Mike Huckabee

The slogan “Black lives matter” is indeed true. Of course black lives matter. Our nation is founded on the premise that “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” No one, regardless of color, ethnicity, or origin, should be denied those God-given rights. So you bet-black lives matter. But recently, the slogan has morphed into a meme that black lives have to matter MORE. The left goes berserk if someone then adds, “All lives matter.” But isn’t that the point? If historically black lives didn’t matter as much, affirming that black lives matter equally should indeed be the uncompromised quest and rightful demand. But if someone gets angry that recognizing that black lives matter because there is equality of lives, then the assumption becomes that black lives matter MORE and thus perpetuate inequality. Such an absurd view is illogical and irrational. It becomes more than a slight to those who are white, who are no more guilty of their whiteness than someone is of his or her blackness. It’s equally an insult to Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans, and Mid-Easterners who aren’t black, but who are equally human and equally endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Why would that be offensive to those who chant “Black lives matter?”

It may be because black lives matter is more than a slogan. It’s the name of a radical left-wing Marxist organization that openly advocates for the dismantling of America’s economic system and the family structure involving a man, a woman, and children related by blood or adoption to that man and woman. Here’s some of the actual language direct from the website of the organization Black Lives Matter:

“We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence. We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer?affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).”

There is more, and some of their goals are shocking. So why do major American corporations like Nike, Apple, GM, Coca-Cola, LL Bean, and others give millions of dollars to the organization whose stated goals are the deconstruction of the traditional family and the free-market economy that has empowered people of all colors to succeed and prosper? Great question! It appears because they are afraid to say no to the bullies who run this and other radical leftist groups and because too many of us who believe in true equality for ALL people whether black, white, red, yellow, brown, are also afraid to stand up and speak out. It’s time we do speak out. I do not believe that a majority of Americans, whatever their color, support rioting, looting, disregard for authority to the point of physically assaulting police officers and demanding that we defund the police. But if we don’t become as vocal in opposition to mob rule as the mobs are so as to cause the biggest corporations in our country and politicians of both parties to cower in the corner and surrender to the mobs, we will get what we deserve, but we will not like it. The elections this year will not be about political parties nor will it be a popularity contest to elect the most pleasant personality. Whether you identify as Democrat or Republican, you better identify as one who believes in the rule of law, civil order, and genuine equality for people that doesn’t favor some over others for ANY reason.

So, yes—black lives matter. And they don’t matter less than any other. But neither do they matter more. To say they do is bigotry and yes, it’s racism as surely as is the sinful notion of white supremacy. No race is supreme. God alone is Supreme. And we must live as servants to Him and to each other as we “do unto others what we would have others do unto us.”

Mike Huckabee

Going into the weekend, we’ve got some great new reading material to pass along that blasts to Kingdom Come any pretext of legitimacy concerning the “Trump/Russia” investigation.

As Sen. Lindsay Graham forecast a couple of days ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, has at last obtained a couple of highly significant documents, newly declassified.

The first is a curious typewritten report by Peter Strzok on the accuracy of a NEW YORK TIMES story on the Trump campaign’s involvement with Russia. Written February 14, 2017, his report (as opposed to the story) shows beyond all doubt Strzok’s awareness that there was NO reliable evidence that the Trump campaign had had contact with Russian intelligence, in any form.

How can we be so sure of this? Well, the NYT had reported that “phone records and intercepted calls” showed that Trump campaign officials had contact with members of the Russian intelligence services. But Strozk, in his report, said, “This statement is misleading and inaccurate as written. We have not seen any evidence of any individuals affiliated with the Trump team in contact with [intelligence officers]."

As Zachary Evans writes in NATIONAL REVIEW, Strzok wrote this not once, not twice, but three times in his report.

Investigative reporter John Solomon, appearing with Devin Nunes and guest host Tammy Bruce on Friday’s HANNITY, said that “nine substantive errors” were found in that single NYT story and that it should be retracted. (Ha, don’t hold your breath. Not that it matters; the damage was done at the time.) According to Solomon, what we’re now finally able to see proves that the FBI knew for months “that everything they gave to the FISA court was wrong --- EVERYTHING --- and yet they never retracted it and renewed the FISA application two more times.”

Nunes stressed the importance of INDICTMENTS. (I put that in capital letters to stress the importance of indictments myself.) “I’m not too interested in the Durham report,” he said. “I would like to know everything, for the four-plus years, that went on, including even the Mueller investigation, but really what we want is...indictments. We’ve made 14 criminal referrals; we have another investigation that’s ongoing...Also, we have suspected for a very long time that Steele had maybe only two Russians, but we believe [that]...he didn’t really know them. How was it that Steele found these supposed 'Russians' and was able to use them? We’ve asked the FBI and the CIA about these Russians; I’ve said for a long time we’re interested in two Russians –- and...they have yet to allow us access to these two Russians who we now believe are living in the United States.”

All right, Director Wray, what is going on with that? It should be all right for senate and congressional investigators to have access to the whole cast of characters by now, as part of their oversight function of the FBI. What is the holdup at this point? If it's just that this is going to make the FBI look bad, well, sorry, that's not a good enough reason.

Moving on...the other document now available is the 57-page transcript of an interview with Steele’s primary source for the “dossier.” The document still contains some redactions, but as THE DAILY CALLER reports, Sen. Graham says it “indicates the reliability of the dossier was completely destroyed” after the interviews, which were conducted over three days in January 2017.

In other words, over January and February of 2017, the “dossier” –- and, by extension, the investigation based on it –- was shown without a doubt to be an outrageous farce with no evidence to back it up. But the FBI just kept pushing. So, of course, did the Democrats. Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel in mid-May!

Incidentally, there had been a hold-up in obtaining this document as well, as can be seen in this earlier report from THE DAILY CALLER, dated June 25.

According to THE DAILY CALLER, the FBI had been “refusing” to supply the document, “saying in response to a public records request that the information is classified and risks identifying a confidential FBI source.” Reading their account, you can see how long and hard the tug-of-war has been to get hold of classified documents that tell the tale of this hoax.

But they're out now --- happy reading!

Mike Huckabee

A few days ago, I told you about the new book FALLOUT from investigative reporters John Solomon and Seamus Bruner, and late yesterday, John Solomon had an update about the John Durham probe.

He said that Durham has been conducting “a lot” of interviews and going through a lot of documents; apparently, his investigation has been fairly unhampered by the virus. He said there have been discussions about plea bargains and cooperation from certain individuals, though, of course, he couldn’t name names.

He reported on Thursday’s HANNITY TV show that “multiple sources” with direct knowledge of the U.S. attorney’s investigation had informed him that Durham is looking specifically at the Defense Department’s Office Of Net Assessments, which had kept “confidential human source” Stefan Halper under contract to “write reports.” Durham wants to know if the Defense Department was actually funding Halper’s undercover (SPYING) activities “prior to the FBI having a predicate to do so.” (Never mind that the so-called “predicate” used later by the FBI was phony.)

Recall that the Office Of Net Assessments, like all offices at the Defense Department and within the intel community, would have been subject to audits and likely sweeping budget cuts if former national security adviser Michael Flynn had kept his job. That one fact probably explains a lot about what happened to him. Perhaps justice will be done.

"Listen, all signs are pointing to the building of a criminal indictment,” Solomon said. “Maybe it’ll come up around, just before or after Labor Day.”

But, incredibly, former special counsel Robert Mueller is still defending the “Trump/Russia” investigation, even though doing so involves contradicting his own report. Right after President Trump commuted Roger Stone’s prison sentence last week, Mueller wrote an op-ed for the WASHINGTON POST that, as reported by RealClear Investigations, didn’t just attack Stone but also disputed “broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives improper.”

And why would critics (like me) be making such claims? Well, maybe it’s because after years of examining their bogus “investigation” and finally obtaining documents and testimony that had been withheld even from defense attorneys, we could see that their investigation was illegitimate and their motives were improper.

Mueller’s op-ed contradicts the official findings concerning George Papadopoulos, whose barroom conversation with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer was NOT evidence that “the Russians had signaled” anything to him and also was NOT even mentioned by Papadopoulos to anyone in Trump’s campaign. The record, in the form of a recently-declassified electronic communication (EC) that officially opened “Crossfire Hurricane,” shows it was nothing but hearsay, with no evidence it had come from the Russian government or even from a Russian national.

It seems Downer didn’t know at the time he passed along this hearsay to the FBI that it had come to Papadopoulos by way of Josef Mifsud, a mysterious Maltese academic. Although former FBI Director James Comey has claimed without evidence in a WASHINGTON POST op-ed of his own that Mifsud was a Russian agent, the U.S. government has never tied him in that way to Russia, and the Mueller report takes care not to label him as such. Likewise, when Andrew McCabe was interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee in 2017 –- this testimony has only recently been declassified –- he said the tip given to Papadopoulos by Mifsud about Hillary’s emails was not considered evidence of a Russia connection.

But Mueller is still pushing this debunked narrative. “By late 2016,” he writes in WAPO, “the FBI had evidence that the Russians had signaled a Trump campaign adviser that they could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to the Democratic candidate.” No, Mr. Mueller, they did not.

At his unimpressive congressional hearing a year ago, Mueller declined to comment on Mifsud’s identity or explain why the FBI hadn’t arrested him after his interview and charged him with perjury. After all, the Mueller report claims that he made false statements. Why didn’t they treat him the same shameful way they did Roger Stone?

Speaking of Roger Stone, Mueller goes on to vilify him in ways that don’t match the conclusions of his investigation. In the op-ed, Mueller writes that he “lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks” and also about “the existence of written communications with his intermediary.”

But as RealClear Investigations reports, “that claim from Mueller is at odds with his investigation’s failure to establish that Stone HAD [emphasis mine] an intermediary to WikiLeaks.” Stone had claimed this, but it turned out that the two individuals ever singled out by name, Randy Credico and Jerome Corsi, didn’t actually make contact with WikiLeaks. (Credico did interview Julian Assange on his radio show in August of 2016, but this had nothing to do with being a go-between with Stone.)

There's only one known contact between WikiLeaks and Stone from before the 2016 election, and it was WikiLeaks tweeting to Stone to stop making “false claims of association.”

Stone claimed to have advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’ release of email material, but Mueller has never asserted that he actually did. According to RealClear Investigations, Stone did have “minimal and inconsequential” contact with Guccifer 2.0, but it was actually exculpatory for Stone, as none of the three short Twitter messages even mentioned the stolen DNC emails.

Former senior attorney for the special counsel Andrew Weissmann went even further in his own op-ed, this one in THE NEW YORK TIMES three days later. Weissmann, now a legal analyst for MSNBC (of course), wants to continue the investigation and see Roger Stone go before a grand jury. He still suspects that Stone hid incriminating evidence to try to help Trump, and by gum, he’s going to get to the bottom of this and find out what it is!

I think that even now, many people are unclear about just what Roger Stone was convicted of lying about. Did you know he wasn’t even accused of lying about any actual coordination regarding those emails? That’s because there WAS no coordination. Stone was accused and convicted of making false statements about his FAILED efforts to obtain information about WikiLeaks during the campaign. That’s all. He never was able to actually do it. And by the time they charged him with lying, he had already corrected the record, just not under oath. (They didn’t swear him in and give him the chance to do that, because then they wouldn’t have been able to indict him for lying. That alone is enough reason for Trump to commute his prison sentence.) Even the NYT itself reported that Stone “had no real ties to WikiLeaks.”

The contrast between Weissmann’s op-ed and the known facts of the Stone case, as laid out by RealClear Investigations, makes for some entertaining, if perplexing, reading. Weissmann’s inability to stop chasing windmills when it comes to Trump reminds me a lot of someone else who has been in the news lately. Emmet Sullivan.