Johnathan Turley writes that the liberal/media establishment was hoping for rescue from the Purgatory by the man- god they saw in Robert Mueller, a/k/a Fearless Leader

from Hill:

Very few mortals ever warrant such faith, except perhaps Robert Mueller. Washington has deified him by popular acclamation. The times demanded it. It was simply not enough to demonize Donald Trump. That was done throughout the 2016 campaign, with the notable assistance of Trump himself. However, you cannot have a villain without a countervailing hero. Evil needs a point of reference, and Mueller became that reference. While Trump is portrayed as bombastic, impetuous, and juvenile, Mueller is painted as stoic, reserved, and professional. Indeed, as every new filing undermined the common narrative of Trump campaign collusion with the Russians, the commentators fell into a mantra of “just wait for Mueller.”


Mueller has to address several glaring problems with how he carried out his responsibilities, including his reported failure to identify grand jury material, as requested by Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, which may have delayed the report.

The most troubling failure, however, was Mueller refusing to reach a conclusion on obstruction. He reached a conclusion on collusion and stated that his staff could “not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” He then stated that he would not reach a conclusion on obstruction, without explaining why beyond citing past Justice

I question the idea that Fearless Leader could ever be proclaimed as a deity. That said, Turley discovers, or admits, that Fearless Leader was not some sort of god, but he wasn’t even a competent attorney. Fearless Leader had a job to do, and spent some thirty-five million dollars and two years not doing it. A prosecutor has one job, either prosecute or STFU.

Eric Florack on May 25th, 2019

Ed Driscoll at Instapundit:

I gotta be honest: as a writer, when I first heard about this, my first thought was, There but for the grace of God go I. That was Alan Jacobs’s too. He writes:

Wouldn’t you — wouldn’t anyone — assume that the phrase “death recorded”means “death sentence carried out”? I know that’s what I would assume. Now, someone might say, “Well, she should have looked it up.” But we only look words or phrases up when we have reason to think that we have misunderstood them.

But Jacobs backtracked a bit when he learned that Wolf had faulted professional historians for missing this “fact” — when actually, they were right and she was wrong. Jacobs:

As I say above, it’s reasonable that the term “death recorded” would raise no alarms; but it’s far less reasonable to blithely assume that all previous professional historians simply missed information that was there to be read.

Sounds like confirmation bias got the best of Naomi Wolf (and, one assumes, her editor). I’m just now starting my next book, and you’d better believe that I’m taking this self- immolation as a sign to be even more careful.

As Rod Dreher writes, it’s terrifying to think of being dunked on by an interviewer with a fact that destroys much of your book’s thesis. And if Wolf was a conventional historian or even a mainstream partisan pundit on either side of the aisle, most authors and journalists would feel much more sympathetic. But Wolf has a long history of crankery and conspiracy theory pedaling, and it finally caught up with her in a very public way.


Now, about the leftist media, and the conspiracy pedaling that we’ve been subject to the last couple of years….

Rather like Naomi Wolf in this case, the media has been offering up nothing but crackpot theories for the last 2 years as news, and in all that time never bothered checking their facts, in an attempt to make their own reality. Or as Ed describes it here, confirmation bias.

Go ahead. Roast Wolf if you want.
I’ll even bring the matches and the gasoline.

But let’s not pretend that she is at all unique, in these transgressions, and please for the love of God, let’s find somebody who can roast the leftist press the same way Wolf was here.

Eric Florack on May 22nd, 2019

The word in the Washington Times this morning is that Robert Mueller and his team are reluctant to have him testify in front of Jerry Nadler and his impeachment circus.

Citing sources familiar with the matter, CNN reported Tuesday that Mr. Mueller’s team worries he will appear political after staying out of the public limelight while spearheading a 22-month investigation into President Trump.

Well, I have no doubt that Mueller and his people are reluctant to subject themselves to Nadler’s overly realistic recreation of the McCarthy hearings. Mueller and his people remember the amount of anger coming off the Democrats when they found out that there wasn’t enough evidence of Trump misdeeds, despite two years and millions of dollars worth of investigation. The howling from the Democrats on that point, which included calling Mueller and his team’s integrity into question repeatedly, reminded me of nothing so much as the spoiled brat being told they can’t have a pony.

Mueller knows full well he’s not going to be able to give this version of the Spanish Inquisition the answers they want, and he knows how they’re going to react.

Robert Mueller

The Democrats spent two years building up Mueller as their political savior. The anger that’s been coming from the Democrats is going to get worse if they drag him out into public because he’s not going to be able to give them the answers that they want. The Democrats want their pound of flesh as they have with every Republican president since Eisenhower. Mueller knows that they will attack anything and anybody that stands in their way including the person that they were lauding as a hero just a short while ago.

To his credit, Robert Mueller has tried to play the center line on this. He and his team being reluctant to have him testify now is solid indication that he is beginning to realize the only thing on the centerline is roadkill.


The stated concern for Mueller and his people is that he wants to continue to appear to be apolitical. Is this, I wonder, a tacit admission Jerry Nadler and the Democrats are engaged in something that is purely political?

Eric Florack on May 20th, 2019

It is truthful although I suppose someone opportunistic the point out that the pollsters have gotten the national election wrong once again, this time in Australia. you know, eventually somebody’s going to get the idea that the pollsters are trying to create their own reality with what they tell us pre-election. This is made tremendously evident by the way the leftist outlets around the world scramble to cover their backsides post-election.

Among the most amusing responses comes from the German net, Deutsche Welle:

The Daily Chrenk goes into some detail on this supposedly unexpected win in Australia.


As with the election of Donald Trump here in the states, the pollsters repeatedly told everybody that there was no way the liberals could lose. Yes, they did… And here’s that word again…”unexpectedly”.

Arthur says to me in private from his home in Australia,

It was definitely another “it’s the economy, stupid” election, with people worried about the left going on high taxing and job destroying spree.

Well, yeah, there’s plenty of examples worldwide of that phenomenon. At the extremes, Venezuela these last few years, and these United States. big economic upturn moving away from the left here in the states, and the big economic downturn, moving toward the left in Venezuela.

The thing is, there are some other indicators here which deserve mention… The New York Times this morning is whining that this was supposed to be Australia’s climate change election. From all appearances Australians are figuring out what a hoax that is. And yes, the economy ties into that one as well. And that has a lot of leftists around the world putting a certain stress on their supply of Depends.

One one could almost suggest that there is a trend worldwide on this kind of thing.

According to a Rasmussen poll released this morning.

Voters are more critical of the job Congress is doing, and most continue to believe the legislators should work more with President Trump. They also still think the president, not Democratic congressional leader Nancy Pelosi, should set the agenda.

Yeah, well we know the Democrats well enough to know that that’s not going to occur. their reaction to Trump’s election tells us the whole story. They don’t give a blessed hoot what the American people want.

A plurality (47%) continues to believe Trump, not Pelosi, should set the direction of the country for the next two years. Thirty-three percent (33%) say the House speaker should be in charge, while 15% want neither calling the shots. These attitudes haven’t changed since the end of last year following the Democrats’ election takeover of the House of Representatives.

And yet the Democrats continue with their witch Hunt… And haven’t accomplished thing one of what the American people want done.

davidl on May 15th, 2019

Will Fearless Leader, b/k/a Special Counsel Robert Mueller III,  appear before the House Judiciary Committee?  Adam Mills, from Federalist:

Special Counsel Robert Mueller might testify before a friendly House Judiciary Committee, although the exact date is uncertain. President Trump has signaled he’ll block this under executive privilege principles.
But Mueller is a loose cannon who coordinates with the media and Congress and may just blow through any presidential objection, as he has already shown a willingness to defy his boss. That’s great news. Here’s why.

If that happens, Republicans will have the opportunity to ask questions.


18. There is a report that you turned over the day-to-day operations of the special counsel team to Weissmann. How do you respond to that account? Is there any evidence or log of how much time you physically came to the office to supervise the team?

All twenty one questions at the link. Mine, morphing Four into Eighteen, did those twenty-five plus leaks from team Mueller occur because of or despite of Fearless Leader’s supervision, or lack thereof?

Question for former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, what effort did you make to vet Fearless Leader’s competency before you appointed him Special Counsel and what efforts, if any, did you make to supervise him?

Former wearer of the black robe, retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens is rather large potato short of an order of french fries, from Washington Free Beacon:

In an interview with the Washington Post, former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens lamented about the Supreme Court’s 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision and said, “there’s no need for all the guns we have in the country and if I could get rid of one thing it would be to get rid of that whole gun climate.”

Note to Associate Justice Stevens, freedom can not survive when the government has weapons and the People do not. The United States has used armored vehicles to crash into private residences. China has used military vehicles to run over her citizens, and as pictured above so has Venezuela

So Mr. Associate Justice, you keep your First Amendment right to publish your asinine opinions, and let the People keep the god given right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Eric Florack on May 12th, 2019

Mother’s day is a reminder that no matter how much you do, It’s not enough. That sounds negative when you say it that way, I know, but let me explain…happymothersday

The debt of thanks we owe our mothers is one that cannot be properly repaid, and no amount of profuse thanks no acts of kindness, no special dinners, no card, no presents, can ever balance the books. All we can do, in the end, is meekly acknowledge that debt, and let her know she is loved, because in the end, that is all she will really want, anyway. She’d never complain beyond that.

But think on this: The reverse is also true.  You, in the end, are her reach into the future, part of her lives on in you. With so much of her in you and you being how she will live on here on earth, even beyond her own years, how can she help but be proud of you? So, that thankfulness, that connection flows both ways.

Just something to ponder, today.

davidl on May 12th, 2019

The former actress, known as Alyssa Milano, is leading a sex strike to protest Georgia’s new fetal heartbeat abortion law, from from Deadline:

Alyssa Milano, one of the leaders of the #MeToo movement, is taking a different approach to battling the so-called “Heartbeat Bill” anti-abortion bill recently codified in Georgia, with similar measures under consideration in other states.

In this case, Milano has advocated a #NoMas approach, calling on women to refrain from sex while their rights to their own bodies are at issue by state legislatures.

“Our reproductive rights are being erased,” Milano said via Twitter. “Until women have legal control over our bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy. JOIN ME by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back. I’m calling for a #SexStrike. Pass it on.”

Just as the former singer known was Cher endorsed common sense conservative values by calling city sponsored homelessness a problem, Milano has adopted a similar common sense proposition that abstinence precludes pregnancy. Milly, you can count me in. I too will abstain from sex with Alyssa Milano.  I implore all readers to do the same.

When you lose Jonathan Turley…

As someone who has represented the House of Representatives, my concern is that this one violates a legal version of the Hippocratic oath to “first do no harm.” This could do great harm, not to Barr, but to the House. It is the weakest possible case to bring against the administration, and likely to be an example of a bad case making bad law for the House.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) laid out the case for contempt. He raised three often repeated complaints against Barr in that he failed to release an unredacted report by special counsel Robert Mueller, allegedly lied twice to Congress, and refused to appear before the committee. Yet, notably, the only claim the committee seeks to put before a federal court is the redaction of the report. That seems rather curious since, if Barr lied or refused a subpoena as House leaders claim, it normally would be an easy case of contempt. The reason for this move is that House Democrats know both claims would not withstand even a cursory judicial review.

Yeah, well let’s go a step further.

In the time since the Mueller report came out, the entirety of the report…. unredacted… has been available to Democrats. In all that time, not a one of them has gone to actually read it. Not one.

Maybe they’re not interested in what the Mueller report actually contains, and this is all showboating?

In any event, Jonathan Turley is hardly a Trump supporter. What do you suppose the under/ over is on him being attacked by Democrats for his position?

There’s some history behind this thing that very few people are mentioning:

Eric Holder was the first sitting cabinet member ever to be cited for contempt of congress, incidental to the Obama gun running scam “fast and furious“.

And just where did that accusation by Congress go? Absolutely nowhere.


Because contempt of congress charges are referred directly to the Department of Justice which of course is run by the Attorney General. Essentially, Eric Holder decided not to prosecute himself.

This was less than a decade ago. It amazes me that the Democrats don’t recall this, or perhaps more accurately, they hope you and I don’t. Oh, and of course Nadler was one of the people that were defending Holder in his actions.

Hypocritical much, Jerry?

Attorney General Barr

But here’s the thing, does anybody consider that this contempt of congress charge against Barr is going anywhere beyond the headlines?

The answer is no, this is nothing more than a political stunt, specifically designed to keep the confusion in the minds of the voters…. And to keep hoax alive. (No, that’s not a typo.)

The Democrats are desperate to keep their own hijinx out of the limelight so they’re putting up as much smoke as possible to cover it. They know full well that Barr intends to fully investigate the origins of the Russia hoax. There’s a lot of very powerful people who will be in an immense amount of hot water when the results of that investigation start coming out. There’s the inspector General’s report which is due out at the end of the month. That, too, is likely to be the mother of all bomb shells.

And once that happens, does anybody truly believe that the American public is going to vote Democrat in anything resembling large numbers for the foreseeable future?

Then, we have the spectre of Donald Trump’s tax returns showing up in the New York Times the other day….a clearly illegal act on the part of somebody, which ended up revealing essentially nothing at all that we didn’t already know.

I’ve been saying all along that the Democrats have had these documents in their hip pockets. That the call for their release was mere showboating.

Still, the act of revealing those documents was illegal. As is what they are demanding that the Attorney General do when they call for the complete unredacted Mueller report to be released.

Democrats supporting illegal Acts in support of their own power. The Democrats and their contempt for the American people is on full display here.

The questions that are now before us, and probably have been all along…

Will the Democrats accept any evidence (or lack of it) that does not support their efforts to overturn a legitimate election? Therefore can any of their claims be taken seriously? Is there anything that they can do or say that will not be tainted?

The Democrats are obviously willing to support any illegal acts.. Illegal immigration and allowing those illegal immigrants to vote. Encouraging felons devote from their jail cells. The illegal actions listed above. Anything, anything at all that will enhance Democrat Party power.

And therefore, can they be trusted with anything? Anything at all?

The rabid Barack Obama supporter, one Devon Erickson, who shot up a Denver area school seemed to be looking for love, but was looking for it in all the wrong places, from Daily Caller:

The motive of the Colorado shooting suspects “went beyond bullying and involved revenge and anger towards others at the school,” sources close to the investigation told the Denver Channel.
The shooting resulted in one death with eight other students wounded.


Facebook posts reveal that 18-year-old Devon Erickson previously expressed hatred for Christians, according to Heavy.
“You know what I hate? All these Christians who hate gays, yet in the bible, it says in Deuteronomy 17:12-13, if someone doesn’t do what their priest tells them to do, they are supposed to die. It has plenty of crazy stuff like that,” Erickson wrote in one Facebook post several years ago. “But all they get out of it is ‘ewwwwww gays.’”

Erickson claims to want to loved by Christians, but rejects Christian love.

Eric Adds:

Meanwhile, we see the anti-gun groups, and their pet politicians, politicizing the memorial service, and students getting up and walking out in the middle of it in protest.

The anti-gunners have offered up a lame apology. Shameless, these people, absolutely shameless.

Eric Florack on May 8th, 2019

My memory may be a little short on this one. But I seem to recall not so very long ago the Democrats were all worried about people being disconnected from the Public square.

So, where is that overwhelming concern now that’s anyone right-of-center can be disconnected from the Public square at will, by such as Twitter and Facebook?

Eric Florack on May 7th, 2019

The slow-motion implosion at CNN continues.

Far-left CNN announced Monday that more than 100 jobs have been axed at the ratings-challenged cable network.
These job cuts are being spun by Brian Stelter, CNN’s left-wing media reporter (who regularly spreads fake news and conspiracy theories), as “no layoffs” but rather “voluntary buyouts throughout the organization, and about 100 people opted for it.”

Translation: Iceberg, Captain Smith? What iceberg?

As with the New York Times in the post earlier today, these people will never never admit why they are in trouble.

And here, dear reader, is one of the few times that I will ever quote from the New York Times.

I do so now because when the Times finally gets around to admitting Trump actually knows what he’s doing, that point alone is newsworthy…. Even though they don’t directly say so.

The endgame in the trade war between China and the United States seems near. President Trump, betting with real currency — American strength — apparently has the upper hand, and the concessions President Xi Jinping is likely to make won’t be mere tokens. When — if? — an agreement is finally announced,Mr. Trump will surely fire off bragging tweets, partly to shore up his credentials for a second term, amid personal and policy troubles. For Mr. Xi, almost any deal could mean a very serious loss of face.

The article goes to some extremes to point out the weaknesses in the Chinese position, and is a surprisingly worthy read given who printed it.

The funny part is, these are points that Gordon Chang has been making all along, who got ignored or derided by such outlets as the times for his trouble. After all, it couldn’t possibly be that Trump understands what he’s doing.

Certainly, it is true that China’s troubles come from two sources. The first of course being their dedication to socialism.. appoint the New York Times will never admit to… and within that context a historic level of ineptitude on the part of Xi, a point the article goes into intense detail on.

The difference now is that we have a president who is smart enough to recognize both those situations and take advantage of them. The result of that is that China wasn’t ready for a trade war, and will lose.

It’s a quality that the Obama Administration never did possess… First because like Xi, they’re not very smart and as an extension of that, they think socialism is a worthy system of government.

So it is, China got caught flat-footed by Trump. The long-term trade ramifications of this are going to be more positive than the left in this country and the Times among them, will ever admit to until decades after it’s happened… which in turn is precisely why the article I’m linking to here never bothers to mention Donald Trump in any significant way… And when they do it’s certainly not complimentary.

You would be hard-pressed to find a better example of anti Trump bias in the mainstream media then this.

Eric Florack on May 7th, 2019

The DSCC started a Twitter poll over the weekend. Then they took it down once it started getting out of control.

Don’t don’t bother looking for it, it’s gone. As soon as they realized they weren’t getting the response they wanted, they deleted it.