Theatrical Enigma: impeachment goes public

This impeachment is an exercise in performance art. It is theater of the absurd: with all the drama, casting, innuendo, stage signals, deception and illusions of reality.

Actually, I only wish it was a satire and then it would be a spectacular performance. You have the king’s white-robed judge ruling all ceremonies, functioning to dictate over and silence any mitigating evidence or questions.

There is no patience for truth and context but only the dramatic effects. The whistleblower who started it all shall not be discussed, contrary to the opening scene of outrage. He shall never be named.

We shall not speak of the origination of the script where it all began. The plot is a mystery, but do play along as lead characters develop endless possibilities out of thin air, on a moment’s notice. Pay no attention to leading questions meant to deceive the audience.

But the real irony, which becomes clear midway, is that by Act II you the audience are the real victims with no way out. Meanwhile, all along, other narratives are being developed behind the curtain out of sight of the defenseless audience — who only want it to end.

The “I” word that never could be mentioned under the last administration is at the center in every conversation about this one. However, the audience itself is the culprit, victim, villain and the number one target in the plot who must be dealt with.

Right Ring | Bullright

End Of The Beginning Of Investigation

Cannot a day go by without the Democrats getting slapped in the face and refusing to admit it? Apparently not. They are the Dumbocrats.

Case in point: hearings on AG Barr and a mysterious letter about Barr’s memo on the release of the Mueller Report. Mueller took issue with Barr’s debut and coverage of it.

First item up, William Barr is the acting AG and is in charge of the report. But he released this entire report, painstakingly. How so? Except for redactions of legal procedure, he put out the entire report, also with the help of Mueller’s team.

When it was one of Hillary’s investigations, or a Democrat who was the subject, the report and conclusion was the definitive end of the entire matter. “The end.” And that is exactly what they said and what we were told. However, when Donald Trump is the subject, we see that investigation is never over. Investigation is supposed to go on indefinitely, in an infinite loop. It never ends.

Democrats want to resurrect the Independent Counsel statute. They’ve tried all along from protecting the Special Counsel — to save him — by legislation, to wanting the Special Counsel to report directly to Congress. In other words, since Barr came in to replace Sessions, they wanted to erase him out of the picture the same way Sessions was recused. But Barr would not recuse or step aside. So they are left to try to do it another way — any way they can — to put Congress in the driver seat of the investigation.

Barr as AG is the boss of the Special Counsel. It is not the other way around. Even Mueller does not seem to understand this. Strange that Mueller could have been employed under the Justice Department for 2 years and not understood this chain of command.

So when the Special Counsel investigation ends that is just a mile marker for yet another stage of the never-ending investigation to begin. There is no finality in a “report” or the end of an investigation. It must have no end.

The Russian interference could be grounds for an investigation, but the idea of it actually being an investigation about Trump is a complete ruse. Trump is all they really care about. It was an investigation on Trump masquerading as a Russia interference investigation.

Back up. If it should be about anyone, then it should be about Obama and what he did to prevent the Russia interference of an election. Actually, Obama mocked the idea that a foreign power or government could influence our elections, right from the White House podium. And he had already promised Russia more flexibility in his second term.

If there is to be a knee-jerk comparison with Watergate, then the appropriate comparison of Obama to Nixon should be made. Obama was the one in office at the time. His actions need to be the subject – abuse of power, weaponizing government. What did he know and when did he know it? And what did he do about it and or why not?

We went through over five years hearing there were no illegalities to anything Hillary did. That the investigation definitively ended it and cleared her of any wrongdoing. Case closed. There is no crimes or criminal conduct to talk about. Sure!

But now the Democrats can see a crime behind every action. Not just any crime but high crimes. Obstruction of Justice and treason were on the table for 2 and a half years along with conspiracy — the darkest kind — to commit crimes against the country. Four or five investigations about Trump are not enough?

How about all the unmasking of information under Obama? Remember Obama flowing information between 17 intelligence agencies? Well, then there is Mueller spinning off several investigations into Trump out there to live on. The same M/O. Where was the concern for what Hillary and Obama did? There should be lots of ongoing cases out there.

Can we even measure the overkill and exaggeration at this point? No. How many calls for people to resign? Weeks in office and Dems demand they resign. How many calls for impeachment? Now threats to impeach Barr if he refuses to resign. Wolf Blitzer was outraged that people acted as if Trump is a victim here. Well, because he is!

In the Senate hearing, Barr described Mueller’s letter as “a bit snitty.” Right on! When asked if Congress could have the notes taken on the phone call between he and Mueller, Barr said “No.” Two words that will now memorialize AG Barr in my mind.

Right Ring | Bullright

Dem’s begin pre-election Swan Song act with Kavanaugh hearings

To make a complete mockery out of the entire process, including a clown brigade, Dems used the holiday to plan and plot disruptions for Kavanaugh hearings.

NBC’s Katie Hunt reports via Gateway Pundit

President Trump’s Supreme Court pick Judge Brett Kavanaugh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday morning.

Democrats and screaming protesters interrupted the hearing for the first half hour.
Judge Kavanaugh has not even been sworn in yet!

It was all planned.

Democrats plotted the coordinated protest over the holiday weekend. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) led a phone call and Committee members are executing now, reported NBC’s Kasie Hunt.

Read: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/schumer-plotted-kavanaugh-disruptions-in-weekend-call-execution-of-mob-tactics/

What else would we expect from the theatrical band of radical leftists? They are not only attacking Kavanaugh, but making it a mockery by attacking the entire process.

I’m sure fundraising received top billing too.

Subversion Of Justice

You guessed it, on the very day that Congress had to take action to try to get compliance while they had Rosenstein and Wray testifying, what did Nancy Pelosi do?

She took to the floor, on the House action vote, pleading to Rosenstein and Wray not to comply or cooperate with document requests which made the House subpoena necessary.

Then later in the hearing Rosentein referred to questions about the legality of the subpoena. He opened the door to noncompliance on that and other reasons.

The latest episode of the government defying the American people.

Wray, for his part, reiterated his claims of all the good the FBI does. He said nothing in the IG report, or Horowitz’s testimony, questioned the integrity of the institution of the FBI. How can this elaborate plot and rampant bias of a cabal from the 7th floor headquarters of the FBI not impugn the integrity of the institution? It does. Congress did not do that.

These top officials in the FBI were willing to risk the entire credibility of the institution, with their own, to do what they did. They didn’t care. Now they act as if all that didn’t happen. Instead they blamed Congress for its chase of documents.

Think about it, these career people put the whole institution on the line and they knew it. That’s abuse of power. Plus there has still been no accountability — except Comey and dufus McCabe getting fired. Yet the plot they started continues, by Rosenstein implying there might even be questions about the validity of the subpoena.

Another glimpse of how Rosenstein thinks:”ignore the tyranny of the news cycle,” he said. So officials use the very process, procedures of our top institution to obstruct and subvert Congressional oversight, and then complain about the news cycle. The news is tyrannical? It all happened within DOJ… now tell us about tyranny!

Right Ring | Bullright

Facebook Faceplant Hearing

Notable points from Facebook, Zuckerberg hearings.

House notes on Energy and Commerce hearing
2012 Election

“In 2012, the Obama for America presidential election campaign worked with the company to allow users to sign into the campaign’s website via Facebook. According to accounts at the time, the Facebook application gave the campaign access to both those that signed into the campaign, as well as the “Friends” of such persons — “the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists.” This gave the Obama for America campaign access to “hidden voters” for which they otherwise lacked contact information.

Carol Davidsen, Director of Integration of Media Analytics for Obama for America, via Twitter, stated that “Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.” This in turn allegedly allowed one political party to download and retain individual user data which was not provided to other political organizations. “

It worked well for Obama. The problem comes when someone else from the conservative side finds a way to use Facebook. Zuckerberg was also asked but completely ignorant about details of past privacy lawsuits. This proved he was just an empty suit. 

Sham, most Republicans were simply not up on the technology or prepared. Pandering was on full display. Zuckerberg also could not address the data collection of non-FB users.

Overall, he kept returning to his canard that Facebook does not sell data. I think that line might haunt them. But marketing people’s personal data to companies at a profit may as well be. Their commodity is your personal information. If I market cars in a lot I can say I am technically not selling them, but I am getting paid for doing it.

Congressmen and Senators were more interested in looking to get broadband access for their districts and constituents, which Zucky was happy to say he would work toward.

On the censoring part, Zuckerberg had no answers. He claimed they would have over 20 thousand content screeners (FB conflates with security) by the year’s end. And he said they were working on creating more AI (artificial intelligence) tools to do censoring.

So the censoring will go on, and will be automated. He also referred to users flagging or reporting offensive content. So is it a mob sourced censorship platform too? To posture, pander, promote FB should not have been the objective for Congress.

Then, Mr. Zuckerberg, are you willing to help us with making the regulations etc.? Oh, he would be more than happy to have his team assist. Sure, sounds like a plan. 🙂

PS: Georgia Republican Rep Buddy Carter said he doesn’t want to legislate morality. Great. But Zuckerberg and his Facebook fascists do — and are hard at work trying.

Right Ring | Bullright

It’s a strange swamp, Master Jack

We have now reached the point where I have to say that hearings on oversight of the DOJ and Mueller’s rogue operation can be called triggering. On both sides.

Yes, I said it. Dems prove they are triggered just having hearings of Rosenstein. I have my own problems with it that cause frustration and raise my anger to new levels. But Democrats were triggered even before the hearings.

Then Democrats question the fact that we have lost trust in the FBI in particular and the DOJ in general. But not really. They only claim the service of thousands of agents is noble and that, I suppose, we should appreciate their service. That is not the point.

If the entire agency is saddled with this ‘corrupted’ leadership, what good is all that? Seems it is a hard time for FBI and big-government liberals who usually defend it. The problem is this rotting stench coming from the top of the agency diminishes their ‘professional’ service.

We are in strange times. What better illustration of the times than this.

Crazy is Democrats using basic anti-discrimination policy to defend blatant political discrimination and bias within a government agency. They seem to want to give a pass to the political bias that has been exposed in DOJ and the investigations of Trump and Hillary. But the bias only goes one way.

So if anti-discrimination policy can now be used for the very reason to be biased and discriminate, we are in a strange place. But they did almost the same thing with Lois Lerner and the IRS. Radicals and Deep State bureaucrats don’t just wear their biases on their sleeve for all to see, but now they want to use political bias as the justification.

Being triggered like Dems are, especially at the loss of the election and Trump’s victory, they are expected to use the full weight of their bias against the president and his administration. In short, that is what they are there for and what their bias is for. Then they use the bias for what they did as the defense for what they did. Political motives rule.

In that light, I guess hearings about such topics and agenda could be triggering. The culture of bias at the top taints all else, because it is meant to. So don’t worry about Mueller’s investigation being corrupted, it was created by and a byproduct of political corruption.

Right Ring | Bullright

Unfair and Unbalanced

If Fox News’ tag line is “Fair and Balanced,” then Democrats tag line must be Unfair and Unbalanced — and proud of it. Judging by the Benghazi hearing, they lived up to that standard. Enter the Benghazi Lie.

The story of an internet video was nothing more than a straw man for Democrats. They got as much mileage out of it as they could. Seeing Jay Carney’s prostration of what he had of a reputation before the public and American press pushing a lie was such an act of self-committed denial. But it was in his words that really told the story. He said there was no proof that it was not caused by the video.

See the construction of what we now know were carefully crafted words to deceive.

“What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise[than the video] that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.” — Jay Carney (9/14/12)

So without proof the the Benghazi attack was caused by the video, they asserted it as the reason. See that, lack of proof was never a problem. It’s a contorted abomination of logic: they demanded proof that it was not a video. But they already knew the attack was organized terrorism. It was only the public they were shoveling that lie to. Meanwhile, Hillary wrote to Egypt that we know this is a terrorist attack — and we know it was not caused by the video. Perhaps to reassure them, no matter what they heard from us publicly, that we do “know it was a terrorist attack” not a video reaction.

But the video had nothing to do with Benghazi. Yet they started this game of ‘prove it was not the video.‘ However, what they really wanted to make very clear — in their straw man case — was that the video was not in any way, had nothing to do with, the government.

“In terms of policy, we continue to make clear that in this case, we find the video reprehensible and disgusting. We continue to try to get the message out as broadly as we can that this video is — has nothing to do, is not in any way related to the American government. It does not represent who we are or what we believe. “

It’s funny that I never heard anyone make the case that the video did have anything to do with the government. So they brought in their own accusation that it did. Again without proof that a government-tied video idea was ever postulated.

All this is minor and insignificant, Democrats would say. No, it was very significant. It was a deliberate attempt to deceive, namely the families of victims and the public. That’s why Dems claimed so many times, nothing to see here, move along.

It was only one aspect of Benghazi that was so terrible. If lying didn’t get your ire up, then everything else they did there and about it afterward would.

Q Okay. And if I could just follow up on — you earlier said the cause of the unrest was a video, then you repeated something similar later on. And I just want to be clear, that’s true of Benghazi and Cairo?

MR. CARNEY: I’m saying that that — the incident in Benghazi, as well as elsewhere, that these are all being investigated. What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.

Now you see, Democrats liberals always demand proof when you criticize them. In fact, Hillary’s whole defense is that “there is no evidence that she did anything wrong.” That’s their mantra. Obama told us there was not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS. How many times have they said “there is no evidence of that?” They are obsessed with evidence and proof on every scandal, but they had no evidence that Benghazi was caused by a video. Yet Susan Rice took to the air on that Sunday indicting a video that had nothing to do with it, without a shred of evidence to support it. As Jordan said, that was the message and explanation they took to the American public.

The other false narrative is that it is a political witch hunt, and Republicans are trying to take her down in her bid for President. Let’s deal with that in two parts. There is the political attack defense. Well, the scandal of Benghazi was created from playing politics — presidential campaign politics.(sound familiar?) Now they assert that politics is the problem with the investigation. While making their case, they played partisan politics to the max. They were even going to boycott the committee/investigation. Benghazi was politics from the beginning. That had everything to do with Hillary’s and Obama’s Libyan adventure. Politics was the central reason for Libya and Benghazi.

Secondly, it is a witch hunt by Republicans hell bent on taking her down. First, all these actions were Hillary’s alone and no one forced her. Witch hunt? So, since she is a premier candidate for President, no one is allowed to investigate her actions? Whoops, our bad! So because Hillary is a powerful and prominent person on the left, we aren’t allowed to investigate or question her motives and actions? I didn’t know she was off limits, especially now since she is running, because it may effect her political chances. Then they claim McCarthy stated/admitted it was a political witch hunt against Hillary. No, he didn’t. He stated as a matter of fact that they began a Benghazi investigation and her polls were now down. He did not say that was the motive.

Were they not to investigate because of her political prominence and that she was running, that would be acting for political reasons. Hillary is not stupid, almost the opposite. She knows everything done in Washington has a political angle to it. In fact, she is a stereotypical player in that environment. It was all through Libya and all over Benghazi. They suddenly have a problem with the political environment? I remember the left’s prediction for years was people won’t care about Benghazi in 2016. That won’t matter to voters. But Dems have been playing political footsie with this terrorist attack since it began. Not to forget playing politics with Mo-Bros throughout the ME.

But there was a point in the hearing when I thought it was taking a turn for the worse. ( if it hadn’t already) Near the end Hillary was talking, I believe, about the co-chair of the ARB and she appeared to suddenly choke on something and started a coughing fit. That’s it, I thought, she’s going to lay it out right here on live TV. She’s going to flat line and EMT’s are going to rush in to revive her. The headline will be the Republicans tortured her with grueling questions until she collapsed. Yes, an imagined story but no more a fictional one than Hillary and Obama were trying to sell the public on Benghazi.

Afterward, the liberal media declared it a masterful marathon by Hillary Clinton. (something to that effect) Yes, Hillary was the victim but she excelled and suffered though it all. (badge of courage) Rachael Maddow asked who else ever endured such a spectacle and treatment? I guess they don’t remember Scooter Libby or the contested testimony of General Petraeus, which Hillary declared “requires the willing suspension of disbelief”.

Stunner: Hillary said she didn’t recall when she spoke to Ambassador Stevens after sending him there. Being the gruesome facts and results of Benghazi, wouldn’t you think she would have remembered the last time she spoke to Stevens? And in over 3 years since, she hasn’t been able to remember.

Hillary: I’m taking responsibility and “I was not responsible for specific security decisions.” So her definition of taking responsibility is not taking responsibility. But she ran out to lie to people it was due to a video that she still insists had something to do with it. Again, no proof of that whatsoever. And no one other than the administration said it did.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary’s long, tortured road to Benghazi

You might not have thought this would be necessary in DC, but I think its time for action. In NFL and Nascar they now have strict guidelines and testing for concussionions before being allowed to return. Sports authorities call them common sense safety measures.

Date: 11/27/2012 Description: Secretary Clinton delivers remarks at the Millennium Challenge Corporation and takes questions from staff, in Washington, DC.  - State Dept Image

So here’s what I think about Hillary Clinton and her dubious concussion excuse. While those tests might not help, I suggest at the very least she should be given a sanity test. It should be mandatory because after all we’ve seen about Hillary’s and Obama’s reaction to Benghazi, I think the only explanation or excuse is an insanity defense — which leaves the only other option of willful negligence.

The very general she ridiculed in his testimony who she said “requires the willing suspension of disbelief” was forced to resign over a tryst with his publicist. Now it’s Hillary’s turn in the meat grinder. Who would have ever thought she should have to be accountable to anyone, for anything? Isn’t there some law against that?

So I say start from scratch and demand she pass a sanity test first. Surely that is no problem for the Diva of Politics. Just common sense safety measures.  If her “competency” is in question, then nothing she says really matters anyway.

In her case it might be a little late, but that’s why its important to start now.

Churches call for Congressional investigation into aid to Israel

 

The NY Times is reporting that a group of Christian churches are asking Congress to investigate and hold hearings on US aid to Israel, due to what they call human rights abuses toward Palestinians.

It also reports that while they claim both sides are responsible for problems, they only call for an investigation “into Israel’s activities.”.

Church Appeal on Israel Angers Jewish Groups

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: October 20, 2012

“The controversy began on Oct. 5, when the Christian groups sent a letter urging Congress to hold hearings into whether Israel was violating the terms for foreign aid recipients. The Christian leaders wrote that they had “witnessed widespread Israeli human rights violations against the Palestinians, including killing of civilians, home demolitions and forced displacement, and restrictions on Palestinian movement.”
/…
The signers, besides the Presbyterians, included leaders of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Methodist Church, the National Council of Churches, the United Church of Christ, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the American Friends Service Committee (a Quaker agency) and the Mennonite Central Committee. Two Catholic leaders also signed, one with the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, an umbrella group of men’s religious orders. “

The Christian leaders’ letter acknowledged that both Israelis and Palestinians had suffered, and that both sides bore responsibility. But it called for an investigation into only Israel’s activities.

The Jewish leaders said such an approach was a double standard. The Palestinian Authority also receives foreign aid from the United States and has also been accused of rights violations, they said.

“Where’s the letter to Congress about Syria, which is massacring its own people?” said Rabbi Steven Wernick, the chief executive of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. “When Israel is the only one that is called to account, that’s when it becomes problematic.”

The letter says
U.S. churches and religious organizations committed to seeking a just peace for Israelis and Palestinians. [in closing]

Unfortunately, unconditional U.S. military assistance to Israel has contributed to this deterioration, sustaining the conflict and undermining the long-term security interests of both Israelis and Palestinians. This is made clear in the most recent 2011 State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices covering Israel and the Occupied Territories1, which details widespread Israeli human rights violations committed against Palestinian civilians, many of which involve the misuse of U.S.-supplied weapons.

Accordingly, we urge an immediate investigation into possible violations by Israel of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act and the U.S. Arms Export Control Act which respectively prohibit assistance to any country which engages in a consistent pattern of human rights violations and limit the use of U.S. weapons2 to “internal security” or “legitimate self-defense.”3 More broadly, we urge Congress to undertake careful scrutiny to ensure that our aid is not supporting actions by the government of Israel that undermine prospects for peace. We urge Congress to hold hearings to examine Israel’s compliance, and we request regular reporting on compliance and the withholding of military aid for non-compliance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/us/church-appeal-on-israel-angers-jewish-groups.html?hp&_r=1&

________________________________________________________

Israel Seizes Pro-Palestinian Activist Ship off Gaza

Saturday, 20 Oct 2012

The Israeli navy seized an international pro-Palestinian activist ship on the Mediterranean high seas on Saturday to prevent it breaching Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip, a military spokeswoman said.

She said no one was hurt when marines boarded the SV Estelle, a three-mast schooner, and that it was rerouted to the Israeli port of Ashdod after it ignored orders to turn away from the Hamas-governed Palestinian enclave.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Israel Seizes Pro-Palestinian Activist Ship off Gaza