Wednesday, 20 February 2019 20:05

Report, Mueller closing shop; McCabe's Gang of 8; Limbaugh's rule

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

limbaugh court

According to CNN, we might be at the end of the Mueller investigation line, assuming the credibility of sources familiar with the plans.

CNN reported today:

 

Attorney General Bill Barr is preparing to announce as early as next week the completion of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, with plans for Barr to submit to Congress soon after a summary of Mueller's confidential report, according to people familiar with the plans.

The preparations are the clearest indication yet that Mueller is nearly done with his almost two-year investigation.

The precise timing of the announcement is subject to change.

The news is spawning all types of speculation. Those supportive of President Trump might feel that it is proof positive that there is nothing there, since no charges against the President has been lodged on the issue of collusion or criminal conspiracy.

Those believing in the criminal activities by Trump and/or his campaign might feel that the report presented to the Attorney General is simply that, a report, that the president cannot be indicted while in office and so the only recourse might be to lay out the claims on collusion and obstruction of justice and let the Justice Department and Congress proceed with the cases.

Regardless as to what Mueller finds, there are pending investigations and criminal trials proceeding in the federal courts that involve matters unrelated to alleged Russia interference and some directly related.  Plus, of course, there are Congressional hearings, so this discussion is far from over.

In the federal courts, Paul Manafort has been accused of lying to the Special Counsel about communications he had with a Russian operative. Also, Roger Stone is accused of lying to Congress and according to reports being alleged, communicating with Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.

Assuming this is proven, there are still questions as to whether those communications, while in my view, collusive, would be determined to be unlawful.

MCCABE MATTER

Regardless how one might feel about the credibility or lackof  cred coming from Andrew McCabe, formerly the FBI acting director and now famous author on book tour, there is one major issue that has been discussed that could be earth shattering to the investigation or to McCabe existing questionable credibility.

That one issue involves whether McCabe discussed the investigation with the Gang of Eight. If he did reveal the investigation to the top intelligence and Congressional leaders, then, shouldn’t they be accused of the same type of treasonous activities that Trump and his ardent backers are espousing?

Ever since McCabe announced that he and his federal law enforcement team opened up a counter-intelligence investigation, the twitter world has gone beserk.  The treason accusations are in the air, magnified by the possibility that Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wanted to wear a wire while discussing matters with the president.

Brother!

However, so far, no Democrat has confirmed McCabe’s story and Mitch McConnell has said that he could not talk about matters within the purview of the Gang of Eight. Former Congressman Trey Gowdy said on Fox News yesterday that he believes McCabe made it up, claiming McCabe would know that communications withn the Gang of Eight meetings are highly protected as classified.

McCabe said today on Morning Joe that he was very clear about the FBI’s investigation when discussing it with that group.

LIMBAUGH LOGIC

The worse of Limbaugh emerged this Sunday on Fox News. Rush Limbaugh has claimed that he is a strict constructionist of the constitution and that the left does not follow the nation’s most important legal document.

During the interview with Chris Wallace, the golden mouth discussed his reasons that he supported the border wall and President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency.

The truth is, during that very interview, Limbaugh proved to me that he has no constitution at all for the US Constitution.

Worse, he confirmed that what is important to him is the end result.  The ends justifies the means, even if the constitution is overrun.

Wallace asked Limbaugh how he could denounce Obama’s actions involving the Dreamers, even calling Obama’s executive order criminal and shredding of the constitution, yet, when it comes to taking extraordinary measures to defend the wall, as far as Rush is concerned, Trump gets the Limbaugh seal of approval.  

Here is the complete transcript of this relevant FOX NEWS Wallace interview:

WALLACE:- Ask you about the the game that you say we play in Washington because the fact is that when President Obama took executive actions you were outraged and as you would expect I've got a couple of examples of Rush Limbaugh over the years let's put him on the screen. in June of 2012 when President Obama deferred action against the dreamers you said this “40 years ago Richard Nixon was hounded out of office supposedly for his illegal actions and I'm telling you that whatever Nixon did pales in comparison to just this move by Obama today”. In November of 2014 on reports that Mr.. Obama was going to protect millions of parents of dreamers, you said this we can't just stand idly by and try to find some political opportunity while the president basically shreds the Constitution and flushes it down the toilet--so here's my question Rush –I understand that you like what President Trump is doing and you didn't like what President Obama was doing but I, that's the concern here, is that to the degree that you give the president more and more powers, yes, you're gonna get some things, executive powers from one president you like but you're gonna get things, executive powers from another president, that you don't like.

LIMBAUGH You may look at it that way. I don't. I look at it--right and wrong-- and what Obama was doing was furthering this existing problem in and was politicizing this-- using whatever executive powers he wanted to use. Yes, I objected to that but primarily because of what he was doing with these executive powers. He was taking action that I deemed to be harmful to the country. I look at what Trump is doing, is something he has to do because he's not getting any cooperation what's-- parties, Chris let's be honest, here both parties have people that are still trying to get rid of Donald Trump. I read this bill, this spending bill this bill is outrageous the things welcoming centers for newly arriving illegal aliens and all kinds of medical care for-- the purpose of this bill I think was to eventually be used by the Democrats and some Republicans tell the American people see electing Trump was pointless worthless, he can't protect you, he can't stop us, he can't do what he said he was going to do because we hate him so much, we're not going to allow him to do it. That's what this bill is. so to me all of this boils down to where the heck are we going as a country and what kind of country are we gonna have-- and if anybody is willing to go to the limit to make this country remain as founded, they're gonna have my support all right

Think about it. Limbaugh is approving that when the next Democratic president takes office and decides to call a national emergency on climate change or gun control or gay rights or whatever might be the issue of the moment, all he and his supporters would need to do is play back Limbaugh.  

To illustrate, how Limbaugh has stepped all over the constitution, let’s assume President Democrat has ordered an emergency over global warming and some pro-Democrat media commentator is asked the same question Wallace asked to Limbaugh:

COMMENTATOR: You may look at it that way. I don't. I look at it--- right and wrong-- and what Trump was doing was furthering this existing problem in and was politicizing this-- using whatever executive powers he wanted to use (TO BUILD THE WALL).Yes, I objected to that but primarily because of what he was doing with these executive powers. He was taking action that I deemed to be harmful to the country. I look at what Democratic President is doing is something he has to do because he's not getting any cooperation what's—

I thought that Limbaugh and others believed that the determinative question is what does the constitution say?  For strict constructionists, such as Limbaugh, I assume that scrutiny would be--what did our founding fathers say?

I thought conservatives like Limbaugh are not concerned what is “right” or “wrong” for the moment? I thought the scrutiny was not what is “harmful or not harmful” to the country--but what did the founding fathers say? When did conservative scholars approve abandoning the clear words of the constitution as drafted by our founding fathers simply because they I like what the President is doing.  Talk about constitution creativity!!

The Limbaugh rule would dictate that if any president acts in a way in which his or her powers are being challenged, all Rush would ask would be if he thought the end result was right vs. wrong. Today's it's the wall because Rush thinks it's right. Tomorrow it's shutting down coal and oil wells because President Democrat things that is right.

If the words and meaning of the constitution are so fluid, you can better believe that the next time the Democrats hold the White House, sweeping and unwanted changes will take place and so-called strict constructionists will not be happy.

Just as Republicans justifiably can cite Obama for prying open the executive power gate, Democrats will cite Trump and Limbaugh for letting in all the animals.

When that occurs, just remember, it's the "Limbaugh rule"

Read 302 times
Login to post comments

Our Past Webinars

allee 5


bern jim3 2


buisson elections4 1

 

 

cherv james williams 3

Dead Pelican

Optimized-DeadPelican2 1 1