Definitely a Coup

It’s been awhile since I’ve posted anything, primarily because things have been changing so quickly that it’s difficult to keep up. However, I feel it’s time to make my feelings more widely known.

To begin with, let’s take a look at the document on which this country’s government is based – The US Constitution. Note that the Constitution establishes three separate, but equal, branches of government – Legislative, Executive and Judicial. The Constitution makes clear that the three branches are equal and that none is superior to the other two branches – period. The role of the Legislative Branch, Congress, is to legislate, the Executive is to execute, meaning to govern, and the Judicial Branch is to judge, particularly disputes between the other two branches in regard to the Constitution. The only exception is impeachment, which the Founders gave to Congress. (It is important to remember that political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution at all. There were none at the time. Political parties, which developed in the new nation, are a function of free speech.)

The effort to impeach President Donald Trump began immediately after Democrats realized that he had defeated the favored Hillary Clinton (a crook if there ever was one) and that he was going to be the new president. Black Congressman Al Green, who represents a low-income, mostly black district on the south side of Houston, began calling for impeachment almost as soon as the new president was inaugurated. The current effort, which at the time of this writing is in the “investigative stage”, is based on a “complaint” filed by a whistleblower in the “intelligence community.” The IC whistleblower act is described in this Federal publication – https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45345.pdf.

As it turns out, the particular complaint was NOT relevant to an intelligence complaint as it does not pertain specifically to intelligence or the intelligence agencies. In fact, the actual complaint is nothing but the complainer’s opinion. The whistleblower, who is believed to be a CIA analyst named Eric Ciaremalla, who worked in the Obama White House and was carried over into the Trump White House, did not have firsthand knowledge of the alleged violation, as was required by the policy that existed at the time. (The policy was changed AFTER the complaint was made.) In fact, the Acting Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Joseph McGuire, informed Congress that the complaint – which had been made public by Congressman Adam Schiff – was not covered by the Intelligence Whistleblower Act as determined by the legal departments at both his office and the DOJ. It was later learned that the whistleblower had talked to someone on Schiff’s staff, or possibly Schiff himself, even though the Act requires that a whistleblower file a complaint PRIOR to advising anyone in Congress. Schiff has since refused to name the whistleblower EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT!

Schiff’s complaint is that President Trump violated some non-existent regulation by advising Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky that he would appreciate assistance by Ukraine in investigating actions taken by former Vice President Joe Biden in the firing of a Ukraine general prosecutor who says he was in the process of investigating Biden’s son Hunter, who had been hired by Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, as a member of it’s board. The president also asked for assistance in the investigation of a company called CrowdStrike, a company started by a Russian expatriate, which determined that the Democratic National Committee’s computers were hacked by Russian intelligence. Apparently, intelligence has learned that the infected computers somehow ended up in Ukraine. There is also an investigation of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 presidential election but Mr. Trump does not refer to it in the transcript of the phone call.

Schiff, Democrats and their lackeys in the media are incensed that there would be an investigation of Biden, who was/is their frontrunner for the 2020 nomination. However, just because a person is running for office does not exempt them from official scrutiny of their past actions, which in this case Biden has proudly proclaimed. He has publically bragged of his role in the firing of Ukraine general prosecutor Viktor Shokin prior to releasing a $1 billion loan guarantee to the Ukraine government. That the Obama Administration insisted on a Quid Pro Quo in return for the loan is questionable, but that Biden may have had an ulterior motive raises it to criminal level. Incidentally, although Biden likes to paint himself as “the middleclass” candidate, he actually has a history of questionable behavior. For example, the self-proclaimed “devout Catholic” engaged in an adulterous relationship with his wife Jill. She was still married when they began their relationship. Biden’s son Hunter was rewarded with high paying jobs with various companies, apparently because of who his father is. Rudy Giuliani claims he has a safe full of files chronicling Biden’s corruption going back forty years.

That the “impeachment” is actually a coup becomes apparent when considering the relationships between the whistleblower, Schiff and some of the witnesses Schiff called to appear before his House Intelligence Committee. By the way, the role of the committee is to oversee the various intelligence agencies, not the President. First, the whistleblower contacted Schiff’s office BEFORE he filed his complaint. Then Schiff lied about it. The intelligence IG revealed that the whistleblower had a relationship with a presidential candidate, who turned out to be Biden. It turns out that Eric Ciraemalla worked for Biden when he was vice president. There also appears to be a relationship between the whistleblower and Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a Ukrainian immigrant who is a low-level analyst with the National Security Council. Instead of appearing in civilian clothes, his normal attire in the White House, he wore his dress blue uniform and was hailed as a decorated hero because he was awarded a Purple Heart. However, it turns out that his wounds came from an improvised explosive device that exploded near a truck he was riding in. The severity of his wounds is unknown, but they were evidently not severe enough to justify air evacuation from the combat zone. During questioning by a Republican Congressman, Vindman started to comment on who he talked to about the phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky but was interrupted and Schiff advised that he did not want to reveal the identify of the whistleblower – which raises a question.

There is no regulation requiring that the identity of whistleblowers not be made public, none. Whistleblowers are protected from retaliation by their employers but their identity is NOT protected. This leads me to believe that it’s not the whistleblower Schiff is trying to protect, it’s his own relationship with the man who is attempting to bring down the President of the United States. That, folks, is called a coup.

Witch Hunt! (Part 3 – Conflict of Interest)

UPDATE! According to a just published article by Real Clear Politics investigative reporter Paul Sperry, it appears that there was possible conflict of interest on the Mueller team with Andrew Weissman, who had been in contact with individuals who are named in the report. Weissman was in the Obama Justice Department and not only was a Clinton supporter, he was at her election night watch party.

In Volume II of the Mueller Report, several pages are devoted to White House Counsel Don McGahn’s interactions with President Trump. According to McGahn, shortly after Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel, the president expressed his concerns that Mueller had a conflict of interest and wanted him to tell Rosenstein that he “wanted him gone.” The president had several concerns about Mueller. For one thing, he had interviewed him for the possible position of Director of the FBI the VERY DAY BEFORE Rosenstein named him as special counsel. There was also a conflict involving Mueller’s past membership in a golf club owned by the Trump organization. The president was also concerned about Mueller’s position as a director in a law firm that represented people connected to the president. Mueller claims that people associated with the president thought the claims were “silly”, but does not justify such a conclusion. .

The Mueller Report doesn’t mention it, but there was also another conflict, a major one – Mueller’s close association with recently fired FBI Director James Comey and with Andrew McCabe, the former assistant Director who had replaced Comey after he was fired. Although Mueller doesn’t acknowledge it, this is a serious issue because, even though the purpose of appointing him as Special Counsel doesn’t include obstruction of justice, that appears to have become the focal point of the investigation almost from the onset of the investigation. In fact, it was after the media revealed that the president was being investigated for obstruction that he blew his top and began pressing to have the Special Counsel terminated. Now, bear in mind that the president knew there was no crime related to Russian interference and he also knew that he was within his Constitutional rights as Chief Executive to fire Comey. This is a serious conflict that was completely ignored by the DOJ and which the White House seems to have failed to express.

The most serious conflict of interest has emerged into plain sight since the Mueller Report was released. Democrats in the House, specifically Cummings, Nadler and Schiff, along with others, as well as Democrats in the Senate, have revealed that they are partisan and are only concerned with somehow getting Trump, hopefully by removing him from office but, if unable to do that (which they can’t), by disrupting government so much that he becomes ineffective. That is the most serious conflict of interest of all. Democrats know that now the Russia issue has been put to bed, the DOJ has free rein to conduct investigations into the corruption of the Obama Administration and the Clinton Campaign and their use of national intelligence and law enforcement to further their political goals.

WITCH HUNT!

I am in the process of reading through the Mueller Report. So far, I’m a little over a quarter of the way through but I have become convinced that it truly was a witch hunt! The Office of the Special Counsel found absolutely nothing to indicate that the Trump Campaign was in touch with representatives of the Russian government. Nevertheless, they went after people ruthlessly in an attempt to come up with “something.” Yes, they were able to get convictions of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates for financial crimes but found nothing to tie them to alleged Russian “interference” in the election. For that matter, the “interference” they found seems to be based solely on the allegations made by John Brennan and James Comey in the “report” they released after the election, a report that claimed news reports on the Russian TV/Internet station RT was “interference.” They also seemed to have taken claims made by Facebook and Twitter that certain accounts belonged to Russians at face value.

There are two things that I’ve found so far in the report that really jump out – the claim by Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya that the Russian government had proof that former American Bill Browder and his associate made contributions to Democrats and the Clinton Foundation and that Paul Manafort Emailed Jared Kushner three days before the election and expressed his fears that in the event Trump won, Clinton supporters would claim that Russians tampered with voting machines and changed the vote, which is exactly what happened.

More to come……………………………………………………………

 

Conspiracy?

When I recently read the DOJ Inspector General’s report on the Clinton Email investigation, I saw where IG Horowitz referred to a classified document relating to former Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Horowitz indicated that the FBI had a classified document that implicated Lynch in some way, but that the information had not been verified. It turns out that referenced document was one in a batch of “hacked documents” stored on Russian computer networks. One of the documents is an alleged Email from former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to “an operative working for billionaire George Soros.” The Email assured the operative that Lynch had assured Clinton campaign political director Amanda Renteria that FBI and DOJ investigators and prosecutors would “go easy” on Clinton in the ongoing Email investigation. Allegedly, when Comey took the highly classified document to Lynch’s office, she immediately became “frosty” and threw him out of her office. Of course, Lynch, Wasserman Schultz and Renteria all deny that any such Email was ever sent. However, the document remains classified at a level even above Top Secret, a classification so high that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are denied access to it.

Whether the intercepted document is real or not remains to be seen, but there were indications of Lynch’s complicity with Clinton from early in the investigation. When it became apparent that word of the investigation was going to be publically revealed, Lynch told Comey to refer to it as a “matter” rather then the criminal investigation it was. Her directive caused Comey to wonder if Lynch was “carrying water” for the Clinton campaign. President Barack Obama was publically down-playing the significance of Clinton’s Emails, to Comey’s consternation. As for the “unverified” document, bear in mind that while it remains classified, the also unverified allegations about Donald Trump made in a document produced for the Clinton campaign were released to the public.

 

Border Diversion

The news media – and Democrats – have focused their attention over the past few days on the McAllen, Texas area and the Health and Human Services facilities where young children who were brought into the country illegally are being housed until they can be sent to relatives in the United States or returned to their parents, who have been incarcerated for violating US immigration laws. There has been copious handwringing and ain’t it awfuls by people who have no clue about the actual events. What many Americans fail to grasp is that it is no coincidence that this “story” broke almost immediately after the contents of the DOJ Office of the Attorney General report on the Hillary Clinton Email investigation was released. When the report was first released – and before anyone in the media had read it – the “news” was that the report had found no evidence of bias, but then it came out that, in fact, there had  been multiple incidents of demonstrated bias on the part of five senior investigators. That’s when the shit hit the fan and the media realized it had to come up with something to divert attention from the report. They decided to focus on the plight of illegal immigrants who were being charged for Federal crimes and incarcerated, and were separated from their children as a result. The tactic worked, although it’s now coming out that members of the media and left-wing politicians have exaggerated the situation and in some cases, outright lied.

For some time now, thousands of teenagers, mostly from Central America, have been detained along the Mexican border. In recent weeks, there has been a horde of people coming up from Central America, particularly Honduras and El Salvador, with the intent of sneaking across the Rio Grande River into Texas then making their way to cities in hopes of finding employment. When they are caught, some claim that they are seeking asylum, not so much for political reasons but because they claim they are fleeing gang violence or, in the case of women, domestic abuse. Since they are in violation of Federal immigration laws, they are charged and incarcerated until their case can be brought to court. Many illegals are women, who have brought children and grandchildren with them. Dick Durbin, a left-winger from Illinois, claimed these people are coming from “three of the most dangerous countries in the world.” His comment was a lie – those countries don’t even come close to such an assertion. In fact they rank BELOW EVEN THE UNITED STATES, not to mention Mexico.

Now, while the United States does admit people who seek asylum, they – and everyone else – are required to enter the United States at an official port of entry where they present themselves as asylum-seekers to the Homeland Security people at the facility. US law requires that ANYONE who crosses the border, regardless of their citizenship, MUST enter through an official entry point – without exception. In the case of the people currently being detained, they snuck across the border and were apprehended by the Border Patrol. The only thing “new” is that there have been increasing numbers in recent weeks. The leftwing American media has misrepresented the situation. An example is the current TIME magazine cover story, which originally claimed that a little girl shown looking up at President Donald Trump was separated from her mother. In fact, the photograph was taken by a Getty News photographer who was on a ride-a-long with a Border Patrol agent who came across a group of illegals who had just crossed the Rio Grande on a raft. The photo was snapped of the tearful little girl while her mother was being searched. The photo was represented as showing a little girl who was being separated from her mother when, in fact, there was no separation. As a matter of fact, small children under the age of four ARE NOT separated from their parents.

While accounts of children and parents being separated at the border is heart-wrenching, the media’s true intent is to divert the nation’s and the world’s attention away from the DOJ/FBI OIG report on the Hillary Clinton Email investigations and the appearance of the report’s author, Michael Horowitz, before the Senate Intelligence Committee and the resulting firings of Federal agents who exhibited bias toward Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump in communications with other agents. One of those fired was former Deputy for Counterespionage Peter Strzok, who led the Email investigation then took over the investigation of alleged Russian “interference” in the US presidential election. Strzok’s security clearance was stripped from him and he was escorted from FBI Headquarters this past Friday. Horowitz revealed to the Senate committee that Strzok is under investigation for his role in the initiation of the Russia investigation, and the possibility that he used his position because he was biased against Donald Trump. His cohort and alleged lover, Lisa Page, left the FBI a month ago. Of course, there has been little mention of Strzok’s removal in the so-called “mainstream” media because they’re focusing on the “situation” on the border and on the wording on the back of the raincoat First Lady Melanie Trump wore onto the Air Force transport that took her to McAllen, Texas to inspect the facilities where children are housed while their disposition is determined. (Federal policy is to send them to live with relatives who are in the US legally if at all possible. If not, they remain in DHS hands until their parents’ case has been decided then are usually deported along with them.)

The Travesty of Obamagate

A second prominent Democrat, one Mary Anne(a) Marsh, a consultant and activist, has admitted on national television that the Trump Administration spied on Donald Trump.  Marsh appeared on Judge Janine’s program on Fox recently and stated that not only did the Obama Administration began spying on Donald Trump “in the spring of 2015,” it is a well-known fact. Now, just who is supposed to have known this fact is NOT known, but it obviously means it was known within not only the Trump Administration, but also within the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Marsh’s comments confirm what former DOD under secretary Evelyn Farkas admitted a month ago, and which Farkas has been trying to say she didn’t say. (Farkas apparently realizes she was confirming an illegal act but Marsh apparently doesn’t realize it.

There are a number of issues in play. For one thing, surveillance of US citizens without authorization by a court is illegal and even if such surveillance is conducted, the information is classified. That means that if it is “well known” as Marsh claims, someone was disclosing classified information to people who had no “need to know.” That in itself is felony. It also indicates that the information was used for political purposes; both Farkas and Marsh were involved with the Clinton campaign. It also means that a lot of Democratic politicians, including Congressman Adam Schiff and Senator Mark Warner, know the surveillance took place – AND THAT IT WAS ILLEGAL! It also implicates a lot of people high up in the Obama Administration, INCLUDING OBAMA HIMSELF! It has already been revealed that the individual who unmasked members of the Trump team, and now it appears, Trump himself, was very high up in “the intelligence community,” and that it was not Director Comey of the FBI. That leaves former Director of Intelligence General James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan – and former President Barack Obama himself.

The admission of spying on Donald Trump raises a lot of questions. For example, who else was spied on? President Trump didn’t declare his presidency until June, and Marsh indicated that the spying took place “in the spring.” (Granted, June is partly in the spring.) It’s likely that Obama and the Democrats were so confident that Hillary Clinton was going to win that they’d never be found out, which seems to be what Evelyn Farkas indicated in her fear that the Trump Administration would learn “what we knew and how we knew it.”

Regardless, #Obamagate is just beginning!

 

 

Evelyn Farkas Farked Up

Almost a month ago on March 2, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program and discussed the intelligence gathering of the Obama White House with host Mika Brzezinski, a well-known journalist and member of the Democratic Party. In the clip, which can be seen in its entirety, Ms. Farkas basically indicted both herself and the Obama Administration for conducting surveillance of President Donald Trump, apparently both when he was a candidate and during the interim between his election and inauguration. Ms. Farkas, who is well-known for her outspoken criticism of Donald Trump and who has written a number of negative articles about him and criticized him on MSNBC, allowed herself to use the pronoun “we” when discussing intelligence on Mr. Trump and how she “encouraged” the Obama Administration to move this intelligence to “the Hill” prior to the inauguration.

The clip remained unnoticed for almost a month, probably because it appeared on MSNBC where it was only seen by people who are largely critical of the president. It finally came to light a few days ago thanks to members of the conservative media who first made it known on the web site Conservative Treehouse on March 28. The unedited clip has since become widely circulated. Of course, Democrats defend Farkas, who claims her comments were “taken out of context.” In fact, her comments are very straight forward and can only be taken as she uttered them. Incidentally, her comments were made TWO DAYS BEFORE President Trump’s widely criticized tweet in which he asserted that President Obama had the Trump Tower “wiretapped.” (The word is in italics in his tweet.)

It turns out that Farkas, who carries the title “doctor,” is a “Russia expert” with a decidedly anti-Russia bent. During her tenure, she argued that the United States should equip the Ukrainian military with “heavy weapons.” She resigned her post in 2015 and then is alleged to have become an advisor to the Hillary Clinton campaign. The daughter of a Hungarian immigrant – which may explain her anti-Russia bias – Farkas wrote a paper condemning presidential candidate George W. Bush and the Republican Party’s policies for a buildup of the military after Bill Clinton had practically destroyed it. Farkas was a Clinton Administration representative on an international organization team in Bosnia in 1996 then served as an election observer in 1997. She is a member of the Center for National Policy, a left-wing organization based in DC that represents itself as a “non-partisan” think tank “dedicated to advancing the economic and national security of the United States. (Secretary of Defense General James Mattis is a representative of their Edmund S. Muskie Distinguished Service Award, as is Senator John McCain.) During the Bush Administration, she was a staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In her appearance, the basically outlines how the Obama Administration (and evidently the Clinton Campaign) worked feverishly to gather intelligence on candidate, then President-elect Trump, and make it known on “the Hill,” meaning to Democratic members of Congress. By using the pronoun “we,” she implies that she was personally involved in the spreading of classified intelligence information among members of Congress, some of whom may not have been (and most likely weren’t) cleared for classified information. She now claims that her comments were taken out of context and that she didn’t have access to classified information but her comments imply that she did, which means that someone in the Obama Administration was feeding classified intelligence documents to her and the Clinton Administration.

Where will this go? If Democrats have their way, not far. However, Republicans are in charge and they’re not going to let this die. As I’ve been saying, #Obamagate is just beginning.