Advertisement

On Thursday, President Trump held a gathering at the White House to thank his family, supporters and legal team and celebrate his acquittal in the Senate. This ends the travesty of his phony impeachment, which started even before he was inaugurated and went on to shred the Constitution in the attempt to take him down. Of course, like sharks that have to keep swimming and eating to stay alive, his political enemies are still actively searching for some crime to “get” him on. They and their media accomplices were even criticizing him for his remarks during Thursday’s event, slamming him for “not bringing the country together,” if you can believe that.

The President was justifiably outspoken about the attempted coup that took place within the intel bureaucracy. “...If I didn’t fire James Comey, we would have never found this stuff. ‘Cause when I fired that sleazebag, all hell broke out. They were ratting on each other; they were running for the hills. Let’s see what happens...It’s in the hands of some very talented people.” a reference to Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham.

When you have a little time (it runs about an hour), you should watch this. It’s Trump at his best and most reflective. Melania is glowing with happiness. Really impressive –- I was glad to see he hasn’t lost his sense of humor after such an ordeal.

https://youtu.be/IREknOdkPbA

As for the false narrative that was created around Trump to remove him from office, one of the Democrats’ big talking points has been that Russia --- not Ukraine --- interfered with our 2016 Presidential election. Anyone suggesting that Ukraine was involved must be saying that Russia’s hands were clean, according to this line of “reasoning.” So, the idea of Ukraine’s involvement had to be coming from some wild-eyed right-wing conspiracy theorist trying to defend President Trump from the charge of being an agent of Vladimir Putin. It followed that Rudy Giuliani couldn’t have had a legitimate reason to look into Ukrainian involvement in 2016; that was merely a pretense for him to look into Joe Biden in anticipation of 2020, they said.

You see the logical flaws in this “either/or” argument. When it’s laid out like this, it makes absolutely no sense. Besides, I thought the left was opposed to “binary” choices, ha. Certs is a candy mint! Certs is a breath mint! Wait, you’re BOTH right! (And for those who remember when SNL was really funny, New Shimmer is a floor wax AND a dessert topping!) It was Russia...AND Ukraine!

Which leads me to some new revelations concerning what happened in Ukraine to launch an investigation of Trump 2016 campaign director Paul Manafort.

Recall that in December of 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled that two government officials, a member of parliament named Sergey Leschenko and (not kidding) the head of the Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine, Artem Sytnyk, were found guilty in a Ukrainian court of illegally interfering in the American 2016 election by publicizing the so-called “black ledger” of cash payments to Paul Manafort. That ruling was overturned on a technicality, but what they did to publicize the ledger remains true. THE NEW YORK TIMES was only too happy to break the ledger story in August 2016.

John Solomon has been investigating the origins of this mysterious ledger for a long time now, as Manfort rots in jail, and Leschenko told him in an interview last summer that although he publicized the ledger in 2016, he didn’t think it could be used as evidence in court because there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it was authentic. Doubts arose because officials said Manafort was never paid in cash, and the ledger reflected cash payments. The ledger appeared to have been created after the fact.

Once the ledger was made public, though, it led to the firing of Manafort from Trump’s campaign and an investigation that revealed crimes for which he was prosecuted –- by the special counsel, who sought damaging information on Trump. But it was never introduced at his trial or significantly analyzed in Robert Mueller’s report, which found no evidence of “collusion” between Trump and Russia. Mueller never released the “302’s” that would have detailed their conclusions about the ledger.

So, was the ledger a fake, created to provide a pretense to go after Manafort while he was Trump’s campaign director? Solomon has learned there was special counsel testimony attesting to the ledger’s inauthenticity from Manafort’s former business partner Rick Gates. In a “302” (summary of witness testimony) from April of 2018, Gates said, “The black ledger was a fabrication. It was never real, and this fact has since been proven true.” This statement is consistent with what several Ukrainian officials have told Solomon in his quest for the story. But Mueller did not include it.

As Solomon reports, “If true, Gates’ account means the two key pieces of documentary evidence used by the media and FBI to drive the now-debunked Russia collusion narrative --- the Steele dossier and the black ledger --- were at best uncorroborated and at worst disinformation. His account also raises the possibility that someone fabricated the document in Ukraine in an effort to restart investigative efforts on Manafort’s consulting work or to meddle in the U.S. presidential election.”

https://justthenews.com/key-witness-told-team-mueller-russia-collusion-evidence-found.html

So, with the “dossier” revealed as a highly imaginative work of fiction paid for by the Hillary campaign and the “black ledger” almost certainly manufactured as well, what happens now? Well, first of all, we need to acknowledge that there was some serious election “meddling” going on in UKRAINE that justified Rudy Giuliani’s desire to uncover it in the interest of his client. Second, our own intelligence bureaucracy needs to be overhauled to stop the use of fake “evidence” to launch investigations for political purposes.

On that score, FBI Director Chris Wray has announced that every FBI official listed in IG Michael Horowitz’s report is being reviewed for possible discipline. “Possible discipline”? That’s not good enough. Wray has kept a low profile in the aftermath of that report, which showed 17 “errors and omissions” in their phony FISA application and three renewals, and it’s difficult to know how determined he is. What’s the goal: to impart genuine reform, or to shore up the FBI’s image? Wray seems mostly interested in rehabilitating their image. Sorry, but an attempt at an “image makeover” isn’t going to cut it.

One encouraging development (hope it ‘s true): The White House is considering dismissing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. This is not “retaliation,” as the media will portray it, but part of a badly needed purge. Details here...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-deciding-considering-plan-to-dismiss-aide-who-testified-against-trump

Which brings us back to Trump’s remarks on Thursday. “We’ve been going through this now for over three years,” he said. It was evil, it was corrupt, it was dirty cops. It was leakers and liars. And this should never happen to another President, ever.”

Without a complete housecleaning, including criminal prosecutions where appropriate, it most certainly will. (As I mentioned, Democrats are already trying to do it again to President Trump.) And when I say “housecleaning,” I mean the FBI, CIA, DOJ...and, very importantly, the House of Representatives.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/after-impeachment-acquittal-comes-removing-pelosi-from-her-role-as-speaker-pence-says

Mitt Romney Call Your Office

February 7, 2020

Give Sen. Mitt Romney credit for one thing: he’s certainly sparked a renewed interest in politics back in his “home state” of Utah. By voting with the Democrats to convict President Trump on their first Article of Impeachment (abusing his power by using it pretty much the same way every President in history has), Romney has spurred a flurry of citizen activism. Some Trump critics have turned out to rally, declaring him a hero and the conscience of DC (I suspect they're the same people who called Romney a racist, elitist, bullying, dog-torturing, corporate raider who gave his employees cancer and kept women in binders, back when he was on the other side – and who will again, the minute he inevitably flip-flops).

Meanwhile, a bill to allow voters to recall errant Senators that has been languishing in the Utah state House since before impeachment even became an issue suddenly has half a dozen new co-sponsors. Its author, Rep. Tim Quinn, says he got over a hundred phone calls and 250 emails in just over an hour that were “100% positive.”

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/2/5/21125200/mitt-romney-trump-impeachment-acquit-senate-vote-convict-utah-legislature-recall

Romney supporters say he shouldn’t be recalled for displaying “character.” Why, exactly, it shows “character” to violate your sworn oath to “support and defend the Constitution” by ratifying the House’s unprecedented, partisan and unconstitutional impeachment process, or to find someone guilty on evidence that one week before he’d proclaimed to be insufficient to determine guilt, I cannot say. I do think the vote showed Romney’s predictable character, which I predicted here before he even announced it by referencing the fable about the scorpion that stung the friendly frog that was giving it a ride across the river. The scorpion explained, “It’s in my nature.”

Romney obviously believes he was taking the moral, Biblical high ground (aside from ignoring the “Thou shalt not bear false witness” part.) But for those in Utah who believe he should be recalled and are looking for grounds that Romney cannot argue with without looking like a hypocrite, try this:

“The great state of Utah deserves a Senator who didn’t win his election largely because of the endorsement of a President whom he himself has officially declared to be guilty of a ‘severe,’ ‘egregious’ and ‘abusive’ attack on the Constitution.”

In fact, if he really is as morally superior as he claims to be, shouldn’t he save the public the trouble of changing the law and recalling him by resigning for his own egregious sin of accepting the Senate endorsement of such a terrible, lawless President? He even unsuccessfully angled for a job as his Secretary of State. Just think, if he’d actually gotten that job, the Democrats would have subpoenaed him to reveal classified, personal conversations with the President…and when Trump cited executive privilege, imagine what his new pals would be calling Romney now!

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-voices-support-mitt-romney-campaign-senate/story?id=53208232

The Democratic Response…

February 5, 2020

I don’t mean the official response by Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. She gave a well-presented speech, thankfully short on partisan bile and long on standard Democratic boilerplate about helping the struggling workers and making health care more affordable – both of which would be great if (A.) I thought they meant it, and (B.) they had any idea how to do it. She didn’t respond to any specifics in Trump’s speech, but then, I’m sure it was written before his was released. You can see why Whitmer is a rising star in Democratic circles, if she isn’t sunk by the angry radical left.

No, the Democratic response I’m talking about, the one that’s getting the most attention and blowback, was the childish, rude, self-defeating reaction in the Chamber (some members, such as rabid Trump haters AOC and Al Green, boycotted the speech, and were likely not missed by anyone on either side.)

https://www.rightjournalism.com/i-am-not-attending-tonights-sham-at-least-10-reps-opting-out-of-the-state-of-the-union/

Reactions in the House to previous Presidents’ SOTU Addresses have often been partisan, but they at least showed respect for the office. A President’s fellow party members might cheer wildly at his accomplishments while the opposition sat quietly or offered polite, tepid applause. But remember the shock and outrage when one Republican shouted, “You lie!” at Obama? Democrats thought that was outrageous (he was later reprimanded.) Well, last night, Trump was interrupted by dozens of Democrats in a pre-planned heckling chant. But amazingly, that was not their worst misbehavior.

That act of self-immolation was repeated over and over, when they angrily sat on their hands and glowered as Trump listed accomplishments that they’d be doing cartwheels over if a Democrat had managed them. Record low unemployment for minorities, women and the disabled? Silence. Blue collar jobs returning and wages rising? Silence. Working on a cure for AIDS? Silence. A little African-American girl being granted her life-changing dream of choosing a good school to attend? Silence. Most refused even to show support for killing terrorist mass murderers or not killing late term babies, two things they oppose largely because Trump supports them. To them, any good news for America is bad news, since it lessens their reelection chances. They even managed to look as if they’d just swallowed castor oil when Trump called for planting a trillion trees. (“Trump likes trees? Then I hate trees now!!”)

I generally refuse to stoop to the now-common practice of ascribing the worst motives to people who disagree with my political views. I don’t assume someone who sees things differently from me is stupid, racist, evil or whatever. But with last night’s sickening display, the Democrats in the House made it crystal clear that they place expressing hatred of Trump and opposing everything he does above every other issue, no matter how positive it might otherwise be. They would honestly rather see Americans suffer and fail, even groups they claim to champion such as minorities, women and the disabled, than see Trump succeed in helping them. It was partisan politics in its rawest, most selfish form, and it was repulsive.

But wait: it actually gets worse. To cap off the blatant display of disrespect for the President and anyone who supports him (or who has benefited from his policies), Nancy Pelosi made a show of ripping her copy of the speech in half behind his back on live TV.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-in-state-of-the-union-will-tout-economic-success-slam-socialism

(This followed an hour’s worth of strange facial contortions, eye-rolling and gesticulations that made it appear she was teaching a seminar in bad silent movie acting.)

https://www.westernjournal.com/damning-clip-shows-pelosi-trying-decide-applaud-putting-america-first/

Pelosi’s stunt sparked a range of heated reactions. I think law professor Jonathan Turley, who recently tried unsuccessfully to teach the House Democrats what an impeachable offense was, put it well on Twitter: “Pelosi's act dishonored the institution and destroyed even the pretense of civility and decorum in the House. If this is the Speaker's ‘drop the mike’ moment, it is a disgrace that should never be celebrated or repeated. In a single act, she obliterated decades of tradition.”

Newt Gingrich also tweeted that Pelosi’s ripping up of the speech disgusted him and wasn’t clever or cute but a childish insult to American traditions, and she deserves to be censured.

The White House response was the most brutal, since they pointed out what was actually in the speech that she was showing utter contempt for. They tweeted, “Speaker Pelosi just ripped up: One of our last surviving Tuskegee Airmen. The survival of a child born at 21 weeks. The mourning families of Rocky Jones and Kayla Mueller. A service member's reunion with his family. That's her legacy.”

But perhaps the best reaction was from several commenters who pointed out that today, Mitch McConnell will be ripping up her “articles of impeachment.”

As Newt pointed out, Pelosi certainly deserves to be censured, but she won’t be as long as Democrats control the House. Thankfully, due to their lack of any accomplishments, their deranged obsession with a doomed impeachment crusade, and their stunningly small-minded misbehavior before the world last night, they might have helped bring the end of that lamentable era to a close very soon.