We are the drain the swamp people

Word is that there will be a demonstration by Trump supporters, sponsored by Women for Trump,  in front of Congressman Loebsacks’s office in Davenport beginning at noon today probably for < an hour. Dress warm. Approximate location 200 block of West 4th Street. If there is one at Bustos’ office across the river that would be good.

0

0

• What’s $70 Billion among friends

Our humble advise to President Trump – if these spending levels with this process make it to your desk as outlined in the article from Heritage set forth below, veto them on principle.

Seriously what harm could come, with the few exceptions that needed real increases, from vetoing the bills and issuing a veto message to the effect ~~ comeback with a 5% reduction across the board in every category, or overall (0% in these but 10% in these amounting to the 5% reduction overall).  Whichever is most politically efficacious and with certain pointed areas of objection.  But who seriously believes every area could not be cut and taxpayers would not benefit from a sharper pencil? Doing so would help Republicans (albeit with many gnashing their teeth) reinstate if not maintain a persona of smaller government.

Aspects to these spending bills and they are that, not mere authorization bills, as it is money appropriated to go out the door are that they are to a great extent irresponsible  autopilot crap and larded up at that.  Some of it in violation of Republican party commitments.  As reported in the Heritage analysis regarding Health care appropriations:

However, the bill does not touch the underlying spending that these taxes fund—i.e., the Obamacare entitlement spending scheme. This scheme also contributes to higher health costs and greater taxpayer burdens, by giving insurance companies more money every time they raise prices. 

That scheme apparently includes funding of the likes of Planned Parenthood as part of the Obamacare entitlements which at least indirectly benefits their abortion regime.

And why are we increasing federal spending in the area of education and not seriously reducing it? And as for agriculture, what farmer in their sober analysis doesn’t know the wastes and misdirections there such that 5% would be a mere token.

And furthermore as regards health and social service spending contained therein, who thinks we could not reduce related demands with extra spending on preventing illegal immigration through a border wall and other interdiction efforts. We would guess for every dollar increase in that area, multiples of that would be saved elsewhere (this speaks to a 5% overall strategy message).

A 5% veto message would help Trump and help Republicans in general.

Via Heritage Foundation:

House Funds Key Programs but Adds to Government Bloat, Waste    (excerpt)

The House passed two spending bills totaling $1.4 trillion Tuesday to fund the federal government through the remainder of fiscal year 2020, which began Oct. 1.

Although the first bill would provide much-needed funding and budget certainty to core constitutional responsibilities, such as national defense, the second “minibus” is a Christmas tree of bloated spending and add-ons that have no place being voted on through an appropriations bill.

The House passed the two bills, introduced late Monday afternoon, in less than 24 hours. The Senate is expected to consider the two measures later this week.

The fact that the House voted on more than 2,000 combined pages of text within 24 hours of introducing the two bills is a troubling symptom of Washington’s budget dysfunction. This is not the way that the budget process is supposed to work, and it leads to wasteful spending and other negative impacts for American taxpayers.  …

0

0

• Dominant liberal media have been relentless purveyors of Democrat accusations and talking points regarding President Trump
  
• Loebsack and Bustos commit to voting for impeachment exposing if not cavernous Constitutional ignorance, treachery toward it
• Trumps sends blistering letter to Pelosi defending himself and challenging Democrats
  
• At least in an online update local papers have presented it but . . .
•  Will the media continuously quote from Trump’s letter to Pelosi  . . . will his response receive anything near the level of repetition the charges of his accusers are getting?   Pull-quote from Trump’s letter:

You are the ones interfering in America’s elections. You are the ones subverting America’s Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing Justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.

Full text of Trump’s letter today to Speaker Pelosi regarding impeachment proceedings in the House:

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Madam Speaker:

I write to express my strongest and most powerful protest against the partisan impeachment crusade being pursued by the Democrats in the House of Representatives.  This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.

The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence.  They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses whatsoever.  You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!

By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy.  You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification scheme—yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America’s founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build.  Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith by continually saying “I pray for the President,” when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense.  It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!

Your first claim, “Abuse of Power,” is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless invention of your imagination.  You know that I had a totally innocent conversation with the President of Ukraine.  I then had a second conversation that has been misquoted, mischaracterized, and fraudulently misrepresented.  Fortunately, there was a transcript of the conversation taken, and you know from the transcript (which was immediately made available) that the paragraph in question was perfect.  I said to President Zelensky:  “I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.”  I said do us a favor, not me, and our country, not a campaign.  I then mentioned the Attorney General of the United States.  Every time I talk with a foreign leader, I put America’s interests first, just as I did with President Zelensky.

You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense—it is no more legitimate than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power.

You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars.  You know this because Biden bragged about it on video.  Biden openly stated:  “I said, ‘I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars’…I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours.  If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’  Well, son of a bitch.  He got fired.”  Even Joe Biden admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it “looked bad.”  Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did.

President Zelensky has repeatedly declared that I did nothing wrong, and that there was No Pressure.  He further emphasized that it was a “good phone call,” that “I don’t feel pressure,” and explicitly stressed that “nobody pushed me.”  The Ukrainian Foreign Minister stated very clearly:  “I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance.”  He also said there was “No Pressure.”   Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a supporter of Ukraine who met privately with President Zelensky, has said: “At no time during this meeting…was there any mention by Zelensky or any Ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do anything in return for the military aid.”  Many meetings have been held between representatives of Ukraine and our country.  Never once did Ukraine complain about pressure being applied—not once!  Ambassador Sondland testified that I told him: “No quid pro quo.  I want nothing.  I want nothing.  I want President Zelensky to do the right thing, do what he ran on.”

The second claim, so-called “Obstruction of Congress,” is preposterous and dangerous.  House Democrats are trying to impeach the duly elected President of the United States for asserting Constitutionally based privileges that have been asserted on a bipartisan basis by administrations of both political parties throughout our Nation’s history.  Under that standard, every American president would have been impeached many times over.  As liberal law professor Jonathan Turley warned when addressing Congressional Democrats: “I can’t emphasize this enough…if you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power.  It’s your abuse of power.  You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the President for doing.”

Everyone, you included, knows what is really happening.  Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016, in an Electoral College landslide (306-227), and you and your party have never recovered from this defeat.  You have developed a full-fledged case of what many in the media call Trump Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it!  You are unwilling and unable to accept the verdict issued at the ballot box during the great Election of 2016.  So you have spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of the American people and nullify their votes.  You view democracy as your enemy!

Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party’s impeachment effort has been going on for “two and a half years,” long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine.  Nineteen minutes after I took the oath of office, the Washington Post published a story headlined, “The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun.”  Less than three months after my inauguration, Representative Maxine Waters stated, “I’m going to fight every day until he’s impeached.”  House Democrats introduced the first impeachment resolution against me within months of my inauguration, for what will be regarded as one of our country’s best decisions, the firing of James Comey (see Inspector General Reports)—who the world now knows is one of the dirtiest cops our Nation has ever seen.  A ranting and raving Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, declared just hours after she was sworn into office, “We’re gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the motherf****r.”  Representative Al Green said in May, “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”  Again, you and your allies said, and did, all of these things long before you ever heard of President Zelensky or anything related to Ukraine.  As you know very well, this impeachment drive has nothing to do with Ukraine, or the totally appropriate conversation I had with its new president.  It only has to do with your attempt to undo the election of 2016 and steal the election of 2020!

Congressman Adam Schiff cheated and lied all the way up to the present day, even going so far as to fraudulently make up, out of thin air, my conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine and read this fantasy language to Congress as though it were said by me.  His shameless lies and deceptions, dating all the way back to the Russia Hoax, is one of the main reasons we are here today.

You and your party are desperate to distract from America’s extraordinary economy, incredible jobs boom, record stock market, soaring confidence, and flourishing citizens.  Your party simply cannot compete with our record: 7 million new jobs; the lowest-ever unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans; a rebuilt military; a completely reformed VA with Choice and Accountability for our great veterans; more than 170 new federal judges and two Supreme Court Justices; historic tax and regulation cuts; the elimination of the individual mandate; the first decline in prescription drug prices in half a century; the first new branch of the United States Military since 1947, the Space Force; strong protection of the Second Amendment; criminal justice reform; a defeated ISIS caliphate and the killing of the world’s number one terrorist leader, al-Baghdadi; the replacement of the disastrous NAFTA trade deal with the wonderful USMCA (Mexico and Canada); a breakthrough Phase One trade deal with China; massive new trade deals with Japan and South Korea; withdrawal from the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal; cancellation of the unfair and costly Paris Climate Accord; becoming the world’s top energy producer; recognition of Israel’s capital, opening the American Embassy in Jerusalem, and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights; a colossal reduction in illegal border crossings, the ending of Catch-and-Release, and the building of the Southern Border Wall—and that is just the beginning, there is so much more.  You cannot defend your extreme policies—open borders, mass migration, high crime, crippling taxes, socialized healthcare, destruction of American energy, late-term taxpayer-funded abortion, elimination of the Second Amendment, radical far-left theories of law and justice, and constant partisan obstruction of both common sense and common good.

There is nothing I would rather do than stop referring to your party as the Do-Nothing Democrats.  Unfortunately, I don’t know that you will ever give me a chance to do so.

After three years of unfair and unwarranted investigations, 45 million dollars spent, 18 angry Democrat prosecutors, the entire force of the FBI, headed by leadership now proven to be totally incompetent and corrupt, you have found NOTHING!  Few people in high position could have endured or passed this test.  You do not know, nor do you care, the great damage and hurt you have inflicted upon wonderful and loving members of my family.  You conducted a fake investigation upon the democratically elected President of the United States, and you are doing it yet again.

There are not many people who could have taken the punishment inflicted during this period of time, and yet done so much for the success of America and its citizens.  But instead of putting our country first, you have decided to disgrace our country still further.  You completely failed with the Mueller report because there was nothing to find, so you decided to take the next hoax that came along, the phone call with Ukraine—even though it was a perfect call.  And by the way, when I speak to foreign countries, there are many people, with permission, listening to the call on both sides of the conversation.

You are the ones interfering in America’s elections.  You are the ones subverting America’s Democracy.  You are the ones Obstructing Justice.  You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.

Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt.  Against all evidence, and regardless of the truth, you and your deputies claimed that my campaign colluded with the Russians—a grave, malicious, and slanderous lie, a falsehood like no other.  You forced our Nation through turmoil and torment over a wholly fabricated story, illegally purchased from a foreign spy by Hillary Clinton and the DNC in order to assault our democracy.  Yet, when the monstrous lie was debunked and this Democrat conspiracy dissolved into dust, you did not apologize.  You did not recant.  You did not ask to be forgiven.  You showed no remorse, no capacity for self-reflection.  Instead, you pursued your next libelous and vicious crusade—you engineered an attempt to frame and defame an innocent person.  All of this was motivated by personal political calculation.  Your Speakership and your party are held hostage by your most deranged and radical representatives of the far left.  Each one of your members lives in fear of a socialist primary challenger—this is what is driving impeachment.  Look at Congressman Nadler’s challenger.  Look at yourself and others.  Do not take our country down with your party.

If you truly cared about freedom and liberty for our Nation, then you would be devoting your vast investigative resources to exposing the full truth concerning the FBI’s horrifying abuses of power before, during, and after the 2016 election—including the use of spies against my campaign, the submission of false evidence to a FISA court, and the concealment of exculpatory evidence in order to frame the innocent.  The FBI has great and honorable people, but the leadership was inept and corrupt.  I would think that you would personally be appalled by these revelations, because in your press conference the day you announced impeachment, you tied the impeachment effort directly to the completely discredited Russia Hoax, declaring twice that “all roads lead to Putin,” when you know that is an abject lie.  I have been far tougher on Russia than President Obama ever even thought to be.

Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment—against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle—is showing how deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America’s Constitutional order.  Our Founders feared the tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing their worst fears to life.

Worse still, I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam right up until the present.  I have been denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses, like the so-called whistleblower who started this entire hoax with a false report of the phone call that bears no relationship to the actual phone call that was made.  Once I presented the transcribed call, which surprised and shocked the fraudsters (they never thought that such evidence would be presented), the so-called whistleblower, and the second whistleblower, disappeared because they got caught, their report was a fraud, and they were no longer going to be made available to us.  In other words, once the phone call was made public, your whole plot blew up, but that didn’t stop you from continuing.

More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.

You and others on your committees have long said impeachment must be bipartisan—it is not.  You said it was very divisive—it certainly is, even far more than you ever thought possible—and it will only get worse!

This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth.  You are not just after me, as President, you are after the entire Republican Party.  But because of this colossal injustice, our party is more united than it has ever been before.  History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade.  Your legacy will be that of turning the House of Representatives from a revered legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution.

Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity.  You apparently have so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly.  No intelligent person believes what you are saying.  Since the moment I won the election, the Democrat Party has been possessed by Impeachment Fever.  There is no reticence.  This is not a somber affair.  You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are scarcely concealing your hatred of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of patriotic Americans.  The voters are wise, and they are seeing straight through this empty, hollow, and dangerous game you are playing.

I have no doubt the American people will hold you and the Democrats fully responsible in the upcoming 2020 election.  They will not soon forgive your perversion of justice and abuse of power.

There is far too much that needs to be done to improve the lives of our citizens.  It is time for you and the highly partisan Democrats in Congress to immediately cease this impeachment fantasy and get back to work for the American People.  While I have no expectation that you will do so, I write this letter to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.

One hundred years from now, when people look back at this affair, I want them to understand it, and learn from it, so that it can never happen to another President again.

Sincerely yours,

DONALD J. TRUMP
President of the United States of America

0

0

• Rudy, could you maybe hold off until next July

NO BENO, BETO! SAY IT AIN’T SO!

What a great campaign he could run and what a great senator he would make.

Well, at least he’d be great for laughs. He could have his ear hair plucked and teeth cleaned, on stage, at every stop in every Texas county.

Beto O’Rourke Decides Not to Run for Senate

Texas (AP) – Beto O’Rourke isn’t running for Senate again, and Democrats who have unusually high hopes for Texas in 2020 are facing an unsettled landscape. There’s no clear frontrunner among a dozen Democrats challenging Republican incumbent John Cornyn. None have raised big money and most candidates remain widely unknown.

O’Rourke narrowly lost to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz last year and his presidential bid flamed out in November. Democrats urged the former El Paso congressman to run again for Senate, but the deadline to get on the 2020 ballot in Texas came and went this week.

Then there is this

Our favorite Democrat candidate may have a Schiff sh*t storm heading his way and we are stressed!  He is holding his own in Iowa (rumors about pottying assistance notwithstanding) but  the news via RedState that:

Giuliani Reveals Damning Evidence Gathered on Trip to Ukraine, Hungary; If Allegations Are True, It Will End Biden’s Candidacy

is just devastating to us.

Look, the Dem’s need a candidate with gravitas to run and Joe has as much as the others and damn it he deserves the nomination.  We can’t have a situation where they give President Trump a pass and delegitimize his reelection. Whats  a little payola when it comes to Dem’s anyway? We hope Rudy has the compassion to hold his revelations until Joe at least gets the nomination, that way he can at least say he achieved that after 3 or 4 tries. In the mean time he does seem to be taking it well.

0

0

MAKES ONE WONDER HOW MUCH DIRECTOR WEBSTER HAD TO DO WITH THE STATE THE CURRENT FBI IS IN

If former FBI Director William Webster doesn’t think his former bureau is not in a sorry condition these days, either he was, in part at least, responsible for what it has become, or he hasn’t been paying attention.

If Webster can objectively consider the political bias exhibited throughout the Trump candidacy and presidency so far, and conclude that the FBI is still a credible law enforcement agency, he is no better than the McCabes, Strzoks, Pages, and Comeys that past presidential administrations and FBI leadership has spawned.

Webster seems typical of the many retired and former members of the FBI who have chosen to remain silent or claim ignorance of the abuses which are now available for all to see. While some may claim that it is only a matter of “some mistakes being made”, or “just a few ‘bad actors’ are involved”, one might suggest that they ‘take another look’…unless they’ve been part of the problem too.

One might think that Carter Page is a buffoon or a comic book character, but thoughtful consideration of what happened to him should make them realize it could happen to any American citizen unless there are major changes to what has apparently become a true “rogue agency” of the federal government!       dlh

Ex-FBI Chief Webster Assails Trump’s ‘Slur’ on Bureau   (John Jay College Publication)

The FBI’s integrity is “tragically, under assault from too many people whose job it should be to protect” it, writes former FBI and CIA director William Webster in the New York Times. Webster, a Republican, says he is “deeply disturbed” by President Donald Trump’s assertion that his appointee Christopher Wray cannot fix what the president calls a broken agency. Noting that FBI directors have 10-year terms, Webster assails Trump’s “thinly veiled suggestion” that Wray “could be on the chopping block, disturbs me greatly.”

Webster headed the FBI for nine years under Democratic and Republican presidents who “so respected the bureau’s independence that they went out of their way not to interfere with or sway our activities,” Webster says. “I never once felt political pressure.” Calling FBI professionals “scum,” as Trump did, “is a slur against people who risk their lives to keep us safe.” Attorney General William Barr’s charges of bias within the FBI, “made without providing any evidence and in direct dispute of the findings of the nonpartisan inspector general, risk inflicting enduring damage on this critically important institution.” Webster also takes Barr to task for claiming that the FBI investigation in the Russia probe “was based on ‘a completely bogus narrative.’ ” Webster says he has “complete confidence” in Wray and knows “that the FBI is not a broken institution.”

0

0

It could be worse – an old Hildabeast – a vacuous Moochelle Obama  – the young AOC

The example of the “smartest woman alive” as co-president along with his record as one of the younger male presidents challenges Barack Obama assertions about age and maleness  as reported in this article at Huffpost. In fairness we are not saying he was the best example of either and granted the Hildabeast is not the best example of a young woman leader but thank-God AOC has not had the reigns of serious power as yet.

Barack Obama: Women Ruling All Nations Would Improve ‘Just About Everything’
The former president told a private audience in Singapore that women are “indisputably” better than men.

Now the pandering BO is neither profound nor funny. And he has a lot to live down but it is exclusive to him and cannot be blamed on his sex (assuming the facsimile birth certificate is authentic in all aspects :-)). Frankly we think it was his lack of traditional maleness that was a big part of his leadership direction and failures. His deficiencies with regard to virtues traditionally associated with leadership (not exclusive to men to be sure) — wisdom, courage, self-denial, humility, strength, self-reliance . . . in his case the male aspects thereof, could be recounted ad-nausium. As far as being a father to girls — well a proponent of late term abortion, same-sex marriage, rap-“artists” as house guests and role models for his daughters, immersion in privilege, etc., —  leaves little to recommend him in our traditional view.

Sure his remarks could be implicating a run by Michelle (this writer continues to bet she will not do so) for which our illustrious senior editor continues to raise the SPECTRE er, specter. Regardless, we have had womanhood at the helm of the most powerful nation in the world, when we had the smartest woman in the world as co-president, “the first Obama”.  Pardon us if an unencumbered rerun of that is nightmarish less than inspiring . And if it implies affirmative action in order to save the world, which got us Obama, a double no thanks.

The montage below reminds us “woman not necessarily better” but also, alas, the sadness of Barack’s remarks when “the smartest woman alive” is rejected can’t pull it together.  It is by way of RD, variously titled – “Hillary Trying to Figure Out How She Lost the Election”

I’m still trying to figure out how I lost the 2016 election.

I thought we had the thing bought and paid for!

Was it Wikileaks?

Was it Podesta’s Emails?

Was it Comey?

Was it having a sexual predator as a husband?

Was it Huma Abedin’s sexual predator husband Anthony Weiner?

Was it because the Clinton Foundation ripped off Haiti?

Was it subpoena violations?

Was it the congressional testimony lies?

Was it the corrupt Clinton Foundation?

Was it the Benghazi fiasco?

Was it pay for play with Uranium One while I was Secretary of State?

Was it being recorded laughing when

I got a child rapist off when I was an attorney?

Was it the Travel Gate scandal?

Was it the Whitewater scandal?

Was it the Cattle Gate scandal?

Was it the Trooper-Gate scandal?

-OR-

Was it the $15 million for Chelsea’s apartment bought with Clinton Foundation money?

Or my husband’s interference with Loretta Lynch & the investigation?

Or when I happily accepted the stolen debate questions given to me by CNN?

Or my own secret server in my house and my disdain for classified information?

Or deleting 30,000 emails after I was told not to?

Or having my cell phones and computers destroyed with hammers and Bleach-bit?

Was it the Seth Rich murder?

Was it the Vince Foster murder?

Was it the Gennifer Flowers assault & settlement?

Was it the $800,000 Paula Jones settlement?

Was it calling half the United States deplorable?

Was it my underhanded treatment of Bernie Sanders?

Was it Bill’s impeachment?

Was it the lie I told about being under sniper fire in Bosnia?

Was it the $10 million I received for the pardon of Marc Rich?

Or the $6 BILLION lost while I was in charge of the State Dept.?

Or was it because I’m perceived as a hateful, lying, power-hungry,

overly ambitious, greedy, and nasty person?

Gee, I just can’t seem to put my finger on it!

0

0

• Fully transitioned — to swinging left
• Singing the tune ~~ I’m a progressive too!
• Her one-time supposed conservative positions had more wiggle room than a Hawaiian luau
• Her brush-up with selfish Hillary notwithstanding (that was just Hillary trying to clear the field for a possible run)
  
• Bottom line – by any stretch of her yoga pants, she’s a liberal Democrat

“Trust me – I’m one of you” (No & no you’re not)

So we have the Iowa Caucuses fast approaching and the press will be likely camped out here all next month until the caucuses are over. There will be conservative press here too and to the extent that they are pumping up Gabbard out of some bizarre need to say something nice about a Democrat – they are needlessly promoting if not an untrustworthy human being one who is essentially just as foursquare liberal as the rest. She has abandoned some positions that set her apart (if she was ever serious about them) only to adopt positions that are in all practicality essentially ultra-leftist Democrat positions on gay marriage, on drug legalization, on gun rights, on Keystone pipeline, on the right to life.**

Whatever her actual positions on those issues in the past there is little now to separate her from the Democrat herd. Sort of like how the differences between Ford and Mercury automobiles evolved — same platforms with fans of one or the other arguing over what amounted to nuances. The idea that she is meaningfully pro-life is belied by her position statement that supports the codification of Roe v Wade which obliterates any actionable prevention of third trimester abortion.  Indeed Gabbards opposed attempts under Roe to actually limit abortion.* Further she supports increased funding for Planned Parenthood the nations largest abortion syndicate.

The only apparent flip that may bother any Democrat constituency (driven more by their own particular favorite candidate) is that she opposed legalizing gay marriage at one time.  But she has now dutifully apologized for her previous position. The only difference between her and the rest of the pack is that they may desire to punish her for not being on the cutting edge of that issue.  Not so ironically she and Obama got the Democrat religion on that score about the same time.  On that we note she abandoned her more conservative father who organized opposition to gay marriage in Hawaii.  Her father is Catholic and apparently of the traditional variety.

On the right to life she abandons not only presumably her father but arguably her mother, or at least the religion of her mother, who is Buddhist, a religion that opposes abortion. Gabbard is also Buddhist so it is arguably a double whammy.

On guns she wants an assault weapon ban ala Clinton (a genuinely silly position for somebody supposedly familiar with the functioning of firearms as her Army veteran status would imply).  She also advocates closing the so-called gun-show loophole, and supports the essence of gun registry or at least the stalking horses for it.

And dutifully, not to religion or a republican form of government, but to party, she supports single-payer health insurance. Even Obama didn’t officially go that far out of the paddock. But then Tulsi was a Bernie supporter. There is no bigger power grab for government than that.

Any elected Democrat as president would surround herself with the party apparat, would have to, and that means further ratcheting of the country toward the socialist stranglehold in so many ways.

The clip below is from a progressive site that questions the authenticity of her claimed progressive positions.  It is a hatchet job but it is useful to identify where they are coming from. Going to Gabbard’s web site you will see that she claims the basic ultra-liberal positions on key issues.   Her core positions are fully conducive, fully in step with ultra liberal takes on the issues addressed.  Testimony to that is provided by the comments from progressives defending her which accompany the site where this clip was posted.  The second clip** is a little ditty we thought appropriate.

**The title to this article is misleading indeed belied by the the actual content:

Gabbard sat down with libertarian commentator Dave Rubin for a wide-ranging interview released Sunday, during which he brought up the subject of abortion. She described her overall stance as a “more libertarian” belief in government’s role, that “government really shouldn’t be in that place of dictating to a woman the choice that she should make.”

“I think that there should be some restrictions, though,” she added. When Rubin (who describes himself as “pro-choice” but growing more ambivalent on the issue) asked for a “cutoff point for that,” she answered, “I think the third trimester, unless a woman’s life or severe health consequences is at risk, then there shouldn’t be an abortion in the third trimester.”

Gabbard’s answer leaves significant wiggle room as to whether she would support a meaningful late-term abortion ban, given how current Supreme Court precedent defines how “health” is to be understood in the context of abortion.

“(M)edical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health,” the Court declared in Doe v. Bolton, the companion ruling to Roe v. Wade. “This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”

0

0

Dershowitz – diGinova – Cleveland – Attkisson –– Many important points are being made about Inspector General Horowitz’ report, dropped this week, as it is combed through by various analysts. Most of the liberal ones are keeping their mouth’s shut out of embarrassment.

The 500 page or so report (pdf format) can be downloaded in its entirety at this link.  There is an executive summary at the beginning.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

Articles, excerpts and new developments that took our eye:

A Supreme Court decision this week agreeing to take up (and thus forestalling) attempts by Democrats to muck around in  Trump’s private tax returns (special thank you notorious RBG) provides a key argument against one of the two articles of impeachment proffered out of the Democrat controlled House Judiciary Committee yesterday.

Elizabeth Vaughn at RedState highlights a compelling argument by liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz. In short the SCOTUS has indicated Trump has an argument about declining to facilitate fishing expeditions by political rivals so a charge of “obstructing justice”is undercut

Dershowitz: SCOTUS ‘Just Crippled the Second House Impeachment Charge Against Trump’ 

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz sees this as a huge win for the President. In a Friday night appearance on “Hannity,” Dershowitz explained.

Look, the most important development happened today. The Supreme Court of the United States absolutely pulled the rug out of part two of the impeachment referral by granting certiorari, by granting review in a case where Trump challenged a congressional subpoena. And the Supreme Court said we’re going to hear this case.…Think of what that message is – It’s Trump was right.

You don’t have to comply with a subpoena of Congress unless a court tells you you have to comply. Now, we don’t know how the Supreme Court is going to come out, but they made it clear that’s a viable issue. So that charge, that ground of impeachment, should be immediately removed by the House and not sent to the Senate. There’s nothing to it anymore after the Supreme Court today said you’re entitled to a review on an issue when the President challenges the subpoena power of Congress. It’s all done. It’s over.

Not just the FBI in hot water – Obama DOJ people under scrutiny and likely indictment

Joe Joe DiGenova is quoted as saying on a CNBC interview: “devastating. It’s going to ruin careers, it’s going to make people have bar problems”?

Joe diGenova: I would say explosive and I would say for people at the highest levels of the FBI and at the highest levels of the Justice Department, more important at the Justice Department, it’s going to be devastating. It’s going to ruin careers, it’s going to make people have bar problems… What’s clear now we know is that the senior levels of the Obama Justice Department were complicit in knowingly submitting materially false applications to the FISA Court for an illegitimate counterintelligence purpose. Not for a legitimate purpose but to spy on Americans for political purposes. And it really will end up being the beginning of the greatest political scandal in history. And it’s being held up partially because of John Durham’s new grand jury exists for one reason and one reason only – because people are going to be indicted.

Margot Cleveland at The Federalist explains:

Why The IG Report On FISA Abuse Will Unleash Barr’s Investigation Of Spygate

The closing of the final inspector general investigation into the Russia collusion investigation promises to open the flood gates for previously undisclosed information and indictments.

Sharyl Attkisson at The Epoch Times:

William Barr Has Suddenly Become Chatty—and He’s Provided Quite an Information Dump 

In each of two video appearances, on NBC News and at Wall Street Journal’s “CEO Council,” Attorney General William Barr provided the same basic information and views about the U.S. intelligence community’s actions against the Trump campaign in 2016 and 2017. A criminal investigation is underway and being led by U.S. Attorney John Durham.

Barr was motivated to make the public statements, he said, by the misreporting and confusion surrounding Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report issued on Dec. 9. It found serious government surveillance abuses but no evidence of political bias on the part of the offending FBI officials and agents.

Below are 24 points Barr felt the need to make after the release of the Horowitz report. (All of the information is attributed to Barr.)

1. Don’t expect Durham’s findings to be announced before late spring or summer 2020.

2. The FBI did spy on the Trump campaign. That’s what electronic surveillance is.

3. Regarding the FBI’s actions in surveilling Trump campaign associates, it was a “travesty” and there were “many abuses.”

4. From “day one,” the FBI investigation generated exculpatory information (tending to point to the targets’ innocence) and nothing that corroborated Russia collusion.

5. It’s a “big deal” to use U.S. law enforcement and intelligence resources to investigate the opposing political party, and I cannot think of another recent instance in which this happened.

6. Evidence to start the FBI’s investigation into Trump associates was “flimsy” from the start and based on the idea that Trump aide George Papadopoulos expressed he may have had pre-knowledge of a Democrat National Committee computer hack. However, it was actually just an offhand barroom comment by a young campaign aide described merely as a “suggestion of a suggestion, a vague allusion” to the fact that the Russians may have something they can dump. But by that time, May 2016, there was already rampant speculation online and in political circles that the Russians had hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails in 2014 and that they might surface. So the idea that Papadopoulos’s comment showed pre-knowledge of the Democratic National Committee hack and dump “is a big stretch.”

7. It was “wrong” for the FBI to presume the Trump campaign was part of a plot. They should have gone to the campaign and discussed their suspicions.

8. The normal thing to do would be to tell the campaign that there could be attempted foreign interference. There is no legitimate explanation as to why the FBI didn’t do this. The FBI’s explanation for this was that they only do “defensive briefings” if they’re certain there’s no chance they’re tipping someone off. But this simply isn’t true, isn’t plausible, and doesn’t hold water because our intelligence officials and President Barack Obama repeatedly contacted the Russians, the guilty party, to tell them to “cut it out.”

9. If the purpose were to protect the election, you would have given the Trump campaign a defensive briefing. You could have disrupted any foreign activity in time to protect the U.S. election.

10. As to the FBI’s motive, “that’s why we have Durham.” I’m not saying the motivations were improper, but it’s premature to say they weren’t.

11. The inspector general operates differently as an internal watchdog. Horowitz’s approach is to say that if people involved give reasonable explanations for what appears to be wrongdoing, and if he can’t find documentary or testimonial evidence to the contrary, he accepts it.

12. Contrary to much reporting, Horowitz didn’t rule out improper motive; he didn’t find documentary or testimonial evidence of improper motive. Those are two different things.
13. Instead of talking to the Trump campaign, the FBI secretly “wired up” sources and had them talk to four people affiliated with the Trump campaign, in August, September, and October 2016.

14. All of the information from this surveillance came back exculpatory regarding any supposed relationship to Russia and specific facts. But the FBI didn’t inform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, which approved wiretaps against former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page four times.

15. At one point early on, the FBI didn’t have enough probable cause for a wiretap warrant, so it took the “Steele dossier” information against Trump, “which they’d done nothing to verify,” and used that to get the wiretaps.

16. The wiretaps allowed the FBI to go back and capture Page’s communications, emails, and other material from weeks, months, and even years ago.

17. Should the four FBI applications to wiretap Trump campaign aide Carter Page have ever been made, considering there were 17 critical omissions or errors by the FBI making it appear they had better evidence than they had? This is the meat of the issue, and “if you spend time to look at what happened, you’d be appalled.”

18. The FBI withheld from the court all of the exculpatory information and the lack of reliability of the main FBI source, Christopher Steele, who was being paid by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign to find evidence connecting Trump to Russia.

19. The major takeaway is that after the election in January, the FBI finally talked to one of Steele’s important sources to try to verify some of the “dossier” information and sourcing, as they’re required to do. This Steele source told the FBI he didn’t know what Steele was talking about in the dossier, and that he’d told Steele that the information he’d provided was “supposition” and “theory.” At that point, “it was clear the dossier was a sham.” Yet the FBI didn’t tell the court, and continued to get wiretaps based on the dossier.

20. Further, the FBI falsely told the court that Steele’s source had been proven reliable and truthful. In fact, what the source had told the truth about was that “the dossier was garbage.” It’s hard to look at this “and not think it was gross abuse.”

21. Were the four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act judges who approved the four wiretaps against Trump associate Carter Page badly misled by the FBI? Yes.

22. Are people going to be held accountable, including at the very top of our intelligence agencies and FBI? Well, they’re all gone.

23. The whole Russia collusion hype was a “bogus narrative hyped by an irresponsible press” that proved entirely false in the end. Are former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI official Andy McCabe and others implicated in the Durham investigation? I think there was a failure of leadership in that group. Quoting the inspector general, the explanations he received “were not satisfactory. You can draw your own conclusions.”

24. Why haven’t we already thrown people in prison? “These things take time.” The government has to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before we indict; it’s a substantial hurdle. Nobody is going to be indicted and go to jail unless that standard is met.

In his interviews this week, Barr provided a treasure trove of information about what stands to be one of the most important investigations into our U.S. intelligence community of our time. His signposts indicate that we can expect a shakeup of a system that may have been broken for decades.

0

0

CHRISTOPHER WRAY TO ‘SAVE THE DAY’

FBI Chief Could’ve been knocked over With a Feather When Horowitz Told Him There Might Be A Tad of Incompetence in the Bureau!

But By Golly, Chris Is Going to ‘Step Up’…Will Undoubtedly Have Agents Attend Training To Learn That Fraud, Lying, and Leaking Are Against Policy

“FBI Director Christopher Wray has ordered more than 40 changes in how the bureau seeks secret surveillance warrants…” (need more diversity and ‘correct gender pronoun’ training?)

Rumored That He Plans To Appeal To The Public To Stop Referring To Bureau As “Keystone Cops”

IG Report and response:

• “FBI agents withheld some information from the Justice Department and the FISA court…”
• “The FBI will take appropriate disciplinary action where warranted’, said Mr. Wray.”
• “Wray could seek to remove low-level agents involved in the surveillance applications for Mr. Page from national security work..” (But, aren’t these part of the “36,000 hard working, committed…”?)
• “the Justice Department inspector general pointed out a series of flaws in the bureau’s efforts to monitor a former Trump campaign adviser.”

And, finally:

• ““Everyone recognizes the changes must be made, but people are also concerned that it’s just going to make it harder to do their jobs,” he said. And there is concern within the bureau that political pressure will mean harsher punishments for some employees, he said: “We get it, but at the same time, there’s a lot of fear.”

———————

Always a ‘Favorite Trump Appointee’ of Ours, we’ve noted a lot of Democrats must like Director Wray. He received confirmation support from all but 5 out of 48 Dem senators when Democrats really didn’t want to confirm any of President Trump’s appointees…Ben Carson was confirmed with only 7 Democrats voting ‘yes’; Betsy De Vos confirmed with 0 Democrats; Bill Barr was supported by 3 Dems!

In our opinion, the Democrats have been richly rewarded for their support of Christopher Wray. As FBI Director he’s done less to restore the Bureau’s image and effectiveness than it would have seemed possible to do less.

Wray stonewalled, slow-walked, and blocked many, various efforts by congressional Republicans to get to the bottom of all the incompetence and wrongdoing by key FBI officials during the Obama administration and highlighted in the DOJ Inspector General’s report. When ‘doing something’ is inescapable, Wray always announces he’s gonna have a “training program”!

Some, whom IG Horowitz has even identified as part of the FISA fiasco, are still employed by the FBI.

If the reputation and the American people’s confidence in the FBI is to ever be restored, a good first step would be for President Trump to find a new Director.    dlh

Article at WSJ link below

FBI’s Wray Acts Fast to Make Changes After Scathing Report

Move comes in response to Justice Department inspector general’s criticism of how surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser was handled

0

0

This is a Mid- October article at Market Watch (excerpt below).  Trump in a landslide? This historically accurate model predicts exactly that . Add to this the continued favorable employment, inflation, and stock market numbers, Trump’s increasing support from Black and Hispanic voters, the inability of the Dems to get anywhere with even an impeachment narrative (just the opposite) and well . . .

According to Moody’s Analytics, Trump is headed toward another four years in the White House. And, if the numbers are right, it won’t even be close.

In fact, his Electoral College victory could very well be wider than the 304-227 margin he enjoyed over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

Since 1980, Moody’s has managed to nail the outcome every time but once — like many, it didn’t see Trump coming.

“In our post-mortem of the 2016 presidential election model,” the report said, “we determined that unexpected turnout patterns were one of the factors that contributed to the model’s first incorrect election prediction.” Here’s Moody’s track record, including a 2016 adjustment for the turnout variable:

Will it return to its winning ways? The team takes into account how consumers feel about their finances, the performance of the stock market SPX, +0.28% and their job prospects. Essentially, today, they’re feeling pretty good.

“Under the current Moody’s Analytics baseline economic outlook, which does not forecast any recession, the 2020 election looks like Trump’s to lose,” the authors wrote. “Democrats can still win if they are able to turn out the vote at record levels, but, under normal turnout conditions, the president is projected to win.”

From the MarketWatch archives (August 2016): To professional economists, Trump isn’t even the second best candidate in the 2016 presidential election

Moody’s uses three models to come up with its forecast. In each case, Trump gets at least 289 Electoral College votes.

The “pocketbook” measure, which focus on how people feel about their money situation, is where Trump shines brightest, grabbing a whopping 351 electoral votes. “If voters were to vote primarily on the basis of their pocketbooks, the president would steamroll the competition,” the report said.

The stock-market model gives him the slightest edge of 289-249, as investors continue to navigate a volatile investing landscape. Then there’s the unemployment model, which leans heavily in his favor at 332-206.

0

0