BY MIKE HUCKABEE
Blessings on you and your family from all the Huckabee staff! Thank you for subscribing and I hope you enjoy today’s newsletter.
DAILY BIBLE VERSE
Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful.
Clinton campaign mgr. working with "Election Integrity Project"
Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager, had a central role in furthering the Russia Hoax against Donald Trump. Recall that it was Mook who testified at Michael Sussmann’s trial that Clinton herself approved taking their unverified story about Alfa Bank “collusion” with then-candidate Trump (which was a lie) to the media. Mook appointed a staffer to do the deed. When an article falsely implicating Trump came out in SLATE magazine, Hillary pushed it by following with tweets of her own.
Fast-forward to the 2020 election, and Mook once again had his role to play, as cofounder of the Defending Digital Democracy Project at Harvard, one of four entities enlisted for the laughably-named “Election Integrity Project” (EIP), founded “in consortium” with the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Their job was to submit “tips” about so-called misinformation and to interact with the EIP through “briefings, partner meetings and shared findings.”
The EIP would send their misinformation reports to social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, TikTok and Google, and “had a 35 percent success rate in getting flagged content removed, labeled or ‘soft-blocked,'" as reported in JUST THE NEWS, which itself was caught in that net.
Here are the details, from Greg Piper and Solomon, including a link to Solomon’s podcast with much more on it. (Bonus: he also talks with President Trump.)
Their report quotes Mike Benz, creator of Foundation for Freedom Online, as saying federal officials had discussed “their envy of the Chinese model” in “internal meetings and deliberations” in 2017 and 2018. Benz, who also is interviewed in Solomon’s podcast, said bureaucrats were envious of China because “when there’s populist movements and dissent groups within China, China has the advantage of being able to use its artificial intelligence” to squelch their dissent. This talk amplified under the Biden administration, which, in conjunction with the Election Integrity Project, has set up what Benz called “a bad knock-off of the Chinese model."
Danchenko trial: Steele couldn't corroborate dossier for $1 million
The trial of Steele “dossier” primary sub-source Igor Danchenko got off to a quiet start this week. Jury selection took place on Monday in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, followed by opening remarks. But as of Tuesday, there’s already quite a stunning-but-not-surprising revelation: That in October 2016, the FBI offered Christopher Steele, author of the dossier, a cool $1 million if he could corroborate its salacious claims. Needless to say, he couldn’t, so they got to keep the money but used the dossier, anyway.
FBI supervisory analyst Brian Auten, under questioning by Special Counsel John Durham himself, testified Tuesday that Steele never got the money because he could not “prove the allegations.” In fact, Steele gave them nothing in the way of corroboration, not even the names of his sources.
Recall that Danchenko even TOLD them it was only bar talk, guys just shooting the breeze, nothing verified at all. From that and from this new Steele information, we may safely surmise that the FBI absolutely knew the dossier was worthless when they played it up as “Crown material,” golden intelligence from the Brits.
Former deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo observed on FOX NEWS late Tuesday that even though Igor Danchenko is the defendant, “it’s almost as if the FBI itself is on trial.” Our hope has long been that Durham had that in mind all along, knowing the ‘justice’ system, at least as it was going to play out in a DC courtroom, was not going to be his friend. He might not get convictions, but at least he might convict the FBI in the court of public opinion.
In Yoo’s words, “The FBI...took that information, believed it [editorial aside: well, that’s debatable], didn’t double-check it, and then used it to go to a FISA court to use the awesome powers of the intelligence community and the FBI and the ‘Justice’ Department to surveil Donald Trump’s campaign. That crossed a red line that had been in place since Watergate, that the intelligence agencies were not to use their awesome powers to interfere in presidential elections.”
The prosecution’s opening statement did maintain the assumption that the FBI had been duped about the validity of the dossier. As Margot Cleveland has said, this narrative doesn’t seem consistent with what we learned in September: that even after the FBI knew Danchenko had lied, they made him a paid confidential human source. Cleveland believes Durham's implication that liars fooled the FBI undermines his case. In some ways, he seems to be putting the FBI on trial, but in this one respect, he’s letting them off the hook. What gives?
In other DOJ news, the Biden ‘Justice’ Department has urged the Supreme Court to reject President Trump’s emergency appeal to allow the special master to review about 100 purportedly “classified” documents taken from Mar-A-Lago by the FBI, as Judge Aileen Cannon originally ruled he should. Trump had argued that some of those documents might have been his personal material, and also that the special master needed to review materials with classified markings to see if they should still be considered classified.
Judge Cannon’s ruling was overturned unanimously by a three-judge panel –- two of which were Trump appointees –- from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, and the Supreme Court might hesitate to get involved, though we wish they would. As it stands now, the prosecutors get to go through all the “classified” documents on their own without letting the special master or even Trump and/or his legal team see them. That just doesn’t seem right.
AINSWORTH: NO, "Christian nationalism" is not an existential threat
Gosh, now that we know about China making incursions into this hemisphere and Putin possibly contemplating “limited” nuclear attacks, I can think of a few threats that pose more danger, and I don’t mean angry parents at school board meetings. I have never spoken with Mr. Seidel and can’t say for sure that he’s pathologically obsessed with the dire threat supposedly posed by Christian nationalism, but a search of his other writings suggests to me that he is.
Here’s the DALLAS MORNING NEWS piece, but the DMN is subscription-only, and I would recommend not bothering with that to get this particular “member-exclusive content.” I think I can judiciously paraphrase without distorting what he has to say.
Now, I feel uniquely qualified to answer Mr. Seidel’s concerns, as I have spent my life in no religion bubble –- whether Christian, on-the-fence or Christian-averse. My upbringing was agnostic but reflective of basic Judeo-Christian ethics, I attended Vacation Bible School and sang in church choirs, and today I write for what I have found to be the finest and most compassionate audience there is, Mike Huckabee’s, which is overwhelmingly Christian. The Governor himself was a Baptist pastor before entering politics. Yet I spent years as literally a card-carrying skeptic, a member of a regional skeptics organization, and regularly discussed issues relating to religion with people who were almost uniformly atheist liberal Democrats.
(And, yes, I have to say there was an element of hostility and condescension among some “skeptics” towards Christian believers and political conservatives. In fact, one reason I’m not active any longer is that I found the group, ironically, too wedded to their own opinions, not skeptical ENOUGH of their own conclusions. In other words, I was too skeptical to be a member of the Skeptics.)
Anyway, Seidel looks at the most extreme manifestation of the so-called Christian nationalist movement --- the members who, relative to the population at large, could meet in a phone booth (remember phone booths?) --- and greatly magnifies the threat posed by them. He was doing this before January 6, and he went into overdrive after January 6 along with the rest of the Democrat Party. But I don’t think he realizes the shock and horror most Christian conservatives experienced while this so-called “insurrection” was unfolding on TV. Even so, as we watched slack-jawed, we never in our wildest dreams feared that the United States government might be overthrown by Viking Hat Guy and other passionate but unarmed participants. The idea is laughable. The Ship of State would manage somehow to remain afloat!
We’ve talked plenty about January 6, strongly condemning those who committed violence –- even if egged on by Capitol Police, which appears to have happened –- but also decrying the stunning lack of due process given to nonviolent detainees held in near-solitary for long months without bail, especially when our ‘Justice’ Department failed to enforce the law against far more violent agitators on the left. (At least in this essay, Seidel never mentions what the secular left has been doing to erode basic rights in this country.)
I suppose someone who believed J6 detainees represented our biggest existential threat might've been minimally concerned with safeguarding their constitutional rights. Certainly that would account for the abusive treatment of them. But Seidel is a constitutional attorney and is supposed to care about such things. On the contrary, he seems vastly more concerned about the rights of the non-religious, against whom he sees the concept of religious freedom being “weaponized.” While the vast majority of Christians do not want the American government to be molded into a Christian theocracy, Seidel seems to think they do. And the concept of separation of church and state, at least as framed by him, can easily turn the courts into an enemy of religion.
I would even suggest his hard-line approach against religion has contributed to the toughening stance of some Christian groups, the very circumstance that keeps him up at night.
This excerpt from Seidel's piece, with its pointed choice of words, will tell you where his head is: “Christian nationalists have become ever more emboldened since they helped Donald Trump cobble together an electoral college victory in 2016. When they failed to do so in 2020, they attacked the beating heart of American democracy on Jan. 6.”
He blames Christian nationalism for this, saying it “created a permission structure that gave the insurrectionists the moral and mental license they needed to attack our government and attempt to overturn a free and fair election.” (Note: If he assumes it was fair, he’s no skeptic, that's for sure.) Funny, I thought almost everyone came to the rally because they thought the election HADN’T been fair, hoping Congress would pause and look at some serious anomalies before certification. You know, to safeguard our democracy.
For the record, I think the worst “existential threat” we face as a free country is the control of communication, by way of a shared strategy among the current administration, intel community and private entities, using computer algorithms to shut down speech as “mis-” and “disinformation.” America cannot function democratically without the free exchange of information. In fact, in my Top Ten List of America’s Existential Threats, Christian nationalism wouldn’t be there at all.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY:
Thank you for reading my newsletter.
For more news, visit my website.