RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: One-Eyed-Jack Law - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

One-Eyed-Jack Law Criminals and partisans, accusing others of criminality and partisansh Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • ***-----------***
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 50,017
  • Joined: 28-February 03

  Posted 04 December 2018 - 02:58 PM

One-Eyed-Jack Law

Criminals and partisans, accusing others of criminality and partisanship

NRO
By Victor Davis Hanson
December 4, 2018 6:30 AM

Excerpt:

Robert Mueller’s legal team may write a damning report on Trump’s ethics, based mostly on flipping minor former business associates of Trump’s and transient campaign officials by threatening them with long prison sentences.

So far, we know that the U.S. government decided to intervene in a political campaign to help one candidate and to smear the other — under the pretext of Russian “collusion.” And so it hired or made use of spies and informants including Hank Greenberg, Stefan Halper, Felix Sater, and others to contact Trump campaign officials to catch them in supposed collusion traps. It enlisted the help of foreign intelligence agencies, specifically the British and Australians. It misled FISA courts into granting warrants to spy on Americans and, post factum, threatened long prisons sentences with those surveilled and interviewed. And as a result, it has so far found no collusion but may well find some misleading statements in hundreds of hours of testimonies from the likes of Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and perhaps Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone.

Mueller cannot fulfill the hype of the past 18 months, which forecast that the “all-stars,” the “dream-team,” and the Mueller “army” would make short work of the supposedly buffoonish Trump by proving that he colluded with Russia to swing an election. Collusion, remember, was hyped as doing what the Logan Act, the emoluments clause, the 25th Amendment, impeachment, media frenzy, and assassination-chic rhetoric had not.

By indicting a number of minor characters on charges that so far have nothing to do with collusion — for purported crimes mostly committed after the special-counsel appointment — Mueller has emphasized the quantity rather than the quality of indictments.

Mueller was tasked to find collusion (itself not a crime) committed during 2015 and 2016, not to prompt more purported crimes by setting perjury traps, and purported obstruction-of-justice liabilities. If in May 2017 the frenzied media had known that 18 months later Mueller would end up targeting the provocateur Roger Stone and Inforwars’ Jerome Corsi, it would have been sorely humiliated.

Mueller has already weaponized politics, making a crime out of the tawdry business of opposition research — but only sort of, since his interests in doing so are highly selective. And so his chief legacy will have little to do with whatever he finds on Donald Trump. He has already established the precedent that there is now no real equality under the law, at least as Americans once understood fair play and blind justice.

Once Mueller deviated from his prime directive of determining whether Donald Trump colluded — sought help from the Russian to win the 2016 election in exchange for the promise of later benefits — and turned to indicting political operatives for supposedly giving false testimonies about political shenanigans and engaging in illegal business practices, lobbying, and tax avoidance, he either knowingly or unknowingly established a precedent that the serial misdeeds of 2016 would be treated unequally under the law.

Russian Collusion

The 13 Russian nationals whom Mueller symbolically indicted will not come to the U.S. to face trial, and they will certainly not be extradited, a fact known by Mueller.

Yet Christopher Steele, a British subject and de facto unregistered foreign agent, is imminently indictable and extraditable. He was paid through two firewalls (Fusion GPS and Perkins Coie) by Hillary Clinton to tap Russian sources to compile a smear dossier on her opponent, with the intent of warping the U.S. election — a classic example of foreign-agent interference in an American campaign. If we were to take away that one purchased document, then the FISA court warrants, the informants, and all the CIA, FBI, and DOJ machinations would likely have disappeared or never arisen.

Obama-administration officials Bruce Ohr (whose wife worked on the dossier) at Justice, James Comey at the FBI, and John Brennan at the CIA all in some manner colluded with Steele, either directly or indirectly, to monitor the Trump campaign and then to seed the dossier among government agencies and courts, both to ensure its leakage and to brand it with a stamp of official seriousness, warranting investigations and media sensationalism.

Speaking of FBI informants, quite a different one has testified that Putin’s Russia had sent millions of dollars to a U.S. lobbying firm, in hopes of persuading Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to use her influence with federal officials to close the so-called Rosatom Uranium One deal. At roughly the same time, Bill Clinton was given a lucrative half-million-dollar fee for speaking in Moscow, while millions of dollars from Uranium One investors had poured into the Clinton Foundation — which after Clinton’s 2016 defeat has seen its contributions precipitously decline.

In another related matter of Russian collusion, Barack Obama in a hot-mic exchange with then–Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, in March 2012, eight months before Obama’s reelection, asked Medvedev to give Putin the assurance that if Putin would give Obama “space” during his reelection campaign, then Obama in turn would have “more flexibility” on issues such as missile defense “after my election.” That quid pro quo was clarified six months later when an unusually quiet Putin darkly announced to the world that any deployment of U.S.-led NATO missile-defense systems would be targeted against Russia in a Romney administration — as compared with the actions in supposedly less bellicose Obama presidency. And after expressing no interest in interfering in an American election, Putin clearly made it evident that he preferred an Obama victory.

Most observers now laugh off this entire sordid incident. But in the present climate, if Donald Trump had been caught in a similar hot-mic exchange with a top Russian official, and had Putin later expressed the idea that he preferred a Trump presidency to a Democratic one, and had U.S.-led missile-defense efforts abruptly stalled in Eastern Europe, then Robert Mueller would be hot on Trump’s trail — given that such an overt quid pro quo, benefiting a candidate’s reelection campaign, is far more explicit than anything Mueller’s 18-month investigation has yet turned up.

Perjury and False Testimony

*snip*

Full Commentary
0

#2 User is offline   That_Guy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 19,513
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 04 December 2018 - 03:12 PM

View PostLiz, on 04 December 2018 - 02:58 PM, said:

One-Eyed-Jack Law

Criminals and partisans, accusing others of criminality and partisanship

NRO
By Victor Davis Hanson
December 4, 2018 6:30 AM

Excerpt:

Robert Mueller’s legal team may write a damning report on Trump’s ethics, based mostly on flipping minor former business associates of Trump’s and transient campaign officials by threatening them with long prison sentences.

So far, we know that the U.S. government decided to intervene in a political campaign to help one candidate and to smear the other — under the pretext of Russian “collusion.” And so it hired or made use of spies and informants including Hank Greenberg, Stefan Halper, Felix Sater, and others to contact Trump campaign officials to catch them in supposed collusion traps. It enlisted the help of foreign intelligence agencies, specifically the British and Australians. It misled FISA courts into granting warrants to spy on Americans and, post factum, threatened long prisons sentences with those surveilled and interviewed. And as a result, it has so far found no collusion but may well find some misleading statements in hundreds of hours of testimonies from the likes of Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and perhaps Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone.


The only part of this "nut graph" that's factually accurate is the bit about misleading statements from Team Trump.
0

#3 User is offline   BerkeleyUnderground 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 17,061
  • Joined: 20-April 04

Posted 04 December 2018 - 03:13 PM

I have often wondered if the Bush clan wasn't fully aware of or just chose to overlook all the deep state corruption.

But, in any event, they sure beat a path to making nice with people like the Clintons and Obamas.
0

#4 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 53,547
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 04 December 2018 - 05:05 PM

As always, Victor Davis Hanson hits every bullseye. There was indeed collusion with Russians, but it was the Clinton campaign and not one of those criminals is being properly investigated.

<_<
0

#5 User is online   erp 

  • Undead Undead Undead
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 36,341
  • Joined: 29-November 03

Posted 04 December 2018 - 06:45 PM

 That_Guy, on 04 December 2018 - 03:12 PM, said:

The only part of this "nut graph" that's factually accurate is the bit about misleading statements from Team Trump.

Who farted?
0

#6 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 25,551
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 04 December 2018 - 06:54 PM

 BerkeleyUnderground, on 04 December 2018 - 03:13 PM, said:

I have often wondered if the Bush clan wasn't fully aware of or just chose to overlook all the deep state corruption.

What is “participating” Alex.
0

#7 User is online   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 13,915
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 04 December 2018 - 06:54 PM

"One-eyed Jack law" is the selective application of the law.

Lo, here we have a One-eyed Jack-off.
0

#8 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • I'm dethpicable
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,352
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 05 December 2018 - 07:33 AM

View PostThat_Guy, on 04 December 2018 - 03:12 PM, said:

The only part of this "nut graph" that's factually accurate is the bit about misleading statements from Team Trump.

There are days when I wonder if you actually believe what you type. Now is one of those times
0

#9 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 3,311
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 05 December 2018 - 08:13 AM

 gravelrash, on 04 December 2018 - 06:54 PM, said:

"One-eyed Jack law" is the selective application of the law.

Lo, here we have a One-eyed Jack-off.


Yes, we do...
0

#10 User is offline   BerkeleyUnderground 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 17,061
  • Joined: 20-April 04

Posted 05 December 2018 - 02:26 PM

View Postzurg, on 04 December 2018 - 06:54 PM, said:

What is "participating" Alex.


Yeah, maybe!

One of the famous GW Bush lines after 9/11 was: "Either you're with us or against us!".

And to apply that way of thinking to all the the Deep State corruption, as epitomized by the Clintons and Obamas and ignored by the Bushes, doesn't, in my opinion, say good things about the Bushes, if they want us to think that they thought of things in a good versus evil kind of way.

...and that they were the champions for the good.

This post has been edited by BerkeleyUnderground: 05 December 2018 - 02:49 PM

0

#11 User is offline   Coach 

  • Coach
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 14,376
  • Joined: 17-November 03

Posted 05 December 2018 - 03:02 PM

View PostThat_Guy, on 04 December 2018 - 03:12 PM, said:

The only part of this "nut graph" that's factually accurate is the bit about misleading statements from Team Trump.



How do you manage to get both feet in your mouth ?
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users