BLACK REPUBLICAN BLOG

///////////////////////////////////////////
Ten Plagues of California Are Turning The Golden State into a Third-World
Hell Hole

Posted: 25 Jul 2019 08:02 AM PDT
[link removed]


BY STEPHEN GREEN

A homeless man stands amongst a trash lined street in downtown Los Angeles
on Thursday, May 30, 2019. (AP Photo/Richard Vogel)
In your typical Third-World megalopolis, basic city functions fall into
disrepair, while once-eradicated diseases run rampant -- and the local
bigwig boasts about saving the world.
Los Angeles is quickly becoming a typical Third-World megalopolis, and the
rest of the state isn't far behind.
Yesterday the New York Post reported "rats running everywhere among piles
of decaying garbage," in a "sprawling 50-block area that is believed to be
the base for around 4,200 homeless people."
Local columnist Steve Lopez called his city a "giant trash receptacle" and
asked, "Did someone turn back the calendar a few hundred years?” No, Steve,
the city government turned hard left is all. Although debate fans might
note that that's a distinction without a difference.
So where did all that trash come from?
Los Angelenos are dumping it out in the streets -- and the city isn't
collecting it.
Two weeks ago Fox News reported that the problem goes back at least to last
October, when the city noticed nine cases of typhus. The city "cleaned up
some of the worst piles of garbage," but then they slacked right back off.
The huge pile returned quickly, but officials at first said that it "could
take up to 90 days before it's cleaned up."
The same local news report described it this way:
Even the city's most notorious trash pile, located between downtown LA's
busy Fashion and Produce districts, continues to be a magnet for rats after
it was cleaned up months ago. The rodents can carry typhus-infected fleas,
which can spread the disease to humans through bacteria rubbed into the
eyes or cuts and scrapes on the skin, resulting in severe flu-like symptoms.
The story also noted that an "out-of-control rat population can even lead
to the spread of dangerous strains of salmonella and bubonic plague."
Yuck.
City services are so strained that it now appears to be playing
whack-a-mole with garbage dumpers. As I began writing this piece, a new Fox
News report popped up in my MSN feed, complete with video you might not
want to watch during lunch.
Statewide, California's problems aren't limited to trash dumpers, the
homeless, rat infestations, and infectious disease... as if that weren't
already too much Third World fun in the once-Golden State.
Stories about San Francisco's Human Poop Hurdle Olympics are now de
rigueur, and you'd better watch where you stick the landing or a used
syringe might stick you.…
Blackouts, typhus, poop, an army of homeless, wildfires, contaminated
syringes, garbage, rats, fleas, and Progressive government -- these are the
Plagues of California. I'd ask the last person to leave California to
please turn off the lights, but they'll have gone dark long ago.
[link removed]

///////////////////////////////////////////
Democrat Disaster: Muellers testimony equals end of any Trump impeachment
talk

Posted: 24 Jul 2019 08:17 PM PDT
[link removed]


By Michael Goodwin | New York Post

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Getty Images
Among his talents, Donald Trump has a special gift for driving his
detractors so crazy that they do really stupid stuff.
The decision by Democrats to force Robert Mueller to testify before
Congress is Exhibit A.
Bumblin’ Bob was a train wreck of epic proportions. The fallout is
immediate, starting with this: impeachment is no longer an option.It had a
slim chance before Wednesday’s painful slog and no chance after it.
Mueller was that bad, seemingly hard of hearing, often confused and
contradicted himself several times.
The Dems’ fantasy of having him breathe life into his report backfired.
His dismal performance killed any possibility that his 450-page tome could
serve as a road map for overturning the 2016 election and driving Trump
from office.
Although Mueller’s general demeanor was disturbing, it was also
instructive. He did not project the mental and physical vigor of someone
capable of leading the complex two-year probe into Russian meddling,
possible Trump collusion and obstruction of justice.
More likely, the 74-year old former FBI director was something of a
figure-head for an investigation that was carried out by the team of
zealots he ­assembled.
That is not an incidental issue. As Andy McCarthy at National Review has
written, and as Trump has repeatedly charged, the prosecutors were
­primarily people who had donated to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats or
who otherwise made known their support for her.
Perhaps Mueller’s detachment explains his failure to remedy these obvious
conflicts of interest that undercut his credibility from the moment they
became known.
Oddly, Mueller removed agent Peter Strzok because his bias against Trump
became public, but apparently had no concerns about public reports showing
that chief prosecutor Andrew ­Weissman and others were in Clinton’s camp.
Mueller’s detachment may also explain the bizarre standard his team
created, where Trump’s presumption of innocence was shredded because they
could not find sufficient evidence to “exonerate” him.
Several Republicans pointed out that prosecutors either file charges or
don’t, but have never imposed the impossible standard of exoneration.
Those flaws are among many that undercut the report, including the fact
that much of it reads as if it were written by Trump-hating reporters from
The New York Times.
As one GOP member noted, the report cites nearly 200 articles and
broadcasts, giving the impression that the media set the probers’ agenda.
At the very least, Mueller’s team and the media were joined at the hip from
the get-go.
Because of its pro-Clinton bias, the probe was the evil twin of the initial
FBI investigation it inherited. Recall that the crooked James Comey relied
heavily on the infamous Steele dossier, which Clinton’s team funded.
So from start to finish, Trump was targeted by partisan law enforcement
officials who had no business being on the case. And yet, despite a probe
that ran a combined three years, involved hundreds of witnesses, thousands
of subpoenas and surveillance on Trump associates and maybe the president
himself, investigators could find nothing — nothing! — worthy of a criminal
charge.
That can only help the president in his re-election campaign. While there
is a long way to go, the cloud of possible impeachment, which existed since
Mueller was appointed, finally has been lifted.
There are two other major developments growing out of the hearing.
First, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now has the responsibility to get her
party back to its job of governing. She gave the impeachment caucus and its
fanatical leaders, Reps. Jerry ­Nadler and Adam Schiff, time to gin up
public support, but they have gotten nowhere because the facts were not as
they promised.
If Pelosi is as smart and practical as her supporters say, she will make it
clear that the hearing was the end of the Mueller era. If, on the other
hand, she hesitates and lets the wing nuts chase their fantasies, she will
recklessly waste the next year and increase the chances the GOP will retake
the House in 2020.
The other development is that Washington’s focus now shifts to the two
investigations into the investigators. The first to drop will be the review
of the surveillance warrants obtained against Carter Page, which is being
carried out by the Inspector General in the Justice Department.
The chief questions center on what Comey and others told the secret court’s
judges about the Steele Dossier. Did they disclose it was paid for by
Democrats?
Did they concede that Steele said he was motivated to make sure Trump did
not become president? And did the judges know the allegations were
unverified before granting four warrants?
The ultimate probe, though, is the one Attorney General Bill Barr launched.
He said he was appalled at FBI bias against Trump and that he wants to get
his hands around the origins and scope of the initial scrutiny.
“The use of foreign-intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence
capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented
and it’s a serious red line that’s been crossed,” Barr told CBS in May.
He also warned of the dangers of weaponizing law enforcement against
political opponents, saying “the idea of resisting a democratically elected
president and basically throwing everything at him” is a real threat to our
nation.
There is no known deadline for Barr’s report, but my guess is that he will
work relatively fast, certainly faster than the special counsel. And
because Mueller’s day in the spotlight turned out to be a dud, Barr’s
findings have the potential to be the real bombshell.
[link removed]
______________________

Congressman Ratcliffe Rips Mueller For Making Up a Bogus Standard of Guilt
for President Trump
By Katie Pavlich | Townhall.com

Congressman John Ratcliffe - Source: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
On Wednesday morning, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified in
front of the House Judiciary Committee about his 448-page report. It was
released to the public in April after a two-year-long investigation.
Republican Congressman John Ratcliffe didn't waste any time with his brief,
five minute questioning period and ripped Mueller for making up a standard
of guilt only applicable to President Trump.
"Now your report, and today you said that, 'All times the Special Counsel
team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department
policies and principles,' so which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a
legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their
innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?" Ratcliffe
said.

"Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an
investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal
conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from,
director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Let me make it easier,
can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice
Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated
because their innocence was not conclusively determined?" he continued.

"I cannot but this is a unique situation," Mueller responded.
"Ok, well you can’t—time is short, I’ve got five minutes—let’s just leave
it at you can’t find it because I’ll tell you why: it doesn’t exist. The
Special Counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively
determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the Special Counsel report
should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It’s not in any of the
documents, it’s not in your appointment order, it’s not in the Special
Counsel regulations, it’s not in the OLC opinions, it’s not in the Justice
manual, and it’s not in the principles of federal prosecution," Ratcliffe
continued.
"Nowhere do those words appear together because, respectfully, respectfully
director, it was not the Special Counsel’s job to conclusively determine
Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him, because the bedrock principle
of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for
everyone, everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And
because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never ever need to
conclusively determine it."
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE VIDEO.

Katie Pavlich's Latest Books, Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the
Left and Their War on Womenand Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest
Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up are available on Amazon
___________________
Michael Moore Blasts Mueller: All those Liberal Pundits Who Told Dems To
Have Faith In Him Can 'STFU'
By Matt Vespa | Townhall.com


Special Counsel Robert Mueller - Source: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
It was not a good day for the pro-Trump impeachment Democrats.
There was no re-ignition of that fire aimed at booting the president solely
based on the fact that he won the 2016 election.
Ex-Special Counsel Robert Mueller had a double-header of hearings before
the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.
He refused to answer close to 200 questions, even those within his purview.
He totally avoided any question on the Trump dossier compiled by ex-MI6
spook Christopher Steele, which set off this whole Russian collusion myth.
That document was funded by the Clinton campaign after they contracted the
research firm Fusion GPS. This group then hired Steele.
The irony is that the Mueller report nuked the Trump dossier, which was
already largely unverified. Mueller claimed to not be familiar with the
firm, which is just too good to be true. You didn’t know? Who are you
kidding, man?
Often times, Mueller appeared frail, aloof, and unable to hear. He asked
congressional Democrats and Republicans to repeat their questions multiple
times and the answers he did offer really didn’t highlight much or add
anything that what we already know. If anything, it appears the Mueller
didn’t read or write his report.
And some of the explanations, were, well trash. They didn’t make sense.
Here’s Jerry Dunleavy and Caitlin Yilek of The Washington Examiner
dissecting Rep. Brad Wenstrup’s (R-OH) question concerning whether the
Trump campaign was involved in stealing Hillary campaign emails:
Rep. Brad Wenstrup, a Republican from Ohio, asked Mueller whether it was
“accurate to say that your investigation found no evidence that members of
the Trump campaign were involved in the theft or publication of Clinton
campaign-related emails?”
Mueller first paused and then asked Wenstrup to repeat the question, which
the congressman did.
Mueller paused again, and then answered, “I don’t know, uh, uh, well —
”Wenstrup got specific, quoting from Mueller's report. “On page five, it
says your report ‘did not establish that any members of the Trump campaign
conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election
interference activities.’ So therefore it would be inaccurate, based on
this, to describe that finding as open to doubt, that finding being that
the Trump campaign was involved in the theft or publication of the Clinton
campaign emails," he said“Are you following that, sir?” Wenstrup asked.
“I do believe I am following it,” Mueller replied. “But it is, um, that
portion of that matter does not fall within our jurisdiction, or fall
within our investigation.”
But this statement from Mueller seems to contradict the very basis for his
appointment as special counsel, since he was specifically selected to
investigate Russian election interference efforts — which, in his own
report, he concludes involved the Russian intelligence’s hacking of
Democratic emails and their provision of those emails to Wikileaks to
publish — and to what extent, if any, the Trump campaign was involved in
those efforts.
Die-hard liberals like Michael Moore reacted more intensely. He had an ‘I
told you so’ moment, telling those pundits who said to put faith in Mueller
to “STFU.”
I think you can fill in the blanks there. Laurence Tribe, a liberal lawyer,
even admitted that today’s hearings were a disaster for Democrats. CNN’s
Jeffrey Toobin, the network’s legal analyst, also conceded that Trump won
the day.
Who knew Wednesdays could be so good.
[link removed]
_____________________

What They Are Saying: More Disastrous Reviews for House Democrats’ Mueller
Train Wreck
♦ “A Nightmare” ♦ “A Disaster” ♦ “An Extraordinary Miscalculation” ♦ “One
has to wonder… where Democrats go from here.” ♦
ABC News’ Terry Moran: “Impeachment is over. I don’t think Nancy Pelosi is
going to stand for he members bringing forth something that is going to
obviously lose in the Senate, lose with the American public.”
Cheddar’s J.D. Durkin: “Mueller has told multiple Democrats today that he
doesn’t agree with how they’re characterizing parts of their arguments, on
things like obstruction and the framing of the Trump Tower meeting”
CNN’s Marshall Cohen: “Mueller’s style deprived Democrats the made-for-TV
moments they hoped to create, possibly to move the needle on impeachment.”
CNN’s Jake Tapper: “There were also times when it seemed like he was
unfamiliar with parts of the investigation like he didn’t seem familiar
with the name GPS”
CNN Commentator Alice Stewart: “What a nightmare Robert Mueller’s testimony
has been for Congressional Democrats and their dreams of impeachment
momentum. In his much-anticipated bombshell performance, Mueller bombed.
Aside from difficult to watch testimony, there has been no new information
and no elaboration on the 448-page report.”
The Federalist’s David Harsanyi: “If Democrats believed that Robert Mueller
would provide them with additional ammunition for an impeachment inquiry,
they made an extraordinary miscalculation.”
Fox News’ Laura Ingraham: “Here’s some advice. Don’t build a big hearing
around a lawyer who told you he didn’t want to be there.”
Fox News Contributor Sara Carter: “Dems disappoint with #Mueller
show...while Bob Ducks and Weaves”
Former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): “I think the Democrats have to be
disappointed that he didn’t more vigorously defend his process and the
team.”
Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe: “Much as I hate to say it,
this morning’s hearing was a disaster.”
MSNBC’s Jeremy Bash: “He kind of sucked the life out of the report.”
MSNBC’s Ari Melber: “[Mueller] did not build on a case for impeachment the
way some House Democrats hoped”
NBC News’ Jonathan Allen: “WOW: Big reversal. Ratcliffe undercuts Lieu,
gets Mueller to go back on OLC memo testimony.”
NBC News’ Richard Engel: “Painful to watch Mueller testimony. So few
answers. So many unanswered questions. No flow. Hard to understand the
larger issues. Confusing, even if you are deeply steeped in the case.”
NBC News’ Chuck Todd: “On optics, this was a disaster.”
New Yorker’s Susan Glasser: “Sometimes the book actually is better than the
movie. #MuellerReport”
New York Post Editorial Board: “By all accounts, House Judiciary Committee
Chairman Jerry Nadler hoped that dragging in former special counsel Bob
Mueller for a hearing would jump-start his drive to get going on
impeachment. Oops: It was a total waste of time.”
One America News Network’s Liz Wheeler: “No collusion, no conspiracy, no
proof of obstruction. Oh wait... we already knew this. Big winner in
today’s hearings was @realDonaldTrump.”
Politico’s John Bresnahan: “Getting worse as hearing goes on, similar to
morning session”
Politico’s Blake Hounshell: “[I]t’s pretty clear that today’s hearings
haven’t been the televised Mueller report that many on the left were hoping
it would be.”
Politico’s Blake Hounshell: “One has to wonder, too, where Democrats go
from here.”
Politico Playbook Headline: “Mueller gives impeachment crowd little to work
with”
Radio Host Hugh Hewitt: “SC Mueller just walked back everything Democrat’s
thought he had given them this morning even though it was the thinnest
gruel to begin with.”
Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff: “Mueller seems increasingly befuddled.”
Washington Examiner’s Keith Koffler: “Democrats inviting Mueller to testify
is working out about as well as the prosecution asking O.J. to try on the
glove.”
The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake: “Mueller corrects his exchange with
Lieu. It’s not what Democrats wanted it to be.”
COMPILED BY THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE

--
You are subscribed to email updates from "BLACK REPUBLICAN BLOG."
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now:
[link removed]

Email delivery powered by Google.
Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States