Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Wrong righted redux

Been waiting to see what Steyn would have to say about Trump’s pardon Mark’s friend and former employer Conrad Black.

You have the “right to a fair trial,” but U.S. prosecutors win 99 per cent of the cases that go to court — a success rate that would embarrass Kim Jong Un and Saddam Hussein. Indeed, the feds win 97 per cent without ever going near court. In 2007, on the first day of Conrad Black’s trial on the 12th floor of the Mies van der Rohe skyscraper that houses Chicago’s dozens of federal courtrooms, I went looking for somewhere to make a discreet call on my cellphone. There were people everywhere — reporters, lawyers, spouses, curious deputy attorneys dropping in from neighbouring offices, a fan of mine wanting me to autograph my Broadway book to his pal John Mahoney from “Frasier”… Eventually, I pushed open a door and found myself in an empty courtroom. So I phoned from there in complete privacy. When others attending the trial discovered the room, I went to the empty courtroom further down the corridor. And, when in turn that grew popular as a handsomely paneled telephone booth, I went to the empty courtroom upstairs, or downstairs.

So many courtrooms, and no trials. Because, when the odds of not losing are one in 100, who goes to court?

Americans who know anything about the country’s evil and depraved “justice” system grasp that central fact. It’s only rubes who say “let the process play out” or “if you haven’t done anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to fear.” For a start, by the time the process “plays out,” you’ll be broke and scavenging from dumpsters (as Trump’s fallen National Security honcho Michael Flynn learned, shortly before copping a plea). Second, from a prosecutorial point of view, “if you haven’t done anything wrong” they can still get you on misremembering to the FBI in a matter for which there’s no underlying crime (as Martha Stewart discovered), or, alternatively, on Robert Mueller’s second-favourite process crime of hanging out with too many foreigners in alleged breach of the “Foreign Agents Registration Act,” which Trump aide George Papadopoulos told me recently Mueller had threatened him with. (I met most Aussie cabinet ministers of the John Howard years, so I’m undoubtedly guilty on that front, even before you factor in dinner with Jason Kenney and a bit of chit-chat with Maxime Bernier).

It’s a corrupt system heavily reliant on blackmail. But its crude thuggish simplicity concentrates the mind, and thus everyone gets it. Which is why, when the dismantling of Conrad Black’s business empire began 16 years ago, the rich and powerful were the first to abandon him: whatever will be will be, but one thing’s for certain — Conrad’s screwed, he’s over, cut him loose now. 

This is a well-deserved crisping of America’s dysfunctional, disgraceful, warped “justice” system—as Steyn rightly says, a system evil, depraved, and corrupt to its core. Our Founding ideal of a speedy trial before an impartial jury of one’s peers has been reduced to no more than the punchline to a wholly unfunny joke; the endless prosecutorial manipulation and dirty-deal-making that has brought us to our sorry “the process is the punishment” state of affairs is but one of the factors guaranteeing that true justice will only rarely and accidentally be found within fifty miles of any courthouse in the land.

I’ve been telling both family and friends for years that our abominable system is set up so that, once they find themselves caught up in its crushing gears, it will be damned near impossible to get themselves out. Sadly, it has proved to be entirely true for more than just one of ’em. Alas, this is yet another of those issues for which I have no solution to offer—for which there may not even be a workable one at all, in fact. But one way or another, the system WILL change. It must.

Share

A wrong, righted

The first of many, it is to be hoped.

Only once before, 18 years ago, had I received a telephone call from an incumbent president of the United States, prior to Monday of last week, and I had not spoken to the current president since he took office. When my assistant said there was a call from the White House, I picked up, said “Hello” and started to ask if this was a prank, (suspecting my friends in the British tabloid media), but the caller spoke politely over me: “Please hold for the president,” and two seconds later probably the best known voice in the world said “Is that the great Lord Black?” I said “Mr. President, you do me great honor telephoning me.”

He could not have been more gracious and quickly got to his point, that he was granting me a full pardon, that would “Expunge the bad wrap you got.” He had followed the case closely and offered to come to give evidence at my trial in Chicago in 2007 on one of the counts that was later an acquittal. He said that there would be some controversy, “But you can handle that better than anyone.” I asked “Do you authorize me to say that your motivation is that it was an unjust verdict?” He checked with the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, who was in the room, if this would be a problem legally, and was told and affirmed to me that I could say that was his motive and that he was reversing an unjust verdict. “We’ve known each other a long time, but that wasn’t any part of the reason. Nor was any of the supportive things you’ve said and written about me.” I suggested that he knew ”better than anyone” the antics of some U.S. prosecutors. (I had had Robert Mueller as director of the FBI, which we caught installing illegal bugging devices in our home in New York and in many falsehoods; James Comey as deputy attorney general, and Patrick Fitzgerald, now Comey’s counsel, as U.S. attorney in Chicago. They were all, as my distinguished caller on Monday has described Comey, “bad cops.”) We moved briefly on to generalities, greetings to wives, I thanked him for his call and again for the purpose of his call, and the conversation ended.

It was never anything but a confluence of unlucky events, the belligerence of several corporate governance charlatans, and grandstanding local and American judges, all fanned by an unusually frenzied international media showing exceptional interest in the case because I was a media owner. The rock-slide began in 2003 when it came to light that some payments from our American to our Canadian company and to certain executives, including me, though fully revealed in public filings, had not been fully authorized.

Of course, the damage was already done.

As the controversy continued, Local Toronto judges and the Ontario Securities Commission prevented us from running the company, where there was no accounting fraud, hard profitable assets, and $2 billion of shareholder equity, all of which was squandered in poor administration and greedily consumed by court-appointed or sanctioned lawyers and accountants and the relentless intrusions of regulators seeking headlines and not the shareholders’ interest.

The vaporization of two billion dollars of shareholder value affected tens of thousands of families in all parts of Canada and the United States. With aching slowness the case against me disintegrated. Of the 17 counts in 2005, four, including money-laundering and perjury, were abandoned. Nine others were acquittals by a prodigiously un-Solomonic jury, many of whom slept through the proceedings.

On May 7, 2012, I went directly from Miami Federal Prison to the airport and onto a chartered plane and returned to my home in Toronto after an absence of five years. It was seven years less a day after that that President Trump called me. I am now, at last, officially not guilty even in the conviction-mad United States. None of this would have been the subject of a criminal case in any other serious jurisdiction. It was for this fiction that I spent three years and two weeks in prisons and endured significant official persecution in Canada, and the great companies my associates and I built over more than thirty years were torn down, driven into bankruptcy and destroyed, while the trans-border corporate governance hypocrites stuffed a third of a billion dollars into their pockets in ill-gotten professional fees.

I did have the satisfaction of winning the greatest libel settlement in Canadian history ($5 million) from the egregious Richard Breeden, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the other authors of the infamous special committee report of 2004, which really poured gasoline on the fire and ignited the criminal charges. The American criminal justice system is frequently and largely evil; I was convicted for attempted obstruction of injustice. It was never anything but a smear job.

Three years in prison; a multi-billion dollar business destroyed, its who-even-knows-how-many employees thrown out of work; a rightfully-earned personal fortune zeroed out; years and years of hassle, humiliation, anxiety, and surreal, slow-mo destruction. Over a decade and a half of abuse while Grond crawled relentlessly on, shredding everything and everyone caught up in its ravenous maw into bloody pulp.

After having been so ruinously tormented—personally and professionally bled white—at its gratuitous instigation, I’d say Conrad Black is being entirely too generous when he says the American “justice” system is only “frequently and largely evil.” It is WHOLLY so—distorted, dysfunctional, and perverse through and through, incapable of rendering true justice except by accident or happenstance.

Share

Christianity, liberty, and their enemies

By their fruits shall ye know them.

In the late M. Stanton Evans’ remarkable, critically important book The Theme Is Freedom, he develops a brilliant case for the proposition that political freedom depends upon the acknowledgement of an authority higher than any temporal authority: i.e., God. He further argues that of all the belief systems that have ever been followed, Christianity is the only one that emphasizes individual freedom as the rightful condition of men, to be protected from the encroachments of temporal powers. The United States of America, a near to uniformly Christian country for most of its history, is the modern society in which this coupling of religious belief to liberty has been most clearly demonstrated.

Well, our nation’s Founders would certainly seem to agree with that, yeah.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Funny how the rise to power of the fascist Left, the rapid escalation of encroachment on American liberty, and the en masse abandonment of Christianity since the 60s all seem to coincide, ain’t it? Funny, too, how much effort those same Progressivists have spent on rejiggering the Founders as being either skeptical at best about Christianity, openly hostile to it, or considered themselves “Deists”—a manipulative oversimplification that blithely disregards many direct statements on the subject made by the Founders themselves.

Back to Francis.

Given that premise, does it not make sense that they who seek to eradicate human freedom should target Christianity first and foremost? Does it not suggest that anyone you hear ridiculing Christians or denigrating Christianity should be viewed with a degree of suspicion?

It is an irony to pin all the meters against their stops that they who denigrate Christianity cannot argue against it on any rational grounds. They denounce it as “superstition,” “fear of death,” and other irrelevancies. They refuse to treat with its prescriptions…because those prescriptions directly oppose what they seek: power for themselves and their fellow-travelers.

God Himself has only ten rules for us. He asks nothing more. How dare any temporal authority suggest, explicitly or implicitly, that His rules don’t bind us? And how dare any temporal authority demand more than does He?

The enemies of Christianity, one and all, are totalitarian in ambition. That is: they seek the power to decide what is compulsory and what is forbidden, without any boundaries to the scope of their authority. Christians know that this is wrong. We decry it. We protest against it. In reply, our enemies ridicule us, drive us out of the public square, criminalize living by our beliefs, and ultimately exterminate us.

Progressivism is a religion its own self—a particularly jealous one, one that doesn’t like competition. Might go a long way, too, towards explaining their strange affiliation with Islam. I mean, aside from all the gay-hating and woman-oppressing, they DO have a lot in common: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, intolerance for all other beliefs, and no problem at all with using violence to back it all up, just for starters.

Share

Shadow government shenanigans

Dirty, through and through.

Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained 44 pages of records from the State Department through court-ordered discovery revealing that the Obama White House was tracking a December 2012 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking records concerning then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of an unsecure, non-government email system. Months after the Obama White House involvement, the State Department responded to the requestor, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), falsely stating that no such records existed.

“Tracking” them? They were ignoring them. Actually, defying them. The long of it is here. The short of it?

The short of this is that Hillary kept all her official emails on her personal server. When outside parties would make requests, they would only search her unused official accounts and then respond back that no records existed. All the while, they knew Hillary was doing business outside of official channels in a way that clearly subverted FOIA laws.

What we are seeing here is a pattern of continual lying by the Obama administration and its officials about Clinton’s use of a private email server. Furthermore, they did so to directly avoid FOIA requests which were lawfully supposed to be fulfilled.

You are not allowed to simply say “whoops, that’s on my personal account so that’s not subject to FOIA” for obvious reasons. It would allow widespread corruption.

Clinton is bulletproof so nothing will come of this, but it’s just another in the long list of bad, possibly illegal behavior by her and the Obama administration. This entire thing deserves a real investigation and not the whitewashing it got under James Comey. Anyone that opposes that is only doing so for partisan reasons.

Precisely so. Separate, but very much related:

The nature of the government’s surveillance on me and my family is forensically proven and not subject to legitimate question. Yet, unlike with the discoveries about James Rosen and AP, the government has yet to issue its mea culpa. And there’s a reason.

As bad as they were, the other known instances of journalists being spied upon happened under cover of court orders, albeit ones issued in secrecy. But the government spying on me was not done under the authority of a court warrant. That’s why my case is even more dangerous than the others. It implies that the scope of government improperly turning its intel tools on its own citizens, including journalists and political enemies, could be far more extensive than anyone realizes.

How do I know there was no warrant in my case? Not only did inside sources tell me this, but it was also confirmed to me by the Department of Justice inspector general. With no warrant, it means I was perhaps caught up in so-called “incidental” spying upon other figures. Intel sources have told me that when aggressive government agents want to listen in on somebody but know they cannot justify a warrant, they simply find a target around that person and capture their communications in the incidental spying.

Long before the 2016 presidential campaign, confidential sources had alerted me to longstanding misuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court system and the erosion of protections when it came obtaining permission for wiretaps and other surveillance methods. So, the election debacle came of no surprise. I saw it as an extension of years of improper manipulation. It now appears to me as though the effort to target those surrounding Donald Trump had more to do with intel officials’ concern that a President Trump  might dig into these longstanding surveillance abuses with the help of none other than Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

It was no secret in the intel community that Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama, was not only aware of long-standing intel agency surveillance excesses, but was also planning to clean house. In the end, Flynn was unable to do the job because he got wrapped up in the Trump-Russia allegations. Funny, that.

Ain’t it. Ain’t it just.

So since the DoJ won’t do its job, I’m left to self-fund my own pursuit of justice in civil court. As I have learned in the process, the fight is much bigger than my own. If the government isn’t held responsible for its unwarranted intrusions in my case, according to my lawyers and a dissenting appellate who just sided with us, the government will have a precedent that provides it with a free pass to spy on any U.S. citizen for any reason with no fear of punishment.

Sadly, the orcs roosting in Morder On The Potomac care not a whit for precedent, permission, or propriety. They do whatever they want, and worry about the flimsy rationalizations for their rampant illegalities when they must. Attkisson is by no means wrong in seeking justice for herself and her colleagues victimized by the rogue, tyrannical abomination now (mis)ruling us all. Nor is she wrong on both the law and the principles underpinning it, which have been flung down and danced upon. But her naivete concerning where all this is likely to go is touching at best. And her apparent belief that our conscienceless Deep State masters consider themselves constrained by legality, the Constitution, decency, or any other damned thing is beyond naive; it’s foolish, if not downright delusional.

Share

Uncle Peter, my smelling salts!

Can we run this woman for president?

Smoke, Drink and Eat What You Want, Norway’s Public Health Minister Says

Why…why…why…that’s OUTRAGEOUS! This is the NYT, so the photo caption you’d expect comes along with it to make sure nobody misses the point:

Sylvi Listhaug, a right-winger, was put in charge of public health after previously resigning as justice minister over comments she made about terrorism.

A “right-winger.” Well, naturally. Say, anybody remember the last time the words “left-winger” appeared in the Times? Anybody?

It was a most unusual message from a health official: People should be allowed to eat, drink and smoke as they see fit.

Norway’s new minister in charge of public health said this week that adults did not need government lectures about what to put in their bodies, but it sounded a bit like she was telling people to go ahead and indulge. Critics protested that her remarks were damaging, particularly coming from someone in her position.

“I think people should be allowed to smoke, drink and eat as much red meat as they like,” Sylvi Listhaug, the government’s minister for the elderly and public health, said in an interview posted on Monday on the website of NRK, Norway’s state broadcaster. “The government may provide information, but I think people in general know what is healthy and what is not.”

They surely do. And free people would be allowed to choose whether to indulge in personal habits, hobbies, and behaviors whether meddlesome government “experts” approve of them or not.

“I fear that this will set public health efforts back for decades, and that this will compromise the general understanding among Norwegians of the health consequences of tobacco and alcohol use,” Anne Lise Ryel, secretary general of Norway’s Cancer Society, said in a statement.

She called for public health to be removed from Ms. Listhaug’s portfolio, saying that “she seems to lack understanding of what public health really means and what her role as minister in that area should be.”

And YOU, Mzx Ryel, definitely lack understanding of what government’s proper role in this area should be.

Ms. Listhaug said that people who smoked felt like “pariahs” in Norway, and that she would not be the “moral police” in government. She echoed comments made by Austria’s far right, defending freedom of choice in opposing antismoking legislation.

The Freedom Party is part of the governing coalition in Austria, and its leader, Heinz-Christian Strache, the vice chancellor and minister for sport, is an avid smoker. The party last year blocked rules that would have banned smoking in restaurants, as it commonly is elsewhere in the European Union.

Pardon me for indulging my out-of-control, unhealthy habit of making bad word-play jokes and all, but: what a breath of fresh air this is. The bits I bolded are particularly refreshing.

“Where do we send these smokers in the end?” she asked. “Are they going to have to go into the woods or up on a mountaintop or down to the docks in order just to take a drag?”

Not a problem. Eventually, if the Busybody Left fascists have their way, there’ll be camps set up for that sort of thing.

Via Glenn, who adds: “Given the dreadful — and often deadly — record of government nutrition advice in my lifetime this is entirely sensible.” It is that—just plain old common sense, nothing more. How depressing it is that once commonly-held principles like government restraint and keeping one’s nose well out of other people’s business have come to seem so shocking and outlandish.

Share

Bust ’em up, shut it down

Laura Hollis presents an idea whose time has surely come.

As long as we’re contemplating changes to the way we elect the president, or to the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, let’s not exclude the legislative branch from the party.

But I’m not proposing that we reform Congress. I’m arguing that we should abolish it.

At this point, why do we need it? We have plenty of independent agencies, statutes and regulations; we don’t need any more. We don’t need any more taxes. And as for confirmation of federal judges? Each state can send two state senators to do the job that the U.S. Senate has done. They surely could not behave worse than what we saw with the Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.

None of these megalomaniacs pays the slightest heed to the principle that Congress’ powers are limited. In 1791, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Congress has either ceded or overstepped its constitutional authority since long ago. Would we really be worse off without a federal legislature?

Congress is a dysfunctional, staggeringly corrupt shitpit filled to the rafters with arrogant, parasitic career politicians—a breed the Founders rightly abhorred. Almost all of them have failed by every measure to live up to the hopes of the voters who sent them there. They use their position to enrich themselves at the nation’s expense; their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution is blandly made mock of six days a week, and twice on Sundays. Shut the whole comedy act down, turn the building into a museum or something, and force the deer ticks and leeches infesting the place to go out and make themselves an honest living for once in their squandered lives.

I know Hollis is probably just kidding around here, but I ain’t. Well, mostly.

Share

Chickens, roost, all that

As the man himself has reportedly said, they’re poking the wrong Barr.

Democrats, as expected, tried to cloud the conclusions by suggesting there was too much smoke in the president’s actions for there not to be fire somewhere. The best hope they had was a letter from Mueller telling Barr he was unhappy with the AG’s initial four-page letter on the report’s conclusions, saying it “did not fully capture” the scope of the entire 450-page report.

Barr called the letter a “bit snitty,” and countered the criticism by saying he had moved quickly to release the entire report, minus minimal redactions, and the whole world could see what Mueller had found — and didn’t find.

It was a legitimate, if thin, line of questioning, but Dems didn’t like the answer and lost it again. Obviously frustrated that their main talking point for the entire Trump presidency has come up empty, they savaged Barr and accused him of covering up for a corrupt ­president.

It was politics at its most dishonest as they tried to argue that up is down and black is white. Barr was mostly stoic, but allowed himself a brief moment to brilliantly summarize the outlandish effort to twist reality.

“How did we get to the point where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians, accused of being treasonous and accused of being a Russian agent, and the evidence now is that that was without a basis?” he asked. “And two years of his administration have been dominated by allegations that have now been proven false. But to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think the Mueller report had found the opposite.”

No better, more concise statement has been made about the bankrupt nature of the Democratic Party and its leaders. They bet everything on Mueller validating their Big Lie of Russia, Russia, Russia, and now they have nothing.

Barr’s comportment as AG so far has been exemplary: quiet, judicious, and straightforward. Exhibit A:

In mid-February, shortly after he was sworn-in, Barr instructed Mueller’s team to identify any grand jury material in the final report “so we could redact that material and prepare the report for public release as quickly as we could.” Barr confirmed his order during his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning. But Mueller did not abide by that request, and instead submitted a raw report without suggested redactions.

Since the report had not been vetted by the special counsel’s office, Barr explained, and it would have taken at least three weeks to protect sensitive information in the document, he decided to compose a summary of the report’s conclusions in order to partially satisfy the public’s interest.

“I made the determination that we had to put out some information about the bottom line,” Barr told the committee. “The body politic was in a high state of agitation. There was massive interest in learning what the bottom line results of Bob Mueller’s investigation was, particularly as to collusion. Former government officials were confidently predicting that the president and members of his family were going to be indicted. So I didn’t feel that it was in the public interest to allow this to go on for several weeks.”

A wise move by an honest man, in stark contrast with the worm Mueller’s greasy slithering. In light of Barr’s above statement we now return to Goodwin for another excellent, penetrating Barr quote, leaving no reason to wonder why the Democrat-Socialists hate him so much.

At one point, he talked of possible “overreach” by top officials, then added: “But what we have to be concerned about is a few people at the top getting into their heads that they know better than the American people.”

Perfectly, entirely correct. The trouble being, this attitude is the very cornerstone of Progressivism. It always has been; it underpins absolutely everything they do and say. Without it, they have no real reason to exist at all.

At another point, he said, “We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon.”

Which is a tactic every bit as fundamental to Progressivism as the sacrament of “rule by expert” is. Barr appears to be a no-nonsense sort of man with a crystal-clear understanding of what his duty as AG is, what his oath to uphold the Constitution means, and no intention whatsoever of brooking any interference from “higher loyalty” types who are in reality nothing more than shifty, corrupt weasels maneuvering in support of a hyper-partisan agenda. It’s like this:

Barr had apparently masterminded the most inept cover-up in history, first by accurately laying out the outcome of the special counsel’s investigation. Then, after some light redactions (none instigated by the president), by releasing the report to the public so the entire world could read it.

Now, if a fresh observer to the Russia collusion circus only heard from Democrats, he might not know that the Mueller report had been public for weeks — sifted through and debated extensively. He certainly wouldn’t know that no criminality was uncovered. But most people heard something else. And Barr’s greatest sin had been preempting the collusion spin for the first time.

In his initial letter, the attorney general informed the public, before media was able to manipulate and confuse the core findings, that, despite its best efforts, the special counsel — an open-ended, unimpeded investigation with virtually no oversight — couldn’t find evidence to corroborate the prevailing myth that had been perpetuated for more than two years by Democrats and the political media.

By accurately conveying that the investigation had exonerated Trump and his administration of criminal conspiracy or coordination with the Russians, two years of ostensibly serious reporting was exposed as little more than resistance fan fiction. Rather than take a moment’s self-reflection about how their actions had caused unprecedented political chaos, undermined trust in the electoral system and crowded out legitimate coverage of the presidency, the entire collusion industry just moved its frenzied focus onto obstruction.

Well, under oath, the attorney general confirmed that he had spoken to Mueller on the phone and that the special counsel had been “very clear” that the AG’s letter laying out the conclusions was not inaccurate. There’s been no evidence to contradict his claim.

The AG’s letter had also accurately conveyed that Mueller, who it seems spent a lot of his efforts ferreting out unseemly Trumpian outbursts rather than finding nefarious Russians, punted on charges of obstruction. Volume II of the Mueller report, on the issue of obstruction, reads like a political document meant to incite Democrats into doing what the investigation did not. And that is Barr’s other sin: refusing to play Mueller’s game.

Anybody still wondering why they hate him? The most effective endorsement for Barr, though, comes from none other than the irredeemable scumbucket Adam Schittforbrains:

The attorney general of the United States misled the country about an investigation implicating the president. Then he lied to Congress. Then he did something worse: He effectively said that the president of the United States is above the law.

William Barr should resign.

When Mueller finished his nearly two-year investigation, Barr could have released Mueller’s own summaries. He instead chose to write his own summary, and one that mischaracterized Mueller’s findings and conclusions.

Not according to Mueller it didn’t, Schittbag.

In his March 27 letter, Mueller stated that Barr’s actions had undermined a central purpose of the special counsel regulations, to “assure full public confidence in the outcome” of the investigation. Mueller was right, but Barr’s actions and statements have done far worse than that. They have undermined public confidence in the independence of the DOJ and the fair administration of justice.

Nope, not hardly. That was already taken care of by Comey and his filthy crew, scrambling around desperately to get Ogabe and Hillary!™, among plenty of others, clear of a due and proper reckoning for election-tampering by using the DoJ to illegally spy on Trump. Among plenty of other things.

In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1, Barr gave no convincing defense of his actions, nor his false statements to Congress, nor why the obstruction of justice laws do not apply to a president who instructs those around him to lie in an effort to conceal his actions. Instead, he said the president can end a criminal investigation simply because he thinks it’s “unfair” or unwarranted: “I think the department’s position would be that the president can direct the termination or the replacement of a special counsel.”

Seems a little Constitutional refresher might be helpful for ya, genius: the DoJ is part of the Executive branch, which is run by and subordinate to, y’know, the CHIEF EXECUTIVE. He can fire, hire, direct, initiate, terminate, or rearrange anyfucking thing he wants in the branch he is in charge of—within the Constitutional constraints placed on his own office, of course.

That’s more than enough of that garbage, I think; whenever we want any more shit from Schitt, we can always squeeze his enormous head. The day I’m willing to humbly sit back and take lessons on the Constitution from a devious Democrat-Socialist mediocrity like him is…well, I assure one and all that that day just ain’t coming.

Go get ’em, Mr Barr. Go get ’em all, each and every one; let the guilty parties be brought to justice, and cram it all right down Schitt and Co’s throats until they choke and fucking die.

Update! “Lied to Congress,” was it? Bullschitt.

The real problem is that Mueller wanted Barr to execute a public-relations hit on Trump and wasn’t happy that Barr confined the summary to the bottom-line conclusions. Barr said he didn’t want to attempt to summarize the entire report and would let the report speak for itself. He has never deviated from that explanation and Mueller’s letter points to no inaccuracy or misleading information.

Thus, Barr’s answer was 100 percent accurate.

Barr has now revealed that Mueller made a conscious choice to salt the report with unsegregated grand jury material. It wasn’t until after Barr released his March 24 summary that Mueller redacted the summaries from the report. Barr wasn’t interested in making a press release for the president’s enemies. That makes him an enemy of the juggernaut. That’s his real crime.

We just learned that the Justice Department sent a less-redacted Mueller report to Congress and that the Democrats haven’t bothered to read it. Instead, they now want a legal battle over Barr’s refusal to turn over a completely unredacted report.

To be clear, they don’t want the report, which is 98 percent unredacted in the public form. They want the fight.

They’re all in a very deep hole, and have no clue how to get themselves out other than to just keep right on digging.

Share

“Why Are Clapper and Brennan Not in Jail?”

Codevilla asks—and answers—the question of the year.

Beginning in January 2017, Brennan and Clapper made essentially the same statements on national television. The only possible excuse—that their allegations were lies—is irrelevant because the essence of the violation is the revelation that U.S intelligence was monitoring the communications of the Russians in America, and those of the Trump campaign as well. This is true, and that revelation is a textbook violation of the Comint Statute.

The reasons no prosecutions have followed should be plain enough. The offenders are big people, in the permanent government and in the Democratic Party. They have a great many friends in the U.S Justice Department. From the top down, the Trump Administration has been filled by much smaller people. Loud words aside, the president has kowtowed to the intelligence agencies in every way imaginable. No prominent Republican has chosen to challenge the de facto privileged relationship between Democrats in the intelligence agencies and the media.

And so, Brennan and Clapper continue as living proof that the United States has a dual system of justice. The example of their impunity speaks louder than any speech, and reassures their leftist successors in the intelligence agencies that their channel to the Times and Post is as safe as ever.

Politics is not responsible for the non-application of Section 798 to Brendan and Clapper. It is difficult to imagine that the public would not approve massively the straightforward application to prominent men of a law that is so unambiguous, which is the foundation of arguably the main part of U.S intelligence, and which has been applied countless times to ordinary people.

Rather, the absence of real politics—of real competition between opposing sides in American life—is the culprit. What we see is that those in the upper echelons of American life, whether they call themselves Republicans or Democrats, have greater loyalty to the ruling class to which they belong than to any law or institution. The refusal to apply Section 798 to Brennan and Clapper —the fact that they are free men —is simply the most obvious manifestation of the fact that we have a ruling class, that it is coherent, and that it has yet to be challenged in any serious way.

Worse yet, the one guy who dared to even attempt such a challenge just spent the last two years being hounded and harassed by a bullshit Deep State inquisition—watching helplessly as several of his associates and staff had their lives destroyed utterly, his own family dragged into the Swamp shit-cyclone too—pour encourager les autres. For one reason, and one reason only: he won an election his Deep State tormenters assumed he would lose.

It’s all up to Barr now. He MUST pursue his investigation to its proper end. The FBI, the DoJ, and the CIA have gone rogue. They MUST be brought to heel, somehow; individual Swamp malefactors MUST be punished for their manifest crimes. Otherwise, this country is well and truly finished.

Update! A ray of hope, from Joe DiGenova.

The problem for Brennan and [former Director of National Intelligence]Clapper and [former FBI Director] Comey and [former FBI General Counsel] Baker and all of them now is, is that the FISA Court has already communicated with the Justice Department about its findings. And their findings are that from more than four years before the election of Donald Trump, there was an illegal spying operation going on by FBI [private] contractors — four of them — to steal personal information, electronic information about Americans and to use it against the Republican Party.

There are going to be indictments. There’s going to be grand juries. John Brennan isn’t going to need one lawyer. He’s going to need five!

There’s another report that everybody has forgotten about that involves James Comey alone. That will be out in two weeks. That report is going to be a bombshell. It’s going to open the investigation on a very high note.

The FISA Court abuse is the center of this entire abuse of governmental power. The Chief Judge of that court [Rosemary M. Collyer] has already ruled that the FBI broke the law and that the people at the head of the [Obama] Justice Department — [former Deputy Attorney General] Sally Yates, John Carlin, the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, all knew about it and lied to the court, the FISA Court, about it.

George Parry sums up:

So, there it is. If diGenova’s track record holds, a legal rain of ruin is about to befall the deep state operatives who tried to steal the 2016 election and, failing that, to unwind the result. And if, in fact, the enormous surveillance powers of our intelligence agencies were usurped by the Obama administration to spy for years before the election on the opposing political party, then the implications go far beyond just one election and one presidential candidate. If that happened, then there can be no doubt that, when candidate Obama promised to “fundamentally transform America,” he really meant it. If Obama’s “fundamental transformation” involved not only the atrocious harassment and intimidation of the Tea Party patriots by his Internal Revenue Service, but also included surveillance state spying on the Republican Party generally, there must be no question about whether the deep state actors should be punished for their actions.

If Joe diGenova is right, the very survival of the rule of law and our constitutional republic mandates that these treasonous thugs — no matter how highly placed in the Obama administration — be exposed, charged, and imprisoned.

Precisely so. To let these irredeemable scoundrels skate is to reinforce certain damning assumptions about this country and its government—assumptions whose broad-daylight confirmation no nation could survive for long.

Bombshell update! Let’s not forget the Horowitz inquiry, too.

In the next several weeks, Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected to issue his summation of the potential abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by top officials in the Obama Administration and holdovers in the early Trump Administration who were overseeing the investigation of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

And the perpetrators of the so-called FISAgate scandal now are scrambling for cover as the bad news looms.

Former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates signed the original FISA application. It was renewed three times; subsequent signers included former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. If there’s one document that represents the malevolence, chicanery and arrogance of the original Trump-Russia collusion fraudsters, it’s the Page FISA application.

But—to borrow a favorite term of the collusion truthers—the “walls are closing in” on the FISA abusers.

Those walls of right ought to be closing in on the man behind all of this, who appointed all these Deep State conspirators, at whose behest their crimes were committed. But that may well turn out to be a bridge too far. We can but wait and see.

Share

The noose tightens

Around Barry’s pencil-neck.

After being on defense — with his hands legally tied — for the first two years of his Presidency, President Trump is finally able to go on offense, as he can no longer be accused of “interfering with the Russia investigation.”

But something else is afoot as well. According to diGenova, and here is the tremendous breaking news: The FISA court has been looking into abuses of the FISA system and has communicated with the Justice Department about its findings. Their chief judge has already determined that for more than four years before the election of Donald Trump, there was an illegal spying operation (yes, spying — and, yes, illegal) going on by four FBI contractors to break the law to steal personal electronic information about American citizens and to use it against the Republican Party.

It might be good to go back and read that last sentence again, slowly, and let it sink in.

The people heading up the Justice Department at that time — including Attorney General (AG) Sally Yates and Assistant AG John Carlin — apparently knew about it and lied to the FISA court. It seems that by the time they withheld the political origins of Christopher Steele’s Trump “dossier” to the court, it was already business as usual to deceive those judges, who no doubt have steam coming out of their ears.

There will be grand juries and indictments, according to diGenova, who knows how this works because he happens to have been one of the original lawyers on the FISA court. He said, “John Brennan isn’t going to need one lawyer — he’s going to need five.”

Keep in mind, the misuse of the FISA court is central to this entire governmental abuse of power. It can be weaponized to go after political enemies, as happened with Trump, and it can also be used to gather information on you and me. This investigation could lead far beyond the uncovering of political hanky-panky, although that is tremendously important. It could lead to an entire refiguring of the FISA process, maybe even an end to the FISA court.

I know a lot of people are getting “scandal fatigue” and don’t want to keep hearing about investigations. But what happened here in the Obama Justice Department is likely the biggest abuse of power we’ve seen in our lifetimes. If allowed to continue, it could change the very concept of what it means to be an American.

If the highest levels of government can trample the constitutional process by which we elect a President, and step all over the President once that person is elected, imagine what it can do to you.

Check my previous post for a big ol’ honking hint about that.

Share

Government is just another name for the things we choose to do together

Sickening.

An elderly veteran who ran a business supplying water to fight forest fires was prosecuted by the federal government and sent to prison for digging ponds on his own property, one of his lawyers says.

Joe Robertson, a Navy veteran from Montana, was 78 when he was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in federal prison and ordered to pay $130,000 in restitution through deductions from his Social Security checks.

His crime?

Robertson, whose business supplied water trucks to Montana firefighters, dug a series of small ponds close to his home in 2013 and 2014. The site was a wooded area near a channel, a foot wide and a foot deep, with two to three garden hoses’ worth of flow, according to court documents.

The U.S. government prosecuted Robertson for digging in proximity to “navigable waters” without a permit, a violation of the Clean Water Act administered by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide in April whether it will hear Robertson’s appeal.

Robertson, sentenced in 2016, completed his 18 months behind bars in late 2017.

He was still on parole for the next 20 months when he died March 18 at age 80 of natural causes, according to his widow.

Of course, even his death won’t dissuade the Gummint scum from hounding his bereaved family for the arrears.

His widow, Carrie, has taken up his case, seeking to clear her husband’s name and reverse the fine, which is still in place as a lien against his estate.

I repeat: sickening. Every rotten FederalGovCo son of a bitch in any way involved with this abominable travesty ought to have his balls, if any, stuffed into a Cuisinart and pureed into a fine red mist. Want violent revolution, Swamp rats? This is one of the ways you get yourself one.

Torches, pitchforks, and heads on pikes begin to sound like no more than a good start, don’t they?

Share

More Mueller reax

Several most righteous rips on the failed Mueller/Koup Klux Klowns attempt. First up, Wes unloads:

So the Mueller Report was released yesterday. I haven’t had time to read it all yet. Not sure I’ll continue reading it. At this Point “What Difference does it Make?”

This whole investigation was flat out just an attack on the American People. We Deplorables went against what our elites had told us to do. We were suppose to vote for the anointed one Hillary Clinton. We didn’t and our country has paid the price for 2+ years.

You may not like Trump, you may not have voted for him, you may not vote for him in 2020. The fact of the matter is, a coup against the will of the American people was perpetrated because we refused to do what we were told.

Here’s the thing, We know what we have seen so far. We can all see the crimes. We know that the previous administration weaponized the FBI, shielded a favored candidate from criminal prosecution, abused the FISA court to spy on an opposition candidate, and deliberately worked to subvert the 2016 Presidential election.

Question? Has anyone been arrested and prosecuted for these crimes?

Anyone?

Well, not yet; perhaps not ever. But given Barr’s aggressive, take-no-shit attitude so far, I do retain some small hope. The gear that the whole matter is going to end up turning on is whether the Deep Staters are aware of the fact that quietly burying the traitorous illegalities committed by the Obama/Hillary cabal as usual will spell the end of the country. Millions of Real Americans will take that—not a miscarriage of justice, but an actual renunciation of it—as the final proof that only a blind fool would continue to place any faith in our system of government, throw up their hands, and resign themselves to whatever conflagration or breakup eventually follows. Wes knows this as well as I do, and spins it on out to the bitter end:

What if Nothing Happens? What if Crimes go unpunished? And the Elites and Oligarchs and the political class prove once again that they are just too big to jail?

What then? I could care less that Trump was vindicated. We all knew he was innocent. This was a Coup. What I want and what millions of the American People want is for people to be punished for their Crimes against us.

It’s Time to Hang the Treasonous Bastards!

I’ll close with a quote from my good friend T.L. Davis “If there be Lawlessness, What reason do any of us have for obedience?”

Exactly. In the days to come, we’re going to find out once and for all if the Powers That Be are smart, or merely cunning. Next up, Glenn cuts loose with one of his rare but always excellent longer-form posts, in response to this clueless Tweet from über-clueless cuck David French:


The Insta-response:

I LIKE DAVID FRENCH, BUT THIS IS AHISTORICAL BULLSHIT…

I mean, let’s just look at the presidents of my lifetime: JFK: Adulterer, drug user, made his brother (!) Attorney General, shady mafia connections, stole election. LBJ: Adulterer, much cruder than Trump, started Vietnam War. Nixon: Honestly, better than LBJ but the source of the term “Nixonian.” Ford: Nice guy, failed president. Carter: Nice guy, failed president. Reagan: The GOP gold standard, but a multiply-divorced Hollywood actor whose administration was marked by nearly as much scandal-drama as Trump’s. (Just look up Justice Gorsuch’s mother). George HW: Nice guy, but longtime adulterer and failed president. Bill Clinton: I mean, come on. George W. Bush: Personal rectitude in office, though he’s been a bit of a dick since Trump beat his brother. Iraq War thing didn’t turn out too well. Mediocre judicial appointments and little attention to domestic reforms. Gave us TSA. Obama: Far more scandals, and far more abuse of power, than Trump. And does French forget that Trump was running against Hillary?

But at any rate, the American people had a chance to decide if they wanted a man like Trump in the White House, and they decided that they did. And Trump’s now polling better than Obama did at this point in his presidency, and will almost certainly rise in the polls post Mueller report.

I mean, most of our successful presidents weren’t nice guys — FDR makes LBJ and Nixon look like pikers — and most of the nice guys in that office were failures as president. And Trump’s behavior in office is, by comparison with his predecessor, better, if cruder.

And in terms of his actions, well, Trump’s actual performance in office is looking pretty good. The economy is booming, foreign policy is going better than under his creased-pants predecessor, regulations are being slashed, and the courts are being better-stocked than any Republican president in my lifetime, including Reagan, ever managed.

Against that record, schoolmarmish disapproval pales in importance. But you want an America where a better man than Donald Trump can be a successful president? Then you have to make a better America, not least by crushing the power of the existing, awful, ruling class. And guess what: That’s what Trump’s doing. The NeverTrumpers, meanwhile, have chosen to ally themselves with the problem.

That’s because they were part of the problem all along: a clown-car crammed with perennial also-rans perfectly content with their noble-loser status—maintaining an illusion of “loyal opposition” but never actually opposing one damned thing, loyal only to Swampland business-as-usual and whatever perks and privileges they could glom for themselves from it. In one of his patented, blistering broadsides, Sefton covers all the bases:

The Democrat-Left-Media complex is in total freakout mode as they a) refuse to believe this President is not guilty in any way, shape or form, b) are convinced that AG William Barr is covering up his guilt and c) thanks to Mueller and his pro-Clinton team’s feckless and reckless punting on the obstruction angle, as well as verbiage that not only continues to unfairly smear the President’s character but more horribly upends centuries of legal tradition by putting the onus on him to prove he’s not a reprobate criminal as opposed to them proving beyond any reasonable doubt that he is. That is utterly inexcusable, but what did you expect from Robert Mueller? He was, is and always will be an agent of the Deep State Leftist cabal and as such, dragged this whole thing out for more than two years in the vain attempt to find something, anything, with which to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump, either by removing him from office or essentially kneecapping his agenda.

The latter is what happened and for sure it affected the outcome of the midterm elections in the GOP losing the House. But circling back, the GOP-e at best was diffident or averse to Trump because it, too, is part and parcel of the anti-American globalist enterprise. I find it extremely hard to believe that turds like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell did not know from the get-go that this entire collusion story was a complete crock. Hell, John McStains himself sent an aide to go fetch the fraudulent Steele dossier from the Brits and then was instrumental in disseminating it back here in DC. They knew. They all knew – Democrat and Republican alike. But still they persisted.

Back here in the real world, the President has been “exonerated.” But I put that in quotes because that word implies that Robert Mueller and company were legitimate, impartial arbiters of justice who have nobly executed a fair and just process when the cold, hard truth is that this process was completely illegitimate from the start; they were put there to hang this President if they could, on whatever flimsy excuse they could find or manufacture. And even after ruining the lives of Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort they came up with nothing. Mueller turns my stomach as much as Clinton, Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Priestap, Steele, Halper, Mifsud, Strzok, Page, Ohr, Ohr, Rosenstein and all the other smug, elitist traitors who very nearly pulled off the overthrow of a President and really, by extension, the will of the American people in electing him. And before it gets lost in the sauce, none of this would have happened had Jeff Sessionszzzz not recused himself and then appointed Rosenpenis, who turned around and appointed Mueller with no specific boundaries and carte blanche to do anything he wanted. If there is any justice in this world, all of the aforementioned would be behind bars at Leavenworth for the rest of their lives, or have a date with the hangman for what they tried to do. And what is still going on now in the House of Representatives with such morally bankrupt frauds as Nadler and Schiff.

All things considered, you have to marvel at Donald Trump. The entirety of a feral, criminal bureaucracy and politicians along with a complicit mass propaganda machine was hurled at him non-stop for a period of nearly four years going back to the summer of 2015 when he announced his candidacy, and yet he not only survived, but he thrived. Part of it was because the base and now a growing number of people outside of that base see that he has either kept his word or has done everything within his power to advance the agenda despite the opposition, even from within his own camp. And even despite losing the House (or perhaps as a result of it), the Democrats are in an open internecine war that has exposed who they are and what they believe for all the world to see…and it’s not pretty. 

For all the world to see, yes; we can only hope all the world is looking. Elsewhere, David Catron whales on the Last Honest Boy Scout himself.

When special counsel Robert Mueller finally finished his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, he produced a report that confirms much of the criticism President Trump has leveled at him during the past two years. It clearly reveals that Mueller’s partisan investigators were determined to “get Trump,” and that they were frustrated by their inability to do so. This is most obvious in the section dealing with obstruction of justice. As it is phrased in the Introduction to Volume II, “[T]his report does not conclude that the President committed a crime.” An honest evaluation would have stopped there.

Mueller’s team, however, were loath to pursue the honorable course. Their partisan bias compelled them to gratuitously add — after taking eight full paragraphs to explain why they didn’t conclude that Trump had obstructed justice — that they nonetheless would “not exonerate him.” This is the cheapest of cheap shots. It is obviously a cowardly attempt to damage the President with innuendo rather than an actual accusation of obstruction that would eventually have to be supported with proof of “conscious wrongdoing” that Mueller couldn’t produce. Mueller and his minions opted, instead, for good old-fashioned calumny.

This is particularly disgraceful considering the restraint Trump demonstrated during the probe. He could, for example, have asserted executive privilege to prevent investigators from gaining access to all manner of documents as well as several witnesses. Trump is the first president since Jimmy Carter not to invoke that well-established prerogative. Trump also resisted the temptation to simply halt the probe, a power that he does possess under Article II of the Constitution. Mueller ignored this cooperation and chronicled 10 examples of unobstruction in the Executive Summary of Volume II.

In the end, the Mueller probe was an investigation looking for a crime. Thus, it produced nothing but a few process crimes and useless indictments of foreign nationals who will never be brought to trial. It was also conducted by partisan hacks, like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, whose primary goal was to bring down the President. That failed. So, like all cowards in retreat, Mueller and his minions attempted to do as much damage as possible to the President as they departed. That’s why they refused to exonerate him despite finding no real evidence for obstruction of justice. The whole exercise was utterly despicable.

Yes, it was. Now the ball is in Barr’s court. Let’s see if he can score a win for Justice with his handling of it, or if we only get more fancy dribbling.

Never to forget, never to forgive update! Remember. Their. Names.

Via Ace.

Share

Day of reckoning

We can but hope. The whole article is good, but it’s the unexpected twist near the end that really got me grinning:

In ancient times, when nations reached such dramatic inflection points, there were poets, authors, artists, and philosophers who formulated, explained, and preserved for posterity the meaning of events and their impact upon their societies. As I listened to Barr’s astounding testimony, I realized that America was at such an historic milestone.

Who, I mused, will step forward to explicate and place these momentous events into their proper context? Does America have a Homer or a Cicero to properly express the gratitude and exaltation of our fellow citizens at the approach of long desired and overdue justice? And then the answer suddenly came to me as my shrinking brain flashed back to the immortal words of that long ago anthem of righteous adolescent retribution, My Boyfriend’s Back, to wit:

My boyfriend’s back and you’re gonna be in trouble
(Hey-la-day-la my boyfriend’s back)
You see him comin’ better cut out on the double
(Hey-la-day-la my boyfriend’s back)

Here’s a link to The Angels’ singing My Boyfriend’s Back on the Ed Sullivan Show. Their performance is at once entertaining and seemingly prescient. As you watch them sing, imagine that they are making eye contact with James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, John Brennan, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, Sally Yates, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele, and all the rest of the conspirators. It’s pretty amusing.

To a remarkable degree, the lyrics are apt and convey the mood of all of us who have had a belly full of the deep state.

As for all of those swamp dwellers who have corrupted and degraded our government to this historical low point, let me paraphrase the best line in the song: If I were [them], I’d take a permanent vacation.

Where at? Club Fed?

Heh. As I said, we can but hope. I’m not entirely optimistic myself, and in any event much damage has already been done.

Certainly, Trump has been proven right in the most spectacular fashion imaginable. The very people who accused him of treason have been exposed as the real seditionists. The Democrats have suffered a great defeat, and to Trump’s supporters, it’s like election night all over again.

But even though Trump scored a big win, his war with the seditious faction that tried to overturn the election is far from over.

The forces that attempted to take Trump down may be wounded, but they aren’t giving up, and they still wield great power. While Trump certainly has a right to gloat, the malefactors who peddled this hoax from the glossy newsrooms are not sorry one bit—and despite calls for a reckoning, they’re probably going to get away with it.

The fact that this even happened kind of dilutes the victory. While the intelligence “community” and the media have suffered a great blow to their credibility, they nevertheless were able to inflict profound harm on the country as they pursued a partisan coup. The power they wield, and the damage they have done using it, cannot be overstated.

This hoax has seeped into the American mind. It has left the country a more mistrustful, more angry, more broken place than it was. It was all ridiculous from the start, and yet its pushers managed to impact the United States on a profound level. The damage done is proof of their unaccountable power.

This same establishment has already succeeded in frustrating Trump’s agenda from the inside. Two years into office, there has been next to no progress on the wall or ending wars in the Middle East.

Here is what should happen: Every journalist who breathlessly promoted this nonsense should be fired and publicly shamed, and the Democrats who peddled this hoax should resign. The DOJ/FBI/CIA hacks who made a killing on the networks and on their book tours should withdraw from public life in utter disgrace. Trump should declassify everything and pursue those responsible.

But they’re probably going to get away with it.

I pray that he’s wrong, but suspect that he’s right. As long as any hope remains of seeing justice done through an admittedly broken system, we must continue to push its pursuit—because the sole, dreadful alternative is a thing to be avoided if we possibly can.

Share

Taking it to ’em

Looks like Jabba the Nadler bit off more than he could chew.

I have to tell you there was an exchange yesterday in Washington, Capitol Hill, House Judiciary Committee. C-SPAN has reported that a clip, a confrontation between Candace Owens and Ted Lieu, Democrat, California, has become the most viewed C-SPAN Twitter video from a House hearing ever, in 24 hours, 4.47 million viewers in less than 24 hours.

He’s a dishonest creep, and he did it to Candace Owens yesterday. He played a tape of Candace Owens yesterday totally out of context. He did not play the question she was asked. And in this bite, he’s attempting to convince people that Candace Owens supports white nationalism like Adolf Hitler did — and she ate him for lunch in response. Here’s Ted Lieu up first.

LIEU: Of all the people the Republicans could have selected, they picked Candace Owens. I don’t know Ms. Owens. I’m not gonna characterize her. I’m gonna let her own words do the talking. I’m gonna play for you the first 30 seconds of a statement she made about Adolf Hitler.

RUSH: Now, he didn’t play the question she was asked, and he’s attempting to make it look like here Candace Owens, Turning Point USA — a black conservative — loves Hitler, the only thing wrong with Hitler was he tried to export outside of Germany. Now, most people would sit there aw, gee, complain to the media. But she fired back.

OWENS: It’s pretty apparent that Mr. Lieu believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip in his entirety.

Note ye well what happens when Jabba puts his big fat oar in:

NADLER: (banging gavel) The witness —

OWENS: He purposely presented an extracted clip —

NADLER: The witness will suspend for a moment. It is not proper to refer disparagingly to a member of the committee. Uh, the witness will not do that again. The witness may not refer to a member of the committee as stupid.

So Jabba’s stooge, the reprobate Lieu, tries to smear her with a long-debunked, out-of-context quote, after which Nadler waddles up to falsely accuse her of saying something she didn’t say at all. At which point one has to ask: is there NO lie these sewer-crawling parasites won’t utter? NO low to which they will not stoop? Owens, to her credit, ain’t having any:

OWENS: I didn’t refer to him as stupid. That’s not what I said. That’s not what I said at all. You didn’t listen to what I said.

Oh, he listened. He just had no use for it, saw an opportunity to lie and smear and deceive, and dived all the way in to seize it. It’s just pure reflex with scum like him, more automatic than breathing and every bit as outside his ability to control.

Even if she HAD called the liar Lieu a liar, who the hell cares? If some arrogant, crooked Congressvermin is blatantly and inarguably lying, just how “improper” can it really be to call him out immediately, in front of witnesses and cameras, before the lie gets its boots on? Has dishonesty become so ingrained a part of Congressional routine that it is now an outrage for a private citizen, in the course of being purposefully misrepresented while under aggressively hostile interrogation, to state the simple truth? Is this what the US Congress has now sunk to: that an honest assessment of one of its more loathsome members, made publicly and calmly, is to be considered out of bounds?

Yeah, probably best not to answer that one. But Owens was just getting warmed up:

If you want to know why the Democrats are frightened of Candace Owens, watch the video of her Tuesday morning testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. For example, early in the proceedings, Owens chastised Chairman Jerrold Nadler for misrepresenting her biography: “You reduced it to one sentence, calling me a conservative activist. It wasn’t what I submitted to your office last night and I think that you opened with anti-black bias.” Having demonstrated that she is no shrinking violet, Owens debunked the ostensible purpose of the hearing — that it was convened to examine white nationalist hate crimes:

The hearing today is not about “white nationalism” or “hate crimes.” It’s about fear-mongering, power and control. It’s a preview of the 2020 Democrat election strategy… what they want to say is that brown people need to be scared which seems to be the narrative that we hear every four years right ahead of a presidential election.… White supremacy, racism, white nationalism, words that once held real meaning, have now become nothing more than election strategies.

Owens highlighted her point by describing genuine problems that beset the black community: The failure of the public school systems to teach black children to read and their equally appalling failure to teach minority students basic math skills. She went on to point out that the single motherhood rate in the black community has skyrocketed from 23 percent in the 1960s to 74 percent today, and that there are more black babies aborted than born alive in large cities like New York. She then dropped the hammer as follows: “My point is that white nationalism did not do any of those things that I just brought up. Democrat policies did.”

She continued by heaping scorn on the statistics the Democrats used to support their claims about white nationalist violence. “What they won’t tell you is that they have simply changed the data set by widening the definition of hate crimes… they are manipulating statistics.” She’s right, but it gets even worse. Breitbart notes that “Nadler used a report in his opening remarks on Tuesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on hate crimes and the rise of white nationalism in the Donald Trump era that highlighted crimes that took place from 2008 to 2016, when Barack Obama was president.” Owens continued thus:

If they actually were concerned about white nationalism, they would be holding hearings on Antifa, a far left violent white gang, who determined one day in Philadelphia last August that I, a black woman, was not fit to sit in a restaurant. They chased me out, yelled “race traitor” to a group of black and Hispanic police officers who formed a line to protect me from their ongoing assaults. They threw water at me. They threw eggs at me, and the leftist media remain silent on it.

Why, naturally, my dear. You’re the wrong kind of black person, see. Don’t let it bother you; the friends you’re making now are a hell of a lot more genuine and trustworthy, and will stand by you a lot more reliably than the backstabbing, duplicitous frauds you’ve left behind.

Meanwhile and elsewhere, Trump got in some truth-telling and calling-out-of-liars his own self.

“This was an attempted coup. This was an attempted takedown of a president, and we beat them. We beat them. We fight back, and you know why we fight back? Because I knew how illegal this whole thing was. It was a scam,” the president said outside the White House before boarding Marine One for the first leg of a fundraising trip to Texas.

The president then called for Attorney General William Barr to investigate the origins of the probe, which he has repeatedly claimed was a “hoax” and “Witch Hunt!” cooked up by Hillary Clinton and her supposed “deep state” supporters in the Justice Department — saying there was “a hunger” in the country to pursue that probe.

“What I’m most interested in is getting started hopefully, the attorney general, he mentioned it yesterday. He is doing a great job getting started on going back to the origins of exactly where this all started because this was an illegal witch hunt, and everybody knew it,” he asserted, before apparently accusing Mueller and his team of treason.

“They knew it, too. And they got caught, and what they did was treason. What they did was terrible. What they did was against our Constitution and everything we stand for. So, hopefully, that will happen,” the president continued.

“There is a hunger for that to happen in this country like I have never seen before, including all of the millions of people that voted for me. What they did is disgraceful,” Trump said.

“It was an illegal investigation. It was started illegally. Everything about it was crooked. Every single thing about it.”

AG Barr, for his part, has pledged to get to the bottom of the whole reeking pile.

Attorney General William Barr has assembled a team to review controversial counterintelligence decisions made by Justice Department and FBI officials, including actions taken during the probe of the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016, according to a person familiar with the matter.

This indicates that Barr is looking into allegations that Republican lawmakers have been pursuing for more than a year — that the investigation into President Donald Trump and possible collusion with Russia was tainted at the start by anti-Trump bias in the FBI and Justice Department.

The panicked shrieks of OUTRAGE!™—from Enemedia, Democrat-Socialist hacks, and the rest of the Koup Klux Klan, all once so keen on “letting the investigation run its course” and such-like self-serving codswallop when it suited their purposes—are piercing:

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in a tweet Wednesday afternoon accused Bill Barr of spreading conspiracy theories and demanded Barr “retract his statement or produce specific evidence to back it up.”

Umm, that’s exactly what the investigation is for there, Chuckles. Don’t you fret yourself any, though, the evidence will be along shortly. Plenty more panic out there, as you would surely expect, which I won’t wade further into now. The thing that interests me is the underlying, undiscussed reason for it, for which we’ll return to Limbaugh.

Now you know what they’ll do. They’ll switch on a dime to new Trump scandals, scandals that you haven’t heard of. New Trump scandals involving Trump money, Trump businesses, Trump this. They’ll move on to something else because once they put it all back together, the objective of getting rid of Trump will continue.

But this, what Barr said today, the importance of this and the symbolism of it has not hit people yet. What Barr said today is going to happen, doesn’t happen. Oh, yeah, we have inspectors general running around making sure that individual cabinet departments, agencies and so forth are clean. But we don’t have, we don’t get what William Barr said is going to happen today.

When’s the last time you can think of the Department of Justice investigating the FBI? Can’t think of it. Oh, there might have been some times in the immediate post-J. Edgar Hoover era, but nothing like what this could be. The tables do not get turned on the administrative state like this. And don’t forget where this is ultimately pointed. Barack Obama and his presidency is where this is pointed.

If we’re serious about finding the origins, and if we’re serious about finding the authorizations, and if we’re serious about finding out exactly who was involved and why, what they did, it’s got to include the hierarchy and the structure of the Obama administration. And the faces of the people on the media today tell the tale.

Annnnnd bingo. Obama, Hillary, Lynch, all the rest of the soft-coup cabal were in it right up to their eyeballs—not just vaguely aware and averting their eyes, but running it—fully, actively involved. There really can’t be much question about that now. These are some extremely dirty players in an extremely dirty game, deploying federal agencies under their command to muck about with the legitimacy of our political system entire. If Barr follows the various threads all the way to their end, he’s going to find them wrapped around some very highly-placed necks indeed.

Share

Lies, lies, nothing but lies

It’s all they have, and all they’ve ever had.

Shortly before Special Counsel Robert Mueller filed his report on the Russia investigation last month, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., alerted Attorney General Bill Barr to what they described as the “selective” use of emails in Mueller court filings — as well as potential “improper political influence, misconduct, and mismanagement” in the FBI’s original Russia probe.

In a March 8 letter, Grassley and Graham referred Barr to a letter sent to Mueller in late 2017 that alleged his investigators had cherry-picked details from emails to include in court documents, urging him to review the materials. They also notified him that they had asked DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz a year earlier to review the original FBI probe.

Fox News has also obtained the 2017 letter (above) from Grassley to Mueller, which spelled out the lawmakers’ concerns about the “absence of additional context” in the court filings — as well as concerns over how those documents were covered in the media. “The glaring lack of [context] feeds speculation and innuendo that distorts the facts,” Grassley wrote at the time.

That court filing said Papadopoulos emailed another campaign official in May 2016 with the subject line, “Request from Russia to meet Mr. Trump.” The document said the email stated that Russia “has been eager to meet Mr. Trump for quite sometime and have been reaching out to me to discuss,” adding in a footnote that the official forwarded the email to another campaign official asking to discuss: “We need someone to communicate that DT is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.”

The senators said media outlets then seized on the fragments to report a “Campaign official suggested ‘low level’ staff should go to Russia.” However, they said the full emails — obtained from the Trump campaign — tell a different story.

“In full context, the emails in question actually show that the Trump Campaign wanted someone ‘low level’ to decline these types of invitations,” Grassley and Graham wrote in the letter to Barr.

Anybody surprised? If so, may I ask why, exactly? The remarkable thing is that they were so confident that none of this base deception would ever be unearthed that they were willing to resort to it in the first place. Then again, though, that might have been more a matter of panic and desperation than it was confidence.

(Via GP)

Share

The Great Unraveling

The wheels are coming off the bus, so you can look for the space underneath it to get more and more crowded (emphasis mine throughout—M).

The recently released transcript of George Papadopoulos’s congressional testimony reveals a significant fact: Papadopoulos’s introduction to Joseph Mifsud—the source of the “Russia has Hillary’s emails” tip that purportedly prompted the FBI to launch an investigation into the Trump campaign—was arranged mere days after Papadopoulos announced he was joining the Trump campaign.

Saturday evening, Papadopoulos rocked Twitter with claims that “a woman in London, who was the FBI’s legal attaché in the U.K.” encouraged him “to meet Joseph Mifsud in Rome in March 2016.” These new revelations raise fresh concerns that, with the approval of the FBI, foreign governments were meddling in the 2016 election.

Mifsud has long been suspected of holding the key to efforts to target the Trump campaign. But Papadopoulos’s testimony and his tweet now implicate the amorphous London Centre for International Law Practice and the FBI in the plot to put Papadopoulos in contact with Mifsud. From there, Mifsud had but to groom Papadopoulos with promises of Russia connections that would allow him to shine in his new role as a foreign policy advisor to Trump.

It worked, and Mifsud’s supposed tip about the Russian hacking provided the FBI the pretext necessary to launch a full investigation into the Trump campaign for supposedly colluding with Russia.

This all raises lots of questions, chief among them this one: What did Obama know, and when did he know it? But don’t for a moment imagine that Papadopolous was the only one who had a baited Trump trap placed in his path.

For one, a series of stories that appeared in the press in early 2017 heavily implied Lokhova was a Russian agent who tried to suborn Michael Flynn at a dinner hosted at Cambridge on Feb. 28, 2014. Flynn served at the time as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

A year after those stories appeared, The Daily Caller News Foundation reported Halper cozied to three Trump campaign advisers, Carter Page, Sam Clovis and George Papadopoulos. In May 2018, Halper was revealed as a longtime CIA and FBI informant, a revelation that led President Donald Trump to accuse the FBI of planting a spy in his campaign. The Republican coined the term “Spygate” to describe the alleged scandal.

And Trump was right, too. The Deep State apparat attempted to entrap Trump, with the ultimate goal of, first, rigging the 2016 election, then forcing him out of office under false pretenses after that had failed.

“ALLEGED scandal”? My lily white ass. This is nothing less than the biggest, the most heinous and damaging scandal in American history. Too-powerful Superstate bureaucracies have been exposed as thoroughly compromised by bone-deep corruption and malfeasance, from top to bottom. The entire American system—Congress, the Executive branch under Emperor Ogabe, the federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and the so-called “mainstream” media—has wilfully and wantonly stripped itself of any credible claim to trustworthiness or Constitutional legitimacy, perhaps never to regain it.

Every American should consider all of this absolutely intolerable. We now know that our system is rotten, and that we are being misgoverned by a Ruling Class of amoral mediocrities who are patently unfit for the positions they abuse. No matter what you might think of Trump—as a man, as a husband, as a celebrity, or as President—you should be both infuriated…and alarmed.

Both via Ace, who has more yet.

Share

Misbehavior, miscalculation, misfire

What the Mueller witch hunt was really all about.

It wasn’t about who Trump was — it was all about what Trump promised. It was about the survivability of the swamp.

From the very start, the Obama presidency focused on crushing conservative thought and detaching the country from the Constitution. Undermining the 2nd Amendment with Fast and Furious, forcing Americans to purchase a product they didn’t want with ObamaCare and preventing conservatives from forming support networks by unleashing the power of the IRS against them. His policies greatly increased the number of Americans on food stamps and doubled the national debt to $20 trillion. And for this, the propaganda media labeled him the greatest president ever because, in their anti-American world, he was. So it was no surprise that Obama sided with America’s sworn enemies by brokering the disastrous one-sided Iran Deal and assisting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

The swamp had to make sure the American people never found out about the little and big names behind the hundreds of crimes committed in order to advance Obama’s and the media’s anti-American agenda.
  
And as president, Hillary would do just that. She would make sure the changes made by the Obama administration in dismantling American values would continue, and the illegal tactics used would remain buried. For this accommodation, Hillary would now be able to accelerate the unabated flow of cash from all corners of the globe into the Clinton Foundation coffers.

It was a sweet deal, but it all ended the moment when Trump hit 270 electoral votes. And as we know, Hell froze over, pigs began to fly, and Trump entered the Oval Office, and for the first time in their political careers, Obama, Clinton, and members of the swamp contemplated the real possibility of prosecution.

And since that reality could never be allowed to happen, it was all hands on deck and the start of the unthinkable — an actual political coup attempt against the President of The United States that included the most massive hoax investigation ever perpetrated on the American people. 

The fly in the ointment, and the one factor not considered by the swamp intelligentsia, was the makeup of the person of Trump. For one, the conspirators never imagined a person could withstand a two-year barrage of 24/7 fake negative news coverage along with a slew of “America be damned,” political obstructions via Congress. They never figured that a person like Trump existed. A man with the stamina of someone 40 years younger, who brought to Washington the assets he acquired as a businessman in the rough and tumble city of New York as well as the command of the TV audience he gained by his many years as a television host.

On March 22, 2019, the bottom fell out of the last vestiges of the coverup as Mueller handed his report absent any proof of Trump/Russian collusion to new Attorney General William Barr. But only part of the most insidious abuse of power in Americas’ history had been dealt with.

It won’t be dealt with completely until the conspirators are in prison for their seditious crimes…which itself is letting them off light, if you ask me.

Share

Going, going, gone

The Brexit that wasn’t.

It’s April 1st, and this was supposed to be the first business day of a post-EU United Kingdom, with planes dropping from the skies, Mars Bars melting in your hand, and doughty Irishmen of north and south paralyzed in permanent immobility by the psychological terrors of an invisible Berlin Wall that had mysteriously arisen overnight across sleepy country lanes in Killeen. Instead, thanks to Theresa (“Brexit means Brexit”) May, Britain wakes up and finds itself still in the EU. It turns out Brexit doesn’t mean Brexit, but, if you give ’em a couple more weeks or months or years, the political class assures us that one day they’ll be able to agree on which unending and degrading vassal status Brussels should get to impose means Brexit.

In the midst of this uprising by the elites against the masses, enter John Major. No, I don’t know who he is, either. Oh, wait …it seems he was the bloke back in the Nineties keeping the “Most Useless Tory Prime Minister” seat warm until Mrs May came along. Just in time for All Fools’ Day, Sir John argues that to solve the “Brexit impasse” Britain may need a national government – ie, Conservative, Labour, Liberal, Scots Nats, Irish Republicans, Welsh Sheep-Dippers, whatever… A Ministry of All the Non-Talents, to modify Lord Grenville.

The press has already moved on to speculating who will succeed Theresa May. But, really, who cares? If Westminster can’t rouse itself to recover the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, what’s the point of a “Prime Minister”?

They’re all “citizens of the world” now, old bean. B eing such, they’re not in the least fussed over so piffling a notion as “sovereignty.” They’re far too sophisticated for such quaint, archaic twaddle, eh wot?

It is now necessary to have a crash-out no-deal Brexit just to teach a contemptible political class the vital lesson that nobody needs ’em.

If there’s ever to be any Brexit—and there isn’t; the EU will magnanimously allow Brits to keep holding votes until the lowing cattle gets this thing right—it will only be by way of a “crash-out” of one sort or another.

Share

Damage: done

Since this is an NBC (Fake)News post, I’ll need to provide corrections and more honest revisions throughout.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump identified the enemies of his state Thursday night.

At a raucous campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan — his first since Attorney General William Barr reported that the president would not be prosecuted for obstruction of justice and that special counsel Robert Mueller had not established the existence of a conspiracy between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian operatives — Trump listed them by name and occupation.

In this moment, as he tries to turn the corner from two years of a special counsel investigation toward 18 months or so of campaigning for re-election, Trump is using Barr’s four-page letter to portray himself and his supporters as the victims of a conspiracy of left-wing “deep state” elitists bent on defeating their movement at any cost to the country.

Which they were.

“The president is absolutely trying to reinforce the feeing among his allies and surrogates that the media went overboard in its coverage of the Russia investigation, that certain lawmakers were reckless in their claims, and that the investigation itself was flawed in its inception,” said Bradley Moss, a Washington lawyer who specializes in national security issues.

Which is all perfectly true.

“The problem here is that even if the president has legitimate gripes on one or more of those things, his overly aggressive commentary is doing nothing but exacerbating the situation,” Moss said in a text message.

Oh, and directly accusing the president of treason in print, on TV, and in Congress, without a single shred of credible evidence—based entirely on lies, actually—doesn’t?

“There were real and legitimate red flags that justified the investigation. Lawmakers had real and legitimate bases for viewing the existing evidence as reflecting collusion.”

No they didn’t. Quite the opposite, actually.

The contents of Mueller’s full report remain a mystery not only to the public but to the lawmakers who oversee the Justice Department. Yet even Barr’s brief summary acknowledged what Trump has been so unwilling to admit himself: that Russia tried to help him win the presidency.

He doesn’t need to “admit” a damned thing. One usually doesn’t, with politically-motivated accusations that are nothing but lies.

It’s impossible to know exactly how much influence Russian activities had on the election

No it isn’t. They had none at all.

— as compared to the candidates’ messages, their strategies and tactics, the long-running investigation into Clinton’s email

The “long-running investigation” that Comey killed aborning with his spurious and unprecedented “necessary criminal intent” announcement, you mean? Don’t make me laugh, hack.

and other factors — but Trump has been aggressive in denying that Moscow even tried to interfere.

Oh, they tried to sow confusion, uncertainty, and mistrust right enough—just as they always do and always have done, just as American presidential adminstrations do in elections it rightly or wrongly perceives a compelling enough interest in.

But over the course of his presidency, he has shown a deep sensitivity to the suggestion that Russia meddled — even short of collusion with his campaign — perhaps because of the possibility that such an admission could cast aspersions on the legitimacy of a victory of which he is proud.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, because of not the “possibility,” but the absolute goddamned certainty, that the Russia Hoax was a damned lie.

On Thursday night, much of his rhetoric was aimed at re-living that win and painting the Barr letter as a validation.

Which it was. No “painting” necessary, liberal hack.

In Trump’s telling, he was the little-guy target of a powerful government run amok.

Which he was.

“In this country, we cannot criminalize political differences,” he said. “We do not abuse the law enforcement and intelligence power to target our political opponents, where they spy on me. Who ever heard of this? They spied on me. They spied on my campaign.”

Which they did.

Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s lawyers, told The Atlantic that the president is intent on investigating people involved in launching the Russia probe now that the special counsel’s work is done.

Which he damned well should.

When his adoring fans chanted “Lock them up” Thursday night, Trump silently soaked in the moment.

As did every last Real American hoping to preserve their right to at least some say in their own governance through national elections, without interference from a meddlesome, wholly corrupt Deep State/Enemedia/Democrat-Socialist cabal unswervingly determined to deny them that right by any means they can contrive. “Lock them up” is the only fitting response to repellent, arrogant machinations as toxic as this. Rabbi Fisher cuts to the chase and explains why it matters:

When a society’s justice system breaks down, the society collapses. When justice is corrupted, the society devolves into chaos. Justice is the foundation of the earth, and a nation’s population needs to know that, at some bottom-line fundamental level, the rules by which all are supposed to play are applied and enforced evenly, fairly. The image of the masked lady of justice holding the scales is evocative: justice must be blind. It may not favor the rich over the poor, the strong over the weak, the favored over the unfavored. When people truly believe that they cannot get justice within the law, chaos inevitably ensues as law-breaking becomes commonplace — because there is no justice. Even an American free-market system needs to revolve around not only just economic principles but also other fair principles that include but are not limited to freedom to communicate thoughts and ideas without fear of repercussions, freedom to worship, freedom to engage in the social enterprise under the rules of fair play, and equal justice under the law. When principles like those are perverted, the social construct breaks down.

The ubiquitous injustice cries out for so much more to be righted. Now that Mr. Trump’s patriotism has been investigated, it is time to investigate John Brennan’s loyalties. He voted for Gus Hall, the Communist Party candidate, to be President of the United States. Although Obama named him CIA head — itself an act worthy of a Special Counsel — what do we know of this man who calls others “treasonous”? Has he lied under oath? Has James Clapper? Has Jim Comey? Did Comey break the law by leaking confidential FBI information, notes obtained in his capacity as FBI chief, to the New York Times? Did Loretta Lynch break the law? How was the Steele Dossier composed? Funded? Will Steele face American justice? What exactly was told to the FISA court? Did Samantha Power or Sally Yates or Andrew McCabe or Bruce Ohr break the law? How was Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign involved? Was there an interplay with the Clinton Foundation? And is it conceivably possible that all this went on during the Obama Administration without Obama knowing about it? And if Obama knew: “what did he know, and when did he know it?” And what about his Vice President? Are there other dirty players whose names we do not yet know, who remain as Deep State moles within the FBI and CIA?

We await justice. As we await it for Jussie Smollett. Every person under our system of laws is innocent until proven guilty. Someone like Smollett is entitled to his day in court to clear his name. But not only is he entitled. Rather, the greater society, too, is entitled to his day in court. If he is guilty of doing what he reportedly did, he could have ignited race wars. The hoax was aimed at inducing greater society to deem Trump supporters uniformly as racist, even as Klansmen lynching people of color. It was not just a stupid April Fool’s Joke gone wrong. This was an evil so vile that, if true, the man belongs in prison for years. That would be equal justice under the law.

When there is no equal justice under the law, a society degrades into a Sodom. By now, it is common knowledge that Obama rose within Chicago politics by associating with the likes of Tony Rezko, who arranged Obama’s property acquisition, even as his wife netted a suspiciously high-paying hospital job in tandem with his rise in state politics. His Illinois U.S. Senate election was marked by the unsealing of embarrassing divorce files, first exposing his Democrat primary opponent’s sordid but secret past, then exposing his Republican opponent’s sordid but secret past. The Chicago way. Now Kim Foxx, graduate of Southern Illinois University School of Law, ranked among the bottom ranked law schools by U.S. News, enters for her fifteen minutes.

There must be justice for Jussie Smollett, for Kim Foxx, and thus for our society. The federal Department of Justice can look into it; they have spent so many decades investigating corruption in Chicago that they do not even need a GPS app to find the addresses, and they probably have all the key phone numbers, including the prisons, in speed dial.

Want to hasten and finalize America’s long, slow decline into a banana republic, with all the ugly trimmings the term suggests? It’s easy: first, you demonstrate to all Americans that the widespread assumption of a two-tier (in)justice system and an untouchable, unreformable shadow government is correct, by letting the reprobates behind the Collusion Delusion get away scot free with their crimes. You confirm their darkest suspicions of powerlessness, that even bothering to keep themselves informed politically is a pointless waste of time, thereby destroying forever whatever tatterdemalion shreds of faith in our tainted institutions and processes might still remain.

Then sit back and wait for the fruits of your endeavor to ripen. I promise you won’t enjoy the taste. But eventually, you’ll damned sure have it rammed down your gullet anyway.

Ooopsdate! Gordon says I forgot to link the Fisher article up there, and dang it, he’s correct. Here t’is; sorry about that, everyone.

Share

Lost world

Or, how to cow and pussify a nation, and keep it that way.

8 Fun (and Possibly Dangerous) Activities Enjoyed by Past Generations That Today’s Kids Will Never Experience
Children are more coddled and protected than ever in 2019. For kids, it’s oppressive. I know mine listen to my stories of summers full of freedom and independence, running around the neighborhood all day until dark, with wide-eyed envy. These days, kids are hardly free to do anything we could back in generations past.

And yet we marvel in gobsmacked disgust at where in the world such a wretched, emasculated, pitiful twerp as this might possibly have come from:

PajamaPussy.jpg


Somewhere, the Boys of Pointe Du Hoc are weeping. Onwards.

7. Ride in cars without seatbelts

When I was a kid we had a station wagon with blue vinyl bench seats. There were no seatbelts. When we were infants, my mother put us in a laundry basket on the passenger side front seat. When we got bigger, we sat in the back, bouncing around like ping pong balls. We survived several accidents like this. I don’t know how. I vividly remember my face smashing into the back of the bench seat in the front on a few occasions when my mother stopped short, and one scary black ice scenario where we all felt like we had crushed ribs from being flung against one another too hard. While it’s not recommended, there was a freedom and joy about driving that we don’t have anymore in our boosters and five-point harnesses. Gone is the joy of climbing into the back of the station wagon to play cards with your sister on sleeping bags or waving endlessly at the poor guy behind you. Gone is the ability for kids to get comfy and take a good nap on the floor stacked with pillows. It makes me sad that on a twenty-hour car trip my kids are locked into seats with bad neck support, getting numb legs. And while we all know seatbelts are better, and I wouldn’t take my kids out of them, I still wish they could experience a cross-country trip like we did. It might have been stupid and dangerous, but it was a hell of a lot of fun.

It wasn’t all that stupid, and it wasn’t all that dangerous either. Otherwise, how could so very many of us—the OVERWHELMING majority, actually—possibly have survived to adulthood? Megan, I love ya and all, but you’re betraying the lasting effectiveness of your own lifelong obedience training by asserting that it was. Yeah, yeah, the world has changed, technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, all that jazz; I get that, I really do, and I acknowledge that a great many of those societal shifts have been for the better.

But still: allowing ourselves to be panicked into general stampede by the Nanny State’s distressing tales of fatal risk besetting us at every single turn is how we got ourselves herded into the collectivist corral in the first damned place. Don’t think for a minute that it wasn’t on purpose, either. It always sickens me to hear otherwise intelligent, perceptive people say things like this in blithe acceptance of the cultural conditions imposed on us by the nefarious Progtards, as if there was no sensible alternative but to accept their premises without demur.

There are seven more of these, and all in all it’s a sad thing to read for an old fart like me.

Share

Yer doin’ it wrong

Zman gets specific on why populist reform movements always seem to fail.

A common theme to all of these failed opposition movements is the decision to engage in the established political system. Once they connect to the system, the system releases a virus that either assimilates the new group, turning it into a feature of the system, or kills off the threat. The former case is a universal in life. When the king recognizes a threat to his rule, the first move is to buy off the threat. Offering him a position in the system, in exchange for him adding his legitimacy to the king and his ruling order.

The latter is the one that is most puzzling, as it suggests legitimate opposition lacks the right antibodies to function in a modern liberal democracy. A recent example in America was the alt-right. When it was a humorous on-line enterprise, operating outside the political system, it was effective at introducing paleocon ideas into the flow of social media. Those memes making sport of ruling class piety were highly effective. The alt-right operated like a highly diffuse guerrilla movement, using mockery and satire to undermine order.

Then Richard Spencer started imagining himself as the leader of a vanguard and started to stage protests and go on speaking tours. The shift from underground guerrilla movement to above ground political activism was a disaster. Quickly, Spencer became David Duke 2.0, which gave the Left cover to send in their street mobs. Woke capital joined in and the entire dissident scene was subjected to an ongoing pogrom that persists to this day. The alt-right exploded and has followed the Tea Party into the dustbin.

Decades ago, Sam Francis observed that the Buckley brand of conservatism was bound to fail, because it sought to engage in politics on Progressive terms. By engaging in conventional politics, Buckley was legitimizing not only the rules of the game, but the roles for the participants as created by the Left. Since the Left controlled the institutions, they would always set the rules so they would win and the Buckleyites would lose. That is, of course, exactly how things unfolded. Conservatism was a failure.

Something similar happened with the Tea Party, the alt-right and now the Gilets Jaunes in France. By trying to play by the rules, they legitimize that which they claim to oppose, at least at a meta-political level. It also removes from them the one weapon all outsider movements possess. That is the willingness to break the rules. The flipping over of tables inside the temple is how these movements gain attention and attract followers. To then be seen putting the tables back and sitting behind them robs the movement of energy.

Something else seems to be at work. These movements all suffered from poor leadership and poor organization. The first Tea Party folks were honest, energetic, but wildly naive about the reality of political organization. The alt-right figures that rose up in 2015 were good at getting attention, but incapable of building organizations. Richard Spencer is media savvy, but you would not put him in charge of anything. The Gilets Jaunes appears to also lack capable leadership, which is why they have been taken over by the Left.

What this suggests is that any legitimate opposition must first insulate itself from the political system. Its guerrilla phase cannot be where they start, but where the end, in order to function as a subversive subculture in opposition to the prevailing order. The Vietcong and the Khmer Rouge did not fully come out of the shadows until the prevailing order was collapsing. It was at that point they rushed into fill the void. If there is to be a legitimate opposition in the West, it is going to operate in the shadows.

He’s definitely onto something here. These systems are static, inflexible, and way too firmly entrenched to be amenable to real change. That in turn renders any notion of “reform” null and void, a naive pipe dream. It can’t come as much of a surprise, then, that “working within the system” is futile, a waste of time.

Share

“Deep State dumpster fire”

Try as I might, I just couldn’t find a way to improve on Steyn’s title.

For two years, the prefatory “Russia” has been intended to give the word “investigation” more heft, to make it seem as if there was something more than let’s-get-Trump-on-anything. But even the unlimited resources of a wretchedly corrupt federal justice system couldn’t keep that going without something more than Michael Cohen’s taxi medallions (only in America) and a few Russian troll farms, one of whom has amusingly decided to push back in court against Mueller and his showboating cronies.

Other than that, there are, as I said almost two years ago, no Russians in the Russia investigation – and what foreign “interference” with the 2016 election there was from Russia seems to have been amateur and minimal, unless you count MI6 spook Christopher Steele working his Moscow Rolodex on behalf of Hillary Clinton and her Deep State allies. There was, however, extensive domestic interference with the election, in that at the behest of the sitting administration the most powerful figures in the permanent bureaucracy set to work on a sophisticated surveillance operation against its political opposition: “Republics” in the Americas have been invariably prefaced by the qualifier “banana”; it just took Washington a little longer to sign up.

If you’ve ever been in the most piddling nothing civil suit in the District of Columbia, you’ll know how quickly the paperwork piles up. Here a mere thirty-three pages of thinly sourced gossip was enough to support a three-year multi-gazillion-dollar investigation that destroyed the real lives of real people.

Mark goes on to quote from several of his own past posts, including this one, which I excerpted myself when it first appeared:

Let me start with an immigrant’s observation: My sweetly naïve understanding of an ‘independent counsel’ is that he should be ‘independent’. For example, even in the presently desiccated condition of the Commonwealth, it’s generally understood that, when you’ve got a problem and you want someone independent to investigate it, “independent” means outsider…

There isn’t even the figleaf of ‘independence’ when you appoint a career swamp-dweller like Robert Mueller, a man who has relationships with every player in Washington going back decades. The parade of hacks infesting the cable shows to inform us solemnly that they’ve known Mueller for years and he’s the very apotheosis of a straight shooter is, in fact, the strongest evidence of why he should never have been appointed: he’s the insiders’ insider. When Mueller decided to stage his pre-dawn swoop on Paul Manafort’s bedroom, for example, he was raiding the home of a longtime client of his own law firm, WilmerHale…

My advice is that, whenever lifelong swampers assure us of the integrity of any individual, assume ‘straight arrow’ is Beltway-speak for ‘slimey duplicitous permanent-state operator’ and you can’t go wrong.

Thus, the FBI has 35,000 employees. But oddly enough the same indispensable guy, Peter Strzok, gets assigned to run the Hillary investigation, and then the Trump investigation, and – surprise! – is immediately appointed by Mueller to the “Russia” investigation. And the straight-arrow eagle scouts immediately start throwing the book at everyone for the crime of misremembering to the FBI.

But even supposed rock-ribbed “constitutional conservatives” make no serious challenge to the iniquities of this “process crime” – “process” in this case being a coy euphemism for an utterly disgusting federal criminal justice system in which prosecutors win 97 per cent of their cases without ever bringing them to court. So Michael Flynn is broke and ruined, while the corruptocrats Comey and McCabe are working the talk-show sofas plugging their books.

And, notwithstanding Mueller closing up shop, the most disturbing questions remain: Forget the Russian trolls and Macedonian content farmers; this is a story not of foreign subversion of the election, but of domestic subversion of the election, by powerful figures able to reach out and entrap its marks at Cambridge conferences and London wine bars. In old-school banana republics, the coup happens quickly: “The rebels have seized control of the radio station,” as the BBC’s Africa bureaus used to announce every fortnight through the Sixties, and next thing you know this week’s president-for-life is being carried out by the handles. But in America everything’s more protracted and expensive. That, however, should not blind us to what happened: a cabal of Deep State bigwigs reverse-engineered a foreign cover for their own interference in self-government by the people.

Towards the end, he revisits one of those wonderful, stop-in-your-tracks-and-marvel lines that make Steyn Steyn:

If Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, the “Russia investigation” is a nullity wrapped in an absence inside a void, now shimmering in the black hole of the billable hours of fifteen lawyers and the expense accounts of a hundred FBI agents.

Tasty as that is, it’s no more than we’ve come to expect from one of the most talented, sure-handed writers of our time. His closer? “If there are no consequences to that, it will happen again.” My money is on the latter; Diplomad, too, sounds a cautionary note:

It appears that Mueller has recommended no further indictments. Many on the right have taken that to mean Trump’s vindicated, that the left must throw in the towel. Victory!

I urge a little more caution. The left seeks to undermine this presidency, destroy Trump and his family, and completely discredit anybody who has supported him, regardless of what that does to the country. That determination remains a constant.

Furthermore, none of us has seen the report, or knows how Mueller will phrase his conclusions/recommendations. Will he say, as he should, that he undertook a massive waste of time, for which we spent nearly $26 million, and tore apart the country for nothing? I doubt that very much. He might say, that well, he has no ability to go further with the investigation for this or that reason, and recommends handing off portions of it to other prosecutors. He might also go full reptile and state that there was collusion but it does not rise to the level of prosecution, or any number of variations on that theme.

I don’t see the effort at destruction, of canceling the 2016 election results, coming to an end.

Nope. If, as I expect, there aren’t serious consequences swiftly visited on at least some of the perpetrators of this traitorous outrage, Steyn’s predicted reruns of this shitshow—probably even worse ones, actually—will be guaranteed. This was indeed nothing short of a brazen attempt at a palace coup: a conspiracy first to rig an election, then to nullify the result when that failed, launched from within the highest levels of the government itself. Token slaps on a few low-level-scapegoat wrists will NOT cut it here. No way.

Surehand update! Surber notices a little something:

Our beloved president, Donald John Trump, showed his very sane genius on Twitter today.

He didn’t tweet.

He let the Bungling Bob Mueller report sit atop the Drudge Report without a retort because the Mueller’s witch hunt has torpedoed his critics.

Why would the president suddenly want to make the news about him?

Thomas Lifson counsels patience:

President Trump has the power to declassify the FISA warrant applications. As I have repeatedly written, he is the master of the concept of a story arc in reality television. We have now seen the dramatic peak of the first narrative; that Trump was a treasonous collaborator with Vladimir Putin to sabotage the democratic process. As every dramatist knows, audiences love surprises and reversals of fortune. President Trump wants this drama to conclude in time for voters to have a satisfying conclusion in mind when they start to vote next year. My guess is that he will time declassification and disclosure for maximum effect.

Trump knows that even if the smarter Democrats realize it’s time to prevent further losses, the much larger faction of rabid Trump-haters — people like Adam Schiff — can’t help themselves and will continue to keep trying to find something to justify all their foolish claims and efforts. They will only prove to the persuadable voters that they are obsessive and unreasonable. Instead of accomplishing anything through Democrat control of the House, they will just make noise, vent their frustration, and continue to stir up trouble where there is none.

Still to be explored by an official investigation is the rampant “unmasking” of people in the Trump campaign surveilled by the NSA — spying on the rival party’s campaign. Then the creation of the futile search of the special counsel by potentially felonious activity of the sitting FBI director. Then the lying to the FISA Court.

Conservative Trump-supporters have been chafing for about two years, angry that investigation of the real scandal hasn’t been forthcoming. Slowly, slowly, they are going to get their satisfaction, well timed for maximum impact November 2020.

From his lips to God’s ears. Back to Surber:

It is now Mueller Time in American politics.

Pelosi and the Never Trumpers got exactly what they asked for: a special prosecutor.

And then they got exactly what they deserve: humiliation.

Barack Hussein Obama failed to give President Donald John Trump the same peaceful transition of power that President George Walker Bush gave Obama.

But now Obama and his acolytes as well as the Never Trumpers look exactly like the fools they are.

They acted disgracefully and without honor. They demanded a witch hunt.

Well they got one.

Now Americans laugh at them. The failure to indict tainted them and raised President Trump’s esteem in the public eye.

A bright person would change subjects.

Which means they will double down and keep talking about the report until it finally dawns on them how dumb that is.

Ahh, but that assumes they’re bright enough to EVER realize such a thing.



Share

History, on endless repeat

Any of this sounding familiar at all, to anybody?

U.S. v. I. Lewis Libby is worth revisiting to set the record straight. It also illustrates the damage that can be done to national security by a special counsel who, finding no crime, generates through his investigations the alleged offenses he seeks to prosecute.

With a virtually unlimited budget, a malleable mandate, a single case and little in the way of oversight or time constraints, the special counsel operates outside the usual system of formal and informal checks on prosecutorial conduct. This gives him the power to transform executive branch slip-ups, oversights and faulty recollections into criminal offenses capable of crippling the White House and wreaking havoc on individuals and their families.

According to the conventional view, in the summer of 2003 Mr. Libby compromised national security by unlawfully outing a covert CIA agent. Mr. Libby’s supposed purpose was to punish the agent’s husband, who challenged President George W. Bush’s assertion in his 2003 State of the Union address that the British government learned that Iraq had sought to purchase African uranium. According to the standard anti-Bush account, when Mr. Libby became enmeshed in a federal investigation, he lied to conceal his crime and protect Mr. Cheney.

This account is false in all essential respects, as Mr. Fitzgerald—since 2012 a partner in the Chicago office of the Skadden Arps law firm—had reason, as well as an ethical obligation as an officer of the court, to know.

Scooter Libby did not “out” CIA employee Valerie Plame. That was done by then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a critic of the conduct of the Iraq war. Mr. Armitage disclosed to columnist Robert Novak that Ms. Plame, who at the time held a desk job in the CIA’s Counterproliferation Division, urged the agency to send her husband, retired Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, to Africa in early 2002 to investigate whether Iraq had sought uranium. Presidential aide Karl Rove and then-CIA Director of Public Affairs Bill Harlow confirmed Mr. Armitage’s disclosure for Novak’s July 14, 2003, column. (Novak died in 2009.)

Mr. Fitzgerald didn’t charge anyone with leaking Ms. Plame’s identity or disclosing classified information to reporters. From the moment he took over the FBI leak investigation in December 2003, he knew that Mr. Armitage was the leaker but declined to prosecute him, Mr. Rove or Mr. Harlow because the disclosure of Ms. Plame’s identity wasn’t a crime and didn’t compromise national security.

Having failed to find any underlying crime, Mr. Fitzgerald nonetheless pressed on for someone to prosecute, eventually focusing on Mr. Libby, whose trial became a contest of recollections. The excruciatingly inconsequential question on which his conviction turned was whether, as Mr. Libby recalled, he was surprised to hear NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert ask him about Ms. Plame in a phone call on July 10 or 11, 2003.

Ms. Miller was the only reporter who asserted that Mr. Libby volunteered information about Mr. Wilson’s wife. And Mr. Fitzgerald attached special importance to the journalist’s June conversation with Mr. Libby, declaring, at the 2005 news conference following Mr. Libby’s indictment, that “Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.”

If Ms. Miller had testified accurately, she would have dealt a severe blow to Mr. Fitzgerald’s central contention that Mr. Libby was lying when he said he was surprised to hear Russert mention Ms. Plame.

In closing arguments, Mr. Fitzgerald insisted that a “cloud” hung over Vice President Cheney, at whose behest, the prosecutor insinuated, Mr. Libby had compromised national security. Ms. Miller’s revelation—that “it was hard not to conclude that my testimony had been wrong”—erases the cloud that Mr. Fitzgerald’s prosecution, abetted by an enthusiastic media, put over the vice president. At the same time, Ms. Miller’s book casts a dark shadow over Mr. Fitzgerald’s prosecution of Mr. Libby. And it raises troubling questions about what the prosecutor told and did not tell other prosecution witnesses to shape and reshape their memories.

Oh, it raises far more troubling questions than that: it raises the question of just what the hell is WRONG with us, that we sit back and allow the unconstitutional, squalidly banana-republic-style position of “special counsel” to disgrace this nation by its continued existence? It is nothing more nor less than one of the handiest tools in the Deep State box—very useful for tuning, tightening, and maintaining its strangulating chokehold; reining in its (very occasional) antagonists; or just putting the fear of God into all and sundry now and then, a reminder of who’s REALLY the boss around here. Has any truly important or even worthwhile purpose EVER been advanced by its use? Even once?

Share

Show them the man, they’ll find you the crime

Death by 302.

Here’s how a standard FBI interview works. Two agents sit down with the person to be interrogated. One agent does the questioning, the other takes notes — by hand. After the interview is over, back at the bureau office, the agent who took notes uses them to construct a memo summarizing the conversation.

That summary, then, is twice removed from the actual interview. The notes are not an exact rendering of the dialogue; and the memorandum is not an exact copy of the notes. Yet the summary is treated as the official record of the interview. The 302 is a record to which the interviewee is held even though it is not close to a verbatim rendering of what was said — neither questions nor answers.

Those who regularly deal with 302s seem unsurprised when they are missing crucial information. In Jackson’s courtroom, lead Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann was declaring Manafort had been caught in “another false statement.” The proof, said the prosecutor, was found in paragraph 17 of a “declaration” made by an FBI agent involved in the interrogation.

“But it would be reflected in the 302, also?” the judge asked.

“I don’t think it is,” Weissmann responded. “I think it’s only in the declaration.”

The hearing moved on. But let’s pause to consider what just happened. The special counsel’s team was accusing Manafort of a specific lie, but the document ostensibly detailing what Manafort said — the 302 — did not have any record of the statement in question. So the prosecutor fell back on a supplemental declaration by an FBI agent. The 302, in other words, was so unreliable that it lacked key information on which prosecutors were basing their case.

And he was sentenced to prison anyway, after having had his home, his livelihood, his good name, and every penny he had taken away.

These problems are behind a decades-long campaign to have all law enforcement — from small-town deputy sheriffs to deputy directors of the FBI — make the recording of interviews standard policy.

One of the leaders of that effort has been civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate, author of the book “Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent.” He argues that 302s present a pervasive and unnecessary temptation for agents to bend the truth. A “fundamental flaw in the FBI’s truth-gathering apparatus,” Silverglate wrote in 2011, is “the long-defended Bureau-wide policy of not recording interrogations and interviews, a practice that allows the FBI to manipulate witnesses, manufacture convictions, and destroy justice as we once knew it.”

That may sound like strong stuff, unfair even. But the FBI’s own intransigence in the face of the electronic recording movement lends credence to Silverglate’s critique. An FBI response to this proposed reform has become notorious in civil libertarian circles. In 2006, the bureau produced a written rebuttal to the “on-going debate in the criminal justice community whether to make electronic recording of custodial interrogations mandatory.”

The policy memo offered several reasons why the FBI resisted recording, including the telling admission that, when people get a look at FBI interrogations in action, they don’t like what they see: As “all experienced investigators and prosecutors know, perfectly lawful and acceptable interviewing techniques do not always come across in recorded fashion to lay persons as proper means of obtaining information from defendants,” the memo states. “Initial resistance may be interpreted as involuntariness, and misleading a defendant as to the quality of the evidence against him may appear to be unfair deceit.”

The bottom line is that FBI agents feel empowered lie to witnesses or suspects, but when those targets lie to the FBI they are charged with crimes. And being allowed to produce 302s, instead of taped interviews, allows this practice to continue. It’s worth noting that when that memo was produced, the FBI director was…

Guess who it was. Go on, guess. But wait, it gets even better:

There are more recent examples. Immediately after assuring President Trump in private meeting, “I don’t do sneaky things, I don’t leak, I don’t do weasel moves,” then-FBI director James Comey went to his car, got out his laptop and immediately began writing a 302-style memo. Which he later leaked. According to his own congressional testimony, Comey did the same thing to former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. Yet Comey seemed surprised anyone would see those as weasel moves or sneaky things, the obvious irony being that we only know about the “weasel moves” quote because Comey put them in his 302-type memo.

Yeah, well, SOP for every lying weasel is to lie about being a weasel to anyone you intend to pull any weasel moves on. Then you crow to any fool willing to listen about your towering integrity, your unimpeachable honesty, and your abiding reverence for the “rule of law.” You reiterate your absolute commitment to “going only where the evidence leads.” Don’t worry, even when this soaring ziggurat of utter bullshit totters and falls, you can count on the media to back up your assertions…as long as it’s a Republican you’re targeting.

Ahh, but does it get better still, you ask? Of course it does—for certain values of “better,” at least.

The concern isn’t a new one: “You can have a conversation with an agent,” Robert Kennedy’s press secretary when RFK was attorney general, once told journalist Victor Navasky, “and when it is over he will send a memo to the files. Any relation between the memo and what was said in the conversation may be purely coincidental. You would think you were at different meetings.”

It was that sort of reputation that led the Department of Justice in 2014 to issue a new Policy Concerning Electronic Recording of Statements. Promulgated by then-Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, the document opens with this declaration: “This policy establishes a presumption that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and the United States Marshals Service (USMS) will electronically record statements made by individuals in their custody.”

There was great anticipation that the new policy would finally be the end of commemorating interviews in memos derived from handwritten notes. “This policy change is an important step in the right direction,” the Harvard Law Review declared in 2015, “reflecting a growing movement that has recognized the benefits of recording interviews; however, the new policy puts in place little express accountability for failure to comply with the presumption.”

Not only is there “little express accountability” for not recording interviews at the FBI, the bureau has made it policy to interpret the presumption of recording in the narrowest possible way, while obliging agents to file 302s as a matter of course. DOJ policy notwithstanding, “FBI interviews with witnesses are rarely recorded,” says one prominent white-collar Washington, D.C., defense lawyer. “About 99 percent of the time agents take notes during the interview and then turn those notes into a 302.”

That 99 percent may be a slight exaggeration, but what is the real ratio of taped to typed interviews? If the bureau knows, it isn’t willing to share: “The FBI does not maintain statistical information about the aggregate number of electronic recordings or FD-302s prepared in a given window of time,” an FBI official told RealClearInvestigations.

So here’s what we have here: a truly omnipotent, entirely unaccountable, highly-secretive federal “law enforcement” bureaucracy that makes its own rules, rejects any and all calls for transparency or oversight, bends the law when it isn’t flouting it outright, and pursues its own clandestine agenda on its own terms. We have, in other words, the very thing the Founders warned against, the existence of which they established explicit boundaries intended to prevent. We have, in short, a monstrous, tyrannical, untouchable affront not only to justice, but to decency itself.

I was just about to repeat yet again that I only wish I could say I found this horrible article shocking, but this time I just can’t do it. The truth is, it IS shocking—stunning, even, no matter how jaded about our appalling, out-of-control government you may be. There is no possibility whatsoever that such a warped abomination—conceived in corruption, fattened on amorality, shot through with wickedness—can be reformed. Malignancy this deep is immune to it; it cannot be salvaged.

Tear it down. Burn the rubble. Scatter the ashes. Salt the earth.

(Via WRSA)

Share

The peasants are revolting!

A tangled web, a nice kettle of fish.

Theresa May’s crushing defeat in the House of Commons this week over her plan for Britain to leave the European Union was actually a great victory for her, provided that you make a simple assumption: that she and her colleagues never wanted Britain to leave the EU in the first place.

Her appearance of negotiating with the EU was merely elaborate shadow-play. She never intended to produce the complete break that just over half the electorate — but not the political class — wanted.

The present impasse will probably lead to Britain never leaving the union. Except for a hard core of about a fifth of Parliament, all the other legislators are adamantly opposed to Britain leaving the EU without a deal; and the Union, knowing this, has no reason to negotiate further.

But the legislators will not agree to the deal as negotiated, as they have now demonstrated. They want a second referendum, in the hope that the result of the first will be reversed. (And if it is, there will never be a third.)

An extension to Britain’s departure will be granted only if Britain has a concrete proposal to offer — and the only such offer it can make is to hold the second referendum.

This is, in essence, the European approach to democracy: If the voters get the answer wrong, either ignore the verdict or make them vote again until they get the answer right.

It isn’t just the European approach to democracy; it’s the Leftist one, always and everywhere. This is, ultimately the part that matters:

Whether the population will take it lying down remains to be seen, but after three years of deliberately created political chaos, it is likely that Britons will simply shrug and get on with their lives.

I expect so. And that fatalistic, defeated shrug will signal the snuffing out of Once Great Britain’s national independence for all time.

Share

The War on Christianity

Is real.

The unlawful arrest of a Christian street preacher in London has drawn attention to the continuing use of hate speech laws to silence Christians in multicultural Britain—even as incendiary speech by Muslim extremists is routinely ignored.

On February 23, Oluwole Ilesanmi, a 64-year-old Nigerian evangelist known as Preacher Olu, was arrested at Southgate Station in North London after complaints that his message about Jesus was “Islamophobic.” A video of the arrest, viewed more than two million times, shows how two police officers ordered the man to stop preaching because “nobody wants to listen to that,” confiscated his Bible and then arrested him for “a breach of peace.”

The video was filmed by Ambrosine Shitrit, co-founder of Eye on Antisemitism, a London-based organization that tracks anti-Semitism on social media. Shortly before Ilesanmi’s arrest, Shitrit had seen him interacting with another man, who turned out to be a Muslim. She thought the Muslim was about to assault Ilesanmi when she went over and started filming with her phone. When the police arrived in response to an emergency call, the Muslim man left the scene.

The video shows Ilesanmi pleading with police, “Don’t take my Bible away. Don’t take my Bible away.” An officer responded: “You should have thought about that before being racist.” A popular blogger known as Archbishop Cranmer tweeted what many people doubtless felt: “Dear @metpoliceuk, Setting aside the appalling ignorance of these two officers, would you handle a copy of the Qur’an like that?”

Ilesanmi said that after he was searched, the police drove him to a remote area before “de-arresting him.” In Britain, “de-arrest” is a legal term which means that no crime has been committed. Since then, London police have changed their story about what transpired; some have accused the police of staging a cover-up.

When journalist Marcus Jones of Premier Christian Radio asked the Met Police whether they agreed that Ilesanmi had been driven away to a remote location, the Met Police expressly denied it. In an email exchange, they said that Ilesanmi was escorted “approximately 200 meters away, de-arrested and shown to a nearby bus stop.”

This, as it turns out, was a lie. The post includes a sickeningly long list of Christian street preachers being placed in chokey on all sorts of specious pretexts. As a Christian myself, I’ll say upfront that I’m not overly enamored of street preachers myself; I was raised in a more modest, quiet denomination (FUMC) that held such public proselytizing to be rude, intrusive, and inappropriate. The theory was that, while not specifically forbidden, for most people it was at best off-putting, which rendered it ultimately ineffectual. Yes, bearing witness and sharing one’s faith is an important part of Christianity. But there is a proper time and place for that sort of thing, which might not be in the middle of a busy city sidewalk, among the jostling, already-harried workaday crowd.

On the other hand, I happened across a street preacher in downtown Charlotte just the other day. He was a disheveled, dirty, homeless-looking guy crumpled on the sidewalk at 4th and Tryon, propped against a big handwritten sign. His marginally-coherent muttering in praise of Jesus, punctuated by the occasional shouted rant, was, umm, somewhat less than compelling, let’s say. Every now and then he would set down his battered Bible to pick up and rattle his beggar’s cup vigorously, soliciting a more temporal, earthly reward for his efforts.

But know what? I didn’t seek to have this unsightly, possibly ersatz Man Of The Cloth tossed into durance vile by the local gendarmerie. Nor was I overly discomfited or alarmed by his ghastly presence. I handled this transgression independently, without complication or undue fuss: I just kept walking on by. Sounds easy enough, right? Unfortunately, the Bobbies seem to feel differently about matters, wielding a much heavier hand in the pursuit of protecting London’s public spaces from encroachment by the abominable affliction of…Christianity.

It’s disgusting, despicable, and not a little alarming. But sadly, tragically even, it’s not shocking.

Share

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine." - Joseph Goebbels

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix