Thursday, October 24, 2019

White House directing federal agencies to cancel NYT and Washington Post subscriptions

Article written by Sam Dorman for "Fox News":

The White House is directing its long list of federal agencies and departments to cancel their subscriptions to two of President Trump's top targets in the media, Fox News has confirmed.

Agencies will cancel subscriptions to The Washington Post and New York Times, reflecting the president's long-running issues with the outlets and their reporting on him. White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham announced the decision on Thursday but Trump made the decision days prior.

“Not renewing subscriptions across all federal agencies will be a significant cost saving—hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars will be saved,” Grisham said in an email, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Trump has repeatedly referred to the Times as a "failing" paper and consistently highlighted the fact the Post was owned by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.

It's unclear when the subscriptions will be canceled but the White House was reportedly working on the implementation as of Thursday morning.

In a statement obtained by Fox News, PEN America, a non-profit dedicated to defending "free expression," said Trump's decision was "a terrifying and self-defeating effort at vindictive information control that reeks of totalitarianism. The White House is proposing to deny federal employees essential and credible reporting necessary to inform their work," the group said. "The press secretary's reference to saving taxpayer money makes plain that this proposed maneuver is designed to inflict harm, aimed to deprive the papers of subscription revenue as well as influence, and to extend a political vendetta."

In a pair of tweets in August, Trump laid out a sweeping indictment of the Times and its state in journalism.

"The Failing New York Times, in one of the most devastating portrayals of bad journalism in history, got caught by a leaker that they are shifting from their Phony Russian Collusion Narrative (the Mueller Report & his testimony were a total disaster), to a Racism Witch Hunt [...] 'Journalism' has reached a new low in the history of our Country.

"It is nothing more than an evil propaganda machine for the Democrat Party. The reporting is so false, biased and evil that it has now become a very sick joke...But the public is aware!" he said.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/white-house-wapo-nyt-subscriptions

 Image result for cartoons about the washington post and the new york times

Justice Dept. to launch criminal investigation into its own Russia probe: report

 Article written by Justine Coleman in "The Hill":

The Justice Department has reportedly opened a criminal investigation into its own Russia probe The New York Times reports.

The New York news source reports that after former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III closed the official investigation months ago, a new criminal inquiry will proceed to find out how the investigation of Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election and Trump's alleged collusion with Russia "all began." 

Attorney General Bill Barr has closely reviewed how the department handled the Russia investigation. But shifting the administrative review to a criminal inquiry would allow the prosecutor presiding over the inquiry, John H. Durham, to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, people familiar with the matter told The Times.

It would also enable Durham, a U.S. attorney appointed by Barr to lead the inquiry, to put together a grand jury and to file charges.

When defined as an administrative review, Durham could only voluntarily interview witnesses and investigate government documents, according to the Times.

The Times reported it was unclear what specific crime Durham would look into or when the investigation changed from an administrative review.
Opponents to President Trump may perceive the beginning of a criminal inquiry as a method for the president to go after his rivals. The president has indicated he believes the department should take steps against his political opponents, and has supported the department looking into the origins of the Russia investigation.
 
The threshold needed by the federal government to open a criminal inquiry is "reasonable indication" that a crime has taken place but with "objective, factual basis for initiating the investigation," according to department rules.
 
Durham and his team have talked to more than 24 former and current FBI and intelligence officials to determine if bias against the now-president drove the intelligence community's investigations into the campaign's potential ties to Russia, the Times reported.
 
The prosecutor has indicated he is interested in speaking to former CIA officials but has not spoken to then-CIA Director John Brennan or former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Trump has repeatedly blasted both men for allegedly attempting to keep him from becoming president.
 
Some CIA officials have reportedly hired criminal lawyers in preparation for their questioning, according to the Times.
 
With Durham, a veteran prosecutor, investigating the case, Barr may have an easier time avoiding allegations that he is promoting the president instead of being impartial as attorney general, the Times noted. Barr has been intimately involved in the inquiry since its inception in May, meeting with officials in Italy to investigate a conspiracy about the Russia investigation that the Italian government set up a Trump campaign adviser. 
 
Reports have also indicated that the attorney general asked the president to talk to foreign leaders about getting their cooperation in the Justice Department's inquiry, including the prime minister of Australia, where the tip that started the investigation originated. 
 
Democrats have accused Barr and Trump of utilizing the investigation for political purposes. 
 
The president has said the intelligence officials who launched the investigation into his campaign's potential ties to Russia's interference efforts committed treason. 
 
The results of Mueller's Russia investigation released in April revealed that the special prosecutor had "insufficient evidence" to conclude Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election. 
 
The Justice Department declined to comment to The New York Times. The Hill also reached out to the department for comment.
Updated 9:45 p.m. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/467396-justice-dept-to-launch-criminal-investigation-into-its-own-russia 

 Image result for pictures of comey and clapper and


Why It’s Not Surprising Voters Don’t Think Trump’s Rhetoric Is Disqualifying



I'm utterly mystified by those who insist on another national struggle session over the president's rhetoric because of their misplaced belief that D.C. was all curtsies and decorum before Trump showed up.

On Wednesday, President Trump took to Twitter and… well, this is a set-up that means something amusing or concerning happened, and not much in-between. Anyway, the president of the United States called his NeverTrump opposition “human scum.” Suffice to say, I do not endorse this characterization. But I’m utterly mystified by those who insist on another national struggle session over the president’s rhetoric because of their misplaced belief that D.C. was all curtsies and decorum before Trump showed up.

Let me explain: A friend of mine, who had a reasonably important White House job in a different administration, is fond of saying, “The problem with Washington is there are not enough bar fights.”

It’s very, very true that so much of what passes for “civility” in the center-left consensus in This Town is anything but. Official Washington Civility™ is more often than not a cloak for the backstabbing petty “Mean Girls” nonsense that’s really going on over lunch at The Palm or in, yes, literal cloakrooms. We even have things like the White House Correspondents Dinner that could almost pass for religious rites dedicated to worshiping this false “civility” god.

When people resort to fisticuffs, the dispute is at least out in the open. The truth is we would probably get more done and have more ultimate agreement if everyone was clear about what they really think so we could have real arguments that acknowledge what everyone feels and knows but can’t say for one reason or another.

And because media and major institutions all lean left and apply most of the pressure in civil society, it tends to be one group of people disproportionately biting their lips. Those same people snapped in 2016.

Why did they snap? Well, Barack Obama was a well-spoken, generally nice guy. He also sued nuns to make them pay for abortions. Everyone in his orbit spent months in 2012 calling Mitt Romney — Mitt Romney! — a racist felon who gave people cancer. Obama brought a mobbed-up Chicago banker to the White House and emphatically endorsed that mobbed-up banker’s run for his old Senate seat. He made excuses for the Internal Revenue Service going after his political enemies. He lied repeatedly about health care. He gave cash to terrorists and guns to cartels, and his own “wingman” at the Justice Department said people were racist for asking questions about the latter.

I could go on about Obama, yet I still see journalists routinely praising his manner and civility as if there weren’t a whole lot of very disturbing cracks in that facade. (Speaking of journalists and civility, Trump’s “human scum” tweet came just a few minutes before a Washington Post columnist blithely accused him of inciting murder.) But maintaining the illusion is a necessary part of the “regulative fiction” Washington has to tell itself to justify letting their preferred leaders exercise awesome amounts of power in deeply questionable ways.

After Obama, Hillary Clinton came along — we’re going to elide a lot of historic Clinton lowlights and skip straight to the 2016 campaign — and said half of Trump’s voters belonged in a “basket of deplorables.” (This line got her laughter and applause, by the way.) She then went on to say they were “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it.” Worst of all, she said many of them were “irredeemable.” Unlike Trump, she is not known for pro-wrestling levels of hyperbole.

Now if you ask the mandarins in national politics whether Obama and Clinton are more “civil” than Trump, I’m pretty sure the answer will be near unanimous and spittle-flecked. But in much of the country, the answer to that question is not obvious or the answer is still on balance Trump. And if you point out any of the hypocrisy that explains this disconnect, not even to defend Trump but merely to explain how you got him, well, heads explode and very loudly because sound carries in an echo chamber.

The ruling class is so invested in denying any hypocrisy here that we now have something in the political lexicon called “whataboutism,” a now almost universally misapplied fallacy largely adopted by the discourse police all at once circa January 2017. Comparing the president to his predecessor or political opposition for the purpose of putting their words and actions in context, once the most basic aspect of political analysis, is now frequently said to be off-limits because Trump is sui generis even when he’s not.

The fact that cerebellums are still detonating over what I think should be an obvious insight about hypocrisy four years after Trump rode that gold escalator into national politics is pretty revealing. Our overlords are simultaneously overly invested in self-preservation, impervious to information that contradicts their worldview, and have a great deal of misplaced moral superiority about their failure to alternately persuade or listen to large numbers of voters.

Supporting Voter ID does not make you racist. Being against abortion does not make you sexist. Wanting border security does not make you xenophobic. And thinking that baking cakes at the point of a gun is a bad idea does not make you homophobic.

I have no illusions about Trump’s way of engaging and debating people and why it coarsens politics. But discrediting and even dehumanizing your opposition was the dominant form of politicking before Trump came along, and that was obvious to voters no matter how much the media and administrative state tried hide it or give it a patina of respectability. If you’re continually surprised we’ve arrived at a point where much of the country doesn’t regard Trump’s rhetoric as disqualifying, you haven’t been paying attention.

Mittens, The Deep State, And The Ongoing Coup Against POTUS



Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, waits to participate in a mock swearing-in ceremony in the Old Senate Chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 3, 2019, as the 116th Congress begins. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Recently, one of my email pals sent me an incredible opinion piece from Howell Woltz at The International Centre for Justice, in Warsaw, Poland. He is the author of Justice Denied: The United States vs. the People,” a very interesting book about the US justice system and federal prisons and the need for some serious reform. Occasionally, an opinion piece is so profound that it simply MUST be disseminated to a much wider audience than a simple blog post. This is one of such article. In this commentary, he opines on the DoJ/FBI cabal’s ongoing coup against POTUS while explaining some key connections among John Brennan , Mitt Romney, Cofer Black, Burisma Holdings (Ukraine), Bararck Obama, Hillary Clinton, and all the rest. It fills in a lot of gaps and explains much about what is going on with respect to the Ukraine kerfuffle.

While I can’t vouch for the veracity of all the claims here, this just rings true to me and connects a lot of very interesting dots. As usual, I caution you to “trust but verify.” If nothing else, it serves as a departure point for your own dot-connecting activities. The more independent analysis is conducted by all, the clearer picture becomes over time. These are some extended excerpts from Woltz’s opinion piece. More than a few light bulbs may be turned on for you after reading this. Note: this article was published on 8 October, so keep this in mind as you read it.

Donald J. Trump is not a RINO or DC insider.  He’s a tough-guy billionaire from Queens, New York and a street-fighter. When the Democrats realised last week that Trump was actually heading up his own investigation rather than leaving it to their Deep State apparatchiks—and doing so directly with the leaders of Ukraine, Australia, and Italy (and perhaps the U.K.)—they did the political equivalent of starting a fire in a theatre. House of Representatives Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, announced impeachment proceedings against the president just three hours after stating in a speech that she would not. Speaker Pelosi had zero evidence, cause, stated reason and lacked the required vote of the House of Representatives to do so, but announced it anyway.

Strangely enough…and what caught my attention… Mitt Romney jumped on the “Impeach Trump” train that same day. How did Nancy go from “There will be no impeachment proceedings,” that morning in New York to announcing impeachment proceedings that afternoon when she got back to Washington, DC? Meet the Grand Master of the Deep State in America. Admitted Communist, John Brennan, who has some serious explaining to do now that his attempted coup of U.S. President Donald Trump has been exposed…and continues! So why did Romney want to shut down any investigation of Ukraine’s role as well? That’s the question that got this investigation started and it’s shocking.

Romney’s National Security Advisor, Joseph Cofer Black, sits on the Board of the same Burisma Holdings that was being investigated for corruption back in 2014, and the Vice President and Obama Administration demanded be shut down. Why? Because Burisma was/is their vehicle for corrupt practices in Eastern Europe. And CIA Director, John Brennan’s 9/11 Deep State partner, Cofer Black, is still the link to all that goes on there. In fact, I can state unequivocally that Burisma is the centre of Ukraine corruption and the Democrats’ shadow organisation for corrupt activities. I live in Eastern Europe (Poland) and my sources are first-hand. And I know this matters greatly to Mitt Romney as he is not yet done with politics. If Black is busted, it will reflect on Romney, and it only makes sense that Cofer Black is the Deep State ‘plant’ in case Romney ever rises above polishing knobs in the U.S. Senate. Romney wants to run for President again in 2024 and if he wins, Cofer Black will be back with his fingers on the strings either as DNI or CIA Chief of Corruption. Burisma Holdings is the hub of U.S. Democrat activities to corrupt both Ukraine and American politics and there is proof. Ukraine President Zelenskyy’s win surprised both Brennan and Black’s Deep State ops as much as Trump’s did in 2016 in America.

So who is this Cofer Black guy? Joseph Cofer Black, joined the CIA in 1974 and rose to be Director of The National Counterterrorism Center, before joining Mitt Romney. If it were not for researching this article, I admit, he was unknown to me as well. What a revelation. Black was also the Head of Counterintelligence who somehow missed the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, though according to The Economist, 16 foreign leaders and heads of intelligence agencies warned him it was not only going to happen but when. Oh well. And nothing was done about Cofer Black for this, indicating this is what the Deep State wanted. But it goes deeper. John Brennan and this guy, Cofer Black, are how 19 terrorists got into the U.S.A. to attack the U.S. on 9/11.

Editor Harry will jump on me or make Nurse Ratched give me a dose of Castor Oil if I say something I can’t prove, so I’m just going to quote the CIA whistleblower at the Jeddah, Saudi Arabia CIA staff hearing, who is the source: “According to Freedom Outpost, Brennan was the CIA station chief in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, when the 9/11 hijackers were given visas to travel to the United States. In September 2014, a whistleblower named Greg Ford, a former military intelligence officer, told Ground Zero Radio’s Clyde Lewis that the CIA had objections to the approval of those visas but Brennan actually overrode them.”

The second in command of the CIA station was directly quoted by the whistleblower as saying, ‘No way, absolutely we are not going to stamp those visas.’ But CIA Saudi station chief, John Brennan, overrode the officer in charge and ordered the visas to be stamped and issued. They came, they learned to ‘take off’ an airplane but said they were not interested in ‘how to land.’ Cofer Black ignored the reports about this strange behaviour, though it was made, I know as a fact, from the people who made it. I was also a Florida-based pilot in 2001.

You know the rest of the story. America lost over 3,000 citizens that day, and I sat for an hour trying to get past the terrorist pilots’ apartment in Coral Springs, Florida. Freedom Outpost concluded, “If it weren’t for John Brennan, 9/11 may never have happened.” I’d add to that, if Cofer Black weren’t the head of Counterterrorism, Brennan could not have gotten his men in to do the job. It took (these) two to tango. That’s an opinion, not news, but I’ll bet money I don’t have, that I’m right as it’s a no risk bet. These are partners in crime.

“Joseph Cofer Black – the former Director of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center (1999-2002) and Ambassador at Large for counter-terrorism (2002-2004).”

“Mr. Black is an internationally recognized authority on counterterrorism, cyber security, national security, and foreign affairs.” (these are quotes from Burisma’s website)

Brennan definitely had help in this. These terrorists had to have someone at the highest level in U.S. Counterintelligence to let their mission come to pass and succeed by ignoring all the warnings. They even took their flight training near my home, and I remember being locked down in Coral Springs, FL after 9/11 where they lived for three days while the FBI went through their apartment just a few blocks away. And this is where Romney’s man, Joseph Cofer Black, comes in. He was the partner in crime of John Brennan, (the Deep State Master), as well as being Mitt Romney’s National Security Advisor. Bad news for Mittens. And Cofer Black is the reason Romney is desperate to have President Trump’s real investigation shut down. As Obama’s CIA Director, John Brennan was also in charge of the dirty tricks campaign against then-candidate, Donald Trump. All of that has now been uncovered by investigative reporters Gregg Jarrett (The Russia Hoax) and Peter Schweizer (Secret Empires) with enough references to satisfy Editor Harry and Nurse Ratched.

Amazingly, the plot was actually laid by the Deep State in 2014 before they even knew Trump would be Hillary’s foil in 2016. I found that part pretty amazing. The Ukraine/Russia story was created for whomever was the candidate to run against Hillary Clinton.

For John Brennan, it really didn’t matter to him who ran on the Republican side. He just cared that whomever it was, lost to the Deep State’s choice – Hillary Clinton. Brennan, Black, James Clapper, James Comey and a host of others were prepared to make sure of it. It was exposed just last week that Brennan flew under a fake passport to avoid detection on his trip to set this up in Eastern Europe as early as 2015. There is no explanation for a CIA Director to do this unless what he was doing was illegal.

Now let’s go back to Joseph Cofer Black. He is Romney’s Ukraine man, and Brennan’s long-time associate who is still covering here in Eastern Europe (from where I am reporting) for the Deep State in America. Brennan came back Stateside from the Saudi Arabian CIA office the year after arranging for the 9/11 attackers to get into America. So what did he do? He took over CIA Counterintelligence from his partner, Cofer Black.  Convenient, eh? The Counterintelligence guy who ‘missed’ the 16 warnings on 9/11, and the guy who granted the attackers visas to get into the U.S. to take pilot training and do it, swap jobs, perhaps to prevent detection? Well it worked…until now.

And history repeats. The tag team is back at it. Barack Obama chose (or was told) to make John Brennan his CIA Director. Brennan then sets up the Russian hoax through the Ukraine government and intel operatives covertly in 2015 to target any candidate who might face Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Once Trump became the Republican candidate, President Obama authorised illegal spying on Trump’s campaign, we now know, because it was labeled a ‘counterintelligence operation’ which can only be authorised by a President.

The script for the Ukraine/Russia hoax was actually written back in 2007 to use against Republican candidate, John McCain. It was temporarily deployed but then shut down and recycled when it was clear RINO McCain would get his ass handed to him by Obama in 2008 without CIA involvement.. So, Brennan decided to use the script in 2016. The Republican’s candidate would be targeted using the same plan, according to one of Obama’s own secret service agents, now author, Dan Bongino, in his new book, Exonerated (just out last week).

The original script was written by Fusion GPS owner, Glenn Simpson. That’s the same man and company who would be paid $12 million by the Clinton Campaign, The Democrat National Committee and the FBI in 2016 for “the Steele dossier” that caused the Russia Hoax against Trump—though actually written years earlier. Glenn Simpson simply changed the names.

Unfortunately, there was a problem. Socialist Bernie Sanders was leading the Democrats side over the Chosen, Hillary, and had to be eliminated. To achieve this, the Clintons literally did a forced takeover of The Democrat National Committee and its funds. They immediately cut off Hillary’s rival, Bernie Sander’s campaign (as admitted by former DNC Director, Donna Brazille, on television) eliminating Bernie from the race.

John Brennan then began leaking the ‘dossier’ to Congressional Democrats, including then-[Senate Minority Leader], Harry Reid and their media co-conspirators to begin the take down of the Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump. Ironically, Brennan also leaked the fake dossier to Sen. John McCain, it’s original target, and McCain leaked it back to its original source—the FBI—to apply for warrants to spy on Trump using their own laundered information. The FBI literally paid for the fabricated information, leaked it to the media and politicians who hated Trump, then used their reports and that dossier when fed back to them, to get warrants to spy on Trump. But then the kimchee hits the fan for real. Trump gets elected! So, who jumps over to Ukraine to protect the conspiracy from being found out? Brennan’s 9/11 partner, Joseph Cofer Black…

Within days of Trump’s inauguration was immediately put in place in Ukraine to prevent anyone from talking. The Board of Burisma Holdings—the same centre of Ukraine corruption used by Joe Biden in 2014 to enrich his kid— was the base from which to shield the Democrat origins of the Russia Hoax and its intel roots from any real investigation.

By February of 2017, Cofer Black was a voting member of the Board of Burisma. You’ll hear the screams around the world this week as the democrats realise that Trump has taken this investigation on personally rather than leaving it to the deep state vermin. It’s all starting to fit together now, isn’t it? So, here’s what to expect.

Yes. There will be wailing a-plenty and gnashing of teeth over coming days, and this is the point where the president’s security needs to be at an all-time high, cause The Deep State is spinning out of control and desperate. If the new leaders of the nations that aided Brennan, Black and the Dems—all of whom are admirers of POTUS—have investigated the crimes of their predecessors as Trump asked, he likely has the evidence on his desk rather than having it hidden by the Deep State criminals.

This past Friday, it became known that President Trump had not only launched his own investigation with foreign leaders into the 2016 Election tampering, but that it was almost complete. As soon as that happened, the freak-out began. At 65 years of age, I’ve not seen one quite like it. The Deep State was and is in paroxysms of unmitigated fear and psychosis. They ramped up an immediate media assault using the usual outlets—CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and Washington Post—and the same exact leak specialists who put America through The Russia Hoax.

The media spectacle on Friday past was immediately followed with a sua sponte announcement by Speaker Pelosi that she was impeaching the President—a power she does not possess no matter how many cocktails she’s had. A completely false narrative was spun of what was said in President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, knowing Trump would never allow them to have a copy of the classified transcript to disprove their lies. But guess what?  Within 24 hours, in another act of unprecedented transparency The Donald did just that. He released the full, unredacted transcript of the call, publicly proving them all to be Pinocchios. And I just watched his Attorney, Rudy Giuliani, announce that he is drafting a lawsuit to file against those who lied about his client, Donald Trump—another unprecedented event to my knowledge.

So the price of lying about the President is about to get expensive, and while Rudy’s suit will be in civil court, if proven that these public officials violated Trump’s civil rights ‘under colour of law’,  it might become a criminal referral under 18 USC §§ 241, 242 (Deprivation of rights under colour of law and a conspiracy to do so). I personally believe this is why the President and his lawyers are doing it. Through the civil suit, they’ll have the right of discovery to get records they could never access in any other way. By then, Trump’s team will have enough evidence in the civil suit to refer the defendants for criminal prosecution by the Dept. of Justice.

In the Deep State’s current state of mania, an assassination attempt is not only likely but perhaps inevitable. I predict they will have one of their insiders still in the White House do it, or a foreign team (CIA trained) do the hit on his helicopter. Not a single CIA, DOJ, NSA, DNI or Secret Service leftover from Barack Hussein Obama should be allowed near him and then all 17 illegal spy agencies that have so disgraced my nation should be shaken up or even better, shut down.

No other leader in my nation’s history would have the audacity to take on these evil forces—or have a chance of winning other than Donald Trump—and they will do everything possible to take him out before he gets them. In my opinion, we’ll either have a presidential funeral followed by a descent into the darkness of Socialism, or a brighter and better day with dozens of Deep Staters eating institutional food and wearing orange for life. I’m praying for Door #2.

Like I said, the preceding rings true to me, and it comports with my own thinking on the whole sordid subject based on what has been uncovered by many independent journalists over the past two years. There is absolutely no question that the Deep State has been trying to take out President Trump from even before his inauguration in January 2017. There is more to this article which can be read here. Think about the details of this article in the context of everything that has been going on regarding Ukraine since the “whistleblower” started to dominate the news. It’s obvious that the Deep State and their paid media allies are extremely agitated – and for good reason! And why else other than complicity in the corruption would Mitt Romney be out front in the “get Trump” brigade these days? To reiterate, as with all sources, I recommend that you trust but verify, but I’m praying for Door #2, too!

The end.



The media has no reason to blast William Barr for his doing his job



With all of the breathless headlines of the last two weeks, it is astonishing that the entire city of Washington is not swooning from hypoxia. Much of the media have blasted out the news that Attorney General William Barr is “implicated” in the Ukraine scandal, after sources said he pressed leaders in Australia, Italy and England to supply evidence about the origins of the Russia investigation. Esquire Magazine was a tad more descriptive, proclaiming Barr was now “far up s--t creek” because of his calls.

Yet not only is there a valid reason for such calls, but they could indicate that the creek could become a storm of sorts for Democrats over the coming weeks. The calls made by Barr were reportedly linked to the ongoing investigation by United States Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Russia investigation. It is not uncommon for an attorney general, or even a president, to ask foreign leaders to assist with ongoing investigations. Such calls can shortcut bureaucratic red tape, particularly if the evidence is held, as with this case, by national security or justice officials. A call to request assistance for the Durham investigation would “implicate” Barr in nothing other than an official investigation.

I supported the appointment of a special counsel after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey. I also supported an investigation into the origins of the FBI investigation. The country is divided on the merits of both with legitimate concerns raised on each side. With the start of a House impeachment inquiry, it is more important than ever to have transparency along with a review of both these investigations.

Moreover, Durham could answer some disturbing aspects of the origins of the Russia investigation, including the mysterious role of Joseph Mifsud. Efforts by Durham to gain cooperation from Australia, England, and Italy likely concern figures such as Misfud. The professor seemed focused in revealing that there were “thousands of emails” in Russian hands in conspicuously opportunistic meetings with key individuals.

We have never established the real facts or loyalties of Mifsud. Some have suggested that he may have been a Western asset working for American, British, or Italian intelligence services. Fueling that speculation was the fact that the special counsel report indicates Mifsud lied repeatedly to investigators on sensitive national security issues. While Robert Muellercharged others for minor discrepancies in the stories that they told investigators, Mifsud somehow escaped any such charge.

Information on Mifsud would be found in countries like Australia, England, and Italy, as would be information on the work of former British spy Christopher Steele. The Clinton campaign paid him and an American opposition research firm a large sum \to seek dirt on Trump, including Russian and other foreign sources. Such information is not easily shaken loose without a high level prompt from someone like Barr.

However, many of the very same figures in Congress and in the media who previously called for full disclosure of every aspect of the Russia investigation are now criticizing the effort to gather evidence in the Durham investigation. It appears the public “right to know” does not extend that far. The reason is that a key report by Durham likely would come at a most importune time in advance of the 2020 election.

Democrats already are moving to impeach Trump on the Ukraine matter. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have told fellow Democrats to focus on Ukraine instead of on Russia conspiracy or obstruction, which led to more than two years of investigation. 
One reason for this is that Trump would be able to call his own witnesses during a Senate trial, particularly with a Republican majority dictating the rules. If the Russia investigation winds up as part of an impeachment trial, then Trump would be able to use these reports and earlier disclosures to place the conduct of the Obama administration under the spotlight before the public.

Trump would have plenty to work with in such a trial. The original focus was on his campaign aide Carter Page, who ultimately was not indicted on any crime. Mueller could not find a single crime by George Papadopoulos other than a marginal false statement that led to a whole 12 days in jail. Mueller ultimately found that no Trump official knowingly dealt with Russian hackers or trolls. If Durham finds irregularities and improper conduct in the Russia investigation, it will reinforce the claim by Trump that his campaign was improperly targeted by hostile officials.

Even worse is there could be a one two punch coming on the Russia investigation. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is said to be close to releasing his report on the secret surveillance targeting Trump officials. The report is expected to be both comprehensive and damaging for many involved in the start of that investigation.

Durham and Horowitz are both widely respected and are working with career investigators. If either finds improper conduct, it could reinforce the position of Republicans and moderate Democrats in voting against the impeachment or removal of Trump, who strongly maintains that the Obama administration not only improperly targeted his campaign for investigation but proved incredibly lax in investigating the allegations against Democrats ranging from Hillary Clinton to Joe Biden.

Convicting a president in an impeachment trial requires evidence and clarity. Even if Democrats only proceed on the Ukraine call, Trump will be able to claim that he sought evidence tied to the Russia investigation to assist Horowitz and Durham in their own investigations. He will also be able to call witnesses like Hunter Biden on his business dealings in Ukraine while his father handed out more than a billion dollars in aid.

It is doubtful that Democrats could resist references to the Russia investigation in an impeachment trial, which would trip the wire for Trump to bring in countervailing evidence from the Horowitz or Durham reports. Esquire Magazine could right about the nature of this river, but while it may lead to many things, clarity is probably not one of them.

Impeachment Backfiring: GOP Polling Memo Shows Public Turning Against Democrat Efforts to Oust Trump



Internal polling by the Republicans shows that people, even Democrats, are being turned off by the Democrats’ bogus attempts to impeach this president. The polling shows that 54% of voters are against the impeachment inquiry, while only 34% in favor of it. Just wait till they find out they’ve been hoodwinked by Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.

Remember what happened to Rachel Maddow’s ratings once they found out she was lying to her viewers. She sank quicker than the Titanic. Overall, the support for the impeachment inquiry dropped 5% in one week, and more surprisingly, support among Democrats dropped by 10 points.

The Democrats are doing everything in total secrecy, and it’s my guess that no one trusts them, even with Adam Schiff leaking selective bits and pieces. The media, as always, is doing their part to try to convince voters the idea is popular, but the voters no longer believe Democrat polling. If it were reliable, we would be talking about President Hillary. The NYT gave her a 92% chance of winning on election day. How did that work out for them?

“The RNC is tracking support for impeachment on a weekly basis using our sophisticated, battle-tested voter score program,” the memo says.

The internal polling data showing impeachment failing comes towards the end of the broader page-and-a-half memo, which explains why the public polling is so different from what the RNC is finding. These unreliable public surveys range from a recent Gallup survey to a recent Fox News poll and others that somehow suggest impeachment support is on the rise since Democrats moved forward with it a month ago, when in fact it is not.

“Over the past month, many news outlets have published polls regarding the impeachment inquiry with highly inconsistent and inaccurate methodologies that lead to inaccurate top line results,” the memo opens. “This memo seeks to breakdown the methodology in recently released polls and provide insight in what to watch out for in these releases, especially when compared to the RNC’s proven internal polling. We took a look at three common issues with recent public polling.”

Under the memo’s first subheading, “Flawed Sampling Methodology,” the RNC memo explains that both the Gallup and the Fox News polls were incorrect because they used methods that do not produce accurate results. 

Bernie Sanders Economic Agenda Is....


Economic Professor: 
Bernie Sanders’ Economic Agenda Is Unconstitutional and Very Bad Policy
Economic Professor: Bernie Sanders’ Economic Agenda Is Unconstitutional and Very Bad Policy

We all know Sen. Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist. He’s peddling the same tired 2016 talking points. 'Socialists of the world' unite is the war cry. And being that Sanders wants to pretty much destroy the country with his agenda, he found a nice ally in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) who decided to endorse him over the weekend; AOC’s Green New Deal is also a recipe for economic catastrophe. We’ve long said that progressives and far-leftists hate the U.S. Constitution. It has mechanisms that prevent their agenda from being fully implemented. So, it shouldn’t be shocking that when you analyze Sanders' economic agenda, not only are the ideas bad—they could be illegal. InsideSources spoke with a couple of economics professors who admit that they’re very much in-line with what Democrats have proposed in the past and even they said the Sanders plan is trash and unconstitutional (via InsideSources):
The notable points in his plan include:
All publicly-traded companies, and private companies with at least $100 million in revenue, must be at least 20 percent owned by their employees;
45 percent of the board of directors at these companies must be directly elected by the company’s workers;
A ban on stock buybacks;
Companies that lay off workers to move operations overseas must share some of the “gains” with the laid-off American workers;
Company boards will be required to maintain representation from “historically marginalized groups” (like women, LGBTQ individuals, African-Americans and others) and submit reports on the racial and sexual orientation makeup of their boards and employees to the federal government;
A ban on mandatory arbitration and non-compete clauses;
And the elimination of offshore tax havens and a corporate tax rate hike from 21 to 35 percent.
According to the Sanders campaign estimates, under his plan Amazon would have paid $3.8 billion in taxes last year.
Ralph Sonenshine, assistant professor of economics at American University, thinks Sanders’ plan will “create a lot of inefficiencies and black markets where companies try to get around [his policies].”
“As somebody that supports a lot of Democratic agenda items, most of this would not be one of them,” he told InsideSources. “I don’t believe in forcing corporations to do certain things, like banning stock buybacks, I think that’s not good at all.”
Sonenshine thinks Sanders could fix a lot of the economic inequalities he discusses with existing reform ideas that both progressives, neoliberals and conservatives agree on, like campaign finance reform, or minimum wage laws, which progressives and neoliberals (but not conservatives) generally agree on.  
[…]
Conservatives and progressives alike often talk about closing tax loopholes to ensure a fairer, more just tax system. Sonenshine and Lawrence White, a professor of economics at New York University’s Leonard N. Stern School of Business who describes himself as “markets-oriented,” approve of eliminating offshore tax havens and raising the corporate tax rate a little bit — not quite to 35 percent, but maybe around 25 percent, they said.
“As far as profit-sharing arrangements, I think that’s a mistake,” White said. “I know it works in Germany, I’m less convinced it would work here. We had experiments with worker shareholding arrangements, one of the major airlines had this 15 or 20 years ago. It didn’t work very well.
The publication noted that Sanders probably knows that, but he’s okay with it because he wants a left-wing revolution. As does AOC and the rest of their ilk. They already can’t stand the way we elect our president, so why should we be surprised that they’re promoting policies that would continue to undermine the vision of our Founding Fathers.

Impeachment Misfire:


Impeachment Misfire: 
William Taylor’s Smokeless Gun



Since late Tuesday the nation has been deafened by media outlets declaring that diplomat William Taylor provided “damning” congressional testimony involving President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine. The New York Times, for example, produced this breathless headline: “Donald Trump’s Quid Pro Quo Is Now a Smoking Gun.” Evidently, the “reporters” responsible for this story failed to read Taylor’s opening statement. It consists almost entirely of hearsay, shows that he wasn’t on the fabled phone call between presidents Trump and Zelensky, and confirms that he was assured by high-ranking Trump administration officials that the president sought no quid pro quo arrangement with Ukraine in exchange for aid:
On September 7, I had a conversation with Mr. [Tim] Morrison [the head of the White House National Security Council’s Eurasia desk] in which he described a phone conversation earlier that day between Ambassador Sondland [the U.S. ambassador to the European Union].… According to Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a “quid pro quo.”

William Taylor is, for the time being at least, the acting United States envoy to Ukraine. The 15-page opening statement  he read aloud before taking questions from committee members reveals more about Taylor’s role in the metastasizing administrative state than any offense committed by President Trump. It contains, for example, a considerable amount of kvetching about the way Trump’s administration was managing its relationship with the new Zelensky government: “I found a confusing and unusual arrangement for making U.S. policy towards Ukraine.” Anyone with experience in large bureaucracies will recognize this standard complaint of all such functionaries when faced with change. Taylor is typical of the breed:
On May 28 of this year I met with Secretary Mike Pompeo who asked me to return to Kyiv to lead our embassy in Ukraine.… During my meeting with Secretary Pompeo on May 28, I made clear to him and the others present that if U.S. policy toward Ukraine changed, he would not want me posted there and I could not stay.

But there may be more to Taylor’s aversion to policy changes than mere bureaucratic inertia. He may have personal objections to President Trump’s encouragement of an investigation by the Zelensky government into possible corruption involving a Ukrainian energy company. Taylor says in his statement that he was “alarmed” when informed that the company in question was Burisma. It isn’t clear why this would cause him such concern. As a former ambassador to Ukraine, he is surely aware of the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, negotiated 20 years ago, whereby Ukraine must cooperate in certain U.S. investigations. He may, however, have personal reasons to wring his hands about such joint inquiries.

Taylor’s opening statement indicates that, subsequent to his replacement by erstwhile President Obama as the ambassador to Ukraine, “I have stayed engaged with Ukraine, visiting frequently since 2013 as a board member of a small Ukrainian non-governmental organization supporting good governance and reform.” As Breitbart reports, however, there is more to this story than the promotion of good governance. The small non-governmental organization, the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council, has close ties with an entity called the Atlantic Council, which happens to be funded by everyone’s favorite Ukrainian energy company — Burisma Holdings. Taylor, like Hunter Biden, has been a beneficiary of Burisma largesse:
U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, who provided key testimony to the Democrats’ controversial impeachment inquiry yesterday, has evidenced a close relationship with the Atlantic Council think tank, even writing Ukraine policy pieces with the organization’s director and analysis articles published by the Council. The Atlantic Council is funded by and works in partnership with Burisma.

As any NRA member will tell you, a pistol (smoking or otherwise) used without proper training and maintenance, constitutes a greater danger to its owner than to any potential target. Consequently, when William Taylor agreed to collude with House Democrats in their ongoing attempts to perpetrate another hoax, he should have taken care that his weapon wouldn’t misfire. As Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) succinctly explained on Fox News, “I was down there most of the day in this meeting with Ambassador Taylor. Once again something leaks out to the Washington Post and narratives are built. The truth is, in two minutes, John Ratcliffe destroyed this witness. There is no quid pro quo.” Rep. Ratcliffe (R-Texas) put it as follows:
At the end of the day, this was about quid pro quo and whether or not the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld and on that most important issue. Neither this witness or any other witness has provided any evidence that there was a quid pro quo, or any evidence that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld on July 25…. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo.

This kind of reasoning is why Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was chosen by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to lead the “impeachment inquiry.” As the chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, he has an inexhaustible list of pretexts to hold secret hearings and thus prevent the public from witnessing the disgraceful charade. On Tuesday, William Taylor clearly arrived with an unloaded gun and perhaps revealed that he has a conflict of interest involving a corrupt Ukrainian energy company that is obviously in the habit of bribing American officials. Meanwhile, everyone is searching for that mysterious “whistleblower” in a bizarre Beltway version of Where’s Waldo? Such antics would be funny were they not so dangerous.

These Well-I-Never-Trumpers

These Well-I-Never-Trumpers expect Republicans to fussily adhere to Marquess of Queensberry rules while the Democrats fight dirty.



The pearl-clutching coming from Never Trump “conservatives” has gotten so bad, from now on, we should just call them the Well-I-Never-Trumpers.

Yesterday, a group of House Republicans decided to descend on the super-secret Star Chamber Shampeachment.  And I have to say, it gave me a happy.  One of the biggest complaints most Republican voters have about Republicans in Congress is that they lack the backbone to stand up to the vile, despicable shenanigans of the venal Democrats.

Naturally everyone in the news media clutched their pearls and bemoaned this brilliant move as a “political stunt” and (hang on to your hats) a “danger to our national security.” But none were more upset at the lack of “decorum” from these House Republicans than the Well-I-Never-Trumpers.  

And nobody typified the Well-I-Never-Trumpers quite like some prat writer from the Washington Examiner.  He actually titled his piece “These GOP House members just made themselves the antifa of Capitol Hill.”

Is he kidding?

Did Matt Gaetz beat the living crap out of Adam Schiff or throw bottles of urine at people?

Did these guys smash windows and set fire to trash cans?

“But, but, but, THEY ORDERED PIZZA just like Antifa would!!!!!”

What a complete drama queen.

In his huffy column he showed far more disgust with the Republicans who stood up against the super-secret Star Chamber Shampeachment than he did for Adam Schiff for conducting this super-secret Star Chamber Shampeachment.

Through his breathless “how dare they!” diatribe, this Well-I-Never-Trumper referred to these Republicans as “tawdry” and “akin to drugged up college ruffians ‘sitting in.’”

Said the huffy fishwife:

Their behavior was not only puerile, but infantile.

FYI, “puerile” is synonymous with “infantile.”  He may as well have said, “Their behavior was not only puerile, but puerile!”

This is why Republicans have a track record for losing battles against Democrats.

The Well-I-Never-Trumpers care far too much about behaving all prim and proper as if the Democrats won’t steamroll right over them so long as we follow the rules of good behavior and decorum.

Imagine being invited to a fancy dinner party where the host serves body parts and dog shit. And rather than get upset at the disgusting menu, you huffily complain about the lack of doily-lined plates.

This is the Well-I-Never-Trumpers.

Sure, the huffy writer concedes that Schiff’s super-secret Star Chamber Shampeachment “breaks precedent and is unfair.” But what really gets his panties in a bunch isn’t the Soviet-style kangaroo court, but those infantile, puerile ruffians who had the gall to behave in such an indecorous manner.

Do the Well-I-Never-Trumpers not realize that the venal Democrats have the entire corporate news and entertainment media going to bat for them?

Nobody is going to fight this battle for us.  We need to get our hands dirty and get into this fight.

Since the media will not objectively report the shifty and dishonest way Adam Schiff is running this super-secret Star Chamber Shampeachment, should it come as a surprise that some House Republicans are taking a leaf out of President Trump’s book and going over the media’s head in a big, hard-to-ignore way?

But, see, this particular Well-I-Never-Trumper is fighting on the same side as the rabidly partisan press.

Just take a gander at all the people he tagged when he posted his silly, well-I-nevering column:


Forget the Leftwing media, this so-called #tcot “principled conservative” is begging for the attention of that bumbling old coot Nancy Pelosi.

Years ago, Mark Levin coined the phrase “Vichy Republicans.” And the Well-I-Never-Trumpers most definitely fit that description to a T. They are willing to ally themselves with the people who want to destroy us — foolishly believing that they personally will be spared.

Then Margaret Dumont of the Washington Examiner closed his pearl-clutching tantrum with this:

In sum, this was a cheap publicity stunt. It was way out of proportion to the unfairness they are protesting, grossly in violation of House rules, and at least somewhat a threat to national security. A well-timed press conference outside the secure room would have been fine. The disruption of the hearing was neither fine, nor even remotely acceptable. It’s the most serious breach of House decorum I’ve seen in my 40 years of caring what happens on the Hill. It must not go unpunished.
“It must not go unpunished! Well, I never!”

Oh, take off the skirt, Margaret, and man up.

If Schiff and the corrupt Democrats succeed, none of us in this country will go unpunished.

Don’t you friggin’ get that?

We are sick and tired of getting our asses kicked by a political party that does not let the Constitution (let alone “decorum”) get in its way.

For years we voters have demanded that Republicans stop tinkering around the edges of this “fundamental transformation” and fight back.

The only reason the Democrats have gotten away with so much is because the Romney/Flake/McCain/Ryan Republicans didn’t want to get their spats dirty.

These Well-I-Never-Trumpers expect Republicans to fussily adhere to Marquess of Queensberry rules while the Democrats fight dirty.

And though this is now cliché, I’m going to say it.  This is why Trump won.

We’re fighting for the future of the country while the Well-I-Never-Trumpers are harrumphing over the lack of doily-lined plates.

Piss off, you dickless prats.

H. I. R. E. Act


Hawley to Introduce Bill to Move Federal Agencies out of Washington D.C. to Economically Stagnant Areas


Senator Josh Hawley in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., July 11, 2019. (Carlos Barria/Reuters)


Days after squaring off online against “elitist” critics of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue’s relocation of agency jobs, Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) will introduce legislation on Wednesday that would move the majority of the federal bureaucracy out of Washington D.C. to economically depressed areas, according to a summary of the bill provided to National Review.

The “Helping Infrastructure Restore the Economy (HIRE) Act,” which is cosponsored by Senator Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.), would move 90 percent of the positions within ten executive agencies to economically distressed regions that have a stake in the work of those respective agencies.

Under the bill, the Department of Agriculture would be relocated to Hawley’s home state of Missouri while the Department of Education would move to Blackburn’s Tennessee, in order to disperse the economic benefits associated with relatively high-paying government jobs that currently accrue to just a few zip codes.

“Every year Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars fund federal agencies that are mainly located in the D.C. bubble. That’s a big part of the problem with Washington: they’re too removed from the rest of America. The Hire Act will move policymakers directly into the communities they serve, creating thousands of jobs for local communities and saving taxpayers billions of dollars along the way,” Hawley said in a statement.

The bill comes in the wake of Hawley’s online feud with Department of Agriculture research analyst Andrew Crane-Droesch, who wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post on Monday arguing that Perdue relocated his division, the Economic Research Service, to Kansas City. Mo. last year in order to undermine its staff because their research didn’t support the administration’s policy goals.

“I assume this is a parody, right? DC bureaucrats aren’t actually saying out loud that moving to Missouri is … punishment, are they? Because surely nobody could be that condescending & elitist,” Hawley wrote on Twitter in response to the op-ed.

Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent moved to defend Crane-Droesch on Twitter, prompting Hawley to label him a “smug, rich liberal elitist” — a charge which CNN anchor Jake Tapper then implied was motivated by anti-semitism.

“In which ⁦@HawleyMO⁩ calls a Jewish journalist a ‘smug, rich liberal elitist,'” Tapper tweeted, eliciting a biting response from Hawley.

“For defending my homestate of Missouri, liberal media have called me ‘phony,’ ‘ugly,’ ‘smarmy,’ a racist and now an anti-Semite. All in 24 hrs,” Hawley responded. “This is how they bully those who aren’t part of the DC club. But I don’t care what slurs they use, I will ALWAYS defend Missouri.”

Hawley’s response to Tapper’s claim — positioning himself as an outsider who threatens to subvert the establishment’s stranglehold on policymaking — is in keeping with his approach to messaging since he arrived in Washington in January. He has coupled rhetorical floggings of big-tech companies with legislation designed to rein in their power, and lashed out at the free-market orthodoxy that has predominated in Republican politics for decades.

His new legislation, if it were to pass, would certainly make good on a promise he made during his maiden senate floor speech to ensure that the economic gains of recent decades flow from the “aristocratic elite” to the “working men and women” of the country who want to “build a life where [they] grew up.”

But, like so much of the policy framework the populist right is working to develop to underpin it’s rhetoric, the proposed legislation, if it is to be implemented, must overcome the inertia of a status quo that has maintained for decades. How, for instance, would the federal agencies fill high-skill positions that require post-college education when the vast majority of highly educated Americans have, for decades, shunned the middle of the country in favor of coastal cities? The prospect of secure employment and a low cost of living will help, but the move will likely require a broader cultural transformation as well.

Pragmatic considerations about its execution aside, proponents of the legislation argue that it will save taxpayers money in the form of reduced lease costs. (Relocating the Department of Agriculture would save $300 million over fifteen years due to lower real estate prices, lower cost of living, and increased employee retention, according to one USDA study released in June). 

While taxpayers stand to save, the bill’s most substantial benefits would accrue to the economically depressed communities that would receive an influx of jobs and a capital injection in the form of tens of millions of dollars in annual salaries, introducing a politically fraught dynamic in which a coalition of lawmakers representing largely Republican interior states square off against the largely Democratically controlled coasts for control of a massive quantity of what amounts to federal pork.

The states that would benefit from the bill are: Pennsylvania (Commerce), Kentucky (Energy), Indiana (H.H.S.), Ohio (H.U.D.), New Mexico (Interior), West Virginia (Labor), Michigan (Transportation), South Carolina (V.A.).

While there is some precedent for the move — the CDC is located in Atlanta, Ga. and the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Center is in Clarksburg, W.V. — it will prove difficult for Hawley and Blackburn to secure Democratic support for a relocation that would likely be opposed by the federal bureaucrats who overwhelmingly lean — and donate to — the left.

There is, however, some nascent support for the idea of lowering the cultural and economic divides between the Accela corridor and the rest of the country on the progressive left as well. Upstart presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who has displayed a remarkable ability to mainstream previously unthinkable ideas in the span of just a few months, has called for the relocation of federal agencies “to provide a boost to local economies and tie the rest of the country to the federal government.”