Posts

President Trump Vows to Veto FISA Reauthorization If Passed (VIDEO)

Moments ago President Trump tweeted he will veto the House FISA re-authorization if it is passed without first investigating and exposing prior FISA abuses committed against his prior election campaign and administration[.]

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote by proxy on the FISA re-authorization previously passed by the Senate. No-one has any idea if the FISA vote will actually pass the House and it appears most republicans are positioned to vote against it.

Lou Dobbs discusses the issues with Representative Jim Jordan shortly before President Trump tweeted his intent. WATCH:

These developments come on the heels of increased sunlight into the corrupt purposes and intents of Obama-era intelligence officials and how they weaponized their authorities to target the Trump administration starting with National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

[…] It was the FBI, not the NSA, that wiretapped Kislyak’s calls and created the summary and transcript, the former officials said. (link)

The FBI was conducting (FISA) surveillance on Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. When Kislyak contacted Flynn the call was intercepted by the FBI. The calls were then transcribed and “tech cuts” created.

On January 3rd Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were text messaging about the intercept. It is important to note these text messages have never been released; and were intentionally removed and hidden from the text messages that were released.

We only know about these specific texts from a Senate oversight committee paper that put a timeline together.

This January 3rd communication is critical so I’m going to explain it. You will see why the FBI and DOJ and Intelligence Community have kept it hidden[.]

A FISA order, in this case on Sergey Kislyak, is referred to as “technical coverage” or a “tech”. The FBI interceptors, staff doing the interception, then type up summaries of telephone conversations captured. Those are referred to as “tech cuts” or “cuts”.

The “CR cut” in the text message above is a “Crossfire Razor cut”, or a Flynn cut.

This is a summary of the call intercept. This is the non-traditional intelligence document that FBI Director James Comey gave to DNI James Clapper to use for the briefing of President Obama on January 4th. There are no redacted or masked names because it is a raw intelligence document.

The Clapper briefing officially informed the White House of the existence of an open FBI investigation into Michael Flynn. That briefing led to the January 5th “pull aside” meeting outlined in the Susan Rice memo.

The FBI was investigating Flynn and monitoring Russian communications to see a reaction to the sanctions imposed on December 29, 2016. When Kislyak called Flynn the FBI legally intercepted the call because the FISA authority was surveillance on Kislyak and Flynn was also under investigation.

But there are more implications…

Peter Strzok texts: “[Bill Priestap], like us, is concerned with over sharing. Doesn’t want Clapper giving [the Flynn cut, or summary of intercepted call] to White House.” All political, just shows our hand and potentially makes enemies.

Lisa Page responds: “Yeah but keep in mind we were going to put that in the doc on Friday, with potentially larger distribution than just DNI.”

Strzok Replies: “The question is should we, particularly to the entirely of the lame duck U.S. Intelligence Community with partisan axes to grind.”

We don’t know if the Kislyak-Flynn call was used as a part of the classified evidence within the ICA. It sounds from Lisa Page’s text response that the issue was discussed and then a decision made not to include it: “we were going to put that in”, implies they did not.

Bill Priestap and Peter Strzok have issues with the raw “tech cut” of the intercept being shared with DNI Clapper and White House. Lisa Page downplays those concerns by saying: ‘hey relax, in context we were about to put that readout in the ICA which is a far bigger deal than just sharing it with the White House.’

Putting it all together. The FBI intercepted the call. A “tech cut” summary of the call was generated exclusive to the FBI. James Comey gave that call summary including Flynn’s name to James Clapper; and James Clapper briefed President Obama.

Michael Flynn wasn’t unmasked in documents related to the call because Flynn’s name was never masked in the documents, the FBI “CR cut”. [READ SENATE DOCUMENT] (For more from the author of “President Trump Vows to Veto FISA Reauthorization If Passed” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Attorney General Barr Has Become Trump’s Religious Liberty Enforcer

When President Trump announced Friday that he would “override” governors who did not adopt his new guidelines for the reopening of churches, critics were quick to question if he had that authority.

Reporters in the White House pressroom hammered press secretary Kayleigh McEnany about whether or not Trump could legally act upon his threats. McEnany appeared to walk back the president’s words, suggesting that Trump would only “strongly encourage” governors to comply. It seemed to work: Over Memorial Day weekend, California, Minnesota, and Vermont, three of the five states still upholding complete bans on church services, relaxed their restrictions.

These results were a needed win for Trump, whose approval rating with many faith groups has slipped in the past month, partly because of his inconsistent attitude on churches remaining open during the coronavirus pandemic. And it’s a win Trump wouldn’t have scored without his dedicated enforcer on religious liberty issues: Attorney General William Barr.

Even before churches began suing states for alleged First Amendment violations, Barr was already sensing the coming fight over church closures. While Trump urged people to stay home for Easter, Barr said he was “very concerned” that churches were being given the short shrift in the rush to lock down the country. (Read more from “Attorney General Barr Has Become Trump’s Religious Liberty Enforcer” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Dweeb Andrew Napolitano: I’ll ‘Defend to the Death’ Twitter’s Right to Fact Check Trump (VIDEO)

Appearing Wednesday on the Fox News Channel, network senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said he will “defend to the death” Twitter’s right to fact check President Donald Trump.

(Read more from “Andrew Napolitano: I’ll ‘Defend to the Death’ Twitter’s Right to Fact Check Trump (VIDEO)” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

It’s Not the Trump Administration Politicizing Flynn’s Case, It’s Judge Sullivan

Not quite two weeks ago, Judge Emmet Sullivan threw open the doors of his federal courtroom to the swamp when he invited third parties to pontificate on the propriety of the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the criminal charges against Michael Flynn. The next day Sullivan went further: He appointed a former federal judge, John Gleeson, as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, to argue that the government’s motion to dismiss should be denied.

Judge Sullivan’s selection of Gleeson as amicus curiae gave away the game. The same day Sullivan named Gleeson as amicus curiae, an op-ed by Gleeson and two cohorts ran in the Washington Post declaring the government’s decision to dismiss the charge against Flynn “reeks of improper political influence.”

The Washington Post cloaked Gleeson and his co-authors, David O’Neil and Marshall Miller, with an aura of impartiality and authority by highlighting their past service in the Department of Justice: “John Gleeson served as a U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of New York and chief of the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in that district. David O’Neil served as the acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. Marshall Miller served as the highest-ranking career official in the Criminal Division and as chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District.” . . .

Already the anti-Trump Protect Democracy Project has submitted an amicus curiae brief to Judge Sullivan. That brief rehashes many of the political talking points left-leaning pundits and politicians have been peddling since Trump took office, then argues that in seeking to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn, Trump and Barr have “flouted” the principle that the DOJ’s investigatory and prosecutorial powers should “be exercised free from partisan consideration.”

The irony couldn’t be richer. The Obama administration targeted Flynn because the glow of Orange Man Bad reached the retired general’s orbit. But, according to Protect Democracy, it is the Trump administration’s DOJ that is playing politics with prosecutions! (Read more from “It’s Not the Trump Administration Politicizing Flynn’s Case, It’s Judge Sullivan” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Key Reason DC Hates President Trump – It’s a Big Club, and He Ain’t in It…

Something 99% of American voters do not understand. Congress doesn’t actually write legislation. The last item of legislation written by congress was sometime around the mid 1990’s. Modern legislation is sub-contracted to a segment of operations in DC known as K-Street. That’s where the lobbyists reside.

Lobbyists write the laws; congress sells the laws; lobbyists then pay congress commissions for passing their laws. That’s the modern legislative business in DC.

CTH often describes the system with the phrase: “There are Trillions at Stake.” The process of creating legislation is behind that phrase. DC politics is not quite based on the ideas that frame most voter’s reference points.

With people taking notice of DC politics for the first time; and with people not as familiar with the purpose of DC politics; perhaps it is valuable to provide clarity.

Most people think when they vote for a federal politician -a House or Senate representative- they are voting for a person who will go to Washington DC and write or enact legislation. This is the old-fashioned “schoolhouse rock” perspective based on decades past. There is not a single person in congress writing legislation or laws.

In modern politics not a single member of the House of Representatives or Senator writes a law, or puts pen to paper to write out a legislative construct. This simply doesn’t happen.

Over the past several decades a system of constructing legislation has taken over Washington DC that more resembles a business operation than a legislative body. Here’s how it works right now.

Outside groups, often called “special interest groups”, are entities that represent their interests in legislative constructs. These groups are often representing foreign governments, Wall Street multinational corporations, banks, financial groups or businesses; or smaller groups of people with a similar connection who come together and form a larger group under an umbrella of interest specific to their affiliation.

Sometimes the groups are social interest groups; activists, climate groups, environmental interests etc. The social interest groups are usually non-profit constructs who depend on the expenditures of government to sustain their cause or need.

The for-profit groups (mostly business) have a purpose in Washington DC to shape policy, legislation and laws favorable to their interests. They have fully staffed offices just like any business would – only their ‘business‘ is getting legislation for their unique interests.

These groups are filled with highly-paid lawyers who represent the interests of the entity and actually write laws and legislation briefs.

In the modern era this is actually the origination of the laws that we eventually see passed by congress. Within the walls of these buildings within Washington DC is where the ‘sausage’ is actually made.

Again, no elected official is usually part of this law origination process.

Almost all legislation created is not ‘high profile’, they are obscure changes to current laws, regulations or policies that no-one pays attention to. The passage of the general bills within legislation is not covered in media. Ninety-nine percent of legislative activity happens without anyone outside the system even paying any attention to it.

Once the corporation or representative organizational entity has written the law they want to see passed – they hand it off to the lobbyists.

The lobbyists are people who have deep contacts within the political bodies of the legislative branch, usually former House/Senate staff or former House/Senate politicians themselves.

The lobbyist takes the written brief, the legislative construct, and it’s their job to go to congress and sell it.

“Selling it” means finding politicians who will accept the brief, sponsor their bill and eventually get it to a vote and passage. The lobbyist does this by visiting the politician in their office, or, most currently familiar, by inviting the politician to an event they are hosting. The event is called a junket when it involves travel.

Often the lobbying “event” might be a weekend trip to a ski resort, or a “conference” that takes place at a resort. The actual sales pitch for the bill is usually not too long and the majority of the time is just like a mini vacation etc.

The size of the indulgence within the event, the amount of money the lobbyist is spending, is customarily related to the scale of benefit within the bill the sponsoring business entity is pushing. If the sponsoring business or interest group can gain a lot of financial benefit from the legislation they spend a lot on the indulgences.

Recap: Corporations (special interest group) write the legislation. Lobbyists take the law and go find politician(s) to support it. Politicians get support from their peers using tenure and status etc. Eventually, if things go according to norm, the legislation gets a vote.

Within every step of the process there are expense account lunches, dinners, trips, venue tickets and a host of other customary financial way-points to generate/leverage a successful outcome. The amount of money spent is proportional to the benefit derived from the outcome.

The important part to remember is that the origination of the entire process is EXTERNAL to congress.

Congress does not write laws or legislation, special interest groups do. Lobbyists are paid, some very well paid, to get politicians to go along with the need of the legislative group.

When you are voting for a Congressional Rep or a U.S. Senator you are not voting for a person who will write laws. Your rep only votes on legislation to approve or disapprove of constructs that are written by outside groups and sold to them through lobbyists who work for those outside groups.

While all of this is happening the same outside groups who write the laws are providing money for the campaigns of the politicians they need to pass them. This construct sets up the quid-pro-quo of influence, although much of it is fraught with plausible deniability.

This is the way legislation is created.

If your frame of reference is not established in this basic understanding you can often fall into the trap of viewing a politician, or political vote, through a false prism.

The modern origin of all legislative constructs is not within congress.

“We have to pass the bill to, well, find out what is in the bill” etc. ~ Nancy Pelosi 2009

“We rely upon the stupidity of the American voter” ~ Johnathan Gruber 2011, 2012.

“If Congress isn’t going to convene until the bill is ready to vote on… who the hell is writing the bill?” ~ Tom Massie, 2020

Once you understand this process you can understand how politicians get rich.

When a House or Senate member becomes educated on the intent of the legislation, they have attended the sales pitch; and when they find out the likelihood of support for that legislation; they can then position their own (or their families) financial interests to benefit from the consequence of passage. It is a process similar to insider trading on Wall Street, except the trading is based on knowing who will benefit from a legislative passage.

The legislative construct passes from K-Street into the halls of congress through congressional committees. The law originates from the committee to the full House or Senate. Committee seats which vote on these bills are therefore more valuable to the lobbyists. Chairs of these committees are exponentially more valuable.

Now, think about this reality against the backdrop of the 2016 Presidential Election. Legislation is passed based on ideology. In the aftermath of the 2016 election the system within DC was not structurally set-up to receive a Donald Trump presidency.

If Hillary Clinton had won the election, her Oval Office desk would be filled with legislation passed by congress which she would have been signing. Heck, she’d have writer’s cramp from all of the special interest legislation, driven by special interest groups that supported her campaign, that would be flowing to her desk.

Why?

Simply because the authors of the legislation, the originating special interest and lobbying groups, were spending millions to fund her campaign. Hillary Clinton would be signing K-Street constructed special interest legislation to repay all of those donors/investors.

Congress would be fast-tracking the passage because the same interest groups also fund the members of congress.

President Donald Trump winning the election threw a monkey wrench into the entire DC system…. In early 2017 the modern legislative machine was frozen in place.

The “America First” policies represented by candidate Donald Trump were not within the legislative constructs coming from the K-Street authors of the legislation. There were no MAGA lobbyists waiting on Trump ideology to advance legislation based on America First objectives.

As a result of an empty feeder system, in early 2017 congress had no bills to advance because all of the myriad of bills and briefs written were not in line with President Trump policy. There was simply no entity within DC writing legislation that was in-line with President Trump’s America-First’ economic and foreign policy agenda.

Exactly the opposite was true. All of the DC legislative briefs and constructs were/are antithetical to Trump policy. There were hundreds of file boxes filled with thousands of legislative constructs that became worthless when Donald Trump won the election.

Those legislative constructs (briefs) representing tens of millions of dollars worth of time and influence were just sitting there piled up in boxes under desks and in closets amid K-Street and the congressional offices. Legislation needed to be in-line with an entire new political perspective, and there was no-one, no special interest or lobbying group, currently occupying DC office space with any interest in synergy with Trump policy.

Think about the larger ramifications within that truism. That is also why there was/is so much opposition.

No legislation provided by outside interests means no work for lobbyists who sell it. No work means no money. No money means no expense accounts. No expenses means politicians paying for their own indulgences etc.

Politicians were not happy without their indulgences, but the issue was actually bigger. No K-Street expenditures also means no personal benefit; and no opportunity to advance financial benefit from the insider trading system. Republicans and democrats hate the presidency of Donald Trump because it is hurting them financially.

President Trump is not figuratively hurting the financial livelihoods of DC politicians; he’s literally doing it. President Trump is not an esoteric problem for them; his impact is very real, very direct, and hits almost every politician in the most painful place imaginable, the bank account.

In the pre-Trump process there were millions upon millions, even billions that could be made by DC politicians and their families. Thousands of very indulgent and exclusive livelihoods attached to the DC business model. At the center of this operation is the lobbying and legislative purchase network. The Big Club.

Without the ability to position personal wealth and benefit from the system, why would a politician stay in office? It is a fact the income of many long-term politicians on both wings of the uniparty bird were completely disrupted by Trump winning the 2016 election. That is one of the key reason why so many politicians retired in 2018.

When we understand the business of DC, we understand the difference between legislation with a traditional purpose and modern legislation with a financial and political agenda.

When we understand the business of DC we understand why the entire network hates President Donald Trump.

Lastly, this is why -when signing legislation- President Trump often says “they’ve been trying to get this through for a long time” etc. Most of the legislation that is passed by congress, and signed by President Trump in his first term; is older legislative proposals, with little indulgent value that were shelved in years past.

Example: Criminal justice reform did not carry a financial benefit to the legislative bodies, and there was no financial interest funding the politicians to pass the bill. If you look at most of the bills President Trump has signed, with the exception of a few economic bills, they stem from congressional construction many years, even decades, ago.

Think about it carefully and you’ll see it. The “First step act”, “Right to Try”, etc. were all shelved by Boehner, Pelosi, Ryan, McConnell, Reid and others before them. When the value of legislation is measured by the financial underwriting and payoffs behind it, what type of legislative calendar does that require?…. (For more from the author of “The Key Reason DC Hates President Trump – It’s a Big Club, and He Ain’t in It…” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

President Trump: ‘I Have a Chance to Break the Deep State’ (VIDEO)

. . .While the interview hadn’t yet aired as of Saturday morning, Attkisson had begun releasing snippets and teasers from it, including one bombshell teaser regarding the president’s ongoing war with the so-called “deep state” of Obama-era operatives who’ve been working against him since before he’d even stepped into office.

“If it keeps going the way it’s going, I have a chance to break the deep state. It’s a vicious group of people,” the president reportedly said during the interview.

He was likely referencing the latest bombshells concerning the improper investigation into and prosecution of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

The bombshells have shown, among other things, that a slew of Obama administration officials sought in late 2016 and early 2017 to unmask Flynn’s name. One of those officials then leaked the findings to the press.

Now, while the “deep state” remark was the most explosive from the interview, it wasn’t the only notable one. Not by a long shot.

(Read more from “President Trump: ‘I Have a Chance to Break the Deep State’” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Democrats Just Announced Their New Plan to Impeach President Trump

By CNN. The Democratic-led House of Representatives on Monday told the Supreme Court that the House needs secret Mueller grand jury materials to determine if there is new evidence of impeachable offenses involving President Donald Trump.

The House Judiciary Committee has been attempting obtain the documents prosecutors collected from witnesses about Trump in a back-and-forth legal fight that’s now reached the Supreme Court.

“The Committee’s impeachment investigation related to obstruction of justice pertaining to the Russia investigation is ongoing,” Douglas Letter, the House general counsel, said in a court filing Monday.

“If this material reveals new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses,” Letter said, “the Committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.” (Read more from “Democrats Just Announced Their New Plan to Impeach President Trump” HERE)

______________________________________________________

Bill Maher Regrets Trump Impeachment; Acquittal Just ‘Emboldened’ President

By Washington Times. Bill Maher, one of President Trump’s fiercest critics on cable television, voiced regret Friday over Congress having conducted the impeachment proceedings he previously championed.

“Impeachment turned out to be a horrible thing,” the liberal comic said during the latest episode of his weekly HBO program, “Real Time with Bill Maher.”

“If I could do it over again, I wouldn’t, because it just emboldened him,” Mr. Maher said about impeaching Mr. Trump.

Mr. Maher, 64, made the remarks while discussing the president’s recent firing of five inspectors general who had been tasked with conducting oversight of the Trump administration.

Calling it a “war on accountability,” Mr. Maher said the president removed the watchdogs without making too much noise by acting while the media was focused on COVID-19, the contagious disease responsible for the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic that has claimed nearly 100,000 lives across the country and counting. (Read more from “Bill Maher Regrets Trump Impeachment; Acquittal Just ‘Emboldened’ President” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Suspends Travel From Brazil

President Donald Trump is suspending travel from Brazil to the U.S. as the coronavirus pandemic worsens in Latin America’s largest nation and economy.

The president’s order, published Sunday, denies entry to “all aliens” who were in Brazil two weeks prior to their attempted entry into the United States. The order takes effect May 28 at 11:59 pm ET.

Brazil has rapidly become one of the hardest hit countries in the world as the World Health Organization warns that the epicenter of the pandemic has shifted from Europe and the U.S. to South America. . .

Brazil has more than 347,000 confirmed cases of the virus and at least 22,013 people have died, according to data from Johns Hopkins University. At this point only the United States is harder hit in terms of total positive cases. (Read more from “Trump Suspends Travel From Brazil” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Declassified: Trump-Russia Launch Document Authored by Strzok and Investigated by Durham; Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Release of Testimony From Mueller Investigation

By Washington Examiner. The document that greenlighted the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign has been unveiled, giving the public a look at a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham’s inquiry into the Trump-Russia investigators.

An “opening electronic communication,” which was authored by fired FBI agent Peter Strzok, was released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch.

Typed up in late July 2016 with the approval of William Priestap, then-assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, the document outlines the reasoning for the bureau’s decision to launch the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The investigation looked into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia after an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, informed the United States that Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos told him he learned Russia had damaging information on Hillary Clinton, President Trump’s Democratic rival in the 2016 presidential election. . .

Attorney General William Barr, who appointed Durham to conduct the inquiry, agreed with his hand-picked prosecutor, saying Horowitz’s report “makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.”

The document, which Strzok wrote “opens and assigns” the investigation, is covered in redactions. It does not show Downer’s name, but his presence is made clear by what is already known about the lead-up to the inquiry, saying he provided information “related to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s website/server.” (Read more from “Declassified: Trump-Russia Launch Document Authored by Strzok and Investigated by Durham” HERE)

______________________________________________________

Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Release of Testimony From Mueller Investigation

By The Guardian. The US supreme court has temporarily prevented the House of Representatives from obtaining secret grand jury testimony from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The court granted the Trump administration’s request to keep previously undisclosed details from the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election out of the hands of Democratic lawmakers, at least until early summer.

The court will decide then whether to extend its hold and schedule the case for arguments in the fall. If it does, it’s likely the administration will be able to put off the release of any materials until after election day on 3 November. Arguments themselves might not even take place before Americans decide whether to give Donald Trump a second term.

For justices eager to avoid a definitive ruling, the delay could mean never having to decide the case, if either Trump loses or Republicans regain control of the House next year. If Democratic candidate Joe Biden were to win the election against Trump, it’s hard to imagine his administration would object to turning over the Mueller documents, or if Republicans won the House, it would be equally hard to see them continue to press for them. (Read more from “Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Release of Testimony From Mueller Investigation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Declares Churches ‘Essential’ as CDC Releases Reopening Guidelines

President Donald Trump’s declaration that houses of worship are “essential places that provide essential services” comes at a precarious point in the national balancing act that pits the call of worship against the risk of coronavirus.

Even before Trump’s comments Friday, which came alongside the release of guidance for reopening faith organizations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Christian leaders in several states made plans to welcome back congregants on the week of Pentecost, May 31.

The new CDC guidance could energize houses of worship that might want to reopen their doors, despite evidence of ongoing risk of the virus spreading through communal gatherings. While it suggests steps such as asking congregants to cover their faces and limiting the sharing of worship aids, the CDC document says it is “not meant to regulate or prescribe standards for interactions of faith communities.” (Read more from “Trump Declares Churches ‘Essential’ as CDC Releases Reopening Guidelines” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE