Friday, December 13, 2019

Virginia Congressman: If Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce Gun Control in Violation of the 2nd Amendment, the Governor ‘May Have to Nationalize the National Guard’

 Article by Alex Parker in "RedState":

In Virginia, some sheriffs have said they won’t enforce statewide gun laws they believe violate the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, Democratic congressmen are bringing out the big guns.

As reported by The Washington Examiner, “Over 75 counties in Virginia have so far adopted…Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions in the commonwealth, the latest being Spotsylvania County.”

That would be, sanctuary from certain restrictions on gun ownership, which are surely on their way.
Since November — and for the first time in 25 years — Virginia’s General Assembly is under Democratic control. Subsequent to the takeover comes a bill which Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw summarized thusly:

Expands the definition of “assault firearm” and prohibits any person from importing, selling, transferring, manufacturing, purchasing, possessing, or transporting an assault firearm. A violation is a Class 6 felony. The bill prohibits a dealer from selling, renting, trading, or transferring from his inventory an assault firearm to any person. The bill also prohibits a person from carrying a shotgun with a magazine that will hold more than seven rounds of the longest ammunition for which it is chambered in a public place; under existing law, this prohibition applies only in certain localities. The bill makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to import, sell, barter, or transfer any firearm magazine designed to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Governor Ralph Northam — who, incredibly, previously endorsed killing babies after they’re born (here) — told CNN’s New Day he’s ready to reintroduce a host of restrictions, come January:

“Getting rid of bump stocks, high volume magazines, red flag laws. These are common-sense pieces of legislation. I will introduce those again in January. And I’m convinced, with the majority now in the House and the Senate, they’ll become law and because of that, Virginia will be safer.”

It’s an interesting thing — people keep buying guns in order to be safer; and politicians keep taking away guns in order to make them safe.
We’ve got a real lack of agreement here.

So what of the sheriffs refusing to uphold resolutions?

Here’s what Dem Rep. Gerry Connolly had to say about it:

“I would hope they either resign in good conscience, because they cannot uphold the law which they are sworn to uphold, or they’re prosecuted for failure to fulfill their oath. The law is the law. If that becomes the law, you don’t have a choice, not if you’re a sworn officer of the law.”

But that’s by no means the limit of the state’s resolve.

From Democratic Rep Donald McEachin:

“They certainly risk funding, because if the sheriff’s department is not going to enforce the law, they’re going to lose money. The counties’ attorneys offices are not going to have the money to prosecute because their prosecutions are going to go down.”

Ready for something radical? Here ya go:

“And ultimately, I’m not the governor, but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law. That’s his call, because I don’t know how serious these counties are and how severe the violations of law will be. But that’s obviously an option he has.”

Can you imagine that actually happening — the National Guard coming into a town in order to enforce gun restrictions?

Not a good look, Virginia Democrats.

Not a good look.

https://www.redstate.com/alexparker/2019/12/13/virginia-congressman-sheriffs-refuse-enforce-gun-control-violation-2nd-amendment-governor-may-nationalize-national-guard/ 

 Image result for cartoons about gun control

Why FBI Special Agent Joseph Pientka Is the DOJ’s Invisible Man


On Jan. 18,  journalist Jeff Carlson broke an amazing story right here on the pages of The Epoch Times, in which he published explosive excerpts from former FBI General Counsel James Baker’s testimony to the U.S. Congress.

In that transcript, an entire series of previously undisclosed information became public. Baker told the House Oversight Committee the following:

  • The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court [FISC] was not alerted to the fact that much of the information in the surveillance warrant on Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page was being provided by paid political propagandists employed by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

  • To continue receiving Trump-Russia collusion propaganda from opposition research firm Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele—who had been hired by Fusion GPS on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC—the FBI established a backchannel through former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr at the Department of Justice. After every meeting with Steele, Ohr would sit down for an interview with FBI Special Agent Joseph Pientka, who would fill out official FD-302 interview forms to pass on the information within the FBI.

Why A Backchannel Was Necessary

For this initial column, I’m going to deal with the stunning revelation that shortly before the 2016 election, the FBI decided to engage in the sham of disassociating itself from Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson only to quickly create a hidden backchannel in order to continue to receive information from them.

While FBI personnel had been meeting directly with Steele and Simpson to receive their Trump-Russia allegations for months, it had all of the sudden become a problem. Why?
It’s highly likely someone began asking questions shortly before the election as to why the FBI launched a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign based on allegations coming straight from propagandists at Fusion GPS being paid by the Clinton campaign.

Did people connect the dots between the stories appearing in media outlets such as Mother Jones and Yahoo News with the sources the FBI was using for its Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign? Did someone approach the FBI with questions about this?

It seems something spooked the SpyGate plotters into presenting an appearance of drawing back from Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS while still surreptitiously using that political propaganda shop as a source for their ongoing investigations.

This backchannel allowed the FBI to hide Fusion GPS’s—and the Clinton campaign’s–role in providing much of the “evidence” being used to drive these politically-motivated investigations of Trump and his associates.

Why Bruce Ohr?

So why Bruce Ohr? Because he was a top official inside the Department of Justice and close to the DOJ’s National Security Division [NSD].

The point was to launder Fusion GPS’s Trump-Russia allegations through Ohr to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and lead agent on the Trump case, Peter Strzok, so it could be claimed the information was coming from a legitimate intelligence source instead of from paid political propagandists working for Hillary Clinton.

This means it’s highly likely that when Bruce Ohr’s personal notes from his meetings with Fusion GPS are compared with the official FD-302 interview forms that Agent Pientka filled out following his interviews with Ohr, they are not going to match when it comes to what the stated source was for the Trump-Russia information.

For Pientka to write down on the 302 forms that this information on Trump-Russia he was being given by Ohr was still coming from the Fusion GPS boys after the FBI had supposedly severed all ties with them would have defeated the entire reason for going to the trouble of establishing a backchannel in the first place.

Investigative journalist John Solomon of The Hill has stated in his reports that he has been shown Ohr’s handwritten notes that he made during his talks with Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele. So in his own notes, Ohr made it clear who he was talking to and where he was getting these allegations from.

So now the $56,000 question: What do the FD-302 forms Pientka filled out actually say about where the Trump-Russia allegations came from? Do the interview forms admit the allegations were coming from a politically motivated propaganda shop, or do they claim the information came from politically neutral intelligence sources?

I’ve no doubt that at some time in the past year and a half, the DOJ Inspector General’s office sat Pientka down for extensive and detailed interviews about his dual roles in both the Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn affair (he and Strzok interviewed Flynn), and with the Fusion GPS backchannel to the FBI. What he told them must have been incredibly sensitive, since nobody has publicly seen or heard from Pientka all this time, even though House and Senate committees have requested that the DOJ produce him for testimony.  Whatever Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz’s investigators discovered in their interviews with Pientka, they are keeping a very tight lid on it.

Peter Strzok, after being held incommunicado inside the FBI’s Human Resources Department for almost a year after being unceremoniously yanked off of special counsel Robert Mueller’s handpicked team, was finally trotted out for a very contentious public hearing back in July, then subsequently fired from the agency at Horowitz’s recommendation.

As far as is publicly known at this time, Pientka is still employed by the FBI and still working there every day. It appears to me that nobody is going to be allowed to hear what he has to say or see his FD-302 forms until Horowitz is finished with his Spygate report and any ongoing investigations inside the DOJ have reached their conclusion.
Until we reach that point, Pientka is going to continue to be the DOJ’s “Invisible Man.”


While The Democrats Continue Decaying, Let's Drive a Stake InTheir Hearts

The FBI paid Steele $60,000 for his 6 reports. Will our Government seek to get the money the FB I paid for false and misleading garbage?
Todate, our elected officials have spent $85.9 million dollars on three investigations, (Crossfire Hurricane $16.4 million, Mueller Investigation $45 million and Horowitz Report $24.5) 
What have we learned?
Trump and his campaign did not collude with Russia.
17 Sr. FBI and DOJ Senior Officials have been fired, demoted, resigned, retired or were reassigned for malfeasence.
The FBI created 4 FISA applications creating 33 undocumented facts, 18 outright lies, hid evidence that proved the investigation was flawed and fed the Media false information for them to disseminate to the public as facts. 
In addition to all of that illegal and unethical behavior, the FBI also placed 4 confidential informants and 1 illegal confidential informant into the Trump Campaign and Administration.
Three months in Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had been informed by British Intelligence that Steele was unreliable and had a tendancy to make up as well as inflate his information. They also had found the "sole source" of all of Steeles six reports who told them none of his information was correct or true.
So, rather than shutting down the FBI investigation by January 2017, they continued for two more months before turning over all their eight months of made up informationto Mueller!!

President Trump and the RNC must develop several commercials and keep the Horowitz Report front and center explaining how these Stalinesque tactics by Democrats area danger to all Americans.

If the Durham Investigation actually proves to be  indictments, prosecutions and in fact convictions that will be the final nail in the Democrat coffin.

If Elected, Joe Biden Should...


If Elected, 
Joe Biden Should Be President for Five Minutes

We've taken the former vice president's boldest, newest idea and streamlined it for McKinsey-level efficiency.


On Wednesday, Politico reported that former Vice President Joe Biden has suggested to aides that he intends to serve only one term if he wins the 2020 presidential election. “According to four people who regularly talk to Biden,” Politico’s Ryan Lizza wrote, “all of whom asked for anonymity to discuss internal campaign matters, it is virtually inconceivable that he will run for reelection in 2024, when he would be the first octogenarian president.” The idea is easy to understand from Biden’s perspective. The promise of a single term could, in theory, encourage some Democrats who would prefer a female, minority, and/or younger candidate to back him as the most electable choice against Trump, safe in the knowledge that he would soon be followed by a more compelling president and a more diverse administration. 

“This makes Biden a good transition figure,” one of the anonymous advisers told Lizza. “I’d love to have an election this year for the next generation of leaders, but if I have to wait four years [in order to] get rid of Trump, I’m willing to do it.” In an attempt to bring clarity to Biden’s intentions this afternoon, Delaware Senator Chris Coons told reporters that Biden would be open to serving a second term, “if necessary.”



This was an odd statement. It seems likely that there will remain problems with American society for a Democratic president to solve at the end of a Biden term. Biden is evidently ambivalent about continuing to work on them beyond an initial four years in office. This makes sense if one understands the central project of the Joe Biden campaign to be making Joe Biden the president or, more charitably, denying Donald Trump a second term. This has been the clear focus of Biden’s bid from the beginning—defeating Trump is the objective he talks the most about and a major reason why so many Democrats, terrified by the possibility of Trump’s reelection, have chosen to back him despite a wide-open field of alternatives and the controversies that have beset his candidacy. It’s never noted by the press that Biden, on a promise-to-accomplishment basis, would be one of the most efficient presidents in American history. The very act of winning would fulfill the most solemn vow he has made to the American people.

Given this, it’s not clear why, as the unnamed adviser argued to Lizza, the Democratic Party should wait a full four years for the transition Biden reportedly envisions to take place. If Biden is indifferent about personally seeing any particular policy fight through beyond his first term, why—having safely defeated Trump and succeeded in the main purpose of his presidency the moment he is sworn in—shouldn’t he begin the handover he recognizes as necessary immediately? Why shouldn’t a new Democratic administration—diverse, young, and dynamic—replace him within two years, a year, a month, or a week of taking office? With the dreaded 2020 election finally in the rearview mirror, why shouldn’t Biden simply turn the reins over the very day he’s inaugurated?

If Politico’s report is true, Biden is correct to support giving the presidency to a new generation of Democrats as soon as possible after Trump has been ousted. This is why, if elected and sworn in as president at noon on January 20, 2021, Joe Biden should resign by no later than 12:05 p.m., transferring the presidency to whichever female, minority, and/or younger vice president he has chosen to succeed him. In those five minutes, Joe Biden will have fully accomplished the primary political goals preoccupying so many Democrats and media elites—kicking Trump out and ensuring a demographic transition in the White House. A truly historic presidency in about the time it takes to prepare a microwaved meal. His successor will have much to take on: an economy that has failed millions of Americans and enriched a lucky few, a party that will continue its assault on democratic values and the right to vote long after Trump leaves office, a climate crisis that threatens to destroy civilization as we know it, and so on. But we should take solace in the fact that Biden’s brief tenure would at least square away the concerns now defining the Democratic primary once and for all. 


The Carter Page/Ukraine Lie That Kept On Lying for Mueller and the FBI



The FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller repeatedly kept alive a damning narrative that investigators knew to be false: namely, that a junior Trump campaign aide as a favor to the Kremlin had “gutted” an anti-Russia and pro-Ukraine plank in the Republican Party platform at the GOP’s 2016 convention. 

Federal authorities used this claim to help secure spy warrants on the aide in question, Carter Page, suggesting to the court that he was “an agent of Russia” – even though investigators knew that Page was working for U.S., not Russian, intelligence, and that they had learned from witnesses, emails and other evidence that Page had no role in drafting the Ukraine platform plank.

The revelation is buried deep inside the Justice Department watchdog’s just-released report on FISA surveillance abuses. RealClearInvestigations fleshed out this unreported story with footnotes from the Mueller report and exclusive interviews with Trump campaign officials who worked on the convention platform.

Of all the Trump-Russia rumors, insinuations and falsehoods – from secret payments for shadowy hackers to videotaped prostitutes with active bladders to a clandestine rendezvous with Kremlin figures in Prague – the supposedly pro-Russia Ukraine platform alteration stands out; it seemed to offer early, public, concrete evidence of an actual bending of prospective U.S. policy to suit Moscow. The false narrative is also significant because it was initially pushed not by Democrats, but by associates of Republican Sen. John McCain and other so-called Never Trumpers. As a bipartisan red flag, it helped build momentum around a narrative of Trump treachery with, then as now, Ukraine playing a central role. It also shows how the Russia and Ukraine controversies were linked from the beginning by Trump’s foes.

This episode loomed so large that the first person Mueller’s team interviewed after taking over the Russia investigation in May 2017 was Rachel Hoff, who was serving as McCain’s policy adviser on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Like her boss, Hoff was no fan of President Trump. Agents sought to confirm with her reports that the Trump campaign had “gutted” the GOP’s platform plank on Ukraine to favor Russia during the party's convention in Cleveland in early July 2016. 

As a disgruntled convention delegate, Hoff got the story started by putting Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin in touch with another Never Trump delegate, Diana Denman, who had lost her bid to amend the GOP plank to call for providing “lethal” weapons to Ukraine to help fend off Russian incursions, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter. Instead, the platform called for “appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine.”

Denman was overruled because heavily arming Ukraine was out of step with the GOP consensus at the time – to say nothing of the Obama administration’s policy, which refused to arm the Ukrainians. And it was at odds with Trump’s stated position, which sought to avoid military escalation in the region, while encouraging the European Union to take a larger peacekeeping role. 

On July 18, 2016, the Post ran Rogin’s sensational story under the misleading headline, “Trump Campaign Guts GOP’s Anti-Russia Stance on Ukraine.”Pushing the narrative that Trump was doing the Kremlin’s bidding, it quoted Hoff warning that Trump “would be dangerous for America and the world.” The story left out the key part of the final Trump-approved plank pledging aid “to the armed forces of Ukraine.” Reached by phone, Rogin declined comment. 

This story was quickly amplified in the Steele dossier, the series of now-debunked opposition research memos alleging Trump-Russia collusion. Compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele for the Clinton campaign, those memos became a foundation for the FBI and Mueller probes even though – as this week’s IG report established – bureau agents knew that the material in them included demonstrably false assertions and exaggerated gossip dismissed as nonsense by Steele’s own purported source.

Steele also embellished the GOP convention story by claiming that Carter Page had played a key role in drafting the Ukraine plank as part of a commitment he had allegedly made to his Kremlin handlers "to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue.” 

None of this was true. And the FBI — and Mueller — knew it, the Justice inspector general reveals in his report.

Still, the FBI presented the Steele dossier's smear, cataloged as “Steele Report 95,” as key evidence in all four of its warrant applications to obtain wiretaps to eavesdrop on Page, according to the IG report.

To keep renewing the spy warrants, the FBI had to produce fresh evidence for FISA judges to support suspicions Page was “an agent of Russia.” Just a few weeks before the FISA warrant was set to expire in June 2017, Mueller had his investigators interview Hoff, as his first witness, followed by Denman, hoping they could provide fresh details to keep building an espionage case against Page and the Trump campaign.

But Mueller struck out. 

According to agents’ notes documenting their June 2017 interview, as revealed in the IG report, Denham told the FBI that Page was not involved in the drafting of the Ukraine plank. But Mueller’s team did not update its fourth and final FISA warrant application on Page with this exculpatory information. Instead, it recited the same baseless claim that he had shaped the Ukraine policy with guidance from Russia. And the court renewed the warrant that June to electronically monitor Page, allowing the government to continue vacuuming up all of his emails, phone calls, text messages and other communications for another 90 days.

 “Although the FBI did not develop any information that Carter Page was involved in the Republican Platform Committee’s change, the FBI did not alter its assessment of Page’s involvement in the FISA applications,” Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz noted in his 476-page reportreleased Monday.

Added Horowitz: “We found that, other than this information from Report 95 [of the Steele dossier], the FBI’s investigation did not reveal any information to demonstrate that Page had any involvement with the Republican Platform Committee.” Yet, “all four FISA applications relied upon information in the Steele reporting” alleging Page’s role in drafting the Republican plank on Ukraine and Russia.

A former U.S. Navy lieutenant, Page was never charged with espionage or any crime. He told RealClearInvestigations that he has received “numerous death threats that directly resulted from the false allegations” that he was a traitor.

The FBI and Mueller failed to correct the record about Page in their FISA warrant applications even after they identified the Trump campaign officials who actually had a hand in influencing the GOP plank, J.D. Gordon and Matt Miller. A July 14, 2016, email from Gordon confirmed what Page had personally told the FBI in an interview — that he had not taken part in the decision. The FBI knew about the email since at least March 2017, when agents sat down with Page. (Gordon and Page were chatting by email about the convention, and it’s clear from Page’s responses he had no idea what Gordon had done in the Ukraine-Russia platform drafting sessions. IG Horowitz published the relevant excerpt in his report and noted the FBI had the email in its possession.)

Still, Horowitz found, “The FBI never altered the assessment.”

Horowitz further concluded that the FBI should not have included the dossier’s rumor even in its original October 2016 application for a FISA warrant targeting Page, let alone its three renewals, because a confidential source the FBI assigned to spy on Page at the time found no basis for it. In the IG report, Horowitz noted that during that same month of October 2016, the FBI informant met with Page and tape-recorded him denying he was involved in the drafting of the Ukraine plank. Page told the informant, Stefan Halper, that he “stayed clear of that.”

Horowitz’s investigators established that the informant’s recorded statements were sent to the FBI agent assigned at the time to Page’s case, and were copied to a supporting team of other agents, supervisors and analysts. Yet the FBI also withheld that critical exculpatory evidence from the FISA court in the initial application for a warrant on Page (and then continued to deny the court the information in subsequent requests to monitor Page).

The lead case agent, unnamed in the report, told investigators the FBI was operating on a “belief” that Page was involved in the Ukraine and Russia platform, and that he and the FISA team were “hoping to find evidence of that” from the wiretaps. Despite all the snooping on Page, the FBI never collected the hoped-for proof.

The lead supervisor, also unidentified, told investigators “he did not recall why Page’s denial was not included."

Horowitz reports that the exculpatory documents were also sent to a Justice Department attorney before the warrant was renewed for the first time in January 2017, “[y]et, the information remained unchanged in the renewal applications.”

Added Horowitz: “The attorney told us that he did not recall the circumstances surrounding this, but he acknowledged that he should have updated the descriptions in the renewal applications to include Page’s denials.”

The FBI also failed to inform surveillance court judges that Page was an “operational contact” for the CIA for several years, according to the Horowitz report. In 2013, Page also volunteered as a cooperating witness in an FBI espionage case, and helped put away a real Russian agent in 2016. This was additional exculpatory evidence the FBI kept from the FISA court, as RealClearInvestigations first reported last year.

Peter Strzok, then the FBI’s top counterintelligence official, rode herd on the Page wiretap requests and reported back to FBI attorney Lisa Page (no relation to Carter), who in turn, updated then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. 

Text messages previously uncovered by Horowitz and shared with Mueller revealed that Strzok and Page, who were having an affair, rooted for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign and held Trump in complete contempt. In one exchange, they discussed the need to “stop” Trump from winning the election. And the two of them had also huddled with McCabe in his office to devise an “insurance policy” in the “unlikely event" Trump ended up winning.

The inspector general’s report points out that it was McCabe who urged investigators to look at the Clinton-funded dossier. The previous year, his Democratic politician wife, Jill, received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations arranged by Clinton ally and Virginia’s governor at the time, Terry McAuliffe.

J.D. Gordon: “Page actually had no role in the platform, whatsoever. Failing to include the exculpatory information in the FISA application is horrifying.
Strzok remained central to the investigation well into 2017 – until Mueller was forced to kick him off his team when the anti-Trump bias was revealed. The bureau fired him in 2018, the same year Lisa Page resigned from the FBI. In spite of their anti-Trump political bias, Horowitz said he found “no evidence” their bias influenced their investigative decisions.

Lawyers for Strzok and McCabe did not respond to requests for comment. The FBI and a spokesman for Mueller declined comment.

Putting Carter Page under surveillance starting in October 2016 effectively let the FBI spy on the Trump campaign since its beginnings, because it allowed the bureau to scoop up all of Page’s prior communications. Former Trump officials who have reviewed Horowitz’s new findings confirmed their view that the bureau was trying to make it look like Page and the Trump campaign were doing something sinister to help Russia.

“Page actually had no role in the platform, whatsoever,” Gordon, the Trump campaign’s director of national security, told RCI. “Failing to include the exculpatory information in the FISA application is horrifying." 

While it’s true that Trump sought better relations with Russia, Gordon said, there was nothing nefarious about the drafting of the Ukraine platform. He said the FBI simply assumed it was watered down as a favor to Russia based on a false narrative driven by liberal media outlets like the Post and Never Trumpers such as Rachel Hoff. He said the FBI, under the direction of McCabe, Mueller and former FBI Director James Comey, also wanted to believe the worst about Trump, whom they simply did not like.

Gordon noted that, except for the two Never Trump delegates, nobody in the platform drafting sessions raised a fuss about the Ukraine plank — not even the press.

“The media was present in the room, yet not one person wrote about the Ukraine issue,” he said — until, that is, the Never Trumpers went to the Washington Post that July and helped launch the Trump-Russia “collusion” myth.

Moreover, the narrative was untrue even on its own terms – without the spurious inclusion of Carter Page. Internal platform committee documents show the Ukraine plank could not have been weakened as claimed, because the “lethal” weapons language was never part of the GOP platform in the first place. The final language actually strengthened the platform by pledging direct assistance not just to the country of Ukraine, but to its military in its struggle against Russian-backed forces.

Far from “gutting” assistance, the Trump administration approved the transfer of tank-busting Javelin missiles to Kiev — something the Obama administration refused to do. More than 200 of those weapons have been sold to Ukraine since Trump took office. And the sale and delivery of Javelins never stopped even during this year's temporary suspension of military aid to Ukraine that is now the subject of the Democrats’ impeachment proceedings.

The final draft of the Ukraine plank also branded Russia a menace, and pledged to stand against “any territorial change imposed by force in Ukraine.” Yet Mueller and his prosecuting staff of mostly Democratic donors still suspected collusion, and they dispatched FBI agents to grill Gordon about the drafting of the platform three times between 2017 and 2019. They also got a grand jury to subpoena his phone records.

In the end, the Mueller Report found no Russian influence in the platform.

But the false narrative – that the Ukraine plank stood as early proof of the “extensive conspiracy” between the Trump campaign and Moscow that Steele alleged in his now-debunked dossier – has persisted. 

Earlier this year, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler demanded Gordon provide additional documents, and he has complied. Nadler is now marking up articles of impeachment against Trump over a request he lodged with Ukraine’s new president this summer to help investigate the former Clinton-friendly regime’s attempts to “sabotage"Trump's election bid in 2016. Trump also asked Kiev to look into possible corruption involving former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter and a Ukrainian energy oligarch.

Meanwhile, Nadler's impeachment partner, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, continues to insist that the Trump team “softened" the GOP platform to accommodate “Putin’s invasion of Ukraine." 

A retired Navy commander and former Pentagon spokesman, Gordon said he has run up a five-figure legal bill defending against what he calls a “hoax” perpetrated by Never Trumpers, the media, Comey, Mueller, and now congressional Democrats. 

"In the vicious frenzy to destroy President Trump and his associates at all costs, they attempted to turn a routine foreign policy debate in conjunction with the four-year renewal of the GOP platform into a crime scene,” Gordon said in an interview with RCI.

 “Incredibly,” he added, "the GOP platform change hoax [later] became the very first order of business in Mueller's nearly two-year investigation."

Of course the FBI spied on the Trump campaign




The great debate about whether the FBI spied on the Trump campaign continues. The question is why there is still any argument. The newly released report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz shows that by any definition the FBI did indeed spy.

The proof is in the details of the report. In addition to the much-discussed wiretap of Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page, Horowitz discussed the bureau's use of what is called a CHS (a confidential human source, or, in more common terms, an informant) and a UCE (an undercover employee, or a secret agent) to gather information from at least three targets in the Trump campaign. One was Page, another was George Papadopoulos, also a member of the advisory team, and the third was an unnamed "high-level Trump campaign official who was not a subject of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."

Horowitz described "multiple CHS operations undertaken by the Crossfire Hurricane team." There were "numerous CHS interactions with Page and Papadopoulos." There was the CHS contact with the high-level campaign official. And then there were "additional CHSs" who attempted to contact Papadopoulos but did not succeed.

All the meetings and conversations were secretly recorded by the FBI. Some were also monitored live, as they happened, by agents and supervisors. The Horowitz report quoted liberally from transcripts of the recordings.

The Trump campaign was "clearly spied upon," Attorney General William Barrsaid in an interview with NBC Tuesday. "I mean, that's what electronic surveillance is. I think wiring people up to go in and talk to people and make recordings of their conversations is spying."

That is correct. But remember what Barr said back in April after he launched another investigation, this one by U.S. Attorney John Durham, of the Trump-Russia probe: "The question is whether it was adequately predicated." Did the surveillance have a proper basis?

Of course, even if it was adequately predicated, it was still spying. That's why the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, known as the FISA court, which approves wiretaps and other surveillance, is colloquially known as the "spy court."

Beyond that, Horowitz offered a mixed bag on the question of predication. 

Yes, the FBI met its own low standards for sending an informant to secretly record a target. The Horowitz report included a touch of wonder, and worry, that FBI rules allow fairly low-level officials to order the use of a CHS who can secretly record a target. "We found it concerning that [Justice Department] and FBI policy did not require the FBI to consult with any Department official in advance of conducting CHS operations involving advisers to a major party's presidential campaign," Horowitz wrote. 

So the spying "received the necessary FBI approvals," Horowitz said. But at the same time, the report suggested the necessary approvals were far less than what was needed under the circumstances. 

And that was just the in-person spies. The Page wiretap was a disaster that could have long-lasting repercussions for the FBI. Yes, the bureau went to the FISA court and received its approval to spy on Page. But a "central and essential" element of the wiretap application was the Steele dossier, which the report made clear had zero credibility. In addition, the FBI had received information — ironically, from its sketchy CHS snooping — that "was inconsistent with, or undercut, the assertions contained in the FISA applications" that the FBI used to argue that probable cause existed to wiretap Page. That meant in some cases "inaccurate information" was included in the wiretap applications.

"Inaccurate" is a nice way to put it. Another word for the information from the Steele dossier that the FBI passed on to the court is "misleading." And the report made it clear that the FBI knew the material was faulty. 

"That was misleading to the court," Horowitz told the Senate Wednesday. 

And there was still more. It turns out the FBI used what should have been a routine intelligence briefing of the Trump campaign to pursue its investigation. It happened in August 2016, when the Office of the Director of National Intelligence briefed both the Trump and Hillary Clinton campaigns. For the Trump group — a session that included the candidate himself and also FBI target Michael Flynn, a top national security aide — an FBI supervisor from the Crossfire Hurricane team attended to see if Trump's or Flynn's behavior might reveal some evidence in the case. "No one at the [Justice Department] or ODNI was informed that the FBI was using the ODNI briefing of a presidential candidate for investigative purposes," Horowitz wrote. After the briefing, the agent wrote up a report on what he heard.

At Horowitz's appearance Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham asked, "Was that FBI agent spying on Donald Trump?"

"It was a pretext meeting," Horowitz answered. "The agent was actually doing the briefing, but also using it for the purpose of investigation."

In short, the FBI, acting under false pretenses, spied on Trump and Flynn in plain sight.

The Horowitz report noted the potentially corrosive effect of what the FBI did. "We concluded that the FBI's use of this briefing for investigative reasons could potentially interfere with the expectation of trust and good faith among participants in strategic intelligence briefings, thereby frustrating their purpose," the report said.

Put it all together, and there was a lot of spying on the Trump campaign — by confidential informants, in a wiretap, even in a supposed intelligence briefing. Yet defenders of the Trump-Russia probe still maintain that no spying took place and that the FBI followed proper procedures. After Horowitz, that's a difficult case to make. The fact is, the FBI not only spied on the Trump campaign, it did it in the worst way.

Here’s What’s Wrong with...


Here's What's Wrong with Time Declaring Greta Thunberg Person of the Year

Teen activists are righteously angry—but righteous anger does not produce sound public policy.


dpaphotosfour289010
(Clara Margais/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom) 


The secular canonization of Greta Thunberg is complete: Time magazine has named her the 2019 Person of the Year, passing over candidates like the Hong Kong protesters or the Trump administration whistleblowers.

The designation is fairly arbitrary—how does one exactly quantify influence?—and shouldn't be taken too seriously (at least not after 2006). And though the tone of Time's article on Thunberg is very much hagiographical, the designation is not necessarily an endorsement of the winner: Adolf Hitler was Person of the Year in 1939. All this is to say that it really doesn't matter who wins Person of the Year, so nobody should be too upset that this year it's a 16-year-old climate-change activist.

And yet, the award does bolster the idea that Thunberg is someone whose righteous anger should be automatically translated into public policy. As Nick Gillespie observed in a piece about her activism, Thunberg is an avatar of "catastrophic thinking," and wrongly pushes a message of doom and gloom:
Greta Thunberg's histrionics are likely heartfelt but neither they nor the deplorable responses they conjure are a guide forward to good environmental policy in a world that is getting richer every day. For the first time in human history, half the earth's population is middle class or wealthier and the rate of deaths from natural disasters is well below what it was even a few decades ago. Protecting all that is just as important as protecting the environment and, more importantly, those two goals are hardly mutually exclusive.

After decades of treating children as little more than pets, the media now gives too much weight to the opinions of teen activists, particularly when they protest about issues like climate change, gun violence in schools, income inequality, etc. As Ilya Somin has written, young people—even ones who can credibly claim to have been especially harmed by some crisis—do not generally have special insights or strong knowledge of public policy. According to Somin:
The young, as a general rule, know less about government and public policy than other age groups. For that reason, they are also less likely to have valuable insights on how to address difficult issues. …
It would be a mistake to dismiss policy proposals out of hand, merely because of the age of their adherents. But it is also a mistake to ascribe any special political wisdom to the young. The fact that large numbers of young people support a political cause adds little, if anything, to its merits.
Thunberg is Time's Person of the Year, but that doesn't make her claims about the future of the planet any less wrong: We are not "in the beginning of a mass extinction," and the world is not going to end in the next 10-12 years barring the adoption of her radical ideas.

Chris Wallace Goes Full TDS



If you need anymore proof that Donald Trump has broken Fox News’ Chris Wallace, I submit this for your consideration.

Earlier in the week, Wallace appeared at the Newseum, which is basically a big back slap machine for journalists in the nation’s capital. He gave a speech “honoring the First Amendment” and then decided to go to full MSNBC levels of hyperbole with it.
“I believe President Trump is engaged in the most direct, sustained assault on freedom of the press in our history,” Wallace said in a speechWednesday honoring the First Amendment.
“Ours is a great profession — maybe the best way to make a living anyone ever came up with. Think of it. We are paid to tell the truth — to cut through all the spin, all the distractions — and tell the American people what is really going on,” he added(link)

If that’s what Wallace thinks mainstream media journalists do, I’ve got some news for him.

This is so ridiculously stupid that it’s hard to know where to begin to pick it apart. Abraham Lincoln literally suspended habeas corpus and jailed journalists that opposed him. We can certainly look in hindsight and under the situation at the time, but still, there’s no question that’s a far more “direct and sustained” assault on the press than Trump sending mean tweets. It’s not just Lincoln though. Woodrow Wilson had journalists put it internment camps and passed the Espionage Act of 1917 in order to charge people with a crime who opposed him. There are other examples throughout our history.

But you don’t even have to go back ten years to make the point. Barack Obama surveilled journalists using the Espionage Act and tried to name one of Wallace’s former colleagues a co-conspirator so he could be charged with a crime. Even in regards to access, Wallace was barred from a series of interviews dealing with Obamacare back in 2009. Wallace himself has experienced worse attacks from a previous administration than anything Trump has done.

And what exactly has Trump done? The answer is absolutely nothing. No prosecutions and no spying, even though there have certainly been some actions by journalists in the past three years that cross the line legally in regards to classified materials and illegal leaks. The most Trump has mustered is bashing on a press that absolutely loathes him and spends every waking minute trying to destroy him. That’s hardly an unexpected reaction, nor a tangible action on his part and it certainly doesn’t live up to the actual actions of many past Presidents.

But Wallace has lost his mind. There’s nothing objective about his reporting these days, nor how he conducts interviews. Keep that in mind when he talks to James Comey and Peter Strzok this weekend. I fully expect him to thank them for their service while they hug it out at this point.

The Decade Populism Went Mainstream


The Decade Populism Went Mainstream

Roughly five times as many people live under populist governments now compared to 10 years ago.

TrumpModi
(CHINE NOUVELLE/SIPA/Newscom) 

There is a specter haunting not just Europe but the whole globe, quaking the boots of established political parties, legacy media outlets, and transnational institutions of government and civil society.

This creeping dread is gathered under the catch-all label of "populism." Cosmopolitan elites are on alert for its "dangerous rise." Unelected bureaucracies are being hollowed out in its wake, including this week at the World Trade Organization.

It certainly feels like one of the biggest global upheavals of this waning decade, with each new week coughing up headlines like "Inauguration Marks Return of Peronism." But are there measurable facts to back up this feeling?

The short answer is yes: Arguably five times as many people live under populist governments at the end of 2019 than at the end of 2009. But the longer answer requires some more precise definitions.

Start with a working model of the ism under question. Jordan Kyle and Limor Gultchin, in a very useful survey at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, synthesize the political science literature into two fundamental assertions underlying every governing populist movement: 1) "A country's 'true people' are locked into conflict with outsiders, including establishment elites," and 2) "Nothing should constrain the will of the true people." Leaders then govern in an atmosphere of near-constant existential urgency.

From there, the authors differentiate three main populist variants: 1) Socio-economic populism (think: Venezuela), which claims that "the true people are honest, hard-working members of the working class," fighting against "big business, capital owners and actors perceived as propping up an international capitalist system." 2) Anti-establishment populism(think: Silvio Berlusconi's Italy), which "paints the true people as hard-working victims of a state run by special interests and outsiders as political elites."

And, with a bullet, 3) cultural populism, which claims that "the true people are the native members of the nation-state" battling over national sovereignty and cultural identity with the likes of "immigrants, criminals, ethnic and religious minorities, and cosmopolitan elites." Cultural populists, in this framework, are your Viktor Orbáns, your Narendra Modis, your Donald Trumps.

You will certainly disagree with some of these classifications. The authors freely acknowledge that populism is a "slippery concept that is too often used pejoratively to describe politics that those in the mainstream do not like." You can even make a Tony Blair joke, though his institute deserves credit for publishing a survey that is frank about the policy errors and hubristic anti-democratic approach of establishment decision-makers worldwide.

But the overall grouping of populists passes the eyeball test: These are largely identifiable as us vs. them, sovereignty-hoarding governments helmed by charismatic outsiders who speak more like the common man than the elites they rail against. And what this list of such regimes shows over the past decade is striking: "Whereas populism was once found primarily in emerging democracies, populists are increasingly gaining power in systemically important countries."

By the end of the 2009, the Institute reckoned, there were 19 populist governments in the world, led in size by Vladimir Putin's Russia and Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Turkey (both "culturally" populist), then Italy, South Africa, Argentina, and Venezuela (the latter three from the socio-economic category). Together, those 19 countries currently account for around 577 million people and $7 trillion in annual gross domestic product.

What about the state of populist governments today? The Blair Institute study only runs through 2018, and events move fast. But we still have the arrival to the list of India, the United States, Joko Widodo's Indonesia, Jair Bolsonaro's Brazil, Rodrigo Duterte's Philippines, and more. Factoring in one's own characterizations about global developments this year (I would re-add Argentina and Bolivia, for example), you arrive at a similar-to-2009 total of around 21 populist countries. But oh, what a size difference: 2.8 billion people generating an annual $34.4 trillion of economic activity. The populists are no longer coming, they are here.

How you feel about this development likely depends on your attitudes toward your leading home-country populist and his enemy elite, and also (if you otherwise favor free trade) your weighting of sovereignty vs. globally managed tariff reduction. Regardless, the sample size of populist countries is large enough to draw some preliminary conclusions about their net comparative impact.

In a parallel study a year ago for the Tony Blair Institute, also written up at The Atlantic, Jordan Kyle and Yascha Mounk conclude that "populist governments are about four times more likely than non-populist ones to harm democratic institutions," that more than half of them "amend or rewrite their countries' constitutions," often to "extend term limits or weaken checks on executive power," and that 40 percent have been "indicted on corruption charges," with their countries experiencing "significant drops in international corruption rankings." Individual rights and civil society institutions disproportionately come under attack.

Conclusion: "Populist rule—whether from the right or the left—has a highly negative effect on political systems and leads to a significant risk of democratic erosion."

Those who compile global indices of democratic health are in a glum mood these days. Freedom House's annual "Freedom in the World" survey for 2019 was headlined "Democracy in Retreat," lamenting a "13th consecutive year of decline in global freedom." (Surely, we will soon read about a 14th.) Conclusion: "The reversal has spanned a variety of countries in every region, from long-standing democracies like the United States to consolidated authoritarian regimes like China and Russia. The overall losses are still shallow compared with the gains of the late 20th century, but the pattern is consistent and ominous." Whee!

A newer index introduced by the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project at the University of Gothenburg finds that "the number of liberal democracies has declined from 44 in 2008 to 39 in 2018," and that "almost one-third of the world's population lives in countries undergoing autocratization, surging from 415 million in 2016 to 2.3 billion in 2018." These include India, Brazil, and the United States.

("Autocratization" is defined by V-Dem as: "any substantial and significant worsening on the scale of liberal democracy. It is a matter of degree and a phenomenon that can occur both in democracies and autocracies….Semantically, it signals the opposite of democratization, describing any move away from [full] democracy.")

It doesn't take much imagination to anticipate two basic reactions to these dour reports: Either we're so screwed or ha ha, globalist cucks! But allow me to suggest a third option.

The twin rises of nationalism and democratic socialism weren't some historical accident. They will not go away via nostalgia, or constitutional correctives like impeachment, or even an election. People feel locked out of decision-making, and until that sense of democratic responsibility is restored, there's going to be one messy Brexit after another.

As Kyle and Gultchin point out,
Common to many of the crises identified by populists is a sense that the political elites across all mainstream political parties have conspired to depoliticise an important policy question that should be subject to public scrutiny. Political scientist Yascha Mounk terms this phenomenon "rights without democracy": citizens may have the right to vote, but for many issues that they care about, the issue is not even considered in the realm of public debate but is a matter for technocrats. In some countries, mainstream political parties have come to a cross-party consensus, for example, about openness to trade, openness to immigration or EU accession; and opposition to these significant policies has no vehicle for representation.

Those who lament the "democratic backsliding" associated with populism need to find different means to their policy ends than far-flung technocratic projects. And those who relish the restoration of sovereignty need to face up to the reality that populists tend toward corruption and the deliberate erosion of individual rights.

We don't know yet how the new breed of populists will react when their promises crash into reality, or when the worldwide economic expansion finally comes to an end. What happens then will largely tell the story of the 2020s. Buckle up.