Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

Gen. Flynn won a major victory in court today. On the other hand, this was a difficult day for Joe Biden. Peter Strzok’s note is particularly troublesome:

Attending the meeting were Susan Rice, the National Security Adviser, Jim Comey, the FBI Director, President Obama, Vice President Biden and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. TRANSLATION: Susan Rice = NSA; Obama = P; Biden = VP; Comey = D & Yates = DAG

Remember that Biden was asked about what he knew about Gen. Flynn by George Stephanopoulos in this interview:

Stephanopoulos: I do want to ask you about Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser to President Trump and the move by the Justice Department to dismiss the case against him for lying to the FBI. The President said yesterday that the move was justified because President Obama targeted Flynn. He called it, quote, the biggest political crime in US history. Your former Senate colleague Charles Grassley has added that Flynn was entrapped and asked on the Senate floor “What did Obama and Biden know? When did they know it?” So what did you know about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn and was there anything improper done?
BIDEN: I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn, number one, and number two, this is all about diversion. This is the game this guy plays all the time. The country is in a crisis. We’re in an economic crisis, a health crisis.

That’s about 2 minutes into the interview. After Biden’s full-throated denial, Stephanopoulos returned to the subject:

I want to press that. You say you didn’t know anything about but you were reported to be at a January 5, 2017 meeting where you and the President were briefed on the FBI’s plan to question Michael Flynn over those conversations he had with the Russian Ambassador Kislyak.
Biden: No, I thought you asked me about whether I had anything to do with him being prosecuted. I’m sorry. I was aware that they asked for an investigation but that’s all I know about it and nothing else.

I’ll bet most people didn’t notice the fatal flaw in Biden’s reply. Biden said “I thought you asked me whether I had anything to do with him getting prosecuted.” The FBI interview with Gen. Flynn didn’t happen until January 24, 2017, 4 full days after Biden became formerVice President Biden. As a private citizen, he wouldn’t have had any influence to get Flynn prosecuted. Further, Biden’s denial, which was categorical, was a lie. He knew much more about the investigation. According to Strzok’s note, he’s the person who brought up the Logan Act at the January 5, 2017 meeting as a way of investigating Gen. Flynn. Don’t forget that FBI field officers with the DC Bureau had interviewed Gen. Flynn and wanted to drop Operation Crossfire Razor, the FBI code name for the Flynn investigation:

On Jan. 4, 2017, two weeks before the Trump inauguration, FBI agents at a lower level, where the real work is done, prudently tried to close the Flynn investigation, citing the absence of any derogatory information or other facts that would enable the bureau to keep the case open.

Before the now-infamous January 5 meeting, FBI field agents tried closing the Flynn investigation. That investigation was kept open by “the 7th floor”, which is where then-FBI Director Jim Comey’s office was.

Thanks to the investigation into the investigators, Jim Comey refused to renew his security clearance. He allegedly did that to avoid getting asked questions about classified information.

Vice President Biden’s problem isn’t that a hard-nosed reporter will ask him about his dishonesty. It’s difficult to picture Biden’s campaign staff letting him get within a mile of a hard-nosed reporter. That’s if such a reporter exists outside of a handful of national security correspondents. Biden’s problem is that he’ll get pelted with this information by the Trump campaign in ads, by Trump-supporting PACs and by Trump himself during the presidential debates.

Biden can hide in his basement a little while longer but he’ll have to do real campaigning sooner rather than later. Last weekend, the MSM criticized the Trump campaign for only having 6,000 people in the arena. The story that they didn’t tell is that 7,700,000 people watched the rally on Fox and another 5,000,000 watched on C-SPAN. That’s before factoring in the people who watched the livestreaming via YouTube. Trump’s message is getting out and, as Charlie Hurt said this weekend, there’s nobody better at putting people on the defensive than President Trump.

It’s obvious that Gen. Jim Mattis was upset. It’s equally obvious that he wasn’t in touch with reality. In an op-ed, which I won’t link to, Gen. Mattis wrote “I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”

What’s disgusting is that the police are protecting the protesters’ right to protest. Where politicians let them, the police have protected civilians, businesses and property. When idiots like Bill de Blasio, Andrew Cuomo, Jacob Frey and Tom Wolf have tied law enforcement’s hands, rioters have controlled this nation’s major cities after sunset.

Police officers were run over, shot in the head or murdered by rioters. Private property was demolished by the insurrectionists/terrorists. Minority businesses were burned to the ground after they were looted. Does Gen. Mattis think that we’d be better off letting these local officials make decisions that destroy minority neighborhoods while the liberal politicians give rioters room to riot?

Let’s not overlook Gen. Mattis’ statement about “those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.” Sending in military troops is constitutional. Article IV of he Constitution gives the commander-in-chief that authority. That isn’t making a “mockery of our Constitution.” That’s obeying the Constitution.

Mattis also wrote this:

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

With all due respect, Gen. Mattis, you’re relying on faulty intel. President Trump didn’t divide this nation. Antifa, Occupy Wall Street and other Democrat-aligned organizations have been dividing this nation for over 10 years. That’s a verified fact. According to this article, Antifa doesn’t hide its disgust for governance:

We spoke to secret Antifa groups in Oregon. They said they come from a variety of political backgrounds but they were united in their opposition to fascism, and they have an anti-government streak. They said they see creeping authoritarianism in the current American administration that they are looking to build “a movement that really insulates us from the policies of Donald Trump”.

That’s what division sounds like. Antifa/anarchist organizations have existed since the 1920s. That’s before President Trump was born.

It isn’t difficult to make the argument that the Obama administration abused the Constitution far more than the Trump administration has. Lois Lerner used the IRS to prevent TEA Party organizations from fully participating in the 2012 election. Lerner’s actions stripped these citizens of their First Amendment rights. The Obama FBI lied to the FISA Court to spy on Carter Page, thereby denying Page the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment rights.

In his op-ed, Gen. Mattis wrote this:

I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

That’s sour grapes. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” President Trump isn’t overstepping his constitutional authorities. He’s thinking about exercising his constitutional authorities. To date, he hasn’t utilized the authority of Article IV, nor has he used the authority of the Insurrection Act of 1807.

President Trump let Gen. Mattis have it in this statement:

It’s time for Gen. Mattis to fully retire. It’s apparent that he isn’t a constitutional scholar. It’s apparent, too, that he didn’t figure it out that the commander-in-chief has an affirmative responsibility to protect the people of this nation.

Finally, would Gen. Mattis utilize the tactics and strategies that civilian Mattis is advocating for? I wouldn’t bet on it.

This article is proof that the Agenda Media isn’t interested in digging into stories to figure out what’s actually happening. The article essentially opens both barrels at President Trump without digging into the story it’s purportedly covering. Here’s what I’m talking about:

It turns out President Donald Trump’s status as the most accessible person to ever hold the office is more a curse than a blessing. Day after day, he fills the air with the ack-ack of disinformation and misdirection, needlessly alarming the public and sending reporters on wild goose chases to either confirm or disprove his allegations. On Thursday, in an interview with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo, Trump repeated his newest figment that Joe Biden and Barack Obama are guilty of some unnamed crimes for which they are deserving of “50-year sentences.”

Strong meat! The heinous crimes—to which he has applied the “Obamagate” moniker and calls “the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR”—is a relatively new creation of the Trump Disinformation Laboratory. He only started talking about it on May 10 and has yet to specify exactly what Obamagate is aside from telling reporters in a press conference that it’s “obvious” and that he wants Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to investigate it.

I know Mr. Schaefer isn’t that stupid. At least, I hope he isn’t. Obamagate refers to the fact that President Obama knew about the Obama administration’s FBI and Obama administration’s DOJ entrapped Michael Flynn in an attempt to get him to turn on then President-Elect Trump. What’s with this foolishness then?

Despite a lack of interest from his minions in Congress (Graham has said he has no plans to grill Obama), Trump’s foggy demagoguery has mobilized the entire press corps to determine what the hell Trump is talking about. Explainers from Reuters, the Washington Post, the Guardian, CNN, and elsewhere struggle to decipher Trump’s vague but strident accusations with little success. We can say this much with certainty. It appears linked to the counterintelligence operation against Gen. Michael Flynn in late 2016, and the requests from Obama administration officials that his identity be “unmasked” from intelligence reports so they could understand who, exactly, was talking to the Russian ambassador. Flynn lied to the FBI about speaking to the ambassador about sanctions and later pled guilty to lying to the FBI about those conversations. (Unmasking, by the way, is a routine, not nefarious thing, which the Trump administration has requested thousands of times.) But until Trump uses his words to make his charges about Obama more specific, we can only guess at what the actual crime might be.

First, if Mr. Schaefer was the least bit interested in covering the story, he’d know that everyone from then-VP Biden to then-DNI Clapper to then-UN Ambassador Power to the then-Ambassador to Micronesia requested this unmasking. If Mr. Schaefer was a legitimate journalist, he’d ask why the US ambassador to Micronesia needed to know who was talking to Russian Ambassador Kislyak.

Next, unmasking is routine for intelligence analysts. It isn’t routine for ambassadors, whether they’re the ambassador to the UN or to Micronesia.

The crime isn’t the unmasking. The crimes would likely come from illegally applying for FISA warrants to surveil Carter Page or from leaking classified information to the Washington Post’s David Ignatius. Though the DOJ hasn’t identified the unmasker that leaked, it’s a safe bet that one of the unmaskers leaked that information to Ignatius. Let’s be clear about this. It isn’t a crime to receive leaked information. It’s a crime to leak classified information. This is a lie:

Now it could be that Obama did commit the biggest political crime in the history of the USA. If there’s a shred of evidence, I want Obama investigated. If the investigation bears fruit, I want him to have a fair trial. If he’s found guilty, I want him punished. But show me that shred of evidence first or I’m going back to bed.

Mr. Schaefer doesn’t want President Obama punished. It’s just that he’s obligated to say that. Further, Schaefer’s complaints about President Trump point to the fact that the MSM hates digging into the Democrats’ misconduct. Tara Reade is just the latest example of the MSM’s disinterest.

John Solomon’s article goes a long ways towards explaining the difference between legitimate unmasking requests and illegitimate unmasking requests. By now, Washington, DC, is awash with the Democrats’ spin on why the Flynn unmasking wasn’t a big deal. It’s a new version of ‘no big deal, just keep moving.’ That isn’t the truth. This is a big deal.

For instance, Solomon explained that “If a Treasury official like Raskin or the U.N. ambassador requested the unmasking because they were trying to deal with a foreign official confused by U.S. policy during the transition, that likely would be deemed a lawful intelligence purpose. But if an official requested the information because they personally did not like the incoming Trump administration or wanted to thwart Flynn during the transition through leaking or other means, it could be deemed an act against a political adversary and a misuse of unmasking.”

According to this article, “The first request appears to have been made as part of a report on Nov. 30, 2016. Along with Biden, other Obama administration officials listed are Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.” That’s long before the Flynn-Kislyak call. The Flynn-Kislyak call happened in late December.

A final question for the investigators resides in the policy question about whether unmasking has become too easy to do and therefore infringes on Americans privacy, specifically the Constitution’s 4th Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure. On that front, there are already troubling revelations. Power, whose name was invoked for hundreds of unmasking requests, testified to Congress she did not make most of those requests attributed to her. That suggests some dangerous looseness in the unmasking system.

The political people who requested these unmaskings haven’t earned the benefit of the doubt. They each have a history of dishonesty.

It’s worth noting that Solomon said that Flynn isn’t the only member of the Trump team that the Obama administration unmasked. I suspect that there’s a closet of shoes left to drop on this. It might not be an Imelda Marcos-sized shoe closet but it’s still a shoe closet.

Yesterday, President Obama said “The news over the last 24 hours I think has been somewhat downplayed — about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn. And the fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for somebody who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic, not just institutional norms, but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.”

What President Obama intentionally omitted from that statement is that Eric Holder, his Attorney General, dropped the charges against the New Black Panther Party way back in July, 2010. That’s rather odd since the New Black Panther Party had pled guilty in 2008. Bartle Bull, a civil rights ally of JFK’s in the 1960s, summed things up perfectly, saying “Martin Luther King did not die to have people in jack boots with Billy clubs, block the doors of polling places.”

J. Christian Adams adds this:

“I mean we were told, ‘Drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party,'” Adams told Fox News, adding that political appointees Loretta King, acting head of the civil rights division, and Steve Rosenbaum, an attorney with the division since 2003, ordered the dismissal.

This morning, Maria Bartiromo interviewed Trey Gowdy on the subject. Gowdy said “I find that an amazing statement from President Obama. Where was his respect for the rule of law for the crime that Michael Flynn was the victim of? Remember that he was unmasked by somebody in Obama’s administration and then it was leaked, which is a 10-year felony, Maria.” The Gowdy interview starts at the 25:30 mark in this video:

It’s worth watching the entire interview. President Obama obviously has a big megaphone but it’s limited in this instance because he’s using it to spin his way out of a growing scandal. This isn’t going away anytime soon. Obama and the Democrats know it. As President Trump uses social media to highlight the things that Jim Clapper, Susan Rice, et al, said under oath about Gen. Flynn and the Trump campaign vs. what they said on TV, Democrats, starting with Schiff and Obama, won’t find a rock big enough to hide under.

Expect the media to counter with renditions of ‘But Flynn pled guilty’. Whenever the MSM play that stunt, adults in the room of all political persuasions should drive the MSM and other Democrats back to the things that Clapper, Comey, Strzok and others said in texts and transcripts.

In the end, the truth set Gen. Flynn free.

Susan Rice apparently sees her post-Obama administration role as being an apologist for the Communist Chinese Party, aka the CCP. It should frighten Americans that she was President Obama’s National Security Adviser during his entire second term.

Appearing on Andrea Mitchell’s show on MSDNC yesterday, Rice said “the Trump administration’s description of the coronavirus as the ‘Wuhan virus’ is unacceptable and undermines global cooperation.” That’s interesting since China hasn’t exactly cooperated with the Western Hemisphere, especially in terms of telling us that a lethal virus had started in Wuhan.

The truth is that the Chinese still aren’t helping in terms of information. They insist that things are fine but they’ve just cancelled their professional basketball season. Is that proof that things are just fine? I don’t think so.

Rice added “It doesn’t serve us well, it doesn’t serve the objective of squelching the virus globally, to brand in nationalistic, or xenophobic, or racist terms. We all have to work together…”

Tell that to the CCP. They’re the ones cooking the books. They’re the ones that just re-opened the wet markets where this plague started. Check out how Rice defends the CCP and criticizes Secretary of State Pompeo in this interview:

Rice’s first implication here is that the need for cooperation means it is wrong to criticize China in any regard over the virus, even though the Chinese Communist Party’s deception led to its catastrophic mishandling of the virus in the outbreak’s earliest stages. You know, when the virus might just have been stopped from becoming a global pandemic.

This is the Obama administration’s appeasement strategy in action. China shouldn’t be criticized for igniting this pandemic. To say that is racist. This is the Democrats’ typical play. When backed into a corner, which Democrats frequently are, they start shouting ‘Racist’ at the top of their voices. It’s gotten to the point where people simply ignore them.

At the top of the RealClearPolitics website is an ad asking people to thank President Obama “for fighting to defeat Trump in 2020.” Here’s what it looks like:

President Obama might’ve been the smoothest-talking president in history but his policies stunk. Did his Iran Treaty guarantee nuclear peace into perpetuity? Did the Paris Climate Accords finish climate change? Oh wait. The negotiations between the Obama administration and Iran, handled so deftly (not really) by John Kerry were a masterpiece for artists who use crayons. It was so fatally flawed that it couldn’t be submitted as a treaty. It was so fatally flawed that dozens of Democrats voted against it.

The JCPOA and the Paris Climate Accord are now history. Prior to the Wuhan Virus, the Trump economy was hitting on all cylinders. The minute the virus is part of history, the economy will jump back to life. Unemployment is at 50-year lows. Consumer confidence is high. Companies are moving back from China. Other than that, the Trump economy is pretty mediocre.

President Trump’s handling of the virus crisis gets mixed grades. The mixed messaging definitely isn’t a positive. His travel bans deserve high grades, though. Wiping out the red tape at CDC that allowed the private sector to get involved in testing was brilliant. Why that wasn’t done sooner is testimony to President Obama’s obedience to big government.

It’s time to do what works and fix what doesn’t. Trusting government doesn’t work. Another 4 years of President Trump should fix lots of things.

H/T to Powerline’s Scott Johnson for highlighting this:


This must stop. Biden’s family must intervene ASAP. Constantly forgetting people’s names, especially your boss’s, brings into question whether Biden is still competent. At this point, I’m not certain he is.

It’s cruel to let a man that’s clearly having difficulties make a fool of himself while the whole world is watching. The DNC doesn’t care, though. Tom Perez hasn’t stopped at anything to prevent Bernie from being the Democrats’ nominee. Perez hasn’t hidden the fact that he’ll change the rules to prevent Tulsi Gabbard from participating in debates. But I digress.

It’s painfully obvious that Biden’s mind isn’t right. These aren’t like his previous gaffes, either, like when he told President Obama it was a big effing deal about Obamacare. That’s just a foul-mouthed old fart acting like a wise-ass. This isn’t like Biden talking about going to 7-11 stores without “a slight Indian accent”:

Nothing in those situations suggests that he’s lost command of his memories. The videos at the top of this post raise questions whether Biden’s mind is right enough to be the leader of the free world. Frankly, I’m not certain, at this point, he’s capable of running a neighborhood lemonade stand.

This article is built on the myth that there’s such a thing as a moderate Democrat. That critter hasn’t existed since President Obama’s inauguration. In 2007, Margaret Anderson-Kelliher, then the Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, insisted that the DFL majority was a fiscally moderate caucus. Less than 2 months later, DFL Rep. Cy Thao told GOP Rep. Steve Gottwalt at a committee hearing that “When you guys win, you get to keep your money. When we win, we take your money.

That same year, when asked about all the tax hikes hidden in his transportation bill, DFL State Sen. Steve Murphy saidI’m not trying to fool anybody. There’s a lot of taxes in this bill.” The DFL of 2007 isn’t as nutty as today’s DFL.

Democrat superdelegates are planning how to steal the Democrats’ presidential nomination from Bernie Sanders. They aren’t hiding their plans. They’re simply telling reporters what they’re planning and why they’re motivated to steal the nomination from Sen. Sanders:

From California to the Carolinas, and North Dakota to Ohio, the party leaders say they worry that Mr. Sanders, a democratic socialist with passionate but limited support so far, will lose to President Trump, and drag down moderate House and Senate candidates in swing states with his left-wing agenda of “Medicare for all” and free four-year public college.

Earlier this week, Newt Gingrich announced that he’s writing a book about House Democrats that he calls “the radical 200.” Newt then said that “the entire Democratic Party is marching off a left-wing cliff. There’s a bill, for example, that would raise the FICA Tax, your Social Security tax, by 19% and they had 206 Democrats signed onto it.”

Social Security is the third rail of American politics. Anyone that thinks that these Democrats aren’t in huge trouble is kidding themselves. That’s political suicide. Ed Morrissey puts it quite succinctly in this post:

The superdelegates and other party officials are warning Pelosi and Schumer that vacillation will cost them their party, one way or the other. It’s not just the megadonors who see Sanders as a disaster on a grand enough scale that they’re willing to risk utter ruination to stop it. If the party leaders won’t lead, these same establishment figures will start looking for replacements who can.

When people claim that Sanders’ rise is not really that big of a deal and that he’s not as extreme as he’s being painted, they should read this NYT report carefully. Democrats aren’t making these kinds of plans over someone who’s just a skosh off their center. They know Sanders better than most, and they’re outright scared of putting him within voting range of the White House, enough to burn the party to the ground to stop it. That tells us all we need to know about Sanders.

Bill Clinton’s Democrat Party doesn’t exist anymore. Barack Obama’s Democratic Party exists by its fingertips. By the time the electors assemble in the state capitols, that Democratic Party will be almost as extinct as the Dodo Bird. The so-called moderates sound moderate until they get their election certificates. That’s when they turn into AOC supporters.

Democrats would be wise in the long-term if they jettisoned Bernie, AOC, et al. They wouldn’t have to sound totally nutty on the environment. Democrats wouldn’t have to treat farmers and other blue collar workers like dirt like AOC treats them like dirt. Best of all, Democrats wouldn’t have to live in fear of getting primaried.

With more information coming out about Tomeka Hart, the foreperson on the Roger Stone trial, it’s time to question Democrats like Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. It’s another classic case of Democrats jumping to conclusions before gathering facts. Doesn’t that sound familiar? Hint: YES! But I digress.

Before illustrating just how two-faced Pelosi is, let’s play a clip of her from this morning’s press conference:

Next, let’s play a short game of Alan Dershowitz’s shoe-on-the-other-foot game. Let’s swap out Roger Stone’s name and swap in Peter Strzok’s name. Next, let’s swap out President Trump’s name and swap in President Obama’s name. I’m betting that the odds of Democrats complaining about President Obama making comments about reducing the prison sentence for Peter Strzok is virtually nonexistent.

I’m not basing this entirely on theory. I’m basing that opinion at least partially on President Obama’s statements prior to the infamous Beer Summit with President Obama, Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley. Shortly thereafter, President Obama was asked what he thought of the confrontation. Here’s what he said:

For Pelosi to call for Bill Barr’s resignation is ridiculous. For these DOJ lawyers to make such a harsh recommendation is ridiculous, too. If these attorneys hadn’t quit, they should’ve been fired. Period. Today on Dana Perino’s program, Trey Gowdy, a former U.S. Attorney who never lost a case, said that he never made a sentence recommendation. When asked if he thought the sentence was too much, Gowdy explained the sentencing guidelines before telling Dana Perino that he knew violent criminals who got less than the 7-to-9 years.

In recent days, pundits have started speculating whether Joe Biden’s cheese has slid totally off the cracker. That’s a fair question. It’s equally fair, in my opinion, to ask if the cheese is sliding off of Nancy Pelosi’s cracker. In my estimation, she’s starting to lose it.