By Mike Huckabee
December 26, 2021
|
|
By Mike Huckabee
Good morning! Here are the top stories from this week that I think you will want to read. Topics include:
- Another fabricated January 6 claim unravels
- Biden's Poll Numbers Are Cratering
- Schiff doctored "evidence" for 'Special Committee,' should be disbarred
- Two more stories show reach of Hillary's tentacles
THE LATEST
1. Another fabricated January 6 claim unravels:
Another day, another fabricated Democrat claim about the “Great Insurrection” unravels in public like a cheap suit.
Rep. Liz Cheney claimed that once the violence in the Capitol started, President Trump waited 187 minutes, or over three hours, before saying anything about it. She railed that he “refused to act when action by our president was required, indeed essential, and compelled by his oath to our Constitution.” She called this long delay a “supreme dereliction of duty.”
There’s also another, more accurate, term for it: “fictitious.”
The Federalist compared the timeline of the Capitol violence to the timestamps on Trump’s tweets. The first building was breached around 2:13 to 2:15 p.m. At 2:38 p.m., Trump tweeted, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”
About 30 minutes later, he tweeted, “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order — respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”
At 4:17, he posted a video urging the rioters to go home, which Twitter promptly suppressed because “TRUUUUUUMP!!!”
Cheney’s office did not respond to the Federalist's inquiries about where she got that 187-minute figure. I’m guessing it came from Adam Schiff, who got it off his Rotten Apple watch.
LEAVE ME A COMMENT, I READ THEM!
DAILY BIBLE VERSE
This verse was recommended by Liz S.
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
2 Timothy 1:7 KJV
MORE NEWS
2. Biden's poll numbers are cratering:
President Biden’s poll numbers continue to roll downhill faster than a marble on Mount Everest. Latest numbers:
Despite a blizzard of anti-Trump propaganda blaming him for every COVID death, Rasmussen reports that Americans now believe Biden has done a worse job of handling COVID than Trump did by a 49-39% margin.
But the poll that’s giving Democrats more nightmares than Freddy Kruger is the new Wall Street Journal poll. This poll is more extensive and has a far larger polling sample than previous polls, and the results look even worse for the Democrats.
Biden’s approval rating is 41%, with disapproval at 57%. Among Independent voters, it’s a staggering 30%-66%. When asked to name the most important issue to them, voters chose immigration, the economy and inflation as the top three, and Republicans have huge leads over Democrats in which party can handle all three better. And on the 2022 Congressional generic ballot, Republicans are preferred by 44-41%. That sounds close, but generic ballot polls usually undercount Republicans, so that even a tie can mean a red wave is coming.
And if Democrats think hammering away on abortion rights is going to turn things around: only 1% of respondents chose that as their #1 issue.
This is where I have to mention that the election is still nearly a year away, things can change, don’t get complacent, keep working and volunteering and donating to take back and save America. And if I had to give any sage advice to a Democrat, it might be these two words: “Switch parties.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-mexico-lawmaker-democrat-affiliation
LEAVE ME A COMMENT HERE, I READ THEM!
3. Schiff doctored "evidence" for 'Special Committee,' should be disbarred:
Yesterday, we reported new developments about Nancy Pelosi’s ‘Special Committee’ to make the case that Liz Cheney is “the new Adam Schiff.
I regret to inform you, however, that the old Adam Schiff is still practicing his usual dark magic in Congress to make lies seem true. Consider what he did Monday night during a meeting of the committee.
Remember when Schiff claimed to have proof of “collusion” between Trump and Russia to help Trump win in 2016? Remember when it turned out he had nothing? And how that's just one of his claims that have turned out to be lies? Well, he’s at it again. Monday night, he said he had proof that a member of Congress (whose name he didn't specify, but it was Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan) texted then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to tell him to instruct Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
As Sean Davis at The Federalist reported Wednesday, not only did Schiff twist “the substance of the message and its source,” but he also doctored original text messages. The Federalist provided for comparison the original, complete text messages and included the video of Schiff doing this.
In the video, Schiff puts up a text and reads it out loud: “On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.”
“You can see why this is so critical to ask Mr. Meadows about,” Schiff says. But according to Davis, Schiff “erased significant portions of the text and added punctuation where there was none to give the impression that Jordan himself was tersely directing Meadows to give orders to Pence on how to handle the electoral vote certification.”
The original text, though, was not from Jordan, but from Washington attorney and former Department of Defense Inspector General Joseph Schmitz, who had also attached a four-page “discussion draft” of a document detailing Schmitz’s legal reasoning for suggesting Pence had the authority to object to certification in “a handful of states.” Not the same thing as what Schiff was claiming at all.
Schiff had sliced-and-diced a three-paragraph summary of the document that Schmitz had sent to Jordan and then wrongly attributed it to Jordan.
Specifically, the graphic quoted above was achieved by deleting the last part of the original first sentence, which would have read, “ --- in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence.” One can see how Schiff might not have wanted that part of the sentence in there, so “poof!” the inconvenient phrase was gone.
There was more that Schiff had left out: Schmitz quoted Hamilton citing case law (Hubbard v. Lowe) and used that to support the argument that “an unconstitutionally appointed elector, like an unconstitutionally elected statute, is no elector at all.”
Schiff had erased the final two paragraphs and the final clause of the first paragraph before substituting his own punctuation to make it look as if that was all there was to the quote. Russell Dye, spokesman for Rep. Jordan, asked, “Is anyone surprised that Adam Schiff is again rifling through private text messages and cherry-picking information to fit his partisan narrative and sow misinformation?”
According to Davis’ sources, Schiff never approached Jordan to discuss the text message before taking it upon himself to change it. If he had, Jordan could have made it clear to him that he had just been passing along an attorney’s summarized legal argument. In fact, Jordan is known for NOT texting much more than “yes” or “no,” certainly not detailed legal arguments, so a text like this from him wouldn’t have been believable to people who knew him. Schiff didn’t care.
Significantly, one source said this: “...You have to remember what was going on at the time. People were sending around these law review articles and debates left and right because we had an interest in learning the facts and getting them right. And if it’s somehow seditious in this country to debate or share a law review article on Alexander Hamilton’s view on things, that’s not really a country I want to be a part of anymore.”
Davis’ report goes into Schiff’s long history of doctoring “evidence” and misrepresenting facts, and I highly recommend it. Laura Ingraham’s Wednesday show does this as well, with guest Mollie Hemingway, who also reviews what we’ve said about why the committee is not legitimate. Recall that Schiff has been caught in lies multiple times; one major example: denying he knew the identity of the mysterious impeachment “whistleblower,” who turned out to be a scammer named Eric Ciaramella who had contacted Schiff’s office before even submitting his bogus complaint.
If you have a premium subscription to The Epoch Times, check out this story by Jack Phillips, who reports that the committee has had to admit the doctoring, with a spokesperson claiming a period was placed at the end “inadvertently.” Right. “The Select Committee is responsible for and regrets the error,” they said dryly, after they got caught.
Of course, they still voted to hold Meadows in contempt of Congress, as planned all along.
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/hold-vote-mark-meadows-held-criminal-contempt-congress
Mark Levin, on Wednesday with Sean Hannity, suggested doing something about “this whining, unethical hack.” “Lawyers are not free to doctor evidence,” he said, noting that Schiff is trying with this to railroad (my word) Meadows into prison. It’s time to file a serious ethics complaint against Schiff, with the ethics arm of the Supreme Court of California, Levin said. A private citizen can do this, but he’s suggesting that Republicans in Congress do it. Agreed –- it’s time for Schiff to lose his law license.
Levin added, “If you want to see what the old Soviet Union was like,” look at this committee. Of course, we’ve been making that case, pointing out that they’ve violated virtually the entire Bill Of Rights, as well as the separation of powers. Also, Congress does not have the authority to conduct criminal investigations. No one should take seriously anything that comes out of this fake committee.
Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs tweeted, “Expect a lot more of this. Schiff and the contemptible Jan6 committee will twist and smear the narrative every chance they get.” And Rep. Dan Bishop sounded a lot like me when he tweeted, “Adam Schiff is the Jussie Smollett of Congress.”
By the way, about “the NEW Adam Schiff” (Liz Cheney; see yesterday’s commentary), she’s facing at least one impressive primary challenge in '22, by actual Republican Harriet Hageman. Calling all Republicans in Wyoming: One Adam Schiff is more than enough; we sure don’t need another one infesting Congress, especially on our side of the aisle. Here’s Harriet on the issues.
https://www.hagemanforwyoming.com/issues
LEAVE ME A COMMENT, I READ THEM!
4. Two more stories show reach of Hillary's tentacles:
IMPORTANT UPDATE: Jerry Dunleavy at the Washington Examiner has an excellent piece in which he spells out the significance of the first of these two stories. He points out that the potential legal conflicts faced by Igor Danchenko wouldn’t matter to the court unless Durham were looking specifically at Hillary Clinton and those dwelling in her inner circle for the origin of the phony Trump-Russia hoax.. (We suspect that certain members of the Brookings Institution, particularly longtime Clinton crony Strobe Talbott, figure prominently.) It's really starting to look as though Durham has put the pieces of this monumentally complex puzzle together, knows exactly what he’s dealing with, and is methodically bearing down on Hillary. Go get 'er.
---
Today I bring you two stories that one might not think would necessarily involve Hillary Clinton, but it turns out they do. It really does seem that all roads lead to Hillary.
First, can anything else be said about Hillary Clinton’s connection with the Christopher Steele “dossier” and the Trump-Russia hoax? Actually, yes!
I tell this story simply as an amusing anecdote that testifies to the incestuous nature of Washington DC politics and law, which should be news to no one. Gosh, it’s really challenging for a Democrat in Washington DC to find legal representation that doesn’t have some huge conflict of interest. It’s amazing they can find conflict-free representation at all, though I have to say it must be even harder for Republican associates of Donald Trump to get representation, as some DC law firms won’t even take those cases. If memory serves, top firms in DC refused to represent Trump during his impeachment(s). Apparently there was concern among their attorneys that they might be excluded from certain circles and not get invited to the right cocktail parties if they did. I digress.
Anyway, consider the case of Igor Danchenko, the Russian-born “sub-source” who has been indicted and pleaded not guilty on five counts of making false statements to the FBI about the information he provided for Steele that was used in the fictional “dossier.” Danchenko has already had to replace one defense attorney, Mark Schamel, because Schamel also happens to be representing one of the Georgia Tech computer scientists, Manos Antonakakis, who has been identified as “Researcher – 1” in Special Counsel John Durham’s “speaking indictment” of former Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann. As you’ll recall, Sussmann was indicted for lying to FBI general counsel James Baker in 2016 when he failed to disclose he was working for Hillary’s campaign when he came around peddling the fake story of Trump Tower and supposedly Putin-connected Alfa Bank communicating through computer “pings,” which turned out to be totally harmless marketing emails. By obtaining Sussmann’s billing records, Durham found proof he was “on the clock” for Hillary while telling the FBI this bogus story.
So after he dropped Schamel as his attorney due to this conflict of interest, Danchenko went to the law firm Schertler & Onorato to engage the services of Danny Onorato and Stuart Sears. But now we see that this might not work out, either, because it turns out that another lawyer from that firm, identified as Robert Trout, has deep ties with Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign. (Note to Danchenko: I think it might be very hard in Washington DC to find a law firm not associated with the Clintons in one way or another.) Durham has put his concerns about this potential conflict into a court filing, asking a federal judge to determine if there’s a problem.
A prosecutor certainly wouldn’t want to discover some major conflict of interest in the middle of a trial –- it might even lead to a mistrial –- so he has to anticipate such scenarios and try to head them off. And this kind of situation could arise even though Trout isn’t directly involved in the Danchenko case. ”The interest of the Clinton campaign and the defendant might diverge,” Durham wrote to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. “For example, the Clinton campaign and the defendant each might have an incentive to shift blame and/or responsibility to the other party for any alleged false information that was contained with the [Steele dossier] and/or provided to the FBI.”
To complicate this matter even further, Trout hasn’t just been involved in the Clinton campaign but also personally represented John Podesta, the former chairman of her campaign, during his December 2017 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. So Danchenko may have to keep looking to find a DC attorney who's not tainted by some entanglement with the Clintons. Good luck with that!
Durham said it’s possible for the court to waive this conflict of interest, but it was his responsibility to bring it to their attention.
https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/dec/20/durham-lawyers-steele-dossier-source-has-potential/
But I saved the more compelling story for last: Did you know that in spite of her determination to destroy inconvenient or even incriminating emails from when she was Obama's secretary of state, some communications have turned up from June of 2009 that show she was aware then of the threat posed by Chinese bioweapon research, specifically at the Wuhan Institute of Virology? At that time, she warned in an email to embassies that such activities could lead to “biological weapons proliferation concern.”
She wrote: “The U.S. believes participants would benefit from hearing about your [France’s] experiences assisting China in setting up a Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology from the export control and intangible technology transfer perspectives. We are particularly interested to know how China plans to vet incoming foreign researchers from countries of biological weapons proliferation concern.”
This went out in preparation for a meeting coming up a few months later of the Australia Group, an “international export control forum” whose purpose was to prevent the spread of technologies and research that could be used for chemical and/or biological weapons. Members included the EU, France, India, Japan, South Korea and others. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea: NOT members.
Read more details about this communication at the link. It would be very interesting to see if the Australia Group seriously addressed the concern about the Wuhan lab at their meeting.
https://slaynews.com/news/clinton-emails-surface/
The State Department cable that contains this information was posted by Wikileaks. Here’s the full communication; the part about Chinese bioweapons is in point #9.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09STATE67207_a.html
So, the danger posed by Chinese research into bioweapons was at least on Hillary’s radar screen in 2009. But then, the issue appears to have been dropped. A decade later, when the pandemic hit, Hillary responded to suspicions that COVID-19 had leaked from the lab with accusations of racism by President Trump against Asian Americans --- “the recent rise of anti-Asian bigotry fueled by Donald Trump’s racist rhetoric,” as she tweeted at the time.
What a crock. Hillary must have known good and well, in her first year at the State Department, that the Wuhan lab posed a legitimate threat to public safety around the globe, but she had let it drop years before the pandemic hit and no doubt wouldn’t want anyone talking about that. So she used a bit of misdirection and painted Trump as a racist for daring to implicate the Chi-Comms. With a little help from the media, that’s what the conversation became. But we know the real story now.
LEAVE ME A COMMENT HERE, I READ THEM>>>
HELPFUL LINKS
For past editions of my morning newsletter, please visit my website here.
For more of my news coverage, visit my website here.
To change your email address for your newsletter subscription, visit my website here.
Leave a Comment
Note: Fields marked with an * are required.