This Could Get Interesting

The following Press Release was posted by Judicial Watch yesterday:

Judicial Watch: Appellate Court Hearing on Clinton Email Testimony Tuesday – Hillary Clinton Seeks to Block Court Order Requiring Her to Testify

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch today announced that a hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 2, by teleconference, in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s efforts to avoid testifying, under oath, about her emails. Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, also seeks to avoid giving testimony.

The appellate court is considering Clinton and Mills’ extraordinary request, known as a “petition for writ of mandamus,” to overturn an order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth requiring them to testify. 

Clinton argues she shouldn’t have to testify because she is a former, high level government official and that the case is moot because the FBI already tried to recover her emails from various sources when it investigated allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on the personal e-mail server she used at State. Judicial Watch argues neither Clinton nor Mills have demonstrated that they should not have to follow ordinary appellate rules to challenge the District Court’s order and that the case is not moot. Judicial Watch argues that the FBI’s effort was not exhaustive, as demonstrated by the discovery of some 30 additional Clinton emails late last year, among other developments, and that other emails may be recovered if State is required to look for them.

The hearing is in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit: 

Date:               Tuesday, June 2, 2020

Time:               9:30 am ET

Location:        Telephonic, oral argument can be heard on the court’s website 

This hearing comes in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that seeks records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack” (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). In 2014, Judicial Watch uncovered “talking points” created by the Obama White House showing that statements about the attack made on the eve of the 2012 elections by then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice were misleading, if not false. This FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015. 

On March 2, 2020, Judge Lamberth granted Judicial Watch discovery that includes taking testimony from Clinton and Mills, under oath, regarding Clinton’s emails and the existence of records about the Benghazi attack. In April, Judicial Watch and the State Department, which is represented by Justice Department lawyers, filed responses opposing Clinton’s and Mills’ request to overturn the order requiring their testimony. The lower court found that Clinton’s testimony was necessary:

The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch – it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.

In December 2018, Judge Lamberth ordered discovery into whether Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to avoid FOIA; whether the State Department’s intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s request. The lower court also authorized discovery into whether the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up of Clinton’s email. It ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

What The Transcripts Tell Us

Just the News posted an article yesterday listing the top six revelations from House Russia probe’s newly declassified witness interviews. Please follow the link to the article to read the details, but here is the list of the six revelations:

  1. No Collusion: The U.S. intelligence community never had any evidence of collusion between Russia and the 2016 Trump presidential campaign.
  2. FBI didn’t have a case: Former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe admitted during his testimony that the agency knew from the start that Trump associate George Papadopoulos wasn’t in contact with Moscow, thereby undermining the agency’s entire basis for opening Crossfire Hurricane, i.e., the Russia investigation. “Papadopoulos, didn’t particularly indicate that he was the person that was interacting with the Russians,” McCabe told the House Intelligence panel.
  3. Podesta and Clinton knew about funding for Steele Dossier: John Podesta, chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, testified that he and Clinton were aware in general terms that the campaign was paying for opposition research to link Donald Trump to Russia, but he said neither of them knew specifically who had been hired to conduct the effort.
  4. Clapper, Comey, and McCabe provide conflicting narratives: Clapper testified that he did not brief then-President Obama on former Michael Flynn’s conversation with the Russian ambassador in January 2017. However, both former FBI Director Comey and McCabe say otherwise.
  5. CrowdStrike says evidence of DNC hack was “not conclusive”: The president of CrowdStrike, a data security company retained by the DNC after it was hacked, testified to the House panel that there were “indications” of a hack into the DNC servers, but not concrete, irrefutable evidence.
  6. DNC lawyer ordered to tip off the CIA: Michael Sussmann, a Perkins Coie lawyer who represented both the Clinton campaign and the DNC in their response to presumed Russian hacking, testified that in February 2017, he went to the CIA, on behalf of a client whom he did not name, in an attempt to tip them off about the Trump organization’s ties to Russia.

The more we learn, the more this looks like a coup.

More Information About Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election

I don’t fault people in Washington for having political beliefs. I do fault them when their political beliefs interfere with their ability to do their job honestly. Unfortunately we saw a lot of that during the Obama administration.

On Sunday, The Gateway Pundit posted a video of an interview of Fred Fleitz, former CIA Analyst and National Security Council Chief of Staff, by Jan Jekielek at American Thought Leaders.

The video is posted at the sight, but I would like to share an excerpt from the transcript:

Fred Fleitz: The House Intelligence Community discovered from the CIA that there was evidence that the Russians actually wanted Hillary Clinton to win the election and for Trump to lose. And this was strong intelligence. The reason was they thought Hillary was a known quantity. Trump was an unknown quantity and they were worried he would bring anti-Russian hawks into the administration. That information according to a House Intelligence staff, they told me this, was excluded over the objections of CIA analysts by Brennan. On the other hand, there was weak intelligence that the Russians wanted Trump to win. And according to House Intelligence Committee staffers this was included over the objection of CIA officers by Brennan. So Brennan actually slanted this analysis, choosing anti-Trump intelligence and excluding anti-Clinton intelligence. The problem is the House report, which I think is full of all these bombshells has been stuck at the CIA since the fall of 2018.

And, I’m hoping that Rick Grenell or maybe John Durham, who is doing an investigation of government misconduct surrounding the election. I’m hoping one of them is going to pry this loose because the American people have to know about it.

The article includes the following tweet:

Stay tuned.

This Is A Real Story–It’s Not Satire

The quest to be Joe Biden’s running mate is getting interesting. One of the people that is said to be in the running is Michigan’s governor, Gretchen Whitmer. Her handling of the coronavirus has made the news more than once. At one point (I don’t know if this is still in force), Michigan residents were forbidden to leave their primary residences to go to their second homes. They weren’t allowed to work, but they weren’t allowed to go to their lake house and chill. They were also prevented from buying seeds to plant a garden.

One America News posted an article about Governor Whitmer yesterday. What you are about to read is not a joke.

The article reports:

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) said former vice president Joe Biden has been counseling her on how to handle the coronavirus in her state.

In an interview Monday, Whitmer praised her “good relationship” with Biden by saying she talks to him often about how to “communicate with people” about the pandemic.

This comes as many are speculating that Whitmer may be on the short-list of candidates that Biden is considering to be his running mate.

“I have a good relationship with the (former) vice president, he came and helped me a bit when I was running for governor,” she stated. “We’re cut from a similar cloth…he loves people, he is regularly checking in with me about what’s going on here in Michigan and what do we need.”

Is this the same Joe Biden that couldn’t even stay awake during the video of Hillary Clinton’s endorsement of him? Wow.

The article continues:

When asked about rumors she may be on Biden’s short-list, she said “you don’t run for that” and anyone he’s considering should focus on just “doing their jobs.”

You have to give the lady credit–she has obviously learned to lie with a straight face.

Bucket Five Is Released

Those of us who have followed the investigation into Crossfire Hurricane closely have been waiting for the information in Bucket Five to be released. That is the information that investigative reporters have cited from the beginning as having the real story behind the surveillance on the Trump campaign and the early days of the Trump presidency. The Conservative Treehouse posted an article today about the documents the Senate Judiciary Committee has released today. The article includes links and screenshots of information and is very detailed. I recommend that you follow the link and read the entire article, but I will includes some of the highlights here.

The article reports:

The documents include more Papadopoulos transcripts from wired conversations with FBI confidential human source Stefan Halper; and also for the first time less redacted version of all three Carter Page FISA applications.  It’s going to take some time to go through this.

The declassification and release includes some seriously interesting documents the DOJ submitted to the FISA court, as far back as July 2018, which completely destroy the prior claims made by Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, James Baker, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and their very vocal media and Lawfare defenders.   Here’s one example:

Lisa Page testified to congress, and claimed in media, that the FBI never had any contact with the Steele dossier material until September 2016.  However, the DOJ directly tells the FISA court that Chris Steele was funneling his information to the FBI in June 2016.

Obviously those involved in the surveillance never expected the truth to come out. They assumed that Hillary Clinton would be elected and their illegal activities would be buried in a sea of classified information. All Americans need to understand that if the Democrat party gains power in Washington, no one involved in this illegal surveillance will ever be held accountable and similar activities will continue in the future. Until the people involved in these activities are held accountable, there will be no guarantee that the civil rights of Americans will not be violated by our government in the future.

The Case For Investigating The Trump Campaign And Presidency Just Keeps Getting Weaker

Yesterday John Solomon posted an article at Just The News with the following title, “The 13 revelations showing the FBI never really had a Russia collusion case to begin with.”

I am going to list the revelations without the comments, so please follow the link to read the entire article. It is chilling to think that a political party in power can use such flimsy information to spy on the political campaign (and presidency) of the opposing party.

Here is the list:

1.) The FBI possessed information dating to 2015 in Steele’s intelligence (Delta) file warning that he might be the victim of Russian disinformation through his contacts with Vladimir Putin-connected oligarchs.

2.) Senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr warned the FBI in August 2016 that Steele held an extreme bias against Trump (he was “desperate” to defeat Trump) and that his information was likely uncorroborated raw intelligence.

3.) Steele’s work on the dossier was funded by Trump’s rival in the election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and the Democratic Party, through their opposition research firm, Fusion GPS.

4.) Steele told a State Department official in October 2016, 10 days before the FISA warrants were first secured, that he had leaked to the news media and had an election day deadline for making public the information he had shared with the FBI as a confidential human source.

5.) Steele was fired Nov. 1, 2016 for violating his confidential human source agreement by leaking to the news media.

6.) Information Steele provided to the government was proven, before the FISA warrants were granted, to be false and inaccurate.

7.) Steele was caught in October 2016 peddling a false internet rumor also being spread by a lawyer for the Democratic National Committee and a liberal reporter.

8.) The FBI falsely declared to the FISA court it had corroborated the evidence in Steele’s dossier used in the search warrant application, including that Carter Page had met with two senior Russians in Moscow in summer 2016

9.) The FBI interviewed Steele’s primary sub-source in January 2017, who claimed much of the information attributed to him was not accurate, exaggerated or rumor.

10.) The FBI possessed statements of innocence from Page collected by an undercover informer in August and October 2016, including that Page denied meeting with the two Russians and did not play a role in changing a GOP platform position on Ukraine during the Trump nominating convention.

11.) The CIA alerted the FBI that Page was a friendly U.S. asset who had assisted the Agency on Russia matters and was not a stooge for the Russian government.

12.) The FBI possessed exculpatory statements made by Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos in which he told an undercover informer he and the Trump campaign were not involved in the Russian hacking of Clinton’s emails and considered such activity to be “illegal.”

13.) The FBI concluded in January 2017 that Trump national security adviser Mike Flynn was not being deceptive in his interviews with agents and likely suffered from a faulty memory and was not operating as an agent for Russia.

The only thing I can add to this is that this should NEVER happen again in America. The only way to prevent it from happening again is the put the people in jail who violated the civil rights of Americans by lying to the FISA Court.

Elizabeth Warren Has Dropped Out Of The Democrat Presidential Race

Elizabeth Warren is no longer running for President. I am not sure who she will support–I suspect it will be Joe Biden. That is because I think she wants to be in the good graces of the party heavyweights who are supporting Biden. The Democrat primary is now between Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. It is interesting to me that both are blaming President Trump for everything that is wrong with Washington–they have been there more than forty years and he has been there three.

Yesterday Accuracy in Media posted an interesting article about what is going on behind the scenes in the Democrat primary.

The article notes:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) claimed the 2016 Democratic Party primary was rigged in favor of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. President Trump made the same claim on behalf of Sanders, especially after the coalescing of moderate Democratic Party candidates behind former vice president Joe Biden.

President Donald Trump told the press, “I think it’s rigged against Bernie.” He said that Sanders is not out of the race yet and could “pull through” and win the nomination in the party’s convention. The president previously tweeted that the Democratic Party was “staging a coup against Bernie” on Monday.

…By all appearances, the timing of Buttigieg and Klobuchar exiting the primary race was unorthodox because the Super Tuesday primaries were taking place within 72 hours. Neither candidate indicated that they would leave the race after the South Carolina primary election.

Additionally, news reports said that Buttigieg suspended his campaign after speaking with former president Barack Obama, a Biden ally. NBC News said, “There appears to be a quiet hand behind the rapid movement: former President Barack Obama.”

Although it cannot be proven that the Democratic Party primary system is rigged against Sanders, there are indications that the party establishment is working against Sanders’ campaign. It also does not help that the media will not publicly question the theory that the party establishment is working against Sanders. For example, last week, NBC News claimed Sanders “’rigged’ the system against himself.”

The media was dishonest in its news coverage because it failed to emphasize the behind-the-scenes workings of the Democratic Party establishment to coalesce around Biden and hamstring Sanders. It cannot be proven by conjecture and news reports, but the coverage trends do not favor Sanders’ viability as a candidate fighting an internal battle against the party establishment.

I am having trouble believing that the media is unaware that Joe Biden is a horrible candidate. The only reason for having him be the candidate is to prevent Bernie Sanders from being the candidate. This is flawed logic–if Bernie Sanders is denied the nomination again, I doubt his supporters will vote at all. Young voters don’t have a great voting record to begin with and having their candidate denied the nomination unfairly might easily cause them to stay home. I really don’t believe that when all is said and done that Joe Biden will be the candidate. I am suspicious that someone will step in during the convention and take the nomination. I can’t imaging how that would happen, but Joe Biden seems to be so mentally incompetent that I can’t imaging putting him on the ticket. Can you picture a debate between Joe Biden and President Trump? Do you remember Admiral Stockwell?

An Interesting Question

The Federalist posted an article today that asks an interesting question–“If Bloomberg Couldn’t Buy 2020, How Could Russia Buy 2016?”

The article quotes The Federalist Senior Editor Mollie Hemingway:

“We had years where people were saying a couple hundred thousand dollars in barely literate Facebook ads from Russians caused Donald Trump to win. Here you had a guy spend nearly $1 billion and he went nowhere. It’s a humiliating defeat for Michael Bloomberg,” she said.

Host Bret Baier drilled the point home: “So Russians influenced the election with $200,000, or $300,000 in Facebook ads? And Mike Bloomberg couldn’t get more than 50 delegates with $600 million dollars?”

“And this hurts Bernie Sanders’s message, too, because he likes to say the billionaires control everything,” Hemingway said. “Clearly Bloomberg having all this money didn’t do as much for him as Biden having the media and the establishment behind him. I would pick media and establishment over millions all day.”

If money could buy elections, we would have either President Jeb Bush or President Hillary Clinton. American voters do respond to ads, but they also have common sense.

A Person’s Reputation Matters

Everyone has a reputation. You have a reputation among your close friends and among people who don’t know you very well. That reputation is based on observations of your honesty, integrity, character, and other personality traits. That reputation determines the opportunities and experiences that will be available to you. Occasionally people make decisions that seem odd in light of another person’s reputation. That has happened recently.

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today noting a comment by former Clinton advisor Dick Morris upon hearing that Michael Bloomberg is considering Hillary Clinton as a possible running mate.

The article reports:

Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris fired a warning shot to Mike Bloomberg following Matt Drudge’s claim that Bloomberg was considering Hillary Clinton as a running mate.

“Sources close to Bloomberg campaign tell DRUDGE REPORT that candidate is considering Hillary as running mate, after their polling found the Bloomberg-Clinton combination would be a formidable force…” Matt Drudge said.

DICK MORRIS: To: Mike Bloomberg: Before you put Hillary on your ticket, better hire a taster

The Clintons have never actually been convicted of a serious crime, yet they have a reputation that has followed them in their political career. The number of associates of the Clintons or people preparing to testify against them that have died under unusual circumstances is long. I doubt the Clintons will ever be convicted of anything, yet their reputation has followed them through the years. The fact that Dick Morris would joke about this (if he was joking) is telling.

There Are Serious Problems In Our Justice System

Yesterday The Washington Times posted an article about the sentencing of Roger Stone. Frankly it seems as if Roger Stone’s biggest crime was supporting President Trump.

The article reports:

Federal prosecutors’ initial recommendation that Roger Stone serve between seven to nine years in prison was unusually excessive compared to similar sentences imposed for lying to Congress, according to an analysis by The Washington Times.

However, the Justice Department’s move to reduce the sentencing recommendation for an ally of President Trump set off a politically-charged fracas in Washington. Capitol Hill Democrats demanded an investigation into why the department overruled prosecutors’ initial request as “excessive and unwarranted.”

A Washington jury convicted Stone in November of lying to Congress, obstruction of justice and witness tampering for thwarting lawmakers’ investigation into Trump campaign collusion with Russia.

Roger Stone was arrested in a predawn raid with a S.W.A.T. team. He was not considered a danger to anyone, and his wife is deaf. Can you imagine the fear she felt. This whole scenario is over the top.

Meanwhile, do you remember Brock Allen Turner? He was a Stanford University student athlete caught in the act of raping a female student. He was sentenced to six months in the county jail and probation. What about Hillary Clinton and her secret server? How many security violations and destruction of evidence charges were overlooked there? Meanwhile a young submariner was sent to jail for taking a picture of his workspace.

Our justice system is wandering down a road that should not be traveled.

The article at The Washington Times notes:

Two other political figures ensnared in then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe also were convicted for lying to Congress:

⦁ Lobbyist W. Samuel Patten pleaded guilty and prosecutors dropped the charge. He got three years probation for illegal lobbying.

⦁ Former Trump fixer Michael Cohen received four years in prison after he pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and other crimes.

The key difference between Stone’s and other cases is he also went down for obstruction and tampering with witnesses. Prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington said the added convictions demanded more prison time.

They were “piling on,” said former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy.

“A sentence of nine years is unreasonable,” he said. “The Justice Department could have brought this whole case as one count of obstruction and instead brought seven felonies.”

This sentence does need to be revised.

When The Truth Is Stretched So Thin You Can See Through It

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article that included an amazing comment by one of the House Impeachment Managers.

The article notes:

Impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) on Thursday was asked whether the Clinton campaign’s use of the Steele Dossier in 2016 would be considered impeachable under the Dems’ standard.

Hakeem Jeffries said no because the Steele dossier was opposition research that “was purchased.”

What a disaster for the Democrats!

So if Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election, the legitimacy of her victory would not be in question by the Democrats even though she paid a former British spy to compile a dossier using Russian intel sources.

In other words, foreign interference in US elections is fine as long as you are a Democrat and you pay for it.

Wow. So according to Representative Jeffries, it is okay to use foreign sources to influence and election as long as you pay those sources.

What is interesting about this is that the Democrats are no longer contesting the fact that the Clinton campaign paid for the Steele Dossier. Are they also willing to admit that the Dossier was passed on to government agencies for nefarious purposes? Will they be willing to admit that their opposition research was used by the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign? Will the Democrats ever take responsibility for the use of government agencies for political purposes that occurred during the Obama administration?

I am not worried about foreign influence supporting Republicans in the 2020 election. I have no reason to believe that the Democrats will again choose to break any law they think they need to in order to win. If you haven’t seen the Politico article about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 Presidential election, please read it (I strongly disagree with the opening statement, but there is a lot of good information in the article).

I Suspect We May Hear More About This In The Future

There were a lot of really squirrelly moments in the 2016 presidential campaign. Some of them are beginning to come to light–(Politico reporting on the Ukraine involvement in support of Hillary Clinton, the Steele Dossier, making sure Bernie Sanders was denied the nomination, and the fact that the FBI was never allowed to look at the DNC computers that the Democrats claimed were hacked). I suspect that over the coming months we may learn things about these events that will be totally different to what the mainstream media has told us. One item that comes up periodically is the murder of Seth Rich and the investigation that followed. The Gateway Pundit posted an article today about the investigation into that murder.

The article reports:

Christopher Wray’s FBI lied again.  His FBI claimed that Seth Rich’s DNC computer and emails were investigated upon his death but then his FBI backtracked and claimed no related docs were available in a FOIA request.

Now we know it was just another Deep State lie!

We reported on September 19th

that Texas businessman Ed Butowsky filed a lawsuit where he outed reporter Ellen Ratner as his source for information on Seth Rich. The DNC operative [Rich] was murdered in the summer of 2016 in Washington DC. His murder was never solved. According to Butowsky’s lawsuit, Seth Rich provided WikiLeaks the DNC emails before the 2016 election, not Russia.

This totally destroys the FBI and Mueller’s claims that Russians hacked the DNC to obtain these emails.

Butowsky claims in his lawsuit:

Ms. Rattner said Mr. Assange told her that Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron, were responsible for releasing the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Ms. Rattner said Mr. Assange wanted the information relayed to Seth’s parents, as it might explain the motive for Seth’s murder.

On November 9, 2016 Ellen Ratner admitted publicly that she met with Julian Assange for three hours the Saturday before the 2016 election. According to Ratner, Julian Assange told her the leaks were not from the Russians, they were from an internal source from the Hillary Campaign.

The article reports today:

After previously claiming no FBI records could be found related to Seth Rich, emails have been uncovered.  These emails weren’t just from anybody.  These emails were between FBI lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two most corrupt individuals involved in the Russia Collusion Hoax.

In a set of emails released by Judicial Watch on January 22, 2020, provided by a FOIA request on Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, two pages on emails refer to Seth Rich:

The article includes a screenshot of the redacted emails given to Judicial Watch.

Stay tuned. There are some good guys in Washington. It is my hope that they will continue their investigation into this matter.

This Is Getting Ridiculous

No, this isn’t a post about impeachment (although that, too, is getting ridiculous). Scott Johnson posted an article today at Power Line Blog about a lawsuit brought by Representative Tulsi Gabbard against Hillary Clinton. This is interesting–a few years ago, no one would have dared bring a lawsuit against the ‘powerful’ Clinton family.

The article reports:

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has sued Madam Hillary Clinton for defamation in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Gabbard’s press release is posted online here; Gabbard’s Complaint is posted online here.

Clinton defamed Gabbard as a “Russian asset” in a statement that did not call her out by name, though I don’t think there can be any doubt that Clinton’s statement was “of and concerning” Gabbard. Identification of the plaintiff in the defamatory statement is of course an essential element of the cause of action for slander or libel. Gabbard’s Complaint addresses the issue in paragraph 28 et seq.

Is the statement that Gabbard is a “Russian asset” protected as a statement of opinion (rather than one of fact)? I hope not. See generally Complaint paragraphs 26-46.

The Complaint recites Gabbard’s request for a retraction from Clinton. Madam Hillary has declined to retract. See Complaint paragraphs 23-25.

The article concludes:

In the second sentence of her Complaint Gabbard asserts: “Tulsi Gabbard is running
for President of the United States, a position Clinton has long coveted, but has not been able to attain.” I look forward to checking out Clinton’s response on this point when she files her Answer.

Let the good times roll.

This is interesting because it puts Hillary Clinton in the spotlight (not in a positive way) at a time when some of the Democrats running for President are sidelined by the impeachment. There is still some conventional wisdom that sees a brokered Democrat convention with Hillary Clinton emerging as the candidate. The next six months are going to be very interesting.

Presenting A Deceptive Brief

Yesterday Byron York posted an editorial at The Washington Examiner about the impeachment brief Democratic House managers have compiled. The title of the article at The Washington Examiner is, “Two deceptions at the heart of Democrats’ impeachment brief.”

The editorial notes:

Democrats insist on Trump’s immediate removal because, they argue, he was the knowing beneficiary of Russian help in the 2016 election, and if he is not thrown out of office right now, he will do it again. But in making their argument, Democrats make two critical mischaracterizations about Trump, Republicans, and 2016. One is flat-out wrong, while the other is misleading.

The one that is flat wrong is the Democrats’ assertion that Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate “a debunked conspiracy theory that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 presidential election to aid President Trump, but instead that Ukraine interfered in that election to aid President Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton.”

The problem is, the theory does not hold that Russia “did not interfere” in the 2016 election. There is a mountain of evidence that Russia interfered, and that has been the conclusion of every investigation into the matter, beginning with the first congressional probe, by the House Intelligence Committee under then-chairman Devin Nunes. The theory is that in addition to Russian interference, some people in Ukraine, including some government officials, also tried to influence the U.S. election. It was not a government-run effort, and it was on a far smaller scale than the Russian project, but it happened.

I don’t know if any of the available information about Ukrainian interference will ever make it out to the mainstream media, but there have been criminal trials in Ukraine that confirm that the government was involved in 2016 in support of Hillary Clinton. The information is out there, but most of the mainstream media has successfully avoided reporting it.

The editorial reports the second deception:

The other mischaracterization in the Democratic brief is the assertion that, in 2016, Trump “welcomed Russia’s election interference.” The brief quotes special counsel Robert Mueller’s report that the Trump campaign welcomed Russian help because it “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

That’s not wrong — Trump did, in fact, welcome Russia-based leaks — but grossly out of context. The context is this: Trump welcomed Russia-based leaks about the Clinton campaign because the media were enthusiastically embracing and repeating Russian-based leaks about the Clinton campaign. Print, internet, TV, everyone, was accepting, repeating, and amplifying the material released by WikiLeaks from the Russian hack of top Clinton campaign official John Podesta.

Perhaps people have forgotten how prominently media organizations featured the Russia-based material.

The editorial then lists a number of examples of media hysteria about Russian during the 2016 election.

The article concludes:

Of course, the Times was not the only media organization to trumpet the Russia-based leaks. They all trumpeted the Russia-based leaks. Everyone was complicit. And that is what makes the Democratic charge against Trump so misleading. He wasn’t welcoming something that everyone else was condemning. He was welcoming something that everyone else was welcoming, too. And now, in retrospect, that is a terrible offense, part of the foundation for removing the president from office?

Neither mischaracterization in the Democratic brief is a mistake; Democratic prosecutors know full well what actually happened. But the mischaracterizations are necessary to build the case against the president, to show that he had corrupt motives in the Ukraine matter. They are, of course, not the entire case, but they are important. And they are wrong.

Any Congressman who enables this farce of an impeachment to continue needs to be voted out of office as soon as possible.

Comments From Someone Who Would Know

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today that included the following comment by Charles S. (Sam) Faddis, Senior Partner – Artemis, LLC, a former CIA operations officer with thirty years of experience in the conduct of intelligence operations:

The essence of a coup, which some might refer to as covert action, is the hidden hand. One does not announce that a foreign power is overthrowing the government and installing a new government. One pulls strings as if from behind a curtain, making events that are all part of a carefully orchestrated plan appear disconnected, spontaneous and serendipitous.

As I read through the recently released IG report for the second time, as someone with a great deal of experience in military and intelligence matters, I see that hand everywhere.

Per the IG report, a single report is delivered to the FBI in the summer of 2016. It concerns a meeting between a cooperative contact of a foreign intelligence service and a junior level employee of the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos. The report relates what are frankly very amorphous comments by Papadopoulos concerning the Russian government and its alleged possession of information on Hillary Clinton.

On any other day this report would command no attention whatsoever. The source in question has no track record of any kind with the FBI. Papadopoulos has been employed by the Trump campaign for perhaps 90 days at this point, and there is no reason to believe he has contacts of significance in the Kremlin.

Not on this occasion. This one report from a foreign intelligence service goes directly to the top of the FBI. The Director himself, James Comey is briefed. A full investigation is launched. Multiple confidential human sources are tasked. Wiretaps are ordered. A task force is organized. Crossfire Hurricane is born.

…The FBI did not conduct an investigation of Donald Trump and his associates that ultimately proved to be based on false information and continue that investigation long past the time it should have been shut down simply because some people made some errors in judgment or some procedures need to be changed. That investigation was simply the most visible piece of a deliberate, covert attempt to overthrow the democratic process. The perpetrators of that crime have yet to be brought to justice and identified. Let’s hope that happens soon.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It provides further proof of the theory that this was an illegal coup.

The Swamp Has Been The Swamp For A While

Issues & Insights posted an article today with the following headine, “This Isn’t The First Time The IG Denied Flagrant Bias At The FBI.”

The article reports:

Democrats and the mainstream press – is there any difference between the two these days? – have been clinging to the “no bias” statement by the Justice Department inspector general with all their might.

The IG said that he couldn’t state definitively that political bias motivated officials at the FBI to launch and then sustain an investigation against the Trump campaign based on the Clinton-campaign funded and thoroughly discredited Steele Dossier.

That was enough for press to run headlines such as:

“Bias didn’t taint FBI leaders running Trump-Russia Investigation”

“Report on F.B.I. Debunks Anti-Trump Plot”

“Mistakes, but no political bias in FBI probe of Trump campaign: watchdog”

And when Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Democrats repeatedly pressed him to state his “no bias” claim over and over.

“You didn’t find a ‘deep state’ conspiracy against candidate or President Trump,” Sen. Diane Feinstein asked in the form of a statement.

“We found no bias,” Horowitz said.

Sen. Patrick Leahy repeated the “question,” saying that the IG had found “no evidence that the investigation was motivated by anti-Trump or political bias.”

The notion that there was “no bias” at all is impossible to believe when you look at the evidence that Horowitz gathered.

The article also notes:

In any case, this “no bias” language in the latest IG report is almost identical to what Horowitz said in his June 2018 report about the hopelessly biased FBI “investigation” into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State.

In that report, the also G claimed that there was “no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias.” The report then went on to say that officials made a series of “judgment calls” that were technically proper.

But the truth is that every single one of these judgment calls benefited Clinton.

Plus, the IG found plenty of evidence of flagrant bias among the key players in that investigation, including exchanges between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page about how “we’ll stop” Trump from being elected.

The article concludes:

What kind of “inaccuracies and omissions”? Oh, things like hiding from the court information that “raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele reporting that was used.” And failing to tell the court that Page had been an FBI informant, which involved working with Russian intelligence officers.

“We also found” he went on, “basic, fundamental, and serious errors during the completion of the FBI’s factual accuracy reviews.” And it found that FBI officials “did not give appropriate attention to facts that cut against probable cause.”

In other words, any shreds of evidence that there was no reason to spy on Page.

Horowitz said these “basic and fundamental errors” were made by “three separate, hand-picked investigative teams.”

If the FBI were simply incompetent, you’d expect these “fundamental errors” to be more random. But as with the “judgment calls” during the Clinton email investigation, all of these mistakes just happened to cut in one direction only. In this case of Clinton, they all helped the FBI reach the decision they’d made at the start to exonerate her. In Trump’s case, every supposed screw-up all helped to keep the probe going.

Even Horowitz himself wouldn’t categorically deny that bias played a role in the FISA applications. As he told Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat, “it gets murkier … when you get to the FISA.”

“Murkier” is one way of putting it. “Deep state, anti-Trump bias” is another way. Just because an inspector general won’t say those words doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

We truly are on a quest to restore equal justice under the law. Right now we don’t have it.

While We Were Sleeping

Yesterday The Houston Chronicle reported that the Justice Department charged eight people — including a prominent political donor to both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and a Lebanese-American businessman who was a witness in Robert Mueller’s investigation — with conspiring to conceal the source of more than $3.5 million in donations to Clinton.

The article reports:

The 53-count indictment unsealed in federal court in Washington detailed efforts by Ahmad “Andy” Khawaja and George Nader to conceal the true source of the millions of dollars in campaign contributions, which prosecutors allege were made to gain influence with high-level political figures, including Clinton.

Khawaja, who lives in Los Angeles and is the owner of the online processing company Allied Wallet, is accused of making the donations in his name, his wife’s name and his company’s name, even though they were actually funded by another businessman, Nader.

As they arranged the payments, Nader was in touch with an official from a foreign government about his efforts to gain influence with the prominent politicians, prosecutors charge. The government is not identified in court documents.

A 2018 investigation by The Associated Press detailed that Khawaja, Allied Wallet and top executives contributed at least $6 million to Democratic and Republican candidates and groups. The donations earned Khawaja access to Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign and a post-election Oval Office visit with Trump.

Clinton is not identified by name in the court documents made public Tuesday, but there are repeated references in the indictment identifying the candidate as a woman. Federal donor records show Khawaja gave millions of dollars to Democratic candidates, including the main political action committee supporting Clinton’s campaign. He also donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund.

Nader is already in federal custody on unrelated charges accusing him of transporting a dozen images of child pornography and bestiality. He had provided grand jury testimony in the special counsel’s Russia investigation about his efforts to connect a Russian banker to members of Trump’s transition team. He had also worked to advance Saudi Arabia’s agenda to the Trump administration.

This may be only the beginning of draining the Washington swamp. Hopefully there is more to come.

Time For A Flip

Yesterday Legal Insurrection posted an article about the criminal investigation into Spygate.

The article notes:

When Barr appointed John Durham to handle the investigation, later in May, the finger-pointing among those involved in investigating Trump started, leading to the the pressing question was Who’s going to cut a deal first in Spygate?

The drama between Brennan and Comey is just the surface. The Durham investigation could reach out of the FBI-CIA up through the Obama administration, including then Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the White House itself.

There is the potential for a lot of finger pointing, as Karie Pavlich tweeted:

The Comey vs Brennan vs Clapper vs Lynch vs Obama show is going to be awesome

https://twitter.com/KatiePavlich/status/1128438654781808641

Since the NY Times reported that the Durham investigation is a criminal investigation, that is the question again.

The stakes are so much higher for those involved. Whoever cuts a deal first could be spared prosecution or prison. So someone is likely to sing, and that someone likely is a mid-level person in the FBI who was disgusted with what happened but close enough to it that the person is at risk.

The question in the article is, “Who is going to be the first to flip?”

An article posted in The American Thinker today may provide a clue. The title of the article is, “Andrew McCabe withdraws his lawsuit against the Department of Justice.”

The article at The American Thinker notes:

Here’s the interesting question: Did he dismiss it because concluded it’s a loser, especially in light of anticipated indictment — or did he(his attorneys) conclude his suit waived his 5th Amendment rights?  By dismissal with consent, without prejudice, does that waiver go away? If so, it might mean he expects to be indicted.

Mark Levin last night said he’d been offered plea deal — and turned it down.  So makes sense to dismiss suit to preserve waiver, which I suspect dismissal in this fashion likely does[.]

I realize we have wandered into the weeds here, but the big picture is simple–there are some people who are not willing to go to jail simply for following orders. Those people will make a plea deal to save their own skins and thus implicate the people giving the orders. I suspect there are more than a few high ranking people in the intelligence community who are not sleeping well right now. Their dream of having Hillary Clinton elected and all of their misdeeds buried for good has obviously not come true.

I Actually Agree With The Democrats On This!

The New York Post posted an article today noting that the Democrats are expressing concern that they do not have a viable candidate for President in 2020. I agree.

The article reports:

Democratic Party leaders have reportedly been struck by anxiety as the 2020 election approaches — and some fear they have no viable candidate to back.

Leaders and activists in the party are wary that all their top contenders have major weaknesses and are urging other possible candidates to get in the race, The Washington Post and The New York Times reported Tuesday.

“You can imagine much stronger candidates,” Democratic National Committee member Elaine Kamarck told The Washington Post.

Kamarck would back Sen. Sherrod Brown or retired Navy Adm. William H. McRaven if either could be convinced to throw their hat in the ring, according to the report.

I hate to be cynical here (but I will anyway), but the fact that this article was published in The New York Times convinces me that it is an opening salvo in the battle to make Hillary Clinton the candidate.

The article at The New York Post continues:

The missteps and faults of the candidates have lead to speculation about whether Hillary Clinton may consider entering the race and kicking off a potential 2016 rematch between her and President Trump.

A source close to Clinton told The Washington Post it’s unlikely she’ll run — but it’s not completely out of the picture.

“Ultimately, it’s unlikely she would do it,” the source said. “But put it this way: It ain’t zero. And does she think about it all the time? Absolutely.”

Another Clinton insider told the newspaper, “Her view is: I ran against this guy, I know how to do this.”

“She has battle scars to prove it,” the source added.

Some recent remarks from Hillary Clinton cause me to question how well she would do in a debate with President Trump. There is a definite gap in the energy level between the two candidates, and recent statements by Mrs. Clinton have not necessarily been founded in sound logic. Nominating Mrs. Clinton would not be a wise move for the Democrats, I don’t think she would wear well.

You Might Want To Keep The Popcorn Handy

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today about some recent events in Ukraine. The article begins by noting that Adam Schiff sent a staff member to the Ukraine after receiving the ‘whistleblower’ report.

The article notes:

This trip was sponsored by a think tank that receives funding from a program of left-wing billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundation called “Open Society Initiative for Europe”

…They met directly with former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who lost to current president Volodymyr Zelensky in a landslide 73-25 victory.

Okay. You mean the same former President who has been accused in major interference in the 2016 American presidential election?

There are two parts of the article that are likely to become very significant in the near future. Both are based on reports from CD Media:

1. KYIV — CD Media broke news yesterday of allegations by intelligence sources of extensive money laundering and corruption by former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. We will be releasing detailed information on the schemes to embezzle hundreds of millions of IMF aid money to Ukraine and we can confirm that investigations are under way by the Ukrainian special prosecutor’s office.

In the meantime, we think it very interesting that reports are coming out of Ukraine of tens of trucks emptying Poroshenko’s palace of belongings in Kyiv.

His right-hand man, Oleg Gladkovskiy-Svinarchuk, was arrested two days ago on corruption charges by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU). His other confidant Ihor Kononenko has apparently ran away according to reports.

Unofficial – suspected war crimes oligarch Petro Poroshenko is preparing to escape abroad, reported Ukrainian news outlet Vremya [Time].

2. Our source has seen the data from within the Ukrainian General Prosecutor’s Office. CD Media can confirm the prosecutor’s office is ready to cooperate with the FBI and the information has been recently provided to FBI agents.

The first thing readers must realize is that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) was an organization set up (extra-judicially) by the Obama Administration within Ukraine to help the Democrats cover up the vast corruption that had been going on, and as a tool to go after then-candidate Donald J. Trump. In fact, the initial head of the bureau engineered by the U.S. State Department in Ukraine, Artem Sytnyk, has been tried and convicted of conspiring to help presidential candidate Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 election. Sytnyk’s group was the office that released the so-called ‘black ledger’ against Paul Manafort, who was then Trump’s campaign manager and now sits in jail, convicted by the Mueller investigation.

CD Media’s editor-in-chief reported on the shakiness of the black ledger evidence at the time when writing for The Washington Times.

CD Media has access to numerous documents and will be posting updates this week from Ukraine.

It would be nice to see some of the corruption uncovered and those responsible held accountable.

The Circus Continues

If anyone has doubts about Hillary Clinton running for President in 2020, they need to take a look at her recent actions. Hillary went semi-silent for a while, but now she is back with a vengeance. Her latest feud is with Democrat presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard. As an aside, Tulsi Gabbard is probably one of the more sane Democrats running for President.

Breitbart posted an article today about the feud.

The article reports:

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) called former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the “queen of warmongers” on Friday, blaming Clinton for orchestrating recent smears against her in the mainstream media.

Earlier on Friday, Clinton suggested that Gabbard was being “groomed” by Russia as a potential third-party candidate. Appearing on a podcast hosted by former Barack Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Clinton called Gabbard “the favorite of the Russians.”

Last weekend, the New York Times made similar accusations against Gabbard, without any evidence, calling her “a potentially useful vector for Russian efforts to sow division within the Democratic Party.”

This is getting ridiculous. I guess the latest smear of any candidate the Clinton left doesn’t like (or represents competition) is that they are a Russian agent.

The article also notes:

Gabbard, who supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the 2016 presidential election, resigned a leadership post in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in protest at its favoritism toward Clinton.

As I said, I think Tulsi Gabbard is probably the most reasonable Democrat candidate running for President. It’s interesting that according to Election Central, Tulsi Gabbard has not yet qualified for the November 20th Democrat Presidential Debate. I suspect that she has too much common sense to be included in the field.

What Happens Next?

One America News is reporting today that the State Department has concluded its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server. A Friday report claimed there are nearly 600 security incidents that violated agency policies.

The article reports:

38 individuals were found to be culpable for 91 security violations and will soon face disciplinary action. Another 497 violations occurred without attribution to the individuals responsible.

The investigation was looking into whether Clinton’s use of a private server failed to properly safeguard classified information. Clinton submitted over 30,000 emails for review after the State Department found top secret content in a handful of her correspondences.

Back in 2016, former FBI Director James Comey called the conduct “extremely careless,” but fell short of recommending charges against the former presidential candidate.

The article concludes:

In the latest probe, investigators determined Clinton’s conduct represented an increased degree of risk to the State Department. However, they emphasized there was “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”

I disagree. Setting up a private server was a “systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” We know from previous reports that the server was hacked and that at least one foreign intelligence agency received everything that traveled through the server in real time. People lost their lives because of what was on that private server. If equal justice under the law still applies in America, Hillary Clinton belongs in jail. Actually, I would not like to see that happen, but I would like her charged (then pardoned) so that she and the American people realize the seriousness of what she did.

Ever Wonder About Polls?

Earlier this week, Fox News released a poll that stated that 51 percent of voters favored the impeachment of President Trump. That seemed odd for a number of reasons. Fair-minded Americans haven’t really been given a reason that President Trump deserves impeachment–all the the (expensive) Democrat schemes have come up empty. Most Americans view impeachment as a rather drastic step. Also, there is very little indication that the people who voted for President Trump regret their vote, and there seem to be indications that as his policies succeed, the President is gaining more support. The poll was suspicious at best. Well, Yesterday The New York Post posted an analysis of the poll.

Here is some of what they found:

Princeton, New Jersey, pollster Braun Research, which conducted the survey, noted 48% of its respondents were Democrats. But the actual breakdown of party-affiliation is 31% Democrat, 29% Republican and 38% independent, according to Gallup.

A poll weighted for party affiliation would have concluded that 44.9% favored impeachment and 44.4% opposed it, a Post analysis has concluded.

I truly doubt that the support for impeachment is actually that high. Knowing that the pollster messed with the demographics, I wonder how he phrased the questions. Never believe anything you see in a poll. Remember, according to various polls, we would have had a President John Kerry and a President Hillary Clinton. I guess the polls have been inaccurate for a while.

Avoiding The Obvious For Political Reasons

Hillary Clinton and her daughter, Chelsea, have written a book called The Book of Gutsy Women. There are more than a hundred women included in the book. The book includes such people as Madame Curie, Anne Frank, Helen Keller, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Florence Nightingale. Included also are Ellen DeGeneres and Billie Jean King. Actually there are a lot of good choices in terms of who is included in the book. More telling, however, is who is not.

On Thursday, The American Thinker posted an article titled, “Five ‘Gutsy Women’ Who Didn’t Make it into Hillary Clinton’s Book.” Those five women are Margaret Thatcher, Clare Boothe Luce, Ayn Rand, Laura Ingalls Wilder, and Phyllis Schlafly.

The article notes:

To be “gutsy,” according to the Clintons, is “about never giving up — and working to pave the way for the next generation.”

With that in mind, here are the profiles of five gutsy women who didn’t make the list because they don’t fit Hillary’s politically correct narrative.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. The women conveniently left out were significant trailblazers. It’s a shame that Mrs. Clinton and her daughter choose not to recognize accomplishment when it doesn’t fit their political agenda.

Things That Make You Wonder

A website called Truth and Action posted an article (there is no date on the article) about Hillary Clinton’s actions on election night 2016. Obviously she was distressed–she had reason to be–everyone had predicted she would win and she lost. She made a statement that night that is recorded in the article at Truth and Action and a number of other places.

The statement as quoted in the article (and other places) is below (with a few editorial changes because this blog is G-rated) with more of the story:

Journalist Matt Stiller shared in a recent report that during the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton was unhinged, and that various NBC insiders can substantiate his account.

According to Still, during last year’s presidential campaign at the Commander-In-Chief Forum on September 7, 2016, moderator Matt Lauer went “off script” and asked Hillary about her using an illegal, private email-server when she was secretary of state.

According to Bill Still’s source — an unnamed “NBC associate producer of the forum” — Hillary was so enraged that, after the forum, she went into a ballistic melt-down, screaming at her staff, including a racist rant at Donna Brazile, calling Brazile a “buffalo” and “janitor”. Brazile recently turned against Hillary — now we know why.

…She screamed she’d get that f**king Lauer fired for this. Referring to Donald Trump, Clinton said, ‘If that f**king b***ard wins, we all hang from nooses! Lauer’s finished, and if I lose, it’s all on your heads for screwing this up.’

Her dozen or more aides were visibly disturbed and tried to calm her down when she started shaking uncontrollably as she screamed to get an executive at Comcast, the parent company of NBC Universal, on the phone. Then two rather large aides grabbed her and helped her walk to her car.”

Please consider the essence of the statement that if Donald Trump wins, we all hang from nooses. We live in a representative republic. People who lose elections do not normally hang from nooses. Why did she see that as a threat? Is it possible that she was fully aware of what had gone on during the campaign and understood that it would eventually be revealed?

Fast forward to today. We know that the Inspector General’s Report will probably come out in the next month or so. I have no doubt that the Republicans will push to make as much of that report public as possible. Through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, we already have a pretty good idea of what is in the report. I believe that impending report is behind the move by Democrats in the House of Representatives to impeach President Trump as quickly as possible, discredit Attorney General Barr, discredit Vice-President Pence, and simply impugn the credibility of anyone who might expose the events of the 2016 election. The one thing we do know is that a group of government workers at the highest level worked behind the scenes to spy on the Trump campaign, the Trump transition team, and the Trump presidency. They also worked hard to destroy anyone associated with the campaign or administration. I believe this is the first time in our history that we have had a Congresswoman call for members of an administration to be harassed in public places. The fact that she was not severely censored for that statement is cause for alarm.