Right Wing Granny

News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.

Right Wing Granny

Tag Archives: House Judiciary Committee

When Our Justice Department Is Unjust

Posted on by

On Monday, The Daily Wire posted an article reporting information about the Fani Willis case obtained by the House Judiciary Committee.

The article reports:

Nathan Wade, the Georgia lawyer tapped to prosecute former President Donald Trump by his onetime lover, Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis, had extensive communications with the Biden-Harris White House, new records show.

Wade billed the Fulton County office for hours of meetings with the White House, the congressional January 6 committee, and other D.C. officials, according to records obtained by the House Judiciary Committee and released Monday.

The committee released a transcript of an interview with Wade, which was compelled by subpoena, in which he said that Willis was preparing to prosecute Trump even before she took office, and that she put Wade on a “search committee” to find a prosecutor, which ultimately chose him for the job.

On May 23, 2022, Wade billed the Fulton office for eight hours of travel and “Conf with White House Counsel.” Wade said he could not remember who from the White House was involved, or even where the meeting took place.

On November 18, 2022, he billed eight hours for “Interview with DC/White House,” but under oath claimed he didn’t remember the meeting and couldn’t even say whether it was online or in-person.

…Wade’s congressional testimony raises questions about whether Willis gave him a special prosecutor job knowing he lacked the relevant experience, in order to benefit him as a lover. Wade acknowledged to Congress that he had no relevant experience to be a special prosecutor, and that he took classes to learn how after taking the job.

U.S. Marshalls attempting to serve Wade with a subpoena could not locate him for days. Wade claimed he had turned his phone off because he was preparing for a trial, and also because he was on pain medication from hurting his ankle playing basketball.

What we have witnessed in the past three-plus years, is the weaponization of the American Justice Department against the political foes of the person in power. Unfortunately, if Kamala Harris is elected, this trend will continue. There are a lot of people in the Biden administration who have totally ignored their oath to uphold the Constitution. All of them need to be held accountable if President Trump is elected. That will not be going after political enemies–it will simply be requiring the Democrats to adhere to the rules of the game.

The Truth About Censorship

Posted on by

On Monday, The Daily Wire posted an article about some recent statements by Mark Zuckerberg regarding censorship under the Biden-Harris administration.

The article reports:

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a letter on Monday that the Biden-Harris administration repeatedly pressured his company — which includes Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp, and more —  to censor content that is protected free speech.

Zuckerberg made the admission in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) this week in which he said that his goal moving forward was to “be neutral and not play a role one way or another” for either any political party or ideology. He said he doesn’t even want the appearance of playing a role and will not be making political contributions.

“In 2021, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn’t agree,” he said in the letter. “Ultimately, it was our decision whether or not to take content down, and we own our decisions, including COVID-19-related changes we made to our enforcement in the wake of this pressure.”

The censorship during Covid probably resulted in people unnecessarily dying from the disease. We now know that there are some serious risks associated with the vaccine–that was kept quiet. We now that ivermectin used correctly can be an effective weapon against the disease–that information was suppressed. We now know that Hunter’s laptop was real–that information was censored. How much information about the current Democrat party candidates for President and Vice-President is being censored?

The article notes:

He (Zuckerberg) said that the company made a mistake by temporarily demoting a New York Post story during the 2020 election about Hunter Biden’s laptop after officials falsely suggested that it was part of a “Russian disinformation operation.”

“It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story,” he said. “We’ve changed our policies and processes to make sure this doesn’t happen again – for instance, we no longer temporarily demote things in the U.S while waiting for fact-checkers.”

We are living with the results of an election that was probably stolen in more then one way. Let’s not let that happen again.

We Need A Fair Search Engine!

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Hot Air posted an article about Google and Google searches. Searching for a politically conservative link on Google is like looking for ice cubes in the Sahara Desert.

The article reports:

When we first learned that Google’s autocomplete function in its search engine appeared to be blocking suggestions about Donald Trump’s attempted assassination (or even his name), the company assured us that those results were simply “an anomaly” in the code. But the House Judiciary Committee has been digging into the question more deeply and asked parent company Alphabet’s legal counsel to explain further. The answers the committee received weren’t exactly definitive, but they may provide a bit of additional clarity. First of all, the search engine absolutely was blocking autofill from pointing users to articles about the assassination attempt. But was it out of some bias against Trump? According to them, the system was performing as designed, but the design was overly broad. We’ll look into it a bit further here this evening. (National Review)

The article concludes that the blocking may not have been intentional politics, but a filter to prevent malfeasance.

The article concludes:

As to the far more damning searches for information about the assassination attempt, it was easy enough to note that the shooting created an iconic moment for President Trump and his approval ratings and donations were surging. A liberal outlet could easily be tempted to suppress such search results. But in reality, anyone searching for information related to trying to assassinate a President would no doubt raise red flags across the board. The FBI would (or at least should) be interested in any persons conducting such a search. Would it be that surprising that their default filters would prevent the autocomplete, typeahead function from refusing to fill in questions such as “How could I ass**ate President D*****”?” ( I won’t even type it out here or we will be blocked as well.)

The code underlying the search engines is smart, but it’s not “human smart.” I believe that they had such a filter in place to cover all such eventualities. And after the flaw was discovered, they had to go in and manually revise it to allow for searches dealing with news of the events in Butler, Pennsylvania. I’m generally not shy about criticizing Google and Alphabet, but in this case I believe I’m going to give them a pass.

That’s the word from someone who deals with search engines every day.

The Good Guys Have Recognized The Bad Guys

Posted on by

On Tuesday (updated Wednesday) The New York Post posted an article illustrating how few Americans and how few law enforcement officers trust the FBI.

The article reports:

As FBI Director Chris Wray performed his usual smarmy stonewalling in Congress Wednesday, a damning report on his $10 billion agency’s “cult of narcissism” was delivered to the House Judiciary Committee by an alliance of retired and active-duty agents and analysts. 

The same group gave us the scathing DEI report last year about the FBI’s degraded recruitment standards and coddling of physically unfit, mentally ill, drug-taking or generally useless agents to satisfy diversity requirements at the expense of merit and experience. 

This time they have assessed the entire bureau and drawn several worrying conclusions, including that local law enforcement partners have developed a “disturbing loss of trust in the FBI” and are therefore reluctant to share information, with alarming consequences for national security and public safety.

“Police officers and sheriff’s deputies on patrol and detectives investigating illegal activity in their jurisdictions have unparalleled visibility into street-level crime. … When this information is not immediately shared with the FBI, the FBI is left to address complex, evolving threats facing the United States with an unacceptably vast and debilitating ‘blind spot’ because [it] does not have enough personnel and resources to see into every corner of the country.”

…The picture that emerges of the FBI is of an incompetent, arrogant, bloated bureaucracy that includes a new generation of DEI hires described as “completely worthless” and “the worst batch of people.”

The report’s final damning indictment is reserved for the FBI Academy for New Agent Training in Quantico, Va., which “promotes a cult of narcissism by imbuing a false sense of superiority over all local, state and federal law enforcement.”

Taxpayer resources have been lavished on a new “wellness center” for yoga and meditation at the academy instead of teaching trainee agents the value of “humility and a higher sense of service and professionalism” when working with local law enforcement.

The article concludes:

Ultimately the whistleblower group says the only way to restore the FBI’s reputation and repair the damage is to force the resignation of Wray as “an extreme measure of last resort.

“… At stake are no less than the public’s safety and America’s national security.”

Judging by the sycophantic questioning of Wray by Democrats, we will have to wait for a Republican administration to clean house.

It is going to take a strong President and a strong Congress to clean up this mess!

What Did We Learn From The Hearing?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Just the News posted an article about the testimony of Special Counsel Robert Hur before the House Judiciary Committee.

The article lists the seven biggest takeaways from that testimony:

1. President Biden “willfully” retained classified documents

2. Hur indicated Biden was lying when he claimed in news conference he did not share classified information

3. President Biden’s motives for retaining classified documents were explored, including $8 million in book proceeds

4. Hur insisted that his report did not “exonerate” Biden

5. The Intelligence Community is completing a damage assessment on Biden’s handling of classified documents

6. Prosecutors believed there was an effort to destroy evidence

7.) Biden displayed a hazy memory, confusion during his two-day interview with Hur’s team

The article concludes:

In one line of questioning about Biden’s time after he left the vice presidency in early 2017, he struggled to remember the year of important events, like Donald Trump’s election in 2016 and the death of his son, Beau Biden, from brain cancer in 2015.

“And so what was happening, though – what month did Beau die? Oh God, May 30,” Biden said, according to the transcript reviewed by Just the News.

“2015,” a White House Counsel’s office attorney interjected.

“Was it 2015 he had died?” Biden asked.

The transcript contradicts statements President Biden made after Hur’s report was released last month. The president was publicly indignant and criticized Hur for allegedly raising the topic.

“How in the hell dare he raise that,” Biden said to reporters, speaking about Hur. “Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself it wasn’t any of their damn business.” Yet, the transcript shows it was Biden who first mentioned his son’s death.

After confirming the date of his son’s death with the lawyers, Biden still appeared to be confused about the timeline of his post-vice presidential private life.

Biden said: “And what’s happened in the meantime is that Trump gets elected in November of 2017?”

Two individuals corrected him, saying it was in “2016,” according to the transcript.

“2016. Alright, so – why do I have 2017 here?” Biden asked.

Even young people confuse dates. However, the really sleazy move was to blame Hur for bringing up Beau Biden’s death. President Biden brings that up anytime he feels it is useful to him–he even brought it up in the State of the Union address.

The Accusers Have NO Moral Ground To Stand On

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The New York Post posted an article about some of the activities surrounding the legal case against President Trump in Georgia. The shenanigans are unbelievable.

The article reports:

The special prosecutor that Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis is accused of having an “improper” relationship with billed the Fulton County DA’s office $4,000 for two eight-hour meetings with White House officials while overseeing the election interference case against former President Donald Trump, according to court documents.

The apparent meetings attended by Nathan Wade, an Atlanta-based private attorney hired by Willis to assist in the prosecution of the Trump and his co-defendants, took place in 2022 after he was tapped for the role, according to invoices included in a bombshell court filing by Michael Roman, a former Trump 2020 campaign official.

Roman argues in the court filing that Willis should be disqualified from the case and the charges against him dropped because of her alleged “improper, clandestine personal relationship” with Wade.

The services rendered by Wade in conjunction with the case seemingly included attending an event with White House counsel in Georgia and a meeting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, the invoices show. 

Not only are the taxpayers paying for the lawfare against President Trump, they are paying for an inappropriate relationship between the District Attorney and one of the prosecuting attorneys. The chutzpa of these people in amazing.

The article notes:

Last September, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) demanded that Willis detail any contact her office has had with federal officials about her prosecution of Trump, a request the DA refused to comply with. 

Jordan, a staunch defender of Trump, argued that Willis’ case could be “designed to interfere with the 2024 presidential election,” in which the 77-year-old is the Republican front-runner against President Biden.

Willis, in a chiding response to Jordan, accused the committee chairman of lacking “a basic understanding of the law” and attempting to “intrude upon and interfere with an active criminal case.”

Roman’s filing claims that “sources close to both the special prosecutor and the district attorney” have confirmed that Willis and Wade had an ongoing fling, and that Wade filed for divorce in Cobb County, Ga., “a day after his first contract with Willis commenced” in November 2021. 

The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday Willis has been subpoenaed to testify in Wade’s divorce proceedings. 

Does anyone in the Democrat party have a sense of decency or a respect for the Constitution?

More Shenanigans On The FISA Renewal

Posted on by

On Monday, The Washington Examiner reported the following:

Neither of the two bills to reauthorize and reform a powerful spy tool used by American intelligence agencies will be voted on this week after the Rules Committee pulled the legislation amid intense backlash.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who sits on the Rules Committee, confirmed to the Washington Examiner that neither the House Judiciary Committee nor Intelligence Committee bills to reauthorize and reform Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would be voted on this week.

…Now, with the bills being punted until next year, it theoretically gives committees the time to work out the differences. The House is also expected to vote on the National Defense Authorization Act on Thursday, which includes a short-term extension of FISA until April 19, 2024, something certain members also oppose.

“I’m really disappointed that we’re talking about a four-month extension in the authorities of FISA,” said Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), who helped author the Judiciary Committee bill. “So we should be laboring through to get this thing done, in my opinion.”

Under Section 702 of FISA, the federal government can surveil foreigners without a warrant for national security purposes. The collected information becomes part of a vast database of foreign intelligence that incidentally includes information about U.S. citizens who may have been communicating with people overseas.

There have been documented abuses of FISA. Because of this, most members want reforms but disagree on what those reforms should be.

I personally think that we have seen enough abuses and misuses of FISA to want it to go away. Obviously Washington politicians and bureaucrats do not have the maturity to use it wisely.

On Monday, The Conservative Treehouse reported:

For those confused. There are two bills to modify the FISA702 reauthorization in the House.  (1) HR 6611 from the House Intel Committee and (2) HR 6570 from the House Judiciary Committee.  The intel committee bill expands domestic surveillance authority under the modifications; the judiciary committee bill requires the DOJ to get a search warrant before they can look at the incidental collection of American citizens.

Both bills came out of committee and were scheduled for a floor vote tomorrow, which has been cancelled due to public outcry (good job).  Speaker Mike Johnson initially planned to let both bills get voted tomorrow and the bill with the most votes advances to the Senate.  😬That’s a hot mess.

The House Intel Committee bill organized by Chairman Mike Turner is absolutely horrible. It expands FISA702 surveillance and makes things much worse.  The House Judiciary Bill organized by Chairman Jim Jordan is not structurally that much better, but it does put strong curtailments on the 702 surveillance authority by forcing the DOJ to get actual court approved search warrants on American citizens.

It should not come as a surprise to see a panel of 46 experts in Deep State weaponization come out in support of the Intelligence Committee bill, and then decry the insufferable 702 limitations put into place in the Judiciary Committee bill.   The bad guys want the House Intel version.

As I stated, it’s time for FISA to go away.

What Happened At The Hearing?

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Daily Caller posted a summary of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. It’s amazing how many Democrats seem to have memory problems.

The article reports what it considers the biggest takeaways:

1. Biden-appointed prosecutors could refuse to cooperate with Weiss

Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan pressed Garland on his previous testimony to Republican Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley that Weiss had complete authority. Jordan emphasized Graves’ decision not to “partner” with Weiss on bringing charges against Hunter Biden.

2. It is unlikely the DOJ investigates the IRS whistleblowers

Republican Louisiana Rep. Mike Johnson questioned Garland on whether his office requested an investigation into the whistleblower testimony.

3. It is unclear why Weiss’ letters to Congress contradict themselves

Weiss wrote multiple letters to Congress in June and July responding to the IRS whistleblower allegations that his charging authority was limited. Weiss wrote a letter to Jordan in June where he said his charging authority was geographically limited to his home district and it was DOJ procedure to collaborate with U.S. Attorneys in their jurisdictions.

4. Garland appeared to dispute testimony from two FBI agents

Johnson questioned Garland on testimony from FBI agent Thomas Sobocinski who said Weiss had a “cumbersome” bureaucratic process for filing charges.

“There was administrative charge — or administrative process, not within DOJ, but also within tax.

5. Garland won’t talk about the details of the Hunter Biden case

The attorney general deferred to Weiss throughout his testimony when lawmakers asked specific questions on the details of the Hunter Biden case.

6. Garland did not consider appointing a special counsel from outside the Justice Department

Garland appointed Weiss as special counsel in August to continue the Hunter Biden investigation, even though DOJ regulations instruct for special counsels to be appointed from outside the government.

The article concludes:

The House Ways and Means, Judiciary and Oversight Committees are investigating the IRS whistleblower allegations alongside House Oversight’s probe into Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings. Speaker Kevin McCarthy said on Sept. 12 that the three committees would be leading the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

Hunter Biden was indicted on Sept. 14 on three counts related to his October 2018 purchase of a Colt Cobra revolver while he was allegedly addicted to crack cocaine. His attorney said in a court filing Tuesday that Biden would plead not guilty to the gun charges.

 

How Many FBI Agents Does It Take To Create A False Flag Incident?

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Gateway Pundit reported the following:

As reported earlier on Tuesday, The House Judiciary Republicans sent a letter Tuesday that includes transcribed testimony from former Assistant Director-in-Charge of the Washington Field Office (WFO) Steven D’Antuono.

D’Antuono testified that the FBI had numerous confidential human sources (CHS) in the Trump crowd on January 6.

In fact, they had so many FBI operatives in the crowd they had no idea how many were actually there that day!

D’Antuono had quite a record of failures and lies during his time at the FBI.

D’Antuono was the head of the FBI’s Detroit field office as the bureau was investigating an alleged kidnapping attempt against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

As Just the News notes, trial testimony alleges the “plot” wasn’t just investigated but instigated by the FBI, with the jury hearing that the bureau’s informants gave drugs to those who were eventually charged in the plot before recording their conversations and sometimes outnumbered “plotters” during meetings.

The entire plot was hatched, planned, paid for, and executed by paid FBI informants.

…In the letter released on Tuesday, D’Antuono told House investigators that he did not know how many FBI agents had infiltrated the crowd on January 6.

The letter suggested that “the FBI cannot adequately track the activities and operations of its informants, and that it lost control of its CHSs present at the Capitol on January 6,” D’Antuono wrote.

Later in the interview, he told investigators that “only a handful” of FBI informants were in the crowd that day.

For over two years now, The Gateway Pundit has been reporting on the FBI informants and feds who infiltrated the Trump crowds on January 6, 2021.

And we can report – for certain – that Assistant Director-in-Charge of the Washington Field Office (WFO) Steven D’Antuono is lying about the number of FBI operatives and informants in the crowd on January 6th.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. At the bottom of the article is further information uncovered by the research team at The Gateway Pundit.

The Cover-Up Continues

Posted on by

On Friday, The New York Post posted an article about FBI Special Agent Thomas Sobocinski’s closed-door testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. It seems that the Justice Department is working very hard to control what Congress finds out regarding their shielding the Biden family from any consequences regarding the incredible amount of money they received from overseas sources.

The article reports:

A transcript of FBI Special Agent Thomas Sobocinski’s closed-door testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last week, reviewed by The Post, reveals that the Justice Department detailed what Sobocinski could and couldn’t talk about with lawmakers a day before his Sept. 7 interview.

“Specifically, the Department has authorized [Sobocinski] to discuss U.S. Attorney [David] Weiss’ authority, as well as the October 7th, 2022, meeting, subject to some constraints around the ongoing investigation issue,” Sara Zdeb, a deputy assistant attorney general, informed congressional investigators before questioning began, referencing a letter to Sobocinski signed by Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer.

IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley, who supervised the Hunter Biden tax fraud investigation for more than three years, claimed in bombshell congressional testimony earlier this year that during the Oct. 7, 2022, meeting between senior-level managers from the IRS, the FBI and the Delaware US Attorney’s Office, Weiss declared that he was not the “deciding official on whether charges are filed” against Hunter and revealed that US Attorney Matthew Graves would not allow him to charge Hunter for tax fraud in DC and said he asked for and was denied special counsel authority from the DOJ. 

The article concludes:

House Judiciary Committee spokesman Russell Dye told The Post that Shapley and fellow IRS whistleblower Joseph Ziegler “have been wholly consistent throughout their disclosures to Congress, and the only people who haven’t are people like David Weiss, Merrick Garland, and their liberal cronies.”

Attorneys for Shapley said Sobocinski’s testimony was less credible than Shapley’s own contemporaneously documented notes.

“The ‘minutia’ of tax law and the impending expiration of the 2014/2015 charges are the reason the October 7, 2022 meeting was scheduled to begin with, so sounds like SAC Sobociski wasn’t paying attention—while SSA Shapley was taking notes,” tweeted Tristan Leavitt, president of Empower Oversight, which represents Shapley.

Jason Foster, chairman of the pro-whistleblowing group, wrote, “The only question is how close to perjury others are willing to dance to tow the Garland/Weiss company line—while DOJ-minders watch them testify. ‘Don’t recall’ feels safe when folks are trying to keep their jobs.”

Shapley’s testimony about other aspects of an alleged cover-up in the case has been partially corroborated by Ziegler and by recently retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent Joe Gordon.

Until the swamp in Washington is drained, influence peddling, money laundering, and insider trading will continue.

About Those RICO Laws…

Posted on by

RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) Laws were originally put in place to deal with organized crime. I suspect that the people who put them in place never dreamed that organized crime would make its way to the White House.

On Tuesday, Just the News reported the following:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan on Tuesday wrote to White House chief of staff Jeff Zients and Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding that the pair account for reports that a staffer in special counsel Jack Smith’s office repeatedly met with Biden White House officials.

Isn’t that special?

I thought that the purpose of the special counsel was to have an investigation free of interference from within the government.

The article notes:

“According to recent reporting, Jay Bratt—a Department of Justice employee and top aide to Special Counsel Jack Smith—met with White House officials multiple times, just weeks before Mr. Smith indicted former President Donald Trump,” Jordan (House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan) wrote to Zients. “This new information raises serious concerns regarding the potential for a coordinated effort between the Department and the White House to investigate and prosecute President Biden’s political opponents.”

The letter then proceeds to document the various meetings between Bratt and White House officials between 2021 and 2023. It further highlighted allegations that Bratt, in particular, “improperly pressured” a lawyer representing a Trump employee to cooperate with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the former president.

The article concludes:

“These facts reinforce the serious concern that Mr. Smith is not running an impartial and unprejudiced investigation and prosecution,” Jordan insisted. “The Committee has a significant interest in examining how the Department runs its Special Counsel investigations to inform potential legislative reforms concerning the Department’s Special Counsel practices and operations.”

Jordan demanded that Zients and Garland provide the Judiciary Committee with documents related to Bratt’s myriad visits as well as any communications between the Department of Justice and the Biden White House related to Smith’s operations.

Does anyone believe that if President Biden were a Republican, he would still be in office?

Busted!

Posted on by

On Thursday, Red State posted an article about one of the latest lies that Christopher Wray’s FBI has been caught telling.

The article reports:

I love “Community Notes,” Twitter’s crowdsourced fact-checking and context-adding feature that has repeatedly busted politicians in their false or misleading claims. On Thursday, they were at it again, nailing FBI Director Chris Wray, whose agency tweeted Thursday that “The FBI is not and has never been in the business of policing or investigating speech by parents at school board meetings…”

Community Notes begs to differ, and they added a little “context” to Wray’s claim:

The FBI’s statement is misleading. On May 18, 2023, former FBI agent Steve Friend testified before the House Judiciary Committee that he and others were directed to surveil and document parents attending school board meetings.

But Notes isn’t just making wild claims—they helpfully provide a link to a C-SPAN video showing suspended FBI agent Steve Friend testifying in front of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government in May. During his testimony, he said that the bureau’s Joint Terrorism Task Force did indeed conduct surveillance of school boards. On Thursday, he flat-out called Wray a liar:

The article concludes:

The various House committees are slowly, in drip-drip fashion, revealing just how politicized this DOJ is, and it’s nice to see them get a little assist from Community Notes.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It shows how whistleblowers are being mistreated by the FBI and illustrates how badly our justice system has been perverted by the Biden administration.

 

This Really Shouldn’t Surprise Anyone

Posted on by

On Monday, PJ Media posted an interesting article about the fifty-one national security officials who wrote a letter suggesting that the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop reported by The New York Post were Russian disinformation, and that there was no proof the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. This turned out to be a rather ridiculous claim after Hunter Biden’s attorneys sued the computer repair shop owner for invasion of privacy after it released the information. Why would he do that if the information was bogus? But it gets even better.

The article reports:

For the past couple of years, we’ve been led to believe that the letter from 51 national security officials was some sort of spontaneous, grassroots effort by the intelligence community to warn us about the potential foreign influence behind Hunter Biden’s laptop.

The laptop has since been confirmed to be legitimate, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence confirmed that there was no foreign disinformation campaign involved. But new information from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and congressional investigators, with the help of two Obama-era CIA officials, has revealed a new twist in the story. The investigation has uncovered evidence linking the letter dismissing the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation during the 2020 election to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.

…Jordan revealed to Just the News that a report on government weaponization is set to be released later this month, detailing the individuals involved in the letter and the evidence linking them to the Biden campaign. Jordan suggested that the letter may have been a significant interference in the presidential election and was motivated by political considerations. Jordan declined to provide more details as further witness interviews are being conducted this week.

“It was all done with politics, and it looks like there was some real connections with the Biden campaign,” Jordan said during an interview late last week on the John Solomon Reports podcast.

The article concludes:

I’m sure the question on everyone’s mind is: who in the Biden campaign was involved in this scheme? While Jordan has confirmed that evidence linking the letter dismissing the Hunter Biden laptop to the Biden campaign has been uncovered, he says specific ties to the Biden campaign will be disclosed in the interim report.

The corruption in our federal government never ceases to amaze me.

 

Saying The Border Is Open Is Racist!

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Townhall reported the following:

House Democrats on the Judiciary Committee mainly had only one response to Republicans highlighting the disaster the U.S.-Mexico border has become under President Joe Biden’s leadership: Saying the southern border is open is racist.

Pay no attention to the thousands of people walking into America illegally.

The article continues:

After Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) outlined the record-breaking numbers of illegal immigrants encountered, those who were able to avoid apprehension, and the amount of drugs seized, meaning much more was able to get into the U.S., Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said the first hearing about the crisis is a distraction and will only expose how racist Republicans are.

Nadler added the GOP’s focus on the border “almost makes me miss the usual obsession with conspiracy theories and the FBI.”

…El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego (D), who was the Democrat’s witnessed, testified the border was not open in his county, despite recently having a massive influx of illegal immigrants in September and December.

“There is no invasion of migrants in our community. Nor are there hordes of undocumented immigrants committing crimes against citizens or causing havoc in our community,” he added.

My advice to the Democrats is simple–if you are going to lie, at least make it believable!

Is This Legal?

Posted on by

As the Republicans prepare to take the majority in the House of Representatives, Democrats are preparing for the change. However, some of the preparation seems a little odd.

On Sunday, The Epoch Times reported the following:

Outgoing House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said the Jan. 6 committee will have to “scrub” some evidence from its final report before Republicans take over the house in 2023.

During an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Schiff was asked by anchor Dana Bash about Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) becoming chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee and will “go through the evidence you left out … you’re saying that there won’t be evidence that will not be made public?”

“The evidence will all be made public,” Schiff told Bash in response. “Now, we will have to make sure that we scrub that evidence for personally identifiable information, that the evidence that we provide protects people’s security, it doesn’t put them at risk. So, there are things that we’re going to have to do along those lines.”

The article also notes:

Elsewhere in his interview, Schiff declined to say whether he would comply with a House Republican subpoena when the GOP takes control.

“We’ll have to consider the validity of the subpoena,” he said. “But I would certainly view my obligation, administration’s obligation to follow the law. And the fact that they have disrespected the law is not a precedent I would hope that would be broadly followed. But we’ll have to look at the legitimacy or lack of legitimacy of what they do.”

Schiff, meanwhile, did not say when the final Jan. 6 select committee’s report would be released to the public. The panel will end with the start of the next Congress in January 2023—like all other select committees created during the current session of Congress.

So there are only consequences for not complying with a subpoena when the Democrats issue the subpoena? I am honestly beginning to wonder if our unequal system of justice has reached the point on no return.

The Real Game

Posted on by

As you no doubt are aware, Senator Schumer has ‘uncovered’ documents that show that the Democrats need to call witnesses in the Senate in addition to witnesses that testified in the House of Representatives. While this is much ado about nothing, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article today that explains the actual goal of all the drama. The article is very detailed (including the full arguments from the House of Representatives asking for more witnesses and the Department of Justice’s response). I suggest that you follow the link above to read the entire thing.

The article notes:

As we suspected, albeit against much criticism, House counsel Doug Letter has responded to the DC Appeals Court arguing the forced testimony of White House counsel Don McGahn is needed for evidence in impeachment trial. [Court pdf Avail Here]

This court filing today bolsters the unspoken background motive for delayed House Impeachment Managers.  The House Judiciary Committee is using impeachment as support for their ongoing effort to gain: Don McGahn deposition, and Mueller grand jury material (6e).  The goal is opposition research; impeachment is a tool to establish legal standing to obtain it.  Everything else is chaff and countermeasures.

The Democrats are looking for a legal basis to continue their fishing expedition to gather campaign fodder for 2020.

The article continues:

This court filing bolsters CTH analysis that rushed House articles are a means to an end. That is – a way for House lawyers to argue in court all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for pending judicial proceedings, a trial in the Senate.

This would explain why all the prior evidence debated for inclusion and legal additions to “articles of impeachment” were dropped. Instead the House focused only on quickly framing two articles that can facilitate pending court cases.

…REMINDER: The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) led by Chairman Jerry Nadler has been seeking: (1) Mueller grand jury material; (2) a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn; and less importantly (3) Trump financial and tax records.  Each of these issues is currently being argued in appellate courts (6e and McGahn) and the supreme court (financials/taxes).

Looking at the legal maneuvers from that perspective means the grand jury material is the unspoken goal and impeachment is simply the enhanced means to obtain it.

The 6(e) material relates to evidence gathered by the Mueller team for grand jury proceedings in their two-year effort to construct a case against President Trump.

Remember, the Mueller evidence was gathered during a counterintelligence investigation, which means all things Trump -including his family and business interests- were subject to unbridled surveillance for two years; and a host of intelligence gathering going back in time indefinitely. A goldmine of political opposition research.

Obviously if Jerry Nadler could get his hands on this material it would quickly find its way into the DNC, and ultimately to the 2020 democrat candidate for president. This material would also be fuel for a year of leaks to DC media who could exploit rumor, supposition, and drops of information that Andrew Weissmann and team left to be discovered.

The article highlights some of the Department of Justice response:

[…] “Pursuing an interbranch suit in court while simultaneously pursuing impeachment, and then using that litigation as part of the impeachment proceedings, is “far from the model of the traditional common-law cause of action at the conceptual core of the case-or-controversy requirement.” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 833 (1997) (Souter, J., concurring). But that is exactly what the Committee has done. The effect of that choice is
to “embroil the federal courts in a power contest nearly at the height of its political tension.” Id.

Indeed, if this Court now were to resolve the merits question in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial. That would be of questionable propriety whether or not such a judicial resolution preceded or post-dated any impeachment trial. Cf. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 232, 235-36 (1993).

The now very real possibility of this Court appearing to weigh in on an article of impeachment at a time when political tensions are at their highest levels—before, during, or after a Senate trial regarding the removal of a President—puts in stark relief why this sort of interbranch dispute is not one that has “traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.” Raines, 521 U.S. at 819.

This Court should decline the Committee’s request that it enter the fray and instead should dismiss this fraught suit between the political branches for lack of jurisdiction.

Stay tuned. Meanwhile, understand that the emails that Senator Schumer has discovered are not a ‘smoking gun’–they are simply a record of the way business is done in Washington.

The Deflection Involved In Impeachment

Posted on by

One of the things the media became expert at during the Obama administration was deflection. They were good at it before then, but they perfected it during the Obama years. The current impeachment trial is one example of deflection.

On December 16th, The Federalist posted an article that tells a story that the Democrats in Congress have fought to avoid telling.

The article reports:

Robert Powell, the husband of Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, D-Fla., reportedly took $700,000 from a Ukrainian oligarch named Igor Kolomoisky. Mucarsel-Powell sits on the House Judiciary Committee, the committee that drafted two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump for his alleged abuse of power with regards to Ukraine.

In 2018, the Daily Beast reported that a number of businesses linked to Kolomoisky hired Powell as an attorney. One of those firms paid Powell at least $700,000 over two years, according to public records.

The Miami Herald reported Powell was working for companies tied to Kolomoisky for 10 years. Powell made most of his money in the two years leading up to his wife’s election in 2018.

Kolomoisky has been accused of contract killings and embezzlement in the past. Yet, in 2018 when Mucarsel-Powell was running for her seat, she did not see her husband’s work as relevant to her campaign.

“Debbie Mucrasel-Powell is running for Congress, not her husband. To imply that Debbie has anything to do with her indirect shareholder of a parent company that once employed her husband is an enormous stretch,” said Michael Hernandez, senior communications advisor for her campaign in 2018.

While Mucrasel-Powell may have convinced her constituents that her husband’s work is unrelated, it is a clear conflict in the current impeachment of Trump. Mucarsel-Powell voted to impeach Trump.

The article concludes:

And yet, no Democrats see a problem with one of their own committee members’ spouses doing business with a Ukrainian ogliarch. There has been no check on whether Mucrasel-Powell is benefitting from her husband’s work with a foreign power that interfered in the 2016 election.

There is a double standard in Mucrasel-Powell’s ability to impeach the President for his work in Ukraine, simultaneously, allowing her husband to earn money from Kolomoisky, a thug from the same foreign power.

The alternative media still includes a number of investigative reporters. It is quite likely that more of this sort of information will be uncovered in the near future. We may be about to discover how someone can enter Congress as a member of the Middle Class and emerge ten years later as a millionaire on a salary of $174,000 while supporting a home in their district and one in Washington, D.C.

Accidental Honesty?

Posted on by

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today that included a very telling quote from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

The article notes:

Pelosi admitted that the Mueller investigation was also about impeachment.

“The biggest criticism in this process has been the speed at which the House Democrats are moving,” a moderator from Politico’s “Women Rule” summit said to the Speaker this week.

Speed?” Pelosi said. “It’s been going on for 22 months, okay? Two and a half years actually.”

Pelosi continued, “But we’re not moving with speed. It was two and a half years ago that they initiated the Mueller investigation.”

When you consider the problems with the way the Mueller investigation was initiated, this is a very troubling statement. If you read the Inspector General’s Report and listen to the comments of Attorney General William Barr, you realize that the Mueller investigation did not start on solid ground. The entire Russian fiasco was based on illegal surveillance and baseless accusations. What Speaker Pelosi admitted is that the Democrats had planned to impeach President Trump as soon as he got elected. The text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were further proof of that. That behavior is more appropriate in a banana republic than a representative republic.

Let’s back up a  minute and look at where we are. The House Judiciary Committee has approved two articles of impeachment against President Trump. Next week the full House will vote on impeachment. At that point, it goes to the Senate for trial. There are a few options–it can be dismissed because of the civil rights violations in the House investigation, it can be voted on immediately and defeated (it is unlikely any Republicans will vote for impeachment, and it needs a two-thirds majority to pass), or the Senate can hold a full trial with witnesses. The third option is where the swamp comes into play. There are very few politicians in Washington with clean hands. If you pull the loose yarn on a sweater, are you in danger of unraveling the entire sweater? Joe Biden is not the only Congressman with family ties to Ukraine and other foreign nations. The full trial with witnesses is what needs to happen, but my guess is that much of the corruption in Washington will continue to be protected by those in charge, and a quick vote will be the choice of those in power.

The Roadrunner Strikes Again

Posted on by

President Trump has about a year left to serve in office. There really is no reason to impeach him when you consider that the voters will make that call in November. Evidently the Democrats don’t trust the voters. In their effort to unseat a duly-elected President, the Democrats are beginning to look like Wile E. Coyote chasing the roadrunner. Their supply of Acme rockets and dynamite are simply not working.

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article that might indicate some of the Democrat’s desperation.

The article reports:

Dozens of red state Democrat lawmakers quietly oppose impeachment because they know they will lose their jobs if they vote in favor of impeachment.

However, the radical, rabid Democrats are hoping to roll out the stale Muller report and highlight the ’10 instances of obstruction by President Trump’ — none of which Mueller decided to charge Trump with after two years of a bogus investigation.

Via The Washington Post:

Members of the House Judiciary Committee and other more liberal-minded lawmakers and congressional aides have been privately discussing the possibility of drafting articles that include obstruction of justice or other “high crimes” they believe are clearly outlined in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report — or allegations that Trump has used his office to benefit his bottom line.

The idea, however, is running into resistance from some moderate Democrats wary of impeachment blowback in their GOP-leaning districts, as well as Democratic leaders who sought to keep impeachment narrowly focused on allegations that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rivals, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk freely.

The debate is expected to play out in leadership and caucus meetings this week, as the House Intelligence Committee prepares to hand the impeachment inquiry to the House Judiciary Committee. The Intelligence Committee is scheduled to vote Tuesday night on its final report on Ukraine, allowing Judiciary to then work on writing articles of impeachment based on that document.

This is called desperation. We have transcripts of conversations involved. We have a credible first-hand witness that testified under oath that there was no quid pro quo, and if you read the transcript, you find that the mention of Hunter Biden was not a major part of the conversation. This is a total waste of time and money. President Trump is one of the few Presidents in recent history that has not used his office to benefit his bottom line. He is one of the few that did not need to!

How Much Privacy Is A President Entitled To?

Posted on by

Hot Air posted an article today about the ongoing court battle regarding the Congressional subpoena of former White House Counsel Don McGahn. Counsel McGahn was summoned by the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions about the time he worked for President Trump.

The article reports:

Whether or not he would appear was a bone of contention for a while until a federal judge issued a dramatic proclamation on Monday, stating that “Presidents are not kings” and ordering McGahn to appear.

Well, that lasted for all of three days. By Wednesday evening, that same judge had backed down, allowing a request from the Justice Department to delay the implementation of the ruling until the appeals process has played out. Of course, this doesn’t mean McGahn (and the President) are totally off the hook, but they’ve at least bought a bit of breathing room. (Daily Mail)

The article concludes:

That doesn’t mean that the final decision on McGahn won’t cast a long shadow, however. How this plays out will have consequences for the ongoing impeachment circus. At issue here is the question of whether or not aides to the President are shielded from revealing details of private conversations they’ve had with the boss or the counsel they offered. Also, whether or not that shielding lasts indefinitely even after they’ve left their positions with the White House.

That sort of privacy has long been assumed to be part of the President’s executive privilege. But does that extend to investigations of potential criminal conduct? That’s the question that will be answered when the dust settles on McGahn’s subpoena. If he’s ordered to show up and testify, that could open the gate for numerous other Trump aides to be called in to talk about all of the Ukraine events. And that’s likely not something President Trump will want to see after we’re in the thick of the final push to next year’s election.

I guess my question is whether or not the President has the same civil rights as ordinary citizens, If you are an ordinary citizen, your conversations with your lawyer are protected by law. We saw this Constitutional principle violated when Michael Cohen’s offices were raided. Now the question is whether or not we are going to continue to violate President Trump’s Constitutional rights. All of us need to remember–if the President does not have Constitutional rights, then none of us have Constitutional rights.

Trying To Track All Of The Moving Parts

Posted on by

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the timelines involved in the respective strategies of the Democrats and Republicans in the impeachment saga. It is a very complex article, and I suggest that you follow the link above to read the entire article. However, I will try to list a few highlights here.

The article reports:

Today we have some new background to help see the narrative race and legal race. Pelosi and Schiff are not only racing the impeachment vote against the IG report, they are also racing against the Judicial branch wiping out all prior “impeachment inquiry” validity.

Effective at the end of business today the House is now in recess for the Thanksgiving holiday.

The article explains the calendar:

On December 9th the IG report on FISA abuse and DOJ/FBI corruption will be released. On December 11th Michael Horowitz will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So there are two races.

♦ One race within the Trump impeachment is for the narrative: Trump Impeachment -vs- DOJ/FISA corruption against Trump. This is the race everyone is discussing.

♦ The second race within the Trump impeachment is legal: Pelosi, Schiff and ultimately Nadler -vs- the Judicial branch. This is the race few are watching, but actually could be far more consequential because it could invalidate the entire HPSCI process.

The aforementioned mid-December House Impeachment Vote is not a vote to impeach President Trump. It is a vote at the end of their “inquiry”; and a vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin their “official” impeachment hearings.

The mid-December vote will be to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin the “official” impeachment hearings. Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff need this vote fast; they need this vote before they lose any court case that could make the “impeachment inquiry” invalid.

Additionally, Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler need this full House authorization vote to gain the authority to penetrate the constitutional firewall that protects the separation of power in the “official” impeachment investigation. And they are hoping that any loss in the three pending cases will not undermine the validity of the prior impeachment inquiry…. that’s an issue.

That’s why Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler need to get that mid-December House vote before they lose any SCOTUS ruling. There are three cases, each of them appears heading to the Supreme Court; one is already there.

Please follow the link to the article for the details on the three court cases. December is going to be a very interesting month. I suspect that the Democrats are hoping that people will be too busy with Christmas things to be paying attention. Meanwhile, we may actually get to the bottom of the Russian hoax.

 

A Major Whoops From Robert Mueller

Posted on by

The Gateway Pundit has posted a number of articles today about the Mueller hearing. In case you successfully avoided watching the hearings, here is another highlight.

The article reports:

In his testimony on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, former special counsel Robert Mueller was asked repeatedly about why he didn’t indict President Trump after concluding his 22-month investigation into whether the president or his campaign colluded with Russia to alter the outcome of the 2016 election.

Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu asked the question explicitly.

“The reason you did not indict Donald Trump… is because of the OLC decision. Is that correct?” 

Mueller responded: “That is correct.”

The “OLC decision” is a ruling from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) within the Department of Justice (DOJ) — dating back to the time of Richard Nixon and Watergate — that says a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Several other Democrats asked the same question, eliciting the same response from Mueller.

But Rep. Debbie Lesko, a Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, cut through through the mess when she pointed out that Mueller said exactly the opposite in his 448-page report.

“That is not what you said in the report, and it’s not what you told Attorney General Barr,” Lesko said. “And in fact, in a joint statement that you released with DOJ on May 29 after your press conference, your office issued a joint statement with the Department of Justice that said: ‘The Attorney General has previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying, that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice,’ ” she said.

Lesko asked Mueller if he stood by that statement.

“I would have to look at it more closely before I said I agree,” Mueller said.

So which is it? Do you stand by your report as previously stated, or are you lying in the report or by what you are saying now?

This Went Much Farther Than What We Have Been Told

Posted on by

Real Clear Investigations posted an article today that reveals an aspect of the surveillance on the Trump campaign, Trump transition team, and Trump presidency that has not really been talked about much. The article deals with the surveillance by people the FBI placed (or attempted to place) within the campaign. I would just like to mention that Richard Nixon was impeached for far less than what the government was doing during the 2016 election. We have no idea how high up the shenanigans went, but I suspect we will eventually find out. That may be the reason Attorney General Barr is being attacked so fiercely.

The article reports:

Baker (former FBI general counsel James Baker being interviewed by CNN host John Berman) then seemed to switch the question from whether spying occurred to its intent, saying: “There was no intention by myself or anybody else I’m aware of to intrude or do activities with respect to the campaign.” Then he continued his sentence with a clause that significantly modified even that claim. There was no intrusion of the Trump campaign, he said, done “in order to gather political intelligence to find out what the political strategies were.” The FBI was only interested in what the campaign was up to regarding Russia.

There’s a very big difference between saying “I didn’t spy” and saying “I didn’t spy for inappropriate reasons.” The former is a denial, the latter is all but an admission. Baker asserted there was no spying done to gather information on Trump’s campaign strategies. Which could very well mean there was spying, just not any for the narrow reason given.

After a while you learn that you just have to parse some people’s statements to determine what the meaning of ‘is’ is.

The article includes testimony Trisha Anderson gave last Aug. 31 to the House Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight:

Later in her testimony Anderson let slip another piece of information undermining claims that the FBI isn’t in the spy game. The shop where she worked at the bureau is in charge of giving legal guidance for FBI activities. She was asked about whether she or her fellow lawyers in the general counsel’s office were involved in decisions about when confidential human sources had to be let go. “I’m not aware of any such instances,” Anderson said. And then she elaborated perhaps longer than intended: “Our office might and actually routinely provided legal advice on uses, investigative uses of sources overseas, for example, on double-agent operations is a good example of a circumstance that might implicate legal considerations.”

“You mentioned double-agent operations,” said the Republican staff lawyer. “It sounds like your office might give legal advice when an issue arose from an actual operational issue?”

“Correct,” Anderson said.

So for all the denials that the FBI uses spies, the truth seems to be that the bureau not only runs secret agents, but double agents.

Given the difficulties of double agent operations, success with them should be a source of pride, not shame. As long, that is, as they are not done for political purposes.

The average person is truly at a disadvantage in trying to piece together exactly what went on during the 2016 presidential campaign. The media is very careful and very selective in what it reports. Our only hope is that when the investigations are done, those guilty of using the government for their own personal spying operations will be held accountable. I am also hoping that the results of all investigations into the investigators will be made public.

In Case You Were Wondering If It Was Political…

Posted on by

On Monday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about the Democrats’ calls to make the entire Mueller Report public, including source information, Grand Jury testimony, etc. Well, there are some pretty strict rules protecting the secrecy of Grand Jury testimony, and it is quite possible that disclosing other information could be a problem for our intelligence services (and possibly some foreign intelligence services). It should be noted that in their calls for transparency I haven’t heard them ask that the FISA warrants and background information on those warrants be made public. However, this call for transparency on the part of the Democrats is an interesting contrast to their reactions to previous Special Counsel reports.

The article reports:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is the leading Democrat demanding the release of the Mueller Report “in its entirety” without redactions.

His committee is planning to subpoena the Justice Department for the full report.

But back in 1998, as a member of the same committee, he vociferously opposed the release of the full Starr Report, saying that “as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all.”

Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating then-President Bill Clinton, delivered his report to Congress on Sept. 9, 1998. That night, Nadler went on Charlie Rose’s show to push back against the Republican demand that the voluminous report should be made public. “It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses,” Nadler said. “Salacious material. All kinds of material that it would be unfair to release,”

What Nadler, 71, said in 1998 echoes what Attorney General William Barr told Congress last week. Barr, 68, wrote that he might redact grand jury testimony, information related to ongoing investigations, sensitive or classified information, and “information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties” from the report that he provides to Congress and the public.

Representative Nadler does not want the entire report made public–he wants the Democrats to get the entire report so that they can leak misleading parts of the report and make the scandal last until the 2020 election. The is a political game.

The article concludes:

Special counsel Mueller declined to charge anyone associated with the Trump campaign of coordination with the Russians, but did not reach a decision on obstruction. Attorney General Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that Trump had not obstructed justice.

How can you have obstruction when there was no crime?

 

How A Dishonest Investigation Works

Posted on by

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse reported that Congressman Doug Collins released the transcripts from the testimony of George Papadopoulos before the House Judiciary Committee. The article includes a PDF File of the 239-page transcript. Oddly enough, the transcript was released on the day that Papadopoulos released his book, “Deep State Target.”

To me, this is the most telling part:

When Robert Mueller took over the Crossfire Hurricane operation, the FBI ran an elaborate entrapment string against Papadopoulos using a CIA asset in Israel and a payment of $10,000 in cash.  FBI Agents were waiting at the airport in Washington DC for Papadopoulos to return.  However, that part of the Mueller plan failed because Papadopoulos left the money behind.  So they applied pressure another way, from his book:

It gets even more interesting–the article cites an energy deal that George Papadopoulos was a part of in the Middle East.

The article concludes:

Here’s the interesting aspect…. Do you know who was the original energy policy consultant; the person who wrote the obscure -at the time- policy paper; a plan to avoid putting an EU pipeline through Turkey; and the person who put all of these regional heads together; that ultimately ended with this announced deal?

That would be the little known, generally invisible young energy adviser, who would eventually become the central figure in the “spygate” targeting, George Papadopoulos.

Yes, for those following the granules as they expose, that 2014 energy extraction strategy; a plan from a little known energy consultant; would have put Papadopoulos in opposition to the interests of President Obama, candidate Clinton, Turkey, Qatar and ultimately Iran and Russia.

Huh… Funny that.

It’s almost as if…..

Some Democrats have long memories, nasty tempers, and are willing to wait for revenge.