I haven't paid all that much attention to the Garland hearings because I've assumed that Garland will not really be the one running DoJ. Rather, policy will be made by those running the Zhou Baiden regime--the Obama cabal--and will be implemented by the DoJ appointees below the AG level. Garland basically admitted in his testimony that he had no say at all in who his chief deputies would be. That's a clue that he's not in charge.
For those who are interested, it looks rather grim, unless Obama has overreached. Paul Mirengoff explains who those deputies are slated to be--unless they're too radical even for a handful of Dem senators: WHOM TO BELIEVE, MERRICK GARLAND OR OUR EYES?
The two nominees whom Mirengoff singles out for special attention are Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke. Both are on record as holding views that can only be interpreted as indicating that they will conduct a legal jihad to marginalize any but the those who hold the most intransigently left wing positions. Mirengoff uses the questioning of Garland by Senator Mike Lee to illustrate.
Gupta, the nominee for Associate AG, is on record as stating that:
Individuals who advocate for the rights of unborn human beings are rendered unfit for public office by virtue of having engaged in such advocacy;
Efforts to purge voter rolls of individuals who have either died or have left the state in question or to require voter identification are racially discriminatory and an assault on voting rights;
Republicans in the United States are determined to leave our communities to the mercy of people and institutions driven by hate, bigotry and fear of any threat to the status quo.
These are views that put Gupta in opposition with the majority of Americans. In any ordinary administration, those views should disqualify her from holding such an influential position. That should tell you all you need to know about equal justice under the Zhou Baiden regime. For an early indicator, look no further: Feds Offer Plea Deal to Brooklyn Lawyers Charged in NYPD Molotov Attack. Compare their treatment with that being meted out to people who simply sauntered into the Capitol on January 6.
Kristin Clarke is the nominee for Assistant AG for Civil Rights. She appears to have a particular animus against Jewish Americans. Mirengoff states categorically that Clarke has a history of "advocating Black supremacy and promoting anti-Semitism," as well as evidencing "unwavering support for racial discrimination against Whites." Follow those links for Mirengoff's deep dive into Clarke's angry psyche.
How those two nominees fare in the Senate should be a pretty clear sign of what to expect.
Mirengoff shouldn’t have any issues one way or the other with anything that Democrats do or say now. Nope, not one issue.ReplyDelete
Seriously, what did he expect would happen when he used his position and influence to oppose President Trump? That the Democrats would be moderate?
Where has he been living since 2000?
Mirengoff lives in the DC bubble. He is the lightning rod at Powerline with his anti-Trump mealy-mouthed lawyerly posts which generate reader responses. Clickbait.Delete
So you're telling me that I'm a moron who can't distinguish between clickbait and actual information? Thanks.Delete
That Mirengoff (the usual left-leaner at PowerLine) sees these issues as something to highlight tells us that the Biden cabal has gone too far for even Mirengoff.Delete
Clickbait is what the Daily Mail and Gateway Pundit put out… I would not call this clickbait. That was kind of a cheap shot, DJL.
I was a loyal Powerline reader from the start - it was long my go to. I stopped visiting after the election when John H nitpicked the Sidney Powell team Michigan filing. Paul has been a long time exasperating RINO but when John did the hear no evil see no evil speak so as to impugn Sidney Powell, and then Scott took the same position I lost all respect, haven't gone back to visit since. This is happening with increasing frequency, and I'm sure the RNC knows it. They're trying desperately to have their Trump and hate him too. My sense is that isn't going to work. I was a died-in-the-wool Powerline reading Rubio supporter 5 years ago, and now I can hardly stand to listen to the guy and cannot unlearn what Sundance has taught me about the corruption on the SSCI , and such teaching or eye-opening is what Trump is all about. I think Mark, you should give your thoughts on the ostracization of Sidney Powell and what that says about anyone who ascribes to it but also wants to assert that we're at step 10 of a totalitarian takeover. Just what, precisely does Tucker Carlson think makes up the machinery of step 10 if not the aiding and abetting of the election fraud by the judicial branch? Isn't that exactly what people like Sidney Powell are trying to force everyone else to confront? I have this fantasy that Trump will call SP on stage during his speech at CPAC, now that would at least unleash the Kraken on the husk that is the Republican Party.Delete
I've never been a "loyal Powerline reader", even though--full disclosure--over the years they've published a fair number of pieces I've written. I've always recognized their limitations, but I'm also always glad to get real information anywhere I can find it--it's a scarce commodity these days. I use a feed reader, and if something pops up that catches my attention I read it, but I drop it fast if it doesn't fit my criteria.Delete
Maybe that's because I recognize my own limitations. After all, I was a Barr believer (actually, for reasons other than his popularity among Establishment types--I thought I had good sources). I've admitted sundance was right and I was wrong, even though I'll still tell you that sundance has his limitations.
However, I was never a Little Marco supporter (for reasons connected to not being a "loyal" Powerline reader), and confidently expect never to be one. I was always a Trump supporter.
What’s messed up is that supporters of Trump are denigrated as cultists, yet folks like Scott Johnson from Powelineblog went full out defense mode when Trump trashed W.Delete
Ya see, Johnson, along with Allahpundit and Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs debunked the W National Guard Killian Memo peddled by Dan Rather.
Charles Johnson went full on Dem/left when it was revealed that the intel was bad on Iraq.
Scott Johnson and Allahpundit keep on to this day supporting W over Trump.
Who’s the cultist ... hmmm?
Don Surber called him out a while back.
I'd quickly hire Paul Mirengoff as a lawyer, however he was in the last batch of converted Trump toleraters. If he's the standard barer, we’re in trouble.ReplyDelete
Kristin Steele or Kristin Clarke?ReplyDelete
I did some checking and the correct name appears to be "Kristen Clarke". I thought originally that one name might be a married name, but Clarke appears to be the name under which she was nominated.Delete
I've corrected that, and added a link to her Wiki page. Tx.Delete
Watch to see which GOPe senators follow McConnell's lead in support of Garland as AG. They will be the ones to primary. I didn't watch any of the hearing, but from the reporting it seems Garland must have been residing on the moon the past four years from his responses, or lack of, to questions.ReplyDelete
The left now seems to put up puppet figure heads (Mueller, Biden, Harris, Garland) then, control the position with radicals that would never get past public or congressional scrutiny for selection.ReplyDelete
Biden CoS Ron Klain said yesterday, not to worry if the horrifying Neera Tanden fails to get Senate confirmation. They will just appoint her to a comparable position which does not require Senate approval...
So much for 'Congressional scrutiny'...
Off topic as h*ll, but Michael Anton is just so darn good...ReplyDelete
Quotable Quote: “[Andrew] Sullivan repeatedly demanded that I explain how Our Democracy™ can survive as a democracy if something like half the country doesn’t believe in it anymore. The question was rhetorical. Sullivan knows the answer: it can’t. His purpose in asking was to shift blame from those who rig everything, refuse to explain anything but instead gaslight, gaslight, gaslight, onto those who, in response, decline to believe.”
Yes, he is. He first got our attention with his “Flight 93 Election” in 2016, written under a nom de plume.Delete
>> https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/once-secret-fbi-informant-reports-reveal-wide-ranging <<
From recently declassified docs:
>> The memos show that the FBI instructed Halper in August 2016 not to focus on Papadopoulos first, but rather on Page, whom the FBI described as an "opportune target." Papadopoulos was given the code name Crossfire Typhoon (CT), while Page was given the codename Crossfire Dragon (CD) in the memos.
"The main goal of the operation is to have CD admit that he has direct knowledge of and is either helping coordinate or assisting the RF [Russian Federation] conduct an active measure campaign with the 'Trump Team,'" stated an Aug. 24, 2016 report detailing the FBI's interactions with Halper that week.
If the Page operation failed, the FBI "team would then change its posture and move forward with an operation against CROSSFIRE TYPHOON," the memos stated. <<
Notice that the direction to the CHS (Halper) was to get Carter Page to ADMIT to coordinating or engaging in an active measures campaign, rather than an open-minded look for evidence indicating whether or not CP was doing so, or if there were any such "active measures" op at all.
IOW, FBI direction to Halper in early phases of CH investigation took exculpatory revelations off the table, focusing him instead on getting Page to ADMIT to something the FBI had no actual evidence, let alone corroboration, was even happening.
Article also delves into how wide a net FBI was casting in early CH investigation, into multiple people for whom they had ZERO evidence any of them were assisting a nefarious foreign intel "active measures" op regarding the election ... all of which goes to the issue of the utter lack of predication there was for what they did in CH.
Thanks, EZ. What this actually shows, or rather confirms, is that the FISA was pretty much exclusively based on the Steele dossier and misrepresentations about Carter Page's past cooperation with the USIC.Delete
There are some other interesting aspects. For example, Halper initially relates that CP is "guarded" in making clear that he is speaking as an individual and not conveying Trump campaign positions. In the 3rd memo--approved by Pientka, Strzok and [REDACTED]--however that becomes CP simply being "guarded", as if he's somehow evasive and covering something up. Of course, since when is it evidence of a crime that a person in a political campaign is careful about what they say to outsiders?
Another interesting aspect is that the FBI appears to be targeting Jeff Sessions. Unless they had some sort of investigation open, that type of targeting would be illegal.
Kevin Brock's comments, related by Solomon, are very much on point. From those comments you can see why I spent so much time talking about predication. He's absolutely right that the Trump campaign is being targeted. There was, if anything, MORE reason to believe/assume that the Hillary campaign was up to illegal foreign influence ops.
"There was, if anything, MORE reason to believe/assume that the Hillary campaign was up to illegal foreign influence ops."
Or, putting it another way: The Hillary campaign was up to illegal foreign influence ops. Which was just one small part of the criminal conspiracy to destroy Donald Trump.
Another aspect of the cognitively dissonant world we are living in is that there was no predication, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was illegal, there was no Russia Collusion, and Mueller/Weissmann knew this and covered it up, or at least tried to. There were many crimes committed by many persons acting together in a conspiracy. Which amounted to an attempt to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States.
I'm reminded of Michael van der Veen's rhetorical question to Lana Zak of CBS last week:
"I can't believe you would ask me a question indicating that it's all right just to doctor a little bit of evidence."
I can't believe one single solitary sentient American who believes in this country and the Constitution thinks that any one thing the conspirators did to destroy Trump was ok, let alone the massive criminal conspiracy they developed and carried out.
It still makes my blood boil to think about it.
@Cass: "The Hillary campaign was up to illegal foreign influence ops. Which was just one small part of the criminal conspiracy to destroy Donald Trump."Delete
That actually was a large part of the plan to destroy Trump. If anyone audits the Clinton Foundation books I'm sure you'll find mysterious payments to various sources in the FBI and State Dept who's primary purpose was to crash the 2016 election with false innuendo.
And we still don't know the half of it. We just know it was very bad.Delete
See Aaron Maté on what Kash Patel knows but can't say:
I was a bit disappointed in that article. I'd been hoping that Patel would say something about what role may have been played by people at DoJ--up to and including Barr. OTOH, I wasn't even aware of the existence of a House report on the ICA--shame it won't be released. If it had been done by Dem House you know it woulda been released.Delete
I guess the purpose of the article is to put more pressure on release, for whatever good it will do.Delete
I do wonder what persuaded Trump to cave on release in the final days...
And I always suspected Haspel was a problem...
"The media vitriol unnerved Patel"Delete
There's the sword hanging over everyone's head.
Unless you're independently wealthy, and even then.
The media is the single biggest obstacle to overcome, especially now that they're censoring social media.
The House IC report Patel refers too is locked in a safe deposit box. If we win the House in 2022 I would look to have that safe deposit box opened and made available to the next customer.Delete
It just doesn’t matter who officially runs the DoJ or the Executive anymore.ReplyDelete
It. Just. Does. Not. Matter.
The “state” runs it. Yes, the “state” is made up of people, but these people, top down, are for totalitarian rule, not constitutional rule. That means you too Barr, W, Romney, Roberts, etc.
Mussolini, in his Doctrine of Fascism, declared the individual is subservient to the state. The state is supreme, religious, and righteous.
Here we are.
(Note, I am trying to update my blog, but it stops me cold due to not following others as if my blog is consequential)