Trump unlikely to face serious primary challenge as Never Trumpers give up on finding opponent

Never Trump Republicans have all but given up on mounting a serious primary challenge to President Trump in the aftermath of special counsel Robert Mueller's failure to find Trump campaign collusion with Russia. “I think there’s broad consensus that no one is moving toward a run,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican consultant in California who for several months has been involved in discussions about dislodging Trump. Trump remains broadly popular with Republican voters, and one of the most formidable potential challengers, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, announced over the weekend he would forgo a 2020 bid.

Some Never Trump Republicans are even contemplating quietly redirecting their energy toward boosting Joe Biden, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, saying this strategy might be their only viable option. Many Republicans uncomfortable with Trump view the former vice president, an old-school liberal, as an acceptable Democrat, at least compared to the modern liberals that comprise most of the rest of that party’s crowded field. "Even if Mueller had obtained some sort of smoking gun, it probably still wouldn’t have moved [Trump's] base," conceded a Republican prominent in the Never Trump movement, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly. "Trump is going to be the Republican nominee.” That's the verdict Hogan arrived at, and it influenced his decision.

The only announced challenger, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, is not taken seriously. In hypothetical matchups, Trump trounces Weld, who is waging a shoestring campaign. In a telephone interview, Hogan told the Washington Examiner that he received enthusiastic encouragement from Republican thinkers, donors, and elected officials impressed with his ability to connect with a broad cross-section of voters in deep blue Maryland. But after assessing the political atmosphere since the Russia investigation concluded and Mueller issued his report, Hogan determined the support that matters most was missing. “There wasn’t a groundswell among the average Republican primary voter," he said. "They seem to be, at this point, very happy with the president.”

Former Ohio Gov. John Kasich is still a potential 2020 candidate, perhaps offering hope to Never Trump Republicans who have not completely abandoned searching for challengers with more promise than Weld. But Kasich clearly has misgivings about going forward. A Republican primary candidate three years ago, he tweeted that “all of my options are on the table” immediately after suggesting in an interview on CNN, where he works as a contributor, that he was bowing out because “90% of the Republican Party supports” Trump. In a text message exchange, Kasich adviser John Weaver confirmed that the Trump antagonist had not removed himself from contention.

Sarah Longwell, among the few Never Trump Republicans who reject claims that fighting the president from inside the GOP is fruitless, said she is convinced “there’s a far better than even chance that more primary challengers get in.” Longwell, working with conservative writer Bill Kristol to pave the path for a Republican to primary Trump, said she never viewed the effort as Mueller-report-or-bust. “What — was he going to get frog-marched out of the White House?” Longwell said. “If it was a knockout blow, then everybody’s getting in. I certainly wasn’t anticipating that.”

Last fall, immediately following midterm elections that saw Democrats flip 40 seats and win control of the House of Representatives, Trump appeared weakened. Soon after, the president’s standing was undermined further during a record-long partial shutdown of the federal government that he instigated. That led some committed Never Trump Republicans to believe the president could be vulnerable to a primary challenge. The Mueller report, they believed, might be the catalyst. Politically, they believed it could strike a crushing blow against Trump, significantly diminishing his support with voters inside the party and spurring high-profile Republicans to risk running against him. Logistically, they presumed it would be made public sometime in the spring, as it was, just in time for a serious campaign to launch and begin building the necessary organization.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/trump-unlikely-to-face-serious-primary-challenge-as-never-trumpers-give-up-on-finding-opponent

The mask drops at Al Jazeera

If any question remained about whether Al Jazeera is an independent news network or an organ of radical Islamist propaganda, it has now been put to rest. The television news channel headquartered in Qatar was recently forced by the Federal Communications Commission to file a report disclosing its relationship to its foreign principal, in keeping with an amendment to last year’s National Defense Authorization Act. It transpires that the sole owner and shareholder of the parent company, Al Jazeera International, is none other than “The Emir of the State of Qatar,” listed explicitly in the legal documents as “Head of State.”

According to the regulations cited by the FCC, that means Al Jazeera is subject to the Foreign Agents Registration Act and should be subject to all the disclosure and restrictions that pertain to registered foreign agents operating in the U.S. This news should come as no surprise to those familiar with Al Jazeera’s programming. For years, the network has faced allegations of propagandizing on behalf of Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas and providing a platform for the most virulent anti-Semitism. That was confirmed in spades a few weeks ago when the network published (and subsequently took down) a video accusing Jews of exploiting the Holocaust to further Israel’s foreign policy, questioning the number of Jews murdered by Hitler’s Third Reich, and arguing that modern day Israel is carrying on genocide in the region comparable to the genocide of the Shoah. Although Al Jazeera has long denied accusations that they are a mere mouthpiece for a Qatari regime that provides funding and safe haven for terrorist groups such as Hamas, that pretense can now be dispensed with. Last year, several House Republicans sent a letter to the Justice Department stating that “Al Jazeera’s record of radical anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Israel broadcasts warrants scrutiny from regulators to determine whether this network is in violation of U.S. law.” Now, the jury is in, and it is time for the Justice Department to require Al Jazeera to register as a foreign agent under FARA. This would simply acknowledge a longstanding reality: Under the best reading of the current situation, the network is essentially a public relations agent for the government of Qatar operating on U.S. soil; under the worst reading, it is an extension of Qatar’s espionage apparatus.

Interestingly, America’s non-Islamist Arab allies in the region came to that conclusion long ago, when they instituted an embargo against Qatar in June of 2017. One of the demands of Western-aligned Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates was that Al Jazeera be shut down as a result of its constant incitement of jihadists and promotion of the pernicious ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. One particular sore point was the platform provided to Yusuf Al Qaradawi — an Egyptian-born leader of the Muslim Brotherhood operating out of Qatar—for his promotion of Holocaust denialism and incitement to terrorist violence against U.S. troops in the region.

But while our Arab allies have no trouble identifying Al Jazeera as a terrorism-promoting propaganda organ of the Qatari government (the primary funders of Hamas), the network still enjoys a strange and unwarranted reputation as an objective and independent Arab voice among many in the West, particularly those on the political Left. Leaders in the Democratic Party should be directly confronted with the question of whether they believe Al Jazeera to be a legitimate news source, or the propaganda outfit of the regime in Doha, which it so transparently is. If the latter, then they should join House Republicans in demanding that Al Jazeera register as a foreign agent under FARA.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/the-mask-drops-at-al-jazeera

Democrats summon Nixon aide-turned-Trump critic John Dean to testify on Mueller

House Democrats are to hear testimony from President Richard Nixon's White House counsel and Watergate figure John Dean during hearings into alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. The House Judiciary Committee announced the hearings Monday following indications from special counsel Robert Mueller that he will resist testifying publicly before the panel. Dean, former U.S. attorneys, and legal experts are due to testify.

Dean is a frequent and relentless Trump critic. In April, he called Trump a “nitwit” after Trump said he would be spared impeachment by the Supreme Court. In a statement, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said Trump and his campaign aides “welcomed help” from Russia, which was working to help Trump win. Nadler said Trump obstructed the investigation, which was confirmed by the Mueller report, he added.

"No one is above the law. While the White House continues to cover up and stonewall, and to prevent the American people from knowing the truth, we will continue to move forward with our investigation,” Nadler said. “These hearings will allow us to examine the findings laid out in Mueller's report so that we can work to protect the rule of law and protect future elections through consideration of legislative and other remedies.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/democrats-summon-nixon-aide-turned-trump-critic-john-dean-to-testify-on-mueller

>>6667465

Still trying to change the focus of the narrative, anon ds will never give up until they are shut down and put out with the rest of the trash. Timing is everything.

>>6667502

Not at all surprising..this is whom the Democrats owe their allegiance to.

Michael Wolff: 56-page Mueller memo on indicting Trump does exist

Author Michael Wolff defended the claim in his new book that special counsel Robert Mueller drafted a document outlining legal arguments for indicting President Trump. Although last week Mueller’s spokesman denied that a draft indictment was drawn up, Wolff said a 56-page memorandum was put together that supposes Trump was indicted for obstruction of justice. “The document is a 56-page document. It assumes that the president has been indicted. It assumes that he in turn has come back and made a motion to dismiss that indictment on grounds that you can't indict a sitting president,” Wolff said in an interview Monday evening on MSNBC. “Then this document is a response to that.” Wolf said the document outlined what charges Trump would face and argued why a sitting president can and should be indicted. “So it’s in a way I think that missing piece of the Mueller puzzle,” Wolff said. Wolff cites sources close to the Mueller investigation in his book. When asked by MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell to divulge whether his sources were in the Mueller team, Wolff would only say that these were "gold standard" sources. The existence of a three-count obstruction of justice indictment was first reported in a preview of Wolff's new book, Siege: Trump Under Fire, by the Guardian, which also said it had viewed the documents.

In response, Mueller spokesman Peter Carr issued a rare statement that said “the documents that you’ve described do not exist.”

Wolff’s last book, Fire and Fury, was riddled with unsubstantiated allegations, several of which were denounced as false. His new book, which hits bookshelves Tuesday, is already facing accusations of falsehoods, and in an interview with the New York Times Wolff admitted he does not check his stories with his subjects.

In his report, Mueller wrote that his team determined there was insufficient evidence to show criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin during the 2016 election. The report also laid out 10 instances in which Trump might have obstructed justice, but Mueller declined to say whether he committed obstruction, citing a Justice Department guideline that sitting presidents cannot be indicted. Attorney General William Barr concluded Mueller’s investigation did not find “sufficient” evidence to determine whether Trump obstructed justice. Barr defended the president’s behavior during the investigation as Trump being “frustrated and angry” with a process he believed was politically motivated.

Mueller, who announced he was resigning last week, said charging Trump with a crime was “not an option we could consider,” citing Justice Department policy. “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so,” Mueller said. “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.” Barr contradicted the reasoning the special counsel gave about why he did not make a determination on obstruction. “I personally felt he could’ve reached a decision," Barr said during an interview with CBS on Thursday. Barr said Mueller “had his reasons for not doing it” but declined to explain. “I’m not going to, you know, argue about those reasons,” he said.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/michael-wolff-56-page-mueller-memo-on-indicting-trump-does-exist

U.S. judge denies Democrats' lawsuit to stop border wall funds

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge on Monday rejected a lawsuit by Democrats in the House of Representatives that sought to block President Donald Trump’s plan to divert funds to help build a border wall. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden of the District of Columbia ruled that the House lacked legal standing to sue Trump for using money to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border that was appropriated by Congress for other purposes. “While the Constitution bestows upon Members of the House many powers, it does not grant them standing to hale the Executive Branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress’s legislative authority. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the House’s claims and will deny its motion,” McFadden wrote.

House Democrats had argued diverting the funds violated the separation of powers doctrine laid out in the U.S. Constitution. The Justice Department applauded the ruling. “The court rightly ruled that the House of Representatives cannot ask the judiciary to take its side in political disputes and cannot use federal courts to accomplish through litigation what it cannot achieve using the tools the Constitution gives to Congress,” a department spokesman said in a statement.

A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats were reviewing the ruling and evaluating whether to appeal. The ruling is in contrast to a decision on May 24 by U.S. Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr., who issued a preliminary injunction blocking the use of $1 billion in Defense Department funds out of a total of $6.7 billion Trump wants to divert for the border wall. Gilliam, in Oakland, California, on May 30 rejected the government’s efforts to start construction of the wall while it appeals to a higher court.

In February, after a protracted political battle and a government shutdown, Congress approved $1.38 billion for construction of “primary pedestrian fencing” along the border in southeastern Texas, well short of Trump’s demands. To obtain the additional money, Trump declared a national emergency and his administration said it planned to divert $601 million from a Treasury Department forfeiture fund, $2.5 billion earmarked for Department of Defense counternarcotics programs and $3.6 billion from military construction projects.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-court/u-s-judge-denies-democrats-lawsuit-to-stop-border-wall-funds-idUSKCN1T5055?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=970

>>6667506

Maybe I should know this but drawing a blank at the moment..who is PF?

>>6667916

I get where that is coming from, she really got herself into quite a mess, with Hillary and DWS crew. especially with all of the election gaming going on and then there is the Seth Rich murder.

>>6667927

Is there a legend for this or sauce?