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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Friday, a panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to lift another court’s ban on imposing President Biden’s COVID vaccine mandate on businesses with over 100 employees.

At least 27 states and a number of business and religious groups argued that the mandate is unconstitutional, and the Fifth Circuit Court ordered OSHA not to implement it, finding it would expose the petitioners "to severe financial risk" and "threatens to decimate their workforces (and business prospects)." Since that seems to be a feature not a bug to this Administration, it appealed, even though vaccine mandates don’t appear to be doing much good for businesses that have already implemented them.

This throws countless already-struggling businesses back into chaos (again, another feature of the Biden Administration.) The original deadline was January 4th, and it’s unclear if that’s still operative. The plaintiffs immediately filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, which hasn’t been very inspiring so far in its defense of the Constitution when it comes to this subject.

Will there be a mass exodus of desperately-needed workers during a supply chain crisis over forcing people to take a vaccine to prevent a milder form of COVID that might provide better immunity than the vaccine the government wants to force them to take to prevent it? Or will all those states and businesses tell Biden and OSHA to pound sand and dare them to arrest half the nation? These are the type of questions that could only arise during a flailing Administration like this. Only time will tell the answer, and if the deadline is still January 4th, there’s not much of that left.

Regardless of who is in power, the one thing Americans deserve and demand of their government is that it sees its power as a sacred trust from the people and operates even-handedly within the law. There should be no difference at all in how a Democrat or a Republican is treated by the government, whether it’s agencies like the IRS or by the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the court system. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind to everything but the law and her scales are to be even. Sadly, most of us know that is simply not the case these days. The weaponization and politicization of the highest levels of law enforcement such as the FBI in trying to tie Donald Trump to the Russians are a prime example. Indictments handed down by special prosecutor John Durham already reveal that there was a vast conspiracy that started from the Hillary Clinton campaign and its operatives resulting in fabricated dossiers used to actually spy on the Trump campaign in 2016 and even after he was sworn in as President. The cover-up led all the way to the Director of the FBI, the head of the CIA, as well as corrupt members of Congress like Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Jerry Nadler, and others who unleashed the full power of the federal government to discredit Donald Trump and to protect those who abused their positions of trust in the government and who should be in prison right now.

This is not a small thing. When Richard Nixon abused his power as President and surrounded himself with those who committed crimes to influence an election and then to cover it up, there was a universal anger from not just Democrats, but Republicans as well. And the media relentless pursued the truth wherever it led them.

Those days are gone. We’ve seen disgusting abuses of power in our government toward people just like you. In the Obama years, Lois Lerner, a high-level IRS official, singled out conservative, pro-life, and pro-Christian organizations to deny them non-profit status and targeted some with such heavy-handed tactics that they ultimately ceased to exist because they couldn’t match the resources of the federal government to fight back.

The greatest threat to our nation, its institutions, and to our children is not the national debt, although it’s a serious threat to our economy. It’s not what China or Russia might do or attempt to do, regardless of how bold they might be in cyber-attacks or worse, a military assault. The greatest threat to America is not even the hyper-partisan and radically left social media and high-tech giants, and they pose serious threats to Constitutionally protected free speech. The greatest single threat to our nation is that our own government would engage in nothing less than criminal enterprises to deprive some Americans of due process and equal protection under the law and would excuse and ignore criminal behavior on the part of those who are on the side of the political party in power. If we can’t trust our law enforcement officials, the courts, and the legislature and executive branches to play straight, it’s not a matter of IF we will collapse, but WHEN. During my tenure as Governor, one of my regulatory agencies came to me and told me that a personal friend and long-time supporter of mine was engaging in unlawful activities regarding that industry. When they asked what they should do, I immediately said, “It’s simple: You treat that individual no better or no worse, but if the law has been broken, spare nothing.” That cost me the friendship of the individual as well as friends as family members of the individual, but better to lose friends than lose one’s honor and solemn duty to treat all persons the same. That means treating a political adversary as fairly as a friend and a friend no different than a foe. If government fails to do that and treats power as if it’s a political license to destroy opposition, our government is more corrupt than anything or anyone it tries to adjudicate. And we really will have lost the country.


December 20, 2021

“Harry Potter” creator J.K. Rowling has been the subject of a furious cancel campaign by trans activists for defending women’s rights against the erosion of them by men “identifying” as women. She says she’s gotten enough death threats to paper her house (what a great example of tolerance these people are.) But bless her, she refuses to shut up and bend the knee. Having that “Harry Potter” money probably helps. And now, she's doubled down on speaking common sense to power.

When a British politician introduced an insane new proposal that would require police to book accused rapists as females if they claim to identify as female, Rowling responded with a tweet so brilliant and brutal that it set off yet another storm of Twitter mob outrage.

But from the way the hashtag #IStandWithJKRowling quickly started trending, maybe this is a hopeful sign that people are finally getting fed up with having to hold their tongues and nod along in the face of absolute lunacy, like the crowd in the fairy tale pretending that the emperor isn’t really naked (except for his high heels.)

Mad at Manchin

December 20, 2021

Speaking of communism and Senators from New England, Bernie Sanders is very ticked at Sen. Joe Manchin for not going along with the massive “Build Back Better” spending bill. Sanders called Manchin “arrogant” for blocking what 48 other Senate Democrats want to do (never mind that the vast majority of his West Virginia constituents oppose the bill.)

Okay, let’s unpack that. First of all, 48 Senators isn’t a majority of the Senate. Even if Manchin caved, Kyrsten Sinema still opposes it, so that would make it 49…which is STILL a minority. Even if they had 50 votes, forcing massive spending and transformative government changes onto an unwilling public via a phony “budget reconciliation” bill that passes by one tie-breaking vote is pure arrogance.

But as Kennedy pointed out on Fox News’ “The Five,” Bernie’s beloved socialism itself is the epitome of arrogance. It’s the belief that you have the right to take other people’s money and property on grounds that you can spend and use it better than they can, and they should be grateful to you for it.

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised because Bernie is the poster child for arrogance. He’s never held a successful private sector job in his life, yet he’s convinced that he knows more about running the US economy and every business and industry in America than the people who actually founded and run them. If his ego were any more inflated, he could finally get a successful private sector job as a Macy’s Parade balloon.

Related: Bernie first tasted the sweet life of getting rich in socialist politics when he landed his first elected position as mayor of Burlington, Vermont. Those folks apparently didn’t learn their lesson, because they bought into the “defund the police” idiocy. And even in a town like Burlington, it’s had predictable results.

UPDATE:  Manchin announced on Fox News this morning that he will not vote for BBB.