Baghdad Biden accuses President Trump of coddling terrorists. - Biden Accuses Trump of ‘Coddling Terrorists and Thugs’ Overseas

Breitbart News
By Haris Alic   08/12/2020

Joe Biden, the presumptive Democrat nominee, accused President Donald Trump on Wednesday of “coddling terrorists and thugs” around the globe.

We’re going to get to work fixing the mess that President Trump and Vice President [Mike] Pence have created, both at home and abroad, through four years of mismanagement and coddling of terrorists and thugs around the world,” Biden said during an event in Delaware alongside his newly announced running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).

 Biden’s comments took some Republicans, including Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY), by surprise given the former vice president’s history of opposing military efforts against terrorist leaders.

Earlier this year, Biden opposed the Trump administration’s assassination of Qasem Soleimani, a onetime high ranking figure in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard. At the time, Biden argued that although Soleimani was guilty of perpetrating “crimes against American troops and thousands of innocents” throughout the Middle East, Trump’s move risked starting a war with Iran. Although those fears never materialized, Biden has remained a staunch critic of the assassination.

“I would not have ordered that strike on Soleimani because there was no evidence of an imminent threat,” the former vice president said at the Democrat primary debate in February.

Breitbat News

____________________________________________________________

 

Article by Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern in  Slate

John Roberts’ Stealth Attack on Abortion Rights Just Paid Off

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in June Medical v. Russo was hailed by many liberal court watchers as a win for reproductive rights, as the court declined to overturn Roe v. Wade and formally eliminate the right to an abortion. On Friday, however, a federal appeals court ruled that June Medical significantly narrowed the constitutional right to abortion access. The 8^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel swept away an injunction that had blocked Arkansas from enforcing a slew of abortion restrictions, including a requirement that patients pregnant as a result of rape notify their rapists before terminating their pregnancy. The appellate court’s decision confirms that Chief Justice John Roberts’ controlling opinion in June Medical will serve as a tool to eviscerate abortion rights. Those who briefly heralded him as a champion of reproductive freedom were too caught up in the halftime show to see the game.

Friday’s ruling in Hopkins v. Jegley greenlights four Arkansas regulations passed in 2017. The first of these laws requires clinics to report the names of abortion patients under 18 to local law enforcement. These clinics must then preserve the fetal tissue and treat it like criminal evidence. The second law forces abortion providers to spend “reasonable time and effort” acquiring a patient’s medical records for her “entire pregnancy history” before performing the abortion. The third law grants equal rights over fetal remains to both partners, with no exception in cases of rape. A patient must notify her partner before the abortion and ask which method of disposal he prefers. If both partners are minors, the patient’s parents get to decide how fetal remains are disposed of. If the patient is a minor but her partner is an adult, then he—not the patient—makes the choice. These rules effectively prohibit medication abortion, which occurs at home, where the provider cannot control the disposal of fetal remains. The fourth and final law bans the safest and most common procedure for second-trimester abortions.

A patient must notify her partner before the abortion and ask which method of disposal he prefers.

Abortion rights advocates challenged this legislation, arguing that they impose an unconstitutional burden on abortion access. A federal district court agreed in 2017, and blocked the new regulations. In Friday’s decision, three Republican-appointed judges on the 8^th Circuit cleared away that injunction. The lower court had analyzed the laws under Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the 2016 Supreme Court decision that required courts to weigh the medical benefits of an abortion restriction against its burdens. But the Supreme Court’s decision last month in June Medical, the 8^th Circuit wrote, overturned that standard. Under the new test, courts may not ask whether an abortion law provides any benefits to patients. Instead, they must only ask whether the regulation imposes a “substantial obstacle” to an individual’s path to an abortion. Thus, the 8^th Circuit sent the case back down to the trial court for reassessment, allowing the Arkansas laws to take effect in the meantime.

It might be surprising to hear that June Medical curbed the right to abortion. After all, in that case, five justices struck down a Louisiana abortion law identical to the measure invalidated in Whole Woman’s Health. But the court actually split 4–1–4, with Roberts in the middle. The chief justice penned a separate opinion that rejected the balancing of burdens and benefits in favor of the stingier “substantial obstacle” standard. In his view, an abortion restriction can be constitutional even if it provides zero health benefits to women. In effect, the chief justice had reinstated the less robust test from 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which had opened the door to all sorts of pretextual TRAP (targeted regulation of abortion providers) laws, that did nothing to advance maternal health, while insisting that they were helping women. Because Roberts provided the fifth vote, the 8^th Circuit panel declared that his opinion is controlling on lower courts. For any judge who chooses to read it that way, going forward Whole Woman’s Health is functionally overruled, and states are free to enact any and all abortion laws, so long as they come with assertions that they protect mothers.

In the hours and days after June Medical came down, Roberts was celebrated for his apparent newfound wokeness. But there were indications that Roberts’ vote did not grow out of some novel devotion to reproductive freedom, but out of a commitment to the legal principle that lower courts cannot reverse the Supreme Court willy-nilly. It hardly required an act of prophecy to read the words Roberts wrote to mean precisely what he said they meant: that he had “joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health” and continued to believe “that the case was wrongly decided,” and also that “absent special circumstances the court must … treat like cases alike.” Whole Woman’s Health and June Medical presented identical facts. He struck down the Louisiana admitting privileges law because to do anything else would have been farcical.

Courts, post–June Medical, need to stand down and let states do what they will.

The chief justice, who is very, very good at doing consequential things in invisible ways, used his opinion in June Medical as an engraved invitation to states seeking to enact TRAP laws, as long as they didn’t pass something identical to the law struck down in Texas three years earlier. It is an engraved invitation to reviewing courts to ignore the fact that a law that purported to advance women’s health in fact did nothing of the sort. It was on its face an invitation to lower courts to return to the minimal scrutiny of Planned Parenthood v. Casey’s “substantial obstacle” language. And where Whole Woman’s Health had given the judiciary a meaningful role to play in assessing whether an abortion regulation was burdensome, the chief justice made quite plain in June Medical that “state and federal legislatures [have] wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.” Courts, post–June Medical, need to stand down and let states do what they will. And that is precisely what the 8^th Circuit did.

Nobody should be surprised that the chief justice’s invitation was accepted with alacrity. His words are being used to do precisely what he intended: reinstate the Casey test, hollow out the stricter rule from Whole Woman’s Health, and permit reviewing courts to rubber-stamp any state regulation that held itself out as advancing women’s health. The real surprise here is that it took just over a month for an appeals court to do what they’d been advised to do. Roberts has facilitated severe restrictions on reproductive rights in a stealth move that avoids headlines accusing his court of overturning Roe v. Wade and tiptoes past the trip-wire alarm that might alert voters to the takeover of the federal courts by anti-choice radicals.

Everyone knows that Roberts is a master of the “long game,” but in this case the long game took four weeks instead of three hours. Casey stands now as a husk of its former self and Whole Woman’s Health is merely a relic. The chief justice was not “evolving” this term. He never moves an inch but allows the spectators to careen right past him whooping and cheering, as the real damage plays out on the ground, long after the crowds have gone home.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/john-roberts-8th-circuit-abortion-rights-arkansas.html 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Your Rundown Of What Happened In The Latest Court Hearing On Michael Flynn’s Case

Professor Margot Cleveland reporting for The Federalist

For nearly four hours Tuesday morning, the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals drilled attorneys for Michael Flynn, the Department of Justice, and Judge Emmet Sullivan on a wide range of issues, from the scope of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures 48(a), which provides that “the government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint,” to the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, the propriety of mandamus, and the need for Sullivan to recuse from the Flynn case.

The en banc hearing followed Sullivan’s request for a rehearing of the 2-1 panel decision that granted Flynn’s petition for mandamus and ordered the longtime federal judge to grant the government’s motion to dismiss with prejudice the charge levied against Trump’s former national security adviser.

A Timeline of Events

Flynn had pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka during a Jan. 24, 2017, interview in the White House about conversations Flynn had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn later fired his attorneys, hired Sidney Powell, who argued the case today, and moved to withdraw his guilty plea. While that motion remained pending, Attorney General William Barr directed an outside U.S. attorney, Missouri-based Jeff Jensen, to review the Flynn case.

Jensen’s probe uncovered substantial exculpatory evidence withheld from Flynn and his attorneys that established that the FBI agents did not believe Flynn had lied during the interview. Jensen also concluded that the questioning of Flynn was “untethered” from any legitimate investigatory purpose and instead seemed to be a perjury trap set to catch Flynn in a lie. Jensen recommended the DOJ dismiss the charge against Flynn, and Barr agreed.

But when the DOJ moved to dismiss the charge against Flynn, presiding Judge Emmet Sullivan resisted. He appointed a retired judge, John Gleeson, to serve as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, to argue against dismissal of the Flynn charge. Gleeson, who had co-authored a scathing Washington Post op-ed accusing the DOJ of political favoritism days before his appointment as an amicus curiae, turned in an oversized brief that accused the attorney general and DOJ of misconduct.

Flynn’s attorney, Powell, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the D.C Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking an order directing Sullivan to dismiss the charge. A three-judge panel consisting of Karen Henderson (a George W. Bush appointee), Robert Wilkins (an Obama appointee), and Neomi Rao (a Trump appointee), heard the petition, and while Henderson’s questioning suggested a loss for Flynn, the panel, in a 2-1 decision with Wilkins dissenting, granted mandamus and directed Sullivan to dismiss the charge.

Sullivan Requests En Banc Rehearing

Rather than dismiss the charge, however, Sullivan filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Powell and the DOJ, which had supported Powell’s petition for mandamus, opposed the petition for rehearing, but the D.C. Circuit voted to rehear the case as a full court. Later, the D.C. Circuit directed the parties — if Sullivan can be considered a party — to focus on whether Flynn had available other adequate remedies and then later told the parties to be prepared to discuss whether Sullivan must be recused from the case.

Powell began with a short opening statement and then responded to questions posed by the 10 active judges hearing the appeal. (Judge Gregory Katsas did not participate in the en banc proceedings.) Jeff Wall, the acting solicitor general, argued next on behalf of the government, followed by Beth Wilkinson, the private attorney retained to represent Sullivan. Powell and Wall concluded with short, two-minute rebuttals.

The questions posed focused mainly on the propriety of mandamus in the Flynn case given that Sullivan has not yet ruled on the government’s motion to dismiss. Mandamus is an extremely rare remedy, appropriate only when there is a clear and indisputable right to relief. Counsel for Sullivan argued there is no need for mandamus because a hearing has not even been held and there is no reason to believe Sullivan will not follow the law. But what exactly the law is, the court pushed the parties to explain.

Was Sullivan required to grant the motion? If so, what purpose is there for allowing further proceedings? Or does Sullivan have the authority to call witnesses and take evidence to challenge the Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss the case? If so, where does that authority end?

Disregard for Separation of Powers

Other than Rao and Henderson, the two judges in the panel decision’s majority, the other judges all expressed some concern over granting mandamus at this point. Several of the judges also expressed concern that requiring the government to respond to questions posed by Sullivan violated separation of powers and the executive’s Article II authority to decide whether to prosecute a case.

While Sullivan’s attorney suggested there was no reason to believe he would seek to question the government’s reasoning or to call witnesses, as Wall noted, Sullivan made clear in his petition for rehearing that he intended to question the government’s motives. As Powell stressed, Sullivan already intruded on the executive’s decision to terminate a prosecution by appointing an outside amicus curiae.

While Sullivan’s attorney suggested he had no intention of crossing any lines, and while a majority of the appellate court judges seemed to wish to allow Sullivan the benefit of the doubt, Henderson said it best when she quoted Henry David Thoreau: “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.” Unsaid was that everything Sullivan has done since the government filed its motion to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn tells of his intent to intrude on the executive branch’s prosecutorial decisions.

Wait and See

Whether three other judges will join Rao and Henderson is unclear. (In an en banc proceeding, a tie vote upholds a panel decision). The public should remember, however, that Henderson seemed inclined against mandamus originally. In the end, it might just be that Wall’s closing rebuttal swings the three votes necessary to Rao and Henderson’s side.

In closing out the fourth hour of argument, Wall noted that if Sullivan has nothing untoward planned, there is no reason not to grant mandamus and short-circuit any unnecessary proceedings. Conversely, if Sullivan intends to exceed his authority on remand and delve into the executive’s decision-making and prosecutorial discretion, mandamus is needed to stop that unconstitutional usurpation of power.

Wall, however, also proposed a middle ground, which a majority of the court might be likely to accept: Remand the case for a ruling on the government’s motion to dismiss, setting a time limit and specifying the appropriate scope of any such hearing, and then reassign the case to avoid the appearance of impropriety Sullivan created by seeking rehearing.

An expedited ruling is likely, and it is also possible the court will issue its bottom-line decision, with the opinions to follow.

 

 Article by OAN Newsroom in OAN News

President Trump: Democrat push for mail-in voting amounts to election meddling

In a news conference on Monday, the president claimed the Democrat Party is trying to implement widespread mail-in voting for their own benefit. The president equated the Democrats’ pursuit of mail-in voting in the upcoming elections to foreign interference.

“I’ll tell you who’s meddling in our election, the Democrats are meddling,” said President Trump. “By wanting and insisting on sending mail-in ballots where there’s corruption all over the place.”

He and the Democrat Party have clashed on the issue of mail-in voting for several months now amid growing concerns about the impact the coronavirus pandemic will have on the election. President Trump, in the past, has also accused the Democrats of trying to steal the election by trying to relax voting regulations.

“Who would want a bill banning signature verification? What’s that all about?” he asked. “You know what it’s about? Fraud.”

The Republican National Committee has challenged the implementation of lax voting requirements by requesting the intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Another key concern for the president’s campaign is the time frame of the presidential debates. The debates are set to start in late September, though some states such as North Carolina will begin sending out ballots earlier.

People close to the president, including Trump Organization executive Eric Trump, have argued the scheduling of the debates could benefit Joe Biden who he said is afraid and unprepared to debate the president.

“They’re messenger is Sleepy Joe, he doesn’t know its his message,” said President Trump. “He has no idea what the message is, but he’s going to do whatever they tell him to do, you know it, because he’s not all there.”

Although five U.S. states already perform full mail-in voting, critics have questioned the ability of the U.S. Postal Service to handle a full scale mail-in voting election.

It’s still unclear as to what lasting effects, if any, the pandemic will have on the presidential election.

 https://www.oann.com/president-trump-democrat-push-for-mail-in-voting-amounts-to-election-meddling/

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Biden campaign staffers boost group bailing out murder, sex assault suspects

Jessica Chasmer reporting for Washington Times

A Minnesota nonprofit that was boosted by multiple celebrities and more than a dozen campaign staffers for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joseph R. Biden has bailed out defendants charged with murder, kidnapping and sexual assault, according to a new report.

At least 13 Biden campaign staffers boasted on social media in late May that they contributed to the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF), a bail-paying nonprofit that saw a $35 million fundraising windfall during the George Floyd protests, Reuters reported at the time.

Now, a report by FOX 9 says the nonprofit has helped few protesters in comparison to the defendants charged with violent crimes.

The MFF paid $100,000 to bail out Darnika Floyd, who was charged with second-degree murder in the stabbing death of a friend, according to documents reviewed by FOX 9. It paid $350,000 to bail out Christopher Boswell, a twice-convicted rapist who was charged with sexual assault and kidnapping, the report said.

The group paid $75,000 to bail out Jaleel Stallings, who was accused of shooting at police during the May riots, according to the report. And it paid $3,000 to bail out Donovan Boone, who was charged with invading the home of his ex-girlfriend and choking her, the report said.

Greg Lewin, the interim executive director of the MFF, told FOX 9 that the group’s mission isn’t about the crime but targeting the cash bail system.

“I often don’t even look at a charge when I bail someone out,” he said. “I will see it after I pay the bill because it is not the point. The point is the system we are fighting.”

While the fundraising windfall was a direct response to protesters getting arrested across the country after the death of George Floyd, Mr. Levin said the money only helped “probably a dozen” cases in terms of direct bail actions.

Mr. Biden has said he opposes the cash-bail system but declined in May to say whether his staffers contributing to the fund was a coordinated effort. He has not commented publicly on FOX 9’s report.

Tim Murtaugh, director of communications for President Trump’s reelection campaign, said it’s another example of Mr. Biden being taken over by the “radical left.”

“As vice president, Joe Biden oversaw cuts to police funding and now as a candidate he says he wants to redirect funding away from police,” Mr. Murtaugh said in a statement to Fox News. “His staff mocked police as worse than ‘pigs,’ called for defunding the police, and now we know his campaign helped bail out violent criminals, rapists and would-be cop killers. Biden is incapable of bringing our country together because he has been taken over by the radical left. He is actively putting Americans’ lives at risk by making our streets more dangerous, cops’ jobs more difficult, and families less safe.”

 Article by Joel B. Pollack in Breitbart News

GovTrack: Kamala Harris Further Left than ‘Democratic Socialist’ Bernie Sanders

The non-partisan GovTrack.us website rated Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) the most left-wing member of the Senate in 2019 — further left than “democratic socialist” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

In 2018, Harris was ranked the fourth-most left-wing. But by 2019 — a year she spent running for president — Harris had moved to the furthest extreme.

She was an early co-sponsor of the Senate version of the “Green New Deal” of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), as well as the “Medicare for All” bill introduced by Sanders, which would have eliminated all private health insurance.

Harris also supported granting free health care to illegal aliens, slashing military budgets, and other radical proposals.

GovTrack explained its ratings: “Our unique ideology analysis assigns a score to Members of Congress according to their legislative behavior by how similar the pattern of bills and resolutions they cosponsor are to other Members of Congress. The score can be interpreted as a conservative—liberal scale, although of course it only takes into account a small aspect of reality.” The most conservative score is 1.00; the most liberal score possible is 0.00.

Harris ranked #100 — the “least conservative,” or most liberal, Senator on the list, and the only one to score a “0.00”:

#90 0.16 Sen. Chris Van Hollen [D-MD]
#91 0.15 Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
#92 0.14 Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
#93 0.12 Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D-CT]
#94 0.10 Sen. Edward “Ed” Markey [D-MA]
#95 0.09 Sen. Mazie Hirono [D-HI]
#96 0.07 Sen. Cory Booker [D-NJ]
#97 0.07 Sen. Jeff Merkley [D-OR]
#98 0.03 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
#99 0.02 Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
#100 0.00 Sen. Kamala Harris [D-CA]

The New York Times called Harris a “pragmatic moderate” in its coverage of Harris’s announcement as Joe Biden’s running mate.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/08/12/govtrack-kamala-harris-further-left-than-democratic-socialist-bernie-sanders/ 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Governors Can’t Use Coronavirus To Indefinitely Declare A State Of Emergency

In a national panic, Americans permitted executives to take power—to declare states of emergency and to implement lockdowns—and now those executives won’t give that power back.

posted by Molly McCann at The Federalist

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia often noted that the primary safeguard of our constitutional liberties is the structure of our government. Every banana republic has a bill of rights, he once said, but the strength of the American system is the separation of powers.

At the federal level, there are three separate, co-equal branches of government that must operate together for our representative republic to function properly, and this balance of power is mirrored at the state level. Unhappily, our system today is not functioning as designed.

Since March, the separation of powers has been off-kilter, shifted disproportionately to state executives, who are ruling outside the boundaries of their proper authority. In a moment of national panic, Americans permitted their state and local executives to take power—to declare states of emergency and to implement lockdowns—and now those executives won’t give that power back.

Legally, the executives are operating pursuant to their “emergency powers.” Executives are often authorized to declare a state of emergency, which activates emergency plans that the state and its localities have prepared, and transfers significant control to the governor. Although it varies by state, this authority is typically quite broad.

If you examine any of the lockdown or mandatory masking orders, you will largely see a relatively formulaic approach. First, the edict will recite the facts that support the claim there is an ongoing catastrophe, then it will list the legal authority, and finally the resulting mandates.

For example, in Virginia, when Gov. Ralph Northam issued his masking order, he called upon the powers vested in him by Article V of the Virginia Constitution, then pointed to § 44-146.17 of the Virginia Code. That’s the meat of the matter. That section of the code spells out the scope of the state executive’s authority during an emergency.

Every state legislature can define these powers differently and include specific limitations. In Virginia, the legislature inserted a provision that no emergency action by the governor could “limit or prohibit” the right to keep and bear arms.

That is why a gun range in Virginia was able to sue earlier this year and win an injunction that permitted it to reopen during the height of the lockdown. Although the judge said the injunction did not apply across the commonwealth, that discrete win signaled to Northam that he had gone too far, and he quickly issued a new order allowing all gun ranges to reopen.

Most state statutes automatically terminate emergency authority after a 30- or 60-day period, unless specifically extended by the governor. This highlights that emergencies are assumed to be of short duration. Our current quandary is that governors are using COVID as an excuse to extend their authority indefinitely.

If the governors are empowered to declare and continue a state of emergency, what is the remedy? The Founders believed the first and most powerful check on the executive would be the ballot box. In modern practice, one of the best checks on the individual policies an executive contemplates has been the resistance of the electorate in real-time. The coronavirus crisis has once again proved that state and local races matter deeply.

The judgment of the electorate, though, is usually most potent as a prophylactic or an immediate reprimand. Once the executive has taken the power and the people have acquiesced, it requires a much more forceful and unified resistance to roll back the overreach. Unfortunately, in our current crisis, the necessary momentum is just not there—or not yet sufficiently organized and vocal.

A structural check on the executive is the intervention of a coordinate branch of government—the balance of powers working as designed. Most state statutes provide for the termination of the emergency either by executive order or joint resolution of the legislature.

To declare emergencies, to close businesses and confine Americans to their homes, to mandate masks, to limit access to churches, to suspend your civil liberties, the governors point to power enumerated by statute—that is, defined by the legislature. Where the legislature defined the terms, it can redefine the terms. Where they are empowered to do so, state legislatures must begin to declare the emergency at an end, rebuke the governors’ power grabs, and recalibrate the allocation of power to its proper balance among the branches.

Unfortunately, rather than reclaiming authority from governors, many state legislatures right now are fighting over which branch gets to decide how to spend the federal dollars states are receiving in emergency aid. It is not clear that the balance of power will naturally revert to normal any time soon.

These states of emergency have provided vast, new power to individual governors and various political factions, and they will not give that power up easily or soon. It must be formally taken from them. If it is not, the executives will continue to chip away at our fundamental liberties, implement initiatives the electorate would not condone via their representatives, and generally undermine the spirit of independence and self-reliance that are hallmarks of American liberty.

An executive’s emergency authority is a good thing when properly exercised. An executive’s ability to move swiftly in a time of crisis is a strength of our system. The Founders robustly debated the extent and contours of executive powers.

The executive’s speed and dispatch are indispensable in the realm of war and national security, but these traits are also critical in time of national emergency. However, as the Framers knew and we’ve experienced, this type of centralized authority is also very dangerous when abused.

The American system of government is comprised of three branches of government that must operate together for our system to work. When exercised, the “emergency power” of the executive fundamentally changes the nature of our government by sweeping authority from the other branches and placing it in one.

The current widespread and indefinite “emergency rule” is doing violence to our system of self-government and to the separation of powers—which is the real defense that preserves our rights. It is high time to end the tyranny of the executives.

Report: Harris Wasn't Biden's First Choice

Katie Pavlich reporting for Townhall

It's official, presidential candidate Joe Biden has chosen California Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate. 

But according to former Obama Senior Advisor David Axelrod, Harris wasn't his top choice and politics pushed her into the position. 

"He reportedly clicked well with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, but she would not have fulfilled the desire of those who prioritized a candidate of color," Axelrod wrote for CNN. "Whitmer, a White moderate pick, also would have raised questions among supporters of progressive champion Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, widely viewed after a lifetime of advocacy and a strong campaign for president as a tough, brilliant and capable policymaker. But some also saw Warren as the most polarizing of the potential candidates, who would have been offered by Trump as evidence that the moderate Biden is merely a Trojan Horse for the left."

"In the end, Biden seriously considered others but returned to Harris as the 'do no harm' candidate, unlikely to thrill or outrage many. She may not seem the most comfortable fit as a governing partner, a quality Biden said he was seeking, but Harris was viewed as the safest pick to win in November," he continued. 

During the Democrat presidential primary, Biden promised to nominate a woman for the position. This week, a number of influential black Americans sent the former vice president a letter warning he will lose in November without a black vice presidential candidate. 

 

 Article by Patricia McCarthy in The American Thinker

The left's support of barbarity — there is a puppet for every string

Since the death of George Floyd, the incident that ignited the worst and most costly rioting and devastation to Democrat-run cities since the 1960s, not a single Democrat in Congress has spoken out against the violence being perpetrated by Antifa and Black Lives Matter and the clueless, indoctrinated young people whom they have beguiled.  Clearly, the carefully planned strategy of the Democrat party is to stand with the looters and arsonists and implicitly to defend them.

For reasons that are entirely mystifying to most Americans, the Democrats seem to believe that their blind support of brutal thugs who delight in destroying the property of others is a winning master plan.  In Chicago, BLM is holding a rally to support those arrested in the looting spree that took place Sunday night; that one did about $60M in damage to the businesses on that city's Magnificent Mile.  BLM organizer Ariel Atkins defended the looting; looting is their reparations!  Witless film business celebrities are raising vast amounts of money to keep the rioters out of jail — not a difficult undertaking, given the Soros-elected D.A.s and prosecutors in many of the affected cities.

Chaos, that old Cloward-Piven prescription for destroying capitalism, is the left's best friend in their view.  It is what they take pleasure in fomenting.  They care not one bit for a civilized society if embracing barbarism can defeat President Trump.  This is what is generally referred to as upside-down thinking; Trump has so deranged the left that they think this ever so faulty reasoning is shrewd!  Their scheme would be amusing if it were not so destructive, so murderous, and so economically devastating.

This is our left today.  Promote violence, ignore the wreckage and the monumental costs to ordinary people, and they empower those aching for an excuse to plunder and blight.  (For much the same reasons, they appear to have looked upon COVID-19 as a blessing, an aid to their agenda.)

The Democrats count on two generations of young people inculcated with the conviction that they are victims of a racist and unequal society to act out, to do their bidding in the streets.  The radicals pull the strings, the puppets cooperate as duly indoctrinated and riot in the streets of cities in which they know they will not be hindered or jailed.

The Democrats smile to themselves, confident that their ploy will see Trump defeated.  They think Twitter is the window onto the world!

Aside from endorsing violence as their path to victory, their other defining characteristic is their notion that all Americans outside of their superior and elevated realm are extraordinarily stupid and easily manipulated.  They are certain they that their crafty blueprint for the implementation of their authoritarian socialist dream is working, and it is with far too many people, mostly young college-educated dupes and the Bernie Sanders old.

But because most Americans have lives of meaning — families, work, school — the left counts on the fact that not everyone pays attention to state or national elections until Election Day is near.  And because these wizards of smart in government lack common sense, they forget to remember that those millions of Americans who do successfully navigate life, family, school, and work are possessed of common sense.  Those are the voters who elected Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, easily one of the most corrupt politicians ever to run for the office.

The American people are not nearly as dumb as the Pelosi/Schumer crowd thinks they are.  They recognize character and the lack of it with ease. 

Most Americans can also discern a person's declining mental state since so many of us have experienced it in our own families or circles of friends.  The Democrats' pretense that Joe Biden is not in the throes of dementia is laughable.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/08/the_lefts_support_of_barbarity__there_is_a_puppet_for_every_string.html#ixzz6UuRwLAJM

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Another 34 Month Long DOJ/FBI Cover-Up Operation

posted by sundance at the conservative treehouse

CTH friend, researcher and producer John Spiropoulos helps connect the dots within the operation to cover-up corrupt activity by James Comey, Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Christopher Wray, Dana Boente and the entire special counsel group.

In this video John walks us through the internal evidence showing how the FBI intentionally hid the statements by Christopher Steele’s primary sub-source Igor Danchenko.  The result…. a 34 month cover-up operation.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham released the declassified documents on July 17th. [Thank You John Ratcliffe] The documents relate to how the intelligence apparatus conducted surveillance abuses against the Trump campaign in 2016; and ultimately the Trump administration after the inauguration.

The first document [Direct pdf here] is the Washington Field Office (WFO) FBI briefing summary of a three day interview with Chris Steele’s primary sub-source. The document is highly redacted, but we already know from the IG release what the total content of the briefing revealed. The first interview was conducted on January 12, 2017, during the transition period between administrations. The classification term “SIA” stands for Source Identifying Attribute.

Per Senator Lindsey Graham:

♦ This document not only demonstrates how unsubstantiated and unreliable the Steele dossier was, it shows that the FBI was on notice of the dossier’s credibility problems and sought two more FISA application renewals after gaining this awareness.

♦ The document reveals that the primary “source” of Steele’s election reporting was not some well-connected current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian based contract employee of Christopher Steele’s firm. Moreover, it demonstrates that the information that Steele’s primary source provided him was second and third-hand information and rumor at best.

♦ Critically, the document shows that Steele’s “Primary Sub-source” disagreed with and was surprised by how information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the Steele dossier. For instance, the “Primary Sub-source”: did not recall or did not know where some of the information attributed to him or his sources came from; was never told about or never mentioned to Steele certain information attributed to him or his sources; he said that Steele re-characterized some of the information to make it more substantiated and less attenuated than it really was; that he would have described his sources differently; and, that Steele implied direct access to information where the access to information was indirect.

In total, this document demonstrates that information from the Steele dossier, which “played a central and essential role” in the FISA warrants on Carter Page, should never have been presented to the FISA court. (Senate Link)

Here’s the FBI Briefing Summary: [Direct pdf Link]

• View this document on Scribd

.

The inspector general already reviewed this briefing material and explained the content in the IG report on FISA Abuse in December 2019. Here’s the nub of that full review:

The aspect of the primary sub-source deconstructing and undermining the underlying material within the Steele Dossier is critical because ultimately the dossier underpinned the FISA application.

When you recognize the FISA application itself was based on a fraudulent premise; and you recognize the intentional ignoring of the underlying evidence; then the motive behind the FISA becomes clear. The FISA against Carter Page was used as a justification for surveillance of Donald Trump that had been ongoing by Obama intelligence officials.

This context becomes stunningly more important when you look at how the FISA was used by the Mueller investigation to continue its weaponization throughout 2017 and even into 2018. Remember, in July of 2018 long after the source material was debunked, the special counsel office was still telling the FISA court the predication for the FISA application and renewals was valid.

Drive this point home.

This is a key to understanding the scope of how weaponized the Mueller team was.

In July of 2018 the special counsel resistance group was lying to the FISA court in order to protect the cornerstone document that permitted them to weaponize the intelligence apparatus.

This letter was written July 12, 2018. It is NOT accidental that only a week later, July 21st, the special counsel released the FISA application under the guise of FOIA fulfillment.

Aside from the date the important part of the first page is the motive for sending it. The Mueller team running the DOJ is telling the court in July 2018: based on what they know the FISA application still contains “sufficient predication for the Court to have found probable cause” to approve the application. The resistance unit running the DOJ is defending the Carter Page FISA application as still valid.

On page #8 [Source Document Here] when discussing Christopher Steele’s sub-source, the special counsel group notes the FBI found him to be truthful and cooperative.

This is an incredibly misleading statement to the FISA court because what the letter doesn’t say is that 18-months earlier the sub-source, also known in the IG report as the “primary sub-source”, informed the FBI that the material attributed to him in the dossier was essentially junk.

By July 2018 the DOJ clearly knew the dossier was full of fabrications, yet they withheld that information from the court and said the predicate was still valid. Why?

It doesn’t take a deep-weeds-walker to identify the DOJ motive.

In July 2018 Robert Mueller’s investigation was at its apex.

This letter justifying the application and claiming the current information would still be a valid predicate therein, speaks to the 2018 DOJ needing to retain the validity of the FISA warrant…. My research suspicion is that the DOJ needed to protect evidence Mueller had already extracted from the fraudulent FISA authority. That’s the motive.

In July 2018 if the DOJ-NSD had admitted the FISA application and all renewals were fatally flawed Robert Mueller would have needed to withdraw any evidence gathered as a result of its exploitation. The DOJ in 2018 was protecting Mueller’s poisoned fruit.

If the DOJ had been honest with the court, there’s a strong possibility some, perhaps much, of Mueller evidence gathering would have been invalidated… and cases were pending. The solution: mislead the court and claim the predication was still valid.

♦ The FISA was also released in July 2018 in order to retain the false premise behind it. The copy that was released by the special counsel, through Rod Rosenstein, contained redacted dates because the special counsel needed to hide the fact the FBI (Washington Field Office) had actually used the FISA to catch a leaker of classified intelligence, James Wolfe.

Again, Wolfe’s story is the fulcrum…. tell that story and the House of Cards collapses like the Potemkin village it is. {GO DEEP}

The resistance lawyers in the Mueller team released the same initial FISA application (and first renewal) used to catch Wolfe; they had to release that specific March 17, 2017, copy. However, they had to redact the dates on the document they released because the dates were changed by SSA Brian Dugan to catch Wolfe.

The March 17, 2017, copy of the FISA, an FBI investigative equity, went into Main Justice with the leak trap visible. When the special counsel released the FISA application to Rosenstein for public FOIA fulfillment they had to redact the dates or people would ask questions about why this specific version had different dates than the original.

The March 17, 2017, copy of the FISA application is the only one to date that has been in the public sphere; including reviewed by OIG Michael Horowitz. That’s why when Horowitz originally released his FISA report, the OIG kept the dates redacted and only revealed them after the irrelevance of classification was pointed out.

The March 17th Wolfe copy of the first half of the full FISA application (original and first renewal), is the only copy that has ever been made public. If we were to ever see the modified and unredacted copy the FBI gave to Wolfe, the dates would not match with the actual dates of the application(s). The dates were used as part of the leak trace.

The Mueller team knew the explosive nature of the FBI investigation to catch the SSCI leaker. The Mueller team, with full control over Main Justice, was the group that buried FBI Supervisor Special Agent Brian Dugan’s explosive investigative findings.

Expose the conduct of this group and everything about the insurance policy falls into place: