Advertisement

As most expected, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, the city’s hyper-partisan top prosecutor, set aside the city’s huge backlog of homicides and charged Mark and Patricia McCloskey with felony unlawful use of a weapon for brandishing a rifle and a pistol to warn protesters away from their home. The case made national headlines. Mark McCloskey, who is an attorney himself, said the protesters (sorry: “peaceful protesters”) broke through a gate, entered his private property, and were advancing toward his home, threatening him, his family, and their dog.

Worth noting: When Gardner ran in the Democratic primary in 2016, she was backed by a far-left PAC partially funded by George Soros. This is part of a heavily-financed campaign (the type that got AOC into the House) which targets low-turnout races in one-party districts and cities, winning the nomination, and hence the election, for Democrat DA’s who then institute “criminal justice reform” by legalizing crime and refusing to prosecute criminals. Of course, if you dare try to protect yourself from the criminals they release, then they’ll prosecute you. From her public statement:

“It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in nonviolent protest, and while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St. Louis. We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation will not be tolerated.”

Fortunately, it appears that almost as soon as Gardner released that statement, her case against the McCloskeys began unraveling. For one thing, the “peaceful protesters” were on private property and behaving in a threatening manner as verified on video, and Missouri has a strong Castle Doctrine law that protects the right to use a weapon to defend your life and property. There are also reports that the McCloskeys were only bluffing: the rifle wasn’t loaded and the pistol was a prop, which means neither would meet the law’s definition of a weapon “readily capable of lethal use.”

On top of that, within hours of the charges being filed, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a brief seeking to dismiss the charges, calling it “a politically-motivated prosecution by a prosecutor who is not interested in prosecuting violent crimes.” He said he would “not stand by while Missouri law is being ignored,” and he’s doing this not just for the McCloskeys but “for every Missourian whose rights are threatened by a rogue prosecutor who seeks to punish people for exercising their fundamental right to self-defense."

And if somehow, this case does come to trial, Missouri Gov. Mike Parsons says he’s already considering pardoning them.

Like all these leftist DA’s, Ms Gardner has her job definition backwards. She’s supposed to jail criminals and protect law-abiding citizens, not the other way around. On August 4th, she’s facing one challenger in the Democratic primary, Mary Pat Carl. St. Louis voters will have a very stark choice. Critics of Carl claim she will represent the law enforcement “status quo” and will end the “progressive” direction that Gardner has set the city on.

Look around you, St. Louis residents. Look at all the damage and the graffiti, the crime and bullying and assaults on police. That's the "change" Ms. Gardner has helped usher in. Does it look like “progress” to you?

Last week, I linked to an excerpt from the new book by John Solomon and Seamus Bruner entitled ‘FALLOUT: Nuclear Bribes, Russian Spies, and the Washington Lies that enriched the Clinton and Biden Dynasties.’ That chapter told of the dangerous work of an American undercover agent, William Douglas Campbell, as he risked his life in a Moscow hotel room to document an exchange of cash bribes. Today, another excerpt tells the story from that same informant of how the Russians privately mocked President Obama for so easily giving them American uranium in the Uranium One deal, as well as nuclear fuel contracts and technology.

In Russia, PRAVDA reported it as a coup that Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy conglomerate, had taken control of Uranium One Incorporated, and that was not an exaggeration. Though Rosatom was a Canadian company, Putin’s takeover involved the transfer of ownership of 20 percent of America’s uranium. Today’s excerpt from the book is a must-read for anyone curious about what Putin’s goals were and how his win came about, thanks to the gracious assistance of President Obama.

As reported by Solomon and Bruner: “Putin had set his sights on global nuclear domination before President Barack Obama took office and then, just two days after Obama’s second inauguration, Putin had achieved a near virtual monopoly, producing more uranium than all American miners combined. In a single purchase [Rosatom], he had gained full control of one of the world’s largest uranium mining companies and a nuclear foothold in the land of his greatest adversary.”

Kind of makes you think that all those cries of “Russia, Russia, Russia!!” were misdirected.

Rosatom, launched by Putin in 2007, was structured as a private-public enterprise, in that “its expenditures were subsidized, its profits were privatized and its losses were socialized,” essentially giving the Kremlin “a blank checkbook” that ensured Western companies could not compete. (NOTE: This is what they don’t teach college kids about the true nature of government-controlled economies, and why top government leaders in “socialist” countries are typically billionaires while "the masses" scrape by.)

Importantly, Putin needed –- and got –- Obama’s blessing to help Iran develop the Bushehr nuclear reactor, “a project that previous American administrations had deemed unacceptable.” Despite hard evidence that Iran was secretly moving forward on an illegal nuclear weapons program, Obama did nothing to get in the way of this.

Putin also created some lovely new customers and partnerships for Rosatom, including ruthless anti-American dictators such as Hassan Rouhani of Iran, Hu Jintao of China, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and even Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

As you know, the FBI was aware of what Putin was doing because it had its own undercover agent, now identified as Mr. Campbell, inside Rosatom. A few days after he delivered the suitcase with $50,000 cash to Russian officials while secretly recording the transaction with a camera hidden in his pen, he was invited to dinner by the Russians –- including one connected to the KGB and another who was found to have been a spy on American soil –- to Morton’s steakhouse in the tony Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Maryland. (He also picked up the tab for the $700 steak-and-vodka dinner; “your tax dollars at work.”)

The Russians were out for a fun evening because they knew the Uranium One deal was about to be approved and they were planning a party to celebrate the opening of the new office of their American subsidiary, Tenam.

It was at this dinner, with the vodka flowing, that the Russians mocked President Obama, whom they denigrated with the racial epithet of “Bongo-Bongo,” for essentially giving away the farm, which, of course, he HAD DONE. They laughed about how weak his administration was and how they had put one over on him. Of course, they were unaware of Campbell’s true identity and thought they were among friends, so they felt free to make fun of the President all they wanted.

They must have repeated what Obama himself is so fond of saying: "Thanks, Obama!"

Campbell later told Congress, “I was frustrated watching the U.S. government make numerous decisions benefiting Rosatom and Tenex while those entities were engaged in serious criminal conduct on U.S. soil.”

This particular excerpt doesn’t even get into Hillary Clinton’s role in the Uranium One deal and how the Clintons profited from hugely inflated speaking fees for Bill and contributions to the Clinton Global Initiative while she was Secretary of State and also on the board that had to approve that sale. For those details and a great deal more, I recommend you read the book!

When one dares to look honestly into the Obama administration’s dealings with Russia over the years 2008-2016, it makes the more recent years of Russia-related finger-pointing at President Trump seem like the ridiculous fraud they are. Imagine if Trump’s administration were dealing with Russia the way the Obama administration did. Once again, we have an example of the Democrats accusing Republicans of the very thing they've been doing themselves.

Some churches in California are defying Gov. Gavin Newsom’s unconstitutional ban on holding services, even though they’re taking extreme precautions, more so than businesses allowed to stay open (taking temperatures at the door, passing out masks, offering an outdoor worship alternative, social distancing, 25% capacity, etc.)

More power to them. And this may hearten them in their fight: in Virginia, a pastor who was hit with criminal charges and threatened with up to a year in jail for holding services saw those charges dropped for no stated reason.

Maybe the reason is that out-of-control Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam realized how that case would go once it got in front of a judge and jury that had actually heard of the First Amendment. This is a case where the legal system, used for so long by leftists as a weapon against the people, is now protecting the people from power-mad leftists. And the church is still pressing its legal rights with the help of the Liberty Counsel, suing Northam for discrimination for raiding their church for having 16 people in a 250-seat church (six over the “crowd” limit) while he exempted other organizations and even encouraged and participated in mass anti-police/BLM protests.

The Trump DOJ has filed a statement of interest in the case on behalf of the church. I’ll also be very interested to see how this comes out, and if the churches in California decide to call up the Liberty Counsel, too.

Late last week, we brought you some newly declassified documents showing the FBI was ridiculously well aware there was no evidence of the Trump campaign “colluding” with Russians. Yet they went right on accusing Carter Page of being a Russian agent and kept renewing the application to spy on him as a window into the campaign and the activities of Trump's associates. We know without a doubt that this happened, because we have it in their own words, not just in casual texts but even in official reports.

A couple of additional key documents are expected sometime this week. And we’re hearing the word “indictments” more frequently.

Mark Meadows, in his first interview with Maria Bartiromo on FOX NEWS’ SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES since becoming President Trump’s chief of staff, used that word. “I know I expect indictments from the evidence I’ve seen,” he said.

He referenced the “couple of other documents” that will be coming out and said, “It’s all starting to unravel and, I tell you, it’s time for people to go to jail and people [to be] indicted.”

Something else related to swap-draining will be revealed in a few weeks, and I’m not quite sure what to think about it, not having seen it yet. It’s an HBO documentary actually called THE SWAMP, featuring dedicated swamp-drainer Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz along with Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and Colorado Rep. Ken Buck. The producers claim to have had “unfettered access” to them as they covered “a pivotal year in politics, demonstrating the breadth and grip of a system that rewards money-raising above all else, playing Congress on both sides of the aisle.”

The film focuses primarily on these three Republicans, but three Democrats are also interviewed: California Rep. Ro Khanna, Maryland Rep. John Sarbanes, and disgraced former California member of Congress Katie Hill.

It has promised to expose “how the prevalence of lobbyists and special interest groups in Washington can influence policy based on financial contributions and how Congressmembers’ ability to get key committee assignments depends on how much money they are able to bring in, reflecting both their rank and their ability to affect legislation.”

Ben Kew in BREITBART compares this effort to those of BREITBART NEWS senior contributer and president of the Government Accountability Institute Peter Schweizer, whose 2020 book ‘PROFILES IN CORRUPTION: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite’ takes a look at how Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and (oh, yes) Joe Biden “cashed in” through corruption and special interests.

Until THE SWAMP debuts on August 4, it’s impossible to know how good a job it does of exposing the corruption within the government. There’s just so much of it, they could turn it into a long-running documentary series without addressing it all. And considering “the swamp” has long been in cahoots with so many in the media, it’s easy to be skeptical about the objectivity of any such production. The directors, Daniel DiMauro and Morgan Pehme, also produced the 2017 Netflix documentary GET ME ROGER STONE.

Pehme appeared with GET ME ROGER STONE director Dylan Bank on MSNBC following Trump’s pardon of Roger Stone. You’ll see from the trailer and from this interview that they aren’t exactly fans of Trump or Stone and certainly painted Stone as a personification of the corruption in Washington. That doesn’t mean their new romp through "the swamp" isn’t accurate –- I don’t want to prejudge that –- but it does give us an idea of what they might and, more importantly, might not be focusing on as they peer into its murky depths. We'll see.

Finally, Sara Carter has a hard-hitting commentary on the news we had last week about the FBI and the need to see justice done.

Carter asks the $64,000 Question: If “senior Obama and law enforcement officials didn’t believe there was evidence to prove a conspiracy, or that one even existed, then WHO IN POWER GAVE THE DIRECTIVE [emphasis mine] to target the Trump campaign and continue investigating beyond the election?”

These people knew it was a lie, yet they harmed America’s national security by feeding their lie to the media: newspapers, social media and cable news outlets around the world. “It was a disinformation campaign unlike anything ever seen in U.S. politics and it was cultivated by former senior intelligence officials with extraordinary power,” Carter rightly says.

I strongly agree with her concern over Barr’s recent statement that U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation might not be completed until after the November election. It’s understandable that Barr doesn’t want to be seen as getting in the way of a political process, but holding information back from the public is ALSO a kind of interference, an arguably worse one. That's because in deciding whom to support, voters need and deserve as much information about the candidates and the political parties as they can possibly get. (That’s why I always urge waiting until Election Day to vote; if something comes out at the last minute to cause you to change your mind, it’s too late and your precious vote is wasted.)

So, if Durham has concluded that indictments are called for, Barr needs to move forward. And that report has got to come out, no matter what it reveals. We’ve had investigation after investigation for years now, and it’s time. Long past time, in fact.

Carter says she hasn’t “seen any real results since first publishing stories more than three years ago on the subject.” She says she’s “starting to feel, like most people involved in exposing what has happened, like there’s no light at the end of the tunnel.” Judging from letters I receive from readers, she has a great deal of company.

On the bright side, look at what we do already know. Even if indictments aren’t handed down soon, we know there is PROOF that the FBI, with help with some in the DOJ, State Department, CIA and the media, and even some senators and members of Congress perpetrated a fraud to influence the 2016 election and sabotage Trump’s presidency. We even know that Obama and Biden were present at a meeting about at least one aspect of that sabotage, that of framing Michael Flynn.

But that makes it even more frustrating when Durham says his report might not be out before the election. At this point, months of additional delay would be absurd. Those who directed and led the soft coup against the Trump administration must be exposed and indicted, or our legal system is a joke. Or, as Carter put it, “We will no longer be the nation based on the principles of justice and liberty we believe ourselves to be but something altogether different.”

As we near the election, we see leftists trying to MAKE us into something altogether different. Indictments of those who perpetrated this fraud are the appropriate way to push back and show that’s not going to happen.