Tag: politics

Reading this account of Reince Preibus’s short-lived term as White House Chief of Staff, one does not wonder why Trump brought him on – it was an olive branch to the Republican Establishment – but how the guy ended up in charge of the RNC in the first place:

Priebus was hobbled by two other factors. A former Republican National Committee chairman from Kenosha, Wisconsin, he barely knew his new boss, and he was part of the establishment that Trump had vilified. Moreover, during the campaign, the two men had been known to feud. Trump had been especially resentful of Priebus’s reaction to the campaign’s existential crisis just a month before Election Day: the release of the tawdry Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump had made graphic misogynist comments that were caught by an open microphone.

The morning after the video surfaced, Trump’s candidacy had been pronounced all but dead in the media. In response, the beleaguered nominee’s top aides—campaign C.E.O. Stephen Bannon, former New York mayor Rudy Giu­liani, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Jared Kushner, and Ivanka Trump—gathered at Trump Tower for a war council to advise the candidate on whether he should stay in the race or quit.

The nominee, sleep-deprived, surly, his jaw clenched, posed the crucial question: in light of the videotape, what were his chances of winning? Priebus went first: “If you decide to stay in, you will lose in the biggest landslide in American political history.” One by one, Trump’s other advisers danced around the question—until finally it was Bannon’s turn. “One hundred percent,” he declared. “One hundred percent you’re going to win this thing. Metaphysical.” (Priebus recalled things differently, saying no one was that emphatic.)

Trump, of course, pulled off an astonishing upset. And a month later, McDonough met his successor as chief of staff in the West Wing lobby and escorted him to his office. As the former chiefs went around the table, giving Priebus advice, they were unanimous about one thing: Trump would be unable to govern unless Priebus was empowered as first among equals in the West Wing. Trump’s incoming chief dutifully took notes on a yellow pad.

Suddenly there was a commotion; Barack Obama was entering the room. Everyone stood and shook hands, then Obama motioned for them to sit. The 44th president’s own chiefs—Rahm Emanuel, Bill Daley, Jack Lew, McDonough, and Pete Rouse (who served unofficially)—were all pres­ent, and Obama nodded toward them. “Every one of these guys at different times told me something that pissed me off,” Obama said, flashing his familiar grin. “They weren’t always right; sometimes I was. But they were right to do that because they knew they had to tell me what I needed to hear rather than what I wanted to hear.” Obama looked at Priebus. “That’s the most important function of a chief of staff. Presidents need that. And I hope you will do that for President Trump.” With that, Obama said his good-byes and departed.

Why would you ever listen to what someone said after he had demonstrated such a complete inability to read the electorate or predict the future? I’m astonished that Trump even pretended to take the guy’s opinion seriously at all.

We have a tendency to believe that those who are around the positions of power must be smarter or more astute than the average individual in some way. We are endlessly lectured on the importance of their gravitas, their credentials, their educations, and their comportment. But the truth is more often than not that they simply happen to have had access to money, power, or influence. It’s not just the USA, almost every democracy is run by people who are no more intelligent, and have no better judgment, than those annoying kids that were on your high school student council.

Except the kids you knew on your student council were less arrogant, less sheltered, and less corrupt than the average politico.

And a LOT of other people, it would seem:

In private texts recently made public, FBI “super-agent” Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, were quite candid. Their open disdain for a wide variety for groups including Italians, Russians, Romanians, gypsies, Virginians, Texans, and pro-lifers should surprise no one. The leaders of their party have been saying the same thing in public for years.

Here is one telling exchange between the star-crossed lovers:

“Guccifer. Sleazy Romanian…,” Strzok wrote.

“They ALL are,” Page responded.

“Funny to watch and think of [redacted]. No wonder he’s a brusque as he is…and those Romanians aren’t even the gypsies…” Strzok shot back.

“Seriously, I kind of hate them. (I’m sure [redacted] fine). But they have the crookedness of the Russians with the entitledness of the Italians. Yuck,” Page answered.

In a separate exchange, Page goes after Russians—all of them—again: “…hate them. l think they’re probably the worst. Very little I find redeeming about this. Even in history. Couple of good writers and artists I guess.”

“Probably the worst?” Even worse than those entitled Italians and sleazy Romanians? I guess that means no Tchaikovsky or Rimsky-Korsakov on her playlist.

But it’s not just foreigners. It turns out, they’re not terribly fond of Americans either. Virginians and Texans come in for particular scorn because, well, you know, it’s always open season on rural America and the South. Virginia and Texas must seem like a twofer.

When Jill McCabe (D-Va.), wife of former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, lost a race for the Virginia state senate after taking nearly $700,000 from the Clintons and their allies, Strzok let loose on his neighbors and countrymen.“Disappointing, but look at the district map,” he texted.“Loudoun is being gentrified, but it’s still largely ignorant hillbillys (sic). Good for her for running, but curious if she’s energized or never again.”

I’d guess that the “ignorant” voters of Loudoun County probably realize that the slur he was reaching for is spelled “hillbillies” and not “hillbillys.” Strzok can remember it in the future because it’s the same construction used in other words, like “adulteries” and “felonies.”

He had a few words for the Lone Star State too. “And while i (sic) hate Trump, part of me thought (redacted) would not/may not get into (redacted) because they’re white and not from buttf*ck Texas…”

How about the hundreds of thousands of people from all parts of the country and all walks of life attending the annual March for Life? Page isn’t a fan of them either: “I truly hate these people. No support for the woman who actually has to spend the rest of her life rearing this child, but we are about ‘life.’ Assholes.”

In Page’s world, “life” comes with scare quotes and consists of adultery with a co-worker, leaking classified information to the press, using federal police power to rig presidential elections, and spewing venom at virtually everyone outside of her social and professional circle. What a life.

And what a party. On the plus side, both the white and Jewish Democrats are almost certainly going to receive the Marie Antoinette treatment from the very people they have claimed to champion for decades. They are already being aggressively pushed out of the centers of political power by Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and Asians everywhere from Atlanta to Minneapolis.

It always strikes me as ironic to see liberal whites and Jews waxing so proudly “anti-racist”, when the reality is that only the Japanese can possibly even hope to rival either group for their narcissistic superiority complexes. Which, given their proven inability to grasp the obvious consequences of their actions and policies, are risibly baseless.

The God-Emperor has the federal bureaucracy squarely in his sights:

President Trump will seek to “hire the best and fire the worst” federal government employees under the most ambitious proposal to overhaul the civil service in 40 years, officials said. The measures will be outlined in the budget plan that Trump will send to Congress Monday, said four Office of Management and Budget officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the budget hasn’t been released.

Trump foreshadowed the proposal in a line in his State of the Union address last week: “Tonight, I call on Congress to empower every Cabinet Secretary with the authority to reward good workers and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people,” he said.

Trump is using the VA Accountability Act, which gave the Secretary of Veterans Affairs greater authority to fire and discipline workers, as a model. The White House says that law has resulted in the dismissal of 1,470 employees, the suspension of 443, demotions for 83 others last year.

“While to some people those are code words, they’re very clear to us,” said American Federation of Government Employees President J. David Cox, who represents about 700,000 workers for the federal government and District of Columbia. “Basically it wipes out due process rights for employees.”

Another pillar of the proposal would reduce automatic pay increases and instead use that money for a performance bonus pool.

Under the current system, federal employees get a review every one to three years. Employees whose performance is “fully successful” — as 99.7{4cacff1a314e264f6dff53da0a490ceb254b2aee041711c1fa70e29b8d44a193} are — get a within-grade “step” increase in addition to annual cost-of-living increases.

Trump’s plan would stretch out the amount of time it takes to go from step 1 to step 10 from 18 years to 27 years, saving $10 billion over the next decade, officials said. That money would then go to high-performing employees either as merit raises or one-time bonuses.

Federal employee unions fear the pay-per-performance plan would be used to reward loyalists and discriminate against women and minorities.

This isn’t that hard. If performance-based-pay discriminates against women and minorities, then they deserve to be discriminated against because they are unequal and inferior and are literally worth less as employees.

Equality does not exist. Not in the workplace, not in life, not in Heaven, and not in Hell.

You might want to start sporting those Trumpslide 2020 shirts right about now:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 48{f34b2ed14022567e3962d98ceb517f14c2acb643b80147bdb11c1357fe49acc6} of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-one percent (51{f34b2ed14022567e3962d98ceb517f14c2acb643b80147bdb11c1357fe49acc6}) disapprove. The latest figures include 34{f34b2ed14022567e3962d98ceb517f14c2acb643b80147bdb11c1357fe49acc6} who Strongly Approve of the way the president is performing and 42{f34b2ed14022567e3962d98ceb517f14c2acb643b80147bdb11c1357fe49acc6} who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8.

President Trump has a stronger approval rating today than media darling Barack Obama did back in 2010 on this same day. Back on February 7, 2010 Barack Obama had an approval rating of 44{f34b2ed14022567e3962d98ceb517f14c2acb643b80147bdb11c1357fe49acc6} while 56{f34b2ed14022567e3962d98ceb517f14c2acb643b80147bdb11c1357fe49acc6} of likely voters disapproved of the far left president.

Donald Trump has already shown himself to be the best President of the 20th and 21st centuries. And he’s barely gotten started.

The Honorable Devin Nunes
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
January 18, 2018

To: HPSCI Majority Members
From: HPSCI Majority Staff
Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Purpose

This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.

Investigation Update

On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. Page is a US citizen who served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump presidential campaign. Consistent with requirements under FISA, the application had to be first certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.

The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by statute, a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ.

Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC are classified. As such, the public’s confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court’s ability to hold the government to the highest standard, particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government’s production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted.

1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or. any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials.

b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named US. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a US. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOI at the, time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of – and paid by – the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.

2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by- Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News-and several other outlets-in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele’s initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington DC. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.

a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations-an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September-before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October-but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.

b) Steele’s numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling-maintaining confidentiality-and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.

Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files, but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.

a) During this same time period, Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.

According to the head of the counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was according to his June 2017 testimony “salacious and unverified”. While the FISA application relied on Steele’s past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

5) The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, Whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.

Unidentified “aides” are supposedly worried about the FBI Director doing what he hasn’t said he will do. Right. Better not release the memo, then!

Top White House aides are worried FBI Director Christopher Wray could quit if the highly controversial Republican memo alleging the FBI abused its surveillance tools is released, multiple sources with knowledge of the situation tell CNN.

Wray has made clear he is frustrated that President Donald Trump picked him to lead the FBI after he fired FBI Director James Comey in May, yet his advice on the Nunes memo is being disregarded and cast as part of the purported partisan leadership of the FBI, according to a senior law enforcement official.

Wray’s stance is “raising hell,” one source familiar with the matter said.

Wray has not directly threatened to resign after clashing with Trump over the possible release of the memo, the source added, because that is not his style of dealing with conflict.

No one cares. Ignore the fake news and the bureaucrats desperately trying to keep their corrupt backsides covered. Release the memo unredacted.

This criticism of proposed legislation in Indonesia reveals the insanity at the core of the globalist Left.

Gay sex, cohabitation, and sex outside marriage would become illegal and punishable with prison terms under proposals from Islamic parties that could soon become law in the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation. Critics say the moves, which are being negotiated among Indonesia’s political parties and government legislative drafters, would, if enacted, be a major blow to democracy in this Southeast Asian nation of 250 million.

How can legislation that is popular with the majority of the electorate be “a major blow to democracy”?

When was “democracy” redefined as “unrestricted sex”?

Think about what this implies for survival of democracy as a legitimate political philosophy in the future. It is increasingly apparent that to the Left, “democracy” means nothing more than “the policies we happen to favor at the moment”.

Democrats must really be nervous about what is in the Nunes memo. They’re getting increasingly desperate about keeping the contents out of the public eye:

Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee are accusing Republicans on the panel of secretly making changes to a controversial, GOP-drafted memo alleging abuse of spying laws before sending it to the White House for potential public release.

In the latest partisan exchange between members of the committee, Democrats say the committee now must recall the memo from the White House, where the president is currently weighing whether to release the document, arguing that the document is not the version members voted to declassify earlier this week. The memo purports to show FBI abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act during the investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.

Adam Schiff@RepAdamSchiff
BREAKING: Discovered late tonight that Chairman Nunes made material changes to the memo he sent to White House – changes not approved by the Committee. White House therefore reviewing a document the Committee has not approved for release.

“After reviewing both versions, it is clear that the Majority made material changes to the version it sent to the White House, which Committee Members were never apprised of, never had the opportunity to review, and never approved,” Schiff said in a letter to committee chairman Devin Nunes, whose staff wrote the memo.

“This is deeply troubling, because it means that the Committee Majority transmitted to the White House an altered version of its classified document that is materially different than the version on which the Committee voted,” Schiff said. “The White House has therefore been reviewing a document since Monday night that the Committee never approved for public release.”

Schiff said it’s “now imperative that the Committee Majority immediately withdraw the document that it sent to the White House.” He urged Nunes to re-do the vote to declassify the document on Monday, when the committee is also expected to vote to declassify a memo drafted by Democrats to counter the one put forth by Republicans.

But in a statement, a spokesperson for Nunes downplayed the changes cited by Schiff.

“In its increasingly strange attempt to thwart publication of the memo, the Committee Minority is now complaining about minor edits to the memo, including grammatical fixes and two edits requested by the FBI and by the Minority themselves,” the spokesperson said. “The vote to release the memo was absolutely procedurally sound, and in accordance with House and Committee rules. To suggest otherwise is a bizarre distraction from the abuses detailed in the memo, which the public will hopefully soon be able to read for themselves.”

It’s amazing how much like little children they are. How on Earth have Republicans been losing to these guys for generations? There are whole classes of people who simply should not even be allowed to use the word “therefore”.

Now release the memo already!

The God-Emperor will speak. Discuss amongst yourselves.