Day Two of the Impeachment Public Hearings

Dear Chairman Schiff,


           Another day of the impeachment public hearings where the former Ambassador to Ukraine testified before the Intelligence Committee . . . 


           Democrats asked the Ambassador how it made her feel to be the victim of a smear campaign.  She reasonably responded that she did not appreciate having her reputation impugned or maligned.  To be frank, this is a relatively trivial scene compared with the broader smear campaign that has been continuous for over three years to remove a duly elected President of the United States.


           Even Russia continues to be smeared when the Ambassador, at the prodding by Democrats, repeats the meme that Russia hacked into the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) server.  She even emphasized that it was a consensus by the intelligence community that Russia hacked into the DNC server.  As of this writing, no one has asked the Ambassador how the intelligence community arrived at that conclusion.  The obvious answer would be, Crowdstrike.  Who is Crowdstrike?  Crowdstrike is a private sector firm hired by the DNC to examine the server (this publicity certainly made company founders billionaires when the company went public).  The federal government was not permitted by the DNC to do the examination.  Thus, the “intelligence community” (including Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper and Director of the CIA John Brennan) took Crowdstrike’s word for it.


           What else do we know about Crowdstrike?  Former National Security Agency (NSA) technical experts refute the claims about what Crowdstrike found.  Others also investigated controversial connections between the Obama Administration, the Atlantic Council, George Soros, and Google.  Yet, Democrats and their smear campaign cohort would lead us to believe this is a crazy conspiracy theory advanced by an individual who has been relentlessly smeared.


           Goodness . . . now Democrats are getting emotional and saying with red faces, “I am ANGRY!!!”  Words matter!!!!!!!  Pay attention to these words.  Pay attention to the words we are saying to smear President Trump.  Let us be clear:  evidence has little to do with our smear campaign against a man we never, ever, from day one liked or accepted as a duly elected President.


           I’m surprised that no one asked the Ambassador to what extent she moved the needle on Ukrainian corruption during her tenure.  While some efforts were mentioned, there seemed to be no reportable outcomes.

           I'm also surprised that no one asked the Ambassador if she felt like she was in good company with General MacArthur who was fired (and not moved into a prestigious fellowship) by President Truman.


           Mr. Chairman:  If the President of the United States, under his authority in Article II of the Constitution, wants to achieve results in a country considered one of the most corrupt of those important to America’s national interests, why would he not want to put in key positions those he chooses?


Respectfully,

Gadfly

A Deep and Dark Rabbit Hole

by

Gadfly

On more than one occasion during a conversation, the other party attempted to detour my line of reasoning by saying, “I’m not going down that rabbit hole!”  In some cases, I would admit that the thrust was tangential to the central theme or argument and backed off.  In others, I realized that I was actually trying to find an exit from the rabbit hole from which we were already starting.  This is America’s current dilemma:  we are in a deep and dark rabbit hole.  Most do not like it, yet also do not really know its nature and why we are in it.

In a sentence, how can we describe the rabbit hole?  We have a President that the left has never accepted and has never ceased to find a way to remove him.

The leftist cabal wants to forget the political and illegal maneuvers (protecting their favored candidate from criminal prosecution while illegally spying on their political opponent) that preceded the 2016 election.  The Mueller investigation failed despite the corrupt maneuvering to even get to the appointment of a special prosecutor (more still continues to surface, such as Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s seditious actions, yet the mainstream media is not interested).

Even Republicans or alleged Trump apologists argue that the name Biden should never have been mentioned in the July 25 telephone call between President Trump and the newly-elected Ukrainian President.  The rationale is that it implicated a motivation for dirt on a political rival.  Thus, by inference, this logic suggests a quid pro quo.

            Hardly anyone wants to advance an argument that Trump believes in the rule of law and as America’s chief law enforcer he has a moral and legal obligation to exercise his authority when he has probable cause of a crime.  In this case, the possible crime is bribery by the second most powerful man in the world.  Yet, like the recent whistle-blower, the leftist cabal cloaks him in a defensive shield because he is an opposing candidate in the 2020 presidential election.  To advance the notion that Trump’s motivation was to seek dirt (as Schiff blatantly claims in his fabricated script during a recent House Intelligence hearing) on a political opponent completely negates, through political fiat, the President’s Constitutional authority and obligations.

Ironically, the public becomes duped again by the current leftist cabal political smear, which advances the narrative from a “whistle-blower” perspective as opposed to “a leaker” perspective as highlighted in a recent New Yorker column.  The article is biased and employs cherry-picking tactics, but it provides a lens for peering into the leftist paradigm.  In the same issue of The New Yorker, there is a blatant hit piece (“The Invention of the Conspiracy Theory on Biden and Ukraine”) to debunk or censor views and evidence from other sources, such as Fox News and The Hill’s John Solomon.

To add to the confusion, on today’s Meet the Press, during a contentious interview with Senator Ron Johnson (this should happen more frequently by our elected officials—corruption can only be defeated by virtue, especially courage), Chuck Todd pressed him into answering the question, “Do you believe Russia interfered with our election?”  To which he answered, “Yes.”  This is how insidious propaganda can be.

 

The implication of Todd’s question is that Russia hacked into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server.  This meme followed a DNC email dump announcement in advance by Wikileaks.  Democrats had to deflect the focus from the actual contents of the emails, which were damning.  Instead, they shaped the narrative by suggesting Russia, in collusion with the Trump campaign, did the hacking and then shared the contents with Wikileaks.  The DNC refused to let the FBI examine the server for evidence.  Instead, they hired Crowdstrike to complete the examination.  Taking their word for it, Director of National Intelligence Clapper and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency announced that there was a consensus among the intelligence community that Russia hacked into the DNC server (for a far more compelling analysis of this scenario, which debunks these claims, see “A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack,” The Nation, August 9, 2017).

 

A more precise answer to Todd’s question should have been, “According to Crowdstrike, a private firm hired by the DNC, Russia hacked into the server.  There was no corroborating investigation by government agencies.”  By denying government participation and hiring a private firm, the DNC avoided the risk of the discovery of criminal activity.  Imagine someone bringing a criminal allegation against another party where the district attorney’s office is expected to prosecute the case but only with “evidence” purchased by the accuser’s own sources. This is what happened in the Russia interference meme.

 

This meme almost happened in the McMartin trial mentioned in my last article.  When the defense lawyer actually examined video tapes of a therapist planting stories in the minds of children, he realized the therapist manufactured evidence that was then amplified by the media (in particular with a reporter that scooped all the exclusive interviews while he was sexually involved with the therapist—true story).  But it took seven years for the gears of the justice system to discover the truth and deliver justice for the defendants (even though they became financially bankrupt and their reputations were destroyed).  There was no justice for the perpetrators of the child molestation scandal.  They continued on with their lives and professions without any accountability.  Hopefully, this lack of accountability does not become the postscript for the current perpetrated scandals.  This is why Attorney General Barr and U.S. Attorney Durham’s efforts are so critical.

Missing from this “Russian hacking” picture is why Seth Rich, a DNC staffer, was executed about a month after Wikileaks announced it would publish the emails.  Dead men tell no lies, nor truths for that matter.  The left has gotten away, so far, with destroying evidence (IRS, 30,000 subpoenaed emails, etc.).

For more confusion, even the right-of-center The Washington Examiner published an opinion piece, “Trump Misfires:  Senate Democrats’ Letter to Ukraine Was Fine,” that claimed there was nothing wrong when three Democrat Senators pressured (see the letter here) the government to cooperate in the Mueller investigation, specifically singling out Paul Manafort.  The article’s author claims the Senators had the right to do this based on a Mutual Legal Aid Treaty.  Yet, the author seems to deny the President of the United States, America’s chief law enforcer under Article II of the Constitution, the same right.  Ukraine has been seriously implicated in the Russian dossier that served as the predicate for spying on Trump’s campaign.  Why should the President be politically handcuffed in seeking justice?

According to The Hill’s John Solomon, a leading investigative journalist reporting on emerging details of the deep and dark rabbit hole: “Politics. Pressure. Opposition research. All were part of the Democrats’ playbook on Ukraine long before Trump ever called Zelensky this summer. And as Sen. Murphy’s [a Democrat Senators threat to Ukraine to back off of investigations if it wants to get American aid] foray earlier this month shows, it hasn’t stopped.”  For additional evidence to support this assertion see, “Let’s Get Real:  Democrats Were First to Enlist Ukraine in U.S. Elections.”

Lest we forget, at the manipulative urging by British spy Christopher Steele and GPS Fusion Glenn Simpson, the late Senator John McCain was used as an instrument to dispatch his aid David Kramer (employed by the McCain Institute) to get a copy of the dossier for presentation to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to leak it to the press.  If one has read the Mueller report, there are numerous footnotes to news reports, as if the news reports were actual evidence.    Fifteen news sources claim collusion; therefore, it must be true.  This is the way propaganda works.

As readers of these Gadfly Corner articles are aware, I have referenced material from former members of the Communist Party who have memorialized their experiences as Communists.  Douglas Hyde was an editor for The Daily Worker in London.  In his book, I Believed:  The Autobiography of a Former British Communist, Hyde documents how stories were told to advance the Party line and to discredit those who opposed the Communist doctrine.  The tactics are consistent with those at play today.  The attempt to discredit alternative news sources such as Fox News and John Solomon, in particular, seek to advance the Party line.

Closer to home, American Louis Francis Budenz memorialized his experiences as well, in particular, in his books This Is My Story and The Techniques of Communism.  In the latter book, Budenz devotes a chapter with the title, “Affecting Public Opinion.”  He talks about “psychological warfare” and asserts “the Communists were aware of the power of this weapon as an outstanding means to advance the ‘class war.’”  He goes on to say: “To the followers of Lenin and Stalin, . . . [t]heir great asset was infiltration of the institutions and organizations of the country they plan to undermine, following Lenin’s instructions to employ perjury and deceit and Stalin’s directive to make transmission belts of those organizations for the Communist line” (p. 153).  Communism is socialism.

My friends, the deep and dark rabbit hole is the socialist infiltration of America’s institutions:  the government, the media, Hollywood, academia, teachers’ unions, think tanks such as the Center for American Progress, religious institutions, and so forth.

 

As much as President Trump argues that America will never be a socialist nation, he is championing an effort to counter the fact that major institutions have already been afflicted.  Former Secretary of the Treasury William Simon warned us about the infiltration in his 1978 book, A Time for Truth.  Malachi Martin warned us about Soviet Communist infiltration of the Roman Catholic Church in his 1978 book, The Final Conclave.  Bella Dodd, in her memoir, The School of Darkness, confessed to the infiltration of labor unions (especially teachers) and the Catholic Church (she had direct knowledge, saying “in the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the church from within”).

In any socialist system, there is only one commandment (as Orwell tells it in his novel, Animal Farm):  All animals are equal; some are more equal than others.  Those in power are the ruling class in a totalitarian state.  They enjoy luxury and power while the rest of society are equally miserable.  The miserable in Venezuela who trusted in promised “hope and change” now suffer from the deep and dark rabbit hole its ruling class took them.

Despite the leftist cabal’s deliberate and concerted caricaturing (consistent with “Lenin’s instructions to employ perjury and deceit and Stalin’s directive to make transmission belts of those organizations for the Communist line”) of President Trump, my hope and confidence is in him as the means for escaping the deep and dark rabbit hole the left has taken us.    

“By the Book,” Says President Obama

by

Gadfly

On January 20, 2017, inauguration day for President Trump, outgoing National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote an email to herself, using her government computer in order to memorialize an event as a government record.  In the email, Rice summarized a meeting that took place in the Oval Office on January 5, two weeks earlier, which included discussion of the Russian Dossier.  Rice said:

On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office.  Vice President Biden and I were also present.

President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book”.  The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.  He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.

From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.

[Classified portion redacted]

The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team.  Comey said he would.

If Rice’s summary was an accurate portrayal, and “The President” actually said “the next few weeks” as opposed to “the next two weeks,” then there are serious implications of the unfolding plot.  The “next few weeks” included the official transition and turnover of administrations.  Yet, Obama seemed to want to retain control even after the inauguration.  If President Trump suspected this dynamic, it likely explained why Comey was asked about loyalty.  When acting Attorney General Sally Yates instructed the Department of Justice to disobey an Executive Order, this was blatant evidence regarding control of the administration.

In February 2017, Senators Grassley and Graham discovered the Rice email and confronted her about it.  The questions they posed seem reasonable for establishing the context and motivation for memorializing this meeting.  If answers were provided, they have not been made public. In May, Rice refused to testify when invited to do so.  Perhaps Republicans lacked a sense for the gravity of the situation.  They certainly are meek compared to their Democrat counterparts.  On the other hand, the difference between the two Parties might reveal to what extent an elected office serves the will of the people through legislative action or special interests through political action.  If this is true, then Republicans are clearly more principled in accordance with our Constitution.

Speaking of political action and principles, these concepts can shed more light on the current political contest.  The current impeachment frenzy is organized political action by the Democrat Party.  Organized action requires focus, and that focus is the organizing principle.

 

For definition purposes, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines principle as “a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption.”  Dictionary.com provides a different definition within the context of moral behavior: “an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct.”  Oxford’s Lexico.com defines principle as “A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.”

 

Given these definitions, can we derive the organizing principle that has shaped the current political action?  We do not need to derive it.  Democrats have already declared it:  President Trump is guilty of the crime of quid pro quo (Latin meaning “something for something”), implying that Trump promised something for something in return.  The Democrats claim the quo was millions in military aid for Ukraine. The quid was dirt on an opposing presidential candidate, (i.e., Joe Biden) to give President Trump an advantage going into the 2020 election.

   

Here’s where “by the book” becomes important.  To organize political action around the principle of quid pro quo, there needs to be evidence of such an exchange.  Is there evidence?  A recent whistle-blower complaint alleges such an exchange (the link to the complaint is to a New York Times presentation, which includes biased editorial comments that accept the whistle-blower on face value).  The New York Times also provides a link to a transcript of the President’s call (again with editorial comments that infer intentions or motivations).  Yet, despite having access to the transcript, Adam Schiff elected to manufacture and blatantly distort what the President actually said.

What the Times and Democrats refuse to acknowledge, let alone understand, is that the phone call was based on Trump’s actual constitutional authority as the President of the United States, courageously fulfilling his oath of office.  He is not above the law, nor is he below it.  Unfortunately, his request to pursue corruption involving a former Vice President and his son happens to be a legal and moral obligation.  A video of Biden boasting about how he got a Ukrainian prosecutor (who apparently was investigating an energy company that included Biden’s son as a board member) fired by withholding a billion dollars is a clear example of quid pro quo.  While Democrats love to say Trump is not above the law, they seem to have a different standard for Biden.

      

Admitting that he or she was not a direct witness to a July 25 telephone call between President Trump and the newly elected Ukrainian President, the whistle-blower complaint was based on hearsay from other parties.  The whistle-blower stated:

In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.  This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals.

The whistle-blower attempts to establish the “urgent concern” provision in the following statement:

I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order” that “does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters,” consistent with the definition of an “urgent concern” in 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(G). I am therefore fulfilling my duty to report this information, through proper legal channels, to the relevant authorities.

In other words, the whistle-blower has provided a principle for political action “by the book.”

Unfortunately, the whistle-blower cites a provision in the statute but misrepresents the actual intent and meaning.  Here is the actual wording:

 

 A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.

It does not take legal training to understand that this provision applies ONLY to “an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence.”

Ironically, the whistle-blower met with staff aides in the office of the House Intelligence Committee, chaired by Adam Schiff BEFORE drafting the written complaint, which was sent to the Congressional Intelligence Committee Chairs on August 12.  It was not until two weeks later that the IC IG submitted the whistle-blower to Joseph Maguire, the Acting Director of National Intelligence, on August 26.  Schiff apparently knew about this action well before Maguire and the IC IG, Michael Atkinson.

Michael Atkinson changed the policy for IC IG whistle-blower complaints to no longer require “first-hand” evidence in order to accommodate the hearsay evidence provided by the whistle-blower.  What do we know about Atkinson?  There is an old adage, “follow the money,” to understand the motivation behind corruption.  I propose another adage, “follow the relationships.” Or would "birds of a feather flock together" be more appropriate?    Atkinson has a history as revealed here.  His relationships, especially within the context of deep state actions against Trump and members within his political orbit, reveal a significant anti-Trump animus.

    

Democrats want to run with the whistle-blower complaint even though at this point the principle justifying political action is merely an assumption or proposition presumed to be true.  For additional legal background, here is the statute addressing the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG).  The scope of the IC IG authority is the intelligence community, which does not include the President of the United States.  Aside from this major condition (beyond his jurisdiction), the IC IG proceeded in accordance with the IG IC statutory process—in other words, “by the book.”

If you want to see a similar travesty of justice, watch the HBO documentary, Indictment:  The McMartin Trial.  This case consumed seven years and $15 million with no convictions but lives were destroyed in the process.  The case mushroomed from a single child molestation charge that maliciously accused an innocent person into a circus of accused victims.  The players involved in perpetrating this scandal and nationwide hysteria walked away with no accountability.  Power-hungry individuals had little to no remorse about the collateral damage in the process.  Themes include wishful thinking (allegations in place of evidence), collaboration with the media, and so forth.  Someday, a similar movie may portray Robert Mueller, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, the whistle-blower, and media collaboration in their orchestrated attempt to remove a duly elected President regardless of the road kill in their wake.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department is still pursuing a deeper understanding of issues related to the infamous dossier that justified spying on political opposition.  President Trump asked the new Ukrainian President for assistance in the “alleged” Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers (the DNC refused to let the FBI examine the servers for actual evidence; instead, they hired Crowdstrike to claim Russia hacked the servers).  For credible evidence that debunks Russian hacking of the DNC server, please see my May 29, 2019 article, “One’s Name Is Mud.”

 

Democrats are fully aware of Justice Department actions.  This explains their urgency to move forward with the impeachment narrative.  If Trump survives the current contest, which I frame as power for Democrats and truth and justice for most Republicans (Romney is still a self-promoter; Sass can’t keep up, then the Justice Department is likely to move on criminal prosecution of crimes committed going into the 2016 election.  As mentioned in a previous article, “Flotsam with a Voice,” Democrats did not capitulate when the Mueller report was released.  As predicted, Democrats will sustain an offensive for four main reasons:

Run out the clock under statute of limitations provisions to protect those who conspired to undermine President Trump.

Keep pressure on Trump via Congressional hearings to make him and any Republican supporters unattractive candidates going into the 2020 elections.

Maintain positive control of the public narrative, knowing they can count on a complicit, duplicitous, and mendacious main stream media who share the same progressive (shall we say socialist) agenda.

.

When indictments begin to surface from Attorney General Barr’s investigation into the “investigators” and Russian collusion hoax “perpetrators,” the Democrats will argue these actions are intended as political retribution despite actual, not merely “alleged,” illegal activity.

            In closing, we can essentially predict Democrat strategy and actions because they operate “by the book.”  What exactly is “the book”?  Does it mean due process in accordance with the law?  Or is it Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals?

 

Based on the Democrat organizing principle and political action, I contend “the book” is Rules for Radicals.  After all, it is all about taking power away from those who have it.  Alinsky’s rule 13 seems to clearly describe the concerted cabal by Democrats and a complicit media:  “Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”