web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Hillary Clinton

The impeachment of Trump is a gigantic own goal by the Democrats

The Democrats have badly damaged themselves by voting in the House of Representatives to impeach Donald Trump. The proper judges of his conduct are the American people, who will decide in next November’s presidential election whether to grant him a second term.

All the efforts of the Democratic Party should be focussed on finding a candidate, and a programme, which will enable it to win that election.

The impeachment is a distraction from those tasks. It holds out the illusory hope that the Senate will find the President guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours, and will therefore remove him from office.

The Republicans in the Senate have already said there is no chance they will do this. To this the Democrats reply that the charges against the President are so grave that the impeachment has to go ahead.

Trump’s supporters in the wider American public say he “hasn’t been treated fairly” and the Democrats are trying to “crucify” him. They consider him the victim of a process which is being manipulated for factional advantage by opponents who long ago declared him guilty.

Hillary Clinton lost to Trump in 2016 because she placed excessive reliance on the contention that he is a bad person, morally unfit to occupy the White House. This proposition could without any difficulty be proved true in the eyes of Clinton and her friends.

But for various reasons, this seemingly easy course of action proved more damaging to Clinton than it was to Trump.

In the first place, it made her sound like a hypocrite. People could remember how seedy the White House had been during her husband’s eight years there, which culminated in the President’s contention that oral sex with a White House intern did not count as “sexual relations”.

And she ran the risk of accusing anyone who voted for Trump of being a bad person too: a trap into which she fell by referring to half of his supporters as “the basket of deplorables” who are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it”.

Worst of all, she did not devote enough time and effort to working out why some of Trump’s policies – improving America’s infrastructure, tightening immigration control, making sure China did not destroy American manufacturing by trading on unfair terms – exercised a strong appeal to, for example, car workers worried their jobs were going abroad.

She ruled out conducting a proper argument with Trump, in which she demonstrated the greater efficacy of her remedies, because she herself said he was too disreputable for her to reason with him about America’s future.

Clinton seemed to prefer condemning Trump’s voters as racists to working out how to help them avoid sinking into poverty and despair. Since it was clear that she herself preferred spending her time, not with ordinary Americans, but with friends in the Hamptons who were, like the Clintons themselves, rich beyond the dreams of avarice, she stood exposed as a peculiarly repulsive hypocrite, a moralist who declined to practise what she preached and felt no real sympathy with millions of Americans who were worried about how to get proper jobs so they could feed, house and educate their children.

The same objections apply to the impeachment proceedings for which the Democrats have just voted. The whole exercise is a gigantic displacement activity, which prevents them from thinking straight about how to beat Trump by persuading his supporters to trust the Democrats.

Boris Johnson is in many respects a different kind of person to Trump, but presents his opponents with similar dangers.

It is easier for Labour politicians to demonstrate, at least to their own satisfaction, that Johnson is a bad person, than for them to work out why his policies appeal so strongly to working-class voters who believe that they and their towns have been neglected for generations by the political class.

How tempting it is, at the dinner tables of Islington, to dismiss those workers as a lot of thick, northern racists – and what a disastrous error.

The next Labour leader, like the next Democratic presidential candidate, will not deserve to win if the main argument he or she advances is that the incumbent Prime Minister or President is simply too contemptible to be allowed to continue in office.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Daniel Hannan: £1 million? £1 billion? £1 trillion? McDonnell is relying on you not knowing the difference.

Daniel Hannan is an MEP for South-East England, and a journalist, author and broadcaster. His most recent book is What Next: How to Get the Best from Brexit.

Suppose I were to tell you that Labour’s promises would cost £50 billion. How would you feel about it? My guess is that, if you’re a Labour supporter, you’ll assume that that money can easily be squeezed from the undeserving rich, tax-dodging corporations and the like. If, on the other hand, you are not a Labour supporter, you’ll believe that that figure will mean higher taxes in general, a less competitive economy and slower growth.

Now suppose that, instead of £50 billion, the figure were £100 billion. How many people would shift from the first column to the second? My guess is almost none. Numbers on that scale simply make no sense to most of us. Our brains are designed to deal with practical rather than abstract questions. We can imagine what we’d do with £100 or £1,000. But £100 billion?

So we instead go with our hunches. Do we like and trust the people making the proposal? If we do, we are likely to give them the benefit of the doubt. If we don’t, we won’t. That would be true, in most cases, even if the figure were a trillion pounds – which is just as well for Labour, since that number comes closest to their actual spending plans.

Labour strategists are banking on our general innumeracy. I don’t say that they are taking us for fools. Plenty of clever and educated people can’t process numbers on that scale. It’s why charity appeals tell individual stories rather than offering figures. It’s why, as Stalin is supposed to have said, one death is a tragedy, but a million is a statistic.

Most people are partisan. Most, though they don’t like to admit it, begin with their preferred conclusions. When Barack Obama ran up a large deficit, Tea Party protesters took to the streets in every state demanding a return to fiscal balance. When Donald Trump maintained – or, on some measures, increased – that deficit, the Tea Partiers stayed at home. Why? Because people are wired to respond to people, not abstractions. Tribal loyalties trump big numbers.

There is, however, an important qualifier. Voters who are not already partis pris will often be influenced, consciously or not, by those who intermediate the numbers – that is, by journalists, commentators and experts. If every analyst lines up to declare that a party’s figures are ridiculous, it makes a difference.

Importantly, this didn’t happen last time. There was a general assumption among pundits that Corbyn couldn’t possibly win, and that his promises were therefore to be treated as light entertainment. A similar asymmetry had benefited Trump six months earlier. He, too, was not taken seriously. His promises were placed before the electorate with a kind of amused smirk, while Hillary Clinton’s, like Theresa May’s, were properly analysed and criticised.

In consequence, there was surprisingly little discussion of the sheer unaffordability of Labour’s 2017 manifesto. Most commentators treated its absurdity as a datum or given – something that needed no elaboration. Result? Voters heard the promises (“no tuition fees!”) but not the fact that they were unfunded.

John McDonnell seems to have concluded from that experience that, if you expand the promises, you expand your support; but, since no one really gets big numbers, you won’t lose many voters on the other side. Even on his own figures, this manifesto would cost nearly twice as much as the far-Left programme he offered two-and-a-half years ago. In reality, that price tag doesn’t include the vast expense of the nationalisations, the four-day week or the loss of revenue prompted by capital flight.

How many people are bothered? Is McDonnell right that the battle-lines are unaffected by actual statistics? If the number of fiscal conservatives is fixed, after all, he might as well purchase the support of as many groups as possible – students, waspi women, benefits claimants, public sector workers.

But there is a limit. On Monday, the editor of ConHome suggested that “McDonnell might as well pledge £1 million to all comers. He could make it £1 billion while he’s at it. It would be no more or less credible than all his other plans.”

I suspect that, if he offered us each a million pounds, even committed Labour voters would smell a rat. The angriest Momentum activists, convinced that austerity is a product of greed and sadism, would surely realise that there isn’t the money to make such a pledge. So let’s ask a question. At what point do Labour’s pledges topple into obvious fantasy? When do people start listening to the independent commentators who are staring speechless at these wish-lists?

My sense is that, to the extent that we will see any outbreak of collective incredulity, we are seeing it now. Having already come up with risible spending commitments, Labour has now cheerfully added an unbelievable – a literally unbelievable – £58 billion commitment to bump the pensions of the women who lost out when the retirement age was equalised.

For what it’s worth, I have a lot of sympathy with those women. The change happened very suddenly, and many had no time to arrange their finances accordingly. But the issue is not just whether the waspi women have a point. It’s also whether we have £58 billion to spend.

How much is £58 billion? To put it in context, the savings made between 2010 and 2013, the “savage Tory cuts” that brought protesters to the streets and pushed Labour politicians into making deranged claims about people “dying from austerity”, shaved £14.3 billion from the budget. The waspi shortfall is four times that sum.

Indeed, £58 billion would be half as much again as the all the money saved through welfare reforms since 2010. Labour, which created the deficit in the first place, and then spent the following decade howling down attempts to fix it, now proposes to spend vastly more than even Gordon Brown.

Do we understand that? Do we care? We’ll find out in two weeks’ time.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Johnson’s critics will get nowhere by calling him a liar

Julie Etchingham: “Does the truth matter in this election?”

Boris Johnson: “I think it does.”

The studio audience, after a moment’s pause to take this in, burst out laughing, as if the Prime Minister had said something which coming from him, sounded preposterous.

In the polling after Tuesday’s debate, Jeremy Corbyn was seen as more trustworthy than Boris Johnson, though by a margin of only five percentage points.

Could this be Johnson’s Achilles’ heel? Downing Street knows he has a trust problem – but draws comfort from the knowledge that all politicians have a trust problem.

There are, however, considerable variations between politicians, and great leaders are often admired in part because they are seen to be straight with people. Winston Churchill made no secret in 1940 of the severity of the defeat Britain and her allies had suffered, or of the grievous sacrifices which would be demanded on the path to eventual victory.

Clement Attlee, who beat Churchill at the polls in 1945, communicated complete honesty of purpose, He could commend socialism to the British people because he himself was so evidently brave, patriotic and unselfseeking.

Churchill’s peacetime successor, Sir Anthony Eden, made matters worse, after the Suez debacle, by lying to the House of Commons, where in December 1956 he denied having colluded with the Israelis.

Margaret Thatcher was generally thought of as sincere. That is one of the things her critics held against her. She actually believed in things, and clung tenaciously to her beliefs, though on tactics she showed greater flexibility than has commonly been realised.

Even her supporters could find her directness of speech disconcerting. As I remarked in my brief life of her, “Her conversation rendered the standard English methods of of evasion – jokes, paradoxes, understatement, any number of ironical devices which enable one to avoid commitment – unusable.”

Johnson is a master of such methods of evasion. In order to avoid answering a serious inquiry on an inconvenient topic, he will launch into a riff on some extraneous matter which is so entertaining that the questioner may not object to being thrown off the scent.

This technique has served him well with newspaper interviewers, who are grateful for vivid copy, even if it has nothing much to do with the question put.

On live television, the refusal on occasion to give straight answers can become more obvious, and makes some viewers very angry. Peter Oborne watched the ITV debate and demanded: “Is the BBC going to call out Johnson as a liar?”

Oborne went on: “He’s lied to the British people about the NHS tonight. That’s a pretty dark thing to do.”

This topic has long excited Oborne’s ire. In 2006 he published a book called The Rise of Political Lying, in which chapter four is entitled “The Lies, Falsehoods, Deceits, Evasions and Artfulness of Tony Blair”.

It probably indicates some sort of weakness in my own character that I cannot share Oborne’s indignation.

Certain formalities have to be observed. In the Commons, each member has to treat the others as honourable. Otherwise debate would become impossible. One cannot have an argument with an opponent one dismisses as a liar.

But that is exactly why the shout of “liar” should not be lightly uttered. Donald Trump’s opponents did themselves enormous harm by condemning him as a liar, for that gave them an excuse to stop asking why what he said was so appealing to, for example, American car workers who feared their jobs were going abroad.

Trump’s turpitude distracted his opponents from the task of examining his proposals. By dismissing him as a disgusting human being, Hillary Clinton fell into the trap of accusing his supporters of being “a basket of deplorables”, a description which made them even less inclined to listen to her.

Dismiss Johnson as a liar if you wish, but very soon you will find yourself uninterested in grasping why his message on Brexit appeals to millions of voters who do not think of themselves as Conservatives. Character assassination displaces comprehension.

The wider public know that literal truth is seldom to be expected from politicians. The art of persuasion, even the art of telling the truth, is more mysterious than that. Dickens told the truth by exaggerating it. So too, with cynical but romantic wit, did Disraeli. So too, with tremendous moral seriousness, did Gladstone.

It was disreputable of the Conservative press office to rebrand one of its Twitter accounts as a fact-checking service during the ITV debate, and it was also stupid, not just because the subterfuge was sure to be discovered, but because such debates cannot be settled by an appeal to the facts.

The judgments involved in deciding whether or not to trust someone – Prince Andrew, for example – are far more complicated, and entail trying to reconcile a swirling mass of often inconsistent considerations, moral, historical, psychological and so forth.

Voters understand this better than fulminating pundits do. Here is a woman in West Bromwich, quoted in a Vox pub piece published a fortnight ago:

“If I was going to vote, I’d vote for Boris Johnson because he’s a fool.

“I don’t care that he’s lied and cheated because that is his way and I support Boris.

“I will definitely vote for Boris, liar, cheat and fool! And for Brexit! I want to get out.”

In other words, voters can allow – or not – for a candidate’s frailties, and may prefer to be led by a Prime Minister who does not pose as a pillar of rectitude.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Clinton Ally Allegedly Tried to Stop Book About Russia Probe and Dem Involvement

Westlake Legal Group 2trump-2hillary-face Clinton Ally Allegedly Tried to Stop Book About Russia Probe and Dem Involvement Uncategorized sidney blumenthal Russia Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post FBI donald trump anti-Trump dossier Allow Media Exception

The Clintons have a reputation for not holding back when it comes to people who cross them.

The latest report wouldn’t disabuse you from that belief.

According to a Fox News report, Hillary Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal allegedly made legal threats to the publisher of the new book about the Democratic connection to the origins of the Russia probe in an effort to shut the book down.

According to the Fox source, Blumenthal believes that the book, “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History,” by Lee Smith, is defamatory.

“Blumenthal tried to stop it from being published,” the source told Fox News, saying the Hillary Clinton confidant sent threatening letters to Smith and publisher Center Street, a division of Hachette Book Group.

Blumenthal didn’t respond to Fox.

If Blumenthal is that worked up about it, that’s probably the greatest ad for the book, as well as a good indication that something in the book is probably over the target.

The book delves into the involvement of Democratic operatives behind the unverified anti-Trump Steele dossier. The Clinton campaign and the DNC engaged Perkins Coie to pay Fusion GPS for the information that became the dossier. The dossier, which was opposition research, was then essentially weaponized when it made its way to the FBI and the media and undermined Donald Trump.

According to the source, “the Clinton machine wanted to intimidate Lee,” but it doesn’t sound like he or the publishers are intimidated. The publishers don’t think Blumenthal’s threats hold any merit and they intend to go ahead with the book release, scheduled for Tuesday. Smith, while not discussing whether or not there were any threats, told Fox, “People in the Clinton world are keen for this book not to come out.”

Blumnenthal’s name has been attached to the dossier in the past by former House Intelligence Committee Chair Trey Gowdy according to the Washington Examiner.

“I have seen each factual assertion listed in that dossier, and then I’ve seen the FBI’s justification. And when you’re citing newspaper articles as corroboration for a factual assertion that you have made, you don’t need an FBI agent to go do a Google search,” said Gowdy, a former South Carolina congressman and member of the House Intelligence Committee, in a Fox News interview.

“And when the name Sidney Blumenthal is included as part of your corroboration, and you’re the world’s leading law enforcement agency, you have a problem,” Gowdy said.

The post Clinton Ally Allegedly Tried to Stop Book About Russia Probe and Dem Involvement appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 2trump-2hillary-face-300x159 Clinton Ally Allegedly Tried to Stop Book About Russia Probe and Dem Involvement Uncategorized sidney blumenthal Russia Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post FBI donald trump anti-Trump dossier Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

News Summary from the Week that Was (20 – 26 October)

This is my weekly summary of news that the legacy media and Democrats have obfuscated for partisan political reasons. Once again, I am doing longer quotes of fewer articles this week, as I am still overseas. Here we go.

1. We’ve talked about this one before: corruption in US foreign aid. Foggy Bottom needs to be shut down, and all US foreign aid stopped because it is nothing but a piggy bank for the political class.

A senior Guatemalan official said his nation was aware President Donald Trump was going to cut funding to his nation, saying he understands the decision as the majority of funds designated to aid his nation’s poorest through development projects and other charities rarely reaches those who need it most. “To be honest with you, I don’t think most of that money is actually being properly used in our country, mainly in Guatemala,” Duarte told me. “A lot of that money goes to NGOs who spend it on mostly doing analysis and white papers sent studies. The money’s not really going towards the people. There’s no significant projects that really help us along those lines.”

Duarte noted that last week he had “a conversation with a couple of project managers from USAID that have worked here in Guatemala, they have worked in Haiti, they have worked in Africa, they have worked in Afghanistan and the issue here is that the projects are almost like pet projects for some political ideal.”

Read the rest here. If you think that’s the only country in which USAID dollars are wasted, then you’ve got another think coming! We need to shut down all US foreign aid and pour it in to rebuilding inner city slums in the United States, as well as to complete the Wall.

2. More great economic news in the Age of Trump that will never be discussed in the legacy media:

Latino-owned businesses are experiencing significant growth thanks to a strong economy, a Biz2Credit study found. Rohit Arora, Biz2Credit’s CEO, said Latino business owners are enjoying a 46 percent jump in revenue this year, which will bolster the nation’s thriving economy. [O]ur research finds that revenues of Latino-owned companies jumped 23% from 2017-18.

The fact is that Hispanics are flourishing in the Trump economy. Democrats asserting the contrary is a mere partisan talking point to try to deny Trump the Hispanic support he has earned and which may decide the presidential election outcome next year. Expect Democrats to increase their identity politics attacks in an effort to skew Latinos against Republicans over the next year and a half.

Read the rest here. This is more excellent evidence that the Trump economy is color-blind. His economic policies are working great! Tax and regulation cuts work every time they’re tried.

3. The “muh Russia” house of cards continues to fall apart. Here is the latest news courtesy of the British.

British intelligence told the FBI that dossier author Christopher Steele sometimes showed questionable judgment regarding investigative targets, according to a report that could preview some of the findings in a highly anticipated Justice Department watchdog report of FBI surveillance against the Trump campaign. Investigators with the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have asked witnesses about an assessment that MI6 officials provided the FBI regarding Steele, a former MI6 officer based in London.

The FBI’s handling of information from Steele is central to the OIG investigation into whether the bureau complied with laws and regulations in applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide.  The OIG has also raised concerns, according to The Times, that the FBI overhyped Steele’s value as a confidential source in the applications to obtain the Page FISAs. The FBI relied heavily on information from Steele in the FISA applications, the first of which was granted on Oct. 21, 2016.

Read the rest here. Despite the Brits’ concerns, the tainted Obama FBI pressed ahead with the so-called Steele dossier. Little by little, the onion is getting peeled back.

4. Too bad, Obama and George Soros!

The Supreme Court, in another defeat for gerrymandering reformers, overturned a lower court’s ruling that Michigan’s electoral districts are overly partisan and need to be redrawn. Monday’s order follows a June decision from the nation’s top court that found that questions related to partisan gerrymandering are not under the jurisdiction of federal courts. The new order returns the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. A three-judge panel in that court had ruled that 34 state legislative and congressional districts needed to be redrawn because they were designed to favor Republicans.

The Supreme Court’s ruling that federal courts cannot weigh in on partisan gerrymandering cases was blasted by activists, who have sought to advance their fight against politically-drawn maps in the courts. Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, at the time called the decision one which “tears at the fabric of our democracy.”

Read the rest here. I’m liking it. Any time Obama and Eric Holder are thwarted by the USSC is a day to celebrate.

5. Judicial Watch continues to do the people’s business. This time it’s on Benghazi (plus more).

Judicial Watch today released new Clinton emails on the Benghazi controversy that had been covered up for years and would have exposed Hillary Clinton’s email account if they had been released when the State Department first uncovered them in 2014. The long-withheld email, clearly responsive to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack,” contains Clinton’s private email address and a conversation about the YouTube video that sparked the Benghazi talking points scandal. “This email is a twofer – it shows Hillary Clinton misled the U.S. Senate on Benghazi and that the State Department wanted to hide the Benghazi connection to the Clinton email scheme,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Rather than defending her email misconduct, the Justice Department has more than enough evidence to reopen its investigations into Hillary Clinton.”

Judicial Watch’s discovery over the last several months found many more details about the scope of the Clinton email scandal and cover-up:

  • John Hackett, former Director of Information Programs and Services (IPS) testifiedunder oath that he had raised concerns that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff may have “culled out 30,000” of the secretary’s “personal” emails without following strict National Archives standards. He also revealed that he believed there was interference with the formal FOIA review process related to the classification of Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails.
  • Heather Samuelson, Clinton’s White House liaison at the State Department, and later Clinton’s personal lawyer, admittedunder oath that she was granted immunity by the Department of Justice in June 2016.
  • Justin Cooper, former aide to President Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee who registered the domain name of the unsecure clintonemail.com server that Clinton used while serving as Secretary of State, testifiedhe worked with Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, to create the non-government email system.
  • In the interrogatory responsesof E.W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, he stated that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President.
  • Jacob “Jake” Sullivan, Clinton’s senior advisor and deputy chief of staff when she was secretary of state, testifiedthat both he and Clinton used her unsecure non-government email system to conduct official State Department business.
  • Eric Boswell, former assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, testifiedthat Clinton was warned twice against using unsecure BlackBerry’s and personal emails to transmit classified material.

Read the rest here. Time to reopen EVERY investigation of Shrillary: U-1, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, email server, etc.

6. This is an incredible opinion piece by Victor Davis Hanson that needs to be read from stem to stern. Here are just a few excerpts:

[W]hy the unadulterated hatred? For the small number of NeverTrumpers, of course, Trump’s crudity in speech and crassness in manner nullify his accomplishments: the unattractive messenger has fouled an otherwise tolerable message. While they recognize in the abstract that the randy JFK, the repugnant LBJ, and the horny Bill Clinton during their White House tenures were far grosser in conduct than has been Donald Trump, they either assume presidential ethics should have evolved or they were not always around to know of past bad behavior first hand, or believe Trump’s crude language is worse than prior presidents’ crude behavior in office. But the NeverTrumpers are and remain a tiny segment of the electorate who have had zero effect in swaying Republicans and only marginal influence in persuading swing voters, in their new roles as occasionally useful naïfs of the hard Left.

Far more importantly, why do the media, academia, the entertainment and professional sports industries, the progressive Left, the administrative state, and most Democratic officeholders despise him so? His brashness bothers them of course. His quirky tweets and name-calling certainly. His loud rallies, his public put-downs, and his feuding are certainly not matched by those of past presidents. But the real source of their antipathy is his agenda.

Had Donald Trump in his first month as president declared that he was a centrist Republican —as many suspicious Never Trumpers predicted that he would, true to past form—and promoted cap-and-trade and solar and wind federal subsidies, tabled pipeline construction and abated federal leasing for gas and oil production, stayed in the Iran nuclear deal and Paris Climate Accord, appointed judges in the tradition of John Paul Stevens and David Souter, praised the “responsible” Palestinian leaders, “comprehensive immigration reform” as a euphemism for blanket amnesties, then Trump would be treated largely as a George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush: hated, of course, but not obsessively so.

More importantly, had Trump just collapsed or stagnated the economy, as predicted by the likes of Paul Krugman and Larry Summers, he would now be roundly denounced, but again not so vilified, given his political utility for the Left in 2020 as a perceived Herbert Hoover-esque scapegoat. Had Trump kept within the media and cultural sidelines by giving interviews to “60 Minutes,” speaking at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, bringing in a few old Republican hands to run the staff or handle media relations like a David Gergen or Andrew Card, Trump would have been written off as a nice enough dunce.

But Trump did none of that. So, the hatred of the media, the Left, the swamp, and the celebrity industry is predicated more on the successful Trump agenda. He is systematically undoing what Barack Obama wrought, in the manner Obama sought to undo with his eight years the prior eight years of George W. Bush. But whereas the Obama economy stagnated and his foreign policy was seen by adversaries and rivals as a rare occasion to recalibrate the world order at American’s expense, Trump mostly did not fail—at least not yet.

We are currently in an economic boom while most of the world economy abroad is inert. Had the economy just crashed as predicted, the Trump agenda would have been discredited and he would be written off a pitiful fool rather than an existential monster. Again, hatred arises at what Trump did even more than what he says or how he says it.

Read the rest of this great article here. VDH nails it yet again! They hate POTUS because he is rolling back their decades-long march toward globalism, as well as exposing them all for the grifters and globalists they are.

7. Next up, it’s about time that Brennan et all started feeling the heat!

The secretive Justice Department inquiry into the Trump-Russia investigation’s origins now includes former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, and British ex-spy Christopher Steele. U.S. Attorney John Durham, whose investigative portfolio recently expanded to include events from the launch of the inquiry in 2016 through the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller in 2017, has taken overseas fact-finding trips. But Durham’s focus on the actions taken by specific individuals makes his mission look like it could transform into a criminal investigation. And the line of questioning Durham has taken with potential witnesses — some in line with claims made by President Trump and other Republicans — puts his efforts into sharper focus. Durham has not yet interviewed Strzok, McCabe, former FBI Director James Comey, or former FBI general counsel James Baker.

Durham is speaking to witnesses about Steele, the former MI6 agent whose dossier was used to obtain secret surveillance warrants against Trump campaign associate Carter Page, and Durham wants to know why the FBI used unverified information in its filings with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Durham also intends to interview CIA analysts and officials involved in the Russia investigation, prompting some to seek legal representation, and NBC News reported tension between the CIA and the DOJ over what classified information he should have access to.

Durham has already talked to two dozen current and former FBI agents as part of his effort. DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said the department was exploring the extent to which “a number of countries” played a role in the Trump-Russia investigation, and Barr and Durham reached out to the United Kingdom, Italy, and Australia.

Read the rest here. One could argue that this is all taking too long, but it’s also true that the little fish need to be rolled up before questioning the big fish, too. The fact that Brennan and other cabal members are squawking bigly in public these days is GOOD sign.

8. Here’s a story which spells political death for Democrats pursuing their fake impeachment on bogus charges. And watch what happens when AG Barr/USA Durham start the indictments!

A memo by the Republican National Committee (RNC) that contains internal GOP polling data shows the American public, even Democrat voters, are turning against the Democrat Party’s “impeachment inquiry” into President Donald Trump. The memo, obtained exclusively by Breitbart News, shows independent voters nationwide en masse oppose impeachment—with 54 percent opposed and only 34 percent in favor. “We have seen public polling drastically under sample Independent voters, which is one of the many reasons for so much incorrect public data over the past month,” the memo explains regarding the disparity between internal GOP numbers and public polling from news organizations and polling institutions.

What’s more, internal RNC polling data, according to this memo, shows Democrats have lost support among their own base significantly in just the past week. “Support among Democrats for the ridiculous attempt to remove the President from office is down 10 points over the past week,” the memo says. Among all voters, the memo says support for impeachment has dropped in the past week by five percent—a remarkable shift against the Democrats in just one week, while the president’s support levels have increased across the board, especially among Republicans, with whom he now enjoys a 90 percent approval rating. The memo notes that the RNC is closely tracking impeachment support and opposition with its own sophisticated polling method, which is more accurate than the public polling.

Read the rest here. I’ve been saying for years that the media polls are nothing but push polls that attempt to INFLUENCE public opinion in the favor of Democrat positions on the issues, not accurately REFLECT it!

9. Speaking of which (indictments), this news is already causing apoplexy among the culpable in the cabal (Clapper comes immediately to mind):

U.S. Attorney John Durham’s ongoing probe into potential FBI and Justice Department misconduct in the run-up to the 2016 election through the spring of 2017 has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation. One source added that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s upcoming report on alleged FBI surveillance abuses against the Trump campaign will shed light on why Durham’s probe has become a criminal inquiry. Horowitz announced … his report would be available to the public soon, with “few” redactions. The investigation’s new status means Durham can subpoena witnesses, file charges, and impanel fact-finding grand juries.

Read the rest here. Could this be the drizzle that precedes the deluge? Could very well be!

Here are the honorable mentions this week:

And here’s the short summary of this week’s “feature articles”:

  • A senior Guatemalan official confirms rampant corruption in foreign aid to his country.
  • Latino-owned businesses are prospering BIGLY in the Age of Trump.
  • British intelligence is covering their tracks on the Steele front by stating to the FBI that he was often a source of “questionable intelligence.” (Duh!)
  • In a blow to Obama and Soros, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling that Michigan’s electoral districts are overly partisan and need to be redrawn
  • Judicial Watch continues to break ground on Hillary Clinton’s private email account – which was known by many even back in the Benghazi days (2012)!
  • Victor Davis Hanson explained why the Uniparty types are so virulently anti-Trump (it’s because he’s been so successful in rolling back Obama’s – and their – globalist agenda).
  • USA Durham’s investigation into Trump-Russia origins now includes former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, and British ex-spy Christopher Steele.
  • An RNC memo containing internal GOP polling data shows the American public (and even Democrat voters!) are turning against the Democrat Party’s “impeachment inquiry” into President Trump.
  • And the best news of all: the Durham probe has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal investigation.

I have to admit that I’m starting to feel a little bit giddy about all the good news that keeps coming out: the Ukraine star chamber is being discredited daily, some Republicans are finding their gonads (even if tiny), the media’s push-polls are failing to move the needle in the Democrats’ direction, Durham’s got a criminal investigation going now, the cabal are getting more unhinged by the day, the lefties on social media are apoplectic in defense of the cabal and Democrats, etc.

Life is pretty good – and it’s going to get even better as Horowitz’s FISA abuse report comes out in the days ahead! Stay tuned…

The end.

The post News Summary from the Week that Was (20 – 26 October) appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group TruthImage2-300x161 News Summary from the Week that Was (20 – 26 October) Uncategorized Ukraine schiff redistricting polls Opinion Polls News Media Impeachment of President Trump Hillary Clinton Hillary Cinton Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption Economy donald trump doj democrats corruption Clinton email server bill barr American economy   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Watch: Hillary Clinton Can’t Even Put Away Her Anger at Trump During a Funeral, Takes Swipe During Eulogy

Westlake Legal Group Capture-2-620x393 Watch: Hillary Clinton Can’t Even Put Away Her Anger at Trump During a Funeral, Takes Swipe During Eulogy Politics Hillary Clinton funeral Front Page Stories elijah cummings donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

Failed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is so obsessed with her loss against President Donald Trump that she can’t even put her anger away for a funeral speech.

During the funeral of the recently passed Rep. Elijah Cummings, Clinton took a not-so-veiled shot at Trump.

Comparing Cummings to the Elijah of the Bible, Clinton said Cummings could “call down fire from Heaven” and “weathered storms and earthquakes.” That’s when Clinton took a swipe at Trump…during a eulogy.

“Like that Old Testament prophet, he stood against corrupt leadership of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel,” said Clinton.

The crowd erupted into applause at that line, knowing exactly what comparison she was drawing with that tidbit of information.

“The American people want to live their lives without fear of their leaders,” she said later in the eulogy.

She added that it’s their responsibility as leaders to uphold the promises made to the people during campaigns and later said that Cummings embodied values, including putting an emphasis on “kindness” when describing him.

This all comes off as a bit more than disgusting for multiple reasons. During a funeral for my family member, I’d be angry about the fact that a speaker defined their lives by who the speaker’s most hated enemy was at the time. It’s a shallow look into the impact someone made on this planet, and a look at how shallow the person making the remarks are.

However, the crowd erupted into applause showing just how much Trump is living rent-free in their heads. Still, taking the time to hate on someone at someone else’s funeral seems a bit much, and if any of them in that place where the funeral was being held had any self-awareness, they may want to take a step back and take a look at the state of their spirit.

Clinton definitely should.

The post Watch: Hillary Clinton Can’t Even Put Away Her Anger at Trump During a Funeral, Takes Swipe During Eulogy appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Capture-2-300x190 Watch: Hillary Clinton Can’t Even Put Away Her Anger at Trump During a Funeral, Takes Swipe During Eulogy Politics Hillary Clinton funeral Front Page Stories elijah cummings donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Clinton Consigliere Sid Blumenthal Goes to the Mattresses Over Book On the Russia Hoax

Westlake Legal Group hrc-620x413 Clinton Consigliere Sid Blumenthal Goes to the Mattresses Over Book On the Russia Hoax tyler drumheller Special Counsel sid blumenthal russia hoax Politics Lee Smith Hudson Institute Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

One of the most prolific and insightful chroniclers of the Russia Hoax that the Obama administration, the Clinton campaign, and their allies and lackies in the FBI and Intelligence Community perpetrated upon the United States has been Lee Smith. He’s as Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and has been instrumental in teasing out the various strands of this slow-motion coup. Now Lee has a book coming out next week titled The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History. And that book has drawn the attention of long time Clinton consigliere Sid “Sid Vicious” Blumenthal.

Clinton family associate Sidney Blumenthal has made legal threats to the publisher of a forthcoming book featuring allegations against Democrats in connection with the Russia investigation in an attempt to stop publication, Fox News has learned.

A source familiar with the matter told Fox News that Blumenthal claimed the book – “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History,” by Lee Smith – was defamatory.

“Blumenthal tried to stop it from being published,” the source told Fox News, saying the Hillary Clinton confidant sent threatening letters to Smith and publisher Center Street, a division of Hachette Book Group.

Defaming a public figure, particularly one as odious as Hillary Clinton, is a very difficult barrier to overcome in any legal action but I suspect that Blumenthal has an additional agenda.

Back when Hillary Clinton’s emails came out, we found that Hillary Clinton was using an off-books intelligence service rather than relying upon the Intelligence Community (note to self: why is it that no one in government seems to trust the Intelligence Community very much?). Of course  there was an uproar over the Secretary of State using some cronies to provide her with the information she used to set foreign policy–just joking, because her name wasn’t Donald Trump no one thought very much of it. The head of this off books project was non other than Sid Blumenthal. He was partnered with a skeevy ex-CIA goon named Tyler Drumheller…who had the foresight to die in August 2015 as the email investigation was heating up. One of the emails included Top Secret information that did NOT originate at State. If this had been pursued with anything like the energy used trying to frame George Papadopoulos I think it would have made Comey’s decision to not prosecute Clinton impossible. Read these two speculative pieces:

The Real Email Question: Did Hillary Clinton Sell US Secrets?

Do Hillary Clinton’s Emails Expose A Scheme To Trade US Secrets For Political Influence?

The more attention that is drawn to Clinton by Lee’s book, the more attention that is going to be drawn to the activities of Sid Vicious and court sycophant and fixer. The more people start looking at Blumenthal, the more interesting he’s going to become. And unlike most of the other players in this melodrama, absolutely no one in DC likes Blumenthal.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

 

The post Clinton Consigliere Sid Blumenthal Goes to the Mattresses Over Book On the Russia Hoax appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group hrc-300x200 Clinton Consigliere Sid Blumenthal Goes to the Mattresses Over Book On the Russia Hoax tyler drumheller Special Counsel sid blumenthal russia hoax Politics Lee Smith Hudson Institute Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Tulsi Gabbard: I’m not running for reelection

Westlake Legal Group t-21 Tulsi Gabbard: I’m not running for reelection tulsi gabbard Trump Third Party The Blog Russia kai kahele impeachment Hillary Clinton Hawaii hannity

I’m already looking forward to Tulsi!, coming soon to Sunday evenings on Fox News.

Bringing the experience I have both as a soldier serving over 16 years in the Army National Guard, deploying twice to the Middle East, serving in Congress for nearly 7 years on the Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, and Homeland Security Committees, I am prepared to walk into the Oval Office on Day 1 to do that job. 

As President, I will immediately begin work to end the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, end our interventionist foreign policy of carrying out regime change wars, and redirect our precious resources towards serving the needs of the people here at home.

As such, I will not be seeking re-election to Congress in 2020, and humbly ask you for your support for my candidacy for President of the United States.

She’s at 1.3 percent today in the RCP average, par for the course for the entire campaign thus far, so no, she’s not retiring because she’s too busy planning her presidency. Might she be retiring because … she has a serious primary challenger in her House race, one who’s already made hay of her unusual skepticism about impeaching Trump? Voters in her very blue district have noticed:

Two out of three Democratic primary voters in Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District say U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard should give up her presidential aspirations, according to a new survey released Tuesday by Public Policy Polling.

The poll also found that at least half of the voters in Gabbard’s district would prefer someone else in her House seat.

She led her primary challenger by 22 points in the same poll, which was published earlier this month, but Gabbard won her last primary by more than 60 points. And her opponent might have received the endorsements of some big-name Democrats who are irritated by Gabbard’s friendliness with the populist right. She could have lost. At a minimum, she would have been forced to take more doctrinaire Democratic stances than she seems naturally inclined to take in order to appease primary voters.

So if she’s not running for Congress again and she’s also not going to get within a thousand miles of the presidency, what’s she planning to do with herself next year? Hmmmm:

So Hillary was … right? Not about the “Russian asset” thing but about Gabbard possibly angling to become a Jill Stein third-party candidate who’ll pull just enough votes from the Democratic nominee to enable a Trump victory?

Worth noting: The Hunt and Fish Club is Trump-hating Anthony Scaramucci’s restaurant. And according to Fox Business, the host of the event was “Wall Street Democrat” Robert Wolf, with various other “Wall Street executives and potential donors” reportedly in attendance. Wolf is an interesting character, a Barack Obama buddy but also enough of a centrist to have become a contributor to Fox News in 2016. He’s not a guy whom you’d assume would want to groom a candidate who’s a sort of left-wing Ron Paul with a special affinity for Bashar Assad as a kamikaze option against Joe Biden or another centrist nominee.

So if Wolf really is thinking of Tulsi as a third-party possibility, it’s likely for one of two reasons. One: He might prefer a second Trump term to a Warren presidency if that’s the choice next fall, given the risk that Warren will take a flamethrower to the financial industry if elected. Maybe he’s eyeing Gabbard as someone who could jump in if Warren becomes the nominee and try to siphon off some votes from her among Berniebros. Two: He’d probably prefer a Joe Biden presidency to a second Trump term (he’s a Democrat after all), so maybe he thinks Gabbard could potentially be weaponized against Trump if need be. She probably has more fans in Tucker Carlson’s audience than in Rachel Maddow’s audience. It may well be that a Gabbard third-party run would end up hurting Trump more than the Democratic nominee by attracting Ron Paul fans who’d otherwise back the president.

The logic there is contradictory, though. In scenario one, Gabbard helps Republicans. In scenario two, she hurts them — even though progressives would be far more open to a left-wing independent candidate if Joe Biden ended up as nominee than if Elizabeth Warren did. So, really, I don’t know what Wolf’s game is. All I know is Gabbard is going nowhere in the Dem primary, no longer has to worry about her House race, yet seems very intent on continuing her presidential run.

Here’s a brief clip of her last night on the highest-rated show on Fox News, hosted by the president’s close personal friend Sean Hannity, backing up the White House attack line that there’s not enough transparency in the Democratic impeachment inquiry. In no sphere of reality does it make sense to do that if you’re a Democratic presidential candidate who’s resolved to remaining a Democratic presidential candidate. It’d be like John Kasich announcing a primary challenge to Trump and then going on Maddow to call for the president’s impeachment and removal. All it’ll do is piss off your target voters. It doesn’t even make sense to do this if Gabbard is eyeing a left-wing third-party run, since of course progressives hate Hannity and Trump too. It must be that she’s simply repositioning herself as a sort of generically populist media “personality” who knows her fan base is entirely on the right. Nothing else adds up.

The post Tulsi Gabbard: I’m not running for reelection appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group t-21-300x153 Tulsi Gabbard: I’m not running for reelection tulsi gabbard Trump Third Party The Blog Russia kai kahele impeachment Hillary Clinton Hawaii hannity   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Senate Dems to Hillary: No. Just …. no.

Westlake Legal Group hillary-eyes Senate Dems to Hillary: No. Just …. no. The Blog Senate Democrats Philippe Reines Hillary Clinton 2020 Democratic primaries

Philippe Reines might have thought the door has not yet closed on a potential Hillary Clinton run, but Senate Democrats are doing their best to slam it in her face. After Reines suggested that that a rematch between Hillary and Donald Trump would solve the purported problem Democrats face in their 2020 primary, Politico decided to check with her former colleagues on Capitol Hill. “Absolutely not,” replied Joe Manchin, a position echoed by many other Senate Democrats — and on the record, too.

For instance, here’s the #2-ranking Democrat in the upper chamber:

“She’s done a great service to our country and public service, and I supported her wholeheartedly, but I believe it’s time for another nominee,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin.

And a red-state Democrat:

“I don’t think it would be good for her,” said Montana Sen. Jon Tester. “She’s been through this war once. The Republicans have made a target out of her for 30 years and she’s still going to [be] that same target. I just think it would be tough.”

What about the women in the Senate Democratic caucus? Don’t they want to see Hillary vindicated? Let’s just say it’s not high up on their priority list:

“We have a lot of really fantastic candidates out there already. Let’s leave it at that,” said Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono. …

“It’s hard to know whether the world has passed on or not,” said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein. “I’m a friend of hers and I’m extraordinarily fond of her. But that’s a factor.”

Of course, that doesn’t account for all 47 Senate Democrats, but add in Richard Blumenthal, Martin Heinrich, Ben Cardin, and Doug Jones, and the consensus seems pretty clear. Politico didn’t apparently reach out for comment to six of the Democrats who are running for the nomination themselves (Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Michael Bennet, and Bernie Sanders in name only), but their responses would be more or less a given.

Especially Sanders’, one would imagine.

After last cycle’s dreadful attempt at a coronation and the damage it did to the DNC’s credibility just to end up in a loss to Trump anyway, a lack of enthusiasm for Her Majesty is not unexpected. What does seem notable is how willing all of these Senate Democrats were to go on the record to dismiss Hillary. The Clinton Establishment must really be dead after its quarter-century run in the Democratic Party. That blunt dismissal from so many leading Democrats makes it very clear that the door is not only shut, it’s locked, bolted, barricaded, and perhaps even set for an auto-destruct sequence if Reines and others keep trying to push Hillary through it in 2020.

The post Senate Dems to Hillary: No. Just …. no. appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group hillary-eyes-300x173 Senate Dems to Hillary: No. Just …. no. The Blog Senate Democrats Philippe Reines Hillary Clinton 2020 Democratic primaries   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Major Development: The Deep State is in Deep Trouble

Westlake Legal Group comey-620x413 Major Development: The Deep State is in Deep Trouble william barr Ukraine Steele dossier spying Russia Rachel Maddow President Trump Mueller Investigation Michael Horowitz Michael Flynn Mainstream Media john durham John Brennan James Clapper Impeachment of President Trump Hillary Clinton george papadopoulos Front Page Stories FISA Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption elections donald trump democrats corruption cia Campaigns bill barr Allow Media Exception alexander downer Abuse of Power 2020

Former FBI director James Comey testifies before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, June 8, 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

 

On Thursday evening, the New York Times reported that U.S. Attorney John Durham’s administrative review of the origins of the Trump/Russia investigation has shifted into a criminal inquiry. This major development grants Durham the power to subpoena witnesses and documents and to impanel a grand jury. Speculation has increased in the wake of reports that Attorney General William Barr and Durham had twice traveled to Rome and London to meet with intelligence officials recently and the news that Durham was interested in questioning both former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan.

My colleague, Bonchie, posted on this story last night (here), writing that the mainstream media is portraying this as a political move. The following excerpt from the Times will give you an idea of how they plan to spin it. (Emphasis mine.)

The opening of a criminal investigation is likely to raise alarms that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies.

…] The move also creates an unusual situation in which the Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into itself.

Mr. Barr’s reliance on Mr. Durham, a widely respected and veteran prosecutor who has investigated C.I.A. torture and broken up Mafia rings, could help insulate the attorney general from accusations that he is doing the president’s bidding and putting politics above justice.

[…] Federal investigators need only a “reasonable indication” that a crime has been committed to open an investigation, a much lower standard than the probable cause required to obtain search warrants. However, “there must be an objective, factual basis for initiating the investigation; a mere hunch is insufficient,” according to Justice Department guidelines.

Rather than acknowledging that Durham is zeroing in on the truth about the plot to destroy Donald Trump’s candidacy and following his unexpected victory, his presidency, they are characterizing it as Trump’s revenge. Still, there’s no doubt the major players involved in this travesty are starting to feel the squeeze.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, who has been peddling lies to her viewers for three years, characterized this latest move as a “frame job” and a “false flag operation” of the Trump campaign. She said, “This is the news that honestly, we’ve been sort of expecting for some time or thinking that if things got really bad, it might come to this…That is the conspiracy theory that the attorney general of the United States appears to have been going around the world trying to prove.”

It’s just crazy, isn’t it Rachel? Yes, now that Trump is on the verge of being impeached, his good buddy, Bill Barr, is going to bat for him. She will continue spewing this nonsense until Durham presents solid evidence of misconduct. At that point, her ratings, which fell by 25% following the release of the Mueller report, will crater.

Also last night, DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced that his long-anticipated report on alleged FISA abuse will be released in the next week to ten days with limited redactions. In a letter to lawmakers yesterday, which can be viewed here, he wrote that the classification process is “nearing an end” and explained that there will be one version of the final document. “Given the constructive progress that has been made during the classification review process, I do not anticipate a need to prepare and issue separate classified and public versions of the report.”

We know that Durham has questioned a number of CIA officials recently leading to speculation that the CIA outsourced some of their operations to their foreign counterparts to circumvent U.S. laws governing spying on U.S. citizens. Central to their investigation is the Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud. It was said that, on their most recent trip to Rome (at the end of September), Barr and Durham listened to a recording of a deposition provided by Mifsud in the summer of 2018 in which he explained his role in the saga. Additionally, Durham obtained two cell phones which Mifsud had used in 2016. Mifsud’s Swiss attorney, Stephan Roh, has been cooperating with Durham’s team for several months now.

In fact, the legal team of Trump’s former National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn, believes there may be exculpatory evidence on those phones and they’re working to obtain them from Durham.

Former junior advisor for the Trump campaign George Papadopoulos, who was targeted by several “informants” in 2016, appeared on Fox News’ Martha MacCallum’s show recently and said:

Basically how I would summarize this, the grand statesman under Rome, Cicero, you know what he said?  What I think happened in 2016 and all of the events surrounding the 2016 campaign and the spying that took place on me and Michael Flynn and others was tantamount to treason. What happened was there was an intelligence agency with an ax to grind with candidate Trump and obviously President Trump, where we see the Russia hoax now evolving into Ukraine-gate. This is not going to stop. I predicted that Joseph Mifsud, that individual who now both of his Blackberries are now in the hands of the DOJ was a Western Intelligence agent. I wrote about it in my book exactly how I came in contact with this person who introduced me to him and what he wanted. Something I did not know and actually something that surprised me very much is that Joseph Mifsud was also spying on Michael Flynn just two months before he started his encounters with me… I joined the Donald Trump campaign in March of 2016. Before even the Washington Post or the American media knew that I was joining this campaign I had Joseph Mifsud and other intelligence agencies knowing all about me, what I was doing and what Donald Trump’s campaign was all about. So the notion that this investigation, Crossfire Hurricane, started spontaneously on July 31st 2016 is absurd. It’s completely absurd.

This is an extremely complex story which involves an enormous number of people. Durham’s team has been working on it formally since May. However, there were indications that he was actually on it several weeks or even months prior. If I recall correctly, Durham appeared at one or two Congressional hearings to listen to the testimony of former FBI officials.

In addition to the involvement of the British and Italian intelligence communities, there is reason to believe that Australian intelligence officials participated in the conspiracy. We need only look to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer’s May 2016 meeting with George Papadopoulos at a London bar where the Trump campaign’s newest advisor told him the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. The FBI claims it was this event which triggered their counterintelligence investigation of Donald Trump.

Following Clapper’s lengthy trip to New Zealand and Australia in the late spring, Papadopoulos hinted he may have traveled there to cover his tracks. He posted the following tweet.

It looks like Trump is about to fight back. Fasten your seatbelts everybody!

The post Major Development: The Deep State is in Deep Trouble appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group comey-300x200 Major Development: The Deep State is in Deep Trouble william barr Ukraine Steele dossier spying Russia Rachel Maddow President Trump Mueller Investigation Michael Horowitz Michael Flynn Mainstream Media john durham John Brennan James Clapper Impeachment of President Trump Hillary Clinton george papadopoulos Front Page Stories FISA Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption elections donald trump democrats corruption cia Campaigns bill barr Allow Media Exception alexander downer Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com