In a viral moment from an auto plant in Detroit Tuesday, a raging Joe Biden lashed out and threatened to assault (slap) an autoworker who confronted him about his support for curtailing Second Amendment rights. The threat was omitted by all the broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) and Univision, with CNNEE and Telemundo ignoring the incident altogether. But what NBC Nightly News did was particularly deceptive in that they completely cut around Biden’s threat of physical violence.
In the NBC coverage of the “tense confrontation,” correspondent Gabe Gutierrez actually noted that Biden did want to ban so-called “assault weapons” before boasting that the former Vice President “pulled no punches.” He then played the manipulated video:
BIDEN: We’ll take your AR – your AR-14s away.
AUTOWORKER (talking about Biden sticking a finger in his face): This is not okay. [Transition] You’re working for me, man.
BIDEN: I’m not working for you. Gimme a break, man. Don’t be such a horse’s ass.
The marked “transition” was where Biden can be heard in unedited video saying “Don’t tell me that, pal, or I’m going to go out and slap you in the face.” The whole confrontation can be watched here (or above, NBC’s report is below) with the edited portion starting at the 1:03-second mark. The edit was intentional because the comment only lasted less than four seconds (thus there was no time crunch), and NBC reporter Jonathan Allen noted the threat in an online report.
Both ABC’s World News Tonight and CBS Evening News didn’t dare get close to that portion of the video and downplayed Biden’s actions. CBS politics reporter Ed O’Keefe simply suggested: “Biden got testy when a man who asked why he wants to take away guns.”
Over on ABC, senior national correspondent Terry Moran reported that “along with the chants and cheers, an angry confrontation with one autoworker, who confronted Biden on guns.” Moran even included a sizable soundbite of Biden lying about his position on taking away guns:
BIDEN: No. No. Shush, shush. I support the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment just like right now if you yelled fire, that’s not free speech. From the very beginning, I have a shotgun, I have a 20-gauge, a 12-gauge. My sons hunt. Guess what? You’re not allowed to own any weapon. I am not taking your gun away at all. Do you need 100 rounds? No.
AUTOWORKER: When you said you’re going to take our guns.–
BIDEN (yelling over him): I did not say that! I did not!
None of the English or Spanish-language networks mentioned that Biden had also told a female campaign staffer to “shush” after she tried to defuse the situation and move him away.
Lawyers for Hunter Biden reached a final child support settlement with the Arkansas mother of his child late Tuesday night after a judge blasted the former vice president’s son for his repeated attempts to delay the case, likely avoiding the release of financial documents that could expose his business dealings abroad.
Biden’s lawyers on Tuesday argued he would be unable to attend scheduled hearings this week, citing the approaching due date of his pregnant wife, “intense media scrutiny” caused by his father Joe Biden’s presidential bid, and travel restrictions caused by the coronavirus. The claims were rejected by Arkansas circuit judge Holly Meyer, who admonished Biden, the defendant in the case, for his repeated attempts to delay the case.
General Mike Flynn has now been harassed by corrupt members of the DOJ for more than three years.
He and his family have gone through hell all because he knew too much about the Obama Administration’s corruption and supported Donald Trump.
The General’s lovely sister, Barbara Redgate was on BardsOfWar podcast and gave an amazing interview regarding the challenges General Flynn and his family have had to go through since becoming a target of the Deep State. At the 13:30 minute mark of the interview, Ms. Redgate shared the following after listing a plethora of documents that the FBI and DOJ are withholding from the General in relation to his case.
Redgate says that shortly after the discovery of corrupt FBI Agents Strzok and Page’s texts, the Mueller team is believed to have gone to DAG Rosenstein to obtain permission to indict Flynn’s son. This is when the Mueller gang really put pressure on General Flynn. They took young Mike’s phone and computers and have never returned them to this day. At the time, young Mike had a 4 month old baby at home. Next she shares the following:
Barbara Redgate: Suddenly General Mike is threatened with public arrest and search of his phone. Public arrest of his son. Indictment of his son, and they were going to give him the Manafort treatment, which is put them both in solitary confinement.
At the 11th hour before General Flynn signed his plea agreement, at the last minute Special Counsel notifies the defense counsel by phone only that the electronic communications of one agent showed a preference [against] President Trump and the IG was assessing whether that constituted misconduct.
General Flynn’s attorney’s never told this to General Flynn so he thought that the agents who interviewed him in an ambush meeting in the White House believed he had lied. The entire interview is shocking and a must listen.
Missouri case that toppled GOP governor boomerangs on Soros-backed prosecutor
St. Louis circuit attorney faces grand jury probe, chief investigator indicted in echoes of Trump-Russia collusion reversal in Washington.
We need to make graphic examples of these political
prosecutions persecutions, but public execution just isn’t done these days. The more interesting thing is that the current Governor, the former Sheriff of Polk County, is even more conservative than Greitens -limited- political record showed him to be.
All that political crap-for-brains grandstanding for less than nothing.
Kimberly Gardner made history in 2016, roaring to an election victory as St. Louis city’s first African-American chief prosecutor on a campaign funded heavily by the liberal mega-donor George Soros. Four years later, she finds herself under investigation and her chief investigator already indicted for a prosecution gone bad, one that forced Missouri’s Republican governor to resign in what some now believe may have been a political attack.
Gardner, a Democrat and the city’s circuit attorney, was forced in 2018 to withdraw her indictment accusing Gov. Eric Greitens of felony invasion of privacy for allegedly taking a picture of his scantily clad girlfriend and threatening to release it if she talked about their affair. Gardner’s office dropped the charge after admitting she did not have proof of the photo or its transmission.
Investigators now allege the Greitens prosecution, which forced the governor to resign less than two years into his tenure, was built on lies that included perjury and hiding exculpatory evidence that would have helped demonstrate Greitens’ innocence, court documents show.
Most significantly, testimony transcripts and court records obtained by Just the News show the woman Gardner built her case around, beautician Katrina Sneed, testified she was asked unsolicited by Gardner’s office to come forward as a witness and that she was actually reluctant to accuse Greitens because the entire story of a photo on his mobile phone may have been a dream………..
How modern education has destroyed the next generation’s soul.
Students are taught self-esteem and sexual promiscuity more effectively than science and civics
Hardly a day goes by that you don’t hear the question: How did we get in this mess?
Where did this lunacy come from, and how did it all happen so quickly?
Well, let’s play a game. Let’s play “imagine.”
Imagine that we live in a day where we intentionally sever a man’s arm from his body and then expect him to win a fight.
Imagine that we live in a country where it’s common practice to remove a woman’s eyes from her head and then ask her to paint her portrait.
Imagine that ours is a time where we surgically alter a child’s frontal lobe and then demand he explain an algebraic formula.
Imagine that we live in such a world; a world where, as C.S. Lewis warned, the elite among us claim it makes sense to “remove the organ and demand the function;” a time and a place where we “geld the stallion and then “bid him be fruitful.”
Just imagine. As John Lennon said, “it’s easy if you try,”
How did we get in this mess?
One answer: As Richard Weaver said, “Ideas have consequences.” Education matters.
Why would we expect decades of teaching sexual promiscuity in our schools to result in sexual restraint in our students?
Why are we surprised at the selfishness of our culture when we have immersed several generations of our children in a curriculum that teaches self-esteem more effectively than it does science and civics?
How can we possibly think that teaching values clarification rather than moral absolutes will result in virtuous people?
Where is there any evidence in all of human history that the subordination of a child’s right to be born to an adult’s right to choose ever resulted in the protection of any individual’s unalienable right to life? And why would any culture ever think that after decades of diminishing the value of marital fidelity that the same culture would then be able to mount a vigorous defense for the meaning of marriage and morality, or anything else for that matter?
This list could go on and on. The evidence is clear. All you need to do is Google the daily news to see the proof. When you have schools that revel in separating fact from the faith, head from heart, belief from behavior and religion from reason, the result will never be liberty. It will always be licentiousness.
Severing things that should be united has a very predictable result.
“Removing the organ while demanding the function” gives us “men without chests,” an electorate of those who have nothing but a gaping cavity in the center of their being; a callousness of mind; an emptiness of conscience; vacuity where there should be virtue.
As the wisdom of Solomon tells, cutting babies in half always results in dead babies.
Ours is a day of delusion. We destroy ourselves by our dishonesty. We boast of freedom and yet live in bondage to deception. We champion human rights, yet we ignore the rights promised to us by reason, revelation and our own Constitution. We march for women while denying that women are even real.
We claim to stand for the dignity of children but remain silent while their dignity is mocked in the ivory tower’s grisly game of sexual nihilism. We are what M. Scott Peck called “people of the lie.” The road to hell is before us, and we enter its gates strutting with the confidence of an emperor with no clothes. And, when we are challenged, we belittle the “incredulous rubes” and the “deplorables” who dared shout out of our nakedness.
Santayana once said that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Well, here is one irrefutable lesson of the past: Ideas always have consequences. Education matters. It will always lead somewhere. Our schools will either take us toward the liberty found in that which is right and just and true and real or toward the slavery made of our own dysfunction and lies.
Why are we in this mess? It is because of our local schools, colleges and universities. When you relentlessly work to remove the next generation’s soul, you should not expect your culture to stay out of hell.
“All your life long you are slowly turning … either into a heavenly creature or into a hellish creature: either into a creature that is in harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into one that is in a state of war and hatred with God, and with its fellow creatures, and with itself. To be the one kind of creature is heaven: that is, it is joy and peace and knowledge and power. To be the other means madness, horror, idiocy, and rage … Each of us at each moment is progressing to the one state or the other.” — C.S. Lewis “Mere Christianity”
Internal documents, whistleblowers point to alleged underreporting of crime by DC Police
Whistleblowers claim assault, theft cases being downgraded to improve department’s crime stats.
WASHINGTON — Two D.C. police officers have accused their MPD superiors of rigging crime stats to make them look better. Now, WUSA9 has obtained internal documents the whistleblowers say proves their case.
On a hot summer afternoon in August 2019, a woman standing outside a liquor store in Petworth asked a man to buy her some water, according to one of the police reports reviewed by investigative reporter Eric Flack.
What happened next, according to that police report, was unimaginable. The man allegedly slashed the woman’s face and neck with an unknown object, sending her to the hospital.
That might sound like an “assault with a dangerous weapon,” a felony charge that can get you 10 years in prison.
But that’s not the way D.C. Police reported it; instead classifying the alleged crime as a “simple assault” – a misdemeanor that only carries a maximum of 6-months in jail.
In a second case, in the early morning hours on December 25, a night of drinking between a man and his boyfriend ended in an alleged case of domestic violence inside a Columbia Heights apartment.
According to that police report, the suspect grabbed his partner and held a knife to his neck while screaming profanities. But once again the police report says officers did not record the incident as an assault with a dangerous weapon, or even an aggravated assault, which is also a felony.
Instead, the police report shows investigators once again opted to classify the alleged attack as a misdemeanor “simple assault.” In the end, those police reports show neither case ended up being prosecuted.
So why would MPD seemingly downplay crimes in the District by labeling them less serious than they actually were?
Two veteran officers say it is all by design. And they have the documents they say prove it.
“I’m a sergeant for the Metropolitan Police Department, and I’m a whistleblower,” D.C. Police Sgt. Charlotte Djossou said in public testimony January 16 before DC Council’s Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety.
WUSA9 has now obtained the internal police reports and emails Sgt. Djossou and Officer Knight handed over to Councilmember Charles Allen, the committee chairman, as evidence of their claims that some D.C. Police supervisors are ordering investigators to downgrade crime classifications from more serious crimes to less serious ones.
The goal, the officers say, is to make the city’s crime stats look better.
In addition to those two assault cases, the paperwork obtained by WUSA9 includes evidence that non-violent crimes are being downplayed as well.
An email from an MPD captain in the Fourth District dated March 12 instructs officers to stop using the classification of theft in the second degree where the value of the property stolen is under $25.
Instead, the captain writes that officers should use a charge most people have never heard of: “taking property without right.” It’s an obscure crime designation that carries a maximum of three months in jail rather than the six-month sentence that could come with a theft charge.
Subsequent emails show three separate cases where officers followed that captain’s directive reclassifying theft charges to that lesser known “taking property without right” charge. In two of the cases, those emails cited a lack of “solvability factors” as the reason.
That didn’t sit well with Sgt. Djossou and Officer Knight, and apparently it didn’t sit well with the district commander either. Months later, he stepped in to reverse that captain’s order in another email discontinuing use of classification “taking property without right” altogether.
So why does how a crime is classified matter?
“It sends the message that this is insignificant,” said Sandra Jackson, executive director of the House of Ruth, which shelters and advises victims of domestic violence……..
Watts Up With That? does a good job covering the climate scam, the only flaw being that they post so much good data that one is apt to lose sight of the forest for the trees.
They have recently posted an excellent post on the reproducibility crisis. The short of it is that nineteen out twenty science papers seem to be making up their data.
I would say that this reflects incentives. If you actually make observations, you are bound to run into some land mine of an ever growing and ever holier orthodoxy enforced by peer review, while if you simply make stuff up, you will be fine. So any scientist who believes in actual observation eventually finds himself in some other career.
The influx of priestly types into science was bound to result in an exodus of scientist types, in the same way we are seeing an exodus of engineering types from open source, and it appears that this transformation is now complete. Science is now about one third global warming, one third the neglected role of women, and one third making stuff up in the style and subject matter of famous science papers from back in the day when scientists actually did science. Soon scientist will stop bothering with those postmodern pastiches on old fashioned science topics, and it will all be about the oppression of drag queens.
And, since I am covering WattsUpWithThat, here is the short on global warming science. So I am going to give you the view from twenty thousand feet, and suggest you spend a week reading Watts Up with That to get a glimpse of a small part of the trees.
For the full sordid tale, search their site for references to the Climategate files.
The climategate files, most of which I myself read, are the internal emails of the climate conspiracy. It is obvious from their internal emails that the official climate scientists do no know and do not care whether the world is warming or cooling, whether humans are causing it or not, and whether it would be bad or good.
Their objective is to indict humans in general, whites and western civilization in particular, and anglos specifically, for crimes against Gaia.
In the climategate files, one encounters a few low status scientists who are worried about actual facts. They did not doubt holy global warming, they just wanted the data proving the sins of mankind to be genuine data. They all swiftly ceased to have careers in science.
What is the motive for this conspiracy?
Lots of motives, but the motive we saw on display with South Australia’s Green Energy program was to shakedown the electricity grid for a few bucks in the course of destroying South Australia. Instead of turning wind and solar power into electric power, and electric power into money, they turned wind and solar into superior holiness, superior holiness into status, and status into money.
South Australia wound up with blackouts, brown outs, sky high electricity prices, and massive imports of electric power from coal mining states.
I think most of them are in it for the shakedown. Global Warming resembles the Aztec religion, in that human sacrifices are required to ensure that the sun rises tomorrow. And then the priesthood get something in return for their influence over who gets sacrificed.
Of course there are some, the Greta Thunberg Bernie Sanders crowd, who just like human sacrifice. If not global warming, they would find some other justification, as Trump told us at the Davos conference.
There is no doubt now that Plugs has Alzheimer’s.
The only reason he’s running for President has to be that he gains political cover for the corruption of him and his son Hunter in Ukraine (Since you know any investigation of a presidential candidate must be for partisan purposes /s).
FACT CHECK FOR JOE BIDEN:
Your son was not the "Attorney General of the United States." pic.twitter.com/QnoT0xKvCW
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) February 21, 2020
The Department of Justice announced today that the Chair of Harvard University’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department and two Chinese nationals have been charged in connection with aiding the People’s Republic of China.
Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement. Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts.
Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China.
Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston’s Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China. On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements. He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019.
Dr. Charles Lieber
According to court documents, since 2008, Dr. Lieber who has served as the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group at Harvard University, which specialized in the area of nanoscience, has received more than $15,000,000 in grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD). These grants require the disclosure of significant foreign financial conflicts of interest, including financial support from foreign governments or foreign entities. Unbeknownst to Harvard University beginning in 2011, Lieber became a “Strategic Scientist” at Wuhan University of Technology (WUT) in China and was a contractual participant in China’s Thousand Talents Plan from in or about 2012 to 2017. China’s Thousand Talents Plan is one of the most prominent Chinese Talent recruit plans that are designed to attract, recruit, and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China’s scientific development, economic prosperity and national security. These talent programs seek to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information. Under the terms of Lieber’s three-year Thousand Talents contract, WUT paid Lieber $50,000 USD per month, living expenses of up to 1,000,000 Chinese Yuan (approximately $158,000 USD at the time) and awarded him more than $1.5 million to establish a research lab at WUT. In return, Lieber was obligated to work for WUT “not less than nine months a year” by “declaring international cooperation projects, cultivating young teachers and Ph.D. students, organizing international conference[s], applying for patents and publishing articles in the name of” WUT.
The complaint alleges that in 2018 and 2019, Lieber lied about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Plan and affiliation with WUT. On or about, April 24, 2018, during an interview with investigators, Lieber stated that he was never asked to participate in the Thousand Talents Program, but he “wasn’t sure” how China categorized him. In November 2018, NIH inquired of Harvard whether Lieber had failed to disclose his then-suspected relationship with WUT and China’s Thousand Talents Plan. Lieber caused Harvard to falsely tell NIH that Lieber “had no formal association with WUT” after 2012, that “WUT continued to falsely exaggerate” his involvement with WUT in subsequent years, and that Lieber “is not and has never been a participant in” China’s Thousand Talents Plan.
According to the indictment, Ye is a Lieutenant of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the People’s Republic of China and member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). On her J-1 visa application, Ye falsely identified herself as a “student” and lied about her ongoing military service at the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), a top military academy directed by the CCP. It is further alleged that while studying at Boston University’s (BU) Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering from October 2017 to April 2019, Ye continued to work as a PLA Lieutenant completing numerous assignments from PLA officers such as conducting research, assessing U.S. military websites and sending U.S. documents and information to China.
According to court documents, on April 20, 2019, federal officers interviewed Ye at Boston’s Logan International Airport. During the interview, it is alleged that Ye falsely claimed that she had minimal contact with two NUDT professors who were high-ranking PLA officers. However, a search of Ye’s electronic devices demonstrated that at the direction of one NUDT professor, who was a PLA Colonel, Ye had accessed U.S. military websites, researched U.S. military projects and compiled information for the PLA on two U.S. scientists with expertise in robotics and computer science. Furthermore, a review of a WeChat conversation revealed that Ye and the other PLA official from NUDT were collaborating on a research paper about a risk assessment model designed to decipher data for military applications. During the interview, Ye admitted that she held the rank of Lieutenant in the PLA and admitted she was a member of the CCP.
In August 2018, Zheng entered the United States on a J-1 visa and conducted cancer-cell research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston from Sept. 4, 2018, to Dec. 9, 2019. It is alleged that on Dec. 9, 2019, Zheng stole 21 vials of biological research and attempted to smuggle them out of the United States aboard a flight destined for China. Federal officers at Logan Airport discovered the vials hidden in a sock inside one of Zheng’s bags, and not properly packaged. It is alleged that initially, Zheng lied to officers about the contents of his luggage, but later admitted he had stolen the vials from a lab at Beth Israel. Zheng stated that he intended to bring the vials to China to use them to conduct research in his own laboratory and publish the results under his own name.
The charge of making false, fictitious and fraudulent statements provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of visa fraud provides for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of acting as an agent of a foreign government provides for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of conspiracy provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of smuggling goods from the United States provides for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling; Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Field Division Joseph R. Bonavolonta; Michael Denning, Director of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Boston Field Office; Leigh-Alistair Barzey, Special Agent in Charge of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Northeast Field Office; Philip Coyne, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General; and William Higgins, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Export Enforcement, Boston Field Office made the announcement. Assistant U.S. Attorneys B. Stephanie Siegmann, Jason Casey and Benjamin Tolkoff of Lelling’s National Security Unit are prosecuting these cases with the assistance of trial attorneys William Mackie and David Aaron at the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.
The details contained in the charging documents are allegations. The defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
These case are part of the Department of Justice’s China Initiative, which reflects the strategic priority of countering Chinese national security threats and reinforces the President’s overall national security strategy. In addition to identifying and prosecuting those engaged in trade secret theft, hacking and economic espionage, the initiative will increase efforts to protect our critical infrastructure against external threats including foreign direct investment, supply chain threats and the foreign agents seeking to influence the American public and policymakers without proper registration.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Situation Report – 28
SITUATION IN NUMBERS
total and new cases in last 24 hours
71 429 confirmed (2162 new)
70 635 confirmed (2051 new)
1772 deaths (106 new) †
Outside of China
794 confirmed (111 new)
From day one, you knew they were lying. The Chinese figures on the coronavirus are garbage. This is an authoritarian state. They monitor most, if not all, internet communications coming in and out of the country. This is a very ethnocentric nation. National pride is major—and the state being unable to contain a viral outbreak and needing Western help is a blow to that mindset. So, it shouldn’t shock us, sadly, that the two brave Chinese vloggers who documented the outbreak have disappeared. One of them is said to have been forced into quarantine protocols by the government, but who knows (via NYT):
The beige van squatted outside of a Wuhan hospital, its side and back doors ajar. Fang Bin, a local clothing salesman, peered inside as he walked past. He groaned: “So many dead.” He counted five, six, seven, eight body bags. “This is too many.”
That moment, in a 40-minute video about the coronavirus outbreak that has devastated China, propelled Mr. Fang to internet fame. Then, less than two weeks later, he disappeared.
Days earlier, another prominent video blogger in Wuhan, Chen Qiushi, had also gone missing. Mr. Chen’s friends and family said they believed he had been forcibly quarantined.
Before their disappearances, Mr. Fang and Mr. Chen had recorded dozens of videos from Wuhan, streaming unfiltered and often heartbreaking images from the center of the outbreak. Long lines outside hospitals. Feeble patients. Agonized relatives.
China’s leader, Xi Jinping, said last month that officials needed to “strengthen the guidance of public opinion.” While Chinese social media has overflowed with fear and grief, state propaganda outlets have emphasized Mr. Xi’s steady hand, framed the fight against the outbreak as a form of patriotism and shared upbeat videos of medical workers dancing.
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 of Tomeka 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.
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.
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……………..
‘Everytown’ is the Bloomberg bankrolled, astroturf anti-gun organization. So this just might blowback onto him as well.
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.”
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.
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!”
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.”
This interview with Dr. Hanson is just too long to post and even excerpts wouldn’t do it justice. Just ‘Read The Whole Thing™‘ at your convenience about the corruption, hypocrisy, mendacity and sheer idiocy that’s endemic in our current government, bureaucracy and higher ‘education’.
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.