MORE BAD SMELL: BROOKINGS INSTITUTE ASSOCIATED WITH STEELE, "DOSSIER"
Believe it or not, we’re down to the last hundred days before the election. (Wow, time sure flies when you’re not having fun.) Event-wise, this has been the worst lead-in to a presidential election since 1969, and in some ways it’s arguably far worse. Who would ever have imagined that we’d have an election year heading down to the wire with essentially no in-person campaigning, no big national conventions and probably even no debates. (Come on, does anyone really think Joe Biden WON’T get out of debating President Trump?) All this, when the stakes for this country are higher than they have been since, oh, maybe the Civil War.
Elections mean things, and this year, they mean everything. That’s why it’s critical to continue uncovering what was done to try to hijack the last one. Sadly, one of the major ways to influence elections, though it’s not supposed to happen (ha), is through the use –- the misuse –- of the tax-exempt 501(c)3. (To cite the most obvious example, does anyone believe that Media Matters doesn’t concern itself with election outcomes?) Recall that the Obama IRS was clearly weaponized to disqualify Tea Party organizations that had been formed around conservative principles while letting most “progressive” groups sail through to tax-exempt status.
California Rep. Devin Nunes broke some stunning news in an interview with Maria Bartiromo on her FOX BUSINESS NEWS show “Mornings with Maria” about THE most prominent liberal think-tank, the Brookings Institute, a 501(c)3, being involved with...(drum roll, please)...Christopher Steele and the “dossier.”
According to Rep. Nunes, there are direct links between the 2016 president of the Brookings Institute, longtime Clinton loyalist Strobe Talbott, and the creation and distribution of the phony Steele “dossier.”
"I think they have real...questions that need to be answered here,” he told Maria, “about what on earth the president of Brookings was doing texting back and forth to Steele. Why was he accepting the “dossier”?
Nunes returned Sunday to talk with her on SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES, just as more news broke about the “dossier.” Steele’s main source has been unmasked and is identified as Igor Denchenko (whom I would add is also a close associate of Adam Schiff’s star impeachment witness Fiona Hill). Nunes first offered a little background, saying that a few months ago, he and Sen. Lindsay Graham were saying they saw “three Russians” as possible sources, but that now it turns out that the one finally identified wasn’t really a Russian national, that he lived right here in the U.S. Both the FBI and the media had led Congress –- and the American public –- to believe Steele had some super-secret Russian source, but no.
We've learned something else very interesting about him: Steele’s “Russian” source used to work at the Brookings Institute.
Nunes says the House Intelligence Committee, which he chaired while Republicans led the House, had already known through testimony that back in 2016, Strobe Talbott gave a few copies of the “dossier” to a few people. They also know that there were other so-called “dossiers” that mirrored the main one and that these were being passed around at the State Department; Nunes believes there are connections between those other “dossiers” and the president of Brookings as well.
Understand that all this material was completely unverified oppo research bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Reporters actually got Pulitzer Prizes for playing their roles in disseminating that rot. In Nunes’ words, “The whole thing was just some sick fantasy made up by the Clinton campaign. (Once again we can say that when it comes to corruption, all roads lead back to Hillary.)
Nunes says the investigation (I assume he means the Senate investigation) has now been expanded to include the Brookings Institute, specifically as it involves the IRS and a 501(c)3’s legal obligation to stay out of politics if it’s going to remain tax-exempt. He says they “clearly have not done that” and for the last four years have obstructed the investigation “with propaganda,” publicly attacking them “through this kind of phony legal group of ‘fact-checkers’ that they set up.”
The other trouble spot at Brookings is its acceptance of foreign money; this may include even money from foreign governments. So the question is, what foreign countries are we talking about? Were donors acting on behalf of a foreign power to damage Trump and help Hillary?
After Trump and his campaign were looked at upside down and sideways, it became clear that they had not “colluded” with Russia to win in 2016. But now we see that the Brookings Institute was playing politics on the Democrat side, and THEY had foreign donors. Nunes asks, “...are they doing all of this not just to help the Democratic Party, but also any foreign government?”
A report by Julie Kelly in AMERICAN GREATNESS tells more, recalling the Brookings Institution’s 4,300-word defense of the "dossier" on the website LAWFARE (where we looked to see that it's "published by the Lawfare Institute in cooperation with Brookings") that came out in December of 2018. It said the “dossier” was “a collection of raw intelligence” similar to other forms used by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. Kelly's piece --- not the LAWFARE piece, unless you want your head to explode --- is a must-read.
Laughably, Chuck Rosenberg and Sarah Grant wrote for LAWFARE, “The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven. The Mueller investigation has clearly public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.”
Gosh, even Peter Srtzrok, in an internal FBI report, said there was no evidence that members of the Trump campaign had had contact with Russian officials.
"It’s safe to say that LAWFARE acted as the Adam Schiff of the blogosphere,” writes Kelly. That says it all. She also tells how LAWFARE targets Attorney General Bill Barr and Rep. Nunes. (Take a look at the headlines on their website; you'll get the idea.) They slammed Nunes' memo on FISA abuse though we now know it was accurate and Schiff’s was not. The very person who trashed Nunes’ memo for LAWFARE, David Kris, ended up being the person appointed by the presiding FISA judge to offer guidance on cleaning up the FISA process!
Why is it so important now to look at all this? Because there’s a bigger question: If the Democrat Party could go THIS FAR to tip the scales in 2016, what lengths might they go to in 2020 to win? Is there a limit? (That would be a “no.”) What on God’s earth are they doing behind the scenes NOW, under cover of the coronavirus? And how do we prevail? That, in the last hundred days before the election, is what we need to know and act on.
Incidentally, Sen. Lindsay Graham announced on Sunday that this week, evidence will be released that shows not only did the FBI lie to the FISA court about the reliability of the Steele “dossier,” but they also lied about it in their 2018 testimony to Congress. “And that is a separate crime,” Graham said.
"DEPLORABLE" DOUBLE STANDARD
The New York Fire Department’s chief “diversity and inclusion officer” (you’ll soon understand the quotation marks) Celia Loving is defending the 2017 decision to remove a white firefighter from a three-person honor guard to make it all black. Lt. Daniel McWilliams, one of the three Brooklyn firefighters in the iconic photo of the American flag being raised over the wreckage of the World Trade Center in 2001, filed a discrimination complaint after he showed up at a memorial mass to honor deceased members of the Vulcan Society, a fraternity of black firefighters, and was barred from holding a flag in the color guard because he’s the wrong color.
During the trial, Loving testified that it’s “most definitely” acceptable to replace a white firefighter with a black firefighter in a color guard, to “uplift our identities and our separate ethnicities in order to instill a sense of pride and community and support for one another.” McWilliams’ attorney called that a “deplorable” double standard in the NYFD, since any white person who discriminates against a black person in the workplace gets “heavy-handed discipline and punishment.” McWilliams also says he’s been the target of retaliation and intimidation just for filing a complaint.
This is especially disappointing coming from the NYFD, since their most enduring image for many of us is of all those heroic firefighters of every color rushing toward the danger on 9/11 that others were running away from. All of them risked their lives together to try to save the people in the World Trade Center, who were from all over the world, every race, culture and creed, and that had no bearing at all on the firefighters’ sense of duty to save them. That’s because they knew back then that all lives matter equally.
I don’t want any Trump supporters to get complacent and think they don’t need to vote in November. To the contrary, I want you to load up your biggest, gas-guzzling SUV with everyone you know who agrees with you and take them to the polls to vote as if America itself depended on it, because it does.
But just to keep you from letting all this “giant Biden poll lead” fake news depress and demoralize you, I’ll point you to this article by Brian C. Joondeph in the American Thinker. He takes a closer look at the internals of those polls, to see who was really being canvassed. I did the same thing in 2016, which is why I was one of only a tiny handful of commentators who correctly predicted that Trump would win.
For instance, did you know that the much-ballyhooed Washington Post-ABC poll showing a big lead for Biden didn't sample likely or even registered voters, just “adults” – that is, whoever actually still answers phone calls from a pollster -- and it still oversampled Democrats by 6 points. The Quinnipiac University poll oversampled Democrats by 10 points. One of 2016’s most accurate polls, Rasmussen, shows Biden with only a 2-point lead, and it oversampled Democrats by 4 points.
Just remember what I’ve been telling you since I started doing media commentaries over a decade ago: polls taken this early aren’t news, they’re attempts to shape the news. The only poll that matters is the one taken on Election Day. Just be sure you show up for that one.
Here's yet another example of what can happen when the public polices itself. In Austin, Texas, a driver turned onto a street blocked by protesters. He sped up, trying to get through the crowd and crashed into some orange cones. Some of the peaceful protesters had brought guns with them for some reason, and approached his car. One reportedly pointed a semi-automatic rifle at the driver, who was carrying his own weapon. He shot and killed the protester and drove away, as other armed protesters shot at his car. The driver later called 911 and turned himself in. He was released pending investigation.
The most ironic sentence in this entire tragic story: it happened “at a demonstration against police violence in the Texas capital.”
If this is the alternative to “police violence,” defunding the police doesn’t seem very healthy for the public or the protesters.
COVINGTON STUDENT AGREES TO UNDISCLOSED SETTLEMENT
Congratulations to former Covington Catholic school student Nick Sandmann. On Friday, he turned 18, and the Washington Post agreed to an undisclosed settlement of his $250 million defamation lawsuit against them. The Post is one of eight media outlets sued by Sandmann for trying to destroy his life by falsely depicting him and his classmates as racist aggressors against an elderly Native American in Washington, DC, based on a selectively edited video clip on the Internet.
The full video showed that the kids were actually the targets of racial taunting, and the Native American was a known activist who deliberately got in their faces while they smiled and tried to stay calm. The media outlets didn’t bother waiting until they knew all the facts. I guess that knowing they were white Catholic school kids wearing red MAGA caps who’d just come from a pro-life event was evidence enough to convict them.
When the lawsuits were first filed, Sandmann endured more scorn and mockery from the media, who assured us that the suits would go nowhere and were infringements on freedom of the press. Turns out defaming people is not in the First Amendment. Sandmann’s attorney already forced a settlement from CNN and now the Washington Post. Too bad he didn’t end up owning them; I’m sure he’d do a better job of running them both.
But who knows what the future might bring? Sandman tweeted, “The fight isn’t over. 2 down, 6 to go. Don’t hold your breath, @Jack.” That’s directed at Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter. I really hope Nick ends up owning Twitter; he would definitely run it better than it is now.
DAILY BIBLE VERSE