Previous month:
October 2019
Next month:
December 2019

DISHEARTENING NEWS ON THE UPCOMING REPORTS ON THE BIGGEST SCANDAL IN U.S. HISTORY?

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been all over the media touting the fact that the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz is scheduled to testify about the long-delayed, long-awaited report on FISA abuses on December 11, 2019.

Even promising that the report was likely to be released a few days earlier so the media has enough time to review the voluminous report. Many believe that the report will reveal what actions were taken when the FBI applied for FISA court surveillance warrants to surveil U.S. citizens and which allowed the agency to spy on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Some hope that there will be criminal referrals appended to the report. Considering that the Inspector General cannot issue subpoenas or impanel a Grand Jury, there is always another step in the process – all subject to the political bugaboo: "prosecutorial discretion."

The more I read about the Democrat’s assertion that nobody is above the law, the more I have come to realize that there is nobody in power who appears to have the political will to prosecute politically-connected high-level Democrats and that today’s media will say little or nothing about this failure to achieve justice in the biggest political scandal in the history of the United States.

So I am taking all of the conservative pronouncements of upcoming justice in the reports of Attorney General William Barr, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, John Durham, and the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz with a grain of salt.

Consider the recently released “audit” report from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz which found “numerous issues” with how the FBI deals with secret sources and confidential informants. The report released November 19, 2019, and titled  “Audit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Management of its Confidential Human Source Validation Processes, Audit Report 20-009” is freely available on the DOJ IG website (Summary | Full Report | Video | Press Release)

Results in Brief…

We found that the FBI's vetting process for CHSs, known as validation, did not comply with the Attorney General Guidelines. We also found deficiencies in the FBl's long-term CHS validation reports which are relied upon by FBI and Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) officials in determining the continued use of a CHS. Further, the FBI inadequately staffed and trained personnel conducting long-term validations and lacked an automated process to monitor its long-term CHSs.

Our report contains 16 recommendations to help the FBI better manage its CHS program.

The FBI’s response to the draft audit report…

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) appreciates the opportunity to review and respond to your office's report entitled. Audit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Management of its Confidential Human Source Validation Processes.

The Human Source Review Committee (HSRC) comprised of DOJ and FBI has had a positive impact as 33% of the CHS files reviewed between February 2016 and November 2018 were closed, or continued operation with conditions added including caveats or recommendations. The FBI looks forward to improving the HSRC in order to address the highest risk CHSs in a timely manner.

We agree it is important to continue to improve the validation process to ensure compliance with the AG Guidelines. The FBI has already initiated meetings with DOJ to address possible revisions to the AG Guidelines to establish a better validation policy with a cohesive CHS validation strategy. In that regard, we concur with your fourteen recommendations for the FBI and the two recommendations for the Department and FBI.

And then there is footnote 20…

20 While the AG Guidelines require all long-term CHSs to receive an enhanced validation, those CHSs providing information for use in national security investigations or foreign intelligence collections are exempt from the HSRC requirements.

Amazing, since many individuals caught up in the Trump/Russia “Collusion” case were either foreign citizens or U.S. citizens operating abroad. Australian, British, French, or Italian. All were represented and exempt from enhanced validation as noted in Footnote 20.

Through published reports in the legacy media, we can see where many of the “Confidential Human Sources” used by the FBI in the 2016 election scandal were deeply flawed, their information appears to be deliberately deceptive and politically-motivated, and led to severe consequences for individuals caught up in a web of lies, half-truths, and fanciful supposition. Yet, I am looking for the section on who will be held accountable for these failures. Or, like good bureaucratic apparatchiks, will the blame be declared “systemic” and the responsibility diffused to the point where nobody will be held accountable for deliberate, and possibly criminal, misuse of the process by knowing and complicit individuals.

This is the same type of report created by the General Accountability Office who notes the failure of systems and controls to prevent the loss of large sums of money or government-owned property but never seems to point the finger at specific individuals with a recommendation and referral for prosecution. Because, according to the auditors, that is not their job and up to law enforcement and others.

IT APPEARS THAT LADY JUSTICE IS A DEMOCRAT

BLIND-JUSTICE-FOR-DEMOCRATS

I believe that people like Barack Obama, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, and James Clapper will never be successfully prosecuted and will remain “protected individuals.”

I also believe that if anyone will be prosecuted, it will be low-level intelligence, law enforcement, and State Department operatives, including but not limited to Andrew McCabe, James Comey, Peter Strzok,  Lisa Page, etc.

And that such prosecutions will be so flawed as to prevent severe penalties – most likely for lying to the government (18 U.S. Code. § 1001 which prohibits making false statements to the government) and not part of a broader criminal conspiracy to interfere with a presidential election. (5 U.S. Code § 7323 which prohibits a government employee from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.).

Bottom line…

It is unlikely that there will be safeguards to protect the 2020 presidential election, especially since the House Democrats are already abusing their power as they conspire to use their official authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of the election. All courtesy of the “Separation of Powers” which prevents the Executive Branch from unduly interfering in the activities of sitting Members of Congress or their staffs.

Or that old standby, prosecutorial discretions, which saw Hillary Clinton considered only for her violation of the Espionage Act – where James Comey added an additional non-existent element to the law (“Intent”) and then gave her a pass from prosecution although he usurped the power of the Department of Justice to do so. You will notice that she was not charged with perjury, lying to the government, destruction of documents under subpoena, theft of government property, and other criminal activities.

Even if President Trump is reelected and the GOP retakes the House of Representatives, I would not look for justice as the bureaucracy takes care of its own and survives no matter which party might be in power.

We are majorly and thoroughly screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



NOVEMBER 2019 PRIMARY DEMOCRAT DEBATE: LOSERS AND WINNERS

As I have pointed out before, the real losers in the Democrat debates are the American people who are being offered a choice between totalitarian socialism and a politer, but similarly destructive, form of socialism.

Democrat-debates-november-2019

Worldview…

Unfortunately, most in the far left believe that mankind is imperfect, but can be perfected with public policies administered by “enlightened” individuals that are worthy of trust by the rest of the population. Many also believe that the historical activities of the United States are the root cause of existing global problems.

Again, unfortunately, this worldview is insane because it violates the very basis of human nature: the strong will exert control over the weak and complacent to their self-benefit. Thus, some will do everything in their power, foul or fair, to gain and retain their power. And as we have historically witnessed, no group of individuals has been proven worthy of being considered “enlightened” for the central administration of the affairs of the greater population.

As for the historical activities of the United States over its short lifespan, slavery can be traced back to antiquity, and colonialism was the theme of many empires. Why is it that the extreme left finds itself unable to recognize modern colonialism in Russia and China and modern slavery in many African nations?

It appears that it is more advantageous to disparage the system where you reside and where you seek political power. It is more politically advantageous to sell a utopian viewpoint than deal with the failures of existing public policy to improve lives among minorities and the poor.

When you listening…

As you listen to many of the nominees, it is helpful to remember that these people and their staffs live in a carefully-managed utopian bubble without any sense of responsibility or accountability for the real-world consequences of their actions. The paint a picture with broad strokes and not with the implementation of specific legislative solutions. The gloss over prior policy failures as easily and quickly as they dismiss their own failings as “old news.”

We have seen the consequences of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, where patients were not protected, and routine care became massively unaffordable in terms of premiums, co-pays, and reimbursement restrictions. Most of the so-called uninsured were actually transferred to state-managed Medicaid programs that could not exist without massive federal subsidies.

Now, they speak of “Medicare for All, which would result in reducing or eliminating all private insurance, the loss of Medicare paid for decades by senior citizens, and forcing everyone into a one-size-fits-all Medicaid-like program where the government sets coverage and reimbursement rates.

But, worst of all, even in the face of trillion-dollar costs, these candidates cannot explain how you can service a greater number of people with the same number of facilities, physicians, diagnostic devices, and medical support personnel. Or how many doctors would be willing to work for the government with reduced wages and restrictions on the care of patients. A scenario that will most surely lead to denials, delays, and deaths.

This is all because the candidates and their respective staffs live in a bubble where all of the feedback comes from like-minded consultants, pollsters, and even the media.

Everything is about narrative, and individuals are screened and provided access based on how well they support that narrative.

Memorable or not…

** From the opening moments spent condemning Trump and supporting the impeachment effort by moderator Rachel Maddow who mischaracterized the present day’s testimony, it went downhill. You know something is wrong when a nominee quotes Walter Mondale’s words on the wall of the Jimmy Carter Presidential Museum: “We told the truth. We obeyed the law. We kept the peace.” Yeah Right! We gave the world Islamo-Fascism in Iran, We failed to protect our fellow Americans in our Embassy. And, we almost bankrupted America with a damaged economy and sky-high interest rates. One might think that they would start with some of their initiatives – not attempting to destroy the existing president.

** I was hoping someone would ask Joe Biden why his administration failed to give weapons to the Ukraine while they were being attacked – not about a 55-day delay in lethal aid.

** Harris mentions people who shoplift should go to jail – yet in California, shoplifting or stealing anything under $950, well under the price of a gun, gets a misdemeanor ticket. Well, I guess that’s one way to teach functional illiterates everyday arithmetic.

** $15/hour minimum wage – Yes, I want $30,000+ burger flippers and to pay $10 for a hamburger. What an incentive to displace human labor with automation or kill small business opportunities!

** Warren wants to bring 135 additional million people into her Medicare for All at no cost to them. Screw senior citizens who spent their whole life paying into the system – not to mention everyone else losing their private insurance.

** Tulsi Gabbard destroyed Kamala Harris as a liar.

** Steyer condemning the corporations that provided his billions – a hypocrite to be sure.

** Klobuchar: Let’s overturn Citizens United – but says nothing about curtailing the very same campaigning by unions, especially public employee unions.

** Sanders: Nobody is above the law. – Right, just ask Hillary Clinton!

** Democrats want to preserve Ethanol – even as it raises food prices, destroys car engines, and is simply a subsidy to corporate America.

** Yea! Let’s kill our economy with green policies. Yea! Let’s live in a dream world. Steyer: Climate is an emergency, and I will use the President’s emergency powers. Environmental justice – explain how that works.

** Biden: Climate is an existential emergency. Bullshit! Political corruption is an existential emergency – and the Democrats are the most corrupt of all.

** Warren: Mentioning cages at detention centers at the border – I guess she forgot that these were Obama’s cages.

** Sanders: I will stand with 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants. If only that were the true number!!! It hasn’t changed for decades.

** Warren goes on-and-on about corporate corruption, but says nothing about political corruption which permits corporate corruption.

** Biden claims the Obama Administration had a spotless reputation. Pretty much proof that he is out-of-touch with reality.

When are they going to ask Joe why his son was qualified to receive millions from countries and companies in nations in his political portfolio?

Yada. Yada. Yada.

BORING!

DEBATE-FOOTER

Bottom line…

There were no real winners. This is not a contest, a beauty contest, or a reality show. It is a process to determine which individuals might be capable of leading our exceptional nation. And, in my opinion, none of the current candidates meet the challenge. The biggest losers were non-entities Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker.

Most notable moment for me, watching Tulsi Gabbard going up against “Mayor Pete” saying that simply serving in the military does not qualify a candidate to be the commander-in-chief.

The funniest moment for me was Warren saying: “I am so grateful to be here and I am grateful to an America who gave the daughter of a janitor a chance to become a public school teacher, a chance to become a college professor, a chance to become a United States Senator and a candidate for President of the United States.” Funny because she wasn’t grateful to an America who gave her a chance to become an American Indian which she parlayed into a $500,000 professorship teaching one class at Harvard.

Stripped of the euphemisms, they are about collectivist, communist if you are honest, power over the self-determination inalienable rights of the individual citizen.

It is not a matter of choosing the best of the worst; it is a matter of rejecting their message altogether and making your displeasure known.’

For three years, the Democrats have tried to bring down or cripple President Trump, mainly because they lack the ideas and the candidates that can win over a majority of American citizens. There is no doubt that Trump is an unpolished, sometimes crude, individual. But he does try to fulfill his political promises, and his chaotic nature is shaking the establishment to its foundational core.

As we approach funding deadlines and the threats of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc., all we see is the Democrats obsessing over President Trump and doing little or nothing to have improved the well-being of Americans over the last four years.

We are genuinely screwed when we see ten self-important individuals fighting among themselves to see who can destroy productive capitalism and implement destructive communism in the United States.

Today proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, democrats are dysfunctional crazies living in a mythical world.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



BOMBSHELL HEADLINES: SO WHAT?

The media is going crazy with headlines and chyrons (the information on the bottom of television screens) that portray Ambassador Sondland’s testimony as an “AHA! GOTTCHA! MOMENT!”

drudge

The story is all a matter of interpretation…

US envoy says followed Trump orders in Ukraine 'quid pro quo'

The US ambassador to the European Union told an impeachment hearing Wednesday that he was following the orders of President Donald Trump in seeking a "quid pro quo" from Ukraine.

[OCS: One, it was his job to follow the orders of the President which means he may have been one of the few people in the Department of State that actually performed his job. And two, “quid pro quo” diplomacy is a normal and customary modus operandi in the political realm.]

Gordon Sondland -- whose appearance before Congress is being watched especially closely as he was a Trump ally -- said he believed the president was pressing Ukraine to investigate his potential 2020 rival Joe Biden.

[OCS: No problem here! Being a current presidential candidate does not immunize you from being held responsible for your actions while occupying a previous political office – especially acts of a potentially criminal nature. One need to consider that the Obama Administration was embroiled in numerous illegal schemes and scandals and that Joe Biden, in all probability, knew about and engaged somehow in their execution. This includes the subversion of our intelligence, law enforcement, and diplomatic actions including spying on Americans and the active interference in the 2016 election – not to mention confessing to using a “quid pro quo” to assist a company that paid his son millions of dollars for doing literally nothing but introducing his associates to government officials.]

"We followed the president's orders," Sondland said in his prepared testimony to an open hearing of the House Intelligence Committee.

[OCS: Great!]

He said that Trump forced US diplomats to work with his personal lawyer, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.

[OCS: Historically, Presidents have always worked through back channels when they could not trust government actors to follow their orders. In some cases, like Gene Tunny directly seeking help from Moscow to help deny Ronald Regan the presidency, they are inappropriate. But, not when you are investigating corruption – even corruption that was directly aimed at you, your candidacy, and then your administration.]

"We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt," he said.

[OCS: This is mostly true of any bureaucracy, both corporate and government, where the underlings believe they know better than the leadership and principal decision-makers.] 

Sondland said that Trump held off on offering a summit with Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as Giuliani demanded that Kiev publicly announce that it was investigating a gas company on which former vice president Biden's son Hunter held a paid board position.

[OCS: Demanding a public sign of progress is not problematical, especially given that presidents have given millions of dollars to foreign governments for photo ops and favorable activities which lead to favorable media coverage.

And, you will notice that there are three things happening here in the above paragraph: one, the President is holding off on a meeting, there is no mention of a direct quid pro quo, and it may have been Giuliani making the demand to impress the President given Giuliani’s previous antics.]

Giuliani also wanted Zelensky to investigate a widely discredited conspiracy theory in which Ukraine planted evidence on a server of Biden's Democratic Party to show that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

[OCS: Why did the Democratic National Committee deny the FBI the opportunity to forensically examine the server and turned to a private company with known political ties to the Democrats to make the announcement. The discredited part of the story may be that the company was partly owned by Ukrainians and they may have participated in the deception. The actual co-founders were Russian ex-pats and the idea that the actual DNC server was or is somewhere in the Ukraine is crazy-talk.]

"Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky," Sondland said.

[OCS: So? What is so different between this and what the President is doing in North Korea to get face-time with Kim Jong Un? Or diplomacy anywhere else in the world?]

Sondland said he "never received a clear answer" on why the United States suspended security aid to Ukraine, which is battling Russian-backed separatists, but that he "came to believe" it was also tied to the investigations sought by Trump.

[OCS: Nobody can seem to identify who gave the actual order or provide a coherent reason why the aid was actually suspended. I would be more concerned about President Obama telling the then Russian President to tell Vladimir Putin he would be “more flexible after the election” and then seeing Obama deny lethal aid to the Ukraine during the time of the actual attacks and incursions.]

"I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as the Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression," he said.

[OCS: Almost everybody believed that Ukraine needed the aid – but many where challenging if it was wise to turn it over to a corrupt or pro-Russian government. The entire quid pro quo scheme may have simply been a test of the Ukrainian leadership. Who knows? Maybe not even Trump himself as he has been known to delegate important tasks to others and simply move on to other things.]

"In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded," he said. 

[OCS: In the government, there does not have to be a credible explanation for anything as we  have historically witnessed. And, again, Sondland is speaking about an explanation that would satisfy him – which could be far from the actual reasoning involved.]

<Source>

The Associated Press gets it wrong…

Associated Press Deletes Tweet About Trump and Impeachment, Issues Correction

The agency, also known as the AP, wrote in a post on Twitter: “Contradicting the testimony of his own ambassador, President Trump says he wanted ‘nothing’ from Ukraine and says the #ImpeechmentHearings should be brought to an end.”

[OCS: This is a lie – FAKE NEWS – there was no contradiction from Trump.]

But Trump was quoting from what ambassador Gordon Sondland said during testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.

“I finally called the president… I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman,” Sondland told Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?”

“It was a very short abrupt conversation, he was not in a good mood, and he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing,’ something to that effect,” Sondland added.

Speaking to reporters in Washington, Trump repeated Sondland’s words.

“Here’s my response that he gave—just gave. Ready? You have the cameras rolling? ‘I want nothing.’ ‘That’s what I want from Ukraine.’ That’s what I said. ‘I want nothing.’ I said it twice,” Trump said.

“Now, if you weren’t fake news, you’d cover it properly,” he added.

“An earlier tweet that didn’t make clear that President Trump was quoting from Gordon Sondland’s testimony in which he was quoting Trump has been deleted,” the agency wrote.

It did not apologize for the error.

The Trump 2020 campaign highlighted the false reporting, writing that the AP’s tweet was “quite simply false and blatantly ignores what Sondland actually testified Trump said.” <Source>

Bottom line…

"Is that your testimony today, Ambassador Sondland, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid? Because I don't think you're saying that." Rep. Turner asked. "I said repeatedly [...] I was presuming," Sondland noted.

This is little more than an exercise in media spin and constructing a narrative. It does not excuse previous bad behavior on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden or the Obama Administration. It does not excuse the abuse of power by Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff and his protection of a non-whistleblower at the center of this stage-managed controversy.

In the final analysis, the President of the United States has wide-ranging plenary powers to conduct foreign relations and it is not up to the Department of State and other government agencies to second-guess him on hearsay, speculation, and circumstantial evidence in a show trial.

Remember, this is simply part of a pretext hatched by a rogue administration who appears to have engaged in crimes and a cover-up of historical proportions – aided and abetted by a corrupt mainstream media.

We are so screwed,

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



WHAT COULD POSSIBLY SCARE COMBAT VETERAN LT. COLONEL VINDMAN?

ocs-nose

Something does not pass the smell test…

Why would Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a decorated combat military officer at the National Security Council who was tasked to serve at the White House, become “visibly shaken” when listening to a rather innocuous telephone call between President Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky?

There is nothing in either the first benign Trump-Zelensky conversation nor the more troubling second conversation that would scare any normal listener much less a combat veteran.

Unless you may have “guilty knowledge” of troubling events which occurred on your watch or in which you participated – and the part of the message that apparently left Vindman shaken was a potential request to investigate those affairs which he may have assumed were buried in the sands of bureaucratic time?

Could it be that Vindman, who served the previous Obama Administration, knows something about how highly-ranked U.S. officials participated in Ukraine or Russian activities to the extent of generating millions of dollars paid to the Clinton foundation or resulted in the Russians or the Ukrainians assisting the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic National Committee with information helpful in interfering with the Trump candidacy and the early stages of the Trump presidency? Perhaps the Biden/Burisma matter was only part of the transaction and there was more to discover? Or perhaps some individuals were about to be exposed for transferring classified U.S. intelligence to foreign agents?

Assuming Lt. Colonel Vindman was an honorable man, a competent soldier, and intelligence analyst, what is it that left him “visibly shaken?”

Something we did not know…

It appears that there was a revelation in Vindman’s sworn testimony before Representative Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee. Vindman testified that the Ukrainian government asked Vindman to serve as the Ukrainian Defense Minister at least three times. He laughed it off as being comical and claimed he reported the offer to his superiors.

Considering Vindman did not have combat leadership experience, experience in military strategy, and would no longer be able to access sources of U.S. intelligence, why would Ukraine make the offer? 

It is also likely that Lt. Col. Vindman perjured himself when he previously testified under oath he did not know who the whistleblower is, and the refused to name the unnamed intelligence analyst he leaked the July 25 call to -- and his attorney jumped in and said he wouldn't name the whistleblower. Whoops!

And then there is the matter of National Security Council official Tim Morrison …

Morrison was the Senior Director for European Affairs at the White House and the National Security Council at the time of the relevant events and has since resigned after his first closed-door testimony before Congress.

Clearly, Morrison is no fan of Vindman and has intimated on numerous occasions that he did not fully trust Vindman, suspected that he may have received unofficial information from others, and inappropriately shared the information (aka leaked) with unknown third parties. Pretty much why many believe that Vindman, who worked for both former Vice President Biden and CIA Director John Brennan, was removed from the White House detail and resumed his duties at the CIA.

When “the minority questioned whether Morrison knew that Vindman, who served directly under him, had gone separately to legal counsel after the call— Morrison said he did not.”

“When asked about why he did not include Vindman in certain meetings, Morrison said he was trying to protect his team from what he thought would become a ‘partisan political issue.’”

“The minority also inquired into which other departments Vindman may have spoken to about the July 25 call. Schiff intervened, concerned that these questions were intended to identify and out the whistleblower. Morrison’s counsel instructed him not to answer those questions, which he argued were well beyond the scope of his deposition testimony.”

Morrison said that he and Taylor did not think the Ukrainians knew about the hold on funds, and noted that the president is generally skeptical of aid. In response to minority questioning as to whether, in giving aid, Trump might also expect to see European allies ‘also step up their aid contribution,’  Morrison said that the president would hope for a European country to be ‘more supported by Europeans.’ He also said that, to the best of his knowledge, there was no process undertaken to “reprogram” the aid originally promised—a prerequisite to a formal rescission. Minority questioning indicated that this diverged from Vindman’s testimony, given that Vindman stated the Ukrainians were asking him about a hold on funds. Morrison responded that Vindman never escalated these calls and this information up the chain of command and so Morrison was not aware of them.”

Perhaps the mainstream media has been helpful …

(1) It appears that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee had contacts with foreign Russian and Ukrainian sources – and went to some lengths to disguise these contacts by using the law firm of Perkins Coie to launder campaign funds to pay Fusion GPS which had direct contact with Russian and Ukrainian sources. From the activities of former British MI-6 spy Christopher Steele, we know this information to be true.

(2)  From published articles … 

Politico: January 11, 2017 -- Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire: Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.

Politico: August 8, 2017 -- Ukrainian MP seeks probe of Ukraine-Clinton ties: Parliament member demands to know whether his country's government targeted Trump in the 2016 campaign.

A Ukrainian member of parliament has requested a criminal investigation into possible meddling by his country’s government into last year’s U.S. presidential elections, claiming the interference has “seriously damaged Ukrainian-American relations.”

In a July 24 letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Andrei Derkach, an independent MP who was formerly aligned with a pro-Russian party, requested that authorities launch a pretrial investigation into “illegal interference in the election of President of the United States organized by a criminal organization.” This organization, he said, consisted of senior members of the country’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau, government officials, and other public figures.

Vox: October 12, 2019 --The former ambassador to Ukraine says she was ousted because of her anti-corruption work

[Ambassador Marie] Yovanovitch was recalled from Ukraine in May, allegedly at the request of the president’s allies, including his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. The opening statement of her closed-door testimony was obtained by the press; in it, Yovanovitch echoed this claim, asserting that she had been removed from office because of a “concerted campaign against me,” which she said had been led by Giuliani and supported by Trump.

An outspoken critic of corruption in that country, Yovanovitch testified that she had learned from Ukrainian officials that Giuliani had been smearing her among her colleagues and associates, telling them that she had spoken ill of the president.

Yovanovitch denied these claims but suggested that Giuliani may have taken on this campaign because he and his associates stood to benefit financially if the US halted its anti-corruption work in the region. Yovanovitch had worked to strengthen the country’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau, which launched in 2014.

(3)  All of these activities occurred on Lt. Col. Vindman’s watch.

Bottom line…

Beyond the arrogance that he, Lt. Col. Vindman, could set U.S./Ukrainian foreign policy better than the President of the United States, what is it that spooked Vindman and initiated the so-called “whistleblower’s complaint.” It is now more important than ever to interrogate the whistleblower to determine the extent of his contacts with Vindman, other current and former members of the NSC, the House Intelligence Committee, and other parties involved in Russian or Ukrainian affairs.

The entire kerfuffle is about whether or not a request for a favor to investigate corruption that may have impacted U.S. relations is improper.

"It was inappropriate, it was improper for the president to request, to demand an investigation into a political opponent,’ Vindman told the House Intelligence Committee.”

Who is this piss-ant to question the prerogatives of the President of the United States and Vindman’s Commander-in-Chief?

Vindman isn’t a whistleblower, he is an insubordinate partisan hack who was protecting his Obama-era bedfellows. I believe he should be investigated and held responsible for his apparently politically-motivated actions.

No wonder the so-called impeachment inquiry was moved from the open testimony in the Judiciary Committee to the secret testimony in the Intelligence Committee. And reason enough for Chairman Adam Schiff to ride roughshod over both witnesses and minority committee members to the extent that it may appear to be an abuse of power, witness tampering, and subornation of perjury.

IF AMERICANS CAN READ THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT FOR THEMSELVES AND ALL THE TESTIMONY IS HEARSAY, SPECULATION, AND ABOUT FEELINGS, WHY IS THIS SCHIFF SHOW CONTINUING?  WHERE IS THE WHISTLEBLOWER? DEMOCRATS!

We are so screwed.

-- steve 


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



ACLU: AND THEY CALL THEMSELVES LAWYERS?

aclu

The American Civil Liberties Union – or the American Communist Lawyers Union as I usually refer to it for their support of extreme leftist activists – has proven once again they care little or nothing about the law…

How is it that a witness who cannot provide a specific date, a specific location, and those that were named as being present and able to corroborate the story denied remembering the incident is given credibility, much less an award for bravery? Especially since some of her memories apparently were “recalled” after intense coaching by hyper-partisan democrat attorneys?

Christine Blasey Ford Makes Rare Appearance to Accept ACLU Award

In a rare public appearance since her brave testimony before Congress last year, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford received the Rodger Baldwin Courage Award at the ACLU of Southern California's annual Bill of Rights dinner Sunday night.

Ford, whose presence at the event was not previously disclosed, got a long standing ovation and cheers from the crowd when she appeared on stage to accept the award. Last year, Ford — who is a professor and research psychologist — testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about being sexually assaulted by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

"When I came forward last September, I did not feel courageous. I was simply doing my duty as a citizen," Ford said. "I had a responsibility to my country, to my fellow citizens, to my students, to my children."

Right-wing media incessantly attacked her, and President Trump unleashed a barrage of tweets. Kavanaugh's nomination was later approved by the Republican-controlled Senate.

But the attacks on Ford continued. "I was not prepared for the venom, the persistent attacks," she told the crowd on Sunday. "I was not prepared to be physically threatened and forced out of my home."

Ford told the crowd that public support gives strength to those who are attacked.

"My voice was just one voice," she said. "You are many. We are many."

Ford was introduced by Judd Apatow, who called her "A true American hero." <Source>

This is a case that should have never been brought forth to the Senate Judiciary and used to blatantly smear a Supreme Court nominee. It could have been handled more judiciously in a closed-door session before being made into a public spectacle.

Christine Blasey Ford has a credibility problem

The only details Ford seems to remember are ones that are damaging to Kavanaugh. She remembers what he allegedly did and that he was drunk, and says she had the good judgment to only have one drink. But Ford seemingly does not remember how she got to the party in question, how she got home, where it was or when it was.

[OCS: Most individuals are able to recall details of previous events as they relive them. The fact she could not provide a date, time, location, or basic details about that day are highly suspicious. And, repressed memories are extremely questionable.]

Most damaging to her story is the fact that every witness she has named has denied being at the party, under penalty of felony — even her best friend, Leland Keyser. Keyser’s attorney put out a statement saying, “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Ford has struggled to keep her story straight. She refuses to turn over her therapy notes, which she has cited as evidence of the attack even though she says Kavanaugh’s name is not mentioned in them. Ford has given different accounts of when the decades-old party took place. In a text message to The Washington Post she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.” A July 30 letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), ranking member of the committee, stated “early '80s.” However, she somehow narrowed it down to the summer of 1982 in a Sept. 16 Washington Post article. As Mitchell notes in her memo, Ford has not explained how she was able to do that.

The Washington Post also reported that her notes from a 2013 individual therapy session state the event happened in her late teens, but now she is saying she was 15. Ford’s story about how many people were at the party also has shifted greatly. Her therapist’s notes from 2012 reportedly say there were four attackers, but the Post reported four boys at the party and two attackers. In her polygraph letter alone she gives two different accounts, originally writing four people and then crossing that off to write four boys and two girls.

[OCS: We never learned why Ford was in therapy and the extent to which she might be a troubled personality easily manipulated by persons in authority such as hyper-partisan attorneys.]

Even if you want to give Ford the benefit of the doubt that her memory is just cloudy after 36 years, her failure to recall recent events is very troubling. Ford testified that she does not remember whether she showed The Washington Post her therapy notes or if she summarized them. The Washington Post reported that Ford provided portions of the notes to them.

[OCS: Not only is her account of events long ago sketchy, she does not seem to be able to remember current events – but we are supposed to take her word for events and destroy a man’s career?]

Oddly, Ford could not remember if she took the polygraph test on the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or after. She couldn’t remember who paid for it or if it was audio- or video-recorded.

[OCS: It appears that Ford’s attorney arranged the polygraph test, the results of which are inadmissible in court, and it was basically a joke. Ford was told to write out a statement and then asked two yes or no questions. “Is any part of your statement false?” and “Did you make up any part of your statement?” According to the report Ford answered “no: to both questions. But, it appears that no questions were asked about specific details. <Source>]

In a sworn affidavit, a longtime ex-boyfriend contradicted a number of the claims that Ford has made. Under penalty of felony, he testified that he witnessed her coach a friend on how to pass a polygraph examination. When asked under oath if she had ever prepared for a polygraph, she replied: “Never.” He also wrote that she never mentioned Kavanaugh or indicated that she was afraid of flying.

Ford also testified that her memories surfaced during a fight with her husband over installing a second door during home renovations; she said she needed another exit because of the trauma she experienced. However, it has been reported that the door was installed years before as a separate entrance for a room they rented out to people and a marriage-counseling business.

Ford and her attorneys have cited her fear of flying to the Senate Judiciary Committee to delay the originally scheduled hearing. Yet she admitted under oath that she flies to the East Coast yearly and has been to Hawaii, Costa Rica and French Polynesia. That delay bought enough time for two other accusers to step forward with their alleged stories against Kavanaugh. And even though it was widely reported that Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley(R-Iowa) offered to send staff to her home state of California, she said she was unaware of his offer.

In this politically toxic environment, it is important to note that Ford is a registered Democrat. Her attorneys, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks, were recommended to her by Feinstein and collectively have donated to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Tammy BaldwinTammy (D-Wis.). Katz attended an anti-Trump rally where she said, “We are going to resist. We will not be silenced.” Ford also has hired attorney Michael Bromwich, a former Obama official who now represents fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

[OCS: Feinstein apparently held on to the letter and failed to present it promptly thus raising questions of deliberately withholding the letter to do maximum damage to Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing.]

<Source>

Bottom line…

I can only conclude that Ford is not an American hero, but either a hyper-partisan liar trying to emulate Anita Hill, also a Democrat, and her attempted takedown of the Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, a conservative Republican like nominee Bret Kavanaugh, or a distraught woman manipulated by others.

Debra Katz, the attorney for Christine Blasey Ford, who leveled sexual-assault allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, admitted during an April speech that her client’s decision to come forward was partly motivated by a desire to put “an asterisk next to” Kavanaugh’s name before “he takes a scalpel” to Roe v. Wade.<Source>

And, considering what we have found out about the top leadership of the FBI, DOJ, and State Department – and the actions of Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) – I no longer have any confidence in any allegations put forth by Democrats that cannot withstand rigorous testing in a court of competent jurisdiction. Both Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein were prominent Democrats, and their offenses were well-known and covered-up for decades.

The fact that we should accept decades-old allegations without corroboration to destroy a career is WRONG.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

P.S. Yes, I believe Jefferey Epstein was murdered, and it was probably an inside job involving employees.


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



DEMOCRAT DEBATE: LIES FROM ATLANTA -- WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2019

From the producers of the Schiff Show … where everything turns to Schiff before your eyes…

Common sense be damned, we Democrats will tell you what’s good for the nation …

lies-from-atlanta

What better venue than a studio founded by a person of color whose fortune is based on performing in drag as his Mabel "Madea" Simmons character, a tough elderly black woman …

Hey Tyler, wake up -- its the Democrats that are coming after your money and your free speech rights, and your sexist, racist portrayal of a fictitious woman of color!

Bottom line …

No matter what they say, no matter what they promise … it’s all a lie to get your vote – and then to tell you how you should live your life.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

P.S. For all those liberals bitching about President Trump's offering clemency, pardons, and rank-restoration with regards to three American soldiers for their wartime activities ... let me remind you that these were fighting men engaged in combat activities, not the traitors and pussies like traitor Bradley/Chelsea Manning who released classified information valuable to our enemies, deserter Bowe Bergdahl who was feted as a "hero" in the White House Rose Garden, and General James Cartwright who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in a leak investigation.

Furthermore, under Obama, since when did enemy combatants who never set foot on American soil suddenly become eligible for protection under the United States Constitution? And, why do we bend over backward to adopt rules of engagement that prioritizes the lives of enemy family members over the lives of American service members? Especially the rule that we cannot fire first at threats unless they engage us first? Even worse, why are we wasting million-dollar-plus precision-guided arms to kill the enemy when a cheap 500-pound bomb would do the job. It is not our problem that enemy combatants go to war with their women and children or choose to fight in proximity to schools, hospitals, and mosques -- knowing we are constrained from firing back.


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



WHAT IS DRIVING THE SCHIFF SHOW?

What set of circumstances might induce Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), the well-educated (Sanford, Harvard Law) ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, to perform in an unconscionable manner – including lying to the American public and making a mockery of the rights of the GOP minority to ask certain questions of the witnesses?

Is Adam Schiff the firewall between the outrageous behavior of the top-level leadership of the Obama Administration and former President Barack Obama himself – a final scandal of historic proportions?

Why else would normally aggressive investigative reporters suddenly ask few pertinent questions and defer to their corporate bosses and preclude fame as journalists?

SHIFF-OBAMA

Consider …

Members of the Obama Administration, especially Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, went to extraordinary lengths to hide their communications from the government, Congress, and the American public.

Members of the Obama Administration spied on members of Congress and the opposition party prior to and after an election.

Members of the Obama Administration colluded with foreign counties to surveil or coerce American citizens into illegal actions.

Members of the Obama Administration aided and abetted our enemies (Russia, China, Iran, etc.) while disparaging America and its allies.

Obama, in spite of receiving a daily presidential brief and daily updates from his éminence grise, Valerie Jarrett, claims to have gotten his information from the media, like all ordinary Americans.

So what other explanation can there be?

What would justify a cover-up of this proportion – including the potential blackmailing of key Members of Congress?

Bottom line …

I guess we must wait for the next level of reports from the Attorney General. Although I have flagging confidence that all the perpetrators will be held accountable for their illegal actions.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



SCHIFFING ON THE PUBLIC AGAIN

schiff

After hours of testimony, we have learned from  the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch:

(1) Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States who has an absolute right to select, remove, or direct the activities of Ambassadors, subject to Senate confirmation of their nominees;

(2) Ukraine didn’t agree to investigate the Bidens;

(3) Ukraine got the military aid that was temporarily paused;

(4) Burisma, the company that employed Hunter Biden and his partner as board members, was considered to be highly corrupt; and

(5) the Obama State Department viewed Hunter Biden’s role with Burisma problematical given that his father was the Vice President of the United State and given the Ukraine portfolio;

(6) the United States provided lethal aid to Ukraine to counter Russian aggression whereas the Obama Administration refused to provide such aid at a critical time when the Ukraine was being invaded by Russia.

Therefore, one might conclude that:

(1) there was no “quid pro quo” as evidenced by the President’s communications with the Ukraine President; and

(2) that the President of the United States has a legitimate interest in investigating corruption prior to providing U.S. taxpayer funds to a country with a deserved reputation for corruption.

So why is the Democrat leadership allowing the Schiff Show to continue? The most likely answer is they have no other game to pursue at this time given the general wretchedness of their candidates.

Bottom line…

The “game” now shifts to the actions of Rudy Giuliani.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

P.S. For those who asked what I thought about the Roger Stone guilty verdict of process crimes, I could care less. Roger Stone, in my opinion, has always been a self-serving liar, charlatan, and pervert. Let us not forget that Stone’s lobbying partner was Trump Campaign Chair Paul Manafort. That Stone was able to insinuate himself into the Trump campaign speaks to Trump's transactional nature where he would work with the devil if he thought it financially advantageous and promotable in the media. Thus, we find Trump surrounded by people of ill-repute and dubious backgrounds. That Trump was betrayed by so many people speaks to his laziness and willingness to delegate the heavy lifting to others. In the final analysis, it is likely that he only trusts Ivanka, Don Jr., and Eric -- with lesser trust for Melania and Jared Kushner. And, little or no trust of the hired help. If there is anything of concern in the Stone matter, it is the unfairness of the lack of prosecution of Hillary Clinton, James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, and others.


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



IS THERE A BIGGER THREAT ON THE U.S. HORIZON THAN TRUMP 2020?

I was asked by one of my progressive friends if there was a bigger threat on the U.S. horizon than a continuation of the Trump presidency in 2020…

Of course, I laughed and told them I would get back to them after I had thought about it over the weekend.

Here it is Sunday, and I think that I have an answer. Collectively speaking, I think part of the answer lies with the great majority of the American people who have been so conditioned by a corrupt, hyper-partisan, and corporatized media that they identify with the Democrat Party much in the way they identify with team sports and celebrity culture.

For the seniors, I believe their nostalgic look back at the Democrat Party as it existed decades ago combined with their lack of understanding of how time and technology have subverted old-fashioned values such as patriotism, loyalty, and religion is of foremost concern. These are the people who listen to a Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and never once consider that their “Medicare for All” scheme would kill their private insurance companies, destroy Medicare as we know it, and deny them care because they are no longer contributing to the collective society -- and, in the process, destroy America’s economy. The media tells them that all of these negative scenarios and naysayers are GOP propaganda spun by the corrupt spinmeister Donald Trump.

For the juniors, I believe they do not know any better since their entire experience has been majorly influenced by a progressive, union-dominated, educational system that indoctrinates rather than educates. Their limited view of history is mainly conveyed, not by history books, first-hand accounts, or honest history teachers, but hyper-partisan teachers, politically correct books, and politicized pseudo-documentaries and fictional entertainment programs. Nobody in their right mind would be so ignorant as to believe that the Korean War, fought on frozen terrain by merciless and cruel North Korean killers could be described by the wacky antics of MASH – the product of a progressive mindset.

Therefore, I can only conclude that the biggest threat on the U.S. Horizon as we approach the 2020 election is the corrupt mainstream media who speaks of journalistic ethics and telling truth to power – but has become little more than the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. A party which has been so thoroughly infiltrated by socialists and communists as to have become the Communist Party in the United States. Much as CAIR (Council on American–Islamic Relations ), the propaganda arm of the terrorist group known as the Muslim Brotherhood, is considered to be a civil rights organization. A group whose intolerance suppresses human rights and demands loyalty at the point of a sword.

Consider the mainstream media reporting on gun-control restrictions…

(1)  It is a fact that criminals, crazies, and terrorists do not respect nor obey any law.

(2)  It is a fact that a motivated killer will use any weapon at hand to intimidate, maim, or kill their intended victim(s).

(3)  The mainstream media does not honestly point out that legislation does not and cannot work.

(4)  The mainstream media does not honestly report that the statistics are being fudged for political purposes by law enforcement.

(5)  The mainstream media does not honestly report that most gun-related deaths are suicides or deaths in the commission of a criminal act.

(6)  The mainstream media does not honestly report that disarming law-abiding citizens will create bigger victim pools and that criminals and other armed individuals will have a decisive advantage when it comes to life or death.

(7)  The mainstream media does not honestly report that law enforcement cannot be everywhere they are needed when they are needed, and to disarm individuals is to deny them their inalienable right to self-defense.

(8)  The mainstream media highlights mass shootings (more than 4 people) but only notes the mass slaughter in our inner cities, governed by progressive socialist Democrats.

(9)  The media does not honestly point out that gun-related deaths have fallen over the years to low levels in spite of the increase in the number of guns.

(10) And worst of all, the media does not honestly report the stories of those people who have saved themselves and their families by brandishing or using a gun.

When have you seen the mainstream media condemn CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) Standards which have no discernable or measurable impact on climate – but result in thousands of American deaths in lighter cars made more of rubber, plastic, and fiberglass than steel to conserve weight and promote greater fuel efficiency? When have you seen the mainstream media point out that much of Tesla’s profits were derived from selling pollution credits to other automobile manufacturers to allow them to meet government-mandated pollution standards?

Even when the mainstream media tells you a story, it often has a viewpoint and omits, as Paul Harvey would say, “the rest of the story.”

Has anyone pointed out that the major news outlets are corporate-owned and represent a near monopoly on the “news.” Fortunately, the internet – which the big corporations are trying to control – has presented an alternative source of news: maybe not the polished, curated, and edited version, but real-time, on-the-ground news you can see for yourself. Now the big platforms, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Facebook, and others are seeking greater control over what is placed on their platforms – and it seems that the progressive socialist Democrats are behind that push.

I defy anyone to argue differently.

For those who do not recognize the building, it is the headquarters of the New York Times, the paper who downplayed the Holocaust and the Ukraine genocide – and accepted a Pulitzer Prize for the reporting of Walter Duranty, a compromised Stalin apologist.

american-pravda

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



DEMOCRATS KICK OFF IMPEACHMENT THEATRE

All you need to know is …

(1)  Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, refused to ask the full House of Representatives to authorize an impeachment inquiry. She granted permission for six Democrat-led committees to simultaneously investigate the President of the United States.

(2)  The Democrats, who constitute the majority, have frozen out the minority and did not provide for due process or any semblance of fairness.

(3)  House Judiciary Committee Chair, Jerrold Nadler, ceded his investigation to the House Intelligence Committee where hearings were being held in secret.

(4)  The impeachment inquiry began with a so-called “whistleblower” complaint that was submitted to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IGIC).

The “whistleblower” status is fictitious. One, the whistleblower did not directly witness the events on which he reports. Two, the report is rife with misstatements of events that did not occur. Three, the whistleblower contacted and colluded with two former colleagues who were hired by Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Community prior to drafting and filing the complaint. Three, the the IGIC does not have jurisdiction over the President of the United States nor the power to officially comment on presidential policies. Four, the whistleblower clearly perjured themselves when they did not report contacts with the House Intelligence Committee and third-party non-government lawyers. Five, it appears that the whistleblower may have broken the law by collecting money on GoFundMe for his legal expenses.

We only have the whistleblower’s opinion that a presidential action – which is not in the purview of the whistleblower, the IGIC, or the Committee. Yet, Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, will not call the whistleblower before the Committee to testify about his actions and conclusions.

(5)  The suggestion that Donald Trump pressured Ukraine in a “quid pro quo” says nothing about former President Biden’s actual taped confession of a quid pro quo to fire a foreign investigator who was investigating a company that was paying his son millions of dollars for a “no show” job. Yet Adam Schiff refuses to call the Bidens – allegedly the subject of the corrupt Trump telephone call.

(6)  The main thrust of the charges against President Trump is the hearsay assertion that Trump had a “personal and political interests” in leveraging (bribing) Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to open an investigation into Burisma’s relationship with Hunter Biden. And that the refusal to provide the Committee Democrats with every document they request or witness they call constitutes an impeachable offense of “obstruction of justice.”

Excerpts from Chairman Schiff’s opening remarks …

“The questions presented by this impeachment inquiry are whether President Trump sought to exploit that ally’s vulnerability and invite Ukraine’s interference in our elections? Whether President Trump sought to condition official acts, such as a White House meeting or U.S. military assistance, on Ukraine’s willingness to assist with two political investigations that would help his reelection campaign? And if President Trump did either, whether such an abuse of his power is compatible with the office of the presidency?”

[OCS: And the evidence was little more than fourth-hand hearsay based on the child’s game of “telephone.” Perhaps summarized best by Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) who observed …

“Ambassador Taylor recalls that Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Yermak on Sept. 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.  We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding. I’ve seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this.”]

“With the sidelining of Yovanovich, the stage was set for the establishment of an irregular channel in which Giuliani and later others, including Gordon Sondland — an influential donor to the President’s inauguration now serving as Ambassador to the European Union — could advance the President’s personal and political interests.”

[OCS: It appears that the President of the United States could no longer trust his Ambassador, his State Department, or members of his Administration to faithfully execute his orders, especially when it came to policy matters which were set and executed under the purview of the Presidency. Every President has had private individuals serving in “unofficial roles.”]

“After the call, multiple individuals were concerned enough to report it to the National Security Council’s top lawyer. The White House would then take the extraordinary step of moving the call record to a highly classified server exclusively reserved for the most sensitive intelligence matters.”

[OCS: Considering the number of leaks of classified information concerning the President’s calls with world leaders and conversations in the White House and Oval Office, it seems prudent that the President would employ additional security to protect classified information from those leakers who held lower-level security clearances. Especially since all access to this particular server is logged and examined.]

Although we have learned a great deal about these events in the last several weeks, there are still missing pieces. The President has instructed the State Department and other agencies to ignore Congressional subpoenas for documents. He has instructed witnesses to defy subpoenas and refuse to appear. And he has suggested that those who do expose wrongdoing should be treated like traitors and spies.

These actions will force Congress to consider, as it did with President Nixon, whether Trump’s obstruction of the constitutional duties of Congress constitute additional grounds for impeachment.”

[OCS: Schiff continues to cloak the whistleblower who started this inquiry in anonymity and refuses to make him available to the Committee Republicans for cross examination. From published reports we know that the individual is not entitled to whistleblower status, works for the CIA, worked with CIA Director Brennan (a principal in the Trump/Russia proceedings, worked with Joe Biden, had no first-hand knowledge, discussed the matter with others, and colluded with the House Intelligence Committee staffers working with Adam Schiff to bring the present claim.

Additionally, exerting Presidential prerogatives, perks, and privileges such as “separation of power” or “executive privilege” do not constitute obstruction because the Congress cannot exert direct power over the Executive Branch of government.

Nixon's inquiry was based on a series of well-defined criminal activities, not an ad hoc investigation to find reasons for impeachment of an unpopular president.]

“These are the questions we must ask and answer. Without rancor if we can, without delay regardless, and without party favor or prejudice if we are true to our responsibilities.” Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of a country America was to become, ‘A Republic,’ he answered, ‘if you can keep it.’ The fundamental issue raised by the impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump is: Can we, keep it?”

[OCS: This question is best asked of Adam Schiff and the House Democrats who appear to be guilty of everything that they are projecting onto President Trump.

Quid pro quo bribery – there is Joe Biden confessing in public, on video, to telling the Ukraine President that unless he fires a state prosecutor looking into a corrupt company that pays his son millions, apparently for access to government officials, that he will withhold a $1 billion loan guarantee. And, then laughs when the Ukraine prosecutor is fired.

Process – in spite of procedural protections that the Democrats demand, they do not reciprocate and have denied minority Committee members to fully participate in the inquiry.

Election tampering – it is well documented that a representative of the Democratic National Committee colluded in the 2016 election with Ukraine officials in the Ukraine Embassy to act against then-candidate Donald Trump in favor of Hillary Clinton.]

What they aren't saying...

Imagine this, the sanctimonious witness, George Kent, wrote a “quid pro quo” letter to the Ukraine on behalf of a Soros-funded group.

US Embassy pressed Ukraine to drop probe of George Soros group during 2016 election’’

While the 2016 presidential race was raging in America, Ukrainian prosecutors ran into some unexpectedly strong headwinds as they pursued an investigation into the activities of a nonprofit in their homeland known as the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC).

The focus on AntAC — whose youthful street activists famously wore “Ukraine F*&k Corruption” T-shirts — was part of a larger probe by Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office into whether $4.4 million in U.S. funds to fight corruption inside the former Soviet republic had been improperly diverted.

The prosecutors soon would learn the resistance they faced was blowing directly from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, where the Obama administration took the rare step of trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its investigation of both the U.S. aid and the group.

“The investigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center (sic), based on the assistance they have received from us, is similarly misplaced,” then-embassy Charge d’ Affaires George Kent wrote the prosecutor’s office in April 2016 in a letter that also argued U.S. officials had no concerns about how the U.S. aid had been spent.

At the time, the nation’s prosecutor general had just been fired, under pressure from the United States, and a permanent replacement had not been named.

A few months later, Yuri Lutsenko, widely regarded as a hero in the West for spending two years in prison after fighting Russian aggression in his country, was named prosecutor general and invited to meet new U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

Lutsenko told me he was stunned when the ambassador “gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute.” The list included a founder of the AntAC group and two members of Parliament who vocally supported the group’s anti-corruption reform agenda, according to a source directly familiar with the meeting.

It turns out the group that Ukrainian law enforcement was probing was co-funded by the Obama administration and liberal mega-donor George Soros. And it was collaborating with the FBI agents investigating then-Trump campaign manager Paul ManafortPaul John ManafortEx-Trump campaign official testifies Stone gave updates on WikiLeaks email dumpsPaul Manafort's former son-in-law sentenced to 9 years in prison for scamming Dustin Hoffman, others NSC official testified there was 'no doubt' Trump pushed quid pro quoMORE’s business activities with pro-Russian figures in Ukraine. <Source>

Perhaps George Kent needs to be investigated and prosecuted under the same criteria they are using against President Trump.

Conclusion …

portrait of treason

But’s that exactly what it is: attempting to overthrow the government of the United States for un-American and corrupt purposes.

We are so screwed.

Still waiting for an actual crime to be announced or the evidence of an actual impeachable offense presented. Welcome to the Schiff Show.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS