By The Liberty Hound 12/18/2019
She’s batshit crazy and an embarrassment to USA.

By Robert Bridge
Today, millions of Washington watchers around the world are asking the same question: What happens if the Democrats go ahead and bring articles of impeachment against President Donald J. Trump? The answer is twofold, and just might be the shortest story ever told: At first nothing, and then, everything. The end.
The reason nothing will happen immediately requires no degree in political science to appreciate. Should the Democrats commit the mother of all political screw-ups by voting to impeach Trump, all on the basis of hearsay, gossip and maybe reading tea leaves, the circus moves next door to the Senate, where Republicans hold a majority. This is where House efforts to impeach Trump will inevitably smack into a brick wall and disintegrate.
That much was made clear earlier this week when Minority Leader Chuck Schumer demanded to call current and former White House officials to appear on the witness stand for stage two of the Democratic show trials. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was having none of it.
“I’m not an impartial juror,” McConnell retorted to applause from Senators, many of whom were thwarted in their own efforts to call witnesses and ask questions when the Democrats controlled the hearings. “This is a political process,” he added.

So, if the inevitable prospect of certain defeat in the Senate won’t stop the Democratic impeachment train, then maybe the knowledge that the majority of Americans oppose their plans will make them reconsider, right? Think again. Not even a USA Today/Suffolk University poll, which shows that Americans oppose by 51-45% any effort by the Senate to remove Trump, up from October when the margin was 47-46%, has deterred the Democrats from their witch hunt.
Trump practically thanked the Democrats for the early Christmas gift when he said impeachment is “a very sad thing for our country, but it seems to be very good for me politically.” Indeed it has been. If elections were held today, Trump would likely emerge victorious against any of his Democratic rivals.
With regards to the economy, Wall Street appears to be on steroids, smashing records almost weekly. All of this points to smooth sailing for Trump up to the 2020 presidential elections.
Despite things looking favorably, Trump is not out of the woods just yet. The reason is because the Democrats, due to their chummy relationship with the media, are still able to control the narrative. That much is clear considering how House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff has been dominating the impeachment proceedings without much criticism from the press. The initial impeachment inquiry was held without transparency in the dank basement of Congress, far away from public scrutiny. He also staunchly refused to release the identity of the so-called whistleblower, who is alleged to have heard secondhand information about the now-famous call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
However, since any impeachment trial promises to be a major televised event, the Democrats will not be able to leak to the media their handpicked breadcrumbs of information. Everything will be out in the open and discussed 24/7.

First, the Democrats’ chances of removing Trump from office are somewhere between zero and none, and they are certainly aware of that fact. Second, impeachment is proving unpopular with the majority of Americans, and that must be particularly worrisome in a major election season. Finally, the Democrats risk throwing their top presidential contender, Joe Biden, under the bus by their efforts.
Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans will certainly investigate how Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, for example, had come to serve on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings, reportedly being paid up to $50,000 a month despite having no experience in the Ukrainian energy sector. No less interesting is the fact that Joe Biden essentially forced Ukraine to fire its prosecutor general as a precondition for releasing $1 billion dollars in US aid. In the event that Ukrainian officials are called to testify in the Senate during the impeachment trial, it could turn out to be very ugly for the Biden clan.

Considering that the Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain by trying to impeach Trump, another possible motive must be considered, which is that the Democrats are desperately trying to protect themselves. Unknown to many, high-level Democrats, intelligence officers, and former White House officials have been under investigation for many months by Attorney General Will Barr and federal prosecutor John Durham. The reason has little to do with Ukraine, and everything to do with Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp.”
In a nutshell, Barr and Dunham will soon be releasing their highly anticipated attorney general’s report, which will determine whether the FBI had submitted false documents for obtaining a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump administration in 2016. The word ‘treason’ is even being whispered on Capitol Hill. The investigation involves a mind boggling array of top characters who played a role in creating the Steele Dossier (home of the famous pee tape), a largely debunked ‘intelligence’ document that ultimately failed to prove a link between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
Last week, after Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a preliminary report that shows the FBI committed numerous mistakes in applying for the FISA warrant, including falsifying a document, former FBI Director James Comey back-pedaled on his earlier claims that the FBI had acted appropriately. “I was wrong. I was overconfident in our procedures. It’s important that a leader be accountable and transparent,” he told Chris Wallace of Fox News.
But that is not the end of the story. Not by a long shot.
Durham, who has had access to foreign governments and US intelligence agencies not available to Horowitz, played down the IG report, suggesting fireworks down the road when he commented “last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

Needless to say, Barr and Durham’s report has got a lot of people in high places very nervous. This could make the impeachment process a top priority in that it provides cover and would look as if Trump were attacking the Democrats simply out of rage if he acts. Clearly, the Democrats, with their groundless Russiagate theories and now an impeachment scandal, are desperately trying to buy time to avoid their own impending doom.
In other words, there is a real civil war taking place behind the scenes in Washington, and Trump’s impeachment is just one small part of the action. What is happening now in Washington DC between the Republicans and Democrats is just mere dress rehearsal for far more disasters down the road.
I just hope the costumes don’t end up being blue and gray, once again.
By DronetekPolitics 12/18/2019

December 17, 2019
In his first tweet President Trump tweeted:
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

He next tweeted:
Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

The FISA Court was put in place in 1978 when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA):
The Court sits in Washington D.C., and is composed of eleven federal district court judges who are designated by the Chief Justice of the United States. Each judge serves for a maximum of seven years and their terms are staggered to ensure continuity on the Court. By statute, the judges must be drawn from at least seven of the United States judicial circuits, and three of the judges must reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia. Judges typically sit for one week at a time, on a rotating basis.
Pursuant to FISA, the Court entertains applications submitted by the United States Government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and other investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes. Most of the Court’s work is conducted ex parte as required by statute, and due to the need to protect classified national security information.
Only two in over 10,000 applications were turned down by the FISA Court.
According to ABC News:
More than a thousand applications for electronic surveillance, all signed by the attorney general, are submitted each year, and the vast majority are approved. From 2009 to 2015, for example, more than 10,700 applications for electronic surveillance were submitted, and only one was denied in its entirety, according to annual reports sent to Congress. Another one was denied in part, and 17 were withdrawn by the government.
A very disturbing fact about the wire tapping request of President Trump is that the FISA Court turned down President Obama’s Administration’s first request to wire tap President Trump that was evidently signed off on by Attorney General Lynch. With only two applications denied out of 10,700 from 2009 through 2015, the fact that the Obama Administration’s application was denied by the FISA Court is very disturbing. The odds of this happening were 0.02% .
The Obama Presidency is clearly the most corrupt in US history.
According to the FISA Report on page 412, Obama’s Deep State DOJ and FBI decided to move forward with obtaining a FISA Warrant to spy on Carter Page and therefore candidate Trump in mid-August of 2016:

We also now know that this is when Deep State lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page discussed the insurance policy via texts on August 15, 2016 –

The DOJ OIG FISA Report does not mention that the first FISA warrant for Carter Page was denied. It only states that the Deep State attempted to put together information to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page in August 2016 and by September, the Deep State believed they had enough information to obtain the warrant.
We know that the first FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page and Trump was obtained in October 2016 shortly before the 2016 Presidential election. This now confirmed garbage report was then renewed three times.
Hat tip D. Manny

December 13, 2019
No witnesses were brought forth during the committee’s hearings on impeachment.
Only left-wing lawyers and professors were allowed to testify against President Trump.
On Friday Democrats voted along party lines to impeach President Trump on a complete sham.
No crimes were identified.
Marc Thiessen writes in the Washington Post: Washington Post column: “The impeachment articles are a vindication for Trump.”
Marc writes: “After three years in which Democrats accused President Trump of a host of criminal acts — from bribery and extortion to campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and even treason — they have finally introduced articles of impeachment that allege no statutory crimes. In that alone, Trump can claim vindication.”
This comes on the same week Democrat Deep State operatives were caught spying on President Trump’s campaign and admininistration.
These people can burn in hell for what they did to this country.
By John Ward – 12/12/2019

by Kristinn Taylor

Holder wrote an op-ed published Wednesday night by the Washington Post calling current Attorney General William Barr “unfit” to serve as attorney general. The threat to Durham iss buried in the op-ed, but jumps out like a dagger thrust from the dark.
…As a former line prosecutor, U.S. attorney and judge, I found it alarming to hear Barr comment on an ongoing investigation, led by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, into the origins of the Russia probe. And as someone who spent six years in the office Barr now occupies, it was infuriating to watch him publicly undermine an independent inspector general report — based on an exhaustive review of the FBI’s conduct — using partisan talking points bearing no resemblance to the facts his own department has uncovered.
When appropriate and justified, it is the attorney general’s duty to support Justice Department components, ensure their integrity and insulate them from political pressures. His or her ultimate loyalty is not to the president personally, nor even to the executive branch, but to the people — and the Constitution — of the United States.
Career public servants at every level of the Justice Department understand this — as do leaders such as FBI Director Christopher A. Wray and Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Their fidelity to the law and their conduct under pressure are a credit to them and the institutions they serve.
Others, like Durham, are being tested by this moment. I’ve been proud to know John for at least a decade, but I was troubled by his unusual statement disputing the inspector general’s findings. Good reputations are hard-won in the legal profession, but they are fragile; anyone in Durham’s shoes would do well to remember that, in dealing with this administration, many reputations have been irrevocably lost.
This is certainly true of Barr, who was until recently a widely respected lawyer. I and many other Justice veterans were hopeful that he would serve as a responsible steward of the department and a protector of the rule of law.
Holder closes with his statement that Barr is ‘unfit’. His case is totally based on policy differences and his claimed understanding of the nature of the job, which is odd considering Holder once called himself Obama’s “wingman” when he served as his attorney general and called Obama “my boy”: “I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.”
Virtually since the moment he took office, though, Barr’s words and actions have been fundamentally inconsistent with his duty to the Constitution. Which is why I now fear that his conduct — running political interference for an increasingly lawless president — will wreak lasting damage.
The American people deserve an attorney general who serves their interests, leads the Justice Department with integrity and can be entrusted to pursue the facts and the law, even — and especially — when they are politically inconvenient and inconsistent with the personal interests of the president who appointed him. William Barr has proved he is incapable of serving as such an attorney general. He is unfit to lead the Justice Department.
Barr, 69, is serving as attorney general a second time–the first during the presidency of George H.W. Bush. Barr is at the peak of his profession and is immune to Holder’s criticism.
Durham, on the other hand, while also Barr’s age, has been a career assistant U.S. attorney who was promoted by President Trump to U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut in 2017 after 35 years of service there. Holder’s message to Durham is clear, play ball or face ruin.
Durham’s statement that so “troubled” Holder:
“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”
Why would Holder find that statement so troubling that he would send a warning to Durham via the Washington Post? Holder knows very well what he is doing with his carefully worded threat and should know better than to warn or threaten a prosecutor–but the Deep State and its corrupt actors must be protected and “wingman” Holder has a job to do.
UPDATE: Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) understands, “Did Eric Holder obstruct justice in this threat to US Atty Durham?
“Good reputations are hard-won in the legal profession, but they are fragile; anyone in Durham’s shoes would do well to remember …”


December 12, 2019
Americans cannot be trusted to do the right thing and elect a Democrat.
So that’s why they are pushing this sham impeachment.
FOX News reported:
“We cannot rely on an election to solve our problems, when the president threatens the very integrity of that election,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said in his opening statement, claiming Trump’s discussions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about Joe and Hunter Biden’s dealings in the country, and the White House’s temporary withholding of military aid to Ukraine, constituted an “urgent” threat to national security.
“This committee now owes it to the American people to give these articles careful attention,” Nadler added at the beginning of the markup for the impeachment articles, which included obstruction of Congress and abuse of power.