Archive for the ‘The Swamp’ 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.

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.

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.

This article highlights the stupidity of Washington, DC’s political class. It offers 13 theories from DC insiders on why Speaker Pelosi hasn’t sent the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Let’s look at the ones that are best characterized in polite society as foolish. Let’s start here:

Impeachment has gone badly for the Democrats. Pelosi was forced into impeaching the president by liberals in her caucus. She’s wanted to apply a hand brake and halt the process now in order to protect vulnerable freshmen Democrats who supported impeachment.

The votes have been cast. The time to protect those freshmen was before they voted. If Ms. Pelosi wanted to apologize to these freshmen (and others in Trump-won districts), the thing to do is to buy each of them a nice Christmas present.

That being said, impeachment has gone badly for the Democrats. Imagine Ms. Pelosi’s fear in picking impeachment managers, where your top 3 choices are Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff or Steve Cohen. That’s like picking between a heart attack, a stroke and major blood clots. I haven’t had a stroke. I’ve had the others. There aren’t any good choices in that bunch.

Pelosi feared a Senate trial. The president and many Republicans have said they wanted to summon her, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the Bidens and the whistleblower as witnesses in a Senate trial. Nothing good would come from a wide-open Senate trial for Democrats.

Holding onto the articles of impeachment wouldn’t prevent the Senate from calling these witnesses. They’d be called during regular committee hearings. In the case of Adam Schiff, they wouldn’t need to call him. President Trump could beat him up on the campaign trail.

Pelosi wanted to hold the articles of impeachment through the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. This would delay a Senate trial until the field of 2020 Democrats settled – and would protect senators running for president.

This is totally stupid. Let President Trump embarrass these candidates during his State of the Union Address on national TV. Anyone that thinks that President Trump’s speechwriters wouldn’t figure out a way to highlight the corrupt process while hurting House vulnerable freshmen is kidding themselves.

By holding the articles, Pelosi was daring McConnell to advance some sort of resolution (which wouldn’t have direct parliamentary bearing on the articles of impeachment approved by the House) to condemn the House’s action. Support for such a resolution could be a challenge, and politically dangerous, for vulnerable Republican senators facing re-election in 2020: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Martha McSally of Arizona and Cory Gardner of Colorado.

Either that or Sen. McConnell could just set a date for the trial to start. After that, Sen. McConnell could tell Ms. Pelosi that the Sixth Amendment guarantees President Trump a right to a speedy trial. He then tells her to comply or else.

By holding the articles, Pelosi could dictate when a Senate trial could begin. After all, the Senate is pretty much bound to go through the motions of a trial at least. Perhaps Pelosi could send the articles in the early fall – right before the presidential election.

What idiot camp up with this idea? Whoever it was is constitutionally illiterate and a terrible political strategist. President Trump’s lawyers would’ve filed a lawsuit long before the Democrats had picked their nominee. They would’ve won that lawsuit for a speedy trial. President Trump’s legal team would’ve won his acquittal by then, too.

From a strategic standpoint, it’s stupid. President Trump would be attending. The senators would be though, one of whom might be the Democrats’ nominee. Further, we’re back to highlighting the fact that President Trump was impeached solely on hearsay testimony. We’re back to highlighting the fact that Adam Schiff or Jerry Nadler would be the Democrats’ lead prosecutor. Any day or week that Adam Schiff is the face of the Democratic Party during the campaign’s stretch drive is a win for the GOP.

By keeping the articles in the House, Pelosi would maintain control, instead of Trump. McConnell wouldn’t have control either. With the articles of impeachment in limbo, everyone else would be off balance – except Pelosi.

Anyone that’s studied Trump and thinks that he’d sit idly by without upsetting that applecart is kidding themselves. It’s foolish to think that Pelosi is this magical creature that controls DC with her magical powers. Finally, anyone that thinks that President Trump wouldn’t greenlight his attorneys to file a lawsuit forcing a trial is foolish.

This article highlights the thinking of DC insiders. If that’s the case, then it’s easy to see why Washington, DC is nicknamed the Swamp. The facts speak for themselves.

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.

At the heart of the Democrats’ impeachment drive is the Democrats’ contention that President Trump asked Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden. That’s a theory that the media, myself included, hasn’t examined, at least not seriously. The thought that President Trump is worried about Joe Biden, especially at a time when Biden’s fundraising is struggling and his cash on hand balance is low, is misguided thinking.

President Trump understands that he’s a force of nature, politically speaking, and that there isn’t a candidate at the Democrats’ debates that’s clicking with the voters. Sleepy Joe Biden doesn’t excite anyone. Elizabeth Warren just blew up her candidacy with her Medicare-for-All tax increase. Bernie Sanders’ campaign just died at the hands of Crazy Bernie. Check out Crazy Bernie’s immigration proposal:

Key Points

  1. Institute a moratorium on deportations until a thorough audit of past practices and policies is complete.
  2. Reinstate and expand DACA and develop a humane policy for those seeking asylum.
  3. Completely reshape and reform our immigration enforcement system, including breaking up ICE and CBP and redistributing their functions to their proper authorities.
  4. Dismantle cruel and inhumane deportation programs and detention centers and reunite families who have been separated.
  5. Live up to our ideals as a nation and welcome refugees and those seeking asylum, including those displaced by climate change.

To use an old carpenter’s saying, Crazy Bernie’s plan is a full bubble off center. But I digress. The subject was Biden.

Supposedly, Joe is the champion of blue collar workers everywhere. There’s a flaw with that logic, though, which I’ve written about frequently. Sleepy Joe wants to ban fossil fuels. This video is from the Greenpeace USA Youtube channel:

The Obama-Biden administration also prevented the building of the Keystone XL pipeline. It didn’t take long for President Trump to reverse that.

These are the policies and candidacies that Democrats think are winners in 2020? There’s nothing to think these policies will connect with blue collar voters in Rust Belt states that Democrats need to flip. If Biden doesn’t flip ‘Blue Firewall’ states like Pennsylvania and Michigan back into the Democrats’ column, Democrats can kiss this election goodbye. Check this article out:

The battle is a microcosm of what is happening nationally: Big-city Democratic mayors are aligning themselves with leftist local officials and environmental activists to renounce disfavored industries. It also exposes the Democrats’ deep challenges with blue-collar voters. In both Western Pennsylvania and the Scranton area, the shale industry is opening up prosperity not seen for two generations—and inflaming climate zealots. “A Democrat can’t win Pennsylvania without voter support from those two regions,” said Mike Mikus, a strategist who consulted for Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s re-election campaign last year. “And you can’t win the presidency as a Democrat if you lose Pennsylvania.”

The point of this is that Biden is a fatally flawed presidential candidate. President Trump didn’t need Ukraine’s help to defeat Biden. Further, President Trump ran on draining the Swamp. If anyone personifies the Swamp better than Joe and Hunter Biden, it’d be the Podesta brothers.

Unlike other presidents, President Trump has made a habit of keeping his promise. He doesn’t have a perfect record but it’s better than any recent president.

  1. He’s building the wall, despite the Democrats obstructionism.
  2. President Trump moved the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
  3. President Trump signed the biggest tax cuts in US history.
  4. He promised small-town workers that they wouldn’t be forgotten. Thanks to the booming energy industry, he’s more than kept that promise.

Democrats whine about President Trump going after Joe and Hunter Biden because they aren’t used to a president actually getting serious about corruption. Joe and Hunter Biden are government corruption personified. They aren’t at John Murtha’s level but they’re still in the Swamp Hall of Fame.

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.

Anyone that thinks that the Minnesota Department of Human Services isn’t suffering through a crisis hasn’t been reading LFR lately and they certainly haven’t read this article, either. After reading the article, LFR reached out to Rep. Nick Zerwas of Elk River, who consented to an interview.

Q: What has bothered you the most about this scandal thus far?
A: Obviously the total lack of accountability is disappointing (but predictable).
Q: You say that it’s predictable that there was a lack of accountability. Why is that predictable?
A: In all of the scandals at DHS over the last 7 years I’ve been in the legislature, I can’t recall anyone ever being held accountable.

If you visit Rep. Zerwas’ legislative website, you’ll see a lengthy list of statements on the DHS crisis. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that DHS management has responded to the crisis.

Rep. Zerwas issued this statement yesterday:

Rep. Nick Zerwas, R-Elk River, who serves on the House Health and Human Services Finance Division and has called for a full forensic audit of all state and federal spending at the embattled agency, is calling on Ramsey County Attorney John Choi to examine the latest report, and determine whether the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office should step in to prosecute the repeated violations of law.

“While I appreciate the good-faith efforts Commissioner Harpstead is making to clean up the agency and restore public trust, at some point we must determine whether there are consequences for violating the laws we have in place,” Zerwas said. “If the agency is unwilling to hold employees accountable, then it may be time for law enforcement to step in.”

At this point, actions and consequences are more important than words. If the Ramsey County Attorney won’t prosecute lawbreakers, then it’ll be apparent that their office isn’t taking this seriously. There were other questions asked of Rep. Zerwas. This one stood out:

Q: One final question: Should the legislature break up DHS? Or is just changing the culture required?
A: I think the agency is too large, and I would support breaking it up. However, a restructure of DHS alone will not fix anything. If the employees don’t believe there will be consequences for their illegal actions, then I guarantee you nothing will change.

That’s the growing consensus about DHS. There’s no question that the culture must change. The Department must change, too.

The records obtained by the newspaper show employees sometimes allowed vendors and grantees to perform work or services without finalized and signed contracts, while in other cases employees bought products such as software without the required permission. Department officials said the agency has safeguards in place that prevent spending in such situations. But legislators said the violations put the agency at risk for misusing taxpayer dollars.

Thank God for those departmental safeguards. Where would we be without them? Apparently, DHS management doesn’t pay much attention to those ‘safeguards’. Question: Can they be considered safeguards if nobody pays attention to them?

If there’s anything that’s predictable, it’s that the Swamp protects its own. Nowhere is that more visible today than with the faux whistleblower, whose name (allegedly Eric Ciaramella) was disclosed by Donald Trump Jr. today. According to this article, “current and former intelligence officials tell NBC News” that “pressure is building on the spy agency’s director, Gina Haspel, to take a stand on the matter.”

Fine. Here’s a stand that these Swamp critters won’t like. Haspel should side with the Constitution. Specifically, Haspel should side with the Sixth Amendment, which says “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

TRANSLATION: Anyone accused of a crime has the right to cross-examine his accusers, just like he has a right to accuse those accusers. The standard is that defendants shall have the right to confront their accusers. It doesn’t say that defendants might have that right if the wind is out of the west and if we’ve just had a full moon. It says that, in all situations, the defendant shall have that right. Predictably, the faux whistleblower’s attorney isn’t fond of the idea of his client’s name getting outed:

Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower’s lead lawyer, has said that disclosure of his client’s name would deter future whistleblowers and he has threatened legal action against anyone who reveals the name. In a statement Wednesday, the whistleblower’s lawyers said “identifying any suspected name … will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm.”

First, it isn’t known if this person qualifies as a whistleblower. Just because his/her attorney says the person is a whistleblower doesn’t make it Gospel fact. Next, if the alleged whistleblower has a partisan political agenda that includes removing the president from office, then exposing the alleged whistleblower’s identity is a patriotic thing. I want people who gossip about things that they heard to not be protected. If this person didn’t abide by the laws of integrity, they don’t deserve protection.

The inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, found the whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s alleged pressure campaign on Ukraine to be credible. The description of events in the complaint, which has been public for weeks, has largely been confirmed by the transcript of Trump’s July phone call with the Ukrainian president and by the publicly available testimony of other witnesses in recent weeks.

Michael Atkinson should testify when the House Impeachment Committee, chaired by hyperpartisan Democrat Adam Schiff, conducts public hearings. What made the whistleblower’s testimony credible? Was it the fact that none of it was first-hand information? Was it the fact that no court in the nation would’ve admitted this information into a court because it’s hearsay, which is inadmissible except in a few exceptions?

“Since the affiliation of the whistleblower is unacknowledged, it is up to the Acting DNI Joe McGuire to take a firm public and private stance against any effort to expose the whistleblower,” Brennan told NBC News. “Other leaders of the Intelligence Community should privately oppose any attempt to name the whistleblower. Senator Paul’s appalling call for the naming of the whistleblower by the media should be denounced in the strongest terms possible; a statement signed by the heads of all the intelligence agencies would be most appropriate.”

Based on what, Mr. Brennan? Why should partisan snitches peddling gossip get protection? This isn’t the case of a patriot saving the nation from a madman. This is the case of a renegade madman trying to save a nation from a patriot.

It isn’t often that Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul agree so I’d better record this for history’s sake: