Connect with us

News

New Poll Reveals Mueller’s Raid On Trump’s Lawyer Is Beginning To Backfire Majorly

He botched the whole deal

Published

on

This has to be one of the finest examples ever seen of a man whose power and intent to take down a president has driven him to make such a foolish mistake that he botched the whole deal.

Although President Trump has made it extremely clear that he believes special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia and his 2016 presidential campaign is for all intent and purpose a political “Witch Hunt,” Mueller still enjoyed a vast majority of public approval. But now after Mueller’s order to the FBI to raid Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen’s office over what may have been a campaign law violation when he paid off Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign the tables have finally turned.

According to a new Rasmussen poll released only last week, just 46 percent of likely U.S. voters now believe Mueller’s investigation is an honest attempt to determine criminal wrongdoing by the President and his administration. That’s down from 52 percent when the same question was asked in the same survey in October of 2017.

But at the same time, 40 percent of respondents also told Rasmussen they believe Mueller’s investigation has now morphed into a partisan witch hunt. That’s an 8 point rise from October’s poll when only 32% believed Mueller’s investigation was indeed partisan. 17% are still undecided.

Trending: Elected Democrat Official Who Viciously Attacked Veteran Just Learned Her Fate

The tides seem to have turned after Michael Cohen who is Trump’s longtime personal attorney had his office, his home and a hotel room raided by the FBI. All for what has nothing to do with Russian collusion during the 2016 campaign. Instead, Cohen is under investigation for campaign finance violations, bank fraud, and wire fraud.

Someday we will all open a dictionary to the words “Witch Hunt” and we will see a picture of Former FBI Director Robert Mueller and his merry band of Democrat operatives who sit on his panel.

Here is more on what Mueller lost thanks to his astronomical misstep via Breitbart:

“Any chance special counsel Robert Mueller had to get an interview with President Trump was likely killed with the unprecedented FBI raid on Trump’s personal attorney, the far-left NBC News reports.

Prior to this week’s raid, which has shifted public opinion against Mueller, detailed that talks had been ongoing between the special counsel’s office and Trump’s attorneys about a potential interview, an opportunity for Mueller to question the president directly. NBC reports that the negotiation was nearly concluded, had reached the “final sticking points” about the “timing, scope and length” of Trump’s testimony.

Things were close enough that, in an effort to fully prepare for the interview, Trump was talking about expanding his legal team.

But the raid, which many see as a mixture of prosecutorial overreach and desperation, has scrambled negotiations. The chances of Trump’s sitting down with a special counsel, who is obviously out of control and working way outside his stated mission to investigate collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, are probably nil.

Moreover, Mueller’s disastrous stunt gives Trump cover with the public to not sit down with Mueller. By all accounts, the FBI’s raid on Michael Cohen is centered on Trump’s personal sex life, including, for some bizarre reason, the Access Hollywood tape and the perfectly legal non-disclosure agreement signed by a porn star and Playboy bunny who claim to have had consensual affairs with Trump more than a decade ago.

The public just does not care about this stuff.

Because it gave Trump what the public will see as a perfectly legitimate excuse not to sit for an interview, the Cohen raid is probably the first big mistake Mueller has made. The interview was Mueller’s best chance to nail the president in a process crime, to lure him into a perjury trap.

As of now, Mueller’s investigation is floundering. Thus far, he has only been able to charge a few people with process or financial crimes, none of which have anything to do with Trump or his campaign.

In another dramatic move, Mueller did indict a handful of Russians, but this ultimately proved to be a showy and symbolic gesture. The accused will never be extradited, will never see the inside of a courtroom, and are not even charged with “election meddling.” Whatever they might be guilty of, it was small potatoes and more anti-Trump than not.

What’s more, the Russian investigation has backfired on the political left. The Democrats and their allies in the media and intelligence community are the ones facing the blowback. Partisan FBI personnel have been fired or demoted, and the congressional investigation into the Obama’s administration’s obvious surveillance abuses has only just begun.

As far as Trump’s obstructing justice, even the non-stop leaks coming from Mueller’s office to anti-Trump outlets like NBC News cannot make anything close to a credible case for that:

Three sources familiar with the investigation said the findings Mueller has collected on Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice include: His intent to fire former FBI Director James Comey; his role in the crafting of a misleading public statement on the nature of a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between his son and Russians; Trump’s dangling of pardons before grand jury witnesses who might testify against him; and pressuring Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

This is a laughable pile of nonsense, and Mueller knows it.

So now, Mueller is chasing the sex angle, but in doing so, he almost certainly blew his chance to achieve his goal of overturning a presidential election with a perjury charge. The only thing that might have persuaded Trump to risk an interview was public pressure, which Trump no longer has to worry about.

Trump has plenty of other things to worry about. Mueller is more likely than not to make more empty but grandiose moves in the hopes of affecting the outcomes of the 2018 mid-terms and Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign. But the interview is where Trump would have faced the most risk, and Mueller appears to have blown that.

Up till now, unlike others at his level under investigation, Trump has been incredibly cooperative. While Obama officials pleaded the Fifth, Hillary deleted and bleached emails and Bill Clinton hid what he could behind executive privilege, no one on Team Trump has done any of this.

Hopefully, those days are over.”

H/T The Blaze 

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’

Published

on

Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

Continue Reading

News

Trump Issued Major Warning: ‘We Will Look Into Discriminatory and Illegal Practice’ – It’s On!

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!

Published

on

President Donald Trump voiced his concerns over “discriminatory and illegal practice” when he posted about the alleged controversy going on with Republicans being censored on Twitter. The tactic is sometimes referred to as “shadow banning” and it seems to be a strategy that social media platforms use to limit the visibility of some people. For example, ever wonder why someone who is genuinely popular might have tons of followers but their posts don’t seem to get many responses? It could be one of several reasons. Either they have fake followers, the post is no good, or they are being censored. In many cases, it’s a form of censorship that’s the obvious result. When a social media user goes from getting a lot of replies and views on their posts, then all of a sudden there’s very little replies and it seems like no one has seen the post – then they were hit with that form of censorship or suppression.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been called out for suppressing the content of certain Republican voices or those who support President Donald Trump. Well-known stars like Diamond and Silk have made it very public that they feel targeted for the views and opinions on their pages. That’s just the tip of the iceberg because the problem spans from targeting well-known mainstream people all the way down to the independent publishers. Censorship like this is affecting people’s careers and causing an unbalanced platform in which people with certain views are being limited. It might not be listed as a “ban” but it’s certainly limiting the viewership of certain people. The content that would once appear in people’s feed or timeline now requires a fine-tooth comb to find and it seems like people are realizing this more often and being upset with it.

Trump spoke about it on Twitter and Vice News completed a report on it.

Vice News reported: “Twitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results — a technique known as “shadow banning” — in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform.

The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it’s the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.

“The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel told VICE News in a statement. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.”

Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: “I’d emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”

Twitter directed VICE News to a May 15 blog post that explained the company’s new approach to combating “troll-like behaviors.” After making changes to its platform, the company said that “[t]he result is that people contributing to the healthy conversation will be more visible in conversations and search.”

Twitter did not respond to a follow-up question.

Twitter’s troll hunt, however, has ensnared some of the most prominent Republicans in the country. Type in the names of McDaniel, conservative members of Congress like Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, and Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian, for example, and Twitter’s drop-down search bar does not show their profiles. The search menu also does not display the verified profile of Rep. Devin Nunes of California, only his unverified one that he seldom uses to post.

That limits their visibility and the ease of finding their profiles compared to their liberal counterparts.

UPDATE: July 26, 10:00 AM: Twitter appears to have adjusted its platform overnight to no longer limit the visibility of some prominent Republicans in its search results.”

At what point do social media platforms give the control back to the people? Users should not have to worry about their views being censored by the machine.

Censoring any content that is not illegal should not be tolerated by the users.

Continue Reading

Like Us on Facebook

Recent

Trending

No trending posts found at this time.