U.S. Coast Guard offloads $312M worth of cocaine seized at sea

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 1:20 PM PT — Thursday, December 19, 2019

The U.S. Coast Guard has offloaded 18,000 pounds of cocaine, with a street value of over $312 million, in southern California.
 On Wednesday, the massive seizure was put on display at a port in San Diego. The Coast Guard organized the event to show just how much cocaine was seized in the Pacific Ocean and blocked from entering the U.S. since mid-October.
 The 18,000 pound seizure was captured from seven different ships between South America and Mexico. Coast Guard officials said they were able to identify and bust drug smugglers thanks to the help of the FBI, DEA, Homeland Security and foreign partners abroad.

“When I look at the 18,000 pounds of cocaine sitting on this cutter, it’s a sobering reminder of how serious the drug problem is in the United States,” said DEA Deputy Administrator Preston Grubbs. “That’s over $312 million dollars of drug money that would have funded violent crime, human trafficking and arms trafficking.”
The cocaine will be turned over to federal officials, who are expected to prosecute the smugglers.

https://www.oann.com/u-s-coast-guard-offloads-312m-worth-of-cocaine-seized-at-sea/

Meanwhile, Obamacare Was Just Basically Killed By the 5th Circuit

Bonchie reporting for RedState

Amid all the impeachment hilarity that’s taken place in recent days, one big story got missed. Obamacare’s individual mandate was officially ruled unconstitutional by the 5th Circuit of Appeals, setting up a fight over the entirety of the law, which could be completely nullified.

Here’s part of the opinion.

The court found that the plaintiffs had proper standing to push this issue because they were required to by insurance, therefore having a claim of injury from the law. The states that also were part of the lawsuit were found to have standing because it cost them money to comply with Obamacare.

Then the big decision is made that the individual mandate is unconstitutional because without a penalty, it can no longer be considered a tax. You’ll recall that Chief Justice Roberts rescued Obamacare from the abyss by inventing to idea that the mandate was a tax, even as the Obama administration had pointedly proclaimed it wasn’t a tax for years. With the tax aspect out of the discussion, Congress has no constitutional power to force people to buy a product they don’t want.

Lastly, the court is sending this back down to the lower court to let them rule on whether the entire Affordable Care Act is now unconstitutional. There are arguments both ways, but I suspect they’ll take a piecemeal approach regardless of the legal aspects at play. The judiciary has a history of not overturning laws that could in turn do extensive harm to people. Like it or not, a lot of Americans use Obamacare to obtain health insurance now.

With this decision, and a possible more sweeping one coming, this could dropped in the laps of Congress in short order with an election nearing. No doubt, this is going to be a major issue. Despite the fact that they are the ones who screwed it up in the first place, Democrats will try to spin this as Trump’s problem. Ironically, not controlling the House right now could provide some cover on that front.

We’ll see how it all plays out after the impeachment fiasco is in the rear-view mirror.

21 Key Quotes From Inspector General’s Report, Testimony

Jeff Carlson reporting for The Epoch Times

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz in a nearly 500-page report—combined with a nearly seven-hour congressional testimony—provided an in-depth and damning portrayal of the FBI’s actions in its surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

While some media organizations have focused on statements revolving around Horowitz not having found political bias in the FBI’s opening of the probe, a fuller examination of Horowitz’s key statements portrays a more complete picture.

Horowitz found that these errors extended throughout the FBI’s chain of command, including “the managers and supervisors in the Crossfire Hurricane chain of command” and extended further to include the “FBI senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed.”

1. Horowitz Didn’t Receive Satisfactory Explanations for FBI Behavior

“Although we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for any of the errors or omissions we identified,” Horowitz said in Dec. 11 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

2. Horowitz Stated He Was ‘Deeply Concerned’ by FBI’s Numerous Errors

“We found, and, as we outlined here, are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, handpicked investigative teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI, even though the information sought through the use of FISA authority related so closely to an ongoing presidential campaign, and even though those involved with the investigation knew that their actions would likely be subjected to close scrutiny. The circumstances reflect a failure, as we outlined in the report, not just by those who prepared the applications, but also by the managers and supervisors in the Crossfire Hurricane chain of command, including FBI senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed,” Horowitz said in his congressional testimony.

3. Horowitz Directly Questioned FBI Leadership’s Supervision of FISA Process

“That so many basic and fundamental errors were made on four FISA applications by three separate, hand-picked teams, on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations that was briefed to the highest levels within the FBI and that FBI officials expected would eventually be subjected to close scrutiny, raised significant questions regarding the FBI chain of command’s management and supervision of the FISA process,” the inspector general report reads (Page 378).

4. Horowitz Found the FBI’s Conduct—Including Leadership—in the FISA Process to Be “Inexplicable”

“There is such a range of conduct here that is inexplicable,” he said, “and the answers we got were not satisfactory, that we’re left trying to understand how could all these errors have occurred over a nine-month period or so, among three teams—hand-picked—the highest-profile case in the FBI, going to the very top of the organization, involving a presidential campaign,” Horowitz said in his testimony (at 5:58:45 mark).

5. Horowitz Testified that Nobody at the FBI Who Was Involved in FISA Process Was Vindicated by His Report—Including Top FBI Leaders

When asked by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) if Horowitz’s report vindicated former FBI Director Comey, Horowitz responded that, “It doesn’t vindicate anyone at the FBI who touched this, including the leadership.”

Kennedy followed (at 6:06:30 mark) up by asking, “Does this vindicate Mr. [former FBI Deputy Director] McCabe.” Horowitz responded, “Same answer.”

6. Horowitz Noted that FBI Case Agents Substituted Personal Judgment for DOJ Oversight

“We believe that case agents may have improperly substituted their own judgments in place of the judgment of OI, or in place of the [FISA] court, to weigh the probative value of the information,” the inspector general reportstates (Page 377).

7. FBI Personnel Didn’t Appear to Understand the Basic Requirements of Woods Procedures

“The agents and SSAs also did not follow, or appear to even know, the requirements in the Woods Procedures to re-verify the factual assertions from previous applications that are repeated in renewal applications and verify source characterization statements with the CHS handling agent and document the verification in the Woods File,” the inspector general reportstates (Page 378).

8. Information Regarding the Reliability of Christopher Steele’s Reporting Provided Doubt as to Probable Cause but Wasn’t Questioned or Provided to the FISA Court

“We concluded that the information that was known to the managers, supervisors, and senior officials should have resulted in questions being raised regarding the reliability of the Steele reporting and the probable cause supporting the FISA applications, but did not,” the report states (Page xiv of the IG’s executive summary).

9. Horowitz’s Report Found Fault With the Entire FBI Chain of Command

The IG report noted (Page xiv of the IG’s executive summary) that “this was a failure of not only the operational team, but also of the managers and supervisors, including senior officials, in the chain of command.”

10. Horowitz Found That FBI Overstated Probable Cause in Their FISA Applications

“Although some of the factual misstatements and omissions we found in this review were arguably more significant than others, we believe that all of them taken together resulted in FISA applications that made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case,” the inspector general report states (Page xiii of the IG’s executive summary).

11. Horowitz Testified That He Wasn’t Not Ruling Out Intentionality on the Part of the FBI

“It’s unclear what the motivations [of the FBI] were. On the one hand, gross incompetence, negligence? On the other hand, intentionality, and where in between? We weren’t in a position—with the evidence we had—to make that conclusion. But I’m not ruling it out,” Horowitz said in his testimony.

12. Steele Dossier Was Central to FBI’s Ability to Obtain a FISA on Carter Page

“We concluded that the Steele reporting played a central and essential role in the decision to seek a FISA order,” Horowitz said in his testimony.

Horowitz also said: “I would not have submitted the one [FISA] they put in. No doubt about it. It had no business going in.”

13. FBI Failed to Inform FISA Court of Material Inconsistencies in Steele’s Reporting

The inspector general report noted (Page xii of the IG’s executive summary) that “among the most serious of the 10 additional errors we found in the renewal applications was the FBI’s failure to advise OI [Office of Intelligence] or the [FISA] court of the inconsistencies … between Steele and his Primary Sub-source on the reporting relied upon in the FISA applications.”

14. The FBI’s Interviews of Steele’s Sole Source Revealed Material Misstatements by Steele’s Reporting

The inspector general’s report (page 186) notes that the FBI conducted three interviews of the Primary Sub-source in January, March, and May 2017 “that raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting.”

“In addition to the lack of corroboration, we found that the FBI’s interviews of Steele, the Primary Sub-source, and a second sub-source, and other investigative activity, revealed potentially serious problems with Steele’s description of information in his election reports,” the report states (Page 384).

15. FBI Deliberately Omitted Information Regarding Work That Page Had Done for Another Governmental Agency in the FISA Application

The inspector general’s report (Page 413) noted that the Page FISA “omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that Page had been approved as an ‘operational contact’ for the other agency from 2008 to 2013.”

16. FBI Misrepresented Steele’s Prior Work to the FISA Court

“We were concerned by the FBI’s inaccurate assertion in the application that Steele’s prior reporting had been “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings,” which we were told was primarily a reference to Steele’s role in the FIFA corruption investigation,” the inspector general report states (Page ix-x of the IG’s executive summary).

17. The FBI Knew of Steele’s Political Biases in July 2016 but Failed to Fully Disclose These to FISA Court

“We found that the FBI was aware of the potential for political bias in the Steele election reporting from the outset of obtaining it. Handling Agent 1 told us that when Steele provided him with Report 80 in July 2016 and described his engagement with Fusion GPS, it was obvious to Handling Agent 1 that the request for the research was politically motivated,” the inspector general report stated (Page 382).

“The Supervisory Intel Analyst explained that he also was aware of the potential for political influence on the Steele election reporting when it became available to the Crossfire Hurricane team in September 2016,” the report stated.

18. FBI Improperly Failed to Inform the Office of Intelligence of Material Information Within Their Possession

“The failures described above and in this report represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications. These failures prevented OI from fully performing its gatekeeper function and deprived the decision makers the opportunity to make fully informed decisions,” the inspector general reportstated (Page xiii of the IG’s Executive Summary).

19. Despite the Damning Findings, Horowitz Has Only Limited Oversight of DOJ/FBI Personnel

Inspector General Horowitz noted in his testimony that, “We’re the only IG that can’t review conduct of all the employees in our organization, including attorneys.”

20. Horowitz Announced That Based on His Investigation, He Was Initiating an Ongoing Audit Related to FISA Procedures at FBI

“Additionally, in light of the significant concerns we identified, the OIG announced this week that we were initiating an audit that will further examine the FBI’s compliance with the Wood’s procedures in FISA applications that target U.S. persons, not only in counter-intelligence investigations, but also importantly in counter-terrorism investigations,” Horowitz said in his testimony.

21. Horowitz’s Final Recommendation Was to Refer Entire FBI Chain of Command for Review

“Our final recommendation was to refer the entire chain of command that we outline here to the FBI and the Department for consideration of how to assess and address their performance failures,” Horowitz said in his testimony.

Sweden: The Wages of Self-Loathing Is Civil War

 Article by David Archibald in "The American Thinker":

The Danes have put extra resources into controlling the country's links to Sweden because of bombs going off in Denmark due to people coming from Sweden.  The people from Sweden are Islamist criminals.  The Swedish government reacted to the Danish move by calling the Danes Nazis.  Swedish society has changed for the worse, and the Swedish people are aware of what they have lost.

All this is known, but what is interesting is that a former head of the Swedish truck-maker Scania, a Mr. Leif Ostling, has said Sweden is headed for civil war because of the problem of its violent migrants who have no inclination to integrate into Swedish society.  As a successful businessman, his views can't be dismissed as being from some sort of antisocial loon living in his mother's basement.

This raises the question: how do you have a civil war in this day and age?  Having a civil war is aspirational, but is it achievable?

The population of Sweden is now 10.1 million, of which 8% are of the Islamist persuasion.  The first question is, who owns the guns, and how many are there?

This site says civilians in Sweden are estimated to hold 2,296,000 guns, legally and illegally, of which about half are rifles.  There is a big hunting tradition in Sweden.  As of the year 2011, licenced firearms per 100 head of population was 6.5, and registered guns per 100 people was 18.9.  So the average gun-owner has three of them.
The Swedish government is thinking along the same lines.  They are currently trying to restrict weapons use by hunters.  Magazines and ammunition are to be registered with the police and be kept apart from the weapons.

The Islamist elements have most of the hand grenades in civilian possession, principally the M75 hand grenade from the former Yugoslavia.  Hand grenade attacks in Sweden peaked at 40 in 2016.  The Islamists also have more explosives on hand.  In the first nine months of 2019, there were 97 explosions in Sweden.  Even the BBC has noticed.  A litany of horrors could be written about Sweden, with all the murders and rapes and knifings and so on, but just consider that there is an explosion just about every second day.

The defense forces in Sweden have 139,180 firearms, and the police a further 38,000.

All in all, there are plenty of guns to go round to have a civil war with.  This won't be a brutish affair conducted with knives and sticks.

But how will it play out? A t the moment, the Islamists attack police stations, control no-go areas and enclaves, and are not sufficiently discouraged from these activities by the police.  Public opinion is becoming less tolerant of the situation.  In terms of the politics, leftists won the last election, in September 2018, and the Social Democrats retained control of the government.  Their main opposition is the Sweden Democrats, whom the prime minister has called "an extremist and racist party."  In a recent poll, the Social Democrats are at 22% support, and the Sweden Democrats are more popular at 24%.

A sign of the shift in public opinion is the fact that the leader of the Moderate Party, with 70 out of the 349 seats in the Swedish parliament, has apologized on Facebook to all those who had criticized the country's immigration policies over the years.  The shifting winds of public opinion will encourage a crackdown on the Islamist enclaves, which in turn enrages the Islamists, and they are likely to respond with more attacks on the police and other public institutions.

How we get to civil war is that the government reaction to the escalating violence is likely to lag too far behind events and public opinion.  And then an officer in the armed forces will have his wife or daughter killed and lead his unit in taking over the parliament building.  Nobody in the police force will stop him, because the police have been taking the brunt of the Islamist violence for decades.

The next phase will be the reaction of the lefties running Germany, France, and the European Union.  The yellow vests have been protesting in France for over a year now.  Early on, they were surprised to see European Union decals on French armored personnel0carriers.  It seems that Macron and Merkel have conspired to create a French-German force to put down insurrections in Europe.  To get to Sweden, this force would have to pass through Denmark, and the Danes are likely to stop them.  If that fails, any armored column is unlikely to get across the Oresund Bridge that connects Denmark and Malmö in Sweden.  The Swedes make good antitank weapons.

Yes, you can have a civil war in this day and age.  With respect to Sweden, what can't go on forever won't.  If the state does not maintain its monopoly on violence, the state ceases to exist.

People can have a short memory for trials and tribulations when they have been civilized and comfortable for a while.  Across the border in Norway, the Norwegians had a bad time in WW2, with near starvation conditions.  So in the 1950s, they built grain storage to last them at least a year, in the manner of Joseph's advice to the Egyptian pharaoh.  Two generations later, all the pain had been forgotten, and the grain silos were converted to student accommodations.  The pain of Sweden's coming civil war won't be forgotten as quickly.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/sweden_the_wages_of_selfloathing_is_civil_war.html#ixzz68ZgVQKfK

Important Questioning – Senator James Lankford Questions IG Horowitz

source: sundance at CTH

Senator James Lankford (R-OK) had an important round of questions for inspector general Michael Horowitz today.  Lankford notes the consequences to the FISA process writ large, and the FISA court specifically, as an outcome of the intentional abuses by FBI and DOJ officials.

Senator Lankford also draws attention to some very specific parts of the IG report surrounding the 2016 involvement of the State Department and the activity of Bruce Ohr.

Additionally, Senator Lankford focuses on page #188 where activity of Christopher Steele after the election is outlined; this is very important.  If Chris Steele wrote the dossier based on information from his Russian “sub-source”, then why is Christopher Steele trying to get that same sub-source to validate his dossier *after* the election when it has already been used by the DOJ/FBI to gain a FISA warrant?

Secretary Hillary Clinton and the Deep State: A RICO Criminal Conspiracy

Article by Ron Wright in "The American Thinker":

We who elected President Trump understood our elected officials and the Deep State were sandbagging Trump and self-dealing public funds. It was no secret that President Trump is no angel, unpresidential, blunt, and crude, and a disruptor. Trump was hired to drain the swamp.

I watched this kabuki theater unfold over the last several years. Through my eyes as a shopworn gumshoe, I will explain what is happening. My investigative curiosity was first piqued by the ATF Fast and Furious scandal and continues through the recent House impeachment show trial. There is a common element running through all of these cons — the actions of an organized crime conspiracy.   A group of people either acting alone or in concert with others committed crimes with a common purpose - a criminal enterprise as described in "CRIMINAL RICO: 


18 USC. §§1961-1968 A Manual For Federal Prosecutors."

 

The players acted together – in the usurpation of power, the abuse of power by public officials, bribery, thefts by fraud including federal funds, money laundering, perjury and the obstruction of justice, the violations of fundamental of civil rights, aided and abetted in the commission of these crimes and or to conceal these crimes. Criminals will lie and can't keep their lies straight. Their methods and behaviors are the same, whether engaging in street crimes or elaborate white-collar financial schemes. The only difference is when more money is involved, the perps are more adept in concealing, covering up their sins, and hiding where the money went. Many of these scandals are well known to the American Thinker readers. I will focus my comments on Hillary's home brew sever and the Clinton Foundation as an example of how RICO can be used to prosecute the players.

FBI Director James Comey indicted Hillary Clinton for her home brew server at his press conference. Comey then egregiously concluded that there was no evidence of criminal intent purportedly “required” to prosecute. Comey bastardized the Federal Espionage Act in absolving Hillary Clinton. FBI's investigation of Clinton's emails was low-balled. There was never a real search for the truth. The outcome was preordained. My jaw dropped wide open. I knew the fix was in. FBI Director Comey lied to the people with a straight face. Why?

The chance meeting of Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac was no mere coincidence. This chat was not about the grandkids. Bill Clinton was there to convey a specific message to Lynch that there would be no indictment of Hillary. Hillary Clinton's email case must tank. This would have constituted bribery, if AG Lynch was assured she would continue as AG in  Clinton Administration. This meeting took place only weeks before Comey's press conference dumping Hillary Clinton's email case.

The Deep State needed Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 presidential election, or the dike holding back the truth would burst. Trump, the disruptor, was an immediate threat to both the Republicans, Democrats, and the Deep State. If the truth were laid bare, it would expose the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, the Senate and House, and many executive departments for these abuses of power, corruption, bribery, frauds, and thefts of public funds.

High-level government officials and the Deep State committed many serious felonies either in furtherance of or to conceal the crimes committed in the pay to play scam. In exchange for favorable consideration by Secretary Clinton, those who benefited would donate to the Clinton Foundation. The FBI started and stopped investigations into the Clinton Foundation at least twice as reported by the Washington Post. Peter Schweizer's book, Clinton Cash, is the most damning. Dinesh D'Souza slammed the Foundation in the National Review, as did The Federalist.

The status of the investigation of the Foundation by US Attorney John Huber's is unknown. Rudy Giuliani said there was enough to pursue "Clinton Inc" as racketeering under RICO. The Foundation and its affiliated nonprofits require a real investigation with an in-depth forensic audit to determine where the money went. In financial crimes investigation, the prime rule is "follow the money, honey." Illicit nonprofits have many ways to divert funds by inflating salaries, expenses, and money laundering.

Illegal nonprofit schemes are difficult to prosecute without hard evidence and the testimony of insiders. The motive of Hillary Clinton's use of the home brew server was to conceal emails from FOIA requests that would provide the hard evidence. Hillary Clinton destroyed the data on her server and cell phones with the knowledge of the FBI. It took years for Judicial Watch and others to pry and recover some of these damning emails from the foot-dragging executive departments that were complicit and knew what was going on.

RICO initially was used to target mob families. RICO is also a useful tool to fight white collar conspiracies. They both have the same hierarchy of low-level crooks led by the top players, linked together with a common purpose. RICO has tools to squeeze the low-level operatives to gather evidence to prosecute, jail, and seize assets of the conspirators. The critical element required is a pattern of criminal or racketeering activity. This pattern is proved by showing two predicate crimes were committed within ten years. The list of predicate crimes is extensive and includes bribery, embezzlement, fraud, theft, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. The typical five-year statute of limitations for most federal felonies is extended to ten years from the last criminal act or acts committed to conceal the conspiracy, i.e., lying under oath and similar actions to obstruct justice. The prison sentences are steep. The effect is to cut off the head of the organization and not just the low-level players. 

The criminal activity extends back to the ATF's Fast and Furious program through the House impeachment show trial to cover up the illegal acts of the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, the Department of State, the DOJ, the FBI, and the CIA. A telltale sign that the DOJ under US Attorney General Barr is willing to play hardball and may use RICO, came when he spoke to the Federalist Society: "Barr accuses liberal 'resistance' of trying to 'sabotage' Trump." AG Barr said this, "shows FBI launched Trump campaign investigation on the 'thinnest of suspicions." AG Barr is the new sheriff in town, he wears a badge, has guns and will travel, can impanel grand juries, indict and arrest people, and is not limited in his jurisdiction, like DOJ IG Horowitz.

The collective actions of the Deep State are and were a silent coup to delegitimize a Presidential candidate. Once elected to impede and resist the duly elected President. The President's law enforcement and intel agencies were corrupted at the highest level and went rogue. 

Organized crime can't exist without corrupt law enforcement. As I wrote in a letter to President Trump earlier this year:

. . . I believe you understand the gravity of the situation and of its importance to the very survival of our Country as we know it. If the people involved are not held accountable for their actions, we will be no different than some Third World Banana Republic.
Failure to act will destroy our founding principle of the Rule of Law as stated by President John Adams, "We Are a Nation of Laws, Not of Men" and we cannot allow a two-tiered justice system to prevail.

 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/secretary_hillary_clinton_and_the_deep_state_a_rico_criminal_conspiracy.html


 

Congressman Calls for Moment of Silence for 63 Million Trump Voters 'Disenfranchised' by Impeachment

 Article by Tyler O'Neil in "PJMedia":

During the impeachment debate on Wednesday, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) asked for a moment of silence to commemorate the 63 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump in 2016, saying the Democrats intended to "disenfranchise" them via this "partisan impeachment sham."

"This partisan impeachment sham seeks to disenfranchise 63 million American voters," Johnson declared. "So I want to use my time to call on this chamber for members to rise and observe a moment of silent reflection, to give every member here the chance to pause for a moment and remember the voices of the 63 million American voters the Democrats today are wanting to silence."

As he spoke many Republican congressmen stood up behind him.

Many liberals mocked Johnson for this.

"Rep. Bill Johnson asks for a moment of silence because Democrats are 'disenfranchising' 63 million voters," HuffPost's Matt Fuller tweeted. "One, that's not what the word 'disenfranchise' means. Two, HILLARY CLINTON LITERALLY GOT 2.8 MILLION MORE VOTES THAN TRUMP."

Fuller is correct about the word choice. "Disenfranchise" means "to deprive someone of the right to vote," rather than to revoke someone's vote after it has already been cast. Johnson's word choice was off, but he made an important point: the effect of nullifying the election is similar to disenfranchisement.

As for Fuller's second point, under America's Constitution, the Electoral College determines the presidency, not the popular vote. Trump won by the rules of the game, which are fair because they represent the smaller states as well as the larger and more populous states. Furthermore, even if America had a popular vote system, it would likely require a majority to win the presidency, and Hillary Clinton did not win a majority of votes, only a plurality.

Politico's Sarah Ferris mocked the moment of silence, suggesting Johnson was lamenting Trump's victory.

"Republicans just held a moment of silence on the floor for the results of the 2016 election," she tweeted. How clever!

While Johnson's moment of silence is arguably a stunt, it highlights an important point -- ironically a similar point to the one Democrats made during the 1996 impeachment of Bill Clinton. Impeachment is not by its nature the reversal of an election, but it does involve attempting to remove a duly-elected president.

In the case of Bill Clinton, the impeachment had some weight to it: actual crimes were committed, even if many Democrats said they did not amount to high crimes. In the case of Donald Trump, many Republicans dispute the idea that the underlying activity constitutes a crime at all. Worse, many Democrats have been demanding Trump's impeachment since before his inauguration.

Democrats are arguably weaponizing impeachment as another excuse to attack the president they despise, rather than to hold him accountable for any truly egregious behavior. In this situation, Bill Johnson's moment of silence is quite defensible.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/congressman-calls-for-moment-of-silence-for-63-million-voters-disenfranchised-by-impeachment/ 

 

DOJ IG Admits There Was Potential Bias Motivating Trump Campaign Surveillance

Tristan Justice reporting for The Federalist

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz admitted to lawmakers Wednesday that political bias might have motivated the FBI’s deep-state “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation searching for Russian collusion in the Trump campaign.

Testifying before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Horowitz told Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley that his team did not find there was absolutely no bias impacting the FBI’s FISA warrant applications to spy on Trump campaign official Carter Page.

“Was it your conclusion that political bias did not affect any part of the Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane?” Hawley asked.

“We did not reach that conclusion,” Horowitz testified.

“Because I could have sworn, in fact, I know for a fact that I’ve heard that today from this committee. That’s not your conclusion?” Hawley clarified.

We have been very careful in the connection with the FISA’s for the reasons you mentioned not to reach that conclusion in part – as we’ve talked about earlier – the alteration of the email, the text messages associated with the individual who did that, and our inability to explain or understand, to get good explanations so that we could understand why this all happened.

Horowitz’s comments came during his second round testifying before Senate lawmakers on the conclusions of a long-anticipated damming report on the FBI’s abuses of the FISA processes seeking warrants to conduct surveillance of the Trump campaign. The more than 400-page report released from the inspector general’s office concluded overall that political bias was not the motivation behind the renewal of the FISA warrants but the report’s own findings fail to support the signature claim latched onto by Democrats and media.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma entered into the congressional record an order from the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) rebuking the FBI’s gross misconduct claiming it “calls into question” any warrant that the FBI has ever requested through the FISA process.

Lankford blasted the FBI’s actions detailed in the inspector general’s report as destructive to the nation’s national security courts.

“The FBI not only took our nation down years of turmoil but they’re now calling into question every FISA application and I’m confident every attorney is going to bring this case up and say we can’t rely on the FISA now,” Lankford chastised.

In his opening remarks, Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson condemned the FBI’s conduct and complained the Crossfire Hurricane investigation should have been shut down long before multiple FISA warrants were granted. The DOJ IG’s report uncovered that FBI officials knew their sources from the discredited Steele Dossier provided junk intelligence and yet, still relied on them to renew the warrants for their surveillance operation.

“Had the public known what the FBI knew at that time, it’s hard to imagine public support for continuing the investigation, much less the appointment of a special counsel four months later,” Johnson said.

Horowitz told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that his report by no means vindicated anyone associated with the four FISA warrant applications connected to surveillance of the Trump campaign, including former FBI Director James Comey.

Is Due Process Dead?

Article by Derek Hunter in "Townhall":

Impeachment, have you heard about it? Apparently, Democrats are impeaching President Donald Trump because they hate him, essentially. They had to create crimes – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – in order to come up with something to charge him with. Facts don’t matter, proof is for suckers; all that matters is the end result.

By now (this is being written Tuesday night because of an early Wednesday deadline), President Trump has been impeached. The grand jury in the House had their results long before Democrats created the charges. Now the Senate will hear the weak case.

The Senate is promising to give the partisan “he’s guilty of something” charges the hearing they deserve. As Chuck Schumer demands witnesses the House didn’t bother pursuing, Mitch McConnell isn’t having any of it. If the House didn’t demand to hear from them, why should the Senate?

That’s smart. Government doesn’t get to accuse someone of something, only to figure out what it might be later. The impeachment process isn’t a trial balloon. The House doesn’t get to operate under the standard that “impeachment is a political act” and the Senate under “this is just like a court of law.” It’s either all political or all legal. Democrats chose political because they knew they couldn’t meet the bar of the legal, mostly because the charges are made up and would be laughed out of court.

But there will be a trial, whether just a couple of days or a drawn-out process. This “witch-hunt,” as the president rightly calls it, is not just limited to him. Democrats are imposing this “guilty until proven innocent” standard (if you can call it that) on everyone who isn’t them.

Accused of “hate speech” on a college campus? You’re guilty of creating an unsafe environment and must be punished.

Accused of running gang rape parties when you were 15 years old? You’re guilty, even though no other human being who was supposedly there has any memory of anything close to that, and are disqualified from sitting on the Supreme Court.

Accused of sexual assault? Well, this one is a little different. You could have your career ruined, or you could win an Oscar. Democrats, as you know, are not held to the same standards they impose on everyone else.

It’s not just high-profile cases or college campus fever dreams, liberals have taken this guilty until proven innocent mentality into every aspect of life.

Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham have been labeled racist simply because they have to be. Taking snippets of comments out of context and lying about them is much easier than debating their points.

Pimple-faced, pants-less, vitamin D deficient parental disappointments now make up an army of flying monkeys the left unleashes on anyone, particularly people who work at Fox News, to accuse them of anything. Facts don’t matter to the left, the allegations do. They’re declared to be true simply because they’re made, and they’re made so they can be declared to be true.

Even in business, even in businesses friendly to the left, liberal progressives are using the “you’re guilty because we accuse you” standard.

One of the last acts of the Obama administration was to set new standards of what constitutes discrimination in hiring practices. Statistics, not proof, are now enough to smear companies with lawsuits claiming bigotry.

The Obama administration changed federal contracting regulations to unleash the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs “to harass a number of tech companies with frivolous lawsuits. That agency is supposed to promote affirmative action with federal contractors, yet the Obama game plan was to aggressively use only statistical analysis to claim companies were discriminating against minority employees.”

The result is “(t)he agency was originally tasked to promote affirmative action with government contractors, yet liberal activist lawyers morphed the agency into a battering ram of lawsuits intended on creating new case law establishing the idea that the government merely can use statistics to prove discrimination.”

When I first read about this, I was shocked. I shouldn’t have been. Liberalism/progressivism destroys everything, big and small. Now, if the numbers say you’re guilty, you’re guilty. Like impeachment, facts be damned and proof is for suckers.

Republicans need to stand up to all of this. In the Senate, dismissing this bogus impeachment trial as quickly as possible is the way to go. They need to stand up for due process rights of Americans everywhere, from academia to Silicon Valley. Innocent until proven guilty is not just a suggestion, it’s what separates us from tyrannical regimes. It’s telling that the people screaming the loudest about how the president is a dictator-in-waiting are the ones using the tactics of dictators to impose what they can’t otherwise get, isn’t it?

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2019/12/19/is-due-process-dead-n2558239

 

How Did the Bidens’ Corruption Become Trump’s Scandal?

Elizabeth Vaughn reporting for RedState

Whenever a Republican gets close to discovering the truth about their corruption, like a rattlesnake who feels threatened, a Democrat’s immediate response is to strike. Within hours of the perceived danger, they will have launched a full-fledged smear campaign upon the investigator/finder. And Democrats, above all else, are always incredibly united in their efforts, something we don’t often see among Republicans.

Last week, when Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham issued statements indicating their strong disagreement with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ conclusions, Democrats, with an assist from their sycophants in the media, orchestrated malicious attacks on both.

In recent months, they have viciously tried to destroy the credibility of investigative journalist John Solomon and one of Trump’s personal lawyers, Rudy Giuliani. Solomon, who is extremely well-connected inside the U.S. intelligence community, is responsible for uncovering much of what we know today about the deep state’s efforts to destroy the Trump presidency. Up until this fall, Solomon enjoyed an impeccable reputation. As he came too close to the truth for the deep state’s comfort, however, he quickly became the target of a sustained media attack.

Long before Giuliani earned the title of “America’s Mayor” for his leadership in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks, he was fighting corruption as the U.S. Attorney for the SDNY and later as the mayor of NYC. Giuliani drew national attention in the mid-1980s after “indicting 11 organized crime figures including the heads of New York’s so-called “Five Families.” Following the lengthy “Mafia Commission Trial,” Time magazine called this “Case of Cases” possibly “the most significant assault on the infrastructure of organized crime since the high command of the Chicago Mafia was swept away in 1943.”

The investigative work of both Solomon and Giuliani has revealed an alleged cover-up by Obama administration officials of information surrounding Hunter Biden’s business relationship with Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings. Hunter Biden became a board member of the company shortly after his father, former Vice President Joe Biden began serving as the US “point man” for Ukraine. He was tasked with reducing the level of corruption inside of the Ukrainian government.

I won’t bore you with the details of Biden’s infamous threat to withhold U.S. aid until then-President Petro Poroshenko fired the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma because we could all recite the words in our sleep.

The Democrats’ crusade to discredit both Giuliani and Solomon became intense after they had allegedly found some pretty convincing evidence that Hunter Biden and his business partner were paid several million dollars in funds which had been laundered through Latvia and Cyprus. The media has called out Giuliani for his connections with corrupt Ukrainians and he has been labeled as a grifter. First, if one is seeking evidence of corruption, one must go where the corruption is. Giuliani spent quite a bit of time in Ukraine in late 2018 through the spring of 2019 and he returned from an evidence gathering trip to Kiev, Budapest and Vienna several weeks ago. Solomon relies more on his network of sources within the intelligence community. It is only natural that the two, both investigating the same case would share information.

In a Sunday twitter thread, Giuliani began to share information he had discovered on his trip. Solomon reported the story on Tuesday. Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media did not report on it. But if it’s true and both Giuliani and Solomon claim they have the evidence to prove it, it would make all the difference in the world.

I posted here on Monday about Giuliani’s interview with OANN’s Chanel Rion. An OANN crew accompanied him on his trip. I’ll include a segment from that post for those who missed it. Giuliani was discussing former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was fired by then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and he said:

(Inaudible) phone calls from the Vice President [Biden] to Poroshenko, from Poroshenko to Shokin, Poroshenko showing up in Shokin’s office and saying, ‘Biden’s putting pressure on me. You can’t go forward with Burisma. Can you slow it down?’ And, all of the sudden, Shokin gets this communique from Latvia that shows a $16 million dollar laundering transaction. Classic laundering transaction. Goes from Ukraine to Latvia, it’s disguised as a loan to another company, Wire Logic I believe. It then goes to Cyprus, gets disguised as another loan, this is called Digitech. Then it’s disbursed as payment of board fees. (Giuliani pauses to let that sink in.)

Now, $3 million gets to Hunter Biden that way. That is a straight out violation of a money laundering statute.

Rion shows a letter from February 2016 from the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Latvia, Office for Prevention of Laundering of Proceeds Derived from Criminal Activity. (This is a copy of the same letter Solomon has.)

A highlighted section reads, “According to publicly available information, Burisma Holdings Limited and its director Hunter Biden are involved in a corruption affair.” Rion reads another part of the letter. Latvia traced $14.7 million…the funds were transferred back to the accounts of Devon Archer and Hunter Biden.

The video goes to a clip of Rion, Giuliani, and Shokin. Rion asked Shokin if he recognized the document. He said yes. “He said there were more such inquiries that made it impossible for him to justify shutting down the Burisma investigation. OANN also verified on camera what Shokin had stated in a stunning 12 page sworn affidavit to an Austrian court.”

President Poroshenko asked me to resign due to pressure from the US presidential administration, in particular from Joe Biden, who was the US Vice President. Biden was threatening to withhold $1 billion in US subsidies from Ukraine until I was removed from office…I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma. Joe Biden’s son was on the board of directors. I refused to close this investigation. Therefore, I was forced to leave under direct and intense pressure from Joe Biden and the US administration.

In a second video, Giuliani tells Rion and others on an OANN panel: “This is bribery at the highest level of government. This is the Vice President of the United States bribing the President of another country to force the President to do what he doesn’t want to do. And now Joe will tell us, ‘Oh, it wasn’t corrupt because I didn’t know about my son. I have ten ways to prove to you that he knew…”

This new development, if true, is huge. It offers a very compelling reason why Biden would be so desperate to stop Shokin’s investigation. He knows that once Shokin sees this transaction and makes a few inquiries, he would find exactly what Giuliani and Solomon have found.

Up until now, the story has been all about Hunter Biden landing a lucrative job with Burisma because the company wanted to buy access to the Obama administration’s point man in Ukraine. It didn’t look great that Biden was cashing in on his father’s name, but there was nothing illegal about it. This newly discovered transaction is a different story. As Giuliani said, “You don’t make two loans to pay board fees unless you’re laundering the money.”

If there is any justice in this world, both Bidens will be called to answer for this. And make no mistake, this is a game changer.

Okay, so why did the Biden’s corruption turn into an impeachment scandal for President Trump? Because they are masters of the art of deception.

Dinesh D’Souza joined Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on Tuesday night and put it bluntly. “The Democratic Party has become gangsterized.”

Listen to some of the following spin from Tuesday.

AOC told supporters that “any election they [Republicans] lose is illegitimate.” Uh, really?

Ex-FBI lawyer tells Rachel Maddow, “There is no one on this set of facts who has any experience in counterintelligence who would not have made the exact decision. This is a question about whether Russia is working with a United States person to interfere in our election. We were obligated to find out whether that was true or not. We were extraordinarily careful not to do anything that would allow disinformation to get out before we knew what we had.”

Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, liar and buffoon, called out for justice on the Senate floor. “There American people will be watching. They will be watching, who is for an open and fair trial, who is for hiding facts, relevant facts, immediate facts, who is for covering up.”

Then, there was Rep. Alycee Hastings who told colleagues, “What we have here is a corrupt President who wanted to do something to advance his political circumstances…” This is the same Alycee Hastings who was impeached as a federal judge in the 1980’s for bribery and perjury.

And Adam Schiff is already laying the groundwork for the Democratic strategy after President Trump wins reelection next November.

Republicans have to find a way to stop this cycle.

Mr. Barr, Mr. Durham, we’re talking about you guys.

Is a January Surprise Coming for Impeachment?

Bonchie writing for RedState

Contrary to some galaxy brains like Jennifer Rubin, I do not think Pelosi is going to refuse to send the articles over until McConnell agrees to Democrat demands. That would be completely self-defeating, even though there’s no path to a true victory at this point.

That leaves us wondering how things will play out procedurally, but it also leaves another lingering question – Will there be a January surprise coming for impeachment?

Admittedly, while I’ve thought of the possibility, this is spawned by a recent article from Byron York.

Indeed, Schumer and his colleagues have prepared the way to characterize any move to limit the trial’s scope as an effort to hide wrongdoing from the American people. “To engage in a trial without the facts coming out is to engage in a cover-up,” he said Monday.

The bottom line is: Republicans should not believe for one minute that the campaign to remove the president will rely only on the case Democrats have built in the House. Schumer and other party leaders will scramble for new information to throw at the president, and at Republicans, until it is over. The GOP, and the White House, need to be ready.

I think this is correct. We’ve seen this playbook before and it’s going to get run again. Back when I did diaries here at RedState, I wrote a piece speculating that Democrats were going to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault based on some vague, leaked materials that came out at the time. Like clockwork, just as it looked like Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed with ease, they pulled the trigger.

Democrats will try that tactic again. In fact, we’ve already seen Adam Schiff make such an attempt in recent days, claiming to have a classified letter that implicates VP Mike Pence. That won’t be the last thing Democrats fling at the wall in hopes that something will stick. Expecting Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer, etc. to call of the dogs after their coming latest defeat is like expecting a shark to not like the taste of seal.

The most likely avenue, which York points out, is digging through the Mueller grand jury materials (which may be inexplicably released if some Obama appointed judge has their way). The other will involve Trump’s finances and taxes. Past that, expect some witnesses who didn’t testify during the impeachment inquiry to eventually be made to testify. That’ll give fresh fodder and ammo to scream Democrats need a do-over.

Here’s the truth. They are never going to stop. They didn’t stop with the Steele Dossier. They didn’t stop with the Mueller investigation. And even after Trump beats this impeachment nonsense, there will be something else. When that crashes and burns, there will be something else. Then as we get into October, there will be yet another “bombshell.” It’s going to happen and Republicans need to be prepared to combat these types of games instead of looking for excuses to fold as some did in 2016.

So far, the party has done an admiral job of pushing back on the ridiculousness of the current impeachment push, but their resolve will be tested again and again as every attempt is made to catapult a Democrat to victory in 2020. Be ready.

Nancy Pelosi Declares: “the senate rules are unfair” – “when rules become fair we will send articles”

source: sundance at CTH

The entire House effort to impeach President Donald Trump has been a one-sided partisan effort; built upon a foundation of manipulation of process and dismissal of the minority rights throughout.

After the House voted along party lines, and in an act of stunning hubris, Speaker Pelosi now declares she will withhold the articles of impeachment until the Senate makes rules that she determines will be “fair” to the prosecution.  [ FF to minute 09:00]

How You Can Avenge Trump’s Impeachment

 Article by Clinebarger in "RedState":

Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 8:35 PM marked the moment when the Democratic Party officially succumbed to their far-left base and impeached President Donald J. Trump without providing evidence of a crime.  In doing so, they extended a middle finger to American people who want to focus on actual problems and deserve a swift kick into retirement next November as a result.

Below is a list of every Democrat who voted for impeachment in districts that supported Trump in 2016 along with their top Republican opponent(s), assuming they are relevant candidates. Winning back these seats will be enough to turn the House of Representatives red once more and likely force Nancy Pelosi into retirement. If none of these Republicans live in your district, you can still donate via their websites and spread word of their candidacies.

(Partisan Voter Index according to the Cook Political Report)

Tom O’Halleran, Ariz. 1st (R+2)
Top challenger: No noteworthy candidates at the moment.

Lucy McBath, Ga. 6th (R+8)
Top challenger: Former representative Karen Handel is running for her old seat. Website: www.karenhandel.com

Abby Finkenauer, Iowa 1st (D+1)
Top challenger: Iowa State Representative and former journalist Ashley Hinson. Website:  www.ashleyhinson.com

Elissa Slotkin, Mich. 8th (R+4)
Top Challenger: No noteworthy candidates at the moment.

Angie Craig, Minn. 2nd (R+2)
Top challenger:  Rick Olson, the lone GOP candidate, has called for Trump’s impeachment.  Need a new challenger for this swing district.

Susie Lee Nev. 3rd (R+2)
Top challenger: Dan Schwartz, Nevada’s state treasurer from 2015-2019,  appears to be the best bet right now. Website:  www.dan4nevada.com

Chris Pappas, N.H. 1st (R+2)
Top challenger: No one is officially running at the moment, but former New Hampshire Republican Party vice chair Matt Mayberry has all but announced he will jump in. Other candidates are likely to join.

Josh Gottheimer, N.J. 5th (R+3)
Top challenger: No noteworthy candidates at the moment.

Andy Kim, N.J. 3rd (R+2)
Top candidates: Former Burlington County freeholder Kate Gibbs entered the race last month and likely has the edge on Barnegat Township Deputy Mayor John J. Novak due to Burlington County’s larger voter base. Website: www.katefornj.com

Mikie Sherrill, N.J. 11th (R+3)
Top candidate: Attorney and Republican state Committeeman Larry Casha is the lone Republican in the race. Not sure if he is a serious candidate, though.

Xochitl Torres Small, N.M. 2nd (R+6)
Top Challenger: Oil and gas executive Claire Chase and 2018 nominee Yvette Herrell are the top candidates. Websites: www.clairechase.org and www.yvetteherrell.com

Anthony Brindisi, N.Y. 22nd (R+6)
Top challenger: Former representative Claudia Tenney is seeking her old seat.  Website: www.claudiaforcongress.com

Antonio Delgado, N.Y. 19th (R+2)
Top candidate: No noteworthy candidates at the moment. Dutchess County Executive and 2018 GOP gubernatorial nominee Marc Molinaro is seriously considering a run, however.

Sean Patrick Maloney, N.Y. 18th (R+1)
Top candidate: 2018 US Senate candidate Chele Fairley is lone Republican running at the moment. Website: www.chelefairley.com

Max Rose, N.Y. 11th (R+3)
Top Challenger: 2014 NYC GOP mayoral nominee Nicole Malliotakis. Website: www.nicolemalliotakis.com.

Kendra Horn, Okla. 5th (R+10)
Top Challenger: Businesswoman Terry Neese appears to be the frontrunner as she leads the GOP field in fundraising. State Senator Stephanie Bice is worth keeping an eye on, though. Websites: www.neeseforcongress.com and www.biceforcongress.com

Matt Cartwright, Pa. 8th (R+1)
Top challenger: No clear frontrunner at the moment.

Conor Lamb, Pa. 17th (R+3)
Top challenger: Former Army Ranger and author Sean Parnell. Website: www. seanforcongress.com

Joe Cunningham, S.C. 1st (R+10)
Top Challenger: South Carolina State Representative and businesswoman Nancy Mace. Website: www.nancymace.org

Ben McAdams, Utah 4th (R+13)
Top Challenger: Utah State Senate Majority Whip Dan Hemmert had established himself as the frontrunner before suddenly exiting the race Monday.

Elaine Luria, Va. 2nd (R+3)
Top challenger: No noteworthy challenger at the moment but former representative Scott Taylor will reportedly seek a rematch.

Abigail Spanberger, Va. 7th (R+6)
Top Challenger: Former teacher and nonprofit executive Tina Ramirez. Website: www.tinaramirez.com

Cindy Axne, Iowa 3rd (R+1)
Top Challenger: Former Representative David Young looks to regain this seat after losing in 2018.  Website: www.youngforiowa.com

Haley Stevens, Mich. 11th (R+4)
Top challenger: No noteworthy candidates at the moment.

Lauren Underwood, Ill. 14th (R+5)
Top challenger: While State Senator and perennial federal candidate Jim Oberweis leads the field in fundraising, he is hardly an inspiring choice. Businessman and former Notre Dame place kicker Ted Gradel seems like the better bet due to his conservative outsider image. Website: www.tedgradel.com
Jared Golden, Maine 2nd (R+2)
Top challenger: Maine State Senator and 2018 U.S. Senate nominee Eric Brakey. Website: www.ericbrakey.com

Cheri Bustos, Ill. 17th (D+3)
Top challenger: Businesswoman and attorney Esther Joy King. Website: www.estherforcongress.com

Dave Loebsack, Iowa 2nd (D+1)
Top challenger: Loebsack is retiring in 2020 so this will be an open seat. Former Illinois Representative Bobby Schilling is the most noteworthy candidate but needs to pick up his fundraising. Website: www.bobbyforiowa.com

Ron Kind, Wis. 3rd (Even)
Top challenger: No noteworthy candidates at the moment.

https://www.redstate.com/diary/clinebarger/2019/12/19/can-avenge-trumps-impeachment/