Democrats Warning Trump Will Reject Election Results Should Look in the Mirror; The Money Is on Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

By National Review. In a recent Washington Post column warning Americans to “prepare for the possibility of Trump rejecting election results” — one of media’s favorite projections — Brian Klaas asks a question:

If he loses, would it be more surprising if Trump graciously accepts defeat and congratulates his opponent or if he claimed to be the victim of a rigged election and a “deep state” plot?

. . .Even as liberals make chilling predictions about Trump’s attack on democratic norms, they champion such politicians as Stacey Abrams, a middling Georgia state legislator whose national fame relies on a baseless contention that her gubernatorial seat was stolen in 2018. This weekend, that same Washington Post published a sycophantic feature story about Abrams (headline: “The Power of Stacey Abrams,”) that echoed her claims of voter suppression and put her in a superhero cape for good measure. . .

We learned about these magnificent norms from 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who, when conventional wisdom anticipated her victory, said: “We’ve been around 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections and we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them…”

But Clinton discarded any deference to results after the election, when she, and many Democrats, blamed the Russians, sexism, the unfairness of a 240-year process, James Comey’s letter to Congress, and a slew of other bogeymen. These concerted attacks were not only aimed at Trump’s ideas, policies, or person — completely reasonable targets — but the validity of the election system itself. (Read more from “Democrats Warning Trump Will Reject Election Results Should Look in the Mirror” HERE)

_____________________________________________________

The Money Is on Trump

By Axios. Even after the White House’s delayed response to the coronavirus outbreak, unprecedented job losses and a bruising recession, investors and betting markets are still putting their money on President Trump to win re-election.

. . .Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden holds a sizable lead in most national and individual swing state polls — but money managers expect Trump to retake the White House in November.

In a late April survey of U.S.-based investors with at least $1 million of assets, UBS found that 53% said they planned to vote for Biden.

But 52% think Trump will win.

. . .The RealClearPolitics average of betting websites gives the advantage to Trump with an average spread of 8.2 as of Sunday night.

(Read more from “The Money Is on Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Here’s Why Judge Sullivan Can’t Legally Punish Michael Flynn For ‘Perjury’; Majority Say They Support Decision to Drop Case Against Flynn; Ron Johnson Demands Declassification of Susan Rice Email on Michael Flynn

/0 Comments/in , /by

By The Federalist. Stunning developments in the criminal case of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn exploded onto the national scene the past two weeks. First, the government moved to dismiss the case, a one-count plea for allegedly making false statements to the FBI.

Then the trial judge, Emmet Sullivan, issued an order permitting people and groups claiming to have an interest in the matter to file briefs about whether he should grant the government’s motion. Further, Sullivan appointed a retired federal judge, John Gleeson, to act as amicus curiae (friend of the court) to present opposing arguments to the government’s motion. . .

I can save Gleeson the trouble. The controlling legal authority from the Supreme Court holds that contempt power cannot be used to punish people for making statements, even under oath, that the judge deems false. . .

A court issues a show-cause order for contempt as a prelude to possibly punishing a person for alleged misconduct. It describes the misconduct and requires the person to defend against that allegation. It is similar to an indictment except the court, rather than a prosecutor, initiates it. The person receiving a show-cause order must appear and defend the accusation but has certain due process rights, such as the right to notice, the right to counsel, and the right to present a defense.

Sullivan has not yet issued a show-cause order to Flynn, but he has directed Gleeson to advise him as to whether he should do so. The answer is absolutely not, because Sullivan lacks the authority to sanction Flynn for perjury. (Read more from “Here’s Why Judge Sullivan Can’t Legally Punish Michael Flynn For ‘Perjury’” HERE)

__________________________________________________________

Majority Say They Support Decision to Drop Case Against Flynn

By The Hill. A narrow majority of voters say they support the Justice Department’s decision to drop the case against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll survey released exclusively to The Hill.

Fifty-one percent of voters polled said they supported the move, while 49 percent said they opposed it.

The Justice Department moved earlier this month to drop its case against Flynn over charges of lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia before Trump took office, saying in a court filing that it did not believe it could make a case against Flynn anymore.

The poll comes less than a week after a National Security Agency document made public on Wednesday showed 39 former Obama administration officials, including former Vice President Joe Biden, asked to “unmask” the identity of an American who had come up in intelligence briefings based on his conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. . .

The same poll found that 53 percent of respondents said they supported the decision after being made aware of potential FBI process breaches, while another 47 percent said they still opposed the move. (Read more from “Majority Say They Support Decision to Drop Case Against Flynn” HERE)

__________________________________________________________

Ron Johnson Demands Declassification of Susan Rice Email on Michael Flynn

By Politico. A powerful Senate committee chairman has asked the Trump administration to fully declassify an unusual email a top Obama aide sent herself regarding Michael Flynn on the eve of her departure. In a letter reviewed by POLITICO, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) made the request of Attorney General Bill Barr. . .

“I understand your office is currently reviewing a January 20, 2017, email from former national security advisor Susan Rice,” Johnson wrote in the letter. “In that email, Ambassador Rice summarized an Oval Office meeting with President Obama and other administration officials that occurred on January 5, 2017. A majority of Ambassador Rice’s email was declassified but a portion of the email remains classified.

“The significance of that meeting is becoming increasingly apparent as more and more information is declassified,” Johnson wrote. “For these reasons, it is essential that Congress and the American people understand what occurred during that January 5, 2017, meeting and how it was later characterized by administration officials. The declassification of Ambassador Rice’s email, in whole, will assist these efforts.”

“On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present,” Rice wrote in a portion of the email that was declassified. (Read more from “Ron Johnson Demands Declassification of Susan Rice Email on Michael Flynn” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Justin Amash Nixes 2020 Presidential Run as Third-Party Candidate

/0 Comments/in , /by

Michigan Rep. Justin Amash has announced that he will not run for president as a third-party candidate, CNN reported Saturday.

“After much reflection, I’ve concluded that circumstances don’t lend themselves to my success as a candidate for president this year, and therefore I will not be a candidate,” he tweeted Saturday.

The Republican-turned-independent said in early April he was looking “closely” at a bid as Libertarian Party candidate, after he stopped actively campaigning for his House seat in February while he considered jumping into the presidential race.

The move brings to an end to his extended flirtation with a third-party candidacy that could have introduced a new element of uncertainty into the race between President Donal Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, according to the New York Times.

He came into the national spotlight last May when he announced his support for impeaching President Trump over the findings in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He was the first and only House Republican to support impeachment, eventually voting for both articles of impeachment against the President as an independent late last year. (Read more from “Justin Amash Nixes 2020 Presidential Run as Third-Party Candidate” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Has a Higher Approval Rating Than Obama and Bush at the Same Point in Their Presidencies; Sanders Says ‘Vast Majority’ of Supporters Will Back Biden (VIDEO)

/0 Comments/in , /by

By The Blaze. President Donald Trump enjoyed his highest Gallup approval rating on May 13. Trump’s 49% approval rating is better than four of the last six presidents at the same time during their presidencies.

Trump’s 49% presidential job approval rating in his 1,209th day in office is higher than Barack Obama’s 47% on his 1,209th day in the White House, and better than George W. Bush’s 46% on his 1,205th day in office. At the same point in their terms, Bill Clinton had a 55% approval rating, George H.W. Bush was at 40%, Ronald Reagan at 52%, and Jimmy Carter at 38%. Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton, and Reagan each won re-election.

Rasmussen found the identical results for the last two presidents at the same point in their presidencies, with Trump edging out Obama in approval ratings 49% to 47%. Rasmussen marked Trump’s high-water mark for job performance approval during his presidency at 53% on Sept. 23, 2019, and April 9, 2019. (Read more from “Trump Has a Higher Approval Rating Than Obama and Bush at the Same Point in Their Presidencies” HERE)

__________________________________________________

Sanders Says ‘Vast Majority’ of Supporters Will Back Biden, Despite Polling Concerns

By National Review. Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) promised that the “vast majority” of his primary supporters “will be voting for Joe Biden” in the general election, contradicting a former top aide, who warned last week that Biden was facing an uphill battle to win over Sanders supporters.

Asked by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos about the situation on Sunday, Sanders pushed back on the characterization of his supporters’ intentions, saying they understood that President Trump is the “most dangerous president in modern history.”

“What Joe is going to have to do and he’s beginning to move in that direction, is to say that those working-class people, say to those young people, say to those minorities, ‘Listen, I understand your situation,’” Sanders said. “ . . . I think they are going to reach out to our supporters and come up with an agenda that speaks to the needs of working families, of young families, of minority communities.”

(Read more from “Sanders Says ‘Vast Majority’ of Supporters Will Back Biden, Despite Polling Concerns” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

We Have Been Lied To: 6 Facts That Change Everything We Know About SARS-CoV-2

/0 Comments/in , , /by

James Madison once said, “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both.” The coronavirus fascists have succeeded in cementing their illogical, immoral, and illegal policies through the prism of false information about the timing of the virus, the specific nature and severity of the overall fatality rate, the number of actual deaths, and the utility (or perhaps harm) of lockdown policies in actually mitigating deaths – all the while obfuscating the much higher collateral deaths and damage caused by the lockdown itself.

Every day we learn new information demonstrating the lies driving lockdown. Here are some of the most important ones from over the weekend.

1) The shocking inflation of COVID-19 death numbers: From day one, we were warned that states are ascribing every single death of anyone who happens to test positive for the coronavirus — even if they are asymptomatic — to the virus rather than the clear cause of death. Now, thanks to a lawsuit in Colorado, the state was forced to revise its death count down by 23 % over the weekend — from 1,150 to 878. The state is now publishing numbers of deaths “with” COVID-19 separate from deaths “from” COVID-19. As I reported on Thursday, county officials started accusing the state’s department of health of reclassifying deaths of those who tested positive for the virus but died of things like alcohol poisoning as COVID-19 deaths just to insidiously inflate the numbers. This revision in Colorado is a bombshell story that, of course, will remain unknown to most Americans. Every state needs to do this, and if they did, we would find an across-the-board drop in numbers by at least 25%, the same %age by which Dr. Birx reportedly believes the count is being inflated, according to the Washington Post. For example, in Minnesota, state officials are now admitting that every single person who dies in a nursing home after testing positive is now deemed to have died from the virus, never mind the fact that 25% of all natural deaths in a given week occur in nursing homes and that most cases of COVID-19 are asymptomatic, which means more often than not, they died exclusively of other causes.

2) States with longer lockdowns had worse results: Kyle Lamb posted a solid analysis on Twitter, grouping states by how long they implemented a lockdown and averaging out the deaths per 100,000 people by each grouping. The results are stounding, as there is a perfectly inverse relationship between how long a state implemented a lockdown and how successful it was in keeping the deaths down. I independently cross-checked these numbers, and they appear to be accurate.

While this doesn’t necessarily prove that lockdowns cause more COVID-19 deaths (although they definitely cause other deaths), it’s nearly impossible to assert the other way around – that lockdowns prevent deaths – if we see zero correlation in the data. This is especially true given that Florida is the third most populous state and has the highest concentration of seniors, yet deaths and hospitalizations are way down since the state reopened on May 4. Florida is more densely populated than Michigan and Pennsylvania, yet has one-sixth and one-fourth of the deaths per capita, respectively. The same holds true for Georgia, which is a fairly densely populated state. Infections are down over 40% and deaths are down 31% since reopening. As Secretary of Health Alex Azar said yesterday, “We are seeing that in places that are opening, we’re not seeing this spike in cases. We still see spikes in some areas that are, in fact, closed.”

3) Outside nursing homes, the fatality rate never warranted such action, even if it would work: Every day we find more hard data showing that the overwhelming majority of cases are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, and outside nursing homes, the chance of dying is very low and very limited to a population we can more efficiently shield. For those who are younger and healthier, deaths are almost nonexistent. Spain was one of the hardest-hit countries and has a higher overall fatality rate than others, yet its age-stratified fatality rates mirror what we have seen in the Netherlands, Denmark, France, and elsewhere. One Twitter commentator has broken down the age-based fatality rates of the comprehensive Spanish antibody study, and the results are similar to what we’ve seen elsewhere:

He used public information to calculate the case data and the population age data, and I have spot-checked some data points and they all seem on target. It’s identical to what the Netherlands found.

Remember, Spain was one of the hardest-hit countries, but even there, 57% of all deaths and the overwhelming majority of deaths of those above age 80 were in senior care facilities. When you take them out of the equation, the death rates are shockingly low. Yet the same politicians who focused on locking up an entire country failed to care for those in nursing homes. . .

It’s essentially the same story in every state.

4) Outside New York, this is barely worse than bad flu seasons: While Europe is opening its schools, almost every U.S. state continues to keep schools shut. Yet according to the CDC’s latest weekly report, “For children (0-17 years), COVID-19 hospitalization rates are much lower than influenza hospitalization rates at comparable time points during recent influenza seasons.” Even the World Health Organization’s top scientist just admitted that children “seem less capable of spreading the virus.” As for everyone else, if you look at the bump in overall deaths for most states (outside the tristate area), they are either at, slightly below, or slight above the 2018 flu season. But at this point, everything is way below a typical flu season in the winter, yet you wouldn’t know it from listening to the media. According to the CDC, hospitalizations and deaths have been declining in all 10 designated regions for the past 3-7 weeks. Still, we are now being more fascist that even Italy in violating civil rights.

5) Excess deaths are from the lockdowns, not the virus: While there is zero evidence that lockdowns saved any lives of coronavirus patients, there is clear evidence they cost other lives. It has been observed in a number of states that there are excess deaths being detected, primarily from people dying at home. The CDC is predicting 21,462-40,097 excess deaths NOT due to COVID-19, likely from those too scared to come to the ER because of the exaggerated risk being associated with COVID-19. Also, a recent analysis of excess deaths in England shows that they are seeing thousands of people dying at home from other symptoms because of the lockdown.

6) Social distancing was invented by a high-school kid and politicians, not scientists: Jeffrey Tucker of the American Institute for Economic research reports that the origin of this cult of “social distancing” being used for totalitarian lockdowns was the brainchild of a high schooler’s sociology paper in 2006, promoted by the Bush administration during the avian flu. It was widely mocked by the epidemiological community, including by Johns Hopkins, for “causing the potential for a ‘serious adverse outcome,’” thereby ensuring that “a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”

How have we allowed such an illogical approach to crush our liberties, economy, hospitals, education, and criminal justice? How have we lost our freedoms?

The answer is that the public is not getting the right information. This is why the political class is doing everything in its power to censor anyone who dares question the idolatry of this lockdown cult. YouTube has censored the videos of Knut Wittkowski, who was a top epidemiologist in Germany and then served as the head of biostatistics, epidemiology, and research design at Rockefeller University. One would think we’d want to hear his opinion, but there is only one view that is allowed to gain traction. Why is it that only one side is scared of the information of the other side?

As James Madison warned, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” (For more from the author of “We Have Been Lied To: 6 Facts That Change Everything We Know About SARS-CoV-2” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Creepy Joe Biden Bragged About Nearly Being Arrested for Following ‘Lovely’ Women

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former Vice President Joe Biden once bragged about nearly being arrested for chasing a “lovely group of women” into an all-female dormitory in his youth.

Biden, who is now under scrutiny after facing sexual misconduct allegations from a former Senate staffer, regaled voters during a campaign swing through Athens, Ohio, in October 2008, with a story about what occurred during his last visit to their city. At the time, Biden, who was the Democrat vice presidential nominee, claimed he had journeyed to the city for a football game between his alma mater, the University of Delaware, and the local, Athens-based Ohio University sometime in 1963.

“Now I made a little mistake here that day, I made a little mistake,” Biden told the crowd at the time. Adding, according to reporters in attendance, with a wink that after the game he wandered around and “met this lovely group of Ohio University…students.” . . .

“And uh, without knowing it, I shouldn’t admit this on national television because it’ll reveal that I’m over 60, but I thought that we were gonna go get something to eat,” he said. When the “two young women” claimed they would “be right back,” he offered to escort them to their dormitory, where trouble quickly ensued with campus security.

“I said well I’ll come with you, and they said okay, and I walked into their dormitory and was immediately accosted by a cop who arrested me because back in those days men were not allowed in women’s dormitories,” Biden said. “But I promise you I never breached the first floor and it was only a temporary detention.” (Read more from “Creepy Joe Biden Bragged About Nearly Being Arrested for Following ‘Lovely’ Women” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Failures of an Influential COVID-19 Model Used to Justify Lockdowns

/1 Comment/in , /by

Professor Neil Ferguson, who led the COVID-19 modeling team at Imperial College in London, resigned May 5 from his government advisory role after breaking the very same British lockdown rules that he had a role in influencing.

Ferguson led the Imperial College team that designed the computer model that, among others, had been used to justify the recent stay-at-home orders in England as well as in the United States. We now know the model was so highly flawed it never should have been relied upon for policy decisions to begin with.

Epidemiology—the study of the incidence, prevalence, and impact of disease—frequently calls upon models to forecast potential outcomes of diseases. Not surprisingly, once COVID-19 became a pandemic, policy experts from all across the world began relying on such models.

The Imperial College researchers ran one such model they had used in prior research and forecast a number of potential outcomes, including that, by October, more than 500,000 people in Great Britain and 2 million people in the U.S. would die as a result of COVID-19.

The model also predicted the United States could incur up to 1 million deaths even with “enhanced social distancing” guidelines, including “shielding the elderly.” Imperial’s modeling results influenced British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to impose a nationwide lockdown and influenced the White House as well.

I asked Ferguson and his colleagues for their model on multiple occasions to see how they got their numbers, but they never replied to my emails.

According to Nature, they had been “working with Microsoft to tidy up the code and make it available.” I also asked the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the codes it used to develop its COVID-19 forecasts, but got no response.

So, my colleague Norbert Michel and I decided to take a publicly available COVID-19 epidemiological model and forecast the prevalence and mortality of the disease under a variety of plausible scenarios.

The results varied, depending on the assumptions we made about mortality rates within hospital intensive care units, asymptomatic rates, and the specification of the R0 (pronounced R-naught) value, which measures how easily the virus spreads.

We found mortality rate predictions can be quite variable depending on the age and comorbidities of those contracting the virus.

Under varying assumptions regarding a mortality rate in intensive care units between 5% and 30%, we found that predicted mortality because of the disease could range from near 78,000 deaths to as many as 810,000 deaths in the U.S. by Aug. 1.

Recent testing data indicates that the asymptomatic rate for COVID-19 is likely not trivial, and data from Iceland indicates this rate can be as high as 50%. Assuming an asymptomatic rate ranging from 15% to 55%, one can project deaths in the U.S. of between 118,000 and 394,000 by Aug. 1.

Lastly, we looked at the model’s assumption about the virus’ basic reproductive number, the aforementioned R0 value. Popularized in the 2011 movie “Contagion,” the R0 value quantifies the average number of people who will get the virus from someone who is an infected.

Under assumptions of the R0 value ranging from 1.5 to 3.5—plausible estimates based on medical research as discussed in our paper—the model predicted from 44,000 dead to 1.1 million dead by Aug. 1 in the U.S.

According to the Johns Hopkins University coronavirus tracker, we are currently over 83,000 deaths, which exceeds our lower-end estimates. But the point our research made is that these types of models produce many plausible scenarios, depending on reasonable assumptions.

As we learn more about the new coronavirus, it is imperative to continue to update the assumptions used in these models.

After we had published our work, news surfaced that Microsoft had actually made some headway in making the Imperial College team’s model available. But the codes it released are a highly modified version of what the Imperial team actually used.

And, it turns out, the model has serious flaws, which a former software engineer from Google discusses at length in his blog.

The Imperial College code provides different answers using the same inputs. In particular, the same assumptions can provide results that differ by 80,000 deaths over a span of 80 days. The software engineer has noted there are apparently myriad other problems as well—including undocumented codes and numerous bugs.

This isn’t the first time bad models have made their way into policy. As we discussed in our work, statistical models can be useful tools for guiding policy, but they are only as credible as the assumptions on which they are based.

It is fundamentally important for models used in policy to be made publicly available, have assumptions clearly stated, and have their robustness to changes to these assumptions tested. Models also need to be updated as time goes on in line with the best available evidence.

Bottom line: The Imperial College model didn’t meet any of these criteria. And sadly, its model was one of the inputs relied on as the basis for locking down two countries.

The codes we used at The Heritage Foundation are available here. Our assumptions are clearly stated in our paper here. (For more from the author of “Failures of an Influential COVID-19 Model Used to Justify Lockdowns” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Pentagon Sources Warn: U.S. ‘Would Lose a War With China’ in the Pacific, ‘Fears the Guam Military Base Is at Risk Now’; U.S. Increases Military Pressure on China

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Daily Mail. The US would lose a war with China fought in the Pacific, is unable to defend Taiwan from an invasion and fears the Guam military base is at risk now, US defense sources have warned.

‘Eye-opening’ Pentagon war games have revealed growing fears the US is vulnerable to threats from China and that any attack would lead to the US ‘suffering capital losses’, the sources said.

The worrying analysis is expected to come to light in the Pentagon’s 2020 China military power report this summer.

The stark warning comes as tensions continue to mount between the two nations after US President Donald Trump has blasted China’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic and repeatedly suggested the nation lied about the extent of its crisis.

US defense sources told The Times that one Pentagon simulation based on the year 2030 when China would have new attack submarines, aircraft carriers and destroyers resulted in the US being overwhelmed by the nation’s force. (Read more from “Pentagon Sources Warn: U.S. ‘Would Lose a War With China’ in the Pacific, ‘Fears the Guam Military Base Is at Risk Now'” HERE)

_______________________________________________________

U.S. Increases Military Pressure on China as Tensions Rise Over Pandemic

By CNN. The US is upping military pressure on China amid increased tensions over the South China Sea and accusing Beijing of seeking to leverage the coronavirus pandemic to extend its sphere of influence in the region.

Over the last few weeks US Navy ships and Air Force B-1 bombers have undertaken missions aimed at sending a very public message that the US military intends to maintain a presence in the region and reassure allies.

It’s also a top priority for the Pentagon to get the virus-stricken aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt back out to sea in the region by as soon as the end of the month. (Read more from “U.S. Increases Military Pressure on China as Tensions Rise Over Pandemic” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

AG Barr Just Made Major News on ‘Obamagate’

/0 Comments/in , /by

That sound you hear is the deep groan of disappointment by people who had hoped that Attorney General Bill Barr would investigate former President Obama for his part in “Obamagate.”

In just the past few days it’s been publicly disclosed that both Obama and Vice President Biden were in an Oval Office meeting in which the investigation into Trump National Security Adviser General Mike Flynn was discussed. It was also revealed that Biden personally “unmasked” Flynn’s name to discover more information about Flynn. President Trump calls the spy program “Obamagate.” . . .

But Barr said Monday that the Department of Justice is unlikely to charge either former President Obama or Vice President Joe Biden in the “Obamagate” spying program on the Trump campaign, Law and Crime reports.

“This is especially true for the upcoming elections in November,” Barr said, adding that it is “critical” that we have a 2020 election in which the American people have a chance to vote based on “robust” policy debate — not criminal debate.

“Any effort to pursue an investigation of either candidate has to be approved by me,” Barr noted. In January, Barr said that the FBI, heading forward, would have to get approval from him before “opening of a counterintelligence investigation of a presidential campaign.”

(Read more from “AG Barr Just Made Major News on ‘Obamagate'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Naval Air Station Shooter Turns out to Be Al-Qaeda Operative

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Associated Press reported Monday that “the gunman who killed three U.S. sailors at a military base in Florida last year repeatedly communicated” with al-Qaeda operatives “about planning in the months leading up to the attack.” And he didn’t just communicate with them. Attorney General William Barr noted that the shooter, Mohammed Alshamrani, had “significant ties to Al Qaeda and the Arabian Peninsula not only before the attack, but before he even arrived in the United States.” Yet he was still able to get into the country and execute the attack he planned – and that is the real story here.

FBI Director Christopher Wray said that Alshamrani’s attack on December 6, 2019, at Naval Air Station Pensacola was the “brutal culmination of years of planning and preparation.”

He added: “We now know enough to see Alshamrani for what he was — a determined AQAP [Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] terrorist who spent years preparing to attack us. He wasn’t just coordinating with them about planning and tactics. He was helping the organization making the most it could out of his murders.” Wray said that al-Qaeda “certainly more than just inspired” Alshamrani’s massacre.

How many Americans know that al-Qaeda claimed — three months ago — to be behind the murderous attack by a Muslim from Saudi Arabia at a U.S. Naval Base in Florida last year? How many Americans do you think even know that there was a murderous attack by a Muslim at a U.S. Naval Base in Florida last year? (Read more from “Naval Air Station Shooter Turns out to Be Al-Qaeda Operative” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE