To Debate or Not to Debate

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

Televised presidential debates first started with the 1960 presidential contest between John Kennedy and Ricard Nixon. It is generally believed that the debate process helped Kennedy and harmed Nixon. Debates during subsequent presidential races have had varying impact on the outcome of the races. The Biden regime’s surprise request to hold two debates with Donald Trump raises some questions.

First, the request for debates came on the heels of the most recent polls showing that Trump has a significant lead in key swing states and is gaining support with minorities, whose support the Democrats have always taken for granted. Is this just a coincidence? I think not. The Biden regime must believe that debates can be used to reverse Trump’s lead in the polls. Given Biden’s obvious lack of mental acuity, this is quite surprising and raises the question about who will control the debates and whether they can be stacked against Donald Trump. Let’s look at the how the debates will be conducted.

The channels selected to hold the debates at this time are CNN and ABC. Members of what Trump calls the “Fake Media.” So too with the moderators. CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash are notoriously anti-Trump, as are likely ABCs moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis. The fact that first debate will be held on June 27th before either candidate has actually secured their party’s nomination is suspicious and has never been done before. Perhaps, if Biden performs very poorly, the Democrats can use that as another reason not to nominate him at their convention. If that happens, Trump may find himself having to debate a yet unknown candidate one or more times, closer to the election. The Biden regime is also requiring that there will be no live audience to react to the candidates remarks during the debate. Surely they do not want to have to deal with applause for Donald Trump during the televised debates. Another restriction is that the candidates’ microphones can be turned off by the moderators to prevent comments from the candidates from being broadcast. In the 2016 debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it was subsequently revealed that Hillary Clinton had been given the questions before the debate.

Trump’s ability to outshine Biden in any fairly run debate is not in question. However, given the Democrat’s track record and their desperation over the recent polls, they will make every effort to sway the debate in Biden’s favor. Here are some reasonable requirements that Trump should demand before final agreement on the debates: (1) Debates should not occur until both candidates have been officially nominated; (2)There must be balance as to the networks broadcasting the debates. CNN should be replaced by NewsMax, preferably, or FOX News (3) Both candidates should be given the main questions they will be asked by the moderators, which is the only way of preventing only one candidate getting the questions and the other not. (4) Candidates should be allowed to ask questions of each other. (5) A non-selected audience should be allowed. (6) Both candidates should be required to take a drug test.

It is all very well, and admirable of Trump to agree to debate Biden “any time, any place” as he has said. However, he is ahead in the polls and must ensure that any debate is fair to both candidates. Otherwise, he may be jeopardizing his campaign by making himself vulnerable to his unscrupulous opponent. There is an old saying “The Pride before the Fall.” Trump should heed this truthful admonition!

 

Why Hasn’t This Case Been Thrown Out Of Court?

On Friday, Just the News posted an article about the classified documents trial of President Trump.

The article reports:

In a stunning admission, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team is admitting that key evidence in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents criminal case was altered or manipulated since it was seized by the FBI, and that prosecutors misled the court about it for a period of time.

Legal experts told Just the News the revelation could prove to be a serious problem for prosecutors and a violation of court rules to preserve evidence in the state it was seized.

In a new filing Friday, Smith’s team said that the order of documents in some of the boxes of memos that were seized by the FBI from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate was altered or jumbled, leaving two different chronologies: one that was digitally scanned and another the physical order in the boxes.

“Since the boxes were seized and stored, appropriate personnel have had access to the boxes for several reasons, including to comply with orders issued by this Court in the civil proceedings noted above, for investigative purposes, and to facilitate the defendants’ review of the boxes,” Smith’s team wrote in a new court filing to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon.

The article concludes:

The alteration of evidence has been an issue in earlier political scandals and prosecutions in Washington.

Erasure of an 18 1/2 minute segment of Richard Nixon’s White House tapes became a very important aspect of the Watergate scandal.

The Iran-Contra scandal exploded during the Reagan years with the revelation that documents were shredded before they could be obtained by investigators.

The Hillary Clinton classified email scandal became more complicated in 2015 with the revelation that her team used a “Bleach Bit” program to erase emails on her secret computer server, and had email devices destroyed. 

In the above cases, one can assume that the government was not directly involved in the alteration of evidence. In the case of President Trump, I strongly suspect that the government was the party that altered the evidence. It should also be noted that Hillary Clinton was never charged for destroying cell phones or erasing emails on her computer. President Trump realized that charging her would tear the country apart and chose not to do it. Unfortunately, the never-Trumpers in our government don’t really care what they are doing to the American justice system or the country.

Does Lawfare Work?

On Tuesday, The Conservative Review posted an article about the possible impact of the trial of President Trump in New York. Based on what I know of the charges, the trial is frightening because it illustrates how an overzealous justice department can put anyone on trial for anything. Is the jury aware that Congress has a specific fund to deal with allegations of a sexual nature against Congressmen?

In 2017, CNN reported:

So far, there’s been little specific data to help illuminate just how pervasive sexual harassment is on Capitol Hill, but one figure has emerged: the total that the Office of Compliance, the office that handles harassment complaints, has paid to victims.

On Thursday, the Office of Compliance released additional information indicating that it has paid victims more than $17 million since its creation in the 1990s. That includes all settlements, not just related to sexual harassment, but also discrimination and other cases.

So are we going to arrest whoever disburses the money?

The article at The Conservative Review reports:

On Monday, trial arguments began in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against the former president. Trump is accused of falsifying business records related to payments made to Stormy Daniels. The trial is expected to take weeks, which means Trump’s ability to campaign is severely hampered. President Joe Biden, meanwhile, is ramping up his campaigning.

That juxtaposition — Trump in a courtroom versus Biden on the campaign trail — could help Trump, Turley predicted.

“This is becoming the split-screen election,” the law professor said on Fox News. “Earlier it was pretty damaging to see the split screen between Trump in different courtrooms. This is even more effective when the other side of the screen shows Biden campaigning in key states like Pennsylvania while [Trump’s] held in this courtroom.

The article at The Conservative Review concludes:

“Keep in mind: this is what Hillary Clinton’s people did,” he pointed out. “Remember, when they funded the Steele dossier — which they denied to reporters — they put it as a legal expense. And then they fought the eventual fine they received from the federal government saying, ‘But it was a legal expense.’ Now you’ve got some of the same Democrats supporting this bizarre theory.”

Turley, moreover, agreed there is credence to the narrative that Bragg’s case is “coordinated” with the Justice Department, owing to the fact that Michael Colangelo, who once worked in the Biden DOJ, helped present opening arguments on Monday.

It’s only illegal when Republicans do it!

That Was Then; This Is Now

On Monday, the trial of President Trump for paying ‘hush money’ began. One of the points being made by the media and other left-wing sources is that keeping the story of Stormy Daniels quiet influenced the 2016 election causing Hillary Clinton to lose (yes, they said that). The money that was used to keep the story silent was put in bookkeeping entries as legal fees. That essentially is the crime that is being charged. But wait a minute–what about the money Hillary Clinton paid to create the Russia Hoax?

An article at PJ Media on April 15th notes:

Before the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign denied that it had funded the infamous Steele dossier behind the debunked Russian collusion claims.

The funding was hidden as legal expenses by then-Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias. (The FEC later sanctioned the campaign over its hiding of the funding.). When a reporter tried to report the story, he said Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”

Likewise, John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was called before congressional investigators and denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.

Yet, there were no charges stemming from the hiding of the funding, though it was all part of the campaign budget.

How is using campaign funds to pay for a fraud different from using campaign funds to hush up a damaging story?

This is the world we currently live in. The justice system in America has been corrupted to the point where it doesn’t matter what you did–it matters who you are. Unfortunately, because of an amendment to the FISA bill that was passed in the House of Representatives on Monday night, things are going to get worse for those of us who do not parrot what the mainstream media tells us. The Himes-Turner amendment to FISA dramatically expands the ability for the government to surveil Americans’ communications, updating the definition of electronic service provider to include “any other service provider who has access to equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store wire or electronic communications.” This expands the number of businesses and employees who could be asked to spy on customers and provide warrantless access to their communications systems.

In the immortal words of the Chad Mitchell Trio, “If mommie is a commie, then you gotta turn her in.” Only today it’s, “If mommie does not support the Biden regime, you gotta’ turn her in.”

 

Jonathan Turley Comments On The Hearings

On Tuesday, Red State posted an article about the hearings yesterday in the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. The article included some interesting comments by Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School.

The article reports:

While Republicans continued to stress the two-tiered justice system in the case of Biden’s classified documents vs. those of Donald Trump, Democrats continually tried to put words in Hur’s mouth that neither he nor his report said. 

So how bad were the Democrats? George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley said the Democrats’ questioning of Hur “seemed almost to border on the delusional.”

During an appearance on Fox News’s “America Reports,” Turley gave a perfect example.

Well, I thought the Republicans did a particularly good job today. Often the Democrats are way ahead in framing of hearings, but at points the Democrats seemed almost a border on the delusional. 

When you had Hur say ‘I did not exonerate the president’ and then Democrats would say ‘OK, so you exonerated the president’ and he would say ‘No, I didn’t’ and they would say ‘Thank you for that, with that exoneration.’ 

So for a lot of people watching, they probably kept on having to sort of reverse and see if they missed something here.

The thing to remember when Democrat politicians play this kind of nonsensical game is that they’re playing solely to their base — low-information voters who don’t give a damn about the facts. 

The article also notes:

Turley continued:

The fact is that Hur tried over and over again to distinguish between his findings, which is that he was not confident he could convict if he did bring any charges, and the statement of Democrats that the president was cleared.

Like most people who aren’t Democrats, Turley remains shocked that no charges were brought against Biden, particularly given the charges against Trump.

But out of this hearing, it came really some quite shocking observations. I mean, at the end, you’re sort of still wondering why he wasn’t charged, including Hur saying ‘Look, we have audio tape of the president referring to the fact that he found classified evidence in his basement.’ Well, okay, that seems like full knowledge. But he kept on coming back to the fact that I think a jury might have been persuaded that this is a nice, elderly man with a faulty memory.

There have been four people that I am aware of in the past few years that have been charged with mishandling classified information. Two of them have had very few consequences–Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. When does this tell us about our justice system?

Is There An Ulterior Motive Here?

On Tuesday, The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article about some recent statements by Hillary Clinton. I would like to make a few observations about Ms. Clinton and those statements. Ms. Clinton has been out of the spotlight for a while. Her popularity rises when she is out of the spotlight. Are we looking at Ms. Clinton on the comeback trail?

The article notes:

  • Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 76, said President Joe Biden, 81, and former President Donald Trump, 77, are both ‘old’
  • Despite Biden’s age, Clinton said voters should still support him, as Trump poses a threat to democracy
  • Her comments come as polls find voters are upset with the ages of both party’s presidential frontrunners 

I wish the people who keep talking about ‘threats to democracy’ would acknowledge that we are not a democracy.

The article notes:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted President Joe Biden, 81, is ‘old’ Tuesday, adding Americans need to ‘accept the reality’ of his age and vote for him to save democracy from Donald Trump

Clinton’s jab at Joe’s age came during a radio segment with host Zerlina Maxwell.

She told Maxwell about a recent conversation she had about the president’s age. 

‘Somebody the other day said to me … ‘Well, but, you know, Joe Biden’s old.’ I said, ‘You know what, Joe Biden is old. Let’s go ahead and accept the reality. Joe Biden is old,’ Clinton, 76, said. 

‘So we have a contest between one candidate who’s old but who’s done an effective job and doesn’t threaten our democracy,’ she continued. ‘And we have another candidate who is old, barely makes sense when he talks, is dangerous, and threatens our democracy.’

She was referring to former President Donald Trump, who is just one year older than her at 77. 

Pay attention. This is a search for relevancy from someone who has been irrelevant for a while. This could get very interesting.

The Next Big Climate Scare

In America (and in some other places) we just aren’t paying enough attention to our impending doom due to global warming, global cooling, or whatever climate change is currently fashionable. Therefore, it is time to raise the stakes to get our attention. Brace yourself, we are about to start hearing about deaths due to climate change. How you actually calculate that is a mystery, but that hasn’t stopped the propagandists yet.

On Thursday, wattsupwiththat reported:

The next big climate scare is on the way. Advocates of measures to control the climate now propose that we begin counting deaths from climate change. They appear to believe that if people see a daily announcement of climate deaths, they will be more inclined to accept climate change policies. But it’s not even clear that the current gentle rise in global temperatures is causing more people to die.

In December, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at COP28, the 28th United Nations Climate Conference, and mentioned climate-related deaths.

“We are seeing and beginning to pay attention and to count and record the deaths that are related to climate,” she said. “And by far the biggest killer is extreme heat.”

According to Ms. Clinton, Europe recorded 61,000 deaths from extreme heat in 2023, and she estimated that about 500,000 people died from heat across the world last year.

Global temperatures have been gently rising for the last 300 years. Temperature metrics from NASA, NOAA, and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom estimate that Earth’s surface temperatures have risen a little more than one degree Celsius, or about two degrees Fahrenheit, over the last 140 years. But are these warmer temperatures harmful to people?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, most cases of influenza occur during December to March, the cold months in the United States. Influenza season in the southern hemisphere takes place during the cold months there, April through September. The peak months for COVID-19 infections tended to be the cold periods of the year. More people usually get sick during cold months than in warm months.

More people also die during winter months than summer months, according to many peer-reviewed studies. For example, Dr. Matthew Falagas of the Alfa Institute of Medical Sciences and five other researchers studied seasonal mortality in 11 nations. The research showed that the average number of deaths peaked in the coldest months of the year in all of them.

It’s easier to stay healthy when the weather is warm–the sun provides Vitamin D, and as long as you don’t overdue it, fresh air and sunshine are healthy.

Please follow the link to the article. It includes some very interesting charts, including the one below:

 

Numbers don’t lie.

A New Level Of Trump Derangement Syndrome

On Friday, The Western Journal posted an article about a recent commentary published in Salon Magazine.

The article includes a screenshot of the commentary headline:

Somehow, with all of the illegals pouring across our southern border and our government having no idea who they are, I don’t think it will be the MAGA and Christian Republicans who are responsible for the next terrorist attack in America.

The article notes

He (Brian Karem) went on to insist that that “There is little difference between [South Carolina Sen. Tim] Scott, [Louisiana Rep. Steve] Scalise and Hamas,” and outrageously added, “Further, there is little or no difference between most of the GOP leadership, including Jim Jordan and Donald Trump, and the leaders of Hamas.”

“Donald Trump and his followers are terrorists,” Karem added.

This is an outright calumny, of course. Republican leaders are nothing like Hamas. They have killed no one. They have not murdered babies, raped and decapitated women or murdered large swaths of people, like Hamas has — and like Hamas proudly says it will continue doing.

…The original title of the piece proclaimed, “MAGA and Christian nationalism: Bigger threat to America than Hamas could ever be.” Salon changed it to read, “Far-right MAGA theocrats: Most dangerous threat to America.”

Neither headline contained any truth. But both articles are perfect examples of how the far left in America has worked against half the country, with FBI stormtroopers “investigating” and harassing parents at school board meetings and MAGA voters, the IRS harassing Christian organizations or Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton calling MAGA voters “deplorables” and haters.

 

 

Saying The Quiet Part Out Loud

Hopefully this will never happen, but a recent statement from Hillary Clinton is concerning. It is particularly concerning when you look at the government’s efforts to label anyone who doesn’t agree with the current party in power as a terrorist.

On October 6th, The Independent Journal Review reported:

During a CNN interview Thursday night, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed supporters of former President Donald Trump may need to enter “formal deprogramming.”

She told Chief International CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour, “So many of those extremists, those MAGA extremists, take their marching orders from Donald Trump.”

Clinton stated Trump “has no credibility,” cited his legal battles, and called patriotic Americans who follow America First ideology “cult members.”

The response on social media was entertaining.

Here are a few examples:

Podcast hosts The Hodgetwins posted a clip of the interview on X, formerly Twitter, and stated, “Tyrants love re-education camps.”

…Make America Great Again Inc. spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt wrote, “President Trump has said countless times that they are only coming after him, because he stands in their way from coming after you — and Hillary Clinton just confirmed that to be true.”

…Libs of TikToc creator Chaya Raichik noted, “Nothing to see here… just Hillary Clinton wanting to put Republicans into re-education camps.”

…APR Nurse Rochelle Maryn wrote, “Interpretation: Hillary feels like she may not be able to manipulate and force feed her garbage down the throats of the American people any longer.”

…MAGA Activist the Salty Texan responded, “As if we didn’t nose dive face first into Communism enough already, here is Hillary Clinton implying that “MAGA EXTREMISTS” will need to be “deprogrammed” because we are “cult members.”

Thank God this woman was not elected President.

Living In A Really Bad B Movie

For what it is worth, I believe that the Democrat plan is to remove President Biden from office some time before the end of summer and put their preferred 2024 candidate in as Vice-President. The deep state has played this game before. That is how the Republicans got President Ford. I have no idea what the details of the plan are, but I feel as if we are trapped in a really bad B-Movie that is being totally orchestrated behind the scenes.

On Wednesday, The U.K. Daily Mail reported the following:

IRS whistleblower says he was STOPPED from pursuing leads into ‘big guy’ Joe in the Hunter investigation

  • IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley claimed Hunter did receive special treatment 
  • Said he was prevented from taking routine steps in probe into president’s son
  • House Republicans released more WhatsApp messages Tuesday between Hunter Biden and a Chinese business associate

All of the information we are hearing now about the millions of dollars flowing into the Biden family from overseas is not new. I am sure Washington insiders have been aware of it for decades. It was kept quiet in order to elect Joe Biden to carry out President Obama’s third term. Hillary Clinton was supposed to do that, but the vote manipulators underestimated the popularity of President Trump.

There is a quote that has never been denied that is in a book written by Donna Brazile.

This is the quote from election night 2016:

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.’

You don’t generally hang from a noose after you lose an election (at least no so far in America). What did she mean by that, and isn’t it time someone looked into it?

There Was Some Interesting Information In The Durham Report

On Thursday, Breitbart posted an article about some things in the Durham that have slipped under the radar.

The article reports:

Special Counsel John Durham’s highly-anticipated report on the origins of the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign in 2016 revealed that top leaders at the Bureau shut down four criminal investigations into Hillary and Bill Clinton.

In 2014, the FBI investigated a “well-placed” confidential source’s claims that an unnamed foreign government intended to “contribute to Hillary Clinton’s anticipated presidential campaign, as a way to gain influence with Clinton should she win the presidency,” the report said.

The field office investigating these claims “almost immediately” sought a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant, but it remained “in limbo” for approximately four months, primarily due to Clinton’s then-expected presidential campaign.

As stated in Durham’s report:

According to another agent, the application lingered because “everyone was ‘super more careful’” and “scared with the big name [Clinton]” involved. 321 “[T]hey were pretty “tippy-toeing’ around HRC because there was a chance she would be the next President.”

Durham’s report also revealed that three separate FBI field offices in Washington, DC; Little Rock, Arkansas; and New York City, New York, opened investigations into “possibly criminal activity involving the Clinton Foundation” less than one year before the November 2016 presidential election.

Historically, people investigating the Clintons have a very high rate of suicide or accidental death.

The article concludes:

Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee’s Weaponization of the Federal Government subcommittee, told the DailyMail that Durham’s report warrants “additional exposure and review.”

“The Clintons had a team of people at the FBI running interference for them to avoid criminal culpability,” Gaetz told the outlet. “These matters absolutely warrant additional exposure and review.”

Former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said the FBI’s investigations into the Clintons “were shut down by the higher-ups who had an obvious political desire to see Donald Trump lose and Hillary Clinton win.”

“It’s disgusting really. Absolutely these investigations should be revisited,” he told DailyMail. “There’s no reason why Congress can’t have a series of hearings with the field agents who were pursuing the Clinton Foundation, and public interviews with them as well.”

There have been problems with the FBI since J. Edgar Hoover. I wonder if we currently have enough elected officials willing to dig into the dirt and clean up the Bureau.

Is Lying To The FBI Only Important Sometimes?

On Monday, Just the News posted an article about a recent development in the Special Counsel John Durham investigation.

The article reports:

Special Counsel John Durham is revealing new smoking gun evidence, a text message that shows a Clinton campaign lawyer lied to the FBI, while putting the courts on notice he is prepared to show the effort to smear Donald Trump with now-disproven Russia collusion allegations was a “conspiracy.”

In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton’s campaign, her researchers and others formed a “joint venture or conspiracy” for the purpose of weaving the collusion story to harm Trump’s election chances and then the start of his presidency.

“These parties acted as ‘joint venturer[s]’ and therefore should be ‘considered as co-conspirator[s],'” he wrote.

Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say.

The existence of the text message between Sussmann and then-FBI General Counsel James Baker was revealed in a court filing late Monday night by Durham’s team. Prosecutors said they intend to show Sussmann gave a false story to the FBI but then told the truth about working on behalf of the Clinton campaign when he later testified to Congress.

So why are we hearing this now? Remember, the news is controlled by the Democrats. They do not want Joe Biden to run for President in 2024. I would say based on this story that they also do not want Hillary Clinton to run for President in 2024. The news media is clearing the way for someone–I have no idea who. I have a few guesses, but at this point they are merely guesses.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. Then as yourself why this information was not available before 2020. Then ask yourself if the corruption is all through the Democrat party or if the Clintons were an isolated example.

Who Controls The Democrat Party?

Who is in control of the Democrat party, and what have they done lately to consolidate that control? The same people who brought you Joe Biden as the 2020 candidate for President have now moved to consolidate their power. One of the main players in that group is Barack Obama. He has essentially shoved Hillary Clinton off the stage and taken over the Democrat party primary process. The Conservative Treehouse posted the background story on Friday.

The article reminds us of what was done in 2020 to prevent Bernie Sanders from becoming the Democrat candidate:

Right before the 2020 SC Primary the DNC Club knew they had a problem with the Bernie Sanders momentum.  An urgent assembly of all party control officers was called. The DNC Club designed a plan around using James Clyburn as the official spark for Joe Biden to take back control of the primary outcome.

Barack Obama the figurative and ideological leader of the movement known as “Black Lives Matter”, and South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the figurative and ideological leader of the political construct within the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church, struck a deal.

Obama and Clyburn really had no choice but to come to an agreement and form the alliance. If they did not act fast, Bernie Sanders was gaining momentum, and they could not have Sanders at the top of the 2020 ticket, because he was too outside the club system which was now almost exclusively focused on racial identity as a tool for political power.

A Bernie Sanders -vs- Donald Trump general election would have been a disaster for both clubs.

To get rid of Sanders, BLM (based in Georgia) and AME (based in South Carolina) aligned. This was the actual moment when Hillary Clinton was cast into the pit of irrelevance in Democrat politics.

Within the agreement, Obama and Clyburn selected Biden as the tool they could easily control to deliver on their larger, progressive, leftist intentions. The only one told not to drop out yet was Elizabeth Warren, as she would be needed as the insurance policy, the splitter against Bernie Sanders.

Within 48 hours all members of the club and candidates had their instructions and proceeded to follow-through on the plan. They had no choice. If they did not comply, they would suffer the consequences of a fully aligned club hierarchy who would target them personally and financially.

The plan worked flawlessly. A few days after their meeting James Clyburn endorsed Biden while Barack Obama began making phone calls telling each of the other candidates to drop out in sequence and support Biden or else the club would destroy them.

The article explains how the Democrats plan to use that strategy in the future:

The DNC is on track to reshape its primary calendar after dissatisfaction with the traditional first state, Iowa, boiled over in 2020. Members of the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, charged with recommending a new calendar, gave a near-unanimous vote of approval on Friday for Biden’s proposal, with only minor tweaks to the dates and two ‘no’ votes from Iowa and New Hampshire members.

The revised proposal would see South Carolina host the first 2024 presidential primary on Feb. 3, a Saturday, followed three days later by New Hampshire and Nevada. Georgia would then hold an early primary on Feb. 13, and Michigan would hold its contest on Feb. 27. Iowa would be out of the early lineup altogether.  (read more).

Please follow the link to the article for further details. Don’t be surprised if the Democrats nominate Michelle Obama for President in 2024.

Laying The Foundation

In evaluating President Biden’s speech last night, there are a few things to consider when trying to put the speech in context.

Consider the impact of Saul Alinsky on the Democrat party since the 1990’s. If you are not familiar with Saul Alinsky, he was a Chicago community activist who worked through in the Industrial Areas Foundation in Chicago. He was an inspiration for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and, I am sure, a number of other Democrats). In 1971, Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals as a guide for political activism and mobilization of politically unrepresented communities. One of the guiding principles in his book was Rule 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Another, Rule 4, states, “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Both of these principles were illustrated last night.

The New York Times posted the transcript of President Biden’s speech.

The President stated:

But as I stand here tonight, equality and democracy are under assault. We do ourselves no favor to pretend otherwise.

So, tonight, I’ve come to this place where it all began to speak as plainly as I can to the nation about the threats we face, about the power we have in our own hands to meet these threats and about the incredible future that lies in front of us, if only we choose it.

We must never forget, we, the people, are the true heirs of the American experiment that began more than two centuries ago.

First of all–we are a representative republic–we are not a democracy. Secondly, equality is not under assault except by those pushing Critical Race Theory, reparations, etc.

The President stated:

Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal. Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic.

Now, I want to be very clear, very clear up front. Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know, because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.

But there’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country.

Rule 13 in action–pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

The President continued:

And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election, and they’re working right now as I speak in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.

Note the term ‘election deniers.’ That term is used as a pre-emptive attack against any evidence that may come out about election fraud. Remember that the man who just unconstitutionally granted student loan forgiveness is complaining that the MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. Also note that he is only attacking the MAGA Republicans. The ‘Club’ Republicans are his friends.

The President continues:

MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards, backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love. They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fanned the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.

Obviously these accusations are false, but there will be people who will believe them. I don’t believe it was the Republicans who bailed out the rioters of the summer of 2020.

The President stated:

But while the threat to American democracy is real, I want to say as clearly as we can, we are not powerless in the face of these threats. We are not bystanders in this ongoing attack on democracy. There are far more Americans, far more Americans from every background and belief, who reject the extreme MAGA ideology than those that accept it. And folks, it’s within our power, it’s in our hands, yours and mine, to stop the assault on American democracy.

Unfortunately, this is the rhetoric that will be used to justify the limiting of free speech and the attack on political conservatives. Since these people are a threat to American democracy (it’s a republic!), they need to be taken out. We have already seen swatting attacks on Marjorie Taylor Greene and Steve Bannon and a planned assassination of Judge Kavanaugh. This rhetoric will encourage more of that.

The President stated:

MAGA Republicans have made their choice. They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live, not in the light of truth but in the shadow of lies. But together, together, we can choose a different path. We can choose a better path forward to the future, a future of possibility, a future to build a dream and hope, and we’re on that path moving ahead.

Please follow the link above if you want to read the entire speech. Frankly I see the speech as the building of a platform from which to attack any American who does not fall in lockstep with President Biden and those who are controlling him. The attack on MAGA Republicans will only be the beginning. We are heading into a dangerous time.

In Case You Hadn’t Noticed The Double Standard

On Tuesday, The Daily Caller posted an article about the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago (yes, it was a raid). The article points out the contrast in the justification for the raid and historical precedent.

The article notes:

Unless scores of witnesses saw Donald Trump stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone, the FBI’s raid of his Mar-a-Lago home represents an unforgivable politicization of our justice system. The proof rests in the peaceful, undisturbed abodes of Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden, Jim Biden, James Comey, Stefan Halper, Rodney Joffe and every other partisan the FBI investigated without violating the sanctuary of their homes.

…The FBI that raided the former president’s personal residence never sought a warrant to search Clinton’s homes after The New York Times reported on March 3, 2016, that, while secretary of State, she had used a private server. Weeks later Clinton, while plotting her upcoming run for president, wiped her entire server clean using “a sophisticated software program, BleachBit, which eventually made it extraordinarily difficult for the FBI to recover her emails, several thousand of which were successfully destroyed.”

Among the emails deleted were some 30 connected to the Benghazi murders that Clinton never supplied to the State Department upon leaving office — a fairly analogous, albeit more appalling scenario to the theory floated that agents raided Trump’s house on Monday to seize supposedly classified documents.

Agents also didn’t raid Clinton’s homes to recover the 13 mobile devices that the FBI believed the former secretary of State may have used to email her staff. Instead, the DOJ asked Clinton’s attorneys to provide agents the Blackberries and other devices. Less than two weeks later, her lawyers claimed “they were unable to locate any of these devices,” leaving the FBI “unable to acquire or forensically examine any of these 13 mobile devices.”

The article concludes:

Former Department of Justice attorney, Jeff Clark, another Trump loyalist, also saw his home raided by the FBI.

Against this two-pronged approach to justice, Americans need not lean conservative or support Trump to spot the scandal. And Americans need not care about politics to oppose the politicization of the DOJ and FBI: They just need to care about the future of the country — one that cannot survive long if such corruption and cronyism continues.

We need to remember that the President is the person who determines the classification of documents. He has that authority. There is speculation (which I believe will prove true) that the documents the FBI was after were the declassified documents relating to the FBI’s role in the Russiagate scandal. There are a number of powerful people who want those documents destroyed. Although they are declassified, they have not been released. Judicial Watch is suing the Justice Department to obtain them. Stay tuned.

Lessons Learned In Life That Apply In Politics

On Tuesday, The American Thinker posted an article describing what you can learn about an employee by the way he spends his last few days before leaving your employ.

The article notes:

If you work in the business world long enough, you will notice that an employee reveals the most about his own personal work ethic, not when he starts out, not when he’s angling for a bonus or promotion, but at the end, when he gets a new job and gives his two weeks’ notice, or when he starts training his successor as he reaches retirement.

How hard does he work those final weeks? Does he still put the company first, or does he just phone it in? Or does he stuff his briefcase with office supplies, raid the petty cash drawer, and pilfer the prototype cabinet every evening before he goes home?

If he really gives it all he’s got, right up to the last day, then there’s a role model to remember with love.

The same goes for political leadership when it has had its walking papers served on Election Day, or even when that eventuality becomes evident, months in advance.

The polls now are in agreement: barring some earth-shaking shock this autumn, the Democrat party will be out of leadership in the United States House of Representatives and in some state legislatures as well, following the November elections.

Despite what I just quoted, my advice to Republicans is not to count their chickens just yet. There are three plus months for Democrats to pull every dirty trick they can to make sure they hang on to power. Expect anything.

However, the article makes some very good points about the actions of the past Democrat political leadership versus some recent Republican leadership:

As author Barbara Olson revealed in her shocking book, “The Final Days,” much of the Clinton team was so certain they would be carried forward in a Gore administration, many engaged in petty (and some not so petty) acts of sabotage across the executive branch, especially at the White House, between Election Day 2000 and Inauguration Day 2001. That crew spent their final months doing damage.

By contrast, think back on the end of Donald Trump’s first term, as the clock ticked off the final months in 2020-2021.

President Trump’s medical response team had been working on fast-tracking the development and approval of vaccines and treatment arrays for Covid-19 throughout 2020; they didn’t let up, they accelerated their work, right up to the final day, turning over a complete, impressive vaccine and treatment program to the incoming Biden regime.

The article concludes with the actions of the current Congressional leadership:

The Pelosi/Schumer team sees the end of their own gravy train approaching, and they’re gathering every last handful of perks, doling out every last favor to their friends, distributing the largesse that you and I fund to the non-profits and NGOs from whom they will likely seek lucrative jobs the very morning after the voters toss them out on their ungrateful ears in November.

And worst of all, even though this future is all but written in stone, we have to watch it unfold, predictably but unalterably, for another six long, painful months.

There are good reasons why, in the private sector, once you realize you have employees like this in your organization, you have them pack up their desks, and you direct Security to march them out immediately, without postponing the inevitable another day.

Hang on to your hats–unfortunately it’s not over yet.

The Company Town

On Saturday, American Greatness posted an article about how Washington, D.C., currently functions (or does not function). The article is titled, “Dismantle the D.C. Company Town.” What a great idea.

The article reports:

Gertrude Stein famously warned that it was important to know how far to go when going too far. 

It pains me to admit that Democrats seem to have a far better sense of all that than do Republicans. Perhaps it’s because Democrats have a visceral appreciation of William Hazlitt’s observation that “those who lack delicacy hold us in their power.” The Democrats, that is to say, long ago became expert at the game of holding their opponents to standards that they themselves violate not just with impunity but with ostentatious glee. 

The news last week that Michael Sussmann was found not guilty by a D.C. jury of his ideological peers was another thumb in the eye of the American so-called system of justice. Scary-looking super-cop John Durham had indicted Sussmann for the same thing that brought down Trump’s flash-in-the-pan National Security Advisor Mike Flynn—lying to the FBI—but no one who has been paying attention thought the two men would be treated the same way. Flynn was close to Donald Trump, therefore he must be considered a sacrificial beast, someone to be made an example of, a pariah. And so he was. 

Sussmann, by contrast, was a covert employee of the Hillary Clinton campaign. He helped get the Russian Collusion Delusion going and lied to the FBI in the process. But he was on the side of the regime party, so, as Jonathan Turley observed as the Sussmann case unfolded, he was afforded every consideration while Flynn found himself ruined. In this tale of two trials, we got a textbook illustration of how you can deploy a two-tier system of justice in which, as George Orwell put it in Animal Farm: All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. 

The article also notes the recent arrest of Peter Navarro:

Sussmann joins a long list of Hillary cronies and Department of Justice lackeys (but I repeat myself). In any just world Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, James Comey, Kevin Clinesmith, Loretta Lynch, and indeed Hillary herself would be behind bars. But this is our world, not any just world. 

And here’s some salt to rub in the wound. Peter Navarro, a former Trump economic advisor, was held in contempt of Congress because he refused to hand over documents to the Kangaroo Court, er . . . the Democrat-controlled January 6 inquisition. Eric Holder, Barack Obama’s self-declared “wingman” and Attorney General was also held in contempt of Congress for refusing to hand over documents. But not to worry. As CNN reported soon after the affront, “The White House and the Justice Department made clear Friday what had been expected all along: Attorney General Eric Holder will not face criminal prosecution under the contempt of Congress citation passed by the U.S. House.”

The article concludes:

In his Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein says “all philosophical problems have the form ‘I have lost my way.’” The first response to being lost should be to retrace one’s steps in order to escape the maze. It’s time that Americans faced up to the reality that their governing apparat is a corrupt, self-engorging Leviathan. This is not, or not only, a partisan issue. Sure, Washington, D.C. is a fully paid-up concession of the Democratic Party, regularly voting some 93 to 95 percent Democratic. Sussmann was never going to be convicted there.

So a preliminary antiseptic, as I have argued elsewhere, would be to downgrade Washington in the political metabolism of the country. Indeed, I think the capital, if not the Capitol, ought to be dispersed. Washington, D.C., could continue to function as what it has already in part become: a sort of stage set where functionaries preen and simper before the cameras of a preposterous media and press corps. 

Donald Trump made a few half-hearted stabs at dismantling the lumbering machine that is the Washington establishment, but that seems like a long time ago and, besides, the swamp closed almost instantly to reassert its prerogatives. In his next term, however, he should make the destruction of the Washington machine one of his highest priorities. It won’t be easy. To be frank, I am not sure, absent some world-shaking calamity, it is even possible. But it is nevertheless necessary if anything resembling the republic as envisioned by the founders is to be salvaged.

We have wandered far from the republic the Founding Fathers created. I pray it is not too late to get it back.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article.

The Seeds Were Planted For The Destruction Of The Republic In 2012

On Tuesday, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article that explains a lot of the initial and ongoing attacks on the Trump administration and President Trump. It also offers a possible explanation as to why so few in the Washington swamp have been willing to fight the seemingly endless corruption.

The article reports:

There is very little that surprises me, but this is completely stunning.  An FBI whistleblower came forth to inform Rep Jim Jordan and Rep Matt Gaetz that the FBI maintains a workspace inside the law firm of Perkins Coie.  {Direct Rumble Link}

In response to a letter sent by Rep. Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan, Perkins Coie, the legal arm of the DNC and Hillary Clinton, admitted they have been operating an FBI workspace in their Washington D.C. office since 2012.  Pay attention to that date, it matters.

This is a huge development.  Essentially, what is being admitted in this claim is that a portal existed into FBI databases within the law firm that represents democrats.  This means access to FBI database searches exists inside the office of the DNC and Clinton legal group.  Think about the ramifications here.

CTH has long claimed there was some kind of direct portal link between the Clinton campaign team and the FBI databases.  There were too many trails of extracted non-minimized research evidence in the hands of the Clinton team that CTH could not trace to a transferring FBI official.  If Perkins Coie operated a portal in their office that allowed them to conduct search queries of American citizens, then everything would make sense.  That access portal is exactly what is being claimed and admitted in this report.

The start date of 2012 is important for several reasons, not the least of which is FISA presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer criticizing the scale and scope of unlawful FBI database access going back to exactly 2012.  Keep in mind a FISA-702 search, is simply an unlawful FBI warrantless electronic search of an American (“702” represents the American citizen) into the central database -maintained by the NSA- that contains all electronic data and communication.

I have been in the deep hole of the FISA-702 database search query violations for so long I don’t even need a flashlight.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It includes some of Rosemary Collyer’s prior report on FBI abuses of the database.

There were some people who warned us when the Patriot Act was passed after 9/11 that it would lead to government abuses and illegal spying on Americans. Evidently they were right.

Something To Keep In Mind

It is becoming obvious that someone will be thrown to the lions in the John Durham investigation. It will probably be someone (or someones) associated with the Clinton campaign. It may even include a Clinton (but I doubt it). The mob (many Americans) are demanding accountability, and some accountability will be provided. However, the root of the problem will never be dealt with.

The following is an excerpt from an article posted in The Conservative Treehouse on May 17:

As noted by Charlie Savage, prosecutor Deborah Shaw, a member of the Durham team, delivered the opening remarks to frame the government position in the case.

The telling remarks came early: “Shaw addresses “the elephant in the room” – tells jury their feelings about Russia, Trump, Clinton can’t play a role in the case. This is about “our FBI” which should not be used as a tool by anyone, Republicans or Democrats.”  In essence, prosecutor Shaw is telling the jury the FBI were duped into the Trump-Russia conspiracy investigation by outsiders connected to the Clinton campaign.

That’s a critical baseline from the government we must understand and accept.  That baseline now indicates that none of the DOJ and FBI operatives involved in the fraudulent scheme will be held accountable by the Durham team.  “Our FBI should not be used as a tool by anyone,” yet they were, so sayeth the United States Government.

There you have it folks.  For those who tried to avoid the uncomfortable reality of the situation. The Durham prosecution has set down the cornerstone establishing the DOJ/FBI was used and tricked.

The prosecution cannot later turn toward DOJ and FBI officials who were victimized by the Clinton outside group, reverse the predicate motive of the prior trial, and then hold the DOJ and FBI legally accountable.

That’s that.

The Durham accountability focus is now narrowed to the Clinton team, starting with Michael Sussmann.

This outcome was always visible when we accept the totality of the Robert Mueller probe as an overlay into this entire scenario.  Put into a question I have asked for two years:

How could John Durham hold DOJ and FBI officials accountable for participating in the Trump-Russia fraud, when those same DOJ and FBI officials were part of the Robert Mueller cover-up operation? 

Answer, they can’t.   If Durham were to connect the conspiracy of the outside government and inside government collusion, he would be penetrating an impregnable firewall that would take down multiple DC government institutions simultaneously.

Durham is being permitted to give the illusion of accountability, but he was not authorized or permitted to expose the Dept of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, or any other institution.

The vehicles of our justice institutions are rusted and broken.

Bill Barr was the Bondo application.  John Durham is the spray paint.

The article includes the following Tweet:

That’s where we are, folks. Until we pay closer attention to primary elections and un-elect the Washington swamp creatures, things will not change.

 

Is It Possible To Restore Trust In The FBI?

Yesterday The American Thinker posted an article highlighting how the FBI has broken its relationship with the American public.

The article notes:

All large organizations suffer from the occasional presence of bad actors.  The FBI is no exception.  But it managed to retain a good relationship with the public in spite of its flaws because it was still solving rather than creating crimes. 

But something fundamentally changed in the last five years.  The Comey clown car arrived in the center ring and unloaded under the spotlight.  As the public watched the comedy of James “The Cardinal” Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page, searching for phantom Russian colluders under the bed, while actual Russian colluders cheered them on, we knew we needed to take a closer look.  The examination has been shocking.

The “Midyear Exam,” the bureau’s name for the Hillary Clinton email investigation, was a farce.  No subpoenas were issued, central figures were given immunity without cooperation, evidence was destroyed by the FBI, and then the attorney general had a clandestine meeting with “Slick Willy” Clinton — the husband of the target.  Surprise: No charges were filed.  “The Cardinal” Comey held a press conference and announced that even though Hillary had broken numerous laws, she didn’t mean it, so he was giving her a pass.  It must have been an accident that an email server, containing classified documents, appeared in her bathroom — with a support staff.

“Crossfire Hurricane” was the investigation into alleged Trump collusion with Russia to steal an election.  Within a couple of months, the bureau knew that the whole thing was a hoax created by Hillary, yet the investigation continued for three years — eventually transitioning into a special counsel investigation.  Peter Strzok called “Crossfire Hurricane” the bureau’s insurance policy — against a Trump presidency.  It was a good way to show off for his mistress, Lisa Page — a rabid anti-Trump FBI lawyer.

The “Midyear Exam” was a cover-up, and “Crossfire Hurricane” was a setup.  Both were exposed by the clown show the FBI put on.  Now the public is paying attention.  Conspiracies that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago seem entirely plausible now.

The article concludes:

The FBI will cease being the “plumbers” (the nickname for Nixon’s henchmen) for the Democrats and become the enemy of both parties.  Then either it or America will die.  A free people cannot coexist with a secret police force, using investigations for purposes other than law enforcement.  The contest will be epic.

A recent Zogby poll found that by 46 to 31 percent, members of the public think their sheriff’s department has more legal authority than the FBI.  Obviously, the legal authority of the bureau is not subject to opinion.  It is defined by statute.  But there’s an important message in that poll.  We are self-governed.  Legal authority, without moral authority, equals no authority — at least not over free people.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. We currently have a problem in the Department of Justice, and the FBI is only a small part of that problem. When anyone who disagrees with the Democrats is at risk of being investigated for being a domestic terrorist, we have entered the world of totalitarian governments. That is not a place I want to be.

An Interesting Perspective

Yesterday Trending Politics posted an article showing a series of Tweets by former NY Times reporter Alex Berenson. Recently Alex Berenson is known for challenging the fear-based mainstream coronavirus narratives. His observations on the current election are interesting.

Here is a summary of the Tweets. If you follow the link above to the article, you can see the original Tweets:

Look, I don’t know if President Trump wins or not – the polls say one thing and the rallies say something else, and it feels like it’s going to be close either way – but this is already the most serious populist repudiation of elite opinion since at least Andrew Jackson. 

Remember, in 2016 the elites thought Trump was a joke. They didn’t think he could possibly win and they treated the election that way. This time they are treating him as a deadly threat, and practically EVERY center of gravity in the United States is aligned against him.

Not just conventional media and Hollywood and the social sciences, as in 2016, but big technology companies/social media, non-profits, the physical sciences and medicine, which have been relatively non-partisan, and most shockingly much of the national security community.

And yet, despite all of this, and despite the efforts to frame the Coronavirus as an end-of-days plague, and despite now running at a big fundraising deficit to Uncle Joe (as he did to Hillary Clinton) Trump is clearly in striking distance. People are FED UP.

That pretty much sums it up!

This Post Was Deleted By Facebook

This was posted on Facebook at RADlaw Radio by Robert DuChemin. He had tried to post it on home page, but Facebook deleted it. This sort of censorship doesn’t help anyone.

This is the post:

Here is part of my personal post that FB banned.
On Monday, while most people were still reeling from his recent racist comments, Touchy Joe referred to some nearby children saying, “And I want to see these beautiful young ladies, I want to see them dancing when they are four years older too.”
I knew he wasn’t just hiding from the Chinese Plague in his basement; he is watching Cuties 24/7. He cannot wait for the “smell-the-hair” sequel.
——
The Director of National Intelligence released John Brennan’s hand-written notes on his briefing President Obama in July 2016 on HRC’s attempts to get Russia to help her win the 2016 election.
ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC all failed to comment on this release. These networks spent three years vilifying President Trump on no evidence, for something a $40 million investigation proved to be false. Yet they chose to ignore actual evidence of Slick Willie’s wife doing exactly what they claimed the President was doing. Newspapers in Paris, London, Geneva and Lion (and I am sure many others but there’s a limit as to how many papers I can read each day) all led with the story today. The news media in the USA simply cannot be trusted.
John Brennan publicly confirmed that the notes were his and that he notified Obama of HRC’s attempt to have the Russians influence the 2016 election on her behalf in July 2016. He tried to downplay it but he took the unusual step of personally briefing the president. He must have thought it was quite important at the time.
Still silence from the networks.
HRC held a press conference to tell the world that this was simply a Republican “election ploy.” Yeah, Hilly, a CIA director appointed by a Democrat and himself a very outspoken Democrat had a conversation with the Democrat President of the United States about your illegal activity and it was a Republican ploy. Go back to your vodka.
——
Speaking of Clinton gang activities, the CIA and the DOJ both responded to court-ordered production of documents yesterday by saying they will “neither confirm nor deny” the existence of any documents, including email communications, to or from Clinton operative Eric Ciaramella. The DOJ has a valid case because there is an open investigation into the Clinton corruption.
The CIA, however, has a horrible case that this is an interest of national security. It is not.
In addition, this is the fourth time in the last seven days that CIA director Gina Haspel has used her position to block the release of information that proves the existence of HRC’s corruption of the DOJ and CIA.
It looks like another swamp creature has come to the surface. Hopefully our Witcher, Donald J Trump, will remove this one as well.
——
Finally, Ms. Obomb Released a video in which she blames President Trump for all of the racism caused by her husband and her. She actually claims there has been no violence at the BLM protests in United States this summer. Hmmm. How did those officers get shot?
I noticed she released it from her multi-million-dollar estate on Martha’s Vineyard and not from her hometown of Chicago, were they just had the deadliest September since the days of Al Capone, 98% of which was black-on-black crime.
Keep it up Michelle and you too can have a love affair with vodka, just like your idol.
——

Searching For Transparency

Gregg Jarrett has been one of the few people who has investigated the Obama spy scandal from the beginning. Everything he was saying three years ago has turned out to be true. He posted an article on his website today about some recent comments from Representative Devin Nunes.

The article reports:

Representative Devin Nunes, a Republican from California and top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has suggested a drastic idea to hold U.S. intelligence agencies accountable.  Specifically, for not turning over information regarding their intel on then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016.

In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Rep. Nunes said “every Republican senator and member of Congress should be saying…we want every damn bit of evidence that every intelligence agency has or it’s maybe time to shut those agencies down.”

Rep. Nunes’s comments come after the release of a shocking memo last week from John Ratcliffe. Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence, released through the Senate Judiciary Committee a memo which said “U.S. intelligence agencies obtained intercepted Russian intelligence agencies discussing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s authorization of a plan to link President Donald Trump to the Kremlin’s hacking efforts” reports the Daily Caller.

In the memo, Ratcliffe quoted a U.S. intelligence community investigative referral to the FBI which mentions the “approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.”

The key paragraph in the article states:

Nunes’ concerns stem from the fact that a lot of information on the matter is still classified, therefore he and other lawmakers cannot discuss it publicly. Nunes says he has seen those pieces of intelligence which are “definitely smoking guns” that “definitely needs to be made available to the American public.”

We need to know the truth before the election. Voters also need to understand that the misuse of the federal government to spy on political opponents will continue if the people responsible for it in 2015 and 2016 are not held accountable. Do you want to live in a country where a political party uses the instruments of government against its citizens? That is what will happen if the Democrats gain control of the government in November.

And The Games Continue

The Democrats are quietly trying to blunt the impact of the Republican National Convention on voters. Unfortunately, the people who put the Republic convention together had a better understanding of television production than the people who put the Democrat convention together. The latest effort by the Democrats was putting out a list of Republicans voting for Joe Biden. That was almost impressive until you looked at the list.

The Daily Caller posted the following today:

Nothing says “authentic” like a list of “Republican” supporters who aren’t Republicans.
That’s the sleight of hand Joe Biden just tried to pull. On Monday afternoon, his presidential campaign blasted out a “[h]uge list of Arizona Republicans … endorsing @JoeBiden today,” in an attempt to paint the Democratic ticket as bipartisan. We in Arizona were a little confused, though, because most of the endorsees on the list aren’t exactly what you’d call Republicans.
Right at the top of the list (you guessed it) is former senator Jeff Flake, who suddenly dropped out of his reelection race in 2017 after realizing that Republican primary voters didn’t like him — and neither did anybody else. Most of the time, the former senator is out of sight (and out of mind). But every now and then he’ll pop his head above ground to remind the media how woke he is and get a sniff of that “Strange New Respect.”
This week’s endorsement is just another example of that. In 2016, Flake announced that he wasn’t voting for President Trump. In 2019, he bragged that “I would support a Democrat” for president, adding: “… obviously Joe Biden comes to mind.” Finally, in early 2020, he reiterated that November “won’t be the first time I’ve voted for a Democrat.”

…Following Flake on Biden’s list is Jim Kolbe, who left Congress while George W. Bush was still in office. The former congressman soon after became an Obama appointee and subsequently crossed “Republican” off of his voter registration.
Following him is Grant Woods. You might be asking: “Who is that?” So are we.
Woods, a politician from the 1990s, gained a reputation as a liberal Republican before disappearing from the political world for a decade while working as a trial lawyer. He came out of the woodwork in 2010 to endorse Felecia Rotellini (now the Arizona Democratic Party’s chairwoman) for state attorney general and again in 2014 to endorse Democrat Fred DuVal for governor. Woods then endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 — he called her “one of the most qualified nominees to ever run” — and endorsed Democrats Hiral Tipirneni and Kyrsten Sinema in 2018 before formally changing his own voter registration to Democrat.
But, yes, definitely a Republican.

You get the picture. After a while you begin to wonder why President Trump is such a threat to the Washington establishment. Remember the statement by Hillary Clinton, “If That F-ing B*stard Trump Wins, We All Hang From Nooses.”

A video of the incident is posted at YouTube. Also here.

People who lose elections in America do not generally hang from nooses. This statement has always made me wonder what she was guilty of that put that thought in her mind.

As we continue through the political silly season, be aware that most of what you read from the mainstream media is simply not true or simply incomplete information. Be your own best fact-checker.

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.”