Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Press Secretary Statement on Unconstitutional Fauxpeachment Effort


(White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham The President has done nothing wrong, and the Democrats know it.  For purely political reasons, the Democrats have decided their desire to overturn the outcome of the 2016 election allows them to conduct a so-called impeachment inquiry that ignores the fundamental rights guaranteed to every American. 
These partisan proceedings are an affront to the Constitution—as they are being held  behind closed doors and deny the President the right to call witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses, to have access to evidence, and many other basic rights.
Today, on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, Pat Cipollone, Counsel to the President, sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings. 
The letter demonstrates that the Democrats’ inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, and even the most elementary due process protections. 
Democrats are pursuing purely partisan goals, including influencing the upcoming 2020 election.  In the process, they are violating civil liberties and the separation of powers, threatening Executive Branch officials with punishment simply for exercising their constitutional rights and prerogatives. 
All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent.  For these reasons, the Executive Branch cannot be expected to, and will not participate in, this exercise of partisan political theater. 
President Trump and his entire Administration will, however, keep fighting for the American people, growing the economy, building prosperity, and protecting America’s interests at home and abroad.  (LINK


House GOPes Respond to Adam Schiff Impeachment Manipulation and Gordon Sondland Non Appearance


U.S. Ambassador Gordon Sondland was directed by the State Department not to appear Tuesday for an interview with House committees leading the fraudulent impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. The non-appearance follows Chairman Adam Schiff’s manipulative media releases based on Ambassador Kurt Volker testimony.

Knowing that testimony from “impeachment inquiry” participation is being selectively used to create a false narrative; and knowing the committees’ will not release full transcripts and or documents gained therein; the administration is not going to assist Pelosi and Schiff’s scheme to create the illusion of something that doesn’t exist.

These “requests for interviews” are not legal subpoenas because the House has not created judicial authority within the committees’ by holding a full House vote to authorize.

Therefore non-appearance puts more pressure on Pelosi to hold a House vote. Republican members Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Mark Meadows and Lee Zeldin explain: 


Germany warns of repeat of 2015 EU migration chaos.

LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) – Germany warned on Tuesday of a repeat of the chaotic influx of migrants that caught the European Union unprepared in 2015, as Greece and Cyprus sounded the alarm over a resurgence of arrivals from neighboring Turkey.
EU ministers met to discuss migration as Greece has again become the main gateway to Europe for people fleeing wars and poverty in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, with U.N. data showing nearly 45,600 arrivals by sea so far this year.
“If we leave all the countries on the EU’s external border (to fend for themselves), there will never be a common European asylum policy,” German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer said.
“And if there is no common European asylum policy, there is a danger that uncontrolled immigration will once again take place, throughout Europe. We have seen this before and I do not want it to happen again,” he told reporters in Luxembourg.
The bloc is wary of any recurrence of the 2015 crisis that sowed bitter divisions among EU states, strained social and security services and fueled support for populist, anti-immigration, eurosceptic and far-right parties.
Greece saw the highest monthly arrival numbers in August since the 2016 EU-Turkey deal that greatly reduced sea crossings there, according to a document – seen by Reuters – prepared by Finland, which currently holds the bloc’s rotating presidency.


Turkey has long complained that the EU support promised in exchange for keeping a lid on migration to Europe is inadequate given that it now hosts around 3.5 million Syrian refugees.
The pressure on overcrowded migrant camps on Greece’s Aegean islands is rising anew. Charity group Oxfam said over 13,000 men, women and children were now crammed into the Moria camp on Lesbos that was designed to accommodate 3,100 people.
“The situation of children in the Moria camp is particularly worrying,” Oxfam said in a statement, stressing that many of those under-age were on their own.
Though the deal with Turkey helped contain the 2015 crisis, rights groups condemned it for undercutting international humanitarian law on providing safe haven for refugees, and aggravating the suffering of those already in distress.
In return for Turkish help, the EU pledged 6 billion euros on refugee projects in Turkey. The EU says the money has since been delivered, but Ankara disputes this and has asked for more.
“The situation in the Eastern Mediterranean is worrying,” the bloc’s top migration official, Dmitris Avramopoulos, said after Tuesday’s meeting.
EU leaders will discuss Turkey at a summit in Brussels on Oct.17-18, including what they say is Ankaras’s “illegal drilling” for gas and oil off the coast of Cyprus. Several diplomatic sources said the bloc would mull raising more funds for refugees in Turkey.

UNDER PRESSURE
Spain has received the second highest number of seaborne migrants this year with nearly 30,000, followed by Italy at nearly 8,000, Malta at close to 1,600 and Cyprus at about 800, according to United Nations data.
Relative to population size, however, Cyprus is currently under the heaviest pressure, according to the Finnish note.
Cyprus, Greece and Bulgaria said in a separate document at the ministerial meeting, which was also seen by Reuters, that the situation bore “alarming elements of an emerging crisis”.
“Europe cannot be caught unprepared for a second time… The EU will have to consider positively the allocation of further funds to those countries of the broader region of the Eastern Mediterranean route affected by immense migratory flows.”
Rome and Valletta sought in vain to enrol on Tuesday more EU peers in a migrant relocation scheme they agreed with France and Germany last month for migrants rescued at sea while attempting to cross from north Africa.
The plan was largely seen as a political gesture toward Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, who adopted a more EU-friendly tone after the ouster of the staunchly anti-immigrant Matteo Salvini and the formation of a new coalition in Rome.
Seehofer has said Germany could take in a quarter of migrants who reach Italy by sea. Rescue boats have repeatedly been stranded in the sea for weeks this summer as EU states quarreled over who should host those onboard.
 The refusal of Hungary, Poland and their ex-communist peers on the eastern flank of the EU to help the “front-line”, Mediterranean member states by hosting some migrants has eroded the bloc’s unity since 2015.https://www.oann.com/germany-warns-of-repeat-of-2015-eu-migration-chaos/

Lawmaker Wants To Make Gun-Free Zones Liable If Someone Hurt

Lawmaker Wants To Make Gun-Free Zones Liable If Someone Hurt

Bills would remove governmental immunity, make private zone owners responsible for security

By Tom Gantert | Sept. 27, 2019



A Republican state representative has introduced legislation that would hold government offices and private businesses liable if anyone is injured during a shooting in a gun-free zone on their premises.

State Rep. Gary Eisen, R-St. Clair Township, introduced House Bill 4975, which would revoke governmental immunity from lawsuits arising from injuries sustained on government property where guns are banned. Eisen is also the sponsor of House Bill 4976, which would make a government, business or individual that designates a property a gun-free zone responsible for the safety of individuals who enter it.

Eisen said the intention was to require a business or government that enforces a gun-free policy to take responsibility through measures like hiring security guards.

“I have to presume that no one will have a gun inside and I will be safe,” Eisen said. “They are telling me, ‘Don’t worry, Mr. Eisen, this is a gun-free zone. You’ll be perfectly safe in here.’ We know that is not the case.”

Eisen said by not allowing him to carry a gun, government and companies that declare their property a gun-free zone could be held liable under his bills.

“If they don’t want to be liable, then don’t put the sign in the window,” Eisen said.

The St. Clair County lawmaker is a firearms instructor who teaches classes for those seeking a concealed pistol license; he also trains people on handling weapons.

Eisen said part of the rationale for his bill lies with a report that 98% of mass public shootings happen in gun-free zones. The Washington Post reported that President Donald Trump recited that statistic in a May 4 speech to the National Rifle Association.

The Washington Post said the figure comes from the Crime Prevention Research Center’s updated 2014 report. That report stated that 98.4 percent of mass shootings from 1950 to July 10, 2016, happened in gun-free zones.

“We call them killing zones, not gun-free zones,” Eisen said.

Neither the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and nor the Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence organization returned emails seeking comment on the bills. 

Patriot Trump vs. the Leninist Impeachment Pushers




Unlike Schiff’s fiction, Trump’s reality has defied the evisceration the Constitution has suffered over the decades and challenged progressives in ways not seen in the Republican Party for over a century.

Should President Obama have been impeached for giving cash and assets worth as much as $150 billion to Iran by executive order? Or for lying about Obamacare? No, because that kind of punishment even for these injustices would have trivialized the grave constitutional purpose of impeachment and conviction. Clearly, it would have fulfilled a legitimate partisan purpose, though one which is more appropriately resolved through elections.

If the current impeachment fever materializes into reality, virtually any executive action with which the opposition party disagrees can be made an impeachable offense.

The Trump impeachment inquiry seeks to besmirch President Trump, fundraise for Democrat House and Senate candidates, destabilize the markets, knock Joe Biden out of the race, and mock presiding Chief Justice Roberts at the Senate trial. These are nothing but crude partisan appeals and clearly not constitutional purposes. Demagoguery is too gentle a word. Whatever else these political aims are, they are not affirmations of constitutional government. Once the dust settles all of these motives may well have backfired, but the Democrats have powerful enablers.

And no one serious about protesting injustice, let alone defending the Constitution, would have opened a hearing about the alleged impeachable offense with a grotesque parody of the transcript, intended to cast the president as a mobster. (Don’t the Democrats know that the Godfatherportrays a hero to most to Americans? Since we’re talking parody, recall that one of the novel’s first lines can be paraphrased “for justice we must go to Don Trump.”)

Unlike Schiff’s fiction, Trump’s reality has defied the evisceration the Constitution has suffered over the decades. Normal people laughed when candidate Trump declared at a 2016 rally that Russia might help find Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 missing emails. They didn’t panic or see in it an opportunity to shiv him. In fact, Trump is the most constitutionally devout President since Lincoln.



While not shedding all the vices of Progressivism, which not even Ronald Reagan could overcome, he has challenged them in ways not seen in the Republican Party for over a century. Trump may be America’s best hope to restore the Constitution since Lincoln. That possibility calls to mind how relentlessly the Great Emancipator’s opponents, the Democrats back at that time, sought his ouster. Lawless opportunism has always united that party, whatever particular issues it advanced since 1800, whether it meant secession, dictatorial presidential power, or embrace of unelected bureaucracies, national or foreign.

Recently the incisive scholar of Russian literature, Gary Saul Morson, once again illuminated the extremism 20th century politics in his essay “Leninthink.” Lenin goes straight to the brutality demanded of the Soviet ambition: “When we are reproached with cruelty, we wonder how people can forget the most elementary Marxism.” The parallels I would make between the American and Soviet experience are instructive.

Democratic Party extremism today reflects more Lenin than Jefferson, more NKVD than New Deal, more Schiff than Solzhenitsyn. “Lenin worked by a principle of anti-empathy, and this approach was to define Soviet ethics. I know of no other society, except those modeled on the one Lenin created, where schoolchildren were taught that mercy, kindness, and pity are vices,” writes Morson. Of course the rhetoric of freedom can continue: Morson recalls “a Soviet citizen telling [him] that people in the USSR had absolute freedom of speech—so long as they did not lie.”

The fanatical environmentalism, the amoral anti-racism, the disgust with America all stem from the logic that “For a Leninist, the shoe is never on the other foot because he has no other foot.” If this doesn’t sound like all Democrats today, one must not forget that “The whole point of Leninism is that only a few people must understand what is going on.”

Fortunately, the principled answer to the Democrats’ now open Leninism—not mere socialism—is found in Trump’s recent speech to the United Nations, one filled with references to friendship and love as it articulates the need for justice within nations. In the speech are found the best responses to the Democrats’ promiscuous, partisan use of impeachment that poorly masks their Leninism—just a shadow away from violence. Trump offers, by contrast, a primer on free government and the love and justice it can offer to the world today.

The overriding theme of his speech is one familiar to students of Lincoln: the world today cannot survive half slave and half free. For the free world to survive, those nations must embrace their “national foundations,” which need revival. The world is good, and the existence of separate nations makes it so. “Looking around and all over this large, magnificent planet, the truth is plain to see: If you want freedom, take pride in your country. If you want democracy, hold on to your sovereignty. And if you want peace, love your nation.” The freedom of nations comes in many varieties, as many varieties as there are nations. The slavery the world offers, though it comes in a similar variety of means, leads always to the same end, which Trump touches on. The alternative to the nation is empire or tribalism, both of which lead to slavery. Only in nations is there strength, freedom, and civilization.

Trump starts with the need for nations to protect their borders. He speaks with the refreshing eloquence of bluntness:
Today, I have a message for those open border activists who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice: …. Your policies are cruel and evil…. You put your own false sense of virtue before the lives, wellbeing, … [of] countless innocent people. When you undermine border security, you are undermining human rights and human dignity.
The suppression of individual liberties comes in myriad ways affecting the safety and happiness of women, the unborn, and homosexuals. The right of armed self-defense, so basic to the social contract, and the freedom of religion are endangered among 80 percent of the world’s people because of their governments.

As Trump elaborates, we learn that the purpose of all these rights is the safety and happiness of the people against the passion to dominate. “Our Founders gave us a system designed to restrain this dangerous impulse. They chose to entrust American power to those most invested in the fate of our nation: a proud and fiercely independent people.”

Even though a nation may be advanced in science and culture, it will face today “alarming signs and new challenges to liberty” from the most educated within. These elites constitute what John Marini calls the “administrative state”—a knowledge elite that wants to remake the nation to its current theoretical or interested liking. It is omnipresent: in television news, social media, and the bureaucracy at all levels of government.

We see evidence of this in a number of areas. A small number of social media platforms are acquiring immense power over what we can see and over what we are allowed to say. A permanent political class is openly disdainful, dismissive, and defiant of the will of the people. A faceless bureaucracy operates in secret and weakens democratic rule. Media and academic institutions push flat-out assaults on our histories, traditions, and values.

This weakening of alternatives to the administrative state rule by those imbued with the spirit of Lenin opens the way to socialism. “One of the most serious challenges our countries face is the specter of socialism. It’s the wrecker of nations and destroyer of societies.”

Socialism is another form of slavery, when understood as Abraham Lincoln summed up slavery: You work, I eat. The soul of a nation is the love of the people in it, its patriotism. Leftist-Leninists can’t love their nation because they are obsessed with dominating it, imposing their will on it. Their spiritedness is about power over others, the desire to be masters over slaves. As Trump put it, “Socialism and communism are about one thing only: power for the ruling class.”

The patriot loves the country as he or she loves their equals. That is why patriots believe in equality before the law, while Leninist leftists know only the master-slave relationship. Patriots believe the law serves the interests of the nation. Leninists believe that the law serves the interests of their favored clients. Trump summarizes, “The true good of a nation can only be pursued by those who love it: by citizens who are rooted in its history, who are nourished by its culture, committed to its values, attached to its people, and who know that its future is theirs to build or theirs to lose. Patriots see a nation and its destiny in ways no one else can.”

Therefore, Trump repeats “a message for the world that I have delivered at home: America will never be a socialist country.” That pledge means that America will always be a place for other nations to look to as a model of freedom. If Trump perseveres, it will never fully embrace the Leninism now gripping the Left.


Time To Reassess CrowdStrike’s Credibility


Trump foes dismiss any scrutiny of CrowdStrike as part of a “conspiracy theory.” But the tangled web between CrowdStrike, Democratic operatives, the Trump-hating media and the Obama Justice Department isn’t a theory, it is fact.

Days before the Senate voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh last year, a former FBI assistant director appeared on MSNBC to suggest the Supreme Court nominee had a major credibility problem. “This is not…an investigation about the sexual allegations, I think it really has moved toward credibility,” Shawn Henry, an NBC News analyst, told Nicolle Wallace on October 1, 2018. “At this point now, there are very clear allegations, and subsequent to the judge’s testimony, people have come out who appear to be credible who…appear to be contradicting his testimony sworn before the United States Senate.”

Henry, clearly reciting Democratic talking points to imply Kavanaugh perjured himself before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his September showdown with Christine Blasey Ford, also referred to Ford as a “victim” and claimed that the FBI’s investigation into Kavanaugh’s testimony had “fallen short.”

Henry was presented to viewers as the channel’s “national security analyst,” but there was one title the network overlooked: Shawn Henry is a top executive for CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the Democratic National Committee to investigate the infamous hack of its email system in early 2016. Perhaps not coincidentally, the firm determined that the Russians were behind the intrusion. CrowdStrike’s June 2016 assessment remains the sole source of evidence to supply the pretext of the government’s Russian election interference claim; later, it would help bolster the Trump-Russia collusion fable.

The president, according to a transcript released by the White House, mentioned CrowdStrike during a phone call with the new Ukranian president over the summer. Now, the California-based company is facing renewed scrutiny both about the handling of the DNC email hack and the firm’s political affiliations. Last month, in response to questions about the firm’s clear connections to Democrats, CrowdStrike rejected accusations of bias in an FAQ posted on its website:

“CrowdStrike is not affiliated with any political party. We are a public cybersecurity company, and are non-partisan. We have done cybersecurity work for, and currently protect, both Republican and Democratic political organizations at the state, local, and federal level.”

That may be true in the most technical sense, but there are plenty of reasons to suspect that CrowdStrike is far from a disinterested player in the impeachment drama engulfing official Washington and gaslighting the American public. And since CrowdStrike produced the single piece of evidence used in the endless feedback loop to convince Americans that the Russians breached the DNC’s email system—the party refused to surrender its email devices to the FBI—reassessing the firm’s credibility in light of new information is warranted; in fact, it’s vital.

Henry, the president of CrowdStrike’s Washington operation, is a regular contributor to both MSNBC and NBC News programs. (His affiliation with CrowdStrike, however, is never mentioned.) Although he hasn’t worked for the FBI since 2012, Henry often weighs in as an FBI “expert,” opining on a variety of political issues from government shutdowns to the Kavanaugh debacle. Curiously, his views always come down on the side opposite of Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

In March 2017, Henry—who worked for Robert Mueller’s FBI during Barack Obama’s first term—participated in a post-inauguration forum to discuss the implications of Russia’s “hacking” the 2016 presidential election. The panel also featured former Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and Marc Elias, the general partner at Perkins Coie, a politically-influential law firm based in D.C..

It was a symbolic trio. Perkins Coie hired CrowdStrike in the spring of 2016 on behalf of the DNC. Instead of going directly to the FBI or other law enforcement agency about the breach, Democratic party leaders, working through Perkins Coie, retained CrowdStrike to find the culprits. Very cozy.

But that wasn’t Perkins Coie’s only involvement in the Russia-hacked-the-election plotline. The law firm also hired Fusion GPS—who in turn hired British political operative Christopher Steele to author his infamous dossier—on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC around the same time Perkins retained CrowdStrike. According to disclosure reports, the DNC paid Perkins Coie $7.2 million during the 2016 election cycle: The PAC also paid CrowdStrike more than $400,000 during the same time period. (The DNC has paid CrowdStrike nearly $80,000 so far this year.)

And while CrowdStrike was working for the DNC in 2016, the firm also collaborated with key officials in the Obama Justice Department as it was ramping up its investigation into Trump’s presidential campaign. During a technology conference in March 2016, CrowdStrike hosted a cyber “war game” with Obama administration officials: “Four teams of ten people met for two hours to play the game,” according to an October 2016 profile in Esquire. “[National Security Division chief] John Carlin; Chris Painter…at the State Department; and Chris Inglis, the former deputy director of the NSA, were all part of the government team. A former member of GCHQ, the British intelligence organization, was on the international team. Ash Carter, the defense secretary, arrived halfway through and asked to play, but the game was already under way.”

Before Obama’s intelligence officials released a statement on October 7 that blamed the Russians for the DNC email breach, according to the Esquirearticle, Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike’s co-founder, was given a heads-up. “Alperovitch got a phone call from a senior government official alerting him that a statement identifying Russia as the sponsor of the DNC attack would soon be released. Once again, Alperovitch was thanked for pushing the government along.” The statement, issued by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper one month before Election Day, lifted some of the wording from CrowdStrike’s report on the DNC breach. (Again, it’s important to note that no federal agency was allowed access to the DNC email servers; all evidence of Russian hacking came directly from CrowdStrike.)

Further, according to reporting by Michael Tracey, CrowdStrike had a contract with the FBI for $150,000 between July 2015 and July 2016 for unknown services.
Interesting.

So, to summarize, at the same time Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS to dig up Russia-related dirt on Donald Trump, it hired CrowdStrike to investigate the hack of the DNC email systems. CrowdStrike, also at the same time, was working with the Obama Justice Department as the agency began investigating Trump campaign aides for suspected “collusion” with the Kremlin.

Even if one accepts those connections as standard Washington operating procedure, Henry’s political commentary should be enough to give more fair-minded observers pause about his company’s objectivity. In August, Henry appeared on Andrea Mitchell’s MSNBC show to push for stricter gun control in the aftermath of the El Paso mass shooting. “There’s a whole host of things that need to be done to change the climate, background investigations, background checks, will keep guns out of the hands of bad people,” Henry said on August 8. “But there’s a lot more that needs to be done in order to successfully mitigate what we’ve seen here over the past few years.” Yes, because mass shootings only started happening after Bad Orange Man was elected.

Last January, during the government shutdown, Henry warned that the move was affecting the “morale” of the FBI and threatened national security. “These operations are being impacted and that is a risk to the American public, it’s a risk to this country and it is absolutely a national security challenge,” Henry told MSNBC’s Brian Williams on January 23.

Henry also lamented the climate at the FBI after the arrest of the so-called package bomber Casar Sayoc last year. “What the FBI has gone through has been some morale issues of course with a lot of the language that’s been out there,” Henry said on the “Today” show on October 27, 2018. The language, it’s safe to assume, was criticism by President Trump, congressional Republicans and conservative media about the FBI’s activities in 2016 and 2017.

Trump foes dismiss any scrutiny of CrowdStrike as part of a “conspiracy theory.” But the tangled web between CrowdStrike, Democratic operatives, the Trump-hating media and the Obama Justice Department isn’t a theory, it is fact. And since the firm played a critical early role in planting the Russia collusion hoax, Trump and his allies are right to raise more questions.

Whistleblower Lawyer Is..

Source:The American Spectator 

Whistleblower Lawyer Is an Ex-Hillary, Schumer Staffer

Andrew Bakaj, the lawyer representing the two anti-Trump “whistleblowers,” is both an ex-CIA official and a former staffer for both Hillary Clinton (as a New York senator) and current New York senator and Senate Democrat leader Charles Schumer. This according to his posted biography as seen here at the website for his law firm, Compass Rose Legal Group.

According to FEC records, in April of this year Mr. Bakaj was also a two-time contributor to Act Blue. Act Blue self-describes its purpose this way:

[W]e’ve built a powerful online fundraising platform for Democratic candidates up and down the ballot, progressive organizations, and nonprofits.


The Washington Times also says this about Mark Zaid, a lawyer who has joined with Mr. Bakaj to defend the two whistleblowers:

Mark S. Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer in Washington and a Trump critic on Twitter, has joined the legal team representing the intelligence community whistleblower who is targeting President Trump.


The legal reinforcement in a media-political frenzy not seen since the 2017 Trump-Russia brouhaha signals a tough battle ahead for the White House and the Justice Department.

Mr. Zaid’s law partner, Bradley P. Moss, is counterattacking conservatives who have vilified the unidentified whistleblower. He called the Trump supporters “human excrement posing as human beings.”


Everyone is entitled to a lawyer, and the whistleblowers are no exception. But the choice of these two particular lawyers is a classic case of just how the president’s enemies repeatedly hand him ripe political opportunities to brand and defeat them.

The president could ask for no better foils than whistleblowers and their lawyers who, between them, are connected to the living embodiments of the Swamp — ex-CIA officials and Trump-hating lawyers, one of whom worked for both Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer.

One can only imagine the glee with which the president can pounce on this at his next massive rally in the middle of America. Indeed, one can only imagine the fury from half of the country when they realize the president they elected is being targeted for what is already seen as an attempted coup d’état by those who can be instantly seen as nothing more than the latest in a seemingly endless parade of Deep State operatives — Swamp creatures who simply cannot abide the millions of hard-working Americans who believe that yes, indeed, elections are to be decided by the people and not overturned by elites who despise the voters.

And despise their fellow Americans would be exactly the word. The Washington Times article reports of Mr. Zaid’s law partner, one Bradley P. Moss, as saying this:

He called the Trump supporters “human excrement posing as human beings.”


Got it.

There can be little doubt that such sentiments are not simply accurate portrayals of the utter contempt elites have for millions of their fellow countrymen. What is always so striking in these moments is the utter inability of those who say and do such things to see how, in fact, their blind hatred for this president not only backfires but also routinely leads to self-inflicted damage.

Whether it’s the whistleblowers and their lawyers or Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comments that did so much damage to her campaign, or whether it’s MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell’s haste to go on air with a story about the president and Russian oligarchs that had to be embarrassingly retracted the very next day, time after time after time the only people who suffer are the people who do these things.

Eventually the identity of these whistleblowers will — and should — leak. The Constitution is crystal clear that “the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” It isn’t political rocket science to understand the American people are not about to be silent about denying a basic constitutional right to this president. They are not about to see their votes overturned by shadowy, unseen bureaucratic operatives from the CIA who are represented by an ex-Hillary and Schumer staffer who is also, don’t you know, an Act Blue contributor.

So congratulations to the whistleblowers and their lawyers. They have effectively transformed themselves into a highly effective Committee to Re-elect the President.

Well done!

Everything You Need To Know About Democrats’ Demands For Impeachment




Democrats opened the impeachment box, and they can’t close it.

The impeachment story begins in the heart of the Washington swamp. House Democrat Adam Schiff and his intelligence committee staff cooked up a carefully crafted “whistleblower” complaint with an anonymous CIA bureaucrat. In a gossipy document full of inaccuracies, the anonymous CIA guy alleged that, during a call with Ukraine’s newly elected President  Volodymyr Zelensky, President Trump threatened military aid to Ukraine unless its government investigated Joe Biden.

Why was Trump talking to Zelensky about Biden? Starting in 2014, Biden’s son Hunter made about $50,000 a month acting as a director for a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma. Hunter locked in this huge salary, not to mention work directed to his law firm, despite being recently kicked out of the military for using cocaine and having no energy industry experience. At the time, Joe Biden was a key Obama administration emissary in dealing with Ukraine.

Later, in 2016, Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired who happened to be investigating the Ukrainian, Burisma-owning oligarch, by threatening to withhold billions of dollars in American loan guarantees. Democrats claim the prosecutor was corrupt and that Joe Biden’s actions had nothing to do with Hunter Biden’s business activities. You be the judge of that.

Trump’s Call with Zelensky

Right away, in response to the CIA guy’s claims, the White House released the transcript of the call with Ukraine’s president, which revealed no such threatening occurred. In fact, the Ukrainians did not know that aid was on hold at the time of the call. Although the media had alleged there’s something nefarious about Rudy Giuliani contacting the Ukrainian president’s lawyer, it turns out the State Department asked Giuliani to do this, and it was Ukraine’s president who brought up Giuliani on the call, not Trump.

The only “favor” Trump asked for on the call was for Ukraine to aid the Justice Department’s investigation into 2016 election interference. Here,  Trump brought up the missing Democratic National Committee server the FBI never examined — the basis upon which the Hillary Clinton campaign claimed Russia was trying to help Trump get elected. Trump said he wanted Zelensky to assist Attorney General William Barr’s investigation into how the Clinton-fueled Russia narrative was allowed to infect the federal bureaucracy.

Trump told Zelensky he was concerned that the “same people” in Ukraine who had helped fuel the Russia investigation were still in power. The Ukrainian president, who ran for office on fixing Ukraine’s endemic corruption, promised all “investigations will be done openly and candidly.” This pleased Trump, who then mentioned the Ukrainian prosecutor who Biden got fired, saying he was concerned that a “good” prosecutor was “shut down.” “It sounds horrible to me,” said Trump. That’s it.

Two asides: On the call, Trump asked Ukraine’s new president about 2016 election interference because many of Democrats’ wild claims during the Russia investigation came from Ukraine. In fact, Democrats had explicitly threatened Ukraine aid in order to get Ukraine to provide dirt on Trump, which, oddly enough, is the exact same thing they’re accusing Trump of doing.

The other aside is that viewing military aid to Ukraine as some sort of sacred cow is ridiculous. Ukraine presents deep corruption concerns, but also geopolitical concern. Ukraine is such a large weapons producer that it arguably doesn’t need U.S. weapons aid, and the United States risks being sucked into a conflict with nuclear-armed Russia over the issue.

No Turning Back from Impeachment Now 

Back to the impeachment story. Despite the White House’s release of the transcript, the media didn’t back down and took to selectively reading parts of the transcript and grossly twisting it in order to smear Trump. Schiff even read a made-up version of the transcript during a House hearing. In other words, the Democrats opened the impeachment box, and they can’t close it.

That’s why people like CNN’s Jake Tapper have openly taken to repeatingDemocrat talking points. For example, a common talking point is that Joe Biden couldn’t have considered Hunter Biden’s business interests because “the Burisma investigation was dormant.”

First off, the fact that an investigation into a shady oligarch, Ihor Kolomoyskyi, was ever opened by the prosecutor Biden got canned is fishy enough. This oligarch is no saint. For example, Kolomoyskyi has allegedly used private military forces for “hostile takeovers” of rival business interests. Second, the media’s line just isn’t true. At the time Joe Biden forced the prosecutor’s firing in March 2016, there were two inquiries open into Kolomoyskyi involving taxes and corruption.

Then things got even more spooky. It turned out the CIA official in question didn’t even have access to Trump’s call, but only heard about it through second-hand sources. But the rules require that a whistleblower has firsthand knowledge.

To circumvent this, the “intelligence community” inspector general — who’s actually supposed to keep the CIA in check and was created to stop CIA abuses — changed the rules at the last second so Democrats’ “whistleblower document” could go forward. Of course, the media tried to blatantly lie about  the fact that the CIA’s inspector general had changed the whistleblower rules at the last second.

Why Democrats Are Doing This

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.

Clearly, this is going to blow up in Democrats’ faces. In fact, the best thing that can happen for Trump is for Democrats in the House to vote to impeach. Then Trump can talk about Democrats obsessing over impeachment, instead of a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada (which would help farmers and factory workers), bipartisan drug pricing reform, or infrastructure.

The White House is and should be very confident, then. Trump’s approval rating is already up since this impeachment frenzy began. Democrats and the media probably just handed Trump a second term.

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 Real Story Is Unhinged Intelligence Bureaucracies

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?

The unelected Washington bureaucracy that has been created in the last 60 years, especially the intelligence agencies, is too unaccountable and too  powerful. And many in this bureaucracy, though they think themselves saints, have the worst of intentions.

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, without batting an eye, that Trump shouldn’t challenge these intelligence agencies because they have “six ways from Sunday of getting back at you.” That spells great danger to the republic, no matter who is president.

These agencies should not be treated like sacred cows. If they misbehave too often, they should be shelved. And the CIA has a long history of abuses. Of course, many people in the intelligence agencies are good people who care about our country’s safety. But too few checks and balances make holding officials accountable too difficult.

That’s why Trump should run in 2020 on making it easier to fire federal government employees, and he should propose measures to increase accountability and transparency. Our founders set up a system of checks and balances, wherein no part of the government was unaccountable to another part, or ultimately to the voters. This was based on a timeless truth: Unaccountable and unelected power would always be abused, even by those with the best of intentions. 


House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy Discusses Partisan Impeachment Process and USMCA


House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy appeared on Fox Business with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the severely political nature of Speaker Pelosi’s impeachment agenda.

Within the interview McCarthy highlights that House rules and processes have been usurped to construct a one-party political impeachment operation.  Additionally, McCarthy notes the larger objective of House democrats to stall the USMCA trade ratification in order to undermine President Trump and support China. 







Activity and Background of Sketchy IC IG Michael Atkinson Now Under Investigative Spotlight


Last week the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, testified behind closed doors to congress. Atkinson testified about his role in bringing the ‘whistle-blower’ complaint forward.  The details of that testimony are now starting to surface and thankfully congress is taking a closer look at the sketchy background of Michael Atkinson.
Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson
There are numerous aspects to the whistle-blower (likely CIA operative Michael Barry), and the complaint, that just don’t add up. One of the areas of focus is the backdating of changes made to the ‘whistle-blower’ complaint form.  As Sean Davis notes:
(Via Federalist) […] Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, told HPSCI lawmakers during a committee oversight hearing on Friday that the whistleblower forms and rules changes were made in September, even though the new forms and guidance, which were not uploaded to the ICIG’s website until September 24, state that they were changed in August.
Despite having a full week to come up with explanations for his office’s decisions to secretly change its forms to eliminate the requirement for first-hand evidence and to backdate those changes to August, Atkinson refused to provide any explanation to lawmakers baffled by his behavior. (read more)
The CIA ‘whistle-blower’ had no first-hand knowledge; everything was based on hearsay.  The CIA operative never informed the ICIG about prior contact and coordination with the House Intelligence Committee (Adam Schiff).  The CIA operative never disclosed congressional contact on the complaint form; and the complaint forms were changed specifically to accommodate this CIA operative.
On Sunday, October 6th, Ranking Member Devin Nunes also discussed his concerns with the testimony of Michael Atkinson.  Nunes noted the testimony “was a joke”.
Nunes told Sirius XM’s Breitbart News Sunday host Matt Boyle, “[The ICIG is] either totally incompetent or part of the deep state, and he’s got a lot of questions he needs to answer because he knowingly changed the form and the requirements in order to make sure that this whistleblower complaint got out publicly.”
“So he’s either incompetent or in on it, and he’s going to have more to answer for, I can promise you, because we are not going to let him go; he is going to tell he truth about what happened,” Nunes added.  (read more)
ICIG Atkinson never reviewed the call transcript and facilitated the complaint processing despite numerous flaws.  Additionally Atkinson ignored legal guidance from both the director of national intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel that highlighted Atkinson’s poor decision-making.
President Trump announced Joseph Macguire as the Acting ODNI on August 8th, 2019. (link)  The CIA operative “whistle-blower” letter to Adam Schiff and Richard Burr was on August 12th (link).   Immediately following this letter, the ICIG rules and requirements for Urgent Concern “whistle-blowers” was modified, allowing hearsay complaints. On August 28th Adam Schiff begins tweeting about the construct of the complaint.
Given the nature of Atkinson’s background, it appears his prior work in 2016, during his tenure as the lead legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, likely played a role in his decision.
Here’s Nunes Sunday Interview (audio):
.
The center of the 2016 Lawfare Alliance election influence was/is the Department of Justice National Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016 operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901) originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.
Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate with the Pelosi-Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective.  Sketchy!
It now looks like the Lawfare network constructed the ‘whistle-blower’ complaint aka a Schiff Dossier, and handed it to allied CIA operative Michael Barry to file as a formal IC complaint.  This process is almost identical to the Fusion-GPS/Lawfare network handing the Steele Dossier to the FBI to use as the evidence for the 2016/2017 Russia conspiracy.
This series of events is exactly what former CIA Analyst Fred Fleiz said last week. Fleitz has extensive knowledge of the whistleblower process. Fleitz said last week the Ukraine call whistle-blower is likely driven by political motives, and his sources indicate he had help from Congress members while writing it.

“I can promise you, because we are not going to let him go; [Atkinson] is going to tell he truth about what happened”…