Check The Candidate’s Biography Before You Vote

One of the slimy tricks sometimes used in politics is to introduce a candidate who is not really what they seem. The candidate can be introduced as a member of one party when a little research shows that they were not a member of that party until they decided to run for office (Mayor Bloomberg of New York City is an example of this–he has just switched back to Democrat after having served as a Republican mayor of the city). Another trick is to introduce a third-party candidate designed to take votes away from your opponent–generally a libertarian will take Republican votes, a green party candidate will take Democrat votes. Another trick is to bring someone into the district early enough in the process to meet the residency requirements when that candidate has little relation to the district.

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit reported:

Michigan incumbent US Representative Mike Bishop is for Jobs not Mobs.  He’s being challenged by Obama lackey Elissa Slotkin who helped negotiate the failed Iran deal.  She is from outside the district and appears to be a hand-selected puppet of the Far-left establishment.

Michigan Congressman Mike Bishop shows that his competitor Slotkin was sent to Michigan to run against him. She never owned property in Michigan, never paid taxes in Michigan and never voted in Michigan until the primary where she voted for herself.

Although she grew up in Michigan, Ms. Slotkin left the state for college, joined the CIA after college and worked for the Obama administration. she has also served on the U.S. National Security Council as Director for Iraq, where her portfolio included a leading role in drafting of the U.S. – Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. That agreement was never put before the Senate to ratify because it was awful.  President Obama knew it would not pass. President Trump has since withdrawn from the agreement. The agreement simply put restrictions on Iran for a number of years, after which they could develop as many nuclear weapons as they chose. The agreement did not make the Middle East any safer, in fact it increased the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the area.

A vote for Ms. Slotkin is a vote for the deep state. It appears that she was sent back to Michigan for the purpose of unseating a Republican. That is the game of politics, but the people of Michigan need to know that she has not spent enough time in the state to represent them.

It’s Not Over ‘Till It’s Over

Senator Susan Collins has announced that she is voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. As she began her speech to the Senate today, protesters had to be quieted down or escorted from the Gallery. The other day we saw Jeff Flake corned in an elevator by two left-activist women (story here).

And we have this picture of a ‘friendly’ conversation between Senators Diane Feinstein and Lisa Murkowski:

I have no source for this picture except that it was posted on the Q website.

Joe Manchin has announced that he will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. I am not impressed. He announced after Susan Collins announced–her vote should assure the confirmation. I wonder if he would have voted yes if he were the deciding vote.

There has been a lot of political pressure surrounding this nomination. The Gateway Pundit quoted the following from The Wall Street Journal:

Leland Keyser, who Dr. Ford has said was present at the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted in the 1980s, told investigators that Monica McLean, a retired Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a friend of Dr. Ford’s, had urged her to clarify her statement, the people said.

[…] On Thursday, a day after sending to the White House the report on its investigation into the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, the FBI sent the White House and Senate an additional package of information that included text messages from Ms. McLean to Ms. Keyser, according to a person familiar with the matter.

That doesn’t sound as if Professor Ford and her allies were really interested in providing the truth of Professor Ford’s charges. I don’t know the rules of Senate hearings, but in a court of law that would be witness tampering. It will be interesting to see if there are any consequences to the actions of the Professor and her friend.

Meanwhile, it isn’t over yet. It probably won’t be over after Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed. If the Democrats take Congress, I have no doubt they will attempt to impeach Kavanaugh. Now that we have a nine-person Supreme Court, it is my hope that we can now deal with some of the elements of the deep state. I suspect that the deep state is a part of what this fight was about.

The Real Question

Legend has it that Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi would begin every spring practice with the words, “Gentlemen, this is a football.” Those words were said to newcomers who had never played pro football and seasoned veterans, but they were uttered every year. He always took the time to remind his players of the basics of the game.

There is an article posted at The National Review today written by Andrew McCarthy that also seeks to remind us of some basic principles of law. The title of the article is “Mr. Rosenstein, What Is the Crime?” That is the question.

The article reports:

For precisely what federal crimes is the president of the United States under investigation by a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department?

It is intolerable that, after more than two years of digging — the 16-month Mueller probe having been preceded by the blatantly suspect labors of the Obama Justice Department and FBI — we still do not have an answer to that simple question.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein owes us an answer.

To my mind, he has owed us an answer from the beginning, meaning when he appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller on May 17, 2017. The regulations under which he made the appointment require (a) a factual basis for believing that a federal crime worthy of investigation or prosecution has been committed; (b) a conflict of interest so significant that the Justice Department is unable to investigate this suspected crime in the normal course; and (c) an articulation of the factual basis for the criminal investigation — i.e., the investigation of specified federal crimes — which shapes the boundaries of the special counsel’s jurisdiction.

This last provision is designed to prevent a special counsel’s investigation from becoming a fishing expedition — or what President Trump calls a “witch hunt,” what DAG Rosenstein more diplomatically disclaims as an “unguided missile,” and what Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz, invoking Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s secret-police chief, pans as the warped dictum, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” In our country, the crime triggers the assignment of a prosecutor, not the other way around.

I would strongly suggest that you follow the link to read the entire article. Andrew McCarthy presents a very strong legal argument as to why the Mueller investigation is not in compliance with the statute for a special prosecutor. Unfortunately the Mueller investigation has become a vehicle to ruin anyone financially that might have had even a tangential relationship with either the Trump campaign or the Trump presidency. Notice that nothing anyone has been charged with has any relationship with a conspiracy with Russia or election tampering. The only things that have been uncovered show the use of government agencies to spy on a political opponent in order to sway an election, and those things have been ignored by Mueller.

The article concludes:

So what are the suspected crimes committed by Donald Trump that Mueller has been authorized to investigate, and what was the factual basis for Rosenstein’s authorization of this investigation?

We still haven’t been told.

The anti-Trump Left decries all criticism as an effort to “delegitimize” and “obstruct” the Mueller investigation. But no one is questioning the investigation of Russia’s interference in the election. We are questioning why a special counsel was appointed to investigate the president of the United States. It is the Justice Department’s obligation to establish the legitimacy of the appointment by explaining the factual basis for believing a crime was committed. If there is no such basis, then it is Mueller’s investigation that is delegitimizing the presidency and obstructing its ability to carry out its constitutional mission — a mission that is far more significant than any prosecutor’s case.

We’re not asking for much. After 16 months, we are just asking why there is a criminal investigation of the president. If Rod Rosenstein would just explain what the regs call for him to explain — namely, the basis to believe that Donald Trump conspired with the Kremlin to violate a specific federal criminal law, or is somehow criminally complicit in the Kremlin’s election sabotage — then we can all get behind Robert Mueller’s investigation.

But what is the explanation? And why isn’t the Republican-controlled Congress demanding it?

The Mueller investigation is an example of the deep state trying to protect itself. That is what Bob Woodward’s book is about and that is what The New York Times editorial is about. Unfortunately there are both Republicans and Democrats in the deep state. Until we elect people who love America more than they love money and prestige, the deep state will remain.

Equal Justice Under The Law?

It has become very obvious in recent years that people close to the Clintons who break the law are held to a different standard than the rest of us. The amount of evidence destroyed in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private server is amazing–and no one was ever charged with destroying evidence. Now we have a new example of how to break laws with no consequences if you are a supporter of the Clintons.

The American Thinker posted the following today:

Tony Podesta, the Democratic über-operative and brother of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, has been offered immunity from Special Counsel Robert Mueller in exchange for his testimony against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.  The two men were doing the exact same “crime,” which was acting as unregistered lobbyists on behalf of the Ukrainian government, but Podesta skates, while Manafort goes to prison for the rest of his life.

As Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, who broke the story, pointed out, the only difference between them is that Manafort worked for Donald Trump.

Is there anyone honest enough in Washington to call ‘shenanigans?’ This should chill every person who has ever done business overseas or worked in Washington. I have news–if this is allowed to stand, it could happen to anyone in the future if the tables are turned. I would hope the political right would be too honest for this sort of thing, but this sets a precedent that is frightening.

The article concludes:

What we are seeing is one set of laws for Democrats and another set of laws for Republicans.  Its analogy in the press is media bias – one kind of coverage for Republicans, and another kind for Democrats, as we recently saw with the undocumented children case, which it turns out was President Obama’s doing, not President Trump’s, but guess who got the wall-to-wall coverage.  People notice things like that.  The Deep State doesn’t, but normal people do see these double standards.  Double sets of laws for the elites and masses are precisely why voters turned to Donald Trump back in 2016.

This Manafort-Podesta thing isn’t about justice.  It’s about the Deep State’s bid to preserve its power.  It can only serve as rocket fuel for Trump.

I hope this injustice encourages voters to vote out of office anyone who has supported this witch hunt.

Swamps And Alligators

As the saying goes–“When you are up to your neck in alligators, it is hard to remember that your objective was to drain the swamp.” As we watch the deep state react to being backed into a corner, it is good to remember that expression.

Let’s try to put the ‘hair-on-fire’ reporting of the President’s statements at his press conference with Putin in perspective. First of all, we have seen in the short time that Donald Trump has been President that he tends to be polite in press conferences. We also have learned that he tends to be tough in private talks.

One of the hair-on-fire media statements is that Putin must have something on President Trump. He may, but I can guarantee he has a whole lot more on Hillary Clinton.

Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial today that reminds us:

Last week we learned that a “foreign entity” may have been secretly receiving Hillary Clinton’s emails while she was Secretary of State, including many that contained classified information. And that the FBI apparently ignored this information during its “investigation.” The reaction by the press to this bombshell? Crickets.

At one point during Peter Strzok’s congressional testimony last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert made a stunning claim: FBI investigators were told that Clinton’s emails had been surreptitiously forwarded to a “foreign entity.” And the FBI investigators who were allegedly conducting a thorough, unbiased, professional probe into Clinton’s mishandling of classified materials ignored it.

Trump did business with Russia for years. It is quite possible some corners were cut. How does that stack up to information that could have been obtained from Hillary Clinton’s server–Clinton Foundation activities illegally related to State Department access, misuse of funds going into the Clinton Foundation, pay-for-play schemes, Uranium One information, etc. It seems to me that anything Putin may or may not have on President Trump pales in comparison to what Putin has on Hillary Clinton.

The following was posted at rightwinggranny on March 7, 2018:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: This brings us back full circle to the beginning. The question was originally: Why did she have the private server? She said convenience, obviously that was ridiculous…

It was obvious she was hiding something.

And think about it, she set it up in 2009, before becoming Secretary of State. So, she anticipated having exchanges that she would not want anyone to see. So, we’ve been asking ourselves on this set for a year almost, what exactly didn’t she want people to see?

Well, now we know.

And as we speculated, the most plausible explanation was the rank corruption of the Clinton Foundation, and its corrupt — I don’t know if it’s illegal, but corrupt relationship with the State Department.

And her only defense as we saw earlier– the Democrats are saying, well, there was nothing she did… that was corrupted by donations. You can believe that if you want, but there’s a reason that people give donations in large amounts, and that’s to influence the outcome of decisions. So, this — we are getting unfolding to us, exactly what she anticipated having to hide, and it is really dirty business.

The above quote is from October 2016. As usual, the late Charles Krauthammer was right on target.

ZeroHedge quotes a claim Vladimir Putin made in the press conference in Helsinki:

Vladimir Putin made a bombshell claim during Monday’s joint press conference with President Trump in Helsinki, Finland, when the Russian President said some $400 million in illegally earned profits was funneled to the Clinton campaign by associates of American-born British financier Bill Browder – at one time the largest foreign portfolio investors in Russia. The scheme involved members of the U.S. intelligence community, said Putin, who he said “accompanied and guided these transactions.”

Browder made billions in Russia during the 90’s. In December, a Moscow court sentenced Browder in absentia to nine years in prison for tax fraud, while he was also found guilty of tax evasion in a separate 2013 case. Putin accused Browder’s associates of illegally earning over than $1.5 billion without paying Russian taxes, before sending $400 million to Clinton.

Is it possible that the hair-on-fire reporting on President Trump’s statement is simply to distract us from the questions about the $400 million donation to the Clinton campaign?

 

 

 

It Is Going To Be An Interesting Summer

Last Friday, the following was filed in District Of Columbia District Court:

Before you get too excited about this, Judge Paul L. Friedman was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

The Daily Caller posted an article about the lawsuit today.

The article reports:

Among the many charges that appear in the at times almost incoherent filing is the charge that a criminal syndicate involving the Clintons, David Brock, Donna Brazile, and George Soros murdered Seth Rich.

Byrne is reportedly seeking damages of $1 billion, and refused to provide an address because he feared assassination.

Byrne threatened to file suit against several of the defendants in 2016 following the release of his tell-all book, “Crisis of Character.”

Media Matters and David Brock had referred to Byrne at the time as a “smear merchant,” and he responded during an interview with Breitbart’s Alex Marlow, “Everything in the book is true. I want to set the record straight. And since I can’t get on mainstream media to set the record straight, I’m going to have to do it in court.”

As much as I would love to see this lawsuit be decided in an unbiased manner, I am not optimistic. This is, essentially, a lawsuit against the ‘deep state.’ RICO charges are appropriate, but I can’t imagine the judge being unbiased (because he is a Clinton-appointee). At any rate, it will be interesting to see what happens next.

Some Random Thoughts On Government Corruption

These comments are loosely based on an article that appeared in The Independent Journal Review (IJR) yesterday.

It is becoming apparent that there were some very strange aspects of the deal that gave Russia control of twenty percent of America‘s uranium resources. There are also some questions as to whether or not the part of the agreement that required that the uranium in that deal not leave the country.

This is the basic summary from The Independent Journal Review article:

The FBI informant who worked undercover for years was “threatened” with prosecution by the Obama Justice Department if he told Congress about the unfolding Russia nuclear corruption case, according to his attorney.

The confidential witness, an American businessman, alleged he witnessed transactions and discussions showing the Russian nuclear industry tried to woo Bill and Hillary Clinton and attempted to influence the Obama administration.

Attorney Victoria Toensing told the Hill her client was first asked to sign a nondisclosure agreement by the FBI. When he wanted to bring troubling information to Congress, the Obama DOJ “threatened him with loss of freedom” last year, she said.

Sounds like a cover-up to me. Some of the names that have been mentioned in connection with the Justice Department withholding information from Congress are Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, James Comey, and Robert Mueller. It seems that a lot of people in the FBI and Department of Justice decided that Hillary Clinton was going to be the next President and doing what was right was unnecessary and possibly not a good career move.

The IJR further reports:

Toensing says her client possesses information about claims made by Russian executives regarding how they “facilitated” the Obama administration’s controversial Uranium One deal and sent millions to an entity that assists the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton was secretary of state when the Uranium One deal was approved.

“There was corruption going on and it was never brought forward,“ Toensing told the Hill. ”And in fact, the sale of the uranium went on despite the government knowing about all of this corruption. So he’s coming forward. He wants the right thing to be done, but he cannot do it unless he is released from the NDA.”

It is time to purge the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation of everyone who was involved in this investigation. It is time to relieve Robert Mueller of his duties as Special Prosecutor–it is becoming obvious that he is a dirty cop. This is the deep state. Every day the deep state continues is a threat to the freedom and safety of Americans.

How The Deep State Works

It is nearly impossible to fire a federal employee. The logic behind this is that civil servants should not be at the mercy of elections. They should have some modicum of job security. Although in theory that is a really good idea, it prevents the occasional housecleaning that Washington, D.C. needs. The group in Washington that is dedicated to maintaining the status quo is a small portion of the deep state. The deep state is much more complex and entangled than that, but for the purposes of this article, the deep state is simply the entrenched bureaucracy that is intent on maintaining the status quo. The deep state is one of the few things in Washington that is truly bi-partisan.

The Conservative Treehouse posted an article yesterday that illustrates how the deep state works.

The article reports:

Chairman Nunes is the only member of the Intelligence Oversight Gang-of-Eight who has reviewed the executive level intelligence product which caused him concern.  Nunes alleged in the last week he received evidence that Obama administration political figures gained access to unmasked American identities through foreign intercepts involving the Trump transition team between November 2016 and January 2017.

Media and congressional leadership intentionally skip the obvious questions:

Why don’t the other seven members also go look at the same executive intel?

  • Why, instead of looking at the same data, does the entire UniParty political apparatus and DC media now seem intent on eliminating Devin Nunes?
  • Why doesn’t Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer or Mark Warner simply go look at the same executive intelligence product?
  • Why doesn’t Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell or Richard Burr simply go look at the same executive intelligence product?
  • Why doesn’t any member of the DC media ask such brutally obvious questions?
  • Why is the DC UniParty both intent on not looking at the intelligence and simultaneously intent on removing Nunes, and getting the investigation removed from the House Intelligence Committee (Nunes/Schiff) and over to the Senate Intelligence Committee (Burr/Warner)?
  • What is it about that Executive Office Level Intelligence Product the gang-of-eight are all so desperately afraid of?
  • Why would the Senate launch another entire congressional intelligence inquiry, when the head of the Senate Intelligence Committees, Burr and Warner, are desperate NOT to see the intelligence product that causes Nunes such concern?

In a previous article, The Conservative Treehouse explains why much of those in Washington who should see the intelligence reports have not:

If Representative Schiff saw the same intelligence that substantiates Nunes he couldn’t keep up the fake outrage and false narrative. Right now Schiff can say anything about it he wants because he hasn’t seen it.  If Schiff actually sees the intelligence Nunes saw he loses that ability. He would also lose the ability to criticize, ridicule and/or marginalize Devin Nunes.

The same political perspective applies to Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, Minority leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Mark Warner. For each of them to see the information would eliminate their ability to talk about it, or criticize Nunes. The politics of the situation are more valuable so long as they don’t engage in actual truthful knowledge.

Chairman Nunes cannot share his intelligence finding with the House Committee, because the intelligence product is beyond their intel authority. Nunes has to ask for it in portions as each compartment would permit and authorize; And so long as Pelosi, Schumer, Warner and Schiff refuse to look at the intelligence that ‘only they’ are allowed to see, they can continue to ridicule and take political advantage.

This reality is also the reason why the media is so able to manipulate the narrative around Chairman Nunes; and simultaneously why he’s able to say he’s done nothing wrong.

Until we go back to a system under which civil servants can be fired and there is a periodic housecleaning in Washington, we will be a bi-partisan government of unelected bureaucrats and our votes will not be worth much. If President Trump is serious about changing Washington, he needs to begin clearing out the deep state by firing civil servants who are working against the interests of elected officials. The uproar will be monstrous, but it is truly the only way to drain the swamp.