Gay Patriot Header Image

Feel the Bern

Bernie Sanders’ wife is under FBI investigation for possible fraud after she exaggerated (some would say lied) to get her employer, bankrupt Burlington College, a $10 million bank loan.

It’s less clear if Bernie himself is under investigation; but he could be, as the question of whether he improperly pressured the bank also needs looking into. I’ve also seen allegations (that I haven’t confirmed) of Jane Sanders possibly handing out jobs and money to friends and family and taking a nifty $200,000 severance when she left BC in 2011 (prior to its 2014 bankruptcy).

None of this is a surprise. Here at GP, we notice endless examples of left-wing hypocrisy. And I’ve long seen through the self-serving nature of Bernie’s behavior and comments. For example, in 2016 I noticed that he would condemn left-wing political violence – in a superficial way that deflects the blame to others; not meaning it.

Hey lefties!

If President Obama had ordered an FBI investigation to stop: It would have been a legal order. He would have been 100% within his constitutional powers.

Whether it would have been a politically smart move, is a different and legitimate question.

Whether he would have been covering something up – or maybe not – is a different and legitimate question.

Whether Congress and/or media and/or citizens should then investigate whatever he MIGHT have been covering up, is a different and legitimate question.

Whether he would have been right morally, is a different and legitimate question.

Whether Congress should then try to punish him, via censure or impeachment – or maybe not – is a different and legitimate question.

But would Obama’s order, as such, have been a crime of obstruction? No. Because here in America, we have something called a “constitution” which creates “separation of powers” including a unitary “executive branch”, in which the FBI resides.

The FBI does not reside in the legislative branch (Congress).

The FBI does not reside in the judicial branch (Supreme Court).

The FBI resides in the executive branch and, at the end of the day, follows the policies and orders of a chain of command that goes to the Attorney General and then to the President.

That is how the U.S. system of government works. Obama could have literally ordered the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation to stop, and he would have been within his legal powers. (But again: the optics, morality, and how Congress and the citizenry should follow up on his order, would be different and legitimate questions.)

Now, substitute “President Trump” for “President Obama” in the above, and do the math. We’ll wait.

After that, we can turn to fact that President Trump actually never ordered any FBI investigation to stop.

Which fact means that you, lefties, are working yourselves up – and dividing America with your hate-filled hysteria on the Comey-Flynn matter – and making deadly (or potentially deadly) assaults on your fellow Americans – for nothing.

Friends, Romans, Countrymen…

To follow up on that Shakespeare in the Park thing where President Trump is Julius Caesar and they assassinate him:

Caesar Flickerman, speaking in his alter ego of Fareed Zakaria at CNN, said “If you’re in NYC, go see Julius Caesar, free in Central Park, brilliantly interpreted for Trump era. A masterpiece”. (Yes, Zakaria tweeted that.)

Whereas Delta said “No matter what your political stance may be, the graphic staging of Julius Caesar at this summer’s Free Shakespeare in the Park does not reflect Delta Air Lines’ values.” BofA said “The Public Theater chose to present Julius Caesar in a way that was intended to provoke and offend. Had this intention been made known to us, we would have decided not to sponsor it.”

The irony, of course, is that the staging only creates sympathy for Trump. Rightly or wrongly, history ranks Caesar as one of its Great Men. The pack of Senators stabbing him look like cowards. The general bloodiness of the staging reminds people how sick and tasteless America’s “progressives” are.

UPDATE – The Left’s revenge-shakedown begins: C-list celebrities want to boycott Delta, BofA. Because they stopped paying out for the Trump-assassinating Public Theater.

Obama Systematically Dismantled Anti-Terrorism Efforts

Whose side was he on?

The Obama administration “systematically disbanded” law enforcement investigative units across the federal government focused on disrupting Iranian, Syrian, and Venezuelan terrorism financing networks out of concern the work could cause friction with Iranian officials and scuttle the nuclear deal with Iran, according to a former U.S. official who spent decades dismantling terrorist financial networks.

David Asher, who previously served as an adviser to Gen. John Allen at the Defense and State Departments, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee Thursday that top officials across several key law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the Obama administration “systematically disbanded” law enforcement activities targeting the terrorism financing operations of Iran, Hezbollah, and Venezuela in the lead-up to and during the nuclear negotiations with Tehran.

So let me get this straight. You on the left have your panties in a wad because President Trump might possibly (there is no evidence) have colluded with Russia to help win an election. But you couldn’t care less that the previous president clearly put the strategic interests of a hostile terrorist state ahead of the interests of the United States, systematically dismantled our Intelligence Community’s efforts to investigate and disable the terror-financing activities of that hostile terrorist state, and … oh by the way… delivered billions of American taxpayer dollar to that hostile terror state.

Care to explain?

Much ado, part II

I wanted to capture some details for future reference.

  • Comey affirms that NYT has been publishing false stories of Trumprussia collusion.
  • Comey admits to maliciously leaking his own memos.

    Hmm – does this put Comey in legal jeopardy? (UPDATE: Seems more and more like it should. Comey’s formal memos of what happened on his job are government property. Could they be privileged information? Even classified? Then who was Comey to take them out of the office when he was fired; much less, to leak them?)

  • Senator Jim Risch dismantles any ‘obstruction’ case against Trump:

    Risch: ‘I hope’, this is [Comey’s version of] the President speaking, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go…I hope you can let this go.’

    […]

    Comey: “Correct.”

    […]

    Risch: “Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go.”

    Comey: “Not in his words, no.”

    Risch: “He did not order you to let it go.”

    Comey: “Again, those words are not an order.”

    Risch: “He said ‘I hope’. Now, like me you probably did hundreds of cases, maybe thousands of cases charging people with criminal offenses…Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, for that matter of any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?”

    […]

    Comey: “I don’t as I sit here.”

  • In other comments, Comey said that he interpreted Trump’s words as a direction, but that is, of course, B.S. Because
    1. Comey affirms above that he knew it wasn’t a direction, AND
    2. If Trump had given Comey a direction that Comey felt to be unethical or illegal, then Comey is in legal jeopardy for not having reported it sooner.
    3. Furthermore, per HotAir, Tom Cotton got Comey to acknowledge that he never threatened to resign over Trump’s behavior, as Comey did in a famous 2004 confrontation in John Ashcroft’s hospital room. Instead, and by his own admission, Comey told Trump “that I would see what we could do.”

    This exchange is stunning…ly bad for Comey:

    Rubio: Did you object to or inform the WH counsel about Trump’s “I hope” statement?
    Comey: “No.”
    Rubio: “Why not?”
    Comey: “I don’t know.”

  • We also have Comey and Trump both calling each other liars on certain points, which makes it he-said-he-said.

    Ever read Trump’s book? He has been dealing with lawyers day-in, day-out for DECADES. Figuring out how to influence people, without actually committing legal or ethical violations. His sister was a big-time Federal judge. The notion that President Trump would make inappropriate remarks to the likes of Comey, was always shaky.

  • Comey reveals that the Obama administration pressured him to downplay Hillary’s scandal. Call it a “matter”, not an “investigation”:

    LANKFORD: …the previous attorney general [Loretta Lynch] asking you about the investigation on the Clinton e-mails saying you were asked to not call it an investigation anymore. But call it a matter. You said that confused you. You can give us additional details on that?

    COMEY: Well, it concerned me because…the campaigns were talking about interacting with the FBI in the course of our work. The Clinton campaign at the time was using all kinds of euphemisms, security matters, things like that for what was going on.

    We were getting to a place where the attorney general and I were both going to testify and talk publicly about it I wanted to know was she going to authorize us to confirm we have an investigation. She said yes, don’t call it that, call it a matter. I said why would I do that? She said, just call it a matter…that concerned me because that language tracked the way the [Clinton] campaign was talking about the FBI’s work and that’s concerning…the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way [the Clinton campaign] was describing that. It was inaccurate. We had an investigation open for the federal bureau of investigation, we had an investigation open at the time. That gave me a queasy feeling.

    Where’s the outcry on that? Or, might it be coming? 🙂

UPDATE:

  • Alan Dershowitz – hardly a conservative – makes the interesting point that, if Trump ever had ordered Comey to stop an investigation, his actions would be totally constitutional. Worth viewing.

    Here’s what I got from it. A President can’t interfere with a judicial process. For example, he can’t tamper with juries or witnesses, end a prosecution (short of doing a presidential pardon), defy a subpoena or destroy evidence. But an FBI investigation is NOT a judicial process. Constitutionally, the FBI Director takes orders from the President. Past presidents have ended investigations they didn’t like. If Congress smells a rat, Congress can impeach the President; but that, too, is a non-judicial process (separate and political).

  • These exchanges settle a lot. Flaming skull time!

    Senator Burr: Are you confident that no votes cast in the 2016 presidential election were altered?
    Comey: I’m confident. By the time I left, I had seen no indication of that whatsoever.

    Senator Burr: Did the President, at any time, ask you to stop the FBI investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 elections?
    Comey: Not to my understanding, no.

    Senator Burr: Did you ever have access to the actual [DNC e-mail] hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?
    Comey: In the case of the DNC…we did not have access to the devices themselves. [ed: which means, and as I’ve stated before, the FBI relied on a report by CrowdStrike, a discredited DNC-paid company]

    Senator Risch: While you were director, the POTUS was not under investigation [at any time], is that a fair statement?
    Comey: That’s correct.

    Senator Collins: I’m trying to understand whether there was any kind of investigation of the President under way.
    Comey: No.

    Senator Rubio: …the president agreed with your statement that it would be great if we could have an investigation…
    Comey: Yes, sir. He actually went farther than that. He — he said, “And if some of my satellites did something wrong, it’d be good to find that out.”

    Lefties: You are not living in reality, if you think Trump is in trouble on this set of issues.

Violence on the Left Is OK If It’s Artistic

A theatre company in New York City (of course) is staging a re-imagining of Julius Caesar in which President Donald Trump is assassinated by a gang of senators.

This version of Shakespeare’s tragedy features a Caesar who bears a striking resemblance to President Donald Trump, complete with his trademark orange hair, business suit, and long red (or blue) necktie. True to the original play, the rash populist Caesar ends up being assassinated on the Senate floor by a group of conspirators — including his friends Cassius and Brutus — saving the Republic from his dangerous reign.

They didn’t even attempt to be subtle with the imagery, according to one woman who was able to see a sneak preview of the performance. During the murder scene when the Trumpian Ceasar is stabbed to death, “an American flag hovers overhead,” according to the woman, while “blood was spewing everywhere out of his body.”

IIRC, in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, his assassins turned out to be the bad guys. Am I remembering that right?

Anyway, this is supposedly OK but what Kathy Griffin did was wrong but what Snoop Dogg did was OK. Because reasons.

You can advocate the assassination of Donald Trump, just not by beheading. I guess because that would be cultural appropriation, or something.

I’ll concede to you that “it’s just a play, so don’t get your panties in a wad {BTW, I don’t wear panties and nothing I wear is in a wad}” if you can answer for me one simple question: Where in America was a depiction of the assassination of Barack Obama considered socially and artistically acceptable in the period 2008-2017?

I’m just trying to figure out what the rules are for these things. I get that it’s OK to advocate murdering the president if he’s a Republican, but not if he’s a Democrat. But apparently there are some subtleties with regard to the means of assassination that I don’t understand.

ILC: Can we get a category for ‘Violence on the Left?’ in the pull-down menu? Thanks.

Flashback – guess who said it?

And on National TV, no less.

The jobs they [“illegal aliens”] hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. It is wrong, and ultimately self-defeating, for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.

(more…)

Violence comes from the Left, part II

Hat tip to GP commenters for the stories here.

In Portland OR, a guy attacked people on a train, killing two and injuring a third. Naturally, the left-leaning coverage emphasizes his anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim views and his claims of being Christian, using them to call him a “white supremacist.” Which seems to be a leap.

“According to some preliminary witness statements, he was kind of spewing hate about a lot of different things,” said [police Sgt.] Simpson. “So not specifically and exclusively anti-Muslim. … So that’s why it’s hard to say at this point was he directing it at any one person, or was it just kind of in general to everyone around him.”

“We don’t know if he’s got mental health issues, we don’t know if he’s under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or all of the above,” said Simpson…

Court records show that [the attacker, Jeremy Joseph] Christian was convicted in 2002 of robbery, kidnapping and a weapons charge, according to the AP.

Ohhh…they’re saying it just because someone else said it:

The Portland Mercury reports that the suspect was a “known local white supremacist.”

The Echo Chamber at work. Now, maybe it’s true? Could be. I have no skin (so to speak) in that game.

But here’s what they’re not telling you. What they’re conveniently leaving out. The guy is anti-Trump and a supporter of Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders. He tweeted, “I gonna kill everybody who voted for Trump or Hillary!”

Which kinda makes him a leftie. Hmm. Maybe that’s why media have not covered this incident much, overall?

Likewise for Linwood Kaine, the son of Democrat VP nominee Tim Kaine (whom I presume is a Clinton-Kaine supporter).

Prosecutors are filing criminal charges against 8 counter-protesters who disrupted the “March 4 Trump” rally at the Minnesota State Capitol on March 4. Among those charged is Linwood Kaine, the son of former Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine…

The permitted rally inside the Capitol Rotunda was interrupted by protesters that Saturday, some of whom turned violent. A group of Trump supporters described the scene to Fox 9.

“They brought in pepper spray and tasers, and went after anyone with a Trump sign,” said Sandra Trater, a supporter of President Trump.

The charges are misdemeanors. But hey, at least they’re happening. Jazz Shaw notes:

Kaine’s son Linwood has only been charged with the more benign sounding counts of fleeing on foot, concealing identity in a public place and obstructing the legal process. But he was definitely part of the group that was attacking and not one of the “peaceful counter-protesters” as they are being described in many media outlets.

Flashback: Hillary’s Big Russia Deal

…in which Our Brrrrrrrrave Gal approved the transfer of 20% of the U.S. ongoing supply of uranium to Russian control, while taking millions in Russian- and/or deal-related donations.

I’m following this New York Times article from April 2015:

…the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, [took] over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal…brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain…

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States…the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among [them] was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns…Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show…

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. [ed: Riiiiiight.] But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors…

The article continues with pages of details. One tiny sample:

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

…several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

Did the Clintons hide some large donations, possibly showing consciousness of guilt? Yes. Example:

To judge from [Clinton] disclosures…the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.

But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians.

By the way, I didn’t know that “While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves…”

Exit questions:

  1. Why would NYT publish such an article? Why in April 2015? On whose hidden agenda?

    To be clear: I’m glad they gave us the info. But NYT is usually pro-Hillary. Why would they do something that undercuts her? Because Schweizer’s book was about to come out anyway?

  2. Why has no Special Counsel ever been appointed to look into all this?

UPDATE: Do the Clintons profit personally from the Clinton Foundation? (more…)

Violence comes from the Left

We’ve been having fun in the comments about Representative-Elect Greg Gianforte (R-MT). He body-slammed a reporter in rage, probably committing misdemeanor assault, then lied about what he did. Later, he apologized – but only sort of – because he never said what for and, to my knowledge, he has not yet corrected his false witness. (Feel free to update me in the comments)

His actions are bad. Both violence and lying are totally unacceptable, in our politics, from whatever side. And I think he’s just sorry that he was caught. If he merits prosecution (or censure or expulsion in the House), let the right thing happen.

He also needs to be seen in perspective. As usual, Tucker Carlson and V the K nail it. From V:

Gianforte doesn’t seem like someone I’d defend to the last, but I’m not going to let people who supported Ted Kennedy and Gerry Studds lecture me on who’s unfit to serve in Congress.

Also, is it just me, or has this one dust-up between a Republican congressman and a reporter gotten more mass media coverage than all the violence inflicted by Antifa, the Portlandia Anti-Trump mob, the Middlebury/Berkeley/UW-Madison college Democrats, and the woman in Tennesee who tried to run a Republican congressman off the road combined?

And Tucker Carlson for your enjoyment:
YouTube Preview Image
Tucker has a laundry list of recent, left-wing political violence – including threats and violence against at least 3 Republican Congresspeople.

Gianforte lost all control of himself – as a 56-year old man – and muddied the waters. For that, he has my contempt. But he’s a globule of mud, in a virtual La Brea Tar Pits of left-wing political violence in America today that many Democrats refuse to condemn.

As always, the Left and the Controlled Media (but I repeat myself) would rather pretend that the speck in Republicans’ eyes is the New Coming of Hitler, than look at the many logs in their own.

More Obama-NSA abuses

Yet another story that should be all over the media, but I haven’t seen it much. (If you have, let me know.)

Why wouldn’t it be covered? I find that it reflects great discredit on the Establishment (both political parties, Deep State and Controlled Media). As I started to say yesterday, they have ways to decide what you’re going to hear about. For as long as they can, they will bury stories that don’t fit their agenda.

To review some background:

  • Under the 4th Amendment, the government isn’t supposed to spy on U.S. people without a court-ordered warrant.
  • “The FISA Court” is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 “to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.” (Wiki)
    Note, foreign.
  • But FISA Court hearings are secret and only the government and the court judge are present, like a kangaroo court. The adversarial system is abandoned.
  • As such, FISA tends to be very lenient to the government. Over time, they have created a secret body of law that gives the government sweeping powers to do domestic warrantless surveillance under an alleged “special needs exception” to the 4th Amendment.
    • One example – In 2013, Edward Snowden leaked a FISA order that requires phone companies to provide a daily, ongoing feed of everyone’s phone call data to the NSA. Super invasive!
  • Even so, FISA isn’t toothless and doesn’t approve everything – as you shall see. They need to preserve respectability, at least in their own eyes.
  • FISA judges are appointed solely by the Chief Justice of the United States. In this regard, Establishment Republicans control the FISA court.

That’s just background. Now for the news, as reported by John Solomon and Sara Carter at Circa.com.

Under President Obama, the NSA secretly conducted years of surveillance and searches on Americans that not even the secret, super-lenient FISA Court would approve.

The National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community…

The Obama administration self-disclosed the problems at a closed-door hearing Oct. 26 before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that set off alarm…

The normally supportive court censured administration officials, saying the failure to disclose the extent of the violations earlier amounted to an “institutional lack of candor” and that the improper searches constituted a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” according to a recently unsealed court document dated April 26, 2017.

The admitted violations undercut one of the primary defenses that the intelligence community and Obama officials have used in recent weeks to justify their snooping into incidental NSA intercepts about Americans.

Circa has reported that there was a three-fold increase in NSA data searches about Americans and a rise in the unmasking of U.S. person’s identities in intelligence reports after Obama loosened the privacy rules in 2011.

Officials like former National Security Adviser Susan Rice have argued their activities were legal under the so-called minimization rule changes Obama made, and that the intelligence agencies were strictly monitored to avoid abuses.

The intelligence court and the NSA’s own internal watchdog found that not to be true…

The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself…

RTWT. Naturally, the NSA is scrambling to reassure people that it has fixed the problem. Riiiiiiiight. And Susan Rice didn’t lie and none of the surveillance data was ever misused against Obama opponents or improperly unmasked. Riiiiiiiight.

To people who understand civil liberties and limited government, all this is a huge deal that shows how far out of control the U.S. “intelligence community” (Deep State) has gotten. Chris Farrell at Judicial Watch compares it to President Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus during the U.S. Civil War.

Where is the Special Counsel on this?

Or the media coverage? Bush’s NSA did some illegal surveillance in the 2000s – and in 2005, was duly slammed by The New York Times. A large kerfuffle. “But that was then.” It served the interests of someone powerful – someone in deep alliance with, or control of, The New York Times – to weaken Bush. Not so much with Obama, eh?

See the FISA Court’s declassified order spanking the Obama administration, here. By the way, note how large sections of the relevant law and dockets are blacked out, showing how the FISA system has created secret law that the citizens aren’t supposed to know about. That’s horrible.

Also from Circa: Comey’s FBI was neck deep in the abuses.

The FBI has illegally shared raw intelligence about Americans with unauthorized third parties and violated other constitutional privacy protections, according to newly declassified government documents that undercut the bureau’s public assurances…

How the Establishment uses “special counsels”

The Obama administration used the IRS to target their domestic political opponents. AND they used the intelligence agencies as well (“unmasking”, “distributing” and leaking data from the U.S. surveillance apparatus) to target U.S. opponents.

Why has no special counsel ever been appointed, to investigate all that?

Or the Clinton Foundation corruption?

Or the innumerable classified-info leaks of recent months, many likely to be from Obama holdovers in the government?

Trump-Russia has been Fake News from minute one. My first reaction when a special counsel was appointed there was “Fine, let them spin their wheels on nothing”. That was too sanguine of me. It is indeed bad, for a couple of reasons.

First, as it is a witch hunt, they will keep looking until they entrap somebody in the Trump administration into a “process” crime. A la Scooter Libby, in the Plame affair. He ended up in jail, even though it was Richard Armitage who had illegally leaked Plame’s name.

Second and probably more important, it consumes DOJ and FBI resources that could and should be used to look elsewhere. And that’s the point of the thing. Democrats want to make sure no one will look at their horrific scandals.

Having a special counsel on the comparatively scandal-free President Trump, instead of themselves, is a huge coup. As in, coup d’etat against a lawfully elected President.

UPDATE: We could also talk about other types of investigation, such as complaints to the House Ethics Committee. Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch asks, “Why the double standard?” against Rep. Devin Nunes.

  • Rep. Devin Nunes chairs the House Intelligence Committee. He blew the whistle on the Obama administration’s illicit “unmasking” of surveillance data. Democrats responded by filing an ethics complaint on him.
  • Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking Democrat of the same committee, has been all over the media for months, possibly leaking classified information (or at least confirming leaked info, improperly). Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint on him.
  • Guess Which the Ethics committee is acting on? And why?

I’ll say why: This is how the U.S. power structure works. By manufacturing (or at least spreading) one narrative; burying another. What you hear about, from investigations and the Controlled Media, is decided behind the scenes. Someone decides which thing you’ll hear about, and they decide because they have the hidden political power and it suits their agenda.

In this case, the House Ethics committee is run by Establishment Republicans. As such, they’re part of The Swamp; they are bedfellows to Democrats and the Deep State. Nunes sinned by bringing out a (true) story that strengthens Trump’s position. They would rather intimidate, mislead or weaken Trump into “playing ball”.

With every Deep State investigation and every Controlled Media “narrative”, you should ask: Why this one, not that other one? And why now?

(NB: Added and rewrote a lot, after first publication. Will stop now.)

DNC thinks it has a right to rig elections

JamPAC (at jampac.us) is a leftie group suing the DNC over the 2016 primaries. Some points from a recent update (hosted by Stefan Molyneux):

  • Class action filed in June 2016 on behalf of Bernie-supporting Democrats, alleging that Bernie-supporting donors were defrauded, in that the primary process was rigged unfairly to favor Hillary.
  • April 25 2017, the court heard the DNC’s second motion to dismiss.
  • DNC argued that the plaintiffs don’t have standing because the DNC has every right to pick candidates itself in back rooms, disregarding its own election rules.
  • DNC also argued that its rules (and its explicit promise to donors to enforce them fairly) is like a politician’s promise, not to be taken seriously.
  • Earlier, DNC had tried to dismiss the lawsuit by alleging that Shawn Lucas had not served it correctly.

Predictably, the Controlled Media has not given this story much coverage.

The original complaint is halfway-interesting reading. For one thing, it sticks with the “Russia hacked the DNC” narrative (ignoring Seth Rich). But, whatever; the plaintiffs clearly have other fish to fry.

The complaint goes on to mention the DNC’s plans to collude with the media “with no fingerprints” in the general election; to plant fake news and social media attacks to “muddy the waters” around Hillary’s vulnerabilities; to influence the selection of generals on the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and more.

In view of the fact that Seth Rich and Shawn Lucas both seem to have died unexpectedly after crossing the DNC, you might want to include in your thoughts and prayers Jared Beck, the JamPAC lawyer.

Comey’s dirty track record

Former FBI Director James Comey once served the Bush administration and is supposed to be a “registered Republican”. But some gay guys marry women and are supposed to be straight. Sometimes, the declaration doesn’t matter – or is there for cover.

I’ll provide some highlights of Comey’s career, then details. First, the highlights. Or should I say lowlights? As I realized everything that Comey has been into and how political he is, my jaw dropped.

  • Comey helped the Clintons to escape justice over Bill’s pardon of Marc Rich.
  • Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Valerie Plame affair. (A bizarre mess that ended in the prosecution of Scooter Libby, and the political tar-and-feathering of the Bush administration.)
  • Comey prosecuted Martha Stewart. (This may be OK; but I will show that it sets up the irony/hypocrisy of his later saving Hillary from prosecution.)
  • Comey helped the Clintons in the Sandy Berger investigation, by limiting its scope.
  • Comey limited the government’s actions to punish a corrupt auditor, KPMG.
  • Comey obstructed the Bush administration’s post-9/11 efforts to do warrantless surveillance. That could be a great thing; except that
    1. his actions were surrounded by allegations of lying and usurpation of power; and
    2. he went on to happily serve an Obama presidency that did far worse things than Bush, in terms of warrantless surveillance.
  • Comey served as General Counsel of a scandal-ridden defense contractor, then a Director of a scandal-ridden bank. (I don’t have anything strong here; mentioned for completeness.)
  • And then as FBI Director, of course, Comey knew Hillary was guilty but usurped authority and blocked her prosecution, turning the statutes on their head in the process.

If I missed anything, please let us know in the comments. For example, did Comey play any part in Hillary’s Uranium One fiasco? (UPDATE: Yes, indirectly. It involved Clinton Foundation corruption. Charles Ortel points out that Comey has repeatedly been on-point to investigate that corruption and has refused to do so, giving it a pass.)

Some of Comey’s actions might be defensible. But looking at the overall pattern: I personally conclude that Comey is a longtime Democrat operative, as well as a liar-when-it-suits-him.

Now for details. (more…)

Some scandal updates

Anthony Weiner is to plead guilty “to a single charge of transferring obscene material to a minor, pursuant to a plea agreement…”

This is the same Anthony Weiner who

  • is still married to Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin
  • had thousands of Hillary Clinton’s illegally-handled emails on the same laptop that he used to commit his sex crimes with minors
  • caused former FBI Director Comey to reappear in the news last October, which many Democrats believe (probably wrongly) to be the cause of Hillary’s election loss.

It’s sad how Clintonites deflect the blame to Comey and Russia for all that, rather than putting it where it belongs on Weiner, Abedin and the Clintons themselves.

“A likely result of the plea is that Mr. Weiner would end up as a registered sex offender, although a final determination has yet to be made…”

UPDATE: Huma has finally just filed for divorce.


In other news, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange Rape Investigation Is Dropped in Sweden.

The accusations were always of a “he said, she said” nature, with Assange saying that he had met the alleged victim several times amicably, for consensual sex.

The announcement represents a victory for Mr. Assange, 45, an Australian…

[but] In Britain, he still faces a warrant for failing to appear in court, and the Metropolitan Police in London said on Friday that they would arrest Mr. Assange, who has maintained his innocence, if he were to try to leave the [Ecuadorian] embassy…

[U.S.] Prosecutors have long been exploring the idea of charging Mr. Assange as a conspirator in the underlying offense of illegal theft of documents…

[but] The Obama-era Justice Department, which had gone as far as to present some evidence about WikiLeaks to a grand jury in Alexandria, Va., was deterred from pursuing the case further because it proved difficult to distinguish what WikiLeaks had done in publishing the classified information provided by Ms. Manning from what The New York Times and many other mainstream news organizations do.

Most news organizations that cover national security and foreign affairs regularly publish information from sources that is considered classified by the United States government. By long-established tradition, however, only the government officials who provide such information have been prosecuted, not the journalists who publish it.


IN STILL OTHER NEWS: Evidence has emerged that, while still just a candidate, the President conspired with Iranian mullahs to undermine the foreign policy of the existing administration. Which meets a reasonable definition of treason!

Oh, wait – it was President Obama, while still just a candidate, conspiring with Iranian mullahs to undermine the foreign policy of the Bush administration. And lefties haven’t given the tiniest crap about it.

Let the DOJ appoint another special counsel

…to look into the Obama administration’s surveillance of its political opponents.

  • whether it was truly “incidental” to legitimate (other) concerns, and/or done under FISA warrants
  • whether FISA warrants were obtained properly (rather than relying on, say, a “dossier” hacked together by a foreign intelligence agency as a political favor)
  • whether NSA Susan Rice, an Obama White House operative who apparently ordered the “unmasking” of Trump associates’ names in the surveillance data, did so for honest and legal reasons
  • whether the subsequent distribution of the “unmasked” intelligence was necessary, legal and proper
  • and who leaked it (along with Trump campaign information) to the media and/or the Hillary campaign, possibly committing felonies in the process.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. We, the American people, need to know exactly what the Obama administration was up to with its domestic spying on Americans and especially on its political opponents.

And if illegal unmasking, distribution or leaking occurred: let there be indictments.

UPDATE: Tucker Carlson has a point: President Trump could have blocked the DOJ’s special counsel for Russia. And President Hillary would have (for anything connected to her). She would be too afraid of where an independent investigator might go. Trump isn’t.

I notice Trump calling it a witch hunt, but that’s a slag on the Left’s hysteria; not on the DOJ or Director Mueller.

And, that Russia investigation…

Obviously, we had news that former FBI Director Mueller will be a special counsel to investigate the Trump-Russia allegations. Provided that his investigation is honest, it will be a good thing. Given that people are so hysterical, let them play detective until they burn themselves out.

Slightly more interesting is this morning’s Reuters article, Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians.

Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race…

Conversations between Flynn and Kislyak accelerated after the Nov. 8 vote as the two discussed establishing a back channel for communication between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that could bypass the U.S. national security bureaucracy, which both sides considered hostile to improved relations… [ed: Really? ya think?]

The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far…

Members of the Senate and House intelligence committees have gone to the CIA and the National Security Agency to review transcripts and other documents related to contacts between Trump campaign advisers and associates and Russian officials…

Translation: Yes, the Obama administration surveilled the living crap out of its domestic political opponents. When will we get a special counsel for that?

But hey – At least the surveillance will let us know for sure if Trump improperly colluded with Russians. Assuming, again, an honest report from Mueller.

My prediction for the result is that

  1. Trump and his aides didn’t collude
  2. Their not disclosing these 18 contacts was fairly innocent (as in, minor text messages that easy to forget when you’re asked about an area where you did nothing wrong)
  3. all the same, the Left and the Controlled Media are going to start a “Trump Lied!!” thing.

But hey, that’s just a guess and I could be wrong. We shall see.

How do you think it ends?

At least some people are noticing that the Controlled Media witch hunts against Trump are an attempted coup d’etat against a lawfully-elected president.

What’s the endgame? Does President Trump resign in disgrace? Or does he triumph, as the hysteria is exposed and burns itself out? Or does he allow himself to be neutered, governing from now on as a captive of the Democrats? I don’t know.

Nobody’s perfect, and the Controlled Media is great at keeping up drumbeats; so yes, they will find something real or semi-real against Trump eventually. Let’s face it.

I could dismiss the Controlled Media as an irrelevant province of old people, and to a large extent that would be true. But they have ongoing relevance to the extent that they can scare the Congressional Republicans into rejecting (or at least unsupporting) Trump.

To get his appointees in office (including judges), to build a wall, to pass his desired infrastructure spending or tax reform, etc., Trump needs Republican unity. The purpose of the manufactured hysteria is to destroy intra-Republican unity and so to derail Trump’s appointees, criminal investigations (of the Left) and legislative agenda.

I could see a scenario where Trump resigns in contemptuous frustration. He denounces the hysteria (rightly) as he does so, and his Tweets remain a force in American politics. What happens next?

Do the Deep State and Controlled Media play the same game on President Pence? Will it work again, so soon? If it does work again so soon, does America slide into civil war at some point?

Whom does President Pence choose, as his Vice President? Does he let the Deep State run wild, taking us into another war? Questions, questions. Please let us know your thoughts, in the comments.

Cernovich on the intel leaks

This refers to Monday’s drama where The Washington Post alleged that President Trump had inappropriately leaked intelligence to the Russians.

First, why should anyone care what Mike Cernovich thinks? Because lately, he’s been breaking stories. He seems to have sources. His claims are outlandish; and then they turn out to be on the right track (though not 100% on all details).

So, here he is on the WaPo story. It’s a long video. Listening at 1.5x speed helps. Or I can just tell you his key points. Disclaimer – take this as his opinion and speculation. I’m interested mainly to see if it’s going to come true again?

  • Whoever leaked the story to WaPo, leaked way more classified information than Trump did.
  • At most, Trump revealed a location where some intelligence had happened. But WaPo was given far more detailed classified information, by its source(s).
  • As such, the leaks to WaPo were highly illegal, and have done far more damage to American security.
    • Because WaPo computers/networks can be hacked (and probably are).
  • White House and NSC staff have been on lockdown while they figure out who is the leaker. Cernovich’s top candidates:
    1. David Laufman, chief of counter-intelligence at the FBI. Obama donor. Was in charge of investigating Hillary’s emails; i.e., helped whitewash her. Has been involved in previous leaks. Fits the profile of someone who was not present at the meeting with Russians, but who nonetheless saw the meeting notes and all kinds of other classified info.
    2. NSA McMaster. Has a troubled relationship with Trump; potential motive would be to create a disaster, then be the hero who gets Trump out of it.
    3. Kris Bauman, a pro-Hamas / anti-Israel hire of McMaster’s; potential motive would be to disrupt the U.S. relationship with Israel.
  • One way or another, people will be going to prison over this episode.

As to Seth Rich: Per Cernovich,

  • Rich was the DNC leaker. (again Mike’s opinion/speculation – although I agree)
  • He was one of that rare breed: a Democrat staffer who was an American patriot. He was outraged by the Democrats’ rigged primary.
  • The Rich family spokesperson who denies all this (Bauman) is a political consultant paid by the DNC (not the Rich family).
  • When the DNC reported the hacking, FBI agents asked to look at the hacked servers – and the DNC refused. DNC hired CrowdStrike to concoct the narrative that DNC wanted (Russia hacking).

I do recall that former FBI Director Comey has been a strong supporter of CrowdStrike and their report; for example in his testimony before Congress. It is remarkable how many different actions of Comey’s over the years have helped Democrats and/or Clintons.

Another media football

The Washington Post claims that President Trump leaked classified info in a meeting with Russians.

NSA McMaster then denied the story. “The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false.”

I’m not sure what to make of this. (So, feel free to tell me in the comments.)

From what I can gather, Trump was discussing a particular threat posed by ISIS. He is accused – by anonymous, off-the-record sources – of letting slip a certain city name that, in Allahpundit’s words, would “let the Russians figure out how a U.S. ally was getting its information on ISIS. He didn’t reveal who the source was or how that info was obtained and WaPo isn’t claiming that he did.”

Legally (and again following Allahpundit), leaking even such a small detail would be a big deal for anyone else in the government, “but because the president has the power to declassify classified information, he can blab all he wants…” If that’s true, then there’s no legal issue. But that does not answer the substantive questions:

  • Did Trump let something slip, that he shouldn’t have?
  • Or is The Washington Post merely extending its campaign of “Russia!” innuendo in trying to destroy a constitutionally-elected President?
  • Or perhaps both? (Picture every President being prone to an occasional indiscretion; and then The Washington Post choosing to bury the story if it’s Obama, but make a huge story if it’s Trump. I mean, for political reasons. What were Obama’s slips, that they never told us about?)

IF this story reflects something that really happened: Is McMaster now saving Trump’s rear end? Would McMaster, reportedly a proponent of the U.S. invading Syria, then gain an upper hand in the Trump administration?

UPDATE: Yes, for the Left to fuss is hypocritical. In the past, CIA Director Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden have blurted out classified information, resulting in deaths.

… it was [Panetta’s] loose talk after the Osama bin Laden raid that exposed a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi, who helped locate the Al Qaeda leader. As a result, Afridi was imprisoned on fabricated charges and will live under fear of assassination for the rest of his life…

Panetta did not reveal that critical intelligence in a private meeting with a foreign emissary, but to the entire world, on CBS News’ 60 Minutes.

Even worse was the Obama White House’s decision to reveal that it was U.S. Navy SEAL Team 6 that carried out the bin Laden raid.

As Jeffrey Kushner recalled in the Washington Times: “On May 3, at an event in Washington, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. did the unthinkable: He publicly revealed the identity of the special-operations unit responsible for bin Laden’s killing…”

The response came on August 6, 2011, when the Taliban shot down a Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan, killing 30 soldiers. Among the dead: 15 members of SEAL Team 6. Years later, the fallen heroes’ families remain outraged at the Obama administration: “In releasing their identity, they put a target on their backs,” one of the fathers told U.S. News and World Report in 2013.