Archive for the ‘Deep State’ Category

Joe Biden’s speech after his Electoral College victory was mercifully brief. What it lacked in length was made up for with boasts. Early in the speech, Biden said “In the start of this pandemic, this crisis, many were wondering how many Americans would actually vote at all. But those fears proved to be unfounded. We saw something very few predicted, even thought possible, the biggest voter turnout in the history of the United States of America, a number so big that this election now ranks as the clearest demonstration of the true will of the American people, one of the most amazing demonstrations of civic duty we’ve ever seen in our country.”

Carefully omitted from that statement is the fact that Democrats used the courts to weaken the safeguards to voting. Signature matches weren’t like they were in 2016. In Nevada, signature matching was a major fight. This article highlights how Democrats rigged the election:

After Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske announced that June’s primary would be conducted primarily by mail, Democrats sued. Among other demands, they wanted more than one in-person polling place per county, ballots mailed to inactive voters and the elimination of signature verification. The Clark County Commission is filled with Democrats, so what happened next isn’t surprising. The county decided to give the litigious groups almost everything they wanted.

Rigging the system like that predictably leads to lower rejection rates and higher vote tallies. It wasn’t civic duty that drove vote totals higher. Officialized cheating drove vote totals higher.

After that, Biden’s speech went downhill:

These numbers represented a clear victory then, and I respectfully suggest they do so now. If anyone didn’t know before, they know now. What beats deep in the hearts of the American people is this, democracy, the right to be heard, to have your vote counted, to choose leaders of this nation, to govern ourselves.

We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. Democracy is just a fancy name for mob rule. A constitutional republic guarantees rights from “Nature’s God” that government isn’t allowed to strip from We The People.

When did we hear from Biden or Harris? Biden talked to the press just often enough to stay visible. Harris was mostly used as a Barbie doll to remind people he’d picked a black woman as his running mate.

In America, politicians don’t take power, people grant power to them. The flame of democracy was lit in this nation a long time ago.

The exception is when Big Tech and the corporate media team with the Democrats in preventing We The People from hearing about the Democrats’ presidential candidate’s son’s international scandals. This wasn’t a free and fair election. This election was rigged by the DNC, Big Tech and the corporate media who refused to ask Biden tough questions.

Saying that Big Tech, Hunter Biden and the MSM aren’t filled with integrity is understatement. Unfortunately, that’s only a partial list. The list of people and organizations that displayed a deep absence of integrity this election season is lengthy.

Nancy Pelosi let tens of thousands of businesses go bankrupt to help Joe Biden win the presidential election. May God have mercy on her. I won’t. Letting people lose their life savings so a corrupt politician can win an election is the opposite of integrity. According to thesaurus.com, the opposite of integrity is corruption.

There’s no disputing that the MSM is corrupt. They’re almost as corrupt as Big Tech:

The nation’s largest social media companies went further: They made the shocking decision to actively censor the New York Post’s eye-opening scoop revealing evidence of Joe Biden’s son’s influence peddling that was recovered from an abandoned laptop. Twitter locked the newspaper out of its own account for weeks. Facebook prevented the Post’s story from being widely distributed, even though neither Joe Biden nor his campaign disputed the authenticity of the documents published by the paper.

Whether you thought that there was voter fraud or not, there’s no disputing that this election was rigged. Let’s return to the case against the MSM, though. Check this out:

One of the FBI documents from the laptop published by the Post “included a case number that had the code associated with an ongoing federal money laundering investigation in Delaware, according to several law enforcement officials who reviewed the document. Another document, one with a grand jury subpoena number, appeared to show the initials of two assistant U.S. attorneys linked to the Wilmington, Delaware, office.” Hunter Biden claims he only learned of the investigation this past week, but these documents suggest otherwise.

That doesn’t sound like Russian disinformation. See also here and here. That sounds like they were each singing from the same DNC/Biden campaign hymnal. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

First HuffPo, then CNN:

Corporate media needs to be dismantled. They wield far too much influence. This year, corporate media and Big Tech defeated the best president of my lifetime. Joe Biden didn’t have to campaign. Hunter Biden’s multiple scandals weren’t enough to sink him.

Kim Strassel’s weekly column highlights the corruption in DC. Specifically, it highlights how corrupt the FBI is, how corrupt the corporate media is and how corrupt Judge Emmitt Sullivan is. Throughout the Trump administration, the FBI has been highlighted as having a corrupted upper echelon. (Notice that I used the singular, not plural, version of the word. It’s important.)

Jim Comey, Andy McCabe and Peter Strzok were particularly corrupt throughout the Flynn fiasco. As Ms. Strassel wrote, the “Flynn pardon was necessary—to correct a corrupt Federal Bureau of Investigation, a rogue special counsel, an unprincipled federal judge, and an embarrassingly complicit media.” She continued, saying “Mr. Flynn advised the Trump campaign and in November 2016 was named national security adviser. The FBI had spent months monitoring him as part of its Russia-collusion fantasy, yet by Jan. 4, 2017, it had found nothing and moved to close its case. In rushed Peter Strzok—the now-disgraced then-FBI agent—to keep the investigation open. The FBI had snooped on a Flynn call to the then-Russian ambassador to the U.S.”

The FBI didn’t need to interview the National Security Adviser about his conversation; it had the transcript. Yet the bureau’s then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe sandbagged Mr. Flynn, arranging for him to meet with FBI agents without a lawyer. Former FBI Director Jim Comey later gloated over the setup. The FBI also chose not to provide Mr. Flynn a standard warning against lying, to keep him comfortable. Despite all this, the agents reported—according to government notes—that they “believe that F. believes that what he said was true.” He didn’t intentionally lie.

This was always totally about getting Flynn to flip on President Trump. The FBI’s problem was that there was nothing to flip about. The Mueller report stated that there wasn’t any conspiracy “between Donald Trump and Russia, the Trump campaign and Russia” or any American and Russia.

That didn’t stop the FBI or special counsel from pressing forward:

Fast forward to Robert Mueller, who didn’t care. The FBI knew in January 2017 that its collusion investigation was a bust; it confirmed the Steele dossier was a fabrication. So Mr. Comey engineered a special counsel to salvage the FBI’s reputation by ginning up unrelated “crimes.” Mr. Mueller dredged up the Flynn interview and threatened to prosecute the former national security adviser’s son unless Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying. Facing bankruptcy, Mr. Flynn succumbed to this naked abuse of power.

Jim Comey likely won’t be prosecuted. That’s unfortunate because he’s totally reprehensible. He didn’t think twice about setting up a 3-star general.

Here’s something worth pondering. Would people that set up a 3-star general hesitate to break the law to get rid of the president he served? Let’s remember that the president he served was the target all along.

If you needed proof that Democrats hate Trump supporters, this article provides that proof. The article is written by Dahlia Lithwick of Slate Magazine. The article is titled “Trump Is No Longer the Problem. His Army of Followers Is.”

The article isn’t about unveiling new information to people. It’s mostly a diatribe from someone with the mind of a child. Think of a child going through terrible 2s. Then think of the writer as someone with a temper. Finally, think of Lithwick as not that bright but definitely that insistent that she’s right. I won’t subject LFR’s readers to Lithwick’s diatribe. This paragraph is sufficient:

But even if we stipulate that Trump is a distraction from moving on, there is another reason we cannot be free of this persistent anxiety: Ugliness and lawlessness and norms violations did not end with the election, and they are not limited to Trump’s tweets or telephone calls. The disease has spread. And even as we should be moving on, acts of transparent racism, defiance of norms of governance, and clownish court performances by Trump surrogates all signal that, for the army of Trump enthusiasts, enablers, and imitators, law continues to be an afterthought—a sand trap limited to suckers, losers, and Democrats. The Republican Party is still insisting that it is a law unto itself. That part isn’t over, or even slowing. It is simply instantiated into more overt forms. Yes, yes we should ignore Trump, and Trump himself is ever-more ignorable. But his enablers and imitators are not slouching away quietly.

What drivel. It isn’t a stretch to think that Democrats are the party that believes in passing, but not enforcing, laws. They did virtually nothing in Minneapolis, NYC, then Seattle and Portland when the rioting started. I’d love hearing Ms. Lithwick explain how enabling rioting and destruction of family businesses isn’t a “defiance of norms of governance.” That happened in Democrat-run cities. It didn’t happen in Republican-run cities.

Democrats said that there wasn’t widespread voter fraud. That’s true. It’s found in Atlanta, Dane County, WI, Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia. Don’t say that there isn’t evidence of that, either. Sidney Powell outlines it a little in this presentation:

About 2:25 in, Powell talked about spikes that corresponded with testimony provided in the affidavits that are sworn out under penalty of perjury. Powell then said that the spikes were straight up, not at a steep diagonal angle.

To summarize, Democrats think that President Trump and his supporters are problematic. Further, it’s clear that they think we need to be gotten rid of in a political sense. Going back to their deep state ways, mixed with their globalist, China-pandering ways, is the best path forward.

The FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into then-President-Elect Trump was illegitimate. In fact, a previous counterintelligence investigation provided the proof:

The primary sub-source for the Steele dossier was the subject of an earlier counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, and those facts were known to the Crossfire Hurricane team as early as December 2016, according to newly released records from the Justice Department that were first reported by CBS News.

CBS’s Catherine Herridge reports:

“Between May 2009 and March 2011, the FBI maintained an investigation into the individual who later would be identified as Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-source,” the two page FBI memo states. “The FBI commenced this investigation based on information by the FBI indicating that the Primary Sub-source may be a threat to national security.”

Here’s Page 1:

Here’s Page 2:

Ms. Herridge later wrote “The two-page memo states the case was not reopened, and there is no indication the FISA court was ever told that the dossier source was the subject of an earlier FBI probe.” That’s proof that a) the Mueller Investigation wasn’t properly predicated and b) the FBI didn’t notify the FISA Court that the primary subsource for the Steele Dossier was a Russian spy. Had the FBI disclosed that information, the FBI wouldn’t have gotten a wiretap warrant on Carter Page.

Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe and other senior FBI officials will, at minimum, receive intense new scrutiny from John Durham. It’s apparent that the Obama FBI senior staff was filled with corrupt people. The MSM will, of course, ignore that and continue touting the Obama administration as virtually corruption free.

Lindsey Graham spoke out yesterday, saying that Robert Mueller should testify in front of his Committee if he’s going to write Washington Post op-eds. The article states “Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said Sunday that he will grant Democrats’ request to have former special counsel Robert Mueller testify about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election before the committee.”

I can imagine Mueller not wanting to testify. The reasons’ names are Graham, Grassley, Lee, Cruz, Hawley and Kennedy. Mueller wouldn’t b worried about answering questions about his op-ed. He’d be plenty worried about answering questions about the Special Counsel investigation he conducted into Gen. Flynn. He’d be on the hot seat answering why the Special Counsel investigation was needed. He’d feel the heat answering why the FBI’s DC Field Office recommended shutting the Flynn investigation down when they didn’t find any “derogatory information” against Flynn. Imagine how Mueller would squirm when presented with Jim Comey’s note that said that the Flynn-Kislyak calls were “totally legit.”

Mueller certainly would’ve gotten that information at the start of the Special Counsel’s investigation. Despite the fact that the investigation lacked proper predication, Mueller bankrupted Flynn based on charges that weren’t sustainable. Besides partisanship, why would Mueller continue investigating when he knew that a) the Steele Dossier was unsubstantiated, b) the FBI’s DC Field Office recommended dismissing the investigation into Gen. Flynn and c) Jim Comey had said that the Flynn-Kislyak phone calls were legitimate?

If Mueller thinks they’ll just talk about Roger Stone, he’s kidding himself. In the op-ed, he wrote this:

“We made every decision in Stone’s case, as in all our cases, based solely on the facts and the law and in accordance with the rule of law. The women and men who conducted these investigations and prosecutions acted with the highest integrity. Claims to the contrary are false.”

Let’s see whether he’d repeat that testimony. Did Mueller’s investigators act “with the highest integrity” when they prosecuted Gen. Flynn after the FBI’s DC field office recommended Operation Crossfire Razor be terminated? Did Mueller’s investigators act “with the highest integrity” when they tipped off CNN before they executed a pre-dawn raid of Roger Stone?

Let’s hear Mueller’s testimony to those questions. If he thinks that’s acting “with the highest integrity”, then people will think, rightly, that Mueller’s part of the swamp just like Jim Comey is.

Whenever a Democrat spins the Flynn plea bargain story, that Democrat omits an important (some might say essential) sentence. In this article, the Democrat wrote “In 2017, special counsel Robert Mueller charged Flynn with making false statements to the FBI regarding his conversations with the Russian ambassador about U.S. sanctions, among other things. Flynn promptly entered a guilty plea, and agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s team in its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.”

Actually, they’re missing multiple sentences. First, the Democrats omit the part that the DC Field Office wanted to shut down the Flynn investigation because they didn’t find any derogatory information on Gen. Flynn. See Jonathan Turley’s post on the subject. Turley wrote “It now appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR”, the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened.”

This part is important to understanding the Democrats’ Flynn spin campaign:

The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

The Flynn case should’ve been dropped right there. Because of when this happened, that also means that there never should’ve been a special counsel investigation. Mueller’s special counsel investigation happened because a corrupt FBI agent named Peter Strzok intervened. While what he did isn’t illegal, it’s definitely swampy.

The other thing that Democrats omit is the part about how Mueller used that Strzok decision to push Gen. Flynn to the brink of bankruptcy before threatening to prosecute Gen. Flynn’s son and Gen. Flynn. I’d love hearing the ACLU explain how those Gestapo tactics are accepted by the Bill of Rights. I guess they’re accepted under the part that says that the ends justify the means.

Democrats have constantly omitted these details from their story. It’s disgraceful that they aren’t confident enough to win an argument on the merits. If Democrats have that weak of arguments, shouldn’t they find better arguments? That’s what smart people would do.

It isn’t surprising that the Intelligence Community, aka the IC, is already attacking newly confirmed DNI John Ratcliffe. Equally unsurprising is the fact that the MSM is attacking Ratcliffe. They know that Ratcliffe wants to drain the IC swamp, that he wants to get rid of people who think of Peter Strzok, Jim Comey and Jim Clapper as heroes.

CNN started its attack by saying “Ratcliffe will transition from being one of the President’s key defenders to leading an intelligence community that has been under constant fire from Trump, who has pushed unsubstantiated claims about a ‘deep state’ of career officials trying to undermine his presidency.” CNN pretends that the transcripts from the HPSCI, aka House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, interviews haven’t come out. Those 63,000 pages of transcripts show that Jim Clapper said on TV that President Trump might be a Russian asset but then changed his story, saying under oath that he hadn’t “seen any direct evidence” of collusion or conspiracy between Trump and the Russians.

Peter Strzok kept open Operation Crossfire Razor on Gen. Flynn even though the DC Field Office wanted it closed because, in the field office’s opinion, Gen. Flynn had told the truth. Strzok said that the “7th floor”, aka FBI Director Jim Comey, wanted the investigation kept open. Does that sound like the FBI political appointees were people of integrity? It doesn’t sound like that to me.

Susan Rice and Samantha Power also requested the unmasking of Gen. Flynn’s name, too. What CNN calls unsubstantiated is actually substantiated. It’s just that CNN is filled with liars who shill for Democrats. Eli Lake wouldn’t fit with CNN. Lake isn’t a lying progressive like the meatheads at CNN. He wrote something entirely different in this article:

Flynn did not then know that leaders of the FBI and the Justice Department were out for his head. They suspected he was a Russian agent—despite the fact that a counterintelligence investigation into Flynn launched five months earlier by the FBI had found no evidence for such a claim. Three weeks into the Trump administration, the Flynn hunt bagged its trophy. The newly installed national-security adviser was compelled to quit. The stated rationale was that Flynn had lost the confidence of the new vice president because he had supposedly misled Mike Pence about some phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the United States. That those phone calls became public knowledge was almost certainly the result of Obama-administration leaks of highly sensitive intelligence information.

Lake isn’t a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. He just isn’t a CNN-style commentator because he, unlike many of their commentators, isn’t a liar. Instead, he’s just a reporter that takes his responsibilities seriously. Then there’s this from CNN:

Ratcliffe has been unequivocal that he believes Russia has interfered in US elections and will continue to do so — but he has not sided with one of the intelligence community’s key findings: that Russia was trying to help Trump in 2016.

There’s a reason for Ratcliffe’s hesitation in siding with the IC’s finding. While there is documentation from the IC thought that Russia was trying to help then-Candidate Trump in 2016, it’s also true that Jim Clapper didn’t turnover the documents that showed Russia preferred Hillary. That documentation said Russia knew her and thought that she was “malleable.” When intelligence says contradicting things, it’s best that the IC not take a conclusive position. This is telling, too:

“I haven’t served in an intelligence agency. I think that bringing a different kind of experience today is really going to be vitally important,” Ratcliffe told Catherine Herridge of CBS News after he was nominated in March.

“You know all of the experience in the world isn’t helpful without judgment, and I think what we’ve seen is that some of our most experienced intelligence officials have gotten it wrong with respect to important issues,” Ratcliffe said.

It’s better to pick someone talented and honest than picking someone experienced and dishonest.

Last week, Marie Harf, whom I’ve nicknamed ‘Baghdad Barbara’ because she’s as trustworthy as Baghdad Bob, tried peddling some Democrat spin while appearing on Outnumbered. Saying that Lara Logan demolished Harf and the Democrats’ talking points is understatement. Harf didn’t wave her little white flag but that’s mostly because isn’t a person of integrity.

Harf started by saying “Yesterday, Barr basically made a statement that said, ‘You can lie to the FBI, and that’s okay.’ And there is still a ton of evidence that the investigation was absolutely an appropriate one, that Flynn was absolutely someone who should have been investigated, and he comes at the end of the day, chose to lie about his contact with foreign countries. If Bill Barr wants to say that’s not a crime, that is a precedent I’m not sure either party wants to set.”

Actually, the law says that it isn’t automatically a crime to lie to law enforcement. For it to be a crime, the lie has to be material to an investigation that’s properly predicated. Thanks to the transcripts that Ric Grenell forced Adam Schiff to release, we now know that the Flynn investigation wasn’t properly predicated. That means that the investigation was bogus, which meant that Gen. Flynn’s statements weren’t material to a legitimate investigation. Here’s how Logan replied to Ms. Harf:

Oh my God. Wow. I feel like I’m in some kind of fantasy sci-fi alternative reality movie. That couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m not sure there’s a word that came out of your mouth that’s actually true.

Look at the transcripts of the conversations. There’s a big difference between talking to people and colluding. If that’s a standard for collusion, how come you not screaming for accountability for Fusion GPS and the DNC and the Clinton campaign for literally meeting with agents from Vladimir Putin, for taking disinformation and using that against a political rival in the presidential election in this country.

I mean, the message was not — the message was exactly the opposite to millions of people in this country. Now that you can just lie to the FBI and get away with it. The message was that accountability, that so many people in this country have been asking for, for so long, it’s finally actually going to happen.

Bill Barr has never said that his mission is about defending president trump. He said it in the CBS interview and he said it from the beginning, that his duty is to protect the rule of law in this country. To protect the Justice Department and law enforcement. He’s doing that holding them to the standard to which they have sworn to uphold. And holding them to the same standard that every single person in this country would be held to if they were facing similar charges. So, what about lying to Congress? Because all of these people, McCabe and Comey, and all of them, they have all lied and lied and lied. And there is more information to come, hear, that is going to show exactly what really happened with Michael Flynn.

The FBI’s actions in the Flynn interview were reprehensible. According to this tweet, the Flynn investigation was crumbling:


In other words, the people who violated Gen. Flynn’s civil rights (“FBI leadership”) didn’t want to stop harassing Gen. Flynn. To steal a line from Ms. Harf, “I’m not sure” that’s a good look for Democrats to adopt.

Finally, Bill Barr determined that there wasn’t proper predication for the Flynn investigation. That’s why he later determined dropping the case against Gen. Flynn was the right decision. That’s why Judge Sullivan is trying his best to keep the case alive.

Anyone explaining how the unmasking of Gen. Flynn was routine isn’t trustworthy. To believe that the Flynn unmasking was innocent, I’d have to believe that the same people who spent $40,000,000 investigating the fake Trump-Russia collusion, appropriated 40 FBI agents and hired 19 corrupt attorneys just wanted better understanding of who was talking to the then-Russian ambassador to the US. That’s spin. This was a vendetta led by Jim Clapper, Jim Comey, Robert Mueller, Peter Strzok, Andrew Weissman et al.

The cabal that didn’t hesitate in using the Steele Dossier to obtain a FISA warrant against Carter Page suddenly developed integrity? (Let’s remember that they didn’t get their warrant the first time when they filed their application without the discredited dossier.) I don’t think so. The definition of a cabal is “a small group of secret plotters, as against a government or person in authority.” That definition fits Clapper, Comey, Mueller, Strzok and Weissman perfectly.

Again, to the Weissman/Strzok/Clapper/Comey cabal, this was a vendetta. They hated President-Elect Trump. Strzok told Lisa Page that he went to Walmart once and that he could smell the Trump supporters. Suddenly, this cabal of Trump haters are doing things purely out of civic pride? Shame on them for thinking that we’re that stupid.

We know the stories. Jim Clapper insisted in public that President Trump was a Russian asset but testified under oath that he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.” Susan Rice testified to this:

Susan Rice, who served as Obama’s national security adviser, testified in September 2017 that she hadn’t seen evidence of Trump-Russia collusion during questioning by former Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina.

Rice certainly didn’t tell viewers that when being interviewed on TV. Why should we think that she’s a person of integrity? Peter Strzok found out that field officers wanted to shut down Crossfire Razor, the investigation into Gen. Flynn. Immediately, he ordered that Crossfire Razor not be stopped. A day later, there was a meeting in the Oval office about unmasking. Three weeks later, FBI agents entrapped Gen. Flynn.

Why shouldn’t people think that these different groups weren’t working together? They definitely had common purposes. They definitely weren’t people of integrity. They all hated the thought of a Trump administration. This interview is worth watching:

The FBI agent who foolishly asked on paper what the goal was is Bill Priestap. Here’s Priestap’s ‘contribution’ to the unmasking fiasco:

Priestap’s memo reflected his own thoughts on the FBI’S internal debate about interviewing Flynn. “What’s our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Priestap wrote, adding: “Protect our institution by not playing games.” His notes also show the FBI “softened its interview strategy” with Flynn, giving him hints to refresh his memory of his conversations, the Times reports. Nevertheless, Flynn “lied repeatedly, and prosecutors have said that agents gave him ‘multiple opportunities to correct his false statements by revisiting key questions.'”

This isn’t going away anytime soon. That’s why it’s important to realize that the Democrats’ spin will intensify. The simple fix for the Democrats’ spin is to ask this simple question: Is it likely that the cabal that wanted to prevent a Trump administration, the cabal that impeached President Trump and tried to remove him from office, suddenly become public servants with integrity? Of course, they didn’t.