Archive for the ‘Sarah Carter’ Category

When it comes to Democrats displaying illogic, Ilhan Omar is pretty impressive. Last week, former Miss Iraq Sarah Idan criticized Rep. Omar. Appearing on Sara Carter’s program, Miss Idan said that Omar “does not represent me as a Muslim, does not represent millions of Muslims Middle East.”

Rep. Omar replied, saying “Hey, I might be wrong but I don’t think you are a #MN05 resident and like that makes me not your representative.” That illogic is frightening. Miss Idan didn’t talk about Rep. Omar representing her in Congress. Still, the back-and-forth wasn’t over:


Sara Carter jumped to Miss Idan’s defense:


Democrats, the supposed political party favored by women, didn’t lift a finger to defend a clearly westernized Muslim. Sara Carter, an ace investigative reporter who has broken tons of story investigating the investigators for FNC, jumped to Miss Idan’s defense. This isn’t surprising. It’s just disappointing that Democrats, who used to be huge defenders of civil liberties, wouldn’t defend a woman’s civil liberties.

The major over-arching issue is that Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party is dead. Honestly, since Barack Obama left the White House 3 years ago, his Democratic Party is already on hospice. Today’s Democratic Party is filled with socialists and anarchists.

John Solomon’s reporting in this article should worry Andrew Weissmann, Robert Mueller’s lead prosecutor.

According to Solomon’s article, “an FBI agent wrote in a footnote to the affidavit” that “[t]he April 12, 2017, Associated Press article reported that DMI [Manafort’s company] records showed at least two payments were made to DMI that correspond to payments in the ‘black ledger.'” Then Solomon wrote “There are two glaring problems with that assertion. First, the agent failed to disclose that both FBI officials and Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who later became Mueller’s deputy, met with those AP reporters one day before the story was published and assisted their reporting.”

Then there’s this:

Secondly, the FBI was told the ledger claimed to show cash payments to Manafort when, in fact, agents had been told since 2014 that Manafort received money only by bank wires, mostly routed through the island of Cyprus, memos show.

It gets worse:

Liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz said FBI affidavits almost never cite news articles as evidence. “They are supposed to cite the primary evidence and not secondary evidence,” he said. “It sounds to me like a fraud on the court, possibly a willful and deliberate fraud that should have consequences for both the court and the attorneys’ bar,” he added.

The operational premise likely is that the FBI should have firsthand information because of its investigation. The other premise is that ‘news’ articles aren’t exactly reliable these days. News articles, furthermore, should be considered hearsay. That’s the most important reason why judges shouldn’t trust news articles. The other important reason not to trust news articles is because, lately, political operatives have weaponized information in a way to sabotage their opponent’s campaign.

Why wouldn’t Weissmann worry about the inaccuracy of this information? Is it because he’s that unethical? Is it because he’s that much of a partisan hack? Is it because he isn’t as worried about accuracy as he is about convictions whatever the cost? Is it all of the above? I’m betting it’s the last one.

John Solomon and Sarah Carter are the Woodward and Bernstein of 2019. They aren’t alone, though. It’d be improper to not recognize the work of Devin Nunes and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. In this video, Mr. Fitton goes into detail on the multiple dossiers in play:

If Weissmann isn’t worried, he’s stupid. The Judicial Watch video is fascinating because it highlights the connections between Steele and the State Department and/or Obama administration officials. That sounds pretty shady. I don’t know if it’s illegal but it’s worth looking into.

What I know is that the US attorney that’s assigned to “investigate the investigators” isn’t a prosecutor to be trifled with. John Durham took over a 30-year-old cold case and turned it into a conviction. If laws were broken, Mr. Durham will get a conviction. With all of the documents admitting what various people were doing, I can’t imagine Durham not getting to the bottom of these cases.