We are the drain the swamp people

• private server conducting government business, revealing classified information; all OK with SCOTUS?!
• Royalty protect one another

SUPREME COURT DENIES BID BY JUDICIAL WATCH TO REQUIRE HILLARY CLINTON TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH ABOUT HER E-MAILS

By now, any conservative who thinks the Supreme Court is Anything More Than Another “Leftist-Liberal Washington Swamp Creature”, with a 6-3 liberal bias, is an unrealistic optimistic fool.

The reasons why this is such travesty of justice are too numerous to note here, but it should not be necessary for any reasonably intelligent American who has paid any attention at all.

—————

The Supreme Court on Monday denied a bid by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to uphold a court ruling requiring Hillary Clinton to testify under oath about her private email system.

The Supreme Court’s denial was unsigned and issued without comment.
In January Judicial Watch filed a petition for writ of certiorari (“cert petition”) with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to uphold a court ruling requiring Hillary Clinton to testify under oath about her private email system.

Hillary Clinton used a private email system to conduct official government business when she was the head of the Department of State.

Through many FOIA lawsuits, Judicial Watch revealed that many of Hillary Clinton’s emails contained classified material, including the name of a clandestine CIA agent.
Last March a federal court ordered a deposition of Hillary Clinton on her emails and Benghazi attack records in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

Hillary Clinton’s lawyers immediately filed an emergency appeal to stop her court-ordered email testimony.

Clinton’s team filed an emergency writ of mandamus to avoid testifying and the DC Court of Appeals granted her relief in August.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton released the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision:

Hillary Clinton ignored the law but received special protection from both the courts and law enforcement. For countless Americans, this double standard of justice has destroyed confidence in the fair administration of justice. Americans would never have known about Hillary Clinton’s email and related pay for play scandals but for Judicial Watch’s diligence. We expect that the Biden State and Justice Departments will continue to protect her and cover up their own misconduct as we press for additional accountability through the courts.

0

0

Frustrated Trump demands to know if Special Counsel Durham is still ‘living’ ‘Where’s Durham? Is he a living, breathing human being? Will there ever be a Durham report?’ Trump said

Last Summer Had One more Day To Go And Reports Suggested That Durham Was About To Issue Indictments…

“Former U.S. Assistant Attorney Andy McCarthy said Friday that the American public should watch for potential indictments stemming from Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation.”

TownHall

Durham indictments coming 

Gateway Pundit

This is a glimmer of hope that the bad guys might finally have their day – and that day is today.

Now our sources are wondering (somewhat tongue in cheek), does he even exist           dlh

American Thinker (excerpt)

For the past year and a half, conservatives were consistently assured that Durham would soon be handing down indictments. They’ll be coming next week…next month…in six months…. And always, thanks to organizations such as Judicial Watch, there’d be more incriminating FOIA-released information that Durham should already have found.

Then, the day before the election, a left-leaning magazine reported that Durham had found absolutely nothing. Considering the plethora of undisputed, publicly available information about lies and manipulation from government insiders (most of whom now are making bank working for left-leaning media or publishing books), this was surprising. And still, Durham continued as special counsel, a position he occupies to this day.

On Friday, Trump finally released a statement plaintively asking if Durham even exists: “Where Durham? Is he a living, breathing human being? Will there ever be a Durham report?”

Funny you should ask that, Mr. President, because a few weeks ago a site called We ♥ Trump posited that, while John Durham may once have existed, he doesn’t anymore:

I’m talking about why a man with such a storied and PUBLIC career does not have a single video existing of him anywhere online.

I’m not talking about videos about a certain topic or recent videos or videos of his personal life.

No, I’m saying not one single video of the man exists online!
Oh, and only 4-5 pictures exist of him.

That’s it.
A man who has led such a long and storied public career, and it’s as if he doesn’t actually exist.

Yes, I’ve read his bio.

Yes, I’ve seen his Wikipedia page.
Yes, I know he is the man who allegedly took down Whitey Bulger.
Yet not one single video can be found.
[snip]
Click into each one of those videos that shows up and you will find the same thing in each one.
You’ll see news anchors talking about John Durham with a still image of his face up on the screen….but nothing else.
No actual video of the man.
Not a video of him holding a press conference, or even some b-roll of him walking into a courthouse….nothing!
Notably, even Trump hasn’t met Durham. That was sold as a virtue – Durham is neutral – but now it’s easy to see it as part of a whole fake narrative about a non-existent investigation. There’s much more about this theory here.
Yes, this is a total conspiracy theory. Please be clear, though, that American Thinker and I are not asserting as fact that John Durham is a convenient government fiction covering Deep State activity. I am just relaying someone else’s observation that neatly ties in with Trump’s recent rhetorical question.
Of course, when it comes to conspiracy theories, if you had told me in January 2020 that America would turn into a weird police state, locked down over a virus that’s somewhat more serious than the flu, and that a senile, corrupt, old man with a penchant for fondling little girls, who campaigned either from his basement or before crowds of tens, would win the presidency with more votes even than Barack Obama, well, I would have laughed at that theory too.

0

0

The resident evil part would be closer to the persons of Rita Hart and the Democrat apparat supporting her. Our support of MMM does not absolve her of very serious apostasies that undermine what we presume to be genuineness in other policy areas. But if you have not noticed from our raison d’être, long set forth on our page bar under the moniker  about   “We will not hold back criticizing a “Republican” who . . . has done something to compromise Republican principles or other ethical values. We believe it is an ethically devoid thought that a Republican should be beyond reproach because they “won” the primary, or are in office, or may be helping other Republicans, that those factors require they be given a free pass on a significant matter.” 

So as regards our critique of MMM consistency we point out that MMM issued the following as part of her explanation for voting to accept the alleged validity of electoral college submissions regarding the 2020 presidential election: (bold our emphasis)

I have serious concerns about how elections were conducted in some states and outraged at abuses of the election systems in those states.  Such abuses undermine election integrity and trust in the system of that state, and more broadly those actions have affected the presidential election. I share the disappointment of millions of Iowans and Americans with the outcome of the presidential election results. I have suspicions about the integrity of the votes cast in several states, the mass mailing of ballots to every name on the voter rolls which are not up-to-date, the allegations of a lack of a chain of custody of their election materials, and the actions of elections boards and courts assuming authority beyond what is granted to them in a state’s constitution or by their legislatures.   . . .

Indeed the abuses were serious enough to subvert our constitutional republic and did not require rubber stamping through weak constitutional and historical analysis. She went on to maintain that:

I am also concerned about the effect that it would have on the rights of states and the precedent it would establish by putting power in the hands of whichever party controls Congress, and not in the hands of the people who reside in those states or the laws that have been enacted in those states through their legislatures.

As a Member of Congress who wants to limit the power of the federal government, I must respect the states’ authority here. I understand this decision will disappoint and anger my supporters, but I have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution above myself.

The above statement should have had implications for her vote, dramatically out of step with the Republican caucus including 87% of Republican women as regards the assault on states rights and other matters embodied in the Violence Against Women Act .  We will flesh that out a bit in the next day or two.

0

0

I’ve often pondered: Do lunatics know they’re “crazy”? Do they really understand the concept of “sanity/insanity”? These questions arose as I watched a Saturday Night Live skit masquerading as the new guy’s first press conference.

Gene’s observation and analysis:

1. I saw a doddering old man; being spoon-fed softball, correction, TEE-BALL questions from pre-selected “journalists”; who asked them in an apologetic tone, almost as if they were parents consoling a child..

2. I saw “President Harris’ VP” barely able to read his cliff-note answers (which were mostly unchallenged prevarications), a man obviously unable to keep an unscripted train of thought going for more than a few seconds. Yet I’ve seen reactions from “the other side” that are the exact opposite of mine. Is it possible that I’ve gone totally insane? Asking for myself.

Eugene Mattecheck Jr.

0

0

Democrats call 2020’s election the “most secure ever”.

Mainstream media and “big-tech” agree: Voter rolls were current, purged of felons/illegals/dead people. States mailed millions of unsolicited ballots, no multiples, no obsolete addresses, no ineligible people. USPS was on the “Up & Up.” Absentee ballots were carefully examined, every signature matching. Republicans were denied access to the counting only to expedite tabulations, not to hide irregularities. Voting machines were incorruptible and their software completely impervious to hacking.

Not only was the election “squeaky-clean,” those claiming otherwise are either crackpots or liars. Challenges disputing results have been filed, judges/justices in state/federal courts have dismissed them.

November’s election was entirely fair, fraud-free and accurately tabulated … except for one tiny area of the country: Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District. Mariannette Miller-Meeks’ victory over Rita Hart is tainted.

Loser-elect Hart’s supporters claim Iowa’s election processes were corrupted: Votes miscounted. Machines improperly calibrated. Military voters disenfranchised. Counting methods/standards unevenly applied. Absentee ballots discarded simply because voters didn’t follow instructions.

Hart herself describes Iowa’s judicial institutions as untrustworthy, hence election challenges cannot be fairly heard in her home-state’s court system.

Contending Iowa judges are corrupt and partisan, Hart petitioned Speaker Nancy Pelosi to have the corrupt and partisan House of Representatives decide Iowa’s election in Washington, D.C.

Democrats are facing a conundrum. To stymie Trump, they have to deny voter fraud and/or counting errors exist, yet to steal Miller-Meeks’ seat, they have to claim irregularities ran rampant in Iowa’s 2nd.

What’s a mother to do…?

Eugene Mattechek, Jr.

0

0

• Dems, being who they are, don’t have an ethics problem but they have an optics problem, and they know it
• More committee action Monday

Sitting in the district I see it as a convoluted situation for us Trump supporters and probably so do Democrats as Trump haters.  So what are the negatives for Democrats if they do not remove the provisional member status that Queen Pelosi bestowed on MMM as a temporary political maneuver?   There are enough that we suspect that a sufficient number of Dems will decide not to unseat MMM, she will remain Iowa’s 2nd District congressman.

It will not be overwhelming because they will feel obligated to keep Rita Hart viable for the next go-around.  Safe district Dems will for the most part vote to seat Hart. But enough others will soberly realize it hurts Dems in the long run in the district, and might even help solidify Trump votes against Democrats in general and to some extent not just in the Iowa congressional district. In the scheme of political image making it shows Dems as clawing for a vote that effectively won’t make much difference and in a way that undercuts their rhetoric against Trump’s appropriate legal objections to the 2020 steal.

Miller-Meeks has said there was fraud in the 2020 election but weirdly supported certifying the election for Biden without advocating for time for a decent hearing to sort it out. So maybe she thought it was onesy-twosy fraud, in spite of the evidence of a lot of fraud and clear violations of statutes and constitutional law in key states. MMM’s position (along with Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst) was not a profile in courage,  was not  unassailably mandated by the Constitution. Failing to exercise arguable Constitutional powers was a practical capitulation to a great assault on the Republic with predictable great harm to American security, prosperity and cultural conservation disheartening free people across the globe. Their championing of election integrity in this district is kind of pathetic in the scheme of things. But of course that is just another convoluted unsettling aspect to this.

Rhetorically, MMM could maybe have closed the deal early if she, as the winner, had responded to Hart by publicly challenging results in all the counties because Dems cheat everywhere and MMM could claim that she would find more votes, increasing her victory margin. In close elections it ought to be standard operating procedure, win or lose for Repubs, or people interested in one man one vote, to challenge close-vote elections in every county within the legal margin to do so, and force as many hand recounts as possible — it will only result in a net pick up of votes for Repubs because the Democrat apparat cheats and if you don’t realize that you are a loser. The rhetoric should even be used as regards counties with a high margin of victory .

Welcome paper recounts everywhere. Doing that MMM would avoid using rhetoric about how trustworthy the Iowa system is. The very reforms the Iowa legislature has initiated validate our position.  Otherwise there was no reason to pursue them because everyone in Iowa is honest don’t you know.  Had they been in place a year ago, MMM would have won by more, as sure as the Democrat apparat has it in their blood to cheat.

Dems only formally alleged issues in a few counties (and are no-doubt ticked  at Democrat auditors in some who helped certification of the wrong people). But a few votes cherry picked in a few counties does not mean others were fault free but that they went unchallenged by either side because of the margin of victory in those counties. But CD elections are not like the Presidential with the electoral college system transferred to congressional districts according to county votes. It is the totality of votes, the popular vote wherever they come from in the district. County lines do not make a difference.

Why think Democrat operatives  in one county are honest and another not so? It results in haggling over some votes your opponent picked which is what is going on. Mariannette Miller-Meeks might be owed a lot more votes elsewhere in the district.  She should emphasize that point not how unassailable Iowa’ system was.

It would not be a disaster for her to lose as the district would by default be competitive in 2022 and she is a minority congressman. A loss will expose Democrats. That said I hope she prevails in spite of the delicious hypocrisy Dems must eat by winning  a race to no great avail.

The editor of The Iowa Standard issued a commentary on March 17th that is very well considered.  We share the concerns and attitude presented there. Our posts on the matter of Miller-Meeks and the November vote go back to December.  Links to our posts are immediately below the Iowa Standard item.

While DC Democrats should not overturn Iowa’s Second District election, I won’t cry about it if they do and here’s why 

From V’PAC:

We’re fine with Rita Hart taking her election case to the Democrat controlled House

If this information and analysis (see links) does not put the skids on Jan 6th proforma certification of electors, then we are doomed as a republic

Miller-Meeks sworn in, maybe shouldn’t order new curtains just yet

Miller-Meeks not helping engender enthusiasm for her fight to retain 2nd District seat

Pelosi hasn’t lost Hart (her soul, yes)

0

0

• Dance with the ones that brung ya

Note:

The following are some thoughts on how Second District Congressman Mariannette Miller-Meeks (MMM) is sending the wrong message to constituents and other Republicans during and in the effort to retain her seat against Pelosi’s efforts in the House to “bump her off”.  We continue to support that she won election to represent our district by getting more votes than Rita Hart. Nevertheless, besides this recent development outlined below, as we have maintained in other posts, is our concern over the implications of rhetoric she and her champions employ.

Her antagonist Rita Hart refused to submit to Iowa’s mechanism for challenging contested elections which ultimately involves a judicial panel.  Instead Hart has taken the matter to the House which maintains a right to seat or not seat its members. Miller-Meeks’ employment of, shall we say, excessive confidence in Iowa election mechanisms and judges is troublesome in our estimation because those “features” are not unassailable.  A limited challenge process involving a few counties can mask discovery of even a larger margin of victory for MMM. Congressional races are not “by county” they are about total votes throughout the district i.e. the total popular vote. We have no doubt that in counties MMM won handily, or conceded, there are likely relatively many more votes for her, if thoroughly reviewed.

There are other nuances about some of MMM arguments that we find clumsy if not a  little reckless as to the bigger picture. Trump not being in the White House is far more devastating to our country than a minority member who won on Trump coattails who manages to give ground or show apostasy on key matters.

Miller-Meeks recent vote not helping engender enthusiasm for her fight to retain 2nd District seat

Second District Congresswoman Miller-Meeks joining House Democrats in repotedly voting for the Violence Against Women Act disappoints a lot of conservatives in the district, culture warriors, gun -rights activists and genuine feminists. It should be noted an overwhelming number of House Republican caucus members opposed the bill, nearly nine out of ten including most of the Republican women in the House. We see only two possibilities here and ask which calculation is worse for Miller-Meeks:  be seen groveling for Democrat votes regarding the challenge to her seat from Rita Hart, or believing the legislation was supportable as written?

MMM has to know the legislation would have passed without her support so furthering it for any reason and ignoring what should be considered poison pills in it, creates a significant psychological hurdle for many to develop much enthusiasm for her election being sustained. They wonder, how does a serious conservative entertain Democrats,  gratuitously helping them pass such bad legislation?

We suppose it disappoints her fellow Iowa Republican House members Representative Ashley Hinson and Representative Randy Feenstra who opposed it for good reason. Or maybe they think that MMM must be given a pass to maintain the seat, because well the vote made no difference. If that is their calculation then they have no appreciation for the brand and it is just more of the political circus that disgusts people. We will presume that is not the case.

Some conservative voters are probably asking if such politcal calculus is in play ~~ how far to go sustaining someone revealed as a once and future high-maintenance congressman regarding key votes, when Republican interests and resources can be applied elsewhere?

R Mall

0

0

Can’t add anything to this:

0

0

You all know the basic story by now, have probably seen the clip on conservative media, not so much mainstream media outlets that were happy to repeat anything that called into question Trumps physical and mental fitness for office. Note the clip as it follows Biden  in his walk from Marine One to Air Force One. — the plodding clumpy old man’s gate (even more so seen in other clips in other venues)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73R11e5kNGk

1. One trip going up the stairs, no big deal although see item 7 below
   
2. Two trips in a row, Houston we may have a problem
3. Three trips, this is a Chevy Chase routine about Gerald Ford
4. With Biden, his keepers will keep him from the ridicule for the most part
5. Seriously, the wind did it!?
6. It is really not about Biden as much as exposing our country’s vulnerability and the Democrat’s and media’s lying disgusting ways
   
7. Biden just a few months ago was given lines ridiculing Trump for taking it slow down a slope,
8. Biden’s handlers, nevertheless have no shame
9. By the way, remember Biden’s interview with George Stephanopoulos where Biden mentioned walking and chewing gum?

Related reading:Joe Biden: Watch how I run up ramps while Trump ‘stumbles down’  

Trump Jr. Responds to Biden Falling Down With a Funny (and Edited) Video Featuring His Dad 

And these chilling articles:

A Detailed and Disturbing Overview: Joe Biden Looks Seriously Unwell

As Biden Continues ‘Struggling Physically,’ Former Democrat Adviser Just Comes Right out and Says IT  

0

0