Blessings on you and your family, and from all the Huckabee staff!
Today's newsletter includes:
- Bible Verse of the Day - Nahum 1:7
- NYT reports devastating news to the Democrats' "Insurrection" claims
- "Zero dollars"
- Who edited the Maricopa County final audit report?
- An "inside" perspective on the Durham investigation
- News you can use
- Good news update
P.S. If you need to change the email address for your subscription, please go to my website here.
DAILY BIBLE VERSE
7 The Lord is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him.
NYT reports devastating news to the Democrats' "Insurrection" claims
By Mike Huckabee
It’s hard to believe this came from the New York Times, but on Saturday, the paper reported some news that may be as devastating to the Democrats' “Insurrection!” claims about the January 6th Capitol protesters as the recent videos showing most of the alleged “violent insurrectionists” just milling around taking selfies.
The Times reports that according to two people familiar with the matter, in addition to Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, the FBI had another informant inside the Proud Boys feeding them advance information. This informant allegedly told the FBI that there was no conspiracy to storm the Capitol, as the DOJ claims. Reportedly, the only violence they discussed was how to defend themselves if they were attacked by leftist agitators.
In addition to this seriously undermining the government’s case, the linked article at PJ Media asks if this means FBI Director Chris Wray lied to Congress when he told them the FBI had no informants giving them advance information about the Capitol breach. Sure sounds like a lie to me.
Between this and the revelations of the FBI’s role in trying to frame Trump on false Russian collusion charges and covering up horrific sexual abuse of young female athletes by Olympic doctor Larry Nassar, we’re starting to see more mainstream voices picking up on the long-festering call by conservatives to reform, or even abolish, the FBI. The Wall Street Journal recently took that stand, and radio host/columnist Howie Carr, who called for the same thing over three years ago, is happy to welcome them to the party.
In a premium article at the Epoch Times, Roger Simon also makes the same case for breaking up the out-of-control FBI. Here’s a quote worth requoting: “If (FBI Director Christopher) Wray is really concerned about ‘domestic terrorists,’ he should look in the mirror.”
By Mike Huckabee
Please understand upfront that I mean no offense to aluminum siding salesmen by comparing politicians to them. But I couldn’t help but think of the famous promise made by the 1960s "Tin Men" (“It pays for itself!”) when I heard the latest desperate attempt by Democrats to sell their $3.5 trillion boondoggle bill. President Biden (or whoever tweets under his name) tweeted, “My Build Back Better agenda costs zero dollars…And it adds zero dollars to the national debt.”
This stunner is predicated on one of the Democrats’ favorite of many false assumptions: that high taxes don’t affect behavior or harm the larger economy. Biden can claim that a $3.5 trillion spending spree won’t cost a dime or add to the debt because he also wants to go on a $3.5 trillion taxing spree. But if you really believe that massive tax hikes won’t result in rich people moving their money out of productive investments and into tax shelters, jobs moving overseas, reduced hiring and raises, economic stagnation and eventual reduced tax revenues, then you win an economics degree from AOC’s alma mater.
Other Democrats took to the Sunday shows to parrot the hilarious “zero dollars” claim, but it was too much even for Nancy Pelosi. When she was asked about the cost on ABC’s “This Week,” she dodged, “Let’s not talk about numbers and dollars” (and she never talks cents), let’s remember it’s about “values.”
Yes, I do remember that an addiction to taxing and spending our grandchildren into bankruptcy is, indeed, a Democratic value. Some of the others are: increasing government power at the expense of individual rights and freedoms, showering tax money on Democrat donors and cronies, and doing everything possible to epoxy their rumps into the seats of power for eternity.
Meanwhile, back here in Realityville, the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget analyzed that bill and found that $3.5 trillion is actually a severe underestimate of its cost. They say it’s filled with budget gimmicks, such as shoving costs off onto the states, and that its actual cost over the next decade would be between $5 trillion and $5.5 trillion.
But maybe Biden just doesn’t grasp how big $3.5 trillion or $5.5 trillion is. In pushing his “zero cost” fairy tale, he claimed that the rich can pay more because “billionaires and trillionaires are doing very well.” I’m sure billionaires are, but there’s no such thing as a “trillionaire.”
In a related story, it looks as if the House will be voting on Thursday on the other $1.2 trillon “bipartisan” “infrastructure” bill.
As that story notes, “Although the infrastructure passed with Republican votes last month in the Senate, Republican leadership in the House will be whipping votes against the bill.” That won’t keep it from passing, since only united GOP opposition in the Senate could stop it with a filibuster. And enough Republican Senators already went along with it to make that unlikely, unless they hear an earful from their constituents.
They seem to think that spending on infrastructure is both needed and popular with voters. Which might be true, but by various estimates, only about 10-to-23% of the spending in this bill is on roads, bridges and other things anyone with a grip on reality would actually consider to be “infrastructure.” A truly bipartisan bill would be Republicans agreeing with Democrats to spend money on actual infrastructure to benefit all Americans, not a little on infrastructure and four times more on leftwing wish list nonsense.
Who edited the Maricopa County final audit report?
By Mike Huckabee
There’s something odd about the Maricopa County, Arizona, Final Audit Report. We’re making no accusations at this point but would like some answers.
It has been reported that part of the Executive Summary has undergone some editing. A draft that was released by Patrick Byrne before the final presentation on Friday contained this passage:
“In the 2020 presidential election, the margin of victory was only 10,457 votes, a small fraction of the 57,734 ballots with known issues. Again, this is almost 6 times the margin of victory in the presidential race and is multiples of the margin of victory in other races. Based on these factual findings, the election should not be certified, and the reported results are not reliable.”
That last statement about certification was apparently edited out of the final report. If that’s the case, we would just like to know who was responsible for this change and why they did it, given the accuracy of the statements that preceded it. Do the reported results sound reliable to you? Really?
Again, no accusations, just a call for answers. It would also be nice to know what else might have been altered. THEN we might have some accusations…
THE EPOCH TIMES has an updated report on what was presented Friday during the Arizona Senate hearing. It has details regarding the anomalies that were found. Highly recommended reading...
Senate President Karen Fann sent a letter Friday to Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, calling for further investigation and outlining her concerns about the following:
--- signature verification for mail-in ballots
--- voter roll accuracy
--- security of election systems
--- record-keeping of evidence after elections
Brnovich’s office issued a statement that said they had no comment on specific allegations at this time and that they would “thoroughly review the Senate’s information and evidence.” We’ll see.
The recount that was done as one part of the audit found little difference in the vote tallies, but that was just recounting the same ballots over again. Nevertheless, mainstream media reports picked up on that as if it were the only finding, because that’s the story they wanted to tell. Sen. Fann said evidence was found of numerous problems that affected tens of thousands of ballots, including laws being broken and chain of custody not being maintained.
Arizona Democrats responded by (what else?) attacking Cyber Ninjas, one of the teams working on the audit. Democrats obviously have no interest in identifying problems and reforming the system, no matter how much of a mess it is shown to be, as long as that system benefits them.
An "inside" perspective on the Durham investigation
By Mike Huckabee
Kash Patel, former lead investigator for the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee, appeared on EPOCH TV over the weekend to talk about the Sussmann indictment. This video provides a concise overview of what we’ve been talking about the past week and offers additional details as well.
For example, Patel said that Sussmann and Marc Elias were the two top lawyers at Perkins Coie overseeing all legal issues of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Sussmann is not some peon.
He also commented, as we have, about the unusual length of the indictment, saying this is not at all a typical indictment for one count of making a false statement, which might run a couple of pages, This runs 27 pages and is what’s known as a “speaking indictment.”
Sussmann and Elias brought in “tens of millions of dollars” to handle “everything from election law to campaign finance to any criminal allegations that might come up, to state law...” Indeed, we saw how Elias jetted around to different states before the election with a brigade of attorneys filing lawsuits to change state election laws.
Patel described Perkins Coie as a “behemoth.” It had to be one, to handle all the legalities –- and illegalities, ha –- of the Democrats’ run for President. These two attorneys also went out and hired “internet research” (campaign dirt) firm Fusion GPS, paying founder Glenn Simpson million of dollars for whatever his team could come up with, including the “Russia” stories. Of course, Simpson hired Christopher Steele. As you and I knew, it all traces back to Hillary Clinton.
Patel laid all this out in a most understandable way, so if you know people who are confused by all the twists and turns, just send them our summary, which includes the link, above.
He noted that opposition research is a normal part of political campaigns, and I can tell you from experience that this is true. Candidates even run oppo research on themselves, just to see what comes up. If they find something that might be an issue, their opponent certainly will.
It was just a few days before the election that the phony Alfa Bank story hit. And Hillary tweeted: “It’s time for Trump to answer some serious questions about his ties to Russia.” There was no basis in fact here at all, but the tweet included these fake bullet points:
1. Donald Trump has a secret server. [Aside: I know. That was HRC!]
2. It was set up privately to communicate with Putin-tied Alfa Bank.
3. When a reporter asked about it, they shut it down.
4. One week later, they created a new server with a different name for the same purpose.
As we now know, the FBI used this information in its FISA request for surveillance. Sussmann was the one who passed it to them. And then he lied about working on anyone else's behalf.
In examining what happened, Patel did what we like to do, which is to turn it around and ask “what if” the Trump campaign were found to have hired a law firm to research and “find” a connection between Clinton campaign headquarters and the Russian government, created a fake story about the Clinton campaign “pinging” back and forth through a bank to coordinate with the Russians, and released this to the media and the FBI right before the 2016 election?
“That would’ve been international headline news,” he said, and we all know that’s true. But it’s just the opposite when the CLINTON campaign is found to have done this. The media give it the tiniest bit of coverage possible. But Patel doesn’t think they can get away with that much longer.
He noted in this interview that Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation was charged with (among other things) finding out how the Alfa bank story fit in and if there was really anything to it. The House Intelligence Committee was looking into this at the same time and hadn’t come out with their report, as they were “just staffers on the Hill,” operating without subpoena power, etc. Mueller had sweeping subpoena power and cooperation from law enforcement.
Patel puts this Sussmann indictment together with that of Kevin Clinesmith, whom you’ll recall was charged with altering an official record that was used against Carter Page in the FISA warrant to spy on him. When looking at both of these, he sees that together they cover “two big components” of the investigation into the Russia Hoax. The former deals with the phony media campaign, outside the government, and the latter with the phony investigation going inside the government. “So, I think there’s a larger conspiracy at play here,” he said.
He sees this in the long “speaking indictment” that Durham has filed. Though most of the conspirators aren’t named, he's pretty confident of most of those identities, “if not all of them.”
“I think he’s just started,” Patel said of Durham.
IMPORTANT POINT: One thing the media are saying right now is that Durham’s investigation has gone on so long, he’s coming to the end of his official funding in just a few days and needs to wrap it up. (They wish!) According to Patel, the investigation cannot be shut down because Durham has just issued a federal indictment and this case has to be adjudicated in some fashion, by plea or by trial, which typically takes 12-18 months. In the meantime, Durham gets to continue his work. “So, I laugh at anyone in the media who tells me they’re worried about Durham being defunded,” he said. “He literally CAN’T, because he’s in the middle of a federal prosecution.”
It occurs to me that this might be another reason for Durham’s under-the-wire timing of the Sussmann indictment.
One concern Patel does have is a potential conflict of interest for the judge assigned Sussmann’s case: U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper. His wife, prominent DC attorney Amy Jeffress, is a former top aide to then-Attorney General Eric Holder. She has represented...(drum roll, please)...Lisa Page, who reported to Andrew McCabe and, along with him, is one of the most central figures in this scandal. She worked for FBI general counsel James Baker, who is the one who reviewed the FISA applications, and also teamed (very closely) with Peter Strzok, who led “Crossfire Hurricane”!
I’m sorry, but that big a conflict just will not fly. How did this judge GET the case, anyway?
As Patel pointed out, Lisa Page might very well be a witness in Sussmann’s trial. (I would add that apparently there WILL be a trial, as Sussmann has already pleaded “not guilty.”) Conflicts of interest can be cited simply over the possibility of such things happening. As wild as it seems, unless the case is reassigned, we could easily have a situation in which a witness in the case has been represented by the judge’s wife.
The judge should recuse himself, or the attorney general should reassign the case. But with Merrick Garland at the helm, how do we trust this process?
News you can use
By Mike Huckabee
To help decipher the constant stream of lies, obfuscations and deflections coming from the Biden White House, David Marcus at Fox News has compiled a glossary of Biden Administration euphemisms. Some are already familiar (“Circle back” to a question means “won’t answer it now and never will.”) Others were new even to me, like “irregular migrant” (what used to be called in the age of more precision an “illegal alien.”)
Good news update
By Mike Huckabee
I hate having to bring you so much bad news all the time (hopefully, that will change after November, 2022), so I’m always on the lookout for some good news to share. And how about this for good news? The Guardian newspaper has a round-up of recent studies that suggest decades of official public health advice may be wrong: steaks, dairy, salt, eggs and other delicious foods may be good for you, while it’s processed foods such as low-fat cheese that may be bad for your health.
To cite just one example: a Swedish study that followed 4,150 people over 16 years found that a diet rich in dairy fat might actually lower your risk of heart disease. This reminds me of Woody Allen's comedy "Sleeper," set 200 years in the future, where doctors couldn't figure out why people in our time ate things like wheat germ ("Didn't they know about hot fudge?")
You’ll want to read the rest. It’s encouraging news, but don’t let it convince you to go hog wild on your diet. But it does make you ponder, if recent events haven’t already, whether our public health experts have any idea what they’re talking about.