October 8, 2020
By Mike Huckabee
UPDATE ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S HEALTH
Good news from his doctors, who reported Wednesday that he is free of symptoms, he hasn’t had a fever in four days, his vital signs are all stable and normal, and he now has detectable levels of COVID-19 antibodies.
Even so, the second Presidential debate is in question. The Presidential Debate Commission wanted to make it a virtual debate because Biden was threatening to pull out over Trump’s coronavirus diagnosis. Trump says people deserve to see the candidates going head to head, and he won’t waste his time on a virtual debate, so he’ll schedule a rally instead. Stay tuned, I have a feeling this isn’t settled yet. I smell a whiff of “The Art of the Deal” about this story. I expect more goading from Trump about Biden being too fragile to survive the same disease Trump had.
PAUL SPERRY: BIDEN UNDER "ACTIVE FEDERAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION"
Now that President Trump has moved to completely declassify ALL material related to the Russia hoax (that covers a lot of ground) and the “Mid-Year Exam” into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server for State Department business, it will be interesting to see how fast the un-redacted documents pour out. If the process works as Trump surely intends, it should be like water out of a fire hose.
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said Wednesday that he’d sent nearly 1,000 pages to the Justice Department to aid in U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation. Chuck Ross at THE DAILY CALLER filed a report on this.
We don’t yet know what documents these were or how they contribute to Durham’s investigation. So we’ll have to wait, but in the meantime, there’s still quite a bit to process.
Paul Sperry, one of our go-to reporters for breaking “Spygate” news, is reporting that Joe Biden is under federal criminal investigation for his role in the 2016 phony “Russia” probe and also Ukraine. Thursday afternoon, he tweeted: “BREAKING: Joe Biden is the subject of an active federal criminal investigation into his role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, incl the former vice president’s activities in Ukraine. Ukrainian witnesses are cooperating.”
Sperry is not naming his sources, and at this writing, Attorney General Barr has had nothing to say. Typically I wouldn’t pass along an anonymously-sourced story –- after all, I’m not THE NEW YORK TIMES –- but Sperry has proved himself dependable and would not likely tweet this without high confidence. Keep in mind that neither Barr nor anyone speaking for the DOJ would officially confirm an investigation of Biden, especially this close to the election.
Also, Tyler O’Neil at PJ Media has a great piece summarizing what we know to date. The really interesting part is where he speculates about how Russian intelligence might have found out what Hillary was doing to implicate Trump in Russian “collusion.” He goes back to the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
A lot happened during June and July of 2016.
We’ve known for a long time that Veselnitskaya was working with Fusion GPS (!) and met with Glenn Simpson both before and after the Trump Tower meeting (!!). Sure smells like a set-up, and this may be what Russian intel sniffed out. As O’Neil says, “It is possible that the Trump Tower was a Clinton set-up, a honeypot operation designed to bolster Clinton’s claim that Trump was in bed with Russia.”
It’s interesting to go back in time and see what was said about this in 2017, especially as it might have related to Hillary and the Rosatom uranium deal. This story is little talked about now, but it will re-emerge in light of new declassified material.
O’Neil explains: “If this was the case, it seems likely that news of this [Veselnitskya] operation could have reached Russian intelligence operatives, and their reports ended up in Brennan’s hands.” In other words, it wasn’t Russian DIS-information about Hillary. It was part of Hillary’s own plan --- what the Russians found she was actually doing.
We can go back even earlier, to this piece from 2016, THE DAY AFTER CLINTON BLAMED RUSSIA FOR THE SO-CALLED HACK OF THE DNC. If you have time for a little trip down memory lane, it’s easy to see why Hillary needed a “distraction” from her own messy dealings with Russia.
And now we know that’s just what she came up with, a plan to tie TRUMP to the Russians. At the same time, there's still no evidence that Russia hacked he DNC, and for all we know it was an inside job. We may never know, but it makes a lot of sense to me that someone at the DNC, maybe a Bernie supporter who chafed under Hillary’s control of the party, would have done this, not Russia. Perhaps Hillary was quite aware that the Russians didn’t do it. Julian Assange has always maintained that they didn't. Whether they did or not, how conveeeeenient it was for her to say the release of DNC emails on Wikileaks was because Russia hacked them --- to help Trump win!
Yes, when it comes to corruption, all roads lead back to Hillary. Sean Davis of THE FEDERALIST spared no words on Tucker Carlson’s Tuesday show when it came to the seriousness of what was done and the need for people to go to prison.
"This wasn’t just some silly game that had no real consequences or implications,” he said. “These people used this to cast doubt on our election. They talk about the integrity of our democracy...After Trump was inaugurated, they went and hijacked the presidency, they tried to cripple it. They put in this completely bogus special counsel based on false pretenses to cripple the administration heading right into the 2018 elections.”
Tucker brought up the most lasting consequence if nobody goes to jail for this: “You want to live in a place where the CIA operates...against the favored party’s political enemies? I can’t imagine anything more third-world.”
That is exactly the world Hillary, Obama and John Brennan gave us, and what we’d surely continue to have under a Biden-Harris presidency.
Finally, J. Peder Zane has a great new piece at RealClearInvestigations that concludes multiple smoking guns “have established beyond any doubt that the vast powers of our government were weaponized and politicized to destroy a candidate and then a President.” But he sounds like many of my frustrated readers when he predicts they’ll get away with their crimes.
THE VICE-PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE RECAP
Last night was the one and only Vice Presidential debate, and I think it’s safe to say that Mike Pence did to Kamala Harris what Tulsi Gabbard did to her in the primary debates. But before I get into any details, here’s a link to watch the whole debate.
Here’s a write-up of the highpoints.
There was plenty of post-debate commentary, but rather than point you to partisan analyses, here’s one that hits on what I thought was the major takeaway of the night: the vitally important questions that Kamala Harris simply refused to answer.
Like her silence on whether they would try to pack the Supreme Court and her denial that Biden will ban fracking (see them both promise to do that very thing at this link)…
…Or her denial that Biden will raise people’s taxes “on day one” (he claims he won’t raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000, but he’s also vowed to reverse the Trump tax cuts, which he misrepresents as a “tax cut for the rich” – which Democrats call all tax cuts – when most of the benefits actually went to the middle class.)
At least somebody finally asked the Democrat these long-overdue questions, even though it often fell to Pence to ask them, since the moderator certainly wasn’t going to do it.
Both sides are claiming that their candidate obviously won, but flash polls showed viewers thought Pence was the winner by as much as 2-1. It was pretty clear to the undecided voters in Frank Luntz’s focus group that Pence won decisively. And these were actual undecided voters, not the kind in NBC’s recent Joe Biden townhall who were only undecided about whether to get their “Biden 2020” tattoos on their arms or their faces.
Those viewers appreciated that the debate was more cordial than the last one (a low bar indeed!), but didn’t like when questions were dodged. Their impression of Pence was that he seemed tired but presidential, while Harris seemed abrasive and condescending. That’s probably because of the smirking, eye-rolling and inappropriate laughter during Pence’s comments. I know some are claiming that’s sexist, and that women are held to impossible standards of presentation, but I refer you to the Bush-Gore debate where Gore rolled his eyes and sighed dramatically and everyone agreed that he came across as an arrogant jackass.
The best thing about this debate for me was that Pence got a chance to calmly explain what the Trump Administration has really accomplished on a variety of fronts, cut through the Democrat/media narrative that they’ve botched or failed at everything, and compare it to Biden’s dismal record, from the coronavirus to the economy to trade deals to China and the Middle East.
For instance, he finally got to remind viewers that while it’s tragic that over 200,000 Americans have died of the coronavirus, the world was blindsided with a new and deadly disease from CHINA (really glad to hear someone say that), and there was a tremendous public-private effort to study the disease while ensuring there were adequate supplies of ventilators, masks, hospital beds, etc., so that the predicted shortages and 2.2 million deaths never occurred. And he destroyed Biden’s claim that he would handle pandemics better by pointing out that Biden’s own health advisor admitted that if H1N1 (swine flu) had been as lethal as COVID-19, millions of Americans would have died under Obama/Biden’s feckless response.
As for Harris’ claim that Biden “has a plan” (they “have a plan” for everything, but don’t seem to want to share some of them), Pence noted that his plan is all things that the Trump Administration is already doing (I loved the dig about Joe's familiarity with plagiarism.) This is what I meant after the last debate when I said that Trump missed opportunities to correct a lot of false narratives. Pence grabbed those opportunities over and over and gutted the falsehoods like a trout.
Another highpoint came when Pence refuted the nonsensical rumors about Trump not accepting the results of the election by pointing out all the damage done by Democrats for 3-1/2 years because they still don’t accept the results of the 2016 election.
Harris followed Biden’s lead in repeating a number of debunked “fake news” stories and questionable partisan claims as if they were fact. To list just a few off the top of my head:
* That Trump called our soldiers “suckers” and “losers” (from an anonymously-sourced hit piece refuted by over 20 people who were actually there, including my daughter)…
* That Trump derided soldiers in Arlington Cemetery, saying, “’What’s in it for them?’ Because of course, he only thinks about what’s in it for him.” (Ripped wildly out of context; Trump was praising them for their selflessness and sacrifice.)
* That Trump “called Mexicans rapists and criminals” (he was specifically referring to MS-13 gang members, who are rapists and criminals.)
* That Trump refuses to denounce white supremacists (he’s done it over 20 times; here’s a video of 17 of them).
* That Trump said there were “fine people” among the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville (he said there were fine people on both sides of the debate about removing Confederate monuments but that the neo-Nazis should be “condemned totally.”) This has been debunked repeatedly, even by liberal outlets; and the only excuse for repeating it now is that you’re either an idiot, a cynical liar or senile. I don’t believe Biden and Harris are idiots or that Sen. Harris is senile.
It was like a greatest hits list of debunked anti-Trumper stories. Judging from those statements, Harris and Biden believe everything they read on Alyssa Milano’s Twitter feed, which isn’t comforting when you think of them having access to the nuclear button.
A real debate moderator would’ve thrown a red flag on statements that are not spin or opinion but verified lies and fake news. I’m thinking of forwarding this list to the next moderators so they have no excuse for not doing their jobs when they inevitably come up again.
Speaking of bald-faced lies, Harris tried to dodge the Court-packing question by claiming that Abraham Lincoln declined to nominate a Justice until after the election. She said, “Honest Abe said, ‘It’s not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next President of the United States and then that person can select who will serve for a lifetime on the highest court of our land.'”
That’s patently false. That Court opening occurred in October, 1864, while the Senate was out of session, and back then, it didn’t reconvene until after the election, on December 5. Lincoln nominated Salmon Chase and he was confirmed, all on day one of the next Senate term.
I don’t think anyone will be nicknaming her “Honest Kamala” anytime soon.
Finally, here are the questions I would have asked Sen. Harris: You recently traveled to Wisconsin to sit by the bedside of a man accused of sexual assault who was shot while resisting arrest and tell him you were proud of him. You’ve previously said that women who make rape accusations should be believed (you even said it of Biden’s accuser before becoming his running mate), so should we not believe his accuser? And secondly, when two police officers in your home state of California were shot at point-blank range by a cop-hating criminal, did you fly to their bedsides to tell them you were proud of them?
BIBLE VERSE OF THE DAY