ADVERTISEMENT

Why Mueller Won't Produce an Impeachment Report

TigerGrowls

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
19,925
11,712
113
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/why_mueller_wont_produce_an_impeachment_report.html

January 17, 2019
Why Mueller Won't Produce an Impeachment Report
By Jim Daws
This past week offered some signs that Robert Mueller is finally winding down his cover-up operation with no findings of high crimes or misdemeanors against the president. Considering the damage the political hacks in Obama's law enforcement and intelligence agencies have inflicted on the nation, let's consider the reasons we can hope so and where this sorry saga goes from here.

Last Wednesday, Rod Rosenstein announced that as soon as newly appointed attorney general William Barr takes over the reins at DOJ, he will exit stage left. Knowing what we do about Rosenstein's defense of the Spygate conspirators, his willingness to wear a wire to record Trump, and his refusal to cooperate with investigating congressional committees, we can surmise that he's not anxious to explain his actions to the un-recused incoming A.G.

On Friday, the New York Times published a Deep State-sourced article that was headlined as a bombshell implication that Trump was a Russian agent but was really just a thinly veiled apologia for Comey & Company's illicit political surveillance. The report was widely scorned by conservative media as justifying the FBI's attempted coup because Trump was insufficiently committed to a new Cold War with Russia.

Then came Jonathan Karl's Sunday revelation on This Week with (Clinton flack)George Stephanopoulos in which Karl quoted sources "interacting with the special counsel" who caution that Mueller's report will be "anti-climatic." This can be interpreted as a leak that Mueller will stop short of attempting to frame Trump for collusion or obstruction.

It shouldn't be surprising that Mueller won't "produce" a report that the Democrats and NeverTrumps can use to impeach Trump. Determining whether Trump colluded or obstructed, which was always absurd on its face, was never the purpose of this special counsel. Mueller was brought in by Rosenstein to put the new administration on the defensive and prevent Trump from uncovering the depth and the breadth of the wrongdoing by the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton. In that effort, he has largely succeeded.

No one is investigating whether the DNC was in fact hacked or if its emails were leaked internally. The hundreds of millions collected by Clinton foundations from foreign interests while Hillary was secretary of state, and presumed 45th president, is just water under the bridge. Whether Joseph Mifsud, Henry Greenberg, Felix Sader, and others were working for CIA head John Brennan and interacted with the Trump campaign peddling Russia-related pretexts may never be known. These and a hundred other Spygate questions appear destined to go unanswered.

The last thing Mueller would want now is further scrutiny of this whole sordid affair that impeachment proceedings could bring. Those proceedings might actually steel the spines of establishment Republicans to defend their party's president and maybe even go on the offense.

As a side benefit to Mueller and his band of Democrat prosecutors, they have given the president's opponents plenty of conspiracy fodder to fling against him during his 2020 re-election bid. And with guilty pleas from associates to process crimes (pleas made to avoid financial ruin) and the indictments of shadowy Russians who will never be tried, Mueller has given the opposition media plenty of grist to continue accusing Trump of being an agent of the Kremlin.

The lasting harm Obama, Clinton, and the Deep State have done to our political discourse and this president's ability to deliver on his America First agenda is incalculable. Voters sent Trump to Washington to secure our borders, rebalance our disastrous trade agreements, keep us out of foreign wars, and improve relations with nuclear-armed Russia. While putting its own interests above the nation's, the swamp has done everything in its power to sabotage those efforts, and it appears that the swamp creatures may never be held to account.

While authors such as Stephen F. Cohen, Gregg Jarrett, and Dan Bongino have published well researched books arguing that we're living through the greatest political scandal of modern times, the final word on how future generations remember this affair will be produced by Hollywood. One can imagine that those movies will take on the breathtakingly dishonest narratives of CNN and MSNBC. It will be critical for conservative film producers to set the record straight. In this case, both the facts and the fiction are strange, indeed.

The author hosts Right Now with Jim Daws, a video podcast of news, politics, and culture from an American nationalist perspective. https://twitter.com/RightNowJimDaws
 
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/why_mueller_wont_produce_an_impeachment_report.html

January 17, 2019
Why Mueller Won't Produce an Impeachment Report
By Jim Daws
This past week offered some signs that Robert Mueller is finally winding down his cover-up operation with no findings of high crimes or misdemeanors against the president. Considering the damage the political hacks in Obama's law enforcement and intelligence agencies have inflicted on the nation, let's consider the reasons we can hope so and where this sorry saga goes from here.

Last Wednesday, Rod Rosenstein announced that as soon as newly appointed attorney general William Barr takes over the reins at DOJ, he will exit stage left. Knowing what we do about Rosenstein's defense of the Spygate conspirators, his willingness to wear a wire to record Trump, and his refusal to cooperate with investigating congressional committees, we can surmise that he's not anxious to explain his actions to the un-recused incoming A.G.

On Friday, the New York Times published a Deep State-sourced article that was headlined as a bombshell implication that Trump was a Russian agent but was really just a thinly veiled apologia for Comey & Company's illicit political surveillance. The report was widely scorned by conservative media as justifying the FBI's attempted coup because Trump was insufficiently committed to a new Cold War with Russia.

Then came Jonathan Karl's Sunday revelation on This Week with (Clinton flack)George Stephanopoulos in which Karl quoted sources "interacting with the special counsel" who caution that Mueller's report will be "anti-climatic." This can be interpreted as a leak that Mueller will stop short of attempting to frame Trump for collusion or obstruction.

It shouldn't be surprising that Mueller won't "produce" a report that the Democrats and NeverTrumps can use to impeach Trump. Determining whether Trump colluded or obstructed, which was always absurd on its face, was never the purpose of this special counsel. Mueller was brought in by Rosenstein to put the new administration on the defensive and prevent Trump from uncovering the depth and the breadth of the wrongdoing by the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton. In that effort, he has largely succeeded.

No one is investigating whether the DNC was in fact hacked or if its emails were leaked internally. The hundreds of millions collected by Clinton foundations from foreign interests while Hillary was secretary of state, and presumed 45th president, is just water under the bridge. Whether Joseph Mifsud, Henry Greenberg, Felix Sader, and others were working for CIA head John Brennan and interacted with the Trump campaign peddling Russia-related pretexts may never be known. These and a hundred other Spygate questions appear destined to go unanswered.

The last thing Mueller would want now is further scrutiny of this whole sordid affair that impeachment proceedings could bring. Those proceedings might actually steel the spines of establishment Republicans to defend their party's president and maybe even go on the offense.

As a side benefit to Mueller and his band of Democrat prosecutors, they have given the president's opponents plenty of conspiracy fodder to fling against him during his 2020 re-election bid. And with guilty pleas from associates to process crimes (pleas made to avoid financial ruin) and the indictments of shadowy Russians who will never be tried, Mueller has given the opposition media plenty of grist to continue accusing Trump of being an agent of the Kremlin.

The lasting harm Obama, Clinton, and the Deep State have done to our political discourse and this president's ability to deliver on his America First agenda is incalculable. Voters sent Trump to Washington to secure our borders, rebalance our disastrous trade agreements, keep us out of foreign wars, and improve relations with nuclear-armed Russia. While putting its own interests above the nation's, the swamp has done everything in its power to sabotage those efforts, and it appears that the swamp creatures may never be held to account.

While authors such as Stephen F. Cohen, Gregg Jarrett, and Dan Bongino have published well researched books arguing that we're living through the greatest political scandal of modern times, the final word on how future generations remember this affair will be produced by Hollywood. One can imagine that those movies will take on the breathtakingly dishonest narratives of CNN and MSNBC. It will be critical for conservative film producers to set the record straight. In this case, both the facts and the fiction are strange, indeed.

The author hosts Right Now with Jim Daws, a video podcast of news, politics, and culture from an American nationalist perspective. https://twitter.com/RightNowJimDaws

An article sourcing rumors from a talk show. Not worth discussion.
 
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/why_mueller_wont_produce_an_impeachment_report.html

January 17, 2019
Why Mueller Won't Produce an Impeachment Report
By Jim Daws
This past week offered some signs that Robert Mueller is finally winding down his cover-up operation with no findings of high crimes or misdemeanors against the president. Considering the damage the political hacks in Obama's law enforcement and intelligence agencies have inflicted on the nation, let's consider the reasons we can hope so and where this sorry saga goes from here.

Last Wednesday, Rod Rosenstein announced that as soon as newly appointed attorney general William Barr takes over the reins at DOJ, he will exit stage left. Knowing what we do about Rosenstein's defense of the Spygate conspirators, his willingness to wear a wire to record Trump, and his refusal to cooperate with investigating congressional committees, we can surmise that he's not anxious to explain his actions to the un-recused incoming A.G.

On Friday, the New York Times published a Deep State-sourced article that was headlined as a bombshell implication that Trump was a Russian agent but was really just a thinly veiled apologia for Comey & Company's illicit political surveillance. The report was widely scorned by conservative media as justifying the FBI's attempted coup because Trump was insufficiently committed to a new Cold War with Russia.

Then came Jonathan Karl's Sunday revelation on This Week with (Clinton flack)George Stephanopoulos in which Karl quoted sources "interacting with the special counsel" who caution that Mueller's report will be "anti-climatic." This can be interpreted as a leak that Mueller will stop short of attempting to frame Trump for collusion or obstruction.

It shouldn't be surprising that Mueller won't "produce" a report that the Democrats and NeverTrumps can use to impeach Trump. Determining whether Trump colluded or obstructed, which was always absurd on its face, was never the purpose of this special counsel. Mueller was brought in by Rosenstein to put the new administration on the defensive and prevent Trump from uncovering the depth and the breadth of the wrongdoing by the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton. In that effort, he has largely succeeded.

No one is investigating whether the DNC was in fact hacked or if its emails were leaked internally. The hundreds of millions collected by Clinton foundations from foreign interests while Hillary was secretary of state, and presumed 45th president, is just water under the bridge. Whether Joseph Mifsud, Henry Greenberg, Felix Sader, and others were working for CIA head John Brennan and interacted with the Trump campaign peddling Russia-related pretexts may never be known. These and a hundred other Spygate questions appear destined to go unanswered.

The last thing Mueller would want now is further scrutiny of this whole sordid affair that impeachment proceedings could bring. Those proceedings might actually steel the spines of establishment Republicans to defend their party's president and maybe even go on the offense.

As a side benefit to Mueller and his band of Democrat prosecutors, they have given the president's opponents plenty of conspiracy fodder to fling against him during his 2020 re-election bid. And with guilty pleas from associates to process crimes (pleas made to avoid financial ruin) and the indictments of shadowy Russians who will never be tried, Mueller has given the opposition media plenty of grist to continue accusing Trump of being an agent of the Kremlin.

The lasting harm Obama, Clinton, and the Deep State have done to our political discourse and this president's ability to deliver on his America First agenda is incalculable. Voters sent Trump to Washington to secure our borders, rebalance our disastrous trade agreements, keep us out of foreign wars, and improve relations with nuclear-armed Russia. While putting its own interests above the nation's, the swamp has done everything in its power to sabotage those efforts, and it appears that the swamp creatures may never be held to account.

While authors such as Stephen F. Cohen, Gregg Jarrett, and Dan Bongino have published well researched books arguing that we're living through the greatest political scandal of modern times, the final word on how future generations remember this affair will be produced by Hollywood. One can imagine that those movies will take on the breathtakingly dishonest narratives of CNN and MSNBC. It will be critical for conservative film producers to set the record straight. In this case, both the facts and the fiction are strange, indeed.

The author hosts Right Now with Jim Daws, a video podcast of news, politics, and culture from an American nationalist perspective. https://twitter.com/RightNowJimDaws

that was funny, thanks for sharing.
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

American Media Bias rates the american thinker:

  • Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks.
Well at least they didn't pan it for supporting white nationalists... You are moving up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fcctiger12
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

American Media Bias rates the american thinker:

  • Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks.
Well at least they didn't pan it for supporting white nationalists... You are moving up.

I am white and a nationalist....guilty as charged. The white nationalist dog whistle used by the left to denote racism is a sad piece of brain washing used by media to demonize anyone that supports a nationalist political position. We do have nationalist supporters of all races in this country.
 
I am white and a nationalist....guilty as charged. The white nationalist dog whistle used by the left to denote racism is a sad piece of brain washing used by media to demonize anyone that supports a nationalist political position. We do have nationalist supporters of all races in this country.

Hell yeah man... lynch those brown folks right? They are infecting us! And they are dirty!
 
I am white and a nationalist....guilty as charged. The white nationalist dog whistle used by the left to denote racism is a sad piece of brain washing used by media to demonize anyone that supports a nationalist political position. We do have nationalist supporters of all races in this country.
A White Nationalist and a white person that is an economic nationalist are two very different things and you should appreciate the nuance lest you want to be called out for racism. This isn't semantics.
 
A White Nationalist and a white person that is an economic nationalist are two very different things and you should appreciate the nuance lest you want to be called out for racism. This isn't semantics.

Its a media invention and incorrect. I will disagree with you on this. I can understand a white supremicist or a black supremicist, but please tell me the definition of a white nationalist as opposed to a white supremicist or any supremicist for that matter. You been hoodwinked/programmed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hopefultiger13
Its a media invention and incorrect. I will disagree with you on this. I can understand a white supremicist or a black supremicist, but please tell me the definition of a white nationalist as opposed to a white supremicist or any supremicist for that matter. You been hoodwinked/programmed.

I'm not going to bother looking up definitions for either one of the terms above since I'm assuming that you are looking for my personal definition.

A white supremicist believes the the white race is better than other races overall. They support separating races by whatever means and would allow legislation to promote their beliefs and or a a separate homeland for different races. Kind of the trailer park version of racism.

A white nationalists on the other hand is a person that likes our country as is. Although we are a nation of immigrants, they want to change the rules now and close the door to bringing in new faces. I'd call Tucker Carlson the face of the movement. He "likes" hispanics, but when there are a lot of them in neighborhoods, it make him uncomfortable. And he doesn't recognize his country with all the new (brown) faces. Much politer version... But when you get them rolling (like Carlson does) stuff slips out... like how dirty those brown immigrants are.
 
Its a media invention and incorrect. I will disagree with you on this. I can understand a white supremicist or a black supremicist, but please tell me the definition of a white nationalist as opposed to a white supremicist or any supremicist for that matter. You been hoodwinked/programmed.
Sure:

Southern Poverty Law Center :
White nationalist groups espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of nonwhites. Groups listed in a variety of other categories - Ku Klux Klan, neo-Confederate, neo-Nazi, racist skinhead, and Christian Identity.

Wikipedia:
White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity.[2][3][4] Its proponents identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation.[5] White nationalists say they seek to ensure the survival of the white race, and the cultures of traditionally white ethnic groups. They hold that white people should maintain their majority in majority-white countries, maintain their political and economic dominance, and that their cultures should be foremost.[4]

Rational Wiki:
White nationalism claims that white people are a race and seeks to develop a "national identity" based on that race. They seek to ensure the survival of (what they see as) the white race and its culture, usually in opposition to a supposed globalist threat or Zionist conspiracy. White separatism and white supremacy are subgroups of white nationalism, but in practice, the term is basically a code word for white supremacy that fools no one

See @TigerGrowls I'm not "Programmed", I just do my homework.
 
Sure:

Southern Poverty Law Center :
White nationalist groups espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of nonwhites. Groups listed in a variety of other categories - Ku Klux Klan, neo-Confederate, neo-Nazi, racist skinhead, and Christian Identity.

Wikipedia:
White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity.[2][3][4] Its proponents identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation.[5] White nationalists say they seek to ensure the survival of the white race, and the cultures of traditionally white ethnic groups. They hold that white people should maintain their majority in majority-white countries, maintain their political and economic dominance, and that their cultures should be foremost.[4]

Rational Wiki:
White nationalism claims that white people are a race and seeks to develop a "national identity" based on that race. They seek to ensure the survival of (what they see as) the white race and its culture, usually in opposition to a supposed globalist threat or Zionist conspiracy. White separatism and white supremacy are subgroups of white nationalism, but in practice, the term is basically a code word for white supremacy that fools no one

See @TigerGrowls I'm not "Programmed", I just do my homework.

Totally wrong here @Rychek4 Its totally incorrect and falsely created to drive an agenda. You also did not answer the question. Whats the difference between a supposed white nationalist and a white supremacist? If the same, why create a new word for the same thing? Its all part of social programming to dissuade and shame people from even looking at a nationalist point of view for fear of being labeled racist.

Do we have black or Hispanic supremicists? Do we have black or Hispanic nationalists?

Adults are supposed to grow up and learn natural order, common sense, and truth even after being indoctrinated on the most liberal college campuses I thought.
 
Totally wrong here @Rychek4 Its totally incorrect and falsely created to drive an agenda. You also did not answer the question. Whats the difference between a supposed white nationalist and a white supremacist? If the same, why create a new word for the same thing? Its all part of social programming to dissuade and shame people from even looking at a nationalist point of view for fear of being labeled racist.

Do we have black or Hispanic supremicists? Do we have black or Hispanic nationalists?

Adults are supposed to grow up and learn natural order, common sense, and truth even after being indoctrinated on the most liberal college campuses I thought.
I used sources, I'm right until you offer evidence to counter mine. Your opinion means nothing to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fcctiger12
I used sources, I'm right until you offer evidence to counter mine. Your opinion means nothing to me.

Surely you know that for 50+ years, the Left has clouded and dumbed down language to reinforce their claims/agenda.
Before Trump's political agenda, the word nationalism, or nationalist was in no way the equivalent of Supremacist. Try using the dictionary.

  1. Nationalism | Definition of Nationalism by Merriam-Webster
    www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism
    1: loyalty and devotion to a nation especially: a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups Intense nationalism was one of the causes of the war.

    1. su·prem·a·cist
      /so͞oˈpreməsəst/

      noun
      • 1.an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex:"a white supremacist"
      adjective
      • 1.relating to or advocating the supremacy of a particular group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
ADVERTISEMENT