Getting To The Bottom

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about what the Republicans have accomplished in informing Americans about the misuse of government agencies in surveilling the Trump campaign and the Trump administration.

The article lists what we know as a result of the work of the House Intelligence Committee.

This is the list:

1) The important role that the incendiary allegations in the still-unverified Trump dossier played in the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign.

2) The fact that the dossier was commissioned and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party.

3) The unusual circumstances surrounding the formal beginning of the FBI’s counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign.

4) The troubling deficiencies in the FBI’s application for a warrant to wiretap onetime Trump campaign figure Carter Page.

5) The anti-Trump bias of some of the top officials in the FBI investigation.

6) The degree to which the dossier’s allegations spread throughout the Obama administration during the final days of the 2016 campaign and the transition.

7) Obama officials’ unmasking of Trump-related figures in intelligence intercepts.

8) The fact that FBI agents did not believe Michael Flynn lied to them in the interview that later led to Flynn’s guilty plea on a charge of lying to the FBI.

9) The role of the opposition research firm Fusion GPS in the Trump-Russia probe.

There is more. The article notes that the FBI and Justice Department fiercely resisted the investigation. They withheld materials, dragged their feet, and flat-out refused to provide information to which congressional overseers were clearly entitled.

The article further reports:

None of this has been bipartisan. The work has been done by Republicans and opposed by Democrats. And if Democrats win control of the House, as a number of polls suggest they will do, it will stop immediately.

If Democrats win, Rep. Adam Schiff, who has opposed nearly everything Nunes has done, will become chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Rep. Jerrold Nadler will head the Judiciary Committee. And Rep. Elijah Cummings will take over the Oversight Committee.

This month Schiff wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post broadly outlining the new direction Democrats would take. In the Intelligence Committee, Schiff promised to investigate aspects of Trump-Russia that committee Republicans would not — a move that would target the president but also likely duplicate the work of other investigators. Schiff also mentioned what he said were “serious and credible allegations the Russians may possess financial leverage over the president, including perhaps the laundering of Russian money through his businesses.”

The Judiciary and Oversight Committees would also abandon their current paths and focus directly on the president.

There are legitimate concerns about the use of government agencies to spy on a political opponent. It is unfortunate that the Democrats do not seem to share this concern. If the Democrats gain control of the House of Representatives, the political abuses of government agencies will continue. At that point we will lose the concept of ‘equal justice under the law.’ We will be on our way to becoming a nation where your politics matter more than your guilt or innocence.

Is This What You Want?

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article listing the Democrat priorities if they should win the House in the midterm elections. To say the least, it is an interesting list.

The article reports:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said the Democrats would prioritize new gun control legislation and protecting illegal immigrants if they regain control of the House of Representatives after the midterms next month.

Democrats will look to pass a gun background check bill and protect Dreamers, undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, Pelosi told Politico. She also said the Democrats would try to pass campaign finance reform and lower drug prices.

I suspect that the Democrats’ idea of campaign finance reform is to make sure that the playing field is no longer level and that union money will again be in control (the way it was before the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court).

The article continues:

The house minority leader is also preparing to return to the role of speaker of the House, a position she held from 2007 to 2011. Although her bid to become speaker has faced resistance from some House Democrats clamoring for new leadership, Pelosi appears to have solidified the support of her caucus, Politico notes.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) has listed five investigations the Democrats would launch if they win the House, saying they “will need to ruthlessly prioritize the most important matters first.”

Schiff wants to investigate whether the Russians have financial leverage over President Donald Trump. In the House Judiciary Committee, Schiff said Democrats will look into “abuse of the pardon power, attacks on the rule of law, and campaign finance violations.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, suggested before Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed that the committee would investigate him for “any credible allegation, certainly of perjury and other things that haven’t been properly looked into before.”

Nadler reiterated the idea Democrats would investigate Kavanaugh after the FBI concluded its investigation into allegations of sexual assault.

Can anyone explain to me how any of these agenda items help the American people in any way?

Blindly Stumbling On The Truth

One of the loudest anti-Trump Democrats is Adam Schiff. However, he recently said something most of us can agree with. Hot Air posted an article today about one of his recent statements. Representative Schiff is warning his fellow Democrats that planning to impeach President Trump simply for political reasons might not be a good move politically.

The article includes his statement:

The legal standard for what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor is less important than the practical and political standard that must be met in any impeachment case. And while that political standard cannot be easily or uniformly defined, I think in the present context, it means the following: Was the president’s conduct so incompatible with the office he holds that Democratic and Republican members of Congress can make the case to their constituents that they were obligated to remove him?

If they cannot, if impeachment is seen by a substantial part of the country as merely an effort to nullify an election by other means, there will be no impeachment, no matter how high the crime or serious the misdemeanor…

Should the facts warrant impeachment, that case will be made more difficult politically if part of the country feels that removing Mr. Trump was the result that some of their fellow Americans were wishing for all along…

Given the evidence that is already public, I can well understand why the president fears impeachment and seeks to use the false claim that Democrats are more interested in impeachment than governing to rally his base. Democrats should not take the bait.

The statement that impeachment for no apparent reason would be seen as an attempt to overturn an election is the first intelligent thing I have heard this man say. The Democrats need to keep in mind that after the Republicans tried to impeach President Clinton, they lost Congress and didn’t get it back for a while. Most Americans have a sense of fairness, and the Democrats’ actions toward this President since he won the nomination in 2016 have not been praiseworthy. Those Americans who are aware of the emails between FBI Agents Page and Strzok have reason to be suspicious of the actions of the Democrats.

Just for the record, it is my belief that if the Democrats retake Congress, one of their first items of business will be impeachment. That will destroy the economic prosperity we have seen under President Trump (and the Democrats know that), but they will do it anyway.

Watch For Spin

Recently members of the public became aware of a four-page memo detailing the FISA abuses under the Obama Administration. Generally speaking, most members of the public would like to see the memo. For whatever reason, Democrats in Congress do not want the American public to see the memo. One talking point used by Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) has been that the American public would not be able to understand the memo and put it into proper perspective. Does this man think Americans have the ability to vote intelligently?

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today about Representative Schiff’s latest attempt to block the release of the memo. Representative Schiff claimed that the tweets asking for release of the memo were from ‘Russian bots.’ Representative Schiff and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) went as far as urging Facebook and Twitter to conduct a forensic examination into Twitter users who pushed the #ReleaseTheMemo campaign. Well, it didn’t go as planned.,

The article reports:

It turns out Rep. Adam Schiff’s office was inundated with phone calls from citizens confirming they are not Russian bots.

On Wednesday the far left Daily Beast destroyed Adam Schiff and Senator Feinstein’s conspiracy.

Twitter internal analysis found no evidence of Russian bot involvement in the “ReleaseTheMemo hashtag campaign.

It was just another lie by prominent Democrats and the liberal mainstream media!

Stay tuned–I am sure there is much more to come.

Sunlight Is The Best Disinfectant

According to a statement made in 1913 by United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Evidently not everyone in Congress believes that. In fact, one particular member of Congress thinks the American people are not capable of drawing the right conclusion if they see the memo containing the information about the surveillance of the Trump campaign and transition team (Does he think they are incapable of drawing the right conclusion or incapable of drawing his conclusion?)

At any rate, YouTube posted the video:

Do you ever wonder if these people think before they speak? The Russia thing is dead, yet he is still trying to bring it back to life!

Rewarding Bad Behavior

Fox News is reporting today that Representative Nancy Pelosi has named the Democrats who will serve on the special committee to investigate Benghazi.

The article reports:

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced Wednesday that she will appoint the full complement of five Democratic members on the 12-member panel. She tapped five Democrats with experience in previous congressional investigations.

The Democrats who will join seven Republicans are Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, Adam Smith of Washington state, Adam Schiff of California, Linda Sanchez of California and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois.

I would like to focus on the past behavior of one member appointed to that committee and his past behavior when serving on committees.

Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland served on the Committee investigating the IRS scandal. As I reported on April 9, 2014, (rightwinggranny.com), his actions while serving on that committee were highly questionable:

Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa, along with five Subcommittee Chairmen are demanding Cummings (Democratic Ranking Member Elijah Cummings) provide an explanation for the staff inquiries to the IRS about True the Vote and for his denial that his staff ever contacted the IRS about the group.

…Evidently Lois Lerner, former head of tax exempt groups at the IRS, was feeding Cummings information about True the Vote, one of the groups the IRS was targeting. Cummings was not sharing this information with the Committee.

On April 13, 2014, I reported (rightwinggranny.com):

In 2012, both the IRS and Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings were targeting the group True the Vote. We now have email showing contact between a Cummings staffer and the IRS over that organization. How much more contact was there? It’s one thing to write a public letter calling on a regulator to act. It’s another to haul the regulator in front of your committee, or have your staff correspond with or pressure said regulator, with regard to ongoing actions. That’s a no-no.

If Representative Cummings represents the level of integrity of the Democrats on the committee to investigate Benghazi, we can pretty much assume that the stonewalling from the White House will continue.

The Talking Points Are Becoming Obvious

A serious investigation into the events surrounding the attack on Benghazi and the cover-up that followed is necessary. However, a serious investigation at this point in time is exactly what the Democrats do not want. Actually if the Democrats had been smart, they would have gotten all of the negative information out as soon as the 2012 election was over. It would have been old news by now. Unfortunately, the negatives are coming out now–in the midst of the mid-term elections and in time to influence the 2016 presidential elections. So what should the Democrats do? Actually, what they should do is not part of the equation, what they will do to provide damage control is becoming obvious.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today about the appearances on the Sunday shows by the damage control team. Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff was on Fox News Sunday suggesting that the Democrats would boycott the House’s proposed select committee on Benghazi.

The article quotes Congressman Schiff:

Establishing a select committee to investigate the State Department’s handling of the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Libya is a “colossal waste of time,” according to Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.).

“We’ve had four bipartisan investigations already,” Schiff said on “Fox News Sunday,” adding that the Republican plans to create the committee are politically motivated.

Schiff also said that Democratic leaders should not appoint anyone to the committee. “I don’t think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate,” he said. “I think it’s just a tremendous red herring and a waste of taxpayer resources.”

Translated loosely that means ‘we don’t want anyone to uncover any more damaging emails, so we are going to do everything we can to continue to cover up whatever went on concerning the attack on Benghazi.’

The question is whether or not the American public and the mainstream news media are going to let the investigation into Benghazi die.

The article points out:

Can the Democrats possibly get away with the claim that there is no Benghazi scandal, even though four Americans were killed, including an ambassador, and we already know that 1) the Obama administration ignored repeated calls for improved security in Benghazi, 2) the administration made no attempt to rescue the besieged Americans, over a period of seven or eight hours, and 3) the administration’s attempted cover-up–al Qaeda is on the run, this was just a bunch of film critics who got out of hand–has already been exposed? One wouldn’t think so. And, by the way, we still don’t know what (if anything) either President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton did with regard to the terrorist attack on the evening of September 11, 2012. Did they participate? Did they give any orders, and if so, what were they? Were Obama and Clinton even awake? We don’t know.

I am very tired of hearing about Benghazi, but I am even more tired or being lied to and told stories that I know are false.  I want to know why we chose not to rescue the Ambassador. I want to know why the lies were told about the video. And I want to know who made the decision not to send help that night. At that point I will be willing to consider the matter closed.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Spin Continues

Fox News posted a story today about the testimony of General Petraeus before Congress. Unfortunately, unless things change in this investigation, politics will be more important than the fact that four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi.

The article reports:

Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration’s handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday that references to “Al Qaeda involvement” were stripped from his agency’s original talking points — while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed. 

Needless to say, there were a few people at the hearings who did not want to hear that testimony.

The story continues:

(Representative Peter) King said a CIA analyst specifically told lawmakers that the Al Qaeda affiliates line “was taken out.” 

A congressional source familiar with this week’s testimony also told Fox News that the language in the CIA talking points about Benghazi was changed from “Al Qaeda-affiliated individuals to extremist organizations” — which had the effect of minimizing the role of terrorists in the attack. 

The Democrats on the Committee accused the Republicans of taking the issue out of context.

The article further reports:

California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff also came to Rice’s defense Thursday, saying after a House intelligence committee hearing that Rice was given the intelligence community’s “best assessment” at the time. 

It was pointed out today that up until September 11, the YouTube video in question had 200 hits. It is amazing that a video with only 200 hits is being credited in some circles with causing the death of four Americans.

Everything the Obama Administration has done on and since September 11th appears to be a cover-up. The goal of the cover-up was to keep the truth under wraps long enough to get President Obama re-elected. Now the election is over, and I am not sure we have seen any noteworthy percentage of the truth. Were there prisoners at Benghazi and was there a gun running operation operating out of Benghazi? Until these two questions are answered in a convincing way, we are simply running around in circles.

Enhanced by Zemanta