Political correctness - Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee

We recently reported on the fact that Jake Sullivan, one of the players in the anti-Trump “Russia Hoax” being investigated by John Durham, is now a member of the current administration, working as Biden’s national security adviser. In a new piece for REAL CLEAR INVESTIGATIONS, investigative reporter Paul Sperry looks deeper into Sullivan’s role in the hoax. Sperry’s sources tell him that this has grown into a full-blown conspiracy case.

Consider Sperry’s report your weekend reading assignment, one that focuses on Sullivan’s involvement in a “confidential project” within Hillary’s campaign to link Trump to the Kremlin “through dubious email-server records” provided to intel agencies. These so-called records must relate to those phony communication “pings” between Trump Tower and Alfa Bank.

Sullivan isn’t identified by name in Durham’s 27-page indictment of Sullivan, but his campaign position is provided, so we know it’s him.

There’s also more detail on what we reported concerning the use of university researchers to collect data for the Clinton campaign. They were working from a five-page document dubbed the “Trump Associates List” to compile a “digital dossier” on several Trump officials, including Gen. Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. According to Sperry, “This effort exploited highly sensitive, nonpublic Internet data related to their personal email communications and web-browsing...” Are you getting sick yet?

Look, I know politics gets dirty. I’ve always said that no one should run for office who can’t stand the sight of his own blood. But this crosses the line into outright surveillance. Still, it's hard to say if this is a new low for Hillary, because she operates down there all the time and always has. The Clinton machine soils everything it touches. And even if Hillary slips away from the law, we will all know what she did, and what she is.

According to Sperry’s sources, Sullivan is in legal trouble over this because he lied about it to investigators. Apparently, Durham has emails between Sullivan and Perkins Coie attorney Marc Elias about the Alfa Bank scheme. Sullivan denied in congressional testimony that he knew anything about Fusion GPS and their involvement in the Alfa Bank opposition research. He said he didn’t know what the nature of their work was or who was funding it.

Sperry’s report is quite detailed. You’ll see how the Alfa Bank story was exploited long after the FBI had determined there was nothing to it. Sullivan and another anti-Trump hoaxer named Daniel Jones formed a nonprofit group called --- get ready --- the Democracy Integrity Project. I am not kidding. It raised $7 million or so, mostly from Silicon Valley Tech executives, and used it to hire computer researchers, as well as more "oppo" researchers and Christopher Steele (again) to try to “prove” the rumors in the Steele “dossier.” Then they would feed information to the media, leading Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the FBI.

I think we’ll be hearing a lot more about Daniel Jones in the near future. For now, just read Sperry’s piece when you have some time, and see how disgusting politics can be when it’s in the service of Hillary Clinton.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/23/biden_security_adviser_sullivan_tied_to_16_clinton_plan_to_co-opt_cia_and_fbi_to_tar_trump_795498.html

Mike Huckabee

News you can trust...

Mike Huckabee

President Biden doesn’t want to get tough on illegal immigrants – in fact, the Administration has ordered an end to horseback Border Patrols, further reducing our already crippled ability to deal with the surge he’s caused, because of a fake story that they were whipping Haitian migrants (it was their leather reins flying.) I’m tempted to start a rumor that he signs his executive orders with a pen attached to a whip, so he’ll give up signing any more of those.

Biden also doesn’t want to get tough with our enemies, as he’s proven by rolling over for China and letting the Taliban take over Afghanistan (and here’s how trusting them to be a new, more “moderate” Taliban is working out.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/taliban-founder-says-strict-punishment-amputations-to-return-to-afghanistan/ar-AAOKK3k

But you have to give it to Biden and his people in one regard: they’re certainly tough on our own military members. After first accusing them of being white supremacists, they now want to impose court martials and dishonorable discharges that would revoke all military pensions and other benefits for troops who refuse to take the COVID vaccine. This is the kind of punishment usually reserved for deserters, spies and murderers.

https://www.westernjournal.com/biden-treat-troops-refuse-vax-deserters-spies-murderers/

They also want to remove a bipartisan amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that allows only honorable discharges for refusing the vaccines (apparently, being discharged isn’t enough; they also must be PUNISHED!!!) They even want to eliminate a provision allowing those who’ve already had COVID and have natural immunity to refuse the vaccine.

If this Administration could bring even a fraction of the aggressiveness to dealing with the Taliban, China or the Mexican cartels that it levels against our own troops, maybe it wouldn’t be the historically weak failure that it’s shaping up to be.

Mike Huckabee

After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi caved to the Squad and stripped $1 billion in funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system from a budget bill, the House on Thursday voted overwhelmingly to pass a bipartisan stand-alone bill to fund it.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/09/23/aoc-starts-crying-as-the-lunatics-come-out-to-play-during-the-iron-dome-funding-vote-n447132

The usual small coterie of far-left anti-Semites opposed the bill, couching it as opposition to (as Rep. Rashida Tlaib put it) enabling and supporting “war crimes, human rights abuses and violence.” FYI: the Iron Dome is a purely defensive system that intercepts terrorist missiles fired by Hamas at Israeli civilians. I’m not sure how it’s a “war crime” to prevent terrorists from blowing up Jewish children.

In a remarkable sideshow to the vote, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proved once again that while her ideas on politics and economics may be stunningly stupid, she’s a genius at media manipulation. It was reported that she planned to vote “no” along with her fellow anti-Semitic radical colleagues, but when the time came, she voted “Present,” likely because she didn’t want that “no” on her record – especially not if she has to deal with a newly redrawn district that will contain more Jewish voters.

HOWEVER...AOC did treat us to a prime slice of hammy political theater. Check out the video of her after the bill passed, showing her “crying” and hugging a colleague as she dabs away her tears. Also note how she walked up next to another Representative who was speaking at the time, which “coincidentally” ensured that her theatrical tears were nationally-televised. Madonna couldn’t have done it better (to cite another great media manipulator who also reminds us of Evita Peron.)

But as the writer Bonchie at Redstate.com asks, WHY was she crying? Was that meant to show us how upset she is at all those alleged war crimes and human rights violations that Israel commits in defending itself against terrorists that want to wipe it off the face of the Earth? Because the only other explanations are (A.) she’s upset that Hamas missiles won’t be able to blow up Israeli children, or (B.) she’s upset about Congress spending a billion dollars. Which of those explanations seems less likely to you?

Mike Huckabee

Blessings on you and your family, and from all the Huckabee staff!

Today's newsletter includes:

Bible Verse of the Day - Philippians 4:7
Russia hoaxers said one thing under oath, another under TV lights
Sources name names in Durham's conspiracy case
He's running
God help us
New podcast episode
Reader testimonials
Hymnal

Sincerely,

Mike Huckabee

DAILY BIBLE VERSE

7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

Philippians 4:7

Russia hoaxers said one thing under oath, another under TV lights

By Mike Huckabee

Yesterday’s installment on the significance of Special Counsel John Durham’s 27-page indictment of Hillary attorney Michael Sussmann included insights from Kash Patel, lead investigator for Rep. Devin Nunes’ investigation into the “Russia Hoax.” As it happens, Thursday’s edition of the NEW YORK POST had a story relating to those very House Intelligence Committee transcripts Patel was assembling. It shows how different the hoaxers’ sworn testimony was from what they were saying publicly.

https://nypost.com/2020/05/11/obamas-top-brass-contradict-statements-about-collusion-under-oath/

For example, let’s take James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence. (The DNI’s job is to coordinate the huge and sticky web of government intel agencies.) We already knew that Clapper’s vow to tell the truth doesn’t mean much, as he has told some enormous whoppers, notably that the National Security Agency didn’t intercept Americans’ phone messages “wittingly.”

But as Emily Jacobs points out in her report for the NYP, Clapper stepped carefully during his testimony in July 2017 before the House Intel Committee, informing the committee that he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

What the hey?? As DNI, Clapper would have been privy to everything that was being gathered about Trump “colluding” with Russia. And he was saying hadn’t seen any direct evidence at all? Amazingly, yes, though he went on to try to make it sound as if there were SOME reason to suspect it.

“That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing...anecdotal evidence...[redacted],” he said. “But I do not recall any instance when I had direct evidence of the content of these meetings. It’s just the frequency and prevalence of them was of concern.”

Contrast this careful, noncommittal statement with what he had said a couple of months before to Chuck Todd on NBC’s MEET THE PRESS. On NBC, when he wasn’t under oath, he sensationalized quite a bit, using the cloak of “classification” to keep from having to be at all specific about any conversations but saying his “dashboard light was clearly on.”

A month after that, speaking with reporters on a trip to Australia, Clapper said the Russia investigation had far surpassed Watergate. “I think if you compare the two that Watergate pales, really, in my view, compared to what we’re confronting now,” he told them.

In light of what is said today in Durham’s indictment, we find Clapper’s comparison of Trump/Russia “collusion” to Watergate quite hilarious. If anything is reminiscent of Watergate, it’s the coordinated antics of these deep-state clowns working overtime to frame then-candidate Trump with fake “Russia” stories in fictional “dossiers” and surveillance warrants.

As Jacobs reports, Clapper was beating this dead horse as recently as February 2019, saying on CNN that “it was a possibility” that President Trump was a “Russian asset,” “whether witting or unwitting.”

Clapper’s not the only one who tread lightly in sworn testimony while stomping like Riverdance for the TV news cameras. Former deputy director of the CIA Andrew McCabe told Nunes’ committee that investigators had not been able to verify the claims in the Steele dossier. When asked to confirm that he didn’t know if the dossier was true, Steele testified, “That’s correct.”

But he spoke differently in his role as CNN contributor (!) and in other TV appearances. In February 2019, in an interview on 60 MINUTES, McCabe dramatically described Trump as “the man who had just run for the presidency, and won the election for the presidency, and who might have done so with the aid of the government of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage.” As he had already told the Intel Committee in December 2017 that he had no verification of any claims, he had to know that what he was saying to the TV audience was a huge fragrant pile of bull droppings, yet he told the TV audience it “troubled” him “greatly.”

The same kind of discrepancy is evident in the word-craft of Ben Rhodes, officially Obama’s deputy national security adviser but in practice his personal narrative writer. When asked under oath by the Intel Committee if he had any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, he said no. But in 2019, after then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before Congress (remember that train wreck?), Rhodes tweeted, “Russia attacked our democracy. Trump campaign sought its help, had many contacts with Russians, lied about it and obstructed the investigation into it. Several Trump associates were convicted of crimes. Trump would’ve been indicted if he wasn’t the President. Not complicated.”

If anything isn’t complicated, it’s that Rhodes is good at using what little he has to work with to craft a story that really is based on nothing. No Trump associates were convicted of crimes that had anything to do with Russian collusion. “Contacts with Russians” is meaningless. Rhodes had seen no evidence of any of this, as he himself had testified under oath.

(By the way, if I hear the phrase “our democracy” one more time from some sanctimonious leftist, please forgive me in advance for the way I might respond. Leftists are perfectly willing to upend “our democracy” with strategies designed to fracture the election system, facilitate fraud and shut down transparency. They quite obviously think of it as THEIR democracy –- to be manipulated at will to keep THEM in control –- and they consistently show themselves to be unclear on the concept of a democratic republic. I digress.)

Jacobs also mentions former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power. When Power was asked under oath by the Intel Committee if she’d seen evidence of Russian interference, she said, “I am not in possession of anything –- I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community.” But that didn’t stop her from tweeting in November of last year: “Every day Donald Trump finds new ways to compensate Vladimir Putin for his election interference. And every day, Putin gains additional incentive to interfere again on Trump’s behalf in 2020.”

She failed to provide examples, but that’s because this was totally made up, and it’s a lot easier and safer to generalize than offer specifics. (One could easily make the case that Trump was HARD on Russia.) Again, Power had testified that she didn’t read or even “absorb” information about this.

Finally, there’s Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice, whom we already knew can lie with ease, as she did repeatedly to cover for the State Department after the Benghazi attack. In 2017, Rice told House investigators that she’d seen no evidence Trump colluded with Russia to win in 2016. But in July 2018 on ABC’s THIS WEEK, she said it was “legitimate” to question whether Trump had been compromised by Russia because his decisions were in the service of Vladimir Putin. Good grief.

So you see how Trump’s adversaries could take essentially NOTHING –- no evidence whatsoever, as they testified under oath –- and whip it into a tale as tall as Trump Tower. But it was just full of froth. If only Durham could indict them all for lying on TV.

LEAVE ME A COMMENT, I READ THEM!!!

Sources name names in Durham's conspiracy case