Posted on 03/29/2019 8:05:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
“We can never again allow the security apparatus of our intelligence and DOJ to be used as a political weapon.”
The only way to achieve that goal is for the President to announce his intention to use these weaponized departments against his opponents in 2020.
“a stunning price tag for a baseless witch hunt that was never going to reveal evidence of collusion because it didn’t actually take place.”
Thank you Jeff Sessions.
Years? Who among critical observers will ever volunteer information to any FBI agent ever again?
Since Hillary and the DNC are the cause of it, I say that they be made to reimburse the government.
When did Mueller come to the conclusion there was no collusion? Just curious.
And if Mueller knew it was a baseless charge he is guilty of the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct in our history. Which is sort of trivial now our history is coming to a close.
He knew from the beginning.
To anyone paying attention that faith in Justice was lost years ago in the OJ Simpson case. - Tom
I would take it back to when Teddy Kennedy skated after drowning Mary Jo.
“the entire probe cost taxpayers around $30 million”
I would love to see an itemized breakdown .... how much went into Mueller’s pocket for how many hours of actual work.
Mueller case? What about the Smollet case? What about the Clinton case? What about the Obama case?
Lost MY confidence in our justice system years ago.
There is no justice system. It has devolved into a legal system in which the outcomes are only what the powers deem it to be.
Court rooms are a game place where the participants are the;
Liar for hire.
Political hack.
The demigod that rules as the game master. Usually a liberal that feels the laws are only those applied by him.
Shame on him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fixed
Faith in the justice system can't be restored unless those guilty are brought to justice and punished and that will never happen. Too many of them have immunity. Obama is safe and Hillary is safe because of Obama (because he was heavily implicated in the scheme).
They did. From WikipediaMorrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988),[1] is a United States federal court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the Independent Counsel Act was constitutional.As the lone dissenter, Justice Scalia was vindicated by history.. . . Justice Scalia, the lone dissenter, said that the law should be struck down because
In his opinion, Scalia also predicted how the law might be abused in practice, writing, "I fear the Court has permanently encumbered the Republic with an institution that will do it great harm.”
- criminal prosecution is an exercise of "purely executive power" and
- the law deprived the president of "exclusive control" of that power.
. . . Congress let the Independent Counsel Act expire in 1999.
So why was Mueller a "Special Counsel?" because, after the Independent Counsel Act expired, there is no such thing as an Independent Counsel.
Rosenstein named Mueller a special counsel not under a statute but under DOJ guidelines. Well, partly. He pretended it was under DOJ guidelines, but he didn’t have the authority to give Mueller the unlimited remit to go on a fishing expedition which he in fact unleashed.
And as Rush points out, Mueller didn’t “investigate” evidence of Russian collusion because there was no evidence suggesting such collusion for anyone to investigate. And Mueller therefore didn’t clear Trump of obstruction, for the same reason. You can’t prove a negative.
The problem is that laws are moot when one side of our politics is allowed to have its own facts. And the Democrats are allowed to have their own facts. That is the result of the facts that
- national journalism is wire service journalism, and altho there are multiple wire services, they all have the effect of uniting journalism. So given any inherent political tendency in journalism as such, wire services will enforce a system of going along and getting along with that tendency.
- Journalism profits primarily from reporting bad news which throws society in a bad light and suggests that government “do something.” Democrats are politicians who have no compunction against going along and getting along with that tendency in journalism. Consequently “objective” journalism and the Democrat Party are joined at the hip, and there is a revolving door between the members of the two groups. And,
- the New York Times v. Sullivan decision - purportedly to enforce the First Amendment - makes it extremely difficult for politicians to sue for libel. Since journalism are joined at the hip to the Democrat Party and actually never does libel Democrats, that actually means that Republican politicians cannot sue for libel. And that means that Democrats are allowed to have their own facts. QED.
The Sullivan decision dates to 1964, when suspicions of journalism’s tendentiousness in favor of Democrats were far more muted than now. The Accuracy in Media organization was four years in the future, and Walter Cronkite’s betrayal of the military was three years away. The Sullivan case was also idiosyncratic in that Mr. Sullivan was neither a Republican nor a Democrat - at least, not a Democrat in good standing. He was a (white) Southern Democrat, a breed in bad odor nationally.
The Republican Party must sue to have Sullivan declared moot, as either wrongly decided or irrelevant to the fact that journalism is in violation of antitrust law. Sullivan was a unanimous decision in 1964 - but then, Morrison v. Olson was nearly so, and the sole dissenter was right.
Scalia pointed out that American freedom of the press, with limitations for libel and pornography, preexisted the Constitution, and the term of art “‘the' freedom of the press” did not legalize libel or pornography. Such a proposal would have been highly controversial, and might have caused the defeat of the amendment. SCOTUS must moot Sullivan, because American tradition as
establishedpreserved by the First Amendment is that we “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred thoughts contend.” And allowing the Democrats to have their own facts is anathema to that.
I think the witch hunt started long before it was Trump’s DoJ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.