Archive for the ‘Devin Nunes’ Category
The Democrats’ smear campaign isn’t stopping. Instead, it’s hitting new lows. CNN published a story insisting that House Impeachment Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes had visited Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden family. The CNN article opens by saying “(CNN)A lawyer for an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani told CNN that his client is willing to tell Congress about meetings the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee had in Vienna last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden. The attorney, Joseph A. Bondy, represents Lev Parnas, the recently indicted Soviet-born American who worked with Giuliani to push claims of Democratic corruption in Ukraine. Bondy said that Parnas was told directly by the former Ukrainian official that he met last year in Vienna with Rep. Devin Nunes.” It continues, saying “Mr. Parnas learned from former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin that Nunes had met with Shokin in Vienna last December,’ said Bondy.”
Talk about ironclad hearsay. I’m impressed. Not. This is worthless. It wouldn’t be admitted in a court of law. That isn’t the worst of it, though. This is:
Lev Parnas’s attorney has told me that his client would not be making these claims if he didn’t have text messages and other such evidence to back them up.— Vicky Ward (@VickyPJWard) November 23, 2019
CNN is running a major story that Devin Nunes met with a Ukrainian prosecutor on the word of a defense attorney whose client is facing serious charges? They’re publishing the article without seeing the texts? They’re just taking the defense attorney’s word without verification?
It’s difficult to picture a reporter being that gullible. Did she just throw out everything she learned in Journalism 101? That’s what it looks like.
“For all of the last three years, including the Russia hoax to the Ukraine hoax, this is the mother of all fake news stories. There is not one bigger than this,” Nunes said. “And so next week, we are going to take them to court. They will have an opportunity to come to court so that we can subpoena each other. We can get discovery. We can set people down for depositions. And I have a bet for you, Sean. CNN and The Daily Beast are going to run for cover. They’re going to fight this. They’re not going to show up in court. They’re not going to accept service.”
Devin Nunes has been maligned by the MSM for years. They’ve insisted that he’s blindly running interference for the Trump administration. What the MSM fails to admit is that, at least once a month, Nunes’ claims are proven right. It’s time CNN and the Daily Beast are held accountable.
It’s time to step away from last week’s impeachment hearings to examine something significant. It’s apparent that Adam Schiff’s Democrats specialize in partisanship. It’s apparent because the supposed high crimes and misdemeanors President Trump was accused of committing kept changing.
In her article, Mollie Hemingway wrote “Before we get to the politics and how they were played by Republicans and Democrats, it should be noted that President Donald Trump has not been credibly accused of committing any crime, much less a high crime or misdemeanor. It’s almost shocking that Trump, of all people, keeps managing to do well on this score. Yet, as with the Russia collusion hoax, in which he was accused of being a traitor to his country, the lack of evidence for the charges against him is his ultimate saving grace.”
She continued with this:
What the charge is keeps changing, of course. The whistleblower initially suggested a campaign finance violation arising from a call Trump had with the president of Ukraine. That morphed into a quid pro quo for military aid to Ukraine, then extortion, then bribery, then obstruction of justice, then back to a quid pro quo, but this time only a quid pro quo for a White House meeting. The lack of certainty among even Trump’s critics certainly worked in his favor.
Let’s get this straight. Each of these charges is laughable. They’re laughable to the extent that extortion and bribery were suggested by focus groups commissioned by the DCCC, the Democrats’ campaign committee commissioned with losing the Democrats’ House majority in 2020. (That wasn’t what they were hired to do. That’s what will happen. It’s like the old Shakey’s Pizza saying — ‘We’re a non-profit. It wasn’t planned that way. That’s just how things worked out.’)
Seriously, though, Democrats kept switching from one ridiculous accusation to the next. They didn’t have proof for their accusations. Democrats simply relied on the MSM to sell the charges. That’s what happens when muscles atrophy. They relied more on the media, less on legitimate, well-researched arguments. The Democrats’ eutrophication was best displayed by Ms. Pelosi’s choice between Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler to spearhead the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee. Schiff is terrible but he’s significantly better than Nadler.
To impeach a president, you need evidence of a major offense that everyone looks at, then says ‘Yep, that’s an impeachable offense.’ The Democrats don’t have that. It’s like the football team with 3 QBs. That team really doesn’t have any. When you have 3-5 impeachable offense theories, you’re really not in the ballpark. You might not even be in the parking lot outside the ballpark.
Meanwhile, Republicans on the Impeachment Committee took apart the Democrats’ ridiculous accusations with ease. Jim Jordan demolished Bill Taylor. Mike Taylor demolished Gordon Sondland. Elise Stefanik took apart Ambassador Yovanovitch:
Holy cow. Rep. @EliseStefanik absolutely wrecks Adam Schiff & the Democrats’ entire impeachment premise.pic.twitter.com/sUJEMwa0Tw— Liz Wheeler (@Liz_Wheeler) November 15, 2019
John Ratcliffe demolished Lt. Col. Vindman:
The MSM won’t admit that they’re propping up House Democrats but that’s what’s happening. Republicans don’t need propping up because they’re taking the Democrats’ testifiers apart with precision and discipline. It helps that the facts are on the Republicans’ side. It helps that the Democrats’ testifiers have relied on weasel-word testimony.
After watching the Democrats’ testifiers the past 2 weeks, something disturbing is emerging. Think of it as ‘the Democrats’ dark vision’. Of the people who testified, just 1 spoke directly with President Trump. The list of testifiers who’ve never met President Trump were Lt. Col. Vindman, Bill Taylor, George Kent, David Holmes, Laura Cooper, Marie Yovanovitch, Fiona Hill, Jennifer Williams, Tim Morrison, David Hale and Kurt Volker.
What’s interesting is that Bill Taylor met 3 times with President Zelenskiy after the infamous July 25th phone call between President Trump and President Zelenskiy. Despite those conversations, Taylor apparently thought that communications with Sondland were needed to get a clear understanding of the lethal military aid that was the topic of discussion.
Amb. Sondland, the only witness to talk directly with both Presidents, admitted this during cross-examination:
It isn’t a stretch to think that the Democrats’ strategy is to deploy a splashy headline that implies (but doesn’t prove) the Democrats’ accusation du jour. Each day, the Democrats’ star witness du jour made a splashy accusation that the MSM immediately turned into a provocative headline. Do we want to live in a nation where a person can be accused of something without rock-solid proof? Isn’t it disgusting that an innocent person could get thrown out of office based on hearsay? Do we really want to throw out the votes of 63,000,000 people just because we don’t like a president?
What I’ve described to you is the Democrats’ vision. If I told Chairman Schiff, the chairman of the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee, that President Trump would be impeached and convicted if Schiff admitted that he’d killed Jeffrey Epstein, he’d admit to that virtually immediately. That’s because Democrats haven’t paid attention to truth or first-hand evidence.
What Democrats did was corroborate a fictional storyline. That isn’t proof. A skilled writer can create a compelling storyline in minutes. In this instance, throw in some Swamp creatures who don’t like their world getting turned upside-down and you’ve got a corroborated corrupt storyline. Throw in a Lt. Col. with connections to a CIA snitch and you have a nefarious-sounding situation:
You still don’t have first-hand proof but it sounds juicy. The Democrats’ dark vision is to disenfranchise the votes of 63,000,000 people because their candidate didn’t win. The Democrats’ dark vision is to disenfranchise the votes of 63,000,000 people because they’re sore losers. That’s the portrait of people who couldn’t define patriot if their life depended on it.
This morning, Adam Schiff, the Democrat chair of the House Impeachment Committee, did his best tyrant impersonation after Devin Nunes tried yielding time to New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik. Upon yielding time to Rep. Stefanik, Schiff gaveled in, repeatedly saying “The gentlewoman will suspend.” Ms. Stefanik replied “What is the interruption for this time? It’s our time.” Schiff replied “The gentlewoman will suspend. You are not recognized.”
Next, Devin Nunes tried intervening, saying “I just recognized her.” Schiff, acting like a petty tyrant, replied “Under House Res. 660, you are not allowed to yield except to Minority Counsel.” Technically, he’s right but the bigger point is that Schiff isn’t interested in working cooperatively with Rep. Nunes. Chairman Schiff isn’t behaving like Peter Rodino with Nixon or Henry Hyde with Clinton. Schiff hasn’t hesitated in acting like a world-class jerk.
In terms of acting like the chairman of an impeachment investigation, Schiff has hit a new low that Hyde and Rodino never came close to hitting. Hyde and Rodino cared most about doing what’s best for America. They were fair-minded. They gave the defense wide latitude. By contrast, Schiff lied about what President Trump said during President Trump’s phone call with President Zelensky. After he lied while putting the faux transcript into the Congressional Record, the other Democrats just sat there like potted plants. Those Democrats apparently didn’t see anything wrong with Schiff’s actions.
After Schiff’s sexist behavior towards Ms. Stefanik, Schiff’s Democrats sat silent just like they did when he lied about President Trump’s conversation. Schiff’s Democrats aren’t profiles in character. Schiff’s Democrats aren’t profiles in integrity.
It’s painfully obvious that the Democrats set up the rules to restrict the Republicans’ cross-examination of witnesses. Schiff’s interested in running a tightly scripted production. Pelosi knows that Nadler wasn’t up to the job of running impeachment hearings. That’s why Pelosi shifted that responsibility to Schiff. That’s why Pelosi tightened up the rules for Schiff’s hearings. Pelosi isn’t totally stupid. She’s aware of Adam Schiff’s ability to screw things up.
Another thing that’s becoming obvious as the hearings progress is that Adam Schiff is exceptionally thin-skinned. Prior to this heated exchange, Devin Nunes read the transcript from President Trump’s first phone call with President Zelenskiy into the record. He didn’t ask that it be admitted into the Congressional Record. Nunes literally read the entire transcript into the record so it couldn’t be turned into another Schiff parody. Here’s that tweet:
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2019
Rep. Stefanik needled Schiff by reading Schiff’s tweets into the record:
“The chairman refused to allow us to put these into the record with unanimous consent,” Stefanik, R-N.Y., said. “As we know, it is important to protect whistleblowers from retaliation and firing…but in this case, the fact that we are getting criticized for statements he, himself, made earlier in the process shows the duplicity and abuse of power we see.”
Chairman Schiff’s actions were disgusting. As I said earlier, Schiff’s performance isn’t worthy of the People’s House. In Schiff’s mind, this is Pelosi’s House or the Democrats’ House. If Democrats had any respect for We The People, they’d have greater respect for the people’s elected officials.
Unfortunately for America, these Democrats only respect themselves.
The Democrats’ defense strategy isn’t a mystery. Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ chairman of the House Impeachment Committee, is rigging the process so only Democrat-approved witnesses can testify or be cross-examined. Schiff is preventing the Republicans from presenting an alternative explanation for what happened in Ukraine.
By preventing Hunter Biden from testifying, Schiff will prevent Republicans from asking legitimate questions about corruption. That’s important because the Democrats’ spin is that President Trump asked President Zelenskiy to interfere with the 2020 election. If Republicans can prove that Ukraine had corruption problems (it does) and that Hunter Biden had corruption issues or even had a whiff of corruption, then that justifies President Trump’s asking President Zelenskiy to look into the Bidens.
Democrats can’t afford the introduction of an alternative theory of what happened in Ukraine. Also, Democrats can’t let the whistleblower testify because he’d certainly be asked if he’d been coached by Schiff’s staff. If the faux whistleblower admits that he’s talked with Schiff’s staff, that will open the floodgates for the Republicans’ questions.
Democrats can’t let Mark Zaid, the faux whistleblower’s attorney, become part of the story, either. That’s because Zaid is a card-carrying member of the #Resist movement. He’s proudly tweeted that a “coup” had started:
#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers https://t.co/FiNBQo6v0S— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) January 31, 2017
Zaid also said that CNN would play a major role in President Trump not serving his full term. The more that Republicans can highlight the Democrats’ hyperpartisanship, the weaker the Democrats’ case becomes.
The Democrats’ credibility would get shattered if President Trump was justified in calling for Hunter Biden’s investigation. This article highlights the fact that Hunter Biden will play a major role in the hearings whether he’s there or not:
Kent also told congressional investigators that he had repeatedly raised concerns with the Obama administration about Burisma, and also discussed the administration’s efforts to remove Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin from his post. At the time, Shokin was investigating Mykola Zlochevsky, the former minister of ecology and natural resources of Ukraine— also the founder of Burisma.
Shokin was fired in April 2016, and his case was closed by the prosecutor who replaced him, Yuriy Lutsenko (though Ukraine is now reviewing such cases). Biden once famously boasted on camera that when he was vice president and leading the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin.
Schiff is trying his best to keep Hunter Biden off the stand:
Schiff said the inquiry “is a solemn undertaking, enshrined by the Founders in the Constitution” and that the hearings “will not serve as vehicles for any Member to carry out the same sham investigations into the Bidens or debunked conspiracies about 2016 U.S. election interference that President Trump pressed Ukraine to conduct for his personal political benefit.”
That isn’t the sound of impartiality. That’s what partisanship sounds like. This week, expect Democrats to sound like partisans. Expect Democrats to be on the defensive.
This weekend, Mark Zaid, the lead attorney for the so-called whistleblower, offered to have his client answer written questions from Impeachment Committee Republicans. It didn’t take long for Republicans to reject that offer:
But, late Sunday, House Oversight Committee ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, seemingly rejected the offer from whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid, saying “written answers will not provide a sufficient opportunity to probe all the relevant facts and cross examine the so-called whistleblower. You don’t get to ignite an impeachment effort and never account for your actions and role in orchestrating it,” Jordan said.
Zaid’s reply came through this tweet:
Congressman Jordan’s statement highlights his misunderstanding of fed WBer laws & protections. Notwithstanding WBer’s offer to rise above partisanship, he responds w/deliberate deflection & disinformation. https://t.co/uwkGn6C8Ao— Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) November 4, 2019
About those whistleblower protections, it’s apparent that Mr. Zaid is doing the deflecting:
In order to submit an ICWPA complaint the following elements must be met:
Eligible Originator: Only applies to employees (civilian, military or contractor) assigned to the four DoD intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA). Does not apply to activities of the military services, combatant commands, or Office of Secretary of Defense.
In other words, this anonymous informant isn’t a heroic whistleblower saving the republic. He’s just another CIA snitch spying on President Trump.
That means that Democrats are protecting this snitch for purely partisan purposes. This isn’t done for patriotic purposes. It’s done because Democrats want to impeach President Trump so badly they’d say or do anything to make it happen. Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee Chairman, knows this law. If he doesn’t, then he isn’t qualified to be the House Impeachment Committee. That’s part of his responsibility.
According to Jason Chaffetz, the former chair of the House Oversight Committee, that committee routinely went through whistleblower submissions. Why wouldn’t Schiff’s committee do the same? This anonymous informant doesn’t qualify for whistleblower protections because he/she isn’t “assigned to the four DoD intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA).” Also, the informant isn’t reporting on a covered person. It’s obvious that this person is a snitch.
This is just posturing anyway. The minute that the House impeaches President Trump, the trial is held in the Senate. At that point, the Senate will set the rules and issue the subpoenas. At that point, Adam Schiff will lose his ability to protect this whistleblower. That will leave Mr. Zaid with little negotiating leverage at that future point.
I’d consider this offer a let’s-see-if-they-blink offer. If Jordan, Nunes and others blink, fantastic for Zaid’s client. If they don’t, which appears to be the case, Zaid hasn’t lost anything by trying.
Now that Speaker Pelosi has officially declared that House Democrats have started an official impeachment inquiry, it’s now time to study who will be Pelosi’s top lieutenants in this fight. Apparently, Pelosi has picked Adam Schiff to be the top general in the Democrats’ impeachment fight:
The confluence of two otherwise coincidental events — the embarrassing Lewandowski hearing followed in quick succession by the explosion of the Ukraine story — handed Pelosi an opening to sideline Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) in favor of the more widely trusted head of the Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), as Democrats launch the formal impeachment inquiry. And Pelosi has made clear that the investigation will focus narrowly on the Ukraine matter, a scandal she believes could be easily understood by the public.
I can’t blame Pelosi for sidelining Nadler, especially after his disastrous performance in the Lewandowski hearing. The question I have, though, is whether Schiff is much of an upgrade over Nadler.
Frankly, considering Schiff’s opening statement at the Maguire hearing, it’s an even-money bet whether the American people would take Schiff seriously. Schiff’s opening statement was seen as a pack of lies or as an unfunny parody at a supposedly serious impeachment hearing. Republican Ranking Member Devin Nunes ripped Schiff with his opening statement:
Schiff’s ‘parody statement’ is already drawing fire from Rep. Andy Biggs. Rep. Biggs has introduced a motion to have Chairman Schiff censured for his dishonest opening statement:
I found this Schiff quote laughable:
“We have to flesh out all of the facts for the American people,” Schiff said in a letter to colleagues Friday. “The seriousness of the matter and the danger to our country demands nothing less.“
If this matter is serious, why did Chairman Schiff open a hearing with a parody that didn’t accurately portray President Trump’s statements to the Ukrainian president? If this matter is serious, why hasn’t Speaker Pelosi called for a vote asking her members to approve of this impeachment hearing? This statement is beyond laughable:
“There’s no better guy on the face of the planet to undertake this in an adultlike, intelligent, integrity-filled manner than Adam B. Schiff. Period, full stop,” said Rep. Denny Heck (D-Wash.), a committee member.
I’m predicting right now that President Trump and Republicans will rip Schiff into shreds. He’s an idiot. He isn’t honest. He’s damaged goods from a PR standpoint. Those aren’t the worst of it. He’s been caught playing fast and loose with the truth too many times to be the face of a serious inquiry.
John Ratcliffe is quickly becoming one of my favorite Republicans because he’s skilled at cutting through the Democrats’ subterfuge. I just watched Rep. Ratcliffe demolish the Democrats’ impeachment charade. While questioning Acting Secretary McGuire, Rep. Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that the so-called whistleblower didn’t have firsthand knowledge of the phone call between President Trump and President Zelenskiy of Ukraine. Further, Ratcliffe pointed out that the whistleblower got his/her information from media articles. That caused Ratcliffe to say that this was “Russia 2.0”.
The transcript was made public yesterday. The whistleblower’s complaint was made public (with redactions) this morning. Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that the Democrats preferred the information from a document whose information was, at best, secondhand and perhaps thirdhand over the transcription of the actual phone call.
It’s worth noting that this tells me that the whistleblower will get crucified if that person testifies to Congress. If the whistleblower doesn’t have firsthand knowledge of President Trump’s phone call, why should that be considered credible? Ratcliffe highlighted that the whistleblower’s worries came from articles in Politico, NYTimes, Washington Post and other media outlets.
As bad as some of those articles might’ve been in terms of accuracy, they pale in comparison with Chairman Schiff’s opening statement:
Chairman Schiff rearranged some paragraphs from the transcript to make it sound nefarious. Apparently, it didn’t dawn on Chairman Schiff that reading things in the order they were written is required to understand what the people intended to convey. Shortly thereafter, Ranking Member Nunes delivered his opening statement. Notice how he mocks Chairman Schiff:
The whistleblower’s complaint contains some things that destroy the Democrats’ credibility. For instance, it says “In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple Government officials that President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign government in the 2020 U.S. election.” In other words, it’s entirely possible that this whistleblower might’ve gotten their information from deep state operatives who hate President Trump. That isn’t a verified statement but it’s entirely possible.
Earlier, I mentioned John Ratcliffe’s questioning of Secretary McGuire. Now, I have the videotape of his questioning. Right at the opening of Rep. Ratcliffe’s questioning, Rep. Ratcliffe starts with something very disturbing:
That’s pretty stunning. The whistleblower first accuses Rudy Giuliani of conspiring with Bill Barr to rig the 2020 election. Later, in a footnote, the whistleblower admits that they aren’t certain to what extent either Giuliani or Barr was ever involved. That’s kind of a big point to be uncertain about if you’re interested in journalistic integrity. If you’re just worried about impeaching President Trump regardless of whether the evidence supports it, which appears to be the Democrats’ goal, then it isn’t that important.
Final prediction: Apolitical people will side with Republicans on this issue. Hyper-partisans will side with Democrats. Since there are more people whose lives don’t revolve around politics, it’s likely that this issue favors Republicans politically.
What wooden stakes are to vampires, the Mueller hearings, especially the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing, is to impeachment. When John Ratcliffe asked Special Counsel Mueller what other person (besides President Trump) had the burden of proving themselves innocent, Mueller replied that nobody has had that burden imposed on them. Rep. Ratcliffe asked that in reference to Andrew Weissmann’s statement that, while they didn’t indict President Trump, they didn’t exonerate him, either.
Each time Special Counsel Mueller couldn’t (or wouldn’t) answer key questions about Weissmann’s investigation, a little impeachment momentum disappeared into the ether. Once it’s gone, it isn’t returning. While Speaker Pelosi tries propping up her chairmen, she knows that impeachment is dead. She can put tons of perfume on that pig, it’s still just a pig. Here’s how Pelosi tried propping up Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler:
“The American people now realize more fully the crimes that were committed against our Constitution,” Pelosi said in the Capitol of Mueller’s testimony. “It is a crossing of a threshold in terms of the public awareness of what happened,” she later said during a news conference following Mueller’s testimony.
With little due respect to the Botox lady by the Bay, the hearings had the same effect on articles of impeachment that cold water has on campfires. If you want to watch Ms. Pelosi’s nauseating press conference, you can watch it here:
It’s easy to pile on Robert Mueller this morning. I’ve already done that in other posts so I won’t continue with that. That being said, the real villains in this travesty are the activists in the Resist Movement, Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff and other Democrats, Rod Rosenstein (who never should’ve offered Mueller the position), the FBI lovebirds (Strzok and Page), Andrew McCabe, Andrew Weissman and Jim Comey.
Without these disgusting people, there wouldn’t have been a special counsel appointment. But I digress. Another thing that needs to be highlighted is the discipline that Republican members of the Judiciary and Intel committees showed yesterday. They shined like I’ve never seen them shine before.
Usually, politicians participating in high profile hearings specialize in grandstanding. That didn’t happen Wednesday. Each member focused like a laser on a specific topic in their attempt to elicit new information. That’s the new model that Republicans should adopt for high profile hearings from now on.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler also said his committee would go to court Thursday to seek access to grand jury material in the Mueller report and to enforce a subpoena against former White House Counsel Don McGahn to try to get him to testify. “Today was a watershed day in telling the facts to the American people. With those facts we can proceed,” Nadler said — although he, too, stopped short of calling for impeachment.
Stick a wooden stake in that impeachment vampire. It’s dead. CPR won’t resuscitate this patient, either. Fill our the toe tag for impeachment. Unless Democrats want to lose the House again in a landslide.
John Solomon’s reporting in this article should worry Andrew Weissmann, Robert Mueller’s lead prosecutor.
According to Solomon’s article, “an FBI agent wrote in a footnote to the affidavit” that “[t]he April 12, 2017, Associated Press article reported that DMI [Manafort’s company] records showed at least two payments were made to DMI that correspond to payments in the ‘black ledger.'” Then Solomon wrote “There are two glaring problems with that assertion. First, the agent failed to disclose that both FBI officials and Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who later became Mueller’s deputy, met with those AP reporters one day before the story was published and assisted their reporting.”
Then there’s this:
Secondly, the FBI was told the ledger claimed to show cash payments to Manafort when, in fact, agents had been told since 2014 that Manafort received money only by bank wires, mostly routed through the island of Cyprus, memos show.
It gets worse:
Liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz said FBI affidavits almost never cite news articles as evidence. “They are supposed to cite the primary evidence and not secondary evidence,” he said. “It sounds to me like a fraud on the court, possibly a willful and deliberate fraud that should have consequences for both the court and the attorneys’ bar,” he added.
The operational premise likely is that the FBI should have firsthand information because of its investigation. The other premise is that ‘news’ articles aren’t exactly reliable these days. News articles, furthermore, should be considered hearsay. That’s the most important reason why judges shouldn’t trust news articles. The other important reason not to trust news articles is because, lately, political operatives have weaponized information in a way to sabotage their opponent’s campaign.
Why wouldn’t Weissmann worry about the inaccuracy of this information? Is it because he’s that unethical? Is it because he’s that much of a partisan hack? Is it because he isn’t as worried about accuracy as he is about convictions whatever the cost? Is it all of the above? I’m betting it’s the last one.
John Solomon and Sarah Carter are the Woodward and Bernstein of 2019. They aren’t alone, though. It’d be improper to not recognize the work of Devin Nunes and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. In this video, Mr. Fitton goes into detail on the multiple dossiers in play:
If Weissmann isn’t worried, he’s stupid. The Judicial Watch video is fascinating because it highlights the connections between Steele and the State Department and/or Obama administration officials. That sounds pretty shady. I don’t know if it’s illegal but it’s worth looking into.
What I know is that the US attorney that’s assigned to “investigate the investigators” isn’t a prosecutor to be trifled with. John Durham took over a 30-year-old cold case and turned it into a conviction. If laws were broken, Mr. Durham will get a conviction. With all of the documents admitting what various people were doing, I can’t imagine Durham not getting to the bottom of these cases.
