What 2019 Election Results Really Mean for Trump 2020


148K subscribers

The New York Times says 2019 election results “reflected the country’s increasingly contentious politics and widening rural-urban divide.” Pundits clamor to claim what the results in Kentucky, Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania or Alabama portend for President Trump’s reelection hopes. Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott reviews what the 2019 results really mean for Trump 2020. NOTE: Scott Ott apologizes for his off-the-cuff revisionist history in this episode. Elbridge Gerry was actually a Governor, not a representative, who oversaw the redistricting effort that produced, among other things, a congressional district that one newspaper editor thought looked like a salamander, giving rise to the term “gerrymander”. [Stay tuned for Scott Ott’s forthcoming podcast — Mostly True History — available exclusively for Microsoft Zune.]

 

diGenova and Toensing on Upcoming IG Report: “it’s going to be worse than you can imagine”…


Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing appeared on Fox News to discuss issues surrounding the ongoing investigations of Inspector General Michael Horowitz and U.S. Attorney John Durham. Mr. diGenova and Ms. Toensing bring the tick-tock hammer to the audience.

According to Ms. Toensing the upcoming IG report is going to be “very bad for people in the Obama administration.”  Toensing went on to say, according to her sources, “it’s going to be worse than you can imagine.”

Mr. diGenova went on to say: “it’s going to be devastating” … “it’s going to ruin careers” etc.  Mr diGenova has a great deal of confidence in AG Barr, Horowitz and Durham.

Jeff Sessions To Run for His Former Senate Seat…


Oh boy, have the wounds healed?  According to multiple media reports former Attorney General Jeff Sessions is poised to run for his longtime Senate seat in Alabama. He would be challenging Senator Doug Jones who is considered the most vulnerable Democrat in the Senate.

Mr. Sessions was generally disappointing during his tenure as AG; driven primarily by his recusal from all issues around the 2016 campaign, including the Mueller investigation. President Trump requested his resignation the day after the mid-terms, and President Trump stated giving Jeff Sessions the AG job was the biggest mistake of his presidency.

On the upside, Sessions was a good Senator and dependably strong on immigration and border security. I wonder how the people of Alabama feel about him? Ultimately it’s a decision for Alabama voters.  That’s who matters.

President Trump MAGA-KAG Rally, Monroe Louisiana – 8:00pm ET Livestream…


Tonight President Trump heads to Monroe, Louisiana for a Keep America Great Rally at the Monroe Civic Center to support gubernatorial candidate Eddie Rispone.  The anticipated start time for President Trump remarks 8:00pm ET / 7:00pm CT.

RSBN Livestream Link – GST livestream Link – Global News Livestream Link

.

Eric Ciaramella Attorney, January 2017: “Coup Has Started” – July 2017: “We Will Remove Him”…


A few people have started looking at the connections behind Mark Zaid, the attorney for CIA “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella.  What is starting to emerge is evidence of what CTH outlined yesterday; the current impeachment process is part of a coup continuum, and everything around the whistleblower is part of a long-ago planned and pre-constructed operation.

Two strong examples are very poignant:

July 2017 – Tweet Link

This 2017 tweet by the whistleblowers’ attorney is evidence of what we were sharing yesterday.  A point that almost everyone is missing…. What is happening now with Adam Schiff and his Lawfare-contracted legal aide, Daniel Goldman, was designed last year.  The current HPSCI legislative impeachment process, and every little aspect within it, is the execution of a plan, just like the DOJ/FBI plan was before it in 2016, 2017 & 2018.

The use of a ‘whistle-blower’ was pre-planned long ago.  The agreements between Schiff, Lawfare and the CIA ‘whistle-blower’ were pre-planned.  The changing of whistle-blower rules to assist the plan was designed long ago.

Adam Schiff and Daniel Goldman are executing a plan concocted long ago. None of the testimony is organic; all of it was planned a long time ago, long before anyone knew the names Marie Yovanovitch, Kurt Volker, Gordon Sondland or Bill Taylor.   All of this is the coordinated execution of a plan.

The anti-Trump members of the National Security Council and U.S. State Department were always going to be used.  Throughout 2018 and 2019 embeds in the ‘resistance’ network were awaiting instructions and seeding evidence, useful information, to construct an impeachment narrative that was designed to detonate later.

When Bill Taylor is texting Gordon Sondland about a quid-pro-quo, and Sondland is reacting with ‘wtf are you talking about’, Taylor was texting by design.  He was manufacturing evidence for the narrative.  This was all a set-up. All planned.

When Marie Yovanovitch shows up to give her HPSCI deposition to Daniel Goldman with three high-priced DC lawyers: Lawrence Robbins, Laurie Rubenstein and Rachel Li Wai Suen, having just sent her statements to the Washington Post for deployment immediately prior to her appearance, Yovanovitch is doing so by design.  All planned.

Here is another example from Mark Zaid, attorney for the “Whistleblower”, just ten days after the inauguration of President Trump where he directly calls out an ongoing “coup“:

Source Link – January 30th, 2017

This mention of the “coup has started” is even more nefarious, and even more specific to a CTH warning, because Zaid is specifically noting that Dana Boente was/is part of the effort.

Why is that name important?  Because Dana Boente is currently FBI chief legal counsel, hired into the FBI in January 2018.  Boente is dirty.

In April of this year we outlined the evidence to show how Dana Boente was a dirty cop [SEE HERE]; and then in June of this year HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes threatened to send criminal referrals for FBI Director Christopher Wray and FBI counsel Dana Boente [SEE HERE].

[Dirty Cops – Full Backstory]

President Trump Delivers Remarks on Federal Judicial Confirmations – 3:15pm ET Livestream…


Today President Trump will be delivering remarks from the East room during an event about judicial confirmations.  Anticipated start time 3:00 to 3:15pm ET.

UPDATE: Video and Transcript Added:

.

[Transcript] THE PRESIDENT: – Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We have another big record stock market day and another record in the stock market in the history of our country, which, to me, means jobs and a lot of other things. We’re doing really well, and I just wanted to let you know. I think it’s the 119th day that we’ve set a record. So that’s good stuff. (Applause.)

So, good afternoon and thank you all for being here as we celebrate a profoundly historic milestone and a truly momentous achievement. Thanks to many of the people here today, my administration and Republicans in Congress have now confirmed more than 150 federal judges. And, to be honest with you, it’s substantially higher right now than that, Mitch. It’s about 159. And we should have, within the next short period of time — like two months — we should have about 182 federal judges. How’s that? Good? Good? (Applause.)

And I say often: Percentage-wise, you’ll never beat one man. We know who that is, right? George Washington. One hundred percent. (Laughter.) But in terms of, I’d like to say, quality and quantity, we are going to be, I think, just about number one by the time we finish — number one of any President, any administration.

So I want to thank all of you for the incredible job you’ve done. That’s really fantastic. Thank you very much. That’s a big statement. (Applause.)
And they will uphold our Constitution as written. These distinguished men and women are some of the most gifted scholars, respected jurists, and finest legal minds ever placed on the federal bench.

Together, we are restoring American freedom, defending American justice, preserving the extraordinary vision of our Founding Fathers.
We are delighted to be joined on this special occasion by Vice President Mike Pence. Thank you, Mike, very much. (Applause.) Thank you, Mike. And Attorney General Bill Barr. Thank you, Bill. (Applause.)

I want to thank some real friends of mine, too — and warriors, I have to say. Warriors. We have a lot of great warriors in our party. And it’s — I think it’s necessary, frankly, to be a warrior. (Laughter.) If you’re not, you’ve got a problem, right?

But I want to thank Chairman Lindsey Graham. Lindsey, thank you very much. Great. (Applause.) A very special man — a man that’s so popular in his state, I don’t even think they’re going to run anybody against him anymore — they’ve given that up — Chuck Grassley. Right, Chuck? (Applause.)

And also with us are Senator John Cornyn. I looked at your polls. Nobody is beating you, John. Nobody. And you don’t have to worry about Beto anymore, that’s for sure. (Laughter.) From Texas. He doesn’t like guns, religion, or oil. (Laughter.) He knocked out all three categories. Somehow, in Texas, that won’t work. I don’t think that works anywhere, Josh. What do you think? That doesn’t work anywhere. (Applause.) Good.

John Cornyn. Mike Lee. Mike, thank you very much. (Applause.) Senator Ted Cruz — also Texas. Thank you, Senator. Thanks, Ted. (Applause.) Senator Thom Tillis. Thom, thank you very much. (Applause.) Senator Ben Sasse. Ben. Great. Great to have you, Ben. (Applause.) And Senator Marsha Blackburn. Marsha, thank you. Great job you’re doing. (Applause.) And Josh Hawley, our young star. He’s a young star. Thank you, Josh. (Applause.) Thank you. Great job, everybody.

In addition, the nation owes an immense debt of gratitude to a man whose leadership has been instrumental to our success. It’s so important to him. And that’s — he always mentioned it — number-one point. I’ve always heard, actually, that when you become President, the most — single most important thing you can do is federal judges. They say Supreme Court judges, but we have them, too. But federal judges. And, you know, based on that, I think there’s nobody that’s done a better job ever than Senator Mitch McConnell. (Applause.) True. True. Stand up, Mitch. Stand up. Come on. Stand up. (Applause.)

You know, I always get up and I talk about the economy, the economy. I’m always talking. They never write about it, but that’s okay. The people get it. But Mitch will then follow me; he’ll talk about judges, always. And it’s great what you’ve done. Incredible. The impact is truly amazing. Thank you very much.
We also, as you know, we have two great Supreme Court judges, so that’s in addition to what will be 182 judges. And then we go by what I call normalization, after you get 182. But our Supreme Court judges are great gentlemen. It was so easy to get them confirmed, right? (Laughter.) One in particular. Nobody has ever had to go through that. And I have great respect for both of them. So, we appreciate it, Mitch. Great job.

Generations from now, Americans will know that Mitch McConnell helped save the constitutional rule of law in America. It’s true. It’s for a long time.
I also want to thank Pat Cipollone and his phenomenal team at the White House Counsel’s Office, along with our Office of Legal Policy. Where is Pat? Where is Pat? Stand up, Pat. Come on. (Applause.) He’s the strong, silent type. Strong. He’s very strong, silent. Great job you’ve done. Very great. I’d always — I always wanted to be the strong, silent type, but it never worked out for me, Lindsey. (Laughter.) Never worked out. I want to be, but it doesn’t seem to work that way.

But the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice, and the many friends and legal luminaries who have supported all of those nominees, and to all of the rest of you in the room — some incredible people in this room, great friends.
In their great wisdom and genius, the Framers of the Constitution separated government power into three branches. Congress writes the laws. The executive enforces the law. And the judicial branch provides an impartial interpretation of the law as it applies to any case before them. This system was designed to protect citizens against the unjust concentration of governmental power.
And I do say, I think we’re going through a very interesting time right now, if you must know. More interesting than at most other times. When judges assume the role of a legislature, the rights of all citizens are threatened.

The great English jurist, William Blackstone, warned that if the judicial power were “joined with the legislative, then life, liberty, and property…would be in the hands of arbitrary judges whose decisions would be then regulated only by their opinion, and not by any fundamental principles of law.”

In other words, the impartial and objective judge, who is a faithful servant of the law, is essential to the survival of American liberty. So it’s really something. It’s really something that you’ve all done. This is such a big moment in our history.
And I think what I’m going to do is, as we go along, I’m going to ask a couple of you to say a few words, if that’s okay, because I think it’s appropriate. It wasn’t in the schedule, but I think it’s very appropriate to have a few speak. You have to promise it’s going to be very quick and short — (laughter) — because the media won’t stand for anything else. (Laughter.) But I would like to get your views. I think it would be very interesting for all of us.

In recent decades, our system has been under relentless attack by the left-wing activists who want to take the powers of the elected branches and give that power to unelected federal judges. They want to impose by judicial decree what they failed to win at the ballot box. Does that sound familiar to anybody? (Laughter.) That’s really familiar.

When judges write policy instead of applying the law, they impose sweeping changes on millions of Americans without the benefit of legislative debate, public rulemaking, or the consent of the governed. As a result, these highly political rulings inflict painful damage on our security, society, and economy, imposing unworkable edicts on businesses, workers, families, and law enforcements, really, alike. They give many, many bad nights to many, many people, including Presidents. Including Presidents. But we power through it. We have no choice.

I will do everything in my power to halt judicial activism and to ensure the law is upheld equally, fairly, and without political prejudice for all of our citizens.
So, I’d like to — before going any further, I’d like to maybe start off — I think it would be appropriate if we start off with Mitch to just say a couple of words and how he feels about where we are and what we’re doing.
And we’re going to go through a couple of our friends, if you don’t mind. And to me, it will be very interesting.

Mitch? Mitch McConnell. Thanks. (Applause.)

LEADER MCCONELL: Well, Mr. President, I’m reminded of Election Night, when I realized that not only had you won but we had taken the House, we had held the Senate, and this was going to be one of those unusual periods where Republicans had all three branches. To show you how unusual that is, you go back 100 years — only about 20 of the last 100 years has our Party had all three.
So we got a chance to set the agenda, just an opportunity to move the ball in the right direction. What’s the most important thing? Clearly, it was the Supreme Court. You had been helped enormously by a decision that I made — and these guys will back me up — not to let President Obama fill that Scalia vacancy on the way out the door. (Applause.)

And, boy, you didn’t blow it. Neil Gorsuch is an all-star, isn’t he? (Applause.) And the President alluded to that easy confirmation we had with Brett Kavanaugh. You made a great choice, Mr. President. And it’s not just that. The circuit courts, where 99 percent of litigation stops, are full of bright, young men and women who believe in the quaint notion that maybe the job of a judge is to follow the law.

And so, Mr. President, this is one of the many ways you’re helping to make America great again. Thank you so much. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mitch. You know, it is true, when I first came to office — because of what I said before, that I’ve always heard how important it is the choice of judges and the number of judges. And in my first day, I said to one of our assistants, “How many judges do I have to pick? How many are there?” And I figured I’d hear none or one, maybe two. They said, “Sir, you have 142.” I said, “No, no, no, tell me truth. I want the truth.” (Laughter.) That was it. And I say: Thank you, President Obama, very much.

But it was 142 empty slots. And nobody can believe that, and I couldn’t believe it and didn’t believe it. But now I believe it because now we’ve got so many approved, and we’re going to hit that magic number. And then it’s going to be a lot more from there because you do have a lot of, through normalization, leaving and other reasons; retiring. I never want to mention the “D” word. The “death” word. I won’t mention death. But that happens too.
But we’re going to be picking up a lot.

A man that I have a lot of respect for and everybody does, in the Senate: Chuck Grassley. Come up and say a couple of words, Chuck. (Applause.) Come on up here.

SENATOR GRASSLEY: Like I tell my colleagues: If I yell, I’m not mad at you. (Laughter.) If I — let me say what set the stage for this, before any of us had anything to do with this.

You ran on a platform that no other President has run on, to tell the type of people that you were going to put on the Supreme Court. And name 20 or 25 people, and that list is still out there, and it’s made up of just the kind of people that Mitch McConnell has talked about, you’ve talked about — people that are constitutionalists.

And you kept your word. And 20 percent of the people voted for you based on the proposition of the kind of people you were going to put on the Supreme Court.

So, a lot of candidates for any office run on a platform but they don’t stand on that platform. And I think what’s important about not only the judges that you have appointed — along the lines of what you promised the people you were going to appoint — but also a lot of other issues that you stand for. And the people of this country ought to be complimented that we have a President that said he was going to run on a platform and he stands on that platform. (Applause.) And you protect those (inaudible) judges.

THE PRESIDENT: He’s great. Thank you. You know, he’s got this fierce way about him. He’s — he’s tough even when he’s trying to be nice. Like now he’s — (laughter) — but I heard that voice.

I shouldn’t say this, but he looked — during one of the big events in the United States Senate — he looked at a guy named Comey. He said, “Did you leak?” And he was being nice. (Laughter.) And Comey choked. He didn’t know what to say. He was so frightened of this guy. (Laughter.) He choked. I want him to start looking that stuff up, by the way, please. Please, look it up. A lot of choke there.

Another man who’s been incredible and he’s been a friend of mine for a long time. We actually competed against each other. He wasn’t at all nice during the campaign. (Laughter.) And who would have thought we would have become good friends, right? Who would have thought? But we did. And I can say the same for Ted, right? Well, we were good friends and then really bad. (Laughter.) They said, “When will it get bad?”

The media — it’s like the Academy Awards — look at all the media — before, when it was successful. It died when they went after us, okay? The Academy Awards. Regular — just a regular program now.

But I said, “Ted and I get along good.” In fact, he was having a big event near the White House and he wanted to get more people, so he invited me. He said, “Can you come?” I said, “You know, we’re running against each other.” This is true. And the press said, “Well, you two guys are actually campaigning together and yet you’re fighting each other for the nomination?” And I said, “That’s right. We like each other. We get along great.” I think he’s great. We both had a — this incredible relationship. I said, “But, don’t worry, it’ll end.” (Laughter.) “And when it ends it’ll be really bad, probably worse than normal.” And it was vicious for about four months, but then we have a great relationship again. It was a pretty bad one for a little while, right? (Laughter.) They didn’t even think how bad it would get. But it has been — it’s been great, Ted.

Lindsey, I’d like to have you come up and say a few words. You’ve been terrific. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

SENATOR GRAHAM: Thank you. Well, in theory, at 4 o’clock, we’re going to vote on two more judges. So I’ll move this thing forward. (Laughter.)

So after I got beat like a dog — which he likes hearing — he called me over to the White House and said, “I’d like you to help me.” I said, “I’d love to help you be a great President because you’re now my President.” And he says, “I don’t have your phone number.” And I said, “There’s a reason for that.” (Laughter.) So the highlight of my campaign was when you gave out my phone number. If I did as well as my phone number, it might have been a different story. (Laughter.)

To the committee, thank you. The Judiciary Committee is not for the faint of heart. Our Democratic friends are tough. They believe in their causes, and we have to fight hard for our causes.

But one thing I want to say about President Trump: The defining moment of your presidency, for me, was the Kavanaugh hearing. This room would be empty if we had failed Brett Kavanaugh. Brett Kavanaugh lived a life we should all be proud of. He worked hard. And the way he was treated was the worst experience I’ve had in politics. A lot of people would have pulled the plug on him. Mr. President, thank you for not pulling the plug on Brett Kavanaugh. (Applause.)

And let me tell you why I support it. Who would have been, after Brett — if he had went down — what conservative, young lawyer would want to go through this if we had failed Brett Kavanaugh? So Chuck was right: When you run and you get reelected a year from now, one of the main reasons is that people in the conservative world believe that you fight for judges. God bless you. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Very nice. But we can say that for everybody here. We had — I don’t think any of — look, I know you all very well. I don’t think anybody had any thoughts of doing anything different, at least in this group, I will say. And that includes Mike. At that time, we didn’t know Bill. He wasn’t involved. Came into — you came at a good time, Bill. That was a tough time. But you know what? Nobody in this group — I will say though — and you know this and Mitch knows this — there were plenty of other people that were saying, “Let’s go to, maybe, another choice.” And they didn’t say it so nicely. And they’re people that you know very well. They’re people that you work with every day.

But I can tell you — I know every one of you very well, and there was nobody that, I think, even thought about it in this group, right? So not anybody.

And that starts with Mitch, because you never gave me the call and said, “Maybe we can do it an easier way.” But I told Brett Kavanaugh, I picked him. And he was — 10 years ago they were talking about him. I would — I would hear that he would be someday a Supreme Court justice. That was before I was in this wonderful life of politics. (Laughter.) I could enjoy my life and think about all sorts of things. And they would say that Brett Kavanaugh is going to be a Supreme Court judge.

And, anyway, he was on the list. Leonard Leo, thank you for being here. We had a list that you worked on very hard, and others. (Applause.)

And it did have an impact. It really did have an impact on the election, if you think about it, because people knew me very well, but they didn’t know, “Is he liberal, conservative? Who are the judges or not?” I hear so much about, “But who are your judges?” And I did come up with an idea to pick 20 and 25 people. Ultimately, it was 25. And we put great people on. And we have great people on there right now. We have 23 left, right? Great people. Every one of them is terrific.

But I went with this list. And at first, I said, “I will take this list” — gave the names — “and I will pick people. I will pick people” — do you remember this, Lindsey? — “that are like these people.” And I got nowhere. Nobody believed me. They said, “What does that mean, ‘like these people’?” I said, “No, they’ll be like these people.”

And I was being hammered. They said, “Say it. Say it, President” — to a potential President. I said, “Okay, it will only be these people.” And that’s what we have, and that’s where it is. And they were just so respected as a group and still are. That’s an incredible group of people. I could take anyone, literally. And that had a big impact.

But I said to Brett Kavanaugh — I said, “So, Brett, you’re the one. You’re the one.” He was so honored. He said, “Sir, this is the greatest day of my life.” And I said, “I just want to congratulate you. It’s an amazing thing that I’m doing it and that you’re receiving it.” He said, “Sir, thank you very much.” I said, “Brett, let me tell you something: This approval process that you’re going to go through will be so fast and so easy.” (Laughter.) “You’re perfect. Perfect life. Perfect family. Perfect education. Top scholar. Best schools. Brett, this is going to be so easy.” Little did he know. (Laughs.) Little did he know.

But I’ll tell you what: It really represented something. It represented unfairness. And some of those people that came forward — to my way of thinking, all of those people that came forward — I thought it was disgraceful what happened. And I want to thank all of my Republican colleagues for standing up tall for a man who really didn’t deserve what he went through. Nobody could have believed a thing like that could have happened to a man like that, and you could almost say to anybody, because nobody has ever seen anything — nobody has ever seen anything like it.

But he hung in strong, too. He also hung in strong. You know, there were plenty of people, I’m sure, that say, “You got to cut yourself loose.” He didn’t want to do that.

So it was a very important day, Lindsey. And you were a big part of it. I think your ratings went from about 50 to about 82, as I see them now, Lindsey. (Applause.) Eighty-two with one little speech that lasted — (applause) — he made one speech, Bill. One little, few remarks that lasted for about a minute, and they were historic. They really were. They were historic. The delivery, the words, the whole thing was very important. And what you did was something very special. So thank you very much. So important.

From the beginning of my campaign, I promised to appoint judges who will adhere to the true and original meaning of our Constitution. This afternoon, that promise was made and that promise was kept, and I think many times over.

Later today, the Senate will vote on our 158th new judge. And that’s why I’m let- — I’m going to let you get out of here so quick. (Laughter.) Of course, if you’re not there, I guess, Mitch, nothing is going to happen, so it doesn’t matter. So I’ll keep you a little bit long.

But we will have confirmed, as I said, 112 judges to the federal district courts, 44 judges to the federal circuit courts, and 2 outstanding judges to the United States Supreme Court. And that number is rapidly rising.

Now, one out of every four circuit judges currently on the bench was appointed by this administration. And that number has now exceeded that by quite a bit. No President in history has confirmed as many Circuit Court judges even close — not even close — in such a short period of time. The average age of my newly appointed Circuit Court judges is less than 50. They’re young, smart. That’s 10 years younger than President Obama’s nominees.

The pace of appointments is only accelerating. It’s going very quickly. And then, you know, at some point, we’re going to have to slow it down because we’re not going to have any — any openings. You know that. But we’ll find them. We’ll find them. (Applause.) We’ll find them. Would you like to add a few judges? That wouldn’t be a bad idea. How about adding another hundred or so? We’ll be able to fill them.

But we’re on track to have more judges confirmed this year than in the prior two years combined, for us. And it will be a record in history — a record, the number of judges that we’re getting in just a short period of time. Once all pending nominations are confirmed, I will have appointed about 219 judges. And that number will go up very substantially from that.

But the more gains we make, the more aggressive the hard-Left has become. I probably shouldn’t even be making this speech right now. I’m just driving them crazy. They’ll go back and they’ll have even more craziness than they’ve had in the last three years. Can you imagine? Three years, already. It’s three years. Who could believe it? Almost. In fact, in two days less than a year, we’ll be fighting an election. And we actually had a very big night last night. We had some tremendous results last night. And I’ll be leaving for Louisiana. I think we’re going to have a great result in Louisiana.

But one of their favorite new tactics is the nationwide injunction. This very destructive practice enables any one of 673 district judges to single-handedly invalidate critical executive actions and stop the enforcement of duly enacted law. We’ve had it many times, especially when it comes to our border. And when you see what’s going on on the other side of the border, people are starting to say, “You know, maybe he is right about the wall. And maybe he is right about having a very strong border.”

The other side wants open borders, which brings tremendous crime. And now people are starting to see it. A lot of people have told me that over the last couple of days. They’re starting to get the border thing. The activist Left only needs to find one partisan “resistance” judge anywhere in the country to agree with them.

On perhaps no issue have these district court injunctions been more brazen and damaging than in the area of immigration. In case after case, judges are prohibiting us from enforcing the plain letter of the law. And you know that better than anybody, the people in this room.

For example, federal law authorities expedited removal of illegal aliens apprehended within two years of entry, but a district court judge declared the law could only be applied to illegal aliens caught within 14 days. That’s a tiny group of people. Just a small fraction of what the law expressly allows.

In the words of the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia, whose son — thank you very much for the approval — Gene is now our Secretary of Labor. He’s a great, great young guy. “A good judge must suppress his personal views and must decide each case as the law dictates, not as he would have resolved the matter if he had drafted the law.” We have a lot of them looking at it as if they had drafted the law — let’s create brand-new law.

Justice Scalia was correct: If federal judges want to write the law, they should run for Congress. Let them run for office. You think this is easy? It’s not easy. (Applause.) It’s not easy. It’s not easy, fellas, is it? Huh? It’s nasty. Nobody told me it was going to be this nasty. But that’s what they have to do. Let them run for office, and let them do what they’re supposed to do. Let them do the job the way it’s meant to be.

In recent years, the left-wing assault on our Constitution has also become a personal assault on the nominees themselves. It’s nasty out there. And you’re right, Lindsey: One of the reasons it was so important was that people watched this, and they don’t want us giving up on them. They don’t want us, “Oh, let’s take the next one down the pike.” That would have been easier, by the way. It would’ve been much easier. But they don’t want to see that.

Nominees have been attacked in hearings for their religious beliefs. Our entire nation was stunned by the cruel campaign of lies, and slander, and abuse that was hurled at Justice Brett Kavanaugh. But we refused to cave in. And the left-wing mob — we will never, ever allow that to happen, where we give up, where we cave in, even if it’s, by far, the easy decision to make. When it comes to defending our freedom, Republicans will not back down. We will never, ever give up.

While I’m your President, we will continue to nominate highly qualified judges who truly love our Constitution. And I know that Leader McConnell and Chairman Graham are absolutely committed to getting them confirmed quickly. And they have been going quickly. Of course, I’d like to get some other people confirmed too, please. Some of the other people. Mitch would say, “Well, we got to do the judges first.” And I always agree with him. I have a lot of people waiting over there, but he says, “I want those judges.” And I agree with him.

Every judge we have placed on the bench will hear thousands of cases over their careers. They will ensure equal justice for every party before them, regardless of age, race, income, religion, beliefs, or background. And they will safeguard the birthright of liberty that belongs to every man, woman, child in our land.

But it is not merely their responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution. It’s our responsibility as well. Every American shares that glorious duty we have inherited as citizens of the greatest and most exceptional country the world has ever known. And we have to keep our country as the greatest the world has ever known, because that great title can end if we are foolish and if we make mistakes. You see what’s happening. You see what’s going on. You see the statements that are made and the ideas being put forward. It would no longer be a great country — certainly not for very long.

For the sake of our families, our children, and generations of Americans yet unborn, we will fight with all of our heart and soul to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the immortal rights given to us by Almighty God.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America. Thank you very much, everybody. (Applause.)

Thank you.

[End Transcript]

WH Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream Link –

.

Adam Announces Cast Members for Next Week’s Public Schiff-Show…


House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has announced the first set of cast members for his public pantomime to assist the impeachment effort.  According to Schiffthe cast will appear in order of narrative construction:

Wednesday, November 13, 2019, Schiff will present William Taylor and George Kent; and then on Friday November 15, 2019, Schiff will present Marie Yovanovitch.

Accordingly, today Director Schiff has presented the script of William Taylor.

Washington, D.C.  Today, Rep. Adam B. Schiff, the Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Eliot L. Engel, the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, the Acting Chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, released the transcript from the joint deposition of Ambassador William Taylor, Chargé d’Affaires Ad Interim For U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine.

[Transcript pdf Available Here]

Curiouser and Curiouser…


According to several media reports AG Bill Barr is scheduled to have a meeting today with Senator Lindsey Graham for an update on the Horowitz and Durham investigations:

[…] Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, plans to meet Wednesday with Barr to talk about the report’s planned rollout, according to people familiar with the matter. (link)

Then, moments ago, this little innocuous sighting popped up amid the DC media:

Probably just a coincidence [*hmmm*], or maybe not….

According to recent reports U.S. Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr are spending time on a narrowed focus looking carefully at CIA activity in the 2016 presidential election. One recent quote from a media-voice increasingly sympathetic to a political deep-state notes:

“One British official with knowledge of Barr’s wish list presented to London commented that “it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services””. (Link)

It is interesting that quote comes from a British intelligence official, as there appears to be mounting evidence of an extensive CIA operation that likely involved U.K. intelligence services. In addition, and as a direct outcome, there is an aspect to the CIA operation that overlaps with both a U.S. and U.K. need to keep Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under tight control. In this outline we will explain where corrupt U.S. and U.K. interests merge.

To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to CIA interests, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the CIA were in 2016.

It is within this network of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok is clearly working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI operations.

By now people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor now generally admitted/identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the CIA (John Brennan) to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. {Go Deep}

In a similar fashion the CIA tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos.

The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier.

One of the more interesting aspects to the Durham probe is a possibility of a paper-trail created as a result of the tasking operations. We should watch closely for more evidence of a paper trail as some congressional reps have hinted toward documented evidence (transcripts, recordings, reports) that are exculpatory to the targets (Page & Papadop). HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes has strongly hinted that very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and yet withheld from the FISA application used against Carter Page that also mentions George Papadopoulos. I digress…

However, there is an aspect to the domestic U.S. operation that also bears the fingerprints of the CIA; only this time due to the restrictive laws on targets inside the U.S. the CIA aspect is less prominent. This is where FBI Agent Peter Strzok working for both agencies starts to become important.

Remember, it’s clear in the text messages Strzok has a working relationship with what he called their “sister agency”, the CIA. Additionally, Brennan has admitted Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which outlines the Russia narrative; and it is almost guaranteed the July 31st, 2016, “Electronic Communication” from the CIA to the FBI that originated FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane” was co-authored from the CIA by Strzok…. and Strzok immediately used that EC to travel to London to debrief intelligence officials around Australian Ambassador to the U.K. Alexander Downer.

In short, Peter Strzok appears to be the very eager, profoundly overzealous James Bond wannabe, who acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for CIA Director John Brennan to utilize.

Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the end of 2015; at appropriately the same time as “FBI Contractors” were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on a specific set of U.S. persons.

It was also Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S.

Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with public reporting… back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan fell out of a helicopter to his death (just before it crashed).

Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid 2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using a young Russian named Maria Butina tasked to run up against republican presidential candidates. According to Patrick Byrne, Butina’s handler, it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Byrne the instructions on where to send her. {Go Deep}

All of this context outlines the extent to which the CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump’s orbit.

International operations directed by the CIA, and domestic operations seemingly directed by Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [Strzok gets CIA service coin]

Recap: ♦Mifsud tasked against Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Halper tasked against Flynn (CIA), Page (CIA), and Papadopoulos (CIA). ♦Azra Turk, pretending to be Halper asst, tasked against Papadopoulos (FBI). ♦Veselnitskaya tasked against Donald Trump Jr (CIA, Fusion-GPS). ♦Butina tasked against Trump, and Donald Trump Jr (FBI).

Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion-GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska refused to participate.

All of this engagement directly controlled by U.S. intelligence; and all of this intended to give a specific Russia impression. This predicate is presumably what John Durham is currently reviewing.

The key point of all that background is to see how committed the CIA and FBI were to the constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ, put a hell of a lot of work into it. Intelligence community work that Durham is now unraveling.

We also know specifically that John Durham is looking at the construct of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); and talking to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is important because it ties in to the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange indictment was unsealed in the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018:

(Link to pdf)

On Tuesday April 15th more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to….

The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, it was coordinated through the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation, April 2019.

Why the delay?

What was the DOJ waiting for?

Here’s where it gets interesting….

The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”

(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.

Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.

“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”

Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)

Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative, it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange; and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.

Within three months of the grand jury the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March 2018. The EDVA sat on the indictment while the Mueller probe was ongoing.

As soon as the Mueller probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a planned and coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (link).

As a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) needed for Obama’s anti-Russia narrative in December ’16; and then a month later the ridiculously political Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) in January ’17; this timing against Assange is too coincidental.

It doesn’t take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes, and that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.

This is critical. The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements.

The predicate for Robert Mueller’s investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor.

The CIA holds a massive conflict of self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim. The FBI holds a massive interest in maintaining that claim. All of those foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a vested self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.

Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.

This Russian “hacking” claim is ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus…. Well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Assange down as soon intelligence officials knew the Mueller report was going to be public.

Now, if we know this, and you know this; and everything is cited and factual… well, then certainly AG Bill Barr knows this.

The $64,000 dollar question is: will they say so publicly?

Impeaching Trump to Shut Down the Government


The object of impeachment against Trump is to ensure that nothing gets done between now and 2021. How do you measure the true cost of impeaching the president? It is certainly not the dollars and cents involved in holding hearings, printing transcripts, or paying Congressional staffer salaries. The true cost is the politicians who were elected to do something, but do absolutely NOTHING. Politics seem to have degenerated to merely obstructing the opposition as we have witnessed in Brexit. They have rejected the democratic process and are undermining the very fundamental principle that makes civilization function.

The true cost of impeachment is all the legislation that will never get passed because Congress and the White House are focused on the impeachment process. That seems to be the goal of the Democrats. It is even questionable if Joe Biden will be the Democratic candidate.

The Southern District of New York is extremely anti-Trump. They are going after his tax returns and trying to indict Giuliani. This is the problem with the criminal process. There should be some independent board that a prosecutor goes to in order to seek an indictment. As it stands right now, they are free to do as they please individually with no accountability when they are wrong or abuse the process.

FBI’s Three Favorite Narrative Engineers Update Background Status of IG Report…


When former FBI ‘small group’ members Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Mike Kortan, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were working on their political operation to protect Hillary Clinton and remove Donald Trump they had three specific journalists (narrative engineers) atop their speed dials.

Texts, emails, and documents released over the past three years showed that whenever the small group wanted to leak they preferred: Devlin Barrett, Robert Costa and Matt Zapotosky at the Washington Post.  [Example – source, pg 5]

So when we see Barrett, Costa and Zapotosky getting the gang back together to write about the upcoming IG report, it is worth reviewing their carefully engineered narrative. [All emphasis mine]

(Via Washington Post) Justice Department officials are trying to releasein the coming weeks a potentially explosive inspector general report about the FBI’s investigation into President Trump’s 2016 campaign, according to multiple people familiar with the effort.

Interesting start to the expository: “trying to release“; the implication here is somewhat of an internal struggle between two opposing forces.  Those who are defending the deep state, and by extension the small group, and those attempting sunlight.

Of course the customary anonymous disclaimer “people familiar with the effort”, relates to those inside the FBI/DOJ who are still working earnestly to carry on the corrupt endeavor. Unfortunately it is not a surprise that FBI Director Chris Wray and AG Bill Barr have no removed the career resistance operatives inside the institutions.

[…] One person involved in the discussions said the target date for the report’s release has been Nov. 20, but another indicated that the Justice Department is unlikely to deliver it by then and that it is more likely to come after Thanksgiving because of the complicated and contentious mix of legal, classification and political issues at play.

Where “complicated and contentious” is again representative of the internal dynamic between those who are hell bent on covering-up the corruption, and those who are less inclined.   Those who want the full disinfecting distribution want a faster release; those who want the diluted version, prefer delay.

[…] The report’s findings will mark a major public test of Attorney General William P. Barr’s credibility, given his past suggestions of significant problems with the investigative decisions made by former FBI leaders involved in the case.

Whereby if AG Bill Barr allows the toxic scale of the group’s activity to be diluted, then he will be “credible” to the institution.  However, if Barr supports an aggressive report, which outlines the full scale of corruption, then he is “less credible” to those who cherish the institutions.  All of the sources for this WaPo expository are, as you would expect, career members of the institutional preservation effort.

[…] The findings by Inspector General Michael Horowitz also will set the stage for the separate but related investigation led by U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is investigating how U.S. intelligence agencies pursued allegations that Russian agents might have conspired with Trump associates during the 2016 campaign. Officials have recently said that investigation is pursuing potential crimes.

Despite the Mueller report stating conclusively that no Americans participated with any Russian interest to actively influence the 2016 election, the Washington Post must keep the resistance narrative. Hence: “might have conspired”..   Apparently the conduct being criminal in scope remains a concern for the usurping agents.

[…] Barr has spent weeks working on the declassification decisions, as Horowitz scrutinized large volumes of classified information to assess how the FBI launched and pursued the investigation and related cases, people familiar with the matter said. Like others, they spoke on the condition of anonymity because the report is not yet public.

Again, anonymous leakers inside the current DOJ and FBI apparatus.  This ongoing process of members of the intelligence community leaking to the media should simply be recognition that Barr and Wray have changed little within the environment.  If there was concern, there would be no leaking.  There is no concern.

But a number of key figures in the probe have yet to receive draft sections of the inspector general’s findings, suggesting that the public release is still at least a week away, according to people familiar with the matter. It is possible, too, that as draft language of the report is shared with different people, the entire process could become bogged down by disputes about the accuracy of certain passages.

This paragraph is interesting.  Aside from our previous predictions of how the internal battle would evidence by how the ‘executive summary’ is written; the small group members have not yet received their “Principal Review” segments.

This is specifically Comey, McCabe, Baker, Strzok, Page, Yates, Rosenstein and McCord speaking to the Washington Post.   Those officials would likely be recipients of the report specific to their conduct.  Apparently the principal review has not taken place.

[…] Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, plans to meet Wednesday with Barr to talk about the report’s planned rollout, according to people familiar with the matter. The inspector general’s work is independent of the attorney general, but in this case, the two must work closely on the release because the inspector general does not have the authority to declassify information. Barr does. Horowitz is not expected to attend the meeting with Graham, these people said.

Interesting projection here from within the small group in that they view any discussions between Bill Barr and politicians as a “planned rollout”.   The rolling out of a specific narrative is exactly the process the small group used when they engaged with their media co-conspirators for the Russia Collusion narrative.

[…]  Current and former law enforcement officials have said the Russia investigation began in late July 2016 with an examination of George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser whose statements and behavior raised suspicions among diplomats and intelligence officials. After Trump fired FBI Director James B. Comey in May 2017, the Russia investigation was handed over to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who filed a lengthy two-volume report of his conclusions earlier this year, deciding there was no proof of a conspiracy between Trump associates and the Kremlin, and declining to reach a conclusion about whether the president obstructed justice. Barr examined Mueller’s evidence and concluded he had not.

The small group is sticking to their origination date of July 31st for “Crossfire Hurricane” and they are informing all fellow participants to stick to that date.

[…]  The current and former officials insist the investigation was handled correctly and carefully, and argue it would have been a dereliction of duty on their part not to investigate alarming allegations that members of a presidential campaign were conspiring with a foreign power. (read full article)

The engineers almost said by the book, but realized it might not be a good catch-phrase all things considered.  Again, it’s interesting to pause and consider who was defining the crazy investigative predicate as “alarming allegations”?… when you consider they affirm all of the predicate surrounds George Papadopoulos (here’s where the Mifsud aspect is so key).

If Mifsud is a western intelligence asset, everything about the origination of crossfire hurricane is an extinction level event for the claims of the CIA, FBI and DOJ participants.

Keep in mind, a few days AFTER the Mueller team used the Papadopoulos mistake of wrongfully remembering the date of first contact with Mifsud to charge him with a 1001 violation of lying to investigators; and therein specifically identifying Mifsud as a Russian operative attempting to influence Papadopoulos; the same Joseph Mifsud is pictured(October 21st, 2017) hanging out with Boris Johnson & other officials in London.

If Mifsud, the Russian operative, was such a danger, why was he innocuously hanging out with western politicians without a care in the world? ….

Joseph Mifsud (left), Boris Johnson (center), Prasenjit Kumar (right)

Joseph Mifsud is the Maltese Fulcrum !