President Trump Starts to Drain the Swamp, Yanks Jessie Liu Treasury Dept. Nomination

This was the week that President Trump really started to drain the swamp. It came when he yanked the nomination of Jessie Liu to a Treasury Department post. The decision was all Trump’s and occurred after Trump learned details about what was going on when she was United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.

Though Trump was most aggravated with Liu not clamping down on the outrageous sentencing recommendations of her staff in the Roger Stone case, there was a long list of other concerns that made it clear to the president the extent of ideological weaponization across the Justice Department.

Let’s start with Roger Stone for now.

Liu’s so-called “career prosecutors” devised a sentencing recommendation of nine years in prison for behavior that became commonplace anytime former Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before Congress under oath.

Lest we forget, Holder was found in criminal contempt of Congress in a bipartisan 255-67 vote. Back then, most House Democrats didn’t find contempt of Congress to be an impeachable offense. Don’t forget, House Democrats marched off the floor during the Holder contempt vote.

This nicely illustrates the central theme that has animated Trump’s impeachment, Justice Department investigations of Trump, Liu’s yank, and the entire political saga of the last three years.

Justice is no longer blind. Investigations, charges, and even prison terms depend on the ideological views of the targets.

If you are a friend of the president, the Justice Department “career lawyers” will do all they can to find a venue in the District of Columbia where they know a rabid population of Democrat jurors will do all they can to send you to Big Sandy.

If you doubt me, you haven’t heard oTomeka Hart, the nasty partisan jury foreman in Stone’s trial who should have never been on the jury in the first place.

The Scales of Justice come in two versions, one for Democrats and one for Trump.

Let’s examine those Justice Department “career lawyers.”

It is now plain that “career lawyer” isn’t a euphemism for unbiased and impartial. It’s exactly the opposite. It usually means Democrat, leftist, elitist, culturally hostile to middle America and feverishly anti-Trump.

The Joe Biden Theory and the Ukrainian macguffin’

Correct me if I’m wrong, but my earlier Joe Biden theory is confirmed more and more every day. Let’s start from the beginning.

1. At first Biden is reluctant to run. But in the spring of 2019 he gets wind of Trump investigating his corruption in Ukraine – and he immediately enters the race on 4/25/19. On the trail he looks old, tired, and his heart just isn’t in it. Why do it then? Because it’s about a lot more things than simply running for president.

2. If Trump isn’t stopped, the entire Biden family’s dirt will come out. At this point, the only way to avoid or at least to delay it is Biden being in the race: the news of his corruption can then be discredited as usual electioneering and Trump’s dirty tricks.

3. Biden may not be the only one who took dirty money from Ukrainian oligarchs, plus Democrats used Ukrainian politicians to dig up dirt on Trump’s team in 2016. Now their lives and careers depend on their ability to stop Trump’s investigation and to muddle the issue. They also know they can’t beat Trump in 2020, all they can do is try to impeach him in order to shut him up. They have loyal spies in the White House and wait for an opportune moment to pounce.

4. Trump’s phone call with Ukraine becomes such a moment. The Dems quickly compose a play about a concerned whistleblower and stage it in the House. They charge Trump with exactly what they themselves have done – getting help from a foreign government in order to dig up dirt on a political rival, followed by a cover-up.

5. These charges only make sense if Biden is running against Trump in a general election, which he isn’t. As a minimum, he must be a frontrunner in the primaries, and so the DNC throws him into the mix of candidates and artificially inflates his status. The entire impeachment scheme is predicated on Biden running and winning the primaries. Without him posing as Trump’s rival, the Democrats won’t be able to claim that Trump wanted to steal an election. So old Joe must make a good face and keep running even if he eventually collapses and pays with his life to save the swamp.

6. The Senate acquits Trump and the Dems switch to harassing him about Roger Stone. It no longer matters if Biden is a frontrunner, he has outlived his usefulness. The DNC pulls the plug and the sad old Joe is done, unless the Dems can use him later to cheat Bernie out of a win. His numbers are in the gutter.

7. What are the Dems covering up in Ukraine? It must be big if they staged an impeachment and risked their entire political capital over it. Otherwise they wouldn’t have spied on Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine trying to tarnish his investigation and to besmirch him personally. They even identified Giuliani’s two Ukrainian associates and had them arrested for exceeding a political campaign donation. If Michael Cohen’s story is any indication, the men were likely threatened with imprisonment and then offered a deal in exchange for dirt on Giuliani and Trump.

8. Wouldn’t you want to know what that Ukrainian macguffin really is? I have a theory about that, too, but that’s a story for another time.

‘Exposing Everything That Went Wrong’: A Parkland Researcher Speaks Out

What you won’t hear on the news today about Parkland.

Today is the second anniversary of the Parkland shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 people were killed.

Max Eden, an education researcher, who co-authored “Why Meadow Died: The People and Policies That Created the Parkland Shooter and Endanger America’s Students,” joins today’s podcast. Read the edited interview………

Rachel del Guidice: We are joined today on The Daily Signal Podcast by Max Eden. He’s an education researcher. Max, thank you so much for being with us today.

Max Eden: Yeah. Thanks so much for having me.

Del Guidice: Feb. 14 is the second anniversary of the Parkland shooting in Parkland, Florida, that took the lives of 17 people. Max, you co-authored a book about the shooting. The book is called “Why Meadow Died: The People and Policies That Created the Parkland Shooter and Endanger America’s Students.” Max, why did you write this book?

Eden: Immediately after the shooting, kind of two groups of students came forward. And one group got a lot more attention than the other.

The group of students [that] got attention said, “We blame the Second Amendment. We blame the NRA. We blame the gun for what happened.” The other group of students said, “We knew it was him before it was over. The student threatened to kill us. He threatened to rape us. He threatened to kill our families. He brought knives to school. He brought bullets to school. We saw something. We said something. They did nothing. They didn’t protect us from him.”

And kind of from my perch as researcher in D.C. when I saw this, I thought, “Oh, OK. Well, this is in a school district that became nationally famous for fighting the so-called school-to-prison pipeline by lowering arrests, lowering suspensions, lowering expulsions. I wonder if these policies, this kind of leniency pressure played a role in his journey through the school system.”

So I wrote an article kind of posing this question about 10 days after the shooting. And, unfortunately, this question kind of very quickly became an answer in politics, as happens, right? I mean, one side was for gun control and the other side was very quick to take the question and answer, “It wasn’t the gun’s fault. It was these policies. It was [former President Barack] Obama’s policies.”

It became a political football very quickly and nobody answered the question. It was labeled as fake news by the superintendent and most of the media skated on by……………..

Judiciary Committee Dems hit with ethics complaints over ‘suspicious’ conduct

‘Everytown’ is the Bloomberg bankrolled, astroturf anti-gun organization. So this just might blowback onto him as well.

Three Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee were hit with ethics complaints Wednesday, connected to a slew of alleged violations related to campaign fundraising.

Nonprofit watchdog group Americans for Public Trust filed complaints with the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) against Reps. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and Lucy McBath, D-Ga., calling for investigations of possible violations of House rules and federal law. The organization, founded by former National Republican Congressional Committee research director Caitlin Sutherland, also filed complaints against Dean and McBath with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

“All three of these members have engaged in disturbing activities that appear to us to be violations of federal law and House rules. This is especially alarming given all three sit on the prestigious House Judiciary Committee, which has direct oversight responsibilities over the U.S. Department of Justice and, by extension, the nation’s law enforcement,” said Adam Laxalt, former Nevada attorney general and outside counsel to Americans for Public Trust. “We’re calling on the Federal Election Commission and the Office of Congressional Ethics to immediately investigate these suspicious activities.”…………….

The complaints also allege that McBath received money from Everytown for her campaign during that time, even though Everytown reported in an FEC filing that they first began contributing to McBath’s campaign on April 25, 2018.

“However, Everytown began spending in the election for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District while Representative McBath was still serving as the group’s national spokesperson,” the OCE complaint says. “It is not publicly known what level of involvement Representative McBath had in Everytown’s expenditures against her eventual general election opponent while she was still employed by Everytown.”

On Point: Fix the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and Punish the Crooks Who Abused It

Two months have passed since Dec. 9, 2019, the day Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz exposed the profound damage done to a judicial institution vital to successfully defending America in a world of complex threats: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISC.

The damage done to American public trust in the court is not incidental. Trust is a source of strength, among friends or in the world’s most powerful nation. Trust promotes cooperation, which enhances systemic strength. When trust disappears, expect discord seeding division and weakness.

The FISC was created to protect a citizen’s constitutional rights while permitting intelligence community surveillance of legitimate suspects. To protect necessary cloak-and-dagger secrets, the FISC meets in secret. A secret court in a free society requires two things: (1) legitimate existential threats to citizens and assets: (2) trust in security agency professionalism and integrity, and trust in the judgment of the court judges.

Unfortunately, the abuse of the FISC by corrupt members of U.S. security and legal agencies — specifically within the FBI and DOJ — may have squandered that trust forever. Evidence is emerging that other corrupt actors, perhaps in the CIA, conducted illegal surveillance.

With the documented abuse acknowledged, America needs an FISC-type legal tool to combat covert threats like terrorism, transnational crime and enemy espionage. Twenty-first-century digital and financial connectivity, and commercial jet transportation, reduce police and Pentagon response time.

A FISC with integrity must also protect an American citizen’s constitutional rights from crooks and crony government. Horowitz discovered premeditated fraud on the FISC by a DOJ attorney. In 2016, the attorney “altered” email from “the other U.S. government agency” (CIA) and submitted a fraudulent application for a warrant to the court. So the FISC approved the warrant.

The target: Carter Page, a Naval Academy graduate and a former Trump presidential campaign associate. Spying on Page — an innocent man — opened a door to spying on President Donald Trump.

Following Horowitz’s report, the FISC’s then-presiding judge, Rosemary Collyer, issued a public order regarding the Page application and the FBI’s lack of “candor”: “The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable. The FISC expects the government to provide complete and accurate information in every filing with the Court.”

Collyer should chastise herself as well. She and her colleagues failed to responsibly question the application. The FBI alleges a Naval Academy grad associated with a presidential campaign in an election year is a Russian asset? Judge, wake the hell up. Page was actually a CIA asset.

Trump administration Attorney General William Barr knows the court is a national security asset and wants to save it. On Feb. 6, he put his personal reputation on the line and issued a memo requiring the FBI to have him sign off on FISC applications. Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz pegs the FISC’s structural weakness: Alleged perpetrators have no defender. So assign a lawyer to question government evidence.

To restore public trust, the individuals who abused the court must be investigated, arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison. They committed an array of crimes — including criminal mishandling of classified material. The FISC is a classified court.

In the past, the public expected responsible reporters to scrutinize government operations. In the FISC saga, contemporary mainstream media served as a PR tool for crooked cops and spies. So-called elite press outfits like The New York Times and The Washington Post unquestioningly touted intelligence leaks that have proven to be false.

Though mainstream media outlets take scant notice, angry calls to disband the court have not faded. The decibels will increase when federal prosecutor John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Russia collusion hoax becomes headline news.

I wager Durham will expose crony government at its worst — dirty government officials, bureaucrats and agents who are politically exploiting and criminally manipulating the U.S. national security structure to harm their political opponents.

We shall see.

 

EXCLUSIVE: What Happened In the Roger Stone Case? ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct’ Says Defense Lawyer

Prosecutorial Misconduct?

A day after a nine-year sentencing recommendation for the elderly Roger Stone was filed, Senior DOJ officials immediately distanced themselves from the recommendation. They told CBS News that the prison time recommendation was “extreme, excessive, grossly disproportionate to offenses,” and that this is not what was briefed to the DOJ by the assigned prosecutors. Hours later, all four lawyers assigned to the case withdrew, with one, Jonathan Kravis, resigning from the DOJ entirely.

This is unusual, to say the least. Top to bottom, from the start of the case to this shocking end, has been unprecedented. What is going on?

President Trump asked: “Who are the four prosecutors (Mueller people?) who cut and ran after being exposed for recommending a ridiculous nine-year prison sentence to a man that got caught up in an investigation that was illegal, the Mueller Scam, and shouldn’t ever even have started?”

I went to federal trial attorney Jesse Binnall for some answers. Binnall defends high-profile clients against political witch-hunts and has defended cases brought by Jonathan Kravis in the past. Currently, Binnall is defending Michael Flynn alongside Sidney Powell.

In your professional opinion, was anything unusual about the Roger Stone case?

“Roger Stone wouldn’t ever have been a target of prosecution had he not been a Trump supporter. The President was absolutely right; the political underpinnings of this case are very disturbing. The events of the past few days show just how unusual this case really is.”

Can you explain what exactly was unusual in recent days, and why?

“These four prosecutors filed a brief making a sentencing recommendation without getting approval from the chain of command. That is extraordinarily unusual in the DOJ. In fact, I can say it’s unheard of at the DOJ; certainly, I’ve never heard of it. In practice, DOJ lawyers almost always get approval for everything they do.”

Then, all four prosecutors on this case withdrew in succession, with one, Kravis, resigning from the DOJ entirely. This is unheard of. Why do you think they did it? Do you believe they planned and colluded?

“I think they knew exactly what was going to happen when they filed that sentencing recommendation, expecting they will be reined in for doing so. They could then play the role of martyrs by resigning from the case, with one of them resigning entirely from his job. 

One of the most serious powers of a prosecutor is asking to deprive a defendant of freedom, requesting jail time. I think this [nine-year sentence] was an abuse of their power as prosecutors, to make a recommendation like this without making a departmental approval.

They knew leftist media would celebrate their disobedience and abuse of power. Leftist media has a history of fawning over people who martyr themselves for left-wing causes, just like Sally Yates. I think they wanted to leave the Roger Stone case with a bang. 

Or, they did it because they were going rogue, and they didn’t care what their supervisors thought. Perhaps because they don’t like U.S. Attorney Shea. To them, this case is political, and it’s personal. I think they suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. TDS is a very serious condition!”

All Four Roger Stone Prosecutors Resign From Case After DOJ Backpedals on Sentencing Recommendation

I’d like to think there’s some deep thinking going on in the DOJ tonight about the words ‘prosecutorial misconduct’.

The entire team prosecuting Roger Stone abruptly resigned from the criminal case on Tuesday after the Justice Department said it planned to reduce the recommended sentence for Stone, a longtime Trump associate.

The Justice Department on Tuesday said it was pulling back on its request to sentence Stone to seven to nine years in prison after President Donald Trump blasted the sentencing proposal as “a miscarriage of justice.”

Mueller ‘pitbull’ Weissmann appears to let slip they were trying to oust Trump by setting a perjury trap

Weissmann is the one who also did the work to get General Flynn indicted for perjury. Seems to be his usual tactic is to use a perjury charge because doing real investigative work is just too hard for him.
Just the kind of “Law Enforcement Officer” that you need when you want a tyrannical police state.

Andrew Weissmann, one of the most prominent members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russia, let slip on Thursday that they were “trying to get rid of” President Trump, in part by laying a perjury trap to get him on record under oath.

Known as Mueller’s “pitbull,” Weissmann was heavily involved in the criminal case against Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort. He stepped down before Mueller released his final report and struck a deal with a publisher for a book about his experiences on the special counsel.

He would also sign with NBC and MSNBC as a legal analyst, and appeared Thursday afternoon on MSNBC to comment on President Trump’s remarks earlier in the day on his acquittal by the U.S. Senate, where the president denounced the effort by political enemies to take him out.

Republican National Committee spokeswoman shared a video clip of the segment on Twitter, saying that “Weissmann just admitted what we always knew.”

Taking a shot at Trump for “mouthing off” earlier in the day, Weissmann said, “He never submitted to an interview, he never testified under oath — it’s true, the same happened in the Mueller case.”

“Why do you think that is?” MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace asked.

“There’s a classic reason,” Weissman replied. “There is legal jeopardy that attaches if you sit for an interview or if you say something under oath to federal prosecutors, to federal prosecutors, to the House, to the Senate — so if you notice, the president is happy to talk today about ‘oh, this is evil and these people are corrupt,’ but when it came time for him to put up or shut up, which is are you willing to actually say this under oath or even in an interview, he’s completely silent.”

This being, of course, Trump’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Speaking from the East Room on Thursday, the president said the Russian collusion probe was “all bullshit,” insisting that he was “treated unbelievably unfairly.”

Trump called former FBI director James Comey a “sleazebag,” and slammed the “top scum” at the bureau, to include disgraced former bureau agent Peter Strzok.

“We’ve been going through this now for three years. It was evil, it was corrupt, it was dirty cops, it was leakers. It was a disgrace. Had I not fired James Comey, who was a disaster, by the way, it’s possible I wouldn’t even be standing here right now,” he said. “We caught him in the act. Dirty cops. Bad people.”

“These are the crookedest, most dishonest, dirtiest people I’ve ever seen,” he added.

Weissmann was the epitome of the “13 angry Democrats” Trump often referred to when speaking of the special counsel……

As for bias, while there are many signs, the fact Weissmann attended Clinton’s 2016 election night party in New York City, according to The Wall Street Journal, may say all that needs to be said.

Facing Up To the Revolution.
Our ultimate objective, unlike that of our enemies, is “peace among ourselves and with all nations.” But what kind of peace we may get depends on the extent to which we may compel our enemies to leave us in peace. And for that, we must do unto them more and before they do unto us.

Some conservatives, rejoicing that impeachment turned into yet another of #TheResistance’s political train wrecks and that President Trump is likely to be reelected by a bigger margin than in 2016, expect that a chastened ruling class will return to respecting the rest of us. They are mistaken.

Trump’s reelection, by itself, cannot protect us. The ruling class’s intolerance of the 2016 election’s results was intolerance of us.

Nor was their intolerance so much a choice as it was the expression of its growing sense of its own separate identity, of power and of entitlement to power. The halfhearted defenses with which the offensives of the ruling class have been met already advertise the fact that it need not and will not accept the outcome of any presidential election it does not win. Trump notwithstanding, this class will rule henceforth as it has in the past three years. So long as its hold on American institutions continues to grow, and they retain millions of clients, elections won’t really matter.

Our country is in a state of revolution, irreversibly, because society’s most influential people have retreated into moral autarchy, have seceded from America’s constitutional order, and because they browbeat their socio-political adversaries instead of trying to persuade them. Theirs is not a choice that can be reversed. It is a change in the character of millions of people.

The sooner conservatives realize that the Republic established between 1776 and 1789—the America we knew and loved—cannot return, the more fruitfully we will be able to manage the revolution’s clear and present challenges to ourselves. How are we to deal with a ruling class that insists on ruling—elections and generally applicable rules notwithstanding—because it regards us as lesser beings?

The resistance that reached its public peaks in the Brett Kavanaugh hearings and the impeachment imbroglio should have left no doubt about the socio-political arbitrariness that flows from the ruling class’s moral autarchy, about the socio-political power of the ruling class we’re forced to confront, or of its immediate threat to our freedom of speech.

Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding over the Senate’s impeachment trial, was as clear an example as any of that moral autarchy and its grip on institutions.

Pursuant to Senate rules, Senator Rand Paul sent a written question through Roberts to House Manager Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) regarding the extent of collaboration between Schiff’s staffer Sean Misko and his longtime fellow partisan, CIA officer Eric Ciaramella in starting the charges that led to impeachment. Roberts, having read the question to himself, declared: “The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.”

The chief justice of the United States, freedom of speech’s guardian-in-chief, gave no reason for declining to read Paul’s question. The question was relevant to the proceedings. It violated no laws, no regulations. The names of the two persons were known to every member of the House and Senate, as well as to everyone around the globe who had followed news reports over the previous months. But the Democratic Party had been campaigning to drive from public discussion that this impeachment stemmed from the partisan collaboration between a CIA officer and a Democratic staffer.

Accordingly, the mainstream media had informally but totally banned discussion of this fact, supremely relevant but supremely embarrassing to Schiff in particular and to Democrats in general. Now, Paul was asking Schiff officially to comment on the relationship. Schiff could have explained it, or refused to explain it. But Roberts saved him the embarrassment and trouble—and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) spared senators the problem of voting on a challenge to Roberts’ ruling. The curtain of official concealment, what the Mafia calls the omertà, remained intact. Why no reason?

Just as no dog wags his tail without a reason, neither did Roberts wag his without reason. Neither the laws of the United States nor the rules of the Senate told the presiding officer to suppress the senator’s question. Why was Roberts pleased to please those he pleased and to displease those he displeased? In short, why did this impartial presiding officer act as a man partial to one side against the other?

This professional judge could hardly have been impressed by the ruling class’s chosen instrument, Adam Schiff, or by Schiff’s superior regard for legal procedure. Since Schiff’s prosecution featured hiding the identity of the original accuser—after promising to feature his testimony—and since it featured secret depositions, blocked any cross-examination of its own witnesses, and prevented the defense from calling any of their own, it would have been strange if Chief Justice Roberts’ bias was a professional one.

Is it possible that Roberts favored the substance of the ruling class claim that neither President Trump nor any of his defenders have any right to focus public attention on the Biden family’s use of public office to obtain money in exchange for influence? That, after all, is what Washington is largely about. Could Roberts also love corruption so much as to help conceal it? No.

Roberts’ professional and ethical instincts incline him the other way. Nevertheless, he sustained the ruling class’s arbitrariness. Whose side did he take? His dinner companions’ side? The media’s? His wife’s? Roberts’ behavior—contrary as it was to his profession, to his morals, and to his political provenance—shows how great is the ruling class’s centripetal force.

The sad but inescapable consequence of this force is that conservatives have no choice but to follow the partisan logic of revolution—fully conscious of the danger that partisanship can make us as ridiculously dishonest as Adam Schiff or CNN’s talking heads, into rank-pullers like John Roberts, and into profiteers as much as any member of the Biden family.

And yet, revolution is war, the proximate objective of which is to hurt the other side until it loses the capacity and the will to do us harm. That means treating institutions and people from the standpoint of our own adversarial interest: controlling what we can either for our own use or for bargaining purposes, discrediting and abandoning what we cannot take from our enemies…

Wray says FBI conduct surrounding Carter Page FISA warrant ‘unacceptable’ and ‘cannot be repeated’

Until the FBI agents who did this are held accountable, and that means in a court of law facing charges, Directors Wray’s words are so much hot air.

FBI Director Christopher Wray testified Wednesday that the actions taken by the bureau to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page were “unacceptable” and “cannot be repeated.”

During his first congressional appearance following the release of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s FISA review last year, Wray vowed to reform the FISA system by implementing “specific procedures and safeguards.”

“The failures highlighted in the inspector general report are unacceptable, period. And they cannot be repeated,” Wray testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

“I have already ordered more than 40 corrective actions to our FISA policies and procedures,” Wray continued, adding that he has “gone above and beyond” in outlining what “should be changed” and “can be changed” and can provide “accountability,” “rigor” and “discipline.”

“I do not think anyone has carte blanche to bypass rules, and I intend to make it painfully clear that is unacceptable at the FBI today,” he added.

Meanwhile, Republicans on the committee used Wednesday’s hearing as an opportunity to further grill Wray and the FBI.

“I don’t trust your agency anymore,” Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., told Wray, adding that the FBI has “lost the trust of an awful lot of Americans.”

And Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, suggested that Wray was not taking the misconduct outlined in the inspector general’s report “seriously.”

“I’m concerned you’re not taking this seriously enough,” Jordan said. “Are you taking this seriously enough, Director Wray?”

The FBI director underscored that activities surrounding FISA during the 2016 presidential election were unacceptable and “unrepresentative of who we are as an institution.”

“Political bias has no place in today’s FBI,” Wray said.

 

 

Feds Back Off Jailing Michael Flynn After Stunning New Evidence That Gov’t ‘Lied’ And ‘Framed’ Him

gubbermint bureaucraps lied about a purported crime?!

The government lied, “framed,” hid favorable evidence, and showed “contempt for the law at every turn” in their treatment of Michael Flynn, the retired three-star Army general and former Trump White House national security adviser.

Those charges were contained in a new filing in the government’s case against Flynn. And his attorney, Sidney Powell, was just getting started.

In the 27-page-filing, an add-on to her previous motions, Powell demanded charges be dropped against Flynn based on previously withheld exculpatory documents by the government and the IG report on FISA abuse.

And where do you think the “leak” of the manuscript of John Bolton’s book came from? What I can’t figure out is why these Obama administration staffers were allowed to remain in the posts. It’s stupid to keep people around, who can be dismissed at will, who are of the supposed opposite end of the political spectrum.

NSC aide handling book approvals (like Bolton’s) is twin brother of Lt. Col. Vindman.

The twin brother of a key administration impeachment witness against President Trump is in charge of the National Security Council’s process for reviewing publications by current and former NSC officials, according to a new report on Monday.

Breitbart reported that Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, a senior ethics lawyer for the NSC, is in charge of reviewing publications such as the book manuscript submitted to the NSC on Dec. 30 by former National Security Adviser John Bolton.

The report cited a source close to the administration. The NSC had no immediate comment…………..

“No Standing Army”

The question is how can such an idjit be so corrupt? Then is dawns on you that being corrupt must be his standard operational plan, 24/7/365.

Everybody knows by now about Uncle Pervy’s latest mouthfart:

“So, the idea we’re gonna cut the defense budget significantly, we can cut it some, but we don’t need standing armies, we need to be smarter than we’re dealing now into how we handle this.”

Of course, the general consensus is all about national defense and blah blah blah.

Here’s my  question for the Has-Been VP, though:

If you have no standing army, how the hell do you propose to disarm the American public and confiscate all those eeeevil black assault rifles?

No doubt he and the other Communist presidential wannabes would probably want to create their own private army (e.g. SS, SA, KGB etc.) out of the Pantifa cadres… that’s always worked quite well for the Russian- and European totalitarians in the past.

Don’t think it would work that well with Americans, though.

Venezuela May Be Forced To Sell Off Its Oil Company… To Russia.

(Stop me if you’ve heard this one.) Venezuela is so broke…

HOW BROKE ARE THEY?

They’re so broke that they’re looking to sell their nationalized oil company to the private sector.

Okay, I won’t be giving up my day job for a career as a standup comic anytime soon, but this really isn’t a joking matter anyway. Back when Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan Socialist Party took over that country, one of Chavez’s early moves was to finish locking down and nationalizing the nation’s oil industry. (Nationalization had originally begun under the presidency of Carlos Andrés Pérez back in the 70’s, but Chavez cemented state control of all assets.) It was a blow to their already crippled private sector, but it provided admirable income for the socialist regime for many years.

Now, as most of you are doubtless aware, the country has effectively been driven into bankruptcy by the corrupt administration of Nicolas Maduro. The only thing propping them up lately has been the Russian military and regular inputs of cash from China. Unfortunately for the Venezuelan people, that stream of revenue is probably coming to an end. The national oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), is totally underwater. Maduro is obviously desperate because he’s been in talks with several international oil companies to discuss selling control of the operation. And one of the interested buyers is a Russian outfit, to the surprise of nobody. (Bloomberg)

Facing economic collapse and painful sanctions, the socialist government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has proposed giving majority shares and control of its oil industry to big international corporations, a move that would forsake decades of state monopoly.

Maduro’s representatives have held talks with Russia’s Rosneft PJSC, Repsol SA of Spain and Italy’s Eni SpA. The idea is to allow them to take over government-controlled oil properties and restructure some debt of state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA in exchange for assets, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

The proposal, which could offer a balm to the country’s disintegrating oil industry, is in early stages and faces major obstacles.

Venezuela still sits on one of the richest deposits of sweet crude oil in the world, but it’s not doing them much good currently. Maduro has robbed PDVSA blind and failed to fund the required maintenance and staffing to keep it functional. The company once produced more than 3.5 million barrels of oil per day. They currently struggle to produce even half a million and most of that has to go to pay the country’s mounting debts.

While the report indicates that Venezuela has been in talks with oil and gas companies from Spain and Italy as well, Russia is the most likely and obvious potential buyer. That’s because of a combination of factors. First of all, the Russians are already on the ground in the country and Maduro owes them a lot of money. But also, current sanctions forbid companies from most western nations, including the United States, from doing business with PDVSA or anyone else in Venezuela without a waiver. Russia can and probably would ignore those rules if it allowed them to seize control of Venezuela’s oil.

Further complicating matters is the issue of the Venezuelan constitution and laws requiring the oil assets to be the property of “the people.” Of course, Maduro has already rewritten the constitution to suit him and he controls the Supreme Court and his new legislative body so that probably won’t slow him down much.

Vladimir Putin might want to be a bit cautious here, however. There’s a significant risk in entering into any sort of business deal with a socialist nation like Venezuela. Maduro’s government is weak and impotent now, but if they somehow stabilize in the years to come, things could change. The socialists could, at some point, simply declare that the oil resources and assets are being taken back by the government without compensation. That’s what they did in the 70s and 90s, and there’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t do it again if they felt they could get away with it.

HATE HOAX: Anti-Gun Trauma Surgeon Posts Photo of ‘Death Threat’ Left on His Windshield… But His Car Was Parked in His Garage

By the way. These original tweets have been deleted by the Doctor after he was taken to task for the obvious fakery. All that did was confirm he was lying all along.
So, why do anti-gunners lie so much?
Because the truth doesn’t work to get them what they want.

It has been a year since the Jussie Smollett hate hoax so it’s time for the left to cook up a new scandal.

oseph Sakran, an anti-gun trauma surgeon posted two photos to his Twitter account claiming a note with a hand pointing a gun and the words “The End is Near” was left on the windshield of his car.

Sakran said he discovered the death threat as he was leaving for work…but observant Twitter users pointed out that the reflection on the windshield shows that his car was parked in his garage when he discovered the note.

“Debated whether to share this, & after a lot of thought here it is,” Sakran said.

“Last week I’m leaving my home for work & I find this paper under my windshield. One does not have to see the rest of the sentence that was covered to understand the intent of this message, a Death Threat.”

 

After catching people’s attention, Sakran went on a Twitter rant about how he is currently working on Capitol Hill with radical anti-gun groups.

 

Sakran said the death threat he left on his car is “disturbing.”

 

‘One of the 10 best speeches I’ve heard:’ Schumer heaps praise on Schiff for impeachment trial performance.

Yes, a performance, as in theater, Kabuki Theater that is.
It dawned on me just a few minutes ago, that Schiff is performing. He’s performing, to put it in the old way, for ‘the folks back home’ consumption. I wondered why he’s been so “into” this anti-Trump deal, when this volume of fawning praise for his theatrics lit that lightbulb over the head.

He doesn’t care one way or the other about what Trump did – or didn’t – do. Shifty Schiff is positioning himself for the Senate campaign when Dianne Feinstein either finally decides to retire, or kicks the bucket & dies in office. His sidelining Nadler to take more of the center stage adds confirmation.

Schiff knows that he will face strong opposition from Kevin de León, Eric Swallwell and who knows who else and he believes this theatrical performance will place him at the head of the pack.

I may be all wet, but we will see in 2024 when DiFi’s latest term ends.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer praised House impeachment manager Adam Schiff for a strong delivery as he wrapped up the first day of opening arguments in President Trump’s impeachment trial.

“The managers did just an incredible, incredible job. And they were all good. But particularly Adam Schiff. His closing speech, which I hope many of your viewers saw, is one of the tour de forces that I have seen in my decades here,” Schumer said Wednesday night on MSNBC. “I’d say it’s one of the 10 best speeches I’ve heard.”

It’s Official: FISA Court Says Warrants Issued Against Carter Page Were Not Valid

This is what you get when you have a real corrupt person (Obammy) and his corrupt Chicago politics sitting in the Oval Office. A corrupted, politicized – and weaponized against your political opponents – federal bureaucracy. The federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies will take generations of their agents changing before anyone will ever trust them again, if they ever should be trusted in the first place to be anything but political operatives.

The FISA court officially acknowledged Thursday that the FBI submitted false information when obtaining warrants to surveil Trump campaign aide Carter Page. Therefore, the FISA warrants that were issued are invalid.

“Thanks in large part to the work of the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, the Court has received notice of material misstatements and omissions in the applications filed by the government in the above-captioned dockets. See Docket No. Misc. 19-02, Order (Dec. 17, 2019; DOJ PIG, Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation (Dec. 2019),” the court released in an order. “DOJ assesses that with respect to the applications in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 170679, ‘if not earlier, there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.'”

In other words:

During the time the FBI was illegally surveilling Carter Page with illegitimate and illegally obtained FISA warrants, Page was working for the CIA on behalf of the United States. He was not working for the Russias as the FBI and their friends in the media repeatedly stated…………..

Due to the seriousness and extent of the FISA abuse uncovered by Horowitz, a number of Senators have considered shutting the court down.