Advertisement

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.

There’s been a huge development related to the story we brought you a few days ago about Peter Strzok’s plan to use President Trump’s first official intelligence briefing to spy on him in January of 2017. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Thursday declassified a memo that details the specifics of an earlier briefing, with then-candidate Trump, in August of 2016. That briefing must have made Strzok very happy, because one can see from this new memo that they were already using such meetings to spy on Trump when he was still a candidate.

In fact, they filed the memo in several very interesting places mostly unrelated to the stated purpose of the briefing: under “Crossfire Hurricane,” code name for the “Trump/Russia” investigation; under “Crossfire Razor,” code name for the investigation of Michael Flynn; under “FARA,” the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and also under the vaguely titled “Russia Sensitive Investigative Matter.”

As reported by John Solomon, the memo shows that agent Joe Pientka attempted to gather evidence against both Trump and Flynn, not just briefing the candidate but also writing down the questions Trump asked during the meeting and scrutinizing the demeanor of attendee Flynn as well.

Recall that Strzok wrote later in an email to his boss Bill Priestap that he was “angry” (his word) he’d been left out of the loop ahead of the January 2017 briefing, as he planned to use it to further his investigation and wanted to offer input beforehand. In other words, this was far more than just an intelligence briefing; it was a set-up to play "gotcha" with the newly-inaugurated President, and his colleagues knew it. Unbelievable.

But true. As for the earlier briefing of then-candidate Trump, a source told FOX NEWS that “...the briefing was used as ‘a cover to listen for any remarks’ by Trump or others about the Russian federation.” See the report by Brooke Singman and Gregg Re here.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/source-says-fbi-agent-used-2016-briefing-on-election-interference-as-cover-to-question-trump-team

This intelligence briefing, held August 17, 2016, was supposedly to brief candidate Trump on foreign election interference. But according to the typewritten notes of FBI agent Joe Pientka, the agent “actively listened” for what was said on certain topics, particularly the Russian federation, using his 13-minute briefing for “cover” to monitor both Donald Trump and Michael Flynn.

The briefing was held at the FBI’s New York Field Office. Also in attendance was Trump campaign adviser and former candidate New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. (As far as we know, all this is news to him.)

It was Pientka’s duty as the one giving the briefing to “warn and tell the candidates what they needed to watch out for.” Yet even with their supposed evidence about the Russians targeting the Trump campaign, Pientka did not tell Trump and/or Flynn that this was happening.

Interestingly, the document written by Pientka and supplied to FOX NEWS shows that it was approved by both Peter Strzok and Kevin Clinesmith. Clinesmith, you’ll recall, is the subject of a criminal referral –- so far the only one we know of –- for altering a document to say that Carter Page had not worked as our own asset for the CIA when he actually had done just that. (Page’s work with the CIA would have been exculpatory evidence for him, but somehow they ‘forgot’ to mention it in the FISA application to spy on him, altered evidence of it, and accused Page of being a Russian agent instead.)

According to the FOX NEWS source, Pientka was at that time also handling the FBI’s investigation into Flynn. (Recall that Pientka and Strzok were the two agents who went to the White House to interview Flynn just a few days into his new job as Trump’s new national security adviser.) The same source told FOX NEWS that the briefing was used as “a cover to listen for any remarks” by candidate Trump or others about the Russian federation.

Note that these officials were really out to get Flynn at that time; this particular incident of spying may have been just as much about snagging HIM as it was about stopping candidate Trump. With all Flynn knew about the inner workings of the intelligence community, they did NOT want him working with Trump. This concern would no doubt become a desperate one after Trump was elected.

Another senior administration official did not hold back in commenting to FOX NEWS, saying that this document “shows the same cast of virulent characters that spearheaded the Russia hoax and set Trump up from ‘jump.’” They were trying to make good on their promise to keep Trump from winning. It was “a scam briefing from a scam crew of miscreants at the FBI.”

Then-FBI Director James Comey later testified that he had assured President Trump he was not personally under investigation. (Recall that Trump at the time was understandably upset that Comey wouldn’t come out and state it publicly.) But Comey was lying to Trump. The FBI had Trump under an electron microscope, both before and after he was in office.

Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, on Sean Hannity’s TV show Thursday night, clarified how they conducted that early briefing. “The FBI went to then-candidate Trump...They told him Russia might try to spy on you; what they didn’t tell him is, ‘WE’RE spying on you.” And they did it just 17 days into this investigation. It opens on July 31; August 17, they do this. Thirteen minutes for the ‘defensive briefing,’ the part...you’re supposed to get; and then an hour and 42 minutes where they’re trying to get information and set the [candidate] up.”

Jordan went on to say that this came very shortly after Strzok’s August 8 text to Lisa Page in which he said, “We’ll stop it [Trump’s election],” and his August 15 text to Page about the “insurance policy” discussed in “Andy’s office” (Andrew McCabe). Just two days later, they start implementing that insurance policy.

Gregg Jarrett, also on Hannity’s show, brought up the fact that Pientka has been scrubbed from the FBI website and is now cloistered in the San Fransisco Field Office, where the FBI refuses to make him available after repeated demands by Congress. And who is responsible for that, as well as for the excruciating delays in releasing these memos? Why, that would be current FBI Director Christopher Wray, of course! Every time we have a story that involves slow-walked evidence, we always seem to end up back at Wray’s office door, which is always closed.

Remember when we said that if Biden were elected, he’d essentially be bringing back the old Obama machine to the White House? (Of course, my writer Laura Ainsworth has been saying for two years that Michelle Obama will end up either being the nominee or running on the ticket with Biden –- if he manages to make it to the election –- with the goal that she end up in the Oval Office with the original Obama team.)

Well, we'd like to thank Ray Arroyo on Laura Ingraham’s “Seen and Unseen” segment Wednesday for pointing something out. Former President Obama and presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden got together to record a video conversation, and the Biden campaign has released a trailer. The campaign made quite a production out of it, with cameras following the two men as they exit their cars with entourages in tow and even time their entrances from the elevators. Arroyo describes it as playing “like a streaming event.”

He also points out one moment in this trailer in which “Obama reveals more than perhaps he intended.” Can you guess what it is?

It's when Obama says this: “You are going to be able to reassemble [pause and big hand gesture] the kind of government that cares about people and brings people together.”

Okay...REASSEMBLE? Arroyo recalls for his audience the “old group” of Susan Rice, Eric Holder and John Kerry; of course, there are many more. (Quite a few of them are probably still at the FBI.) Whether or not Michelle Obama is Biden's running mate, it’s easy to see that the same old Democrat machine will be back if he wins. Deja vu all over again.

And does anyone think Biden would be willing and able to stop the lawlessness in “blue” cities around the country? No, the only way he'd be able to quell the protests would be to give those thugs everything they demand. They have a long list of "reforms" that would end America as we know it, and Biden would just do it all. I like what Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia said on BREITBART NEWS TONIGHT about Biden, that he is the “leader of lawlessness.”

Collins, who is now running for the U.S. Senate, praised President Trump for working to restore law and order when that is exactly what our country desperately needs.

Elections have consequences, said host Matthew Boyle, and he had a message for those who care about law and order: “I’m calling out to all the listeners of Breitbart Radio tonight: do not think for one second the conservative voice in America needs to be complacent in this country. If you don’t like [it] in these cities, if you don’t like lawlessness, if you don’t like the liberal takeover of your rights and your freedoms, your guns, or anything else, then you have to do more than simply just talk about it.”

We have to fight for what matters, he said. That includes having “a bigger conversation” about “the fact that Joe Biden in his basement in Delaware has been subscribing to these ultra-leftist positions of defunding the police and disrespecting the police.” He has “caved to leftist groups.”

Nothing less than a “conservative movement” will stop this.

But these are the people to whom Joe Biden would bow.

Here are just a few of the ideas these “woke” prosecutors in the Seattle area –- King County –- would like to see considered:

First, to not necessarily file third-degree assault charges against someone who attacks a police officer. “These (charges) often arise from aggressive responses by law enforcement officers toward persons of color, or from an arrestee’s mental health or substance abuse episode,” so such cases should be filed “reluctantly.”

Also, to not file third-degree assault charges against someone who attacks a police officer if the officer didn’t have his bodycam turned on or didn’t have proper training in de-escalation and “implicit bias.”

In addition, to give crime investigators “less input” into bail recommendations. But this group does have recommendations of their own; for example, they think “Burglary 2” suspects with no violent history shouldn’t be held in jail during a pandemic “simply because [Seattle] PD is annoyed by how often they’re responding to break-ins.” (!)

They also recommend that prosecutors not file charges on referrals for: escape, eluding, drug possession, drug possession with intent to deliver, delivery of controlled substance, second-degree burglary, and auto theft, “as long as the suspect “has remained crime free from when the case was referred to present.”

I wish I could say I was making this up, but it’s real. All of these crimes would essentially go unpunished. As in, go and sin no more!

The prosecutor who brought this letter to the attention of FOX Q13 (and did not wish to be identified) was disheartened. “I don’t even know why we’re prosecutors anymore,” this person said. Indeed. “It seems almost as if the prosecutor’s office becomes less and less relevant and necessary to a safe society when we’re willing to let burglars or robbers go free or have a license to assault police officers.”

This letter isn’t the only “starting point” for long-term “reform” of law enforcement in Seattle. Tuesday, an internal memo from the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention outlined their plan to end juvenile detention by 2025 and to close the King County Jail in downtown Seattle once the pandemic is under control.

And this November, King County residents will vote on whether the sheriff will continue to be elected or instead be appointed, responsible just to county officials. Some, obviously, in county government are pushing to have more direct control over the sheriff. Voters will also decide whether or not the charter can be changed to transfer some policing functions to “other offices.” (Uh-oh.) As councilmember Girmay Zahilay said, “Millions of people around the nation have said we need to redirect most policing functions to unarmed, public health, and community-based alternatives. The King County Charter as currently written does not allow us to do this.”

Maybe the people who wrote the King County Charter “as currently written” were not insane. Does anyone think that a (shudder) President Joe Biden --- or whoever his chosen successor might be --- would do anything to preserve law and order in an environment such as this? Biden has already said he definitely would “redirect” funds away from the police. There is no question that he would support redirecting their duties as well.

This would be a hopeless situation for law enforcement. So what we need to do this November is “redirect” the power away from leftists and back towards law enforcement, and the one we can count on to oversee that is President Trump.