A bit corny and John Wayneish - so what! ://www.youtube.com/embed/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Now that the Durham Investigation has been declared a criminal one, several things are starting to happen and align themselves:
First - The Schiff head Gulag Investigation must quicken it's pace and go public to get ahead of the Durham and Horowitz Reports or it will have it's thunder and effectiveness stolen.
Second - The radical Democrats must intensify their campaign to malign Barr so when Durham's report is released the entire Justice Department will be suspect. More character assassination from those who used to run our intelligence agencies?
Third - A whole host of Obama lackeys are lawyering up because they are in Durham's cross hairs and have to be scared their involvement, as masters of the swamp, will be revealed and their efforts to cover up their alleged pernicious activities are going to bring them down, ruin their way of life and emasculate their power.
Fourth - The mass media midgets are sharpening their pencils and are ready to continue their bias on behalf of their adoring acolytes.
Fifth - Barr is no Holder. The Justice Department under Barr is not corrupted as it was under Holder This is why so many disgraceful things happened as did with the IRS.
I never said Trump was an orthodox president, did not have warts but I have also maintained, and still do, when he was elected to drain the swamp, as even admitted by Schumer, he was in for blow-back from top operatives in our various intelligence agencies. In other words, don't go after The FBI, CIA etc. because they will bring you down and so it has been.
No one ever knew what form their attack would take, how they would go about it but we learned they will stop at nothing . The Clapper's, Comey's, Brennan's and their ilk see themselves as modern day Revere's. They are about saving our nation from the evil doers like Trump and us deplorables. They cannot perceive that if they break the law on our behalf they are doing something wrong because they are our "superiors" not our "servants." They do not serve at the pleasure of the President if they do not like the president under whom they serve. They are free to impose their will because they are virtuous.
They know best!!!!!! (See 1 and 1a below.)
FBI ambushed Michael Flynn, then celebrated: Court documents
And:
This was sent to me by a friend and fellow memo reader who received from his friend.
Note that the bulk of this article is a lift from a piece written by "Howell Woltz at The International Centre for Justice, in Warsaw, Poland." (See 1a below.)
https://www.redstate.com/stu-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My friend Jonathan Schanzer berates Trump. I agree and am concerned how we are going to remove our nuclear weapons out of Turkey's air base where we have planes and over 5000 airmen etc. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Are Democrats Really Running A Sham Impeachment Inquiry?
Before an impeachment vote is taken, critics of the president should make their case to the public. Indications are that the public hearings will be coming soon.
By David Thornton
The main defense of Republicans in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump has been to attack what they call the secrecy of the impeachment inquiry. Trump’s defenders point to closed-door hearings and the fact that the House has not yet been allowed to vote on whether to conduct the impeachment inquiry itself. There is some truth to the charges against the way the Democrats are conducting the inquiry, but there are also examples of Republican criticisms being off base.
The fact that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not allowed a House vote on whether to begin an impeachment inquiry has been a major complaint of Republicans. On Sept. 24, Pelosi merely said, “I am announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry” and the ball started rolling.
Republicans seem to be correct that no other impeachment inquiry has ever been launched without a House vote, but the bottom line is that neither the Constitution nor House rules require a vote to begin an impeachment investigation. As Keith Whittington of Lawfare pointed out, the House leadership chose to use standing committees to investigate Mr. Trump’s alleged abuses of power and were entirely within House rules to do so.
Further, neither the Constitution nor House rules require an impeachment inquiry at all. If the House wanted to bring up an impeachment vote with no investigation at all, it could do so. Such a scenario might happen if a president’s actions were either obvious to the most members of Congress or if the president openly admitted to impeachable acts.
Republicans have also complained about how they are being treated in committee. There have been claims that Republicans were shut out of committee meetings and were not allowed to be present and ask questions at depositions. Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff explained the need for some secrecy to Roll Call, stressing that the current inquiry is different from the impeachment investigations into Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon where special prosecutors had already investigated the incidents that led to the impeachment.
“In each of those cases, there were either independent counsels or special prosecutors doing the investigation, doing the initial investigative work, and that was all done behind closed doors,” Schiff said.
Schiff explained that if witnesses were aware of what other witnesses had said, they could tailor their own testimony “either to hide the truth or color the truth or know just how much they can give and how much they can conceal.” It is a basic investigative technique to separate witnesses and to get their individual testimony without having it tainted by hearing others.
“Now, I should tell you, notwithstanding those good and sound reasons, at each of these committee interviews and depositions and when we get to open hearings — and we will get to open hearings — the Republicans are completely represented,” Schiff said.
Schiff said that all members of the Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees and their staffs can attend depositions and ask questions. Republicans are provided equal time for questioning with the sides alternating every 45 minutes to an hour.
“They have been largely staff-conducted interviews. They have been very professionally done, although members, too, get to ask questions and we go until the questions are exhausted so they get to ask all the questions they want,” Schiff said.
In one publicized case, Rep. Matt Gaetz was ejected from a meeting of the joint committee investigating impeachment, but Gaetz was not a member of the committees holding the meeting. Gaetz is a member of the Judiciary Committee but it is the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight Committees that are conducting the impeachment hearings. There is no evidence that Republicans who serve on those three committees have been excluded. In fact, Axios pointed out that, when Republicans raided an impeachment hearing this week, 13 of the Republican protesters already had access to the hearing because they were members of the committees holding the hearing.
Republicans such as Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) don’t buy Schiff’s explanations. “We’re talking about impeaching the president of the United States in secret, based on an anonymous whistleblower with no first-hand knowledge, [who] has a bias against the president, has been reported that he worked with Joe Biden, who when he hears about the call, the next day writes a memo using all kinds of descriptors like crazy, scary, but then waits 18 days before he files a complaint,” Jordan complained. “And who does he run up to see in that interim? Adam Schiff’s staff. And now that guy says, ‘Now I’m going to be the special counsel and the independent counsel.’ That is laughable.”
Jordan’s rant actually undercuts another Republican complaint, namely that the whistleblower has not been called to testify. But if, as Jordan concedes, the whistleblower had no direct knowledge of Trump’s actions, he or she has little to add to the testimony of State Department officials who were in the loop and privy to Trump’s decision-making.
The answer is similar for Republican complaints about being denied access to transcripts of witness testimony. Republicans say that only members of applicable committees have access to the transcripts and then only under the watchful eye of Democratic minders. Democrats answer that the transcripts will be made public after the investigative phase is finished. Left unsaid is that they will be released when the possibility of witness tampering is reduced.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries also pointed to the 1998 House resolution authorizing subpoena power for the Clinton impeachment investigation, noting that Democrats did not have the power to independently subpoena their own witnesses as some Republicans have claimed but had to get approval from either the chairman or the full committee. Jeffries says that the current subpoena rules for the Intelligence Committee are no different.
Many members of the Trump Administration have used their complaints about the impeachment proceedings to justify failing to comply with subpoenas from House committees. Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword since some Republicans, including Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), are on record that refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas is itself an impeachable offense.
A further claim by Republicans is that impeachment requires a criminal act. While the Constitution specifies treason, bribery, and “high crimes and misdemeanors” as grounds for impeachment, the original intent of the phrase included acts that were not explicit crimes. A list of impeachments on the House website reveals that, of 19 impeachments from throughout US history, eight were for noncriminal acts including three cases that specifically cited abuse of power.
A charge by Jack Langer, a spokesman for Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) that, “There are no established rules or parameters at all, the Democrats are just inventing them as they go” seems to be untrue. Democrats argue that all of the normal committee rules protecting minority rights are still in effect for impeachment-related hearings.
In fact, it was only four years ago in 2015 when the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), personally dismissed Rep Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) from a hearing during the Benghazi investigation. The reason? Issa was not a member of the committee. The Democrats are following the same rules.
Republicans do have a stronger case in their complaints about not being able to call their own witnesses and present exculpatory evidence, but the test as to whether those claims will stand up will only come when the House moves beyond the investigative phase. Democrats say that there will be open sessions and transcripts will be released after the facts have been gathered. Current indications are the impeachment proceedings might move into the open phase as early as mid-November.
“We do anticipate a time when we’ll be releasing transcripts, and we do anticipate there will be a time when we will hold back some of these witnesses for open session, and we may call witnesses in open session that we haven’t called in closed session. But we will do so giving the GOP members every opportunity to ask questions,” Schiff said. “We want to make sure that we get to the truth, and this is the process, I think, early in an investigation that makes the most sense.”
Democrats seem to be following established congressional guidelines for congressional hearings, even if the decision to use standing committees rather than a select impeachment committee is not how impeachments have traditionally been handled. Before an impeachment vote is taken, critics of the president should make their case to the public. Supporters of the president do deserve a chance to present their side of the story as well. Indications are that the time for public hearings is coming within the next few weeks.
1a) Recently, one of my email pals sent me an incredible opinion piece from Howell Woltz at The International Centre for Justice, in Warsaw, Poland. He is the author of “Justice Denied: The United States vs. the People,” a very interesting book about the US justice system and federal prisons and the need for some serious reform. Occasionally, an opinion piece is so profound that it simply MUST be disseminated to a much wider audience than a simple blog post. This is one of such article. In this commentary, he opines on the DoJ/FBI cabal’s ongoing coup against POTUS while explaining some key connections among John Brennan , Mitt Romney, Cofer Black, Burisma Holdings (Ukraine), Bararck Obama, Hillary Clinton, and all the rest. It fills in a lot of gaps and explains much about what is going on with respect to the Ukraine kerfuffle.
While I can’t vouch for the veracity of all the claims here, this just rings true to me and connects a lot of very interesting dots. As usual, I caution you to “trust but verify.” If nothing else, it serves as a departure point for your own dot-connecting activities. The more independent analysis is conducted by all, the clearer picture becomes over time. These are some extended excerpts from Woltz’s opinion piece. More than a few light bulbs may be turned on for you after reading this. Note: this article was published on 8 October, so keep this in mind as you read it.
Donald J. Trump is not a RINO or DC insider. He’s a tough-guy billionaire from Queens, New York and a street-fighter. When the Democrats realised last week that Trump was actually heading up his own investigation rather than leaving it to their Deep State apparatchiks—and doing so directly with the leaders of Ukraine, Australia, and Italy (and perhaps the U.K.)—they did the political equivalent of starting a fire in a theatre. House of Representatives Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, announced impeachment proceedings against the president just three hours after stating in a speech that she would not. Speaker Pelosi had zero evidence, cause, stated reason and lacked the required vote of the House of Representatives to do so, but announced it anyway.
Strangely enough…and what caught my attention… Mitt Romney jumped on the “Impeach Trump” train that same day. How did Nancy go from “There will be no impeachment proceedings,” that morning in New York to announcing impeachment proceedings that afternoon when she got back to Washington, DC? Meet the Grand Master of the Deep State in America. Admitted Communist, John Brennan, who has some serious explaining to do now that his attempted coup of U.S. President Donald Trump has been exposed…and continues! So why did Romney want to shut down any investigation of Ukraine’s role as well? That’s the question that got this investigation started and it’s shocking.
Romney’s National Security Advisor, Joseph Cofer Black, sits on the Board of the same Burisma Holdings that was being investigated for corruption back in 2014, and the Vice President and Obama Administration demanded be shut down. Why? Because Burisma was/is their vehicle for corrupt practices in Eastern Europe. And CIA Director, John Brennan’s 9/11 Deep State partner, Cofer Black, is still the link to all that goes on there. In fact, I can state unequivocally that Burisma is the centre of Ukraine corruption and the Democrats’ shadow organisation for corrupt activities. I live in Eastern Europe (Poland) and my sources are first-hand. And I know this matters greatly to Mitt Romney as he is not yet done with politics. If Black is busted, it will reflect on Romney, and it only makes sense that Cofer Black is the Deep State ‘plant’ in case Romney ever rises above polishing knobs in the U.S. Senate. Romney wants to run for President again in 2024 and if he wins, Cofer Black will be back with his fingers on the strings either as DNI or CIA Chief of Corruption. Burisma Holdings is the hub of U.S. Democrat activities to corrupt both Ukraine and American politics and there is proof. Ukraine President Zelenskyy’s win surprised both Brennan and Black’s Deep State ops as much as Trump’s did in 2016 in America.
So who is this Cofer Black guy? Joseph Cofer Black, joined the CIA in 1974 and rose to be Director of The National Counterterrorism Center, before joining Mitt Romney. If it were not for researching this article, I admit, he was unknown to me as well. What a revelation. Black was also the Head of Counterintelligence who somehow missed the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, though according to The Economist, 16 foreign leaders and heads of intelligence agencies warned him it was not only going to happen but when. Oh well. And nothing was done about Cofer Black for this, indicating this is what the Deep State wanted. But it goes deeper. John Brennan and this guy, Cofer Black, are how 19 terrorists got into the U.S.A. to attack the U.S. on 9/11.
Editor Harry will jump on me or make Nurse Ratched give me a dose of Castor Oil if I say something I can’t prove, so I’m just going to quote the CIA whistleblower at the Jeddah, Saudi Arabia CIA staff hearing, who is the source: “According to Freedom Outpost, Brennan was the CIA station chief in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, when the 9/11 hijackers were given visas to travel to the United States. In September 2014, a whistleblower named Greg Ford, a former military intelligence officer, told Ground Zero Radio’s Clyde Lewis that the CIA had objections to the approval of those visas but Brennan actually overrode them.”
1a)
Behold the Lord High Impeacher
The failure to vote on an inquiry allows Schiff to make up the rules as he goes along.
By Kimberley Strassel
Rep. Elise Stefanik was informed this week by Republican House Intelligence Committee staffers of a new diktat from Chairman Adam Schiff. It made the New York Republican’s jaw drop.
Democrats had informed Republicans that, from here on out, the committee would produce a single, printed transcript of every interview it conducted as part of its impeachment inquiry. Only members of the three committees involved in the purported inquiry would be allowed to view that printout, and only in the presence of a Democratic staffer. Ms. Stefanik—an elected member of Congress who sits on the Intelligence Committee—will be babysat while reading by an unelected employee of the Democrats.
“It’s outrageous, and it’s an abuse of power,” Ms. Stefanik said in an interview. “Every constituent across this country deserves to have their members have access to all the facts.”
Welcome to impeachment, Schiff-style. Democrats keep their witnesses locked behind secure doors, then flood the press with carefully sculpted leaks and accusations, driving the Trump-corruption narrative. And so the party goes, galloping toward an impeachment vote that would overturn the will of the American voters—on a case built in secret.
Conservative commentators keep noting that Mrs. Pelosi’s refusal to hold a vote on the House floor to authorize an official impeachment inquiry helps her caucus’s vulnerable members evade accountability. But there’s a more practical and uglier reason for Democrats to skip the formalities. Normally an authorization vote would be followed by official rules on how the inquiry would proceed. Under today’s process, Mr. Schiff gets to make up the rules as he goes along. Behold the Lord High Impeacher.
Democrats view control over the narrative as essential, having learned from their Russia-collusion escapade the perils of transparency. They banked on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation proving impeachment fodder, but got truth-bombed. Their subsequent open hearings on the subject—featuring Michael Cohen, Mr. Mueller and Corey Lewandowski —were, for the Democrats, embarrassing spectacles, at which Republicans punched gaping holes in their story line.
Mr. Schiff is making sure that doesn’t happen again; he’ll present the story, on his terms. His rules mean he can issue that controlling decree about “only one” transcript and Democratic staff supervision of Republican members. It means he can bar the public, the press and even fellow representatives from hearings, even though they’re unclassified.
It means he is able to shield from scrutiny the whistleblower who prompted this impeachment proceeding. It means he can continue barring Republicans from calling opposing witnesses. It means he can continue refusing to allow White House counsel in the room to hear the accusations against the president.
Mr. Schiff apparently even believes his impeachment authority allows him to ignore longstanding rules. A recent letter from Republican members of the Intelligence Committee objected to Mr. Schiff’s new practice of withholding official documents. They listed nearly two dozen letters from the committee (to recipients ranging from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to White House counsel Pat Cipollone) that had not been uploaded to the committee repository—which, they note, violates House rules. Republicans aren’t even allowed to know what questions Mr. Schiff is asking.
Minority Whip Steve Scalise’s office notes that only 106 members out of the 435 in the House sit on the three committees currently allowed to access impeachment proceedings. Given the average size of a congressional district (about 711,000 people), close to 234 million Americans are being represented by House members who have no real access to information. Ms. Stefanik observes that this includes House Democrats who have already declared their intention to vote for impeachment.
Mr. Schiff has intimated he will eventually make some things public. But Democrats’ barring of Republicans and the White House from this “fact finding” stage ensures what is presented later will be a one-sided narrative. How could any senator vote to convict based on such a rigged proceeding?
A group of Republicans this week stormed one of Mr. Schiff’s hearings; he refused to proceed until they left. What followed was a litany of outrage from Democrats and the press about how Republicans were violating “rules.” This from the same Democratic majority that violates the rules every day by leaking select bits of the testimony to a press corps that suddenly doesn’t care much about democracy dying in darkness.
Democrats keep insisting their case against Mr. Trump is rock solid. Maybe. They’ll let you know. In the history books.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
Trump gave Erdogan everything he wanted
by Jonathan Schanzer
New York Post
New York Post
President Trump announced in a surprise statement on Wednesday that the United States would be lifting all sanctions imposed on Turkey for its recent offensive against Kurdish fighters in northeastern Syria. The president claimed that all conditions had been met to remove the punitive measures and declared the shaky ceasefire between Kurdish forces and Ankara as "permanent."
The president thus relinquished every last bit of leverage we had with the Turks.
Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday ironed out a deal with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, to partner in dominating the region and pursuing ethnic cleansing of the Kurds of northern Syria — many of whom fought with the Western coalition against ISIS.
The crisis began last week when Trump agreed hastily in a phone conversation with Erdogan to remove all US troops from the region. When it became clear that Erdogan viewed this as a green light — a term the White House rejects — the US Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish defense and energy ministries and three of the country's senior officials. The White House made it clear that more penalties could come if Ankara did not restrain its military.
With tensions running high, Vice President Mike Pence visited Ankara and won a five-day ceasefire agreement with Erdogan. Yet sporadic clashes between Turkish and Kurdish forces continued. Then, on Wednesday, Erdogan traveled to Sochi where he met with Putin. The two agreed to remove Kurdish militants from a large swath of the border over the next week. In the process, America was edged out of determining the future of region; Putin emerged the clear winner.
The president now says he will lift sanctions on Turkey "unless something happens that we're not happy with." This implies that the president is somehow fine with the current situation — Turkish military operations against our Kurdish partners and Putin snatching up key real estate in the Middle East. At minimum, the removal of sanctions deprives America of much-needed leverage to ensure that Turkey behaves like an ally.
The truth is that Turkey has not acted like an American ally for quite some time. Erdogan's regime played a crucial role in a massive sanctions-busting scheme that helped Iran pocket $20 billion in cash and gold between 2012 and 2015.
Ankara refuses to acknowledge its role, despite the fact that a Turkish banker was found guilty in a New York court in 2018. In fact, after serving out his sentence, Mehmet Hakan Atilla was recently tapped to head the Istanbul Stock Exchange — a clear finger in Trump's eye. Yet the president doesn't seem terribly concerned.
Nor does the president seem bothered by the fact that Turkey serves as a key facilitator for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. The US Treasury has been sanctioning the terrorist group all over the Middle East, including in Turkey. But Erdogan has done nothing to halt this activity. Again, the president doesn't seem terribly concerned.
Erdogan has also defied Washington in purchasing the S-400 missile-defense system from Russia this year, even after US officials warned that doing so would trigger sanctions. It was an odd move for a NATO ally, to put it mildly.
Erdogan's ambitions in arming Turkey go beyond just the S-400, though. He went on the record last month declaring Turkey's desire to join the ranks of states that possessed nuclear weapons.
As Trump knows well, sanctions are one of the most effective and powerful tools the United States possesses. The Turks got a taste of them last year, when Trump imposed sanctions on top Turkish officials when they held American pastor Andrew Brunson on false charges. The Turks soon relented.
The sanctions imposed on Oct. 14 were arguably Vice President Pence's best leverage in the ceasefire negotiations last week in Turkey. And they would be our best leverage now to ensure that the Turks bring their foray into Syria to a swift conclusion.
Thankfully, this decision is reversible. The president can re-impose sanctions at his discretion. And Congress appears to have teed up a package of its own. If he doesn't take action on his own, Trump should at the very least stand aside for Congress, much as he did for the Turks when they invaded Syria.
Jonathan Schanzer is senior vice president at Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Twitter: @JSchanzer.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment