ACTION

             Of course, merely voting Republican won’t suddenly turn black neighborhoods around. These communities are plagued by factors too complex and deep-rooted for any politician to solve overnight. After all, many of the problems were caused by decades of Democrat leadership and the paralysis caused be ever-increasing government dependency.
               The cycle is self-sustaining. But don’t dare discuss the culture. When liberal law professors Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania and Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego wrote an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer lamenting the rejection of concepts such as two-parent homes and obedience to the law, they were denounced as white supremacists for suggesting that black Americans embrace a social and cultural structure created by whites.
               One of the primary consequences of the social breakdown in the black community, or any community for that matter, is violence. A young black man growing up without the influence of good parents, without a basic education, and without an opportunity for viable employment is likelier to turn to crime and drugs — and likelier to help perpetuate the awful cycle of black-on-black violence.
               In a UPI story entitled, “Study: Black males twice as likely to die, mainly from gun violence,” the news agency focuses on a report from the Centers for Disease Control. “Gun violence-related deaths were the biggest firearm-related reason for declining life expectancy for black males, with 16 out of 100,000 deaths attributed to it,” UPI says. “Black males face a total life expectancy loss of 4.14 years for any type of firearm-related death, according to the data. Life expectancy for black males begins to pick up again after age 20.”
               That framing is far too passive, as if guns are targeting black men. But despite race-hustlers like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Marc Lamont Hill blaming racism for the plight of black communities, the facts show that young black men have little to fear … except from other young black men. In 2016, the FBI reported that 90% of murdered blacks were killed by other blacks.
               Bindu Kalesan, a clinical epidemiologist at Boston University, believes we need more social programs to combat violence in inner cities.
               Really? As recently as 2014, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that we’ve already spent more than $22 trillion to fight poverty since the implementation of President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” programs. That is, according to The Heritage Foundation, “three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution.”
               Kalesan adds, “Victims of gun violence are victims not criminals. So increasing policing alone may not be the answer. Building social capital, education, reducing housing instability, etc. may also be answers. As of now, the focus on ameliorating firearm violence has been solely rooted in policies.”
               Actually, black victims of other black victims — not “gun violence” — often are criminals. Violence among drug-dealing gang-bangers accounts for a lot of urban murders. And Kalesan isn’t going to see more capital, better education, improved housing, or any other positive change in Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, or Baltimore as long as the same Democrat politicians support the same failed leftist policies.     
               Simply pouring more money into black communities isn’t the answer, and neither is gun control. Prof. Jeremy Levitt  writes in the Orlando Sentinel, “Further restrictions on black ownership of guns and racial conflict in the late 19th and early 20th centuries set the stage for the massacre and destruction of entire black communities.” That’s right — gun control started out as a racist proposition, and now Democrats are using violence among blacks to justify more gun control.
               It’s no wonder that gun ownership among black Americans is rising, with the National African American Gun Association boasting more than 20,000 members. They, too, realize that self defense is an essential right.
               The cycle of violence within these same communities will most certainly continue until black civic leaders reject the worn and tired approaches of the Democrat Party. Unfortunately, what took decades to create is going to take decades to fix.
               Real solutions are on the table, including a president whose leadership has already resulted in greater economic opportunities for blacks. But until black Americans themselves realize that Democrats are using them as political pawns, their communities will, sadly, continue to suffer.  ~The Patriot Post  

             On Friday, a spokesman for the Trump Organization refuted the story, stating, “We have tens of thousands of employees across our properties and have very strict hiring practices. If any employee submitted false documentation in an attempt to circumvent the law, they will be terminated immediately.”
               Clearly, the Times is attempting to paint Trump as a massive hypocrite for allegedly employing illegals when one of his biggest policy agendas is stemming the tide of illegal immigration. Questions regarding the extent of his actual knowledge of the immigration status of thousands of workers employed by his business empire are sure to be brought up, but this affords an opportunity to explore an important point regarding the responsibility of the government versus employers.
               Whose job is it to deal with illegal immigration? Answer: the federal government. The Washington Times reports that “just five of the 565 companies in President Trump’s business empire are signed up to use E-Verify” before questionably asserting it’s “the government’s best tool to weed illegal immigrants out of the workforce.” E-Verify may be the most useful tool for U.S. businesses to check on the immigration status of prospective employees — and we’d be glad if more used it — but the government’s best tool for weeding illegal aliens out of the workforce is deportation. Keeping illegal aliens out of the country is not the job of American businesses.
               Blame for illegal aliens living and working in the country should not be leveled primarily at businesses but at politicians, particularly Democrats, who have long impeded the ability of U.S. border officials to more effectively do their jobs.
               This week provides yet another example, as for the second time Trump offered a deal to Democrats on legal status for “Dreamers” in exchange for funding the border wall, only to once again be rejected by Rep. Nancy Pulosi (D-CA) and Sen. Chuck scumbag/clown-Schumer (D-NY).
               Democrats and their Leftmedia cohorts don’t want to stop illegal border crossings, so why complain about American businesses employing illegal aliens? Where is the complaining from Democrats and the Left over the massive burden illegal immigration foists onto America’s welfare programs? It’s absent because Democrats believe illegals should be entitled to benefits and then vote for their benefactors. Trump may operate his business on the existing playing field, but he’s advocating and implementing policies that will correct some wrongs.  

~The Patriot Post  

             According to Reuters, “The tax credits are capped by Congress at 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer, after which the subsidy phases out. … Experts say the White House cannot change the cap unilaterally.” In other words, subsidy repeal should have been addressed long before Republicans lose their majority in the House next month. Nevertheless, the Trump administration’s position is salient.
               Investor’s Business Daily opines that the eradication of subsidies “would be a major victory on the road to energy freedom.” The editors add, “No doubt there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth within the Green Movement. How will electric cars survive without government’s guiding hand? The answer is, most won’t. Otherwise, the federal government wouldn’t need to subsidize them.”
               At its core the government is aggrandizing certain products above others, which is antithetical to and a mockery of free enterprise. “Moreover,” Investor’s notes, “the dirty little secret of the electric-car industry is that electric cars are dirty, too, and not necessarily cleaner than regular cars. … A big reason for this is the electric cars’ batteries, the heart of the industry. Many of the batteries are built in high-pollution countries like China, Thailand, Germany and Poland, all of which depend heavily on coal for their energy. So the CO2 produced just in making the electric cars is far greater than for a regular, gasoline-powered car.”
               Consider also the primary source from which these batteries are charged — fossil fuels. Or as Investor’s put it, “It’s like someone dumping their garbage on the lawn of a neighbor down the street, while defending their own yard as pristine.” And as far as slashing emissions? Economist Jonathan Lesser says, “The net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions between 2018 and 2050 would be only about one-half of 1 percent of total forecast U.S. energy-related carbon emissions.”
               Finally, just like with state and local tax deductions, electric vehicle subsidies principally assist more wealthy individuals due to the bloated costs of EVs that make them unaffordable to most of the middle class. “Wind, solar and other ‘alternative’ energies are near-perfect examples of political cronyism at its worst,” Investor’s concludes. “They produce electricity at outrageously high cost. They aren’t necessarily cleaner or better for the environment than fossil fuels. And they require subsidies to privileged, politically connected groups to exist.”
               For these reasons, Trump should pursue subsidy repeal, even if that means waiting until the next election. Now if only we could get him to see the similarities with King Corn…  ~The Patriot Post  

             The report, produced by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, notes that since 2007 the USPS has lost a net $69 billion, and if changes are not made to the current model, it’s expected to lose tens of billions more in the coming decade. The report asserts that the USPS is on an unsustainable financial path: “[Its] business model — including its governance, product pricing, cost allocation, and labor practices — was sustainable in an era where mail revenues and volumes grew alongside population and economic growth. However, as the USPS’s financial conduction continues to deteriorate, standalone proposals, such as forgiving the prefunding of post-employment benefits or renegotiating labor contracts, will be insufficient.”
               In other words, the USPS is essentially operating as if it were still in the pre-Internet days, and, as a result, it has become financially unsustainable. The largest source of revenue for the USPS is the delivery of First-Class mail, which has declined in volume by 42% since 2007. That decline is, of course, due to a major communications shift to online technology. Meanwhile, even though the USPS’s package volume has increased to 40% of the overall market, that hasn’t been enough to make up the lost revenue from the steadily shrinking mail volume.
               Prices need to rise to meet services rendered, the report asserts: “Although the USPS does have pricing flexibility within its package delivery segment, packages have not been priced with profitability in mind. The USPS should have the authority to charge market-based prices for both mail and package items that are not deemed ‘essential services.’” This is where Trump’s accusations against Amazon not paying fair market value to the USPS for its shipping services comes into play.
               The Package Coalition — a group of online retailers of which Amazon is the largest member — responded to the report with concern that “by raising prices and depriving Americans of affordable delivery services, the Postal Task Force’s package delivery recommendations would harm consumers, large and small businesses, and especially rural communities.”
               Finally, one of the task force’s recommendations that has already raised the most vehement opposition is the call to essentially gut the USPS’s labor union. The report notes that the “USPS’ dual-labor model — combining private sector collective bargaining law with government employee compensation law — creates unsustainable labor costs. USPS employee rights should be more closely aligned with other federal employee rights by eliminating collective bargaining over compensation.” The report adds, “USPS employees should not be afforded protections and rights not enjoyed by other federal employees.”
               One thing is clear, Americans will end up paying more for mail service either with higher mailing and shipping costs or through a government bailout paid by taxpayers.  ~The Patriot Post  

             It is exactly this type of hyperbolic pontificating — which relies on dubious computer-simulated climate models that have never accurately predicted the future global climate — that causes so many logically minded individuals to simply roll their eyes at the absurdity. We have less than 10 years left to prevent catastrophe, the climate alarmists declare. Wait, wasn’t New York City supposed to be underwater due to completely melted polar ice caps by now? What are alarmists going to be telling us 10 years from now?
               Of course, global warming is all the fault of mankind  people, because of human activity leading to increased levels of carbon dioxide. Never mind the fact that carbon dioxide only accounts for 0.04% of earth’s atmospheric gasses and that water vapor is a bigger contributor to the planet’s climate. And don’t focus on the primary source of earth’s temperatures, the sun, because, well, human activity can’t be blamed for what’s happening on the surface of the sun. No, we’re supposed to ignore all these greater, vastly more significant factors that most directly contribute to global temperatures and instead blame human industry, made that much more efficient by capitalism. Destroying free-market capitalism is the real agenda.
               Indeed, limiting human industrial freedom that capitalism unlocks is exactly what the Paris climate agreement aimed to accomplish. It’s a wealth-redistribution scheme covered in the veneer of “science” and concern for preventing “catastrophic climate change,” as if limiting capitalistic enterprise and promoting the politics of globalist socialism is the only solution to a “problem” that alarmists continue to get wrong.
               Meanwhile, President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency plans to roll back Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s coal-killing environmental regulations. The EPA’s new proposed coal-plant-emissions standard would allow up to 1,900 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, which is up from  scumbag/liar-nObama’s 1,400 limit. As Reuters notes, “That  scumbag/liar-nObama rule would have forced new plants to install carbon capture equipment that is not yet commercially available.” Which is why scumbag/liar-nObama’s rule effectively killed coal-powered plants.
               Despite all this fearmongering, it is the U.S. — not a signatory to the Paris agreement the rest of the world’s emitters — that is leading the world in reducing emissions. Keep that in mind the next time we’re told we’re not doing enough.  ~The Patriot Post  

Amid the media hysteria over Michael Cohen’s guilty plea and discussions between the lawyers representing Paul Manafort and President Donald Trump, it’s important to understand from a legal standpoint what this means — and what it does not.
               We don’t know what other evidence special counsel dirty cop-Robert Mueller may have that hasn’t yet been disclosed. But the evidence disclosed to date — including in Cohen’s plea deal — still doesn’t reveal any illegal conduct by Trump or his campaign or any collusion with the Russian government to change the outcome of the 2016 election. There is nothing illegal or unethical about discussions and sharing of information between lawyers representing individuals who may be the focus of the same prosecutor.
               Cohen pleaded guilty to one count of lying to Congress. What was he lying about? For the past 30 years, the Trump real estate organization has been trying to negotiate a deal to build a marquee property in Moscow. There is certainly nothing unusual or untoward about that.
               The criminal information filed by the special counsel describes the false statements that Cohen now admits he made. Cohen originally told Congress that the negotiations he was involved in over that deal ended in January 2016 and that they did not involve Trump himself. He now admits that the negotiations didn’t end until June 2016 (the deal was never consummated), and that he did brief individuals within the Trump Organization, including Trump, about the negotiations.
               Cohen also stated that he never planned to travel to Russia for the hotel deal, nor did he ask Trump to travel there. He also swore to Congress that he had reached out to the press secretary for the Russian president, but that he did “not recall” whether he received a response. These statements were also false, thus constituting a federal crime of lying to Congress.
               No one should minimize the seriousness of lying under oath to Congress. During the guilty plea before the district court judge, Cohen said, “I made these statements to be consistent with Individual-1’s political messaging and to be loyal to Individual 1.”
               So Cohen lied to be loyal to Trump (Individual 1 presumably). But it’s important to understand that the underlying conduct that Cohen was lying about — negotiating a real estate deal — is not illegal or unlawful in and of itself, whether you’re working to get something built in New York City or Moscow.
               Furthermore, there is no federal law that tells individuals who own a business and run for federal office, whether it is the presidency or Congress, that they have to stop running their business, negotiating deals, or taking part in the other myriad details involved in being a business owner the moment they decide to run for office.
               Yes, they have to avoid conflicts of interest, and cannot enrich themselves unlawfully once in office. But those laws kick in after someone is elected.
               All of Cohen’s entreaties to get the real estate deal appear to have been perfectly legal, at least so far as we know.
               If we assume that Cohen pleaded guilty this time because he really did lie to Congress, then the underlying conduct — talking to Russian officials about a possible real estate deal in Moscow and briefing individuals within the Trump Organization — is all lawful conduct. Does Cohen secretly have some other testimony that shows illegal activity? We don’t know, and there is nothing in the plea agreement that indicates one way or another.
               We also don’t know what Cohen told dirty cop-Mueller during his seven proffer sessions that took place between August 2018 and Nov. 20, 2018, as noted in the plea agreement. We do know that Trump submitted his written responses to dirty cop-Mueller on Nov. 20, and the Cohen guilty plea took place after that, leading one to conclude that dirty cop-Mueller was waiting for the president’s written answers before unveiling Cohen’s latest guilty plea. Where this leads is difficult to tell.
               By the way, it should be noted that Cohen faced a maximum of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000; the plea agreement with dirty cop-Mueller says that the special prosecutor is recommending no more than six months in prison and a maximum fine of only $9,500.
               The media has also been full of stories claiming the special counsel is upset that the lawyers representing Manafort have apparently been briefing the lawyers representing Trump about their discussions with dirty cop-Mueller and implying that there is something nefarious in such sharing of information. There is nothing illegal or unethical about lawyers with different clients sharing such information.
               The extensive, 17-page plea agreement that Manafort entered into with dirty cop-Mueller on Sept. 14 has no provision of any kind barring Manafort or his lawyers from briefing the president’s lawyers on their discussions with dirty cop-Mueller. There is an entire page and a half detailing the cooperation that Manafort has to provide to the special counsel, but nowhere does it say that Manafort is prohibited from sharing information about that cooperation.
               In fact, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer, says he has joint defense agreements with 32 potential witnesses in the special counsel’s investigation, including Manafort. Some legal experts say that agreement should have ended when Manafort pleaded guilty, but as long as Manafort’s lawyer is simply providing information to Giuliani and there is no effort to tamper with a witness or obstruct justice, there is no unlawful behavior in such sharing of information (although it is unusual).
               Of course, Manafort, who was convicted for criminal violations of the law related to his consulting business that had nothing to do with his brief participation in the Trump campaign, has more serious problems.
               On Nov. 26, dirty cop-Mueller filed a pleading with the federal court in the District of Columbia claiming that Manafort has breached his plea deal by “lying” to the FBI and the special counsel “on a variety of subject matters.” Those “subject matters” are not detailed in the filing; instead, the special counsel says he will outline what those “lies” are when he files a “detailed sentencing” report to the court.
               So far, after a year and a half of the special counsel investigation, we’ve had multiple indictments of Russians for trying — with no coordination with any Americans — to use social media and the internet to encourage social unrest in America in 2016. We had various indictments for criminal activity unrelated to the Trump campaign and for lying to Congress and federal investigators over conduct that was itself lawful.
               But we still have had no indictments that have revealed any evidence about the issue the special counsel was supposed to investigate — whether there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The latest developments with Cohen and Manafort add very little to answering that ultimate question. We’re still waiting.  ~The Patriot Post  

             Graham wrote not just of the murder but other issues: “The Saudi regime’s murder of Jamal Khashoggi, its reckless military campaign in Yemen, its blockade of Qatar, and its effort to remove Lebanon’s prime minister all show astounding arrogance entitlement, and disregard for international norms. If these actions make Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia a ‘source of stability’ in the Middle East, I’d hate to see what destabilizing behavior looks like.”
               Moreover, Graham called Salman “a wrecking ball to U.S.-Saudi relations” and insisted, “The fear that the Saudis will stop cooperating with the U.S. on terrorism or Iran isn’t rational. Those threats pose as much of a danger to the Saudis as they do to America. Demanding better from allies isn’t downgrading the relationship; it’s a sign that Americans take our principles seriously and won’t be taken advantage of by anyone, friend or foe.”
               Graham’s words are tough and true. But we also think the “rift” between GOP senators and the president is not as wide as the Leftmedia would have us believe. In fact, we’d argue this is a good cop, bad cop routine between Trump and his critics. Trump takes a backseat to no one when it comes to bashing people as it suits his purpose. He can also be just as effusively gracious when that is more likely to meet his goal.
               As we’ve said from the beginning, Trump is using this incident for leverage with the Saudis. By presenting a “divided” front to the Saudis, Trump and the GOP are arguably more likely to get the desired results from the Saudis than if a united front presented an opportunity for a defensive House of Saud to circle the wagons. Remember: Trump’s strategy — and it’s the right one — is to keep the Saudis in our corner but get them to be better allies to truly serve U.S. interests.  

~The Patriot Post  

             And fewer still seem to appreciate the irony of these protests because, despite the anger, the French are getting exactly what they voted for: socialism.
               Last year the French elected socialist Emmanuel Macron in a 66-34 blowout over the nationalist Marine Le Pen, following that up months later by giving Macron’s La République en Marche! (LRM) party complete control of France’s government with 377 of the French National Assembly’s 577 seats.
               Today Macron’s approval rating stands at an abysmal 26%, far below that of U.S. President Donald Trump. Yet Macron has repeatedly rebuked Trump for his pro-American “nationalism.” Trump’s nationalism certainly stands in stark contrast to the globalism of world leaders like Macron and Germany’s Angela Merkel, who responded to criticism of migration and climate change policies by declaring, “Countries must give up their sovereignty … in an orderly fashion of course.”
               The catalyst for the recent protests and riots — the worst in France since the 1968 uprising that led to the downfall of President Charles de Gaulle — was an increase in the gas tax. Why the tax? To force French citizens off of diesel and gas-powered cars and into electric cars so as to combat the ecofascist hobgoblin of “climate change,” which, we’re incessantly told, is a cataclysmic problem that supposedly justifies extreme policies.
               For the French, who drive more diesel vehicles than any other European nation, this meant a tax hike that resulted in fuel prices of nearly $7 a gallon. This is extremely painful for the average French citizen struggling to get by in a sluggish French economy.
               In an attempt to quell the anger driving the riots, French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe announced this week that the government will suspend the tax for six months.
               Of course, it’s an open secret that the war to end “climate change” is really a proxy war to destroy free-market capitalism and replace it with globalist socialism while curtailing individual rights.
               In 2015, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of UNIPCC (the global governing body on climate change), declared that the real goal of the “global warming” agenda is not avoiding ecological disaster but destroying capitalism. Figueres said, “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
               If the goal was to reduce CO2 emissions, France and the world would emulate America, which has reduced CO2 output more than any other country in the last 30 years, and by a wide margin (a 14% reduction in U.S. emissions from 2005-2017 alone, versus a 21% increase for the rest of the world), despite rejecting both the Kyoto and Paris climate treaties.
               But much like socialist Sen. commie-Bernie Sanders — who owns three houses and a high-end sports car — the French people want to enjoy the feeling of moral superiority of embracing socialism (who can be against equality for all?) without actually having to deal with the consequences of socialism, which is, and always has been, government oppression and widespread poverty.
               Even as the French protest and riot over the increase in the gas tax, they reject proposals to cut spending in social services and welfare. As reported in The Washington Post, “A key priority for Macron’s administration has been to honor France’s European commitment to keep its budget deficit below 3 percent of gross domestic product. Suspending the carbon tax will mean that billions of euros will have to be saved elsewhere, possibly in the form of spending cuts that could affect the social services that many yellow-vest protesters also cherish. … But Macron’s political opponents rejected out of hand the suggestion that social services might be cut in any way.”
               The Washington Times further reports, “The demonstrations have unexpectedly morphed into a general expression of discontent over living conditions in France. … Specifically, many of the protesters want higher salaries and pensions, jobs, better services and tax cuts.” In other words, more generous wages and benefits at someone else’s expense.
               The French do not seem to grasp cause and effect. France is already the second-most heavily taxed of all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, and while Macron has implemented some pro-business policies, the economy continues to be bogged down by high taxes, burdensome regulations, and massive welfare costs, all of which drives France’s 8.9% unemployment rate (21.5% for youth) and sluggish, sub-2% GDP growth.
               It’s not just France, though. These same types of violent protests have spread to Belgium and the Netherlands and continue to build throughout Europe. We saw this occur in Greece when austerity measures were implemented to stave off complete bankruptcy.
               American socialists and global-warming hysterics — free to preach their secular gospel while living free of its consequences — take note. America’s commitment to individual rights and the free market have made it the undisputed global leader. Tamper at your own peril.  

~The Patriot Post  

             Thaler noted that “this conclusion is very surprising and I fought against it as hard as I could.” The study published in Human Evolution found that human diversity was unexpectedly minor compared to that of other animals. Stoeckle explained, “Culture, life experience, and other things can make people very different but in terms of basic biology, we’re like the birds.” He added, “One might have thought that, due to their high population numbers and wide geographic distribution, humans might have led to greater genetic diversity than other animal species. At least for mitochondrial DNA, humans turn out to be low to average in genetic diversity.”
               However, both Stoeckle and Thaler are both quick to reiterate their commitment to Darwinian evolution and the rejection of a single Adam or Eve. Even so, this is yet another good reminder to hold the concept of “settled science” loosely. There is simply much more that we don’t know than what we do know. And isn’t it interesting that the Biblical story of a worldwide flood and pairs of animals saved from the destruction finds scientific support? It’s almost as if the Author knew what he was talking about…  ~The Patriot Post  

             Lowry continues: In compelling Senate testimony, Yale law professor Akhil Amar explained the constitutional problems with the dirty cop-Mueller protection bill. One is that to be constitutional, the special counsel must be an inferior officer. Otherwise, he has to be confirmed by the Senate, which dirty cop-Mueller wasn’t. And if he’s an inferior officer, he can be fired. dirty cop-Mueller can’t be an inferior officer in some respects and a hypersuperior officer in others, enjoying protections from his ouster that even Cabinet officials don’t enjoy.
               The other perplexing facet is that Democrats are conspiring to protect what still appears to be a nothingburger, at least in a legal sense. In fact, former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy says, “Special Counsel dirty cop-Mueller is building a report, not a case.” From his legal point of view, “No prosecutor builds a case the way dirty cop-Mueller is going about it. What prosecutor says, ‘Here’s our witness line-up: Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Alex van der Zwaan, Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen. And what is it that they have in common, ladies and gentlemen of the jury? Bingo! They’re all convicted liars.’”?
               McCarthy adds: For a prosecutor, like any trial lawyer, what the jury thinks is at least as important as what the law says. If the most memorable thing the jury takes into the deliberation room is that no one should believe a word your witnesses say, you are not going to convict the lowliest grifter, much less the president of the United States of America. As a prosecutor, you build a case by having your cooperating accomplice witnesses plead guilty to the big scheme you are trying to pin on the main culprit. After all, what makes these witnesses  accomplices, literally, is that they were participants in the main culprit’s crime. That’s the scheme you’re trying to prove. … In short, you build a case by first establishing the foundational criminal offense. Juries do not convict people because they like or trust the prosecution’s witnesses. They convict because they are persuaded that justice demands redress for a real crime.
               McCarthy believes that dirty cop-Mueller “is not going to indict the president, which would precipitate a trial at some point. The convicted liars are not going to be jury-trial witnesses, so  dirty cop-Mueller is not concerned about their lack of credibility. The report will detail disturbing — and thus politically damaging — connections between Trump associates and Kremlin cronies. But there will be no collusion crime, and thus no charges and no need for witnesses.”
               Unfortunately, dirty cop-Mueller’s conclusion won’t quell the Left’s politicking. Far from it.  ~The Patriot Post