Lynching Russiagate

Tempest, meet teapot. So, did you hear? Trump complained that the impeachment inquiry in the house was a lynching (AP, Trump likens House impeachment inquiry to ‘a lynching’) , and all the democrats and liberals got all whiny because that is a "racial" word. Don't take my word for it. Via the Wombat's In The Mailbox: 10.22.19 (Late Night Edition),  Joe For America does the digging Trump Compares Impeachment Inquiry to A Democrat-Led “Lynching” And The Media Explodes

Trump’s use of the word “lynching” ticked off House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC), an influential black lawmaker. “That is one word that no president ought to apply to himself,” Clyburn said on CNN. “I’m a product of the South,” he added. “I know the history of that word. That is a word that we ought to be very, very careful about using.” True, except it is appropriate here and I might remind these black leaders calling foul that it wasn’t only African Americans who found themselves at the end of a rope.
Another black congressman who is a race monger and a Marxist, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), said Trump should delete the tweet. “You think this impeachment is a LYNCHING? What the hell is wrong with you?” Rush wrote on Twitter. “Do you know how many people who look like me have been lynched, since the inception of this country, by people who look like you.” Yes, all white people are bad. Give me a break.

But a little more digging, and, also from the Wombat's In The Mailbox: 10.22.19 (Late Night Edition) Twitchy: Enjoy These Videos Of Democrats Calling Bill Clinton’s Impeachment A Lynching. More piling on, Insty IT’S RACIST TO CALL TRUMP’S IMPEACHMENT A “LYNCHING,” BUT NOT WHEN DEMOCRATS SAID THAT ABOUT CLINTON IN 1998: You aren’t surprised, right?, Ace, Today's Ignorant Twitter Freak-Out: Trump Said Lynching, Red State, Apparently Every Democrat In Existence Used The Term “Lynching” To Defend The Clintons, John Sexton Hot Air, Joe Biden, Other Democrats Used The Word ‘Lynching’ In Reference To Impeachment. Eventually, even SloeJoe saw a bit of error in his ways and admitted to making mistakes in the past.

This wasn’t the right word to use and I’m sorry about that. Trump on the other hand chose his words deliberately today in his use of the word lynching and continues to stoke racial divides in this country daily.

From the Department of "we got him this time for sure", after the secret testimony by the Ambassador to the Ukraine, Democrats came out of the meeting swearing they had him this time. Again from the Wombat's In The Mailbox: 10.22.19 (Late Night Edition), Just One Minute, The Ambassador to the Ukraine is not helping Team Trump citing NR, Trump Made Ukraine Aid Contingent on Biden Investigations, U.S. Ambassador Testifies

The acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor, testified on Tuesday that he was told the delivery of military aid to Ukraine was contingent on Ukraine promising to investigate corruption allegations against former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter, according to the Washington Post.

Taylor had previously sent a message to Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the EU, on September 9, writing: “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

“During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election,” Taylor told House impeachment investigators. Hunter Biden was a former board member of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural-gas company, while his father was vice president.

“Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelensky was dependent on a public announcement of investigations — in fact, Ambassador Sondland said, ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance,’” Taylor continued.

“He said that President Trump wanted President Zelensky ‘in a public box’ by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.”

And still, I don't see a direct link to Biden. I see Trump demanding investigation into Ukrainian corruption as the price for aid. Forgive me for not being impressed. Sundance at CTH, John Ratcliffe: Adam Schiff’s “Media Leaks to Frame Impeachment Narrative Are False”….



Also, Rep. Elise Stefanik Discusses Schemes, Ploys and Manipulative Games of Adam Schiff…



At Power Line, Paul Mirengoff wonders if Ukrainian corruption is a Russian myth? Trying to digest this one, and it's not happening. And again from the Wombat's In The Mailbox: 10.22.19 (Late Night Edition) AmThink: Trump Gave Ukraine What Obama Withheld

Capt. Ed at Hot Air, Shocker: House Treats Hyperpartisan Schiff In Hyperpartisan Manner, WND, Newt rebuts Hillary: We adopted Democrat rules in Clinton impeachment. Mediaite, Lindsey Graham Plans to Introduce Resolution Condemning ‘Illegitimate’ House Impeachment: ‘Should Be Dismissed in Senate Without a Trial’, Matt Margolis, PJ Media, Trump Warns Democrats on Dangerous Precedent They're Setting With Impeachment "So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights" and at WaEx, 'Pelosi, she's crazy': Trump decries House speaker over impeachment inquiry.

BI, Trump is said to believe that the Democrats will never impeach him, despite his aides' desperate attempts to get him to prepare for it. Conrad Black predicts Impeachment Will Fail "The Democrats are being led by a coalition of constitutional renegades, political tricksters, and would-be Maduros. They are speeding over a political cliff. The force of gravity will assert itself." I'm not that confident. Also from from the Wombat's In The Mailbox: 10.22.19 (Late Night Edition), the occasionally sensible Megan McArdle: Why The Senate Might Actually Remove Trump From Office. Salena Zito, WaEx, Will the Democrats miss Middle America again?

Meanwhile, discussion continues over the Durham investigation taking on Brennan and Clapper in his probe into the "spygate" story. Chuck Ross at Da Caller, Report: Durham probe seeks interviews with Brennan and Clapper. Hint, subjects of the investigation get interviewed last, so they can't set up defense in advance. Sundance, Durham Looking At Brennan – A Reminder of “The Crown Material” Conflict…

The Christopher Steele dossier was called “Crown Material” by FBI agents within the small group during their 2016 political surveillance operation. The “Crown” description reflects the unofficial British intelligence aspect to the dossier as provided by Steele.

In May 2019 former House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy stated there are emails from former FBI Director James Comey that outline instructions from CIA Director John Brennan to include the “Crown Material” within the highly political Intelligence Community Assessment.

Specifically outlined by Gowdy, the wording of the Comey email is reported to say:

…”Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment.”

However, on May 23rd, 2017, in testimony -under oath- to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) John Brennan stated [@01:54:28]:

GOWDY: Director Brennan, do you know who commissioned the Steele dossier?
BRENNAN: I don’t.

. . .
It certainly looks like former CIA Director John Brennan has exposed himself to perjury. However, beyond that and even more disturbing, what does this say about the political intents of a weaponized intelligence apparatus?

When you have to choose between the testimony of the  FBI director and the CIA director as being true . . . Ace, John Durham Has "Requested" An Interview With Coup Organizer and Former (?) Communist John Brennan, and Plans to Request The Same of CNN Leaker James Clapper and John Brennan Orders His Personal Stenographer, Natasha "Fusion Nat" Bertrand, to Write a Five-Alarm Scream Piece Decrying How Terrible It Is That the Architect of the Russia Hoax is Being (Gasped) Investigated

A Reuters reporter sent a nasty email about TWT to a source I used to understand Joseph Mifsud. I write about Mifsud now because John Durham is also trying to understand who he is. The liberal media hates the Russia-origins Durham probe. email and reply. pic.twitter.com/9NBw8aQbaX

— Rowan Scarborough (@RoScarborough) October 21, 2019

Nice Deb at AmGreat, Reuters Reporter Slimes Washington Times in Insulting Email to Mifsud Source

Sundance again, CIA Circles Wagons – Dispatches Media Narrative Engineers to Defend Interests…. Politico decries it as Trump’s quest for vengeance against John Brennan. Dr. John at Flopping Aces, Barr and Durham strike gold

Newsbusters, NYT Columnist Admits Deep State Exists...To Protect Us From Trump

Your unelected betters are valiantly trying to save you from your choices, and you bumpkins don't even have the decency to say thank you. https://t.co/CRsvNixWi0

— The Partyman (@PartymanRandy) October 21, 2019

John Davidson, Da Fed, No, The Deep State Isn’t A Bunch Of Unbiased Patriots Who Deserve Our Gratitude.

More to the point, “protecting the interests of the American people” isn’t the job of these public servants. They have other, rather specific jobs. The job of career officials in the intelligence agencies, for example, is to provide the White House with intelligence relevant to national security. That’s it. They have no other role to play in public life, and for good reason. Appointed and unelected officials are supposed to serve those who were put in office by the people, from whom elected officials derive their authority. That’s how a republic is supposed to work.

But lately it seems our unelected officials think of themselves less as public servants and more as a Praetorian Guard. After more than two years of the Mueller probe and the Russia collusion hoax, Americans got a pretty clear picture of an extremely politicized intelligence community run amok. Who can forget disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok, whose anti-Trump text messages with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page revealed shocking bias against Trump during the 2016 election—right when Strzok was investigating the Trump campaign for possible collusion with Russia? Does anyone really think Strzok was simply an unbiased patriot free from political motives?

Same goes for the entire cast of characters involved in the Russia collusion hoax. There’s former FBI director James Comey, who infamously leaked memos of his conversations with President Trump in hopes of triggering the Mueller probe, violating numerous FBI policies in the process. There’s former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who leaked the infamous Steele dossier to CNN and then lied to Congress about it. There’s former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, who is under investigation for repeatedly lying to the FBI’s inspector general about his actions during the Russia investigation.

The idea that these people are pure-hearted patriots is laughable. On the contrary, there’s plenty of reason to suspect that what Comey and the others were up to was a coordinated, premeditated effort to remove a duly elected president whom they despised. There’s likewise plenty of reason to believe the impeachment effort directed by Schiff is simply an extension of this same ploy under a new pretext. The Mueller probe didn’t work out for them, so now we have an anonymous whistleblower complaint and secret testimony from a different set of unelected career bureaucrats who might well have similarly biased motives for cooperating with impeachment investigators.

 Paul Bedard, WaEx, Stephen Miller pushback: ‘Permanent bureaucracy a mortal threat to America’

In an interview, Miller called inside attacks a “very grave threat,” and he explained it this way:

“It is best understood as career federal employees that believe they are under no obligation to honor, respect, or abide by the results of a democratic election. Their view is, ‘If I agree with what voters choose, then I’ll do what they choose. If I disagree with what voters choose, then I won’t, and I’ll continue doing my own thing. So basically it’s heads I win, tails you lose.

“‘If you elect Hillary Clinton, then I’ll implement all of her policies very faithfully, and if I see massive evidence of corruption on Hillary Clinton’s part, then I’ll keep it all a secret. If you elect a candidate I disagree with, then I’ll lie, I’ll leak, I’ll cheat, I’ll smear, I’ll attack, I’ll persecute, and I will refuse to implement, and I will obstruct at every single step of the way.’”

From The Morning Rant at Ace's:

All of the delays and excuses why the Horowitz IG FISA report isn’t public yet after several months of anticipation of its issues leads me to the suspicion it’s going to be “deep six” by the deep state

— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) October 22, 2019

This issue is the Rubicon for our country. If the seemingly constant law-breaking embedded in our national institutions is allowed to go on without official notice and punishment, then the relationship we the people have with our government is going to change.

This is not the grift and graft that we all expect from government. After all, government in all its forms is ripe for corruption, and most of us are never surprised by it. In fact, many of us are only surprised by the occasional emergence of an honest man.

No, this is something different, and far more malign. Using the power of the state to manipulate elections is the essence of totalitarianism. Blocking the power of the people to choose their own government is counter-revolutionary, and unfortunately has been tried to great effect in most of the world.

In fact, it is a fine indicator of an unfounded belief in elitism and credentialism and, so obvious currently, Never-Trumpism. Ask any member of the "conservative" cuckocracy his opinion of the FISA mess, and if he downplays it or mocks it, then he is the enemy.

And a quick change of subject as CNN Finally Admits Smearing Someone As A Russian Asset Is Wrong as long as it's a Democrat. And, the NYT filtered through Hot Air, Why Hillary Shouldn’t Trade In Conspiracy Theories About Tulsi Gabbard. Because it makes her look drunk or stoned?