On December 15, 2019,
in Uncategorized,
by magoo1310
It’s Friday, December 13th, 2019…but before we begin, courtesy of Bill Meisen, one of the few Conservatives left in Portland, here’s the inaugural installment of the Tom Smykowski Memorial…
…segment, courtesy today of the latest prevarication peddled by an utter idiot, as…
The “one problem” cited in the headline above? The shooters were neither “White” nor “nationalists”; rather David Anderson and Francine Graham…
…were members of the Black Hebrew Israelite movement, the same group which harassed the Covington Kids in front of the Lincoln Memorial. And the bovine Behar wasn’t alone in her haste to inaccurately assign blame:
We understand complete nincompoops like Behar and Tlaib rashly jumping to incorrect and unfounded conclusions regarding the involvement of White nationalists, but one would expect Chris Christie to exercise more judgement before knowing the facts…his thoughts and prayers for the murdered detective notwithstanding.
Now, here’s The Gouge!
Since we’re on the subject of deranged Dimocrats (do they come any other way?!?), we lead off the Friday the 13th edition with a real shocker:
“Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) revealed House Democrats are open to impeaching President Trump again if he wins the presidential election in 2020.
…“So, you know, yes, but I don’t think it would be exactly the same and here’s why: Because even though we are impeaching him now, there’s still a number of court cases, there’s a ton of information that could come forward.For example, we could get his bank records and find out that’s he’s owned a 100 percent by the Russians,” Bass said.
“So you are absolutely right in your scenario, but the only thing I would say…is it might not be the same articles of impeachment because the odds are we’d have a ton more information,” she continued.“And then the odds of that, sadly enough, you know, he has other examples of criminal behavior.”
Bass is not the first House Democrat to say they will continue with impeachment if Trump wins a second term.Rep. Al Green (D-TX) saidthere “is no limit on the number on the times the Senate can vote to convict or not a president.No limit to the number of times a House can vote to impeach or not a president,” adding he believes Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will continue with more investigations into Trump…”
Thus does life once again imitate art, as the Dimocrats’ view of their ability to conduct continuous impeachment inquiries is something out of Caddyshack:
Here’s the juice:
…an impeachment machine. Like the Terminator, the Dimocratic Party is out there:
…until Donald Trump has been hounded from office!!!
Which is precisely what Jim Jordan’s must-see summation of the entire three-year witch hunt highlights:
Meanwhile, Pelosi and company have sown the wind, and Dimocrats in districts less secure than those of Bass and Green, such as Abigail Spanberger in Dave Brat’s old stompin’ grounds, are already reaping the whirlwind:
Next up, we offer several of the more informative and insightful articles we’ve read on what the IG report does and doesn’t say. First, Townhall.com‘s Guy Benson relays the observations of one of the last honest reporters on the planet:
“…Christopher Steele’s primary FBI handler even told the Horowitz investigators “it was obvious to him”—as early as July 2016—that the producer of the famous anti-Trump dossiers “was politically motivated.”
True, Mr. Horowitz asserted no “documentary or testimonial evidence” of anti-Trump bias inside the borders of this investigation.But one has to be obtuse to read this report and not see its authors are incredulous at the idea that the only explanation possible is incompetence and misjudgment on an unimaginable scale by trained FBI professionals. As Mr. Horowitz puts it with almost bemused understatement, “We did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified.”
As it did with the Mueller report, the media is abandoning the actual content to push the public’s attention toward Attorney General William Barr’s “disagreements” with Mr. Horowitz. This is a sham issue, a red herring.
From reading this report, it is clear that what has had the attorney general in a seething white heat has little to do with defending Donald J. Trump and a lot to do with protecting John Q. Public.
The abuses identified in the Horowitz report—by the Crossfire Hurricane team and others at FBI headquarters—are a potential threat to the civil liberties of any American who becomes a target. In a better world than we’ve got now, the press—or some of it—would step back from the Trump-Barr obsessions and revisit its historic role of protecting individual freedoms from such raw, unaccountable government power. The Horowitz report contains at least 19 references to the status quo’s threat to “constitutionally protected activity,” notably the “First Amendment.”
The report has several references to the Justice Department’s “low threshold” for commencing inquiries. Surely that low threshold was intended to give agents the room to get to the bottom of important investigations. This report makes clear that under its recent leadership, the bureau lost the ability to exercise prudential judgment or prosecutorial discretion. The consequence going forward is likely to be an even more bureaucratized FBI.
What we’ve had for more than three years is the Washington establishment gone wild. For that, the country will pay a high price for [a] very long time.“
For those a little slow on the uptake…or blinded by NeverTrump fever…Idaho’s Mike Crapo gets to the heart of the IG’s findings in less than a minute:
Also, before we forget, it’s worth remembering, as Breitbart’s Joel Pollak reminded us a few days back, why Jerry Nadler conveniently chose not to swear in two his last two witnesses during the House Judiciary hearings:
“…Both Democrat counsel Barry Berke and Republican Counsel Stephen Castor delivered opening statements. Berke in particular made several factual assertions — many of which were dubious at best, and outright false at worst.
…Nadler’s failure to swear in the witnesses was significant because it allowed the counsels to make claims without fear of perjuring themselves.
It was also significant for another reason: when Republicans raised a point of order, objecting to Berke impugning the president’s motives, which is forbidden under House rules, Nadler ruled that the point of order was invalid because Berke was not a witness.
Later, Nadler described Berke and Castor as witnesses, prompting Republican objections that he had contradicted himself.“
Speaking of those who consistently contradict themselves, NRO‘s Kevin Williamson shines the harsh light of reason and fact on…
“White-collar criminals should hope for one thing this Christmas: that they get to live under the Horowitz rules.
Michael Horowitz has testified that he found no evidence of political bias on the part of the decision makers who, under the Obama administration, relied on hilariously implausible “evidence” and falsified evidence of their ownin order to launch a federal investigation of the Trump campaign. Rather than political bias, Horowitz says, the investigation uncovered a series of “basic and fundamental” errors. Democrats are cheering that aspect of the report, because they believe that Horowitz’s words can be used to silence charges that the investigation of the Trump campaign was, as the president charges, part of a politically inspired “witch hunt.”
Here’s Horowitz in his own words:
Errors were made by three separate, hand-picked investigative teams; on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations; after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI; even though the information sought through the use of FISA authority related so closely to an ongoing presidential campaign; and even though those involved with the investigation knew that their actions were likely to be subjected to close scrutiny.
No bias, just honest incompetence. Or so we are expected to believe.
Imagine an investigation of racial bias in a bank, with investigators discovering a long series of serious errors and departures from ordinary standards and practices, violations of business norms, etc., not by a single loan officer but by three separate business units overseen by the highest levels of management — with all of those errors disadvantaging African-American mortgage borrowers. Would we need texts and emails documenting active racial bias on the part of the bankers to conclude that there was racial bias at play? If we found that a police department had violated its own standards on a regular basis in its treatment of African-American suspects but uncovered no texts or emails documenting racial intent, would we be satisfied that no racial bias existed?
Of course not.
And, in the case of the Obama administration, using investigative agencies as political weapons fits a well-established pattern of behavior…
…In a free society, there is very little that is as dangerous as a corrupt cop. The FBI under the Obama administration falsified documents in order to get legal permission to spy on a Republican presidential campaign. But there was no “bias.”
Only corruption.“
Corruption which has one, central source:
For once, the former Narcissist-in-Chief is right: it IS all about him!
Put another way…
In THIS case, LOTS of someones.
In a related item, you can catch Kim’s latest column on The FBI’s Fusion Fiascohere. As she notes, one heretofore overlooked aspect of the Dimocratic conspiracy to overthrow the results of a lawful election has long been overlooked. To wit:
“Now Mr. Horowitz has exposed the many fictions. His report notes that Mr. Steele was hired from the start to find Trump-Russia collusion. Mr. Steele told the inspector general that Mr. Simpson asked him in May 2016 to determine “whether there were any ties between the Russian government and Trump and his campaign” and “whether Russia was trying to achieve a particular election outcome.” The timing is notable: Mr. Simpson was talking about collusion months before the FBI was—and even before Mr. Steele reported it to him.
The report notes that the FBI didn’t bother to confirm any of Mr. Steele’s explosive claims before presenting them to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in October 2016 as a reason to surveil Mr. Page. The bureau also assured the court that Mr. Steele was a “reliable” source, whose prior reporting had been “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings.”
Yet even as the FBI prepared the warrant application, its “reliable” source was working with Mr. Simpson to turn their FBI plant into political gold—briefing reporters, trying to gin up an October surprise against Mr. Trump. The inspector general’sreport says Mr. Steele grew frustrated that “the U.S. government had not announced that the FBI was investigating” the candidate. So on Oct. 31 he outed himself and the FBI’s “substantial inquiry” in a Mother Jones interview. The inspector general’s report says Mr. Simpson described this as his “Hail Mary attempt.”
Only after Mr. Steele exposed the FBI’s investigation did the bureau fire him and begin its overdue diligence. In November and December 2016, the FBI sent teams to talk with people who’d worked with Mr. Steele professionally. They were told he’d held only a “moderately senior” position at MI6 and that he “demonstrates lack of self-awareness,” was “prone to rash judgments,” and “didn’t always exercise great judgment.” Former FBI agent Peter Strzok acknowledged that Mr. Steele was the type to “follow the shiny object.”Just the sort of guy you’d trust to dig up accusations of treason against a presidential nominee.
A source-validation review found that Mr. Steele’s prior work had only ever been “minimally corroborated” and never used in a criminal proceeding. (Oops!) The FBI discovered its guy worked for an attorney who represented a Russian oligarch. It tracked down the supersleuth’s sources, in particular his primary source who provided the allegations against Mr. Page in the FISA application. This primary source said “he/she never expected” Mr. Steele to present their discussions as “facts” since there was “no proof” and it was “hearsay,” the kind of “conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers.” The source said that Mr. Steele had in any event “misstated or exaggerated” statements and the source’s access to Russian officials.”
The Justice Department was similarly unimpressed with Fusion’s work product. Official Bruce Ohr told the inspector general that Mr. Simpson over the years would call with tips on Russian crime figures, but since most of it didn’t prove “actionable,” he “did not do anything with it and did not try to introduce Simpson to the FBI.”Ouch.
With quality like this, it’s no wonder the FBI’s strenuous efforts to corroborate the dossier proved a bust—as the inspector general has confirmed.None of the allegations provided to the FISA court were validated. Others—such as Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s alleged trip to Prague—were proved “not true.”Overall, “the limited information that was corroborated related to time, location, and title information, much of which was publicly available.” The dossier did at least get Carter Page’s job description right…”
Directly to the Dimocrats’ altogether ill-advised impeachment proceedings.
Since we’re on the subject of mindless myrmidons, in today’s installment of the EnvironMental Moment, NRO‘s David Harsanyi notes how…
“Who better than a finger-wagging teen bereft of accomplishment, or any comprehension of basic economics or history, to be Time magazine’s Person of the Year in 2019? Greta Thunberg’s canonization is a perfect expression of media activism in a deeply unserious time.
Has there ever been a less consequential person picked to be Person of the Year? I doubt it. I mean, Wallis Simpson, 1936’s Person of the Year, got King Edward VIII to abdicate the throne. Thunberg can’t even get you to abdicate your air-conditioning.
These days we celebrate vacuous fire and brimstone. “Greta Thunberg” — the idea, not the girl — is [a] concoction of activists who have increasingly taken to using children as a shield from critical analysis or debate. She’s the vessel of the environmentalist’s fraudulent apocalypticism-as-argument. Her style is emotion and indignation, histrionics and fantasy. She is a teenager, after all.
How dare you attack a poor defenseless child who suffers from Asperger syndrome!
You’ll notice that, on one hand, Thunberg’s champions demand that the world take her Malthusian crusade seriously, and on the other, they feign indignation when you actually do. The argument that young people, because they will inherit the future, are also best equipped to comprehend it is as puerile as any of Greta’s positions…”
This is akin to a once-great sports magazine naming a radical, America-bashing lesbian Trump-hater Sports”woman” of the year. It’s the triumph of mindless political-correctness over truth.
Which brings us, appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:
Finally, we’ll call it a week with yet another sordid story straight from the pages of The Crime Blotter, courtesy today of Breeze Gould and a sticky-fingered Keystone State politician:
“…Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said in a statement Johnson-Harrell has been charged with theft, perjury, and tampering. Johnson-Harrell is accused of stealing money from the charity she founded, which was meant to help children and the homeless, and spending the money on luxury travel and sports cars…”
Reports Ms. Movita is related to two of Baltimore’s last three mayors, as well as Elijah Cummings’ widow, remain unconfirmed.
Turns out we have one more tale to tell, as we present for your perusal The Great Christmas Wrapping Paper Caper, a heart-warming holiday aside courtesy of the McKee Family equivalent of Curious George.
Our story begins when we recently returned home to find TLJ (aka, “Jenny”, “Jennifer Lynn” (primarily when she’s bought some unneeded-yet-expensive item of home decor) and/or “Our Wife”) busily engaged wrapping presents in the kitchen.
After she had gone upstairs, we happened to notice a small piece of gold-striped wrapping paper and scotch tape on the counter:
Our curiosity was piqued, as TLJ had been wrapping her gifts with a different paper, and the only present under the tree that matched the fragment was our “big” gift to her this Christmas, which had been the first, and for the longest time, the only present under the tree.
Picking up the present, we not only couldn’t find any tears where the fragment we found might fit, but discovered the style of wrapping and tape used to seal it didn’t match what we remembered using. We confirmed our suspicions by comparing the tape from our office with the tape on the present (right and left respectively below):
When initially accused of such an egregious breach of Christmas etiquette, TLJ denied any involvement whatsoever in the incident. And even after we confronted her with the undeniable evidence of her deed, rather than admitting she suffered from PPOS (Premature Present-Opening Syndrome), she attempted to employ a variation of the classic Slick-Willy Defense: “I tore open the paper but didn’t look at the present“. Yeah…
Only after minutes of intense interrogation…coupled with the threat of repeated waterboarding…did she admit she has a problem, confessing she’s in fact suffered from PPOS for years, and has long been aware of all our best efforts heretofore to conceal her gifts from prying eyes…
…however lovely they might be.
Thus, we’ve been forced to come to grips with the fact the advanced nature of her PPOS means even presents wrapped and under the tree aren’t safe from violation, though we must admit her uncontrollable urge to open and then rewrap her gifts has led to a marked increase in the quality of the wrapping. Guess our sole option henceforth is to keep TLJ’s presents in our gun safe, only placing them under the tree immediately prior to her awakening Christmas morning.
Anyhow, that’s our story…and we’re stickin’ to it. Which reminds us: only 12 more shopping days until Christmas!
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.