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

I Guess Everyone Doesn’t Want Transparency

On Monday, Just the News reported the following:

Forensic investigators hired by a Republican-led committee recovered more than 100 encrypted files that the Democratic-led House Jan. 6 Select Committee deleted days before the GOP took over the House majority, according to a new report released Monday.

House Administration Oversight Subcommittee Chair Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., sent a letter to former Select Committee Chair Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., demanding he provide answers and passwords for the data, which was deleted against House rules, according to Fox News Digital

The Oversight Subcommittee, which is investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and the former select committee, should have received four terabytes of archived data from the select committee after Republicans entered the majority in January 2023, but it obtained less than three terabytes of data.

The subcommittee hired a digital forensics team to determine what information was not handed over, and the team discovered 117 files that were encrypted and deleted on Jan. 1, 2023, two days before Republicans were sworn into the majority, according to the report. 

Loudermilk said in his letter to Thompson that the Mississippi Democrat acknowledged over the summer that the select committee “did not archive all Committee records as required by House Rules” and had “sent specific transcribed interviews and depositions to the White House and Department of Homeland Security but did not archive them with the Clerk of the House.”

One recovered file detailed an individual whose testimony was not archived, but “most of the recovered files are password-protected, preventing us from determining what they contain,” Loudermilk also said. 

It is (remotely) possible that this is totally innocent; however, people generally delete things for a reason. The fact that the deletions took place two days before the Republicans took control of the House really does not inspire confidence in the work of the January 6th Committee.

The article concludes:

“It’s obvious that Pelosi’s Select Committee went to great lengths to prevent Americans from seeing certain documents produced in their investigation,” Loudermilk (House Administration Oversight Subcommittee Chair Barry Loudermilk) told the news network. “It also appears that Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney intended to obstruct our Subcommittee by failing to preserve critical information and videos as required by House rules.”

This is not the first report of missing data from the Jan. 6 select committee. Loudermilk told the Just the News, No Noise” TV show last year that all videotapes from select committee depositions are missing. 

The Ever-Changing Narrative

Yesterday, instead of complying with the subpoena issued by Congress, Hunter Biden held a mini press conference outside the Capitol building. When Republicans are in contempt of Congress (which Hunter Biden now is), they get arrested. It will be interesting to see what happens to Hunter Biden.

The Daily Caller posted an article about the statement made by Hunter Biden when he gathered the press together yesterday.

The article notes:

Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan said six words that Hunter Biden told reporters on Wednesday represent a “huge change” in the ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

Hunter defied republicans’ subpoena for closed-door testimony on Wednesday, saying he would only testify publicly. House republicans have threatened to hold Hunter in contempt of Congress.

The article includes the following statement by Representative Jordan:

“The White House’s story has changed multiple times, the Justice Department story has changed multiple times how they handled this investigation. But the story that hasn’t changed, the testimony that has been consistent and stood up to cross examination is the two whistleblowers. Their story has not changed and frankly it’s been buttressed and reinforced by – we’ve done eight different depositions of people involved in the investigation at the Justice Department…None of them have refuted what those guys say. So over time it just keeps changing from the White House. This statement today I think is the biggest news of the morning I guess along with the fact he didn’t show up which he’s supposed to do.”

In September I posted an article about the changing narrative on Hunter Biden’s business dealings (article here). The narrative has evolved as evidence has been uncovered. It began with ‘President Biden has no knowledge of his son’s business dealings, evolved into ‘there is no direct evidence Hunter Biden did anything wrong’ and now has become ‘my father was not involved in any of the financial transactions that I was involved in.’

The next iteration will be, “Joe Biden was in business with his son, but they didn’t do anything illegal.” They need to come up with more Trump drama to see if they can distract people from the truth.

Destroying Evidence Again?

On Friday, a website called rsbnetwork posted the following:

Shocking new information from Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., appears to prove that President Trump was right yet again when it comes to the Jan. 6 Select Committee, which closed up shop earlier this year after an inconclusive investigation and hours of witness testimony.

During an interview on Real America’s Voice with “Just the News, No Noise,” Rep. Loudermilk stated that the Jan. 6 Committee did not preserve their deposition tapes, based on a conversation he had with Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who served as the Jan. 6 Select Committee chairman.

“That is true, I can confirm that,” Rep. Loudermilk stated when asked if the videotapes of infamous witness Cassidy Hutchinson were gone. “And all of the video tapes of all the depositions are gone.”

This story should have been easy to find in numerous sources, but this is the only source I found. Hopefully it is in other places so that Americans can be aware of the game being played.

The article notes:

Rep. Loudermilk explained on RAV, “I wrote a letter to Bennie Thompson asking for them and he confirmed that they did not preserve those tapes. He didn’t feel that they had to. But according to House rules, you have to preserve any data and information and documents that are used in an official proceeding – which they did. They actually aired portions of these tapes on their televised hearings, which means they had to keep those, but yet, he chose not to.”

He added that he believes “they exist somewhere, we’ve just got to find where all these videos are.”

The mind-blowing revelation that the Jan. 6 Committee allegedly failed to preserve their deposition tapes may come as a shock to some, but it is worth noting that President Donald Trump accused them of destroying evidence and records this past summer when Rep. Loudermilk raised a red flag on the issue.

The Republicans may think that they control the House of Representatives, but there are enough traitors in their ranks to prevent them from actually doing anything.

I Guess That Testimony Did Not Go As Planned

On Friday, Breitbart posted an article about the ongoing trial of President Trump in New York. It is becoming apparent that President Trump is being tried for a crime where there was no victim.

The article reports:

A Deutsche Bank AG executive told a court in New York on Tuesday that it is not unusual for loan clients to overstate their net worth, and that the bank does its own due diligence in determining eligibility for loans.

Another executive testified that the bank had benefited from its business relationship with Trump and had wanted to continue that relationship — all of which runs against Attorney General Letitia James’s civil fraud case against Trump: there was no one harmed by alleged overestimates of his worth.

Trump faces the first case ever brought in New York in which a borrower is being sued for fraud when no one is claiming actual harm. The state is seeking a $250 million fine against Trump, and wants him to be forced to give up control of his businesses.

Judge Arthur Engoron, an elected Democrat, issued a summary judgment that Trump was liable before Trump was ever able to mount a defense. The current phase of the trial is simply about the penalty. But it is undermining the state’s basic allegations.

On December 1st, The Messenger reported:

The evidence shows that banks made money on these loans, which were paid off either early or on time. In fact, none of the banks complained about the Trump organization’s estimations, which were accompanied by a warning that the banks should not rely on those estimates.

Moreover, James is seeking to kill a corporation once viewed as iconic in New York, not just by denying the certificates for the Trumps to do business in the city but by imposing $250 million in penalties for money that no one actually lost.

That all became curiouser this week when two bankers were called by the defense. Rosemary Vrablic and David Williams worked on Deutsche Bank loans to the Trumps for years, and they testified that the banks made millions and viewed Trump as a much-sought-after “whale” client — what Vrablic described as a “very high net-worth individual.”

Williams testified that net worth is “subjective” in such documents as property valuations and are offered as mere “estimates.” It is not uncommon for a bank’s estimates to differ from a client’s.

If nothing else, this illustrates the absurdity of the case.

The Videos Should Be Released Soon

On Saturday, The Gateway Pundit posted an article about the video tapes of the events of January 6, 2021.

The article reports:

In July, The Gateway Pundit and Cowboy Logic offered proof that the DOJ edited video to incriminate the Oath Keepers during their trial.

Today we offer evidence that the DOJ’s star witness in the Oath Keepers trial, Special Agent David Lazarus. lied under oath and was not present during an alleged confrontation as he testified in court. He was in a different location.

During the trial dealing with the events of January 6th, the Oath Keepers claimed that they had surrounded Officer Dunn, facing outward to protect him from the crowd.

According to J6 defendant Kelly Meggs and other Oath Keepers, Officer Dunn’s testimony changed throughout the trial. His final testimony was that he felt threatened by the Oath Keepers. From the evidence we have gathered at The Gateway Pundit we believe Harry Dunn was not being honest during his testimony.  And there is now video to confirm this.

During their trials (OKI, OKII and OKIII), video footage provided by the prosecution was presented and given as “evidence” to the defense.  As Don and Donna and The Gateway Pundit reported earlier – This video footage was doctored by the federal government!

The article continues:

The video was from reporter Stephen Horn’s footage from J6. The Horn video is roughly 2 hours in length… Horn starts outside the capitol, then enters and then ends once again, outside.  Around the 55-minute timestamp, or around 48 minutes into the video file, Horn enters the Small House Rotunda where the Oath Keepers are seen guarding Officer Dunn. The video that was provided as trial evidence mysteriously stops with a freeze frame seconds before Horn approaches the Oath Keepers.

The end result is that during the Oath Keeper trials, video footage that shows the Oath Keepers guarding Office Dunn, in a semi-circle facing away from Dunn, and speaking with protestors to diffuse anger or hostile actions toward Office Dunn, was never seen in court and could not substantiate their claim. It was edited out by the prosecution!

No Oath Keeper in trials 1, 2 or 3 ever saw this footage in trial!

Kelly Meggs and Jessica Watkins both called Don and Donna when they watched the show on June 17, 2023. They both stated that this was the first time they have ever seen this footage. They also speculated that this evidence had been altered or tampered with by the DOJ prosecution to prevent validating their claim that they protected Dunn.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. The footage of this incident should be made public in the near future. At that point, Americans will be able to see the video and make their own judgement.

Taking Advantage Of The Coronavirus

On Saturday The Epoch Times posted an article that illustrates Andrew McCabe’s lawyer’s using the coronavirus as an excuse to block McCabe from testifying before Congress.

The article reports:

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe won’t be appearing before a Senate committee this week after two members of the panel tested positive for the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, his lawyer said on Oct. 3.

McCabe was scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Oct. 6 to testify about the FBI’s handling of the probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, which later morphed into an investigation of President Donald Trump’s campaign.

An attorney for McCabe wrote to committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), informing him about the former bureau official’s decision to pull out of the hearing. The lawyer said that McCabe didn’t want to put his family at risk of catching the virus after Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who both sit on the committee, tested positive.

Congress can’t use Zoom? Does anyone actually believe that McCabe wanted to testify?

This is the attorney’s statement:

“Mr. McCabe is willing, able, and eager to testify in person about Crossfire Hurricane at any time in the future when it is safe to do so. But he is not willing to put his family’s health at risk to do so,” he continued.

“For these reasons, we are unwilling to appear in person for the October 6 hearing; and for reasons of fairness, we are unwilling to testify remotely. A fair and appropriate hearing of this kind—which is complex and contentious—simply cannot be conducted other than in person.”

Meanwhile, Americans have been working from home for months.

The article concludes:

“There’s a day of reckoning coming. Just stay tuned, and there’s more coming. There’s something else coming, more damning than this, believe it or not,” Graham told Fox News.

His comments came following revelations that the Washington-based Russian national who supplied former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele with most of the unverified claims in the infamous Russia dossier was himself investigated by the FBI on suspicions of being a spy for the Kremlin. The revelations were revealed in documents provided by Attorney General William Barr to Graham.

While aware of the counterintelligence concerns about Steele’s source, the FBI failed to disclose that to the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court as part of an application to surveil former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.

“To me, failure of the FBI to inform the court that the Primary Sub-source was suspected of being a Russian agent is a breach of every duty owed by law enforcement to the judicial system,” Graham said in a statement in reaction to the revelation.

The goal here is to delay the testimony at least until after the election. If Joe Biden becomes President, the investigation will disappear and we can expect more political corruption in the future.

This Could Get Very Interesting

The New York Post is reporting today that longtime Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested Thursday on a six-count indictment charging her with grooming young girls for sex.

The article reports:

The British socialite, 58, was arrested by the FBI in New Hampshire around 8:30 a.m., sources told The Post.

The just-unsealed indictment charges stem from Maxwell’s role “in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein” as early as 1994, court papers say.

“The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by Maxwell and Epstein, both of whom knew that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18,” the indictment says.

She is specifically accused of grooming three underage victims for sex with Epstein in places including his Upper East Side townhouse, Florida, New Mexico and London.

Maxwell is charged with six counts — conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, enticement of a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and two counts of perjury.

There are a few things to note here. Maxwell was arrested by the FBI–not any local jurisdiction. The charges will be announced by the US Attorney’s Office in Manhattan today. Her testimony, if she chooses to reveal what she knows, could be very damaging to many people in powerful positions. Hopefully she will be better protected than Jeffrey Epstein was.

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.”

Slowly Things Are Unraveling

Just the News has been one of the leading sources for information on the Flynn case and for tracking misreporting of the Mueller investigation. Today the site posted an article listing some of the things that need to be investigated in the Mueller investigation.

The article notes:

Despite a February 2018 order from the judge in the Flynn case Emmett G. Sullivan to prosecutors to turn over all material exculpatory evidence to the defense — including information impeaching the credibility of witnesses against him — prosecutor Brandon van Grack never turned over any of the recently released information showing:

    • FBI agents investigating Flynn’s contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak  had recommended closing the case after turning up “no derogatory information.”
    • Agents were blocked from closing the case by fired, anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok, who in text messages attributed his move to intervention from the bureau’s “7th floor” leaders.
    • A senior FBI official confessed qualms — in notes recorded after a 2017 senior strategy meeting on the Flynn investigation — about whether the bureau’s purpose was to discover the truth or, instead, entrap Flynn in a lie that would lead to his dismissal or prosecution.

The recent revelations raising questions of prosecutorial misconduct in the Flynn case fit an emerging, more general pattern of questionable tactics employed by the Mueller probe, including withholding relevant exculpatory evidence and misrepresenting the government’s interactions with investigative targets.

The article lists nine problems with the Mueller probe:

  1. Misrepresentation of Papadopoulos cooperation
  2. Silence about Trump Tower meeting exculpatory evidence
  3. Court filings with deceptively edited email
  4. Scope memo used debunked Steele Dossier to set investigative parameters
  5. Mueller final testimony ignores Steele Dossier
  6. Deceptive editing of Dowd voicemail
  7. The secret side deal
  8. Improper acquisition of transition email
  9. Misleading Trump’s lawyers about his status

General Flynn is not the person who should be facing a prison term. Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is chilling that this abuse of our legal system has been allowed to continue as long as it has.

Another Lie Exposed

The Gateway Pundit posted a video of some of the White House Defense team’s testimony before the Senate this morning. The focus was on facts–not ‘I presumed’ or ‘I felt’ or ‘it seemed to me.’ The article includes a short video of the testimony of Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin.

This is a partial transcript of that testimony:

Patrick Philbin: What changed? At first Manager Schiff agreed we should hear the unfiltered testimony from the whistleblower. But then he changed his mind… There was something else that came into play. And that was something Manager Schiff had said earlier when he was asked about whether he had spoken to the whistleblower.

Schiff: (TV clip) Uh, we have not spoken directly to the whistleblower. We would like to.

Patrick Philbin: And it turned out that statement was not truthful. Around October 2nd or 3rd it was exposed that Manager Schiff’s staff – at least — had spoken with the whistleblower before the whistleblower filed the complaint. And potentially had given some guidance of some sort to the whistleblower. And after that point it became critical to shut down any inquiry into the whistleblower… And Manager Schiff was in charge. He was chairing the hearings. And that creates a real problem from a due process perspective, from a search for truth perspective. Because he was an interested fact witness at that point. He had a reason. Since he had been caught out saying something that wasn’t true… It was he who ensured there wasn’t any inquiry into that… The Mueller Report… determined there was no conclusion. That wasn’t true… Chairman Schiff has made so much of the House case about the credibility of interpretations that the House managers want to place, on not hard evidence, but on inferences. They want to tell you what President Trump thought. They want to tell you don’t worry about what Zelensky said we can tell you what Zelensky actually thought… It is very relevant to know whether the assessment of evidence he’s presented in the past are accurate.

Facts can be very inconvenient things to liars.

This Is A Perfect Example Of Spin

CNS News posted a transcript of the letter Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wrote to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell regarding impeachment.

Here is the letter:

Dear Colleague on Next Steps on Impeachment

January 10, 2020

Press Release

Dear Democratic Colleague,

For weeks now, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has been engaged in tactics of delay in presenting transparency, disregard for the American people’s interest for a fair trial and dismissal of the facts.

Yesterday, he showed his true colors and made his intentions to stonewall a fair trial even clearer by signing on to a resolution that would dismiss the charges.  A dismissal is a cover-up and deprives the American people of the truth.  Leader McConnell’s tactics are a clear indication of the fear that he and President Trump have regarding the facts of the President’s violations for which he was impeached.

The American people have clearly expressed their view that we should have a fair trial with witnesses and documents, with more than 70 percent of the public stating that the President should allow his top aides to testify.  Clearly, Leader McConnell does not want to present witnesses and documents to Senators and the American people so they can make an independent judgment about the President’s actions. 

Honoring our Constitution, the House passed two articles of impeachment against the President – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – to hold the President accountable for asking a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 elections for his own political and personal gain.  

While the House was able to obtain compelling evidence of impeachable conduct, which is enough for removal, new information has emerged, which includes: 

·         On December 20, new emails showed that 91 minutes after Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, a top Office of Management and Budget (OMB) aide asked the Department of Defense to “hold off” on sending military aid to Ukraine.

·         On December 29, revelations emerged about OMB Director and Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s role in the delay of aid, the effort by lawyers at the OMB, the Department of Justice and the White House to justify the delay, and the alarm that the delay caused within the Administration.

·         On January 2, newly-unredacted Pentagon emails, which we had subpoenaed and the President had blocked, raised serious concerns by Trump Administration officials about the legality of the President’s hold on aid to Ukraine. 

·         And on January 6, just this week, former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton announced he would comply with a subpoena compelling his testimony.  His lawyers have stated he has new relevant information.  

I am very proud of the courage and patriotism exhibited by our House Democratic Caucus as we support and defend the Constitution.  I have asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the Floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate.  I will be consulting with you at our Tuesday House Democratic Caucus meeting on how we proceed further.  

In an impeachment trial, every Senator takes an oath to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.”  Every Senator now faces a choice: to be loyal to the President or the Constitution.  

No one is above the law, not even the President.

Thank you for your leadership For The People.

Sincerely,

Wow. It is my sincere hope that American voters are smart enough to see this for the sham that it is.

A Law Professor With Principles

The Gateway Pundit posted a link to Professor Jonathan Turley’s opening remarks at the Nadler impeachment panel on Wednesday. Professor Turley’s entire remarks can be found here.

These are a few of his opening comments:

Jonathan Turley:  I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevant facts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and I have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama. Second, I have been highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, I have repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter with the Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president. To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.7 That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.

Democrats take note. You will not be in power forever and someday the tables will be turned. Would you put up with this bogus impeachment?

When You Forget To Dot All Of Your I’s And Cross All Of Your T’s

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about a letter sent from a group of Republican Congressmen to Adam Schiff. It seems that when the Democrats put together their rules for impeachment, they forgot to cross out a portion of those rules that they did not plan to include.

The article reports:

In his letter Rep. McCarthy cites House Rule XI, Cause 2(j)(1) The Minority Rule on calling witnesses. This rule allows the Minority to call any witnesses they want on at least one day of a congressional hearing, upon notifying the Committee chairman, which the Republicans did this morning.

…According to the rule Democrats must allow Republicans at least one day to call any witnesses they want for at least one day of testimony.

…Pelosi and her Lawfare crew of condescending coup criminals overlooked the rule and didn’t change or strike it when they changed the other House rules for impeachment!

This is the rule:

The Minority Witness Rule (Clause 2(j)(1) of Rule XI) – The Minority is entitled to one additional day of related hearings at which to call their own witnesses if a majority of the Minority Members make their demand before the committee�s hearing is gaveled closed.

Stay tuned.

When Is A Coup A Coup?

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the coup attempt against President Trump. It is a long, involved article, so I suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article, but I will try to hit the high points here:

The article reports:

The “Coup” Against a Sitting U.S. President Became Official on October 29th, 2019…

The word “coup” shifted to a new level of formalized meaning last week when members of the political resistance showed up to remove President Trump wearing military uniforms.

Not only did U.S. military leadership remain silent to the optics and purpose, but in the testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman he admits to giving instructions to ignore the instructions from a sitting United States President.

In the absence of push-back from the Joint Chiefs, from this moment forth, the impression is tacit U.S. military support for the Vindman objective.

…Beyond the debate about the optics of the “coup“, within the testimony of Lt. Col Vindman, the witness readily admits to understanding the officially established policy of the President of The United States (an agreement between President Trump and President Zelenskyy), and stunningly admits that two weeks later he was giving countermanding instructions to his Ukrainian counterpart to ignore President Trump’s policies.

The coup against President Donald Trump went from soft, to hard.

What Lt. Col Vindman has done is against the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

Article 88 of the UCMJ states (from quora.com):

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

In the NCO courses I took, we were told that we were not to insult the POTUS or other officials while we were in an official capacity. So, if we had any negative opinion of the President or other officials, we weren’t to express it to our troops while serving in the capacity of their squad/platoon/company NCO.

All soldiers are allowed to attend political rallies, protests etc. as long as we are out of uniform and aren’t using our position to promote them. So, if I say, “My name is J. Pearson and I am for/against this”, it’s okay. If I appear in uniform and say, “I’m SSG Pearson of the US Army, and I’m for/against this”, then I could be punished under UCMJ.

The article at The Conservative Treehouse includes excerpts of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s testimony. It also includes a link to his full testimony.

Please read both to understand what the media and the Democrats are attempting to do here.

Is Lying Under Oath A Problem?

A name that seems to be in the news a lot lately is Marie Yovanovitch, who was appointed to be the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine by former President Barack Obama. She was fired by President Trump. Just for the record, ambassadors serve at the discretion of the President and can be fired for any reason. Marie Yovanovitch, however, had a reputation for saying negative things about President Trump and not supporting his policies. That is why she was fired.

Marie Yovanovitch was called before Congress as a witness in the faux impeachment hearings. She testified on October 11 in a closed-door session.

The Daily Wire posted an article today citing some problems with her testimony.

The article reports information obtained by the Tucker Carlson show:

“This show has obtained exclusively an email for that Democratic staffer for the House Foreign Affairs Committee sent by private email to the former American ambassador Marie Yovanovitch,” Carlson continued. “Yovanovitch, you know, is a key player in the Democrats’ impeachment probe and was recalled from her post in Ukraine by President Trump in May 2019 following allegations of serious partisanship and political bias.”

This is the content of the email:

I’m writing to see if you would have time to meet up for a chat — in particular, I’m hoping to discuss some Ukraine-related oversight questions we are exploring. I’d appreciate the change to ground-truth a few pieces of information with you, some of which are quite delicate/time-sensitive and, thus, we want to make sure we get them right.

The article continues:

Carlson noted that Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) asked Marie Yovanovitch about the email during her testimony and she allegedly stated that she never responded to the email.

“In fact, it turns out that she did respond,” Carlson revealed. “She said she ‘looked forward to chatting with [the Democratic staffer].”

“As Congressmen Zeldin pointed out, the ambassador’s original answer, which was dishonest, was given under oath,” Carlson concluded.

Zeldin confirmed Carlson’s segment on Twitter, writing: “It appears Ambassador Yovanovitch did not accurately answer this question I asked her during her ‘impeachment inquiry’ deposition under oath.”

The article concludes:

“I would highly suspect that this Democratic staffer’s work was connected in some way to the whistleblower’s effort, which has evolved into this impeachment charade,” Zeldin told Fox News on Thursday night. “We do know that the whistleblower was in contact with [House Intelligence Committee Chairman] Adam Schiff’s team before the whistleblower had even hired an attorney or filed a whistleblower complaint even though Schiff had lied to the public originally claiming that there was no contact. Additionally, while the contents of the email from this staffer to Ambassador Yovanovitch clearly state what the conversation would be regarding, Yovanovitch, when I asked her specifically what the staffer was looking to speak about, did not provide these details.”

“I specifically asked her whether the Democratic staffer was responded to by Yovanovitch or the State Department,” Zeldin concluded. “It is greatly concerning that Ambassador Yovanovitch didn’t answer my question as honestly as she should have, especially while under oath.”

Those attempting this faux impeachment need to remember that there are electronic records everywhere and Youtube videos of previous statements. They are in danger of being hoisted on their own petard!

This Obviously Did Not Go As Planned

Theoretically a lawyer interrogating a witness is never supposed to ask a question that he doesn’t already know the answer to. Asking a question you don’t know the answer to can lead to all sorts of bad things. Adam Schiff is a lawyer–he should know that. Well, evidently he had a moment when he forgot that principle.

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today about the testimony before the basement committee being run by Adam Schiff. Tim Morrison, the National Security Council’s Senior Director for European Affairs, was testifying. Mr. Morrison was in on the call, so he is not a hearsay witness.

This is the quote from the testimony from CBS News:

I also reviewed the Memorandum of Conversation (“MemCont’) of the July 25 phone call that was released by the White House. I listened to the call as it occurred from the Situation Room. To the best of my recollection, the MemCon accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call. I also recall that I did not see anyone from the NSC Legal Advisor’s Office in the room during the call. After the call, I promptly asked the NSC Legal Advisor and his Deputy to review it. I had three concerns about a potential leak of the MemCon: first, how it would play out in Washington’s polarized environment; second, how a leak would affect the bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners currently experience in Congress; and third, how it would affect the Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.

It is interesting that Mr. Morrison understood that the contents of the call would be twisted and used for political purposes. He was right. At this point I would also like to note that it is very likely that Joe Biden’s son was not the only relative of an American politician tied up in Ukrainian oil corruption. I suspect that as more information comes out about Ukrainian corruption we will see other names we recognize.

 

When You Poke The Bear

There were two articles posted at The Federalist yesterday (here and here) about the current circus in the House of Representatives. I suspect this is not going exactly the way the Democrats had intended.

The first article notes:

In tense testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) on Friday, the inspector general for federal spy agencies refused to disclose why his office backdated secret changes to key whistleblower forms and rules in the wake of an anti-Trump whistleblower complaint filed in August, sources told The Federalist.

As The Federalist reported and the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) confirmed, the spy watchdog secretly changed its whistleblower forms and internal rules in September to eliminate a requirement that whistleblowers provide first-hand evidence to support any allegations of wrongdoing. In a press release last week, the ICIG confessed that it changed its rules in response to an anti-Trump complaint filed on August 12. That complaint, which was declassified and released by President Donald Trump in September, was based entirely on second-hand information, much of which was shown to be false following the declassification and release of a telephone conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The first article concludes:

Several top lawmakers in the Senate raised similar concerns about Atkinson’s behavior in a separate letter.

“Why did the IC IG initially require first-hand information in its May 2018 disclosure form?” the senators asked. “Why did the IC IG remove the requirement for first-hand information?”

Atkinson has not answered their questions, either, raising questions that his behavior following his receipt of the anti-Trump complaint might not be completely above board. Atkinson ignored legal guidance from both the director of national intelligence and the Department of Justice that the anti-Trump complaint was statutorily deficient and forwarded it to HPSCI even though it did not meet the legal definition of an “urgent concern” that is required to be given to Congress.

The embattled ICIG also admitted on Friday that the anti-Trump complainant lied on his whistleblower complaint form by concealing the complainant’s previous secret interactions with House Democratic staff prior to submitting the complaint. Atkinson never even bothered investigating potential coordination between the complainant, whom DOJ said showed evidence of partisan political bias, and House Democrats prior to the filing of the anti-Trump complaint.

The second article is more of a history of the entire Ukraine scandal. It mentions the fact that there are genuine concerns about Ukraine interference in the 2016 American presidential election.

The second article also suggests some motivation behind this current circus:

The Democrats’ case for impeachment is hopeless, but their motivation is simple. They whipped up their base into such a delusional frenzy during the “Russia investigation,” they have to keep the narrative going at all costs. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi faces a rebellion from her caucus if she doesn’t go along with it.

There may be a more serious motivation behind this:

But there’s a group of intelligence bureaucrats at work here, and their motivation is a bit different. An immediate motive may be to prevent an investigation into how the Russia probe started. This includes an investigation into how a document the Hillary Clinton campaign created — using anonymous Russians and a British national tied to Russia — was used by our intelligence agencies to investigate Trump.

The other possible motivation is more complex. During the “Russia investigation,” many in the intelligence agencies worked to subvert Trump’s foreign policy and remove Trump, through spying, a large series of leaks, and articles planted with friendly outlets. Trump’s campaign was even spied on before the election, via something called the “two-hop rule,” once a secret court granted a warrant to spy on Trump campaign officials such as Carter Page.

Because of this, the White House moved to cut off the broader “intelligence community” — inexorably tied to America’s foreign policy establishment that Trump ran against — from information the White House knew many in the intelligence agencies would use to selectively leak.

That could mean some of what’s going on today, at least from the CIA angle, is intelligence bureaucrats “striking back” because they lost their access to diplomatic communications, a coveted source of the intelligence community’s power. But even the Obama administration liked to hide diplomatic calls from the broader intelligence community, which should tell us something about that bureaucracy.

The second article includes the following statement:

In other words, the real big takeaway here is that we have a problem with our Washington bureaucracy, including our intelligence agencies, which have routinely crossed the line into policymaking. How much of the impeachment mess is due to CIA bureaucrats being incensed that Trump, who is elected, would dare to question military aid to Ukraine, and would dare to curtail their eavesdropping on diplomacy?

What we see here is an illustration of the reason why we need to drain the swamp.

The Truth May Be Slightly Different Than What You Have Heard

The Gateway Pundit today posted an article about some recent comments by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Some of Secretary Pompeo’s recent comments have been totally misrepresented in the press.

The article reports:

Pompeo told reporters how Democrats in the House violated fundamental principles, contacted State Department officials directly and told them NOT to contact legal counsel.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: Back to first principles. The predicate of your final question about objecting to what the folks on Capitol Hill have asked. It’s fundamentally not true. What we objected to was the demands that were put that deeply violate the fundamental principle of separation of powers. They contacted State Department employees directly. They told them NOT to contact legal counsel at the State Department. That’s been reported to us. They said the the State Department wouldn’t be able to be present. There are important constitutional prerogatives that the executive branch has to be present so that we can protect the important information so our partners, countries like Italy, can have confidence that the information they provide can have with the State Department will continue to be protected. So the response that I provided them was one that could acknowledge that we will of course do our constitutional duty to cooperate with this co-equal branch but we are going to do so in a way that is consistent with the fundamental values of the American system. And we won’t tolerate folks on Capital Hill bullying, intimidating State Department employees.

What kind of kangaroo court were the Democrats planning? The ‘don’t contact legal counsel’ approach was used on General Flynn, and that didn’t work out too well for him. What we have here is Democrats in the House violating constitutional rights of American citizens. I guess the Democrats have failed to get enough spies into the inner circle of Mike Pompeo and now feel the need to find another way to spy on him. This is ridiculous.

Five Obvious Problems

On August 1, Real Clear Investigations posted an article listing five major problems with the Mueller Report. Please follow the link to read the entire article, but I will post the five problems here:

  1. Who Is Joseph Mifsud, and Was He the Actual Predicate for the Russia Investigation?
  2. What Was the Role of the Steele Dossier?
  3. Why Did the Mueller Team Invent the Polling Data Theory About Konstantin Kilimnik, and Omit His U.S. Ties?
  4. Why Did the Mueller Team Falsely Suggest That Trump Tower Moscow Was a Viable Project – and What Was the Role of FBI Informant Felix Sater?
  5. Was Specious Info Leaked to Justify the Absence of Trump-Kremlin Links?

Please read the entire article. I think it is interesting that we haven’t heard very much about Joseph Mifsud or Felix Sater.

The article concludes:

Less than two weeks after the dossier’s publication, someone from U.S. intelligence leaked classified details of an intercepted phone call between Michael Flynn and then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The leak fueled baseless speculation that Flynn and Kislyak had discussed sanctions relief in exchange for Russia’s help in the 2016 election, and ultimately led to Flynn’s resignation. Weeks later, the New York Times reported that the U.S. investigators had obtained “phone records and intercepted calls” showing that members of Trump’s campaign and other associates “had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election.” Four months later, Comey testified that the story was “not true.” The Times has never retracted it.

Nunes also tried to question Mueller about U.S. government leaks, asking if he agreed that the leak of a phone call involving Flynn, the then-national security adviser, was a “major scandal.” Mueller responded: “I can’t adopt that hypothesis.”

Mueller could very well have a plausible explanation for his inability to account for the investigation’s core flaws. Or, as his awkward testimony suggested, perhaps he was not the hard-nosed investigator that the media portrayed him to be, but instead a figurehead who did not make the key decisions in the office of the Special Counsel.

What is clear is that neither his report nor testimony provide the answer. After determining that there never was a Trump-Russia conspiracy, Mueller showed no interest in investigating why so many high-placed officials said they believed there had been. His report told us what didn’t happen during the 2016 election, but shed little light on what did happen, and why.

It is becoming more an more obvious that there were those in the government working against the interests of an elected President. Those people need to be held accountable. If they are not, we can expect it to become routine for those in power to use government agencies for political purposes.

A Major Whoops From Robert Mueller

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?

Turning Jurisprudence On Its Head

Robert Mueller made a statement at the Department of Justice today. He officially ended his investigation and resigned. However, he did it in a way that was totally in conflict with American jurisprudence.

Townhall reported on Mueller’s statement. Here is one quote:

“I’m speaking out today because our investigation is complete,” Mueller said. “We are formally closing the Special Counsel’s office and I am resigning from the Department of Justice to return private life.”

Fox News reported some other quotes from today:

Mueller, speaking from the Justice Department Wednesday morning, announced the closing of his office and detailed the findings of the Russia investigation, underscoring that there “was not sufficient evidence to charge a conspiracy” with regard to whether members of the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election.

…But Mueller did not mince words on his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that,” Mueller said. “We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime.”

Mueller’s job was to determine if the President committed a crime–if there was no evidence of a crime, then it was not up to Mueller to determine whether or not a crime was committed–his job was to follow the evidence. The President, just like any other citizen, is innocent until proven guilty.

The statement was a farce for a number of reasons.

Mueller would not take questions. President Trump was never given an opportunity to fact his accusers. No one was allowed to cross examine Mueller. Mueller was not going to let the Republicans question him on the basis for the investigation, the role of the Steele Dossier in the FISA warrants, the role of the Clinton campaign in the Steele Dossier, or when during the investigation he realized that there was no there there. It’s interesting that Peter Strzok realized as Mueller was putting his team together that there was no there there (see emails between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page). If Peter Strzok could figure that out, couldn’t Mueller? There will always be a question as to whether or not Mueller prolonged the investigation until after the mid-term elections in order to help the Democrats.

Unfortunately the Democrats seem to have forgotten the concept of innocent until proven guilty. After thirty-plus million dollars, President Trump has not been proven guilty. It’s over. From now on, this is simply harassment of the President and his family. If you support the House of Representatives continuing on this path, understand that in the future the power of government could be turned on anyone who is upsetting the establishment. Is that a country you want to live in?

 

 

This Went Much Farther Than What We Have Been Told

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.

The Evidence We Need

Today The Conservative Treehouse posted an article with the following title, “Jay Sekulow: “Three” FISA Applications Were Denied in 2016 and What This Means…”

The article reports:

During a rather innocuous podcast discussion panel yesterday, one of President Trump’s personal lawyers Jay Sekulow mentioned the FBI had three FISA applications denied by the FISA court in 2016. [Podcast Here – Note comment at 25:05]   The denials were always suspected; however, until now no-one in/around the administration has ever confirmed.

Jay Sekulow did not expand on his statement and did not explain where the information was derived from; however, if accurate this may explain the backstory to why FISA Judge Rudolph Contreras was recused.  This issue has been nagging many people since the recusal notation in December 2017.

The article continues, explaining why this is significant and the role the FISA court played in the undermining of the Trump campaign and transition team.

The most intriguing part of the article (at least to me) was the list at the end of the evidence needed to expose the misdeeds of the government during 2016 and beyond:

♦ Prove the July 31st, 2016, Crossfire Hurricane operation originated from fraud by exposing the CIA operation that created the originating “Electronic Communication” memo. Declassify that two-page “EC” document that Brennan gave to Comey.

♦ Release and declassify all of the Comey memos that document the investigative steps taken  by the FBI as an outcome of the operation coordinated by CIA Director John Brennan in early 2016.

♦ Reveal the November 2015 through April 2016 FISA-702 search query abuse by declassifying the April 2017 court opinion written by FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer. Show the FBI contractors behind the 85% fraudulent search queries. [Crowdstrike? Fusion-GPS? Nellie Ohr?]

♦ Subpoena former DOJ-NSD (National Security Division) head John Carlin, or haul him in front of a grand jury, and get his testimony about why he hid the abuse from the FISA court in October 2016; why the DOJ-NSD rushed the Carter Page application to beat NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers to the FISA court; and why Carlin quit immediately thereafter. Squeeze this bastard’s nuts in the proverbial legal vice.

♦ Prove the Carter Page FISA application (October 2016) was fraudulent and based on deceptions to the FISA Court. Declassify the entire document, and release the transcripts of those who signed the application(s); and/or depose those who have not yet testified.

♦ Release all of the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages without redactions. Let sunlight pour in on the actual conversation(s) that were taking place when Crossfire Hurricane (July ’16) and the FISA Application (Oct ’16) were taking place.

♦ Release all of Bruce Ohr 302’s, FBI notes from interviews and debriefing sessions, and other relevant documents associated with the interviews of Bruce Ohr and his internal communications. Including exculpatory evidence that Bruce Ohr may have shared with FBI Agent Joseph Pientka. [And get a deposition from this Pientka fella]

♦ Release the August 2nd, 2017, two-page scope memo provided by DAG Rod Rosenstein to special counsel Robert Mueller to advance the fraudulent Trump investigation, and initiate the more purposeful obstruction of justice investigation.

Hopefully this evidence will emerge soon.

Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Testimony

An article posted at The Federalist on Thursday includes the testimony of Federalist senior correspondent John Daniel Davidson, delivered before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Some highlights of his testimony:

McAllen, a city of fewer than 150,000 residents, is now facing the prospect of thousands of migrants discharged from ICE custody, wandering the streets and sleeping in doorways and on park benches—the city’s mayor has said as much. What’s more, in February the city ordered Catholic Charities to vacate the former nursing home and find a new location within 90 days, citing complaints from neighbors about constant traffic and strangers wandering nearby streets where children play. By any measure, the situation in McAllen is an emergency.

This is just one border town in Texas. Something similar is playing out all up and down the U.S.-Mexico border. In El Paso, hundreds of migrant families are turning themselves in to Border Patrol every day, overwhelming federal facilities and personnel. In a five-minute stretch one day in late March, Border Patrol apprehended two different groups totaling 400 people. On the night of President Trump’s rally in El Paso in February, a group of 300 turned themselves in to the Santa Teresa Border Patrol station, which sits on an empty stretch of New Mexico scrubland 22 miles west of El Paso. Agents had to move all the ATVs out of the garage just so a hundred or so migrants would have someplace warm to sleep that night. Since then, things have been getting worse.

The testimony states:

If you spend enough time talking to migrants themselves, a pattern begins to emerge. Most of them have similar stories about why they left their home countries in Central America, and they report similar experiences of how they made their way through Mexico to the southern U.S. border. A few common characteristics stand out:

  • A majority of the “family units” are men traveling with one or more children;
  • Many of these men say they have a wife and other children back in their home country and that they intend to secure work in the U.S. and send money back to support them;
  • They are headed for all points across the U.S. and have family members or friends in those places. Many of them also have jobs already lined up;
  • Nearly all of them say they left their homes because it is dangerous, citing gang violence, threats, extortion, etc.; they are all claiming asylum.
  • At the same time, many of them will admit that they don’t plan to remain in the U.S. permanently, and in fact have a set amount of time they plan to live and work here before returning home;
  • All of them say they paid a smuggler to secure safe passage to the border (the amount varies from $2,000 to $6,000 per person, sometimes more). Generally, they say they took cars or buses for transit through Mexico.

The testimony concludes:

Without a doubt, there is a crisis at the southern border. But it’s a deeply misunderstood crisis that’s being driven by specific factors and disproportionately affecting specific regions of the border, primarily the Rio Grande Valley and El Paso. In general, the growing numbers of migrants now crossing the border are being driven by three major factors:

  • If you’re a minor or a family, it’s even easier to enter the U.S. now than it was during the Obama administration for the simple reason that there is no capacity at federal detention facilities and families can expect to be released soon after being detained by Border Patrol.
  • Smugglers are now marketing to people —women, families—who don’t want to undertake an arduous or dangerous journey. They have created a sophisticated and efficient busing package that has proven very popular with families, and word has gotten back to communities in Central America that, if they pay, the journey will be short, safe, and they will not be detained for long once inside the U.S.
  • Conditions in Central America have not improved enough to induce people to remain in their home countries. Persistent poverty, violence, and corruption, combined with the fear that it’s not going to be this easy to get into the U.S. forever, is prompting families to come now.

There is no easy solution to this crisis. Border security is part of the solution, but so is congressional action.

As long as Central American families know they can gain entry to the U.S. by initiating asylum proceedings upon crossing the border, the crisis will continue. As long as cartels and criminal networks know they can profit from trafficking migrant families to the border, they will do so. And as long as conditions in Central America continue to fester, families who can afford it will seek a better life for their children by traveling north.

The crisis on our southern border is not the result of anything President Trump has done. It is the result of years of inaction by Congress and previous administrations. As previously stated–Democrats see illegal immigrants as future Democrat voters; Republicans see illegal immigrants as cheap labor. Neither party sees them as desperate people. President Trump is at least trying to discourage them from making a long, dangerous trip. President Trump is also trying to protect America from being overwhelmed. If you doubt what this is about, look up the Cloward-Piven strategy. It explains what is currently happening (and illustrates why it must be stopped).