Monday, December 23, 2019

Some Rousing Russiagate

This, and a cup of coffee or two (or three) ought to make you perk up. First, from Red State, ‘This IS the Scandal’: Dan Bongino Explains How John Brennan’s Office Became Ground Zero in the Russian Collusion Scandal. Former communist tries to overthrow America's elections, and then its duly elected President from within.

At AmGreat Adam Mill calls it The FBI’s Darkest Hour "Our Constitution won’t protect us unless our own cops with guns respect it. After 2016, one wonders whether the FBI looks upon the most famous alumnus of its Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, with fear—or envy." A serious article, with footnotes and all!
One can imagine the unspoken question hanging in the darkness during the January 2017 ride back to the airport. A small gaggle of FBI agents had just concluded their long-overdue interview with Christopher Steele’s primary sub-source. The silence must have been deafening. Steele had tried to conceal his source from the FBI. But the FBI knew his identity and set up an interview behind Steele’s back, and the interview contradicted several Steele assertions. The downcast agents waited for somebody to ask the question on all of their minds: “Now what?”

The right answer would have been to admit to the court that Steele was an unreliable source who exaggerates and lies and put an end to spying on Americans in pursuit of the mirage of Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia.

When presented one last opportunity to do the right thing, the FBI instead pushed harder for their now-discredited hypothesis justifying the investigation. Peter Strzok had promised his lover, Lisa Page, he would “save” the country from Donald Trump. Given a choice between bringing the FBI back into the light of the Constitution or the darkness of blind hatred of Donald Trump, the conspirators choose darkness. It was at this precise moment that the FBI left behind any plausible deniability of “mistake” or “sloppiness.” From this point on, the FBI’s participation in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax became willful and intentional.
 At AmThink, in The Horowitz Report: Yes, It Gets Worse Alan Favish identifies what he thinks are several oversights in the report, while Margot Cleveland at DaFed shows how the IG Report Hints James Comey Was In On FBI’s FISA Misconduct, He was good at keeping his hands clean, but not perfect. WSJ editors, Robert Mueller’s Dossier Dodge "Why did the special counsel not tell America that Christopher Steele’s information was false?"  Because that would have put an early end to the investigation? From Stephen McIntyre, a long twitter thread ending with:
Some optimisms from Howie Carr at the Boston Herald, Reckoning on the way for those behind political hit jobs. I'd like to believe it, but I'm having trouble. More optimism from Nicholas Ballasy at PJ Media, Congressman: Dems Impeached Trump to 'Shield' Themselves from 'Reckoning that Will Come'.
"Hillary Clinton and the Democrats hired a foreign interest to deal with the Russians to try to bring dirt from Russia back on Donald Trump," King said, referring to ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele's dossier, on Wednesday before the House formally voted to impeach President Trump.

"I mean, how bad does this have to get before the American people understand here's what Democrats are doing: they're impeaching Donald Trump not just because they don't like him but it's a shield for them to defend themselves from the reckoning that will come when the Justice Department gets put back on the rails for law again," he added.

The DOJ Inspector General's report on the origins of the Russia report found errors with the FISA application process. King said Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham will "come out with more of truth in this."
Via Breitbart, Francis Fukuyama think ‘American Democracy Depends on the “Deep State”‘

Sundance at CTH watches the Sunday talks, so you can skip them with Sunday Talks: Senator Ted Cruz Discusses Pelosi Withholding Impeachment Articles and “Spygate” Fraud… and Sunday Talks: Chairman Lindsey Graham -vs- Maria Bartiromo – Impeachment, Spygate and Lessons in Can-Kicking…

Don Surber notes Schrödinger's impeachment limps on. Victoria Taft at PJ Media says Trump Is Seriously Thinking About Claiming He Isn't Really Impeached & He's Got a Point. It's all semantic, legalistic bullshit, that no one should take seriously. Roger Kimball at AmGreat, The ‘Impeachment’ of Donald Trump "It’s amazing what semantic potency can reside in a pair of quotation marks." Michael van der Galien, shows how a Stammering, Blabbering, Stuttering Pelosi Tries to Explain the Impeachment Delay. Give her a break. She's an old, half senile, and yet still deadly cunning woman.
From David Marcus at NYPo, Nancy Pelosi can hold onto her articles of impeachment forever for all anyone cares, Byron York at WaEx wonders As Pelosi plays games with impeachment, what next for GOP? and Jen Rander PE, explains how, per SCOTUS: No Articles of Impeachment or a Trial Are Required For The Senate to Acquit President Trump. Just do it! Ken Starr at DaBlaze, Ken Starr thumps Nancy Pelosi for obstructing impeachment process, accuses her of abuse of power. Rushbo on Mitch McConnell, The Turtle on Fire (for the Turtle!).

Jonathon Turley on DaHill warns Why Senate Democrats are the real challenge to full impeachment trial
As a general rule, I am inclined to oppose the threshold dismissals and to favor witnesses in Senate trials. But the House has now undermined those principles by advancing a dubious obstruction article and an incomplete record. Schumer has expressed shock at the very notion of a Senate trial without testimony, asking why Republicans are “so afraid of witnesses” and portraying a trial without witnesses as a mockery. A full trial, however, will require Republicans not only to ignore the precedent set by Schumer and other Democrats in the Clinton case but also the incomplete record.

In the Trump case, the House has rejected calls to take a little more time to secure additional testimony or court orders against the administration. Even during the final impeachment vote, House Democrats referred to still developing facts involving the conduct of associates of Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine. If House Democrats had simply taken more time, they could have locked such testimony and evidence into the record and not have to rely on Senate Republicans to complete their case for them.

After rejecting basic rights to Republicans during the House Judiciary Committee and House Intelligence Committee hearings, Democrats are now demanding the witness and adversarial rights that they denied the minority. They hope that Senate Republicans will resist the temptation to offer a trial that is as cursory and as contrived as the House investigation.
But The Morning Consult claims Most Voters Want Senate to Call More Witnesses for Trump’s Impeachment Trial. But we're a republic, not a direct democracy. Meanwhile, from Lifezette, CNN Hosts Appear Devastated Over New Poll Showing Trump’s Surge After Impeachment. Devastated might be an overstatement, but clearly concerned.

Twitchy, ‘They’ve gone too far’: Dick Durbin is not happy with Dem senators who have already signaled their impeachment vote. It's not like we're really expecting objectivity and non-partisanship. Karen Townsend at Hot Air notes how Trump Praises Tulsi Gabbard’s Impeachment Vote: “A Lot Of Respect”. She's the least crazy Democrat, but that's no saying much.

From CNN Newly released emails offer more details in timeline of pause to Ukraine aid - "Effort to freeze Ukraine aid began about 90 minutes after call between Trump and Zelensky". Your point? At USA Today Rudy Giuliani: Democrats 'want to execute me' You know you're over the target when you're taking flak.

No comments:

Post a Comment