Wednesday, October 30, 2019

First Lady Melania Trump thanks troops at Joint Base Charleston for their service


By Live 5 Web Staff | October 28, 2019 at 3:42 PM EDT - Updated October 30 at 2:31 PM
CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCSC) - First Lady Melania Trump thanked troops of Joint Base Charleston and their families for their service.
Trump spoke to a group more than 500, almost 90 percent of whom are active military members. The remainder of the guests are family members.
She began her remarks with a reference to the weekend military mission that ended with the death of IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
“Our military has never been stronger, or more capable than it is now,” she said. “And our nation will continue to stand strong in the face of any enemy.
She said she has toured military bases across the country and around the world.
“I’m reminded every time about the important missions you, our military do around the world,” she said. “You carry the message of duty, honor and country wherever you deploy our teams, a testament to our national unity, demonstrating every day how our communities can lean on each other and find the strength and courage to step forward when called upon in times of need. Whether it is missing loved ones currently deployed, or families struggling to cope with loss, the military community always demonstrates what the resilience look like in the face of adversity.”

The speech followed a visit by Trump and Second Lady Karen Pence which included a briefing from major emergency response teams at the base: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the 841st Transportation Battalion, the US Coast Guard, 437th and 315th Airlift Wings and the 628th Emergency Operations Center at Joint Base Charleston.
Earlier that morning, the pair visited nearby Lambs Elementary School where they spent time with 5th graders who are participating in the American Red Cross’s Pillowcase Project, an emergency response program designed to help children prepare mentally and physically for natural disasters.
During her speech, Trump praised the school for using “such an important program to help prepare children for emergencies.”
After arriving Wednesday morning at Joint Base Charleston, they were greeted by South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster and First Lady Peggy McMaster.
https://www.live5news.com/2019/10/28/first-lady-melania-trump-second-lady-karen-pence-visit-charleston-wednesday/
at

We have the transcript for crap’s sake!

Yet another Shampeachment “witness” shares his feelings about a phone call that we have the transcript for and can read for ourselves.

Another “smoking gun” “witness” is making an appearance in Adam Schiff’s Star Chamber Shampeachment.  And this one, like the others, is opining on a phone call for which we have the transcript.

But of course the news media is orgasming it fits of delight that this so-called “witness” will be the one to Take Trump DownTM.

Yes sir, my friends.  The Walls Are Closing InTM.  It’s the Beginning of the EndTM.

All because this guy got hurty feelings over a phone call we can all read for ourselves because we have the transcript.

And heaven forbid you point out that this low-level staffer at NSC shouldn’t be trying to undermine the President’s Foreign Policy.

 He’s a combat veteran who was awarded a Purple Heart!!!  How dare you question him!!!! 

Okay, sure, he’s a combat veteran.  But guess what he isn’t?

He isn’t President of the United States.

And the person who leads US Foreign Policy is the President of the United States, not some random staffer.

So his not liking Trump’s foreign policy is just too damn bad.



And his getting the vapors over this phone call between Trump and the Ukraine President is irrelevant.

Because, and I know I’m repeating myself, we have the transcript.

We can read it for ourselves.

I don’t give the hairy ass of a rat what his feelings about this phone call are seeing as I can read the freaking transcript myself.

All of us can because, you know, we have the transcript. The President released it almost a month ago.

When will these idiots stop banging on about the opinions of others about a phone call we have the transcript of and can read ourselves?



It shouldn’t at all come as a surprise that the media, the Democrats and the Well-I-Never-Trumpers are clutching their pearls and using this so-called witness’ military service as a shield.

It’s what these idiots do.

And it’s all they have. Because he isn’t adding anything of actual substance.

They want to distract for the nothing-burger his testimony is by being offended that a military officer is being criticized for wasting our time over a phone call WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT OF.

That’s why when Trump tweeted this:


The Trump-haters immediately attacked him for “attacking” an Army officer.


Ah, yes, you gormless tit. We “Trumpists” are attacking him because of his military service.

Actually, we’re criticizing him because A) an underling who works for the President doesn’t get to decide our Foreign Policy and B) we have the transcript and don’t need to hear his impressions and feelings about it.

Good grief, these people are annoying as hell.

But this is why he was chosen.  And it is exactly why he showed up on Capitol Hill in his dress uniform.  It might as well have been made of Kevlar.








The Schiff Shampeachment is relying on the opinions, feelings and impressions of staffers over a phone call that we all can read for ourselves.

But it doesn’t change the fact that as President of the United States, Donald Trump is the one who determines foreign policy.

And this so-called “witness” has been undermining the boss on foreign policy.


His being a combat veteran is irrelevant.

His opinions and his feelings about a phone call for which WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT are irrelevant.

What is relevant is that he is actively seeking to undermine the foreign policy of the President of the United States.

And we have every right to criticize him and discredit his testimony.


His military service aside, this man doesn’t deserve our respect for what he is doing.

If anything, he deserves to be fired.

at

Judge Tells Government To..

The Federalist

Judge Tells Government To Respond To Allegations It Hid Evidence From Michael Flynn’s Legal Team

Whether Judge Emmett Sullivan will schedule oral argument after receiving these latest filings is yet to be seen. And how he will rule is anyone’s guess.

Late last week, Michael Flynn’s star attorney Sidney Powell filed a much-anticipated brief on the public docket detailing evidence that federal prosecutors had withheld from her client. Powell’s brief, which also exposed the FBI’s plot to set up Trump’s then-national security advisor, dominated conservative media coverage for several days and prompted a Twitter thread from President Trump quoting the brief at length and calling the targeting of Flynn “a disgrace.”

Then, just as the noise began to quiet, Judge Emmett Sullivan—the federal judge presiding over the Flynn criminal case—issued a surprise order.

“In view of the parties’ comprehensive briefing concerning Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Brady Material, the Court cancels the motion hearing previously scheduled for November 5, 2019,” the short minute order issued on Monday read. Court watchers promptly speculated on the significance of the order.

It could mean one of two things. It could mean Sullivan had found the briefing sufficiently clear to allow him to render a decision on Powell’s motion to compel without the benefit of oral argument by the parties. Or it could mean that the briefing was so detailed that Sullivan needed more time to study the arguments before engaging with counsel and intended to reschedule the hearing for later.

While Powell appeared undaunted by Judge Sullivan’s order canceling the November 5, 2019, hearing, the government’s immediate filing of a document cast as a “Notice of Claims Raised and Relief Sought for the First Time In A Reply Brief” suggests federal prosecutors feared Sullivan had made up his mind—and not in their favor.

In their filing, the government complained that Flynn’s reply brief “seeks new relief and makes new claims, based on new arguments and new information.” “Issues may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief,” federal prosecutors stressed, before suggesting that “by making new arguments for the first time in his Reply, the defendant has potentially placed this Court in the position of reviewing novel assertions and arguments that the defendant claims are essential to his cause without the benefit of the government’s factual responses and legal analysis.”

The government then highlighted several of the arguments Powell made in her reply brief, such as that “the government suppressed text messages that ‘would have made a material difference’ to the defendant”; “that the defendant’s false statements were not material; that the defendant’s attorneys were acting under an ‘intractable conflict of interest,’ which the government exploited to extract a guilty plea; and that the ‘FBI had no factual or legal basis for a criminal investigation.’”

To these points, prosecutors retorted, “each new argument or claim is unsupported by fact or law,” prompting Powell to tell me, “The prosecutors appear to dwell in an imaginary alternative universe.”

Yesterday’s filing by federal prosecutors also read as the judicial version of working the refs, with the government suggesting the court may be intending “to strike any arguments or claims raised for the first time by the defendant in his Reply,” or planning “to require the defendant to raise any new claims for relief in a properly pled motion to which the government can respond fully.” The government then asked the court for “guidance,” and the chance “to file a surreply that concisely addresses only newly-raised Brady issues, such as those identified above.”

The government got what it wanted—and then some.

Late yesterday, Judge Sullivan entered an order directing the government to file a surreply brief by November 1, 2019, but in doing so instructed prosecutors to address not just the Brady issues, but any “new relief, claims, arguments, and information raised in Defendant’s Reply Brief.” The order also gave Flynn a chance to respond to the government’s arguments by November 4, 2019. But that’s it: Judge Sullivan made clear that no new arguments should be made in Powell’s sur-surreply and no further pleadings concerning Flynn’s motion to compel would be accepted.

Whether Judge Sullivan will schedule oral argument after receiving these latest filings is yet to be seen. And how he will rule is anyone’s guess. But that Judge Sullivan did not limit the additional briefing to specific Brady issues, but instead directed the government to respond broadly to any “new relief, claims, arguments, and information,” suggests the long-time federal judge’s concern has been piqued by what he’s read so far.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

at

DC Court of Appeals Issues Emergency Stay Blocking Release of Grand Jury Material to HJC

It’s a good thing the DOJ did not wait for a ruling from Judge Howell.  Instead, a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an emergency administrative stay; blocking the release of the Mueller grand jury materials to the House Judiciary Committee pending the court review of the appeal from the DOJ.
The ‘stay’ suspends implementation of Judge Howell’s ruling last week until the court has the opportunity for review, and further formal motions are filed to appeal the decision.

In my humble opinion, activist judge Howell was going to wait to rule on the stay motion until after the House voted on their resolution creating the framework for their ‘impeachment inquiry. With that vote, Howell would likely have ruled against the ‘stay’ motion.   The direct move to the appeals court impedes Howell’s judicial agenda.

The appellate court ruling avoids Howell’s outcome.  Additionally, the undisclosed motive behind the House vote; to conjoin the HJC’s newly gained judicial enforcement authority, and judicial recognition of an official impeachment investigation; is somewhat softened.
at

Flynn Update – Judge Grants Complaining DOJ Lawyers an Opportunity to File a Reply


Yesterday, after an extensive defense motion, Judge Emmet Sullivan canceled the November 7th hearing in the Flynn case to resolve defense issues outlining how the DOJ was willfully not producing Brady evidence that would show Flynn’s innocence.

Against a strong possibility the evidence Sidney Powell provided might result in Judge Sullivan dismissing the case, the DOJ filed a notice today requesting an opportunity to reply before Judge Sullivan deliberates on the Brady motion.  The DOJ notice (see here) is essentially the DOJ complaining about the new and overwhelming submission of evidence.



To avoid the appearance of judicial impropriety, Judge Sullivan has instructed the DOJ to file a surreply by November 1st outlining their complaints; and then gives the Flynn defense the opportunity to refute with a sur-surreply by November 4th. (video below)





at

Germany to tighten hate speech and gun laws to fight far right.

The German government on Wednesday approved a draft law to crack down on the far right, three weeks after a deadly attack by an alleged neo-Nazi targeting a synagogue.
 Chancellor Angela Merkel's cabinet signed off on a raft of measures that in
particular target weapons sales and hate speech online.
 Germany had already in 2017 passed one of the most restrictive laws in the world to combat racist and incendiary speech online, requiring social media giants to remove illegal content or risk fines of up to €50 million.

It came after the arrival of more than one million asylum-seekers since 2015 fuelled far-right propaganda, and gives companies such as Twitter and Facebook 24 hours to remove posts that openly violate German law after they are flagged by users.
Detractors have criticised the law as curbing free speech and putting internet companies in the role of censors.
The new legislation goes further, compelling internet companies to flag problematic content including death threats and incitement of racial hatred to police.
Law enforcement authorities will have the power to order online platforms
to provide them with user data in these cases for possible criminal prosecution.
 "It has to be clear that the internet is not a lawless zone and that while free speech reigns in the digital as well as the analogue world, it reaches its limits when it breaks the criminal code," Justice Minister Christine Lambrecht told reporters.
The measures will also make it more difficult for firearms to land in the hands of criminals.
The domestic intelligence watchdog will review arms purchases to make sure the buyer is not a known sympathiser with radical movements.
https://www.thelocal.de/20191030/germany-to-tighten-hate-speech-and-gun-laws-to-fight-far-right
at

Seditious Conspiracy / Sketchy Witness – Schiff Blocks Questioning



Holy smokes, this Alexander Vindman witness is very sketchy. Generally suspected of being “whistle-blower #2”, records show Vindman had numerous contacts with registered foreign agents, while a member of the National Security Council.  [FARA link – pg 4] 

Additionally, it is highly likely Vindman leaked the content of presidential phone calls  illegally while he was a member of the National Security Council; which explains why Adam Schiff would not permit Vindman to answer questions about who he talked to. 

The New York Times is reporting that sketchy Vindman attempted to manipulate the CIA transcripts of President Trump’s call with Ukraine President Zelenskyy to meet Vindman’s ideological interpretations. [Vindman had a hidden agenda “spying” while inside the NSC]
In an effort to bolster his very sketchy credibility; and likely in an effort to avoid the appearance of sedition; Schiff’s Lawfare staff recommended Vindman wear his military uniform to the hearing today, though Vindman never wore the uniform for his NSC job. 

 
(Open Secrets) – sA little known U.S.-based attorney quietly poured six figures into foreign influence operations for President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, hoping to be rewarded with a job in his administration, foreign agent records identified by OpenSecrets show.
The new Foreign Agent Registration Act records reveal previously unreported meetings with Trump administration officials and details of a six-figure lobbying campaign promoting Zelensky’s interests in the U.S. during the leadup to his election and now-infamous phone call with President Donald Trump.
[…]  Notable among the Trump officials contacted was Alexander Vindman, who oversees European affairs at the National Security Council. Vindman was one of five Trump administration officials chosen for a delegation to Zelensky’s inauguration featured in the whistleblower complaint alongside Kurt Volker, the U.S. special envoy to Ukraine who resigned after fallout from the whistleblower’s allegations. (read more)

at

Doug Collins Reacts to Pelosi/Lawfare House Impeachment Inquiry Resolution

Ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Doug Collins, appears on Fox News with Laura Hannity to discuss the politically constructed House impeachment resolution. 

at

Twain said: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.


October 28, 2019 By: Dan Lyman

https://www.newswars.com/minneapolis-a-hotbed-of-somali-gang-warfare/

A deadly shooting between rival gang members in Minneapolis highlights the growing crisis of East African clan warfare in Minnesota’s capital region.

An operative of the 1627 Boys gang was charged with second degree murder after allegedly shooting a high-ranking member of the Somali Outlaws during a drug deal in Minneapolis.
Mustafa Ali, 25, was shot three times in the chest by 18-year-old Mahad Ali (no known relation), police say. Mahad Ali was also shot during the altercation and suffered non-life threatening injuries.

Now we all know Somalia is a failed state. Tribes have been fighting and killing each other there for centuries. In the 60's and 70's African nations embraced Communism and Socialism, the countries have continued to decay into hopelessness and anarchy.

Liberals say, "let's bring these people to America and Europe help them integrate into Western Society and make their lives better"

Has that worked out?

Some in Minneapolis might disagree.

By EMERSON VERMAAT

June 16, 2009 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - Sub-Saharan African and Somali crime networks and youth gangs play a destructive role in a number of European countries, especially in Greece, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and Britain. Somali immigrants are supported by their clans. Somali crime networks are specialized in migrant trafficking, identity fraud, drugs, weapons smuggling, gun-running, car crime and "Hawala" money transfers to terrorists and criminals.

This money is being transferred to Somalia from the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Greece, Italy, Britain and the USA. In February 2008, six Somalis were arrested in Sweden and Norway on suspicion of funding terrorism with cash sent to Al-Qaeda terrorists in Somalia. 

For quite a number of years, the Hawala system and the Somali Al-Barakaat bank have been instrumental in operations run by Somali criminals or Al-Qaeda linked terrorists inside or outside Somalia.

Since the early 1990s Britain has seen a rapid influx of Somali immigrants. There are now about 250,000 Somalis in the United Kingdom. Most of them entered the country as asylum seekers. 

The so-called "gangsta-rap culture" is highly popular among Somali boys, often young macho criminals. 

Somali and other African crime gangs have terrified local communities.

Odd ten years ago San Francisco Liberals and European Liberals knew Somali's were a problem, yet they continue bringing them into our countries.

Seems to me we should make sure any illegal immigrant caught outside our Liberal cities should be executed or deported back int these Liberal cities.
at

Schiff Instructs Witnesses Not to Answer Questions




The Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare impeachment scheme was further evidenced today  with Lawfare lawyers Barry Berke and Norm Eisen participating in the construction of one-sided and heavily scripted rules for an ongoing ‘impeachment inquiry’.

After Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise had their first opportunity to review the rules, they held a brief presser outlining some of the ongoing manipulation by Chairman Schiff.  Jordan notes that Schiff is instructing witnesses not to answer questions put forth by minority members of the inquisition. 


Lawfare lawyers Barry Berke (left) and Norm Eisen (right) appear today in the basement of the House with Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler as they assist in constructing the impeachment rules.  Berke and Eisen will be part of the contracted staff team questioning witnesses in the upcoming ‘public’ hearings.
at

House Democrats Released Their ‘Impeachment Resolution’ And It’s Absolute Garbage



House Democrats released their “impeachment resolution” today, which purports to lay out fair rules involving the ongoing “impeachment inquiry.” The weird thing is seeing some “conservatives” run to Twitter to frame this move by Democrats as calling a Republican bluff. As you’ll see, it does nothing of the sort.

I’m not going to go through the entire thing, as it’s eight pages long, but you can reference it in its full length here. You only need to see a few parts of it to realize that nothing has really changed and that all the same complaints being made by Republicans still exist.

Sean Davis breaks down some of the most important parts, not the least of which is that this isn’t even an actual impeachment resolution. Instead, it references the previous investigation, which doesn’t even legally exist.



That aside, the details within the resolution paint the same picture that existed prior to its existence.

Take the section on transcripts for example.


Someone point out to me how this changes anything. The chair is Adam Schiff. The resolution gives him sole authority to release transcripts. All this does is legitimize his selective leaking. Now he can release excerpts as he sees fit without having to shovel them through CNN. If a testimony helps Donald Trump, he can simply hold it back and no doubt he will (I have a story tomorrow coming about Schiff instructing witnesses not to answer the questions of Republican members).

But maybe he’s giving subpoena power to the minority party like Republicans did during the Clinton impeachment investigation? Nope. Adam Schiff once again garners full authority to veto any requested witnesses or subpoenas and the only appeal is to the entire committee, which is majority Democrat and will always vote to back up Schiff. Again, nothing has changed.

 Nearly every single anti-transparency dynamic Republicans have pointed out still exists, just with prettier language around it. This resolution is window dressing. It’s an attempt to shovel fodder to the media, knowing they will now proclaim all Republican concerns moot. The fact that some conservatives are going along with the gambit is disappointing.

Republicans aren’t asking for a lot. We simply want to see the transcripts. We want to be able to judge the contradictions, context, and any possible evidence for ourselves. Adam Schiff being the arbiter of that is not acceptable and as long as that dynamic exists, this inquiry will continue to be a sham.



at

Individual Goodness is the Antidote to...


Individual Goodness is 
the Antidote to Collective Turmoil

Our constructive actions will do far more to earn the trust of others than will our ability to put them in their place, either online or in the real world.

Sunday, October 27, 2019
In my day to day search for interesting and, hopefully, relevant content, there are a handful of discussion boards I visit.

The discussions span a wide range of interesting topics from history to how to cook a particular dish to where to find a good deal on wool socks to the best song of the 1960s. However, politics, by far, appears to be the most common driver of discussion.

I suspect it’s like this in many corners of the online world.

What caught my attention this past week was a post by a long-time and respected member of a gun-related discussion board. He announced that a heavy burden had been lifted from his shoulders and went on to explain that he had decided not to participate in any more political discussions.

As a recovering political junkie, this caught my attention.

A Shocking Realization

It was fascinating to see another person who had lived and breathed politics for many years reach the point of diminishing returns. It’s not an easy thing to admit that, after decades of conversational, emotional, and intellectual investment, one’s efforts have likely changed few minds.

I was particularly struck by this individual’s recognition that he hadn’t even realized what a conspicuous load he’d been carrying until the moment he chose to set it aside. With that shocking realization came the recognition that he could have done so at any time.

“What if I had invested all that research and conversation into things that uplifted myself and others?”
There was no legitimate value found in having spent decades of his life discussing all the gory details about the corruption of certain politicians, political parties, and special interests. In fact, focusing primarily on political malevolence and negativity had, in many ways, made him a more negative person.

The question he asked is extremely insightful: “What if I had invested all that research and conversation into things that uplifted myself and others?”

He then resolved to shift his focus to fixing things over which he has actual influence, starting with himself, his family, and his truly important relationships. He has committed to ramping up his efforts to positively influence the people around him rather than simply argue with them.

Anger Is Easier Than Action

His story struck a chord with me because I recognized that I too had walked this same path and come to a very similar realization.

I learned very early on in my talk radio career that there is a large and loyal audience that loves to be told who to hate and what to fear. The more red meat I threw and the more demons I gave them to wrestle, the more they loved me and listened to me.

It’s a tendency that’s not limited to any one side of the political spectrum.
At some point, I found myself asking, “Is this really accomplishing anything worthwhile?”

These fear and enemy-driven folks weren’t motivated by evil or stupidity so much as by a need to define themselves by what they’re against. It’s a tendency that’s not limited to any one side of the political spectrum.

It will always be easier to feel good about simply proclaiming ourselves to be against something than it will be to actively live an uplifting and righteous life. To paraphrase Chesterton, “It’s not that such an approach has been tried and found wanting, it’s that it’s been tried and found difficult.”

But there is a world of difference between these two approaches.

Breaking the Cycle

Getting caught up in the political bickering is so easy to do. Virtually every one of our information delivery platforms is saturated by politics. No wonder so many people appear to struggle with feelings of hopelessness.

For some, it becomes what writer Claire Wolfe has described as a “daily dread supplement,” and we can become addicted to the need to feel fearful or angry over time. Breaking this cycle of dependency first requires the willingness to admit that there’s a problem.

When we step outside the box and forge connections based on commonalities, we reduce their power and influence over us.
If we find ourselves constantly arguing with others, complaining about them, or even feeling the need to confront those who hold differing points of view, the deficiency is with us—not them. This is because the majority of political discussions have become a form of competition that’s rooted in pride.

We are kept artificially divided by politicians and their enablers who consolidate power over us by keeping us constantly seeking favors for our tribe and chastisement for everyone else.

When we step outside the box and forge connections based on commonalities, we reduce their power and influence over us. More importantly, we become the kinds of individuals and neighbors who can be counted on by those around us.

Our constructive actions will do far more to earn the trust of others than will our ability to put them in their place, either online or in the real world.

If you’ve found yourself feeling a sense of hopelessness at the irrationality that seems to be taking root all around us, this is where hope can be found.

It starts with recognizing that individual goodness—backed by principled action—will move mountains that angry words never will.


at

The Fall of a Liberal Citadel

Unrest in Bolivia is spiking sharply as Bolivia’s President and leader of the political party Movement Toward Socialism (MAS), Evo Morales, has threatened to “fence in” cities that oppose him.

The threat is an attempt to clamp down on large and spreading popular protests against him after he declared himself president for yet another term notwithstanding widespread allegations of voter fraud that left international observers objecting and domestic opposition furious.
Interesting we may get to watch and social experiment play out in Bolivia. what might it be like when the Liberals and Bureaucrats in their citadels are boxed in and cut off from water, power and consumables.
Americans in Fly Over Country really do hold all the power. Liberals are clustered in large cities, they live a parasitic life off Fly Over Country.
Imagine a city like San Francisco cut off from water, power and food stuffs no longer being shipped in.
How soon would the parasitic illegal immigrant and criminal element tolerate when water, power and food is held from them while the Rich White Elites get theirs? 
This is what Liberals fear. Perhaps as we watch this social experiment unfold in Bolivia perhaps patriots in Fly Over Country may get a good idea how to begin guerilla tactics for taking down Liberal Citadels. 
Help the illegal and criminal elements begin to prey on those Rich White Elites. 
Could be quite fun to watch.

at

Obama Hunted Trump Campaign Aides Instead of Terrorists




For more than a year, the leaders entrusted to protect the country and administer justice on behalf of Americans victimized by terrorists instead used their awesome reach against a domestic political rival.

The weekend raid that resulted in the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was named after Kayla Mueller, an American aid worker killed in Syria in 2015 while being held captive by the sadistic ISIS leader. During his Sunday morning announcement from the White House, President Trump twice invoked Mueller’s name in addition to the names of other Americans murdered under the Islamic State’s ongoing reign of terror. According to reports from some of his escaped victims, Baghdadi took Mueller as his secret bride in 2013. “We were told Kayla was tortured, that she was the property of al-Baghdadi,” her parents said in an August 2015 interview.

Mueller was raped repeatedly by the ISIS caliph, then killed in February 2015 during a coalition strike on the compound where she was confined.

After the U.S. confirmed Mueller’s death, President Obama issued a statement. “ISIL is a hateful and abhorrent terrorist group whose actions stand in stark contrast to the spirit of people like Kayla. No matter how long it takes, the United States will find and bring to justice the terrorists who are responsible for Kayla’s captivity and death.”

Obama, however, did not bring those terrorists to justice; nearly five years later, it was Donald Trump who made good on that promise.


Misplaced Priorities

Mueller’s parents thanked the president for finally taking out their daughter’s tormentor.

“I still say Kayla should be here, and if Obama had been as decisive as President Trump, maybe she would have been,” Marsha Mueller, Kayla’s mother, told the Arizona Republic on Sunday. The former president, who famously referred to the al-Qaeda offshoot as a “JV team” in 2014 shortly before ISIS declared a caliphate, fumbled his response to its growing threat in the final years of his presidency. Obama admitted during the G7 meeting in June 2015 that his administration did not have a “complete strategy” to fight ISIS and that the details, including cooperation with our allies, were “not worked out.”

But in 2016, rather than successfully hunting down terrorists including Mueller’s captors, Obama and his top national security officials hunted down Trump campaign aides. Baghdadi’s death should be a reminder—an infuriating one at that—of how the Obama administration, particularly the CIA and FBI, squandered vital resources in service to a politically motivated investigation into Trump and his presidential campaign rather than focusing their efforts on the legitimate threats facing the country.

Trump alluded to that malfeasance in his press conference on Sunday. “When we use our intelligence correctly, what we can do is incredible,” Trump saidwhile commending intelligence operatives who helped locate the ISIS madman. “When we waste our time with intelligence that hurts our country because we had poor leadership at the top, that’s not good.”

Trump, of course, was referring to former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former FBI Director James Comey, the “Praetorian Guard” that laid the trap for Team Trump in 2016. As ISIS continued its murderous rampage in the Middle East and parts of Europe that year—including the Bastille Day truck attack in France that killed 86 people and wounded hundreds more—the most powerful intelligence professionals in the United States were surveilling Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.


The Situation in the Situation Room

High-level secret briefings in the White House Situation Room were not centered on potential attacks on the country but on Trump campaign volunteers allegedly in cahoots with the Kremlin to post mean memes on Facebook or release Hillary Clinton’s nonexistent emails in an attempt to “interfere in our election.” Rather than fulfilling Barack Obama’s pledge to Kayla Mueller’s family, the Obama Administration’s hierarchy, including the president, worked overtime to sabotage the Trump campaign, plant damaging stories in the news media, and plot to undermine his presidency in the event Trump won.

In the months leading up to Election Day, according to a lengthy article published in the Washington Post a few years ago, Obama’s national security chiefs met in the White House on a regular basis ostensibly to counteract Russia’s “election meddling.” The briefings, according to the Post, were so secret that the video feed from the Situation Room was cut off.

“In political terms, Russia’s interference was the crime of the century, an unprecedented and largely successful destabilizing attack on American democracy,” Post reporters and election collusion propagandists Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima, and Adam Entous reported with much hyperbole in June 2017. Material sourced by Brennan was considered so sensitive that only a few people could handle the documents directly.

“To guard against leaks, subsequent meetings in the Situation Room followed the same protocols as planning sessions for the Osama bin Laden raid,” the Post reported.

Most notable are the people who attended those briefings: Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Homeland Security Advisor Lisa Monaco and Vice President Joe Biden. In other words, most of Barack Obama’s inner circle.

The objective of the meetings, according to the Post, was to gin up enough proof to support Brennan’s narrative—which he quickly cobbled together using sketchy evidence after the election—that Putin was scheming to make sure Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton.

“Despite the intelligence the CIA had produced, other agencies were slower to endorse a conclusion that Putin was personally directing the operation and wanted to help Trump,” the Post revealed. Brennan later told Congress that his team collected intelligence about “U.S. persons” associated with the Trump campaign and passed that information to the FBI; Comey, the story goes, then opened a counterintelligence probe into four Trump campaign aides in July 2016.

At the same time, Peter Strzok, the deputy assistant director for the FBI’s counterintelligence division which is supposed to protect Americans from a variety of foreign-based threats, kept himself busy by texting his girlfriend on an hourly basis about how they could get Trump. Tens of thousands of textsbetween Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page between late 2015 and mid-2017 show that the pair was concerned not with how to prevent terrorists from attacking America but how to prevent Donald Trump from being president. The only mention of the name “Mueller” is Special Counsel Robert Mueller, not the young American woman kidnapped and tortured by one of the most wanted terrorists in the world.

And when the nation’s top intelligence professionals had a chance to meet with the incoming president, they did not brief him on the dangers facing the new administration. (He was looking at them.) Instead, they handed the president-elect a laughable intelligence community “assessment” that claimed Putin tried to hack the election to help Trump win. Comey then warned Trump that the Russians might have a recording of Trump peeing on Muscovite prostitutes in 2013, an outlandish accusation contained in the now-discredited Steele dossier.

For more than a year, the leaders entrusted to protect the country and administer justice on behalf of Americans victimized by terrorists instead used their awesome reach and influence against a domestic political rival. They illegally leaked classified information; spied on American citizens solely based on their political activity; deceived a secret court; circulated political dirt disguised as official intelligence; withheld information from Congress; ambushed Trump advisors; and repeatedly misled the American people about an imaginary threat posed by “Russian collusion.”


Enemies Within

That treachery did not stop after the top brass left government. Obama holdovers working within the intelligence community, such as Inspector General Michael Atkinson, continue to try to undermine the president. The House Intelligence Committee, led by U.S. Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who lied to the country for three years about Russian collusion, now is pursuing impeachment rather than authentic terrorist threats.

Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) said over the weekend that Schiff’s committee is abdicating its national security role in lieu of its impeachment crusade. “Unfortunately the intelligence committee that I serve on hasn’t been spending a whole lot of time on these issues, we’ve been caught up in Adam Schiff’s secret impeachment inquiry,” Ratcliffe told Fox Business News host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday. He said the committee’s last briefing on terrorism was held “well over a month ago.”

Comey, Clapper, and Brennan make outrageous accusations about Trump all with the imprimatur of their former offices. And as the partisan, insidious Robert Mueller investigation wore on for two years, every other national concern, including the war on terror, remained subordinate to that probe.

This is why the multiple inquiries underway at the Justice Department into the activities of Obama’s team in 2016 and early 2017 are so vital. The very people who have warned for nearly three years that Donald Trump poses a risk to national security are the people who actually have jeopardized our safety. Baghdadi’s delayed demise is just the latest example.
at