Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing reveal Brennan was the mastermind of the Russia hoax

American Thinker

By Thomas Lifson

Anyone closely following the Russia hoax and its collapse understands that D.C. super-lawyers Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing have by far the best track record in accurately calling out the nature of the scandal and identifying the coming revelations.  I do not know either of them and have not communicated with them personally, but judging from their public statements, and inferring from their career histories, they must have very highly placed sources talking to them about the case — and quite possibly asking for advice or acting as sounding boards — about future actions to ensure that the facts are properly aired and the persons responsible for the abuses are held to account.  All of this is in the face of the fiercest possible resistance by members of the Deep State embedded in law enforcement, intelligence agencies, the DOJ, and the media — and maybe even in the White House staff.

Yesterday, they spent an hour with Sebastian Gorka on his Salem Radio syndicated talk show and gave us a preview of sorts about where the scandal is headed next.  The entire show is available on YouTube, minus most of the commercial breaks, and well worth a listen.  If you haven’t got much time, I suggest you start at about 20 minutes into the video and follow through to the end, 15 minutes later.


YouTube screen grab.

 

The most important bombshell they released is that they believe that John Brennan, then head of the CIA, was the core of the conspiracy.  Victoria Toensing added that this is because Clapper is too dumb to pull off such an operation.

They also revealed that Admiral Mike Rogers is happily willing to testify about the abuses he uncovered, which actually triggered the initiation of the Russiagate plot.  Recall that when he was head of the National Security Agency (NSA), which comprehensively monitors telecommunications, he discovered that political appointees in the White House were using its database on a huge scale to monitor political opponents and acted to cut off that access.  Suddenly cut off from their ability to spy on political opponents, and almost certainly fearful of public exposure should Hillary Clinton be defeated, the wheels were put in motion (with Brennan in the lead) to generate the Steele dossier and the FISA warrants to both spy on and tar the threat of a Trump presidency.

Continue reading

Electoral College scheme: Grounds for civil war?

Renew AmericaBy Alan Keyes

 

Though all members of Congress are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, it’s hard to believe that the Democrats among them have any intention of honoring that oath. In their bid to establish dictatorial, totalitarian, socialist rule in the United States, Democrats all over the country are pushing a plainly anti-constitutional scheme to erase the constitutional method for electing the president of the United States. Before considering their scheme, however, we need to remember why the people of the founding generation rejected the idea of electing the president by means of a national plebiscite, in which the people of the entire nation would vote, en masse, to decide the election.

 


People who in one form or another favor schemes for socialist dictatorship push the notion that “democracy” demands simple one-man, one-vote majority rule, in which the mass of the people divides against itself to make choices for the whole. But the leading lights of America’s founding generation rejected this approach in light of the fact that schemes for democratic government based on this approach have invariably failed. Within one or two generations, they declined through the cycle by which democracy declines toward tyranny through the machination of ambitious demagogues.

Demagogic tyranny, by encouraging the machinations of conspiratorial oligarchic cliques, declines toward the tyranny of one or another of the cliques, supplanting, neglecting and usurping democratic means. Oligarchs’ warlike competition impels them to rely more and more openly on violence, and thence on organized military forces. The authoritarian character of their strategic competition shifts power toward the force organized and directed by the most effective military genius. The conspiratorial rule of oligarchs is thus supplanted by the imperial military rule of the force inspired by that genius, military rule that uses it to rule over oligarchs and the people, as a whole.

This cycle of tyrannical regimes has mostly dominated the experience of humanity, punctuated by occasion intervals in which some balance of opposing powers enforces mutual respect for some semblance of right and justice informed by the voice of reason and goodwill. During the colonial period, however, the good people of the United States were encouraged by the potential for self-government discovered by their experiments in Christian polity. Their success encouraged them to believe that people inspired by faith to accept the wholesome self-discipline that Christianity demands of individuals could establish and maintain a form of government in which the occasional respite from the cycle of governments empowered by force and fear could be made permanent. They could transform the accidental balance of powerful forces into a permanent equilibrium of self-disciplined interests.

Instead of opposing forces temporarily stymied by their mutual opposition, that equilibrium would be sustained by the goodwill of individuals, self-consciously avowed to respect a common standard of God-endowed right and justice. That standard would, in turn, inform the measures (laws) they agreed upon to maintain and support their relations with one another. Moreover, as the habit and good fruits of that deliberate cooperation confirmed its worth, these people of goodwill would continually perfect the union born of their common sense of right and justice.

This vision of government of, by, and for the good people of the United States is a far cry from the forced notion of democratic dictatorship, based on the power of the masses. This individual-minded vision assumes that people are just that – human beings, not lumps of stone or clay. It assumes that they are motivated, as individuals, by a decent sense of right and wrong. It assumes that they have a conscience that impels them to see beyond the passions of the moment, in order to appreciate the good of the whole they comprise together, and from which they draw mutually supportive aid and good fruits. Above all, it assumes the activity of individuals, informed by a common sense of God-endowed right, who act in concert deliberately, not in mindless response to the pricks and goad of fear, grievance, or prideful passion.

With this in mind, consider the method of electing the president of the United States known to our history as the “Electoral College.” It involves voting by the whole people of the United States. But in the first place, that whole is divided into individual states. In the individual states, it is divided into individual districts. And in the individual districts, it focuses on the selection of individuals who best represent the whole people of each district.

The resultant vote is national in scope. But in substance, it reflects the diverse judgments of an array of districts. The individuals in those districts are not called to choose for the whole nation. They are called to choose, from among individuals living in their own area and general circumstances, someone who will represent their area’s overall spirit, mind, and circumstances, and will take them into account when making a judgment about the whole nation. But it must also be someone they trust to make that judgment with the care and concern they themselves have for the nation’s welfare.

Because the electors are chosen state by state, each state contributes to the outcome. Because their number reflects the total representation of the state in the national legislature, each state contributes to the result according to its weight in the national councils. The balance of diverse areas, interests and concerns is reflected in the process. It is not just a matter of numbers, but of distribution. No states are neglected, and each is given its due. Even as we describe the process, the description brings to mind the equilibrium the Constitution was crafted to maintain.

Now consider what the Democrats propose to do. They want a vote by the masses in each state. They then want all the states’ electoral votes to be cast for the candidate who wins a majority of votes nationwide. This would, in some cases, nullify the votes of the people of the state, imposing the national result on them regardless of their preference. Though the liars promoting it claim that this would count every vote, it actually means this: In states that have seceded from the Constitution, if the Democratic presidential candidate wins the national vote, all the states’ electoral votes will go to the Democrat, regardless of how the people of each state or district voted. Voters in non-Democratic districts will send no electors forward to cast their votes according to their preference. Their votes will, therefore, count for nothing, contrary to the Constitution’s intention.

Because the Democratic Party is now openly committed to the imposition of socialist, totalitarian dictatorship, they have no use for the equilibrium of interests the Constitution was framed to maintain. They want domination to result from the force of democratic power, not from a balanced account of the people’s goodwill. The result will reignite the cycle of tyrannical regimes the U.S. Constitution has helped the United States to avoid. It will put us on the path of perpetual tyranny, alternating with periods of bloody conflict, characteristic of human history, and of the totalitarian dictatorships that have blasted the prospects of all the nations socialists have conquered.

Fortunately, the result they aim to achieve cannot be achieved without a constitutional amendment. The states have no lawmaking power to alter the authority of electors chosen by the people. States can regulate the manner of choosing the electors, but they cannot dictate the terms of their vote, as if the electors themselves do not exist. Such legislation is not a law; it is an act of rebellion against the duly constituted government of the United States. If they pretend to claim power as a result of this anti-constitutional scheme, their rebellion will properly be the signal for civil war.

© Alan Keyes

Deep State Conspirators Shared Unmasked Targets With Foreign Intelligence Services

Ace of Spades blog

Ace

Remember the US intelligence trick? They can’t spy on US citizens without a warrant sufficient to clear the probable cause evidentiary hurdle. But if they tell foreign intelligence services to do the spying and slip the results back to the US intelligence community, they get their spying done by proxy, avoiding a judge’s scrutiny and any intersection with the US Constitution at all.

I think that that sort of thing maybe can be used on occasion. When there’s something very serious to investigate.

But here? No one has been charged with any kind of espionage or conspiracy with Russia after two and half, maybe three years of foreign intelligence service wiretaps, US wiretaps, undercover agent infiltration, grand jury investigations, etc.

Was this really the sort of situation where you resort to the anti-constitutional back door to get your spy on?

Well, it is — if you’re determined to win an election for your successor and the intelligence community supports you in that, and no one minds that they are devolving the United States of America into the grubbiest, most venal third world junta.

“A secret memo granted broad rights to the FBI to share information gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act with foreign officials. Two-way exchange of information with foreign officials could allow the politicized targeting of Americans, since foreign nations aren’t obligated to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The efforts by the Justice Department to gather information on Trump aides repeatedly involved figures associated with foreign agencies.

Foreign allies strongly opposed President Donald Trump declassifying information illuminating the investigation into Russian collusion.”

Gee, I wonder why our foreign allies oppose this move so much.

Well, their names can be blacked out and recorded as “FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES 1 and 2” as we do when we mask other actors we don’t wish to embarrass.

But the story of how the Obama Administration weaponized the intelligence community to rig an election must be told.

Monica Crowley argues in favor of a theory many of us believe — that the intelligence community, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Rice, etc. have been attacking Trump as viciously as possible because they know that they themselves might be facing actual criminal proceedings, and they want to make the record as dirty as possible so that non prosecutor would press such a case involving accusations and counter-accusations.

“The best defense, the saying goes, is a good offense. The key orchestrators of the Big Trump-Russia Collusion Lie seem to have hewed tightly to that tactical advice.

Over the past two years, one of their biggest “tells” has been their hyper-aggressive and gratuitous attacks on the president. Given that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation found no collusion or obstruction of justice, their constant broadsides now look, in retrospect, like calculated pre-emptive strikes to deflect attention and culpability away from themselves.

By accusing Mr. Trump of what they themselves were guilty of, they created a masterful distraction through projection.

We now know that former FBI Director James Comey and his deputy, Andrew McCabe, are hip-deep in the conspiracy. Both wrote supposed “tell-all” books and carpet-bombed the media with interviews in which they regularly flung criminal accusations against the president. Whenever asked about their own roles, they reverted to denouncing Mr. Trump.

With Mr. Mueller’s findings, Mr. Comey’s and Mr. McCabe’s media benders look increasingly suspicious.

As do those of their comrades in the Obama national security apparatus, including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and his partner in possible crime, former CIA Director John Brennan, who, apart from former President Barack Obama himself, may be the biggest player of them all.” —

Julie Kelly at AmGreat also has her eye on John Brennan.

— “It was clear that Gowdy, who left office this year, already suspected Brennan largely had relied on the infamous Steele dossier as the primary source for his claims about Russian election activity. Gowdy asked Brennan directly whether the CIA had relied on the dossier.

“No,” Brennan answered. “It wasn’t part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community’s assessment that was done. Uh, it was, it was not.”

[T]he report was always thin gruel to fortify such a damning accusation; the substance of the document runs about 12 pages with plenty of white space, irrelevant images and a graph of the social media footprint of news outlets such as Russia Today and CNN….

Did Brennan Lie to Congress?

Now, there are questions about Brennan’s truthfulness in that testimony. On Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted that “a high-level source tells me it was Brennan who insisted that the unverified and fake Steele dossier be included in the Intelligence Report . . . Brennan should be asked to testify under oath in Congress ASAP.”

It’s a widely held belief — which can’t yet be proven, because the FBI and DOJ won’t tell us anything about what they did to get the FISA wiretap authorization — that the First FISA application, which was denied by the court, relied almost entirely on the dossier.

Having had that “corpus of intelligence” rejected as bullshit, they then attempted to phony up a case against George Papadopolous and Carter Page and get a FISA warrant based mostly on bullshit about them — while still referencing the dossier.

Again, we can’t prove this, but it is interesting that the FBI and DOJ are so stridently opposed to telling the people who pay their salaries what did happen here.

Finally, Devon Nunes says he might refer up to two dozen people for possible criminal charges, largely owing to lying to Congress and investigators — a criminal law which has previously only applied to Republicans or Republican-associates, but which it’s time to begin imposing on Democrats and Obama officials.

“Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., appeared to raise exceptions for the number of people who could be the subject of a criminal referral he plans to submit to the Justice Department in the coming days that focuses on the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. …

“The American people need to have confidence in the FBI and the Department of Justice. We are working on the referrals,” Nunes said. “There’s going to be many of them. There are going to probably at least be a dozen if not two dozen individuals, and as we continue to get more information and build these and build them out, we want to make sure that everything is finished before we turn them in.”

Affirming commentary by host Sean Hannity about preventing future underhanded tactics to undermine President Trump, Nunes said, “There are people who definitely lied and misled Congress, OK? If they don’t go to prison, we are going to have a two-tier Justice Department, justice system in this country and it is not going to be good for the American people.”

Open Letter to Congress

Open Letter to Congress

CFP

By

 

It’s astonishing to watch members of Congress go on live television and pretend they don’t know how the Russian Delusion happened. A Republican congressman went on Fox and said, “we are going to look into what happened and look for ways to prevent it from happening again.” Translation: We are going to use this to pass more tyrannical laws that restrict and oppress the people. For the record, Congress, you enabled the scam by creating an unconstitutional secret court, a Star Chamber, to spy on American citizens. Remember FISA, congressman?

FISA court enabled the Obama administration to violate the Constitutional rights of everyone involved in the Trump campaign

As a matter of fact, a FISA court enabled the Obama administration to violate the Constitutional rights of everyone involved in the Trump campaign including the President, but there’s not one member of Congress, other than Rand Paul, who has acknowledged that fact. That begs the question: Is Congress so stupid that they can’t figure out how it happened, or is it that Congress doesn’t really want to prevent it from happening again? Either way, Congress has a reputation for side stepping issues, kicking the can down the road and creating new problems.

Moreover, Congress has a long standing reputation, well deserved I might add, for being a bunch of self serving politicians. The are many reasons why Americans think you are self serving politicians, and it goes all the way back to 1912 when Congressional Democrats sold America out to foreign bankers through the Federal Reserve Act. Congress not only turned America into a debtor nation, they put the American people on the hook for the debt—without the people’s consent.

Furthermore, Congress not only gave the farm away to foreign banksters they farmed out their constitutional responsibilities to unelected bureaucrats who run federal agencies that Congress created for that purpose. Congress created an alphabet soup of federal agencies run by unelected bureaucrats that have the power to make laws under the guise of rules and regulations. Congress also created the Department of Education that turned U.S. schools and universities into indoctrination centers that turn out a steady stream of socialist morons that think the electoral college is a university.

On top of that, Congress gave their Constitutional duty to regulate foreign trade and commerce to foreign bureaucrats under the guise of trade agreements. Talk about sell outs!

Republicans had a chance to restore faith in the Republican party by repealing Obamacare

Additionally, another Republican congressman went on Fox and said, “the American people don’t trust government anymore, and we have to do what we can to restore faith in government.” Hey congressman, try listening to the people who elected you and keeping your promises. Republicans had a chance to restore faith in the Republican party by repealing Obamacare. Remember Obamacare, Congressman, that you promised to repeal? We are still waiting for you to fulfill that promise. We don’t want another socialist replacement for Obamacare, we want it repealed, period.

To put it into perspective, the socialist Affordable Care Act caused the cost of health insurance to become UN-affordable for most Americans, but Congress didn’t share in the inflated costs because they voted themselves a Rolls Royce heathcare plan at the public’s expense. And even though Obamacare is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court, charged with protecting and preserving the Constitution, found a way around it. What’s irritating about it is that the majority of Americans were opposed to Obamacare, but we had no voice in the matter.

Furthermore, Congress has proven, time and time again, that the people do not have a voice in government. Congress passes tyrannical legislation like the phony Patriot Act, reinstated as the phony Freedom Act, that violates our constitutional rights, but we have no way to redress these wrongs, no voice speaking on our behalf, although that’s what Congress is suppose to be – our voice not our oppressors. We don’t have faith in government because we have to accept anything Congress, bureaucrats and courts throw at us, whether it’s constitutional or not.

Speaking of throwing things at us, Congress occasionally throws some scraps at us. The last Social Security raise is a good example of that. An elderly widow, who gets $960 a month, was excited when she heard that a generous Congress approved a 2.8 percent increase in her monthly allowance. I didn’t have the heart to tell her that 2.8 percent of her monthly government allowance wouldn’t buy much. But that’s how socialism works. The government decides how much the people get to live on as well as the quality of healthcare they get.

 

Congress gives away billions of dollars to foreign governments each year

Hey Congress, I know that law school graduates aren’t required to be proficient in math, but 2.8 percent of nothing is still nothing no matter how you figure it. The cost of living raises you approve isn’t enough to cover the inflation of 20 years ago. Generous? I don’t think so. You are only generous with other people’s money if there’s something in it for you.

Furthermore, Congress gives away billions of dollars to foreign governments each year, but giving a decent social security raise is too costly for Congress to consider. There’s just nothing in it for Congress, and it might cut into the billions of dollars Congress gives to oppressive governments, that people are fleeing from. It might also take away from the trillions of dollars that Congress wastes each year on government contracts to their friends, family and associates. And Congress wonders why we call them self serving politicians.

To sum it up, Congress enabled the Russian Delusion scam by passing unconstitutional legislation like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that circumvents the Constitution, and by creating an overblown federal bureaucracy where unelected bureaucrats have the power to make laws and pull off political scams like the Russian Delusion. In a nutshell, all the problems that we face today were created and facilitated by Congress.

Finally, if Congress is really serious about preventing another Russian Delusion and restoring faith in government, they will start by repealing FISA and all the other unconstitutional and oppressive legislation they passed. They will also start dismantling the useless federal bureaucracies they created, including the Department of Education. Unless Congress does all that, they are not fooling anyone except themselves and morons who voted for the likes of Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, AOC and Bernie Sanders.

democrats vote to kill born alive babies. There’s a Constitutional problem with that

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/f3/45/3b/f3453b76f2c717ffdf7d2b29ecb9a229.jpg

Image via pinterest.com

democrats voted to allow the murder of children. Of course, they won’t call it that.

Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a Republican bill that would have threatened prison time for doctors who don’t try saving the life of infants born alive during failed abortions, leading conservatives to wonder openly whether Democrats were embracing “infanticide” to appeal to left-wing voters.

All prominent Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Senate voted down the measure, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The final vote was 53-44 to end Democratic delaying tactics — seven votes short of the 60 needed.

Three Democrats joined Republicans to support the bill — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Doug Jones or Alabama. Three Republicans did not vote, apparently because of scheduling issues and plane flight delays — including Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Tim Scott of South Carolina.

The bill stipulated:

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have required that “any health care practitioner present” at the time of a birth “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

Here’s the thing. Born alive babies have Constitutional rights. I know that’s something which makes liberals wretch but it is true. The 14th Amendment:

Continue reading

For the Record, Obama Made Mincemeat of the Constitution

American Thinker

By Jack Cashill

Good constitutional arguments can be made for and against President Trump’s evocation of emergency powers to address the crisis at our southern border.  But the notion that such a declaration would encourage a future Democratic president to do something similar borders on the comic.  Democrats don’t need encouragement.

Under President Barack Obama, the Constitution was violated more wantonly than a goat at a Taliban bachelor party, and the faithful cheered every violation.  In early 2014, New Yorker editor and Obama groupie David Remnick wrote about his experience accompanying Obama on a west-coast fundraising tour.

At one stop, when Obama walked out on stage, “It happened again: another heckler broke into Obama’s speech.  A man in the balcony repeatedly shouted out, ‘Executive order!’ demanding that the President bypass Congress with more unilateral actions.”

Obama confirmed to the audience that, yes, people did want him to sign more executive orders and “basically nullify Congress.”  At that point, wrote Remnick, “Many in the crowd applauded their approval.  Yes!  Nullify it!”  These were not wild-eyed tent-dwellers on Wall or some lesser street.  These were potential donors.

By 2014, Obama had successfully nullified any number of laws with negligible media objection.  In February 2011, for instance, Obama and “wing man” Attorney General Eric Holder came willy-nilly to the conclusion that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was not “constitutional.”  President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996 with overwhelming support from Democrats in Congress and nearly unanimous support from Republicans.

Continue reading