Category U. S. DC Uni-party

Aug 22 2020

Part Seven of “X”, UPDATED: Sketchy Business – Clinesmith Agreement Structured to Avoid Scrutiny Upon Special Counsel…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 21, 2020 by 

1. Remember, the Special Counsel was appointed in May 2017, and from then until April 2019 any matter which had anything to do with Spygate or Trump/Russia, was managed exclusively by the Special Counsel team. [Rosenstein testified to this June 2, 2020]

2. The Carter Page FISA warrant of June 29, 2017, was renewed during the tenure of the Special Counsel. They alone ran the FISA process for the third renewal.

3. Kevin Clinesmith’s boss at the FBI during the period for FISA assembly was a supervisory special agent and Trisha Beth Anderson was the lawyer responsible to sign-off on the final assembly. [LINK]

4. The Clinesmith criminal indictment (actually an “information”) informs that, while the Special Counsel was running the DOJ, and Andy McCabe was running the FBI, Clinesmith made this request to another government agency “OGA”:

We need some clarification on [Carter Page]. There is an indication that he may be a “[digraph] source.”

[LINK]

5. Why is this “digraph” redacted from the Clinesmith information?

6. Clinesmith continued:

“This [the status of Carter Page] is a fact we would need to disclose in our next FISA renewal…”

7. Why is the sentence following that critical question redacted from the Clinesmith indictment with “….”?

8. Clinesmith continued:

“To that end, can we get two items from you? 1) Source Check/ Is [Carter Page] a source in any capacity? 2 ) If he is, what is a [digraph] source ( or what ever type of source he is) ?”

[LINK]

9. Why again is the critical “digraph” source code redacted out of the Clinesmith indictment?

10. The entire issue is that a supervisory special agent is asking Clinesmith to ask the CIA whether Carter Page is any kind of CIA informant. Why redact out that specific material from the Clinesmith indictment, unless the intent is to conceal that material?

11. Why is the specific 2-digit number “digraph” supposedly secret, and why is the “type of source” omitted form the criminal information?  The FISA affiant, SSA, is asking, “what is this kind of ‘source’ is Carter Page? He’s claiming to be a source, so check with the CIA to verify ‘if he is any kind of source.’”

12. Again, despite the redaction of what appears to be critical exchange, the Clinesmith indictment still includes asking for official CIA confirmation about Carter Page, “whatever kind of source he is.”

13. We know from the Clinesmith indictment that (at a minimum) he reported back that Carter Page “was a subsource” for the CIA.

14. So when the DOJ (now run by the Special Counsel) signed the Carter Page FISA renewal [June 29, 2017], we know without question that the FBI Supervisory Special Agent who reported directly to the FBI’s Deputy Director (McCabe) knew that Carter Page was at least a CIA subsource.

15. And we know without question that Clinesmith had been informed by the CIA that the CIA has already informed the DOJ and the FBI about Carter Page’s status, a year earlier, on August 17, 2016.

16. The CIA gave Clinesmith an email with all of that information. [LINK]

17. Without any push-back from the DOJ or FBI, in 2020, in connection with Clinesmith’s guilty plea, he stated that he (Clinesmith) never bothered to read the Carter Page file that the CIA gave to him. [LINK]

18. His boss had asked him specifically to check with the CIA as to the status of Carter Page. The CIA confirmed that Carter Page was some kind of source, and provided the file explaining it all.

19. Clinesmith first reports to his boss that the CIA has confirmed that Carter Page is some kind of a source – a “sub-source,” but we don’t know exactly because the “digraph” code describing what kind of source he was had been concealed out of the indictment.

20. What possible reason is there for the DOJ to redact out that code?

21. When Clinesmith reports to his boss that Carter Page is definitely some kind of CIA source, without question the SSA now knows:

“This [the CIA source status of Carter Page] is a fact we would need to disclose in our next FISA renewal…”

22. Yet a few days later, Clinesmith sends an email to his boss evidencing that Carter Page “was never a source.” Yet the DOJ’s indictment redacts the “digraph” code about this.

And…

23. Isn’t it a logical conclusion that the combination of the following highlight a DOJ whitewash: (i) the redactions of the digraph code from the indictment, “(ii) the DOJ allowing Clinesmith, unchallenged, to assert that he “did not recall ever reviewing the documents referenced in the [CIA’s] email” disclosing Carter Page’s informant status with the CIA.

24. And how could a veteran FBI attorney (Clinesmith), in the space of a few days, twist “A” into “B”?

25. Here is “A” the process the FBI started with:

Getting “clarification on [Carter Page]. There is an indication that he may be a “ [digraph] source… we would need to disclose in our next FISA renewal… To that end….[contact the CIA and find out]: (1) Is [Carter Page] a source in any capacity? and (2) If he is, what is a [digraph] source (or what ever type of source he is)?”

26. What was “B”?

After first telling his boss that Carter Page was a sub-source, Clinesmith changed the official story by then stating that Carter Page “was not a source”, as if there is some distinction between being a CIA-approved “source” versus a CIA-approved “sub-source.”

27. Clinesmith’s boss knew this change of story was a smoking gun of a fix.  How do we know that? Two issues:

28. First, the Clinesmith indictment concedes it, although it is buried.  SSA asked Clinesmith whether the FBI “had it in writing” from the CIA that Carter Page “was not a source.”  That’s not a question in this scenario, that’s an instruction.

29.  Clinesmith knew any written claim that Carter Page was not a source would be untrue, because the CIA had informed them specifically that Carter Page was working with the CIA as a [digraph], and that his role was described in the CIA briefing memo to the Crossfire Hurricane team dated August 17, 2016. [LINK]

30. The Crossfire Hurricane team consisted of many senior members of the DOJ and FBI who eventually overlapped into the Special Counsel [They had to know what was going on with this June 29, 2017 renewal]

31. Clinesmith also knew Carter Page was a source for the CIA. He deliberately falsified the CIA email to try and create a CYA position for the use of the FISA application. For this event he has now plead guilty to a felony.

32. What happened during the four days: June 15, 2017 to June 19, 2017, that caused FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith to commit a felony by doctoring an email from the CIA?

33. What happened during the four days June 15 to June 19, 2017, that caused the FBI to pivot from asking about Carter Page’s status with the CIA “in any capacity, and whatever type of source he is” – to later stating something from the CIA they knew was untrue?

34. Trisha Beth Anderson signed-off on the Carter Page FISA application, a title-1 surveillance warrant, under penalty of perjury…. even though we know the application contained materially false information and omissions.

35. Trisha Beth Anderson claims she signed the FISA affidavit(s) because it/they were presented to her in a rather unusual manner. [LINK]

In front of a joint session of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees on Aug. 31, 2018, former FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson said she was normally responsible for signing off on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications before they reached the desk of her superiors for approval. Anderson said the “linear path” those applications typically take was upended in October 2016, with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates signing off on the application before she did. Because of that unusual high-level involvement, she didn’t see the need to “second guess” the FISA application.

36. Why did she do this? She disclosed why in her previously hidden testimony to congress (August 2018). [LINK]

Anderson said all FISAs need to be signed off on in the FBI’s National Security Law Branch, where she was assigned at the time. Anderson said she was the Senior Executive Service approver for the “initiation” of the Page FISA, including determining whether there is legal sufficiency.

But Anderson stressed “in this particular case, I’m drawing a distinction because my boss and my boss’ boss had already reviewed and approved this application.” She emphasized “this one was handled a little bit differently in that sense, in that it received very high-level review and approvals — informal, oral approvals — before it ever came to me for signature.”

Anderson said that FISA approvals are typically “tracked in a linear fashion” and that someone in the Senior Executive Service “is the final approver on hard copy before a FISA goes to the director or deputy director for signature.” She said the Page FISA was approved outside regular procedures. (more)

37. Anderson had signed-off on earlier Page FISA applications because they came to her already signed: ex. by James Comey (FBI) and Sally Yates (DOJ).

“Because there were very high-level discussions that occurred about the FISA,” Anderson said she believed that meant “the FISA essentially had already been well-vetted all the way up through at least the Deputy Director [McCabe] level on our side and through the DAG [Yates] on the DOJ side.” Yates had already signed the application by the time it made it to Anderson’s desk.

38. When she signed-off on the last Carter Page FISA renewal (June 29, 2017) the Special Counsel was now running the DOJ.  Andrew McCabe was in position and running the FBI

39. Trish Anderson signed-off the prior Carter Page FISA’s because they were presented to her pre-approved and pre-signed by the FBI  and and DOJ leadership.

“The General Counsel [Jim Baker] … personally reviewed and made edits to the FISA, for example,” Anderson said. “The Deputy Director was involved in reviewing the FISA line by line. The Deputy Attorney General over on the DOJ side of the street was similarly involved, as I understood, reviewing the FISA application line by line.”

[…] Anderson stressed that McCabe, Yates, and Baker all played key roles in reviewing the Page FISA. “My approval at that point was really purely administrative in nature. In other words, the substantive issues — the FISA had already substantively been approved by people much higher than me in the chain of command,” Anderson said.

Anderson said it “typically would not have been the case” that people such as McCabe and Yates would sign off on a FISA application before she did.

“That part of it was unusual, and so I didn’t consider my review at that point in the process to be substantive in nature,” Anderson said. “In other words, there were smart lawyers, high-level people on both sides of the street who had reviewed and signed off on the application, the details of the application. And so I was simply signaling, yes, this package is ready to go forward.”

Anderson said the seal of approval from such high-ranking FBI and DOJ officials meant that her signature on the FISA application was mostly perfunctory. (more)

40. General Counsel Jim Baker and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was Anderson’s FBI boss when she signed-off on a false affidavit and assembly. Rod Rosenstein was Deputy Attorney General.

41. Additionally, on June 29, 2017, the special counsel was in control of the DOJ and DOJ-NSD. This third renewal was under their authority.

42. Who told/influenced Kevin Clinesmith to change events and paper the file with a false claim that Carter Page was somehow not a CIA asset?

[Transcript Link]

42. AG Bill Barr has known since December 9, 2019, about Kevin Clinesmith’s felony forgery when OIG Inspector General Michael Horowitz made a criminal referral for the discovery. Why delay the indictment until August 20, 2020.

This thing reeks of another institutional preservation approach. What I suspect is that Barr does not want to touch any material that contacts the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel… however, what took place under the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel is actually more corrupt than any activity that preceded it.

What I also strongly suspect is that Bill Barr is using his oft stated “I will not allow the DOJ to be political” as a crutch in his preservation approach. If nothing from the world or sphere of politics is allowed to enter the world or sphere of the DOJ then what is supposed to happen with all those years of congressional evidence gathering?

If my suspicions are correct; and keep in mind I have made first hand contact with the Durham investigators to confirm their intense alignment with Barr’s directive; then nothing from any embargoed political silo will ever be prosecuted regardless of how it percolates out.

If you read all the material you will see there is clearly no arrangement for Kevin Clinesmith to have provided any other evidence to the DOJ. This is a one-and-done move just like James Wolfe. The parallels are very similar.

Clinesmith Supporting Statement:

Download here
NUMBER 1

Clinesmith indictment/information:

Dowload here
NUMBER 2

Clinesmith Plea agreement:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000174-0950-dac0-adf5-1bf481a00000

Aug 21 2020

When Barack Obama Went Low, Trump’s Numbers Went Higher


Obama tried to get down and dirty in a desperate attempt to stay relevant with young, far left socialistic party activists

Mitch Wolfe image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and Archives—August 20, 2020

When Barack Obama Went Low, Trump’s Numbers Went Higher

Former President Obama faced a major challenge last night on the third night of the Democratic Convention, in trying to persuade the American people that he sincerely believed his former Vice President Biden was truly up to the task of being president. Recall Obama passed over his VP Biden of eight years in 2016 to support his preferred candidate Hillary Clinton. So obviously Obama did not think that highly of Biden’s political skills at that time in preserving his (Obama’s) political legacy.

Obama also was lukewarm to Biden running for president in 2020. Obama withheld his endorsement until Biden was literally the last man standing.  Or stumbling as the case may be. Clearly, Obama would have preferred someone younger like Senator Booker or Senator Harris or more vibrant and policy-oriented as Senator Warren to preserve his historical legacy.

This was probably Obama’s worst speech of his political career

Let us not forget as reported by Politico, that fairly recently Obama advised a Democratic adviser, “that Biden could still f***eff it up.”

So in light of these known challenges and obstacles, did Obama rise above his realistic concerns about the viability of the Biden candidacy and give the speech of his political life in favor of his former loyal vice president? Interestingly, in Obama’s long 15-minute speech, he devoted relatively little time to speaking in favor of Joe Biden.

Clearly, this was not President Obama’s best speech.  This was probably Obama’s worst speech of his political career.

Firstly, this speech was mostly about Obama and his vision and his supposed oratorical skills, than about persuading people to vote for Biden.

Initially, Obama, talked glowingly about the founders of America, of the US and of US democracy. But it struck me, that as rioters and looters in American cities were tearing down statutes of Jefferson and Washington and throwing the statute of Christopher Columbus in the water and burning police stations and court buildings ( the pillar of American justice) and looting Best Buy for new TVs (Big Screen Smart TVs Matter), Obama stood silent and said nothing.

In fact in his speech, he said nothing of the looting, rioting, and killings in American cities of LA, Portland, Seattle, NY, Baltimore, Detroit and especially his home town of Chicago. He referred to these looters, killers and violent rioters as good young men and women peaceably demonstrating for justice.

Obama also talked about President Trump not being interested in the presidency. What he meant was Trump was not interested in preserving Obama’s horrible policies and legacy.

Trump campaigned on tearing up or withdrawing from NAFTA which trade agreement destroyed thousands of American jobs in middle America. Trump fought for and won a much improved pro America NAFTA 2 or known as the USMCA.

Obama demonstrated the epitome of mendacity and hypocrisy

Remember when Obama pursued the TransPacific trade agreement which Trump, Sanders and even Hillary Clinton opposed.

Obama ignored how China was eating America’s lunch in terms of taking thousands of American jobs and stealing its technology. Trump at least has stood up to China.

Obama’s Iran nuclear deal was a betrayal of American allies in the Mideast including Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia which all opposed Obama’s tilt to the terrorist-funding Iran which was the true enemy of these American allies in the Mideast.

So when Obama talked last night about Trump betraying American allies, no matter how dulcet Obama’s fake words were, Obama demonstrated the epitome of mendacity and hypocrisy.

When Obama waxed eloquent on the freedom of the press, don’t you remember that he weaponized the DOJ and FBI to spy on those in the American press who had the temerity to question and oppose Obama’ views?

One of the foundations of democracy is the peaceful transfer of power. Obama violated that by permitting the weaponizing of the FBI and DOJ to illegally spy on Trump, the democratically elected opposition leader and his presidential campaign and then to illegally spy on President-elect Trump and his Administration in transition.

Last night Obama was not a brilliant orator at the top of his game. Obama was a sad pathetic political hack and also- ran, who should have left the public sphere when he was on top.

Instead, Obama tried to get down and dirty in a desperate attempt to stay relevant with young, far left socialistic party activists, who view this grey-haired Obama as tone-deaf and an old, irrelevant has-been and yesterday’s man.

Last night we just watched Obama dig his own political grave with the absolutely worst political speech of his career. My prediction, to paraphrase, Michelle Obama, when Barack Obama, went low in the gutter, Trump’s popularity went high and higher.

Aug 21 2020

Undignified Obama


What an ex-president’s inflammatory and hateful nominating-convention address was made of

Matthew Vadum image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  — Front Page Mag—— Bio and Archives—August 20, 2020

Undignified Obama

Last night Barack Hussein Obama gave what was probably the most undignified, inflammatory, hateful nominating-convention address of a former president in the history of the United States.

“This administration has shown it will tear our democracy down if that’s what it takes to win,” he said August 19, puffing himself up with a studied indignation.

This is the same, shameless, Saul Alinsky-worshiping liar who presided over a seditious plot, a rolling coup attempt, to overthrow his successor using the CIA and FBI, the early outlines of which this writer sketched in Obama’s Insurrection.

The real-life conspiracy to oust Trump

The real-life conspiracy to oust Trump, though not (yet) successful, has allowed Democrats and their Deep State allies to practice these dark arts over the past four years that they may soon use to remove the mentally incompetent Joe Biden from the Oval Office to pave the way for Kamala Harris, who is not black despite what her publicists in the media say, to become president.

No one in the media seems to have noticed that the party of LGBT and racial utopia is now headed by a man who is apparently not completely convinced of the rectitude of those causes.

Biden has said homosexuals shouldn’t receive security clearances because “my gut reaction is that they are security risks.”

A friend of segregationists, Biden worried aloud that his children would grow up in “a racial jungle,” and patronizingly observed that Obama was “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Another of his legendary race-tinged gaffes went like this: “In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”

This is relevant now that the Indo-Caribbean Harris, is on the Democrats’ presidential ticket.

The Wednesday night of the virtual convention highlighted the endlessly expanding thicket of lies, hoaxes, and paranoia upon which the modern Democratic Party is built. It was low-information propaganda for the ignorant and the gullible.

Obama: America is hopelessly, systemically racist, and so are police, the criminal justice system, and the prison system

America is hopelessly, systemically racist, and so are police, the criminal justice system, and the prison system, the audience was told. People with money, the hated rich, run everything and do so with malice towards everyone else. The novel coronavirus that causes the occasionally deadly disease COVID-19 is racist, somehow having a greater impact on visible minorities. Climate change, which human beings are definitely causing, is on the verge of ending life on this planet if we don’t do something very, very expensive right away. Presumably racism is involved. Illegal aliens are the incredibly talented would-be saviors of America and anyone who wants to deport them or enforce the nation’s borders is racist. Donald Trump and the Republicans are shutting down the U.S. Postal Service so Democrats can’t vote.

That’s probably racist, too, come to think of it.

The pandering to Latinos was in full effect.

Illegal aliens showed up. One spoke in Spanish, and an entertainer named Prince Royce sang in Spanish. Michelle Lujan Grisham introduced herself as governor of “Nuevo Mexico,” where, she said, we “embrace our multicultural identity as our greatest strength.”

Gun-grabbers, included former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, made an appearance. She is the gun-control fanatic who had a littoral combat ship, a vessel of war designed to fire weapons that kill people, named after her, the USS Gabrielle Giffords, because a mentally unbalanced man shot her.

But the highlight of the evening was Obama, who continued slamming his successor in unpresidential fashion. It was cheap shot after cheap shot.

And Obama was doing all this for a guy he doesn’t even like.

“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to # things up.”

Pretending to be a solid supporter, Obama described newly minted presidential nominee Joe Biden last night as a “friend” and a “brother,” even though the 44th president reportedly once said, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to # things up.”

Obama said:

“But we should also expect a president to be the custodian of this democracy. We should expect that regardless of ego, ambition, or political beliefs, the president will preserve, protect, and defend the freedoms and ideals that so many Americans marched for and went to jail for; fought for and died for.”

“I have sat in the Oval Office with both of the men who are running for president. I never expected that my successor would embrace my vision or continue my policies. I did hope, for the sake of our country, that Donald Trump might show some interest in taking the job seriously; that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care.

“But he never did. For close to four years now, he has shown no interest in putting in the work; no interest in finding common ground; no interest in using the awesome power of his office to help anyone but himself and his friends; no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to get the attention he craves.

“Donald Trump hasn’t grown into the job because he can’t. And the consequences of that failure are severe: 170,000 Americans dead. Millions of jobs gone while those at the top take in more than ever. Our worst impulses unleashed, our proud reputation around the world badly diminished, and our democratic institutions threatened like never before.”

So many lies.

President Trump didn’t cause COVID-19 and he didn’t fail to act as it spread across the country. The weaponized novel coronavirus came to our shores from Communist China in the form of a biological attack on America. Trump shut down flights from the epicenter of the so-called outbreak. He did this while Democrats bent over backwards early this year urging people to ignore the virus and buy from businesses in the nation’s many Chinatown districts to prove they weren’t prejudiced against Asians.

If America’s democratic institutions are now “threatened like never before,” it wasn’t President Trump’s doing. He didn’t unleash the angry, surprisingly well-organized mobs terrorizing American cities after the death of career criminal George Floyd.

Obama continued fetishizing democracy, even though the United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy

Obama said the U.S. should be “a nation that stands with democracy, not dictators,” even though he supported the late Islamist strongman in Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, and openly seethed with contempt for Israel, the only actual democracy in the Middle East.

Obama continued fetishizing democracy, even though the United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Biden and Harris “understand that in this democracy, the Commander-in-Chief doesn’t use the men and women of our military, who are willing to risk everything to protect our nation, as political props to deploy against peaceful protesters on our own soil. They understand that political opponents aren’t ‘un-American’ just because they disagree with you; that a free press isn’t the ‘enemy’ but the way we hold officials accountable; that our ability to work together to solve big problems like a pandemic depend on a fidelity to facts and science and logic and not just making stuff up.”

“None of this should be controversial. These shouldn’t be Republican principles or Democratic principles. They’re American principles. But at this moment, this president and those who enable him, have shown they don’t believe in these things.”

No one in the media will challenge Obama’s claim that under Trump the military was deployed against allegedly “peaceful protesters on our soil,” even though Democrat governors and mayors invited anarchy in the streets by refusing to use law enforcement resources available to them to put down the recent riots.

In the White House, Obama frequently bashed those who disagreed with him. He trashed the Supreme Court during a State of the Union Address like a Latin American caudillo over its Citizens United ruling while the justices were seated mere feet away.

Obama referred to political adversaries as “enemies,” and demonized Fox News because the cable news network didn’t always depict him as he wanted. A decade before George Floyd’s death, Obama’s interior secretary, Ken Salazar, promised to keep his “boot on the neck” of BP after the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Unsurprisingly, Obama whitewashed the Black Lives Matter-Antifa-Democrat riots

As for Obama’s “political props” smear directed at Trump, two uniformed U.S. Army soldiers were used as scenery by the DNC. During the virtual roll call vote, delegates from American Samoa pledged the territory’s delegates for the party’s nominee with the enlisted personnel in-frame. This violates Department of Defense rules. The Pentagon is reportedly investigating the incident.

Obama mentioned the passing of former civil rights leader and corrupt longtime Georgia congressman John Lewis last month, calling him “a giant of American democracy.”

The former president left out the fact that Lewis, who has been lionized in death, played the race card during the Obamacare debate in 2010, falsely claiming that the bill’s Tea Party opponents called him the N-word when he walked past them.

Unsurprisingly, Obama whitewashed the Black Lives Matter-Antifa-Democrat riots after the death of George Floyd, refusing to acknowledge the violence and looting carried out across America by the Left.

“To the young people who led us this summer, telling us we need to be better—in so many ways, you are this country’s dreams fulfilled,” Obama said in a new, wordier iteration of his “yes, we can” mantra.

“Earlier generations had to be persuaded that everyone has equal worth. For you, it’s a given—a conviction. And what I want you to know is that for all its messiness and frustrations, your system of self-government can be harnessed to help you realize those convictions.”

“Messiness” and “frustrations” are Obama’s shorthand for the things known as “law and order” and “police” that prevent the radical street activists he focused much of his presidency on fostering, from forcing unwanted change on society by violence.

After Obama’s address, Kamala Harris’s speech was anticlimactic despite her perky, game show host-like demeanor.

Interestingly, she wore purple attire, just like Hillary Clinton did at her concession speech in 2016.

She rehashed the themes of the convention in uninteresting, politically correct ways.

COVID-19 “touches us all, let’s be honest, it is not an equal opportunity offender,” Harris said.

“Black, Latino, and indigenous people are suffering and dying disproportionately. This is not a coincidence. It is the effect of structural racism. Of inequities in education and technology, health care and housing, job security and transportation. The injustice in reproductive and maternal health care. In the excessive use of force by police. And in our broader criminal justice system. This virus has no eyes, and yet it knows exactly how we see each other—and how we treat each other. And let’s be clear—there is no vaccine for racism. We’ve gotta do the work.”

Whatever that means.

Harris wrapped up her address to tepid applause

Harris wrapped up her address to tepid applause from the 20 or so people in the TV studio or whatever it was in Wilmington, Delaware, and then “Work That,” by hip hop artist Mary J. Blige, was played as if to reinforce the politically all-important myth that Harris is black.

No one mentioned how Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii knocked Harris out of contention during last year’s primary debates with a single, devastating colloquy about the senator’s tough-on-crime policies while she was California’s attorney general and San Francisco’s district attorney.

Harris said she was a “progressive prosecutor,” yet in state and local office she did things progressives don’t like, such as defending capital punishment, emphasizing truancy enforcement, and allegedly ignoring those sexually abused by clergy.

Harris’s campaign for her party’s presidential nomination ended when Gabbard said, “I’m concerned about this record of Senator Harris. She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.”

Gabbard added: “She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California, and she fought to keep cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way.”

There was no worthwhile comeback.

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s convention speech was a snoozer.

“I wish Donald Trump knew how to be a president because America needs a president right now,” she said.

“As Michelle Obama and Bernie Sanders warned us, if Trump is reelected things will get even worse. That’s why we need unity now more than ever.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi uttered bogus statistics, saying “more than 5 million Americans are” –present tense— infected by COVID-19.

According to Worldometers.info, at the very moment she offered that figure, a cumulative total of 5,700,931 Americans had contracted the disease. But Pelosi left out the fact that 3,062,331 recovered from it, which means that only 2,638,600 –or half the number she claimed— now have the disease.

Presumably, Pelosi thought that doubling the number of those currently infected made President Trump look worse.

Mariska Hargitay spoke about domestic violence, even though the audience consisted of the same people who tried to have her long-running television show, “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit,” canceled in recent months after George Floyd’s death reset the calendar to the beginning of Year Zero.

The Left made an attempt on the show’s life because it portrays police positively. Never forget that the Democratic Party officially endorsed Black Lives Matter and its pro-cop-killing worldview in 2015.

Rolling Stone leftist E.J. Dickson attacked Hargitay in June for daring to portray a good cop on TV, because cops are “embedded … in a system that perpetuates racism and misogyny and brutality.” The character, Olivia Benson, “plays a major role in perpetuating the idea that cops are inherently trustworthy and heroic.”

Even worse, Dickson wrote, “[a] not-insignificant number of police officers have credited the show with their deciding to enter law enforcement.”

The August 19, 2020, episode of the Democratic National Convention was fiction, like the popular police procedural show.

And it’s finished now, just like America will be if the radicals get their way.

Aug 21 2020

Michelle Obama: Can She Lie Just Because She is a Pop Figure?


Cultural icons like Michelle Obama wield a lot of influence on the feelers and reactionaries but have little effect on those who choose to examine the record and do a little honest thinking

Rev. Michael Bresciani image

Re-Post from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and Archives—August 20, 2020

Michelle Obama: Can She Lie Just Because She is a Pop Figure?

Starting her speech with a highly dubious remark at the televised Democratic National Convention, Michelle declared that she loved this country very much. But, we remember that until husband Barack Obama ran for president, she declared that she had no reason to love this country.

Which is it Michelle?

Since, she started her speech with a lie, shouldn’t we scrutinize every jot and tittle that follows?

Michelle’s hyperbole

To begin with, we know that in today’s pop culture world of ersatz, glitz, tinsel and hip-hop hype, Americans are very likely to believe anything a pop culture figure has to say.

How many people hung on every word of Oprah Winfrey, even as she took them down the road to authors and guests of her show, who were, in fact frauds.

Concerning Michelle, what American doesn’t remember lines like, “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, coming from husband Barack Obama?

Among the qualities Michelle declared a president must have is, a “moral compass”.

Under Obama we broke through the common sense and moral barriers to the place where abortion is enshrined, and men can marry men. If this is a moral compass, we may be better off to be lost at sea without a prayer.

Carrying her husband’s call for audacity to the breaking point, Michelle announced that when Barack and Joe Biden left office, they had brought job creation to a new level. This is beyond false, it is laughable. Sorry dear, but if you want to talk job creation, you’ll have to go with the Trump administration. Facts cannot lie as easily as pop culture icons.

Next, comes the bragging about how Barack staved off the Ebola virus like a knight in shining armor – whereas Mr. Trump has allowed the Covid-19 to ravage the nation.

Wake up,  Michelle, it is a worldwide pandemic, its source is China, not the White House.

Jerry Dunleavy a reporter at the Washington Examiner says it best. “Ebola and COVID-19 are simply not comparable problems and it is dishonest to pretend that they are.”

Dishonest indeed but let us examine the rest of Michelle’s hyperbole.

What Michelle didn’t say while loading full responsibility for covid-19 on the shoulders of President Trump is worthy of note.

Not once did she mention that while a hospital ship and the Javits Center were supplied and outfitted to deal with coronavirus victims by Donald Trump, it was the Democratic Governor of New York that adopted the nursing home policy that cost 6,000 elderly their lives.

Don’t talk about a lack of “empathy” to us Michelle—unless you at least mention the name Andrew Cuomo.

Until you mention his name, we are assured that raising the name of Donald Trump, is purely political and self-serving.

In addition to the hype about racism and the BLM movement there was nothing remarkable about Michelle’s diatribe—it was democratic party rhetoric disguised as impassioned speech for a poor country beleaguered by a president who doesn’t deserve to be in office.

It is a hard sell and it is likely that no one outside of the DNC’s influence has been moved an inch.

Cultural icons like Michelle Obama wield a lot of influence on the feelers and reactionaries but have little effect on those who choose to examine the record and do a little honest thinking.

Donald Trump is the only person in this historic race for the White House, who has given something to America and has, yet, much more to offer.

Aug 21 2020

Solution – Legal Battle Against Socialism


Armstrong Economics Blog/The Hunt for Taxes

Re-Posted Aug 21, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

We are in need of a qualified lawyer prepared to file a lawsuit against Progressive Taxation as a denial of Due Process and Equal Protection of the law. For centuries, people have debated whether the wealthy should pay more taxes than everyone else and what even constitutes the wealthy. The definition of the rich has constantly changed. It has now fallen to not just an individual, but to household income. that can easily be expanded to your children if they still live at home because they cannot afford rent or to buy a house thanks to non-dischargeable school loans for worthless degrees. We have unsettled questions as to who is the rich a person or a family, and then just how much more they should pay on a percentage basis compared to everyone else.

These issues have never been resolved despite the fact that the government has been shifting the definitions and presidential elections constantly push class warfare. This notion of “progressive” taxation has escalated into demand to end all freedoms and even confiscate the wealth of the so-called rich which comes down to the top income tax bracket which was $250,000 was expanded to 37% for $518,401 or more. This issue even sparked one of the early battles over tax distribution. Supporters of progressive taxation favored a graduated tax structure, where the tax rate
would increase with the taxpayer’s income. Opponents of progressive taxation believed that a person should not pay a higher tax rate just because he or she earned a higher income for this denies equal protection of the law and creates class warfare which began with Karl Marx.

Thanks to Marx, the debate over progressive taxation began to intensify at the turn of the 20th century with the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, which permitted a federal income tax whereby the founders prohibited any direct form of taxation. During the colonial days, a tax they created was a “faculty tax” which did not tax income, but your ability to earn income. Then in 1913, Congress passed its first “lawful” income tax which was progressive because this was the attitude that even dominated the Supreme Court at that time.

Before the creation of the United States, taxes were paid to the United Kingdom by the Colonies who also imposed local taxes. The Articles of Confederation did not give the federal government any power to tax leaving that to the States. In England, the king needed the consent of the people to be taxed which is why he would call Parliament who represented the people. To this day, it is Congress that pretends to have the “consent” of the people to be taxed. Then in 1787, the US Constitution became law and it did give the federal government that power to tax indirectly which was primarily tariffs, and a portion of those taxes had to be given back to the states based on population. The Supreme Court ruled in 1797 what was meant by Direct Taxation (see Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1797))

Interestingly, it took one 51.6-year wave of the Economic Confidence Model where the fiscal mismanagement of the states began to put pressure on further taxation. From 1837, some states began to add income and property taxes. The Civil War led to the Revenue Act of 1861 which allowed a federal income tax which was to expire with the Civil War. This was direct taxation which was then found unconstitutional later in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895). It was finally in 1911 when Wisconsin became the first state to adopt an individual and corporate tax. This was upheld with respect to corporations in Flint v. Stone Tracy Company, 220 U.S. 107 (1911).

It wasn’t until the 16th Amendment in 1913, that the federal government was granted the power to levy income tax on both property and labor and included corporate and individual income tax. This went to the Supreme Court which held that the income tax was then constitution under the 16th Amendment (see: BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)). The income tax debate did not begin until it was no longer the rich being taxed, but it was applied under socialism and Roosevelt with the birth of the payroll tax to affect the pocketbooks of an entire nation with World, people began to pay more attention.

There is no question that many scholars expressed deep concerns about progressive taxations. They criticized progressive taxation on the basis that it was “unfair” to pay greater than one’s proportionate share. Any such proposition that one’s ability to pay is discrimination indistinguishable from race, gender, or religion. The courts just held that it is unconstitutional to draft into the military only boys and not girls. Under these same principles, it is unconstitutional to tax one person at a higher percentage because of his ability to pay. This is the very essence of Marxism which not only violates the Ten Commandments, but it clear divides society creating class warfare.

In 1952, the publishing of “The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation,” by Professors Blum and Kalven, did we come to a systematic and very scholarly analysis of progressive taxation. They criticized progressive taxation primarily on economic grounds but conceded its constitutionality. Later in 1985, another book was published: “Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent
Domain” authored by Professor Richard Epstein. Here Epstein argued that progressive taxation was not constitutional suggesting that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause prohibited such progressive taxation.

No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Supreme Court has never definitively upheld progressive taxation. You cannot have liberty and your right to property which turns on your class any more than on your race, gender, religion, or your sexual preference. The Supreme Court should, in fact, find progressive taxation totally unconstitutional. We may need to challenge this now in order to block the Socialist Agenda about to destroy the very freedoms of the United States.

What we need is a real law firm ready and willing to bring a class action lawsuit to start the only effort we have to prevent Socialism destroying our nation like Venezuela or the old Communist Regimes. You do not create prosperity by stealing from one person and handing it to another. If it is illegal to do so if an individual robs another, then the same principle applies if politicians exonerate themselves for committing the very same act. Equal Protection means we must all be equal under the eyes of the law.

Aug 21 2020

President Trump Stops to Pick Up Pizza in Pennsylvania – (Video)…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 20, 2020 by 

Earlier today President Trump made an unscheduled stop at Arcaro and Genell Takeaway Kitchen, a pizza shop in Old Forge, PA. He left the limo, greeted by applause from the awaiting crowd, and the press pool was brought very briefly inside the small pizza place as POTUS greeted its employees and left with some pie.

POTUS showed off one of the pies, and said he wanted to stop here today “because they have great pizza.”

 

Aug 21 2020

Part Six of “X”, Supporting the “1776 Unites Campaign”…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 20, 2020 by 

As we enter the crucial 2020 campaign stretch, CTH will endeavor to draw attention to groups and liberty inspired resources who are assembled to make a difference.  Today we introduce the “1776 Unites” campaign.  [Main Page Link]

“1776” is an assembly of independent voices who uphold our country’s authentic founding virtues and values and challenge those who assert America is forever defined by its past failures, such as slavery. We seek to offer alternative perspectives that celebrate the progress America has made on delivering its promise of equality and opportunity and highlight the resilience of its people. Our focus is on solving problems.

We do this in the spirit of 1776, the date of America’s true founding.”

~Robert L Woodson Sr.

Aug 21 2020

Good Grief, Goodyear is Run By Idiots…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 20, 2020 by 

Get woke – Go broke, strikes again.  When you consider the scale of the company and the resources available to them on branding and marketing…. one can only come to the reasonable conclusion that Goodyear is run by idiots.

(SOURCE – LINK)

On the positive side, the boycott response -which I fully support, not because of the originating stupid, but rather because I do not want tires from amplified corporate stupid on my vehicles- just shows the scale of economic backlash from average Americans.

There are more of us than them; they just control the mechanisms that allow us to communicate with each other – nothing more.  Remember that !

Aug 21 2020

President Trump Welcomes Iraq Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi – Video and Press Remarks (Bannon Questions)…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 20, 2020 by 

Earlier today President Trump welcomed a visit by Iraq Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi to the White House.  During the oval office meeting the two leaders took questions from the assembled press pool.  U.S. media asked about the Steve Bannon arrest earlier today. [Video and Transcript Below]

.

[Transcript] – PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much. It’s great to have the Prime Minister of Iraq, a very highly respected gentleman all over the Middle East, and respected very much by our country, too. I can say that.

And we will be discussing, today, the obvious: defense — and offense, I have to say. But we’ll be discussing military. We’re also involved in many oil projects and oil development within their country, and I think we’ve had a very, very good relationship since we started.

 

We’re down to a very small number of soldiers in Iraq now. We defeated the ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Syria, and it’s — that has been defeated very strongly, and it does have a different feeling to it now that you’ve got it. We had it at 98 percent, and we said, “Well, we can leave.” And then, everybody said, “Would you bring it to 100 percent?” Then we brought it 100 percent.

But the relationship is very good. We have become friends. We have become, I think, friendly. I think our relationship now is better than ever before. But we have very few soldiers in Iraq, and — but we’re there to help. And the Prime Minister knows that. We are there to help. We’re with some people that also — Mike and Mike — we — and Robert. We very much feel that if Iran should do anything, we will be there to help the Iraqi people.

So, that’s where we are. We’re doing big trade deals, we’re doing military deals, and we’re doing military purchases by them, where they’re spending a lot of money on purchasing equipment and they’re building up their military rapidly, and we like to see that.

So, thank you very much, Mr. Prime Minister, for being here. I appreciate it. Please.

PRIME MINISTER KADHIMI: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank you for receiving us in the White House today. I’m grateful for all the support offered by the United States to Iraq during the war against ISIS.

This support has built our partnership for the best interests for our nation. Mr. President, yesterday we signed many contact — many contracts with American companies — over (inaudible). Iraq is open for American business and investment and for a better future for Iraq and Iraqi people.

Thank you very much.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much.

PRIME MINISTER KADHIMI: Thank you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Very much.

Q Mr. President, what’s your reaction to the indictment of your former campaign aid, Steve Bannon?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I feel very badly. I haven’t been dealing with him for a long period of time, as most of the people in this room know. He was involved in our campaign. He worked for Goldman Sachs. He worked for a lot of companies. But he was involved, likewise, in our campaign, and for a small part of the administration, very early on. I haven’t been dealing with him at all.

I know nothing about the project, other than I didn’t like — when I read about it, I didn’t like it. I said, “This is for government. This isn’t for private people.” And it sounded, to me, like showboating. And I think I let my opinion be very strongly stated at the time. I didn’t like it. It was showboating and maybe looking for funds. But you’ll have to see what happens.

I think it’s a very sad thing for Mr. Bannon. I think it’s surprising. But this was something, as you know, just by reading social media and by reading whatever it is, and by speaking to Mike and Mike and all of them, I didn’t like that project. I thought that was a project that was being done for showboating reasons.

I don’t know that he was in charge. I didn’t know any of the other people either. But it’s sad. It’s very sad.

Q But it’s not just Steve Bannon. It’s Roger Stone. It’s Michael Flynn. It’s Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen. What does it say about your judgment that these are the kind of people who you’re affiliated with —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I have no idea.

Q — and the culture of lawlessness —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah. Yeah.

Q — around people who are involved in the leadership of your 2016 campaign?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, no, there was great lawlessness in the Obama administration. They spied on our campaign illegally. And if you look at all of the things and all of the scandals they had, they had tremendous lawlessness.

But I know nothing about it. I was not involved in the project. I have no idea who was. But I can tell you: I didn’t know the people; the three people that were talked about were people that I did not know. I don’t believe I ever met them.

I don’t think that should be a privately financed wall. I don’t think — it’s too complex; it’s too big. And we’re now up to 300 miles, almost. In another week, week and a half, we’ll be up to 300 miles of wall at the highest level. They were even having construction problems.

I was reading — the little I know about it, I got from you. I was reading, where they were having construction problems with the wall that they were — they had a small area just to show people that they could build a wall, and they were having a lot of problems where it was toppling over and other things. And I didn’t like it because I didn’t want to be associated with that.

We built a very powerful wall. It was a wall that is virtually impossible to get through. It’s very, very tough. It’s very strong, and it’s everything the Border Patrol wanted. And I didn’t want to have a wall that was going to be an inferior wall. And I felt this was going to be an inferior wall.

Q Kris Kobach said you endorsed the wall. Is that true? The project.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: So I didn’t — I didn’t know — I didn’t know that. I didn’t know about Bannon’s involvement, but I didn’t know any — I didn’t know the other people. And I — but I do think it’s a sad event.

And, again, Steve has had a great career at Goldman Sachs. He’s had a career with a lot of other people. I haven’t dealt with him at all, over years now — literally, years. And I guess this was a project he was involved in, but it was something that — in fact, you can see I made statements about it a long time ago. It was something that I very much felt was inappropriate to be doing.

Okay. Please go ahead.

(Cross-talk.)

No, go ahead, please.

Q Mr. President, the end of the militia roles in Iraq — it’s one of the very important issues to stabilize the country in Iraq. How America is going to support ending the militia role in Iraq and —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: You know, you’re — you’re very hard to understand. Could you maybe help me with it?

Q Mr. President —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Wait. Go ahead. Try it again.

Q (No translation provided.)

PRIME MINISTER KADHIMI: (As interpreted.) The United States helped the — helped Iraq enormously in defeating ISIS and also in toppling the Saddam Hussein regime. We are working on building a strong relationship that is based on joint interests between Iraq and the United States, that is based on economic interest for the better future of the Iraqi people and the United States people.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: When I got to — when we came into office, ISIS was running rampant all over Iraq and Syria. And we knocked out the — 100 percent of the ISIS caliphate. But the Obama administration did a very, very poor job. They were running rampant all over. And we came in and we did a real job, and we got rid of that, and that was a good thing.

And now we’re working with Iraq. They use the great American Dollar, which is the most powerful currency in the world. And they’re starting to do well. And we are with them. And this gentleman, in particular, we’ve developed a very good relationship. And hopefully, it’s going to be very strong for your country.

Please.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. There have been 32 attacks — there have been 32 attacks in the last 10 months on U.S. interests in Iraq, particularly in the Green Zone and U.S. military bases. How are you going to help Iraq to halt these attacks by pro-Iranian militia and to hold these people accountable?

And, sir, if I may also, there was some reporting that the U.S. troops will withdraw from Iraq totally in three years. Is this true?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: So, at some point, we obviously will be gone. We’ve brought it down to a very, very low level. We deal — where there are attacks, we take care of those attacks, and we take care of them very easily. Nobody has the weaponry we have. Nobody has the — anything — of what we have. We have the finest, the greatest military in the world. When somebody hits us, we hit back hard than they hit us. So we handle it.

In addition to that, Iraq has been very helpful, where necessary. But we have been taking our troops out of Iraq fairly rapidly, and we look forward to the day when we don’t have to be there. And hopefully Iraq can live their own lives and they can defend themselves, which they’ve been doing long before we got involved.

Yes, please.

Q Mr. President how do you see the role of the Kurds in Iraq?

Q Mr. President, about — about the bounties — about the bounties: You say you hit back hard, but we haven’t seen any definitive strike back for bounties upon Americans.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, you don’t know about the bounties. I mean, you’re telling me — if you know something, you can let us know, but you obviously don’t know very much about it. But if we found out, that would be true; if we found, that would be a very — it would be a fact, what you just said. We would hit them so hard your head would spin.

Go ahead.

Q Mr. President how do you see the role of the Kurds in Iraq? And how is important relationship between Baghdad and Erbil (inaudible)?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, the Kurds helped us greatly in defeating the — as you know, the ISIS, and getting the ISIS — 100 percent of the ISIS caliphate. So we have a very good relationship with the Kurds, and we’ve also treated them very well.

Q Mr. President —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes, please.

Q — on the bounties —

Q Yeah. The end of the militia rules in Iraq is very important to — to stabilize the country. How America can help ending the militia rules? And how can help Iraq in the democracy process?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, what we’re doing is we’re helping where we can. But again, that’s a country — that’s a separate country. They have a prime minister, and they have people in office, and they have to run their country. We’ve been in Iraq for a long time. I won’t say whether or not I said we should be there, but frankly, I didn’t think it was a good idea. But I was a civilian, so who’s going to listen to me? But I made my point pretty clear; I guess as clear as a civilian can do it.

But we were there, and now we’re getting out. We’ll be leaving shortly. And the relationship is very good. We’re making very big oil deals. Our oil companies are making massive deals. And that’s basically the story.

I mean, we’re very — we’re very happy with the relationship that we’ve developed over the last couple of years. I thought, before that, frankly, the United States was being taken advantage of. But we’re going to be leaving, and hopefully we’re going to be leaving a country that can defend itself.

Q While you are here in the United States, there were — there were airstrikes on northern Iraq, in Kurdistan region, killing one civilian. I know — in your talks, in your meetings here, you talk a lot about the sovereignty of Iraq. Is that something that you’re looking for help from the United States?

And Mr. President, if that’s something can — if Iraq is asking for help, in terms of the interference from the neighbors — not just Iran, but other neighbors where they’re attacking northern Iraq?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, they’ll have to make a specific request, but certainly, the Prime Minister has my ear. So if he does that, we’ll take a look. They do have — it’s a very unstable part of the world. And I’m not talking about Iraq; I’m talking about the — the whole of the Middle East. It’s a very, very unstable part of the world.

But we’re there to help. And because of the relationship, we would certainly be willing to lend you the kind of support that you need.

PRIME MINISTER KADHIMI: (As interpreted.) Definitely the Turkish attacks are not accepted. On the other hand, the Iraqi constitution also does not allow Iraq to be — to become used to attack any — any neighboring — neighboring country. We are entering dialogue with Turkey to rectify this situation. And I look forward to solving this problem with Turkey and getting our neighbors, the Turks, to understand Iraq’s circumstances.

But once again, the Iraqi constitution does not allow Iraqi territory to be used to attack any neighboring country.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I will say this: The United States, and me in particular, has a very good relationship with Turkey and with President Erdoğan, and we’ll be talking to him. But we have a very, very good relationship with Turkey and with President Erdoğan.

Q Mr. President, just to follow up on the troops question, sir: Do you have a timeframe for the full and complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from — from Iraq?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Mike, what would you say to that?

SECRETARY POMPEO: As soon as we can complete the mission. The President has made very clear he wants to get our forces down to the lowest level as quickly as we possibly can. That’s the mission he’s given us, and we’re working with Iraqis to achieve that.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’re at the lowest level now, Jeff — we’re at the lowest level in Afghanistan that we have been in many years. We’ll be down to about 4,000 troops in Afghanistan.

SECRETARY POMPEO: In a couple months.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: And that will be when?

SECRETARY POMPEO: A couple months, sir.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah, within a few months. A couple of months.

Q Mr. President — one other thing, Mr. President —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: As you know, in Syria we’re down to almost nothing, except we kept the oil. But we’ll work out some kind of a deal with the Kurds on that. But we left, but we kept the oil. And we left the border. We said Turkey and Syria can take care of their own border; we don’t have to do it. And that worked out very well. I remember when I did that, I was scorned by everybody. They said, “This is terrible.”

Well, I did it. It’s now two years ago. And we did it with — Mike Pence went over and met with the various parties and very successfully, and we removed our troops. Nobody was killed. Nobody. And now they protect their own border like they have been for hundreds of years. And we’ll — we’ve left. But we did keep a small force, and we kept the oil. And we’ll make a determination on that oil fairly soon.

Q And just one domestic question, sir: The Manhattan case about your taxes has now ruled that you do need to give your — to turn over your taxes. Do you have a reaction to that?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, the Supreme Court said, if it’s a fishing expedition, you don’t have to do it. And this is a fishing expedition.

But more importantly, this is a continuation of the witch hunt — the greatest witch hunt in history. There’s never been anything like it, where people want to examine every deal you’ve ever done to see if they can find that there’s a comma out of place. No President has ever had to go through this. The Supreme Court shouldn’t have allowed this to happen. But no President has ever had to go through this.

But what the Supreme Court did do is say if it’s a fishing expedition, you — my interpretation is essentially, you don’t have to do it. So we’ll probably end up back in the Supreme Court.

But this is just a continuation of the most hideous witch hunt in the history of our country. We beat Mueller. We won at every level in this — in Washington, in D.C. We won at every lev- — level. So, now, what they do: They send it into New York. So now we have an all-Democrat state — all Democrats. And they send it into New York. This should never be allowed to happen to another President.

This is a continuation of the most disgusting witch hunt in the history of our country — all it is. But the Supreme Court said “fishing expedition.” This is the ultimate fishing expedition. Nobody has anything. We didn’t — we don’t do things wrong.

But they’ll say, “Let’s go in and inspect every deal he’s ever done. Let’s get papers from 10 years. Every paper. Every deal he’s ever signed. Maybe we can find where some lawyer made a mistake, where they didn’t dot an “i,” where they didn’t put a comma down someplace. And then we can do something.” This is a disgrace and this should never, ever be allowed to happen again.

All right? Thank you very much.

Q Mr. President, on Navalny, the Russian opposition leader: He was hospitalized, and they think he was poisoned. Is that the U.S. government’s determination, that he was —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We haven’t seen it yet. We’re looking at it. And Mike is going to be reporting to me soon. Okay?

Thank you very much everybody.

END 11:36 A.M. EDT

Aug 21 2020

Steve Bannon and Three Organizers of “We Build The Wall” Indicted by DOJ: Wire Fraud and Money Laundering…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on August 20, 2020 by 

Long time CTH readers are aware of the side-eye position toward Steve Bannon we have always carried.  However, that said, this indictment today [pdf here] as contrast against the expressed declaration by AG Bill Barr that “politics will never be allowed to influence prosecutions” seems rather disingenuous. [More on This Later]

At the 30,000 ft level, this action by the Southern District of New York looks timed to create a cloud of demoralization over Trump supporters.

Do not let that effort/intent succeed.

DOJ Press Release: Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Philip R. Bartlett, Inspector-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), announced the unsealing of an indictment charging BRIAN KOLFAGE, STEPHEN BANNON, ANDREW BADOLATO, and TIMOTHY SHEA for their roles in defrauding hundreds of thousands of donors in connection with an online crowdfunding campaign known as “We Build the Wall” that raised more than $25 million.

The defendants were arrested this morning.

KOLFAGE will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon in the Northern District of Florida. BANNON will be presented today in the Southern District of New York. BADOLATO will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Wilson in the Middle District of Florida. SHEA will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix in the District of Colorado. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres in the Southern District of New York.

Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: “As alleged, the defendants defrauded hundreds of thousands of donors, capitalizing on their interest in funding a border wall to raise millions of dollars, under the false pretense that all of that money would be spent on construction. While repeatedly assuring donors that Brian Kolfage, the founder and public face of We Build the Wall, would not be paid a cent, the defendants secretly schemed to pass hundreds of thousands of dollars to Kolfage, which he used to fund his lavish lifestyle. We thank the USPIS for their partnership in investigating this case, and we remain dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud wherever we find it.”

Inspector-in-Charge Philip R. Bartlett said: “The defendants allegedly engaged in fraud when they misrepresented the true use of donated funds. As alleged, not only did they lie to donors, they schemed to hide their misappropriation of funds by creating sham invoices and accounts to launder donations and cover up their crimes, showing no regard for the law or the truth. This case should serve as a warning to other fraudsters that no one is above the law, not even a disabled war veteran or a millionaire political strategist.”

[…] KOLFAGE, 38, of Miramar Beach, Florida, BANNON, 66, of Washington, D.C., BADOLATO, 56, of Sarasota, Florida, and SHEA, 49, of Castle Rock, Colorado, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.  (read more)

Here’s The Indictment: