We are the drain the swamp people

To what end, GW, to what end

You gotta like Trump, his honesty and willingness to “tell it like it is…”   dlh

Bush in retirement not the great communicator, more the great equivocator and “platitudner”  R Mall

Trump: Where Was Bush’s Desire for ‘Non-Partisanship’ during the Impeachment fiasco?

A call by former President George W. Bush for humanity to jettison partisanship amid the Chinese coronavirus pandemic has drawn a sharp rebuke from President Donald Trump.

Bush published a video message on Saturday urging unity and togetherness amid the coronavirus’ outbreak, which received 4.4 million views on Twitter as of Sunday morning.

Bush’s plea amounted to a call for people to ignore partisanship to protect the most vulnerable and to assist those who have become unemployed. He based his plaintive call on the observation we are all God’s children and therefore equal of merit and support.

“[L]et us remember how small our differences are in the face of this shared threat,” Bush said. “In the final analysis we are not partisan combatants, we are human beings equally vulnerable and equally wonderful in the sight of God. We rise or fall together, and we are determined to rise.”

The president’s response was straight to the point, outlining Bush’s absence when Trump was being excoriated during his impeachment proceedings.

“Oh bye the way, I appreciate the message from former President Bush, but where was he during Impeachment calling for putting partisanship aside. @foxandfriends He was nowhere to be found in speaking up against the greatest Hoax in American history!” Trump tweeted.

Comment – R Mall

I would like to ask a few questions of G W Bush:  Who really needs temporizing  —  people who support big government power grabs or those who oppose it?  Who is most likely to listen to your utterances — Republicans or Democrats and who needs your platitudes  more?  Which philosophy has had the more balanced approach and why can you not say so? With references to your timing as to when to address the nation, why are you always so compelled to equivocate regarding motivations of Democrats or assume good will, but not as regards Trump supporters and his policies? Do we need platitudes or sound policy? Or, is one policy or philosophy as good as another?  If I support grabbing national power subverting liberties in the name of saving lives, is that meritorious when the end result can be so devastating? Need to now where you are coming from . . .  if it is a neutral corner when so much is at stake then I am not interested.

0

0

So what exactly did you mean by: “Red sky at night, sailors delight. Red sky in morning, sailors take warning.”

In light of this stuff, I would be concerned about talking even about the weather with an FBI agent, that’s how much these characters have sullied its reputation.

Mike Pence Now Thinks Flynn Was Railroaded

We think the haste in which the Trump Admin acted in firing Flynn vividly illustrates its naivete that Comey exploited in “sending a couple agents over to interview the general:      dlh

“Asked to describe how two FBI agents ended up at the White House to interview Flynn in January 2017, Comey, speaking to MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace during a forum discussion Sunday, said flatly: “I sent them.”

“Comey went on to acknowledge the way the interview was set up – not through the White House counsel’s office, but arranged directly with Flynn – was not standard practice. He called it “something I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more … organized administration.” 

PENCE INCLINED MORE THAN EVER TO BELIEVE FLYNN DID NOT INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD

Following disclosures of key documents last week, it’s become patently obvious that President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser, retired three-star general Michael Flynn, was set up by Obama-era operatives.

His resultant ‘guilty plea’ for ‘lying’ to the FBI, then, is looking more and more like it was coerced.

Prior to being charged by Robert Mueller’s partisan hack prosecutors, however, you may recall that Flynn was forced out of the White House in 2017, barely a month in to the new administration, ostensibly for “lying” to Vice President Mike Pence about a conversation involving then-Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak.

On Thursday, however, following this week’s disclosures of handwritten notes from FBI agents sent by fired Director James Comey to entrap Flynn, the vice president noted he is “inclined more than ever” to believe Flynn never intended to mislead him about his conversations with the Russian diplomat, the Washington Examiner reported.

The site noted further:

He made the comments after the FBI records released on Thursday have been touted by Flynn’s lawyer, Sidney Powell, as exculpatory evidence heretofore concealed from the defense team. They show that now-fired FBI agent Peter Strzok and others in the FBI’s leadership stopped the bureau from closing its investigation into Flynn in early January 2017 after investigators had uncovered “no derogatory information” on him. Emails from later that month show Strzok, along with then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page and several others, sought out ways to continue investigating Flynn.

“I think Gen. Michael Flynn is a patriotic American who served with great distinction in the armed forces of the United States. And I’m deeply troubled by the revelations of what appear to have been investigative abuse by officials in the Justice Department — and we are going to continue to look into that very carefully. But my respect for Gen. Flynn personally, for his service to the country, is undiminished,” Pence told reporters.

“And I’m inclined more than ever to believe that what he communicated to me back during the transition leading to our inauguration was unintentional and that he was not attempting to misrepresent facts,” the vice president added.

He noted further that he believes there was “investigative prosecutorial abuse that is coming to light” and “people need to be held to account,” but said a pardon would be a decision for President Trump to make.

Flynn is fighting to have his guilty plea thrown out. He entered his plea in December 2017 after claiming to have lied to investigators about discussing Russian sanctions and a UN resolution on Israel.

The FBI intercepted Flynn’s communications with Kislyak as part of the bureau’s normal electronic surveillance of a Russian diplomat inside the United States.

But the allegation that Flynn did something wrong never made any sense. First, there are no legal issues involved with incoming administration officials having discussions for foreign officials, and that is especially true of an incoming national security adviser.

Secondly, Flynn is a career military intelligence official. As an Army lieutenant general, he was in charge of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the Obama administration, so he would have known that American intelligence monitors the communications of foreign officials on U.S. soil.

More noteworthy is the fact that Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak was leaked in the first place — which is a felony, since it is classified. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius reported on the conversation Jan. 12, 2017, following Flynn’s December conversation with the Russian; where did Ignatius get his information from?

U.S. Attorney John Durham, appointed by Attorney General William Barr to investigate the origins of “Spygate,” is also looking into the leak.

In any event, the revelations this week seem to constitute exculpatory evidence on Flynn’s behalf, and the vice president appears to think so as well.

So does the president. Trump said Thursday he “would certainly consider” bringing Flynn back into his administration in some role, though he did not elaborate.

/////

0

0

• Noonan’s posturing just isn’t believable any more. Her “sell by” date has long ago expired
  

Miss Peggy, the biggest phony in the political punditry today, has a column on what a leader is going to have to have to get America through the Covid-19 crisis and back to where we were.         dlh

She uses British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as her example:

The Iron Lady and the Coronavirus Age   (excerpt)

“What at bottom drove her (Margaret Thatcher)? “If there was one uniting force in everything Mrs. Thatcher did, it was her love for her country.” All truly great political leaders have this love, which involves a heightened vision of their nation. Thatcher’s love was not always requited. “But great loves such as hers go beyond reason, which is why they stir others, as leaders must if they are to achieve anything out of the ordinary.”

“We will all need to achieve much out of the ordinary in the next few years. Leaders, including CEOs and politicians, will have to get us through this thing. Love of country is the only place to start.”

Here are two responses to the column that say what we are thinking, but say it better:

Subscriber

Thatcher was hated by the leftists in her day almost much as Trump now. Peggy would probably be against Thatcher today as much as she hates Trump. Peggy stop pretending you are a woman of the right as it’s not working…

Subscriber

“If there was one uniting force in everything Mrs. Thatcher did, it was her love for her country.” All truly great political leaders have this love, which involves a heightened vision of their nation.

Hillary Clinton: “I’m with her”
Donald Trump: “Make America Great Again”

One candidate loved herself, while one loved his country. Enough said.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

From the best columnist on the WSJ staff, Kimberley Strassel

A lot in this column to concern America. It succinctly sets forth the dark facts and implications of the corruption in the FBI.  I dare say though, that posting it or just the most alarming excerpts will not evoke any comment at all from “patriotic” QC area readers.     dlh

The FBI’s Flynn Outrage   (excerpt) (bold our emphasis)

New documents shock the conscience and demonstrate the need for accountability.

The newest Federal Bureau of Investigation documents in the case of former White House national security adviser Mike Flynn are stunning in themselves. But the totality of Mr. Flynn’s treatment shocks the conscience.   . . .

The latest documents reveal the FBI was officially closing its Flynn case on Jan. 4, 2017. The FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team spent 2016 checking “databases” for “derogatory” information on him, running down accusations that he had ties to Russians. They struck out, and the closing document admits Mr. Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate” for investigation. Then, suddenly, also on Jan. 4, FBI agent Peter Strzok sends a text saying: “Hey, if you haven’t closed [the Flynn case], don’t do so yet.” Mr. Strzok explained: “seventh floor involved”—a reference to FBI top brass.

What changed? In late December, Mr. Flynn spoke to Mr. Kislyak. Federal law gives investigators the authority to wiretap foreigners but also requires strict privacy protections for U.S. citizens with whom they speak. The Obama administration superseded those protections and “unmasked” Mr. Flynn in the days following his discussions. They later leaked the classified contents of the call to the press.

The snooping gained them nothing substantive. Mr. Flynn’s conversations were lawful and routine. So Justice Department and FBI officials instead manufactured the absurd theory that Mr. Flynn had violated the Logan Act of 1799, which bars citizens from engaging in unauthorized negotiations in disputes between the U.S. and foreign governments. No one has ever been convicted of violating the act. This week’s handwritten notes show that among the FBI’s hopes in interviewing Mr. Flynn was to “get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act.”

The real goal was to trap him. Remember, the FBI didn’t need to ask Mr. Flynn what he’d said to the Russian ambassador; they had a recording. The only reason for an interview was to coax Mr. Flynn into saying something at odds with that transcript. They worked hard at it. Then-Director James Comey has previously bragged that the FBI went around the White House legal counsel to make sure Mr. Flynn had no lawyer present.

This week’s documents include an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page debating ways for the bureau to get around its standard formal admonition against lying, suggesting agents just “casually slip that in” when talking to Mr. Flynn. A document from former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe says that he urged Mr. Flynn to conduct the interview without a lawyer, and that the FBI deliberately dispensed with the admonition altogether.

The abuse then continued under former special counsel Robert Mueller. Mr. Flynn initially explained that he misremembered what he’d discussed with the Russian, a highly plausible claim. But Mr. Mueller’s lawyers pursued him to near penury and threatened to prosecute his son. He succumbed and agreed to a plea deal.

Perhaps the most important aspect of this week’s documents is what isn’t in them. The FBI expresses no concern that Mr. Flynn was “colluding” with Russia or otherwise threatening national security—supposedly the rationale for the FBI’s intrusive investigation. By this point, it just wanted a scalp, a means to keep its broader narrative rolling.

The FBI exists to investigate crimes, not to create them. Some might add this shameful behavior to the long list of the FBI’s “collusion” malfeasance: the surveillance-court abuse, the Steele dossier, the leaks. But the Flynn case is something different. This isn’t the FBI playing fast and loose with sources or the courts. This is law enforcement abusing its most tyrannical power—to strip citizens of their reputations, their livelihoods and their liberty.

The FBI’s treatment of Mr. Flynn lives up to Americans’ worst fears. Attorney General William Barr was right to order a review of the case. Now someone must be held to account.  . . .

0

0

With the Big Gov/W.H.O. editors at  YouTube, we will see how long this stays up.  Thanks to KK for the heads-up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyjtDH__Px4&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3Vsq-IxclZMAkE7bKzZ7WEcZwUi5nvQtlXKjEuWWRNMHJir-BAI_gznOQ

0

0

• You know,  like the one he is overseeing to sincerely prevent any future FISA abuses

Is it necessary to say any more about Chris Wray than we already have?

Trump should not have appointed him; Trump should not have kept him in the job as soon as it became obvious that Wray had no intention of cooperating in the investigation of the FBI.

Nobody, including Rod Rosenstein stonewalled requests for documents supporting the wrongdoing by various members of the FBI’s recent past leadership than Christopher Wray.

We won’t rehash our observations on Mr. Wray here; they can be found in previous Veritasapac posts but there is this:         dlh

Rep.Jim Jordan Asks Why Didn’t Chris Wray Tell Us; Flynn’s Attorney Has An Answer  (excerpt) (bold our emphasis)

(CNSNews.com) – The FBI investigation into Donald Trump and his associates, including Gen. Michael Flynn, “was worse than we thought,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told Fox News’s Martha MacCallum Thursday night.

Newly released documents show the FBI was ready to close its investigation of Flynn on Jan. 4, 2017, after finding nothing “derogatory,” but FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok urged against it: “Hey, don’t close RAZOR,” Strzok wrote.

A few weeks later, Strzok was in Gen. Michael Flynn’s White House office — sent there by FBI Director James Comey — surreptitiously investigating Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

Jordan on Thursday credited Flynn’s most recent attorney Sidney Powell and Attorney General Bill Barr with prying the newly disclosed documents out of the FBI:

“Why didn’t (current FBI Director) Chris Wray tell us?” Jordan asked. “He’s been there two-and-a-half years. He was brought in to clean up this mess.”  . . .

“A few hours later, Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell told Fox News’s Sean Hannity that FBI Director Chris Wray used to be Andrew Weissmann’s supervisor, when “Weissmann was at the Department of Justice, running roughshod over the rights of everyone in Houston,” as Powell put it.”

0

0

JOHN BOLTON BOOK RELEASE DELAYED UNTIL AT LEAST JUNE

– We’re not sure that Politico is all that upset about this delay.

A delay as impactful as a predator throwing a hedgehog into the briar patch

Maybe we’re in the minority in our opinion because we have to speculate based on what we’ve gleaned from public reports from a wide variety of sources, past events, and the application of just a bit of wisdom and common sense.

Of course the ‘majority’ opinion endures many of the same limitations that we do, with the possible exception, one way or the other, of the greater wisdom they like to claim.

First of all, seems we’ve already heard a lot about the “John Bolton book”…most of it how devastating its ‘revelations’ will be to Donald Trump personally, to his administration, and to his reelection probabilities. ( The New York Times, back during the impeachment fever, reported that Trump told Bolton he wanted to continue withholding U.S. government aid from Ukraine until officials publicly pledged to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. )

If, indeed, this so-called “tell-all” book has as its primary motivation to ‘dirty up’ President Trump ahead of the November election, John Bolton will have revealed himself to be not at all the honorable, bright, competent patriot that I and others have thought him to be. If, by revealing moments of private conversation Trump may have had with his staff, Cabinet, or other subordinates, or other bits of what the regular person would consider ‘gossip’ or comments made in a pique or reflecting on ‘whatifs’, or any remarks a person might have with intimates and never necessarily intended for further thought or action or meant for public dissemination, Bolton hopes to make a buck, he is just another sleazy, disreputable ‘Beltway denizen’.

Let us hope that is not the case.

But, this may indeed be what the mainstream media thinks the book is.

And thus, the closer to October (the optimum time for pre-election “surprises”), the release of the book, the better they like it, including the Politico.

The very same may be the case of the National Security Council, and whoever is ‘vetting’ the book. This is not to suggest that the person named in the article (Ellen Knight) is the faithless culprit, but rather a “Deep Stater” within that agency.

At any rate, all will be revealed on “June 23” or before.

dlh

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Dan Lipton at  Politico:  Bolton Book Delay   (excerpt)

0

0

Our DLH posed the question.

The primary ad almost writes itself given the personages in the state’s Republican establishment that have endorsed Mariannette Miller-Meeks.  They would have been wise to stay out and be comfortable with the good sense of the voters they depend on. Their track record in picking for others, whatever their criterion, has not been very good

 Marionette String Puppet

0

0

Joe Dan Gorman at Intellectual Froglegs.  I don’t care what you say, this is funny stuff  (while also “dead to rights” about the Wuhan fiasco)   It is thirty minutes of the best in skewer the liberals humor.  First five minutes are worthy errata humor before getting to Joe Dan’s set piece

https://intellectualfroglegs.com/the-end-is-near-again/

0

0

• Know Schilling by his votes on key cultural and other conservative issues
• See the shameful grubbing-for-votes hit piece Miller-Meeks mailed attacking Schilling at the end of this post
• Ask MarianneteMiller-Meeks which votes Bobby Schilling cast as a member of Congress to benefit his district she would have voted differently on and why! The ag and manufacturing interests between the two adjacent districts overlap.
• Miller-Meeks accuses Schilling of not having Trump’s back. Logically then she must think the same of Mark Meadows and even Chuck Grassley, and that they are untrustworthy.  See below
• Miller-Meeks must think Jim Jordan, longtime Trump ally, who has endorsed Bobby Schilling having worked with Schilling in Congress, is out to undo Trump’s agenda
• V’PAC will accumulate information about the Iowa Second Congressional District primary and general election that will be accessible via a link on our page bar above.

Local Iowa Republican voters are receiving a lot of campaign literature emanating from the high profile Second District congressional primary between Bobby Schilling and Mariannette Miller-Meeks.  One of the most effective campaign mailings we have seen in a long time hit our mailbox a few days ago.  It was a tabloid from the Bobby Schilling campaign.

We have set forth screen grabs of the pages from a PDF rendering.  The content may also be available on the Schilling campaign website.  In the mean time we recommend you refer your conservative friends here if they have not received the mailing and for general discussion about the race.  Using your keyboard you should be able to zoom the content for ease of reading — typically by engaging the command key (aka “bug-splat” key on Mac devices) along with the plus key. The tabloid is effective in laying out Schilling’s persona and record.

Today we received a mailing from the Miller-Meeks campaign and we note from the mailing indicia that Victory Enterprises appears to be involved in her campaign.  That outfit is notorious for lining up with desperate campaigns and being part of issuing hit pieces.  Today’s mailing was no different.  It purports that Bobby Schilling is not supportive of President Trump because of Schilling’s support of a special prosecutor being appointed to investigate allegations of Russian involvement in the 2016 election.  The Miller-Meeks’ piece is “gotcha” drivel that could be applied to Mark Meadows, Darrell Issa, Chuck Grassley and other conservative Republicans that have been key to Trump’s agenda in Congress, including Lindsey Graham whose endorsement Miller-Meeks bandies about.   Consider:

Special Prosecutor Republicans  (Politico)

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)  . . . signaled support for the naming of a special prosecutor  . . . GOP Rep. Darrell Issa also praised the move  . . .  Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, also appeared to endorse the move, saying it shows the Trump administration is taking the investigation “seriously.” . . .  Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas)

Grassley: Special counsel has “a strong reputation for independence” 

After the news of the appointment of the special counsel, Grassley’s office issued a statement praising Mueller as a man with “a strong reputation for independence.”

So by Miller-Meeks’ standards President Trump can’t trust Chuck Grassley.

We challenge her and her “consultants” that come up with such horse manure to tell conservative Chuck Grassley how untrustworthy he is . . .  how he “joined Dave Loebsack  and Nancy Pelosi” (hell, why not throw in Chuck Schumer) to undermine Trump:

Senior GOP senator rebukes Trump, says whistleblower ‘ought to be heard out’

Grassley, in bipartisan letter, seeks ‘detailed’ explanation from Trump on IG firing

And there is Senator Lindsey Graham whose endorsement Miller-Meeks is so proud of

Graham shows support for Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling 

And just how thorough was Miller-Meeks’ fealty to Trump back in the day?

More Republican delegates chosen, more problems for Trump

The final delegate, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, is a former aide to Gov. Terry Brandstad and declined to say whom she would support. That probably means she’ll face intense lobbying by the three presidential campaigns.

We are supporting Bobby Schilling because of the proven conservative record he established after winning in a tough Democrat district across the river, a district  dominated by union activists.  His reelection effort was simply overwhelmed by gerrymandering to make the district impossible for a Republican, at least one as well financed as Cherry Bustos. Schilling  had the sense to escape Illinois several years ago for a lot of good reasons.

While we will of course support the Republican nominee against the likely Democrat nominee ultra-liberal Rita Hart, it is clear from Miller-Meeks hedges on key issues that she will be “high maintenance” for conservatives.

We are tired of the Republican establishment (Miller-Meeks is their candidate)  defining the key to winning the district as “doing well” in liberal Johnson County. The key to winning the district is a district-wide margin of blue collar voters, especially no-party, and enthusiasm from Republicans.  Schilling has proven he can assemble that appeal. The establishment way of thinking brought us Jim Leach. Enough said.

The Schilling campaign website is https://bobbyforiowa.com/    Use the zoom function on your keyboard to expand the print and pictures.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The Miller-Meeks / Victory Enterprises mailed hit piece (front and back) with our annotations:     

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0

0