Archive for the ‘Deep State’ Category

Democrats are hell-bent on impeaching President Trump, even if it means ignoring what the key witness said. This morning in Ukraine, President Zelenskiy told the AP “We didn’t speak about this. There was no blackmail.” Further, in responding “to questions from The Associated Press, Zelenskiy said he only learned after their July 25 phone call that the U.S. had blocked hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine.”

I’m predicting right now that this exculpatory information won’t matter to Schiff and Pelosi. This won’t break their stride. As Newt Gingrich writes in this article, “This coup attempt, which is exactly what it is, has nothing to do with evidence or any single accusation. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said when asked what she would do if the whistleblower accusation involving Ukraine collapsed, ‘We have many other, shall we say, candidates for impeachable offense in terms of the Constitution of the United States, but this one is the most understandable by the public.'”

Pelosi and Schiff aren’t interested in releasing the testimony transcripts because those transcripts will show that the Democrats’ impeachment attempt is a purely partisan activity. Democrats have started with this coup attempt literally the morning after Election Day, 2016:

On Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2016, a left-wing group announced emergency protests against Donald Trump in six cities that day. Within 24 hours of Trump being declared president, left-wing activists were gathering in Chicago, Los Angeles, Sacramento, New York City, San Francisco, and Albuquerque. As the organizers at Act Now to Stop and End Racism (ANSWER) announced:

In a shock result, Donald Trump has been elected president – but the people can rise up and defeat his bigoted, extreme right-wing agenda! The ANSWER Coalition is mobilizing across the country to organize and take part in emergency actions.

Democrats don’t just hate President Trump. Democrats hate him so thoroughly that they’re willing to throw the rules of evidence aside if that’s what’s required to get rid of President Trump. This isn’t a goal with Democrats. It’s an obsession with Democrats.

This video was shot on Nov. 9, 2016, the night of Trump’s election. That means that Democrats have literally been trying to impeach President Trump since he got elected. For Democrats, this isn’t about just removing President Trump from office. For Democrats, it’s about telling President Trump’s supporters that they made a major mistake and that they’d better repent immediately.

Anyone that thinks that the so-called whistleblower isn’t a Deep State operative hasn’t read this article. The article starts by saying “CBS News has learned the full contents of what appears to be a memo written by the whistleblower one day after President Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July. The memo, dated July 26, is based on a conversation the whistleblower had with an unnamed White House official who listened to the call.”

Those opening words instill legitimacy, thanks in large part to a pair of unnamed people talking about a classified call. Why wouldn’t the people immediately trust the ensuing document? Speaking of the document, it starts like this:

The president’s call with Zelensky was held on the morning of July 25. The whistleblower wrote the memo the next day after speaking with the official in the afternoon. The whistleblower wrote that he or she spoke with the White House official for “a few minutes,” and summarized their conversation.

According to the memo, the White House official described the contents of the call as “crazy,” “frightening” and “completely lacking in substance related to national security.” The whistleblower said the official was “visibly shaken by what had transpired and seemed keen to inform a trusted colleague within the U.S. national security apparatus about the call.”

Apparently, we’re supposed to believe that an unnamed White House official was frightened to the point of spilling their guts to the unnamed Deep State snitch. We’re being asked to trust the people who insisted that they have proof that was “more than circumstantial” W-A-A-Y back in March of 2017. That’s the proof that we still haven’t seen. Sign me up. I’ll trust Shiffty Schiff. Later in the document:

The official described the call as “crazy,” “frightening” and “completely lacking in substance related to national security.” The official asserted that the President used the call to persuade Ukrainian authorities to investigate his political rivals, chiefly former Vice President Biden and his son, Hunter. The official stated that there was already a conversation underway with White House lawyers about how to handle the discussion because, in the official’s view, the President had clearly committed a criminal act by urging a foreign power to investigate a U.S. person for the purposes of advancing his own reelection bid in 2020.

I’ve read the transcript of the phone call. There’s nothing in that transcript that I’d call crazy or frightening. What I’d find frightening, though, is a snitch whose identity is being protected by corrupt politicians like Adam Schiff.

The point that needs to be made constantly is that this snitch/whistleblower/Democrat operative can’t be trusted. This document doesn’t match up with the transcript whatsoever. Since it isn’t difficult to find out who did the transcription but it’s virtually impossible to find out who these snitches are, it isn’t difficult to decide that Deep State snitches shouldn’t be trusted.

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.

Krystal Ball used to be a host on MSNBC. She isn’t anymore. To say that she’s critical of MSNBC is accurate but it’s incomplete. Ball is now a host for Hill.TV, where she has a more reputable platform from which to voice her opinions. In this article, Ball didn’t hold back:

“I dare to say some talent did drink more deeply of the Russia conspiracy waters than others, Rachel Maddow, you have some explaining to do,” said Ball, who now who hosts Hill.TV’s “Rising.”

“This is not journalism, it is Infowars conspiracy theory,” she added, referencing the show hosted by right wing provocateur Alex Jones. “CNN and many other outlets are clearly not blameless in this hype machine and the Democratic Party was plenty happy to engage in this speculation as well,” she continued. “Individual members clearly loved that sweet cable news spotlight but I single out my former employer, in particular, in part because they were certainly the worst mainstream offenders.”

This is actually frightening in the worst way. Yes, Mueller was a sad, almost-pathetic, figure but that isn’t what’s frightening. William Jacobsen’s article does that subject justice far better than I can do:

Whether Robert Mueller was a mere figurehead or in control, he was a participant. So while he was a sorry figure in the congressional hearings, and his appearance did substantial damage to Democrat and media plans, the gravity of what happened should not be lessened. It almost worked.

The media, of course, was a full participant in what happened. Just when you thought the major organizations who control almost all of popular and social media couldn’t get any worse, they do. This all takes place while high tech companies put the thumb on the scale by penalizing non-liberal content.

I used to think that Big Government and Big Corporations was the worst combination. Big Tech and the Deep State make Big Government and Big Corporations look like child’s play.

It’s important to factor in the Big Government people and the Deep State. Nancy Pelosi is part of the Big Government nasties that care only about attaining, then maintaining power. As I wrote about in this post, Pelosi is among the nastiest, most disgusting, people in DC. Yesterday, without a hint of proof, Pelosi accused President Trump of committing treason. That’s what a venomous snake looks like. She didn’t have a tidbit of proof. She knew that she couldn’t prove that accusation if her life depended on it. It didn’t bother her that she’d made the most serious charge imaginable. To Pelosi, this was just about appeasing her base. It was all about partisan advantage. This didn’t have anything to do with patriotism.

Krystal Ball did the right thing getting out of MSNBC. That’s a pit of vipers unequaled except in the House Democrat caucus.