Featured Post

Hiroshima: A Real Decision

My great retirement-from-retirement plan not having worked out, I was idly surfing the net reading about the apparent and "surprising&...

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Mueller Must Go

It's time for the Mueller Circus to follow the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus into retirement. The Ringling/B&B died from declining ticket sales and the persistent assault by animal lovers, especially the elephant lobby's charges that the pachyderms were being mistreated. Fine. I never cared for the circus, and found the animals in it to look tired and unhappy; I never liked an institution that depends on clowns for its viability. The same can be said about the Mueller version of the Greatest Show on Earth.

The President should fire Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, and Special Counsel Mueller, and take a deep, deep look into the functioning of the DOJ and the FBI. There will be a political uproar; the Dems and their media acolytes will scream about obstruction and impeachment. Yeah, yeah. They're doing that, anyhow, so let's get this Mueller monstrosity over and done with. Either that or begin naming Special Counsels right and left: one for Hillary Clinton; one for Loretta Lynch; one for Eric Holder; one for James Comey; one for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her Pakistani gang; one for Chuck Schumer; one for Nancy Pelosi; one for Governor Brown; and, of course, why not name one to investigate Bob Mueller, himself?

No need to push or cut in the queue, folks! We have a line of Torquemada wannabes stretching to the horizon! The government has lots of money! Everybody gets a Special Counsel!

The FBI raid on President Trump's private attorney should be the final straw that breaks the poor abused camel's back. The raid took place, apparently, as a consequence of something that Mueller found out while investigating something else entirely, or so they say. Who knows? In my view, the raid on a private attorney's office and the taking of client files was simply outrageous and of questionable legality.

I know, I know. We are seeing the prog media and others go on about how such a raid could and would be approved only after multiple levels of safeguards had been gone through, so if all those honorable people cleared off, there must be "something," right? Nonsense. After all the abuses of federal power that we have seen these past few years, who the hell believes that? We can be just about 100% certain that the "process" was a Swamp Freak asking a Swamp Clown, "Hey about this for an insurance policy to prevent Trump from being President?" To name just a few abuses, we have seen the progs use the IRS, the EPA, the ATF,  the BLM, the CIA, the NSA, and, of course, the FBI/DOJ misuse of the FISA process to wage war to keep the Swamp Creature Freak Show in the center ring. The progs also have formed alliances with the high tech gurus of Silicon Valley to spy on and silence critics by "de-platforming" them with charges of "hate speech." I got hit with that myself.

Zero doubt now exists, if ever any did, that Mueller forms part of the prog effort to delegitimize the Trump Presidency, and to destroy it and him, personally, for daring to question the established wisdom of "how things get done." This effort was underway during the election when FISA, relying on a fake DNC-purchased dossier, was used to monitor the Trump campaign. The "unmasking," the salacious leaks, all of that failed to prevent Trump's victory in November 2016. Immediately after that election, the progs launched attacks on the vote totals ("Recount!") and on the electoral college ("Electors defect!"), as well as on Trump's patriotism ("Russia! Russia!") They launched riots in the streets, and even before he had taken office demanded and plotted impeachment.

No human's character and reputation now or in the past could withstand an investigation into every facet of his or her life by a prosecutor armed with a political and personal agenda, an unlimited budget, an open-ended mandate, and all the time in the world. Nobody could make it through that unscathed.

Beria and Himmler, looking up from hell, smile.

This must stop.

Fire Ringmaster Rosenstein and Chief Clown Mueller. Shut down this show.


64 comments:

  1. This affront against Trump's personal lawyer on Monday was Russia Russia Russia alright. KGB stuff. We have our assets deployed against the wrong enemies around the world. The cabal of cronyed up Deep State/Big Tech plus too many weaponized and politicized Federal agencies are our enemy. From the beginning, presently and in the future. We common people seem to be in their way. If this war is to be fought, then Trump is the right man to do it. He can appeal to the masses above the Swamp/MSM censorship.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One additional Special Counsel, for Hillary Clinton, might actually be good enough. With the possible exception of Governor Moonbeam, everyone on your list was in bed with the Clintons anyway(my apologies for that image). The squealing would be loud enough to be a health hazard but I think the Republic would survive.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rosenstein should be fired for cause for writing instructions to Mueller that were 1) in direct contradiction to DoJ policy on special counsel and 2) supplemented after the first morning raid by further faulty instructions that were kept secret from the public.

    To deal with Mueller without firing him, Trump can pardon all that Mueller charges or intimidates. Mueller should make his case on collusion to the public for the political process to handle - if he has any evidence of such collusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To deal with Mueller without firing him, Trump can pardon all that Mueller charges or intimidates.

      I like this idea. Once pardoned, they can no longer refuse to testify on the grounds of self-incrimination.

      Delete
    2. Once pardoned their will be no testifying. You cant bring charges on a pardoned action.

      Delete
    3. That's the point. If charges can't be brought, they can't use that excuse to not testify. However, refusing to testify can allow charges of obstruction or contempt of court to be brought up, and lying would allow for charges of perjury. If Trump pardons everyone, he incentivizes them to testify truthfully.

      Delete
    4. While I like the concept, it would be a horrible strategic mistake. Once Trump pardons them, they have no 5th Amendment shielding, which means Mueller can force them to testify about anything related until he gets something he can twist into looking incriminating.

      Delete
    5. I doubt Trump will fear them testifying... the worst they'll tell him is that Trump's pretty much a jerk, doesn't tell *anybody* what he's really thinking, and is unfaithful to his wife. Hardly impeachable offenses. Trump will pardon them when indicted for refusing to testify, if it's of value, that's pretty simple... bring it at the right time to make sure there's a double-jeopardy shield and all.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  4. Agree, shut down the degrading Mueller show but please shut down the other horror show too, I am talking about the Syrian chicken race between US and Russia. They are losing control.Someone, show some leadership here !
    Swedish lady

    ReplyDelete
  5. I write as someone who has spent his entire professional life as a prosecutor, albeit state not federal. This is the most abusive thinfs i have ever seen im in my nearly 32 years as a prosecutor. Resort to a search warrant and not use of grand jury subpoena, absent any suggestion of non-cooperation by Mr. Cohen has one purpose in mind - a breach of the attorney client privilege without providing Mr. Cohen with a chance to quash ghe (il)legal process. Id the federal practice mirrors that of the state in which I am employed, there is no remedy until a prosecution begins. And, as to the proverbial porcelain wall between the reviewer of the documents and thise workung on the case, why would anyone trust a Justice Department that was weaponized against the President even before his election? That is why the entire crew must be fired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your professional evaluation. Much appreciated.

      Delete
    2. Here is Alan Dershowitz's take on what is going on.

      https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12154/donald-trump-michael-cohen

      Delete
    3. . I challenge any reader who is not concerned about this raid to honestly answer the following question: If the raid had been conducted on Hillary Clinton's lawyer's office and home, would you be as unconcerned? The truth now!

      Yes, or at least, equally relatively unconcerned.

      Delete
    4. I'm more concerned with this being the same outfit which read the Trump campaign's emails. Pattern and practice of abuse, indeed.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  6. I recall a time when conservatives were quite happy with the FBI serving up oppression and trying to quell dissent. My, how time flies.

    The FBI has always been a bastion of conservatism, and this has not changed. Mueller is, and has been for years, a Republican. However, part of the FBI tradition is to put that partisanship aside.

    Honestly, how can you all tie yourself in such knots, rather than acknowledge a simple truth? Trump is not, and never has been, an honest person, and has surrounded himself with dishonest people. Rather than look this in the eye, I see you all engage in ever more far-reaching conspiracy theories. Try taking a step back.

    It's quire possible to laud Trump's policies and his actions while not acknowledging his faults, should you approve of the former.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are talking about due process and Constitutional protections. All of that has been violated by the progressives and in the process they have turned the FBI into a politicized state police, assisted by the NSA and the CIA and the IRS and, and . . . This is not difficult to see. If we're talking about people with faults needing investigation, let's start with the Clinton Crime family.

      Delete
    2. Still awaiting the IG report on the FBI, part of which got McCabe fired. I would want to see all of it before I acted on firings.

      Delete
    3. DiploMad,

      I have no trouble with investigating the Clintons further. However, since there already was a 6-year investigation of them, which resulted in little more than Clinton lying about Lewinsky and covering that up as charges, what do you really think there is to find?

      As for laying the increasing, police-state-like powers of the FBI and NSA at the hands of liberals, I see a convenient ignoring of the broad-based support for the Patriot Act back in the early 2000s.

      I have been reading progressives harping on, for example, how the SCOTUS has reduced 4th Amendment protections for a couple of decades (Radley Balko, Glenn Greenwald, Ed Brayton, etc.). Many conservatives were fine with this trend until recently.

      I do not see where the FBI, CIA, NSA, nor IRS has been politicized. I have seen stories that emphasized how one side of the political aisle has been affected, but when you dug deeper, there were always other groups, on the other side affected as well. For example, in the supposed IRS scandal looking closely at new Tea Party groups, only about two-thirds of the groups so examined were conservative, and that was roughly proportional to the within the number of new groups being formed.

      If Trump's lawyer's due process rights have been violated (again, being a lawyer does not give you the right to break the law), I agree that is serious, and needs to be addressed. Outside of the raid occurring, what is the evidence for there being a violation?

      Delete
    4. Uni Brow, Either you are intentionally obtuse or disingenuous. The surveillance apparatus of this country is vacuuming up EVERY communication. I worry about this alot. What we have makes the Stasi look like brain-addled boy scouts. Rationale is terrorism. So this terrorist-catching apparatus was used to probe an elected presidential candidate, and the information leaked. Plus you are wrong factually about the IRS scandal. Those bolos clearly targeted "patriot" right-leaning groups. Talking point bubba.

      In a republic the utmost deference must be paid to the elected officials. Whats next, does the army start telling the pres to stuff it. The FBI is defying congressional oversight, at the least slow-walking doc handovers. Simply put, you cannot allow subversion by the national police force and spook agencies against a duly elected president; that way lies disaster.
      Olive branch: look... i know you feel that trump is beyond the pale (i felt the same about the Kenyan). Just settle down and vote him out when you get the chance. It is a mistake to carry the water for those that would corrode the principal of civilian control.
      Finally, i truly believe we are playing with fire here. I'm hillbilly and plugged into the sentiments of the mountains tribes. These are a beleaguered but stiff-necked people who have the undiluted blood of those that took on the superpower of their day. Bunch of gun nuts too. By some miracle they elected a president. If they conclude that their vote is vetoed by the effete elites... at the risk of sounding hysterical... I think they will start killing.

      Delete
    5. One Brow?

      Are you familiar with the name of a former NSA, US Navy officer, Naval War College (faculty) veteran by the name of John Schindler?

      He can be seen somewhat infrequently on the new version of The McLaughlin Report joining in with the two self acknowledged Liberal panelists all but calling "Idiot!" to Mr. Buchanan's face?

      If you're at all familiar with Mr. Schindler One Brow then you know, know positively that, Mr. Schindler has always been a "Never Trumper."

      One Brow your "I do not see where the FBI ... has been politicized" of April 11, 2018 at 3:23 PM puts me to thinking you must've missed Mr. Schindler's pre-election day article of October 5th, 2016:

      http://observer.com/2016/10/politicization-of-the-fbi-threatens-american-democracy/

      JK

      Delete
    6. JK,

      Thank you for the link to the article. I don't know anything about John Schindler. However, I did see this quote:

      J. Edgar Hoover—who, whatever his many faults was an almost comically scrupulous public servant who kept his FBI out of partisan politics for five decades—would not like any of this.

      Given everything Hoover did to interfere with, among other things, the civil rights movements over the decades, this quote does not impress me the reliability of the rest of the opinion piece. YMMV.

      Delete
    7. SidVic,

      I don't know what in my comment made you think I disagreed with you on the nation's surveillance over-reach. I don't disagree with you there.

      You said I was factually wrong about the IRS. Which stated fact was wrong? If you disagree with my interpretation, fine, but that's not being factually wrong.

      The FBI has been defying Congressional oversight for several decades, nothing new there. I agree it should be reigned in.

      Who's "the Kenyan"? Are you a birther? That would be a shame. You bring some valuable points to the discussion, why dilute them with nonsense?

      I don't like Pence much better than Trump, so I don't really care if Trump is impeached or not.

      However, I don't think there will be an open rebellion if he is. It's one thing to say you will take up arms, another to do so.

      Delete
    8. The IRS targeted 292 outta 292 conservative group applications for extra scrutiny and only 6 from prog groups. Statistically unlikely (hillary cattle futures?). The voter anti-fraud outfits were particularly singled out for multi-agency tomfoolery.

      I'll concede the Kenyan comment was snotty.

      Concerning armed rebellion. I agree that a RED dawn like uprising is unlikely. But consider the ATF/FBI attack on a very unsympathetic cult shook loose one McVeigh. Imagine 50 McVeighs running around. Remember the beltway sniper? 2 guys shut down DC for three weeks. Now imagine 500 snipers, 5000? I'm telling you that water-the-liberty-tree sentiment is out there. Contemplate the guy out there worried that the republic is in danger. Now imagine a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (or equivalent). Is it stretch that he might decide to take a couple of the bastards with him? How many terminal diagnosis does this larger lightly policed country generate a year, 200K?

      A couple of years back they were talking about a million armed man march in DC. Luckily cooler heads prevailed at the time! Say only 50K showed up toting their guns? It's their constitutional right to be armed after all. I must admit that i would enjoy this just to watch the DC cops crap themselves but anyone would admit that it could quickly get out of hand.

      Take the guns off the table. A nut with a jerry can of gas, a couple of chains and padlocks could pull off a school massacre that would make newtown look like a church picnic.

      It's clear that the Dems/deep-state goal is to impeach trump. Unless they find dead babies stack in the WH basement i think it is a very, extremely bad idea.

      Delete
    9. BRAVO Sid!

      Here: SidVic April 12, 2018 at 1:44 PM

      and

      There: SidVic April 11, 2018 at 6:10 PM

      P.S. Ref: "...the Kenyan comment was snotty"

      I can relate! Seems I've always had to preface my remarks about the "Indonesian-Islamist' by spittin some sputum to the ground, before I mention the POS by name, or tribe! Perhaps I've inherited the "stiff-necked" trait, that you described above, from my Highlander forebears!
      On Watch~~~
      "Let's Roll"

      Delete
    10. John Schindler has been using his NSA credentials to call President Trump a traitor -- using those very words -- for two years now without supplying a single shred of evidence -- because there is none. The Russia Collusion Hoax was invented by the Clinton Campaign and their dirty tricks wing in the Obama DOJ & FBI, with the assist of Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele's dodgy dossier.

      Delete
    11. The IRS targeted 292 outta 292 conservative group applications for extra scrutiny and only 6 from prog groups. Statistically unlikely (hillary cattle futures?). The voter anti-fraud outfits were particularly singled out for multi-agency tomfoolery.

      The count of 292 to 6 applies only for the period of April 2010 through April 2012, the 6 is out of 20 total applications, and the 292 is the count of organizations with the words "tea party", "patriot", or "9/12" in their names, not voter fraud organizations. In fact, a quick search revealed only one voter fraud organization (True the Vote) whose approval had been delayed.

      It's clear that the Dems/deep-state goal is to impeach trump.

      I agree that is a goal of some Democratic politicians, and I agree it is a bad idea.

      As for massive terrorist attacks inside the US, I don't see that happening, either.

      Delete
  7. This inquisition feels like it has taken on an air of: "Show me the man and I will find you the crime."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Show me the man and I will find you the crime."

      Applied politics from Lavrentiy Beria,all round nasty man and Stalin's NKVD chief for quite some years.

      Ayn Rand had some words to say about this in "Atlss Shrugged":

      “Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

      Delete
    2. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.

      Rand really was stupid about these things.

      Delete
    3. So "One Brow" is actually Dr. Ferris, it seems; at least that's where his sympathies lie.

      Rand tried hard to warn us, but now we've arrived at exactly this point: so many things are a crime that we're all criminals, and any Mueller-type thug with a Government ID can push us around all he likes. There is no law restraining him, is there; any lie he cares to tell can put one of us in jail.

      The rule of law is dead.

      You're no friend of our Republic, One Brow. Thank God you're no friend of mine, either.

      Delete
    4. "Rand really was stupid about these things."

      I'll be Rand could've come up with something more precise. :)

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    5. Eskyman,

      Ferris is a cartoon villain. If is makes you feel better to conflate us, fine. The notion that you think we couldn't get along personally is rather disturbing on your part.

      Prosecutors have been abusing powers in the manner you describe for centuries. Nice of you to raise an objection. Do you object when other people are the targets, or only conservative, white men?

      Delete
    6. reader #1482,

      If Rand ever did come up with something more precise, I would be interested. From what I can tell, she was never interested in a careful examination of her ideas.

      Delete
    7. I find that an extremely vague and over-generalized argument, almost a null operation.
      I'm guessing you must have read some of her works to form that evaluation? Is there something specific that should merit some sort of careful examination?
      I guess my real problem with such standards in social philosophy/policy ideas, is that they're just ideas. They're not provable or disprovable. They're just ideas, with the primary criterion being conceptual, not some sort of quantitative analysis that will almost certainly be some sort of straw man.
      Sociology and political science are not science. They're '-ologies'. Sometimes I feel like too many people have taken Asimov's Foundation series too seriously and decided for themselves that all questions are answerable, and thus, it's just time to answer them, like 'predicting the behavior of a red-state voter' or some crap like that.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    8. reader #1482,

      My impression of Rand is based on some of her responses to questions, and the description of philosophers of various stripes (Rand is considered a lightweight by every philosopher I have read, including the most conservative). Let's look at the quote from above, in the situation of controlling the speed people drive at.

      There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.

      1) One way to enforce a speed limit is to indeed make it illegal to go faster, then crack down on criminals.
      2) A second way is with physical barriers. For example, if you put in speed bumps, drivers will slow down to avoid damage to their cars.
      3) Another way is to put out notices such as "deaf child area' or 'deer crossing', appealing to people better natures to be cautious in damaging other things.

      These are all ways of controlling behavior (the speed at which a driver travels), and I could go on with more. Only one involves criminality. Rand's statement is easily disproven and not carefully considered.

      I don't really care what you apply the label "science" to. The real question is can you get predictable (percentage) results for groups in specific experiments/circumstances, even when the individual response may not be predictable. In sociology, the answer has been "yes", and verified many times. In politics, people make a lot of money claiming to be able to analyze voters (although I will acknowledge I am not aware of anything demonstrating results).

      Delete
    9. It's certainly more of a rhetorical quote than some sort of philosophical proof, for example, what does it mean to 'rule' over men?
      It's certainly the case that a lot of racism conforms to that quote... we set the speed limits low enough that everybody speeds, which means police officers can choose minority drivers for enforcement. That would fit well with the quote, ie, make everybody a criminal so you can enforce however you want? And arbitrarily enforcing laws is a reasonably good approximation of 'ruling', I think?

      there's a horrific problem with reproducibility in psychological and sociological studies... as bad or worse than the medical clinical trial scams. Until recently (10-15 years), medical clinical trials were not required to register their hypotheses prior to performing an experiment (those using federal funding, in particular). As a result, data was being sifted until a positive outcome of some sort was achieved (in some abuse cases, this can be called 'p-hacking', iirc). This has changed now, but several studies have gone back and invalidated a lot of prior research. Same is happening in psych/sociology, though I expect those issues will be much more profound, as ... well.. people aren't electrons... 'retraction watch' is one of the groups following these events.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  8. If attorney-client does not mean anything in the face of an "alleged" (unproven) crime, then there is no attorney-client privilege. One wonders how many of Hillary Rodman Clinton's lawyers are now sleeping uneasy in their beds?

    But we have to remember one of the undeniable observations -- everything the Lefties touch turns to dust. The Democrat party long ago ceased to be the party of the little guy, the defender of the weak & minorities; instead, it is now the party of Rich White Cronies. One law for the little guys, another law for them. Democrats have become such out-of-touch racists that they are even painting roads in California White, since "Black" roads cause fearsome Climate Change, or some such.

    The potential for the Rich White Crony Democrats losing the votes of the little people is much higher than those credentialed fools recognize. Good!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Democrat party long ago ceased to be the party of the little guy, the defender of the weak & minorities; instead, it is now the party of Rich White Cronies.

      Thanks to SCOTUS, that's the only type of national party that can exist now.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I'm not saying that an attorney's office can *never* be raided for client information. But I would say that it should require *extreme* evidence, and should be followed by immediate charges based on the evidence that was provided to *justify* the raid. Because if they can't *for certain* convict a guy before raiding those confidential files, then they shouldn't be raiding those files. This only does double time when it an inter-branch conflict like this judiciary-vs-executive fishing expedition facilitated by rogue executive elements.

      If the shoe were reversed, I'd still want immediately clarity and guilty pleas. I don't know what they're taking their time with, but the time taken provides an *appearance* of impropriety that will grow with each day.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    3. Don't we already know this lawyer paid off someone to help Trump's campaign, thereby breaking campaign finance laws? How much more extreme evidence do we need there?

      Delete
    4. afaik, that would only be a violation of the law if it were done in coordination with the campaign. this might be provable, and if it's 'true but unprovable', then the FBI should be pretty much disbanded.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  9. The problem is that the folks in DC are surrounded by people that all think the same. They do not understand anything about the folks in the rest of the country and do not understand how Trump got elected. They truly do hate us and think we need to be put into our place. This will not end well, if we don't see some of these officials in jail.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I placed this above @ April 11, 2018 at 7:36 PM addressed to One Brow but as I believe its crucial to any who might not be so as opposed to any of us who comment here as One Brow so consistently demonstrates I hope all who pass this way take a good measure of the article.

    Written 5 October 2016 (pre-Trump elected!) by the self-proclaimed "Never Trumper" John Schindler:

    http://observer.com/2016/10/politicization-of-the-fbi-threatens-american-democracy/

    JK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JK, that was an interesting article. The author's point that Obama & Hillary allowed further politization of the FBI is a fair one; but I'd go much further.

      Way back before 9/11/2001 we had a big problem with our FBI, CIA, NSA & all the rest of the alphabet agencies; they were all secret police, they all vied for supremacy, and we even had "walls" (remember Jamie Gorelick, the "Mistress of Disaster?") forbidding one agency from telling another what was happening.

      Then there was a raft of bad legislation passed immediately after 9/11; that crisis wasn't allowed to go to waste. This includes the so-called "Patriot Act" and other legislation designed to side-step the Constitution.

      It's like if our country were an apple. It may look alright, it's all shiny, polished, and appears whole and sound; but the worms have gotten into it, and it's rotten from the core to the skin.

      The FBI is right at the core of our rotten apple.

      Oh, and don't forget to go and see the Constitution while you're still allowed to: it's in the National Archives in Washington, D.C. That's a museum of course, but it's not like we use that old thing anymore. Oddly, the Constitution doesn't say a thing about the FBI or any other secret police. Those silly old guys who wrote it must've forgot to include it!

      Delete
  11. I rather like the idea of turning loose a whole horde of Special Counsels. Whether or not you sack Mueller, set a prosecutor loose on him.

    And on the rest of the sorry Leftist lot. Make Prisons Full Again.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Muller is as much a Republican as John McCain. Both the very definition of RINO...

    ReplyDelete
  13. WLA, Watching Zuckerberghas convinced me that big tech is as corrupt as DC and that the pace of technology has left any self-correcting mechanism far behind. The swamp doesn't care what is occuring in Silicome Valley except for how they can help them be more swampy. Where are all the honorable people? (except here of course). And don't forge WLA,Google owns this blog publishing tool.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no more honor amongst these swamp dwellers.

      You cannot shame them, for they have no shame.

      I've been saying for a while(speaking to myself), time to water the tree of liberty...

      Delete
    2. You would be surprised just how many DC swamp creatures are now using to revolving door from DC into Google and FB. Used to be they were upfront about it and go get a show on ABCCBSNBCCNNMSNBCNPR...and you knew they were partisan hacks and could watch their commentary through the lens of biased understanding. Now they hide behind the faceless firewall and arbitrarily censor and delete people who they do not agree with.

      Delete
  14. I am absolutely against regulating internet platforms and, I don't care how many users this affects.
    I actually wish that these companies throw every single conservative user off their platform, every single one. Why?
    Because that will make a huge opportunity for someone else to come along and offer an alternative platform. Can you imagine 50% of YouTube and Facebook users gravitating to a freer platform, one that wouldn't think of telling Diamond and Silk that they are a danger to "the community" really, the bias is laugh out loud that two big mouthed ladies present a danger to who? Maybe someone sleeping in their car up in Silicon Valley... (gotta keep the dream alive.)
    No. I am virulently anti regulation. Let the market figure it out. It seems pretty obvious that our elected representatives have no idea what they are talking about. Nor should they.
    Keep censoring people like Diamond and Silk, Tommy Robinson, Stephan Molignue, etc and a new platform will emerge.
    If you regulate these platforms a barrier to competition will emerge making it much harder to present a competing platform.
    You don't think Zuck knows that? Yeah, regulate me baby, regulate me hard! Because no one will be able to enter the market after me.
    I say let Facebook, Google and Twitter keep being what they are, left leaning platforms that can control content.Read a history of the telephone system to understand my rational.
    Another platform will emerge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think a regulation forcing an "Opt Out" button on all social media sites might do the same thing ... particularly if they charge you for this "privilege" ... Hell, make it all sites. Read what Europe is making social media do. For once they got it tight.

      Delete
  15. I posted this on Diplomad a few minutes ago:
    babsApril 12, 2018 at 12:37 PM
    I am absolutely against regulating internet platforms and, I don't care how many users this affects.
    I actually wish that these companies throw every single conservative user off their platform, every single one. Why?
    Because that will make a huge opportunity for someone else to come along and offer an alternative platform. Can you imagine 50% of YouTube and Facebook users gravitating to a freer platform, one that wouldn't think of telling Diamond and Silk that they are a danger to "the community" really, the bias is laugh out loud that two big mouthed ladies present a danger to who? Maybe someone sleeping in their car up in Silicon Valley... (gotta keep the dream alive.)
    No. I am virulently anti regulation. Let the market figure it out. It seems pretty obvious that our elected representatives have no idea what they are talking about. Nor should they.
    Keep censoring people like Diamond and Silk, Tommy Robinson, Stephan Molignue, etc and a new platform will emerge.
    If you regulate these platforms a barrier to competition will emerge making it much harder to present a competing platform.
    You don't think Zuck knows that? Yeah, regulate me baby, regulate me hard! Because no one will be able to enter the market after me.
    I say let Facebook, Google and Twitter keep being what they are, left leaning platforms that can control content.Read a history of the telephone system to understand my rational.
    Another platform will emerge.

    ReplyDelete
  16. ..."let's get this Mueller monstrosity over and done with...or begin naming Special Counsels right and left"...

    LET'S DO BOTH!!
    1)FIRE the bastards who the POTUS has the power to FIRE, and, 2)clamp a SPEC PROS 'around the ankles' of the as yet unindicted felons and coconspirators - The List should include: one for Hillary Clinton; one for Loretta Lynch; one for Eric Holder; one for James Comey; one for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her Pakistani gang; one for Chuck Schumer; one for Nancy Pelosi; one for Governor Borwn aka[Brown?]...
    Cue the
    Music; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr9JVhr4R5Q

    {{{{{{{Welcome to: THE NEW GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH}}}}}}}
    and the swamp continues to drain, drip by drip by drip...

    That should take us through a few election cycles, and the PEOPLE/VOTERS get to vote on WHO the NEXT ACT will be to PERFORM in the Center Ring!
    On Watch~~~
    "Let's Roll"




    and, of course, why not name one to investigate Bob Mueller, himself?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rosenstein is only the apparent ringmaster. The Republican Congress could shut this down and explicitly chooses not to. They explicitly say they "want Mueller to do his job." That tells us everything about the GOP, whom we still have to vote for anyway, as at least they won't initiate impeachment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "GOP... at least they won't initiate impeachment."
      But! The RINOS will surely lie down with the RATS, when it's time to vote Ms! So I'll bite, who's your suspect/s for 'Master of the 3 Ring magisterium: Tophat - Liontamer - Paymaster? Or should we just call it what it is, a Junta?

      Delete
  18. Mad,
    Agreed. He should fire Mueller and the lot of them. Also go ahead and fight it out politically now. Waiting only helps the Democrats in the bi-election.
    James

    ReplyDelete
  19. I actually like the solution proposed here. It has the advantage of minimizing political fallout. Will it happen? Unfortunately, no.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Gestapo Bob - born too late and in the wrong country.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This *really* is getting out of control. I've been all on board with Mueller running his course *on the assumption* that he will eventually get to the point.
    It's closing in on 18 months with not even a *suggestion* that there's been the collusion which pretexted this investigation.
    Ancillary dirt coming up and taking out political figures? Sure. Lying to the FBI, financial disclosure problems of a decade past... whatever.
    But even Rosenstein pointed out that there has been no suggestion that there was any kind of collusion. And now this?
    Where's the plea?
    This kind of ridiculousness *necessitates* public disclosure. It's prying into the attorney-privileged files of a duly elected president.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ..."prying into the attorney-privileged files of a duly elected president."

      Even worse, this deep-state operation in toto is a witch hunt by design, intended to hobble the governmental mission of the elected POTUS and his Admin--a Death By a 1000 cuts! The coup de gras obviously, to destroy the constitutional fabric of the USA, and remove a democratically elected Commander in Chief by contrived and fabricated articles of impeachment!

      Apparently the Democrat Party with its homegrown thugs, Jihadi, & Marxist playas within the deep-state, believe it can effect a coup without evoking the bloody wrath of the electorate! Things could get very messy, very quickly! Unless the GOP elite WAKES-UP and remembers who it was that brought them to the dance!

      3 Cheers to BO, the greatest GUN salesman in the History of the United States of America!
      IMHO,
      On Watch~~~
      "Let's Roll"

      Delete
  22. The irresponsibility of tying a President's hands when we are faced with North Korea, China, Syria, and Iran issues is breathtaking. This is why I, for one, will never, ever vote for a Democrat again as long as I live.

    I actually said to someone that I would vote for Heinrich Himmler ahead of any Democrat; at least with Himmler, I know where I stand.

    ReplyDelete