The DNC/Russian/Fusion GPS set up. A real “Moose and Squirrel” moment.

Legal Insurrection has a good summation of the situation- as of yesterday!  Today, even more is coming out.  As it does, I am developing a theory about what is going on. Bottom line is this- Putin didn’t care who won.  All he wants is to create chaos and division in America so he could maneuver globally without America getting in the way.

In this, he is winning with the help of the Left.

First, LI.

If there’s anything I learned from studying about and in the Soviet Union during college, it was that things were never as they seemed.

There always seemed to be a manipulation and deception, whether for a specific purpose or just because they could. Kind of like the Clintons.

Which leads me to the Donald Trump, Jr. meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. My initial thoughts were in my post, Trump Jr. emails show amateurishness, but not “collusion” or illegality.

It may be that the simplest explanation holds: This was a pitch by Veselnitskaya to lobby against the Magnitsky Act, and the promise of “official documents and information” showing that Hillary Clinton had improper collusion with Russia was just a ruse to get her in the door. Trump Jr. was happy to take the meeting for the same reason that Democratic operatives were happy to work with the Ukrainians — getting oppo research on your opponent is one of the things campaigns do. That foreign governments were involved didn’t seem to matter to either campaign, though the Clinton campaign was more savvy in keeping a distance of deniability.

Another simple theory is that this was a Russian espionage operation, an attempt to penetrate the Trump campaign, sound it out on collusion, maybe even collude. Jonathan Turley notes that this “simple” espionage theory makes no sense:

Let me try to sum up this theory.

The Russians decide to reveal their super secret clandestine effort to secure the presidency for Donald Trump. So they put together a high-ranking, high-visibility meeting at Trump Tower without knowing who would be at the meeting. They also allow a creepy publicist to send an email discussing the grand conspiracy. They then do a Charlie Brown football moment and do not actually disclose the promised incriminating evidence against Hillary Clinton. Does that track with any cognizable Russian intelligence operation? What possible advantage is there in revealing their operation, promising intel, and then not actually sharing anything of value? The Russians are not perfect but they are not morons. If this was Russian operation, we truly have over-estimated our opposition.

Russians do not usually set up meetings at places like Trump Tower with an unknown number of persons to discuss secret operations. Setting up such a meeting would give others leverage against the Russians by disclosing their operation. Russians are not known to hand over leveraging information, particularly for nothing in return. Spies are by their nature control nuts.

As more information has dribbled out, I’m becoming suspicious that all is not what it seems. I don’t pretend to have the answers to what really is going on, but a few developments have stirred questions.

The Hill reported, Exclusive: DOJ let Russian lawyer into US before she met with Trump team:

The Russian lawyer who penetrated Donald Trump’s inner circle was initially cleared into the United States by the Justice Department under “extraordinary circumstances” before she embarked on a lobbying campaign last year that ensnared the president’s eldest son, members of Congress, journalists and State Department officials, according to court and Justice Department documents and interviews.

This revelation means it was the Obama Justice Department that enabled the newest and most intriguing figure in the Russia-Trump investigation to enter the country without a visa.

Later, a series of events between an intermediary for the attorney and the Trump campaign ultimately led to the controversy surrounding Donald Trump Jr.

Yet Veselnitskaya stayed far beyond the time period of her “parole immigration,” ended up at Trump’s doorstep, at congressional hearings, and all about town. Strange.

And as The Observer notes, Veselnitskaya and Hillary Clinton were on the same side of the issue, with a Bill Clinton connection:

In December 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hillary Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act while serving as secretary of state. Her opposition coincided with Bill Clinton giving a speech in Moscow for Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank—for which he was paid $500,000. “Mr. Clinton also received a substantial payout in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank whose executives were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions tied to a complex and controversial case of alleged corruption in Russia.

Nothing is as it seems.

No better words spoken.  Because today the Guardian has more information as the number of people at this clandestine meeting grows to at least six.  As one person said, there is no way the Russian intelligence people are involved here, they are control freaks and secret meeting in public with six people is something they would not do.  Especially if one of those people is a State Department approved Russian interpreter whom the Russian lawyer uses all the time.

The latest revelation came as news reports suggested there were at least eight attendees at the meeting, which occurred at Trump’s eponymous New York tower shortly after he effectively clinched the Republican presidential nomination. The presence of additional participants contradicted Trump Jr’s assertion this week to the Fox News host Sean Hannity that all of the information about the meeting had been publicly disclosed.

Late Friday, the identity of a seventh person in the room was revealed to be Anatoli Samochornov, a Russian-born American translator who was working with Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer initially at the center of the meeting. Veselnitskaya had previously informed the New York Times she was accompanied by a translator but would not provide his name. Ken Vogel, a reporter at the New York Times, revealed Samochornov’s identity during an appearance on MSNBC.

But it was the presence of Akhmetshin, now a pro-Moscow lobbyist, that raised new questions about the controversial meeting and its purpose. Akhmetshin dismissed reports that he has ties to Russian intelligence agencies as a “smear campaign”, but was described by the chairman of the Senate judiciary committee as an expert in “subversive political influence operations often involving disinformation and propaganda” this year.

In an interview with the AP, Akhmetshin said he had accompanied Veselnitskaya to Trump Tower in New York, where they met an interpreter who also participated in the meeting in June 2016. He told the news agency he had learned about the meeting only that day, when Veselnitskaya asked him to attend, and turned up in jeans and a T-shirt.

The AP reported: “During the meeting, Akhmetshin said Veselnitskaya brought with her a plastic folder with printed-out documents that detailed what she believed was the flow of illicit funds to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Veselnitskaya presented the contents of the documents to the Trump associates and suggested that making the information public could help the Trump campaign, he said.

‘This could be a good issue to expose how the DNC is accepting bad money,’ Akhmetshin recalled her saying.”

According to Akhmetshin, Trump Jr asked Veselnitskaya if she had all the necessary evidence to supporting her claims. But when Veselnitskaya replied that the Trump campaign would need do further research, Trump Jr lost interest.

“They couldn’t wait for the meeting to end,” Akhmetshin told the AP, adding that he did not know if Veselnitskaya’s documents were provided by the Russian government.

The meeting was also attended by Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, and Paul Manafort, then chairman of the Trump campaign. Akhmetshin said he recognised Manafort because they worked in “adjacent political circles” but never together.

He told the AP that the meeting was “not substantive” and he “actually expected more serious” discussion. “I never thought this would be such a big deal, to be honest.”

The meeting had been brokered by Rob Goldstone, a British music publicist whose clients include the Russian singer Emin Agalarov, an acquaintance of the Trump family.

So let’s summarize as of today’s information.

We know the Obama administration thought the Russians were meddling.  But he didn’t warn either campaign. (Which is a lie. He told HRC’s crew and they developed the Trump/Russian collusion plan early.) We have the fake dossier created by Fusion GPS, which was funded by a Republican and then a Democrat (Who is a good question).

We have Fusion GPS being hired by a Russian firm that hired the Russian lawyer.  So they know and work with each  other. That is very suspicious. Especially now that the founder of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, has decided he doesn’t want to testify in front of Congress after all. We have to wonder why not. It may be they will ask a question that puts him in a position where he has to lie- or give it up.  And with Trump in charge, lying to Congress will get him prosecuted.

We have Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer, who has been working to reverse the Magnitsky Act, in order to free up assets and abilities for Russian oligarchs.  To this end, she has been allowed to move freely throughout Washington, rubbing elbows and lobbying politicians on both sides of the aisle, without ONE peep from our intel agencies as her being a spy.

We have Loretta Lynch and the Obama State department allowing  Natalia- forever now know as “Natasha” from Rocky and Bullwinkle- to enter the country with a waiver, so she can lobby against a bill Obama signed into law.  Weird huh.

Image result for natasha and boris

How the Left and dems and MSM see this. Natasha, Boris and Putin.

We have up to six or maybe more people in a twenty minute meeting where Donald Jr. was offered information on Hillary taking illegal Russian donations, but realized quickly that this was a bait and switch operation and the real issue was Natalia wanting to lobby for the reversal of the Act.

We have another Russian, a dual citizen and also a lobbyist who has made the round in Washington, in the meeting trying to influence the Trump campaign.

We have a State department authorized interpreter that works with Natalia/Natasha all the time.

And probably a few more we don’t know about yet.

Nothing in this meeting screams collusion or an attempt for secrecy.  In fact, it is just the opposite. The Russian lawyer wanted to offer in trade for a later favor unverified documents that Hillary and the DNC were taking Russian money- which of course they probably were. Democrats project morals on others, they have none themselves.

Donald Jr rejected the offer by all accounts.

Unlike the HRC/Bill/Foundation money laundering schemes that netted them millions for their favors.

The MSM is going crazy.

Congressman Adam Schiff, who is truly a snake, says that Donald Jr should have informed the proper authorities.

Think about that. “The Proper Authorities“….  Who would that be? Loretta Lynch- who let the Russian attorney in, and met with Bill Clinton on a tarmac to assure him his wife would not be charged for the crimes she committed? Comey, who made the FBI look like fools covering for HRC and other’s crimes? Obama? The guy who openly stated prior to any FBI conclusions that Hillary was innocent. The DNC that shopped around a fake Russian dossier they got from the Russians (uh wait, what? But I thought dealing with the Russians was.. ) and is the target of the documents?

And Donald Jr was supposed to turn over a list of DNC/Russian money laundering incidents.

W…T…F…??

What as Natalia/Natasha’s purpose? Read the Powerlineblog article.

It’s clear that Natalia Veselnitskaya pulled a bait-and-switch on Donald Trump, Jr. She induced him to a meeting with the promise of information that could be used against Hillary Clinton, but delivered no such information. Instead, she used the meeting to lobby the son of the presumptive Republican nominee for president on the supposed evils of the Magnitsky Act.

That Act blacklists Russians who were determined to have engaged in certain human rights violations. It is named for Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian attorney who, after reporting large-scale Russian corruption, was arrested and died in custody under suspicious circumstances.

All of this has been widely discussed. What’s less noted, presumably because it’s not part of the “collusion” story, is the wide-ranging nature of Veselnitskaya’s anti-Magitsky Act lobbying effort around the same time she met with Trump, Jr.

Yep.  Here is a video of an interview of Mr Browder.  He lays out why Natalia is here, and why Putin wants it changed.

Does any of the MSM channels care about the truth? Of course not. This is their job.  Even has their own reporters fall from Trump fatigue.

 

CNN’s reverts to it base instincts.

Eric Erickson, a solid never Trumper, also points out that this was a set up.

This will not get nearly as much coverage as Donald Trump, Jr. meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya, but it does raise the issue of whether Democrats and Russians were as collaborative as the Democrats claim the Trump team was. There is a remarkably small degree of separation between Natalia Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the Democrat opposition research firm that came up with the Trump dossier.

In 2012, the Russian government started hiring hordes of Washington law firms, lobbyists, political strategist, and others to get the Magnitsky Act repealed. The act, named for Sergei Magnitsky, sought to hold the Russian government accountable for the man’s death. Mr. Magnitsky was a lawyer who uncovered massive tax fraud in Russia. He was arrested, tortured while in prison, and died.

One of the law firms hired by Russia to work on repeal is Baker Hostetler, which also has ties to Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS. According to Senator Chuck Grassley, who wants Fusion GPS officials to testify before the Senate, Fusion GPS was also involved with the Russians over the Magnitsky Act. Senator Grassley’s office notes “Despite the reported evidence of their work on behalf of Russian interests, neither Fusion GPS nor Akhmetshin are registered as foreign agents under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).”

Grassley continued, “Fusion GPS was apparently simultaneously working on the unsubstantiated dossier alleging collusion between Trump presidential campaign associates and Russia” while helping Russia with the Magnitsky Act. It also appears the FBI was willing to pay Christopher Steele, the former spy, who helped Fusion GPS compile the dossier.

Now, let me quote directly from the Chuck Grassley press release on Fusion GPS with the major, relevant portions highlighted:

In 2013, the Justice Department opened a case to seize the U.S. assets of Russian-owned Prevezon Holdings, which received millions of dollars from the theft and used it to purchase real estate in New York, according to the department’s complaint. In response, Prevezon Holdings and the Kremlin launched a campaign to undermine the Magnitsky Act and discredit Magnitsky’s claims of corruption, according to a 2016 complaint by Hermitage CEO William Browder. Fusion GPS and Rinat Akhmetshin, among others, were involved in the pro-Russia campaign in 2016, which involved lobbying congressional staffers to attempt to undermine the Justice Department’s account of Magnitsky’s death and the crime he uncovered, repeal the Magnitsky Act itself, and delay efforts to expand it to countries beyond Russia, according to Browder’s complaint. Akhmetshin, a Russian immigrant, has reportedly admitted to being a “soviet counterintelligence officer,” and has a long history of lobbying the U.S. government for pro-Russia matters. Fusion GPS was reportedly tasked with generating negative press coverage of Browder and Hermitage.

You know who else worked for Preveson Holdings? Natalia Veselnitskaya.

According to Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik News, Veselnitskaya had “evidence showing that the grounds for the Magnitsky Act are based on lies perpetuated by UK millionaire of US origin William Browder.”

In addition to working for Prevezon Holdings and working against William Browder, just like Fusion GPS was doing, Veselnitskaya also had dealings with Rinat Akhmetshin, the founder of the Human Rights Accountability Global Initiative Foundation. As noted above, Akhmetshin was named by Senator Grassley as sharing work with Fusion GPS against Browder. In a letter to the Department of Justice, Senator Chuck Grassley says this about Akhmetshin:

It is particularly disturbing that Mr. Akhmetshin and Fusion GPS were working together on this pro-Russia lobbying effort in 2016 in light of Mr. Akhmetshin’s history and reputation. Mr. Akhmetshin is a Russian immigrant to the U.S. who has admitted having been a “Soviet counterintelligence officer.” In fact, it has been reported that he worked for the GRU and allegedly specializes in “active measures campaigns,” i.e., subversive political influence operations often involving disinformation and propaganda. According to press accounts, Mr. Akhmetshin “is known in foreign policy circles as a key pro-Russian operator,” and Radio Free Europe described him as a “Russian ‘gun-for-hire’ [who] lurks in the shadows of Washington’s lobbying world.” He was even accused in a lawsuit of organizing a scheme to hack the computers of one his client’s adversaries.

As you know, Fusion GPS is the company behind the creation of the unsubstantiated dossier alleging a conspiracy between President Trump and Russia. It is highly troubling that Fusion GPS appears to have been working with someone with ties to Russian intelligence –let alone someone alleged to have conducted political disinformation campaigns– as part of a pro-Russia lobbying effort while also simultaneously overseeing the creation of the Trump/Russia dossier. The relationship casts further doubt on an already highly dubious dossier.

Radio Free Europe has a story noting Akhmetshin’s group had hired Veselnitskaya as an attorney:

Read the rest. The bottom line is Trump was being pursued by the Left. I think the plan was to have HRC win, then use the compliant media and the intel “deep state” leaks, along with the HRC DOJ harassment to destroy Donald Trump forever.  Imagine how bad it would get for him and what that would do to anyone else who thought they could run against the “machine.”

But Trump won. He has the power and more importantly, access to the files. He needs to stay the course and then plan to do what he has to do to bring them to justice.

If I were him, I would go scorched earth on anyone I thought had something to do with this.  For example, I would order all the agencies to compile all contacts any politician/bureaucrat/official had with any foreign representative dividing the contacts by time/date/context. Then take that information and release it on an open website for all citizens to see.  No exemptions.  You want to see how many times Senator Feinstein or Schumer or McCain met with the Russians? Just take a look.  That will keep them busy for years!

Then I would assign the FBI/DOJ taskforce to look into this  Fusion GPS/Natalia/Russian lobbying effort and see if any laws were broken.  If so, they get to go to jail.  And finally, if by chance those records Natalia offered were accurate, assign the FBI/DOJ investigate any illegal donations to the DNC and pursue charges.

Basically, burn their playhouse down!  They went after his kid.  That’s war.

Erik Erickson finishes up with the exact questions which should direct any investigation.

There are three questions reporters should be asking right now.

What is the relationship between Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS and Natalia Veselnitskaya?

Did Veselnitskaya serve as a source for the “Trump Dossier”?

Who retained Veselnitskaya to attempt to meet with Donald Trump, Jr.?

One final point: the issue is not whether this excuses Donald Trump, Jr. for poor judgment. The issue is whether certain Democrats were collaborating with Russians at a time Democrats claim the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russians. Both sides should have been dubious of Russians bearing gifts and it looks increasingly likely that neither side was. The Democrats could be trying to undermine Donald Trump with as much help from the Russians as they claim Trump received from Russia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The strange case of Donald Jr’s contact. Who is setting up the kid?

I smell a rat.  Warning bells in my brain are going off.  What is Russian for “set up”?

Let’s go over the facts.  Donald Jr is a novice.  People know he’s a novice and maybe a bit cocky.

A “friend” (and I use that term loosely) sends him an email that the Russians want to help his dad win against Hillary, and are willing to give up the dirt on her dealings in Russia.  The email is suspect at best. It’s like it was written to be released in order to embarrass someone over a subject not yet created.  Who does that?  Putin? Podesta? Never Trumpers? Fusion GPS?

Now in context, this is before the Podesta created Russian collusion lie was started. It was during the time Obama and his administration believed the Russians were messing with the election but weren’t telling anyone. It was also during the time a fake dossier about Trump in Russia was being shopped around by a organization called Fusion GPS, founded by several ex-reporters.

Here is the Heavy.com rundown.  Take the time.  There is SOOO much here. They are very, very suspicious.  And heavily involved with both the Left and the Russians, and maybe the Obama administration and even Comey’s FBI.

Fusion GPS was behind the colorful and controversial Christopher Steele dossier that emerged as one of the most bizarre moments in an already bizarre presidential campaign. The dossier contained a listing of unverified, almost unspeakable allegations about President Donald Trump, and it emerged in news reports on January 10, 2017, just 10 days before Trump was inaugurated as president.

The company’s efforts were funded first by a Republican and, once Steele came on board and the primary was over, a Democrat. Neither donor’s name is known.

“Fusion GPS was paid by a Democratic ally of Hillary Clinton’s to conduct the research,” reports The Daily Caller.

Steele is a former British spy who wrote the unverified report on Donald Trump’s alleged activities and connections in Russia. A former intelligence officer who was based in Russia in the 1990s, Steele now runs an intelligence firm in London. The dossier contained lurid allegations involving Trump’s supposed activities in Russia that are all unverified and hotly contested. Steele has acknowledged in a defamation case in England that information in one of his memos “needed to be analyzed and further investigated/verified.” All the same, he shared the dossier with the FBI and, reports CNN, the Justice Department relied on parts of it to obtain a FISA warrant to “to conduct surveillance on Trump associate Carter Page.”

President Trump has decried the dossier as false and a hoax. CNN reported that President Barack Obama was briefed on the Steele dossier because of concerns that the allegations in it could open up Trump to blackmail; the Russian government has denied the dossier’s accuracy. The 35-page dossier was written by Steele based on memos he compiled from June through December 2016.

However, Fusion GPS’ research into Trump was initially funded by a Republican.

Before the Steele dossier came into play, according to Vanity Fair, Simpson was hired “to compile an opposition-research dossier on Donald Trump.” Although Simpson wouldn’t say who funded that quest, Vanity Fair alleges through a friend of his that it was a “never Trump Republican.”

Vanity Fair reports that this donor’s interest dried up once Trump won the nomination, but Simpson had “grown deeply concerned by the prospect of a Trump presidency.” He found Democratic donors to fund the effort’s continuance, and eventually subcontracted with Steele to look into Trump’s ties to Russia for between $12,000 to $15,000 a month, according to Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair dubs Simpson the “co-conspirator and a shrewd facilitator” for Steele and the information the former British spy collected.

According to the BBC, “the opposition research firm that commissioned the report had worked first for an anti-Trump Super Pac – political action committee – during the Republican primaries. Then during the general election, it was funded by an anonymous Democratic Party supporter.” The BBC and other British news outlets had initially reported that the PAC supported Jeb Bush’s campaign, but Bush has adamantly denied having anything to do with the dossier or Steele, and the BBC amended its reports.

The New York Times says Fusion GPS’ Steele effort was funded by “Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton” whose identities are not clear.

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), a Trump critic, asked ousted FBI Director James Comey about Fusion GPS and what Graham called “the Russian intelligence apparatus.” The Federalist described their Q and A this way:

Graham: Are you familiar with Fusion?
Comey: I know the name.
Graham: Are they part of the Russian intelligence apparatus?
Comey: I can’t say.
Graham: Do you agree with me that if Fusion was involved in preparing a dossier against Donald Trump, that would be interfering in our election by the Russians?
Comey: I don’t want to say.

Why James…why? (I have an idea.)

What is the connection between the Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya and Fusion?  They know each other and work together.

Image result for russian lawyer trump

Not part of the Kremlin? Hardly. This is a variation of the honey trap.

The Magnitsky Act figures in a lot of this story; obscure to many Americans, it was a Russian priority to defeat. Fusion GPS’ efforts to help defeat the act led one top Republican senator, Grassley, of Iowa, to accuse the firm of acting as an agent for Russia. Fusion GPS has denied the allegation.

It’s also the topic that Trump Jr. says the Russian lawyer, Veselnitskaya, fixated on in their meeting, instead of the Clinton dirt he thought they’d be getting.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Grassley wrote a letter to the U.S. Justice Department in March 2017 that alleged that “Fusion GPS, which was also involved in the creation of the unsubstantiated dossier alleging collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, was involved in the pro-Russia campaign to kill the Global Magnitsky Act around the same time.”

The Magnitsky Act was “named for a lawyer who suspiciously died in Russian custody after accusing Russian government officials and members of organized crime of using corporate identity theft against Hermitage Capital Management to fraudulently obtain and launder $230 million, some of which allegedly ended up in U.S. real estate projects. The Magnitsky Act imposed sanctions against those involved as well as other Russians designated as human rights abusers,” the Grassley statement says.

Hermitage’s CEO was a man named William Browder.

Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr., is named in a complaint filed by Browder with the Justice Department as “Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer for Prevezon.” Prevezon Holdings Limited, is defined as Russian owned Cyprus registered company attempting to defeat the Magnitsky Act. According to the Browder complaint, Prevezon is “controlled/directed/influenced by the Russian Government in respect of the lobbying activity.” Trump Jr.’s own emails, which he dumped on Twitter July 11, allege he was told that Veselnitskaya was a government lawyer.

According to the Daily Beast, Browder will brief the Senate Judiciary Committee  in mid July about “the lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya’s ties to the Russian government—including to former top members of the GRU and the FSB, two of the Kremlin’s main intelli

The Browder complaint further describes Veselnitskaya by saying she “is the lawyer to Prevezon and the Katsyv family,” adding that she “played a key role in organizing screenings of the film intended to rewrite the history of Sergei Magnitsky.” She also attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on U.S. policy towards Putin’s Russia, the complaint says. It also says that she then filed a report with Congress accusing the Magnitsky Act of being “based on lies.”

The complaint alleges that Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS “has been hired by Prevezon to lobby for the anti-Magnitsky campaign.” The complaint says that Vladimir Putin made it his “primary foreign policy objective” to get the Magnitsky Act defeated and adds that Prevezon is owned by a man named Denis Katsyv.

Image result for Fusion GPS founder

Works for the highest bidder, including the Russians.

Uh oh… . The smell is getting worse. Before we get too far down the rabbit hole let’s lay one principle on the table- Everybody knows everybody and they move around behind the scenes. You are not going to see a direct line between Fusion and let’s say John McCain or Putin or Hillary like you saw with the Trump email.

Unlike Donald Jr., they are smarter than that.   Frankly, after watching Lynch avoid pursing Hillary and Mills, et. al., it is apparent even if the lines were clear and direct they would not chase them.

According to a news release from Grassley, “Fusion GPS was reportedly tasked with generating negative press coverage of Browder and Hermitage.” Grassley alleged that Fusion GPS should have “registered as foreign agents under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).” He alleged to the Justice Department that “Fusion GPS reportedly ‘dug up dirt’ on Mr. Browder’s property and finances, and attempted to generate negative stories about Mr. Browder and Hermitage in the media, shopping stories to a number of reporters.”

Grassley also alleged that Fusion GPS was working with Rinat Akhmetshin, “a Russian immigrant to the U.S. who has admitted having been a ‘Soviet counterintelligence officer.’” Grassley wrote the Justice Department: “Fusion GPS is the company behind the creation of the unsubstantiated dossier alleging a conspiracy between President Trump and Russia. It is highly troubling that Fusion GPS appears to have been working with someone with ties to Russian intelligence –let alone someone alleged to have conducted political disinformation campaigns– as part of a pro-Russia lobbying effort while also simultaneously overseeing the creation of the Trump/Russia dossier.”

Who is Katsyv?

A law firm named BakerHostetler represented Katsyv, who “owns a company that the Justice Department has accused of laundering money from a tax fraud that Magnitsky uncovered,” according to Politico.

According to The Washington Post, Denis’ father “Pyotr Katsyv, was vice premier and minister of transport of Moscow region from 2004 to 2012. Katsyv’s deputy minister was Alexander Mitusov, Veselnitskaya’s ex husband.”

The Magnitsky Act in the U.S. Congress was fought by a Russian lobbying effort because it, Politico reported, “authorizes the president to freeze assets and deny visas to foreign officials responsible for corruption and human rights violations.”

A Politico story from December 2016 reported that “BakerHostetler hired a private research firm known as Fusion GPS led by Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter. (The firm also discussed information with journalists about Trump and his associates’ ties to Russia.)”

According to The Washington Post, Fusion GPS “did work on a lawsuit that involved Veselnitskaya for more than two years.” The Post reports that “Fusion GPS has said that it was working for the law firm BakerHostetler, which was representing Prevezon, a Russian holding company based in Cyprus, in its defense against Justice Department allegations that Prevezon laundered money stolen in the fraud Magnitsky uncovered.” There’s no known evidence that the Fusion GPS dossier work and this was connected, according to The Post.

Note the Washington Post KNOWS Fusion is suspect here, but don’t work too hard to remind the readers of this as they chase the Trumps.  That is bad reporting.  It would be like reporting on Jeffrey Dahmer as a food critic without reminding people he prefers..well people!

Then there is this “Who is this KGB agent that met with Donald Jr!”  Suddenly, we see that this “KGB agent” is everywhere, including sitting in a hearing before Congress.

Uh, why is she there? I thought she was an agent for Putin?


This is odd.  Already the Trump administration is pushing back by pointing out the attorney was in the country under the approval of the Obama administration.  Plus, and this is a big deal, we have photos of her sitting in a hearing behind the American ambassador to Russia- Ambassador McPaul.  Since this doesn’t look like a place to take a lunch break, I think someone should ask Congress who allowed the Russian spy to sit in a Congressional hearing?!! Suddenly, this whole collusion things starts to look a little suspect.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is asking top Trump administration officials to explain why a Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. last year was allowed in the country.

Grassley, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asking why Natalia Veselnitskaya was allowed to stay in the country when, according to court documents, she had to leave in early 2016.

“It is unclear how she was still in the country for that meeting despite being denied a visa beforehand and her parole purportedly expiring on January 7, 2016. This raises serious questions about whether the Obama administration authorized her to remain in the country, and if so, why?” Grassley wrote.

Veselnitskaya met with Trump Jr., son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort in June 2016. The meeting was supposed to be about potentially damaging information on then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, according to Trump Jr.

Grassley is asking Tillerson if Veselnitskaya applied for a visa and for any details of a potential application, including if she had to go through any additional procedures.

He wants DHS to say if Veselnitskaya is currently in the United States. She previously said that she was granted a parole letter to enter the United States to argue a court case.

Grassley wants to know any restrictions or extensions of her parole, what agencies were involved in the decision, dates when she left or entered the country, and listed addresses.

Again, Heavy.com compiles some facts about her.  I fear Donald Jr, who says he had no idea who was going to show up at the meeting, did not do his homework.  I also think his “friend”, Goldstone, who set this up, did Donald Jr wrong.  Or maybe, seeing that he was the one that sent the amateurish email that conveniently listed what the Dems so desperately wanted- the hint of collusion-  maybe he was told to write it in a certain way to maximize the damage.  I see the hand of Putin here. Remember, his goal is to create chaos no matter who won the election.

He’s winning.

She likes social media. Here Heavy posts some of her opinions from her account.

Veselnitskaya has shown an interest in American politics, including making several posts on her Facebook page about news related to the Trump and Obama administrations. Her anti-Obama stance appears to have stemmed from the fight against the Magnitsky Act, while she expressed hope in one post that the new administration could help stabilize the relationship between the United States and her home country, ideally in a way to help her clients.

“The beginning of our trial, new lawyers, new judges, the new President, balls and blow-ups in one day, and on 5 avenue – under the conductor of Schumer, a stream of dirt in the media, complete infantilism in understanding what is happening among the masses, the most serious in humorous shows, Then the prohibition of entry into the country and again hundreds of pickets and again on weekends, the resignation of the entire top of the State Department,” she wrote in Russian, referring to the protests against the first Muslim travel ban and the resignation of Sally Yates, which happened during her second visit to New York for the Prevezon Holdings case.

She also wrote about Yates in another post, “The current US Attorney General (Sally Yates) stated that all lawyers working for the government have no right to protect the government and Trump’s orders! She says it’s illegal and inexcusable! You can argue as much as you like about banning citizens from certain countries to the country, but something I can not recall any norm that allows the Prosecutor General to do so. In such cases, the general must resign. And it’s like the game and the last days of Obama.”

This sounds like a lawyer trying to position herself in a favorable light for the incoming administration, since the last one screwed her clients over. Again, lawyers lie and manipulate.  Is she a spy?  Either she is a Russian lawyer trying to get on the good side of the Trump administration or a master spy who acts amateurishly.

At this point it doesn’t matter.  If I were Trump, I would pull off the gloves. I would demand that Sessions, Tillerson, and the rest force their agencies to provide a list of EVERY meeting or contact reported (or not) between any major foreign state actors (China and Russia primarily) and all public servants on both sides of the political aisle- listing content, time and date. Then release that list to the public on a website called something like “Transparency. com”.

But that’s me. If they went after my kid, I’d be looking to fix that problem so no one dared try it again. I think Trump falls into the same category.  Mess with him, he gets mad. Mess with his kids, he may do some serious retaliatory damage.

 

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

While CNN worries about a tweet, there is a war between the state and federal police

This comes out of the Oregon Bundy siege.  A FBI agent is being charged with lying in the shooting of a man who was part of the Bundy crew.  The shooting was questionable, as it lends to the abuse of power that the history of the FBI over the decades.  But even if it was a good shoot, why did the agent lie?  That’s just dumb. And it insulted the local Sheriff to boot.

The FBI agent charged Wednesday with lying about firing his gun during a deadly confrontation during the 2016 Oregon-Bundy standoff may be only the tip of the iceberg.

Deschutes County Sheriff Shane Nelson had harsh criticism Wednesday for multiple members of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, saying that their actions during the 41-day siege with supporters of the anti-federal Bundy family had “damaged the integrity of the entire law enforcement profession, which makes me both disappointed and angry.”

His comments came during a press conference after FBI agent W. Joseph Astarita pleaded not guilty to three counts of making false statements and two counts of obstruction of justice in federal court in Portland.

But the sheriff didn’t stop with Mr. Astarita.

He said that he told Justice Department and FBI officials, including now-acting Director Andrew McCabe, over a year ago about “possible criminal conduct by some involved FBI HRT (Hostage Rescue Team) agents.”

“I was disappointed when I recently heard FBI HRT agents associated with this case were not placed on administrative leave after the briefing by our investigators to FBI administration,” said Sheriff Nelson. “Today’s indictment will ensure that the defendant and hopefully any other culpable FBI HRT members will be held accountable through the justice process.”

George Orwell wrote a book years ago called “Animal Farm”.  It was a satire of the USSR.  In the book the pigs, representing the authorities inside the USSR, had a rule they followed.  “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

The feds say the charges of lying to impede an investigation do not invalidate the conclusion that shooting the Bundy friend was not justified.  However, it does taint the issue.  How do we know we are getting the straight scoop about anything any more?

The charges “do not in any way call into question the findings of the major incident team’s investigation of OSP’s use of deadly force,” said Mr. Williams. “OSP’s actions were justified and necessary in protecting officer safety.”

Outside the courthouse, Finicum family friend Kelli Stewart said the agent should have been charged with more serious offenses, including conspiracy and attempted murder.

“He and the other FBI agents literally conspired to impede a federal investigation,” said Ms. Stewart in a Facebook video. “They hid the fact that shots were fired, and here we waited 17 months just for a simple indictment to come down. So while we’re happy that something is happening, it feels a little like the people are being simply pacified.”

She noted that Mr. Astarita was released after the arraignment instead of being held in custody.

“If I fired a weapon at somebody else and lied about it and hid the evidence as he did, just even as a civilian, I’d be facing a lot of charges, and I’d be in handcuffs,” said Ms. Stewart, adding that “justice has not been served today.”

Sheriff Nelson thanked U.S. Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his team for “tirelessly searching for the facts in this case.”

“His office will also conduct thorough administrative review to identify any areas of improvement that will help eliminate any mistakes made by the FBI in the future and increase transparency for federal law enforcement,” said Sheriff Nelson.

The woman has a point.  In the end, the big government “we do no wrong” approach to this and other critical events- like lying about a President being under investigation or having Rice’s unmasking paperwork suddenly get transferred to Obama’s presidential library – will undermine the trust to the point where the people will not comply, and that’s the real loss here.

How does a government function when the people are convinced their leaders are lying corrupt scumbags, and the media along with them?

 

The answer is- it does not.  That’s scary.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

No wonder Trump was pissed. He knew they knew and were lying!

“They” meaning Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, CIA’s Morell, Obama, Rice, Clapper, Comey and Rogers.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has called out Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) over his public comments about the president being under investigation.

The problem, Grassley states, is that Schumer knew this was untrue because former FBI head James Comey had briefed not only the Senate Judiciary Committee but the Gang of Eight, including Schumer.  During that briefing in March of this year, Comey stated that the president was not under investigation.  This knowledge did not stop Schumer from, only weeks later, making public statements that he knew to be false.

The DC Caller reports:

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley called out Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer Thursday for lying when the New York Democrat claimed that President Donald Trump was under investigation and Schumer knew otherwise.

Grassley stated that in March, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed ranking member Dianne Feinstein and him on the Russia probe.

“This included telling us who was, and who was not, under investigation,” Grassley stated on the floor of the Senate.

. . . .  Grassley then turned his attack toward Democrats who he said knew that Trump was never under investigation but proceeded to tell the public otherwise—particularly Democratic members of the “gang of eight,” which are all the top leaders of both parties in Congress and the top leaders in both parties on the intelligence committees in both chambers.

“I have to note something else here. Mr. Comey didn’t just tell the president Senator Feinstein and me that the president was not under investigation. He had also told the gang of eight. Of course, the gang of eight includes Senate Minority Leader Senator Schumer. But even after Mr. Comey told the gang of eight that the president was not under investigation, the minority leader told the media that the president was under investigation and of course that further help feed media storm– Hysteria.”

Grassley provides a specific example of Schumer’s knowingly untrue public statements about the president being under investigation.

As we speak, we hear the sound of wheels coming off the bus, the lug nuts initially loosened by Comey’s testimony.  Now the Washington Post (of all places) begins to put the bodies under the bus- one of which is Obama.

The primary takeaways from the article, based on progressive responses:

  1. Obama was too moderate and cautious, just like he always was as president, and Russia won’t suffer proportional consequences for its heinous crime.

  2. President Obama “approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyber weapons in Russia’s infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated.” Liberal journalists are impressed, but they worry Trump will back off from using Obama’s “cyber weapon.”

  3. Sen. Mitch McConnell did not buy the intelligence suggesting that Russia was trying to undermine the U.S. election and dragged his feet on making a public statement as the campaign got into gears last September. The rabid left has been calling McConnell a “traitor” because of this. Yet the piece elsewhere admits that “some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia came from another country,” making the NSA “reluctant to view it with high confidence.”

There a plenty of articles out there detailing how Obama was indecisive because he didn’t want to screw up the Iranian deal or upset the Syrian peace process (funny right?)  and blah- blah- blah.  Truth is, Obama has been weak since the beginning, partially because he’s a wimp and partially because he hates America so he does not feel the need to defend any abuse to her.

Plus, it ain’t like he and Hillary didn’t do it to others!

But the real crime here is that Comey told the gang of eight in 2016 that Trump was not a target or involved in any “collusion”, yet they went out and again and again lied to the American people.  All Trump wanted was Comey to come out and tell the American people what he told Congress and the President.   Comey refused, citing some dumb moves HE MADE in 2016.

That, of course, is bullshit. Comey was trying to please the deep state establishment and at the same time keep his job.  Under GWB, that would have worked. Under Trump it got him a —

Image result for trump you're fired

However, since Comey admitted in his May testimony that he did tell Trump three times he was not a target, and that there was no evidence of collusion ANYWHERE to be found, suddenly we start seeing the rats jumping off the sinking ship. They know the truth is leaking out. Among the rats is this guy, Morell, former head of the CIA.

Former CIA deputy director Mike Morell hit the Obama admin based on the Washington Post story this week that they did so little to strike back at Putin for meddling in our election.

He said he “failed miserably” in his response.

It’s really interesting when you think about it – for eight years we called him a wimp and the ditherer-in-chief, and in the end, that’s what screwed him over. He didn’t have the guts to stand up to Putin, and gave him a slap on the wrist. He didn’t tell the American people it was happening because he didn’t want to rock the boat. “No drama Obama” thought Hillary had it in the bag, and because of that, he doomed her candidacy, and his legacy.

Comey was at the NY Times the other day. I’m sure there will be another “I hate, HATE Trump” story with him as the source.  But what he did- or what Trump made him do by warning him about tapes- was to start the official unraveling of the “Trump colluded with Russia” lie.  Now that it will start fall apart, it will be rats leaving the sinking ship moment.  They all lied. Soon we’ll know they all lied.  How they justify those lies will be the stories we’ll read in the coming months.

By not bailing out, Trump has forced those in the “deep state” to crumble.  Good for him.  I hate liars.

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

David French, a lawyer, gets the Castile shooting wrong, no surprise.

David French is a lawyer.  I’m sure he’s confident in his perception of this issue. But he’s wrong.

In fact, it is perceptions that got Castile killed.  Neither party were really wrong, but a confluence of events and perceptions created a moment where police deadly force was used.

If you watch carefully, two salient facts should emerge. First, Philando Castile was quite literally following the police officer’s instructions when he was shot. The officer asked for his license and told him not to reach for his gun. Castile reached for his license while verbally assuring the officer that he was not reaching for his gun. The officer shot him anyway.

The second fact overwhelmed the first. The officer panicked. His terror is palpable. The man went from conducting a relatively routine traffic stop to shrieking and firing in a matter of seconds. Part of this is understandable. Life can change in a flash, and when we’re in a state of ultimate distress, few of us can be as composed as SEAL Team Six.

When I saw that palpable panic, I immediately knew why he was acquitted. The unwritten law trumped the statutes on the books. The unwritten law is simple: When an officer is afraid, he’s permitted to shoot. Juries tend to believe that proof of fear equals proof of innocence.

Like a typical lawyer, French bolsters his argument with a totally unrelated event- the Scott shooting in SC.  These two events have nothing to do with each other.  Castille was not running from the police or fighting with the officer over his taser.  Scott was not armed, nor did he fit the description of the robbery suspect.   So, other than the police officer being not black, and the shooting victim black, there is NO OTHER resemblance.  But why let facts get in the way of a good story, right David?

French is right in one way. Citizens who take on the uniform of law enforcement are not SEAL team six.  So their ability to manage and work with a suddenly stressful and lethal event is not going to be as well honed.  That said, those events happen thousands of times a year and nobody gets hurt.

What happened in the Castile case was not a criminal act. No more than a surgeon working on a patient and the patient dying on the table. Unless you can prove the surgeon went in with the intent to kill the patient, it is a civil settlement.  Yes, your life has a monetary value, not always a criminal justice value.  The reason it became criminal was due to the whole BLM movement frightening other lawyers- who happen to be prosecutors.

This fear is why what was a civil issue became a criminal one, and then ended back up as a civil settlement- as in the case of Mike Brown and Freddie Grey.  Which, by the way, under normal circumstances only Grey should have paid out.  Brown’s was just to keep the BLM from rioting again.

Let’s set some ground rules here:

A- This is important. There is a compact between citizens and the police, to work BOTH sides need to follow it. First part is that citizens gives another citizen (who has a little more training) the power over him to investigate, develop PC and make arrests. The citizen then complies with that arrest without resistance or violence to that officer. In return, the officer makes sure he does his level best to be unbiased and seek evidence fairly. If he does make the arrest, the officer must do it without violence and make sure the arrested citizen is delivered to the jail in good health. When that works, and it does a million times a year, nobody gets hurt. But when either side violates the contract, things go bad.

B- Nothing occurs in a vacuum. During this period of time, police were witnessing the resistance of blacks against police as part of the BLM movement. Violence was occurring with far greater frequency and with far less provocation. A black person could act out simply to get his fifteen minutes of fame, his momma whining about how he was on his way to get his college application, and how the “po-oolice” just harassed him.

And it would work.

This repeated mantra encouraged a lot of bad acts by black people who normally would not act out and it changes how the police react to the people they encounter. We know it, they know it. It makes everyone on both sides unsure how to interact with the other side. The playbook, if you will, has been thrown out. This breakdown in street communication is causing violence where violence never occurred before.

B-The police are rightly nervous. Plus their training has become too aggressive in my humble opinion. We are trained that everyone can be a threat and that standing your ground in the face of that threat keeps you alive. It’s something that about the time we figure maybe we got it wrong and start to ease up, some idiot jihadi slices the neck of a LT in a Detroit airport or a weed smoking thug tries to beat a cop to death in his own vehicle in Ferguson.

Lawyers, by and large, cannot assign common sense to the law. The law does not recognize common sense, it only recognizes the law. So when you see a lawyer act without common sense, you assume he’s stupid or just being willfully stubborn.  Neither are wrong, but it is because that is how he sees the world, through the law.

This shooting was a wrongful act occurring because of bad perceptions by both parties. Let’s look at what happened.

In this particular case the police were aware of a robbery that occurred a few days earlier in a store not that far away. They had photos and BOLOs of the suspect. The officer, Yanez, was aware of those photos. He saw Castile drive by and radioed to this zone partner that this guy fit the description of a robbery suspect. (which he strikingly did!)

mn lavish newports 3

Image result for philando castile

This guy looked like the robber. Not his fault, but part of the reason he was stopped that day.

Yanez did what we call “an investigative stop” which often is a traffic stop or contact with a subject for the reason of determining if the subject is involved in a crime. I have done thousands over the years, more than a few resulting in an arrest.

5. Castile did not know he fit the description of a suspect. He just knew once again the police were pulling him over. He had a traffic history. And he knew he was armed, with a license to carry.

HOWEVER, the gun was not secured in a holster, it was either in his crotch or his front pocket. This was a worry to him. So he wanted to make sure the officer knew. His intent wasn’t to alarm the officer. Often CCW holders are told to notify if they are armed. Some states demand it.

But NOTHING about being a CCW holder means the person will not kill police. That is a silly argument.  Do you expect the officer to honor the verbal statement “I have a gun, I won’t pick it up. Okay, I promise I won’t point it at you. Oops, okay I promise not to pull the trigger”…BANG! That is just silly and French relying on it is just sillier.

Yet, it does go to Castile’s frame of mind, his perception.

6. Yanez’s whole approach was laid back. This was intentional. He didn’t want to alarm a potentially armed and dangerous robber that the jig was up. (Which is his way of avoiding the gunfight.  That gets you killed.)

And remember the case in NC where the black man in the truck got out with a gun and refused to surrender?? I call these “statement days” where the bad guy decides basically “F**k it” and goes out swinging or blazing away. You cannot see these coming. So if you don’t know who you are talking to, but suspect he may be trouble, you can either play it cool, or go in hard and fast and hope to catch him off guard.

In this case, Yanez was just checking the guy out, low key and friendly.

Image result for castile traffic stop pics

Not a person looking to harm anyone. Just ask questions.

7. I would love to see Castile’s tox screen.   I bet he was on weed. (I checked loaded with THC.)

With a screaming woman, a little dope and the stress, I don’t think Castille realized he was in trouble. HIS perception was he was just going to tell the officer he had a gun and a license and all was good, and now the officer is screaming at him. But WHAT WAS HE SCREAMING??? He had a license for it. (Again, why in the crotch/pocket and not a holster?)

8. Yanez had in the back of his mind he might have stumbled into a violent felon. Then the guy says “I got a gun.” Now Yanez’s higher brain/lower brain functions are kicking in. Higher brain is saying “Holy crap, he is the robber! and a gun!” The lower brain, where training and survival exist, is saying “Holy crap a gun, he can get me!” Even with that, Yanez commands the guy to do one..simple…thing… DON’T TOUCH IT!

At this point we come back to compliance. If the officer is yelling at you not to do something and is reaching for his gun. Do not do whatever he is saying do not do. It is really that simple. Castile complies, he is alive. Yanez backs up and retreats to cover, which could have worked, but also could have got  him shot in the back of the head, Castile survives.

Neither happened, Castile died and Yanez is ruined and horrified.  But it is not a criminal issue. That was because of the BLM movement and a frightened PC driven prosecutor….which is a lawyer…which are the bane of our society.

French is a back seat driver. Hit the streets for a year wearing a uniform and then critique yourself after every shift. You’ll come out a better man for it.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The transgendered tail wagging the feminist dog

The issue of transgendered men or males just claiming to be women is a great example of the insanity that has exploded within our society due to PC and the socialist agenda driven by progressives.  The latest, but not the only, example of the madness is the high school runner who decided that being last on the men’s side wasn’t as much fun as being state champion on the girl’s side.

Imagine this: Your daughter has been training and running track for four years. She’s a senior and she’s made it to the state finals. College recruiters are in the stands and this is her day to shine (and possibly get a scholarship so you don’t have to go bankrupt trying to fund her education). Except that doesn’t happen for her because a boy, claiming to be a girl, handily steals the title from her. She’s devastated, but when asked how she feels about it, she’s terrified to be truthful that she (rightly) feels she was robbed by someone who shouldn’t have been competing against her.

“I can’t really say what I want to say, but there’s not much I can do about it,” Kate Hall said after the race, alluding to the fact that she had to compete against Andraya Yearwood, a biological boy.

This was the moment when feminism died. You could argue that it was when the feminist left refused to stand up for the rights of Muslim women who are stoned and beaten for being raped. That is a valid point. But for sure, any surviving remnant of the movement is now just as dead as the spider I encountered in the car while driving today — beaten mercilessly with a shoe (to much screaming). How can a movement that claims to be for women survive staying silent (and even siding with the man) in this scenario? That boy (who couldn’t even bother to shave his mustache) may have stolen a girl’s very future, and no one cares. I searched the usual places, like the Huffington Post and Jezebel, for articles on this travesty and came up empty. Dead silence. Are they all in an emergency meeting with Gloria Steinem and Lena Dunham, planning how they’ll explain this one away? You can’t find one feminist perspective on this story on a Google search. Why not? 

Here’s the kid.

Transgender freshman sprinter, born a male, wins two girls state championships

The new normal. It’s biting feminists in the ass.

You can tell by his grin he isn’t serious.  His dad’s comments confirm it.  You have to watch the video where the reporter is doing back flips to make sure he stays PC.  If he didn’t he would get fired or punished right? (It’s a Maoist technique. See the recent dust up over the St Louis Cardinals and the LGBT anger of a “Christian day”.)

As you might imagine, Yearwood’s dad has a different opinion.

Rahsaan Yearwood, who played college football, told the Courant “there are guys who were 350 pounds. It wasn’t fair that as a 225-pound linebacker, they came to block me, but that’s the nature of the beast.”

“As her father, I never think about it as competition,” he told the Courant. “This is not about winning and losing races. This is about the health of my teenage daughter. In terms of the fairness aspect, I don’t think about that as a father. I only think about, is my daughter happy, healthy and able to participate in what she wants to do? I don’t care if she wins or loses. I don’t care if she wins and gives the medals back. She got to compete as a girl where she feels she should compete. That’s all that matters to me.”

He told the Courant that his daughter will begin consultations about hormonal treatment in June.

Riiight…in June. AFTER the track meet. After he picks up his trophies.

Now nobody will touch this because the trangendered community has seized the “rights” argument from women feminists, just as the gays took the mantle of “civil rights” from the blacks. After years of struggle from the original group  the LGBT gangs swooped in and stole it. It’s that simple. The blacks are none to happy and neither are the feminists, but they FEAR telling the truth.  The reporter refers to the mustache wearing freshman as “she” and “her” all through the video piece.

The transgendered mess is a no go zone and nobody wants to say anything, expect Camille Pagila that is. In a long interview she addresses many issues, one of them is the ongoing battle between feminists and transgenders in Britain.

CP: Feminists have clashed with transgender activists much more publicly in the United Kingdom than here. For example, two years ago there was an acrimonious organized campaign, including a petition with 3,000 claimed signatures, to cancel a lecture by Germaine Greer at Cardiff University because of her “offensive” views of transgenderism. Greer, a literary scholar who was one of the great pioneers of second-wave feminism, has always denied that men who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery are actually “women.” Her Cardiff lecture (on “Women and Power” in the twentieth century) eventually went forward, under heavy security.

And in 2014, Gender Hurts, a book by radical Australian feminist Sheila Jeffreys, created a heated controversy in the United Kingdom. Jeffreys identifies transsexualism with misogyny and describes it as a form of “mutilation.” She and her feminist allies encountered prolonged difficulties in securing a London speaking venue because of threats and agitation by transgender activists. Finally, Conway Hall was made available: Jeffrey’s forceful, detailed lecture there in July of last year is fully available on YouTube. In it she argues among other things, that the pharmaceutical industry, having lost income when routine estrogen therapy for menopausal women was abandoned because of its health risks, has been promoting the relatively new idea of transgenderism in order to create a permanent class of customers who will need to take prescribed hormones for life.

Although I describe myself as transgender (I was donning flamboyant male costumes from early childhood on), I am highly skeptical about the current transgender wave, which I think has been produced by far more complicated psychological and sociological factors than current gender discourse allows. Furthermore, I condemn the escalating prescription of puberty blockers (whose long-term effects are unknown) for children. I regard this practice as a criminal violation of human rights.

It is certainly ironic how liberals who posture as defenders of science when it comes to global warming (a sentimental myth unsupported by evidence) flee all reference to biology when it comes to gender. Biology has been programmatically excluded from women’s studies and gender studies programs for almost 50 years now. Thus very few current gender studies professors and theorists, here and abroad, are intellectually or scientifically prepared to teach their subjects.

The cold biological truth is that sex changes are impossible. Every single cell of the human body remains coded with one’s birth gender for life. Intersex ambiguities can occur, but they are developmental anomalies that represent a tiny proportion of all human births.

In a democracy, everyone, no matter how nonconformist or eccentric, should be free from harassment and abuse. But at the same time, no one deserves special rights, protections, or privileges on the basis of their eccentricity. The categories “trans-man” and “trans-woman” are highly accurate and deserving of respect. But like Germaine Greer and Sheila Jeffreys, I reject state-sponsored coercion to call someone a “woman” or a “man” simply on the basis of his or her subjective feeling about it. We may well take the path of good will and defer to courtesy on such occasions, but it is our choice alone.

As for the La Leche League, they are hardly prepared to take up the cudgels in the bruising culture wars. Awash with the milk of human kindness, they are probably stuck in nurturance mode. Naturally, they snap to attention at the sound of squalling babies, no matter what their age. It’s up to literature professors and writers to defend the integrity of English, which like all languages changes slowly and organically over time. But with so many humanities departments swallowed up in the poststructuralist tar pit, the glorious medium of English may have to fight the gender commissars on its own.

Palgia is an honest broker of feminism.  Not a PC culturalist at all.  She sees the threat of Islam and the threat of Transgenderism as endangering feminism and by extension all the good work women have done to obtain and keep an equal footing.

What I found interesting was Palgia’s reference to the battle between feminism and transgenderism. She appears to imply that the battle is further along than what we are just starting to see here, but if you asked anyone who watches the MSM, you would not hear one story about it.  That’s because the agenda here is not to reveal what might be trouble down the road as they just continue to push something that does not fit logic or nature.

 

 

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Mueller has a problem. And why the incestuous nature of Washington threatens us all. Trump’s existence there exposes so much.

Let’s cut to the chase.  Mueller, if a truly ethical man should resign. (and he’s a inside DC lawyer…so don’t hold your breath.) Why?  Because Comey told us he leaked to the media HIS version of the truth in order to force a special counsel- which happened to turn out to be his buddy Mueller. (By accident I’m sure…hahaha!)

At this point, I want to see the email/phone logs of the acting AG in this matter- Rod Rosenstein!  That is how bad it has gotten.

Word is Mueller is hiring to help him “find the truth” former Obama and Clinton supporters. One an actual Clinton Foundation lawyer! How do you think people who believe Trump are going to react to that????

 

Robert Mueller Stacks Special Counsel with Clinton Foundation Lawyer and Deputy Assistant AG Under Obama

How can she be impartial?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeannie Rhee served for two years under Eric Holder.

According to Wilmer Hale, Jeannie Rhee served for two years, up to 2011, as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel for the US Department of Justice, where she advised the Attorney General, the White House and senior agency officials on constitutional, statutory and regulatory issues.

Lifezette has more on Mueller’s partisan picks:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sparked a mini-meltdown in the media Monday with a tweet challenging the fairness of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Gingrich, who also appeared on “The Laura Ingraham Show,” pointed to the early hires special counsel Robert Mueller has made.

“Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair,” he tweeted. “Look who he is hiring.check fec [sic] reports. Time to rethink.”

He’s not wrong about the donations. Four top lawyers hired by Mueller have contributed tens of thousands of dollars over the years to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates, including former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton.

One of the hires, Jeannie Rhee, also worked as a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation and helped persuade a federal judge to block a conservative activist’s attempts to force Bill and Hillary Clinton to answer questions under oath about operations of the family-run charity.

Campaign-finance reports show that Rhee gave Clinton the maximum contributions of $2,700 in 2015 and again last year to support her presidential campaign. She also donated $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,500 in 2011. While still at the Justice Department, she gave $250 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp.

Jeannie Rhee set her Twitter settings to private.

 

They are all in this incestuous soup together and all want Trump gone.  We don’t really see this daily, as the media does not cover it. But this is how Washington works.  Do you think an impartial outcome will the the result here? Worse, do you think Mueller will close down an investigation that will grow and grow without one scalp? (Think the Plame investigation and the “lying to the FBI” conviction of Scooter Libby.)

Powerlineblog and other have pointed out there are specific laws pertaining to Mueller and Comey, of which they are in violation.

In my post about Robert Mueller’s conflict of interest in investigating “obstruction of justice” claims based on the testimony of his friend James Comey, I ducked the legal question of whether the conflict requires Mueller to withdraw or be removed. My argument was that it provides President Trump with sufficient grounds to remove Mueller if he so chooses.

Let’s now look at legal provisions dealing with conflicts of interest in this context. 28 U.S.C. 528 provides:

The Attorney General shall promulgate rules and regulations which require the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice, including a United States attorney or a member of such attorney’s staff, from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof. Such rules and regulations may provide that a willful violation of any provision thereof shall result in removal from office.

The statute does not address “special counsel.” However, in my view they are brought under its scope by 28 CFR 600.7.

Based on the authority conferred by 28 U.S.C. 528, the Attorney General promulgated 28 CFR 45.2. It provides:

(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:

(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or

(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:

(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee’s service less than fully impartial and professional; and

(2) The employee’s participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.

(c) For the purposes of this section:

(1)Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and

(2)Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.

(d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.

The threshold question is whether Comey was “substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution” or has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution. Comey’s conduct is not the subject of Mueller’s investigation, in the sense that he isn’t the target of the investigation (though he could be if the investigation spills over into leaking). But Comey’s conduct is a partial subject, in the sense that Mueller will apparently investigate went transpired between Comey and the president — a subject that goes to the heart of any “obstruction” claim.

In any case, it seems to me that Comey has a specific and substantial interest that likely will be affected by the outcome of the investigation. Mueller may well determine whether Trump is lying, as Comey says, or that Comey is lying, as Trump insists. Comey has a specific and substantial interest in not being found to be a liar.

The next question is whether Mueller has a “close and substantial connection” with Comey “of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality?” I think so. As I have argued, they are friends and former colleagues who stood side-by-side in at least one very important legal struggle.

If the requisite personal relationship exists, the question for purposes of removal becomes whether: (1) the relationship will have the effect of rendering Mueller’s service less than fully impartial and professional or (2) Mueller’s participation would create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.

Whatever one concludes about the first prong of this test, I think it’s plain that Mueller’s participation in the investigation of “obstruction of justice” would “create an appearance of conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation.” If Mueller adopts Comey’s version of the facts, large segments of the population will question whether this is an impartial assessment, given his close relationship with Comey.

That last part is important.  Comey has testified already in public that he felt Trump did not cross into obstruction (and legally the President can’t, so there is that).  Comey testified- like a scared whiny girl- that he was too weak to resist Trump’s attempt to do nothing illegal.  Then testified he thinks Lynch did do something wrong.

I swear to God if Rod Serling came out from stage left, holding a cigarette and revealing we are all in the Twilight Zone I would not be surprised.

Image result for rod serling twilight zone

Ahhh, nope. Nobody’s going to believe this crap!

So why is a friend of Comey’s handling and investigation of Trump, which has produced no evidence during several other investigations, and the same guy- Mueller- is hiring attorneys who have a vested interest in scoring a revenge win for HRC?  Just how screwed up is that? The goal is to cripple and sideline Trump until they can get him out of office. It’s akin to the defensive player aiming at the knees of the other team’s star running back.  One good hit and he’s out for the season.

There’s a reason.  And here it is. Unelected bureaucrats, who think they are wiser than the rest of the populace, are running things and they do not want to give up the power.

Watching the ongoing clown show in Washington, Americans can be forgiven for asking themselves, “Why did we give this bunch of clowns so very much power over our nation and our lives?”

Well, don’t feel so bad, voters. Because you didn’t actually give them that much power. They just took it. That’s the thesis of Columbia Law Professor Philip Hamburger’s new book, The Administrative Threata short, punchy followup to his magisterial Is Administrative Law Unlawful? Both deal with the extraordinary — and illegitimate — power that administrative agencies have assumed in American life.

Hamburger explains that the prerogative powers once exercised by English kings, until they were circumscribed after a resulting civil war, have now been reinvented and lodged in administrative agencies, even though the United States Constitution was drafted specifically to prevent just such abuses. But today, the laws that actually affect people and businesses are seldom written by Congress; instead they are created by administrative agencies through a process of “informal rulemaking,” a process whose chief virtue is that it’s easy for the rulers to engage in, and hard for the ruled to observe or influence. Non-judicial administrative courts decide cases, and impose penalties, without a jury or an actual judge. And the protections in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (like the requirement for a judge-issued search warrant before a search) are often inapplicable.

As Hamburger writes, “Administrative power also evades many of the Constitution’s procedures, including both its legislative and judicial processes. Administrative power thereby sidesteps most of the Constitution’s procedural freedoms. Administrative power is thus all about the evasion of governance through law, including an evasion of constitutional processes and procedural rights.”

In the early days of the Republic, the franchise was limited. But as the mass of voters became larger, more diverse, and less elite, those who considered themselves the best and brightest looked to transform government into something run not by those deplorable unwashed voters but by a more congenial group. As Hamburger says, “They have gradually moved legislative power out of Congress and into administrative agencies — to be exercised, in more genteel ways, by persons like … themselves.”

 It has been, in essence, a power grab by what Hamburger calls the “knowledge class,” or what others have called the New Class: A group of managers and intellectuals who, although they may not actually be especially knowledgeable or elite in practice, regard themselves as a knowledge elite.

These “knowledge elites” are the same ones that lost us Vietnam, gave us a failed healthcare system and blew up the Middle East.  You would think they would take a pause and reconsider their approach. But no. That’s not how things are done in today’s America. They are working for themselves and the politicians who are smart enough to play along. Remember Chuck Schumer’s warning to Trump, he’d be crazy to take on the bureaucracy, they have a hundred ways to get him. We are seeing just a few.

So, why isn’t Mueller stepping down on his own, now that we all know what he already knew- he cannot be impartial.  Because that’s not part of the plan. The plan is to keep digging until they find a weak spot and attack.  You can bet old Hillary and Obama lawyers will do just that. But as Powerlineblog points out, that will lead to a civil war because half the nation will know the fix was in all along.

Trump’s presence in DC isn’t causing a blowup, it is the reaction TO his presence that is revealing the true nature of the people there.  They are willing to throw off the mantle of respectability and start cheating and lying and abusing right in front of America.

This is a war that they started.  It will be revealing and damaging.  Americans across the nation voted not just for Trump but for a chance to regain some control over their lives. Those voters are a serious bunch.  To spit in their faces, as Washington has done, may not work out they way they think it will. Somebody ought to lend them a copy of the Hunger Games series.

Image result for Hunger games city burning

Is this what they want?

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

I was wrong. The real Comey showed himself, and it isn’t pretty. No hero, just a clown.

The self massaged reputation of James Comey made me believe when he stepped out last year and told America the fix was in on the HRC investigation that he was doing the right thing for the right reasons.  His FBI had been compromised.  It had been under assault for years due to the post 9/11 PC drive started by GWB. It accelerated into political decay when Obama was elected.   (And by the way during which Mueller- now special counsel- was the head of the FBI. Yes, an incestuous pool of corruption.)

Comey was no help.  It has turned out he’s that guy who spends a career maneuvering within a bureaucracy, not quite at the top- more like number three or four- who uses his position to time moments where he can shine, by mostly criticize those above him for making mistakes.  And when the story is told by him, he’s always the hero.   The Ashcroft in the hospital and Comey as the acting AG incident is a good example.

Yet, when these types get in charge of a department, company or division, their proven methods of moving UNDER the surface don’t work well. They get exposed, and are often found wanting.  A year ago, I would have never believed this of Comey, which goes a long way to proving how effective his public reputation is.

However, today is today. The the whining, vengeful, weak man we saw in front of Congress is not a leader, and certainly not a leader of an organization like the FBI.  He said he was cowed, confused, unsure, and mystified when dealing with Trump.  He says Trump is a liar. But Lorettea Lynch, who actually did demand Comey change his wording in the HRC investigation to “matter” in order to be in line with the Hillary campaign, is not a criminal or a liar.  Nor did he admit to keeping notes on Obama, Lynch, Hillary (who WAS a target of a criminal investigation) or anyone else in the last administration.  And we know they were ALL liars!

Former FBI Director James Comey is sworn in by Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., foreground, during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, Thursday, June 8, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, Pool)

No honest man in that crew. Or they would not be there.

That is the inner workings of the “ethics” that drives Comey. I watched his testimony in part. He came across as a whining, but sanctimonious, disgruntled ex-employee.  It was painful to watch.  As a retired cop, I felt sorry for the crew in the bureau that had to look at him every day.

During Thursday’s showdown Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, fired FBI Director James B. Comey came across as less as a fearless crusader for the truth and more as a disgruntled employee upset with the boss who unceremoniously let him go.

He deliberately shared his memos about his talks with President Trump with his friend Daniel Richman, a former FBI agent and Columbia Law School professor, explicitly hoping it would lead to the appointment of a special counsel, a ploy that succeeded brilliantly. The decision to share the sensitive memos is troubling because of Mr. Comey’s “unauthorized disclosure of privileged communications,” as Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, was quick to point out.

Strangely, Mr. Comey decided not to share that same memo with Attorney General Jeff Sessions or the acting deputy attorney general, holding his information close while waiting for the right moment to strike. He felt “defamed” by the Trump administration and took direct action against the president. This was Mr. Comey’s personal revenge after losing his job.

Liberals cheered Mr. Comey when he loosely denounced the president a liar, and revealed he began compiling the memos after their very first meeting out of concerns the president would lie about what happened.

“I knew there might come a day when I might need a record of what happened not only to defend myself but to protect the FBI,” Mr. Comey said.

But during the hearing, Mr. Comey repeatedly appeared unsure of himself. He reflected that he should have acted more firmly in his dealings with the president. Mr. Comey’s indecisive and self-described “cowardly” actions are now on record and further justify why the president was right to dismiss him.

Mr. Trump fared well on the legal question on the obstruction of justice. The ex-FBI chief had to admit that he was never directly ordered to end the investigation of Russia or of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Mr. Comey did feel uncomfortable meeting with the president alone, and the president’s staff should have advised him against meeting with Mr. Comey during an ongoing investigation.

Mr. Trump expects loyalty and is transparent about his actions and motives. He felt he could confide in Mr. Comey and be honest his feelings concerning Mr. Flynn, but a “hope” is not the same thing as a direct order to an FBI director to stop an investigation.

What was particularly shocking was to see Mr. Comey play by a different set of rules depending on the president he was serving. Were there memos associated with Mr. Comey’s meetings with President Obama, or with former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch when she told Mr. Comey to describe the Hillary Clinton email probe as a “matter” rather than what it plainly was — an investigation? Why not write up memos on these private comments if he was uncomfortable with Ms. Lynch’s characterization of the Clinton probe? Yet Mr. Comey clearly distrusted Mr. Trump and began his career as a memo-writer only when Mr. Trump was heading to the White House.

This is good writing. It summarizes what happened and why Trump was right in firing him.  At this point, I don’t think it would have made a difference if Comey was fired with some deference to his position or just shot out of the cannon like the way Trump did it. Comey would have done the same thing- because this is who he is.

Mercedes, who is a great reporter, gets to the real issue here. That the vaunted “deep state” has to be handled carefully.  Comey testified in open session UNDER OATH that his leaking of privileged conversations with the President was to force a special counsel- who happens to be his frigging friend. Again- incestuous.  When you hear the professional class say “This guy is respected by both sides.” What that really means is he won’t rat out or chase down any of them.  Which is frankly sad.

Even if he missed most of his targets Thursday, Mr. Comey in his testimony still represented a needed political stress test for the president and his team. The president’s learning curve is over. Another misstep could potentially cripple this administration beyond repair.

Mr. Trump needs to understand the sensitive nature of dealing with the FBI and the intelligence community, including the need to tread carefully on issues under active legal investigation. The Comey controversy has created a dark cloud over this White House, at a time when Mr. Trump badly wants to move on to his legislative agenda.

Mr. Comey did not have the strength of character to confront the president and explain how a president should interact with a top law enforcement officer. And the president should have known better and gotten better advice from his team on how to properly interact with the FBI.

Unfortunately, the political intensity surrounding Mr. Comey is not about to end. But it will now be special counsel Robert Mueller who will be the one to decide Mr. Trump and his team’s fate — despite Mr. Comey’s failed effort to defame the president.

Robert Mueller is one of the gang. Mueller will chase down someone like Flynn for lying to the FBI, only because Flynn is also NOT one of the gang and stood against Obama’s lying (yes really lying) ways and backdoor deals with Iran.  This is how bad it is in DC.  The outsider guy who really wants to do the right thing is crushed by the insider corrupt people.  And the media rejoices.

However, Trump’s mere presence as President is making some of the DC insiders- who are comfortable sneaking around and causing problems by leaking and undermining their enemies- go simply insane. And crazy people make mistakes.

There is a growing number of lawyers and others pointing out that Comey simply cannot create work product on government time, on a government computer, concerning a privileged communication with the FREAKING PRESIDENT! and claim those memos are private.  He has to to know this. Yet where are they?  And is it legal to leak those communications to a private third party in hopes to undermine the President?  The first part is easy- they are not his.  The last part may trip Comey up. He whined his intentions were good, because after he got unfairly fired (in his, and a dwindling number of others, opinion) and he thought that he had a right to FORCE a special counsel on a lawfully elected President because he didn’t like him.

In a nutshell this is the end destination of James Comey’s long career playing the part of Diogenes, a guy looking for the last other honest man.  He carefully massaged his reputation, carefully maneuvering his way through DC. He carefully crafted out of a shaky moral center this image of a man above it all, the hero.  But  instead, he became, in his mind, the judge, jury and executioner of everyone HE thought didn’t live up to his standard, a standard that moved as needed to suit his personal gain.  He became corrupt. He became dangerous to associate with. He crafted all his stories to end with him being the hero in the final scene. Instead, he became the clown in the final play of his career.

The star of the show, James Comey, came off as a disgruntled former employee trying to save face after losing the confidence of leading Democrats and Republicans over the last two years. In fact, the account Comey gave at the hearing corroborated what President Trump has said from the beginning of this witch hunt.In the first scene, Senator Richard Burr questioned Comey about whether President Trump had ever asked him to stop the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election. Comey’s response was clear: “Not to my understanding, no.”

Comey made clear that the president never impeded the FBI’s Russia investigation, nor asked him to end it, and neither had any White House staff. There goes the first of the Democrats’ conspiracy theories.

In scene two, Comey put to rest media speculation that he might use his testimony to refute the president’s account that he was told three times he was not under investigation. The former FBI director confirmed repeatedly that President Trump was never under investigation, even going so far as to recall the direct quote where he told him that at no point was he personally under investigation.

While those two crucial moments totally undercut the left’s anti-Trump narrative, Comey’s testimony also shined a light on his motives that led to some revealing admissions.

In scene three, and the most personally damaging to Comey himself, he admitted to giving his written memos about conversations with President Trump to a friend at Columbia Law School with clear instructions to leak the information to the media. Comey acknowledged that he did so after being angered at a Tweet by President Trump, and the leak was aimed at trying to force the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the president. The blatant political hackery at play here is truly astounding coming from a man who once led an agency that holds independence as a high imperative.

Following that account, Comey gave a series of awkward “I don’t know” answers when he was repeatedly pressed about why he didn’t bring it to the president’s, or anyone else’s, attention that he thought the discussion of Michael Flynn was inappropriate.

The most significant takeaways from the entire hearing did not, in fact, involve alleged inappropriate conduct by the Trump administration, but rather by the Obama Justice Department. Though we’ve long known about Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s interfered in the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, this was the first time that Comey admitted under oath that Lynch gave him directives about how to handle that investigation. According to his testimony, Lynch asked him not to call the investigation an “investigation” but simply a “matter” – language that identically mirrored the messaging coming out of the Clinton campaign at the time. That the head of the Obama Justice Department attempted to get the FBI to use Clinton talking points is a gross abuse of power and the real obstruction of justice.

By the time the hearing concluded, the reviews were already in. Even liberal MSNBC host Chris Matthews had to admit that the left’s TrumpRussia collusion theory “came apart” in Comey’s testimony.

What pisses me off the most was I believed the guy.  I should have known better.

There are no heroes left anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Single payer- the Democrats plan all along.

Hillary was supposed to win. Obamacare collapses and the democrats would demand a single payer solution- by force is necessary- and with the help of the establishment Republicans.  Why? Because if they own your health, they own your life. They own your kid’s health…well what would you do for your kids?

But Trump won, and those who would seize even more control are thwarted.  The Republicans will just slow things down to cause trouble. The democrats will just out and out demand the change.

For years, Republicans savaged Democrats for supporting the Affordable Care Act, branding the law — with some rhetorical license — as a government takeover of health care.

Now, cast out of power in Washington and most state capitals, Democrats and activist leaders seeking political redemption have embraced an unlikely-seeming cause: an actual government takeover of health care.

At rallies and in town hall meetings, and in a collection of blue-state legislatures, liberal Democrats have pressed lawmakers, with growing impatience, to support the creation of a single-payer system, in which the state or federal government would supplant private health insurance with a program of public coverage. And in California on Thursday, the Democrat-controlled State Senate approved a preliminary plan for enacting single-payer system, the first serious attempt to do so there since then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, vetoed legislation in 2006 and 2008.

. . . . In a sign of shifting sympathies, most House Democrats have now endorsed a single-payer proposal. Party strategists say they expect that the 2020 presidential nominee will embrace a broader version of public health coverage than any Democratic standard-bearer has in decades.

A prominent labor union leader and Bernie supporter notes that there has been a “cultural shift” on health care since ObamaCare was passed.

The NYT continues:

RoseAnn DeMoro, the executive director of National Nurses United and the California Nurses Association, powerful labor groups that back single-payer care, said the issue had reached a “boiling point” on the left.

“There is a cultural shift,” said Ms. DeMoro, who was a prominent backer of Mr. Sanders. “Health care is now seen as something everyone deserves. It’s like a national light went off.”

No, not really. This is a forced change in our society by the pressure of liberal media and political lies.  The Republicans who don’t want it should push British NHS horror stories every day with the lead- “And this is what socialized medicine looks like.”

Image result for problems with the nhs 2016 waiting room pics

Waiting for services they cannot get. Welcome to single payer.

But they don’t, which makes you think they may want to foist it upon us.

Part of that effort is to convince people healthcare is a right.  Access to healthcare in America should be available to all.  Coverage should not be mandatory or expensive.  Somehow, the democrats have managed to force one on us and by doing so, created the other.  And at the same time convince many stupid Facebook/social media types that the mess is a “right.”

If the answer to their funding problem is the typical leftist go-to of higher taxes, they may be in for a surprise.  Voters may support single-payer health care in theory, but when they find out how much it costs, their support dwindles.

Reason reports:

There’s one other thing that’s fairly consistent among the states that have proposed single-payer systems in recent years: When voters find out how much a single-payer system will cost, they are much less likely to support one.

Single-payer advocates learned that lesson last year in Colorado at the ballot box, as the state turned blue for Hillary Clinton even as 79 percent of voters said “no” to single-payer health care.

Other polling bears out that relationship. A recent poll commissioned by the California Association of Health Underwriters, found that 66 percent of California residents are opposed to single-payer health care. Opposition increased to 75 percent when those polled were told the price tag for the system is $179 billion annually—which is actually lower than what the legislative analysis suggests.

Democrats are aware of this, of course, and as Reason notes, their idea for bypassing these pesky fiscal and public support issues is to regain control of Congress and the White House.

A single-payer system at the federal level would have the same fiscal problems, of course, but unlike state governments that are required to balance their budgets annually, a nationally single-payer system would just be added to the federal government’s ever-growing tab.

That’s not necessarily better, but it would offer something of a solution to the problem of how to pay for a hugely expensive new entitlement. Until Democrats control the federal government, though, state-level efforts like the ones in New York and California are likely to continue percolating.

This may be their goal, but it does not play well with voters who don’t like the idea of crushing new taxes and/or of adding trillions to our national debt.  Who can forget Bernie squirming unhappily when pressed on how he’d pay for his “Medicare for All” boondoggle?

All about the taxes and the control. The government taxes you for bad healthcare thus keeping billions of your money, but makes it the only girl at the dance, so you submit.

We see the politics of Social Security, Medicare, Welfare. We see the struggle of states and the nation trying to figure out how to cut costs and save money, because eventually they will run out. Do you want that politics and pressure getting between you and your family’s healthcare?

That’s the trouble with all of this.  You hear single payer, start running and take your family with you.

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

“Run, Hide, Die”…The British government’s advice to the public.

During another terrorist attack.  This is the UK Daily Mail headlines.

BTW- nothing prevents this from happening here.

Terrifying moment three Jihadis were shot dead after killing seven and hurting 48: Gang yell ‘This is for Allah’ after mowing down crowd on London Bridge then going on stabbing frenzy

  • Seven people were killed and at least 48 others injured in the attack on London Bridge and Borough Market 
  • The men drove the white van in an ‘S shape’ across the bridge at 50mph, mowing down up to 20 pedestrians
  • They continued driving to Borough Market where they left the vehicle and began ‘randomly stabbing’ victims
  • Attackers stabbed revellers with 12-inch hunting knives at busy pubs and bars as others ran for their lives 
  • Witnesses described seeing victims with their throats cut while others fought off attackers with pint glasses
  • Police shot dead the terrorists – one of whom was wearing an Arsenal shirt – within eight minutes of initial call
  • Today armed police raided a block of flats in Barking, east London, as a major investigation was underway 
  • Terror attack comes just 12 days after the Manchester attack and 10 weeks after the Westminster atrocity

The British government, unwilling or unable at this point to do anything about the surging murderous rampages by the “peaceful Asians” of Britain, have told the people under attack “To run, hide, tell.”

Petrified bystanders were pictured fleeing the chaos after the jihadists started the rampage at 10.08pm on Saturday night 

Just run, then hide, then die.

Taxi driver Radoslav Petrov witnessed injured pedestrians receiving assistance from passers by, left, moments after three jihadis ploughed through them on London Bridge last night 

Taxi driver video of injured and the dead on the bridge.

 

Here is the tweet.

As God as my witness my first thoughts were this.

“If the terrorists ran over members of Parliament and stabbed the uber rich, who want to disrupt the world society for a cheap labor, then you would see the reaction people demand. But until then, run little sheep and hide and then die in place.”

In America- we uncivilized heathens as the Brits believe- have this thing called the Second Amendment.  True it does allow for people of all types- including criminals- to have access to weapons.  On the other hand, the VAST majority of citizens in our nation are good, brave and willing to shoot bad guys in the face before the police can eventually show up.

But in Britain, their politicians took away their rights for self defense, slowly but persistently, for decades. Now, when confronted by the Evil the same politicians refuse to address, the people have no choice but to run, hide and die.

Jamie, a witness who was in Black & Blue in Rochester Walk said: ‘We hid under the table and people came into the restaurant and knocked a bunch of stuff over, like the till.

‘And then we ran into the the kitchen, where there was a bunch of other people and a guy had been stabbed and he was cut and he was bleeding quite a lot.’

He added that they waited in the kitchen for ‘quite a while’ before they were evacuated.

A woman, who did not want to be named, added: ‘We were in the restaurant and we just saw three guys come in, stabbed someone in the face and someone in the stomach.

‘One of them had a big knife, then he came in and walked around the restaurant, I guess they just kind of stabbed anyone that they saw and knocked things on the ground and then we just hid.’

Gerard Vowls, 47, who was in a pub near London Bridge, said he threw chairs and glasses at the attackers in a bid to stop them entering.

He told The Guardian: ‘They kept coming to try to stab me – they were stabbing everyone. Evil, evil people.’

One witness reported seeing a van crash into a lamppost by the Barrowboy and Banker pub past the bridge. She added: ‘Just trying to get away at the moment. There are no trains leaving so we’re just panicking a little.’

Barman Alex Martinez was forced to take shelter in a bin when a knifeman stormed the Borough restaurant in which he worked.

I don’t want to end up in a Second amendment debate, because this is soooo much bigger. But here is what happens in our country when a bad guy shows up.

Back to the real problem.

In the eighties I had the opportunity to meet and work with a commander from the London Metropolitan Police.  A really nice guy sent over to review one of our programs. During that time, he had a chance to see how our city patrolled the streets.  His comments were enlightening.  He asked why our patrolmen were armed.  I said it was our way of policing. He took a rather haughty attitude and suggested “Perhaps you should try to patrol without your firearms!”

To which I said, “Well we would, but we don’t want to end up robbed and in the trunks of our cars BECAUSE we would be the only unarmed people out there!”

To this day, I wonder about this commander or his replacement, and if their arrogant attitude has changed a little because their world has changed a lot.

Back then, unarmed police were all they needed. Most of Britain was very civilized.  In fact, back then if a SINGLE police officer was killed anywhere in the nation, the whole nation paused and mourned.  (Imagine that here!)

But that was before the surge of third world Muslims took over their cities and created mayhem.  I would laugh at the haughty Brit, but the victims aren’t idiots like him- but regular people like we see every night.  And now THIS is the British police response.

Armed police on St Thomas Street

Funny. They seemed REALLY armed to me!

I wonder if that commander thinks this is too much!

Of course PM May does the political thing-

Prime Minister Theresa May has just emerged from Downing Street to make her statement.

Mrs May said many of the 48 people injured in the London  terror attack have “life-threatening” injuries.

She said: “The police responded with great courage and great speed.”

She added: “Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their loved ones.”

The Prime Minister said there was “far too much tolerance of extremism in our  country” and called for it to be tackled head on.

Uh…yeah…right. This coming from a woman who runs a nation that elected a radical MUSLIM mayor in London. The same guy who publicly stated all Britain needs to get used to Muslim terrorist attacks.  It’s a “my peeps” moment. And he is still the mayor.

Terrorist attacks on major European cities are beginning to feel routine. But they shouldn’t be. This isn’t normal. The Islamic terrorist reportedly blew himself up with a device meant to send nails flying into human flesh. At the local children’s hospital in Manchester, doctors are removing shrapnel from the faces of young girls. This isn’t normal. It never was. It never is. And it will never be normal.

But that’s not what Sadiq Khan, the Muslim mayor of London, thinks.

In September 2016, Khan actually had the gall to say that citizens in big cities should just get used to terrorism.

At a glitzy event in New York City called “Building Progressive, Inclusive Cities” alongside his counterpart in the Big Apple, far-left Mayor Bill de Blasio, Khan talked about the virtues of immigration and multiculturalism, explaining that some sacrifices had to be made.

Terror attacks are “part and parcel of life in a big city,” Khan later told the Evening Standard just hours after police foiled multiple terror attacks in New Jersey and New York.

Once hailed as a “progressive” Muslim that would inevitably challenge regressive Islamists, Khan echoed the same excuse shared by European leaders across the West. After a series of terror attacks in France, the French Prime Minister told his countrymen that France “will have to live with terrorism.” In other words, terrorism is the new normal.

Serving as London’s mayor for less than a year, Khan has a history of controversial remarks.

During the London mayoral election, Khan apologized after a video surfaced showing the Labour party official calling moderate Muslims “Uncle Toms.”

You reap what you sow.  This guy is practicing “kitman”.  Being the nice guy until his people- through immigration and demographics- can seize control of the general politics and population.  Now you see his REAL personality.

And yes, you are the idiots you that elected him in another attempted appeasement effort.

When..will…you…learn? Like I pointed out in an earlier post– this is akin to the WW2 government inviting 2.5 divisions of Nazis into the country to they could “assimilate” to the British way.  Who would think that would be a good idea?

There is only one way to fight a war between civilizations- win it.

Three Jihadi terrorists were shot dead by armed police after killing seven people and injuring at least 48 more during a horrific knife rampage in central London last night. This photo appears to show the suspects lying dead on the ground outside Wheatsheaf pub in Borough Market. The man in the centre of the image appears to be wearing an Arsenal football shirt

This is what happens when you meet terrorists with bullets.

Right now the other guys are winning. Not because of numbers or superior technology.  But because they have something they believe in and are willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill MORE of the infidels.

On the other hand, Europeans and Britains cannot figure out what they are even fighting for anymore (thank PC and multiculturalism), and they cannot understand that sacrifice is exactly what is going to be needed.

They will have to sacrifice their precious PC world and start deporting any potential threat and shutting down the anti western Muslim leaders.  Many are on the dole anyway, so just jack them up, send them back to some third world shithole.  If that doesn’t work, send them back to some shithole desert and drop them off.

Maybe on the walk out they’ll realize their way isn’t the best way.

Or maybe they just die of thirst.

Either way, it’s a win.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment