We are the drain the swamp people

( Ed note:  this post was submitted two days ago but due to clerical error was  put later in our queue)

Another “Game Changer”! Really? How many does that make?

Is this event that will blow the lid off the corruption, illegality, and unconstitutional activities of the Obama administration?

Folks on the right are all excited that, YES!, this is it!

But, is this the first time we’ve been here?

How many other “game changers” have we seen…only to have our hopes cruelly dashed.

We won’t try to recount all those other “game changers” but recall the various ‘revelations’ of the Devin Nunes congressional committee, the “Trey Gowdy” effort to “get to the bottom of the Strzok-Page scandal, the “explosive” reveal about the ” Uranium One Scandal”, and the
various breathless ‘scoops’ by Sara Carter and John Solomon on Hannity?

So, when the report broke early Thursday evening, pundits and congressional observers, and especially conservatives and Trump supporters everywhere were suddenly energized and optimistic!

This is it! Obama, Hillary, the Democrat ‘bozos’ (High Pockets, Pencil Neck, Mad Maxine), all 25 or 50 or 150 would be Democrat presidential nominees, were all “going down”.

The Republic Is Saved!! The “Game” Has “Changed”!!!

Apparently the Wall Street Journal wasn’t moved however.

The “Barr Gets Power to Declassify Probe Intel” blockbuster announcement was worth a page A4, one column, 20 or so column inches, edged to the far right side of the page by the “ASSANGE INDICTED ON NEW CHARGES” story.

We’ll report more on this story to give the Veritaspac’s ‘unique’ perspective, but here’s a couple thoughts we have initially:

– The Journal notes that Trump’s action has “little precedent”. No kidding?! Only Trump thus would have the rudeness to do something that had ‘little precedent’. What will all those “precedent-fearing” Republicans do!? “Gloom, despair, and agony on the GOP!”

– The Trump memo directs Barr to work closely with CIA’s Gina Haspel, National Intelligence’s Dan Coats, and FBI Director, Chris Wray. Well, that should go well…these three, to the delight of the media refuted much of Trump’s effort to declare a “National Emergency” regarding the invasion of the southern border. In issuing their “threats assessment’, these three didn’t even list it as one of the challenges in their “worldwide threat assessment”! (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/29/dan-coats-gina-haspel-chris-wray-threat-assessment/)

Here’s a Veritaspac “crazy” prediction: If Barr insists that Chris Wray turn over the ‘documents’ the FBI has stubbornly withheld from Congress, WRAY WILL THREATEN TO RESIGN!

More later. DLH

0

0

With this syrupy signaling from the New York Times — CIA head Haspel is being sampled with the glories that await her if she joins the Trump resistance by going into hiding or something. Readers will detect that in the article. The following pull quote lends credence to our concern that any presumption that Barr will get cooperation from the “intelligence community” AKA Deep Swamp is based on wishful thinking.

“The CIA’s first female director since its 1947 founding, she has put in place her own leadership team—which also includes many women—and so far has avoided having President Trump’s political allies embedded in the agency’s senior ranks.”

“I think that she’s adopting a strategy much like [FBI Director] Chris Wray of keeping a lower profile, avoiding situations where she’s put in the position of publicly contradicting the president,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which oversees the CIA.

And there is this incredible summation from the NYT

“Mr. Trump has claimed, without evidence, that his campaign was the target of improper spying.”

–  have they paid no attention to revelation after revelation about just that?!

And let’s see. What ‘famous person’ said (without evidence?) that any president attempting to challenge the federal law enforcement and national security agencies would be slammed and stymied “six ways from Sunday!”?)

Under CIA Chief Gina Haspel, an Intelligence Service Returns to the Shadows 
CIA director seeks the mute button—for herself and her agency

By Warren P. Strobel

WASHINGTON—At a gala dinner in March to raise funds for the families of Central Intelligence Agency officers killed in the line of duty, CIA Director Gina Haspel surprised her audience by delving into details of spycraft the agency has used to run agents on the streets of Moscow. But the crowd’s astonishment at the unusual revelation quickly evaporated when the spy chief confided that the material came from a journalist’s book.

After a year atop the CIA, Ms. Haspel is giving away few secrets. With a 35-year career in clandestine operations and a U.S. president who pounces when his spy chiefs contradict him publicly, she and her agency have adopted their lowest public profile in decades.

“She’s gone to ground,” said Mark Lowenthal, a former CIA official and staff director of the House Intelligence Committee. “It’s not going to be any good for her to be out there attracting lightning bolts.”

What should be the proper role and public posture of the CIA and its top leaders? Join the conversation below.

Interviews with nearly 20 current and former U.S. intelligence officials reveal a portrait of a CIA director who has been warmly received by the workforce she has spent her life among.

The CIA’s first female director since its 1947 founding, she has put in place her own leadership team—which also includes many women—and so far has avoided having President Trump’s political allies embedded in the agency’s senior ranks.

But if Ms. Haspel’s primary mission is overseeing a global spy agency charged with addressing threats ranging from terrorism to climate change, it sometimes seems her second priority is protecting the agency she has devoted her life to from the domestic threat of a toxic U.S. political culture.

Intelligence Suggests U.S., Iran Misread Each Other, Stoking TensionsMay 16, 2019
Chinese National Indicted on Hacking Charges Related to Anthem Breach May 9, 2019
Senior Official on U.S. 5G Wireless Rollout Resigns May 9, 2019
McConnell Calls on Congress to Move On After Mueller Report May 7, 2019

“I think that she’s adopting a strategy much like [FBI Director] Chris Wray of keeping a lower profile, avoiding situations where she’s put in the position of publicly contradicting the president,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which oversees the CIA.

“But she’s not shying away from sharing her assessments and those of the [intelligence community] in an unfiltered way. So I think she’s carried the balance as well as you can within this administration,” Mr. Schiff said in an interview.

Mr. Trump has lashed out at his spy chiefs when he doesn’t like their conclusions, and Ms. Haspel hasn’t always been able to stay out of the line of fire.

In December, she found herself in an awkward position with Mr. Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo after The Wall Street Journal reported details of the CIA’s assessment that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman likely had a role in journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s death. The president and Mr. Pompeo have portrayed the intelligence as less definitive.

In January, she and other spy chiefs told the Senate Intelligence Committee, in an annual public hearing on world-wide threats, that North Korea was unlikely to abandon its nuclear weapons and that Iran was complying with a 2015 nuclear accord.
Both assessments seemed to undercut Mr. Trump’s policies. “Perhaps intelligence should go back to school!” he wrote on Twitter.

The president summoned Ms. Haspel and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats to an Oval Office meeting and photo session the next day. “It looked like a hostage-taking,” Mr. Lowenthal said.

Ms. Haspel and her colleagues have yet to deliver the companion testimony on world-wide threats before the House Intelligence Committee, as is customary. “We have tentatively scheduled an open hearing, but so far have not gotten agreement” from the spy chiefs to attend, a committee source said (now who could that source be? Could it rhyme with ‘miff’).

More tests may be coming. Mr. Trump this week ordered Ms. Haspel and Mr. Coats to assist Attorney General William Barr’s probe into intelligence activities during the 2016 campaign, and empowered Mr. Barr to declassify information about the origins of the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s election meddling. Mr. Trump has claimed, without evidence, that his campaign was the target of improper spying.

Ms. Haspel, 62 years old, who served in a series of secret assignmentsacross the globe and at CIA headquarters, can be self-effacing, She rose to the agency’s top position without seeming to step over others, the current and former officials said. She can also be direct and no-nonsense.

Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell said he is absolutely confident that Ms. Haspel will push back if policy makers ask the agency to do something it shouldn’t.
“I was told that somebody asked that the agency do something that was inappropriate. Her response was, ‘No. And don’t ask again,’ ” said Mr. Morell, who hosts the “Intelligence Matters” podcast. He said he did not have details of the incident.

Ms. Haspel regularly attends the president’s daily intelligence briefings, along with Mr. Coats. She maintains close ties with congressional intelligence committees and Mr. Pompeo, her predecessor at the CIA. The two speak by phone frequently and often meet in person.

At the CIA, Ms. Haspel is seen as a steady leader, if not a visionary one.
“She’s going to be a good steward of the place,” said a former colleague in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations who said he admires her. “If you’re looking for a transformational person—that’s not her.”

But taking the CIA largely out of the limelight is no small accomplishment. For nearly two decades, it has been ensnared in near-constant controversies, over the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks; drone strikes; treatment of detainees; and Russia’s election interference.

“She’s more filling the role of a historical director—that you don’t hear from them very much,” said Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Mark Sparkman, who was Ms. Haspel’s supervisor on her first overseas CIA assignment—reportedly in Ethiopia—attended her swearing-in as director last May. Mr. Pompeo spoke, noting how it can sometimes be lonely at the top.

At a post-ceremony reception in a hall at CIA headquarters lined with portraits of past directors, Mr. Sparkman said he found Ms. Haspel at a table by herself, with a soda water in hand.

“I went over and congratulated her and said something to the effect that Pompeo’s comment had been spot-on,” he recalled. “She’s always been approachable…but there she was, only minutes removed from her swearing-in, standing by herself until the ice was broken.”

0

0

• Anyone else skeptical –  you read it here first

Trump Gives Barr Authority to Declassify Information About Russia Probe’s Origins

The order comes as Trump tells his own team not to comply with multiple probes focused on him

“Mr. Barr in his review is working closely with Central Intelligence Agency Director Gina Haspel, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and FBI Director Chris Wray. Mr. Trump’s memorandum directs Mr. Barr to consult with the head of the originating intelligence agency before declassifying material, but only “to the extent he deems it practicable,” effectively giving Mr. Barr the power to overrule any intelligence agencies’ concerns.”
————–

Is This The “Game Changer”?

Don’t Get Your Hopes Up…

Conservatives and Trump Supporters Have Seen Too Many ‘Game Changers’…But the Game Never Changes.

The above comment is excerpted from the Wall Street Journal’s Page 4 story about President Trump’s ‘Declassification’ Order. We noted that the placement and prominence given this story seems to suggest that Mr. Trump’s action is of no great consequence in getting to the bottom of some very serious questions, especially as they might relate to very serious criminal actions on the part of members of the Obama administration.

But the reason we highlight the excerpted comment is that it seems very significant to us. When the story notes that while General Barr has been authorized to declassify, he is expected to “consult” with the heads of the nation’s top law enforcement and national security agencies.

To that, we say “good luck, Mr. Barr”!   (read more below)

We suggest that these three folks, Coats, Haspel, and Wray are anything but reliable administration supporters. To expect that they will give Barr full cooperation to declassify documents that might reflect very negatively on the integrity and competence of their own respective agencies seems quite a stretch to us. Especially given that , at least, the FBI has aggressively resisted turning over documents requested by congressional committees which would have answered many of the questions the Attorney General is asking.

Further, it must be noted that Ms. Haspel is a long-serving employee of her agency, the CIA. While that’s all good, we recall that John Brennan, the former CIA Director and one who is thought to have been very much involved in the alleged attempt to undermine President Trump and his administration strongly endorsed Haspel’s nomination to head the agency as his successor! (It is also thought by many that the CIA is heavily staffed with and influenced by “deep state” operatives…that is, some of its ‘long-serving employees’.)

As to NSA Head, Dan Coats, it’s been reported that he had to be talked out of resigning by VP Pence, due to clashes with Trump over various issues…leaks from Coats’ agency, the director’s failure to investigate allegations that Trump was wiretapped by Obama, and disagreement over NATO as Trump sought to urge its members to meet their obligations.

And, finally, perhaps most significant to us, is that these three, in issuing their “Annual Global Threat Assessment” to Congress last January, seemed to go out of their way to publicly repudiate some of President Trump’s major policy goals. (The Washington Times – Tuesday, January 29, 2019)

Among them were assessments which clashed with some of Trump’s own, such as North Korea’s likelihood of eventually giving up their nuclear capability, at the time the president was preparing for a second summit with Kim Jong Un; the strength of ISIS, as the president ordered a withdrawal of US troops in Syria; and the Iran agreement to which the CIA’s Haspel said the intelligence agencies “believed Teheran had not violated the ‘letter’ of the 2015 ‘deal’.

Most important to us, however, was that the “assessment” of national security threats devoted no attention to the crisis on America’s southern border at the very time that Trump was considering declaring a “National Emergency”!

Needless to say, the Democrats hailed the report and the media celebrated its public repudiation of the President.

And its these three who AG Barr will “consult” on the release of those documents!?

DLH

0

0

• Important judicial restraint article at Americans for Limited government
•  Governor Reynolds vetoes de jure attempt to rein in Iowa AG Miller

Trump, Barr fight back against judicial tyranny of nationwide injunctions

By Richard McCarty at Americans for Limited Government

We are facing a constitutional crisis. Through the use of nationwide injunctions, a group of liberal federal district judges are fighting to maintain Obama era policies until President Donald Trump leaves office.

And now, President Donald Trump is fighting back as his administration seeks a case to be brought in federal court against the practice.

These judges’ actions are an attack on our system of government undermining the value of voting and the public’s trust in the impartiality of the judicial branch. These injunctions must be halted, either by the Supreme Court or by legislation.

Nationwide injunctions, which are also called universal or national injunctions, are issued by federal district judges and prohibit the federal government from enforcing laws or policies against anyone, not just the plaintiffs in the case.

There have now been 37 nationwide injunctions issued against the Trump Administration, which is significantly more than were issued in the entire 20th century. In contrast, there were only two nationwide injunctions during the first two years of the Obama Administration; and there were no nationwide injunctions issued during the first 175 years of our Republic.

Recently, U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr gave a speech attacking nationwide injunctions, saying that the bar for getting one from a district judge is too low: “When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table — we must win every case. The challengers, however, must find only one district judge — out of an available 600 — willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.”

And this is bad for democracy, Barr said, “Nationwide injunctions undermine the democratic process, depart from history and tradition, violate constitutional principles, and impede sound judicial administration, all at the cost of public confidence in our institutions and particularly in our courts as apolitical decision-makers dispassionately applying objective law.”

Barr is not the first prominent conservative to take aim at these injunctions. Barr’s predecessor, former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has also denounced the injunctions. Sessions stated, “Increasingly, we are seeing individual federal district judges go beyond the parties before the court to give injunctions or orders that block the entire federal government from enforcing a law or policy throughout the country…. This trend must stop. We have a government to run. The Constitution does not grant to a single district judge the power to veto executive branch actions with respect to parties not before the court. Nor does it provide the judiciary with authority to conduct oversight of or review policy of the executive branch. These abuses of judicial power are contrary to law…”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has indicated his skepticism of the legitimacy of the injunctions. Thomas wrote, “These [universal] injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system—preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch. I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions… They appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on … the power of Article III courts.”

Elections must have consequences. Members of Congress and Presidents are elected to set and implement federal laws and policies; and unelected, unaccountable lower court judges must not be allowed to obstruct the policies of the elected branches of the government indefinitely. The Supreme Court will soon weigh in on nationwide injunctions and make it clear to district court judges that they have no authority to issue these injunctions.

If the Court fails to do so, then it will fall to Congress to enact legislation to end these acts of judicial tyranny once and for all.

Richard McCarty is the Director of Research at Americans for Limited Government Foundation.

Gov. Kim Reynolds vetoes measure limiting Iowa Attorney General’s power to join multi-state lawsuits 

As part of the veto the little consent agreement Governor Reynolds entered into with AG Miller in most peoples mind is a distinction without a difference. The good name of the state of Iowa is still allowed to be hijacked by Miller’s uber leftist bent. One would think  the state is the client of the AG and he should not implicate his client in something the client has not authorized. As to the consent agreement nothing other than Miller’s word prevents him for involving the client (us) in leftist PR campaigns we have not given our consent to. Indeed he can continue to participate in litigation he just won’t ask to be a party to the suit officially on behalf of Iowa.

The legislature and the Governor each and every time Miller plays this game need to plainly and vociferously announce that AG Miller is operating on his own and has no consent from the people of Iowa and issue voted on proclamations to that effect.

More later

0

0

. . . if tormentors/obstructionists are keeping him from it?

Answer: do a Saul Alinsky on them . . . here are a few: (and Trump is doing them)

“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”

“If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

The story behind Pelosi’s claim, that White House meeting and Trump’s angry comments

 ABC News:
“But the president may have played into Pelosi’s hands. Instead of attention aimed on how she is trying to hold her caucus back from impeachment — a step Democratic leaders think could imperil their chances of taking down Trump at the ballot box in 2020 — Pelosi and Schumer could change the focus to the president’s behavior.”

“…may have played into Pelosi’s hands…”  !!

You have to be a smug, gutless politician, or a a lazy, partisan ‘pretend-journalist’ to even think like the above; suggesting that a meeting to further their mutual interest could possibly be productive given the attitudes and behavior the two Democrats chose to put on prominent public display just before going into such a meeting!

President Trump and and his two most bitter and obnoxious critics in Washington had agreed to meet and discuss ways to address key issues confronting America, including infrastructure, trade, and the farm bill.

But earlier in the day, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, furthering the seemingly never-ending Democrat investigations and personal attacks on the president met with reporters and told them that Mr. Trump “… in plain sight… is obstructing justice and is engaged in a coverup — and that could be impeachable, and, as they say, the coverup is frequently worse than the crime.”

According to a Time magazine report, Pelosi’s comments received “thunderous applause from the liberal audience.”

The then always “devout Catholic” Ms. Pelosi tells everyone, “We want to give this President the opportunity to do something historic for our country,…I pray for him and I pray for the United States of America.”

Now tell us, folks. Most, if not all of our readers are mature adults. You’ve “been around the block” a few times; you know how the world works.

And, if you’re not a badly informed liberal whose political ‘savvy’ is informed only by NPR, the NY Times, and CNN; nor a politician from either major party who has fed from the public trough most of your adult life; nor a member of the so-called free, and objective press, then you are probably not ‘shaken to your core’ over the president’s reaction to the two clowns who presented themselves in his office today…two of probably the sleaziest politicians America has seen in a very long time.

Only one from the above groups would suggest that a person who has been subjected to three years of unrelenting attacks aimed at denying him the office to which 60 million Americans elected him in a fair and honest election… whose family has been subjected to the nastiest assaults on their character and their accomplishments… and has endured unprecedented, and false, accusations of misbehavior and illegality of which it is the accusers themselves who are the actual guilty parties, should just ignore all of it and warmly greet two of the major perpetrators of such activity and allow them to pose as respectable, unselfish, and serious people!

Are you kidding me?!

In our view, and we’d humbly suggest, many of yours as well, President Trump’s behavior today should be applauded by every citizen of this nation who truly does “want America to be great again”!

Imagine, immediately before joining the president in a meeting touted as the start of constructive cooperation between the political adversaries for the good of the country, Nancy Pelosi goes out and publicly suggests that the president shockingly dishonest and his “impeachment” is likely!

Is that a sign of sincere intent?!

The vicious behavior by one of the country’s major political parties would be unacceptable by any reasonable, stable, sane person anywhere in the world. Their despicable, wholly contemptible actions, from the start of Trump’s presidency, have damaged and endangered America on every front on which this duly elected president has attempted to govern…foreign affairs, trade, economy, national unity, national security, national identity, etc.

And yet, he has stood tall and accomplished much, in spite of…

HOW CAN ANY AMERICAN, SINCERE IN HIS OR HER LOVE OF THEIR COUNTRY, NOT VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP?      DLH

But Pelosi showed no signs of backing down from her assessment or agenda.
“The fact is, in plain sight, this President is obstructing justice and is engaged in a coverup — and that could be impeachable,” Pelosi said to thunderous applause from the liberal audience. “As they say, the coverup is frequently worse than the crime.”

“Sources tell ABC News that the president arrived late to the White House meeting with lawmakers and shook no hands. He told lawmakers that he is in favor of working with Democrats on infrastructure, trade, and the farm bill but then made reference to the speaker’s comments about his taking part in a “cover-up.”

“The sources said the president told Pelosi, Schumer, and others gathered that they needed to get all of the investigations over before they could talk about anything else. There were echoes of the meeting in January when the president stormed out of the room as lawmakers tried to come to a deal to avert a government shutdown.

“According to one person in the room this time, they realized something was off when Trump didn’t make his way to the center of the table, where he customarily sits, started talking and then turned around and left before anyone could respond.

“Senior level administration sources tell ABC News some aides close to the president tried to stop him for marching to the Rose Garden for the last-minute press conference.
“The president, according to sources, was mad from first thing Wednesday morning and the Pelosi remarks about a “cover-up” pushed him over the edge. He then demanded to speak to cameras.

“But the president may have played into Pelosi’s hands.

“Instead of attention aimed on how she is trying to hold her caucus back from impeachment — a step Democratic leaders think could imperil their chances of taking down Trump at the ballot box in 2020 — Pelosi and Schumer could change the focus to the president’s behavior.”

0

0

TRUMP IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, DAY 1:

Chairman Nadler

Chairman Nadler: Good morning

Witness: Good morning

Nadler: Thank you for coming

Witness: You’re welcome

Nadler: Now Barron…you can call me Uncle Jerrold. You understand that you are under oath and you must answer my questions as truthfully as you can…if you don’t, Barron, you could go to to jail…and we wouldn’t want that, would we?

Witness: Yes sir…er, no sir.

Barron Trump

Nadler: Call Me Uncle Jerrold. Now let’s begin. Barron, is your father, the defendant known as Donald Trump?

Witness: Yes.

Nadler: Barron, we’er going to skip the routine questions so that you can be off to school and get right to the matter we want to talk to you about. Is that OK? (witness nods affirmatively)

Barron, do you usually have breakfast with your parents in the morning before school?

Mystery witness

Witness: Yes

Nadler: Now this is important, Barron. Can you remember one time very recently that you and your mom and dad were having breakfast and your dad, Donald Trump told your Mom that he was very angry at some people in the United States Congress?

W: Yes.

N: Did he say who he was angry with?

W: A lot of, he called hem ‘democrats’, but he mentioned your name, Mr. Nadler

N: Please, call me Uncle Jerrold. What did he say about me, Barron?

W: I can’t remember exactly.

N: Did he say that he would like to hit me?

W: I think I remember he said he would really like to kick your fat, ugly ass! Or maybe it was my Mom who said that.

N; Barron, this is really important. You must try to remember…was it Donald Trump who said that, or was it your Mom?

W: Now I remember. It was my Mom who said that. My Dad said that you weren’t the only ‘ignorant fool’ he’d like to punch out but somebody he called “Pencil Neck” too. He said Mom should ‘take care of that ‘stupid bitch Nancy’, I think he said…”

Nadler: Thank you Barron, you may step down. Ladies and gentleman, I am ending this session. I believe we have heard enough from this witness to immediately proceed to an impeachment vote. The only charge necessary is, as we’ve heard this morning, President Trump has expressed his intention to physically attack myself and other members of Congress and attempted to incite others to attack members.

(Loud cheers from members of the press attending the hearing echoed through congressional chambers!)

———-
N Y TIMES: BARRON TRUMP TURNS ON DAD !

TELLS CONGRESS THAT PRESIDENT PLANS TO PHYSICALLY ASSAULT CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS; IMPEACHMENT NOW CERTAIN!

———————-

Jerry Nadler Subpoenas Former Trump Staffers

Two former Trump administration staffers have been subpoenaed by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler.

According to CNBC:

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., on Tuesday subpoenaed former White House officials Hope Hicks and Annie Donaldson to testify before his committee and provide documents related to a sweeping probe of figures in President Donald Trump’s orbit.

Donaldson was chief of staff to former White House counsel Don McGahn, who on Tuesday defied the Judiciary panel’s subpoena to testify about special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. Hicks is the former White House communications director.

Both Hicks and Donaldson were ordered to produce the requested documents to the committee by June 4. Hicks’ subpoena sets a June 19 date for her to testify in a hearing before the Judiciary Committee, while Donaldson is asked to appear June 24 for a deposition.

The Judiciary Committee said in a statement that the subpoenas for Hicks and Donaldson were issued for “testimony and documents” related to its probe of “obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Trump, his associates, and members of his Administration.”

Hicks did not respond to an inquiry for comment but Nadler wants to hear from her and the other staffer because they both worked closely with the president during the investigation.

0

0

SHITHEAD’S GETTIN’ OUT!; EXPECT A TICKER TAPE PARADE IN MINNEAPOLIS  AND DEARBORN — TOASTS IN MARIN COUNTY HOT-TUBS

BUT MICHAEL SPANN *WILL NEVER GET OUT; HE WAS KILLED IN THE PRISON UPRISING OF TALIBAN PRISONERS WITH WHOM JOHN WALKER LINDH FOUGHT BESIDE AGAINST AMERICANS

“One of the most prominent prisoners of the Afghan war was John Walker Lindh, the twenty-one-year-old Californian who was captured in December, 2001. Lindh was accused of training with Al Qaeda terrorists and conspiring to kill Americans. A few days after his arrest, according to a federal-court affidavit filed by his attorney, James Brosnahan, a group of armed American soldiers “blindfolded Mr. Lindh, and took several pictures of Mr. Lindh and themselves with Mr. Lindh. In one, the soldiers scrawled ‘shithead’ across Mr. Lindh’s blindfold and posed with him. . . .”   https://interrogationdiaries.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-happened-with-john-walker-lindh.html

DLH

—————————

Senators ask Trump administration why the ‘American Taliban’ is getting out of prison early https://www.rollcall.com/news/senators-ask-trump-administration-american-taliban-getting-prison-early

John Walker Lindh has been on track for release on Thursday

0

0

Justin Amash. Now there’s a piece of…er…work!

J’accuse Amash? Just how pure are you? any conflicts of interest lurking in your votes and grandstanding – any, any at all?**

He’s Stuart Smalley’s Little Brother… “Good Enough, Smart Enough, and, Doggone It, People Like Me”

– Amash is a “Libertarian Republican”! Politico described him as “one of the most conservative members of Congress.” (I’m sure, to Politico, anybody this side of AOC is “the most conservative”.)

– Amash, as he is described, is ‘pro-life’: however, he voted against defunding Planned Parenthood…with “good reason”, of course. There always is with Justin. *

– Amash accused Attorney General William Barr of lying to protect the President. (How about that? LYING! Strong stuff, Justin. Also, very irresponsible…as well as smug, pious, wrong, and ‘oily’.)

– Amash backed Rand Paul, a REAL libertarian for president. Senator Paul dealt with failure to win the Oval office with an admirable degree of class. But, the petulant congressman, Amash, couldn’t!

A “libertarian”?! Is this guy the kind of person… childish, a seeker of approval in all the wrong places… that Libertarians are willing to claim as ‘one of their own’? (We believe Justin Amash is more aligned with Maxine Waters, “High Pockets” Nadler, and “Pencil Neck”!

Amash is not the font of wisdom he thinks he is, nor is he “conflicted’ about anything…he’s just intensely devoted to attention-seeking.)

– “Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment,” (so sayeth the man from Michigan…or was that Adam Schiff)?

– In February 2019 Amash was the only House Republican to co-sponsor a resolution blocking Trump’s national emergency declaration seeking additional funds to build physical barriers on the southern border. He tweeted, “A national emergency declaration for a non-emergency is void”. (A :”non-emergency”…eh, Justin?)

– Why did Amash decide to advocate the impeachment of Trump? According to Wikipedia, Shane Trejo suggests that the motive is financial. He notes that Amash “has significant business interests in China that may be harmed by Trump’s ‘America First’ trade policies.”

– In July 2018 House Republicans introduced a resolution supporting the officers and personnel of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Amash was the only Republican in the chamber to vote against the resolution. He had good reason, we must assume…because he’s a pretty brilliant guy…just ask him.

– In December 2018 Amash was one of eight House Republicans to vote against a stopgap government funding bill that included $5.7 billion in border wall funding. Amash tweeted, “This massive, wasteful spending bill – stuffed with unrelated items – passed 217–185. It’s amazing how some wall funding causes my fellow Republicans to embrace big government.”

– In February 2019 Amash was the only House Republican to co-sponsor a resolution blocking Trump’s national emergency declaration seeking additional funds to build physical barriers on the southern border. He tweeted, “A national emergency declaration for a non-emergency is void. A prerequisite for declaring an emergency is that the situation requires immediate action and Congress does not have an opportunity to act. @POTUS @realDonaldTrump is attempting to circumvent our constitutional system.”[67] On February 25 Amash was one of 13 House Republicans to vote to block Trump’s declaration.[68]

– The Arab Christian Amash staunchly opposed Trump’s travel ban on countries that are terrorist threats.

On occasion, Amash, like the blind squirrel, does stumble on to an ‘acorn’ (but, certainly has ‘good reasons):

– Amash has criticized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), arguing that many environmental regulations are overreaching. Amash voted in favor of the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, which would have amended the Clean Air Act of 1963 to prohibit the EPA from regulating specified greenhouse gasses as air pollutants. In a 2017 debate, Amash “exaggerated uncertainty around the basics of climate science”—specifically, the scientific consensus that carbon emissions cause climate change. Amash opposed Obama’s decision to sign the Paris Agreement to combat climate change. Amash voted against legislation to block Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. Amash voted in favor of legislation “expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.” (Wikipedia)

Finally:
– Most notable about The Most Righteous Mr. Amash’s concerns about his interpretation of the Mueller “narrative” is that he sees no point in examining the illegalities, motivations, and unconstitutional behavior on the part of the federal law enforcement and national security agencies’ in their effort to overturn an election and topple a legitimately elected government. All of which is far better documented than the Mueller innuendo!

DLH
—

From The Hill:
What’s Amash Doing in The freedom Caucus, the Liberty Caucus…in Fact, Congress??

From Townhall:                                                                                                                             House Freedom Caucus Formally Condemns Justin Amash

*His reason – he interpreted it as singling  out Planned Parenthood and therefor it was somehow a “bill of attainder.” forbidden by the Constitution. Not even close. But according to Mister Constitution somehow an organization is entitled to funding  unless they have been found guilty of a preexisting crime. No such element of a bill of attainder was proffered by Congress as regards Planned Parenthood. But according to Amash if you give to one organization because of its interest in a subject you must give to any and all?  Would that be equally Mr. Amash? And if non-discrimination is a requirement for grants then one must ask if Congress must give to PETA in furtherance of any price supports for dairy interests?

**Moreon the Amash virtue

And alas, we come to Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), one of the few libertarians in Congress, who recently declared that Trump could be impeached, which is rich given that police state tactics were used against the president and some of his staff during the 2016 election. Also, there could be a China connection. Yep, trade is causing tension between the U.S. and China and it would seem that the Michigan congressman has some investments that could get squeezed. Sofia Carbone at Human Events has the story: 

0

0

Coming soon our commentary about Justin Amash, congressman with the libertarian disease of disequilibrium, realizing he was already going to be primaried and lose , making a nice little play for talk show prominence, maybe a civilian gig post primary, and vengeance – said here with as much or more evidence as his attempt to pillory Trump.

See Breitbart report for background

0

0

• More than ‘we few’ are starting to catch on to Christopher Wray; 
• Don’t think I’d mentioned that Wray was one of the three who threatened to resign in the ‘Ashcroft incident’.
• Always Mr Politically Correct – he headed the Enron Investigation  – and that miscarriage of justice
• We’d like to know who convinced Trump to name this guy to head the FBI.  DLH

One must part on the left and hold a certain worldly pose*

NO WRAY OF HOPE FOR FBI REFORM
Comey crony Christopher Wray acts as security guard for Clinton coup clan.

By Lloyd Billingsley at Front Page

After he fired the longtime Clinton crony James Comey, President Trump’s choice to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation was Christopher Wray, a man of “impeccable credentials.”

Two years later, President Trump finds that the FBI has no leadership and the director is protecting the same deep-state squad that mounted an illegal coup against the president.

“If you look at what’s happened with the scum that’s leaving the very top of government,” Trump told a crowd in Green Bay, Wisconsin, last month. “These were dirty players.” In 2018, Trump had also referred to FBI bosses as “scum,” and in 2016 hinted at meddling with his campaign.

When Attorney General William Barr recently agreed there had been “spying” on the Trump campaign, Christopher Wray told senators “that’s not the term I would use.”  As the FBI boss explained, “lots of people have different colloquial phrases. I believe that the FBI is engaged in investigative activity, and part of investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes, and to me the key question is making sure that it’s done by the book, consistent with our lawful authorities.” For former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, that was a bad joke.

“There was absolutely no reason to play this game,” Bongino told Fox News. “Christopher Wray is one of the most powerful law enforcement officials in the cosmos. He had the ability yesterday to re-establish faith in the FBI and come out and say listen, a very simple answer.” Instead he chose to play “the Comey euphemisms game.”

In similar style, former FBI deputy assistant director Danny Coulson told Fox news the so-called Russia probe was definitely not done by the book, and that agents in the field offices were wondering if those doing the spying had ever been through the FBI Academy. The Ivy League Christopher Wray certainly hadn’t.

Wray is a Yale grad and Yale law alum who started as assistant U.S. Attorney in Georgia. In 2003 he drew the attention of fellow Yalie George W. Bush, who nominated Wray as assistant attorney general in charge of the DOJ’s criminal division. While Wray was assistant attorney general from 2003 to 2005, James Comey was the deputy attorney general and Robert Mueller was director of the FBI.

Neither Comey nor Mueller attended the FBI Academy. Both threatened to resign when Bush planned to renew the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program while attorney general John Ashcroft was hospitalized. Wray threatened to resign with them, signaling that the deep state Three Amigos tend to act in concert.

Comey took over the FBI in 2013 and essentially exonerated candidate Hillary Clinton before he even interviewed her. Then he changed the charges of negligence to extremely careless, and said no reasonable prosecutor would charge the former First Lady and Secretary of State.

After Trump fired Comey in May of 2017, Mueller took over the Russia investigation. Trump called that a “witch hunt,” but Wray told Sen. Lindsey Graham, “I do not consider Director Mueller to be on a witch hunt.” As Wray explained to Sen. Dianne Feinstein “I’m very committed to supporting Director Mueller in the special counsel investigation in whatever way is appropriate for me to do that.” Apparently, in Wray’s mind, Mueller is FBI “Director” for life, something like J. Edgar Hoover.

On the other hand, Wray declined to say how he would have handled the Clinton case. And the Yale law alum said he had “no reason” to doubt the intelligence that says the Russian government ordered an effort to influence the 2016 election to harm Clinton and help Trump.  So the new FBI boss was on board with Midyear Exam and Crossfire Hurricane, a team player from the start.

When Trump pressured Wray to fire his deputy Andrew McCabe, one of the dirtiest operators in the coup, Wray threatened to resign but did not do so. McCabe was fired before he could conveniently retire, but the Clinton crony runs around the country with his book claiming Trump is an actual Russian operative. So McCabe looms large among those Trump likes to call “scum” and “dirty cops.”

James Comey also got a book deal and even his very own “Town Hall” meeting on CNN.  “Director” Mueller finds no collusion but leaves Congress with an impeachment invitation for the president. Meanwhile, DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz is about to issue his own report, and William Barr has confirmed the spying. As that plays out, Christopher Wray can’t help but pledge solidarity with Comey, Mueller and the Democrat Party. They still tout the Russia hoax and remain unwilling to address the real constitutional crisis.

The Constitution does not name the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with its unelected boss, as a branch of government. The FBI is part of the DOJ, under control of the executive branch. The FBI conducts counterintelligence but has no mandate to spy on domestic political campaigns.

To avoid repetition of that debacle, the FBI should be headed by someone who went to the FBI Academy,* rose through the ranks, and bagged some real bad guys. For all but the willfully blind, Christopher Wray was a Clinton coup clan protector right from the start

* Image not in Front Page. We found it astounding that people get operational management of the FBI who never graduated the regular FBI academy or did field operations. Wray’s “wiki” does not mention any attendance in his bio/chronology

0

0