Monday, December 16, 2019
House Dems Add a Federal Wire Charge to Impeachment Report, They Note It ‘Imposes up to 20-Years’ Imprisonment’
Article by Elizabeth Vaughn in "RedState":
The House Judiciary Committee released a 658-page report overnight which will accompany the Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. The committee alleges that Trump has committed “multiple federal crimes” including criminal bribery and wire fraud. The full document can be viewed here.
The report begins by stating that “The House of Representatives conducted a fair, thorough, and transparent impeachment inquiry under extraordinary circumstances. For the first time in modern history, committees of the House acted as original factfinders in a Presidential impeachment.” Is it me or does that say something about the basis of this whole affair?
It
goes on to say that “the first article charges that the President used
the powers of his office to solicit and pressure a foreign government,
Ukraine, to investigate his domestic political rival and interfere in
the upcoming United States Presidential elections.” The President
“crossed the threshold into criminal behavior” during his July 25th
telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
He did so by “soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage,” which constitutes criminal bribery.
The second article “charges that the President categorically obstructed the Congressional impeachment inquiry into his conduct. Taken together, the articles charge that President Trump has placed his personal, political interests above our national security, our free and fair elections, and our system of checks and balances. He has engaged in a pattern of misconduct that will continue if left unchecked. Accordingly, President Trump should be impeached and removed from office.”
The most notable, and unexpected, feature of the document is the addition of a federal wire fraud charge. They make sure to point out that this charge “imposes up to 20 years’ imprisonment.’
The President is accused of violating the honest services wire fraud statute during the Zelensky call, “as well as during a separate phone call a day later with Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union. Those “foreign wire communications” were done “in furtherance of an ongoing bribery scheme.”
Here is the relevant section from the report (pages 126-127).
c. Honest Services Fraud, 18 U.S.C § 1346
The Democrats appear to be unraveling by the day. Rather than making a series of deliberate, rational decisions, they seem to be making this up as they go along. Their decisions appear to be based more on emotion than on strategy. That’s what this level of hatred does to people.
I get the sense that they know they’ve made a colossally stupid mistake and they may wish they could find an out.
The House is set to vote on H.R. 755 on Wednesday. That is still the plan, however, there’s been a new twist.
It’s possible House leaders may decide not to pass it along to the Senate as expected.
My colleague, Streiff, tells the must-read story here.
https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/12/16/house-dems-add-federal-wire-charge-impeachment-report-note-imposes-20-years-imprisonment/
The House Judiciary Committee released a 658-page report overnight which will accompany the Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. The committee alleges that Trump has committed “multiple federal crimes” including criminal bribery and wire fraud. The full document can be viewed here.
The report begins by stating that “The House of Representatives conducted a fair, thorough, and transparent impeachment inquiry under extraordinary circumstances. For the first time in modern history, committees of the House acted as original factfinders in a Presidential impeachment.” Is it me or does that say something about the basis of this whole affair?
He did so by “soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage,” which constitutes criminal bribery.
The second article “charges that the President categorically obstructed the Congressional impeachment inquiry into his conduct. Taken together, the articles charge that President Trump has placed his personal, political interests above our national security, our free and fair elections, and our system of checks and balances. He has engaged in a pattern of misconduct that will continue if left unchecked. Accordingly, President Trump should be impeached and removed from office.”
The most notable, and unexpected, feature of the document is the addition of a federal wire fraud charge. They make sure to point out that this charge “imposes up to 20 years’ imprisonment.’
The President is accused of violating the honest services wire fraud statute during the Zelensky call, “as well as during a separate phone call a day later with Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union. Those “foreign wire communications” were done “in furtherance of an ongoing bribery scheme.”
Here is the relevant section from the report (pages 126-127).
c. Honest Services Fraud, 18 U.S.C § 1346
In addition to committing the crime of bribery, President Trump knowingly and willfully orchestrated a scheme to defraud the American people of his honest services as President of the United States. In doing so, he betrayed his position of trust and the duty he owed the citizenry to be an honest fiduciary of their trust. That offense is codified in the federal criminal code, which imposes up to twenty years’ imprisonment for public officials who (by mail or wire fraud) breach the public trust by participating in a bribery scheme.733 In Skilling v. United States, the Supreme Court confirmed that the statute governing “honest services fraud” applies to “bribes and kickbacks,” and noted that this concept “draws content from” the federal anti-bribery statute.734 As such, public officials who engage in bribery may also be charged with honest services fraud.
Fundamentally, the President has deprived the American people of the honorable stewardship that the Nation expects and demands of its chief executive. Since Skilling, federal courts have looked to federal bribery statutes, paying particular attention to Section 201, to assess what constitutes willful participation in a scheme to defraud in the provision of “honest services.”736 As described above, President Trump engaged in conduct that constitutes a violation of Section 201. President Trump conditioned specific “official acts”—the provision of military and security assistance and a White House meeting—on President Zelensky announcing investigations that benefitted him personally, while harming national interests. In doing so, President Trump willfully set out to defraud the American people, through bribery, of his “honest services.”
The underlying wire fraud statute, upon which the “honest services” crime is based, requires a transmission by “wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce any writings . . . for the purpose of executing [a] . . . scheme or artifice.” President Trump’s July 25 call to President Zelensky, as well as his July 26 call to Ambassador Gordon Sondland both were foreign wire communications made in furtherance of an ongoing bribery scheme. Thus, the President’s telephone calls on July 25th and July 26th lay bare the final element to find him criminally liable for his failure to provide “honest services” to the American people.
The Democrats appear to be unraveling by the day. Rather than making a series of deliberate, rational decisions, they seem to be making this up as they go along. Their decisions appear to be based more on emotion than on strategy. That’s what this level of hatred does to people.
I get the sense that they know they’ve made a colossally stupid mistake and they may wish they could find an out.
The House is set to vote on H.R. 755 on Wednesday. That is still the plan, however, there’s been a new twist.
It’s possible House leaders may decide not to pass it along to the Senate as expected.
My colleague, Streiff, tells the must-read story here.
https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/12/16/house-dems-add-federal-wire-charge-impeachment-report-note-imposes-20-years-imprisonment/
Thank You Barack Obama
Today's Liberal Democrat is an upper class university activist groomed through party politics activity.
Instead of fighting for manufacturing and jobs, they has embraced the highly divisive identitarian battle.
Previously Democrats tended to unite us by leading the fight against the horrid capitalists rather than worrying about whether you were a man or a woman, black or white, Jew or Muslim, gay or hetero, our present-day Democrat actually promotes racial differences and divisions as it pushes people to identify with their biology (skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, Jewish maternal gene etc.)
The old Democrat united us against the capitalists, today's Democrat divides us and uses the funds it collects from capitalist foundations such as George Soros’ Open Society Institute.
How does anyone actually identify with these goofballs of today? Look at how Seattle Democrats spend tax money for Homeless:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/after-dancer-strips-at-seattle-conference-on-homelessness-agency-director-suspended/
Instead of fighting for manufacturing and jobs, they has embraced the highly divisive identitarian battle.
Previously Democrats tended to unite us by leading the fight against the horrid capitalists rather than worrying about whether you were a man or a woman, black or white, Jew or Muslim, gay or hetero, our present-day Democrat actually promotes racial differences and divisions as it pushes people to identify with their biology (skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, Jewish maternal gene etc.)
The old Democrat united us against the capitalists, today's Democrat divides us and uses the funds it collects from capitalist foundations such as George Soros’ Open Society Institute.
How does anyone actually identify with these goofballs of today? Look at how Seattle Democrats spend tax money for Homeless:
The director of King County’s coordinating agency for homelessness is on paid leave following a dancer’s strip show at the agency’s annual conference on Monday.Performer Beyoncé Black St. James danced topless in a sheer bodysuit, gave lap dances and kissed attendees, according to a staffer at a local housing nonprofit who attended the conference in South Seattle.Kira Zylstra, organizer of the conference at South Seattle College, has been placed on leave as of Thursday, according to Denise Rothleutner, chief of staff for the King County Department of Community and Human Services.The department declined to comment further because of the active investigation, Rothleutner said in the email. Zylstra was not available for comment. Her suspension was first reported by journalist Erica C. Barnett on her website.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/after-dancer-strips-at-seattle-conference-on-homelessness-agency-director-suspended/
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment
Article written by Prof. Alan Dershowitz in "The Hill":
The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week.
That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power to decide the validity of its subpoenas, as well as the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized, both powers that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch. The House of Representatives will do likewise, if it votes to approve the articles, as is expected to occur on Wednesday.
President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.
The cases that are being reviewed are not identical to the challenged subpoenas that form the basis for the second article of impeachment. One involves authority of the New York district attorney to subpoena the financial records of a sitting president, as part of any potential criminal investigation. The others involve authority of legislative committees to subpoena records as part of any ongoing congressional investigations.
But they are close enough. Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.
It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution. They were a reflection of the comparative voting power of the two parties, precisely what one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned would be the “greatest danger” of an impeachment.
House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness, this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end up paying an electoral price if they support the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, meaningful reason for voting against at least one of the articles of impeachment.
It would be a smart way out for those Democrats. More important, it would be the right thing for them to do. It would be smart and right because, as matters now stand, the entire process smacks of partisanship, with little concern for the precedential impact which these articles could have on future impeachments. If a few more Democrats voted in a way that would demonstrate greater nuanced recognition that, at the least, the second article of impeachment represents an overreach based on current law, it would lend an aura of some nonpartisan legitimacy to the proceedings.
The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative and executive branches under the Constitution. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/474710-supreme-court-ruling-pulls-rug-out-from-under-article-of-impeachment
The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week.
That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power to decide the validity of its subpoenas, as well as the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized, both powers that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch. The House of Representatives will do likewise, if it votes to approve the articles, as is expected to occur on Wednesday.
President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.
The cases that are being reviewed are not identical to the challenged subpoenas that form the basis for the second article of impeachment. One involves authority of the New York district attorney to subpoena the financial records of a sitting president, as part of any potential criminal investigation. The others involve authority of legislative committees to subpoena records as part of any ongoing congressional investigations.
But they are close enough. Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.
It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution. They were a reflection of the comparative voting power of the two parties, precisely what one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned would be the “greatest danger” of an impeachment.
House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness, this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end up paying an electoral price if they support the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, meaningful reason for voting against at least one of the articles of impeachment.
It would be a smart way out for those Democrats. More important, it would be the right thing for them to do. It would be smart and right because, as matters now stand, the entire process smacks of partisanship, with little concern for the precedential impact which these articles could have on future impeachments. If a few more Democrats voted in a way that would demonstrate greater nuanced recognition that, at the least, the second article of impeachment represents an overreach based on current law, it would lend an aura of some nonpartisan legitimacy to the proceedings.
The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative and executive branches under the Constitution. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/474710-supreme-court-ruling-pulls-rug-out-from-under-article-of-impeachment
Victor Davis Hanson Looks At Big Picture: President Trump Undoing Progressive Agenda
Deep and compelling discussion between Victor Davis Hanson and Epoch Times’ Jan Jekielek about President Trump, his effectiveness, and an overall era of apoplexy amid the left as President Trump deconstructs the progressive agenda.
It’s an hour long interview that goes into a much more complex discussion; but it’s also well presented, explained and well worth the time to watch:
Winning: Trump Had a Huge Week of Policy Success
You may not have heard about the successes that President Donald Trump had this week, what with all the relentless media coverage about impeachment.
Indeed, this is one of the reasons Democrats are pushing impeachment and have been on some level since Trump was elected.
Tie Trump up, occupy him, impair his ability to get things done and undermine him in the eye of Americans.
It’s the policy they’ve employed, rather than actually pushing any policy positions of their own.
And it’s had some success. But that’s also a problem for them. All Americans see is them pushing impeachment, not anything that will ultimately help Americans.
Meanwhile, even CNN has had to admit Trump’s success in pushing his agenda items and promises to voters, even in the face of the Democratic efforts against him.
Here’s John King, one of the few who seems to be willing to acknowledge Trump achievements – a first step in the U.S. China trade deal, the USMCA deal, government spending bill and the House Defense Reauthorization bill that even includes money for his Space Force.
WSJ’s Lucey: President @realDonaldTrump has a “huge list of achievements” on “long held priorities”https://t.co/j2LkJE6E4R pic.twitter.com/OzJCKxadTb
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 13, 2019
Add to that the vast reduction in people crossing the border because of Trump’s efforts with interdiction and dealing with Mexico. He even has Mexico “paying for the wall” by essentially being the wall, in large part, with them stopping people passing through.
At the end of the day, it’s a political impeachment and Trump will be acquitted in the Senate.
So it’s these achievements that will last. It’s these achievements that will deliver benefits for America.
Andrew Yang open to being Joe Biden’s vice president
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 10:41 AM PT — Monday, December 16, 2019
Presidential candidate Andrew Yang announced he is open to being Democrat rival Joe Biden’s vice president. In a recent interview, the 2020 hopeful revealed Biden is his closest ally among his opponents.He also shared that Biden spoke to him about the threat of automation taking away American’s jobs, which is an issue Yang has put at the center of his campaign. The ‘Venture for America’ founder said their interaction made him excited because it showed Biden is “listening.”
The Democrat presidential candidate added that he would consider being a running mate on any of his opponents tickets.
“Certainly, I want to be the nominee myself, but if I’m part of the team, I’ll do my part for sure,” he stated. “If any of the candidates prevails and asks me to be their running mate, of course I would take a very long, hard look at it.””
Yang went on to say he would welcome all of his Democrat rivals in his administration, if he were to be named the nominee. This comes as recent polls show the 2020 contender near the bottom of the list.
When Hate Becomes an Agenda
Trump so infuriated his opponents that, rather than find arguments to convince a majority of Americans that the president’s policies were flawed, his enemies instead sought to destroy him.
When a party, an ideological movement, and an entire political agenda is based on hatred, people and policies become warped. The left-wing loathing of Trump has now tainted almost every Democrat’s agenda and unhinged most of the party’s major players.
Meanwhile, the progressive presidential field is in a sort of collective meltdown, as candidates begin recalibrating and trading accusations as they fear their own early anti-Trump agendas have little public support.
The prior subtext to impeachment—if not smeared or stopped, Trump will win in 2020—was spoken only by hardcore leftists like U.S. Representatives Alexander Green (D-Texas) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Now it is shamelessly voiced by leaders in the party such as Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), with the twist of fears that Trump will “rig the election” (after Special Counsel Robert Mueller, of course, found that he had not done so in 2016, and Horowitz found that Trump’s campaign aides were largely targeted by the FBI and CIA hierarchy) unless he is impeached.
Again, the common denominator in all these catastrophes is an existential hatred of Donald Trump—his person, his family, his successes, his agenda, and his supporters. The two writs for impeachment are simply: 1) We loathe Trump 2) He will sabotage our agenda if we don’t impeach and remove him.
Comey’s Ruination of the FBI
James Comey and his team essentially ruined the reputation of the FBI Washington establishment for a generation, in a way that even J. Edgar Hoover could not. Comey at least had Hoover’s negative example as a warning against the abuse of power. Instead, he sought to outdo Hoover in skullduggery—and now continues in his orphaned status to harm the bureau through shrill preemptive accusations against the innocent.
His legacy is now to be regarded as the most unprincipled FBI director in history—one who warped a number of investigations he directed from the Hillary Clinton email cache to Crossfire Hurricane.
Horowitz’s report on FISA abuse, neatly summarized in Appendix A with the FBI response in Appendix B, is a litany of FBI deceit. The bureau’s lawyers and agents altered documents, withheld and misrepresented evidence before a FISA court, peddled an unverified opposition research dossier among government and the media, sought to deprive Carter Page of his constitutional rights, and engaged in character assassination of his person—and we have not yet heard from federal prosecutors investigating these and other misbehaviors.
The Horowitz report is simply the endnote to three years of rank criminality that have led to the firings, retirements, reassignments, and demotions of most of the FBI’s top Washington echelon: James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, William Priestap, James Rybicki, James Baker, along with Josh Campbell, James Turgal, Greg Bower, Michael Steinbach, John Giacalone, and Kevin Clinesmith. Comey, McCabe, and Clinesmith were criminally referred to the Justice Department by various inspector general reports, respectively for leaking, deceiving federal investigators, and altering a document presented to a FISA court.
Page and Strzok were both fired from the Mueller investigation. Their texts—including, one assumes, an entire corpus of exchanges that remains missing and was apparently destroyed by FBI employees—are a repository of conflicts of interest, unprofessionalism, and unadulterated hatred of Trump and his supporters. Clinesmith, who likely committed a felony by doctoring an email submitted to a FISA court, openly cheered on “le (sic) resistance.”
Future impeachment will become like Athenian ostracism: simply a tool to banish a leader whether he be prominent, successful, or merely an object of envy and hate.
Comey bluntly lied to the president when he reassured Trump that he was not under investigation even as he oversaw the FBI peddling dissemination of the fraudulent Steele dossier. In addition, we know that Comey deliberately leaked at least one of his own secret memos of presidential conversations to the media for the expressed purpose of seeing a special prosecutor appointed that resulted in the selection of his friend Robert Mueller.
Comey likely would have been guilty of a felony for leaking such secret government documents had not a team of FBI cronies, including Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, retroactively classified his leaked presidential memos as “confidential” rather than feloniously “secret.”
The FBI deliberately leaked false information to Yahoo News apparently to rush the dossier’s lies into the public domain before the 2016 election. The FBI used at least four undercover sources who were recording conversations with unsuspecting targets. It edited or ignored exonerating written memos about FBI questioning of suspects like Michael Flynn. James Comey confessed that his certainty that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election had massaged the way he conducted his exoneration of the Clinton email scandal. Thanks to the FBI, the reputation of the FISA court has been stained to the point that some in Congress are calling for its suspension.
A suddenly amnesiac Comey on over 245 occasions under oath said he could not recall or did not know when asked direct questions by House members. He lied about not knowing that the dossier was unverified. He lied when he said there was other key evidence presented to a FISA court beside the dossier. He lied when he said the FBI had followed procedures in applying for FISA writs to surveil Carter Page.
Schiff, Nadler, and the Destruction of Impeachment
If Adam Schiff were a private citizen, he likely would have been indicted by now, too. He serially lied throughout the Mueller investigation by falsely announcing impending bombshells and indictments, based on his supposed exclusive knowledge of damning classified information.
Schiff hijacked the impeachment inquiry and rigged the rules of examination by holding hearings in secrecy in the House basement, characterized by threats to Republican colleagues not to leak incriminating cross-examinations of witnesses, even as initial exculpatory statements were leaked to the press.
Schiff lied when he read into the congressional record a “version” of the transcript of the Trump Ukrainian phone call that was full of errors and fantasies. When caught in his deceit, he pleaded it was a “parody.”
Schiff lied about the circumstances of the so-called whistleblower. Schiff never called him as a witness as promised. He lied about the whistleblower’s relationship with his own staff. He lied about the timeline, contacts, and trajectory of the whistleblower’s journey from his own office to the filing of a complaint with the inspector general. And he probably lied about his own supposed ignorance of the whistleblower’s identity—evident when he stopped congressional questioning of Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman on grounds that it would expose the whistleblower’s identity.
Schiff’s minority House Intelligence Committee final report was full of untruths. The Horowitz report exposed them by demonstrating that Schiff lied when he wrote that the Steele dossier was not central to requests to a FISA court, that the dossier was verified, that the FBI did not omit key information to the court, and that Carter Page’s testimonies were not misrepresented by the FBI.
Schiff may be the first known congressional representative to use his office to subpoena the phone records of his own colleagues, of journalists, and of a president’s personal attorney, and then to selectively publicize names from his huge trove of metadata in an attempt to embarrass his political enemies. Why he has not been censured is commentary on the current condition of the House of Representatives. His public impeachment inquiry hearing brought in no new evidence, and no new fact witnesses, but simply consisted of repetition of prior hearsay testimonies.
Jerrold Nadler somehow has overshadowed his earlier disastrous overseer role of the Robert Mueller hearings, in which a befuddled Mueller essentially testified that he knew little or nothing of Fusion GPS, the Steele dossier, and the very reasons why he was selected in the first place to investigate Trump “collusion.”
In his impeachment hearings, Nadler called in only lawyers for testimony, and stained his requests by inordinately selecting far more liberal activists than conservatives or centrists. He, too, produced no new testimony, no new fact witnesses, no new evidence. Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan resorted to attacking 13-year-old Barron Trump, and this more or less summed up the level of Nadler’s witnesses’ jurisprudence.
Nadler talked of all sorts of impeachable offenses—quid pro quo, bribery, and treason—only later to cite no specific acts of treason, bribery, or impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors in his formal writs of impeachment. Nadler epitomized the lethargy and monotony of his hearings by nodding off while chairing the committee. Another member, prone to sanctimonious lectures, was caught watching golf on his laptop during the somnolent proceedings.
The legacy of Schiff and Nadler is to completely discredit impeachment itself. It will now become passé—as a common, rank tool of the opposition majority party in the House to undermine a first-term president on the eve of his reelection bid.
Future impeachment will be entertained without bipartisan or public support, without a special counsel report, and without any presidential evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. The House Intelligence Committee will handle impeachment so the majority party can retreat to the basement, leak its goods to the press, and forbid the minority party to do the same. Impeachment will become like Athenian ostracism: simply a tool to banish a leader whether he be prominent, successful, or merely an object of envy and hate.
Given the current criteria of the Trump impeachment, Barack Obama easily would have been impeached: in Fast and Furious, the Iran nuclear deal, and Benghazi, Obama stonewalled congressional requests or kept critical information from the public and Congress. On illegal immigration, Obama simply made up or ignored laws in the manner earlier that he said to have done so would be antidemocratic and monarchial.
Every impeachment charge against Trump far more easily could have been lodged against an imperial Obama presidency—without mentioning that Obama ultimately may be found to be knowledgeable of the entire CIA, FBI, and Justice Department surveilling of an opposition campaign and sabotage of a presidential transition. In sum, the Democrat boomerang on impeachment will make Harry Reid’s reverse torpedo on the filibuster look minor.
The Democratic Candidates
The Democratic field’s reason to be is now the hatred of Trump. The Democratic debates so far have been characterized by two themes: 1) no candidate shall appear to the left of any other candidate 2) no candidate shall be outdone by any other in expressing hatred of Trump.
Such antipathies have translated into the most far-left Democratic agendas in modern memory: Medicare for all, health care for illegal aliens, the Green New Deal, open borders, a wealth tax, a 70-90 percent top income tax rate, slavery reparations, free college tuition, and late-term abortions if not permissible infanticide. None of these issues warrants 51 percent public support; all are the wages of Trump hatred.
Nihilism is the theme: abolish ICE! Abolish student debt! Abolish the Electoral College! Abolish border security! Abolish the idea of Medicare for seniors! These are the highbrow versions of left-wing street nihilism from toppling statues to wiping out murals and the names of buildings and streets.
The antipathy to Trump has unhinged the candidates themselves to the point that so-called prior moderate candidates (such as Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Corey Booker, Kamala Harris) either sought to shed their prior records and careers or went full socialist as in the case of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Joe Biden’s decline is representative of the collapse of his party. As vice president and Obama’s point man on Ukraine, Biden sought to hold up U.S. aid to Kyiv until the government fired a prosecutor who later testified he was looking into the criminality of the energy company Bursima, on whose board the vice president’s son Hunter served without any expertise in either energy or Ukraine in general. Biden lied when he said he was never warned by his staff of possible conflict of interest and yet demonstrated his ignorance by suggesting he would need such outside counsel to see the obvious.
Much of the checkered career of Hunter Biden is a sad story of past monetizing the Biden name, such as it was. Biden himself is on the verge of blowing up his third presidential bid, the prior two imploding due to his lies about his résumé, plagiarism, and racially tinged commentary about Barack Obama.
Biden’s third try has amplified these past pathologies: he has returned to past adolescent braggadocio in his he-man stories about wishing to take Trump behind the gym and beating him up, about prior heroics bearing a chain to stand down supposed inner-city thugs, about youthful threatening of an owner of a donut shop, and on and on.
Biden continues his squeezing and hugging of young teenage girls; despite the fact that women have gone on record that they find Biden’s unwelcome touching creepy. His past racist characterization of Barack Obama, Indian-Americans, inner-city youth (from whom he said he learned of “roaches”), were continued as vice president with his “put y’all back in chains” demagoguery. On the campaign trail, Biden shouts down reporters, and calls an 83-year-old retiree a “damn liar” and challenges him to a pushup contest—to media applause that Biden displayed a rare display of being “feisty.”
In all these cases, Trump has so infuriated his opponents that, rather than find arguments to convince a majority of Americans that the president’s policies were flawed, his enemies instead become ever more radical and angrier as antidotes to Trump.
In their downward spiral, they are destroying themselves and many of our institutions along with them.
The Ground Zero Mosque Project Is Back
Article by Pamela Geller in "The American Thinker":
The news was buried under two dense paragraphs and five large photos in an article in New York YIMBY about a different project: "Construction has also yet to begin on 51 Park Place, which is slated to become a 71-foot-tall, 16,000-square-foot Islamic cultural center." The infamous Ground Zero Mosque project, a long buried effort to build a triumphal mosque at the site of the worst jihad terror attack in American history, is back.
Construction has yet to begin, but it will: the shady developer behind the Ground Zero Mosque scheme, Sharif El-Gamal, has been working to build this sinister structure for years.
We defeated the Ground Zero Mosque project once before. The 16-story mosque that El-Gamal initially planned to build there has not been built. Our efforts in showing what an insult it was to the American people and to the victims of 9/11, and how many Muslims worldwide would inevitably view it as a triumphal mosque built on the site of a jihad attack, defeated it. Tens of thousands of people came out for our rallies in lower Manhattan against this celebration of this 9/11 attacks, and El-Gamal was beaten in the court of public opinion.
It was a long battle. President Obama announced his support for the mosque at an Iftar dinner, no less. Then-mayor of New York City and current presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg supported the mosque as well, claiming hysterically that "if we don't build it, the terrorists will win!" The media actively campaigned for it — the elites in their increasingly fragile ivory towers relentlessly stumped for the Cordoba mosque (euphemistically called an Islamic center with a prayer space) for years.
And yet despite all this opposition and much more, the people stood up and fought the Ground Zero Mosque and won. An army of Davids.
But that wasn't the end of the story. Crains New York reported on El-Gamal's new project in 2015 in a story that demonstrated how the developer was hoping to sneak his triumphal mosque into existence: "Mr. El-Gamal's Soho Properties has proposed a 667-foot condominium tower at lower Manhattan's 45 Park Place. The glass skyscraper, which has yet to break ground, will include at least 15 full-floor units of 3,200 to 3,700 square feet, and average prices higher than $3,000 a square foot, according to plans released to Bloomberg by the developer."
That sounded normal enough. But then the article added: "Adjacent to the tower, Soho Properties will build a public plaza connected to a three-story Islamic museum and prayer space." An Islamic prayer space is a mosque. The article also said: "An Islamic museum 'is just as much of an insult,' Pamela Geller, a blogger and one of the center's most vocal opponents, wrote in an email. 'It will be like having a museum touting the glories of the Japanese Empire at Pearl Harbor.'"
I think an Islamic museum at Ground Zero dedicated to the half-billion victims of jihadi wars, land appropriations, sharia, cultural annihilations, enslavements, and sharia enforcement is an excellent idea, but is that what Sharif El-Gamal had in mind? Of course not. And how did El-Gamal plan to finance this? The answer was predictable. The New York Post reported in May 2016 that "the developer of the failed Ground Zero Mosque has nailed down 'Sharia-compliant financing' for a new, luxury condominium tower and Islamic cultural museum on the same site, he and his banking partners said."
Then in May 2017, the New York Times ran a story entitled "Condo Tower to Rise Where Muslim Community Center Was Proposed." The Times said that "45 Park Place, a 43-story condominium that will soon rise three blocks from the World Trade Center," was "something of a consolation prize for the developer," as it "replaces the developer's 2010 plan to build a 15-story Islamic mosque and cultural center on this site, an idea that erupted into a national controversy and cable news network bonanza."
In the last couple of years, there has been virtually no news about this "Islamic museum." But the New York YIMBY story shows that the project has been advancing under cover of darkness. A 71-foot-tall structure is three stories high, as in the revised plans announced in 2015.
El-Gamal has many friends and allies among New York City's political and media elites. It is likely that de Blasio city officials and the New York Times and other city papers all met with El-Gamal and agreed to keep the reporting on this project to an absolute minimum, so that it could get built without incurring the righteous anger of the public again. The first time around, they courted publicity and tried to make El-Gamal a hero. We demolished that and destroyed their plans. So now they've clearly decided to go ahead surreptitiously.
It is disgusting that El-Gamal continues to taunt Americans and poke at America's most egregious recent memory. El-Gamal was there when we had tens of thousands in the streets opposing his Ground Zero mosque. He knows how angry and upset people get at these Islamic structures on the site of jihad war. The 9/11 Muslim terrorists extolled Allah no fewer than 90 times in their last letters. Will those letters be on display at this Islamic cultural center/museum?
There is an important lesson to be learned here — and one we would be wise to adopt. They never stop. No matter how absolutely they lose, how many setbacks they suffer, they keep on pursuing their supremacist goals.
The Ground Zero Mosque project was and is a middle finger to the American people. There has never been a mosque of reconciliation and healing built on the site of a jihadi attack. Ever. It is, on the other hand, an Islamic pattern to build triumphal mosques on the cherished sites of conquered lands. History is riddled with triumphal mosques built on the sites of jihad attacks or appropriated from other religions: the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque on the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, and innumerable mosques built on the sites of Hindu temples that were demolished by Muslims all attest to that.
And now it looks as if Sharif El-Gamal is going to be able to build his own triumphal mosque at Ground Zero after all.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/the_ground_zero_mosque_project_is_back.html
The news was buried under two dense paragraphs and five large photos in an article in New York YIMBY about a different project: "Construction has also yet to begin on 51 Park Place, which is slated to become a 71-foot-tall, 16,000-square-foot Islamic cultural center." The infamous Ground Zero Mosque project, a long buried effort to build a triumphal mosque at the site of the worst jihad terror attack in American history, is back.
Construction has yet to begin, but it will: the shady developer behind the Ground Zero Mosque scheme, Sharif El-Gamal, has been working to build this sinister structure for years.
We defeated the Ground Zero Mosque project once before. The 16-story mosque that El-Gamal initially planned to build there has not been built. Our efforts in showing what an insult it was to the American people and to the victims of 9/11, and how many Muslims worldwide would inevitably view it as a triumphal mosque built on the site of a jihad attack, defeated it. Tens of thousands of people came out for our rallies in lower Manhattan against this celebration of this 9/11 attacks, and El-Gamal was beaten in the court of public opinion.
It was a long battle. President Obama announced his support for the mosque at an Iftar dinner, no less. Then-mayor of New York City and current presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg supported the mosque as well, claiming hysterically that "if we don't build it, the terrorists will win!" The media actively campaigned for it — the elites in their increasingly fragile ivory towers relentlessly stumped for the Cordoba mosque (euphemistically called an Islamic center with a prayer space) for years.
And yet despite all this opposition and much more, the people stood up and fought the Ground Zero Mosque and won. An army of Davids.
But that wasn't the end of the story. Crains New York reported on El-Gamal's new project in 2015 in a story that demonstrated how the developer was hoping to sneak his triumphal mosque into existence: "Mr. El-Gamal's Soho Properties has proposed a 667-foot condominium tower at lower Manhattan's 45 Park Place. The glass skyscraper, which has yet to break ground, will include at least 15 full-floor units of 3,200 to 3,700 square feet, and average prices higher than $3,000 a square foot, according to plans released to Bloomberg by the developer."
That sounded normal enough. But then the article added: "Adjacent to the tower, Soho Properties will build a public plaza connected to a three-story Islamic museum and prayer space." An Islamic prayer space is a mosque. The article also said: "An Islamic museum 'is just as much of an insult,' Pamela Geller, a blogger and one of the center's most vocal opponents, wrote in an email. 'It will be like having a museum touting the glories of the Japanese Empire at Pearl Harbor.'"
I think an Islamic museum at Ground Zero dedicated to the half-billion victims of jihadi wars, land appropriations, sharia, cultural annihilations, enslavements, and sharia enforcement is an excellent idea, but is that what Sharif El-Gamal had in mind? Of course not. And how did El-Gamal plan to finance this? The answer was predictable. The New York Post reported in May 2016 that "the developer of the failed Ground Zero Mosque has nailed down 'Sharia-compliant financing' for a new, luxury condominium tower and Islamic cultural museum on the same site, he and his banking partners said."
Then in May 2017, the New York Times ran a story entitled "Condo Tower to Rise Where Muslim Community Center Was Proposed." The Times said that "45 Park Place, a 43-story condominium that will soon rise three blocks from the World Trade Center," was "something of a consolation prize for the developer," as it "replaces the developer's 2010 plan to build a 15-story Islamic mosque and cultural center on this site, an idea that erupted into a national controversy and cable news network bonanza."
In the last couple of years, there has been virtually no news about this "Islamic museum." But the New York YIMBY story shows that the project has been advancing under cover of darkness. A 71-foot-tall structure is three stories high, as in the revised plans announced in 2015.
El-Gamal has many friends and allies among New York City's political and media elites. It is likely that de Blasio city officials and the New York Times and other city papers all met with El-Gamal and agreed to keep the reporting on this project to an absolute minimum, so that it could get built without incurring the righteous anger of the public again. The first time around, they courted publicity and tried to make El-Gamal a hero. We demolished that and destroyed their plans. So now they've clearly decided to go ahead surreptitiously.
It is disgusting that El-Gamal continues to taunt Americans and poke at America's most egregious recent memory. El-Gamal was there when we had tens of thousands in the streets opposing his Ground Zero mosque. He knows how angry and upset people get at these Islamic structures on the site of jihad war. The 9/11 Muslim terrorists extolled Allah no fewer than 90 times in their last letters. Will those letters be on display at this Islamic cultural center/museum?
There is an important lesson to be learned here — and one we would be wise to adopt. They never stop. No matter how absolutely they lose, how many setbacks they suffer, they keep on pursuing their supremacist goals.
The Ground Zero Mosque project was and is a middle finger to the American people. There has never been a mosque of reconciliation and healing built on the site of a jihadi attack. Ever. It is, on the other hand, an Islamic pattern to build triumphal mosques on the cherished sites of conquered lands. History is riddled with triumphal mosques built on the sites of jihad attacks or appropriated from other religions: the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque on the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, and innumerable mosques built on the sites of Hindu temples that were demolished by Muslims all attest to that.
And now it looks as if Sharif El-Gamal is going to be able to build his own triumphal mosque at Ground Zero after all.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/the_ground_zero_mosque_project_is_back.html
Horowitz Report Exposes Soviet-Level Wrongdoing
Thanks to the inspector general’s report, the FBI “insurance policy” to undermine the president of the United States has been fully exposed. Now it’s time for those who abused the rule of law for purely political purposes to be held accountable for their actions.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s reportunequivocally proves that the intelligence community is infested with political bias, just as other whistleblowers and I have been warning for years.
The Democrats long have insisted that the Hillary Clinton-sponsored Steele dossier was not used to justify FBI spying on the 2016 Trump campaign as part of an investigation into alleged ties to the Russian government. The American people were told that the intelligence apparatus had legitimate concerns about potential collusion and that authorities took appropriate steps to investigate Donald Trump’s associates.
The evidence contained in the report, however, tells a very different story.
Not only did the FBI agents trust the findings of the now-discredited dossier, but they also used it to file the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application to wiretap the Trump presidential campaign.
Within hours of the president’s tweet on March 3, 2017, that Trump Tower was “wiretapped” (for which the corporate leftist media falsely concluded that very day there was no evidence) I went on record and forecast what we now know to be true—there was “Soviet-level wrongdoing” by the FBI and the Obama Administration.
According to the recently published report, former FBI director James Comey’s “Crossfire Hurricane” team “reinitiated their . . . efforts to obtain FISA surveillance authority” for Trump campaign associate Carter Page “immediately after” they obtained “Steele’s election reporting on September 19.”
“Steele’s handling agent told us that when Steele provided him with the first election reports in July 2016 and described his engagement with Fusion GPS, it was obvious to him that the request for the research was politically motivated,” the report notes.
The FBI must take vigorous action to evaluate its own protocols and procedures to ensure that no other American citizen is subject to such abuse ever again.
Yet, the FBI failed to disclose those concerns to the FISA court, nor did agents reveal the fact that they had not corroborated the Steele dossier’s allegations before using them as the basis for the warrant to surveil Page. The report also found that an FBI lawyer had altered an email so as to obscure the fact that Page was a source for a government agency—something that would have been extremely relevant to the FBI’s request to investigate its supposed suspicions that Page was a potential Russian agent.
Disappointingly, this was far from the only instance of FISA abuse detailed in the inspector general’s report. Horowitz found evidence of political bias almost everywhere he looked, cataloging a long list of questionable behaviors by the FBI.
“We identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications, and many additional errors in the Woods Procedures,” Horowitz observed, adding that “these errors and omissions resulted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete information . . . and failing to flag important issues for discussion.”
To dismiss this as mere carelessness and neglect, as some legacy media outlets are trying to do, is disingenuous at best. The notion of such widespread incompetence within the nation’s premiere law enforcement agency is only slightly less distressing than the allegation it’s intended to refute. That explanation is also far less plausible than the alternative—that biased actors at the FBI abused their finely-honed investigative skills and expansive authority in an effort to manipulate the outcome of a presidential election.
I saw firsthand how extensively political considerations can influence the way the federal government operates—even when it comes to issues that should never be tainted by partisanship, such as national security. I was part of the team that identified 9/11 mastermind Mohamed Atta a full year before he led the attacks on our nation. We were prevented from taking action against Atta, and when I raised that issue with the 9/11 Commission, the Pentagon tried to discredit me rather than acknowledge its own failings.
The Democrats are trying to use a similar strategy to distract public attention from the FBI’s misconduct. By downplaying the inspector general’s findings, they hope to evade scrutiny of the pervasive bias and failures of leadership that allowed the agency to be used as a political weapon.
The FBI now must take vigorous action to evaluate its own protocols and procedures to ensure that no other American citizen is subject to such abuse ever again.
During his recent campaign rally in Hershey, Pennsylvania, President Trump perfectly summarized the IG report’s findings in a single sentence, explaining that “[the FBI] knew right at the beginning that it was all a frame-up, a setup, but they hid it so that nobody could see it, so they could keep it going on, thinking they were going to hurt us politically.”
Thanks to the inspector general’s report, the FBI “insurance policy” to undermine the president of the United States has been fully exposed. Now it’s time for those who abused the rule of law for purely political purposes to be held accountable for their actions. Accountability and redemption are needed for the FBI. To insure the American people can trust the FBI there must be a 100 percent review and an audit of all FBI foreign counterintelligence and national security cases—this must be done, otherwise the American people will never be able to fully trust the FBI.
Adam Schiff Finally Goes on Fox, Squirms Trying to Justify Impeachment
House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) finally made it on to Fox to try to justify the Democrats’ Articles of Impeachment.
He drew perhaps who he thought was the most amenable anchor for the interview, Chris Wallace. But Wallace did get in a couple of good questions that left Schiff squirming and spinning untruths.
Schiff looked horrible with red eyes and with what looked like vampire-like make-up, coupled with nerves. He did not do well.
Wallace asked after all the claims about bribery and extortion, why Democrats hadn’t included any crimes, much less those in the articles of impeachment?
Schiff claimed that they were included within the claim of “abuse of power” which they were not. He then suggested that that was just a catch-all for all the prior Democratic claims that had failed or been debunked by things like the Mueller report.
“Most pernicious,” Schiff claimed, was the attempt to get an “ally” to help him “cheat in the next election,” a claim they completely failed to prove. Meanwhile the Democratic efforts to undermine Trump with Russian information and colluding with foreign national Christopher Steele are well-proven fact.
He claimed that somehow this “sacrificed our national security.” But indeed, it is the Democrats’ effort of impeachment that has impaired our relationship with Ukraine because of their effort to politicize everything and impede the effort into stopping corruption in Ukraine. Meanwhile, it’s impaired the President’s ability to conduct foreign policy as he should. And it’s incredibly ironic given that Barack Obama left Ukraine naked and open to being invaded by Russia by first getting them to give up their weapons with which they could have defended themselves and then failing to provide them weapons for that defense when they begged for them after the Russians invaded. They only got them after President Donald Trump came in and provided them.
Wallace also nailed him on obstruction where Schiff’s responses were even weaker.
Wallace asked how could challenging Democrats in court over their requests for documents or people to testify be considered obstruction, especially given the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case of Trump challenging turning over financial records. “Why is going to Court an impeachable offense?” Wallace asked.
TODAY: Adam Schiff defends the two Articles of Impeachment put out by House Dems and the reasoning behind them. #FNS #FoxNews #ArticlesofImpeachment pic.twitter.com/sgiMZuJPcq
— FoxNewsSunday (@FoxNewsSunday) December 15, 2019
Democrats keep pitching this. But the more they try to convince Americans like this, the more they expose what a nakedly political act it is. And if Schiff gets called in the Senate and does this badly, it’s going to be quite something.
Pentagon chief urges Iraq to stop attacks on bases housing U.S. forces
December 16, 2019
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper on Monday urged Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi to take steps to prevent bases housing U.S. troops from being shelled, a statement from the premier’s office said.
Esper’s call came after a senior U.S. military official warned last week that attacks by Iranian-backed groups on bases hosting U.S. forces in Iraq were pushing all sides closer to an uncontrollable escalation.
Rocket strikes targeting Iraqi bases where members of the U.S.-led coalition are also stationed have increased in past weeks with no claim of responsibility from any party.
However, the U.S. military official said intelligence and forensic analyses of the rockets and launchers pointed to Iranian-backed Shi’ite Muslim militia groups.
Esper “expressed his concerns over the shelling of some installations and the necessity to take procedures to stop it,” a statement from Abdul Mahdi’s office quoted the Pentagon chief as saying during a phone call.
Abdul Mahdi warned Esper that unilateral action could have negative consequences that will be difficult to control and might jeopardize Iraq’s sovereignty.
Abdul Mahdi resigned last month under pressure from mass anti-government protests. He is carrying out his duties in a caretaker capacity.
Tension between the United States and Iran has risen as a result of U.S. sanctions that are hitting Tehran hard. The two sides have also traded blame over attacks on oil installations, militia arms depots and bases hosting U.S. forces.
https://www.oann.com/pentagon-chief-urges-iraq-to-stop-attacks-on-bases-housing-u-s-forces/
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper on Monday urged Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi to take steps to prevent bases housing U.S. troops from being shelled, a statement from the premier’s office said.
Esper’s call came after a senior U.S. military official warned last week that attacks by Iranian-backed groups on bases hosting U.S. forces in Iraq were pushing all sides closer to an uncontrollable escalation.
Rocket strikes targeting Iraqi bases where members of the U.S.-led coalition are also stationed have increased in past weeks with no claim of responsibility from any party.
However, the U.S. military official said intelligence and forensic analyses of the rockets and launchers pointed to Iranian-backed Shi’ite Muslim militia groups.
Esper “expressed his concerns over the shelling of some installations and the necessity to take procedures to stop it,” a statement from Abdul Mahdi’s office quoted the Pentagon chief as saying during a phone call.
Abdul Mahdi warned Esper that unilateral action could have negative consequences that will be difficult to control and might jeopardize Iraq’s sovereignty.
Abdul Mahdi resigned last month under pressure from mass anti-government protests. He is carrying out his duties in a caretaker capacity.
Tension between the United States and Iran has risen as a result of U.S. sanctions that are hitting Tehran hard. The two sides have also traded blame over attacks on oil installations, militia arms depots and bases hosting U.S. forces.
Schiff Claims Ignorance of FISA Abuses, Nunes Shreds Him With Facts in Brilliant Letter, 'You Are in Need of Rehab'
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was on Fox on Sunday with Chris Wallace trying to spin both impeachment and the very damaging IG report.
He did a horrible job, squirming, trying to justify impeachment, as we reported earlier.
But his effort to explain his past lies about FISA abuse and the Steele dossier also failed big time.
Schiff refused to admit that he was wrong when he claimed that there hadn’t been FISA abuse against the Trump team.
He refused to do so, saying he was “willing to admit that the inspector general found serious abuses of FISA that I was unaware of.”
He claimed that he was unaware of the abuse listed in the IG report.
“I think it’s only fair to judge what we knew at the time, not what would be revealed two years later,” he contended. “But yes, there were very serious abuses of the FISA process. They need to be corrected, we need to make sure they never happen again.”
The problem, of course, with this position is that once again, it’s a lie.
Brit Hume put it succinctly, calling Schiff’s defense of ignorance “bunk.”
Not only did he know, he castigated and led the media against the efforts of Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) to try to expose it all.
Nunes wasn’t having any of it and he dropped an open letter to Schiff which he shared with everyone on Twitter, listing just a short list of highlights of false things Schiff had claimed in his prior memo defending the FBI and the FISA actions. It could have been a lot more, Nunes said, but then it would have been an “extremely long letter.” “You are in need of rehabilitation,” Nunes declared.
From Fox News:
Nunes recognized Schiff’s acknowledgment of the “issues and errors” described in Horowitz’s report, but said that his opposition to concerns raised by Attorney General Bill Barr and Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham — who is conducting a broader probe of the Russia investigation’s origins — “makes it clear your rehabilitation will be a long, arduous process.”Nunes cited Schiff’s failure to use his committee to conduct proper oversight while using it “as a launching pad to impeach the president for issues that have no intelligence component at all.” He accused him of “hijacking” the committee, claiming, “As part of your rehabilitation, it’s crucial that you admit you have a problem.”
But Nunes said he would be willing to work closely with Schiff on his rehabilitation program.
Boom. Absolutely perfect.
Former AG Michael Mukasey Outlines FBI Conspiracy, Explains Why Lisa Page is Suing DOJ and Why FBI Refuses to Unreadact Text Messages
Former AG Michael Mukasey appears on Fox News for an interview with Maria Bartiromo. As Mukasey walks through the purpose and intents behind the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages what he outlines is really the motive for Ms. Page to be suing the DOJ and the reason why current FBI Director Chris Wray is covering for them.
Additionally, Mukasey explains the unlawful activity behind HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff gaining the phone records of Devin Nunes, Rudy Giuliani and John Solomon. The only thing he didn’t mention is that AT&T owns a primary impeachment stakeholder, CNN.
BIG PICTURE – Lisa Page’s lawsuit is not about a breech of privacy; that’s the excuse. Lisa Page is working with her Lawfare allies to block the release of unredacted text messages between her and Peter Strzok. The totality of the communication outlines the context of the FBI conspiracy during the 2016 election. That *conspiracy* is what FBI Director Christopher Wray was put in place to hide.
DAG Rosenstein recommended Chris Wray for that exact purpose. Wray then hired David Bowditch as his deputy. Bowditch was/is compromised by his former role in the San Bernadino terrorist attack. Wray then hired Dana Boente as FBI legal counsel. Boente was/is compromised by his prior role in the DOJ-NSD FISA effort, and his role in the capture of Julian Assange to cover-up the false claim of the Russia DNC hack.