Marine gave two legs in Afghanistan, now he’s running for Congress

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 1:35 PM PT — Tuesday, January 14, 2020

A Marine combat veteran and double amputee is running for Congress in northern Virginia to try and help Republicans flip more than a dozen House seats in this year’s election.
One America’s Neil W. McCabe has the details.

https://www.oann.com/marine-gave-two-legs-in-afghanistan-now-hes-running-for-congress/

IG Report Bombshell: The FBI And DOJ Asked Putin’s Buddy To Help Get Trump

Margot Cleveland reporting for The Federalist

DOJ official Bruce Ohr called a meeting of several federal agencies to discuss ‘working with’ a Russian oligarch because of his belief, premised on the unverified Steele dossier, that Trump was corrupt.

A previously unnoticed passage in Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on federal surveillance abuse suggests Bruce Ohr and his compatriots were willing to bargain with a Russian oligarch to take down Donald Trump.

Two-hundred-plus pages into the IG report, while discussing former Associate Deputy Attorney General Ohr’s continued contacts with Crossfire Hurricane dossier author Christopher Steele, Horowitz revealed a significant detail that to date has been overlooked: “On December 7, 2016, Ohr conveyed an interagency meeting (including representatives from the FBI) regarding strategy in dealing with Russian Oligarch 1.”

The IG report added that after the meeting “one of Ohr’s junior Department colleagues who attended the meeting” asked “Ohr about why the U.S. government would support trying to work with Russian Oligarch 1”—the moniker used in the IG report to refer to one of Vladimir Putin’s closest confidants, the aluminum oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

Ohr’s reported response is shocking: “Ohr told her that Steele provided information that the Trump campaign had been corrupted by the Russians,” and that the corruption went all the way to president-elect Trump. Ohr’s junior colleague told the IG that Ohr explained “this information was ‘the basis for the [Deripaska] discussion” in the interagency meeting they had just left.

It has been known for some time that Steele spoke with Ohr about Deripaska. But while the Steele-friendly press portrayed those discussions as FBI attempts to flip Deripaska, the IG reached a different conclusion. He found “Steele performed work for Russian Oligarch 1’s attorney on Russian Oligarch 1’s litigation matters, and, as described later in Chapter Nine, passed information to Department attorney Bruce Ohr advocating on behalf of one of Russian Oligarch 1’s companies regarding U.S. sanctions.” The IG further found that Ohr and Steele’s communications concerning Deripaska occurred “in 2016 during the time period before and after Steele was terminated as a [Confidential Human Source].”

These findings, coupled with previous reports that Steele worked for one of Deripaska’s lawyers, London-based Paul Hauser, and appeared to lobby on behalf of Deripaska through a D.C.-based  attorney, Adam Waldman, renew questions concerning whether Steele violated the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). Likewise, the IG report’s notes that “Ohr said that he understood Steele was ‘angling’ for Ohr to assist him with his clients’ issues,” and that “Ohr stated that Steele was hoping that Ohr would intercede on his behalf with the Department attorney handling a matter involving a European company,” suggest the need for a FARA investigation into Steele’s work.

But the larger question concerns what the above excerpted passage from the IG report suggests about the December 7, 2016 meeting.

5 Things We Learned From This Excerpt

While no further mention was made of this meeting in the IG report, and while Horowitz remained vague in his description of the meeting, the passage nonetheless revealed several key points: (1) that Ohr had “convened,” (2) the “interagency” meeting, (3) after Americans elected Trump . We also know that (4) one of Ohr’s Department of Justice junior colleagues attended the meeting, at which (5) there was a discussion of “trying to work with” Deripaska.

From these facts, we can surmise that Ohr called the December 7, 2016, meeting in his capacity as then-director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), for three reasons. First, OCDETF is a multi-agency task force, comprised of members from the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Treasury Department, U.S. Postal Service, and Department of Labor. Second, Ohr testified before Congress that, as director of OCDETF, his duties included “coordinate drug and organized crime investigations within the Department,” and that “organized crime investigations” including transnational investigations of Russian organized crime and Russian oligarchs.

Relatedly, the IG report noted that Ohr said when he became the OCDETF director, his boss “expressed his desire for Ohr to expand OCDETF’s mission to include transnational organized crime matters.” Ohr then told the IG “that, as a result, he continued working on transnational organized crime policy and, in order to maintain awareness, tracked Russian organized crime issues.” Finally, we know that one of Ohr’s “junior colleagues” attended the meeting, indicating Ohr called the gathering in his official capacity and not as part of his unauthorized Crossfire Hurricane spying.

We can also surmise that because the IG did not identify any specific FBI agents from the Crossfire Hurricane investigation as present at Ohr’s meeting, the “representatives from the FBI” in attendance were not ones involved in the Russia collusion probe. Further, had other members of the Crossfire Hurricane team been present at the December 7, 2016 meeting Ohr called, Horowitz would have surely discussed their role.

Likewise, we can infer that Ohr did not explain during his meeting why the task force should “try to work with” Deripaska, because had he, his junior colleague would have had no need to question him on that point after the meeting. Finally, we know from Ohr’s response to his junior colleague that he suggested working with Deripaska because of the “intel” Steele provided that the Trump campaign was corrupt—all the way up to the then-president-elect.

The implications are startling: Ohr, in his apparent capacity as director of OCDETF, called a meeting of agency members to discuss “working with” a Russian oligarch because of his belief, premised on the unverified Steele dossier, that President-elect Trump was corrupt.

Yet it appears from the IG report that Ohr did not convey to his interagency team why he sought to work with Deripaska, much less that Steele’s “intel” formed the basis for his advocacy. Again, why else would his junior colleague need to inquire on that point?

The Details Don’t Stop There

Ohr’s supervisors were also unaware of Ohr’s contact with Steele, but here there is another significant detail from the IG report: “When asked why he did not alert anyone in ODAG [the Office of the Deputy Attorney General] about his contacts with Steele and Simpson, . . . ‘Ohr stated that his contacts with Simpson and Steele were not part of any of his OCDETF cases, so he provided the information to the FBI and career people instead.’”

Maybe his “contacts” with Simpson and Steele were “not part of any his OCDETF cases,” but did the Steele “intel” prompt Ohr to push for the United States to work with Deripaska in Ohr’s role as director of OCDETF?

The timing of the December 7, 2016, meeting suggests another troubling possibility: that Ohr called the meeting to discuss the U.S. government “working with Deripaska” to jump-start the lingering criminal investigation of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. As the IG report noted,

in addition to Ohr’s interactions with the FBI and Steele in connection with the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, Ohr also participated in discussions about a separate money laundering investigation of Paul Manafort that was then being led by prosecutors from the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (MLARS), which is located in the Criminal Division at the Department’s headquarters. That criminal investigation was opened by the FBI’s Criminal Investigation Division in January 2016, approximately 2 months before Manafort joined the Trump campaign as an advisor, and concerned allegations that Manafort had engaged in money laundering and tax evasion while acting as a political consultant to members of the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian politicians.

Now the kicker: “Shortly after the 2016 elections, Ohr participated in several meetings with three senior attorneys from the Department’s Criminal Division during which they discussed ways to move the Manafort investigation forward more quickly.” The IG report then notes that “between November 16, 2016 and December 15, 2016, Ohr participated in several meetings that were attended, at various times, by some or all of the following individuals: [Bruce] Swartz, [Zainab Ahmad], Andrew Weissmann (then Section Chief of CRM’s Fraud Section), [Peter] Strzok, and Lisa Page.”

Further, according to the IG report, the meetings involving Ohr, Swartz, Ahmad, and Weissmann focused on their shared concern that MLARS was not moving quickly enough on the Manafort criminal investigation and whether they could move the investigation forward. Additionally, both Ohr and Swartz told the IG “they felt an urgency to move the Manafort investigation forward because of Trump’s election and a concern that the new administration would shut the investigation down.”

Remember, Weissmann Ran the Special Counsel

During one December 2016 meeting—the date of which was not specified—Ohr, Swartz, Ahmad, and Weissmann “discussed a plan for the Department to approach [a] foreign national,” who was currently under indictment and who “Ohr, Swartz, Ahmad, and Weissmann came to believe had information relating to Manafort’s alleged criminal conduct.” The plan discussed called for them to “seek his cooperation against Manafort.”

Significantly, none of these individuals had any role in the Manafort investigation and no one from MLARS attended their strategic sessions. Further, Ohr’s boss stated that “it was ‘unbelievable’ that Ohr was involved in these meetings because as OCDETF Director it was not his job to involve himself in the Manafort investigation.” But that begs the question of whether Ohr tried to use his position as OCDETF director to affect the Manafort investigation.

This raises serious questions concerning whether Ohr and his compatriots discussed Ohr leveraging his position to push for a deal for Deripaska, with the end goal of getting Manafort and then Trump.

While the IG report notes the foursome discussed seeking the cooperation of an indicted foreign national in the investigation against Manafort, no mention is made of any discussion concerning using Deripaska to bring down Manafort. That omission seems strange given that, during Ohr’s first meeting with Swartz and Ahmad on November 16, 2016, he advised them of information “about [Paul] Manafort and Trump and possible Russian influence that [Ohr] was getting from Steele and Glenn Simpson.”

We also know from the IG report that “on September 23, 2016, at Steele’s request, Steele met with Ohr in Washington, D.C.,” and at that meeting Steele conveyed “information regarding Russian Oligarch 1’s willingness to talk with the U.S. government about Manafort.”

We also know from the IG report that Ohr’s telephone log shows Ohr called Simpson on December 8—the day after the interagency meeting in which “working with Deripaska” was discussed. While Ohr “could not recall why he contacted Simpson, Ohr said that he met with Simpson on December 10, 2016, and that Simpson gave him a thumb drive” at that time.

Adding this chronology to the facts the IG report reveals about Ohr’s December 7, 2016, interagency meeting raises serious questions concerning whether Ohr and his compatriots discussed Ohr leveraging his position as the director of OCDETF to push for a deal for Deripaska, with the end goal of getting Manafort and, in turn, so they thought, Trump.

While it is too late for Horowitz to consider these questions, the same cannot be said for U.S. Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham.

Spy Court Picks FISA Abuse Denier To Tackle FISA Abuse

Mollie Hemingway reporting for The Federalist

The appointment of a former official who served as an apologist for the FBI signals that the court isn't particularly concerned about the civil liberty violations catalogued by Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

The nation’s top spy court appointed an Obama-era Justice Department official who has denied and downplayed FBI surveillance abuse to assess the FBI’s response to a scathing new report cataloguing problems with how the agency secured authority to spy on a Donald Trump campaign affiliate.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) presiding Judge James Boasberg appointed David Kris to review the FBI’s proposed changes to its surveillance application process even though he spent the past few years running interference for the FBI as substantive criticism of the agency mounted.

Lengthy investigations in the House of Representatives and by the Department of Justice inspector general showed major problems with the claims the FBI made as part of an investigation into whether Trump was a traitor who had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. Those problems include withholding exonerating evidence, undue reliance on shady sources, and outright alteration of evidence.

Kris, who served as assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s National Security Division, recently claimed the IG report that catalogued egregious abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) powers actually vindicated the FBI. He also smeared Rep. Devin Nunes in 2018, saying his initial sounding of the alarm about those abuses was incorrect, threatened national security, and should be harshly punished.

Kris appeared in locations that pushed the false Russia collusion narrative, such as Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show, the Lawfare blog, and Twitter, to defend the FBI and attack President Trump and other critics of the harmful surveillance campaign. He once wrote that Trump “should be worried” that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into treasonous collusion with Russia meant “the walls are closing in.”

The appointment of a former official who served as an apologist for the FBI signals that the court isn’t particularly concerned about the civil liberty violations catalogued by Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s investigation into the year-long surveillance of Carter Page. Page is the Trump campaign affiliate whose phone and email communications federal agents wiretapped, and who had confidential human sources and overseas intelligence assets placed against him. False claims that Page was a Russian spy were leaked to the media by government officials as part of a years-long campaign to paint President Trump as a traitor who had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

The court “finds it appropriate to appoint David S. Kris, Esq., to serve as amicus curiae to assist the Court in assessing the government’s response to” a Dec. 17, 2019, order to “inform the Court . . . of what it has done, and plans to do, to ensure that the statement of facts in each FBI application accurately and completely reflects information possessed by the FBI that is material to any issue presented by the application.”

The pick was justified on the grounds that he is one of the few officials with FISA experience. But Kris has repeatedly shown himself to be a reflexive defender of the FBI, even as evidence mounted of its malfeasance. Here are some examples of that.

Resistance Messaging about the Russia Collusion Theory

Kris was one of the many Washington insiders who either fell for or pretended to fall for the validity of the Russia collusion hoax.

“I suspect that POTUS and his closest advisors are and should be worried that, depending on the evidence, Mueller’s next steps will make it feel like the walls are closing in,” he opined on Twitter.

The Mueller investigation noted that Russia, as per its historic practice, attempted to meddle in the 2016 campaign. It found no evidence that it had colluded with any American, much less any Trump campaign affiliate, much less Trump himself, in its ongoing meddling campaign.

Kris Was Grievously Wrong about the Nunes Memo

Kris’ biggest problem was his published denunciation of the now-vindicated Nunes memo. He joined many other members of the Resistance, whether in the media, the Democratic Party, or the NeverTrump movement, in denouncing Nunes and defending the FBI as beyond reproach.

“The Nunes memo was dishonest. And if it is allowed to stand, we risk significant collateral damage to essential elements of our democracy,” Kris said. In fact, the Nunes memo was right, although it only touched on some of the FBI malfeasance that the inspector general report later confirmed in detail.

Kris specifically said the “fundamental claim” by Nunes that the FBI misled the court about Christopher Steele was “not true.” Kris said that the government “provided the court with enough information to meaningfully assess Steele’s credibility.” He credulously accepted the FBI’s claims that there was probable cause that Page was a secret Russian asset. “It’s disturbing that Page met that legal standard and that there was probable cause to conclude he was a Russian agent,” he wrote.

Kris said Nunes should be removed from office and removed as chairman of the committee. He floated the idea that Nunes should be charged with obstruction of justice. Kris called for voters to rise up against Republicans and unseat them to keep Nunes from performing oversight of the agency and intelligence community.

Kris Adopted Resistance Spin on the IG Report

When the IG report came out, Kris was in lockstep with the spin that the leakers had put out for the weeks leading up to the release of the Horowitz report. He said, as the pre-report leakers asserted through friends in the media, that the “main finding” was that there was no bias and that the claims of critics were fully repudiated. He did acknowledge some mistakes, but downplayed them.

Kris Helped Maddow Defend the FBI against Oversight

When the applications to spy on Page — a man who was victimized by a false dossier alleging he betrayed his country and endured one year of intensive surveillance without being charged with any crime, much less any crime related to treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election — were released, Kris appeared on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show to defend the FBI and lambast its critics.

Maddow spun the release of those applications in such a way as to say they helped the FBI’s case that Page was a threat to national security who had lost his right not to be spied on by the government. Kris agreed, and claimed the FBI had done everything right in its surveillance process. Kris was presented as one of the few people who have ever had responsibility for the FISA process. He used his time to criticize Nunes, the member of Congress who first revealed the problems at the FBI in the face of derision by the media and other members of the Resistance.

Kris falsely claimed that the applications “substantially undermine the president’s narrative and that of his proxies” and that if there were more investigation or transparency, it would “get worse and not better” for them.

He said, though, that more investigation and release of information would be “dangerous.” He criticized the president, saying he was “free to make up whatever facts suit him” while the FBI was at a disadvantage by its desire to do things properly.

When Kris was attacking Nunes for bringing the FBI malfeasance to light, he claimed that if the FBI had withheld information in its FISA applications, “heads would have rolled on Pennsylvania Avenue.” FBI headquarters are located on Pennsylvania Avenue. The FBI has been definitively shown to have withheld information in its FISA applications, but instead of heads rolling, vehement apologists of the agency are being assigned to assess proposed reforms.

Critics Discount Too Much of Trump’s Job Performance

Conrad Black for American Greatness

This president’s accomplishments are not small. 

Substance outlasts style and his style pleases as many Americans as it repulses. Most important, his substantive achievements will be remembered on Election Day and thereafter.

Among the Trump-haters, the scramble is on to rationalize the successful killing of Qassem Soleimani.  These include all brands of Trump-dissenters, from the civilized supporters of other approaches to the presidency to those who regard the incumbent with distaste but wish the country well, down through the ranks of the obsessive, the paroxysmally mad, the fully demented, and the rabid who are dangerous when they bite.

The fallback position of the most intelligent and articulate Trump-haters, exemplified by the veteran columnist George Will, is that Trump exhausts us all, even his supporters.  There is some truth to this. The president is always the principal story, and when the media do not come to that conclusion spontaneously, he prompts them with his tweets. 

Trump built his candidacy on the theory that all publicity is good for electoral purposes, and spent decades on the social pages and in gossip magazines, as a boxing and wrestling impresario, pulled over 25 million viewers every week for 14 years to his reality television program, and after a near-death financial experience, branded himself everywhere: buildings, clothes, mattresses, mineral water, real estate study, fitness, inspirational addresses. It was an unprecedented campaign of name-familiarization, much of which was not at all flattering to him. As president, he has used the animosity of the media to justify his constant direct contact with the army of his supporters and the public generally, by Twitter as well as television news.

His administration has been relatively successful: a strong economy, drastic reduction in illegal immigration, falling rates of poverty and violent crime, elimination of unemployment and oil imports, reduction of overseas force commitments, improved trade arrangements, the end of appeasement of China and Iran, the avoidance of the Green Terror, and the revival—by different means with North Korea and Iran—of the withered concept of nuclear nonproliferation. 

These successes have strengthened his followers and forced his opponents into a sequence of sullen denials, caveats, and grumpy retreats. The Mueller debacle dribbled down to dark, semi-whispered threats of prosecution for obstruction of justice, the American prosecutor’s universal catchment for anyone it targets. But this was rendered rather unworkable by Mueller’s congressional testimony under oath that he was not obstructed by Trump. 

The impeachment canard has gone from the outrages of egregious Democratic congressional committee chairmen—Representatives Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)—to Speaker Pelosi’s three-hanky tear-jerker about the “sad and solemn” impeachment of the very president she informed us she prays for regularly, to her nonsensical effort to dictate terms to the Senate on how it must try the case, to her finally sending the articles—neither of them an illegality or an impeachable offense, and both of them utter piffle on the facts. 

Donald Trump accomplished more before he was inaugurated than any previous president, except for Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Grant, Eisenhower, and possibly Hoover.

Yes, it exhausts and bores us. George Will is correct about that. But this is a virtual laudation compared to Will’s inveighing against Trump three years ago as a “vulgarian,” a brute, a national embarrassment, and a terminal presidential aberration slouching off to Washington to degrade America. 

But more to the point, an immense number of Americans were bored and exhausted by what George Will himself called the “sociopathy” of the Clintons as well as the boneheaded verbal and policy blunders of George W. Bush, culminating in his effort to transform Iraq into a Norman Rockwell democracy and the greatest economic crisis in 75 years. 

Public boredom and exasperation were amplified by Barack Obama’s flat-lined “new normal” of 2 percent economic growth, a shrinking workforce, middle- and lower-income stagnation of pay levels and substantial unemployment, 1 million illiterate peasants entering the country illegally every year, and a foreign policy of vanishing red lines. 

(Current economic growth-rates will rise when the new trade agreements are in place and Boeing is back to producing airplanes.) 

The rational people who dislike this president should remember that the state of the country had deteriorated so far in the 20 years preceding the last presidential election that something altogether different was required. Even I, as a supporter of the president, and a cordial acquaintance of many years, sometimes find his self-praise tiresome. (Though I have never found it as offensive as President Obama’s description of his own assignment of modest forces to deal with the ISIS danger in Iraq—a danger his precipitate withdrawal had caused—as “American statesmanship at its best.” It was a reactive half-measure to deal with his own blunder and such judgments are better left to others.) 

Still, the president is correct that he has been very successful, and he is right that no one has ever had to execute that office for almost a full term with such obstructive and unjustified harassment. 

That harassment has been masquerading as virtuous guardianship of the ethical conduct of the presidency, but in fact, as has been exposed on innumerable occasions, has been malicious partisan treachery and hypocrisy. The Democrats cling to their view that Trump must have an investigation riveted to his back at all times.

In judging the performance of occupants of great public offices, the judicial rule of a fair judgment by one’s peers does not hold, as obviously a person so elevated has few peers. But there are times when the learned commentator is well-served by tempering his views with some level of modesty. Whatever else may be said of Donald Trump, I put it to his critics—distinguished critics such as George Will, as well as the ignorant rabble at MSNBC and CNN—that the following facts should be taken into account: 

By making billions of dollars, becoming a great television star, and becoming only the second person (after Wendell Willkie in 1940), to win the nomination of a major political party and the only one ever elected president who had never sought or held any public sector office, elected or unelected, military or civilian, Donald Trump accomplished more before he was inaugurated than any previous president, except Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Grant, Eisenhower, and possibly Hoover.

He has had the most successful first term as president of anyone in the history of that office, except for Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Nixon, and he has persevered through greater and more unjustified adversity than any president. 

These are not small accomplishments, and this is a considerable president. Substance outlasts style; his style pleases as many Americans as it repulses; his substantive achievements will be remembered on Election Day and thereafter.

President Trump is gearing-up for a 'Keep America Great' rally in Milwaukee, Wis.

@OANN

will provide full coverage of the event starting at 8PM EST / 5PM PST! #OANN

Cocaine Mitch Mic Drops Pelosi, Schiff on Senate Floor: We Were Never Going to Be Dictated to by You 👀

Sister Toldjah reporting for RedState

Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is not letting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), House Intel Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) and other Democratic House leaders off the hook for their failed impeachment strategy. 

In a mic-drop type of speech on the Senate floor earlier today, McConnell took a victory lap just a three days after Pelosi signaled she was finally going to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate this week, and one day after she took ridiculous cheap shots at McConnell in an interview by suggesting he was an accomplice to the non-existent collusion Democrats have failed for three years to prove exists between President Trump and Vladimir Putin.

The interview was the sign of a woman defeated not just by McConnell but by her own party after months of proudly accepting the media/left-bestowed-upon title of master impeachment strategist, more so by way of her actions than her words. 

It’s unclear if McConnell himself saw the Sunday interview she did with ABC News (his campaign indicated they had by retweeting this tweet), but either way, the speech he gave on the floor of the Senate absolutely torched Pelosi, Schiff, and other Democratic leaders for trying to dictate to him how the Senate trial should be run. 

In the speech, McConnell pointed out their strategy was more than a bit hypocritical, since House Democrats conveniently pushed forth without any real due process/discovery procedures in place for Trump, his legal team, and House Republicans.

McConnell also pointedly addressed Pelosi directly, telling her that she never had any leverage against him when it came to how Senate leaders would conduct the Senate impeachment trial. He also noted that for all that time and effort at trying to dictate terms of the Senate trial, Pelosi ultimately hadn’t done her side any favors at all.

“In terms of influencing Senate proceedings, this strange gambit has achieved absolutely nothing. But it has produced one unintended side-effect,” said McConnell. “The Speaker’s efforts to pre-commit the Senate to carry on an investigation with which her own House lost patience concedes that the House case is rushed, weak, and incomplete.”

Indeed.

Watch McConnell’s full speech on this issue below:

Translation, Speaker Pelosi: He won.

I Just Heard

The Roaring Twenties Are ...

Terry Paulson writing at Townhall

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own

and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall

The Roaring Twenties Are Already Roaring

Source: AP Photo/Aaron Favila, Pool

It’s a new year, but I fear there is no fresh beginning on the horizon. In my memory, I cannot think of a more divided time in America. Founded on a belief in freedom and the rights given by God to all, our Founding Fathers created a republic that protected citizens from government overreach and freed them to turn their dreams into reality. They had confidence in their citizens and the power of community to ensure the future of the republic.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to hold the Articles of Impeachment in limbo waiting for the Senate to give her rules that will allow witnesses and expanded discovery for that true “impeachable offense.” Even some Democrats are telling her to submit them or forget them. The impeachment plan is languishing, and Americans don’t care. They know it will not be successful in reaching the votes needed, and they are not even sure President Trump’s actions warrant his removal. It has not been sold, but it still hangs over the country.

At what point does Senator McConnell call the House’s bluff? He can’t change the rules on how the Senate handles impeachment without 67 votes. He will not get those votes, but there is nothing in the rules about what to do when they do not send the articles after passing.

Advocates throw around accusations of fake news, but there is no one shared news Americans can count on. What media chooses to report and chooses to leave out for their targeted constituencies just reinforces their embedded confirmation bias. Arguing over facts you don’t accept as accurate or relevant is fruitless.

We are divided because of the left. They have worked to impeach Trump from the day he was inaugurated. They have searched for any evidence that just might work in selling voters. They have not found it yet, but they will never stop. Whether in trying to make Iran’s Qassem Soleimani some kind of hero who never should have been killed or shouting from the rooftops that Trump is sure to start a Middle East war, the Democrats are actively working to undermine this president’s authority as commander in chief.

We are so divided that the Democrats can’t even come together to support our military when they are in harm's way. To do so would be to support the president, and that is unacceptable. Trump can be given no victories. How could he? He should “obviously” be impeached and removed from office.

The left can’t believe that President Trump could ever be elected, and they are fearful that he might win again. They realize that the candidates they are left with are boring, repelling, or downright socialists. They have moved to the left extreme to earn the right to be the candidate, but in doing so, they have left the middle behind.

Do voters pick a socialist or the president they find rude and egotistical. But at the same time, they see that he has the fortitude to deliver on his promises over and over again.

You know what you are getting with Trump. He’s out to make America great and has embraced policies that have given America an economy we can all be proud of. The man gets things done, and swing voters know it. You don’t vote for who you want as president; you vote from the two choices who get through the campaign gauntlet. Who will the Democrats pick? Does it matter? The one chosen will have fought with the other candidates they will then need to unify their party.

President Trump has the voters who brought him to office; they want to keep him there. He has also won over many “Never-Trumpers” who have seen him deliver Supreme Court justices and conservative priorities like no president in decades.

It will be the start of the “Roaring Twenties” for a new century. Why? Because Donald Trump is in office and has every intention and probability of winning a second term. The Democrats will scream and shout and complain all the way to November. I fear there will be more of the same in 2021 when they realize they lost another election they had to win.  

Ben Rhodes Attacks Trump To Obscure Obama’s Complicity In Iran’s Forever War

Ben Weingarten reporting for The Federalist

Despite Rhodes' propaganda, America is in a far stronger position to deal with Iran’s provocations under Trump than at any time since Obama entered office.

Peevish Obama national security official Ben Rhodes of “we can tell journalists anything and they’ll believe it” fame recently published an editorial in The Atlantic ripping the president’s recent dealings with Iran. Rhodes’ ripostes flow from the president’s game-changing retaliatory strike on the Obama administration partner — and leading terrorist of the leading terror force of the world’s leading terror regime — Qassem Soleimani.

Rhodes’ Atlantic retorts to Trump’s foreign policy have been as mendacious as his tweets are manic.

This all started when Trump pulled out of the Iran Deal. It never should have come to this and absolutely didn’t have to. He created this crisis. https://t.co/phtfJeBJ1J

— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) January 5, 2020

This is BS from Pompeo. This isn’t a ‘both sides argue’ issue, it’s about facts: Iran was complying with deal that rolled back nuke program and there were 0 rocket attacks on US interests in Iraq during that time. Trump pulled out and Iran resumed nuke program and rocket attacks https://t.co/wSRUzuuPgz

— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) January 5, 2020

As he did with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Rhodes is again working to manipulate the press — who, in his words, “literally know nothing” — by farcically contrasting the Obama Iran policy with the Trump one. The media seems a willing partner, what with the wake-like atmosphereit has created over a genocidal jihadist’s demise, and the irresponsible war hysteria it has ginned up.

In spite of Rhodes’ cynicism, disingenuousness, and demonstrable Trump hatred, his arguments demand countering, since he and his minions lead the Democrats’ progressive foreign policy wing.

The Iran Deal Strengthened the Mullahs

Rhodes’ first major contention is that the Iran nuclear deal rolled back its program, and Iran was complying with it. Both elements of this argument are at best highly misleading. To make the case, Rhodes commits sins of omission and commission about the deal, its context, and purpose.

Rhodes cites as one JCPOA success that “Iran destroyed the core of a reactor that could have produced plutonium for a bomb.” We now know that the core of the Arak reactor to which he was alluding may well be operable, with Iran claiming it surreptitiously purchased duplicate parts to replace the ones it had destroyed to satisfy the deal.

He cites as another success that Iran “removed two-thirds of its centrifuges, the machines that can enrich uranium for a bomb.” Beyond the fact the removed centrifuges were not destroyed, but stored, prior to the Trump administration’s exit from the JCPOA, Iran had violated several centrifuge-related provisions, including busting caps. These two purported Iran deal “successes” may have been mere pauses in parts of Iran’s nuclear program, and nevertheless seem to have been tied to violations.

There is also substantial evidence the argument that “the Iran deal was working” is a fantasy. As Republican Sens. Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, David Perdue, and Marco Rubio highlighted in a letter to then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in July 2017, open-source reporting showed Iran had:

• Exceeded limits on its heavy water stocks and claimed a right to produce limitless amounts while retaining ownership by claiming it was “seeking” an international buyer,
• Illegally sought to procure nuclear and missile technology — efforts German intelligence indicated persisted into 2018.
• Refused to provide inspectors access to nuclear-research and military facilities where its weapons work would have been most likely occurring.

Relatedly, in September 2017, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), tasked with carrying out many Iran deal-related inspections, admitted it could not assess Iran’s compliance with JCPOA Section T, which bars Iran from engaging in “activities which could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device.” In June 2018, David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security testified that Section T had “not been implemented or adequately verified due to Iranian resistance.” Dating back to the start of the deal, there were indicators of other critical IAEA omissions in its reporting on Iran’s nuclear activities.

On top of these issues, the IAEA has neglected to follow up on allegations of prohibited activities taking place at certain facilities. It was reported that, months later, its officials discovered trace amounts of uranium at one of these facilities. More staggeringly, Iran was in violation of parts of the agreementdating back to implementation day.

There was an even more fundamental problem: The JCPOA was consummated with inaccurate and incomplete information, as Israel’s seizure of a massive trove of documents on Iran’s nuclear program showed. The negotiators’ gaps in knowledge would have flowed through to the deal, rendering it more deficient than it already was. This is to say nothing of Iran’s record of cheatingon such deals, or the sweetheart side deals it cut with the Obama administration, or its illegitimacy in being foisted on America as an executive agreement rather than with our consent as a treaty.

But the simple fact is that even if the United States could accurately gauge Iran’s nuclear activities, and Iran strictly adhered to the deal, the theocratic regime would still be stronger than prior to the deal. The mullocracy, which had been on the brink of economic collapse, would still have received a lifeline of well more than $100 billion in freed funds and sanctions relief, and seen its nuclear and ballistic missile programs legitimated and jihadist malevolence rewarded — while retaining the capability to quickly achieve future nuclear breakout.

The Iran deal only “worked” in strengthening the regime. And that was the whole point. The notion the JCPOA was about keeping a bomb out of the mullahs’ hands only rings true to the extent President Obama was bribing the mullocracy into developing it after he left office.

Since the administration’s broader policy was to make Iran the Middle East strong horse — providing a “stabilizing” Islamist force that enabled America to retreat — the Iran deal was the gimmick by which to accomplish it. Since it was about Persian power projection rather than nuclear arms control, the Iran deal should have been called the “Mullah Recapitalization and Regional Hegemony Non-Treaty of 2015.”

The Iran Deal Did Not Create Peace

Iran didn’t fire a single rocket at US interests in Iraq during the Iran Deal. Just look at what Iran has done since Trump pulled out of that Deal. Trump is lying relentlessly and he has made things much more dangerous. https://t.co/YucbzLHDLk

— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) January 8, 2020

Rhodes’ second major contention is essentially that we were at peace with Iran while the JCPOA was still in place, and President Trump’s actions started war. He writes:

[O]ver the past year alone, Iran or its proxies have shot down a U.S. drone, harassed and seized oil tankers, bombed Saudi oil infrastructure, killed unarmed protesters, and resumed rocket attacks against U.S. interests in Iraq. During the implementation of the Iran deal, by contrast, there wasn’t a single such rocket attack from a Shia militia. Trump initiated the escalatory cycle that led us to this extraordinarily dangerous moment.

One wonders, how do Obamaites think Iran got into the position to engage in this malevolent activity, had it been such a docile force between the July 2015 deal date and the May 2018 deal withdrawal date?

Do they acknowledge, as then-Secretary of State John Kerry did, that U.S. dollars would fund Iran-backed jihadists? Do they believe Iran’s arming of proxies from Lebanon, to Gaza, to Yemen, and working to consolidate its Shiite Crescent represented peaceful endeavors? Do they ascribe no culpability to Iran for the Syrian civil war in which hundreds of thousands were slaughtered? Do they think Iran’s proxies ceased their illicit activities in Latin America and on American soil? Do they have amnesia over images of American sailors the Iranian navy captured and forced to their knees?

Leftists know well the weakness of this argument because the Obama administration bent over backwards for, aided, abetted, enabled, and invitedstill more of Iran’s hostile activities in the run-up to the deal and following its execution. If Iran were engaging in less open hostility toward America before it vacated the JCPOA, it is only because Iran was capitalizing on the window of opportunity the Obama administration opened for it to prepare for or avoid future battles.

The JCPOA was one stage of Iran’s forever war against America, of which we have been a victim since 1979. It enabled the regime to recapitalize, rearm, and resume its exportation of Islamic revolution with the West’s imprimatur. The Trump administration has merely shattered the illusion of peace leftists saw in Iran’s march. Iran is striking out today with Obama administration funding because the United States halted it. Tehran’s apparent face-saving response to the strike on Soleimani demonstrated Iran is acting from a position of weakness.

Iran Deal Withdrawal Made America the Strong Horse

This brings us to Rhodes’ third major contention that Trump wrongly “said that in withdrawing from JCPOA, he would be in a stronger position to stop Iran’s provocations across the Middle East.” While not exactly the president’s argument in withdrawing from the JCPOA, that decision and related actions have left America in a far better position to counter a hostile Iran.

JCPOA withdrawal was a central component of a policy that has included:

• Bleeding the regime of money through reimposing crippling sanctions, and then fortifying and augmenting them,
• Retaliating to attacks on Americans and American assets expeditiously and, where merited, with overwhelming force — and threatening greater punishment should further threats materialize,
• Fostering a U.S.-Israel-Sunni Arab, anti-Iran partnership to restore Sunni-Shia balance and enable the United States to reduce its footprint in the Middle East.

Consequently, the Iranian regime is facing a collapsing economy, related unrest at home and within its putative satrapies, several proxy wars, and no more Soleimani. This reality has left it impoverished, over-extended, and outgunned. America is in a far stronger position to deal with Iran’s provocations under Trump than at any time since Obama entered office.

Democrats Hate that Trump Puts America First

The Iran deal was a ruse. The mullocracy engaged in malicious acts before, during, and after it. The deal did not diminish Iran’s bellicosity; it fueled it, while emboldening the cantankerous regime. The rockets and missiles being fired at Americans, the still hundreds of thousands more aimed at Israel, and the weapons mowing down dissidents on the streets of Iran and Iraq are the Obama administration’s legacy.

The Trump administration is seeking not only to roll back the gains Obama provided the Khomeinist regime, but to weaken and destabilize that regime through maximum economic pressure backed by overwhelming military might and re-established Sunni-Shia balance, so our troops can come home on our terms. The overall aim is to increase the likelihood Iran will sue for peace, however remote that prospect might be, which appeasement could never achieve.

Democrats would have us believe the use of overwhelming force is the real danger. They would have us believe the threat of unpredictable and disproportionate strikes, and a willingness to show greater tenacity than an enemy, is unlikely to save America from more protracted battles; that history from World War II to Israel’s experience with the Islamic world shows it is not strength but weakness that ceases hostility.

Democrats want us to believe that in spite of the Trump administration’s consistent statements and actions, his Iran strategy is incoherent; that we should distrust our lying eyes about Iranian attacks on Americans, and disregard the heretofore infallible national security apparatus when it says plotters are planning additional ones. They want us to think Trump has caused Iran’s hostility, not that he is working to put an end to it.

The Trump administration is prudently and resolutely defending American national interest. Apparently, Democratic opponents cannot abide this. For to do so would lay bare the bankruptcy of their worldview, and the disaster it has created for America.

Things Bloomberg Could’ve Spent $200 Million On...

Chrissy Clark writing for The Federalist

Things Mike Bloomberg Could’ve Spent $200 Million On Instead Of His Pointless Campaign

Former New York City Mayor and 2020 contender Mike Bloomberg has already spent $200 million on his campaign in advertisements alone. Bloomberg has been in the 2020 race for only about seven weeks, but his ad buys have almost surpassed the rest of the 2020 field combined.

According to Advertising Analytics, Bloomberg has spent $20o million, while the rest of the 2020 Democratic field has spent $222 million combined.

While Bloomberg is polling in fifth place at 5.8 percent nationally, he is not competing in any of the early primary states and has yet to meet the DNC’s threshold for the seventh round of Democratic debates. He may have been a viable candidate had he entered the 2020 race earlier, but it appears, it’s too late for Bloomberg.

Since Bloomberg’s campaign has become pointless in the long haul, we’ve thought of five ways Bloomberg could have better spent his $200 million.

1. 133 Million Big Gulps

During his tenure as New York City’s mayor, Bloomberg banned the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces, forcing New Yorkers to say goodbye to their “Big Gulp” beverages. To apologize for taking away sugary goodness from New York City, Bloomberg should spend his next $200 million on 133 million Big Gulps.

2. Peloton Bikes for Big Gulp Consumers

In the spirit of good health and the notoriously laughable Peloton advertisement, Bloomberg could have bought a fleet of 89,086 Peloton bikes for Big Gulp consumers. Bloomberg could open a whole chain of cycling studios, which would likely be better for Americans than his presidential campaign.

3. Campaign Strategists with Better Ideas than Turning the East Room into WeWork

With $200 million, Bloomberg could definitely get some better campaign strategists. He should fire whoever suggested the idea of turning the East Room into a WeWork space — and hire anybody with better ideas than that.

“As president, I’ll turn the East Room into an open office plan, where I’ll sit with our team,” Bloomberg tweeted.

4. Donations to a Candidate Smarter than the Current NYC Mayor

Bloomberg’s mayoral successor, Bill de Blasio, is likely New York City’s most annoying mayor. According to Vox, he has a problem with his popularity and all-around likability. He insists on working out at the YMCA far from his home, for which he’s received endless backlash, and his progressive stances have created an uptick in homelessness for New York City.

If Bloomberg actually wanted to help his city, he could invest his $200 million in a candidate who isn’t such an unlikable man.

5. Payment for Less Than 0.000004% of Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Medicare for All’ Plan

With $200 million, Bloomberg’s massive advertisement haul would pay for only 0.00000385 percent of Elizabeth Warren’s proposed “Medicare for All” plan. Yup, you read that correctly. Less than 0.000004 percent. Warren’s proposed plan would cost $52 trillion, meaning Bloomberg’s oversized advertisement haul would cover only a minuscule percentage — showing the insane scope of Warren’s proposed plans.