Archive for the ‘Weaponized Government’ Category

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.

Much was made this week of Sen. Mitch McConnell’s statement that he’ll be working closely with the Trump administration on the Senate impeachment trial. When told of that, Sen. Murkowski told Anchorage TV station KTUU “And in fairness, when I heard that I was disturbed. To me it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense, and so I heard what leader McConnell had said, I happened to think that that has further confused the process.”

I wasn’t upset with either senator’s statement. When Sen. Schumer and other Democrats criticize Sen. McConnell for already having made up his mind, they left out the fact that each of the Democrat senators who’ve run for president this year have answered affirmatively that they’d vote to convict President Trump. The obvious question is then If McConnell is disqualified for that statement, why aren’t Senators Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren disqualified, too?

The other question that Democrats haven’t addressed is why anyone should think that partisan senators like Blumenthal, Schumer, Whitehouse, Leahy, Hirono, Smith, van Hollen, Durbin, Markey and others have kept an open mind. They haven’t so let’s stop pretending.

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, (R-PA), stated things perfectly in this interview:

Rep. Reschenthaler said “If it was a judicial proceeding, let me tell you as a magisterial district judge, I would’ve dismissed these charges on day no. 1 for lack of merit.”

This is much adieu about nothing. This isn’t a court trial. If it was, the judge would’ve already thrown it out because it’s built almost totally on hearsay testimony. Further, Democrats ignored the testimony given during cross-examination. Virtually every testifier has made a provocative statement in their opening statement. Every testifier has then been demolished on cross-examination. Bill Taylor got demolished by Jim Jordan. Gordon Sondland got demolished by Mike Turner. Marie Yovanovitch got demolished, too.

This impeachment is a sham. President Trump is the first president impeached who isn’t accused of committing a crime. The articles of impeachment will be laughed at when the history books are written. They’re both so open-ended that I could drive a truck through them. What are the elements that must be proved for abuse of power? What are the elements that must be proven to convict a president for abuse of congress? Senators can’t identify the elements because they’re making this up on the fly.

That’s the difference between made-up charges like these vs. the articles that were voted on with Nixon. Those articles involved real crimes. These don’t. That’s why this trial shouldn’t happen. It shouldn’t happen because President Trump shouldn’t have gotten impeached.

When it comes to impeachment, it isn’t just the process that’s BS. It’s the things that’ve gotten said, too. For instance, Debbie Dingell said at the start that she would monitor the hearings before making a decision. Ms. Dingell just said that she’ll vote for impeachment.

While Rep. Dingell, who’s late husband was the longest-serving Democrat in Congress, sounds reasonable, that’s just imagery. Especially during the Schiff Show, the testifiers didn’t provide any first-hand evidence of anything approaching an impeachable offense. This isn’t a portrait in remaining open-minded. It’s a portrait in staying loyal to Speaker Pelosi.

Another Michigan Democrat legislator, freshman Rep. Elissa Slotkin, told Fox News’s Bill Hemmer that “I’m not going to be pushed into voting for impeachment. I literally have not made up my mind.” That’s BS, too. Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz have emphatically stated that a) the evidence isn’t there, b) nothing that President Trump did rose to the level of impeachment and c) the charges are so vague that, using these standards, every president in US history would’ve gotten impeached.

How can voters take Democrats like Rep. Slotkin seriously after watching this testimony?

The thought that these Democrats are taking these charges seriously tells us that they’re partisans first, patriots far down the Democrats’ list of priorities. Picturing Democrats deep in thought over whether to impeach or not is ridiculous. The charges are weak and getting weaker. On Friday, the Supreme Court granted cert for President Trump’s lawsuit challenging the Democrats’ subpoenas. They don’t grant cert on frivolous lawsuits.

According to this USA Today article, Article 2 of Impeachment “accuses Trump of directing ‘the unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas.'” According to the Supreme Court, President Trump didn’t violate the Constitution by appealing the Democrats’ subpoena to the Supreme Court. That’s how disputes between the legislative and executive branches are resolved.

If the Supreme Court thinks that appealing a congressional subpoena is legitimate, then it’s impossible to think of that as an impeachable offense. If we’re being intellectually honest, then we’d admit that the Supreme Court’s decision should eliminate half of the articles of impeachment just voted on. It’s impossible to take House Democrats seriously if they insist that following the Constitution is an impeachable offense. Alan Dershowitz explained the foolishness better in this interview:

Later in the interview, Prof. Dershowitz was asked what he thought of his Democratic Party. He replied “Well, it should hurt them. The American people should hold them accountable. They have damaged the Constitution. They have inflicted a wound on our system of checks and balances and separation of powers.”

Let’s be exceptionally clear about this. Article 2 of the Democrats’ impeachment charges shouldn’t be passed. Let’s say, for the sake of this conversation, that the Senate convicts President Trump based on Article 2. That would mean that the Legislative Branch wasn’t a co-equal branch. It would mean that the Executive Branch took its orders from the Legislative Branch. That isn’t how the Constitution was written.

Professor Turley is right. This would be an abuse of power. Specifically, it would be Congressional Democrats’ abuse of power.

Last week, the nation found out that Jonathan Turley a) voted for Hillary Clinton and b) is a man of integrity. This morning, it’s worth examining Prof. Turley’s op-ed about the Horowitz Report.

For instance, Prof. Turley wrote “Justice Department officials insisted to Horowitz that they choose not to interview campaign officials because they were unsure if the campaign was compromised and did not want to tip off the Russians. However, the inspector general report says the Russians were directly told about the allegations repeatedly by then CIA Director John Brennan and, ultimately, President Obama.”

Prof. Turley continued, saying “In the meantime, the allegations quickly fell apart. Horowitz details how all of the evidence proved exculpatory of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.” How can that be? Jim Comey insists that the FBI did nothing wrong. Comey saying that the FBI did nothing wrong ranks right up there with Adam Schiff saying that he’d seen evidence that was “stronger than circumstantial.”

Then there’s this:

Horowitz also finds no sharing of information with FISA judges that undermined the credibility of the dossier or Christopher Steele himself.

This won’t turn out well for Adam Schiff, who put out a report in February, 2018. In that report, which was published after Devin Nunes published “a memo with these explosive revelations that the FBI had targeted [former Trump campaign adviser] Carter Page with surveillance warrants that the dossier from a rival campaign had been the basis for that, and that the FBI had not been straight up with the FISA court.”

This morning, Speaker Pelosi announced that she’s instructed the House Judiciary Committee to start drafting articles of impeachment. In making the announcement, Speaker Pelosi said “His wrongdoing strikes at the very heart of our Constitution. Our democracy is what is at stake. The president leaves us no choice but to act because he is trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit.”

It’s frightening to think that someone as constitutionally illiterate as Ms. Pelosi is just 2 heartbeats away from the Oval Office. We don’t have a democracy. We have a constitutional republic. It’s frightening that a person that’s 2 heartbeats away from the Oval Office is so corrupt that she’s willing to say that President Trump is trying to rig the elections. What’s worse is that she’s saying this without offering a bit of proof.

“Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders, and our heart full of love for America, today I am asking our chairmen to proceed with the articles of impeachment,” she said.

That’s insulting in the extreme. Ms. Pelosi just instructed the Judiciary Committee to start writing articles of impeachment with what Prof. Jonathan Turley described as a “paucity of evidence and abundance of anger.”

Democrats seem willing to forge ahead despite the fact that the only firsthand evidence is exculpatory evidence. The people who listened to the call verified that the transcript was accurate. Ukraine’s president has repeatedly stated that he wasn’t pressured into investigating the Bidens. Despite that verified and verifiable proof, Ms. Pelosi said this:

“The facts are uncontested. The president abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of our national security by withholding military aid and crucial oval office meeting in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival.”

When Democrats insist that ‘the facts are uncontested’, what Democrats really mean is that they’re contested but Democrats aren’t willing to listen to exculpatory evidence. Further, Democrats haven’t hesitated in trusting hearsay evidence.

It’s incredible that Ms. Pelosi didn’t hesitate in saying that an Oval Office visit was crucial to our national security. After saying something that stupid, we shouldn’t take Ms. Pelosi seriously. It’s noteworthy that each time Ms. Pelosi speaks about impeachment, she talks about the Constitution, national security, the survival of our democracy and that President Trump didn’t leave Democrats a choice.

Since opening the impeachment inquiry, not a single bit of convicting evidence has been introduced. GWU Law Prof. Jonathan Turley was right in saying that there’s a “paucity of evidence.” When Ms. Pelosi says that President Trump left them no choice, what she meant is that her socialist activist base insists on impeaching President Trump.

If she holds to form, the House will vote for impeachment within 48 hours of Christmas. That’s what she did with the ACA. If that’s what happens, expect House Democrats to experience a similar electoral bloodbath. Expect it to be Ms. Pelosi’s second Christmas Massacre.

Mark Zaid, the faux whistleblower’s attorney, apparently has a bone to pick with President Trump. He’s apparently a prolific Twitter user, too. Zaid’s tweets might hurt his client.

According to Zaid’s tweets, he wants Trump out of office ASAP:


What’s laughable is what’s written on Mr. Zaid’s profile page:

Attorney handling cases involving national security, security clearances, govt investigations, media, Freedom of Information Act, & whistleblowing. Non-partisan

That should read “Hyper-partisan” instead of “Non-partisan.”

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, “I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president.” Also that month, Zaid tweeted, “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.”

Only in Washington, DC, would a man who tweeted out such tweets be considered non-partisan.

Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign’s communications director, told Fox News that “The whistleblower’s lawyer gave away the game. It was always the Democrats’ plan to stage a coup and impeach President Trump and all they ever needed was the right scheme. They whiffed on Mueller so now they’ve settled on the perfectly fine Ukraine phone call. This proves this was orchestrated from the beginning.”

As dense as Mr. Zaid is, apparently, Justin Amash is just as clueless:

“Actually, the Constitution specifically provides for the right of the accused to meet his accuser,” Hemingway tweeted. “Whistleblower protection has never — could never — mean that accusations are accepted without question. He of course must testify. To say otherwise is silly.”

Amash made this feeble argument against Hemingway:

“Yeah, at *trial* in a *criminal* prosecution,” Amash responded. “To say otherwise is silly. The best argument one could make is that it also should apply at trial in the Senate, despite not being a criminal prosecution, following impeachment in the House.”

Seriously? So a person can get impeached without the accuser having to testify? When did the USA’s judicial system become predicated on the notion that a person could get indicted by anonymous accusations?

It’s one thing to say that a person can get indicted without having their accuser cross-examined. While a criminal indictment isn’t fun, it’s a breeze compared with getting impeached. Getting impeached means that the president isn’t permitted to run the nation for the betterment of a nation. Does Mr. Amash think that the impeachment process not affect the entire nation?

If Mr. Amash thinks that, then he and Mr. Zaid deserve each other. They’re both losers if that’s the case.

Apparently, the DFL isn’t serious about protecting whistleblowers. If the DFL was serious about eliminating corruption, this wouldn’t still be happening:

A state whistleblower says she is still being retaliated against months after she reported wrongdoing. Faye Bernstein, a compliance officer at the Minnesota Department of Human Services, said she has been excluded from the work she did before speaking out, told by superiors that her opinion “is no longer needed,” and encouraged to take time off or seek therapy when she objected to the retaliation she continues to face. And Bernstein said some employees have even started “wild and hurtful rumors” to discredit her.

Bernstein, a 14-year veteran of the department, raised concerns in July about “substandard and noncompliant” state contracts that were being approved by leaders in the agency’s behavioral health division, which pays out millions of dollars in contracts and grants for programs that include battling addiction and the opioid epidemic.

This started before the Walz administration but it’s obvious that the Walz administration isn’t taking their responsibilities seriously. When she was appointed, I said that new Commissioner Jodi Harpstead was a terrible pick. That was mid-August. It’s now late October. Changing the culture takes time but it isn’t unreasonable to think that Ms. Harpstead should get 1-2 of her top priorities fixed in that time. According to this testimony from Ms. Harpstead, changing the culture wasn’t a high priority:

That’s depressing. What’s depressing, too, is that, after naming Harpstead the new commissioner 2 months ago, Democrat Gov. Tim Walz essentially disappeared. I just did multiple searches for Gov. Walz but found only a handful of articles, most of which dealt the insulin issue. The insulin issue is important but the DHS whistleblower/bullying scandal is important, too. Walz and the DFL have disappeared on the issue of eliminating fraud within DHS.

The DFL hasn’t provided meaningful oversight on DHS. Tim Walz has disappeared. Walz’s new leader for DHS, Jodi Harpstead, hasn’t prioritized changing the culture in her new department, meaning that DHS’s culture remains toxic. Big government that thinks it doesn’t answer to anybody is a nightmare. Why doesn’t the DFL think that stopping corruption and bullying is a big thing? The DFL has treated these scandals like they aren’t interested.

This morning, Matt Gaetz, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, tried to listen to Fiona Hill, allegedly a Schiff-coached witness. Schiff didn’t permit his entry. The Democrats aren’t letting Republicans in even though Gaetz has the proper security clearance. Yesterday, Chairman Schiff told CBS’s Margaret Brennan that “If witnesses could tailor their testimony to other witnesses. They would love for one witness to be able to hear what another witness says so that they can know what they can give away and what they can’t give away.”

Does Chairman Schiff, one of the nastiest, most dishonest partisan Democrats on Capitol Hill, have proof that any witnesses have provided false testimony? Do Democrats have any proof that any witnesses have thought about providing false testimony? Later, Schiff continued, saying “Now we may very well call some of the same witnesses or all the same witnesses in public hearings as well. But we want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests.”

Schiff has already let one liar into that secure facility. That person’s name is Adam Schiff. Remember this?

He called that a parody. I call it a bald-faced lie. Then there’s this:

That’s when Schiff insisted that he hadn’t talked with the whistleblower. Today, Schiff’s insisting that he “misspoke.” That’s BS. Schiff didn’t misspeak. Schiff lied intentionally.

In other words, the problem restricting liars isn’t keeping Republicans out. Democrats are secretive liars on the inside. Not just that but Democrats are prolific leakers, with Shiffty Schiff being the worst of the worst.

According to Sean Davis’ article, the snitch’s complaint (my word, not Sean’s) put together by the snitch’s legal team has some frightening similarities to the Steele Dossier. In Sean’s article, he highlights the fact that Steele’s dossier didn’t use people’s names:

Steele hadn’t gathered or witnessed any of this evidence first-hand. Rather, he relied on anonymous sources, many of them third-hand. “Source B asserted that the Trump operation was both supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin,” Steele wrote. “Source A confided that the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents,” including Hillary Clinton, Steele claimed.

Let’s compare this with the snitch’s complaint:

“I was told that a State Department official” did this or that. “I heard from multiple US officials” that such and such. “Officials have informed me. …” And so on. Much like Steele, the Ukraine informant lacked first-hand access to evidence he claimed proved Trump’s guilt. It must have been hard to blow an accurate whistle when the whistleblower wasn’t even in the same room.

Why are we protecting a snitch that doesn’t rely on their own observations? That isn’t a whistleblower. That’s a Page 6 wannabe. House Republicans should create a firestorm that highlights the similarities between Steele’s discredited dossier and this snitch’s questionable second-hand allegations. This should be raised as a point of order or point of parliamentary procedure or some such thing. The point should be highlighted that the allegation-maker doesn’t have first-hand information for the committee. Though the Agenda Media, aka the MSM, won’t run it, real journalists like Katie Pavlich, Ed Morrissey, Guy Benson, etc. will push this story out to their readers, where it will gain a life of its own.

The snitch’s story is amplified through a compliant media that accepts everything as Gospel fact:

The questionable use of media sources to buttress hearsay claims is also consistent across both documents. After Steele compiled his dossier, he peddled the allegations to numerous reporters, who then dutifully reported them as fact. The Obama administration then cited those articles, which were sourced directly to Steele and his dossier, as proof of the validity of the allegations. One article was given to a federal intelligence court to justify wiretaps on a Trump campaign affiliate. The information it alleged was false.

Likewise, the Ukraine whistleblower repeatedly cited articles from The New York Times, Politico and even a report from former Clinton flack-turned-ABC-newsman George Stephanopoulos as evidence of the alleged conspiracy. It isn’t known whether he or his sources provided information used in any of the cited articles.

If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that the same people who tried to sabotage President Trump with Russiagate are attempting to impeach President Trump with Snitchgate. The tactics are the same. In both cases, the names have been either withheld or made up to protect the snitch.

I just finished reading the transcript of President Trump’s phone call with President Zelenskiy. There’s no question that President Trump brought up Biden’s son late in the conversation. I still don’t see the quid pro quo, though. The fact that it wasn’t one of the first things they spoke about speaks to President Trump’s priorities.

The other thing that’s noteworthy is what wasn’t said. At no point did President Trump use US military aid as a tool to insure Ukraine’s investigation of Hunter Biden. It simply isn’t there, not even in a dog whistle.

Republicans should highlight that fact frequently. If Republicans take out that leg of the Democrats’ impeachment stool, Democrats will be screwed for 2020. Democrats haven’t passed anything that’s improved the economy, fought the opioid epidemic, fixed our immigration and asylum laws or helped eliminate MS-13 here in the United States. Without question, Democrats have morphed into the Impeachment Party.

If people needed additional proof that today’s Democrats are hate-filled and fact-deprived, they need only check out E.J. Dionne’s latest fact-deprived column. Included in Dionne’s scribbling is this BS, which says “The costs of this approach were underscored this weekend by a New York Times report that offers new corroboration for charges by Deborah Ramirez that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her when both were undergraduates at Yale. In denying the charge, Kavanaugh told the Senate that had it been true, the incident would have been ‘the talk of the campus.’ Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly — drawing on their new book, ‘The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation’, write tellingly: ‘Our reporting suggests that it was.'”

I’d love hearing Dionne’s explanation for this column after this information came to light:

In a major revision late Sunday, a Times editor’s note added a significant detail — that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the purported sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim had refused to be interviewed and has made no comment about the episode.

“Significant detail”, my arse. That’s a bombshell that just dropped in the middle of the NYTimes’ building. That begs the question of where these ‘authors’ got this information from. Did they make it up? Did a third party spoon-feed them this allegation? Wherever it came from, it certainly isn’t truth-based.

Check this out:

Here is the institutionally devastating part of their story: Ramirez’s legal team gave the FBI a list of “at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence” of her story. The bureau, the authors report, “interviewed none of them.” Nor did the FBI look into Stier’s account.

It’s worth noting that “Stier” is a Clinton lawyer:

The Times did not mention Stier’s work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier’s legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a “respected thought leader.”

Keep that in mind when reading this from E.J. Dionne’s column:

Stier is president of the thoroughly bipartisan and widely respected Partnership for Public Service. From my experience, he is the last person who would want to get into the middle of an ideological fight — unless his conscience required him to.

Let’s speculate a little. It’s possible that Mr. Dionne’s perspective on Stier is shaded by what I’d call Washingtonitis, sometimes known as DCitis. Remember how often the DC media told us that Robert Mueller was a straight shooter and how Jim Comey was a “boy scout”? How many people still think that?

Like the NYTimes, I’m betting that E.J. Dionne is wiping egg off his face. This is pretty much the only thing in Dionne’s article that I agree with:

But it was such a sharply constrained investigation that neither Kavanaugh nor Ford was questioned, and the other allegations against Kavanaugh were ignored. “The process was a sham,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a member of the Judiciary Committee who is seeking her party’s presidential nomination, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” She was not being hyperbolic. In the wake of the new revelations, three other Democratic contenders quickly called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment.

There’s no question that the process was a sham. At the last minute, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats brought forth one unsubstantiated allegation after another. What’s most disgusting is that they’re still bringing forth unsubstantiated hate-filled allegations after Justice Kavanaugh has been confirmed.

Initially, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats wanted to disqualify then-Judge Kavanaugh the ‘normal way’. When it became apparent that wouldn’t work, Democrats chose the unsubstantiated allegations path. This is a slimy path only used by hate-filled ideologues. Thank God for Lindsey Graham’s speech:

Lindsey Graham laid out the crap that Justice Kavanaugh and his family went through. That’s the real sham. Democrats should be obliterated for their vicious conduct. May E.J. Dionne and Senate Judiciary Democrats rot in hell together.