Thursday, January 16, 2020

Finally. The Feds — including ICE — appear to be investigating Rep. Ilhan Omar.

 Image result for memes about ilhan omar
 Article by David Steinberg in "The Blaze":



On Oct. 30, I reported that the Department of Justice had assigned an FBI Special Agent in Charge, or SAC, to review Rep. Ilhan Omar's apparent, astonishing spree of felonies from 2009 to 2017.

Minnesota state Rep. Steve Drazkowski (R) had previously filed a complaint on the matter with the Minnesota District of the Department of Justice. That office — headed by U.S. Attorney Erica MacDonald, a 2018 Donald Trump appointee — directed the FBI to review the complaint. An FBI SAC formally met with Rep. Drazkowski, and others, in mid-October to receive a prepared file of evidence and related information.

I can confirm that the FBI has taken additional steps since this October meeting.
***
In October, the FBI SAC stated that the wide range of criminal activity suggested by the evidence against Rep. Omar may lead the FBI to expand the review to other federal departments. In such situations, the SAC continued, the FBI often acts as a hub — sharing evidence, or coordinating a joint investigation, with several other investigative agencies. 


Indeed, this has since occurred. 

At least the following two federal agencies were contacted by the FBI with information regarding Rep. Omar. The FBI then placed the October meeting attendees in touch with selected investigators within these two agencies: 

1. Department of Education Inspector General

This is related to evidence suggesting that Rep. Omar's 2009 marriage to a UK citizen may have been an attempt to facilitate federal student loan fraud, or other fraud involving higher education.

● Shortly after Omar's 2009 marriage, the new couple moved to Fargo, North Dakota. Omar enrolled at North Dakota State University in August 2009. Her husband enrolled the following year.

Omar received a degree in June 2011. According to Omar herself, she and her husband then permanently separated in June 2011. The marriage's start and end coincide with the start and end dates of Omar's NDSU enrollment.

Incredibly — according to address records, and a statement from Omar herself — she was also still living with her first husband, and their two kids, throughout this second marriage.

● In 2017, Omar finally filed for divorce. Under penalty of perjury, she submitted a nine-question form to the court attesting to having lost all contact with her NDSU husband in June 2011.

Dozens of verified social media posts, photos, and even a 2016 interview with the NDSU husband indicate otherwise. It appears Omar perjured herself eight times answering those nine questions.

(Click here for analysis of an additional court document Omar submitted, which suggests the likely motive for Omar taking such a risk. Each instance of perjury in Minnesota can receive a sentence of five years.)

2. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

● This is related to evidence suggesting a breathtaking number of possible immigration-related felonies. As I stated in an introductory passage within my July 18 article:
The [following] answers to those questions about [Rep. Omar's 2009 marriage] appear to give probable cause to investigate Omar for eight instances of perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, up to eight years of state and federal tax fraud, two years of federal student loan fraud, and even bigamy.

To be clear: The facts describe perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history.

The involvement of ICE with a possible criminal investigation could hardly be of greater political import to Omar. 

For several years, Omar has vigorously supported the abolishment of ICE. Her 2020 re-election platform — featured on her campaign site, and pictured below — targets ICE agents with vicious rhetoric that simply must be read by interested parties. 

States Omar's site: "Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is an unreformable organization that has become increasingly militarized, brutal, and unaccountable."
--
Since August 2016, the remarkable story of Rep. Ilhan Omar's past has produced scarce political, law enforcement, or media activity. A near-perfect inversion of the Trump/"Russian collusion" yarn, with which it is inseparable. 

Consider how the Trump investigation was initiated, as former FBI Director James Comey tells it. (Recent statements from Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham suggest disagreement.) Comey treated an unverifiable claim, from a foreign diplomat, of a drunken remark by a low-level Trump staffer as predicate for spying on a presidential campaign.

Comey never did find stronger evidence. Yet the Democratic Party and supportive media hardly paused, for three years, covering this investigation. 

Concurrently — in August 2016 — Minnesota reporters Scott Johnson and Preya Samsundar were publishing extensive, verified, still-unchallenged evidence implicating Rep. Omar in multiple felonies. Their exponentially more substantial evidence was ignored by the Democratic Party and supportive media. Their evidence was even ignored by law enforcement, per an extraordinary public dismissal shortly before Omar's 2016 election to the Minnesota House of Representatives.

FBI guidelines require only "'articulable factual basis' of possible criminal activity" to open an investigation. By September 2016, Johnson and Samsundar had objectively breached that threshold. Picture Comey applying his "Crossfire Hurricane" standards to their work — perhaps Omar's trial reaches the sentencing phase before the November election.

I followed up on Johnson and Samsundar's investigation in early 2018. A year later, the proportions of the verifiable case against Omar resemble that against a Batman villain. A comical number of likely felonies, all backed by gobsmacking evidence: Certified state and federal documents; certified UK government documents; archived state public school records; archived U.S. and UK address records; verifiably unmanipulated digital photographs; corroborating statements from Omar herself; corroborating statements from Omar's ex-husband himself; several years of social media posts from Omar's verified accounts; and several years of suddenly deleted social media posts from Omar's verified accounts. 

And that's before we reach the good stuff.

Click here for what sure appears to be smoking-gun evidence. The only man on Earth with the same name and birthdate as Omar's ex-husband — appears to have been raised in the London home of Ilhan's verifiable sister. And has the same three family names.

Yet media continued to approach the developing story of Omar's background with zero rigor. 

Literally zero. 

Their distortions were provably deliberate, and their intentions blinking-red evident. Simply, Ilhan Omar's "identity" struck the Democratic Party and supportive media as being a best-case vehicle for selling progressivism. Omar's character? Worst-case. But they preferred the fantasy — they printed it, over and over, along with that other one sparked by drunken hearsay. The rule of law and the safety of Jews were roadblocks.

The Democratic Party and the media have not changed. Consider the coverage of the House Democrats' articles of impeachment, which do not even allege that the president committed a crime. However — much of the Obama-era, politically infected law enforcement leadership is indeed fired and gone. We have cause to believe many career federal investigators are honorable and were glad to see them go. 

Rep. Omar now appears to be receiving the scrutiny her "articulable facts" have deserved since August 2016; perhaps a criminal investigation is open. 

https://www.theblaze.com/contributors/the-feds-appear-to-be-investigating-ilhan-omar 
at

Investigation for Allegedly Leaking Classified Info, Lynch/Clinton Evidence That Made Comey Take Over Is Revealed

Image result for meme of james comey

Article by Nick Arama in "RedState":

 The New York Times is breaking, and can we say, desperately spinning, the reports that former FBI Director James Comey is under investigation for leaking classified information.


The New York Times ✔ @nytimes
Breaking News: U.S. prosecutors appear to be scrutinizing whether James Comey illegally disclosed classified secrets, part of an unusual inquiry into years-old leaks that leaves law enforcement officials open to accusations of politicizing their work https://nyti.ms/2Tx2Gsg

 How’s that for an attempt to spin the investigation? This is the news timeline, not opinion. But yes, let’s pretend they’re objective. And maybe the reason it wasn’t investigated when it should have been is that there were still Comey cronies controlling everything? Of course, just a thought.


Comey had previously violated FBI policy in leaking the information to the times through his friend, Daniel Richman and the matter was referred to federal prosecutors in New York.

Now this new investigation involves leaks relating to two articles including one in the Washington Post and another in the NY Times (now we see why the spinning) about a Russian intelligence document, which the Times says was highly classified. 

Now this part is fascinating: 

The document played a key role in Mr. Comey’s decision to sideline the Justice Department and announce in July 2016 that the F.B.I. would not recommend that Hillary Clinton face charges in her use of a private email server to conduct government business while secretary of state.

Wait, what? What would a Russian intelligence document have to do with Comey stepping in and taking the power away from the DOJ, which he could not properly do anyway? At the time, Comey implied in his reasoning that there was classified information with regard to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. 

The document is mentioned in a book published last fall, “Deep State: Trump, the F.B.I., and the Rule of Law” by James B. Stewart, a Times reporter.

Here’s the money paragraph, hidden down in the story.

The latest investigation involves material that Dutch intelligence operatives siphoned off Russian computers and provided to the United States government. The information included a Russian analysis of what appeared to be an email exchange during the 2016 presidential campaign between Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida who was also the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee at the time, and Leonard Benardo, an official with the Open Society Foundations, a democracy-promoting organization whose founder, George Soros, has long been a target of the far right.
In the email, Ms. Wasserman Schultz suggested that then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch would make sure that Mrs. Clinton would not be prosecuted in the email case. Both Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Benardo have denied being in contact, suggesting the document was meant to be Russian disinformation.
That document was one of the key factors that drove Mr. Comey to hold a news conference in July 2016 announcing that investigators would recommend no charges against Mrs. Clinton. Typically, senior Justice Department officials would decide how to proceed in such a high-profile case, but Mr. Comey was concerned that if Ms. Lynch played a central role in deciding whether to charge Mrs. Clinton, Russia could leak the email.

Whoa, so strip everything away and what the document says is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was guaranteeing that Lynch would get Hillary Clinton off.

So where is the investigation of this? 

The Times does the best it can, suggesting it’s disinformation. They literally accuse Trump of trying to pressure the DOJ to investigate his enemies despite no such thing ever occurring. 

But American officials at the time did not believe that Ms. Lynch would hinder the Clinton email investigation, and neither Ms. Wasserman Schultz nor Mr. Benardo had any inside information about it. Still, if the Russians had released the information after the inquiry was closed, it could have tainted the outcome, hurt public confidence in the Justice Department and sowed discord.
Prosecutors are also looking at whether Mr. Richman might have played a role in providing the information to reporters about the Russia document and how it figured into Mr. Comey’s rationale about the news conference, according to the people familiar with the investigation. Mr. Comey hired Mr. Richman at one point to consult for the F.B.I. about encryption and other complex legal issues, and investigators have expressed interest in how he operated.
Mr. Richman was quoted in the April 2017 article in The Times that revealed the document’s existence. A month later, The Post named Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Benardo as subjects of the document in a detailed article. A lawyer for Mr. Richman declined to comment.

This is going to be interesting to see it when the information ultimately comes out without the New York Times spin on it. But this is pretty huge. 

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/01/16/breaking-james-comey-under-investigation-for-leaking-classified-info-lynchclinton-evidence-that-made-comey-take-over-is-revealed/
at

Finally Someone Says It! Marsha Blackburn: Senators Running for President Must Recuse From Impeachment Trial


Article by Sistah Toldjah in "RedState":

 For weeks, Democrats, liberal commentators and media types have been demanding that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recuse himself from the Senate’s impeachment trial because he declared in no uncertain terms that he had no intentions of being impartial.

Though many of the same Democrats pushing this talking point have been shown to be massive hypocrites on the matter, nevertheless the calls have persisted.

Not mentioned, however, by these same Democrats who are so “concerned” with whether or not McConnell will be able to be a fair and impartial juror is the fact that there are four Democratic Senators currently running to oust Trump in the fall who have very vested interests in seeing him impeached.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, took a moment to remind voters and the mainstream media both of this staggering conflict of interest in a statement issued Wednesday – the same day the articles of impeachment were transmitted to the Senate.

 From her statement:
“Tomorrow, one hundred United States Senators will be sworn in to serve in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. Four of those Senators must recuse themselves for their unparalleled political interest in seeing this President removed from office. These four Democrats, Senators Bennet, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren, cannot sit in judgment of the very President they seek to replace. To participate in this trial would be a failure of the oath they took to be an ‘impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws’. Their presidential ambitions prohibit their ability to view this trial through an objective lens.”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn ✔ @MarshaBlackburn
.@SenSanders, @SenWarren, @SenAmyKlobuchar, and @SenatorBennet are spending millions of dollars to defeat @realDonaldTrump, and we’re supposed to believe they will be impartial during the trial?

They should recuse themselves.

 She stated that there was precedent for such recusal calls


Sen. Marsha Blackburn ✔ @MarshaBlackburn
Replying to @MarshaBlackburn and 5 others
This is rooted in history and precedence. During the 1868 impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, there was an objection to the participation of Senator Benjamin Wade— who would have succeeded as President if Johnson was removed

 Blackburn also appeared on Fox News Thursday morning to expand on her point:

Sen. Marsha Blackburn ✔ @MarshaBlackburn
How can @SenSanders, @SenWarren, @SenAmyKlobuchar, and @SenatorBennet do impartial justice under the Constitution from 9 am – 6 pm and then go campaign against @realDonaldTrump afterward? They should recuse themselves
 The odds of Warren, Sanders, Bennet, and Klobuchar recusing themselves from the trial are at zero, of course. But still, Blackburn is right to point out the obvious conflicts of interest here and to say, in so many words, if Democrats want to play the recusal game Republicans can go there, too.
On a related note, if mainstream media journalists really are so concerned with how fair the Senate trial is going to be, they should ask these 4 Senators why they don’t hold themselves to the standard Schumer demands of McConnell.

Not gonna happen, of course, but it’s worth pointing out anyway.

https://www.redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2020/01/16/finally-someone-says-it-marsha-blackburn-senators-running-for-president-recuse-impeachment-trial/
at

Virginia sued over Second Amendment rally gun ban



Article by Paul Bedard in "The Washington Examiner":

Two gun rights groups planning to host a rally of 130,000 supporters Monday at the Virginia state Capitol have sued to repeal Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam’s ban on guns, even for those with permits.

“Governor Northam is behaving like the royal governors who long preceded him. He has arrogantly and brazenly tried to restrict the rights protected to Virginians by the First and Second Amendments,” said Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America.

His group is joining the other rally organizer, Virginia Citizens Defense League, in pushing to win back gun rights on Capitol grounds for the Monday “lobby day” when members planned to press lawmakers to reject a wave of gun control legislation sailing through the Senate.

“Gun Owners of America is joining VCDL in asking the courts to issue an emergency injunction forbidding the enforcement of the governor’s unlawful ban. The Lobby Day rally is held annually with thousands of participants and without incident. The only difference this year is that, in response to the Democrats’ attempt to eviscerate the Second Amendment, a much larger crowd is expected,” said Pratt.

“GOA is arguing that the governor’s actions violate the Virginia and U.S. Constitutions, as well as, a 2012 state law which strictly limits the governor’s ability to ban guns in a state of emergency,” he added.

Earlier in the day, VCDL ripped the governor’s emergency decree and suggested that Democrats were hoping for violence at the rally so they could “smear” gun owners.

In that alert to some 38,000 supporters, VCDL said:

“VCDL believes that this gun ban is illegal. Our legal team is looking at our options and we will keep you advised as soon as we have a definitive plan. As it stands now, you can carry on 9th Street, or other nearby streets, as long as you don't go into the fenced-in Capitol grounds area (or into any of the government buildings). There will be 17 magnetometers to speed up security for those wishing to be on the Capitol grounds, which puts you near the stage. You CAN have a knife with a blade LESS THAN 3 inches. Again, wait for final word on the Capitol grounds gun-ban situation over the weekend.”

 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/virginia-sued-over-2nd-amendment-gun-rally-ban
at

Europe criticizes US for ...


Europe criticizes US for withdrawing troops from West Africa

Europe, particularly France, is criticizing the United States for its plans to withdraw some or perhaps all of its 6,000 to 7,000 troops from West Africa.  The U.S. is doing this as part of an effort to shift its military assets around the world to re-orienting them to better face possible challenges by the Great Powers, especially China.  In doing so, defense secretary Mark Esper and his team question the value of the efforts in West Africa and want to scale them back, as those African militants lack the ability and intent to attack the U.S. homeland. 

The same cannot be said of France.  Islamic terrorism in West Africa is centered in former French colonies.  The French worry that if the militants aren't countered in Africa, they could spread murder and mayhem to France itself.  And then there's the immigration concern.  If backward countries like Mali, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso, and Mauritania become failed states, a surge of African refugees could be bound for France and then throughout Europe. 

For those reasons, France currently has about 4,500 troops fighting in West Africa.  The French fear that the U.S. withdrawal will leave them exposed.  An aide to France's President Emmanuel Macron is quoted in the news agency Agence France-Presse as saying, "American contribution to fight against Islamic extremist groups in West Africa were irreplaceable [emphasis mine]."  No doubt.  For among other things, the French rely on U.S. intelligence, logistical support, and aerial refueling at a cost to the U.S. of about $45 million a year.

Obviously, France, and by extension Europe, has a dog in this fight.  America does not.  Interestingly, although it is in their interest, no other European country, aside from France, has seen fit to place any of its troops on the line in West Africa.  Yet wealthy Western Europe seems to expect the U.S. to spend its resources and fight in an area where there's no direct American interest at stake while at the same time adamantly refusing to pay anything close to a fair share for NATO. 

There are three other points need to be made to put this situation in context.  First, under President Donald Trump, the U.S. is actively addressing the number-one terrorist country in the world: Iran. In this effort, Europe is not just standing on the sideline, but has been actively trying to thwart American efforts by working around U.S. sanctions and giving moral support to the mullahs. 

Second, the fact that the U.S. is re-orienting its military to address communist China does not faze the Europeans in the slightest.  If push came to shove with the Chinese, would Europe then be there in any meaningful way to help defend the values of liberal democracy?  

Finally, there's trade.  Europe holds fast to the antiquated and unfair trade agreements with the U.S. that date back to the Marshall Plan era.  The very idea of fair and reciprocal trade with America is anathema to Europeans.  Europe feels it's entitled to rack up trade surpluses with the U.S. indefinitely. 

Based on the facts, the prevailing view throughout Europe must be that the U.S. is so rich and powerful that it can and should do it all.  After all, Europe is semi-socialist, and that is socialist-type thinking.  When it comes to America, Europe sings Karl Marx's slogan: "from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs."  What makes this especially pathetic is that Europe is not impoverished.  It's wealthy Europe is mistaking President Trump for his predecessors.  European complaints are falling on deaf ears at the Pentagon, and the withdrawal from West Africa is proceeding as planned. 

There's a Yiddish word that best sums up the European attitude.  It's chutzpah, which means unmitigated effrontery, gall, brazen nerve.  This fits Europe to a tee. 



at

A Gift From Trump's subreddit

House Democrats bring their Circus to the Senate from r/trump
at

Nancy Pelosi Makes an Unintended Admission While Ranting Incoherently About Impeachment



As RedState reported, Nancy Pelosi has appointed her impeachment managers. You’ll be shocked to learn that rabid partisans like Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, who so politicized the House investigation, are now at the forefront of presenting the case to the Senate.
There’s also this shot and chaser from another manager chosen.



Amazingly, all these same people who vehemently opposed Clinton’s impeachment as “partisan” are suddenly all for this partisan impeachment. For Adam Schiff’s part, he even won his office by campaigning against an impeachment manager during Clinton’s trial.

While Pelosi was announcing the managers, she went on what can only be described as an incoherent rant. Here’s a clip of her attempting to make some kind of elusive point about time.



Wait, what? You’d be forgiven if you thought she was drunk.

But inside of that word salad of a press conference she held, two statements caught my eye that I think summarize the Democrat viewpoint of impeachment perfectly, even though they’d love to pretend otherwise.

Take this one citing Putin as one of the reasons for Trump’s impeachment.



What does Vladimir Putin have to do with an impeachment over dealings with Ukraine, a country that is currently fighting a sometimes hot, sometimes cold war with Russia?

I think it’s obvious. This is Pelosi admitting, whether she realizes it or not, that this is really all about re-litigating the 2016 election and handicapping the President for 2020. They see this as their chance to tarnish Trump for not doing their bidding and laying down against Hillary Clinton, while also damaging him enough to usher in a Democrat victory later in the year. To bring up Putin and Trump supposedly stealing elections, during a speech on something totally divorced from that topic, makes that abundantly clear.

And just to drive that point home further, Pelosi then made this assertion.



Again, if this is just about the rule of law, why is she bragging about having impeached the President forever, as if that follows any semblance of American ideals? If he’s acquitted, then he’s not “impeached forever” anymore than someone acquitted of a crime is charged forever.

It begs the question of whether we have a fair system or not. Because a fair system doesn’t seek to typecast someone for all eternity based on a partisan investigation, even ignoring the eventual outcome of said investigation (which will be a rightful acquittal of these ridiculous articles of impeachment). But that’s exactly what Pelosi is seeking to do.

Why? Because of politics. They do not think they can beat Trump in 2020, and that dumpster fire of a debate last night probably only made Democrats more worried about the prospect of four more years of the current administration. In the face of that reality, they are choosing to weaponize the political process in an unprecedented way.

Pelosi may like to invoke the Founders to make her case, but I’m certain they are rolling over in their graves at this garbage process she’s propagated.

at

The Cult Of Pelosi Is A Deadly Thing For Democrats’ Future



The cult of Pelosi isn't just a 'hot take' or a 'be smart,' it's a mindset through which Washington's media elites interpret the world. It's false, and the harsh light of reality easily shows as much.

There are many cults in Washington, D.C. The Founding Church of Scientology sits between Dupont and Logan Circles. The earth-worshiping Defenders of Wildlife are just a few blocks south, their entrance guarded by imposing bronze grey wolves. One block north, the Human Rights Campaign dispatches starry-eyed adherents with clipboards to recruit followers, and to the east lie the child-harvesters. Two blocks away, the remnants of the Church of Her keep Hillary’s flame burning; and crowning them all: the mighty cult of SoulCycle.

But today, the city has another faith working reporters into a fervor, and her name is Nancy Pelosi.

Reporters have called her “basically invincible,” a “political grandmaster,” an “icon of female power,” a “rockstar” and, time and time again, “a fashion icon.” Reporters have venerated “her clothes, her hand gestures, her facial expression” and placed a halo ’round her head. Activists projected her image on San Francisco’s city hall and a D.C. restaurant dedicated a Christmas tree in her honor.

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing to President Donald Trump what no one else has in the nearly three years since he took office: She’s making him squirm.” Business Insider pronounced two days after Christmas. “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has managed to accomplish what no one else has even tried in the past three years: sticking it right back to Trump,” RawStory echoed the same day in an article that includes “squirm” in its headline.

Time magazine featured her portrait on its cover this month for the third time, with a dramatic, black and white photograph: “Why Nancy Pelosi Went All In Against Trump.” It’s just the latest in a months-long chorus of praise rising for her apparent victory against President Donald Trump. It’s a chorus gulped down by reporters, talking heads, staffers, and activists across the city.

The vote to impeach the president — which won’t result in his removal from office and was achieved on a strictly partisan line plus two no’s, a “present” and an actual defection from her party — was sandwiched between the the speaker’s House passing funding for the president’s wall then his long-touted trade deal. Then Pelosi held the articles for weeks, demanding Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell bend to her will. The press lauded her strategy and waited dutifully for the senator to crack, but of course he did not, as was easily predictable to anyone with even a limited understanding of who actually had the leverage and how McConnell has ruled his chamber.

The weeks over which the speaker fought her losing battle weren’t dominated by coverage of McConnell’s terrible meanness, as she might have hoped, but instead lost to Christmas, the New Year, and then the president’s wins against Iran. And what now?

As the impeachment trial arrives in the Senate in time for the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, it isn’t looking like a win for Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who will lose invaluable campaign time on a trial for which everyone already knows the end. One Washington Post columnist thinks this a master stroke by Pelosi, although his contention is based entirely on a questionable belief that Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Vice President Joe Biden are the men most fit to defeat the president in a general election.

But Washington’s minority power isn’t simply about the public opinion battles and the next election — a minority can actually win decisive victories. When President Barack Obama handily won his 2012 re-election and gained two seats in the Senate, giving his majority more room to maneuver, Washington held its breath for the swathe of progressive victories sure to follow.

Sequester was doomed and amnesty for illegal immigrants was the talk of both parties; bipartisan hawks were prepared to give their blessing to American intervention in Syria and the terrible murder of children at Sandy Hook had guaranteed the passage of bipartisan gun-control. None of those happened, though, because three conservatives, Sens. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul, won victory after victory “by shifting public opinion and navigating parliamentary procedure.”

Reid, then routinely lauded as a master of the Senate by political reporters trading propaganda for access to power, was powerless to stop these three Republicans despite his electoral gains and the popularity of his president. Student loan bailouts, climate legislation, and any other host of leftist dreams would see no sunshine that decade.

This is what controlling from the minority looks like, but when they saw it the Washington press corps dismissed and derided it. Today, they’ve almost certainly forgotten it, moving on to heap praise on a losing Democratic “fashion icon” despite not a single recent, actualized and concrete victory to her name.

Then, these are the same people who looked at the images of President Trump giving a widely lauded speech to the nation from the seat of power and chose to instead see a display of Pelosi’s awesome leverage over him. That very night, Pelosi pointed her clapping toward Democrats sitting on their hands while the president lauded gains in black and Hispanic employment, signalling for them to stand and not fall for a political trap. What did Washington reporters see? Her invisible power over a president they believe she can rule like a child.

The cult of Pelosi isn’t just a “hot take” or a “be smart,” it’s a mindset through which Washington’s media elites interpret the world. It’s false, and the harsh light of reality easily shows as much. But reality is powerless to stop “the conventional wisdom” of the Beltway.

Overconfidence is a slow-working, terrible thing. It may lead its wearers to see an “invincible” “grand master” when there is none. And more, to see victory ahead when there is only defeat.


at

The Great Self-Deception


Issue No. 452 January 13, 2020

The Great Self-Deception

Hans Rühle headed the Policy Planning Staff of the German Ministry of Defense from 1982-1988 and is a frequent commentator on German and international security issue.

The nuclear deal with Iran was a charade right from the start. 

In response to the killing of Iranian General Soleimani by a US airstrike, Iran announced that it would no longer adhere to the 2015 nuclear agreement.  As was the case with Washington’s previous withdrawal from that agreement, many observers are lamenting that a major opportunity for curbing Iran’s nuclear activities has now been lost.  Alas, this view gets it wrong.  The nuclear deal never had the significance that many attributed to it.  The agreement’s portended goal of verifiably preventing Iran’s military nuclearization for 10 to 15 years could never have been achieved.

The core element of the Joint Coordinated Plan of Action (JCPOA)[1] between Iran, the United States, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union was to substantially reduce and permanently limit the capacity of the Natanz enrichment facility, which had been designed for 50,000 centrifuges.  In the JCPOA, which was not an international treaty, but only a “non-binding agreement,” Iran agreed to reduce its stock of low-enriched uranium by 98 percent, to reduce the number of centrifuges by two-thirds from 19,000 to 5,000, and for the next 15 years to produce only low-enriched uranium (3.67 percent U-235) on the basis of rather primitive IR-1 centrifuges.

There was a catch, however.  Iran demanded that the parties agree that for the purposes of the JCPOA the two known enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow were the only ones actively operated by Iran, i.e. that Iran did not operate any further uranium enrichment plants.  However, U.S. intelligence had known for quite some time that Iran was operating about a dozen secret facilities, with one or more of them enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels.  When President Obama came into office, he was briefed accordingly.

As early as 2006, press reports alleged that the Mossad had determined the existence of two parallel nuclear programs in Iran – one openly declared to the IAEA and a second, secret program operated by the military and the Revolutionary Guards.  In February 2012, the American Institute for Science and International Security published a study entitled “The Physics Research Center and Iran’s Parallel Military Nuclear Program.”  Its verdict was clear: “Evidence obtained by the IAEA indicates that the Iranian revolutionary regime made its first decision to research and develop nuclear weapons in the mid-to-late 1980s, and it ordered the development of a parallel military nuclear fuel cycle.”[2]  In November 2013, at the beginning of the negotiations on the nuclear agreement, a member of the Obama administration told the New York Times that there had not been a time in the last 15 years when Iran had not worked on secret facilities.

In his book “Playing to the Edge,” former CIA director Michael Hayden offers a particularly vivid description of this dilemma.  At a meeting of the National Security Council in Spring 2009, President Obama had asked Hayden how much fissile material Iran had stored in Natanz.  Hayden replied: “Mr. President, I actually know that but let me offer you a different frame of reference.  In one sense, it almost doesn’t matter.  There isn’t an electron or a neutron at Natanz that’s ever going to end up in a nuclear weapon.  They’ll spin that uranium at some secret military facility beyond the eyes of the IAEA.”[3]  Hayden, whose book was published around the time of the conclusion of the JCPOA, argued that U.S. intelligence had always assumed that enrichment for weapons-grade uranium was carried out in secret facilities.  Consequently, he demanded that IAEA inspectors should be given unrestricted access anytime, anywhere, especially to the facilities operated by the Revolutionary Guards.

Against this background, it is clear that the nuclear agreement with Iran was a charade from the very beginning.  In terms of restrictions on uranium enrichment, the JCPOA applied only to the 18 facilities that had been declared by Iran; accordingly, the IAEA was controlling only these.  However, enrichment to weapons-grade levels proceeds in the secret facilities reported by Hayden and probably known to most Western intelligence services.  This means that the IAEA’s regular statements that Iran was complying with the agreement were accurate – yet also utterly worthless.

It could not get more absurd than this: the Obama Administration, together with its allies, concluded an agreement with Iran that centered on the long-term prevention of the production of weapons-grade uranium in Natanz, even though they knew that weapons-grade uranium was not produced there, but in secret facilities of the Revolutionary Guards.

In the public debate on the nuclear agreement, this massive defect of the JCPOA has hardly figured.  Quite the contrary.  The dominating view holds that if the agreement were to lapse, Iran could restart enrichment in Natanz, produce weapons-grade uranium and ultimately have “the bomb.”  However, it is not that easy.  The JCPOA was never the only framework for restricting Iran’s nuclear activities.  As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is also subject to further limits on its enrichment activities.  According to the interpretation of the NPT by the international community, Iran may enrich uranium for civilian use to up to 5 percent U-235.

This means, on the one hand, that Iran can produce as much low-enriched uranium as it wants in order to operate its envisaged 20 future nuclear power plants; on the other hand, Iran may enrich 120 kg to 20 percent U-235 in order to operate the Tehran research reactor for the next 20 years.  Any attempt to enrich beyond these levels would immediately trigger the involvement of the IAEA and, ultimately, the UN Security Council.  The idea that Iran could illegally produce highly-enriched uranium in the declared (and therefore IAEA-controlled) site of Natanz in a short period of time is thus just as far-fetched as are the many “breakout” calculations, according to which Iran could secretly produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in eight to twelve months.

Even before Iran withdrew from the nuclear agreement, it had already begun to increase the limit on enrichment permitted by the agreement from 3.67 to 4.5 percent U-235; it was installing new, more powerful centrifuges; and it had restarted uranium enrichment at Fordow.  These were violations of the nuclear agreement, but not of the NPT.  A violation of the NPT is something Iran will avoid by all means, and not only because this path will lead directly via the IAEA to the UN Security Council.  A substantial violation of the NPT would also force the remaining parties of the JCPOA to withdraw from the deal, leaving Iran with no other choice but to withdraw from the NPT itself.  Tehran would not stand to gain from such a move.  Even after leaving the NPT, UN Security Council Resolution 1540 would allow the international community to qualify Iran’s production of weapons-grade uranium as a “threat to international peace and security” under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and take appropriate measures against that country.

Simply put, Iran cannot – neither legally nor secretly – produce weapons-grade uranium in Natanz.  For this, it remains dependent on the secret facilities of the Revolutionary Guards.  For Tehran, this remains a comfortable situation even after a withdrawal from the nuclear agreement: while the Western public is distracted by a heated discussion on how long it will take Iran to produce enough weapons-grade uranium in Natanz for a bomb, modern IR-2 centrifuges are producing weapons-grade uranium in secret facilities of the Revolutionary Guards.  As a result, Iran continues to inch closer to a genuine nuclear option.

Washington’s reaction to all of this is well known.  The Trump Administration, which considered the nuclear agreement the “worst deal ever,” withdrew in May 2018.  An important part of this decision was the production of highly enriched uranium in secret facilities of the Revolutionary Guards.  As early as October 2017, President Trump had publicly referred to “Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program.”  In January 2018, he called for the unconditional access of IAEA inspectors to all facilities, including military ones.  He made it clear that should Iran refuse to do so, the United States would withdraw from the agreement, thereby reviving all U.S. sanctions against Iran.  After Iran failed to respond, the U.S. President announced the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the agreement.

In short, Trump was right.  The nuclear agreement would have led to the unimpeded nuclearization of Iran.  By focusing on the Natanz facility rather than the sites that are producing weapons-grade uranium, the agreement was off the mark from its very beginning: it could not even have worked as a merely temporary measure to prevent a nuclear Iran.  The allies of the United States, who tried so hard to keep the agreement alive, would therefore be well advised to follow an old Indian wisdom: if the horse is dead, get off.  The agreement is history.

The only “winner” in all of this is Barack Obama.  Through the agreement he achieved a major goal of his presidency: no Iranian bomb and no war with Iran.  The high price for this strategy now will have to be paid by his successors.

This is a slightly expanded version of Hans Rühle, “So ließ sich Barack Obama täuschen,” Die Welt, January 8, 2020, available at https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/plus204811462/Iran-Konflikt-So-liess-sich-Barack-Obama-taeuschen.html

[1].      See U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Statement Relating to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ‘Implementation Day’ of January 16, 2016,” May 8, 2018, available at https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/jpoa_archive.aspx.

[2].     David Albright, Paul Brannan, and Andrea Stricker, “The Physics Research Center and Iran’s Parallel Military Nuclear Program,” Institute for Science and International Security, February 23, 2012, available at https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/PHRC_report_23February2012.pdf.

[3].    Michael V. Hayden, Playing to the Edge: American Intelligence in the Age of Terror (New York: Penguin Press, 2016), p. 307.
The National Institute for Public Policy’s Information Series is a periodic publication focusing on contemporary strategic issues affecting U.S. foreign and defense policy. It is a forum for promoting critical thinking on the evolving international security environment and how the dynamic geostrategic landscape affects U.S. national security. Contributors are recognized experts in the field of national security.

The views in this Information Series are those of the author and should not be construed as official U.S. Government policy, the official policy of the National Institute for Public Policy or any of its sponsors. For additional information about this publication or other publications by the National Institute Press, contact: Editor, National Institute Press, 9302 Lee Highway, Suite 750 |Fairfax, VA 22031 | (703) 293-9181 |www.nipp.org. For access to previous issues of the National Institute Press Information Series, please visit http://www.nipp.org/national-institutepress/information-series/.
© National Institute Press, 2020

at

Democrats are getting nervous as...


Democrats are getting nervous as they realize their base is tuning them out

 It's fascinating to watch some of the smarter Democrats drag themselves out of their own Trump-hatred long enough to realize that their party is in trouble at a fundamental level.  Such is the case with Peter Hamby, who wrote an article for Vanity Fair entitled, "'Like, I'll tune in when there's two weeks left': Why Trump has a huge advantage over dems with low-information voters."

What Hamby is concerned about is the fact that the media are so excessively self-involved that they no longer know how to communicate information and ideas to the voters media types want to reach most: people who are not politically engaged on a day-to-day basis but must turn out to vote on November 3 if the Democrat candidate is to win.

Hamby notes that traveling reporters have nothing but disdain for those who spend their days sitting at their desks reading and reporting on Twitter:
[T]he stories and micro-scandals that obsess political and media insiders — often played out in episodic fashion on Twitter — matter little to voters who are too busy and too well-adjusted to follow every nanosecond of the political news cycle. It's hard to overstate how salient this discontinuity will be in the current election year.
After slinging several pointless personal attacks at Trump and his supporters, Hamby grudgingly notes that Trump is a master communicator who speaks directly to Americans about things that matter to them.  Meanwhile, the media are obsessing about "wine caves, pay-fors, court packing, white privilege, and Iowa's role in the nomination process."

This disconnect doesn't just affect media profitability.  Hamby understands the real problem, which is that, outside the hard-Left Democrat base, voters neither know nor care about the candidates.  The only thing that jazzes black voters (still) is Obama.  Everything else is "meh."  Worse, when these low-interest voters weren't thinking "meh," their thoughts weren't very nice:
In Milwaukee words that came to mind for Biden included "hugger," "oil tycoon," "cops," and "old white money." Six of the voters — all of whom had voted in the past two election cycles — responded with some variation of "nothing" or "I have nothing" when Biden was named. In Philadelphia the voters associated Biden with "crime bill," "too old," and "not fired up." A grandmother and self-described "cat lady" named Jean said, "I heard he said a bad thing, I didn't like it." Biden elicited better reactions in Miami, where attendees said "Obama," "experience," and "well dressed" when the former vice president's name was mentioned.
Sanders didn't fare much better:
Sanders, too, was described as "too old" in all three cities, though many of the responses were, if not on message, at least message-adjacent. The Miami group associated Sanders with "crazy hair," "grinny," "free college," and "wants to give away too many things for free." The Philadelphia group said "your crazy uncle," "health care," "questionable health," and "passionate hand talker." In Milwaukee the Obama-Trump voters described Sanders as "for the people," "crazy but in a good way," "boisterous," and "bold" — while three of the voters had no response to his name.
The other top Democrat candidates hadn't even registered with those voters queried.  And still, the media relentlessly press on, recycling hoaxes and conspiracies and endlessly trying to one-up each other with information that is the political equivalent of inside baseball.

When Democrat voters do bother to tune into the news, they don't trust what the outlets are saying, whether they're watching left-leaning sites or Fox News:
Most cautioned that they tune out political news, before naming Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Google News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, BBC, and "local news." But even as the participants identified their own news sources, every focus group participant said they didn't trust them for information about politics. All of the cable networks were viewed as agenda-driven and produced to stoke outrage and ratings rather than inform viewers.
Trump knew in 2015 that the media outlets were not only the enemy, but also dinosaurs, partisan, ill informed, and mindless.  (Or as Ben Rhodes said, "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns...  They literally know nothing.")  Americans have figured this out, too, and the smart ones are listening to Trump as he tweets right past the media.



at