Donald Trump Sending Federal Law Enforcement to Kenosha, Wisconsin, to Help Quell Riots
President Donald Trump said Wednesday that
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers had finally accepted his offer to send federal
forces to Kenosha, Wisconsin, to stop violent riots.
“TODAY, I will be sending federal law enforcement and the National
Guard to Kenosha, WI to restore LAW and ORDER!” Trump wrote on Twitter. Trump said his White House team spoke with Evers on Wednesday. “We will NOT stand for looting, arson, violence, and lawlessness on
American streets,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “My team just got off the
phone with Governor Evers who agreed to accept federal assistance.” Evers announced Wednesday afternoon that he would increase the
deployment of National Guard troops to 500 after he deployed 250 troops
on Tuesday evening. It is unclear whether the president is sending additional federal law
enforcement, such as agents from the Department of Homeland Security,
to Wisconsin to help quell the riots or just additional National Guard
troops. Evers turned down an offer
of federal law enforcement assistance from the White House on Tuesday
before two people were shot and killed and one person was shot and
injured. “We have a National Guard standing by that if the general for the
National Guard needs additional help, we’re there to do it,” Meadows said in an interview Tuesday on Fox News. “But today, that request was denied by the governor.”
…TODAY, I will be sending federal law enforcement and the National Guard to Kenosha, WI to restore LAW and ORDER!
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 1:51 AM PT – Wednesday, August 26, 2020
Navajo Nation
Vice President Myron Lizner officially endorsed the President Trump for
reelection. Lizer voiced his support of the president Tuesday night.
He
expressed his gratitude to President Trump for ending the long fight to
get Congress’ attention, which the Navajo people have struggled with.
The Navajo Nation vice president added, his people had never been
invited into the American dream until President Trump took office and
made an effort to lend his aid.
“President Trump delivered the
largest Financial funding package ever to Indian Country,” Lizner
stated. “The $8 billion in CARES Act funding to Indian Country was a
great start in alleviating the devastating effects that the COVID-19
pandemic has inflicted on our Indian tribes…I’m excited to endorse
President Trump’s reelection.”
The president notably reactivated the White House Council on Native American Affairs,
promoting prosperity within Navajo Nation and allowing easier
communication as well as a stronger relationship between the two groups
Lizner added that every meeting with the president was met with a strong
attempt repair the broken relationship with the federal government.
An intensifying Hurricane Laura grew stronger by the hour Wednesday over the Gulf of Mexico as forecasters said the system strengthened into an "extremely dangerous" Category 4 storm, spawning a storm surge that's already swamped parts of the Gulf Coast.
As of 2 p.m. EDT, the storm
is located about 200 miles south-southeast of Lake Charles, La., moving
northwest at 16 mph with maximum sustained winds of 140 mph.
"Little time remains to protect life and property," the NHC said in its latest advisory.
Laura is now a dangerous Category 4 hurricane that continues to intensify in the Gulf of Mexico and bring impacts to coastal areas as it edges closer.
Satellite images show that Laura has become “a formidable hurricane" in
recent hours, threatening to smash homes and sink entire communities.
History shows us that the Democrats are the party of deep military cuts.
Should
Joe Biden win, American military readiness will crater. This isn’t
alarmism; it’s a reality we can predict based not just on what many on
the Left are demanding, but on the records of the last two Democrat
administrations.
As we’ve noted before,
military readiness has been an issue on multiple fronts, and both
parties deserve blame for this state of affairs. Bill Clinton made
reckless cuts in the force structure. George W. Bush failed to
adequately rebuild that force structure even as America fought — and
still fights — what is rightly called the Global War on Terror. Barack
Obama? His deep cuts were both profound and disgraceful.
That left President Donald Trump in a bad position. His choice of
James Mattis as secretary of defense was excellent on multiple levels.
He pushed for military readiness and also removed obstacles for the troops (like Obama’s misguided land-mine policy).
Mattis, though, disagreed with President Trump on fundamental issues
such as the Paris Climate Accords, the Iran nuclear deal, and the
relocation of the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
His departure thus became inevitable.
In any case, after four years of Trump’s work toward restoration,
Biden would extract four years of military budget cuts. These cuts would
likely affect the new B-21 Raider bomber, which is already urgently
needed because the Air Force has just 21 B-2s, thanks in no small part
to RINO Republican John Kasich, who’s now among the establishment figures endorsing Biden. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter inventory could see cuts as well.
A Biden administration might very well decide to let the recently fire-damaged USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) be scrapped, and also choose not to replace it. The Army, Marines, and Coast Guard would likely find themselves stretched thin.
Furthermore, Biden is promising to “restore” the relationships that
Trump has ostensibly broken. Does he mean reinstituting the awful Iran
nuke deal? Cutting slack to NATO deadbeats like Germany and Canada,
who’ve failed to fulfill their obligations for years? (It’s worth
noting that Germany had to ground its Tornado ground-attack jets due to
its desire to be green instead of combat ready, while Canada had to
borrow a replenishment oiler from Chile.)
Not only would a Biden administration fail to support the troops with
sufficient funding. Not only would it also fail to ensure they have
enough of the advanced weapons they need to deter China. In addition, a
Biden administration would make it more likely that we fight new wars
because of our weakness. And Democrats have the gall to claim Trump isn’t backing the troops?
Our troops need funding, and they need new weapons. A President Joe Biden would give them neither.
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 6:57 AM PT – Wednesday, August 26, 2020
The second day of
the 2020 Republican National Convention highlighted America’s role in
the world as a beacon of freedoms others may aspire to reach.
Tuesday’s
event emphasized this theme and included footage of a naturalization
ceremony presided over by President Trump. While addressing the newly
made Americans gathered before him, the president highlighted both the
honor and duties to which their citizenship entitles them. He made the
following remarks during the ceremony:
“Today
you have also accepted the profound duties and responsibilities that
come with American citizenship. By swearing the oath of allegiance, each
of you has entered a sacred and unbreakable covenant with our nation.
Our culture, our traditions and our values are now yours to uphold and
live by. The rights so dear to every American granted by us, and granted
by God.”
Other speakers highlighted how these values shape U.S. actions
globally, while painting American influence as a force promoting the
extension of personal freedoms around the world.
In prepared
remarks reportedly taped during a diplomatic trip to Israel, Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo underscored the Trump administration’s foreign
policy achievements by portraying the last four years as a period of
increased domestic and international security.
“This president has
led bold initiatives in nearly every corner of the world,” he stated.
“…today, because of the president’s determination and leadership, the
ISIS caliphate is wiped out…and our brave soldiers, they’re on their way
home.”
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) touched on this as well. He
depicted President Trump as an opponent of long-term wars and contrasted
this characterization to Democrat nominee Joe Biden’s record as a
legislator. Under a Biden presidency, Paul proposed the likelihood of
the U.S. entering a foreign conflict could be increased.
“Compare
President Trump with the disastrous record of Joe Biden who has
consistently called for more war,” stated the senator. “Joe Biden voted
for the Iraq war, which President Trump has long called the worst
geopolitical mistake of our generation. I fear Biden will choose war
again.”
First Lady Melania’s speech, delivered from the White House Rose
Garden, highlighted a different aspect of America’s global role as the
inspiration for millions of people around the world aspiring to the
benefits of U.S. citizenship. Her own life, she asserted, is a prime
example of someone attaining this very goal and contributing to the
ongoing fulfillment of the American dream.
“It is still one of the
proudest moments in my life because with hard work and determination, I
was able to achieve my own American dream,” she stated. “As an
immigrant and a very independent woman, I understand what a privilege it
is to live here and to enjoy the freedoms and opportunities that we
have.”
BBC Fact-Checks Joe Biden's Charlottesville 'Very Fine People' Claim, Here's What Trump Really Said
“Honest politician” seems like an oxymoron, but we still find
ourselves mustering up a bit of trust when voting for candidates we hope
will do as they say. Honesty is important, and anyone along the
political spectrum would agree that if those we voted for merely gave us
lip service and abandoned their promises post-election, we would take
back our vote if we could.
If there is a way to measure the honesty of a candidate, responsible
citizens should actively be doing so when considering where to place
their votes — especially for the presidential election.
For example, how do they handle the truth when criticizing a
political opponent? Do they stick to the facts, or do they try to
deceive those they’re addressing?
The former vice president regurgitated the falsehood that President
Donald Trump called white supremacists “very fine people” at the
controversial Charlottesville, Virginia, protest of 2017.
Toward the end of his speech, Biden remarked on the “urgent task” of
“wip[ing] out the stain of racism from our national character.”
“I believe we are up to it. I believe we are ready,” he said.
"Just a week ago yesterday was the third anniversary of the events in
Charlottesville,” Biden continued. “Close your eyes and remember what
you saw on television.
“Remember seeing those neo-Nazis and Klansmen and white supremacists
coming out of the fields with lighted torches? Veins bulging? Spewing
the same anti-Semitic bile heard across Europe in the ’30s? Remember the
violent clash that ensued between those spreading hate and those with
the courage to stand against it?
“You remember what the president said when asked? He said there were quote, ‘very fine people on both sides.’
“It was a wake-up call for us as a country. And for me, a call to
action. At that moment, I knew I’d have to run. My father taught us that
silence was complicity. And I could never remain silent or complicit.”
Biden is implying that the Trump presidency is an agent for racism and anyone not working to get rid of it is complicit.
What does this mean for Americans who support the president?
Thankfully, there are real moments of journalism when misinformation
and lies are put in their place despite the political affiliation of the
speaker.
Members of the BBC’s Reality Check team fact-checked
some of Biden’s remarks in his DNC speech, and because they are
literate, they have the ability to read the full transcripts of Trump’s
remarks — including the ones from Aug. 15, 2017, that were quoted by Biden and his team.
The BBC affirmed that the president did say the phrase “very fine
people,” but it provided a few words that followed to give the full
context — and a few words go quite a long way.
“According to a transcript of a press conference on 15 August,
President Trump did say — when asked about the presence of neo-Nazis at
the rally — ‘you had some very bad people in that group, but you also
had people that were very fine people, on both sides,'” the report said.
The BBC then shared another quote from Trump’s Q&A that completely undermines the DNC’s propaganda that he supports racism:
“During the same press conference, Mr. Trump went on to say, ‘I’m not
talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they
should be condemned totally.'”
In an attempt to paint Trump as one who stokes racial animosity,
Biden and the Democratic Party have perpetuated dishonest rhetoric to
further divide the American people.
There has been no shortage of this sort of rhetoric by the left,
piecemealing Trump’s words for the sake of assassinating his character,
such as claiming he called all illegal immigrants “animals” or that his travel ban was a Muslim ban.
Biden and the radical left are serpent-like in their handling of the truth.
That’s something every voter should keep in mind come Nov. 3.
Don't Forget to Recommend and Follow us at our W3P Homepage
Marxists Always Said if They Can Infiltrate 1% of Society, They Can Control the Other 99%
In a recent exclusive for The Western Journal, Gen. Michael Flynn expressed a keen observation and frustration.
“I was once told if we’re not careful, 2 percent of the passionate
will control 98 percent of the indifferent 100 percent of the time,” wrote Flynn. “The more I’ve thought about this phrase, the more I believe it.”
I believe it, too, because I’ve seen it.
It’s not a new phenomenon. It’s a trenchant reflection on politics
and human nature, and on the revolutionary left’s longtime ability to
organize and manipulate what it likes to call “the masses” or a “united
front” or a “popular front.”
That assessment by Flynn has caught fire. It has been brought up to
me several times in conversations I’ve had on talk shows promoting a new
book that I just wrote titled “The Devil and Karl Marx,”
particularly in relation to the book’s focus on how communists sought
to infiltrate churches, especially the mainline denominations (most
notably, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church and
Presbyterian Church USA) and also the Roman Catholic Church.
One conservative journalist reading the book emailed me last week
because he was struck by how similar Flynn’s assessment was to that of
Manning Johnson.
Johnson is a man forgotten but worth remembering today.
He was a brilliant and courageous man, well-known as a leading
African-American Marxist who left the Communist Party. He had served on
the National Negro Commission, an important subcommittee of the National
Committee of the Communist Party.
The commission was important because of the vigorous push by
Communist Party USA and the Soviet Comintern to attempt to organize
black Americans into a segregated “Negro Republic” in the South (yes,
seriously).
The commission, noted Johnson, was created “on direct orders from
Moscow to facilitate the subversion of the Negroes.” Johnson there
discovered not only the extent to which black Americans were targeted
“by the Kremlin hierarchy,” but how the “white overseers” in Communist
Party USA mistreated their African-American brothers, especially with a
demeaning attitude of subservience.
White American communist officials spied on black communists, treated
them as “their Negro lickspittles” and used “white women communists …
as political prostitutes,” said Johnson.
Johnson left the party in disgust not only over this but because of
his comrades’ war on religion and diabolical attempt to deceive and
infiltrate and manipulate churches. Johnson had refused to part with the
faith of his youth, even as the party demanded that he “liquidate” his
Christian faith and help communists to penetrate churches.
And above all — and this relates to Gen. Michael Flynn’s observation —
he marveled at how a tiny minority was able to control a large
majority.
“It is an axiom in Communist organization strategy that if an
infiltrated body has 1 percent Communist Party members and 9 percent
Communist Party sympathizers, with well-rehearsed plans of action, they
can effectively control the remaining 90 percent,” Johnson told the U.S.
Congress in sworn testimony in July 1953.
“In the large sections of the religious field, due to the ideological
poison which has been filtered in by Communists and pro-Communists
through seminaries, the backlog of sympathizers and mental prisoners of
socialistic ideology is greater than the 10 percent necessary for
effective control.”
All it took was a mere 1 percent Communist Party members and 9
percent sympathizers. How sad. Manning Johnson learned this regrettably
too well.
A trusting flock could, in the deceitful hands of a few bad
shepherds, be led to spiritual slaughter: “The Communists learned that
the clergyman under their control served as a useful ‘respectable face’
for most of their front activities. … Thus one professor of divinity,
lecturing to future clergymen, who in turn will preach to thousands of
churchgoers, is, in the long run, more dangerous than 20 Red preachers
singing the praises of communism from the pulpit.”
One really skilled pro-Marxist professor of divinity, smart and
cautious with the language he used, could be far more influential than a
couple dozen big-mouthed and less polished preachers.
Johnson spoke of a particularly shameless communist front that
operated under the name of the American League Against War and Fascism.
Why did it work so well? For starters, the name/slogan was brilliant.
As the name says, “Against War and Fascism.” Who could be against war
and fascism? Just as no one would say that black lives do not matter.
According to Johnson, this was “the key Communist Party front. There
was no other Communist Party front in all of the solar system of
organizations of the Communist Party that involved so many ministers,
churches, and religious organizations.”
In fact, warned Johnson, this organization was “the key to the
infiltration of the church, and as a result of the successful
infiltration and penetration they were able to involve these ministers
in every other Communist front through the years, even down to the
present time.”
Here again, Johnson paused to underscore the significance of the
numbers: “I know from my own experience in working in labor
organizations, for example, that we had an organization with 10,000
members, and there were only about 60 or 70 Communists, and we
controlled the organization. So with small minority of ministers who
work in an organized manner, they can always win over and subvert and
dupe the majority who are disorganized and are individualistic.”
With merely a small group of, say, 60 to 70, communists could redirect an organization of 10,000. Impressive but sad.
Johnson’s testimony is far from the only case.
In “The Devil and Karl Marx,” I give many such illustrations,
likewise quoting congressional testimony from prominent ex-communists
like Ben Gitlow and Bella Dodd, who repeatedly awed at how they as
communist ringleaders could take over an organization or hijack a cause
or movement with just a handful of trained Marxist organizers.
Ben Gitlow, the highest-level official ever to leave the American
Communist Party, spoke of the alarming success of the Rev. Harry Ward,
infamously known as the “red dean” among American clergymen, and a
founder of the ACLU.
His group was the Methodist Federation for Social Action. Again, note
the importance of a slick title: Who could be against Methodists
pursuing “social action” or (in today’s parlance) “social justice?”
According to Gitlow, “The Methodist Federation for Social Action
operated, though it was an unofficial organization, as if it had the
official sanction of the Methodist Church. Its limited, small
membership, fluctuating between 2,000 and 10,000, is dominated by a
handful of Communists who never officially avowed their Communist
affiliations. The Communists in the organization maintained an alliance
with militant, revolutionary Socialists, who were not under Communist
discipline, but who nevertheless went along with the Communists. The
Communists operated within the Methodist Federation for Social Action on
the premise that it was important to keep within the Methodist
Federation for Social Action all the Socialist, leftist, pacifist, and
the so-called liberal and progressive elements just so long as they went
together with the Communists on specific issues.”
Through a “limited, small membership” they could control a much
larger array of sympathizers on the left. This was a left-wing big tent,
an organization assembled and dominated by a handful of concealed
communists who misled everyone else.
Another prominent ex-communist who spoke to such organizing abilities was Bella Dodd.
She testified many times to Congress and to audiences on how she organized everyone from teachers in the state of New York
to striking seamen against shipowners to (one of her most sensational
claims) placing “over a thousand communist men” in Catholic seminaries.
Bella’s primary work for the party was to organize teachers. She
wrote about it candidly in her memoirs, “School of Darkness,” noting her
success as a communist organizer for teachers’ unions in New York from
1936 to 1938: “At its peak the Union boasted ten thousand members, and
in it the Communist Party had a fraction of close to a thousand.”
That’s a huge degree of penetration: 10 percent. Emboldened, Bella
and comrades looked to apply that tactic to Catholic seminaries, where
they would happily accept even a mere one percent placement. That was
all they needed to sow discord and chaos. They believed they could do
it.
And why not? The Communist Party already had staggering success with Protestant seminaries:
“You may be interested in knowing that we have preachers, preachers
active in churches, who are members of the Communist Party,” candidly
admitted Earl Browder, general secretary of Communist Party USA, to
students at the progressive Union Theological Seminary on Feb. 15, 1935.
He and his party initiated an aggressive push to create a “united
front” led by communists and socialists attracting a broader coalition
of liberals and fellow travelers. The goal was to expand the party’s
support, its membership base and above all its agenda. The wolves would
dress in sheep’s clothing and mingle among the masses.
This included recruitment among the religious and flat-out
infiltration of churches. As for Catholics, Browder (a fierce atheist)
warmly — albeit deceptively — offered: “We extend the hand of fellowship
to our Catholic brothers.”
Browder and his CPUSA thus orchestrated what the party called an
“outstretched hand” effort to appeal to the nation’s Roman Catholics in
the 1930s. Communists who organized in New York in particular were fired
up.
They salivated like Pavlov’s dogs over the numbers they laid out in a
secret 1937 memo (now on file at the Hoover Institution archives): 18
million Catholics in America, and 80,000 simply between New York’s 110
St. and 59th St.
Consider the numbers again: Communist Party USA, even here in the
1930s, its heyday, never exceeded 100,000 members nationwide. Well, 18
million Catholics obviously overwhelmed 100,000 commies. For communists,
they figured that if they could pick up even one percent of American
Catholics, they would explode their membership rolls and could
dramatically undermine parishes from within.
All they wanted was 1 percent. Such a modest goal, such a tiny
number, but that’s all they felt they needed. Very cynical, and very
shrewd.
One of Browder’s erstwhile buddies, J. B. Matthews, another prominent
ex-communist, who became Congress’s chief expert on the subject, had
spearheaded the party’s “united front” strategy.
Matthews explained: “It is not surprising to find the Communist Party
in the United States engaged in a systematic effort to lure the
churches into the net of the party’s united fronts.”
The goal was to find a single issue that would unite a wider
movement: for instance, opposing war and violence. Communist organizers
had to be extremely cautious, however, to keep their Marxist sympathies
and ambitions concealed.
And as for those who suspected those sympathies, and publicly called
out the communist organizers, they were denounced for their unseemly
anti-communism or told they were being paranoid. They were most
vociferously denounced by the communists’ liberal-progressive friends.
This kind of manipulation has gone on in America for literally over a hundred years.
I could give example after example, with victims that would startle
conservatives, such as a young actor named Ronald Reagan (and the
recently deceased Hollywood legend Olivia de Havilland)
being duped by a handful of concealed Marxist organizers running
Hollywood front groups like HICCASP and the Progressive Citizens of
America.
Such manipulative organizing continues to this day. It may not be as
extensive as it once was, but we can see how a handful of self-avowed
trained Marxists in an organization can rally huge numbers of people by
picking the right cause.
“We actually do have an ideological frame,” says Patrisse Cullors
of herself and Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza. “Myself and
Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We
are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories.”
And yet, when we note that someone like Patrisse Cullors frankly
concedes that she and her co-founder are trained Marxist organizers
“super-versed” in ideological theories, we’re reprimanded by liberals
for even bringing it up.
The only thing that matters, after all, is that black lives matter.
Everything else is irrelevant and even impolite to mention. It’s deemed
off-limits, insensitive, even “racist” to express concerns over what
Patrisse openly admits is their “ideological framework.”
But of course, that framework and training is utterly essential to
the bigger picture and deeper motivations. (Just as being a Christian,
for example, influences one’s actions.)
It reflects the long, sordid history of this kind of clever Marxist
organizing. This is exactly what trained Marxist organizers do. They
take a genuinely just cause like stopping police violence against people
of color (which, of course, has nothing to do with Marxism, and appeals
to any non-Marxist), and they use it to draw support to an organization
that at its website
seeks to rally “comrades” (yes, the BLM website uses that word more
than once) to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.”
That’s a BLM call that has nothing to do with police and long predates George Floyd.
I’ve written elsewhere about the striking parallel between Black Lives Matter and George Floyd
and another great racial injustice from the 1930s, the Scottsboro boys.
That was a racial tragedy that Communist Party USA sought to hijack. In
so doing, communists badly hurt the boys’ case, to the outrage of
groups like the NAACP.
Again, example after example could be given. I wish not to belabor
the point but to convince readers that this has gone on for a long time.
Alas, returning to Gen. Flynn’s observation, it’s striking how merely
2 percent can influence so many. And few are skilled at this like
trained Marxist organizers.
As Flynn says, we need to be careful. We need to be smart.
It is with the utmost sadness that I bring you this news.
Most of you wont know him, many of you have never heard of him but if you grew up anywhere in or near Boston in the early 1970's you would know exactly who I am talking about. Anthony ( the Prince spaghetti boy ) was the little Italian boy who ran through the North End in a commercial to get home in time for supper with his family, this commercial was an instant smash and became part of our culture. In those days we boys had our daily rituals, one of them was to play street hockey and emulate bobby Orr and the Boston Bruins for hours, and the other was to be called home for supper the same way Anthony was by his mom. Those days will never be repeated, too much has been lost or stolen from us by time and a changing culture, this is just another nail in the coffin of an innocent youth.
*Click the link to read the story and see the famous commercial
The transcript of the oral arguments from the August 11th DC Circuit Appeals court has been released. [pdf available here]. The DC Circuit held a full panel hearing to decide the outcome of the unopposed DOJ & defense motion to drop the case against Michael Flynn.
You will remember Judge Sullivan injected himself into the case by approving an amicus to argue against dismissal; this led to a request by the Flynn defense for a writ of mandamus overriding Judge Sullivan. Initially a three judge panel agreed with the writ giving Sullivan 30 days to dispose of the case; however, Sullivan appealed to the full panel (en banc). The first appellate court ruling was stayed, and the full panel heard oral arguments earlier this month. That transcript is below.
The panel of appellate judges included Judge Srinivasan, Judge Henderson, Judge Rogers, Judge Tatel, Judge Garland, Judge Griffith, Judge Millett, Judge Pillard, Judge Wilkins and Judge Rao. However, with Judge Griffith retiring at the end of this month, it is likely the ruling will be announced very soon; could be this week.
Regardless of what decision is reached, the announcement should be anticipated prior to Judge Griffith being replaced by recently confirmed Trump nominee Judge Justin Walker. That means we could see a decision announced this Friday, or by next Friday at the latest.
The judges could remove Judge Sullivan and reassign the case. In that event it’s likely the next judge would simply accept the motion to dismiss. However, the DC circuit could also deliver a ruling that allows Sullivan to retain the final disposition with strong guidance on any subsequent activity.
Given the extra-judicial path of this case essentially anything is possible. That said, the DC appeals court likely doesn’t want this decision being reviewed any further (SCOTUS). It would make sense for the DC panel to seek a face-saving exit for Sullivan that doesn’t put Flynn’s defense in a position to appeal to Supreme Court Justice Roberts for intervention.
Hillary Clinton: Biden 'Should Not Concede Under Any Circumstances'
Hillary Clinton said on Showtime’s “The Circus” that Joe Biden
“should not concede under any circumstances” because of probable delays
in mail-in voting.
Clinton talked about a conspiracy theory involving Republicans
sabotaging the election and said that Biden should stay focused on the
end result. How Republicans are going to sabotage the election, she
wasn’t too clear about. But for a political party that warns on a nearly
daily basis that Donald Trump will never concede defeat, it’s certainly
a curious thing to say, don’t you think?
“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances
because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually, I do believe
he will win if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and
relentless as the other side is,” Clinton told former aide Jennifer
Palmieri on Showtime’s “The Circus.”
“I think that [Republicans] have a couple of scenarios that they are
looking toward. One is messing up absentee balloting. They believe that
helps them so that they then get maybe a narrow advantage in the
Electoral College on Election Day,” Clinton, the 2016 Democratic
nominee, alleged. “So we’ve got to have a massive legal operation, and I
know the Biden campaign is working on that.”
They are going to count every vote and keep counting, and then count
some more until Biden wins. Their “massive legal operation” will
challenge every deadline to accept absentee ballots. They will challenge
rejected ballots. Ballots that are received two weeks after the
deadline will be fought for. Ballots will be found, and lost, and found
again.
Democrats believe Republicans should just sit down, shut up, and let
them do all the counting. Any attempt to fight back is “suppressing the
vote.”
Maybe Trump should just leave office now and get a head start on building that new TV network he wants to start.
Hillary gave an example of evil Republicans “messing up” the ballots during the April Wisconsin primary.
“But because courts had ordered absentee ballots to be
counted if they were postmarked on election day, Democrats actually won
some important races there,” she said.
While Republicans had pushed back against Democratic governor Tony
Evers’ proposal to mail almost every voter in the state an absentee
ballot application, more than 80 percent of GOP members in the Wisconsin Legislature voted by mail in April.
What good are rules when Democrats want to break them? Deadlines
aren’t really “deadlines.” They’re suggestions, not the law. Find a
judge eager to make his own laws from the bench and you can get any
result you want.
Clinton ranted on about how Republicans are going to screw up the election for Democrats.
“We have to have our own teams of people to counter the
force of intimidation that the Republicans and Trump are going to put
outside polling places,” Clinton said, urging people to become poll
workers in November.
First of all, it’s illegal to politic within 50 feet of a polling
place. Second, who was it that was charged with voter intimidation in
Philadelphia in 2008? It was the New Black Panther Party.
The charges were later dropped by the Obama justice department but it
was a clear case of voter intimidation, as the NBP members screamed
racial epithets at white voters while standing in front of the precinct
wearing military fatigues.
Trump urged Republicans to volunteer to be poll watchers — just like
Hillary did. But Orange Man bad and Democrats good. That just about sums
it up.
Carter Page appears on Fox News for an interview with Maria Bartiromo to discuss a book he is publishing about the DOJ and FBI targeting him for surveillance and identifying him as “an agent of a foreign government” in 2016 and 2017.
Interestingly, Page notes [@02:56] he had five interviews with the FBI in March of 2017, and he connects those interviews to the possibility of leaks to the Washington Post.
However, it would be interesting to find out the exact dates of those interviews because the FISA application identifying him, leaked by James Wolfe, was delivered to the SSCI on March 17, 2017, as a “read and return” document. It was after March 17th when the Washington Post wrote the article mentioned by Carter Page.
There is strong circumstantial evidence when the FISA application was delivered to the SSCI on March 17, 2017, that only James Wolfe and SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner reviewed it. First, it was “read and return”, back to the equity provider, FBI SSA Brian Dugan. Second, if any other member of the SSCI had reviewed the application it’s doubtful they would have been requesting to review it in December ’17 and early ’18. Common sense would indicate only Warner and Wolfe saw the application, and Warner never informed the committee of his review; hence their later requests.
Additionally, another unusual aspect to the FISA application delivery surrounds the 2018 letters written by Chairman Nunes (HPSCI) and Chairman Bob Goodlatte (House Judiciary) to presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer, where both chairman were being blocked by the special counsel from obtaining the FISA application and both were seeking to gain it from the FISA Court.
Collyer informed Goodlatte and Nunes that their request of January 16, 2018, was putting the judicial branch in a precarious position between the executive branch and the legislative branch.
Judge Collyer informed the committee chairman they needed to exhaust all other possible remedies for production prior to requesting intervention by the judicial branch.
However, notably in her return correspondance to the legislative bodies, FISC Judge Collyer never informed Nunes and Goodlatte about the FISA application having previously been provided to the legislative branch in March 2017.
She never mentioned it….. Why not?
One possibility for not informing the legislative branch is that Judge Collyer knew FBI Agent Brian Dugan was using the FISA application as part of his leak investigation, and the need to retain investigative value kept her from revealing the March 2017 delivery.
The original request from Nunes and Goodlatte was January 16, 2018. The response from Collyer was February 15, 2018, which is really interesting.
On February 9th, the text messages between Senator Mark Warner and Chris Steele’s lawyer Adam Waldman were released. On February 13th, the DOJ informed Ali Watkins about the court order granting FBI Agent Brian Dugan the authority to capture and review her text messages, phone and email communications. All of these events are connected.
FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer responded to the January request from the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte. (full pdf’s below – #1 and #2)
There was an underlying issue not being discussed within the communication – yet visible in the corner amid their engagement. That issue was the possibility SSA Brian Dugan may have modified the FISA documents as part of his leak investigation.
When the Dugan investigative file was then reviewed by the special counsel (due to their primary investigative authority) the Mueller team needed to cover the modification; hence their release of that specific document on July 21, 2018, came with redactions of all dates.
The special counsel would have received this investigative file from Dugan in the middle to end of January 2018. Around the same time Nunes and Goodlatte were writing letters to Judge Collyer.
This mid to late January time-frame appears to be when Dugan’s file was scrubbed of the direct evidence tying Warner/Wolfe to the leak. It appears the special counsel then gave Warner a ‘head’s-up’ about the captured text messages that were part of Dugan’s investigation. Vice Chairman Mark Warner then coordinated a plausible justification for his communication with Waldman; and in short order, February 9, 2018, those texts were released to diffuse the controversy.
In essence, the FISA documents held by the court *may not be* identical to the FISA documents released by the Department of Justice. With good reason to suspect something was afoot, yet Dugan’s background work was unknown to Goodlatte at the time, Goodlatte was seeking to compare the DOJ copy (taken from Dugan, but he did not know that) with a clean FISC copy. In hindsight Goodlatte was on the right trail.
Why didn’t Judge Collyer inform the legislative branch of the prior production to the SSCI?
Why didn’t any other senators -including SSCI committee members- know the FISA application had been delivered for review and return on March 17, 2017?
Was Mark Warner the only senator who knew of the FISA production March 17, 2017?
The motive for Warner to request the FISA application in March, and then seek to leak the content, is easily identifiable. At the time (early 2017) the political resistance was trying to convince the public that Trump-Russia collusion had happened. This was an effort to undermine the administration and get a special counsel put into place.
Warner leaking the reality of the FISA application’s existence stirred the media into action because now the media could push a narrative that Trump must be colluding with Russia or there would not be a valid FBI investigation of it…. and the FISA court was validating the issue with their own approval of a FISA warrant.
The leak of the FISA application served to prove there was some measurable validity to the fraudulent claim of Trump-Russia collusion… or else, so the narrative was spun, there would not be an FBI investigation into it. That’s how the resistance drummed up the need for a special counsel to continue the operation against President Donald Trump.
That’s why Senator Mark Warner wanted to leak the FISA application; and it appears he used SSCI Security Direct James Wolfe to pull it off.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi labeled President Donald Trump, Republicans, and her political opponents “domestic enemies” on Monday for opposing universal mail-in voting rammed into place just 70 days before a national election.
Pelosi made the divisive remarks during an afternoon appearance on MSNBC condemning Trump for raising valid concerns about mandatory mail-in voting in every state. Such a proposal, which Democrats are exhaustively pursuing in part by spreading conspiracies about the Post Office, would force more than 40 states to try to create a secure system to conduct a national election just more than two months away.
“The Russians were there and they are there now 24/7 trying to interfere in our election, but they’re not the only ones,” Pelosi said. “We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And sadly, the domestic enemies to our voting system and our honoring of the Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in the Congress of the United States.”
UNHINGED: Nancy Pelosi labels Republicans "domestic enemies...enemies of the state" pic.twitter.com/8TnFfk3VFQ
The Democratic House speaker accused Trump of trying to depress turnout by bringing up the dangers of federalizing elections with sweeping changes so close to election day.
“They’re doing everything they can [to] suppress the vote with their actions, scare people, intimidate by saying law enforcement will be there, diminish the role of the postal system in all of this. It’s really actually shameful. Enemies of the state,” Pelosi said.
After failing to oust Trump with impeachment over a phone call, to prove Trump is a secret agent of the Kremlin, and to remove Trump with the Emoluments Clause, Democrats are pushing a new conspiracy claiming Trump is executing a diabolical plot to manipulate the Post Office to ensure a second term. The false narrative features allegations Trump is ordering Post Office boxes removed on street corners to prevent people from voting by mail.
Such theories, despite being widely debunked, have caught steam among Democrats’ loyal followers in legacy media and even provoked congressional testimony from the postmaster general.
“I have not, I’ll repeat again for the hundredth time, I have not removed any machines,” said Postmaster General Louis DeJoy before House lawmakers Monday.
