Connect with us

News

REVEALED: ANOTHER Top Mueller Investigator OUTED As Diehard Liberal & Democrat Donor

Published

on

Can anyone point to an investigator on special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe who isn’t either hostile towards President Trump or a bonfire Democrat? A new report by the Daily Caller reveals an attorney on Mueller’s team, Aaron Zelinsky, was not only a Huffington Post blogger, but has donated to Democrat candidates. 

“I’m a Democrat,” Zelinsky wrote on November 7th, 2012.

Daily Caller reports:

Aaron Zelinsky, a self-described Democrat, wrote nearly 50 articles as a contributor for the liberal news outlet from 2009 to 2014.

A review of his articles shows that he supported President Barack Obama’s efforts to close Guantanamo Bay, opposed President George W. Bush’s policy on torture, wrote in defense of gun control and argued for government-imposed limits on how much corporate executives can earn. […]

Zelinsky expressed support for Democratic candidate John Kerry before a 2004 general election debate. “From one Yale debater to another: Good luck, senator. I’m rooting for you,” he wrote in The Hartford Courant. And he had encouraging words for Obama, wishing him good luck before a 2012 debate against Republican challenger Mitt Romney. “Stay relaxed up there,” Zelinsky wrote in a column. “You did the debate thing in 2008; it’s a piece of cake. No sweat.” […]

In addition, Federal Elections Commission records, which only list contributions made at the federal level, show that nine of the 16 publicly-disclosed lawyers on the Mueller team have donated to Democratic candidates.

As The Gateway Pundit’s Joe Hoft reported, Zelinsky, worked as an attorney on detail from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Maryland. — He worked under Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in Maryland.

Hoft put together one of most comprehensive lists in all the media highlighting potential political bias on Mueller’s probe.

It’s a must read.

The Entire Mueller Investigative Team

  • Rush Atkinson, an attorney on detail from the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section at the Department of Justice
    — Donated $200 to Clinton in 2016
  • Peter Carr – DOJ spokesman under Barack Obama.
  • Andrew Goldstein, a public corruption prosecutor on detail from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York
     Worked under Trump-basher Preet Bharara in the liberal New York southern district.
  • Adam Jed, an appellate attorney on detail from DOJ’s Civil Division. — Defended Obamacare at the DOJ.
  • Elizabeth Prelogar, an appellate attorney on detail from the Office of the Solicitor General. -Fluent in Russian; former law clerk to Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.
  • James Quarles, a former partner at WilmerHale and a former assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force. –Former assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force.
  • Jeannie Rhee, a former partner at WilmerHale who has served in the Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ and as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. — Rhee is a Clinton Foundation Lawyer and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel under Barack Obama.
  • Brandon Van Grack, an attorney on detail from the Justice Department’s National Security Division.
    — Led a grand jury inquiry in Northern Virginia scrutinizing former Trump associate Michael Flynn’s foreign lobbying.
  • Aaron Zebley, a former partner at WilmerHale who has previously served with Mueller at the FBI and has served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. — Worked with Robert Mueller at the WilmerHale firm.
  • Zainab Ahmad, a top national security prosecutor on detail from U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of New York.
  • Michael Dreeben, an appellate attorney on detail from the Office of the Solicitor General, described by former colleagues as one of the brightest criminal law experts of the past two generations.

The post REVEALED: ANOTHER Top Mueller Investigator OUTED As Diehard Liberal & Democrat Donor appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Lesley Stahl: Trump told me he attacks the media so that people won’t believe us when we report bad news about him

Published

on

By

I mean, obviously. A scandalized shiver runs through the room in the clip after Stahl says this but nothing about Trump is as transparent as his strategic goal in gaslighting people about “fake news.” Here’s something I’ve linked before, written two days after his inauguration and attempting to explain why Sean Spicer held that embarrassing “these were the biggest inauguration crowds ever!” press conference. Among the suggested reasons:

The point of carping about “fake news” isn’t to discredit the stories that are false, it’s to discredit the stories that are true. It’s the same as the “witch hunt” rhetoric about Russiagate, which has already produced five guilty pleas and 17 indictments. Any politician pinned to the wall by damaging news would kill to have a reservoir of suspicion about the media among their base that they can call on in a pinch to defuse that news. The goal isn’t necessarily to get people to disbelieve a story but to stoke enough doubt about the reliability of its narrators that the public will conclude there’s no way to know what’s truth and what isn’t. That’s the art of the gaslight. And the author I quoted above also anticipated that:

If ever there was a “tell” about Trump’s strategy, it was this tweet posted 17 days after he was sworn in. It’s one thing to claim that reporters are slanting their coverage to disfavor him, as that obviously does happen. It’s another to suggest that pollsters are engaged in willful fraud, en masse, to make him look bad by manipulating their data and willing to risk their professional reputations in doing so:

Everything that’s bad for him is “fake” and you shouldn’t believe it, and if you do you’re siding with Them over him. He’s not coy or in any way subtle about this. This is a guy, remember, who back in the day used to dial up reporters posing as his own PR flack to tout his wealth or his womanizing or whatever. Subtlety’s not his thing, certainly when dealing with the media. The reason there are murmurs in the room after Stahl tells her story, I think, is just because he’s willing to cop to the gaslighting openly, even to a member of the media itself. It’s all just a game, played to a strategic end. Why pretend otherwise?

In lieu of an exit question, something unrelated but fun. Apparently Trump’s inimitable Twitter style is, in fact, imitable:

“West Wing employees who draft proposed tweets intentionally employ suspect grammar and staccato syntax in order to mimic the president’s style, according to two people familiar with the process,” the Boston Globe’s Annie Linskey reports.

The details: “They overuse the exclamation point! They Capitalize random words for emphasis. Fragments. Loosely connected ideas. All part of a process that is not as spontaneous as Trump’s Twitter feed often appears.”

That’s GOP-style populism in microcosm. You’ve got one guy, the populist-in-chief, whose grammar and spelling are not the best but whose style is “authentic” and “relatable.” And then you’ve got a coterie of well-educated phonies and cronies mimicking him, pretending to be stupid in the same way because that’s what he wants and they’re convinced that that’s what the people want. No one has any incentive, political or financial, to be better. Sad!

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Trump Goes Scorched Earth on FBI Spy Campaign: ‘Follow the Money, the Spy Was Only There to Help Crooked Hillary Win’

Published

on

By

President Trump unleashed on the FBI’s infiltration of his campaign Tuesday evening in a pair of tweets.

The President said, “Follow the money!” the spy wasn’t there to find ‘Russian collusion,’ he was there to help Crooked Hillary win the election!

President Trump, please never stop tweeting!

President Trump lit up Twitter Tuesday evening after he tweeted what we are all thinking–the spies infiltrated his campaign for political purposes to help Hillary Clinton win the election.

Trump tweeted: If the person placed very early into my campaign wasn’t a SPY put there by the previous Administration for political purposes, how come such a seemingly massive amount of money was paid for services rendered – many times higher than normal…

Trump then slams Crooked Hillary: …Follow the money! The spy was there early in the campaign and yet never reported Collusion with Russia, because there was no Collusion. He was only there to spy for political reasons and to help Crooked Hillary win – just like they did to Bernie Sanders, who got duped!

The informant, Stefan Halper, was paid a total of $411,575 in 2016 and 2017 for work with the US government that included spying on the Trump campaign.

It was a lucrative business for Stefan Halper.

Now the Democrats are in spin mode.

They went from ‘there was no spy inside of Trump’s camp’ to ‘the informant was there to help protect Trump against the Russians.’

Former DNI Chief James Clapper is claiming embedding spies is “a standard investigative practice.”

Hillary Clinton wanted to spy on her political opponent and she accomplished her goal with help from Obama’s weaponized intel agencies.

President Trump is right; Spygate is worse than Watergate.

Earlier Tuesday, President Trump told reporters, “If they had spies in my campaign, that would be a disgrace to this country.”

Loading…

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Shouldn’t Publix be forced to bake the Latin cake?

Published

on

By

Palette cleansers don’t usually come this sweet … if we’re still permitted to use that phraseology. A family celebrating the graduation of their son with high honors had ordered a cake made from the local Publix supermarket, using their online system to proudly display Jacob Kosinski’s status as a summa cum laude student. Just one problem, the online system responded — they don’t allow obscenities on their cake designs.

Shouldn’t they be forced to bake the Latin cake?

Cara Koscinski organized a graduation party for her 18-year-old son. For the occasion, she ordered a cake online from her nearest grocery store, Publix, which lets customers build their own cakes complete with a customized inscription, which they enter into a message box marked “cake message option.”

Carefully, she typed in the words she wanted on the cake: “Congrats Jacob! Summa Cum Laude class of 2018.”

Publix’s online system was unhappy with the word “cum.”

Good Lord. This is less about mandatory cake-baking than it is about cultural ignorance and classical illiteracy. We stopped teaching Latin as a compulsory subject in most schools decades ago, but this Latin phrasing in particular remains very common — used in all college and university graduations, and many high school degrees, too. Magna cum laude is understood by most people not to be a reference to a particular prophylactic, for Pete’s sake.

Publix apologized and returned the family’s money, which is as much as they can do for this particular error. It should remind them to pay attention to the special instructions in their own flippin’ system, however, especially when the customer calls to explain it to them in plain English. If Publix doesn’t want to make cakes for a particular special occasion or to proclaim a particular message, they shouldn’t be forced to do, and neither should anyone else. But is it too much to ask that they check out requests to ensure that they really object to it?

At least Jacob has a pretty clear understanding about the nonsensical levels of political correctness and ignorance he’ll encounter in the wider world. It might keep him more grounded than most other high school graduates entering colleges and universities this fall. In the meantime, let’s offer a Latin lesson for bakeries around the country, just in case they need to conjugate. In the language sense, that is.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Like us on Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Close