Holder, donations to the Clinton library and HRC Senate campaign). At the end of his term, Bush pardoned three members of the Reagan administration who were awaiting trial by special prosecutor Walsh for perjury while testifying in front of Congress about Iran-Contra. Clinton’s pardons came on the last day of his administration and Bush’s in December, so impeachment for their actions was impractical. Yes, someone can be pardoned without a guilty verdict or any admission of wrongdoing.

        Comey testified in front of Congress that Flynn had lied to FBI investigators. Flynn signed disclosures about conflicts of interest and other activities upon joining the administration have been amended several times since he was dismissed. Yes, I think he could be pardoned of any wrongdoing. No one has to accept a pardon – it is an admission you did something pardonable.

        If lying to the FBI (obstruction of justice) is the only thing Flynn has done wrong, he will probably not be prosecuted. If he probably has done something wrong, but it will be difficult to prove in court, he could get charged only with obstruction. Martha Stewart was investigated for insider trading, a crime that is difficult to prove in court, but was found guilty of obstruction of justice.

        Jeff said: “compliant leftists in the government started a knowingly fake investigation”

        Which leftists are those? Sally Yeats? absolutely. Jeh Johnson? probably. Brennan? Probably. The three men below have worked for both Republican and Democratic Administration.

        Comey (confirmed 93-1), the man who announced the re-opening of the Clinton email investigation two weeks before the election without any new evidence being found? (Yes, he did agree Clinton shouldn’t be indicted for mishandling secret email, but if he hadn’t agreed, AG Lynch would have over-ruled him. He clearly documented HRC’s many mistakes.)

        General Michael Hayden, Director of the NSA, and CIA (confirm 78-15, all 15 Dems) originator of domestic phone intelligence and author of “Playing to the Edge: American Intelligence in the Age of Terror.”?

        James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence (confirmed 95-0).

        Also Former Republican Senator Dan Coats. Trump-appointed director of National Intelligence. He refused President’s request to publicly state there was no evidence of collusion. Interestingly Diane Feinstein (ranking member Senate Intelligence committee on CNN does state there is no evidence of collusion she has seen as of mid-May:

        Interesting story about Flynn from before the sh1t hit the fan. The stress on America’s most brilliant military leaders after a decade of war, especially under the “leadership” of Obama and his WH cronies probably was tremendous. McCrystal, Petraus and Flynn went off-track, the latter two after they left the discipline and obedience of the military. (I say Flynn went off-track because of his involvement with Russian propaganda TV station RT and appearing with Putin in Moscow.) Was the objective to find HRC’s destroyed email records with the help of his new Russian friends – assuming they actually had hacked her server and perhaps were waiting for HRC to become president before making use of them?

        Jeff writes: “Your concept is not reasonable. I would love to hear why it is.”

        My concept is that the intelligence community began an investigation because of legitimate, but inconclusive, information they obtained about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. They didn’t know where that investigation would lead. I (and you?) don’t know why it started or where it has led today, because the results of the investigation aren’t yet public. You assume that it is being driven by compliant leftists in government. I heard everyone testifying in front of Congress, including respected non-partisans, that you are wrong. Congress will issue reports and then we will know.

        My concept is that Presidents aren’t above the law. Trump admitted firing Comey because of the investigation.

        • Jeff Id said

          Your reasoning is well considered Frank. It is clear that I will not dissuade you from this narrative, no matter the argument made by me. Also, there are too many points to discuss here by keyboard with days of delay. I can discuss a few without too much time wasted.

          First, I accept your assertion about pardons. I didn’t know the detail of how pardons had been applied in the past, and you are correct from the historical standpoint that it has been done. “– it is an admission you did something pardonable.” — this is debatable but doesn’t really matter.

          Compliant leftists start with Comey and go much deeper in both directions than that. The government is 97% filled with authoritarian supporters, smashing negative evidence for their side and lying about the others. No big surprise there I hope.

          Jeff writes: “Your concept is not reasonable. I would love to hear why it is.”

          I could accept your theory of a legitimate but inconclusive information started the “Trump campaign” investigation if you could articulate for me just what legitimate or otherwise information we are talking about.

          I haven’t seen, read, heard, or even been able to imagine a scrap of it. Not one bit at all, yet we have plenty of innuendo.

          All ears on this one.

    • Jeff Id said

      “Several intelligence officials have testified in front of Congress that they received information that people associated with the Trump campaign were in contact with Russians, but declined to discuss the information in public. They have in private and have provided documents to Congress. ”

      This is the last bit tonight for me. Trump people SHOULD be in contact with the Russians, and everyone else — it’s their fucking job. How about the British, can Republicans talk to them they are further left than the Russians, how about the Chinese, bet they talked to them too, Tiawan was a big No No, Japan, Germany, Canada. So stupid.

      See this Russia thing started with the fake DNC hacking which was blamed on the Russians, 17 agencies said so, except now they don’t…now it was 3 and all leftist controlled… look that up anywhere but CNN,MSNBC,ABC. You really need to stop watching/reading that stuff. Then it turned into a fake “Trump colluded with the Russians” to hack the DNC, also proven nonsense, and THEN!!! it went to FLYNN, and then back to Hacking and now back to Muller and whatever….. Not one lick of evidence against Trump, with literal mountains of actual crimes against Hillary and even Obama.

      Fake politically motivated people is all Democrats have for evidence. Not real.

      • Frank said

        Jeff: There is a rarely used US law (the Logan Act) that makes it illegal for private US citizens to negotiate with foreign governments. Obama and his team should have been the only people negotiating with the Russian up until 1/20/2017.

        The wisdom of this rule can be seen in the election of 1980, when Reagan’s campaign feared a release of the American hostages held by Iran just before the election (the October surprise). Much later, there were allegations that Casey and others interfered with the Carter administration’s efforts to get the hostages released, both before and after the election. Congress investigated and found no support for the allegations. Would you approve of Reagan’s campaign secretly telling the Iranians that they would be able to negotiate better terms if the hostages were kept until after the election?

        I presume that is it this type of serious collusion that is being investigated. The Trump campaign apparently assumed or hoped that HRC’s private email server and been hacked by Russian affiliates. What, if anything, did the Trump campaign promise Russia if they released those emails before the election (rather than threatening to blackmail a likely President Hillary)? Note: I have no idea whether such discussions took place. If we received any intelligence suggesting that such discussions might have been held, investigation was warranted. I gather from the Feinstein interview, Congress hasn’t received any reliable information about collusion of this type.

        After the election, I believe Reagan publicly announced that his team would hold no discussions with the Iranians, that he would follow any agreement Carter completed before 1/20/1981, but that he wouldn’t be bound by any promises Carter made. One president at a time! As you may recall, the hostages were being loaded on the plane home as Reagan was taking the oath of office.

        After the election, Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering in the US election. Flynn was discussing (improperly IMO) what Trump intended to do about it with the Russian ambassador. IIRC, this conversation was intercepted by US intelligence and leaked soon after Sally Yeats failed to get Flynn dismissed. These discussions are far less problematic than any in 1980 over the hostages, but Muller may be able to use the Logan act to get Flynn to cooperate.

        • Jeff Id said

          The Logan act is not a broad act which disallowes people from negotiation with a foreign government. Actually your comment is so broad, you might get Flynned for omission of truth.

          It doesn’t allow negotiation of disputes or controversies between foreign governments and the United States. It was written with a purpose and as is always the case in law,
          the backstory defines the meaning.

          This particular law is a very different thing from your presentation. ALL governments, and ALL campaigns talk business with foreign governments at EVERY campaign. Some do break the law in a TANGIBLE manner — Hillary attempted directly to influence foreign elections outside of their and our legal process. Any reason some American chick might do that? Maybe Comey could investigate? – IMO not even with both hands could that man find the truth.

        • hunter said

          The story (lie) that democrats pushed against Reagan, and imposed a special prosecutor to “investigate”, about the so-called October surprise was proven to be exactly that: a sorry fiction pushed by democrats.

    • And what crime did Flynn commit? So far, no one has found any evidence he has broken any laws. The only thing he is “guilty” of is not telling Pence the whole truth. And since he was not under oath when he relayed that information, that is not even perjury. So what would he be pardoned of? Siding with the complainant against McCabe in a sexual harassment complaint?

      Yea, let’s prosecute EVERYONE who believes someone who is sexually harassed!

      You make no sense Frank, but I am sure CNN can use you on their staff.

  11. Frank said

    Jeff: It is sad to see a fine analytical mind ignore so much evidence. The President can set policy for the DoJ: Focus resources on terrorism, race, banks, tax-fraud, or whatever. Don’t waste time on illegal immigrants with no criminal record. Tell them they are currently safe from being deported. (The Republicans have challenged that abuse of executive authority in court.)

    However, the president is on dangerous ground when he interferes in the investigation of one particular individual or business, especially when the target is himself, his administration, his family, a close friend, a major campaign donor, etc. Within minutes of making this blunder, a shocked Comey was typing a memo documenting what he had just heard. Presidents aren’t supposed interfere with the judicial process. Justice is supposed to be blind.

    Watergate demonstrated that a President who interferes with an investigation that concerns himself and his administration is likely to be impeached and possibly convicted. The burglary was a trivial crime – equivalent to colluding with Russian hackers. Firing the director of the FBI because the director won’t stop an investigation into Trump’s campaign is certainly is a potentially impeachable offense. It doesn’t have to fit the technical definition of obstruction of justice. However, if Trump’s judgment about the triviality of any mistakes made by his campaign is proven more accurate than Comey’s, I doubt Congress will do anything. After all, the President’s judgment will have been proven sound about how resources should be allocated and the need to put the issue aside, so important work can be done. Trump can then claim his actions were for the good of the country. If Trump interfered with an investigation that eventually uncovers serious wrongdoing and leads to guilty pleas and/or convictions, IMO we will have a President Pence. However, there is no evidence in front of the public to support the second scenario – right now.

    When Comey disclosed Trump’s interference, he forced the DoJ to appoint a special prosecutor, thereby placing the investigation outside of the President’s authority over the DoJ. If the President calls, Muller won’t answer. If Sessions calls, Muller won’t answer – Sessions has recused himself from this case and that is Muller’s only responsibility When a DoJ official calls, Muller won’t discuss the case, but he will discuss administrative issues.

    • Jeff Id said

      I’m sorry to let you down actually, but I don’t agree with much of this statement. Trump did nothing wrong, so therefore firing the leftist, politically motivated FBI idiot is fine. Were I president, a job I would not want, I would have fired him on day one and let everyone sling whatever monkey poop they could. If I was too busy having fun on day one, day two would also have worked for me. Actually, I lost my cookies with my friend when after a week he wasn’t gone.

      If they started investigating me for something I personally knew I didn’t do, I would fire them too. It’s the right thing to do. Comey was a bad politician and no cop despite what people want him to have been.

      Watergate was real, Clinton selling Uranium was real, Fast and furious was real, the Ambassidor in Benghazi was real, fake charities pay for play was real, suppression of investigation of Clinton was real, Clinton’s destruciton of evidence was real, Clinton’s obstruction of justice was absolutely real, and you want to say that the fake investigation into trump for rigging an election — something which did NOT happen, somehow rises to this level.

      You should be more self critical in your own analysis IMHO. There is a tremendous amount of “hope” and “belief” in your comment.

      • The media reports imaginary crimes while real crimes go unreported. How is it that I never saw this video before? Why are the media failing to express outrage when tens of thousands of criminals are being released?

      • Here is that link again:

      • Frank said

        Possible charges against Flynn: Violating the Logan Act?, Foreign Agents Registration Act?, which applies to those paid by foreign governments, lying on the disclosure forms he signed before assuming office?, obstruction of justice (lying to the FBI, refusing Congressional subpoenas)?

        I’m sure Mueller will present him with a long list of potential charges that may never be filed or that Flynn might easily beat in court in order to get him to cooperate and tell what he knows about the President’s involvement. Mueller can also immunize Flynn and force him to testify in front of a grand jury about the President. If he refuses, that is contempt of court and he goes straight to jail. Clinton’s partners in Whitewater, the McDougals (husband and wife) went to jail for more than a year for refusing to testify for special prosecutor Starr.

        The problem with Special Prosecutors is that they have only one target, infinite resources, the ability to investigate anyone close to Trump to obtain leverage over them (even tax returns?), and then the ability to try them for obstruction of justice if they forget – deliberately or accidently – something when talking to the FBI. Ken Starr involved the Whitewater investigation in Vince Foster’s death, missing billing records at HRC’s law firm, overbilling by one of HRC’s law partners, travelgate, the Jones lawsuit against Bill for sexual harassment and finally, Monica Lewinsky and perjury. In general, prosecutors have limited resources and discretion in how best to use those resources on the important convictions that will enhance their career. A special prosecutor has only one principle target and knows he will be judged by whether or not he obtains convictions. Don’t expect the coming process to appear fair, it isn’t.

        I abhor 24 hour news stations. They exist to entertain, incite, and sell advertising to those who agree with their political position. Trump is our President and it is important to the country for him to be successful. That doesn’t mean I’ll ignore any FACTS about mistakes he makes. Any part of the press that perceives themselves to be involved in a holy war against Trump (the vast majority, as best I can tell) deserve how Trump is treating them – “all is fair in love and war”. They are idiots; Trump’s Tweets have a much bigger audience than they do and he is far more effective and nasty than they are. I’m sure the left and other entertainers are learning a lot from from Trump. In the 2020’s, those with the most Facebook friends may be the strongest candidates. (I’d prefer a President who didn’t indulge in these tactics, but Americans chose him fully understanding how he – and HRC – behaved.)

        Both of us are skeptical about the consensus about CAGW. That doesn’t mean that you accept what some skeptics have been saying about the physics of climate change: the sky dragons, those who ignore the existence of chaos and say that a pause of about 12 years is proof that a GHE doesn’t exist, those that say that all warming has been produced by adjusting the record. I don’t know what you think about most of the “science” at WUWT these days, but I find it easy to find holes and weaknesses in most technical posts. That is what skeptical scientists, especially when confronted with amateur science. A few things survive my scrutiny. Checking McIntyre against RC left me more confident in the skeptical position. I apply the same scrutiny to politics as to science. There is a greater truth somewhere that doesn’t depend solely on one’s innate biases.

        Hope your business is doing well (and you have the opportunity to hire more Americans).

      • Frank said

        Jeff wrote: “Were I president, a job I would not want, I would have fired [Comey] on day one and let everyone sling whatever monkey poop they could.”

        Yes, but you would have been smart enough to fire him for exceeding his authority in the HRC investigation and because both parties had lost confidence in his non-partisanship. The FBI needed to be headed by someone without Mr. Comey’s baggage – controversies he brought upon himself. You wouldn’t have bragged that you did so because he wouldn’t stop the investigation into your campaign – thereby giving prosecutors evidence of intent to obstruct the investigation – the hardest thing to prove in court.

        Jeff wrote: “If they started investigating me for something I personally knew I didn’t do, I would fire them too. It’s the right thing to do.”

        Neither you – as a private citizen, nor the President – have the right to decide whether anything you did constituted a crime. The President is not above the law and neither are private citizens. The government investigates, provides their evidence to a grand jury, and then your guilty or innocence is decided by 12 uninvolved peers who need to find your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Nixon’s tapes recorded his calling the head of the CIA and ordering him to tell the FBI to back off because the Cuban’s involved the break in were still working for the CIA (a lie). And the FBI investigation was halted for several weeks. Nixon later claimed that he did so because rumors about a wider investigation would leak and make it harder for him to do his job as president. Unfortunately, Nixon already had been told Hunt and Liddy were involved and he was preventing the FBI from discovering their crimes. Likewise, Nixon was involved in payments to those involved and he asserted they were made out of compassion for the families involved and to pay their legal expenses. No one, not even the President, decides whether he has committed a crime or should be investigated for one. Just like any private citizen, he has the right to confront any charges that might be brought against him in a courtroom (or via impeachment).

        This is why others decide whether you have or have not done something wrong.

        Jeff wrote: “Watergate was real, Clinton selling Uranium was real, Fast and furious was real, the Ambassador in Benghazi was real, fake charities pay for play was real, suppression of investigation of Clinton was real, Clinton’s destruction of evidence was real, Clinton’s obstruction of justice was absolutely real”

        … and the IRS mistreatment of conservative groups was real (let’s immunize Louis Lerner and force her to talk), and Bill’s campaign contributions from China were real, and Bush II and Congress took us to war in Iraq on the basis of misleading intelligence that had been summarized under intense political pressure, the whole Clinton foundation was a corrupt enterprise that brought in perhaps a $100 million to the Clintons personally. I happen to think that John Brennan or an associate in the WH planted the story of demonstrators at the embassy (a classic “misinformation” strategy used by all intelligence services) with people who he knew were sources for the CIA. Only he did it to misinform his own country, not a foreign enemy. This initially mislead the CIA, who were then forced to issue a report before all the evidence was in – because the public needed to know whether this was a terrorist attack. I personally don’t see why anyone high in the Obama administration had a motive to allow weapons to reach Mexican drug gangs, but I’m sure they tried to hide their mistakes. The Republicans controlled Congress and botched the investigations. They have controlled and now control the DoJ. They had or have the ability fix some of these miscarriages of justice. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

        You and I don’t know whether Trump did something wrong. You and I both know he would lie about it if he had. He lies constantly, such as suggesting he recorded his conversation with Comey. Trump doesn’t know if his associates did anything wrong, so he has no basis for telling the FBI to stop investigating them. He didn’t personally interrogate or investigate them. I doubt he has been informed in detail about the evidence the FBI possesses. Comey stated several time that Trump himself wasn’t under investigation (or wouldn’t be until someone ratted him out, and they could be lying). Trump wants to make all of this “go away”, so he can govern more effective – or at least I hope that is his motivation. Democratic administrations wanted to make all of their problems go away, but there is no evidence Mr. Obama personally interfered in any of these scandals. Mr. Trump’s feeling that Mr. Flynn is a “good man” who has suffered enough is not a reason for obstructing his investigation – though it could be grounds for a pardon. If Mr. Mueller hasn’t finished his investigation of Mr. Flynn, his pardon of Flynn could be considered to be obstruction. That is why most presidents wait until the end of their term to issue pardons.

        • Jeff Id said

          “Neither you – as a private citizen, nor the President – have the right to decide whether anything you did constituted a crime.”

          Good theory, in practice, I can spot a politician far away and that is what I would be firing. In Nixons case, he was tangibly guilty. Very tangibly so. Were there ANY evidence of Trump doing something wrong, it would have been exposed. A leak a day from the leftists in inner government circles, why they aren’t fired en-masse is beyond me. I would fire them all and hire more HR folk to figure out how to fix the mess.

          If Trump doesn’t know what the FBI has, he needs a new FBI. He’s charged with defense and prosperity of our country per the will of the PEOPLE, and he should not be handicapped by this nonsense. It is a politically motivated leftist attack, with zero evidence, and no potentially good outcome for America. Nothing more.

          I would fire Muller today, along with any supporters of his. The Muller team will shortly begin to create even more distractions from the business of Trump. Trump-time wasted, is time well spent in the minds of the left, and perhaps yours as well. Fire them now and let someone else worry about the FAKE media condemnation which will come no matter which choice is made.

          • Frank said

            Jeff: When did you know Nixon was guilty?


            June 17, 1972: Burglars arrested……….June 2016: Meeting with two Russians.
            Aug 1972: CREEP money on burglars………Dec 2016: Russia stories appear.
            June 23, 1972: CIA blocks FBI……..Jan 2017: Trump/Comey discuss Flynn.
            March, 1973: Hush money paid
            March,1973: McCord rats……….March 2017: Comey reveals investigation
            April 1973: Dean cooperates and is fired………May 2017: Comey fired.
            April 1973: Haldeman, Erlichman, Gray resign……….Feb 2017: Flyn fired,
            May 1973: Spec Pros Cox appted……….May 2017: Mueller appointed.
            June 1974: Dean testifies in public………..July 2017: Russian meeting disclosed.
            July 1973: Tapes disclosed
            Oct 1973: Cox fired……….. July 2017: Jeff fires Mueller (:)).
            Nov 1, 1973: Jaworski appted.
            Jan 1974: Trials begin
            April 1974: Tapes re-subpoenaed.
            May 1974: Impeachment hearings begin……….May 2018: Frank impeaches Trump?
            July 1974: Supreme Court rules on tapes
            Aug 1974: Nixon resigns.

            I should have known about serious problems when Nixon campaign funds were found in burglar’s bank account, but Woodward and Bernstein are only ones following this story. Dean’s testimony is first public evidence that Nixon was involved in cover up. His word against the President’s at that point. Cox (and Comey’s?) firing should have convinced me Nixon had something to hide.

            The FBI investigation isn’t keeping Trump from working full time. Trump is totally undisciplined, a thrill-seeker who prefers chaos. If he didn’t have this serious problem, it would be something else.

  12. Frank said

    Jeff wrote: “A democrat operative who was apparently leaking to Wikileaks was shot.”

    An analyst working for the DNC was shot and killed late at night, but not robbed. Fox News published a story alleging that FBI agents in possession of his computer found evidence that the DNC email leaked to WikiLeaks passed through this computer. All Fox News sources later claimed no personal knowledge of what had been found on that computer and not direct information from an FBI agent. This caused Fox News to retract their story. As best I can tell, no one has asserted that the murdered man had the ability or motive to steal email.

    WikiLeaks never tells the name of their sources (unless the source has already publicly admitted their actions). IIRC, they have offered a reward for information about the murder, thus hinting the DNC staffer was the source. Of course, WIkiLeaks doesn’t want to appear to be a tool by which the Russians influence elections. Nevertheless, material from the Macron campaign allegedly hacked by Russians was also posted at WikiLeaks. There are probably other examples.

    The above facts are all available on the Internet, where I discovered them after first hearing this overlooked story. None of the Congressmen on the Intelligence Committees are challenging the idea that Russians tried to influence our election. Perhaps they have all been fooled by a corrupt liberal bureaucracy, the swamp opposing Trump that needs to be drained. I have a friend who is a Trump supporter who worked for the CIA. I’ll ask him what he thinks about this hypothesis.

    The DNC staffer leaking is a poor rationale for doubting the Russians were the source. In Climategate, no one suspected their email server contained such a trove of information, suggesting FOIA could have been an insider. Many hackers would find the DNC an attractive target, so there is no reason to suspect an insider was involved.

    FWIW, Donald Trump Jr. just admitting meeting with a Russian during the campaign in hopes of getting email that may have hacked from Hillary’s vulnerable private server. That makes at least two sources publicly admitting that the Trump campaign was pursuing this goal. I don’t see anything obviously criminal about this: US newspapers regularly pursue and publish leaked information (though I don’t know if they pay for it). US intelligence should have been and was worried about these direct contacts and I’m sure the Obama administration demanded more information about this “threat” when they were informed via the PDB, whether or not they initially appears to be serious. Apparently, Susan Rice asked Flynn’s name to be unmasked. However, the story about that investigation didn’t leak before the election

    HRC’s campaign also pursued information from Russian sources, but her use of a former MI6 agent (previously hired by Trump’s Republican opponents) may have raised less concern at US intelligence agencies. Would the Clinton mafia have made a corrupt deal with agents of the Russian government to obtain damaging material about Donald Trump? Possibly. I can’t think of a good reason the Russian government would offer such material without a good opportunity to blackmail someone later. I suspect the Clintons are experts at carrying out such transactions from a distance. Unlike Trump, the Clinton’s wouldn’t send their child on such a mission. Most importantly, the Clinton campaign never conceived that they could lose to Trump and already had plenty of scandalous information about him. Stories about prostitutes in Moscow or Russian investors wouldn’t further tarnish him. Their problem was HRC herself: a quarter-century of scandal in the public spotlight, old age, lack of a compelling vision for her presidency, and a total failure to comprehend the Trump’s phenomena. It engulfed the Republican party and surprised them.

    If you want me to stop polluting this post, please say so. I hope you find some of the information factual and useful for understanding what is happening.

    • Jeff Id said

      “The DNC staffer leaking is a poor rationale for doubting the Russians were the source. In Climategate, no one suspected their email server contained such a trove of information, suggesting FOIA could have been an insider. Many hackers would find the DNC an attractive target, so there is no reason to suspect an insider was involved.”

      You do a good job with your arguments but there is nothing but opinion in this point. Climategate seems very much like an inside job to me, but I don’t know that either. Many hackers would find the DNC or more likely the RNC an attractive target for sure.

      Some facts:

      Hacking is easier from the inside.

      Julian Assange insisted that the emails did not come from a state source therefore Russia did not provide the emails to him – unless you thing Assange is part of the right wing conspiracy.

      Julian Assanges public statements about leaked information have never been proven wrong.

      The ‘robbery of Seth Rich’ claim was made by police within a couple of days of his murder. Very quick conclusion for someone with nothing robbed and no actual evidence of a robbery. Julian Assange discussed that leaks weren’t Russian, switched to the discussion of risks infomants take, and then switched immediately to the death of Seth Rich, while stating that informants identities could not be disclosed. He was very, very clear.

      The emails did not go to Wiki through the Russians, and Wiki’s leakers take terrible risks. I’m no Assange fan but these were not the ramblings of an incompetent person.

      You can imagine all of these bad things about Russians if you like, but they are fake or exaggerated to an extreme. It’s a waste of our time to even write about it.

      Evil in our time – IMHO.


      Can I propose that we keep our discussion to a single thread in the future, (not sure if there is a way to do that but this is too much).

      • Frank said

        Jeff: I respectfully disagree with you about the relative reliability of our FBI and Julian Assange. I have zero respect for Assange, because (unlike FOIA) makes no effort to distinguish between what the public might benefit from knowing and secret information that embarrasses governments simply to damage them as an institution. And that means that it is the open Western governments that get damaged, not the bad guys. As long as you know that Fox retracted their story (because no source claimed first hand knowledge of the computer or what the FBI found), I’m happy. I think Congress should look into the handling of Rich’s case, but I don’t expect a cover-up because the hacked content was far more important than the identity of the hacker.

        Bob Woodward was handed a copy of McCrystal’s report to Obama on the situation he found in Afghanistan. He and his bosses call the DoD, and inform them they have the report and will be publishing in 2 days. Then they ask: Please tell us what specific sections of the report will harm national security more than it inform Americans. The Post will make the final decisions, but we want you input first. I hate the WP, but I hate Assange more. He wants to destroy.

  13. Hunter said

    We are in a new phase of the coup attempt. A legal meeting where nothing happened is now evidence…in the screaming headlines of the coup leaders….of “collusion”. “Collusion”, like “climate change”, is a very ambiguous term that means whatever those profiting from it want it to mean. The fallout from this is going to be very bad no matter the final outcome. The coup is inflaming and for riding our social fabric.

    • Jeff Id said

      It will proceed as demonstrated by so many countries. We are the present and future victims of utopia.

    • Frank said

      “Legal Meeting”?

      Soliciting, Accepting, or Receiving Contributions and Donations from Foreign Nationals
      As noted earlier, the Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, “knowingly” means …”

      “A contribution is ANYTHING OF VALUE given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election. It is important to understand which receipts are considered contributions because …Contributions are subject to the Act’s prohibitions against contributions from certain sources.

      “Goods or services offered free or at less than the usual charge result in an in-kind contribution”

      Maybe you should broaden you sources of information, instead of hanging out in one echo chamber. Fox News and MSNBC for example don’t exist to inform you; they exist to bring your eyes and ears to the advertisers. Rush exists for Rush

      I didn’t believe the above when I heard about it, but I did check.

      The coup happened when Trump took over the Republican Party. House Republicans don’t want another coup, because they know that voters like you will take your anger out on them in the next election. It will cost them many seats in 2018 or 2020.

      Don’t expect this to be the last revelation. We still don’t why both Obama and the DoJ were worried about Flynn. We don’t know what signals were intercept by NSA. Most of all we don’t know why Trump was so favorably disposed towards Putin and Russian.

      Most of all, we don’t know how serious any of this will appear with a little perspective.

  14. Kan said

    This blog entry is 5 months old ans is still appropriate today as it was when first written. The difference being that the wheels are coming off the Mueller investigation rather rapidly. In the process, the deep state FBI is slowly revealing itself for what it is.

  15. kuhnkat said

    It is now 1/30/2018.

    Jeff, and others, have been proven right, Frank, as usual, has been proven wrong. Can’t wait for the memo in a few days…

    I agreed with Jeff that Mueller should have been fired immediately. I have been thinking for a couple of months we were wrong. It appears Trump gave them enough rope to hang themselves in public and that not everyone in the DOJ and FBI is compromised.

    Apparently Frank is so delusional he never considered that high level personnel in the FBI and DOJ were partisan criminals.

    • Folks like Frank do not see “partisan” criminals, unless they do. Frank and company welcomed the investigation into the FBI when the IG was asked to look into Anti-Hillary bias. Upon finding the opposite, they have developed selective amnesia about what they wanted in the beginning. Or actually what they said they wanted. Which is different.

      What they wanted was to prove a lie. What they said was they wanted to get to the truth. Now that the truth is about to come out, they are screaming like stuck pigs.

  16. itsnotco2 said

    Ill-informed climatologists like Roy Spencer (not qualified in the physics of heat transfer mechanisms as I am) score “own goals” claiming that GH gas warms the lower troposphere and cools the upper troposphere thus increasing the lapse rate – the exact opposite of what water vapor does. See for the correct physics.

    I wrote on his thread …

    Roy writes: “But that doesn’t mean the lower atmosphere cannot warm from adding more greenhouse gases, because at the same time they also cool the upper atmosphere.”

    Well, that means adding GH gas (including water vapor) supposedly makes the lapse rate greater in the troposphere, warmer at the base as Roy says, and cooler at the top.

    The trouble is, Roy, that adding more of the greenhouse gas water vapor REDUCES the lapse rate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: