The following video investigates the plight of white people in South Africa, as told from a Russian perspective:
Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.
The following video investigates the plight of white people in South Africa, as told from a Russian perspective:
Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.
Russia has been determined to rebuild its culture after the destructive tyranny of the Soviets.
One way to do that is to restore the martial spirit of its citizens, to drill down to a uniquely Russian esprit de corps. The method chosen here – building a church based on a martial spirit – could be a strong uniting force for ethnic Russians.
Another facet to consider is the pushback against Islam that may flow from the very architecture of this cathedral. It will serve as a large thumb in the eye of every practicing Muslim who gazes upon it, recalling Erdogan’s (in)famous quote regarding Islam:“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…” Change a few words and voila!, you have Russia’s muscular Christianity.
Remember that Russia is a tertium quid: neither Occident or Orient, it goes its own way. Woebetide those who would interfere. To expect The Bear to act like China or the West is to misunderstand Russia’s worldview.
A few days ago I was looking through a box of old papers, vintage ca. 1970, and I found a copy of the 1966 Pelican edition of Volume 2 of The Bolshevik Revolution by E.H. Carr. Since the book hasn’t seen the light of day in forty-odd years, it’s in pretty good shape. I bought it in 1968 — for 9s6d, or about 48p, as a matter of interest — when I was studying for A-levels. My history teacher recommended that anyone who was planning to sit special papers (which I was) should read it in preparation for the exam.
E.H. Carr, if not an outright communist, was definitely a communist sympathizer and an apologist for Stalin. But that doesn’t detract from his work as a historian — like many of the comsymp historians, he was from the old school: researching history meant studying the facts and writing them up, with thorough annotation of sources. A historian might color his narrative with his own opinions, but he didn’t scamp the facts.
The same was true of Isaac Deutscher, an actual communist, whose biography of Stalin was also on my reading list back then. I read those books and others, discounted the bias of the writers, and accumulated a vast store of information about the Bolshevik Revolution and Soviet Russia, some of which is still stuck in my head today. Reading history written by commies never improved my opinion of communism — in fact, some of the ghastly truths about Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin contained in those books hardened my attitude even further. A few months ago, when I was arguing with Felix Quigley (who was our resident Marxist commenter for a while), he wanted to know where I got my bogus information about Lenin. My source was in fact the book shown above — I couldn’t remember the author’s name at that point, but I told him it was written by a communist or communist sympathizer.
Facts is facts. And they’re in there.
This book was the second of three volumes on the Bolshevik Revolution, which themselves were part of a series on the history of Soviet Russia. The blurb on the Pelican book says there were eight volumes, but I thought there were about fourteen — maybe Carr wrote more of them after 1966.
Anyway… The font size in the book is microscopic, so I know I’ll never read it again. Oh, for the days when I could read those tiny little black letters!
So here’s my proposal: I’ll put this in a book mailer and send it to anyone in the USA who would be interested in reading it. It’s in good condition; the spine is intact. There’s only a bit of yellowing and that coffee stain from 1968 at the top. I’m restricting it to recipients the USA because book rate is cheap, so I won’t mind paying the postage.
If you’d like it, email me with your address at gatesofvienna (at) chromatism (dot) net. A week from today I’ll compile a list of interested parties (if any), have Dymphna choose one of them at random, and mail it off to the lucky winner.
This book is dense with information. I noticed that there’s a big section on the NEP in the second half of it. That’s one of the more interesting developments in the early history of the Soviet Union.
JLH has translated a couple of articles that discuss President Trump’s recent meeting with Vladimir Putin from a German viewpoint. These are pro-Trump pieces, so they are very much in the minority in Germany.
The translator includes this introductory note:
The AfD and Henryk Broder — The Dynamic Duo Call Out the World Opinion-Makers on the Trump-Putin Summit
What do thoughtful Germans think of the Trump-Putin summit, and how can they possibly disagree with the CDU-CSU, FDP, Greens, LINKE and SPÖ, as well as 95% of the world press, 100% of the Democrats, 90% of the RINOs and 105% of the Antifa, to say nothing of Google, Facebook and George Soros?
Do none of them recognize in Petr Bystron’s analysis of Trump’s opening remarks a reflection of the “art of the deal”?
The first translated article from Politically Incorrect:
AfD Expresses Satisfaction With Results of Summit Talks
July 18, 2018
(This is how “the summit” looks to the German incitement press: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin masterfully pass the global political ball back and forth. “Bloodymir, is the f****** soccer ball really [not] bugged?”)
With the 3-day “Conference for Security and Cooperation” in Helsinki in the summer of 1975, there began the tradition of holding results-oriented Russian-American summits in Finland: The “spirit of Helsinki” began in the context of the historic meeting of American President Gerald Ford and Soviet State and Party Leader Leonid Brezhnev.
In the initialed final act — supported by the USA and Canada, as well as all of Europe, with the exception of self-isolated Albania — the West and the Eastern Block agreed on rules and principles for a peaceful coexistence, and a strengthened economic exchange. Helsinki 1975 was the first door-opener for a step-by-step rapprochement of the great powers and the fall of the Iron Curtain.
After the more or less renewed “splendid isolation” of EU-Europe from the USA and Russia, hitherto encouraged by the German humanitarian imperative, the disastrous foreign policy of lame-duck Barack Obama and a wobbly EU Commission President Juncker, the summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin on July 16, 2018 represents a significant step toward a new peaceful rapprochement of the two populous powers. No matter what kind of howl the manipulation press puts up.
The date of this meeting is not randomly meaningless. Exactly 100 years ago, in the night between July 17th and 18th in 1918, the Czarist family Romanov was liquidated by an ideologically blinded Bolshevik mob. Today they would be called Antifa.
But no matter how the German political-media complex rages and demonizes the approach to Russia of the self-made billionaire Donald Trump, the leading politicians of the “party of reason,” the AfD, welcome this courageous step in the direction of a long overdue international understanding.
AfD chief Petr Bystron: “The rapprochement of Trump and Putin is a good signal for Europe and the world.”
Good news! The white population in South Africa has been under the gun (and the machete) for far too long; a murderous heritage from Nelson Mandela to his people. But that legacy is about to turn.
That Russia is smart enough to offer experienced white farmers land to put into production shows how shrewd is the Bear. Heaven knows it needs people who are willing to be fruitful and multiply.
Meanwhile, Australia will have some balance for its leftist leanings, and some ballast for its ship of state that will eventually have to turn toward China.
As it turns out, Susanna was the daughter of Russian immigrants, so there has been quite a bit of interest in her story in the Russian press. The report below has more details than we’ve been seeing in most German media accounts.
Many thanks to six45 for translating this article from Komsomolskaya Pravda:
The migrant murderer of 14-year-old Susanna Feldman was under an arrest warrant, but border police allowed him to leave the country
The girl from Wiesbaden, who was raped and strangled, was the daughter of Russian expats.
by Edward Chesnokov
The tolerance and multiculturalism of the most powerful country in the EU have reached new levels — some disturbing details of the gruesome and cynical murder of Suzanna Feldman from Mainz (in Rhineland-Pfalz, Germany) have become public. In mid-May, the 14-year old daughter of Jewish immigrants from Russia went out with her friends to downtown Wiesbaden. She didn’t come home that night. At first, her family was hopeful: who knows what those teenagers might be up to?
But, two days later one of her friends told her parents that Susanna was raped and murdered. The family rushed to the police, only to be told by the officers that when no victim’s body has been found, no case can be opened.
Then the search for the unfortunate girl started, with dozens of volunteers. Finally, on June 6th, she was found strangled in a wooded area next to the Wiesbaden-Frankfurt highway. The body had strangulation marks from after multiple rapes. The investigation could have taken many months — had it not been for a teenaged refugee from the local asylum center for the “New Germans”. He said:
“A guy from Iraq, Ali, wanted to show how tough he was, he boasted that he raped and murdered a Jewish girl.”
The authorities have quickly learned: the perpetrator is a 20-year-old refugee (or more precisely, “refugee”) by the name of Ali Bashar. Three years ago he came to Germany along with his family of eight, using the standard “migrant pathway”: through Turkey and Greece. He was denied asylum, he appealed — and was staying legally in Gessen. Moreover, he was already under police supervision: he was suspected of raping an 11-year old(!) girl, and of attempted robbery with a knife of a passer-by.
“There was no reason to detain him, as the connection of the perp with the mentioned crimes was not proven,” say the Wiesbaden police (published by Die Welt).
However, with full understanding that by now even the slow-moving German law enforcement would probably “connect the dots” and get him, Ali immediately forgot how tough he was, and he and the family went back to their homeland. The same one he once ran away from, and described to authorities as a “horrifying and discriminating place”.
The following article from a German news site discusses the warning signs of catastrophe in the European Union. It was translated by Rembrandt Clancy, who includes extensive contextual notes.
Too Many Mistakes: The EU is Staggering into the Abyss
The EU is staggering from one mistake to the next. In this form, a political union hardly has a chance of survival.
by Ronald Barazon
Translated by Rembrandt Clancy
20 May 2018
The weaknesses of the EU are becoming all too obvious in recent days:
Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that many are already predicting the end of the EU. There is no recognizable initiative that could save the “European Integration” project. The duty of the Community to secure peace in Europe is being pushed into the background. Unreasonable rules and regulations are spreading vexation and dissatisfaction, which trigger anti-EU slogans, ultimately leading to anti-EU governments. The anger over absurd regulations combines with a still deeply rooted nationalism among many citizens. In Europe many gravediggers of the EU are at work. This development is made possible by three decisive factors:
Hence nothing will change. The problems threaten to become a permanent crisis with a catastrophic outcome. For purposes of illustration, a number of mutually related themes follow.
The punitive tariffs against China, which also affect the EU
The US is collecting punitive tariffs of an additional 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum and still plans to do the same with other goods.
Initially the EU begged for a postponement until May 1st and now it has negotiated a further deferment until June 1st. At present it is being haggled over.
A compelling trade policy would have consisted in the immediate imposition of counter-duties. As a consequence, the EU would have had a position of strength in the current negotiations and would have been able to negotiate a reasonable tariff regimen whilst offering concessions to the USA. Now they have become supplicants and are considering how the World Trade Organization (WTO) can be called in. WTO procedures are generally known to last from years to decades.
One of the reasons for this is that even within the Commission itself, the responsibility for customs is distributed among several Commissioners. This shows the absurdity of appointing 28 Commissioners (after Brexit 27), because each Member State must nominate a Commissioner and for each Commissioner a function is needed. As if that were not enough, each country’s government has a voice in the decisions; hence a US president like Donald Trump can turn the EU into a marionette.
The sanctions against Iran
Europe is incensed that the USA has cancelled its nuclear agreement with Iran. In return for Iran’s assurance not to build atomic weapons, the economic sanctions had been anywhere from relaxed to abolished. The EU absolutely insists on a continuing co-operation with Iran, citing economic interests as justification; they would like to realise projects involving billions of euros.
Since Thursday [17 May] there has been a singularly strange initiative: EU-Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker intends to punish European firms should they comply with US sanctions against Iran. Having been moulded by many sets of regulations, it appears that thinking in the Commission is determined exclusively by punishment categories; except, the United States prohibits companies who violate sanctions from being economically active in the USA or from exporting to the USA, and it imposes penalties as applicable. This is ruinous for many companies who therefore submit to the diktat of the USA. That the EU then still threatens them with a penalty is absurd. The issue has no effect on companies lacking interests in the US market.
For Europe the development taking place in the Near East is clearly irrelevant: Iran will have good opportunities, after the armed conflicts have ended, of becoming a major power whose territory extends to the Mediterranean. A change in the balance of power is also emerging, which would also have to be of interest to Europe, especially as Russia consistently emphasises her friendship with Iran and is active in Syria.
Also the tweets of the “Supreme Leader” of Iran, Khamenei, are obviously not read in Europe. Only hours after the conclusion of the nuclear agreement on 14 July 2015, Khamenei commented on the agreement with a tirade of abuse against the West. This posture led even the Obama administration into putting the brakes on implementation of the “nuclear deal” and they maintained a portion of the sanctions.
In the following interview Ms. West talks about Soviet influence at the highest levels of the United States government, and how it pertains to the current infiltration of Islam in the West.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for conducting the interview and uploading this video:
The Armenian-American writer David Boyajian provides some background for the “color revolution” currently underway in Armenia. See also this translated Bild article.
Armenia’s People-Power Revolution, Russia, and the Western Bloc
by David Boyajian
As we write this, massive peaceful civil actions against Armenia’s establishment have continued under the leadership of Nikol Pashinyan, a National Assembly (N.A.) member who is part of the opposition Yelk (Way Out) Alliance. Though widely unpopular Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan has been forced to resign, his Republican Party (RPA) still has a narrow majority (58 of 105) in the N.A. Most observers believe that the RPA members were elected through fraud, bribery, and intimidation.
The RPA’s politicians and oligarchs are also generally blamed for stealing billions of the country’s wealth; violating civil rights; debasing the judiciary and civil service; keeping the talented Armenian Diaspora at arm’s length; and failing to successfully address Armenia’s many problems: corruption, a less-than-robust economy, unemployment, outward migration, and more.
A bright spot: Landlocked Christian Armenia and its brother Artsakh/Karabagh Republic survive, even though blockaded by genocidal Turkey and Turkic/Muslim Azerbaijan who outnumber Armenians by 90 million people. This miracle is due to the tenacity of Armenia’s people and armed forces.
As Armenia is a long-time friend and admirer of our country, we Americans need to understand it.
Why Armenia Matters
The current revolution is home-grown and purely Armenian. Outside powers — whether countries or organizations — neither initiated nor control the revolution. Still, major nations definitely have strong opinions, usually unstated, about the present crisis.
Russia loathes the revolution. Russia wants Armenia to continue to be highly dependent on it for natural gas, the nuclear power plant and energy grid, investments, sophisticated weapons, and the right to travel to Russia to work and sometimes deposit stolen money. Ongoing corruption in Armenia makes it easier for Russia to bribe, intimidate, and blackmail dishonest leaders and oligarchs, represented mainly by the RPA. A Russian base guards Armenia’s border with Turkey.
Why is Russia so intent on controlling its small ally? Because without Armenia, Russia would lose its grip on the Caucasus, Caspian Sea, and probably Central Asia. The US/NATO/EU/Turkey (“Western Bloc”) would then move in. Thus perched along the Russian Bear’s soft underbelly, NATO would slice it open and have his insides for dinner. Therefore Russia needs Armenia far more than it cares to admit.
Georgia was coopted by the Western Bloc years ago. It has invested billions in Georgia, which desires NATO membership as protection against Russia.
Azerbaijan, corrupt and a virtual dictatorship, but flush with oil and gas income, has also expressed interest in joining NATO. Over 27 years, the Western Bloc has invested untold billions in Azerbaijan in such sectors as energy, banking, hotels, aviation, agriculture, and consulting. The Western Bloc has also constructed major oil and gas pipelines from Azerbaijan’s Caspian fields through Georgia and into Turkey and beyond. More such pipelines (to supply Europe) are planned.
Interestingly, Israel receives around 40% of its oil from Azerbaijan and sells it billions in weapons. Major Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Committee provide Azerbaijan political support while, sadly, a coterie of Jewish writers constantly and unfairly berate Armenia in the US and international media.
A “color revolution” is underway in Armenia, and it appears that the protesters have achieved their goal.
Many thanks to JLH for translating this article from Bild:
Accompanied by Horns and Dancing, the Coolest Revolutionaries in the World Come to Power
May 3, 2018
BILD describes the situation in Armenia — the land that is suddenly making headlines. They are celebrating the success of a velvet revolution that is said to have paved the way for a regime change.
Yesterday an opposition politician and today leader of a revolution, Nikol Paschinian (42) is on the way to power in Armenia. And he is already the hero of the “little people” who are lining up to embrace him.
Paschinian’s followers are singing and dancing in the squares of Armenia’s few cities, and driving through the streets happily blowing their horns. In the capital of Yerevan — geographically in Asia, but culturally European — there is a festive atmosphere. After days of a street blockade, everything points to a power transfer on May 8th.
But the victory of their peaceful revolution is by no means certain. Pessimists still fear that the old system will strike back by sending in the police and military.
The hopes of many Armenians for a peaceful revolution and an end to nepotism at the levers of power rest upon Nikol Paschinian.
“The problem is as good as solved”
What had happened: After their defeat in parliament, the protest movement in Armenia had yesterday instituted the largest blockade ever of public life in the ex-Soviet republic. Even through roads, the international airport at Yerevan, the train to Georgia and several border crossings were affected.
Most of the young demonstrators formed human chains and waved red-blue-apricot banners. The apricot is the most important export of this bitterly poor country. So the revolution is also being called the Apricot Revolution.
A whole country blockaded by singing and dancing demonstrators
Yerevan is rumbling. It is the greatest revolution in a former Soviet republic (three million residents) since the pro-European Maidan movement wave of protests in the Ukraine in 2013-2014.
The following video features a recent Russian military briefing about the situation in Eastern Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus, and particularly in Douma, where the alleged chemical attack took place a few weeks ago.
Before you dismiss this clip as nothing but Russian propaganda — which it most assuredly is, especially the PR sections at the beginning and end — watch the middle section, which talks about what happened at the hospital in Douma. As Paul Weston remarked a few days ago, the footage of the puir wee bairns in the hospital has all the signs of being a typical Pallywood disinformation production.
Many thanks to Six45 for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
The following essay by Nick McAvelly was published earlier at the Frozen North.
Two Minutes to Midnight
by Nick McAvelly
On the front page of Thursday’s newspapers, under the headline “May’s Great Gamble,” the British public were informed that Theresa May, the current Prime Minister, was about to make a mistake not dissimilar to the one that Neville Chamberlain made in March 1939. Apparently, May was about to set our country on a course that could very well end up in a world war. It was reported that May had ordered British submarines armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles to move within range of Syria, so that Britain can participate in an American-led attack in that country. As we now know, Britain went ahead and participated in those attacks.
On 31st March 1939, Chamberlain stood in the House of Commons and made one of the worst political blunders in British history:
In the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty’s Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect. I may add that the French Government have authorised me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty’s Government.
At the subsequent debate in the House of Commons, the former Prime Minister David Lloyd George said:
The Prime Minister said to-day that he has spoken plain words. That is not enough. You must make it clear that you have the means of implementing those words. There are two objects you must have in view. One, of course, is that if Herr Hitler does march you will be able to meet him and beat him. The other is even more important, and that is that you should make it quite clear to him that you can do it. Then he will not attack. Is it clear? If war occurred to-morrow, you could not send a single battalion to Poland. Let us speak quite frankly. France could not. She would be confronted with fortifications which are infinitely more formidable than the Hindenburg line, which took us four years to break through, with casualties running into millions. [Interruption.] I am sorry to speak what is unpalatable, but I owe a duty to myself and to the country.
I cannot understand why, before committing ourselves to this tremendous enterprise, we did not secure beforehand the adhesion of Russia. […] I ask the Government to take immediate steps to secure the adhesion of Russia in a fraternity, an alliance, an agreement, a pact, it does not matter what it is called so long as it is an understanding to stand together against the aggressor. Apart from that we have undertaken a frightful gamble, a very risky gamble.
In the years immediately prior to Chamberlain’s unsolicited war guarantee, the first priority in the British government’s military plan had been to create a defensive air force to protect the country from German bombers. The second priority, according to the British government, had been to develop the Navy in order to protect Britain’s trade routes. The third priority had been to maintain an Army for “Imperial Police Duties” overseas. Last on the list of British priorities was “co-operation in the defence of the territories of any allies we may have in war.”
So Britain did not have the military capability to stop the Wehrmacht from invading Poland. As the British Chiefs of Staff had reported as early as 1937, a war with Germany would have to be “a long war”. Britain would have to resist an initial German attack (on Britain, not Poland), then use the industrial and economic power of the Empire to build up British forces, before finally launching a counter-attack. As the Chiefs of Staff stated, the military intervention of Russia, and material assistance from America “would go far towards making the Allied counter-offensive possible.”
After the British government made their unsolicited war guarantee to Poland, they tried to get the Soviet Union onside, but that was never going to happen. In a speech in Moscow on 10th March, Josef Stalin had stated that he would “not allow our country to be drawn into conflicts by warmongers who are accustomed to have others pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them.”
In the following video (which was recorded yesterday), Paul Weston talks about Donald Trump’s new war in Syria and the obvious false-flag characteristics of it. He also discusses the way the Western media’s critical faculties were utterly disabled as soon as the cry of “Och, the puir wee bairns!” was raised:
For links to his previous essays and videos, see the Paul Weston Archives.
The second half of this post has been sitting in my drafts folder since the recent fundraiser began. I was finally moved to post it because of yesterday’s news about the FBI raid on President Trump’s lawyer’s office and home. It’s so bad even his lawyer has had to hire a lawyer to protect himself from the vengeful horde who refuse to accept the American voters’ choice.
How do they do manage these incursions? Simple: blue states’ U.S. attorneys and judges are part and parcel of The Swamp. The former can always find a sympathetic latter to sign off on a search warrant… if it’s in aid of destroying the Republicans.
And how does this particular victim, Trump & Assoc., begin making its way through the python? Simple: here’s a former federal prosecutor spilling the beans:
Special counsel Robert Mueller has reportedly advised Donald Trump’s lawyers that the president is a “subject” but not a “target” of Mueller’s investigation. This has resulted in a great deal of triumphal celebration among the president’s supporters. After all, they reason, if Mueller hasn’t by now dredged up enough evidence to designate Trump a “target,” then the president must be in the clear.
Unfortunately, whether someone is a “target” as opposed to a “subject” of an investigation is a distinction without a difference. It’s all a matter of timing, and the “subject” of an investigation can become a “target” in the blink of a prosecutor’s eye. It happens every day…
The manual provides that, before they testify in the grand jury, “targets” and “subjects” are to be given the exact same warnings against self-incrimination, save that a “target” should also be given “a supplemental warning that the witness’s conduct is being investigated for possible violation of federal criminal law.” These designations apply with equal force to interrogations outside the grand jury.
So, what effect do these carefully worded official policy distinctions between “targets” and “subjects” have on actual federal investigations in and out of the grand jury? Absolutely none. Here’s what really happens.
A prosecutor will always want to lure a “target” into giving a statement either to investigators or in the grand jury to pin down his version of events. This foreknowledge will help the prosecutor structure the government’s case to be presented at trial and counter any potential defense.
Moreover, if other evidence can contradict the target’s version, it can be presented at trial as a false exculpatory declaration by the defendant. This would be proof supporting the substantive crimes alleged, on the legal theory that an innocent person wouldn’t try to lie his way out of the charges and that the lies prove consciousness of guilt.
Also, depending on whether the statement was made in an interrogation or under oath before a grand jury, the “target” can be charged either with lying to investigators or with perjury or false swearing.
So, how does the prosecutor get the “target” to voluntarily submit to interrogation or testify before the grand jury? He tells defense counsel that the “target” is merely a “subject” of the investigation. Believe it or not, this frequently causes defense counsel and their clients to think they may have a chance of talking their way out of trouble.
But frequently, after the so-called “subject” has given his version of events, the prosecutor changes the witness’s designation from a mere “subject” to a “target.” This usually takes place about a nanosecond before the “target” is indicted.
Mueller’s reported designation of the president as a mere “subject” of the investigation is not only meaningless, it is a reprise of one of the oldest prosecutorial tricks in the book. He is setting a trap in the hope that the president and his legal team will think he is almost in the clear and, accordingly, should voluntarily submit to interrogation in order to clear up any misconceptions
This move is all the more alarming given that it appears to have been prompted by reports that the president’s lawyers are actually considering whether their client should voluntarily submit to an interrogation by Team Mueller.
So, based on my 20 years of conducting federal and state grand jury and street-level investigations and another 25 representing “subjects” and “targets,” permit me to offer this advice to the president’s legal team. Don’t be encouraged or misled by Mueller’s designation of your client as a mere “subject.” He’s simply baiting the trap and crossing his fingers that you and your client will be dumb enough to grab for the cheese.
Also, be aware that you are not involved in some kind of gentlemanly legal contest with reasonable, high-minded adversaries. These people are thugs with law degrees. If they can get a crack at your client in an interrogation, it won’t end well for him…
So wake up and quit playing footsie with Mueller and his feral band of Hillary Clinton sycophants. While you’re at it, you may also want to buy some brass knuckles.
Yes on the brass knuckles for the remaining Trumpsters in Washington. All the Obama shenanigans were always swept under the rug, particularly his racist, envious fecklessness. When the history of this period comes to be written, Obama will go down as our most divisive, destructive “Commander in Chief”.
Is all this really legal? I guess it depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Last week, Byron York explained how the Trump-Russia investigation fails to align with the rule of law and why we should care about what they’re doing. He also gives us the name for their major weapon (aside from weaponized bureaucracies).