[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

what a freakin' insane asylum

Sorry, CNN, We're Not Going to Stop Talking About the Russian Collusion Hoax

"No Autopsy Can Restore the Democratic Party’s Viability"

RIP Ozzy

"Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return"

"Virginia Governor’s Race Heats Up As Republican Winsome Sears Does a Hard Reboot of Her Campaign"

"We Hate Communism!!"

"Mamdani and the Democratic Schism"

"The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death"

"President Badass"

"Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster"

"How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran"

There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined.

"This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like"

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"

"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Robert Mueller Stocks Staff with Democrat Donors
Source: Lifezette
URL Source: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/ ... -stocks-staff-democrat-donors/
Published: Jun 13, 2017
Author: Brendan Kirby
Post Date: 2017-06-13 07:57:18 by HomerBohn
Keywords: None
Views: 4490
Comments: 45

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sparked a mini-meltdown in the media Monday with a tweet challenging the fairness of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Gingrich, who also appeared on “The Laura Ingraham Show,” pointed to the early hires special counsel Robert Mueller has made.

“Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair,” he tweeted. “Look who he is hiring.check fec [sic] reports. Time to rethink.”

He's not wrong about the donations. Four top lawyers hired by Mueller have contributed tens of thousands of dollars over the years to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates, including former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump's 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton.

One of the hires, Jeannie Rhee, also worked as a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation and helped persuade a federal judge to block a conservative activist's attempts to force Bill and Hillary Clinton to answer questions under oath about operations of the family-run charity.

Campaign-finance reports show that Rhee gave Clinton the maximum contributions of $2,700 in 2015 and again last year to support her presidential campaign. She also donated $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,500 in 2011. While still at the Justice Department, she gave $250 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp.

Rhee also has contributed to a trio of Democratic senators: Mark Udall of New Mexico, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

James Quarles, who worked on the Watergate investigation as a young prosecutor, has an even longer history of supporting Democratic politicians. He gave $1,300 to Obama in 2007 and $2,300 in 2008. He also gave $2,700 to Clinton last year.

He has supported a number of other Democratic candidates, including Van Hollen, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), former Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), former Vice President Al Gore, 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry, former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and Colorado congressional candidate Gail Schwartz.

In addition, Quarles gave money to former Sen. John Walsh (D-Mont.) and three current Democratic senators — Ron Wyden of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. He chipped in $300 to the DNC Services Corp. $300 in 2012.

Quarles did donate to a couple of GOP politicians — $250 to then-Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) in 2006 and $2,500 to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) in 2015.

Andrew Weissmann, a former Justice Department lawyer who now is at Jenner & Block, contributed $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,000 to the DNC Services Corp. in 2006. Weissmann served as chief of the Justice Department's criminal fraud section and worked on the Enron fraud case.

A fourth lawyer on Mueller's staff, Michael Dreeben, donated $1,000 to Clinton 2006 and $250 to Obama in both 2007 and 2008. He was deputy solicitor general and has appeared many times before the Supreme Court.

Media pundits generally dismissed concerns over the Democratic Party ties of the staff Mueller is building. Several Trump critics noted that Gingrich previously had tweeted that Mueller was a "superb choice to be special counsel" and that his reputation was "impeccable for honesty and integrity."

Journalist Paul Vale, who has written for the Huffington Post and The Times of London, tweeted, "Boiled cabbage Gingrich lays out the White House plan to discredit career lawman Mueller — all in the service of his babbling paymaster."

CNN anchor John King on Monday asked the network's chief congressional correspondent, Manu Raju, if it should be a concern.

"No, because Bob Mueller is the one who's in charge of this investigation and will ultimately decide how to proceed, and there is some oversight over him by [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein, even though there is a special counsel," he said.

.


Poster Comment:

Looks like a potential enemy or enemies will be delving into the phony Russian hacking away to give the election to Trump rather than the more deserving Hillary.

This can't fly! Larding up the staff with Clintonians should be enough to cry foul and dissolve the investigators.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 43.

#1. To: HomerBohn (#0)

This can't fly! Larding up the staff with Clintonians should be enough to cry foul and dissolve the investigators.

But, you see, it WILL fly. Democrats FIGHT. They are brave - wrong, but brave. They ALWAYS fight. They never, ever quit. Like rust, they don't sleep. They press on. If they win, they impose. If they lose, they obstruct. But they never, never, never quit.

Republicans, by contrast, don't fight for anything except a very few things. Republicans will fight over anything that redistributes the wealth of the super rich. Not you and me, but the economic alphas. They will fight for them. Anything else? They treat it as politics and bargain and shift.

They don't like Trump, because he's a populist, so they view the investigation of Trump as weakening him, so they can get their way.

Democrats fight all the time. I suppose Republicans do too, in their way, but what they are fighting for is not what they SAY they are fighting for when they run for office.

Republicans could stop the Special Prosecution instantly, by refusing to fund it. They won't do it. And therefore Democrats will run amok with it, because the Republicans refuse to do the one thing that will stop them.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-13   8:11:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

Republicans will fight over anything that redistributes the wealth of the super rich. Not you and me, but the economic alphas.

These economic alphas are subject to a progressive tax system which forces them to pay a higher tax rate on their income. I don't see you complaining about that unfair system.

Now if we had a flat tax on every dollar earned, then the economic alphas would benefit no more from a tax cut than the economic omegas. Would that finally please you?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-13   8:39:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: misterwhite (#2)

These economic alphas are subject to a progressive tax system which forces them to pay a higher tax rate on their income. I don't see you complaining about that unfair system.

Now if we had a flat tax on every dollar earned, then the economic alphas would benefit no more from a tax cut than the economic omegas. Would that finally please you?

If you read what I have consistently said about taxes, you would see me complaining about our unfair system for years.

I want to see a flat tax on every dollar of wealth. (Just taxing "dollars earned" is itself an unfair system unless you STOP taxing land and cars and boats and planes, and only tax their growth in value about the original purchase price).

If we just tax NEW wealth, including capital gain, on an ongoing basis, that would be a fair system, but it would not produce adequate revenue to run the government. To some extent we have to tax existing wealth (which is what a property tax is: a tax on existing wealth).

If you're going to tax SOME existing wealth, then to be fair you have to tax ALL forms of it, at the same rate.

So, one flat tax on each new dollar however derived - that's fair. And if you're going to tax property at all, then to be fair you have to tax all wealth in whatever form at the same rate: stock portfolios, art collections, gold hoards and houses all need to be taxed at the same property tax rate.

I have ALWAYS called for a fair and equal system. Now, I don't expect you to have carefully followed anything that I've ever said. Why would you. But since you haven't, you should be careful before making a swingeing general attack on my unfairness about something, when I actually have a decades-old published view of the matter - right here on this site and on Free Republic and elsewhere, that very consistently calls for uniform taxation of everything, because that's the only thing that is fair.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-13   8:50:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Vicomte13 (#3)

uniform taxation of everything, because that's the only thing that is fair.

No it's not fair. You're penalizing those who invest rather than blowing their money on trips, booze, gambling and whoring. You're discouraging the type of behavior we want and need.

"I have ALWAYS called for a fair and equal system."

Fine. Then call for a flat tax on all income and the elimination of the property tax. Why should homeowners foot the entire bill for the community?

You seek "fairness" by compounding the problem -- tax everything ... to be "fair". Taxing wealth is not fair. It's redistribution from the haves to have nots. Don't confuse your feelings of compassion with fairness.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-13   10:02:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: misterwhite (#5)

Fine. Then call for a flat tax on all income and the elimination of the property tax. Why should homeowners foot the entire bill for the community?

Because I want a fair tax policy, not a stupid one.

The tax rates required to fund the government WITHOUT property and wealth taxation are so high they would destroy the economy.

38% flat taxes? Insane.

We can't cut the government back far enough to be able to pay for it with a straight economic activity tax.

Government does too much to just fund it with the active economy. You have to tax property. And once you realize that you have to tax houses, then there is no justification to NOT taxing corporate securities ownership.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-13   13:34:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

38% flat taxes? Insane.

No. It's honest. The government is currently collecting 38%, just through different means. Once people see firsthand how much the government takes from them, they'll demand cuts to the budget.

By the way, Ted Cruz proposed a 10% flat tax. Why do you need four times as much?

"And once you realize that you you you have to tax houses, then there is no justification to NOT taxing corporate securities ownership."

No. You don't have to tax houses. Spread that revenue collection among ALL the people of the state. They all benefit, so they should all pay. Isn't that "fair"?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-13   14:18:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: misterwhite (#11)

By the way, Ted Cruz proposed a 10% flat tax. Why do you need four times as much?

Because Ted's number isn't mathematically realistic.

The economy is $28 trillion. The cost of government is $7 trillion per year (all levels), and the federal government spends almost $4 trillion. A 10% flat tax on a $28 trillion economy will produce $2.8 trillion, which is $1.2 trillion short. So we plunge ever deeper into debt.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-13   20:21:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Vicomte13 (#14)

"The economy is $28 trillion."

And will remain at $28 trillion. Forever.

Even with this massive tax cut? People are not going to spend the additional money put in their pockets by this tax cut? Businesses won't expand to accommodate the increased demand?

Are you saying federal spending can't be cut? Why is federal spending a sacred cow?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-14   9:48:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: misterwhite (#17)

Are you saying federal spending can't be cut? Why is federal spending a sacred cow?

Of course it can be cut.

The biggest discretionary piece is the war and the arms race. End those and you have a big peace dividend.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-14   23:17:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Vicomte13 (#19)

They need to cut across the board. Then give people their money back. They especially need to cut the program Ms that you like. You know where they steal from me and give to losers you feel sorry for. It contradicts gods word about needing to work to eat. It sows laziness. It makes people like you feel better. I never understood why people reject gods teaching on the subject. They must like to feel good by someone taking from a worker and giving to a deadbeat. That way they don't have to give and they can claim they are generous. But they aren't they worship mammoth am Nd want the government to do their charity in place of their giving on their own.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-14   23:23:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: A K A Stone (#20)

I never understood why people reject gods teaching on the subject.

I don't understand why professing Christians do that either.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-14   23:29:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Vicomte13 (#21)

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

In all honesty you ignore this verse. Very straight forward.

Then someone like you spins and pretends it doesn't mean what it says.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-14   23:34:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: A K A Stone (#22)

In all honesty, Paul is not God.

God commanded an extensive system of mandatory poverty relief in the Torah, and Jesus walked about healing and feeding unworthy people and telling his disciples to do the same.

Paul has no power to overrule or override Jesus and YHWH, and to read him to have that authority is to place a man before God.

Moreover, Paul was dealing with the specific problem of freeloaders in a particular Church. They participated in the help, the agape meals, but they didn't lift a finger to help. Paul's "he who will not work, should not eat" is within that context.

You read that to completely nullify God's direct words and works in both testaments, and you do it because Paul's message (which you misinterpret) is more congenial to you than Jesus' and YHWH's.

But we've been over this ground time and again. I bear patiently with the false accusation that I ignore the Bible, and I restrain myself from calling you out on various theological points because I can see that you are utterly committed to this viewpoint, and believe that this one line from Paul justifies it all, and indeed that Paul can override Jesus and YHWH because...Bible!

I know where it's coming from, I know why you're doing it, and I know that you are not going to change your mind though God himself stand before you and tell you that you're reading it all wrong.

So I don't engage. I do ignore your argument every time because it's not Godly (I argue from the words of God himself, from his own mouth, pages and pages of both testaments). I hear your accusation that what I say is ungodly and I roll my eyes at your blindness. I know you can't help it because you're a Protestant, and you have come up in a tradition where if you can find some words in the Bible that support your viewpoint, that becomes the will of God, regardless of the context. The Bible, to you, is a "god-maker". Any word in the Bible is all from God. So, a sentence written in a letter of Paul can override fifty pages of YHWH and Jesus because it's in the Bible. It's in the Bible, and of course Paul - which is to say God in your tradition - is speaking most authoritatively, because what he says seems to agree with your personal viewpoint.

It's impossible to argue with such nonsense. You are CONVINCED of it, indeed CONVICTED. And so it is. You're wrong. You're misreadging it. You are misapplying the authority in Scripture. And you're doing it because of your own political views and worries, the things that make sense to you.

You're never going to change your mind until you're dead. Then you'll change your mind. So what are we to do now? You're going to continue to argue for an ungodly position and call it godly, and to call the position that is actually based on what GOD said ungodly. You're going to keep on elevating Paul above God incarnate because your tradition says that's kosher and you agree with Paul but don't agree with Jesus and YHWH. And you're going to periodically take a poke at me, and at God through me, because I am parsing Scripture correctly and applying God's extensive commandments regarding the poor.

I know it, and I've stopped even being frustrated by it much, because the more godly view is winning this fight politically. There are folks on here who want to take away all welfare, and who want to strip the vote from the poor, and all sorts of other crazy uncle in the attic nonsense that is never, ever going to happen, because the general population is a whole lot more reasonable and righteous than the folks who are positively obsessed with worry over what those "below" them get.

Welfare is a mere pittance in the budget. Most of our government money is spent on education, on the military, and on health care, in that order. Then there's social security and law enforcement. The actual money paid out in food stamps and aid to dependent children is a pittance. You're going to focus on cutting that pittance and running out on God in the process. And the rest of us are never going to let that happen.

So you're going to snarl at us and say we're ungodly. Many of the liberals ARE ungodly - their motivations are different. But the Catholics who support social welfare are obeying the Jesus and YHWH of the Bible, and we're going to keep doing so. It amazes us that you cannot see this, that you strain out the gnat, with this misapplied sentence of Paul, and swallow the camel by ignoring pages of words of God himself, on Sinai and incarnate.

Anyway, you have a nice day. Eventually you will come to see this rightly. It will be after you're dead I think.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-15   6:51:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Vicomte13 (#25)

You Dont get to overrule the bible. No where in the bible does it say set up the American welfare system. Not even close. I used scripture. You couldn't refute with scripture. I'll go with the bible and not a group who left a commandment out of the ten and prays to a dead human woman. Who isn't a virgin anymore.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-15   7:08:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: A K A Stone (#28)

I used scripture. You couldn't refute with scripture. I

I once wrote you pages and pages and pages of Scriptural quotations about God law of poverty, and how Jesus's teachings meshed with it.

I DID refute what you said, but you simply ignored the post and refused to admit you had been defeated.

I know I will never get justice in your court, because you simply ignore what is said to you and bellow on with your view, as if nothing was said.

Of course you cannot be refuted in your own mind: it is closed. If we hauled in a neutral third party and presented our respective cases to him from Scripture, he'd rule my argument valid on the point and yours not.

But you would then reject HIS argument, because he didn't agree with you, and you are just absolutely CERTAIN that because you read the Bible a certain way, that that is what God meant - just exactly that - and that your mind has the proper understanding of what God means, and that if somebody disagrees with you, that person - or all billion plus other people - are listening to Satan.

It's very self-affirming, I am sure. I wonder if your faith in yourself as supreme judge of rectitude in the universe, as the Supreme Judge of what God MEANT by the Bible, is ever shaken by anything?

You should wonder why God has given such miracles to me, a man whom YOU say listens to the whispers of Satan. It should disturb you - make you think that maybe you're not right.

But instead you'll just ascribe all of THAT to lies and Satan too. You're stubborn and certain, like a Democrat or a Communist or an atheist.

There will be no convincing you in this life. Eventually, during your life review, you will encounter all of this again - and you will figure it out. Until then, there's no purpose at all served by going back and forth over the same ground. You claim God is on your side because of your read of your book. God is on my side, though, and therefore I read his book correctly.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-15   9:29:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Vicomte13 (#31)

It's very self-affirming, I am sure. I wonder if your faith in yourself

Don't be an asshole.

I have faith in Gods word which I quoted.

You only quoted yourself. So it is you that has the big head and thinks he knows it all. But never gets around to quoting scripture to make his point.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-15   9:56:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 43.

#45. To: A K A Stone (#43)

Don't be an asshole.

Back at ya.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-15 13:24:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 43.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com