Displaying posts published in

December 2019

Andrew McCarthy: DOJ vs. IG – Barr and Horowitz’s reported rift over FISA report is bogus spin by Democrats

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/doj-ig-barr-horowitz-fisa-democrats-andrew-mccarthy

At Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on investigative abuses in the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation (codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane”), Democrats continued an effort begun ten days ago to hoodwink the public into believing Horowitz is in a bitter dispute with Attorney General William Barr over a key finding in the report.

The dispute allegedly stems from what is portrayed as Barr’s dissent from the IG’s conclusion that the probe was properly predicated – i.e., that there were sufficient factual grounds to open an investigation of whether the Trump campaign was complicit in the Kremlin’s cyberespionage attack on Democratic party email accounts.

In point of fact, as discussed in my Fox News Opinion column on Wednesday, the two men have less a difference of opinion than a difference in focus – the distinction between what may be done and what should be done.

I’m tempted to say there is no real dispute, but let’s leave it at saying the dispute is wildly overstated.

A cautionary note: People should be suspicious about media coverage of the attorney general. For decades, Bill Barr has enjoyed a well-earned reputation for legal acumen and personal integrity. But he is now working for Donald Trump.

Thwack! Matt Gaetz nailed Dem impeachment counsel Daniel Goldman By Thomas Lifson (Video)

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/12/thwack_matt_gaetz_nailed_dem_impeachment_counsel_daniel_goldman_.html

Attorney Daniel Goldman appears to be the brains of the impeachment operation, doing all the heavy lifting for Chairman Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee.  Perhaps the most satisfying moment in the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearing Monday came when Rep. Matt Gaetz confronted Goldman, the hired-gun counsel of the committee’s majority.  

Goldman was visibly uncomfortable as Gaetz began by asking him if he is non-partisan, and Goldman laughably claimed to be so.  Then Gaetz moved in for the kill, asking him, “Have you ever tweeted anything at the president?”

“I have made a number of tweets in my private capacity before I came to this job when I worked in the media,” Goldman replied.

“As a matter of fact, this is one of those tweets,” Gaetz said gleefully displaying the posterboard.

Steele Dossier Peddled Insane Conspiracy Theory That American Jews Were Secret Russian Spies By Tristan Justice

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/12/steele-dossier-peddled-insane-conspiracy-theory-that-american-jews-were-secret-russian-spies/

The widely discredited Steele Dossier at the heart of the Russian collusion hoax peddled an insane conspiracy theory about how Russians were convincing Jewish Americans of Russian descent to download malicious malware on American computers.

On page five in the third paragraph of the dossier, former British spy Christopher Steele wrote that agents of the FSB, the Russian Federal Security Service, were approaching Russian-Jewish-Americans who worked in the IT industry to conduct covert operations.

“In terms of the FSB’s recruitment of capable cyber operatives to carry out its, ideally deniable, offensive cyber operations, a Russian IT specialist with direct knowledge reported in June 2016 that this was often done using coercion and blackmail,” Steele wrote. “In terms of ‘foreign’ agents, the FSB was approaching US citizens of Russian (Jewish) origin on business trip to Russia.”

The GOP’s Four-Point Defense Of Trump Is Devastating By David Marcus

The GOP’s Four-Point Defense Of Trump Is Devastating

During Thursday’s mark up of the articles of impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee, Republicans unveiled a four-point defense of President Trump that is stunning in its simplicity and blows massive holes in the Democrats allegations of abuse of power. Essentially the Democrats are accusing Trump of shaking down Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky by withholding aid and demanding announcement of investigations, including one involving Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

To this, the central charge in the articles of impeachment, Rep. Jim Jordan and others presented four specific facts. First, both Trump and Zelensky say there was no pressure applied. Second, the transcript does not indicate Trump making any demands or setting any conditions. Third, Ukraine was not aware that the aid was delayed. And fourth, aid flowed without any announcement of investigations. Taken together, these four defenses have more than enough weight to crush the Democrats’ case, but lets look at them one by one.

The fact that Zelensky says on the record that he did not feel pressure from Trump is an important one that has been widely ignored. As Rep. Matt Gaetz argued, there can’t be a shake down if the person being shook down has no idea its happening. Unless Zelensky is lying, the entire case against Trump just disappears.

Democrats on Thursday, as they have before, but more vehemently so, said that of course Zelensky must be lying. He needs American aid so he is lying to stay on the good side of the president. Setting aside the fact that the Democrats making this claim have no evidence to support it, it also undermines the credibility of Zelensky, one of the very things they accuse Trump of doing.

As to the transcript itself, the GOP members honed in on the fact the “favor” in the conversation was not a “a favor for me,” but a “favor for us.” And later the “us” is clarified as “our country.” This also strikes at the core of a case that depends upon the claim that Trump’s only interest in Ukraine policy was getting dirt on Joe Biden to help himself politically.

When Trump says, after asking Zelensky to investigate Ukrainian interference in 2016, “our country has been through a lot.” He means the Mueller probe, and he’s not wrong. How much evidence or information about Russian interference exists in Ukraine is up for debate, but the fact that it is a legitimate subject of interest for the President is not.

One of the few facts in all of this where there is some debate is when exactly Ukraine became aware that the military aid had been delayed. But all versions place it very late in the timeline of events, certainly long after the July 25 phone call with Zelensky. That’s like trying to blackmail someone with scandalous photos of them without letting them know you have any scandalous photos of them. It’s impossible.

The delay of the aid was part of a wider set of concerns regarding how much Ukraine could be trusted with the money. Throughout the late summer and fall, through a set of meetings and phone calls with American officials Zelensky proved to Trump that he could be trusted. That is what Trump wanted to know and why he released the aid without any announcement of investigations.

And that final fact, that the aid was released without the announcements Democrats claim were the condition to release them, really puts the period on the sentence. Democrats claim the aid was only released on September 11 because the White House became aware of the whistleblower report. But this ignores the fact the aid had to release by September 30, and doing so is a two-week process.

So essentially, aid was released on or about the deadline set to release it. That is a much more plausible explanation for the timing than some whistleblower report spooking Trump. Is it possible Trump was angry at yet again being undermined by people in the federal government for exercising his legitimate powers? Sure. But there is no evidence to suggest that Trump was ever planning to ultimately kill the aid.

These four basic points will make up the core of the Republican defense of Trump on abuse of power charges. The White House should be very happy. Unlike the serpentine choose your own adventure story the Democrats have cooked up, this is a straightforward and simple defense, it can be explained quickly and it all makes perfect sense.
David Marcus is the Federalist’s New York Correspondent. Follow him on Twitter, @BlueBoxDave.

SCHIFF, HOROWITZ, IMPEACHMENT FOLLIES

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/impeachment_and_the_confrontation_clause.html  

By W. Bruce DelValle

Beware of those who promise to secure rights by denying them.

The clamoring likes of Rep. Andrew Schiff, Conservative Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy, the Washington Post’s Deanna Paul, Professor Steve Vladeck, and others similarly ill-advised — the “Constitutional Deniers” — are intellectually and historically errant to suggest that the Constitution has no place in congressional proceedings and processes – especially impeachment proceedings. 

These Constitutional Deniers use the hollow argument that impeachment is not a criminal process, therefore the Sixth Amendment does not apply. While it is a political process, impeachment is shorn more in the cloth of a criminal process than that of a civil proceeding.

The arguments to the contrary are devoid of even a modicum of intellectual credibility or historic reflection. The very fact that “high crimes and misdemeanors” are the entry point to begin the impeachment process seems to have evaded the Constitutional Deniers and the witless epigones of the Democratic Party. Federalist 65 recognizes that the impeachment process is a matter of “innocence or guilt” — alien terms in a civil proceeding.  

www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/of-course-the-fbi-spied-on-the-trump-campaign

Of course the FBI spied on the Trump campaign
Byron York, WashingtonExaminer.com

The great debate about whether the FBI spied on the Trump campaign continues. The question is why there is still any argument. The newly released report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz shows that by any definition the FBI did indeed spy.

The proof is in the details of the report. In addition to the much-discussed wiretap of Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page, Horowitz discussed the bureau’s use of what is called a CHS (a confidential human source, or, in more common terms, an informant) and a UCE (an undercover employee, or a secret agent) to gather information from at least three targets in the Trump campaign. One was Page, another was George Papadopoulos, also a member of the advisory team, and the third was an unnamed “high-level Trump campaign official who was not a subject of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

New Law Will Prohibit NY Judges From Jailing Armed Suspects Who Resist Arrest Holly Matkin 

https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/new-law-will-prohibit-ny-judges-from-jailing-armed-suspects-who-resist-arrest-yaX0r7GzQEGrM-qb9QkuLA/

New York lawmakers eliminated cash bail for many violent offenses beginning January 1, 2020.

New York, NY – Under the City of New York’s so-called justice reforms, suspects will no longer be held in jail for carrying weapons beginning in January.

Offenders found in possession of a wide array of weapons – including guns, switchblades, swords, machetes, and stun guns – will instead be issued a “desk appearance ticket” and “set free,” the New York City Police Benevolent Association (PBA) pointed out in a Facebook post on Tuesday.

Lawmakers also eliminated cash bail for hundreds of other criminal charges.

“This law starts on Jan. 1st for ALL of New York, not just New York City,” the PBA noted in another post.

On Nov. 19, Queens Senior Executive Assistant District Attorney James Quinn released a complete list of the offenses that judges will no longer be able to set bail for.

“Under the new bail laws…Judges in New York State cannot set bail on any of the following crimes (and most attempts to commit these crimes), and must release the defendant on non-monetary conditions, regardless of criminal record, ties to the community or previous bench warrants on other cases,” Quinn wrote.

The list stretched on for four pages, and included offenses such as stalking, arson, resisting arrest, money laundering in support of terrorism, rioting, vehicular assault, unlawful imprisonment, negligent homicide, and a slew of drug-related charges.

Criminal offenses against children, including child abuse, promoting child prostitution, facilitating female genital mutilation, and possessing or promoting a sexual performance by a child will also be treated with a mandatory release.

The Cost of America’s Cultural Revolution Social-justice crusaders are stripping the future of everything that gives human life meaning: beauty, sublimity, and wit. Heather Mac Donald

https://www.city-journal.org/social-justice-ideology

Social-justice ideology is turning higher education into an engine of progressive political advocacy, according to a new report by the National Association of Scholars. Left-wing activists, masquerading as professors, are infiltrating traditional academic departments or creating new ones—departments such as “Solidarity and Social Justice”—to advance their cause. They are entering the highest rung of college administration, from which perch they require students to take social-justice courses, such as “Native Sexualities and Queer Discourse” or “Hip-hop Workshop,” and attend social-justice events—such as a Reparations, Repatriation, and Redress Symposium or a Power and Privilege Symposium—in order to graduate.

But social-justice education is merely a symptom of an even deeper perversion of academic values: the cult of race and gender victimology, otherwise known as “diversity.” The diversity cult is destroying the very foundations of our civilization. It is worth first exploring, however, why social-justice education is an oxymoron.

Why shouldn’t an academic aspire to correcting perceived social ills? The nineteenth-century American land-grant universities and the European research universities were founded, after all, on the premise that knowledge helps society progress. But social justice is a different beast entirely. When a university pursues social justice, it puts aside its traditional claim to authority: the disinterested search for knowledge. We accord universities enormous privileges. Their denizens are sheltered from the hurly-burly of the marketplace on the assumption that they will pursue truth wherever it will take them, unaffected by political or economic pressures. The definition of social justice, however, is deeply political, entailing a large number of contestable claims about the causes of socioeconomic inequality. Social-justice proponents believe that those claims are settled, and woe to anyone who challenges them on a college campus. There are, however, alternative explanations—besides oppression and illegitimate power—for ongoing inequalities, taboo though they may be in academia.

Iran fills the Vacuum Created by Trump’s Withdrawal by Con Coughlin

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15271/iran-vacuum-trump-withdrawal

President Trump has hastened the withdrawal of American forces from Syria, and is actively seeking to reduce America’s military presence elsewhere in the region, with troop withdrawals under active consideration in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Russia is always on standby to fill power voids. That is how it happened that Russian troops swept in when the US left northern Syria. To sum up that still unfolding story: nobody will remember it as our finest hour.”

“There are some deeply malign forces at work in the broader Middle East…disengagement is just another term for leaving all the power to them.” – Richard Cheney, Former US Vice President,” Arab Strategy Forum, Dubai.

It is a measure of the failure of the nuclear deal with Iran that former US President Barack Obama helped to negotiate in 2015 that Tehran used the brief easing of tensions with Washington to strengthen and consolidate its military presence in Arab countries such as Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.

There are now serious concerns that Mr Trump’s desire to reduce America’s military presence in the Middle East will only encourage Iran to intensify its own activity, thereby increasing the threat to Israel and pro-Western Arab states.

The problem for small states such as Lebanon, though, is that they are no match for a regional superpower like Iran. And so long as the mullahs have the resources and weaponry to maintain their aggressive presence in the region, there is very little that small states like Lebanon can do to stop them.

The threat by a senior commander in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps this week “to flatten Tel Aviv” from Iranian-controlled bases in southern Lebanon provides arguably the most graphic example of the deepening dangers the region faces as a result of the Trump administration’s decision to scale down its military presence.

Is NATO Still Vital? by Lawrence A. Franklin

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15265/is-nato-still-vital

Many additional countries who joined the alliance — such as Poland, Hungary and the Baltic States, which had been Soviet satellites — still consider post-Communist Russia an extremely disquieting potential threat. That is just one issue that has created friction among NATO nations….

The larger question [is] the degree to which enemy countries perceive NATO as a unified organization that would respond militarily to aggression against any member state — a crucial psychological factor in deterrence.

Its reason for being should not be written off quite yet…

The two-day summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) — held in London on December 3-4 to commemorate its 70th anniversary — may have been marked by controversy, but the gathering constituted an important reminder of why the international alliance was established in the first place.

Founded in April 1949 by the United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom, NATO was a pact created to counter the world’s greatest threat at the time: the Soviet Union and its race for global domination.

At the time, it was clear that all NATO members were dependent on and deferred to American political and military leadership. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, some of the original NATO member states began to seek systems that would protect their particular individual interests.

Germany, for instance, has become Europe’s economic powerhouse, enjoying a favorable balance of trade with the US. France, no longer viewing Russia as an existential threat to the Free World, now seems more motivated to protect NATO’s southern flank from radical Islamic terrorist groups in West Africa, and from mass migration from former French colonies in North Africa.

Meanwhile, many additional countries who joined the alliance — such as Poland, Hungary and the Baltic States, which had been Soviet satellites — still consider post-Communist Russia an extremely disquieting potential threat. That is just one issue that has created friction among NATO nations, particularly with Turkey’s decision to purchase a Russian air defense system. Another internal bone of contention is the failure of some members to reach the minimum defense-spending level of 2% of GDP, a goal established by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

James Comey’s War on America His only loyalty is to himself, at the expense of the country. Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2019/12/11/james-comeys-war-on-america/

James Comey’s investigation into the Trump campaign didn’t just taint candidate Donald Trump right before the 2016 election.

Comey’s exploitation of powerful surveillance tools to entrap Trump campaign aides didn’t just violate U.S. law or agency protocol. Nor did Comey just almost destroy the lives of Carter Page, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and George Papadopoulos among others.

Comey’s presentation of the most outlandish claim in the phony dossier—that the Kremlin had a recording of Trump peeing on Russian prostitutes—to the incoming president of the United States days before he took office didn’t just rattle Trump.

Comey did not just sabotage a presidential candidate, his transition team, and his new administration to remind Donald Trump who’s boss. Comey did not just try to oust a duly-elected president from the Oval Office based on made-up “memos” he wrote to document the president’s alleged criminality.

James Comey didn’t just help launch his pal Robert Mueller’s destructive two-year probe into the imaginary crime of Russian “collusion.”

No, James Comey, in fact, declared war on America.