PODCAST: Impeachment Inquiry Is ‘a Trial in Search of a Crime,’ Rep. Jody Hice Says

/in , , , , , , , /by

“They are searching for every haystack they can possibly find in hopes that there’s a needle somewhere that they can bring forward and say, ‘A-ha, we have something to impeach him,’” says Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga. “And the American people are seeing it for what it is.” Read the lightly edited transcript of the interview, posted below, or listen on this bonus episode of the podcast:

Rachel del Guidice: We’re joined today on The Daily Signal Podcast by Congressman Jody Hice, who represents Georgia’s 10th Congressional District. Congressman Hice, thank you so much for being with us today.

Rep. Jody Hice: Always great to be with you. It’s an honor. Appreciate you having me.

Del Guidice: Well, we love having you. So, last week, House Democrats finished holding their first impeachment hearings on impeaching the president. We heard from Bill Taylor, he’s the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine; George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs; and Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>

So, looking at last week’s hearing, what all did you see from those hearings, and has any kind of information or answers been gleaned? What are your takeaways?

Hice: Yeah, I mean, [there’s] two things really that stand out to me from last week. No. 1, again, it’s all hearsay. No one had direct communication with the president. And that’s really what this whole thing is being built on.

It’s a trial in search of a crime, and there’s no evidence to substantiate any of it at this point. And that’s totally what we had last week. And I thought one of the highlights from last week was when [Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas] specifically asked the witnesses, “Why are we here? What is the impeachable offense?” And none of them had an answer.

There’s absolute stunned silence. And that just reiterated the reality that the majority, the Democrats, are moving the goal post on even what the impeachable offense is. And of course, now it’s gone from “quid pro quo” to extortion to bribery.

And I mean, they’re bouncing all over the place themselves, trying to convince the American people of a crime that didn’t happen. And so they’re trying to fabricate a crime. And that was really what came out from last week to me.

Del Guidice: So, you’ve criticized this impeachment process as a sham. Can you talk a little bit about that and why you see it as a sham?

Hice: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, something as important as an impeachment inquiry impacts our entire nation. It’s something that, if we’re going to go down this path, then it needs to be done honestly. It needs to be done openly. It needs to be done with transparency, and with an authentic desire to find the truth.

That has not been the case in this sham. And that’s exactly what it is. For two months, we were in the basement of the Capitol with no transparency. No even attempt seriously to find the the truth.

[House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.] only allowed individuals to come testify who he thought would have damaging testimony toward the president. The president was not able to defend himself.

We were not able to call forth any of our witnesses as the minority party. It was all a one-sided show. We were limited. Members of Congress were not permitted to participate unless you were on certain committees, and even then it was very difficult to get transcripts, and yet none of it was classified information.

What it ended up being is, really, two months of an audition for Schiff to determine who he thought would be the best witnesses to go public. Which is what he’s now trying to do. But again, it is an unfair process of not genuinely seeking the truth.

It’s all the left Democrats, who hate the president, who want to turn the 2016 election around, and they are trying to do everything they can to discredit and disenfranchise the voters of 2016.

Del Guidice: So, on Tuesday, House Democrats started the second week of open impeachment hearings. And so far we’ve heard from Lt. Col. [Alexander] Vindman. He’s the top Ukraine specialist at the National Security Council. He testified, as well as Jennifer Williams, who’s a foreign service aide in Vice President [Mike] Pence’s office who listened to a call between Trump and the Ukraine’s president.

What did you think of both of their testimonies, of Vindman’s testimony and Williams’ testimony?

Hice: Still, it’s nothing new. It’s more of the same old, same old. … Look, in this whole thing, there’s only one person who matters, and that is the president of the United States.

What did he say? And we have that transcript, that transcript is readily available for anyone and everyone to read. And it says what it says. And the president of Ukraine, President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy, took it just the way the president, President Trump, said it was.

There was no quid pro quo, there was no conditions to the aid. Ukraine was not even aware that any aid was being withheld. And so how do you formulate an impeachable offense that didn’t happen?

And so what we have are individuals giving testimony of their opinion. We have people giving testimony who don’t like the foreign policy of the president. What is the president’s job, to submit foreign policy? And if they don’t like it, that’s their prerogative. But it certainly is not an impeachable offense if they don’t like the president’s foreign policy.

So it’s more of the same old argument that the Democrats continue to bring forth, … charges with absolutely zero evidence to substantiate the charge.

Del Guidice: So, you mentioned the fact of zero evidence. … Looking ahead to hearings later this week, we’re hearing a lot of the same old, same old, as you mentioned, and nothing impeachable has been raised so far. So what do you foresee as happening if none of that evidence actually surfaces?

Hice: Well, this thing is collapsing day by day, literally moment by moment, as they continue to proceed forward with it, because there is no evidence there. And the American people, as this is becoming public, as people are watching it, they’re getting fatigued, quite frankly, from a hearing that has nothing to support the so-called impeachable offenses, which even the Democrats themselves can’t even define what that offense might be. And so, the American people are seeing firsthand that this is a hoax.

It is a continuation of a witch hunt that began three years ago, when the president was inaugurated. Within days after his inauguration, there were [some] saying already that they were going to impeach him. And he hadn’t even had time to get in the office and get started. Yet, this has been an undertaking of the Democratic Party for three years.

They are searching for every haystack they can possibly find in hopes that there’s a needle somewhere that they can bring forward and say, “Aha, we have something to impeach him.” And the American people are seeing it for what it is.

Del Guidice: So, you sit on the [House Oversight and Reform Committee], and you attended several of the closed-door depositions that happened. I’m curious if there’s anything you can share from what you observed. And as a second point to that, have Democrats even been following proper procedure when it comes to the impeachment process?

Hice: They’ve been making the rules up and the procedure up as they go. And that’s one of the frustrating things with us. The goal post has been moving all along the way. And so, I cannot get into specifics, because we are strictly forbidden from speaking about what happened in those depositions.

But I can say from a general perspective that it has been the most unfair treatment that I’ve ever seen.

I’m shocked that this type of trial, which is really what it is, is taking place in the United States, where we have only one side permitted to speak, only one side permitted to call forth witnesses, and the other side … during those depositions was not able to do anything.

The president unable to defend himself, and we [being] unable to bring forth witnesses from our side of the equation, has been the most unfair thing I’ve ever seen in my life. And I just hope that as this becomes more public, that the American people will recognize that and will reject this attempt by the Democrats to destroy and harm the president.

Del Guidice: So, looking ahead to the rest of the hearings this week, I believe Fiona Hill is scheduled to testify, she was the top Russia specialist at the National Security Council, as well as David Holmes, who’s a State Department official. Do you have any forecasts of what you expect to see, or just more of the same?

Hice: Yeah, expect more of the same. It would be kind of foolish for me to try to speculate what any of them are going to say or testify. So I won’t try to go down that hypothetical route, but, again, would say that the only conversation that matters is the conversation that President Trump had with President Zelenskyy. And that conversation we have. And in that conversation is absolutely nothing impeachable.

There was nothing of demands. There were no preconditions put upon the funding. In fact, this president has funded the Ukraine with lethal weapons to defend themselves against Russia. Something that President [Barack] Obama never did.

And … just a couple of months ago, the Democrats were accusing President Trump of colluding with Russia. And yet President Trump is the one who is providing aid, lethal aid, to Ukraine to defend themselves against Russia.

And so, that is the conversation that matters. The one that the president had with President Zelenskyy, and everything else is just opinion and presumption, made-up opinions, as to what the president really meant. When what he said is right there in clear view. And what he said is exactly the way President Zelenskyy interpreted it.

Del Guidice: President Trump has also said he’s open to contributing his own testimony to Democrats’ impeachment hearings. Do you think he should testify? What is your perspective on that?

Hice: Well, my perspective is he already has. He was not forced to provide the transcript and he did. He voluntarily put it out there. This past week, [he] came out with the second conversation he had with President Zelenskyy. Again, he was not compelled to do so. He is being transparent and open with the conversation that he had. And you know, what he decides to do beyond that is a decision I’m sure that he and other advisers around him will make.

But in my opinion, the president has already exhibited tremendous transparency and a willingness to cooperate. And providing the transcript itself is evidence enough of that.

Del Guidice: One of your colleagues in the House, Congressman Jim Jordan, he had tweeted something early this week that I feel like laid out the situation really well. And he had said that “in the 55 days that aid to Ukraine was delayed, President Zelenskyy had five calls and meetings with high-ranking American officials. And in every one of those meetings, there was never a discussion of linking aid to investigating the Bidens.”

If this is true, and we’ve seen the transcripts, you’ve been talking about that, why isn’t this being discussed in these hearings?

Hice: You know, you’d have to ask the Democrats that. I think the Republican side has done a great job bringing up those facts in this whole thing. Not only were there no preconditions in the phone call, but as you just mentioned, in the five meetings that took place afterward, there was no mention of any conditions in order for aid to come forward.

And so again, this is all nothing but individuals’ opinions, basically saying what we know, the funds went, but what the president really meant was to hold up those funds until we had the investigation on the Bidens or until we had whatever that they claim.

But the fact is, none of that holds up to what actually happened in those meetings that took place following the phone call. Again, our factual evidence that there was no intent for preconditions in the funds that were going to Ukraine.

Del Guidice: So, impeachment definitely has overtaken all of Washington right now and especially Congress in the House as they’re holding these hearings. Is there anything Congress should be doing other than holding these impeachment hearings?

Hice: Well, the first thing we should do is close the door on these impeachment hearings. It’s an absolute hoax in every way.

But yeah, I mean, the Democrats have been so focused on destroying the president and proceeding with this impeachment inquiry that they have accomplished absolutely nothing since they have been the majority here in the House. And there are multiple issues that need to be addressed.

I mean, we haven’t even funded the government, and now that is hanging over our head. We haven’t funded the military. We have drug pricing that needs to be addressed. We have trade deals, the USMCA, that needs to be addressed.

There are multiple issues that are extremely important to the well-being of our country and to every one of our constituents, be it Republican or Democrat. But they have been so focused on one single item, and that is to impeach the president, that they have shown their absolute inability to legislate and do what the American people sent us here to do.

Del Guidice: Final question: What do your constituents in Georgia think about all these impeachment hearings?

Hice: You know, we’ve got 750,000, 800,000, and there are different individuals, different parties that are represented, but overwhelmingly, the people in the 10th District of Georgia are fed up with this impeachment inquiry. They see it for what it is. They want it to come to a stop.

They see the actions of this president and the policies of this president are working in our economy. They’re working in reestablishing the strength of our military. They’re working across the board, impacting individual lives.

They appreciate this president stands for life. He stands for religious liberties. And they want us to continue supporting this president, and they want this impeachment inquiry to come to an end.

I believe, at the end of the day, this is going to prove to be an absolute disaster for the Democrats, and in my opinion, well, it should be.

Del Guidice: Congressman Hice, thank you so much for joining us today on The Daily Signal Podcast.

Hice: Always an honor to be with you. Thank you so much.

PODCAST BY

Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice is a congressional reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG.

RELATED VIDEO: Trump remarks on Sondland testimony: ‘I want nothing’ from Ukraine

RELATED ARTICLES: 

7 Key Moments From Gordon Sondland’s Testimony on Day 4 of Impeachment Hearings

Lt. Col. Vindman Destroyed Democrats’ Main Impeachment Arguments

‘Coup’ Concerns Suddenly Don’t Seem So Far-fetched

Impeachment Hearings Have Exposed What Democrats Have Become

Pence’s Chief of Staff Slams Dems: Ironically, You’re Holding Up Aid to Ukraine to Pursue Impeachment

Ukrainian MP Claims $7.4 Billion Obama-Linked Laundering, Puts Biden Group Take At $16.5 Million

Problematic Women: Christine Blasey Ford, Chick-Fil-A, and Impeachment

A Note for our Readers:

As we speak, Congress is moving to impeach the president.

We do not have all the facts yet, but based on what we know now, there does not seem to be an impeachable offense.

The questions stand: In drafting the Constitution, how did America’s founders intend for impeachment to be used? How does the impeachment process work, and what can history tell us about whether or not President Trump faces the real threat of being removed from office?

The Heritage Foundation is making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Soviet Style Impeachment in America!

/in , , , , , /by

“You bring me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” – Laverty Beria, Chairman of the secret police in the USSR.

Only those people who know Evil can understand and appreciate Goodness. We the former citizens from the Socialist countries know what Evil means, we lived under the “Evil Regime” half of our life. In considering Ukraine you have to know that “Evil Regime.” I sat in courtrooms of the USSR for 25 years and Adam Schiff in his impeachment inquiry has brought me back to the Soviet court in America. Like in the Mueller Report the main principle of American justice system, the presumption of innocent is missing in action. Adam Schiff is forming the narrative: extortion, bribery, shredding the norm, and undermining the rule of law. It is a partisan, political exercise masked by the impeachment inquiry to affect public opinion…

The Tragedy of Ukraine

Ukraine is a wonderful country of a magnificently fertile land and hard-working people and three generations of Ukrainians have lived under the “Evil-Regime” of the Soviet Socialist system. A normal human being from the West can’t perceive the depth of the corruption the system has created. And nobody in the Dems’ impeachment inquiry debating Ukraine, including Maria Yovanovich could understand the tragedy of the country created by the Socialist mafia. As the Dems proceed further in their inquiry, the more and more their incompetence will be exposed…  The American people haven’t the remotest idea of what is happening in Ukraine.

To grasp the extent of corruption in Ukraine you have to know the Soviet Socialist system—the system of total corruption from the bottom to the top, regardless of race, class, or nationality. The system existed, lived and breathed corruption. The Socialist mob in Ukraine includes a large portion of Russians in the population and many oligarchs collaborating with Russia. That segment of the population helped to elect President of Ukraine Victor Yanukovych 2010-2914 and thereafter Soviet corruption continued to flourish: President of Ukraine Victor Yanukovych had a Gold Toilet bowl in his castle, when many Ukrainians did not have enough food to survive.

The corruption in Ukraine continued with President Peter Poroshenko and the election in 2019 exposed the human outrage of Ukrainians, voting 75% for President Zelensky. For your information, the hero of the radical left, former U.S. ambassador Maria Yovanovich had supported Peter Poroshenko, a man who collaborated with Putin. This was her understanding of events in Ukraine. Please read about two real events:

Late last month OANN investigative journalist and author Jack Posobiec posted a series of tweets detailing Rep. Adam Schiff’s actions this past month after receiving the CIA ‘whistleblower’ report on President Trump’s phone call with the newly elected Ukrainian President. Schiff sent a staffer to Ukraine to meet with the former President Poroshenko after receiving the ‘whistleblower’ report. This trip was sponsored by a think tank that receives funding from a program of left-wing billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundation called “Open Society Initiative for Europe”

Breaking: Ukrainian Government Ready to Cooperate with FBI on Laundering Hundreds of Millions of IMF Aid Money, American Truth Today

I was very suspicious of Yovanovich and suddenly Ukraine gave me another reason to talk about the Obama/Putin conspiracy. Writing about the Obama/Putin conspiracy for the last 8-10 years, I considered Obama a Socialist in the worse sense of the word, but I didn’t know about Ukraine. The quote above tells me even more. We are dealing with a syndicate of the Deep State, liar Schiff, Socialist mafia, and the KGB political operative George Soros. I wrote about Soros for many years: he has undermined and harmed America for thirty years. This syndicate is following and serving the ideology of Soviet Fascism…

The Ideology of Soviet Fascism

In 1991 Soviet Socialism collapsed in Russia—it was the Socialist economy, unable to produce that collapsed, but another part of the system of “the Evil Regime,” all punitive agencies survived and brought to the Russian presidency their guy, Vladimir Putin. I use the term KGB talking about them. All the agencies, coordinated by the KGB, helped the Socialist system to survive for many years, yet now Socialism ended in the country where it was born. But the KGB continued using the ideology of Communism/Socialism to prolong its life. The war against Western civilization is intact and history can determine the new term identifying the system based on militant, aggressive and expansionist force in Russia. I did it many years ago calling it Soviet fascism and knowledge of Stalinism had provided me with the adequate definition of the ideology:

Using the militant force of the KGB, Stalin combined and unified the concept of “aggressive oriental despotism” with the ideology of Soviet Socialism. Then Stalinists infiltrated and used Islam to benefit Stalin’s ideological agenda to conquer Western civilization and the world. That was one of the reasons, I began calling Soviet Socialism, Soviet Fascism. I wouldn’t be surprised by an assassination attempts on Donald J. Trump.

I know Soviet fascism, they had tried to poison Chairman Mao Zedong…

Regrettably, our Intel and academia missed the significance of the year 1991, the death of Socialist economy and they gave an additional time to Putin and his KGB to proceed. Today we are dealing with the countries of “the Axis of Evil” who adhere to the ideology of Soviet Fascism confronting Western civilization globally in the 21st century. I identified this ideology years ago. To grasp the events in Ukraine, you have to know ideology of Soviet fascism, and Obama/Putin conspiracy, described in my two books: What is Happening to America? Xlibris, 2012, and Socialist Lies: From Stalin to the Clintons, Obamas, and Sanders, Xlibris, 2016.

Ukraine and the Biden Father and Son

The year 2014 was a taut and crucial year for Ukraine: Russia invaded and occupied Crimea, Russia directed the Ukrainian Socialist mob to attack the Ukrainian territory in Donbas and Lugansk—the war against Ukrainian people had begun. And the tragedy is that Ukraine wasn’t ready to fight—the country didn’t have an army, weaponry and ammunition—Ukraine was naked due to the policy of Russian crony President of Ukraine Victor Yanukovych. Thousands of Ukrainians were killed, a lot of territory was lost. Yanukovych fled to Russia to escape the wrath of the Ukrainian people and President Obama sent Joe Biden to Ukraine as a point man in 2014.

Vice-President Biden did not bring arms, ammunition or weaponry Ukraine desperately needed, Biden brought his son—Hunter Biden. And America’s Socialist mafia very easily found a common language with the Ukrainian Socialist mob—their common denomination was corruption. It was then that the Ukrainian people lost respect for the government of the U.S. It was then in 2014 the Ukrainian people took their destiny in their own hands.  Volunteers with hunting rifles, some with knifes went to defend their country and died in the thousands, they sacrificed for their children to live in an Independent Ukraine. Books and movies will be produced about that tragic and heroic time in Ukraine and… America’s betrayal of Ukraine in 2014.

Knowing this in 2019, I believe that Obama had in mind to use Biden and his son in Ukraine. There was no more Putin’s crony, Yanukovych, and Obama needed a conduit to Putin there in Ukraine to continue to undermine the country. As I understand it today, Obama and Poroshenko worked like hand and glove—Obama found a conduit in Ukraine and the action against the American republic to help Russia begun. When Trump had announced his candidacy the entire focus and emphasis has been aimed at Trump—the plot against him has preoccupied the conspirators… The plotters had a solid foundation—President of Ukraine Peter Poroshenko. I hope politicians will find the Truth…

I am interested in the Biden Father and Son. The Ukrainian scandal is the same Russian attempt to oust President Trump. In reality it was a predicate of Trump/Russia collusion, which started in 2014 by Biden, assigned to Ukraine by Obama. So, how is it possible that a foreigner, Hunter, in Ukraine with no knowledge of Ukrainian or Russian, among  thousands of firms, could latch onto the board of Burisma, the energy firm owned by the Russian-crony, a friend of another Russian crony former President Victor Yanukovych? This is my guess: the war on America and Obama/Putin conspiracy is much deeper than we know and a lot of bad actors are still walking free…

The Trump impeachment will be a victory for Vladimir Putin, a mortal enemy of President Trump. The fraudulent impeachment is also aimed at changing public opinion by fraud and sham. The GOP is missing the elephant in the room: the international syndicate of the Socialist mafia. I can see its action—The Brain-Washing War on America’s Mind and Soul is going on. We are dealing with the aggressive force of the Dems’ Socialist mafia fighting the Constitutional American Republic. The Dems are fighting for power by impeachment proceeding to cover-up the sinister crime of TREASON against the American Republic they have committed over several decades. This crime committed by the leadership of Dems’ Socialist mafia, and DNC should be a major topic in the November 2020 election.

President Trump is right—our democracy is at stake!

To be continued www.simonapipko1.com and at www.drrichswier.com/author/spipko/.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

WATCH: Dana Bash Falls Flat on Her Face When Trying to Defend Dems Changing Their ‘Quid Pro Quo’ Messaging

Why Democrats Don’t Want Public to Know Origins of Ukraine Probe

The Impeachment-Promoting Press Bores the Public

Brennan and Clapper’s Secret Surveillance System

/in , , , , , , /by

“Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love.” –  Julian Assange

“Every person remembers some moment in their life where they witnessed some injustice, big or small, and looked away because the consequences of intervening seemed too intimidating. But there’s a limit to the amount of incivility and inequality and inhumanity that each individual can tolerate. I crossed that line. And I’m no longer alone.” – Edward Snowden

When injustice becomes law, resistance become duty.  Thomas Jefferson

“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” – Elie Wiesel

NOTE: The following information has been garnered from countless articles by Mary Fanning and Alan Jones of theAmericanreport.org.  Their reports should be read by every American, including our nation’s politicians.

Dennis Montgomery is a software designer and former CIA/NSA/DoD/DHS contractor. Montgomery built a surveillance system known as “The Hammer.” He blew the whistle on the Obama administration’s allegedly illegal use of that system to wiretap Donald Trump. (Rand Paul claims Brennan, Clapper, Comey sent spies into the Trump campaign.)

Montgomery also developed technology for analyzing surveillance video from U.S. Air Force predator drones remotely piloted from Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.  Nellis Air Force Base is also the home of a charter school run by imam Fethullah Gulen. Clinton’s hand-picked CIA handlers, Graham Fuller and Mark Grossman, were selected to manage and direct Gulen’s cells in the U.S. and abroad.  Link

Reminiscent of the theft of Bill Hamilton’s Inslaw Promis software allegedly by the Reagan administration’s Ed Meese, this is much the same thing. The government seems to steal from private enterprises what they want for their own.

Montgomery asserts that intelligence officials John Brennan and James Clapper ran “The Hammer” surveillance system. According to CIA Vault 7 documents released by WikiLeaks on March 7, 2017, The Hammer (HAMR) is a browser exploit throwing framework that infects targeted devices and systems.  The Hammer allowed spying on Supreme Court Justices, 159 Article III judges, elected officials, and 20 million other Americans.

Mainstream Media Cover-up

CNN’s reporting indicates that CNN and The Washington Post were engaging in a multi-prong strategy to cover up the Obama administration’s illegal surveillance of Trump, including the participation of John Brennan, James Clapper, and Carl Bernstein. CNN and the Washington Post continue to ignore the fact that Montgomery turned over evidence to the FBI.

Testimony from former FBI General Counsel James Baker asserts the FBI took possession of evidence that proves that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump.  They ignored Montgomery’s claim.  James Baker asserted that, “An individual named Dennis Montgomery, who I believe, to the best of my recollection, said that he had been a U.S. Government contractor and, in the course of that work, had come across evidence of unlawful surveillance by the government, of Americans including government officials and wanted to give that information to the Bureau, which eventually did take place.”

Remember Bernstein told everything on Nixon, but he was silent on the illegal wiretapping of Donald Trump.  Obama’s surveillance hammer on Trump is far worse than Watergate.  Lt. General Thomas McInerney (Ret.), formerly the number three Air Force official at the Pentagon, also said “The Hammer” surveillance system is far worse than Watergate.

Only two days before he died, Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (Ret.), who served as commander of the U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet, appeared less concerned about dying than about countering the coup against President Trump. Admiral Lyons was convinced that the coup was put in motion to cover up “The Hammer” and the actions of the men behind it.  Admiral Lyons was a great patriot, and spot on in his reporting. Link

The D.C. Conspiracy

There is a conspiracy underway deep within the Washington D.C. intelligence and law enforcement establishments. The cabal should have much to fear, but as of yet, not one DOJ criminal has been indicted.  U.S. Attorney John Durham is reportedly very interested in interviewing President Obama’s former intelligence chiefs, ex-CIA Director John Brennan and one-time Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.  I would hope that happens, but as of yet, those two men are still walking free.

In 2015, contractor-turned whistleblower Dennis Montgomery provided the FBI with 47 computer hard drives of illicitly-harvested domestic surveillance data and classified testimony that, according to Montgomery, proves Brennan and Clapper illegally commandeered the foreign surveillance tool known as “The Hammer.”

Montgomery contends Brennan and Clapper used “The Hammer” to conduct unlawful domestic surveillance on President Obama’s political enemies for the purpose of “blackmail” and “leverage.”

Soviet Style Surveillance

Brennan and Clapper built a Soviet style total surveillance state modeled after the Stasi of East Germany.  They did it by commandeering “The Hammer” for domestic surveillance, with greater tech capability for total control of the people.  They must long to turn America into Soviet Russia.

According to Montgomery, Brennan and Clapper used “The Hammer” to illegally wiretap Lt. General Michael Flynn (Ret.) and Donald Trump.  Oh yes, the leaders of the coup, Obama, Brennan, and Comey all have professed their allegiance to Marxism and communism at various points in their lives. See The Red Thread by Diana West.

AG Barr and U.S. Attorney Durham recently traveled to Rome, Italy, where Durham reportedly retrieved two BlackBerry smartphones that were previously used by Joseph Mifsud.  The public really didn’t understand the significance of the retrieval.  Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation portrayed Mifsud as a Russian agent. Mifsud is actually an FBI asset.  According to Dennis Montgomery, when the BlackBerry phones are used on “The Hammer” platform they are a closed secret network that is encrypted and secure and cannot be penetrated.

It is of interest that Mifsud, Hillary, Comey, President Obama and others were using BlackBerry phones.  How many others inside the Crossfire Hurricane covert FBI operation against Trump were plotting the coup d’état while also using non-government issued BlackBerry phones?  Two of Hillary’s BlackBerrys were destroyed by Clinton Foundation advisor, Justin Cooper.

Despite the fact there was no criminal reason, the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

The Fusion Center

Brennan concocted the Trump-Russia intelligence “Fusion Center” narrative as a cover story because Brennan and Clapper had illegally commandeered “The Hammer” for illegal domestic surveillance and for wiretapping Trump, in violation of the CIA’s Charter.  Fusion Center is a collaborative effort between two or more agencies.

Back in August of 2018, Brennan told Rachel Maddow, “We put together a Fusion Center at CIA that brought NSA and FBI officers together with CIA to make sure that those proverbial dots would be connected.”  He never mentioned that each of these intel agencies have separate charters and for good reason.

Whistleblower Montgomery says that on February 3, 2009, Brennan and Clapper got together to commandeer The Hammer for illicit purposes.  Montgomery designed and built the supercomputer, just as Inslaw owner Bill Hamilton designed Promis software.  The supercomputer system had served as a foreign surveillance tool and was transferred from Blxware in Washington state to a CIA facility in Ft. Washington, Maryland.  There, Brennan and Clapper transformed The Hammer into a surveillance tool to target Obama’s political enemies.

According to Military sources, the supercomputer has multiple safeguards to prevent intel personnel from using the system for unlawful domestic surveillance, but Brennan and Clapper bypassed those safeguards.  They set up a more powerful system and illegally re-purposed the computer.

Targeting Trump

Brennan and Clapper allegedly spied on Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Scalia, onetime head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) Judge Reggie Walton, 156 Article III Judges, members of Congress, Rudy Giuliani, General Michael Flynn (Ret.), and Donald Trump.

General Michael Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell says several former officials who were involved in the CIA /FBI Crossfire Hurricane operation are in ongoing talks with Justice Department officials.

The Whistleblower tapes released by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow, revealed that President Obama’s intelligence officials, Brennan and Clapper, for whom Montgomery was working, used the spyware for unlawful domestic surveillance and to illegally wiretap Donald Trump “a zillion times.”

President Trump’s allegation that the Obama Administration was wiretapping him is not only supported by Montgomery’s whistleblower revelations about Brennan’s and Clapper’s computer system, The Hammer, but also by statements made in March 2017 by whistleblower William Binney, a former NSA Technical Director of the World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group, by former CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson, and by Montgomery’s attorney Larry Klayman.

FBI Director Mueller

Montgomery says it was Robert Mueller’s FBI who provided the computers for The Hammer, and who also ordered an illegal FBI raid of Montgomery’s home and storage facility. Mueller’s FBI agents tied Montgomery to a tree, according to court documents.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie Cooke excoriated the FBI for using falsified affidavits to obtain search warrants and forced the return of Montgomery’s property.  Obviously, the FBI hasn’t changed its stripes since they continue to operate in a rogue and illicit fashion, even under AG William Barr and Deep State FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Mueller became, by appointment of Rod Rosenstein, and because of his close friend, James Comey, the Special Counsel investigator of the Russia collusion hoax.  Montgomery claimed that Robert Mueller had been collecting information on Donald Trump for over ten years and he was the last person anyone should appoint to investigate the President and the phony Russian Collusion hoax.

The day before Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel, he had interviewed with Donald Trump to once again become the Director of the FBI and was obviously rejected, and for good reason.

FBI Director Mueller wanted to use The Hammer to find out “who knew what” about the 9/11 terror attacks on New York City and Washington D.C.  Mueller was in charge of the FBI’s investigation of the 9/11 attacks.  John Milkovich’s book, Robert Mueller: Errand Boy for the New World Order, tells of Mueller’s several cover-ups regarding the 9/11 terror attacks.  Interestingly, Mr. Trump, as a builder of skyscrapers, took a special interest in the collapse of the twin towers.

Dennis Montgomery

Dennis Montgomery became a target of the government and the media who worked to destroy his reputation.  Ultimately, he suffered a stroke.  He had filed 18 whistleblower complaints.  In D.C., Montgomery testified to DOJ’s Deborah Curtis regarding the 47 hard drives of The Hammer that contained illicitly collected domestic surveillance data, evidence that Comey buried after being turned in to Comey’s FBI.

Mary Fanning and Alan Jones write, “Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis offered Dennis Montgomery limited immunity in exchange for 47 hard drives of illegally harvested surveillance data that Montgomery claims contains proof that Brennan and Clapper wiretapped General Flynn and Donald Trump.  (This immunity was in coordination with FBI General Counsel James Baker.) Then Curtis joined Special Counsel Mueller’s team and became the lead prosecutor on General Flynn’s case before abruptly leaving the Flynn prosecution and the DOJ.”

James Baker is suspected of leaking the discredited Steele dossier to Mother Jones reporter David Corn.  Baker was also part of the group that plotted the take-down of General Flynn and President Trump.

Montgomery asserts the hard drives have information that not only proves Brennan and Clapper wiretapped General Flynn but also provides proof that the DOJ conducted illegal prosecutions of President Obama’s political enemies.

Baker later joined the Brookings Institution and its affiliate Lawfare, which acts as the political arm of the FBI and the intelligence community.  Link

Conclusion

Invented lies and corrupt actions of high officials who have abused the power of their positions for political gain must be exposed and punished.  They have sought to subvert our rules of law and undermine the Republic.  They have damaged and are still damaging the institutions of American government, all the while squandering the nation’s trust.

© All rights reserved.

California: Ringleaders in Massive International Fencing Ring were Afghan Special Refugees

/in , , , , , /by

You know those “brave boys” who worked for the US military in Afghanistan I’ve been telling you about; the ones who supposedly would have been killed if we left them in their home country; the ones we have been admitting as refugees to the US by the thousands—56,000 so far!  See here.

I’ll bet if you live in any state other than California, this is news to you.  Gotta hand it to local NBC for their great reporting and the Freemont, CA police for their undercover work!

And, many thanks to reader Michael who spotted the information (buried several paragraphs into the story) that those busted ringleaders include three who were welcomed to America by the US military!  So much for robust screening!

Upon their arrival you (your tax dollars) set them up with apartments, medical care and an assortment of social services.

I think we need to find out who in the military vouched for three of the Afghan creeps!

From NBC Bay Area earlier this month:

From an undercover car in a nondescript Hayward strip mall, detectives snapped photos as Isaiah Langley and D’anthony Larks walk into a cellphone store called Torspin Wireless with a bag police believed was stuffed with brand new iPhones.

A few minutes later, photos and video shot by detectives captured the men strolling casually out of the shop towards a black Audi SUV. The bag appeared empty, and they were openly carrying large bricks of cash. It was June 7, three days before Langley would sign a professional football contract with the Oakland Raiders.

Investigators from at least eight different Northern California law enforcement agencies were zeroing in on a crew police say were tied to more than 60 strong-arm robberies and grand thefts – from the Bay Area to Sacramento – targeting delivery drivers carrying shipments of brand new cellphones. Police tracked the crew for three more months, arresting Langley, Larks, and 10 others in August.

But as the Oakland Police Department and Alameda County District Attorney’s Office led the investigation into the suspected robbery crew, detectives from the Fremont Police Department took an interest in Torspin Wireless, the Hayward store police believed was just a front for a major fencing operation trafficking in stolen electronics.

[….]

Detectives began a months-long surveillance operation on the shop – watching time-after-time as customers walked into Torspin carrying boxes or bags and walking out with cash. Detectives would come to believe they’d found the Bay Area’s largest fencing operation for stolen electronics – and the starting point of an international pipeline of stolen phones spanning at least four continents.

[….]

Zemlok [ Fremont Police Detective Rick Zemlok] said the man calling the shots for the operation was one of the store’s three owners, Muhibullah Nuristani. The store’s other owners – Mohammad Mustafa and Abdul Janah – also took part in the suspected fencing ring, as well as Mujibullah Nuristani, a relative of Muhibullah, according to Zemlok. All but Mustafa had been granted citizenship in the United States after serving as translators for the U.S. Army during the war in Afghanistan, according to police and attorneys for the men.

Stolen phones were sold….

all over the globe, in Mexico, China, Russia, Vietnam, Singapore, Dubai, and Australia, among other countries.

There is much more here, see how the police stung the perps.

You paid for their flight to America, set them up with social services and now guess what….

….if found guilty you pay for their incarcerations!

RELATED ARTICLE: Seattle: Vietnamese Legal Immigrant Murdered by Mexican Illegal with Long Criminal Record

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Another Coup Bites the Dust [Video]

/in , , , , , , /by

I’m not going to invest my time and write an in depth analysis of the latest coup to bite the dust. Watch this clip below. I enter at time marker 8:45. In this interview with a former Obama Ambassador, I called it way back then. There is no whistle blower and there is nothing to whistle blow. Watch my final comments as they had a chuckle on me. I was right and I will be back and make sure they hear me again.

Watch This Clip at 8:45

On impeachment hearing eve, I joined Will Johnson on INFOWARS at Firepower. All of my views about what was to come once the impeachment hearing began are in this discussion. I nailed it. I enter at 1:06:37.

Whats Next?

This will drag on for a bit but another coup will bite the dust. Want to know what’s next? Indictments will be served against the deep state and its operatives more than likely before 2019 plays out. This process will soon begin. Read this important article titled “I Caught The Swamp”.

Clarion Call

This battle will rage on for the rest of our lives. Pray for our President and his family. No Trump-no hope. What we do right here, right now is for posterity. So when your children and grandchildren ask you “What were you doing when the global governance was being thrust down the throat of America and the world, what will your answer be? Freedom, it’s up to U.S.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: It’s democracy — not Trump — that’s on trial on Capitol Hill

FBI Data: Anti-Muslim hate crimes under Trump are below Obama levels in 2014

/in , , , , , , , , /by

The media has put out numerous pieces based on bad data and hate crime hoaxes claiming that President Trump was responsible for a rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes. Now the FBI data is out and it actually shows that anti-Muslim hate crimes under Trump are below Obama levels in 2014.

Does that mean that Obama was actually responsible for anti-Muslim hate crimes while Trump is a beacon of tolerance? If the media were logically consistent, instead of narratively consistent, then sure. But since the media is narratively consistent, that’s not the conclusion it will draw.

 By the numbers: Of 4,571 reported attacks the bureau tracked, aggravated assaults were up 4%, simple assaults up 15% and intimidation up 13%. The report also shows that assaults targeting Muslims, Arab Americans and African Americans have gone down, while violence against Latinos has risen.

The report says 485 hate crimes were reported against Latinos in 2018, compared to 43 in 2017.

270 hate crimes were reported against Muslims and Arab Americans — the lowest since 2014.

1,943 hate crimes were reported against African Americans — the lowest since 1992.

Guess which one of those numbers the media will play up and blame on President Trump?

Hint: It’s the negative one of the three.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Inside Mosques: Savannah and Statesboro, Georgia

New York Times called Baghdadi a “terrorist,” but scrubs “terror” from article about killing of “Palestinian” jihadi

RELATED VIDEO: Subtitled video of the Koran burn in Norway.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

7 Things to Know About Rep. Jim Jordan as He Leads GOP’s Defense of Trump

/in , , , , , , /by

As impeachment hearings took the spotlight on Capitol Hill, Rep. Jim Jordan, one of President Donald Trump’s fiercest defenders, is temporarily reassigned to the House committee driving the process, where the Ohio Republican already is questioning witnesses sharply and voicing his party’s frustration with the partisan process.

As recently as a week ago, Jordan was the top Republican on the House Oversight and Reform Committee, where he took part in closed-door depositions of witnesses before this week’s public hearings.

The change that placed Jordan on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence signals congressional Republicans’ faith in him as a capable communicator tasked with combating the attack strategy of Democratic lawmakers.

That’s exactly what Jordan sought to do during the first public impeachment hearing Wednesday with initial witnesses William Taylor, acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>

Here are seven things to know about the fiery Ohio lawmaker as he takes a leading role in the Republicans’ defense strategy for Trump in the impeachment inquiry.

1. He was founding chairman of the House Freedom Caucus.

As a staunch conservative who often butted heads with Republican Party leadership in Congress, Jordan helped to found the House Freedom Caucus in 2015.

Jordan, together with several other prominent congressional conservatives sympathetic to the tea party movement, started the caucus to consolidate support for strongly conservative policies and pressure then-House Speaker John Boehner, a fellow Ohio Republican, to take up more conservative legislation.

The Freedom Caucus was instrumental in Boehner’s resignation as House speaker when several members withdrew their support, and Boehner found it increasingly difficult to unify the right wing of the party with more moderate lawmakers.

Jordan served as the first chairman of the caucus from 2015 to 2017, and the group now has more than 30 members, all Republicans, in the House.

2. Boehner called him a “legislative terrorist.”

In case it wasn’t already clear, Jordan isn’t shy about undermining Republican leadership.

In an interview with Politico in 2017, Boehner recalled Jordan’s role in resisting his more moderate agenda.

“Jordan was a terrorist as a legislator going back to his days in the Ohio House and Senate,” Boehner said. “A terrorist. A legislative terrorist.”

3. He was a collegiate championship wrestler.

Jordan competed as a wrestler while attending the University of Wisconsin at Madison, winning two NCAA Division I championships in 1985 and 1986.

Even though he’s left his athletic career behind, Jordan still has a reputation as a fierce combatant, only this time it’s in the House instead of the gym.

4. He faced criticism surrounding his time as a wrestling coach.

Jordan was an assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State University from 1987 to 1995.

After numerous male athletes accused a team physician, Dr. Richard Strauss, of sexual abuse, Jordan came under fire for doing nothing to protect students at the time. He has said he was unaware of the abuse.

“The idea I’m not going to defend our athletes when I think they’re being harmed is ridiculous,” Jordan said on Monday, when asked about a college wrestling referee who claimed he told Jordan about allegations against Strauss, according to LimaOhio.com.

“This is just, this is someone making a false statement,” he added.

Democrats will likely continue to accuse Jordan of wrongdoing, especially as he takes a more visible role in the impeachment proceedings.

5. He argued for opening a special counsel probe (just not the Russia one).

In 2014, Jordan introduced a resolution calling on then-Attorney General Eric Holder to open a special counsel investigation into revelations that the IRS targeted the tax-exempt status of a number of conservative nonprofits.

Holder ordered an FBI investigation into the issue, and what was then called the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on which  Jordan served, found that conservative groups were targeted more often than liberal ones.

But with the appointment of a special counsel into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Jordan gained a new reputation as a fierce opponent of the investigation. He worked to undermine special counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein by questioning their impartiality, defining himself as a staunch defender of Trump in the process.

6. He ran for House speaker after Paul Ryan’s resignation.

Jordan took advantage of his position as one of the president’s closest allies to run for House speaker in 2018, when Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who had succeeded Boehner, retired.

Although House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., ultimately won the GOP conference’s vote, he didn’t become House speaker because Democrats recaptured the majority in the 2018 elections.

Jordan’s attempted push into party leadership in the House, however, secured his name among the upper echelons of Trump-era Republican power brokers.

McCarthy is now House minority leader, and put Jordan on the Intelligence Committee for the impeachment inquiry.

7. He has a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union.

Jordan is one of only three current lawmakers with a perfect lifetime score from the American Conservative Union, an organization that ranks members of Congress based on their voting records on conservative issues.

It should come as little surprise that Jordan has a perfect 100 rating. As a leading conservative in the House, he’s driven the conversation about conservative policies for years.

Now that he’s front and center for the impeachment hearings, Jordan is getting the chance to bring his fiery brand of conservatism to bear on witnesses in the inquiry.

COLUMN BY

Aaron Credeur

Aaron Credeur is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

7 Big Moments From Day 3 of the Public Impeachment Hearings

What You Need to Know About Impeachment

Jim Jordan: ‘No One Has Testified That There Has Been a Quid Pro Quo’

What If They Gave an Impeachment and Nobody Came?

You’ll Be Surprised Who Is Trying to Empower the Deep State at EPA

This Web Designer Shouldn’t Have to Wait to Be Free to Create

New Program Aims to Help Young Adults Grow in Faith, Maturity Before College

A Note for our Readers:

As we speak, Congress is moving to impeach the president.

We do not have all the facts yet, but based on what we know now, there does not seem to be an impeachable offense.

The questions stand: In drafting the Constitution, how did America’s founders intend for impeachment to be used? How does the impeachment process work, and what can history tell us about whether or not President Trump faces the real threat of being removed from office?

The Heritage Foundation is making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Another hijab hate hoax. This time in Denver

/in , , , , , , /by

Posted by Eeyore

There’s been an unexpected twist in the story of a metro Denver Muslim mom who says she faced “blatant racial profiling” after being stopped at a Pepsi Center entrance because of her hijab. Argus, the company that handles security for the Pepsi Center, is defending the actions of its employee and has released security footage of the incident.

The woman at the center of the episode is Gazella Bensreiti, who arrived at the Pepsi Center on November 5 with her daughter, whose school was scheduled to sing the national anthem before a Denver Nuggets-Miami Heat game.

On Facebook, Bensreiti wrote that “upon entering, a woman named Dorothea put her hand to my face and told me that I would have to ‘take that thing off’ of my head. I told her that I would not take it off due to religious reasons. I was wearing a turban/cap. I explained to her that it was my hijab and that I would not be taking it off, to which she responded, ‘I don’t care, you can’t come in with it on.’ I then asked if she’d be willing to take me to the side so that I could remove it and show her my entire head in private. Again, she told me no.’” […]

(The article continues with allegations etc. etc. and CAIR joins in of course. The truth of the incident can be seen in the video below)

The Human Tragedy of the Victims of Muslim Rape Gangs by Joshua Winston

/in , , , , , , /by

Everywhere Muslims settle, rape and grooming gangs spring up. Whether it be a town, city, village or a new land, rape is what many Muslim men become known for in the West. Every race and culture produce rapists, but none so flagrant and voluminous as Muslims (Pakistanis in particular). There is a new documentary released just now called “Why dad killed mum, my family’s secret.” Tasnim Lowe, the daughter of a young girl who was impregnated at a young age by a Muslim man and then killed along with her family in a fire that he deliberately started, is now seeking answers as to why her mother (Lucy Lowe) was killed. She is asking what red flags should have been set off by an adult man impregnating a 14-year-old girl at that time (roughly two decades ago). She is also asking what more her mother’s family could have done to prevent the deaths of her mother, aunt and grandmother at the hands of this violent Muslim man. After all, her mother started dating the 24-year-old man when she was only 13. Why was no one objecting to that? Why weren’t police and children’s services not going after a man who had raped a child in the eyes of the law?

In March, 2018, 18-year-old Tasnim (on Mother’s Day) saw her own dead mother’s face on the front page of a daily newspaper, coupled with an article stating that she had been the victim of a Muslim grooming gang. Her mother’s face is young in the picture, innocent and happy. Hard to believe that she should be involved with a grown man and having sexual relations, harder still to believe that such a young girl could be viewed as being sexually desirable by any man. Even harder to comprehend an adult wanting to terrorise her or manipulate her mind with a view towards raping and controlling her before finally murdering her. The sight of her mother’s face in relation to such a claim was a shock to Tasnim, and the reason was because another Muslim grooming gang in the area were acting in the exact same way as the Muslim man who killed her mother did. They were raping girls and threatening to burn down their victims’ houses with their family inside if they alerted the police or their parents to the fact that they were being raped and trafficked. An investigative journalist had been working for three years on a story that centered around the grooming of white girls at the hands of hundreds of Muslim men. The terrified girls were showing the journalist pictures of Lucy Lowe. Her death was being used as a warning to the girls of what would happen to them if they told anyone about what the Muslim men were currently doing to them.

The grooming, rape, beating, and trafficking of young white girls in the UK coupled with death threats is a pattern that Muslims follow the length of the country from Glasgow to Bristol. If something is a pattern, then it’s not random. Scientists (depending on the project), physicists, and astronomers look for patterns in order to prove their theories and to predict the behaviour of any particular organism, or equation, or planetary body. The rapes committed by Muslim men is a pattern unlike anything the West has ever seen, and the carnage provides the data that lays the blame at the feet of Muslim men. The obsession with virginal underage white girls drives them to commit atrocities that should have been resigned to the Medieval period, or confined in and contained to the barbaric lands of their birth.

The grooming and rapes committed by Muslim men consist of the same story that is sadly all too familiar at this point, and all too soul-numbing to recount: “a horrendous grooming ring that had been going on for decades, with girls raped, beaten, sold and some even killed…Survivors explained how the abuse worked; the groomers were nice to them at first – buying them takeaways or presents – before taking them to…be raped, or to people’s houses and passed around to friends…McKelvie kept hearing about one street where there was a row of seven or eight houses, “where there was pretty much a rapist in every house”. She also heard how underage girls were taken to rooms above takeaways to be assaulted and raped with the perpetrators selling them and making thousands of pounds.”

Tasnim’s Muslim father was called the “house blaze killer” and “the country’s worst ever murderer.” No mention was made that he is a Muslim, and no thought was given as to why he was behaving in that manner. Failings and neglect and incompetence by every safeguarding agency in the UK, from police right through to social workers, has allowed Muslim men to continue raping and grooming non-Muslim girls with impunity. And yet the number of Muslim rapists and groomers continues to swell in the UK, in spite of there being a spotlight now shining on them after a revolt from a very vocal public. Every week and month reveals a new Muslim grooming gang and the exact same horrors inflicted on a new bunch of girls who are already in or who are about to enter their teens. All of the Muslim gang members come from Muslim communities that Muslims have built. All of them are friends and neighbours, and a shockingly high number of them are related, with a granddad participating in the rape of a child tied to a bed at one point with his sons and grandsons. But do allow Muslims and imams and the media to tell you that the rapists’ families and their communities and their mosques had no idea what was going on. Lie down to the untruths that they spin if your brain can’t deal with the horrors. The shocking thing to me is that I find myself weary in the retelling of these tales. How many more times will I or anyone else have to type out the exact same stories with the only thing to have changed in the ensuing years being that of the next victims of Muslim rape gangs? The men’s religion and names won’t have changed. They’ll still be Muslims, and most of them will be called Muhammad (or a variant spelling), with the occasional Ali being thrown into the mix.

Of course it doesn’t help that police and media tend to forever be on the side of the Muslim rapists here in the UK. All of these agencies are prepared to lay sacrifices on the altar of multiculturalism. We think we live in a modern society, but these rapes and killings hearken back to the Aztecs and the blood sacrifices they offered to their Gods. Today the Gods that we offer up our sacrifices to are those Muslim men whose satanic impulses must be met and sated regardless the cost. In all these millennia, we haven’t really travelled that far after all. We still tolerate a bloodlust, and those who swear oaths to protect us are high priests who assist with the procuring and killings. With the Muslim male gangs in our society, the devil truly does walk among us.

COLUMN BY

 JOSHUA WINSTON

RELATED ARTICLES:

Scotland: A Further Slap in the Face for Victims of Muslim Rape Gangs

U of Florida prof: “Islamic State tries to boost its legitimacy by hijacking a historic institution,” the caliphate

France is target of more Islamic jihad attacks than any other EU state, French Leftists denounce “Islamophobia”

Germany: Muslim migrants harass and strike women at bachelorette party

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Trump Impeachment Not Justified by Evidence and Testimony Made Public So Far

/in , , , , , , , /by

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., hasn’t yet produced most of his witnesses in the public impeachment hearings regarding President Donald Trump. But if the State Department’s George Kent and acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor are representative of the testimony Democrats are relying on, future historians may label this episode “The Big Impeachment Blowout.”

The House impeachment inquiry is not a criminal proceeding. But as I listened to the hearsay and speculation that Kent and Taylor were offering Wednesday at the opening public hearing on impeachment, I couldn’t help thinking of REO Speedwagon’s song “Take It on the Run.”

One line of the song says: “Heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another you been messin’ around.”

Both Kent and Taylor admitted they never talked to Trump and only heard thirdhand what supposedly occurred in the president’s July 25 telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>

Democrats seem to have dropped the quid pro quo claim, since there was no evidence of it in the rough transcript the White House released of the call. The claim does not seem to be playing with the American public.

Taylor admitted in the hearing that Zelenskyy had no idea that U.S. aid was being delayed, and Zelenskyy himself has said there was no quid pro quo.

Democrats have now switched to using the terms “bribery” and “extortion,” no doubt because those terms sound more sinister, despite the fact that they’ve produced no evidence—so far—that would come even close to showing a violation of the federal laws defining bribery and extortion.

Both witnesses expressed their opinions disagreeing with the way Trump has conducted diplomatic relations with Ukraine and the handling of U.S. aid to the country.

But the president is not a postman for Congress or the State Department. His job is to faithfully execute the law. As the chief diplomat of the United States, he defines our foreign policy, not George Kent or William Taylor.

Our country doesn’t give money or aid to other countries for no reason. We give it with specific conditions attached.

The president has a duty to make sure that our money is going to countries that will use it as we intend and not divert it into profiteering and personal corruption. State Department bureaucrats have never been good at ensuring that countries prevent such corruption.

The priority of our diplomats is to maintain their access to government officials in the countries in which they are stationed. This too often overrides their duty to guard against corruption. The president has the final responsibility for ensuring U.S. aid is not improperly diverted in other nations.

It was widely known that Ukraine had, and still has, a corruption problem. It would have been irresponsible for Trump not to look into corruption and demand changes before our money went there.

Even Kent admitted in his testimony that Burisma, the Ukrainian company that employed former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden as a highly paid board member, was part of the “pervasive and longstanding corruption in Ukraine.”

Of course, we will not hear any facts about that because Schiff has refused to allow the Republicans to call Hunter Biden as a witness, which would enable the younger Biden’s possible self-dealing in Ukraine to be investigated.

If everything Hunter Biden and his father Joe Biden did was ethical and above board when it came to Ukraine, why wouldn’t Democrats want Hunter Biden to testify?

And why has Schiff’s committee blocked the Republicans from being able to call the so-called whistleblower who started this whole show trial that Democrats call an impeachment inquiry? What are they afraid will come out about this government employee that might damage his credibility and the claims he is making?

Apparently, Schiff doesn’t want any testimony that would support the legitimacy of the president’s corruption concerns about Ukraine or would somehow detract from the impeachment narrative Democrats are trying to weave into the minds of the American public.

We certainly won’t have an objective, bipartisan inquiry into all of the relevant aspects of what happened here—and why it happened. Schiff even interrupted Republican questioning to tell witnesses they should not answer questions based on “facts not in evidence,” a bizarre statement given the nature of a congressional hearing and how it is normally conducted.

Schiff used to be an assistant U.S. attorney—a federal prosecutor. Like all people in that position, he had to follow the U.S. Attorneys’ Justice Manual.

Before taking a case to a grand jury, much less to trial, Schiff had to convince his boss, in writing, that he had evidence establishing a case. He couldn’t just wing it and submit a case, however weak, based entirely on hearsay, to the grand jury on the off-chance it would indict.

Yet that is exactly what Schiff is doing here—throwing witnesses into closed and now open hearings hoping that he can stir the political pot into an impeachment boil.

It would undermine our system of government for a duly elected president to be removed through impeachment for partisan reasons.

Impeachment should only be used when there has been serious, substantial misconduct of such a nature that we can’t wait for the next election. As far as is publicly known at this time, that standard has not been met regarding Trump.

Originally published by Fox News

COMMENTARY BY

Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Adam Schiff, Founding Father: The chief impeacher tries to redefine ‘bribery’ under the law.

Here Are the Backgrounds of 4 Lawyers for Impeachment Witnesses

Everything You Need to Know About What’s Happening in Impeachment Process

A Note for our Readers:

As we speak, Congress is moving to impeach the president.

We do not have all the facts yet, but based on what we know now, there does not seem to be an impeachable offense.

The questions stand: In drafting the Constitution, how did America’s founders intend for impeachment to be used? How does the impeachment process work, and what can history tell us about whether or not President Trump faces the real threat of being removed from office?

The Heritage Foundation is making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Lt. Col. Allen West Commends President Trump for His Clemency and Restoration of Rank to Three Service Members

/in , , , , /by

DALLAS, Nov. 15, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — Lt. Col. Allen West is elated that President Trump has brought justice to Army First Lieutenant Clint Lorance, Army Major Matthew Golsteyn, and Special Warfare Operator First Class Edward R. Gallagher.

Since 2013, Allen West has lobbied for the release of First Lieutenant Clint Lorance and has been a committed supporter of both Major Golsteyn and Operator Gallagher.

Lt. Col. West is thrilled that,

“The travesty of injustice for these men is over, especially Texan First Lieutenant Clint Lorance. These men aren’t guilty of war crimes, they simply did what combat leaders are supposed to do, engage and kill the enemy. If our Army could set Bowe Bergdahl and Bradley Manning free, who were guilty of desertion and treason, then no one should raise a contrarian voice in the matter of these pardons. Now, the military JAG officers responsible for withholding exculpatory evidence should be disciplined. God’s blessings to the families and to all who never lost faith and kept speaking up and out. Thanks, President Trump, for doing the right thing and standing up for our combat warriors.”

This is just another clarion example of how Republican and Democrat leadership diverges. Democrats pardon and release traitors, Republicans protect heroes.

Colonel West’s full statement and other releases can be found here.

Iranian Engineer in US Sent Tech Secrets Back to Iran: FBI

/in , , , , , /by

An Iranian visiting scholar at the University of Michigan is in FBI custody after being charged with stealing and sending tech secrets back to Iran.

Amin Hasanzadeh, the accused, is an electrical engineer and Iranian military veteran who worked at a company linked to the Iranian government’s Cruise Division of Air & Space Organization. Hasanzadeh is also a permanent resident of the U.S.

He is accused of sending the sensitive information to his brother who worked at a number of companies connected to Iran’s military programs, including one that “contributes to Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities.”

Hasanzadeh started working as a defense contractor in Florida in 2011 developing power electronics computer designs. He worked in a similar job in Maryland before landing a job in Michigan in January 2015.

The FBI says Hasanzadeh stole the information from the company in Michigan over the period of a year and a half and began sending sensitive information to his brother in Iran just six days into the job.

The information was covered by a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) he had signed.

According to an FBI affidavit, “A senior company official advised that any unauthorized disclosure or theft of partner company documents and information protected under an NDA could be ‘catastrophic.’”

The information he stole and sent to his brother included information about the company’s products, including trade secrets, and a prototype for a part of one of the company’s “important products,” stated the FBI complaint.

“Iran certainly does have as a goal improving its military capabilities and uses espionage as a means at its disposal to acquire information and technology it would have a hard time developing indigenously,” said Eric Brewer, deputy director and fellow with the Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, speaking to The Jerusalem Post.

Brewer said the theft is part of Iran’s strategy to steal trade secrets from the West to improve their military and defense systems.

Hasanzadeh is charged with interstate transportation of stolen property and fraud (for not disclosing he had been in the Iranian military).

Last week, two Iranians pleaded guilty to acting as illegal agents of the Iranian government in the U.S.

Ahmadreza Mohammadi-Doostdar, 39, an Iranian with dual U.S. citizenship, and Majid Ghorbani, 60, were caught running surveillance on Jewish facilities and events in the U.S. in support of the Mujahdein-e Khalq (MEK), an exiled Iranian resistance group that advocates for the complete overthrow of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his Islamist regime.

According to an FBI affidavit, the two Iranian agents were also preparing “target packages” – i.e., attacks — on individuals who posed threats to the Iranian regime on American soil.

RELATED STORIES:

Trump Bars Iranian Gov’t Officials & Relatives From US 

Iranian Agents in US Plead Guilty; Saudi Agents Arrested

LOL: Europe ‘Comes Out’ Against Iran for Attack on Saudis

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Watch the Impeachment shoe of Marie Yovanovitch fall.

/in , , , , , /by

Following the failure of the two witnesses on Day One of the Schiff Impeachment Star Chamber to land a blow on the US President, the “star” performer on Day Two promises to be the Obama-appointed US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.

Yovanovitch was an enabler of the DNC’s attempts in Kiev to access Ukrainian officials to dig up dirt on candidate Trump prior to the 2016 election. They ended up with zero dirt of Trump but moved to target anyone in Trump’s inner campaign circle.

Yovanovitch also protected George Soros’s meddling in the Ukraine via his faux “anti-corruption” NGO, Anti-Corruption Action Center.  A Soros representative told John Solomon that the anti-corruption group was a Trojan Horse in advance of Soros’s intention to invest a billion dollars in the Ukraine.

George Kent, the bow-tied witness on Day One of the Hearing, actually signed a letter to Yuriy Stolyarchuk, the Ukrainian Deputy Prosecutor General, dated April 4, 2016, in which he spoke about the financial assistance for joint US projects with the Prosecutor General’s office more than hinted for them to lay off their investigation into Soros’s NGO.

“The investigation into the actions of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, based on the assistance they have received from us, is similarly misplaced.”  Get the hint?

As John Solomon of The Hill exposed. Yovanovitch gave a speech on March 5, 2019, in which she called for Ukraine’s special anticorruption prosecutor to be removed, and the Ukrainian media went wild that a US official was interfering in their internal affairs. Under Secretary of State, David Hale, got peppered with questions whether her actions and statements violated international code of behavior under the Geneva Convention.

Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, was alerted to Yovanovitch’s anti-Trump statements by a senior Congress member. It was echoed by Republican lawmaker.

In mid-March, 2016, the new Ukraine Chief Prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, told John Solomon, that in his first meeting with Ambassador Yovanovitch, she gave him the names of several Ukrainians she did not want investigated and prosecuted!  This was a very strange request for a foreign ambassador to ask of a host country.

John Solomon received confirmation from a Ukrainian official who confirmed that,

“at least some of the names are those that US Embassy Kiev raised with the General Prosecutor because we were concerned about retribution and unfair treatment of Ukrainians viewed as favorable to the United States.”

In other words, the State Department was confirming that its own embassy under Yovanovitch had engaged in pressure on Ukrainian prosecutors to drop certain cases and investigations, as the new prosecutor was admitting.

This ties in with the letter signed by George Kent, the Democrats prime witness, that demanded the Ukrainian prosecutor drop the case against Soros’s NGO.

The bow-tied Kent had also demanded that the Ukrainian prosecutor drop investigations into Sergey Leschenko, a Ukrainian parliamentarian, and Artem Sytnyk, a senior law-enforcement official, who had assisted the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 US elections by divulging information about a former Trump campaign figure, Paul Manafort.

When pressed by the New York Times, Ukrainian prosecutor Lutsenko stood by his statement that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch did provide him with names of individuals and groups she did not want investigating.

One final point. The writer has been told that Marie Yovanovitch denied a US entry visa to prosecutor Lutsenko to visit with the US Department of Justice to provide them with documents and information on this issue. I am still waiting for verification and confirmation on this point. I hope it will be brought up during her Impeachment cross examination by Republican lawmakers.

© All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Sheriff David Clarke on What President Trump is up against during the impeachment circus!

/in , , , , , , /by

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

Sheriff David Clarke is America’s Sheriff and he now serves as a Senior Advisor and Spokesman for America First Action, dedicated to supporting the Trump/Pence agenda. He recently retired as the Sheriff of Milwaukee County after nearly 40 years in law enforcement. The Sheriff’s latest book is: Cop Under Fire: Beyond Hashtags of Race, Crime and Politics for a Better America. We will talk with Sheriff Clarke about draining the swamp (with Drano) and how the resist movement is trying to protect the swamp. TOPIC…What President Trump is up against during the impeachment circus!!

Tom Del Beccaro is an acclaimed author, commentator and analyst and an opinion writer at Fox News, Fox Business & Epoch Times. Tom is also the former Chairman of the California Republican Party. Tom is author of two excellent books — The Divided Era and The New Conservative Paradigm and is publisher of PoliticalVanguard.com. He also has a new website — TomDel.com where all his work can be found. As a frequent talk radio and television commentator, he has appeared across the Country on TV and Radio Shows, heard by millions each year, including the Conservative Commandoes, Fox & Friends, Fox Business News, and the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal. TOPIC…The freak show that is being called the impeachment inquiry!!

The Whistle-Blower Rule is Wrong

/in , , , , , , /by

The impeachment inquiry of President Trump has taken center stage in the political campaign of 2020, even to the point of overshadowing press coverage of the Democrat presidential candidates. The inquiry focuses on a statement from an alleged whistle-blower who expressed concern regarding a telephone call the President had with the incoming President of the Ukraine. As of this writing, the whistle-blower’s identity remains anonymous. Frankly, we do not know if this is one person or several as the complaint appears to have been written by a team of lawyers. As a result, the President and his representatives cannot ask questions of his accuser.

I have tried to look at this from both sides, Republican and Democrat, and took the position; what if this was President Obama being impeached and not President Trump? Be it Republican or Democrat, I came to the same conclusions.

The protection of the whistle-blower’s anonymity could easily be construed as in conflict with Amendment 6 of the Constitution (Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions; the “Confrontation Clause”); to wit:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

This applies to criminal cases, not civil. I tend to see impeachment as a rather serious situation, after all it is reserved for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It is also something we have considered only a handful of times in our republic’s history, yet we have never removed a president from office.

Frankly, we all know it will not happen as the Senate will inevitably come to the president’s defense and dismiss the charges coming from the House. The question remains, is impeachment a criminal case or civil? In all examples over the years, it has been treated as a heinous crime, which leads me to believe it is criminal and the President is being prohibited from facing his accuser(s).

Our history is littered with stories of whistle-blowers, such as in 2013 Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor who ignited the U.S. surveillance program scandal. There are also the whistle-blowers involved with the Benghazi scandal and the IRS intimidation program. Whistle-blowers have actually been with us a long time. In my life, it goes back to Daniel Ellsberg who in 1969 released the “Pentagon Papers” to the “New York Times,” detailing the military activity in Viet Nam under LBJ and Nixon. This, of course, ultimately triggered Watergate.

However, let’s go a little further back in time to 1925 when the Army instigated a court-martial against Colonel Billy Mitchell, an episode which has quickly been forgotten in history, but has an important bearing on the whistle-blowers of today.

Although Mitchell is primarily credited for building Air Power in this country, his military career goes as far back as the Spanish-American War where he served as the youngest Army officer (at age 18). Mitchell’s notoriety though began during “The Great War” (WWI) where, as Major, he became the first American officer to come under fire in the trenches of France. During the war, he earned several decorations and citations. More importantly, it was in France where he developed his fascination and passion for the airplane as a military weapon.

Mitchell understood the potential of the airplane. His superiors did not, and saw it as nothing more than a trivial instrument for observing enemy forces. They laughed at him when he claimed airplanes could sink a ship by dropping bombs on it. At the time, battleships were considered invincible. He finally got an opportunity to prove his claim and sank the German battleship “Ostfriesland” which was to be scuttled following the war. Nonetheless, the military was unimpressed. Following the war, in peacetime, there was an emphasis on shrinking the military. Even though Mitchell begged for money for research and development, he was ignored. He even urged the military to form a separate branch dedicated to an air service, but was denied. Consequently, American Air Power diminished almost to obscurity. The English, French, Italians, even the Germans had far superior airships than the Americans, and Mitchell made sure the newspapers knew about it.

Knowing Mitchell’s image was growing larger in the press, the military sent him on remote assignments in order to eliminate his exposure in the press. In 1924 he was sent to study military defenses in the Pacific. During this time, he visited Japan and witnessed firsthand how the Japanese were embracing Air Power and realized America was far behind their counterparts. Following his tour he produced an extensive 323 page report on his assessment of American defenses in the Pacific. It was in this prophetic report that he predicted how Japan would attack Pearl Harbor with remarkable accuracy. Even though the military dismissed his report as ridiculous, Mitchell’s predictions would come true 17 years later. Nonetheless, he was buried again by the military.

One year later, in 1925, the Navy dirigible “Shenandoah” was destroyed in a storm in Ohio, with a loss of thirteen lives. Mitchell was outraged as he knew the ship was archaic and denounced the Navy for its “almost treasonable” attitude towards aviation:

“As a patriotic American citizen, I can stand by no longer and see these disgusting performances…at the expense of the lives of our people and the delusion of the American public. We may all make mistakes but the criminal mistakes made by armies and navies, whenever they have been allowed to handle aeronautics, show their incompetence…This, then, is what I have to say on the subject, and I hope that every American will hear.”(1)

Although Mitchell became a hero to the American people for his bold statements, his superiors felt otherwise and court-martialed him for insubordination. Actually, the court-martial was what Mitchell was hoping for as he figured it was the best way to bring attention to the problem and create change. The case garnered a lot of attention in the press, and many notable proponents of Air Power testified on his behalf. In the end though, Mitchell was suspended from the Army for five years. Instead, Mitchell resigned in 1926 and spent the remainder of his life speaking on behalf of Air Power. He would die in 1936 never knowing how accurate his predictions would become in World War II. In 1942, President Roosevelt, recognized Mitchell’s contributions to Air Power by restoring his status and elevating him to the rank of Major General. In 1946, he was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, “in recognition of his outstanding pioneer service and foresight in the field of American military aviation”…10 years after his death. Today, this medal bears his likeness on it.

There are some similarities, as well as differences, between Billy Mitchell and today’s impeachment whistle-blower(s). Mitchell was a visionary who used his court-martial to draw public attention to the problems of Air Power. Today’s whistle-blower is not a visionary. He/She/They just stumbled on a problem and reported it. Whereas Mitchell stood and took his medicine as a military officer, thereby garnering the support of the American people, the impeachment whistle-blower(s) hid behind anonymity not wanting to suffer through a career ending court case as Mitchell did.

The big problem with becoming a whistle blower is that it doesn’t pay well. You might earn the admiration of the American people, but you must also face the wrath of the establishment. It takes someone with a lot of character to stand up and report a problem, whether it be in the corporate world or government. The prime difference between Billy Mitchell and today’s whistle-blower(s) is simple: Mitchell stood like a courageous man and took his medicine; the whistle-blower(s) has not. Understand this though, the American Air Power we know today can be directly attributed to the efforts of Billy Mitchell. Had he not spoken up when he did, our air defenses would have been primitive by the start of World War II. Mitchell knew what he was talking about and would not be intimidated by the powers in authority. This leads me to believe today’s impeachment whistle-bower(s) can be intimidated, and perhaps has been threatened by others.

In the end, the president is entitled to face his accuser, whatever his/her/their name is.

1-“The Billy Mitchell Story” by Burke Davis, page 102

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also do not forget my new books, “How to Run a Nonprofit” and “Tim’s Senior Moments”, both available in Printed and eBook form.

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.