Can These Women BEAT Donald Trump?

“Women wield an incredible amount of voting power, but it still comes down to turnout,” Axios concluded. “The two groups who the poll shows would overwhelmingly opt for anyone but Trump — African-American women and millennials — are also two groups that tend to be less reliable in going to the polls.”

The Women in White . 

With that said we have a newly charged Congress with the last midterms brought a blue wave [of sorts] that swept many Women to the political round table .The congressional freshman class of 2019 is perhaps best described in superlatives. It is the most racially diverse and most female group of representatives ever elected to the House, whose history spans more than 200 years. And it boasts an avalanche of firsts, from the first Native American congresswomen to the first Muslim congresswomen.The move is just another reminder that the new House class is of a different political breed. The  incoming Congress is set to be the most female, most diverse ever, (1)>>both racially and ideologically. Of course, not everyone has been excited about the new congresswomen. On Tuesday, Fox News host Laura Ingraham dedicated a 10-minute segment to criticize the four Democrats. Ingraham, whose racist dog whistles are infamous, called them "the four horsewomen of the apocalypse" and accused them of having "the most radical views in Congress" — such as calling for Medicare for All and tuition-free colleges.With Democrats in control of the House and Republicans in control of the Senate and White House, there are questions of what policies will be able to get through the 116th Congress. Nevertheless, many of the representatives-elect have made it clear they're ready to fulfill their promise to serve the people, regardless of the internal squabble that has characterized Congress for a long time. In just a few short days after taking back control of the House, some Democrats have already called for the impeachment of President Trump, the abolition of the Electoral College, restraints on presidential pardon power, and proposed a tax rate as high as 70 percent for the wealthiest taxpayers. Did someone forget to mention at freshman orientation that Congress is also home to a legislative body called the Senate? In order to be effective

...... Take the best selfies.

and actually send legislation to the president, the House must work with the Senate. Otherwise, members are just breathing each other’s hot air.Is this heading for trouble ? If the Democrats just want to pick fights with Trump , its likely that the whole government will hit a brick wall . FORGET THE SHUTDOWNS . Where its heading , The Democrats will start by showering the White House with dozens of frivolous subpoenas as they pursue baseless investigations that are only designed to undermine the nationwide support of President Trump. Top Democrats in the House have already vowed to investigate “all the things” he has done that they believe goes against the Constitution. They also plan to dig even further into aspects of his personal and business life. In fact, the Democrats had already drafted at more than 60 subpoenas targeting the Trump administration before the midterm elections last year, just as Nancy Pelosi pledged to pursue bipartisanship in Congress. She knows that the American people are more interested in progress than politics, but she will be hard pressed in keeping her unruly caucus from shooting itself in the foot by wasting time on partisan investigations. 
BUT CAN THESE WOMEN BEAT TRUMP IN 2020?

DEMOCRATS ARE OBVIOUSLY 

HOPING TO DEFEAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IN 2020. 

Sen . Warren .

 Who that candidate will be is anyone's guess at this point. And voters had varying views about how to beat Trump, whether it be through character and policy contrasts, inspiration and passion, or adopting the incumbent's own tactics. But the sentiment is driving interest and attendance at political events at this early stage in the cycle. And the prospect of taking Mr. Trump on is attracting what is expected to be the largest Democratic field in two decades.  Still, an undeniable cultural shift has taken hold since 2016. The cynicism brought by the Trump era, from his administration’s policies that hurt women and threaten reproductive rights, has helped galvanize a movement of politically active women. Women have fought back at every level of government since Trump took office, inspired to take a more active role in the policies that affect them directly.    (2)>>Voters who want to see a woman in the White House will have many more candidates to choose from in 2020 compared with past elections. According to the Center for American Women and Politics, or CAWP, at Rutgers University, there has never been more than two women competing at the same time in the Democratic or Republican primaries.  Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) — would all beat Trump, too. But name recognition is a factor. A near-majority of registered voters said they didn't know enough about Harris, Klobuchar or Gillibrand to be able to rate them as favorable or unfavorable.Still, of these three women, Harris could [ wishful thinking]  beat Trump most handily — by a 10-point

Sen. Harris 

margin — if the election were held today. She polls well with African American and white suburban women, but not with #NeverHillary independent registered voters. Klobuchar polls best with white suburban women, and would beat Trump by 9 points.  Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has the perfect response to anyone wondering if a woman can really beat President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election. The Democratic presidential candidate fielded the question at a town hall event in Iowa on Monday night. During her conversation with CNN’s Jake Tapper, a man in the audience asked what she thinks of the notion that Democrats would have a better chance of winning the 2020 election with a male candidate.Yet at a time of ascendancy for women in the party, there’s a lingering doubt in some quarters about whether there is a risk involved in nominating a woman to take on Donald Trump, who Democrats fervently want to unseat. Playwright and composer Robert John Ford noted that many Democrats “agree that the primary objective for 2020 is to nominate the candidate that has the best shot at defeating Donald Trump.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar had an answer ready for local journalists who asked

Sen. Klobuchar

her this week about the fiasco in a human trafficking bill that held up the confirmation of attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch because of an abortion provision. Amy Klobuchar has laid the grounds for a presidential run on an image of “Minnesota nice.”But behind the doors of her Washington, DC, office, the Minnesota Democrat ran a workplace controlled by fear, anger, and shame, according to interviews with eight former staffers, one that many employees found intolerably cruel. She demeaned and berated her staff almost daily, subjecting them to bouts of explosive rage and regular humiliation within the office, according to interviews and dozens of emails reviewed by BuzzFeed News. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) announced on January 15 during an appearance on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert that she would be filing an exploratory committee for president of the United States. “I’m going to run for president of the United States because as a young mom, I’m going to fight for other people’s kids as hard as I would fight for my own—which is why I believe that health care should be a right and not a privilege,” she said on the show.For all of the hand-wringing that was done in the wake of 2016 about the unique challenges that face

Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) 

female candidates, Gillibrand — whose PAC, Off the Sidelines, supports women running for office — made it clear that she would not shy away from her femininity, and in fact, would use it to contrast herself with President Trump. After calling attention to the fact that she was a mother, Gillibrand painted Trump as a whiney toddler. Yet Gillibrand, who has served in the Senate since 2009, also has shifted some of her positions since her days in the House, when she took more moderate and conservative positions on issues such as illegal immigration and guns. Next we have Best-selling author, motivational speaker and spiritual adviser Marianne Williamson announced plans to run for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.  And once called the "high priestess of pop religion" is throwing her hat into the 2020 presidential ring.     Williamson – whose first book A Return to Love shot her to prominence in 1992 – may not share Oprah’s celebrity, yet her deeply entrenched spiritual value system and maxim to ‘choose love over fear’ is one that will likely 

Marianne Williamson

appeal to many Oprah loyalists.This is not Williamson’s first foray into politics. In 2014, she raised $2 million as an Independent candidate in a bid to fill a seat in California’s 33rd congressional district. Despite support from prominent Democrats and celebrities she finished fourth in a field of sixteen.  She later shared in an interview with Oprah that the experience taught her to trust her own judgment more and rely less on that of others.  Williamson is a prominent New Age author who has written New York Times best sellers, most recently Tears to Triumph about “the spiritual journey from suffering to enlightenment”.Should she win the presidency, Williamson, 66, not only would be the first woman president but the first Jewish one, though few seem to be aware of her Jewishness. Williamson quotes an array of religious thinkers in her popular spiritual — but post-religion — lectures. 
& NOW THERE'S THE  RADICAL WOMEN.

Ocasio-Cortez 

At 29, Ocasio-Cortez is the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. Her social media skills are fierce, helping make the self-described democratic socialist a darling among the progressive crowd and a target for conservatives. .When Anderson Cooper sat down with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on 60 Minutes in early January, he asked if she considered herself a “radical.” She replied, “It has only ever been radicals that have changed this country. If that’s what radical means, call me a radical,” before venturing further and adding: “What’s unrealistic is what we’re living in right now.” And she’s right. After hearing that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez supports ideas such “paid family and sick leave” and “clean campaign finance,” The View’s Meghan McCain said it was “petrifying” that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s ideas could become “normalized” in the United States.There is no question that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez may be “too radical” for those who either operate within the domain of establishment politics or those who have been convinced that those who have been slapped with particular labels can be dismissed out of hand. But perhaps the only “danger” posed by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was that she proved an under-financed candidate with a populist message can defeat an establishment opponent backed by corporate money and wealthy benefactors.  Ocasio-Cortez has put forward a (3)>>“Green New Deal” that includes generating all of the nation’s power from renewable sources, building a national smart grid and entirely eliminating industrial greenhouse gas emissions. A proposal from the democratic socialist lawmaker calls for achieving those goals within 10 years. Ocasio-Cortez has been pilloried for her plan to “get rid of farting cows and airplanes,” upgrade or replace “every building in America,” replace “every combustible-engine vehicle” and provide “economic security” for people “unwilling to work” — and rightly so. The old five-year plans of the former Soviet Union are modest, by comparison, in their pursuit of full socialism. Yet the big untold story is her admission that all of this cannot be paid for simply by taxing the rich. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is campaigning for president on a wealth tax, while Ocasio-Cortez has proposed 70 percent marginal tax rates on wealthy Americans. The message is clear: We’ll soak the millionaires and billionaires and mega-rich corporations so we can give you free stuff. The Crazies in the Democratic party are even driving Speaker Nancy Pelosi bonkers

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar 

. (4)>>Perhaps Ilhan Abdullahi Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Harbi Tlaib of Michigan will be the first two Muslim women ever to serve in the US Congress. Most of the media coverage since their election on November 6 has been effusive in praise of their Muslim identity and personal history. Less known is that both women deceived voters about their positions on Israel. Both women, at some point during their rise in electoral politics, led voters — especially Jewish voters — to believe that they held moderate views on Israel. After being elected, both women reversed their positions and now say they are committed to sanctioning the Jewish state.  Rashida Harbi Tlaib otherwise crazy sister of Ilan Omar  She lost no time in promising her supporters that she was going after Trump: “…we’re going to impeach that motherfucker!” . 
The Last word .

From this standpoint  these women are fueled with hate of Trump , hate of everything else that the Republican agenda is  .  #MeToo world that brought  women in power are still caricatured as inauthentic.  Trump's inept treatment of women has set the stage for sweeping ascendancy of radical feminists to power . AS the women present themselves as opponents to the Trump machine . Does this make things better ?  I don't think they are going to accomplish anything but ANY  UNITY or bipartisanship . Such kind of  progressives will be eager to push back against an administration they believe has abused its authority in the nearly two years since Trump's inauguration. It's going to be a tug - a-war , do nothing Congress that will be fighting Trump , while the Republicans will be fighting the Democrats back . The Strong likely outcome will be that the Mueller probe if it EVER becomes public is going to be a disappointment driving the Democrats crazy for anything to get Trump .Democrats who support impeachment have argued that Trump obstructed justice by firing former FBI director James Comey, and that hush payments to at least two women made by his personal attorney during the presidential race violated campaign finance laws. So if finding dirt on Trump is what these women are going for in Washington D.C. They are going to bring down the House and the Senate .

BY THE WAY MY FAVORITE WOMAN 

RUNNING for PRESIDENT is 

TULSI  GABBARD .

This requires another Blog 

post .

Till NEXT TIME !

NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(1)>>both racially and ideologically.Labeling the Democrats as “radical Democrats” in what may be his new marketing phrase for the opposition.  Almost daily, the Democrats trip over their own extremism – and they’re the only ones who haven’t figured it out yet. Day after day, they choose to lean into their radical agenda, embrace it, and follow it blindly, no matter how miscalculated, misguided or out of touch it is. Democrats get it. Being called a “radical” is not something to run away from. At times in our history, the American people and their political parties have done radical things that were the right thing to do. For the first time in more than 40 years, the left is shaping the Democratic Party’s identity. At a time when the terms liberal, progressive, and leftist are often used interchangeably, it’s worth clarifying what these terms mean. In America, what distinguishes leftists from liberals and progressives—as well as conservatives—is their commitment to radical equality. Leftists are more likely than liberals to argue that economic inequality renders America’s constitutional liberties hollow. (2)>>Voters who want to see a woman in the White House.   Much of the debate is grounded in the question of whether Ms Clinton’s loss represented a rejection of women as president, or of one specific woman. How significant a role sexism played in Ms Clinton’s defeat is difficult to separate from the other liabilities that hindered her campaign.Ms Clinton struggled to deal with decades of political baggage and a Republican attack machine that cast her as aloof, elitist and disconnected. Her reliance on a tight-knit inner circle isolated her from tough political challenges, and she struggled to win over working class white women and men. Clinton lost Wisconsin by just 22,748 votes, and it has been well documented that she didn’t visit the state once during the general election. (She ended up with 38,000 fewer votes in Milwaukee than Obama received in 2012.) Clinton held an election eve rally in front of Philadelphia City Hall, but after August, she never set foot in the parts of the city where she had to boost turnout—North Philly and West Philly—to signal to voters of color that she needed their votes.  Perhaps what gets overlooked the most when accounting for Clinton’s loss in these states is the importance of union voters. According to the exit polls across the Heartland Wall states, Clinton’s performance among union-household voters was the lowest recorded by a Democratic presidential candidate in decades. In those states, labor unions represent between 18 percent and 25 percent of the electorate, and there are hundreds of thousands more working-class voters who are former union members or from union families and who still relate to unions. Turning out the union vote and making the issues that impact workers central to the campaign has to be part of the equation if you want to win these states. (3)>>“Green New Deal”.  Taxing the rich won’t come close to covering the costs of the Green New Deal, which includes a bunch of socialist policies that have nothing to do with climate change. Manhattan Institute budget expert Brian Riedl has calculated the 10-year costs using liberal and nonpartisan sources. The results are stunning: $32 trillion for a single-payer health care plan; $6.8 trillion for a government jobs guarantee; $2 trillion for education, medical leave, job training and retirement security; and between $5 trillion and $40 trillion to fund universal basic income to support those who are “unwilling” to work. (The final price depends on how “universal” it is.) Grand total? Between $46 and $81 trillion.The only way to raise the revenue for even the low end of that estimate, he calculates, would require establishing a European-style value-added tax of 87 percent on everything we buy, or a new 37 percent payroll tax for every American (on top of the current 15.3 percent payroll tax and all existing federal, state and local taxes.)And that covers the price tag only before we even get to the energy and environmental policies in the Green New Deal. It is virtually impossible to accurately calculate the cost of replacing every vehicle that uses a combustion engine; bringing high-speed rail to every corner of America; upgrading or replacing every building in America; and replacing all fossil fuel energy with alternative energy sources. We’re talking hundreds of trillions of dollars. It would be virtually impossible to pay for it. And Americans don’t want to anyway. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 56 percent say they support Medicare-for-all, but when they learn it requires more taxes, 60 percent oppose it. (4)>>Perhaps Ilhan Abdullahi Omar.Besides the so called anti- Semitic comments . There is a bit of a strange twist to Sen. Omar that was somehow sweept under the rug  [ https://alphanewsmn.com/investigation-suggests-omar-married-brother/ ]  As Alpha News reported last week, Powerline Blog raised some interesting questions about the current state of the DFL candidate’s marriages and the possibility of her committing immigration fraud. Research by Alpha News suggests that Omar was involved with Ahmed Nur Said Elmi (her legal husband) and Ahmed Hirsi (her cultural husband and father of her children) at the same time.

Cohen's Trump "Kompromat"

He's still lying ......

Last Year President Donald Trump visited Helsinki , met with Russia's President Putin.  In the audience a reporter asked Does Russia have compromising information -- (##)>>"Kompromat" -- on President Donald Trump?The issue came up point-blank when both Putin and Trump sidestepped their way around it.Also, the awkwardness of Putin, who bragged of being a former spy, being asked if Russians have compromising information on Trump while standing next to Trump cannot be understated.What neither man said was "no." This has been a long-term tease of the larger Russia 2016 story. While the reporter asked a embarrassing question as I remember it a year later . THE BIGGEST KOMPROMAT to Donald Trump is not the Russians . It's more like Trump's own past associates . Names of all the Presidents Men : Manafort , Stone , Flynn , Schiff , Comey and Cohen.  WaY BACK IN  September 2017,  (1)>>Cohen said he would "take a bullet" for the president. This past  Wednesday, he said his "blind loyalty" to Trump took him down a "path of darkness instead of light." So who paid off Cohen to flip flop besides going to prison for 3 years ?  (1.2)>> In August, Cohen pleaded guilty to tax fraud, bank fraud, and campaign-finance violations in the Southern District of New York. The violations were related to payments to buy the silence of two women, Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, who say they had affairs with Trump. On November 30, Cohen struck a deal to plead guilty to one count of lying to Congress in exchange for cooperating with Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 US presidential election and whether the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow.   Regarding the "compromising information" it's vary much seems that what ever it is [was] its in the hands of  Micheal Cohen ,  his testimony today . Cohen seems to be repeating what he said a year ago . Yes , he was accused of lying to Congress , but he seems to be saying the same thing with a few variations. [   see Bloomberg article shorturl.at/ltPYZ   ]   Cohen testified that Trump “in his way” communicated that he wanted his former lawyer to lie to Congress about a (1.3)>>Trump Tower Moscow deal he was negotiating during the 2016 presidential campaign But Cohen said the president was careful not to directly tell him to do so Even though Trump knew he was negotiating the Russian business deal during the campaign, Cohen said the then-Republican candidate would look him in the eye and tell him “there’s no business in Russia.” Later, Cohen said he lied to be consistent with Trump’s public story.  Mr. Cohen had copies of checks that he had received to reimburse him for his payments to Stormy Daniels, buying her silence about her affairs with Mr. Trump. Sex, money and secrecy are titillating, but are the prosecutors of the Southern District of New York really going to be able to find a campaign-finance crime here? Maybe they will make a case. Mr. Cohen’s testimony certainly did not.  But Cohen did not appear to disclose a “smoking gun” that could sink his former boss.Cohen said he had no direct evidence that (1.4)>>Trump or his campaign colluded with Moscow during the election campaign.   The hearing was sleaze for the sake of pure partisan pleasure, not a serious attempt at uncovering lawbreaking.  Like I said in my last post regarding Mueller and his soon to closing investigation , that EVERYTHING was leaked out before it never supposed to be made public , thank the news media for two years that has already  filled the American mind with pretty much is not exactly an investigation but more of some sort of propaganda . Even with Cohen's testimony that Donald Trump was corrupt [ which he is ] the information about that was already public regardless of what Cohen says to this committee live on television.Furthermore (2)>>Cohen "lied" to Congress before , like Mueller who compromised his investigation ,  what was supposed top be secret but was invalidated while exposing his finding to Russian lawyers last year . (3)>>The Democrats are working some kind of revenge plot. Its mostly obviuous to me its their way for payback on how Barack Obama was treated by the Republican party for  8 years of political finger pointing and obstruction Many Democrats care about one thing and one thing only: impeaching President Trump. And pressure from rich liberals could swell the impeachment ranks as 2020 approaches. Billionaire donor Tom Steyer used impeachment as a litmus test for congressional candidates last year and is already applying it to 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. Don’t take our word for it. Look at thenearly five dozen Democrats who have already voted to move forward with impeachment, including six on the Oversight Committee. And remember, some of our newest freshmen Democrats have already vocally supported impeaching President Trump.Throughout Michael Cohen’s testimony, the House Oversight Committee, Republicans repeated what would seem to be a simple rule of human nature: Never trust a person who has been proven to be a liar.  Whatever you think about Donald Trump, Michael Cohen simply is not an honest person.    Democrats, however, should keep in mind that the guiding strategy with Cohen is “caveat emptor,” or “buyer beware.” Cohen is facing scrutiny over his surprising claim that he had no interest in a White House job and turned one down because he wanted to remain private counsel, which is directly contradicted by reports and alleged to be a new act of perjury.Perhaps trying the KOMPROMAT on Donald Trump ?




NOTES AND COMMENTS: (##)>>"Kompromat".  Because the word kompromat is new to most Americans, and has been introduced in the context of a President whose behavior confuses many of us, it is natural to assume that it must be a big, rare, scary thing, used in extraordinary circumstances to force compliance and achieve grand aims. But, Darden explained to me, kompromat is routinely used throughout the former Soviet Union to curry favor, improve negotiated outcomes, and sway opinion. Intelligence services, businesspeople, and political figures everywhere exploit gossip and damaging information.If there truly is damaging kompromat on Trump, it could well be in the hands of Trump’s business partners, or even in those of their rivals. Case in point : Michael Cohen.(1)>>Cohen said he would "take a bullet" for the president.   Cohen is going to jail in two months for several crimes, including lying to Congress.Giving Cohen a congressional platform is a disservice to the public, an affront to our democratic values and flat-out offensive to anyone who seeks the truth.Democratic colleagues on the Oversight Committee do not appear to care about the truth.They don’t care that Cohen has lied to Congress before.They don’t care that Cohen made millions of dollars by providing fraudulent services to numerous private businesses and foreign entities.They don’t care that Cohen leveraged his association with President Trump to attract book deals and television appearances.(1.2)>> In August, Cohen pleaded guilty . Like FLYNN , Cohen hoped Hillary would go to prison , but somehow he fandangled himself in apolitical mess at his bosses doing. While Clinton roams free, Cohen is paying the price for his involvement in the hush-money payments made on behalf of Donald Trump during his presidential campaign, as well as lying to Congress over a proposed Trump Tower project.    Cohen apologized for his crimes in his December 2018 sentencing hearing, stating he'd felt he had a "duty" to "cover up" Trump's "dirty deeds."   (2)>>Cohen "lied" to Congress before .  A November 2016 video of Michael Cohen indicates he lied under oath when he told lawmakers Wednesday that he didn't want a job in the Trump administration.  But he made clear in 2016 he wanted a Trump administration job. When told by CNN anchor Chris Cuomo that Trump would undoubtedly ask him to go Washington, D.C. with him, he responded: "I certainly hope so." When asked if he go, he responded: "One hundred percent."Cohen has already been convicted and disbarred for lying to Congress once before, and members of Trump's family said Cohen's comments about not wanting to work with Trump in the White House was another lie.Eric Trump tweeted on Wednesday: "Michael was lobbying EVERYONE to be 'Chief of Staff.' It was the biggest joke in the campaign and around the office. Did he just perjure himself again?" Donald Trump Jr. responded to his brother Eric Trump, by tweeting: "Nailed it. It really was the biggest joke of the entire transition. The beginning of his bitterness was when he realized that was never going to happen. #Delusional."   But Cohen also offered an array of possible new criminal allegations against Trump. His testimony will not only afford a basis for issuing new subpoenas but also for expanding oversight investigations into Trump’s business practices.    (1.3)>>Trump Tower Moscow deal.   A previous Michael Cohen plea deal court document filed by special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators states that Cohen lied to Congress at least three separate times about plans to build a Trump Tower in Moscow with Trump’s name prominently featured on top. Here’s what we know: Cohen testified to Congress that negotiations to build Europe’s tallest building stopped in January 2016. But emails and other communications obtained by multiple news outlets, and now basically confirmed by Cohen, show those negotiations actually continued much longer: into at least June 2016, after Trump had already become the Republican Party’s nominee. And BuzzFeed News reported in November that Trump’s company planned to give the $50 million penthouse in the building to Russian President Vladimir Putin.That matters because it puts Trump’s praise of Russia and Putin in a whole new light — what most animated his warmth may have been personal profit. What’s more, it’s entirely possible that Trump knew a close confidant willingly lied to Congress earlier in the investigation.Before we get to Cohen’s lies about the so-called “Trump Tower Moscow” project, it’s important to know this: The president’s claim that he never cared about building something in Russia doesn’t track with his many failed attempts to do so over 30 years.“Russia is one of the hottest places in the world for investment,” Trump said in a 2007 deposition. “We will be in Moscow at some point.” (1.4)>>Trump or his campaign colluded with Moscow during the election campaign.  President Donald Trump said he was a "little impressed" that his former personal attorney told Congress there was "no collusion" between Trump's presidential campaign and Russia."He lied a lot, but it was very interesting because he didn't lie about one thing," Trump claimed during a press briefing in Hanoi, Vietnam. "He said, 'no collusion' with the Russian hoax. And I said, 'I wonder why he didn't just lie about that too, like he did about everything else.' He lied about so many different things and I was actually impressed that he didn't say, 'Well, I think there was collusion for this reason or that.' He didn't say that. He said, no collusion."Trump added, "The fact is, there is no collusion and I call it the witch hunt. This should never happen to another president. I call it the Russian witch hunt, I now add the word 'hoax.' It's a very, very bad thing for our country."Michael Cohen told U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday that he had no "direct evidence" that Trump or his aides had colluded with Russia to get him elected.   (3)>>The Democrats are working some kind of revenge plot.   Its about getting rid of Trump. But in blaming “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” . Who may be responsible for the vary start of Mueller's investigation into "Russian Meddling" , but  tracing the evidence points to some kind of inside "collusion" within the Democratic party to find dirt on Trump way before 2016 . Much of the attacks on Donald Trump has come from the Media today . The assiult against Trump resembles what the Republican -Tea party base was doing against Barrack Obama .[ see this :https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/harvard-trump-clinton-campaigns-fight-232109 ]   

Mueller's BIG disappointment !

IN one week the "explosive" report by Mueller will be out . So Do we really care what's in it? SO FAR as I can speculate the report "evidence" is basically what we already have known about Trump and Russians .  The investigation and two years of FBI investigation, the prosecutor still lacks evidence of a crime.  (1.1)>>Even though there have been incitements of Manafort , Stone , Flynn [ to name a few]. Finding a crime , putting it together  in a nutshell with 500 to 1000 pages of "details" of what, when and where is going to make the American audience sleepy .  Yet  Mueller seeks to probe the chief executive’s motives and thought processes regarding exercises of presidential power that were lawful, regardless of one’s view of their wisdom.  You have to thank our (1.2)>>American News media for that last 2 years they have been leaking information as part of their news segments on Trump . [ Thank CNN , MSNBC , FOX , CBS, ABC and NBC ] So we all got a peek at Mueller's report . So IS THERE any Credible evidence of collusion ? Ans: PROBABLY YES , that depends on your point of view . I can only get my Crystal ball and tune in future CNN's BREAKING NEWS . And here is the headline " DONALD TRUMP MUELLER RUSSIAN COLLUSION !" The whole entire news segment{s} will penetrate a whole week of story morbid twists . JUST LIKE THE JUSSIE SMOLETT HOAX . This is going to test the gullibility of the American people . I am asking Americans reading this , DO YOU BELIEVE that the INVESTIGATION EVIDENCE ?  If its EVER presented to the public? We may have to read it on Wiki leaks for the matter .  FOR US The public, they will say,  we shouldn’t expect a comprehensive and presidency-wrecking account of Kremlin meddling and alleged obstruction of justice by Trump — not to mention an explanation of the myriad subplots that have bedeviled lawmakers, journalists and amateur Mueller sleuths. Perhaps most unsatisfying: Mueller’s findings may never even see the light of day. SO what will the Mueller report contain ? This is again speculation on my part , so I had to search  online [ Google] Donald Trump Russia Business Dealings . The BIGGEST LIST I FOUND was from [ guess with a cackle ] (2)>>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . I don't want to copy everything in that Wikipedia post , I am vary sure that MUELLER did not use Wikipedia to list all of Trump's past dealings with Russia . YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER TOO that the Whole investigation was started on the theory that Russia meddled in our election , that was the reason that Hillary Clinton lost . The word Collusion was taped over the word  meddling replacing  it into two years into the investigation . But government investigation experts are waving a giant yellow caution flag now to warn that Mueller’s no-comment mantra is unlikely to give way to a tell-all final report and an accompanying blitz of media interviews and public testimony on Capitol Hill. What is even stranger is that everyone associated with so called prosecuting Trump are either associated with [ have been associated ] Trump , or where connected with investigating Hillary Clinton and her email server . So this council is not exactly an independent  from any kind of bias . (3)>>Think FBI Comey for example [ the Mueller investigation is tanted with a close net of people who in fact have known each other for decades : see shorturl.at/ayAVX ] and have somehow been tangled up with Bushes , Clinton's in the past .  It’s too not at all obvious that the attorney general (whether it’s current acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker or Trump’s new attorney general pick, William Barr), will want to share the full report more broadly, and President Trump’s attorneys might even try to block its release. Government officials will first get a chance to scrub the special counsel’s findings for classified details [   yea sure the media for 2 years leaked it out ]  , though, involving everything from foreign intelligence sources to information gleaned during grand jury testimony that the law forbids the government from disclosing. To be clear, we don’t actually know for sure if Mueller’s strategy is to use court documents to present his findings to the public. But if we consider the sum of the (4)>>information that Mueller has already released publicly [ leaked again] as a kind of “report” to Congress and the electorate, what have we learned? [exactly what the Media already has reported ] NOW what is vary embarrassing about the Mueller report is that contents were somehow leaked to the vary people that he's been the investigating . Last year,Evidence gathered by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, was obtained by Russians and leaked online in an attempt to discredit his inquiry into Moscow’s interference in US politics . What how this came about was not so reported in our mainstream news media. It seems that attorneys from Mueller's side met with Russian attorneys regarding the 13 indictments of alleged Russian hackers , it seems that the State Department was trying to extradite these Russians to face trial in the United States [ never going to happen , but anyway] the Mueller team somehow compromised the evidence to the Russians which erodes the evidence that he has already gathered . SO When Mueller is finished, he must turn in a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” — essentially why he chose to bring charges against some people but not others. His reasoning, according to veterans of such investigations, could be as simple as “there wasn’t enough evidence” to support a winning court case.  

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(1)>>American News media for that last 2 years they have been leaking information as part of their news segments on Trump .   For the most part the Mueller  investigation lacks "confidentiality" status . Look at Politico article here [ shorturl.at/QWZ68 ] for example most of these indictments are contained in Mueller's report . So the evidence was already leaked to the media . (1.1)>>Even though there have been incitements of Manafort , Stone , Flynn. As for the second purported basis for Mueller’s appointment, the crime of obstruction, it cannot be established by lawful exercises of executive prerogatives. A president, of course, may not subvert an investigation by unlawful actions — e.g., by conspiring to suborn perjury or bribe witnesses (cf. Clinton, Nixon). Illegal acts could amount to actionable obstruction. But the president’s dismissal of subordinate executive officials (such as the FBI director), and his exercise of prosecutorial discretion (by merely weighing in on whether a person — here, Flynn — deserves to be investigated), are constitutional acts that are not judicially reviewable. Executive prerogatives that are not subject to judicial review may not be subjected to judicial review by indirection, under the guise of a prosecution. (2)>>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . see [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_projects_of_Donald_Trump_in_Russia]  Trump has a long history of trying to do business in Russia, but despite many efforts and plenty of boasting and angling, he hasn’t managed to land a single major real estate deal there.But that’s only part of the picture. He has partnered with Russian financiers on major projects elsewhere around the world. Russian investors have been instrumental in helping him cope with all the credit problems he has thanks to his serial bankruptcies. And a number of Trump’s former and current advisers have had financial ties to Russia. Trump’s history with Russia dates back to the Soviet era. In 1986, he and Soviet ambassador Yuri Dubinin got to talking about building hotels in Moscow. “One thing led to another, and now I’m talking about building a large luxury hotel across the street from the Kremlin in partnership with the Soviet government,” Trump wrote in in his book Trump: The Art of the Deal. The next year, Dubinin invited Trump to Moscow, where he talked with the Soviet tourist agency about hotel projects. The hotels never came to fruition, but Trump’s interest in Russia has remained ever since. (3)>>Think FBI Comey for example . Just over a week after President Donald Trump fired James Comey as FBI director, the Department of Justice appointed Comey's predecessor, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, as special counsel for the investigation into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election.The two former FBI chiefs have a unique relationship, stemming in large part from working side by side during a major confrontation with the Bush administration.By sheer coincidence, this week marked 10 years since Comey gave his bombshell testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the showdown with President George W. Bush's White House. It began in 2004, when Comey refused to reauthorize an NSA spying program.  Former FBI Director James Comey may also have lied to Congress when he testified that he had not written his report on the Hillary Clinton email scandal before interviewing Clinton. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan lied under oath to Congress on matters related to surveillance.If so, then the DOJ will have to look at Comey himself and DOJ officials who obstructed a federal court. On at least four occasions, they were not honest about the deeply flawed Christopher Steele dossier being the source of information used in applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Comey also has said that he predicated the nature of the Clinton email investigation on his assumptions about her chances of winning the presidency — another investigatory abuse.The Mueller team is reportedly still looking into the possibility of election-cycle collusion with Russia by Trump officials.That track will require Mueller's DOJ counterparts to look carefully at the Clinton campaign, which paid opposition researcher Steele, a British subject, for dirt on Trump that was produced through collusion with Russian sources. (4)>>information that Mueller has already released publicly . The twist came as prosecutors and lawyers for Concord spar over whether people who work for the Russian company should be allowed to see some of the evidence the government has gathered against the firm. Prosecutors urged U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich not to force sharing sensitive documents with the defense team because sending sensitive documents "to the Russian Federation unreasonably risks national security interests of the United States."  that documents special counsel Robert Mueller provided to the company's lawyers had been "altered and disseminated as part of a disinformation campaign," this time aimed at discrediting the investigation of Russian election interference. That led the FBI to investigate a disinformation campaign about the investigation of the Russian disinformation campaign. Mueller's office said in a court filing that the FBI had determined their computers had not been hacked. Instead, they said documents posted illegitimately on the web had been provided to one of the defendants in the case, Concord Management and Consulting, LLC.

Smollett's Media Hoax.

Jussie Smollett crafted a hoax
that may have hurt the people his
cause represents .

PT Barnum once said  " There is a sucker born every minute...." Case in point,  (1)>>our American media created such a hysteria about Jussie Smollett. That it was ballooned to a type of anti- Trump propaganda by the left media outlets . A week after her candid interview with Jussie Smollett about the actor’s alleged attack, “Good Morning America” host Robin Roberts has reacted to news of Smollett’s arrest. In a turn of events, Smollett was taken into police custody Thursday and is being charged with filing a false police report.  (1.1)>>IT SMELLED FISHY from the start , while Smollett first reported that five white males with red hats attacked him. The so called pro-Trump racists, if you wanted believe Jussie  they  did this to him . Who knows what his real motives for the hoax is .  Some Rightwing Radio hosts I tuned into today seemed to speculate  that he wanted to start some kind of Rodney King type riot, but  I think it seems that something bigger could be at work .  It made no sense at all  when the rest of his story changed after his TV interview on GMA with Robin Roberts    . BIG question ? How many racist homophobes wander around an upscale neighborhood of liberal Chicago at 2 a.m. carrying rope and bleach and yelling about "MAGA country"?How many racist homophobes have heard of "Empire" and could recognize Jussie Smollett from his gay character on the show? Red flags were visible everywhere, including the fact that the Chicago police told Malkin they initially hadn't heard the "MAGA country" claims. Early claims that Smollett had broken ribs were false.     So Smollett was out at 2 a.m. walking around at night when the outside temperatures were cold enough to freeze your A at -20 degrees . While that part may have made me suspect that Jussie was lying . BUT WHO CARES if the Left wing media has  NOW a good now excuse to go after Donald Trump for fueling the white racists.  It played for the next 24 hours . Watching CNN , MSNBC,  etc  . Jussie was overtaking Trump as the center of Media attention .  Next is  (2)>>how the media jumped without waiting for the police report . With that assumption  And I suppose it’s easy to lose what’s important with all the panic and intersectional hatred and with liberal identity politics gone bad in this Smollett story."MAGA country" hate-crime hoax is just the latest example.Smollett undoubtedly wanted his scheme to embarrass the president, but even more, he wanted to confirm every self-hating delusion about how horrible America is.  CNN reporter Brooke Baldwin said after the alleged incident, "This is America in 2019."  She would have been more accurate to say, "This is how all of us on the left see America in 2019." With out question . Jussie hurt not only Black Americans , Jews and in particular the LGBTQ [ which Jussie represents]  community with his hoax . Its serious , it was such bad taste. 

NOTES AND COMMENTS: 

(1)>>our American media created such a hysteria about Jussie .  It was a perfect anti-Trump story. It fit the prevailing narrative of many in the media (who are themselves liberal Democrats) that Trump supporters are racist and just itching to find some minorities to beat up.(1)>>IT SMELLED FISHY .   Further, worth noting that JS has repeatedly identified his alleged attackers as white and motivated by racism. I'm not really sure why anyone thinks 1 is particularly better than 2 for Smollett or the people who jumped to conclusions despite the suspicious nature of the original facts. Both create a very bad look for Smollett and his defenders/promoters. The "reality TV shock factor" is that He claimed to be assaulted by Trump supporters in a hate crime and gave a very inconsistent and unbelievable story. There were all sorts of reasons people doubted it- the unlikelihood of anyone recognizing him at night in -20 degree temperatures or the fact he was carrying a cell phone in one hand, subway sandwich in the other, and 'fought back' yet was on video walking away unscathed, sandwich in hand.His story was very widely touted in the media and lots of celebrities, talk shows, politicians, etc lined up to denounce the attack and use it as a reason to condemn Trump. Multiple democratic presidential candidates issued statements condemning the supposed hate crime, and Jussie was given prime airtime to tell his story, and we got to watch Ellen Page go on Colbert's show and give a real impassioned denunciation of Trump and whatnot.Now in the past few days details have trickled out from the Chicago PD investigation that are establishing how Jussie Smollett orchestrated the whole thing. The two attackers he had described as white men wearing MAGA caps were actually two black nigerian extras from Empire and his gym buddies. His botched attempt to mislead police with doctored cell phone logs led investigators right to his conspirators, and police quickly had proof of them using Lyft to that part of town and back, and buying the clothesline used as a noose. When questioned, they spilled the beans and said Jussie paid them $4000 to stage the assault. Now we're at the point where the nigerians have been released without charges, but police wish to question Jussie again, and he has lawyered up hardcore. (2)>>how the media jumped.  I Think that media reporters  may have deep in side felt that Smollett was PROBABLY A LIER , but look at the sympathy factor that plaied into it .  Black & Gay , but who would think that he was lying ?  . JUST imagine if a Jew faked a hate crime , or if a women falsely  accused a man of rape. It would be unheard of . But it may have hurt real victims of hate crimes. I think we first must investigate claims regardless of whom and how long they occured , not leave a final judgement untill all facts are gathered . BUT the Media like wolves saw a perfect oppertunity to weaponize the hoax .