The Democratic Party Is Dead, Long Live the Jacobins! ~ VDH

by Victor Davis Hanson 

For the past century, the agendas of the Democratic Party were predictable. They professed concern for working Americans and supported blue-collar unions.

Unemployment insurance, a 40-hour work week, disability insurance, and Social Security were their trademarks -- often rapidly achieved by growing government bureaucracies and continually raising taxes. Still, many Democrats were socially conservative.

By the 1970s, Democrats still deplored antisemitism. Party officials had rejected their own segregationists to champion civil rights.

Presidents like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy all supported strong defense and military deterrence.

All that is now passe.

The only vestigial Democrat left in Congress is Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, himself roundly despised by Democrat leaders.

Today, supporting Israel and calling for campuses to stop their institutionalized antisemitism is Democratic political suicide.

Forty years ago, any Democrat with a Nazi tattoo was political toast; today, he can become the party's nominee for the Maine Senate race.

So, the current Democrat Party is no longer truly democratic at all. Its new spirit and methods resemble the radical Jacobin Party of the French Revolution. Today, Democrats claim that if any opponent gives a Roman salute, he is a Nazi -- while insisting that one of their own with a Nazi tattoo is not.

Jacobinism rejects Martin Luther King Jr.'s emphasis on the "content of . . . character." It instead prefers fixating on "the color of . . . skin."

It aims to divide the nation arbitrarily between the noble oppressed and the toxic oppressors.

So these new Jacobins have institutionalized racially separate college dorms and graduation ceremonies, along with hiring and promoting on the basis of race.

The new Jacobins destroyed the southern border and welcomed in 10-12 million illegal aliens, seen as a future proletariat constituency. Today's Jacobins would now ridicule Bill Clinton's 1990s calls for secure borders and an end to illegal immigration as "fascist" and "racist."

The most recent nihilist developments in American society can be attributed to these Jacobin "Democrats": biological men competing in women's sports; critical legal theory that normalizes cashless bail; race-based reparations; violent felons arrested and back on the street hours later; radical abortion on demand until birth; attacks on the concept of the cultural "melting pot"; and opposition to organized Christianity.

These agendas lack broad majority support. So street theater and violence focus on Tesla dealerships, ICE officers, conservative campus speakers, and, at times, any journalists covering the unrest.

Jacobins make excuses for pro-Hamas campus violence, which often targets Jewish students. The often violent and corrupt Black Lives Matter movement was a Jacobin ancillary.

Free speech is labeled "disinformation" and "misinformation" – synonyms for not toeing the Jacobin Party line. Until recent pushbacks, near-religious radical green agendas warred against fossil fuels and cost the working classes billions of dollars for sky-high fuel and electricity costs.

Like the Robespierre brothers of old, the most radical Jacobins are so often to be found among the wealthiest and most privileged Americans. Radical New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani grew up as a rich Ugandan. Radical, self-described communist Maine senatorial candidate Graham Platner attended one of the most elite and expensive prep schools in the United States.

When avowed socialists Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders barnstormed the country, they did so via private jets.

Radical "Squad" member Rep. Ilhan Omar cannot decide whether she is worth $30 million or nothing. Hard-left California billionaire, gubernatorial candidate, and radical environmentalist Tom Steyer is a billionaire who jump-started his fortune by investing in coal plants overseas and offshoring profits to avoid taxes.

At least 10 states are drafting laws to tax the net worth, as well as the income, of "billionaires and millionaires," apparently for their "social" crimes. Mayor Mamdani taps on the window of philanthropist Ken Griffin as a warning to get out of town. The mayor of Seattle scoffs at the rich leaving her state with their billions due to new punitive taxes, offering a sarcastic "bye."

In the old days, Democrats were embarrassed by their radicals and distanced themselves from the Weather Underground, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Black Panthers. Today, left-wing bomb throwers are the Democrat Party.

Hasan Piker, another multimillionaire, $200,000 Porsche-driving communist, has openly supported "social murder."

So Piker praised Luigi Mangione's targeted murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

Meanwhile, Jacobins on social media expressed disappointment that all three assassination attempts on Donald Trump failed. The arsonist who burned down Pacific Palisades was a Mangione acolyte and saw his destruction as a revolutionary act, perhaps a form of mass "social murder."

Jacobin politicians call for Trump to be "eliminated," label him as a "fascist," and call for "any means necessary" to end his presidency. The aim is to lower the social and psychological barrier to violence.

The Jacobin Democrats of today are systematically destroying the legacy of the Democratic Party. And why not?

Their model is not the American Founding, but the radical mandated equality – and violence – of the French Revolution.

Podcast thread for May 8

 

each day can be a mini victory if you think about it.

The Masks Are Off: How Europe Betrayed the Trump Administration

American Thinker 

Europe has betrayed President Trump. For years, EU leaders and key national governments have undermined the White House's agenda quietly, working to remove pro-Washington figures from power. We recently witnessed this in Romania, where Cătălin Georgescu -- a clear frontrunner who favored closer ties with the U.S. -- was effectively sidelined in the presidential race. In Hungary, there was a concerted effort to defeat Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party in April. Now, anti-Trump Europe has stepped out of the shadows and is openly distancing itself from the administration, leaving it to face its challenges in Iran alone.

This isn't allyship; it's more like the antics of teenagers going through political puberty. Many Europeans, basking in what they perceive as setbacks for Trump, seem oblivious to the consequences if he reevaluates his relationship with them and stops extending courtesies based on shared transatlantic ties. It appears the time for that reckoning is now upon us.

Europe: The Free Riders

The strikes against Iran created a clear before-and-after moment in U.S.-European relations. Setting aside the debate over the necessity of such an operation, President Trump demonstrated his role as a predictable partner and reliable ally by reaching out to Europe for assistance. Even strong nations sometimes need support.

But Europe demurred. Their response ranged from a flat "no" from Berlin to vague preconditions for potential aid.

Audacity Knows No Limits

Lithuania is a perfect example of the increasingly transactional relationship that Europeans have with the United States. Its barely audible leadership expressed a willingness to help Washington -- but only if formally asked. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė shamelessly requested that U.S. Special Envoy David Hale resolve Lithuania’s domestic issues -- specifically, cigarette smuggling and the detention of a transport vehicle -- during his upcoming visit to Minsk. The assumption in Vilnius is clear: Washington should fix their problems, and it does.

Lithuania isn't an outlier; it reflects a growing trend within the EU. National leaders openly ask for American assistance because they don't want to address many of the problems they created themselves. Yet this anti-Trump Europe expects continued long-term support from the U.S., including in matters of security and strategic stability.

At the same time, however, they refuse to offer even symbolic gestures of reciprocity or consider American interests. Providing meaningful assistance with the Iran conflict is considered unthinkable. Instead, EU leaders feel entitled to lecture American officials and criticize Washington’s pragmatic policies.

Lithuania provides a telling example once again. Its president and prime minister recently disparaged Special Envoy Hale's decision to meet with Lithuanian politicians deemed "unacceptable" by the government, including Member of Seimas (Member of Parliament) Ignas Vėgėlė and former presidential candidate Petras Gražulis. A small European nation is openly scolding a special envoy of the U.S. president. If American policymakers don’t deliver a firm response now, what will happen next?

You Don't Catch Sparrows with Drums

It would be wise for the administration to stop turning a blind eye to this egregious behavior from its "allies" and hold them accountable. The EU can no longer be relied upon, even for minor issues. Ironically, the current difficulties surrounding Iran have helped expose these problems.

The truth is that European leaders are no longer reliable partners for America. They view a second term for President Trump as a nightmare and are eager for it to end. It’s time to take action against such "friends" -- they are far more dangerous than any enemy.

Iran is the primary focus

That will happen without question. Just not yet. The immediate priority remains Iran.

No matter what anyone says, the U.S. military has not suffered any catastrophic losses in this conflict. There is no doubt that the Pentagon is constantly analyzing the situation on the ground and refining new objectives. The U.S. military is poised for action with a massive force: three aircraft carrier strike groups deployed to the region. This force is capable of reducing any adversary, especially Iran, to dust. Iran's defenses have been weakened by previous strikes, and 90% of its export capacity is located on Kharg Island, which is notoriously difficult to protect.

Tehran hasn’t been idle either. Analysts believe the ayatollahs used negotiations and a ceasefire effectively to rebuild their defensive capabilities. However, U.S. forces have a significant advantage in firepower and training and are fully capable of achieving victory on the battlefield.

It's time to pay the bill for Europe

A decisive victory in Iran -- whether military, economic, or diplomatic -- will force European critics to eat their words. This would send a powerful message to anti-Trump politicians in the EU, far more effective than threats to withdraw American bases.

Europe will have no choice but to pay for its shortsightedness, political cowardice, and disloyalty. They EU desperately needs this harsh lesson to force an abandonment of the delusion of "European strategic autonomy" -- a fantasy constantly shattered by their inability to overcome internal divisions over leadership -- and accept political reality.

The Hilton Breach and the Failure of Paper-Thin Security

The Hilton Breach and the Failure of Paper-Thin Security

It is time to build security architecture that is designed to work -- not designed to look like it works.

Meda Parameswara Reddy for American Thinker

The attempted assassination at the Washington Hilton was the fifth major attempt on the president's life since 2024. A lone actor raced through a hotel checkpoint and got close enough to matter. This is not a staffing problem or a protocol gap. It is a systemic collapse of imagination -- and it will keep happening until someone is willing to examine it from first principles rather than institutional habit.

From TVs to Trillions

Quality control is invisible in everyday life precisely because it works. When you buy a car, you expect the brakes to function every single time. Industry achieves this through Six Sigma -- a manufacturing benchmark allowing only 3.4 defects per million opportunities. In a factory, that is world-class performance.

Apply that math to protecting the U.S. President -- the pivot point for eight billion people -- and Six Sigma becomes a death sentence. Given the thousands of daily contact points a president navigates, a 3.4-per-million failure rate means tragedy is not a risk to be managed. It is a statistical certainty waiting for its moment.

What we need instead is the 13-Sigma Standard: a failure rate of roughly one defect per 100 billion opportunities. Not better effort from the same system -- an entirely different system architecture. One where failure is not minimized through vigilance but mathematically eliminated through design.

Three Failures, One Fishbone

Using the Fishbone diagnostic model -- a standard tool for tracing systemic failure to its root causes -- three patterns emerge clearly.

The first is a methods failure. Security planning still operates on a 20th-century habit of mind: human cordons and physical perimeters in an era of autonomous, kinetic, and cyber threats. Each new threat environment is met with formulas that worked in a previous one. This is not incompetence. It is the predictable result of institutional thinking that has never been seriously challenged from outside.

The second is the budget paradox. We spend $102 billion on air power and missile defense abroad, yet allow the President to stand at an open podium in an unfortified hotel ballroom. This is functional fixedness on a national scale -- a defense budget seen only as a tool for foreign operations, blind to its application as a domestic hard-site security resource.

The third is False Prestige. We sacrifice genuine safety for optics, fearing that visible fortification looks undemocratic. This is a catastrophic error in priorities. A president who governs from a protected environment is democracy functioning. A president who does not survive is democracy failing at its most fundamental level. The prestige of an open podium is worth nothing if the person standing at it does not walk away.

The 13-Sigma Strategy

Three requirements follow directly from the diagnosis.

First, a Fresh Eyes Task Force. Institutional experts are constrained by the fear of appearing unprofessional -- they self-censor unconventional ideas before those ideas can be evaluated. What is needed alongside credentialed specialists is a group of deliberate outsiders: college students, independent inventors, practitioners from unrelated fields. People unburdened by clearance politics and career considerations will notice the unsecured roofline or the unmonitored corridor that a senior agent has been trained to classify as acceptable risk. Fresh eyes do not accept acceptable risk. They ask why it exists.

Second, fortified real estate as a non-negotiable baseline. If a venue cannot be sealed across several city blocks and protected at every approach vector, the President does not attend. The economic disruption of temporary closures is trivial arithmetic compared to the global destabilization a successful assassination would trigger.

Third, algorithmic defense of the social fabric. Digital radicalization is a security threat requiring the same rigor as a physical one. When inflammatory rhetoric crosses a measurable threshold of incitement, AI-driven systems should flag it in real time -- not for censorship, but to provide context and interrupt the escalation cycle before it reaches the point of no return.

The Survival Standard

Throughout my career, the breakthroughs came when I ignored the professionals who said: if it were that simple, someone would have already thought of it. That argument is the enemy of progress in every field. In national security, it is something worse.

We are spending a trillion dollars on a screen door while the storm is already inside. The 13-Sigma Standard is not an aspiration. It is an engineering requirement -- the same class of requirement we impose on aircraft, medical devices, and the brakes on the cars that carry our children. If we demand that level of reliability from the machines that sustain our physical lives, we owe no less to the institution that sustains our democratic one. False Prestige has cost us enough. It is time to build security architecture that is designed to work -- not designed to look like it works.

Meda Parameswara Reddy, Ph.D. (mpreddy54@yahoo.com), is a scientist with 30 patents. He directs the Reddy Center for Critical and Integrated Thinking. Known for applying outside-the-box engineering solutions to complex systemic problems, he advocates for a radical shift in security protocols based on industrial manufacturing standards and rigorous first-principles thinking.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

There’s Something About Mary…

Conservative Treehouse 

I have been asked to recap some of my research into cited formats of what I believe to be criminal conduct, with specific statutes against them. This is a recap of one key player who mysteriously seems to avoid scrutiny.

If there is one corrupt DC player who has escaped scrutiny for her corrupt endeavors, it would be Mary McCord.

More than any other Lawfare operative within Main Justice, Mary McCord sits at the center of every table in the manufacturing of cases against Donald Trump. {GO DEEP} Mary McCord’s husband is Sheldon Snook.  At a critical moment he was also the right hand to the legal counsel of Chief Justice John Roberts.

When the Carter Page FISA application was originally assembled by the FBI and DOJ, there was initial hesitancy from within the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) about submitting the application, because it did not have enough citations in evidence (the infamous ‘Woods File’).  That’s why the Steele Dossier ultimately became important.

It was the Steele Dossier that provided the push, the legal cover needed for the DOJ-NSD to submit the application for a Title-1 surveillance warrant against the campaign of Donald J. Trump.

When the application was finally assembled for submission to the FISA court, the head of the DOJ-NSD was John Carlin.  Carlin quit working for the DOJ-NSD in late September 2016 just before the final application was submitted (October 21,2016).  John Carlin was replaced by Deputy Asst. Attorney General, Mary McCord.

♦ When the FISA application was finally submitted (approved by Sally Yates and James Comey), it was Mary McCord who did the actual process of filing the application and gaining the Title-1 surveillance warrant.

A few months later, February 2017, with Donald Trump now in office as President, it was Mary McCord who went with Deputy AG Sally Yates to the White House to confront White House legal counsel Don McGahn over the Michael Flynn interview with FBI agents.  The surveillance of Flynn’s calls was presumably done under the auspices and legal authority of the FISA application Mary McCord previously was in charge of submitting.

♦ At the time the Carter Page application was filed (October 21, 2016), Mary McCord’s chief legal counsel inside the office was a DOJ-NSD lawyer named Michael Atkinson.  In his role as the legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD, it was Atkinson’s job to review and audit all FISA applications submitted from inside the DOJ.  Essentially, Atkinson was the DOJ internal compliance officer in charge of making sure all FISA applications were correctly assembled and documented.

♦ When the anonymous CIA whistleblower complaint was filed against President Trump for the issues of the Ukraine call with President Zelensky, the Intelligence Community Inspector General had to change the rules for the complaint to allow an anonymous submission.  Prior to this change, all intelligence whistleblowers had to put their name on the complaint.  It was this 2019 IGIC who changed the rules.  Who was the Intelligence Community Inspector General?  Michael Atkinson.

When ICIG Michael Atkinson turned over the newly authorized anonymous whistleblower complaint to the joint House Intelligence and Judiciary Committee (Schiff and Nadler chairs), who did Michael Atkinson give the complaint to?  Mary McCord.

Yes, after she left main justice, Mary McCord took the job of working for Chairman Jerry Nadler and Chairman Adam Schiff as the chief legal advisor inside the investigation that led to the construction of articles of impeachment.   As a consequence, Mary McCord received the newly permitted anonymous whistleblower complaint from her old office colleague Michael Atkinson.

♦ During his investigation of the Carter Page application, Inspector General Michael Horowitz discovered an intentional lie inside the Carter Page FISA application (directly related to the ‘Woods File’), which his team eventually tracked to FBI counterintelligence division lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith.  Eventually Clinesmith was criminally charged with fabricating evidence (changed wording on an email) in order to intentionally falsify the underlying evidence in the FISA submission.

When John Durham took the Clinesmith indictment to court, the judge in the case was James Boasberg.

♦ In addition to being a DC criminal judge, James Boasberg is also a FISA court judge who signed-off on one of the renewals for the FISA application that was submitted using fraudulent evidence fabricated by Kevin Clinesmith.  In essence, now the presiding judge over the FISA court, Boasberg was the FISC judge who was tricked by Clinesmith, and now the criminal court judge in charge of determining Clinesmith’s legal outcome.  Judge Boasberg eventually sentenced Clinesmith to 6 months probation.

As an outcome of continued FISA application fraud and wrongdoing by the FBI, in their exploitation of searches of the NSA database, Presiding FISC Judge James Boasberg appointed an amici curiae advisor to the court who would monitor the DOJ-NSD submissions and ongoing FBI activities.

Who did James Boasberg select as a FISA court amicus?  Mary McCord.

♦ SUMMARY:  Mary McCord submitted the original false FISA application to the court using the demonstrably false Dossier.  Mary McCord participated in the framing of Michael Flynn.  Mary McCord worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to create a fraudulent whistleblower complaint against President Trump; and Mary McCord used that manipulated complaint to assemble articles of impeachment on behalf of the joint House Intel and Judiciary Committee.  Mary McCord then took up a defensive position inside the FISA court to protect the DOJ and FBI from sunlight upon all the aforementioned corrupt activity.

You can clearly see how Mary McCord would be a person of interest if anyone was going to start digging into corruption internally within the FBI, DOJ or DOJ-NSD.

What happened next….

November 3, 2021 – In Washington DC – “Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the House Jan. 6 Select Committee has tapped Mary McCord, who once ran the Justice Department’s National Security Division, for representation in its fight to obtain former President Donald Trump’s White House records. (read more)

Yes, that is correct.  After seeding and guiding all of the Lawfare attacks against candidate Donald Trump, then President-Elect Donald Trump, then President Donald Trump, Mary McCord took up a key legal position inside the J6 committee to continue the Lawfare against President Trump after he left office.

But wait,…. Remember the stories of the J6 investigative staff going to work for Jack Smith on the investigation of Donald Trump, that included the raid on Mar-a-Lago?  Well, Mary McCord was a member of that team [citation]; all indications are that her efforts continued as a quiet member of the Special Counsel team

That’s the context; now I want to go back a little.

First, when did Mary McCord become “amicus” to the FISA court?  ANSWER: When the court (Boasberg) discovered IG Michael Horowitz was investigating the fraudulent FISA application.  In essence, the FISA Court appointed the person who submitted the fraudulent filing, to advise on any ramifications from the fraudulent filing.  See how that works?

Now, let’s go deeper….

When Mary McCord went to the White House with Sally Yates to talk to white house counsel Don McGhan about the Flynn call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, and the subsequent CBS interview with VP Pence, where Pence’s denial of any wrongdoing took place, the background narrative in the attack against Flynn was the Logan Act.

The construct of the Logan Act narrative was pure Lawfare, and DAG Sally Yates with Acting NSD AAG Mary McCord were the architects.

Why was the DOJ National Security Division concerned with a conflict between what Pence said on CBS and what Flynn said about his conversations with Kislyak?

This is where a big mental reset is needed.

Flynn did nothing wrong. The incoming National Security Advisor can say anything he wants with the Russian ambassador, short of giving away classified details of any national security issue.  In December of 2016, if Michael Flynn wanted to say Obama was an a**hole, and the Trump administration disagreed with everything he ever did, the incoming NSA was free to do so.  There was simply nothing wrong with that conversation – regardless of content.

So, why were McCord and Yates so determined to make an issue in media and in confrontation with the White House?

Why did the DOJ-NSD even care?  This is the part that people overlooked when the media narrative was driving the news cycle.  People got too stuck in the weeds and didn’t ask the right questions.

Some entity, we discover later was the FBI counterintelligence division, was monitoring Flynn’s calls.  They transcribed a copy of the call between Flynn and Kislyak, and that became known as the “Flynn Cuts” as described within internal documents, and later statements.

After the Flynn/Kislyak conversation was leaked to the media, Obama asked ODNI Clapper how that call got leaked.  Clapper went to the FBI on 1/4/17 and asked FBI Director James Comey.  Comey gave Clapper a copy of the Flynn Cuts which Clapper then took back to the White House to explain to Obama.

Obama’s White House counsel went bananas, because Clapper had just walked directly into the Oval Office with proof the Obama administration was monitoring the incoming National Security Advisor.  Obama’s plausible deniability of the surveillance was lost as soon as Clapper walked in with the written transcript.

That was the motive for the 1/5/17 Susan Rice memo, and the reason for Obama to emphasize “buy the book” three times.

It wasn’t that Obama didn’t know already; it was that a document trail now existed (likely a CYA from Comey) that took away Obama’s plausible deniability of knowledge.  The entire January 5th meeting was organized to mitigate this issue.

Knowing the Flynn Cuts were created simultaneously with the phone call, and knowing how it was quickly decided to use the Logan Act as a narrative against Flynn and Trump, we can be very sure both McCord and Yates had read that transcript before they went to the White House.  [Again, this is the entire purpose of them going to the White House to confront McGhan with their manufactured concerns.]

So, when it comes to ‘who leaked’ the reality of the Flynn/Kislyak call to the media, the entire predicate for the Logan Act violation – in hindsight – I would bet a donut it was Mary McCord.

But wait, there’s more…. 

Now we go back to McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook.

Sheldon was working for the counsel to John Roberts.  The counsel to the Chief Justice has one job, to review the legal implications of issues before the court and advise Justice John Roberts.  The counsel to the Chief Justice knows everything happening in the court and is the sounding board for any legal issues impacting the Supreme Court.

In his position as the right hand of the counsel to the chief justice, Sheldon Snook would know everything happening inside the court.

At the time, there was nothing bigger inside the court than the Alito opinion known as the Dobb’s Decision – the returning of abortion law to the states.  Without any doubt, the counsel to Chief Justice Roberts would have that decision at the forefront of his advice and counsel.  By extension, this puts the actual written Alito opinion in the orbit of Sheldon Snook.

After the Supreme Court launched a heavily publicized internal investigation into the leaking of the Dobbs decision (Alito opinion), something interesting happened.  Sheldon Snook left his position.   If you look at the timing of the leak, the investigation and the Sheldon Snook exit, the circumstantial evidence looms large.

Of course, given the extremely high stakes, the institutional crisis with the public discovering the office of the legal counsel to the Chief Justice likely leaked the decision, such an outcome would be catastrophic for the institutional credibility.  In essence, it would be Robert’s office who leaked the opinion to the media.

If you were Chief Justice John Roberts and desperately needed to protect the integrity of the court, making sure such a thermonuclear discovery was never identified would be paramount.  Under the auspices of motive, Sheldon Snook would exit quietly.  Which is exactly what happened.

The timeline holds the key.

BACK TO MARY in 2025 – During the question session for Attorney General Pam Bondi’s nomination, Adam Schiff asked Mary McCord about whether AG Bondi should recuse herself from investigating Adam Schiff and Mary McCord. It’s a little funny if you understand the background.

I prompted the video to the part at 01:36:14 when Schiff asks McCord, and Mrs. McCord responds with “yes, Pam Bondi should recuse.” WATCH:

Mary McCord said Pam Bondi must recuse herself from any investigative outcome related to the first impeachment effort.

Who was the lead staff working for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on the first impeachment effort?

Mary McCord.

Now, triggering that first impeachment effort… Who worked with ICIG Michael Atkinson to change the CIA whistleblower regulations permitting an anonymous complaint?

Yep, that would be the same Mary McCord.

In essence, the woman who organized, structured, led and coordinated the first impeachment effort, says Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating the organization, structure, leadership and coordination of the first impeachment effort.

If all that seems overwhelming, here’s a short recap:

♦ McCord submitted the fraudulent FISA application to spy on Trump campaign.

♦ McCord helped create the “Logan Act” claim used against Michael Flynn and then went with Sally Yates to confront the White House.

♦ McCord then left the DOJ and went to work for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on Impeachment Committee.

♦ McCord organized the CIA rule changes with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.

♦ McCord led and organized the impeachment effort, in the background, using the evidence she helped create.

♦ McCord joined the FISA Court to protect against DOJ IG Michael Horowitz newly gained NSD oversight and FISA review.

♦ McCord joined the J6 Committee helping to create all the lawfare angles they deployed.

♦ McCord then coordinated with DA Fani Willis in Georgia.

♦ McCord was working with Special Counsel Jack Smith to prosecute Trump.

♦ McCord is now coordinating outside Lawfare attacks against Donald Trump in term #2

♦ McCord also testified that AG Pam Bondi must recuse herself from investigating McCord.