Archive for the ‘The Swamp’ Category

While some corrupt Democrats insist that the released Flynn documents aren’t a smoking gun, fair-minded Democrats say the opposite. Norman Eisen, the apologist for corrupt Democrats, wrote that “A review of these internal FBI communications, however, shows none of the wrongdoing that Mr. Trump would like to see. But no matter: The mischaracterization of these documents as evidence of FBI misconduct, and by extension, absolution of Mr. Flynn, signals that the president will escalate his abuses of power in the run-up to the 2020 election.” That’s quite a trick. A hand-written note from Bill Priestap asked “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” The FBI should be in the business of investigating crimes, not manufacturing crimes that they hope to use to impeach and remove a president they don’t like.

Mr. Eisen, it’s sad that you don’t recognize corruption when you see it. Eisen wrote “The Michael Flynn scandal was one of the first to reveal the pattern of lawlessness that has characterized the Trump administration. In December 2016, Mr. Flynn, in a phone call, successfully implored Russia to moderate retaliation against the United States for sanctions imposed because of the attack on U.S. elections. The conduct raised serious questions under the Logan Act, which prohibits private parties from conducting U.S. foreign policy.”

Flynn wasn’t a private citizen at that point. He had already been named President-Elect Trump’s National Security Adviser. Calling foreign ambassadors is what NSAs do as part of their job. Mark Penn has a different opinion of what Priestap’s hand-written note represents:

The new documents are in effect the “smoking gun” proving that a cabal at the FBI acted above the law and with extreme political bias, targeting people for prosecution rather than investigating crimes.

Then Penn wrote this:

The principal evidence that prompted the FBI to open the overall investigation into Trump has been definitively determined to be the Steele dossier. We now know, based on recently disclosed footnotes in the Horowitz report, that the dossier was discredited by its own sources and may even have been deliberate Russian disinformation. After receiving this information, the FBI’s top brass, even after learning that the dossier was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign, opened a broad investigation into Trump and his campaign.

What was this “broad investigation” predicated on? The fact that the Steele Dossier was Russian disinformation? Was the FBI attracted to it because its authors discredited the report? Former federal prosecutor Trey Gowdy was visibly upset when what the Priestap note represented:

I’ll take the thoughts of a former federal prosecutor over the words of a Democrat political operative anytime. Eisen is a Democrat political hack. Trey Gowdy is a former federal prosecutor who never lost a case in his career.

Nancy Pelosi thinks that sidelining the World Health Organization isn’t wise. In fact, she thinks that it’s dangerous:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is criticizing President Trump’s effort to withhold funding from the World Health Organization and other steps his administration is reportedly taking to sideline the global health agency. “It’s stupid — it’s more than stupid; it’s dangerous,” Pelosi told NPR.

What’s stupid is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to a Chinese puppet. Then again, that’s normal for Democrats. Then Pelosi went off the deep end:

“Worse than [the funding], if you can believe it, worse than that is that he and the secretary of state have been deleting any reference to the World Health Organization in any of our strategies on how we can deal with the pandemic. That may be more harmful than just the money,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi apparently thinks that we should get pushed around by corrupt international actors acting on behalf of evil nations intent on replacing the United States as the world’s superpower. That’s who the W.H. O. is. Tom Cotton has been right about China since January, when Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler were trying to impeach President Trump. Here’s what Sen. Cotton told Maria Bartiromo:

As early as the second week of December, it was clear that this virus was spreading from person to person. By late December, it was spreading to doctors in Wuhan hospitals. Some doctors were trying to blow the whistle on these facts, and the secret police arrived at their doorsteps in the middle of the night. So only after China fessed up to the WHO on December 31 did the world know what was happening. Yet, still they continued to deny that it was spreading from person to person into mid-January. That allowed millions of people to leave Wuhan.

And then, finally, China continued to pressure the WHO and other countries not to stop international travel from China. That meant that hundreds of thousands of persons left China after this virus was spread far outside of Wuhan, which allowed the virus to escape China’s borders and get to the United States and get to Europe and get to essentially every country in the world.

Why hasn’t Pelosi instructed the Oversight Committee to investigate W.H.O.? Is it that Democrats know how corrupt WHO is? Is it because Democrats are comfortable with the plethora of corrupt international organizations that they fund?

Democrats have spent millions of dollars investigating President Trump but they won’t lift a finger to investigate what the linkage is between the W.H.O. and China? Democrats will investigate a US president that they disagree with but they won’t investigate a nation that wants to run the US into the dirt? That’s the definition of evil. That’s the definition of anti-patriotism.

Jake Tapper got under Pelosi’s skin in this interview:

Pelosi isn’t this great negotiator with nerves of steel. She’s aging and, based on this video, she isn’t aging that gracefully. The day that she signed the impeachment papers is the day that things started going downhill. Then there was this trip to Chinatown on February 24 where ‘Dr. Pelosi’, the world-famous epidemiologist, told everyone that travel is safe:

Let’s be clear about something. If President Trump cured cancer, Pelosi would criticize him for putting oncologists out of business. If President Trump fixed the unions’ pension funds and started running surpluses for the next decade, Pelosi would criticize President Trump for not doing it fast enough.

The truth is that she’s just a high profile political hack. Finally, she’s as tone-deaf as Hillary.

President Trump should fix the WHO, if that’s possible. If it isn’t possible, then we should just undermine what’s left of its credibility.

It isn’t overstatement to say that Adam Schiff is the most prolific leaker in Congress. Just when you thought he couldn’t stoop to lower lows, Schiff proves that theory wrong. This time, Chairman Schiff criticized Acting Director of National Intelligence Rick Grenell for rearranging the ODNI without the Intel Committees’ permission.

Specifically, Chairman Schiff said “Grenell was ‘pursuing organizational and personnel changes’ in ODNI ‘without consulting and seeking authorization from Congress and in a manner that undermines critical intelligence functions.'” It’s awful that Schiff would say that. It’s worse, though, that he’d leak the letter before sending it to its official recipient.

Before moving on though, it’s important to tell Schiff that Ambassador Grenell has the authority he needs to make changes because President Trump named him as the Acting DNI. He doesn’t need Schiff’s permission because he doesn’t take orders from Schiff.

Grenell shot back with his reply:


Schiff is a partisan hatchetman. He should be stripped of his security clearance forthwith. Further, he shouldn’t be part of any oversight committee from this point forward. Thankfully, President Trump is draining the Swamp:

Good riddance.

After reading this article, it’s safe to say that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is fired up about what he calls an “all-American Marshall Plan for Main Street”, aka the “Paycheck Protection Program.” Before getting into the program, Leader McCarthy talked about his background:

Before entering politics, I opened a small deli in my hometown of Bakersfield, California. Two lessons always stuck with me: 1) You’re the first to work, last to leave, and last to get paid, and 2) your employees are your greatest resource. I know from personal experience that small businesses create meaningful opportunities for entrepreneurs, satisfying work for employees, and personalized service for local communities. But I also know how difficult it is to run a small business, even in the best of times.

Leader McCarthy wasn’t a high-powered small businessman but he walked tons of miles in a small businessman’s shoes so he knows what it’s like.

Republican leaders worked with a handful of good-faith Senate Democrats (remember that House Democrats were on vacation that week) to put this package together. When Pelosi returned from vacation, she tried pushing her ideological wish list into the Paycheck Protection Program. Apparently, her highest priority wasn’t getting small businesses health. It was in lighting up a legislative Christmas tree with things like the Green New Deal, taking the voting system away from states and telling corporations who could be on their boards. That’s just a handful of Pelosi’s wish list.

With this program, businesses with fewer than 500 employees (including startups, sole proprietors, and the self-employed) will receive 100% federally guaranteed loans for eight weeks. If the loan is used to pay employees, rent, or utilities, or rehire employees who were laid off due to the virus, it is forgiven.

Loans will be available as early as Friday, thanks to the Trump administration’s quick actions. They will run from February 15 to June 30. Small businesses won’t need to navigate government bureaucracy to access these historic loans. Instead, they can work with any lender backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Similarly, farmers can work with their trusted farm credit institutions to secure loans.

This is what a man who is committed to America looks like:

This is what a career politician looks like:

The man fighting for Main Street wants the U.S. to succeed. The career politician simply wants more political power. That’s the choice this November: Main Street winning vs. the Swamp winning. That isn’t a difficult decision for thoughtful Americans.

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.