Archive for the ‘Democratic Culture of Corruption’ Category

After reading Tim Morrison’s op-ed, one wonders who’s making these sloppy accusations. My first instinct is to blame it on Democrats. That’s because they’ve been throwing out nasty rumors about President Trump since he took office.

According to Morrison’s op-ed, “It has been alleged by multiple officials of the Obama administration, including in The Post, that the president and his then-national security adviser, John Bolton, ‘dissolved the office’ at the White House in charge of pandemic preparedness. Because I led the very directorate assigned that mission, the counterproliferation and biodefense office, for a year and then handed it off to another official who still holds the post, I know the charge is specious.”

This fits the Democrats’ deceitful theme that President Trump is flying by the seat of his pants with this crisis. While I can’t give President Trump a 10 on his handling of the virus, there’s certainly plenty to give him credit for. Let’s start with his travel bans with China and Europe. The travel ban with China is especially important.

While Democrats were holding the trial for President Trump’s far-fetched impeachment, President Trump put the China travel ban in place. Joe Biden accused President Trump of being xenophobic.

Now, Tim Morrison has first-hand proof that this accusation is false. The part of the NSC that Joe Biden and other Democrats said was closed was false from the start. Morrison knows because he ran that office before handing it off to another person, who is still running that office. I don’t know of better proof than that. This is important:

As The Post reported in 2015, from the Clinton administration to the Obama administration’s second term, the NSC’s staff “had quadrupled in size, to nearly 400 people.” That is why Trump began streamlining the NSC staff in 2017.

Though Morrison didn’t say this, I suspect that the main reason for the downsizing the NSC is because that’s where major parts of the Swamp lived. It makes sense, therefore, that the Swamp hit the Trump administration for eliminating the NSC, which is a part of the Swamp’s operation. Videos like this are just part of the Democrats’ smear campaign:

At a time when we need people coming together, Democrats are engaging in smear campaigns. How pathetic.

This NY Times article starts by saying that Rick Grenell isn’t wasting time draining the Swamp. Shortly after that, the Times’ bias is exposed. The Times wrote “Mr. Patel was best known as the lead author of a politically charged memo two years ago that accused F.B.I. and Justice Department leaders of abusing their surveillance powers to spy on a former Trump campaign adviser. The memo was widely criticized as misleading, though an inspector general later found other problems with aspects of the surveillance.”

The Times’ bias is obvious. First, they write that Kash Patel was the lead author of a document that “accused F.B.I. and Justice Department leaders of abusing their surveillance powers to spy on a former Trump campaign adviser.” When the Times wrote that the “memo was widely criticized as misleading, though an inspector general later found other problems with aspects of the surveillance”, it means that Adam Schiff criticized it, then the other Democrats on the Committee agreed with Schiff.

The fact that the Times article doesn’t use the name of the report is proof of the Times’ bias. The report is often referred to as the Horowitz Report. It’s considered to be the authoritative report on the FBI’s FISA warrant abuse. This should be one of the first things that Grenell looks into:

During the briefing, which was supposed to focus on coordination between government agencies to fight election interference, not the acts themselves, Republicans challenged the intelligence agencies’ conclusion that the Russians continue to favor Mr. Trump. Some officials said the briefing was not meant to be controversial and that intelligence officials intended to simply reiterate what they had told the Senate Intelligence Committee weeks earlier.

There’s no disputing that the Russians will attempt to interfere in our elections. What’s disputed is whether the Russians are trying to help President Trump.

Since taking office, the Trump administration has levied crippling sanctions on Russia, sold lethal military aid to Ukraine, started negotiating with Europe to import LNG while cutting Europe’s reliance on Russia’s energy. That pipeline hurt Russia’s economy bigtime. Why on God’s green Earth would Putin prefer Trump over Bernie Sanders?

Bernie wants to eliminate US fossil fuel production, which helps Russia economically while strengthening its geopolitical position. Bernie thinks that the US should model itself after Cuba and Russia. Again, why would anyone think that Russia would prefer Trump over Bernie? Bernie honeymooned in Moscow when the Soviet Union still existed.

Grenell should highlight this interview to expose the Democrats’ deceitfulness:

It was Devin Nunes, the man that Adam Schiff has continually attacked, who first talked about Russian election interference in 2014. During the interview, Nunes told Harris Faulkner that he’ll soon be filing a lawsuit against the Washington Post for publishing an article that is demonstrably false.

If Grenell starts cleaning house within the ODNI, he’ll quickly develop enemies. The Intel Community is as swampy as it gets. Ditto with the State Department. Adam Schiff is the personification of the Swamp, too, but that’s another post for another day.

The House Democrats’ credibility crisis is reaching epic proportions. Multiple DNC propagandist organizations, otherwise known as news organizations in a bygone era, are reporting that Russia is interfering in our elections with the intent on helping President Trump’s re-election campaign and “to raise questions about the integrity of the elections process, the source added.” Devin Nunes shot holes in that theory tonight, saying that “we can’t talk about what happened in that meeting so if anything in that Washington Post story or the NYTimes story is true about either Bernie Sanders or Putin’s plans and intentions or anything else, nobody that’s in the committee or has seen this classified information should be talking about it. Now, it gets worse. When you have the Washington Post claim that I went to the White House to tell the President really bad things to get him to fire Maguire. Now, look, I don’t know which planet the Washington Post is on but they’ll have an opportunity in federal court in the next couple weeks to explain who their sources are because I’m gonna have to take them to court because I didn’t go to the White House. I didn’t talk to President Trump so this is the same garbage and the only way to get these guys to stop…”

This didn’t get leaked by the White House. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka the HPSCI, is chaired by Adam Schiff, the most notorious liar and leaker in Congress. Friday, Schiff tweeted this:


First, there’s no doubt that Russia is attempting to interfere with elections. Next, Schiff has problems because CBS’s Catherine Herridge tweeted this:


Allegations aren’t proof. Opinions and theories aren’t proof, either. Schiff’s tweet isn’t a lie because he said “if reports are true and the President is interfering with that, he is against jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling.” At that point, Schiff is just hypothesizing. He closes, though, with a firm-sounding conclusion, saying “Exactly as we warned he would do.”

The fact that the briefers didn’t have phone intercepts or SIGINT to back up these claims is a major red flag. Schiff likely leaked this briefing. Shame on him for that but that won’t stop him from leaking again. He’s pathological. The list of his lies is lengthy and well-known. I don’t need to repeat them here.

The Democrats’ national security leadership team (Speaker Pelosi, Conference Chairman Jefferies, Judiciary Committee Chairman Nadler and Chairman Schiff) aren’t people of integrity. If you’re looking for integrity from the Washington Post, CNN and the NYTimes, you haven’t paid attention lately.

When it’s time for this election’s closing arguments, the Democrats’ integrity/credibility crisis will come front and center. That’s when things will get ugly fast.

I’ve never seen the type of firestorm that’s happening with USAG William Barr. There’s little doubt that Protect Democracy is targeting AG Barr because he isn’t a go-along-to-get-along type. Unlike previous AGs, Barr is a heavyweight.

When Barr didn’t show up for the House Judiciary Committee’s clown show, Steve Cohen Left a bucket of KFC at the table where Barr would’ve sat had he testified. According to the report, “Barr balked at the opportunity to testify for a second day after spending more than five hours on Wednesday defending his summary of the report’s findings.”

The reason AG Barr frightens the Deep State is because he didn’t hesitate in overruling the Deep State prosecutors’ excessive sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone. After that shot against the Deep State prosecutors, Barr sent a shot across President Trump’s bow, too. Before departing for California, President Trump admitted that he’d made Barr’s life more difficult with his tweets.

Next, Deep State Democrats tried getting AG Barr to quit by circulating this gossip:

The Justice Department pushed back Tuesday night at multiple reports claiming Attorney General William Barr told people close to him he’s considering stepping down over President Trump’s tweets, days after Barr admitted that Trump’s tweeting made it “‘impossible for me to do my job.”

AG Barr knows how to fight the bureaucrats who think that they run the DOJ. They don’t run the DOJ. AG Barr does. He let them know that with his sentencing recommendation in the Stone case.

With Washington, DC all aflutter, AG Barr continues doing what he’s paid to do while ignoring DC’s drama:

Speaking before the Senate Wednesday, Barr referred to the letter as “snitty” and suggested a Mueller staffer had written it. Democrats, including a swath of 2020 presidential contenders, have since called for Barr to resign.

Democrats don’t like this guy because he doesn’t play the DC game. Democrats typically can’t get things done legislatively so they rely heavily on the courts. With Democrat corruption running rampant, they can’t afford a strong USAG in place.

The Deep State is legitimately frightened now that John Durham is questioning the FISA warrant process. Democrats don’t want the truth to come out about that. There’s tons of signs out there that the Obama administration weaponized the Intel Community, then used that weaponized IC to surveil the Trump campaign. The last thing that the Deep State wants is a legitimate change agent who won’t settle for the status quo.

Last fall, the buzz was that impeachment was a way to prevent the Barr DOJ from shining a light on the DOJ/FBI corruption.

It’s difficult to take this article seriously. The article starts by saying “On February 6, 2020, the Senate acquitted Donald Trump on two articles of impeachment, bringing an end to a process the president has been hurtling toward since the moment of his inauguration.” After that, the writer turns into an emotional mess, writing “He and the Constitution are irrevocably at odds; one way or another, the country was always going to end up here. But ‘here’ doesn’t just mean a world in which Trump has been impeached, of course; it’s also a world in which a majority of the Senate voted to bless his conduct.

Next, the trainwreck:

The two other presidents who faced impeachment in living memory both delivered natural ends to the drama. Richard Nixon’s helicopter lifted off the White House lawn after he resigned the presidency. Bill Clinton, the day of his acquittal in the Senate, stood in the Rose Garden and apologized for his conduct.

Richard Nixon resigned because he’d committed multiple felonies, including suborning perjury, obstructing justice and telling the FBI that they didn’t need a warrant to wiretap antiwar protesters’ phone calls. When Nixon resigned, few people thought he wasn’t guilty as hell. I had just graduated from high school and I knew he was guilty as hell.

When Bill Clinton apologized, he had a lot to apologize for. The Independent Counsel’s office issued this statement:

In the independent counsel’s judgment, there was sufficient evidence to prosecute President Clinton for violating federal criminal laws within this office’s jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the independent counsel concluded, consistent with the Principles of Federal Prosecution, that further proceedings against President Clinton for his conduct should not be initiated.

In other words, Clinton committed multiple felonies. The difference between Nixon and Clinton is that Clinton’s felonies were considered low crimes.

The Schiff-Pelosi-Nadler-Democrat impeachment articles didn’t charge President Trump with committing a crime. That, by itself, differentiates President Trump from Nixon and Clinton. Further, the investigators in Nixon and Clinton accumulated tons of proof that supported the investigators’ charges. The Mueller Report was the precursor to the Schiff Report. It didn’t find proof that President Trump committed any crimes.

So much for verifying the statement “at odds; one way or another, the country was always going to end up here.” We shouldn’t have wound up here. That isn’t what the evidence said. Period.

That’s before looking at the process. The Schiff-Pelosi-Nadler-Democrat process was scandalous. In Nixon and Clinton, their legal teams were allowed to bring in witnesses, submit evidence and cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses. President Trump wasn’t afforded any of those rights. For the first 71 days of the official 78-day investigation, President Trump’s legal team weren’t allowed in the room.

Comparing President Trump’s impeachment with Nixon’s and Clinton’s impeachments is like comparing Stalin with the Pope. It’s a travesty. The MSM (and Pelosi) insist that President Trump is impeached forever. If that’s true, then there’s a stench and a stain forever on the Democrats’ investigation. It’s the most partisan investigation in presidential history. The Democrats ignored multiple pieces of exculpatory evidence, starting with the transcript of the July 25 phone call.

Simply put, President Trump deserved a victory lap like this:

This November, it isn’t just important to remember the Democrats’ corrupt investigation. It’s essential to remember the Democrats’ corrupt investigation.

Whenever Democrats need to distract attention away from their vulnerable members for their questionable votes, people can count on Nancy Pelosi providing that distraction. When Pelosi ripped up her copy of President Trump’s SOTU Address, she did it to distract attention away from her vulnerable freshmen.

Her freshmen promised to fix health care. Freshman Democrats failed that test miserably. Democrat freshmen promised to lower prescription drug prices. Democrats failed on that, too. Democrat freshmen told voters that they didn’t Pelosi for Speaker. Some of those freshmen voted for Pelosi to be Speaker. Freshmen Democrats that didn’t vote for Pelosi for Speaker voted to initiate the impeachment inquiry. These freshmen Democrats voted for both articles of impeachment, too.

Now, Pelosi has written a dishonest op-ed that the Washington Post has published. In the op-ed, Pelosi wrote “President Trump abused the power of his office to pressure a foreign power to help him cheat in an American election.” It’s impossible to know whether President Trump pressured “a foreign power to help him cheat in an American election” since that election is 9+ months away. Is Pelosi clairvoyant? Or is she just lying again? I suspect it’s the latter.

Further, it’s virtually impossible for presidents to abuse their power in setting foreign policy. Since we’ve proven that President Trump didn’t “pressure a foreign power to help him cheat in an American election”, then the only matter on the table is setting US foreign policy. The first sentence in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution emphatically states that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” This is important to note because of something Jeff Dunetz wrote in this post explaining why Lt. Col. Vindman was reassigned out of the NSC. (Make sure you read Jeff’s entire article. It’s the type of information you won’t get from CNN, MSDNC or other MSM outlets.) Here’s Lt. Col. Vindman’s opening statement to the HPSCI:

Jeff’s article highlights a briefing Sen. Ron Johnson had in Ukraine. Here’s what Jeff quoted from Johnson’s letter:

I had just finished making the point that supporting Ukraine was essential because it was ground zero in our geopolitical competition with Russia. I was surprised when Vindman responded to my point. He stated that it was the position of the NSC that our relationship with Ukraine should be kept separate from our geopolitical competition with Russia. My blunt response was, “How in the world is that even possible?

It’s clear that Lt. Col. Vindman thought that the NSC, not President Trump, was in charge of setting foreign policy. It’s apparent because of testimony he gave to the House Intel Committee:

Vindman testified that an “alternative narrative” pushed by the president’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was “inconsistent with the consensus views of the” relevant federal agencies and was “undermining the consensus policy.”

Like Pelosi, Lt. Col. Vindman thinks that President Trump doesn’t set US foreign policy. The Constitution that Pelosi intermittently expresses praise for disagrees. The Lt. Col. Vindmans of the world serve the president to implement his foreign policy. But I digress.

I admit that I paid a ton of attention to Pelosi’s stunt. I don’t regret it, though, because there’s plenty of time to punish freshmen Democrats for voting “to initiate the impeachment inquiry and voting for both articles of impeachment.” We have 9+ months left to make the case for firing Pelosi’s Democrats. Let’s make the most of that time.

I expect President Trump’s State of the Union Address, aka SOTU, to focus mostly on his accomplishments. That part should take up an hour of his speech. Further, I expect him to highlight the results of his criminal justice reform. Last year, he highlighted Alice Johnson from the First Lady’s box:

This year, Alice was featured in this Super Bowl ad:

It’s inevitable that President Trump’s SOTU Address will include a lengthy conversation about how his economic policies are leading a blue collar boom. That will let him talk about blue collar workers’ rising wages. It’ll start with him touting the lowest unemployment rates amongst minorities and women. Consider that portion of the speech to be the meat-and-potatoes section of the speech. Consider the Alice Johnson-criminal justice reform part of the speech the heart-and-soul section of the speech.

An election year SOTU isn’t complete without the President laying out his vision for his second term. That portion of the speech will talk about infrastructure, finishing the wall, cleaning up the antiquated immigration laws and additional middle class tax cuts, including making these tax cuts permanent.

I hope President Trump spends some time criticizing House Democrats for their hyperpartisan impeachment inquiry. I hope he scolds House Democrats for impeaching him for exercising his constitutional right to executive privilege. I hope he scolds them for not giving him the right to call witnesses during the House impeachment hearings. I hope he finishes that section by lecturing House Democrats for spending 3+ years on impeaching him rather than working with him on the people’s business.

Finally, I hope he finishes the SOTU by talking directly to the American people, essentially saying ‘You sent me here to drain the swamp, fix the economy, build the wall and make America great again. We’ve accomplished a lot but we’ve still got work to do. To finish that task, I need a congress that will work with me, not a congress that will fight me and investigate me.’

That won’t sit well with the nattering nabobs of negativism found throughout the Swamp. That’s ok. The Swamp isn’t his constituency. The American people are his constituents. That’s who this SOTU Address should address.

Michelle Benson, the chairwoman of the Senate Health and Human Services Finance and Policy Committee, issued this statement on the crisis at the Department of Human Services:

When the legislature reconvenes in about one month, health and human services will once again be at the forefront. Two of the issues that will be on our agenda are the dysfunction at the Department of Human Services and the rising cost of prescription drugs.

90-day review of DHS: On December 10, I convened a meeting of the Health and Human Services Committee for the purpose of reviewing new DHS Commissioner Jodi Harpstead’s first 90 days on the job.

Commissioner Harpstead has a difficult task in front of her, but her appearance did little to reassure me that she grasps the severity of the problems at her agency. Instead, she said that DHS is “not in free fall, in crisis, in total chaos.”

Evidence does not support that tone, nor am I convinced that changes are imminent. There have been more than a dozen reports of mismanagement and corruption since session ended. Most recently, we learned an assistant commissioner approved $1 million in payments to a nonprofit while serving on that nonprofit’s board. These payments doubled the group’s revenue.

The nonpartisan think tank Center of the American Experiment is tracking government abuses and mismanagement, so you can keep tabs on state government easier. You can view it their scandal tracker at bit.ly/MNScandalTracker.

We did get some good news on the DHS front. Gov. Walz announced he is hiring an independent consultant to look at breaking up DHS. It’s good to see the governor finally engaging this issue, and it is encouraging that it appears he is taking a small step toward reforms that Republicans have proposed for a while now. But we have to remember this is only a start, and conducting a review is not a substitute for action on the Governor’s part.

It is my sincere hope that Gov. Walz won’t try to reshape the agency alone. The only way this overhaul will be successful is if Republicans and Democrats, the Senate and House have a seat at the table. The “go it alone” approach brought us the failure of MNsure. Let’s not make that mistake again. Together we can figure out an approach that will benefit the entire state.

It’s been my contention that Commissioner Harpstead was a terrible pick to lead DHS. From the start, I thought that she was too prone to being secretive with information. Nothing in this update suggests that she’s changed her ways.

Denying that DHS isn’t in crisis is likely done to rebuild morale within the department. That’s the wrong goal. The first order of business should be restoring competence within DHS. If that means ruffling some feathers, then that’s what has to happen. Morale can be rebuilt after expectations are raised.

As the CEO of a major non-profit, cash-flow for Lutheran Social Services, aka LSS, wasn’t a problem. Money kept flowing in from the federal government. The minute President Trump clamped down on the Refugee Resettlement program, the cash-flow for LSS tightened exponentially. It didn’t take long for Ms. Harpstead to get this job as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services. She even talked about how she had led them to being in great shape for the foreseeable future.

In that initial testimony, Harpstead talked about being trustworthy in her opening statement. Denying that DHS has a problem won’t build trust. I’ve said this before but it’s worth repeating. The Senate should vote to reject her as the nominee to be the Commissioner of DHS. It’s time to find someone who will run DHS properly. People that think DHS isn’t embroiled in a crisis don’t have a grasp of reality. While that might fit the profile of a typical government bureaucrat, that isn’t the portrait of a trustworthy public servant.

This GAO opinion reeks of Deep State intervention into the Democrats’ impeachment of President Trump. Today, the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s watchdog office, issued an opinion stating that the Trump administration had broken the law by temporarily withholding lethal military aid to Ukraine. The GAO specifically stated that the Trump administration had violated the “Impoundment Control Act.

Anyone who knows the Constitution knows that Article II gives the Executive Branch sole authority on foreign policy. Further, as James Freeman points out, the GAO’s boss is the Legislative Branch. Quoting from Freeman’s article, “For people who aren’t students of the Washington bureaucracy, it should be noted that few people consider GAO the authoritative word on legal issues. The Justice Department and ultimately of course the federal courts make the big calls.”

According to the gospel of Schoolhouse Rock, the Legislative Branch isn’t equipped to render verdicts. At best, the Legislative Branch might be authorized to offer an opinion on legal matters but that opinion is purely advisory. It isn’t the type of thing that has legal weight behind it. It shouldn’t be surprising to find out that the Deep State is attempting to tip the Senate’s trial of President Trump’s impeachment in the Democrats’ favor. This is how we know that’s what’s happening:

At the urging of Sen. Chris Van Hollen, (D-MD), GAO now says that Trump administration delays in sending aid to Ukraine were illegal. In a new letter GAO’s general counsel argues that even though the Trump administration made aid for Ukraine available last September 12—before the Sept. 30 deadline for obligating funds—it still should have happened earlier. It’s not entirely clear which date would have made GAO happy but in the agency’s view the White House did not have an unavoidable “programmatic delay” which prevented funds from going to Ukraine.

Again, the Executive Branch doesn’t obey the Legislative Branch. If that were reality, then we wouldn’t have a constitutional republic. We’d have a parliamentary system in which the president would serve the Parliament. That isn’t the system we have. Our system is one that insists upon co-equal branches of government.

The GAO counsel didn’t have the authority to say this:

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act. The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

That isn’t the GAO’s decision to make. The appropriation was spent with time to spare. The GAO admitted that. This was done to give Democrats a fresh talking point. Even if the GAO is right about this potential infraction, at best, this wouldn’t be a high crime, which the Constitution requires to impeach.

Despite this declaration, we haven’t seen proof that this isn’t a president exercising his authority in setting foreign policy. That constitutional question is something that a federal court would need to sort through. It isn’t something that the GAO can unilaterally decide.

When Republicans complained that anti-Trump lawyer David Kris had gotten appointed to oversee the FISA reforms, people predictably questioned whether Republicans were playing politics with the appointment. That hasn’t disappeared yet but it should now that independent reporter Sharyl Attkisson has written this article on the subject.

In her article, Ms. Attkisson highlights the main problems associated with this appointment, starting with this:

On Twitter, Kris called Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) “a politicized, dishonest [Intelligence Community] overseer who attempts to mislead,” and wrote that Trump and his advisers should be “worried” that the “walls are closing in” regarding the Mueller probe. Kris also bought into the now-disproven conspiracy theory about Trump colluding with Russia and Putin.

In other words, the FISC appointed a political hack at a time when the FISC needed a nonpartisan person to supervise these FISA reforms. Then there’s this:

To some, the appointment of Kris to help with the job is as mysterious as to why the FISA Court’s judges failed to flag the FBI abuses on their own. It would seem more important than ever to have an apolitical person, or a balanced group of people, conducting oversight of these politically sensitive matters.

Why didn’t the FISC police these warrant applications? It wasn’t until after the Horowitz Report had been published that the judge put out a warning. That isn’t policing the process. That’s CYA after the fact.

There’s no question that we need something that hunts the bad guys but that also keeps Big Brother playing fair. If anything is certain, it’s that FISA won’t get renewed without major changes. If Christopher Wray doesn’t step forward with a lengthy list of reforms, then FISA should be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch.

Things get more questionable with this tweet from whistle-blower attorney Mark Zaid:


The op-ed written by Mike Morrell and David Kris says “This summer, a whistleblower complained to the inspector general for the U.S. intelligence community of an alleged ‘violation’ of law, ‘abuse’ of authority or similar problem. The inspector general, in turn, advised the acting DNI, and later the House Intelligence Committee, that the complaint was both credible and ‘urgent,’ meaning it involved something ‘serious or flagrant’ or otherwise significant.”

Why didn’t Kris and Morrell highlight the fact that the faux whistle-blower isn’t covered by the ICWPA? For that matter, why didn’t Kris mention that the person who tweeted about the op-ed is the faux whistle-blower’s attorney? Additionally, Mr. Zaid is the partisan Democrat who tweeted that “the coup” had started about 10 days after President Trump had been inaugurated?

Anyone associated with Mr. Zaid shouldn’t be associated with FISA reform. Period.