My wife has a slight impediment in her speech. Every now and then she stops to breathe.
- Jimmy Durante
I have never hated a man enough to give his diamonds back.
- Zsa Zsa Gabo
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Was a gum shoe, named Weissmann, able to lead Mueller around by the nose and stack Mueller's committee with pro Hillary lawyers etc.? (See 1 below.)
As for Schiff for brains , he is an unmitigated liar and California low life. (See 1a and 1b below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This references a recent memo and sent by an old friend and obviously a fellow memo reader. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not much air in the blower's whistle? Did Scheer blow it again? No not the whistle. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Frankly, I do not like Trump going around asking allies and enemies to look into whether their country was engaged in election meddling. He has every right to pursue corruption by those who receive our largess but I would prefer to have other agency personnel making the inquiry.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Mueller's No. 2 Man Andrew Weissmann Had Documented History of Prosecutorial Abuses | |||||||
| On this episode of “Inside Report,” Judicial Watch Senior Investigator Bill Marshall joins attorney Sidney Powell to discuss her book, “Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.” | |||||||
|
1a)
1b) Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) admitted he should "have been more clear" regarding contact he had with the whistleblower before the complaint was flagged.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) "Dick,
Where did you find time for all that diagnostic work? You absolutely nailed how the street organizer put all
his efforts in making our great country second rate. Because , Obama being black, every one treaded lightly so that one would not be accused of being racist. Disaster!!
I happened to be on the highway coming back from north Georgia earlier and listening to Dennis Prager
with an interview with Burgess Owens.
What a super star he is. Difference between Owens and Obama is like “day and night”.
As we move forward to the Yom Kippur holiday, I hope G-d has tested us enough and presents America
with another four years of Trump. “Make America Great Again” F------."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
A Weak Whistleblower, a Ridiculous ImpeachmentThis isn't about the law; it's about circumventing another vote by the deplorables in 2020.
By
Disregard all the dramatic accusations in and around the whistle blower's complaint; they’re
just guff. This entire impeachment brouhaha hinges on Donald Trump’s own words in the transcript of his call with the Ukrainian president. Is he demanding foreign interference in the 2020 election? Or is he asking an ally to run down unethical actions by a man who might become president (here’s a 2018 letter from the Dems asking Ukraine to help them investigate Trump to compare it to)? Or is it mostly just Trump running his mouth off in a rambling, often disconnected, stream-of-consciousness phone call that means very little?
If you read Trump’s words as impeachable, you are asking to impeach on something that was
talked about but never happened. Ukraine never handed over dirt on Biden. Trump never even asked Attorney General Bob Barr to contact Ukraine. Rudy Giuliani may or may not have had meetings with someone but no one is claiming that anything of substance happened in them. There is no evidence military aid was withheld in return for anything. If nothing happened, then nothing happened. You need a body on the ground for a smoking gun to matter.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice had already adjudicated the whistle blower complaint
before the thing was leaked to the Washington Post. The original complaint was passed from the Intelligence Community Inspector General to the DOJ, which determined there was no crime and closed the case. Officials found that the transcript did not show that Trump had violated campaign finance laws by soliciting a thing of value, such as the investigation, from a foreign national. Even as Democrats bleat about how corrupt the DOJ is, at some point during any impeachment, they will need to make clear what evidence they have that finds crime where DOJ did not. No one is above the law, sure, but which law exactly are we talking about here?
Trump is apparently no better at cover-ups than he is at extortion. He got no dirt on Biden even
as Ukraine pocketed its aid money (Ukraine, in fact, knew nothing about the aid being frozen while Trump supposedly was shaking them down), and his so-called cover-up concluded with him releasing in unprecedented fashion both the complaint and the transcript. For a cover-up to even begin, you have to have something to cover, and a phone call that led nowhere doesn’t need to be covered up. In fact, it’s on the internet right now.
But the complaint says that the transcript was moved from one secure computer server inside
the White House to an even more secure server. That’s a cover-up! Not discussed is that Congress had no more access to the first server than the second. Exactly who was blocked from seeing the transcript when it was on the more secure system who would have had access to it otherwise? It seems the main person who suddenly couldn’t grab the transcript was the whistle blower. To make all this work, Democrats either have to argue for less cybersecurity or impeach for over-classification. And of course, the Obama administration also stored records of select presidential phone calls on the exact same server.
Bottom line: Trump asked the Ukrainian president to take calls from Bill Barr and Rudy Giuliani
to talk about corruption, a bilateral issue since the Obama administration with or without Hunter Biden. There was no quid pro quo. Maybe a good scolding is deserved, but sloppy statesmanship is not high crimes and misdemeanors.
Something else is wrong. The whistle blower is a member of the intel community (the New
York Times says CIA), but the text does not read the way government people write. It sounds instead like an op-ed, a mediocre journalist “connecting the dots,” a Maddow exclusive combining anonymous sources with dramatic conclusions. Sure, maybe the whistle blower had help writing it, but that’s not the point. The point is that the complaint was written for the media. It was written to be leaked. It wasn’t even about an intelligence matter. Maybe that’s why the DOJ quickly rejected its accusations, and why both the Times and the Huffington Post praised the writing, commenting on how much clearer the complaint was than Mueller’s legalese.
And that’s a problem. A whistle blower complaint is meant to point out violations of law in the language of prosecutors. It is legalese. A complaint requires data and references. The evidence I needed to explain waste in Iraq’s reconstruction ended up at over 230 published pages. Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers originally ran into multiple volumes to prove that the government
lied about Vietnam. Ed Snowden needed terabytes of data to demonstrate NSA illegality. sources with public ones to mimic a weary Dem narrative of foreign election help much like the Steele Dossier. The complainant witnessed nothing himself and produced no primary documents. The sourcing is as vague as “more than half a dozen officials have informed me of various facts.” No law is cited because none applied; the whistle blower simply recorded his interpretation into bullet points, like the punchlines from Russiagate no one laughed at.
The whistleblower’s expected testimony will be played as high drama but actually it is
meaningless; he has an opinion but his accusations were made without hearing the call or reading the transcript. At least he’s in good company: Nancy Pelosi also declared her support for impeachment before she’d heard the call or seen the transcript.
Here’s where things stand. After three years of trying to keep Trump from assuming office,
then cycling through ways to throw him out, this plops onto the field. If an impeachment vote comes, it will literally be with Trump having only a few months left in his term. This is no longer about overturning 2016; it is about circumventing 2020, fear by the Democrats of what will happen if they let the deplorables vote again. Is the Dem slate that weak? They are acting as if they have nothing to lose by trying impeachment.
Pity Nancy Pelosi, who tried to hold back her colleagues. Now instead of answering the needs
of constituents, Democrats will instead exploit their majority in the House to hold hearings that will likely lead to a show vote that would have embarrassed Stalin. History will remember Pelosi as the mom who, after putting up with the kids’ tantrums for hours, finally gave in only a few blocks from home. She’ll regret spoiling dinner over a hefty glass of white wine, but what could she do: they just wouldn’t shut up and her nerves were shot. Have you had to listen to AOC complain from the back seat for two hours in traffic?
The last thing Joe Biden needed was more baggage. It’ll take awhile for him to realize it, but
he’s done, doomed by kompromat never actually found. Impeachment will so dominate the media that no one will listen to whatever the other primary Dems have to say. Kamala Harris in the midst of all this was so desperate for attention she was still trying to drum up support for impeaching Brett Kavanaugh. Elizabeth Warren will emerge as the nominee. Goodbye then to all the minor Dems, see you in 2024, perhaps running against Mike Pence after Trump’s second term.
The case is weak, though with their House majority, that might not stop the Dems from
impeaching a president just months ahead of an election based on a partisan interpretation ofa few words to a minor world leader. Impeachment didn’t even come up in the last Democratic debate, yet heading into the early caucuses, the faces of the party will be Adam Schiff and the agita-driven Hillary. Democrats are taking that road instead of talking about jobs, health care, immigration, or any of the other issues voters do care about.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How
I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the 99 Percent.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
No comments:
Post a Comment