BIDEN’S DISHONEST DEFENSE OF HIS AFGHANISTAN PULLOUT

BIDEN’S DISHONEST DEFENSE OF HIS AFGHANISTAN PULLOUT

BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN AFGHANISTAN, JOE BIDEN, TERRORISM

Joe Biden is pulling the U.S. out of Afghanistan and the country is spiraling toward civil war (maybe) and a takeover by the Taliban (almost certainly). Biden is no stranger to catastrophic pullouts. As vice president, he was behind our withdrawal from Iraq which led to the rise of ISIS and the creation of its caliphate. We had to return.

Biden tried to defend the current pullout yesterday. He said he anticipated that difficult challenges would arise during the withdrawal.

I suppose we should be thankful that Biden retains the mental capacity to have anticipated difficult challenges, obvious though they are. Unfortunately, the difficulties won’t be confined to what occurs during the withdrawal, though that seems to be all Biden cares about. The real disaster — the bloodbath, the oppression of an entire country, the ascent of terrorist organizations in a position once again to attack the U.S. and its allies — will occur mostly thereafter.

Why accept these consequences? Biden answered by asking supporters of our engagement, “how many thousands more Americans, daughter and sons, are you willing to risk?” For his part, Biden declared “I will not send another generation of Americans to war in Afghanistan with no reasonable expectation of achieving a different outcome.”

The dishonesty of this defense is breathtaking. Early this year, we had around 3,500 American troops in Afghanistan. In 2020, ten American troops died there. Only four were killed in action.

Thus, there is no question of “sending another generation of Americans to war in Afghanistan.” Nor would maintaining our 2020 force level there put “thousands of Americans,” much less “daughters,” at meaningful risk.

Finally, we need not expect a different outcome to justify our small, but important presence in Afghanistan. The current outcome — or the one that prevailed before implementation of Biden’s pullout began — was worth preserving at the current low cost.

Certainly, the Taliban hasn’t been defeated. However, it had been thwarted in its effort to take over the country. Many millions of Afghans, especially women, enjoy freedom from the unspeakable Islamist oppression that prevailed before we intervened. Folks who courageously sided with the U.S. against the Taliban are (or were) largely safe from reprisals.

Moreover, as far as we know, none of the terrorist organizations operating in Afghanistan — the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS, and whomever else — has been able to export terrorism from there to the West. They have been deprived of a springboard for international terrorism, like the one al Qaeda had before we intervened or the one ISIS had in Iraq-Syria after that Biden pullout, before we reengaged.

Not to worry, though. Biden promised, “I intend to maintain our diplomatic presence in Afghanistan. . and we’re going to engage the determined diplomacy to pursue peace and a peace agreement that will end this senseless violence.”

Senility would be the best defense for a statement like that. I’m afraid, though, that the real explanation lies in deep cynicism and dishonesty.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/07/bidens-dishonest-defense-of-his-afghanistan-pullout.php

SPEAKING OF DISINFORMATION

BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, JOE BIDEN, MEDIA

Miranda Devine takes up the disparagement of the New York Post stories derived from Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation and lays out the background of the Post’s acquisition of a copy of the laptop’s hard drive in her current Post column. Here is the background as she lays it out:

On April 12, 2019, a man who calls himself Hunter Biden enters a Wilmington, Del., Mac repair shop with three “liquid-damaged” computers just before closing time. The owner says one computer is beyond repair. Another has a fried keyboard, so the owner gives Hunter a spare keyboard.

The third laptop, a MacBook, is salvageable. Hunter signs a work order to confirm he wants him to fix it and provides contact details.

The owner — whom The Post promised anonymity, even though he has since been named by others — recovers the content of the laptop and transfers it to his server. He calls Hunter and asks him to bring in an external drive, onto which he can transfer the content.

Hunter arrives at closing time with the external drive.

He never sets foot inside the store again.

The owner makes frequent attempts to contact Hunter to pick up his laptop, pay the $85 bill and return the keyboard and cord.

No reply.

After 90 days, as per the work order signed by Hunter, the laptop becomes the store’s legal property.

In August, the computer repairman hears news reports about the leaked phone call in which President Trump raises Hunter and Joe Biden’s Burisma activity with Ukraine’s president — the call which sparked his impeachment.

The repairman does a word search of Burisma on Hunter’s laptop. Bingo.

Four months later, the impeachment is big news, so he decides to contact the FBI, via a friend, in case the material on the laptop is useful.

On Dec. 9 two FBI agents take away the laptop and hard drive.

In August this year, the repairman sees Giuliani on TV talking about Hunter and Burisma and decides to contact him via an e-mail address he finds online.

This is how the repairman explained his actions in an e-mail to Giuliani on Aug. 27, 2020:

“As I read deeper into the drive, I started to realize what I was sitting on and who was involved and at what level. I figured the safest thing to do was reach out to the FBI and have them collect the drive and the Mac so I could wash my hands of it and they might be able offer me some level of protection should someone come looking for it and come after me because I knew what was on it. The FBI did show up and . . . over the next few days they contacted me for access to the drive . . . because their tech guys didn’t know Macs.

“That kind of threw up a flag . . .

“They also said nothing ever happens to people who don’t talk about this stuff so that got me a little concerned . . .

“There is some very incriminating videos on the drive . . .

“I live and work in [the Bidens’ hometown] Wilmington, Delaware and my life here as well as my business would be destroyed if people found out what I was involved in.

“I have been trying to keep things quiet . . . but I feel time has been running out.”

The e-mail was compelling. Within two days, a copy of the hard drive was FedEx’d to a Long Island address where Giuliani and his lawyer examined it, and verified the material was genuine.

Bannon, a former Trump adviser, was only peripherally involved. He was brought in by Giuliani in late September to help decipher the China material.

Shortly thereafter, Bannon alerted The Post to the existence of the material, although he did not have a copy.

On Sunday a week ago Giuliani provided The Post with a copy of the hard drive.

It is not hard to believe that Hunter would be as reckless as to abandon a laptop at a repair shop. In October 2016, he left a crack pipe in a Hertz rental car in Arizona, along with a white powdery substance, credit cards and his driver’s license, as widely reported.

Devine concludes: “The Post has been transparent about the provenance of the material we have published. We stand by our reporting and the authenticity of the material. It’s hard to believe the rest of America’s media does not want to know the full story about a man running for president.”

Speaking for “the rest of America’s media” today, the New York Times ingeniously approaches backasswards to avoid “the full story.” The New York Post responds to the Times in this editorial and Post opinion editor Sohrab Ahmari responds to the Times story in the tweets below.

Speaking for “the rest of America’s media,” David Frum comments on the Post stories in the tweet below. Ahmari responds again.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/10/speaking-of-disinformation.php

The Devil and Joe Biden

 T

The Devil and Joe Biden By: Bill O'Reilly

A front page article in the Wall Street Journal reminded me that a Roman Catholic priest in South Carolina denied Joe Biden communion just about one year ago.  Reverend Robert Morey blessed Mr. Biden but refused him the host, later saying the former Vice-President’s liberal position on abortion defies church teaching.   As with many Catholic politicians, Mr. Biden fell back on the rationalization that he could not impose his “private” beliefs on other Americans.  But in Biden’s case, that rings very hollow.   For decades then Senator Joe Biden supported the Hyde Amendment, which disallows federal money for the abortion procedure because that violates the religious rights of Catholics and other religious people.  There are exceptions for rape, incest, and serious medical danger to the mother.   The Hyde Amendment was fair because pro-choice Americans can easily donate money to fund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers thereby assuring legal abortions can be made available to all.   There is no need for the federal government to force religious Americans to fund a life-ending procedure they reject on moral grounds.   But the new, progressive Joe Biden now repudiates the Hyde Amendment in a stunning reversal of conscience.  He also selected Kamala Harris, an aggressive pro-choice advocate, as his running mate.  Some describe the Biden-Harris ticket as the most pro-abortion political duo in history.   The Democratic platform is very clear: there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.  A number of states have rebelled against that using “science” to justify regulations.  It is a medical fact that a baby is viable in the womb long before birth. Many legislators believe destroying a fetus after viability is a violation of human rights.   Joe Biden has not responded to that point-of-view and that’s his problem with the Catholic Church.  His political posture enables abortion at any time, for any reason. Just this week, the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Vigano, warned Catholic voters that killing babies is “demonic.”   With almost 70 million Catholics registered to vote, Biden’s flip-flop on the Hyde Amendment and his political embrace of Senator Harris, could be a problem for him on Election Day.   However, the former Vice President is counting on the Catholic clergy remaining largely silent.  The church is frightened, intimidated, and under financial siege due to the clerical abuse of children.  Few American priests will speak out on anything.   After Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the nation’s most powerful Catholic voice, said the opening prayer at the Republican National Convention, he was brutally attacked on social and traditional media.  Some wealthy Catholic donors even resigned from church boards.  The message was heard loud and clear by Catholic clergy in America.   So Mr. Biden may well believe he has little to fear from the Church.   As for Joe’s faithfulness to the faith, who really knows?  In 1936, Stephen Vincent Benet wrote a short story entitled “The Devil and Daniel Webster.”  In it, a good man sells his soul for prosperity.  In real life, it would be unfair to suggest that any politician would ever do that.   Wouldn’t it? https://www.billoreilly.com/b/The-Devil-and-Joe-Biden/127562914646122014.html

The Democrats Destroyed Their Own Argument for More Impeachment Witnesses and Evidence

The Democrats Destroyed Their Own Argument for More Impeachment Witnesses and Evidence

 

BY MATT MARGOLIS 

Last year, Democrats rushed through the impeachment hearings because they claimed the evidence was overwhelming and impeachment had to be done immediately. Today, they’re bellyaching about the need for more witnesses and evidence in order for there to be a fair trial.

This is, of course, after the Democrats didn’t allow the president any of his own witnesses during the House impeachment inquiry, and chose not to subpoena more witnesses in favor of getting the vote to impeach over with, so, as Nancy Pelosi has said, President Trump would be “impeached for life.”

As White House counsel Pat Cippollone noted Tuesday, the Democrats destroyed  their own argument that more witnesses and evidence are needed to have “a fair trial”

“By the way, I was surprised to hear that — did you realize, you’re on trial? Mr. Nadler is putting you on trial. everybody’s on trial except for them. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. They said in their brief ‘we have overwhelming evidence and they’re afraid to make their case,’” Cippollone said.“‘Overwhelming evidence to impeach the president of the United States.’ And then they come here on the first day and they say, ‘You know what? We need some more evidence.’”

Elizabeth Harrington

✔@LizRNC

WH counsel Pat Cippollone destroys the Democrats' absurd argument

Dems: "Our case is overwhelming!"

Also Dems: "We need more evidence!"

Ridiculous

794

12:05 PM - Jan 21, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

389 people are talking about this

It’s absurd that Democrats claim they have overwhelming evidence and then argue we need more evidence. If they think there isn’t enough evidence at this point, then how can they justify their vote to impeach? Are they admitting they voted to impeach without enough evidence?

Their current narrative about the need for more evidence undermines the legitimacy of their vote to impeach. Of course, this isn’t all that surprising. They’ve been throwing out all kinds of allegations waiting for something to stick. They’ve been calling for impeachment from day one, and they had to go all-in this time to appease their base and then proceeded with a partisan impeachment when their case fell apart

In many ways, this impeachment is the epitome of Democrats accusing Republicans of that which they themselves are guilty of. Democrats are “not here to steal one election, they’re here to steal two elections,” Cipollone said. I couldn’t agree more.

_____

Matt Margolis is the author of Trumping Obama: How President Trump Saved Us From Barack Obama's Legacy and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis

https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-democrats-destroyed-their-own-argument-for-more-impeachment-witnesses-and-evidence/

BARR: Look For Democrats To Make Soleimani’s Death The Newest Impeachable Offense Featured

BARR: Look For Democrats To Make Soleimani’s Death The Newest Impeachable Offense Featured

Written by Former Rep. Bob Barr | Source: The Daily Caller Politics | January 06, 2020 11:13 AM

•  
•  
•  
•  

You can hear it already — calls by congressional Democrats to declare that the manner by which President Trump, as our country’s commander in chief, approved a military strike against Iranian Gen.

Qasem Soleimani, a known and active operational terrorist leader, should not only be condemned but possibly provide the basis for yet another article of impeachment.

Yes, the partisan hatred of Trump by the Democratic Party, led by its crop of presidential wannabes, appears to be sinking to this level — that our country’s commander in chief was not only wrong in approving the drone strike against Iran’s top terrorist commander based on sound and timely intelligence, but that in so doing he may have committed acts constituting grounds for removal from office.

While none of the Democratic presidential candidates has yet called openly and explicitly for an inquiry of impeachment based on last week’s military action against Soleimani, as a group they have pounced eagerly on the matter in public appearances and in social media statements, openly critical of the military act itself as well as the fact that Trump did not brief congressional Democratic leaders prior to the strike.

The babbling by New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez about the strike that killed Soleimani is easy to disregard; reflecting the ignorance of U.

S. law and national security that has become the hallmark of her social media rants. The bloviating by presidential candidates like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, however, are more troubling. Each of them, by virtue of their positions — a former vice president, a sitting senator, and a former military officer — should know better.

They should know, for example, that the “War Powers Act” clearly has no applicability in this situation.

Yet, Democrats repeatedly assert or imply that Trump’s failure to inform Congress of the military strike against Soleimani in advance, was a violation of the 1973 law. The law does require prior notification to Congress when a president commits American forces abroad. It never has been interpreted, and never should be interpreted, to require a president to notify Congress before issuing a tactical order against a foreign terrorist leader based on timely and actionable intelligence that he was engaged in active operations against American personnel.

They also should know that the drone strike that killed Soleimani was not an “assassination” of a foreign leader, and not remotely prohibited by U.

S. law or executive order. Soleimani was not the leader of a foreign government; he was a designated terrorist actively engaged in planning and executing actions against American personnel and interests. The president had every right to order the strike as he did and when he did. It would have been irresponsible had he failed to act.

The administration briefed key congressional leaders as soon as practicable after the action was taken, and has committed to further briefings.

However, there was no obligation or reason to have risked doing so before the strike was ordered — especially considering the hostile environment Trump faces by House leaders such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who has made it his avowed goal to remove President Trump.

Notwithstanding these facts, Democrats continue to assert that the president’s actions were “reckless,” “dangerous,” and “provocative”; all terms they easily could fit within the vague notions of “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress,” which were the bases for last month’s articles of impeachment.

Equally irresponsible has been criticism of Trump’s actions because — as claimed by Warren, Buttigieg, Biden, and others — the president failed to adequately consider “less risky” alternatives and failed to properly assess the ramifications of the course of action he did pursue.

Such criticism is specious on its face. In the first place, none of these critics know what options Trump considered and on what intelligence his decisions were based. To presume that Trump either failed to consider relevant options and ramifications, or that he deliberately chose to act irresponsibly in taking the riskiest option, simply confirms the purely partisan nature of Democrats’ criticism.

Not surprisingly, when pressed by the media whether each of these presidential wannabes would have acted similarly against a known terrorist leader actively and immediately engaged in such activities if they were commander in chief, none could bring themselves to answer directly or give Trump even a scintilla of credit.

Their all-consuming hatred for Trump has made decision-making cowards of them all.

Bob Barr (@BobBarr) represented Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He currently serves as president and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/06/barr-soleimani-impeachable-offense/

IG Report Reveals James Comey Lied To Fox News Anchor Bret Baier About Steele Dossier

IG Report Reveals James Comey Lied To Fox News Anchor Bret Baier About Steele Dossier

DECEMBER 10, 2019 By Chrissy Clark

In April 2018, former FBI Director James Comey appeared on Fox News with Bret Baier. Looking back at this clip after the release of the Inspector General’s FISA report, it is evident Comey lied to Baier about knowing Christopher Steele’s dossier was funding by the Democratic National Convention and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

During the interview, Baier pressed Comey about his knowledge on the Steele dossier. Comey claimed he did not know for a fact that the Steele dossier was funded by the DNC or the Clinton campaign.

“When did you learn that the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign had funded Christopher Steele’s work?” Baier asked.

“Yes, I still don’t know that for a fact,” Comey said.

“What do you mean?” Baier asked.

“I’ve only seen it in the media. I never knew exactly which Democrats has funded — I knew it was funded first by Republicans,” Comey responded.

“That’s not true that the dossier that Christopher Steele worked on was funded by Republicans,” Baier said.

The IG report shows that Comey was indeed informed of the funding of the dossier. According to the report, on October 12, 2016, then National Security Division (NSD) Assistant Attorney General Stuart Evans raised concerns to both Comey and Andrew McCabe about the DNC and Clinton campaign funding the Steele dossier.

On October 12, 2016, Evans’s concerns about Steele were briefed to Comey and McCabe in a meeting attended by at least [E.W] Priestap, [Peter] Strzok, Lisa Page, and the OGC unit Chief. According to notes of the meeting, the group discussed that Evans was concerned Steele may have been hired by someone associated with Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and that the read copy of the FISA application would not be filed with the court that day so that Evans could further assess the potential bias. …

Following the meeting, the OGC Unit Chief emailed [Deputy General Counsel Trisha] Anderson and and the OGC Attorney on October 12 and advised them that the concerns Evans had raised were discussed with Comey and McCabe.

Nonetheless, Comey lied to Americans in order to keep up the appearance that the Steele dossier was in some way legitimate or that he was unaware of it’s illegitimacy.

After the October 2016, meeting Comey would go on to include the uncorroborated dossier in briefings with both President Obama and President-elect Trump.

It appears it is not a moral compass, but a partisan compass guiding the acts of America’s boy scout, James Comey.

Chrissy Clark is a staff writer at The Federalist. Follow her on social media@chrissyclark_ or contact her at chrissy@thefederalist.com.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/10/ig-report-reveals-james-comey-lied-on-fox-news-about-steele-dossier/

Mukasey Op-ed Should Strike Fear in Democrats

Mukasey Op-ed Should Strike Fear in Democrats

 

BY ROGER L. SIMON 

John H. Durham, U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut (Public Domain)

If I were a Democrat, I would be afraid, I would be very afraid, after reading former Attorney General Michael Mukasey's Monday WSJ oped: "John Durham's Ukrainian Leads." The subtitle is "What the prosecutor has found may be quite different from what the Democrats are looking for."

Mukasey begins:

Americans often boast that we are a nation of laws, but for the moment laws appear to play a decidedly secondary role in the drama we are living in and—hopefully—through.

True enough, but the nub of the article, which returns us to the rule of law, comes further on:

True, much media and political effort has gone into sometimes close and often willful parsing of President Trump’s July 25 conversation with President Volodymyr Zelensky —ironic when you consider Mr. Trump’s well-known linguistic promiscuity—not to mention the celebrated whistleblower complaint, which contains no firsthand information. Little notice has been given, however, to another document lying in plain sight: a Justice Department press release issued the day the conversation transcript became public.

That Justice Department statement makes explicit that the president never spoke with Attorney General William Barr “about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son” or asked him to contact Ukraine “on this or any other matter,” and that the attorney general has not communicated at all with Ukraine. It also contains the following morsel: “A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating.” [Bold mine]

The number of countries includes the U. K. and Italy, the latter of which was just visited by one William Barr. So what's going on? More from Mukasey:

The definitive answer to the obvious question—what’s that about?—is known only to Mr. Durham and his colleagues. But publicly available reports, including by Andrew McCarthy in his new book, “Ball of Collusion,” suggest that during the 2016 campaign the Federal Bureau of Investigation tried to get evidence from Ukrainian government officials against Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, to pressure him into cooperating against Mr. Trump. When you grope through the miasma of Slavic names and follow the daisy chain of related people and entities, it appears that Ukrainian officials who backed the Clinton campaign provided information that generated the investigation of Mr. Manafort—acts that one Ukrainian court has said violated Ukrainian law and “led to interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine as a state.”

Sorry to quote so extensively, but the WSJ is behind a paywall and I thought everyone should see as much of Mukasey's writing as possible.  Reading not so far between the lines here, it's clear that the biggest story of 2019 or maybe 2020 is yet to come — and it won't be impeachment. The Russia Probe is being turned on its head.

PJ Media's co-founder Roger L. Simon's new novel The GOAT is now available in several editions on Amazon.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/mukasey-oped-should-strike-fear-in-democrats/

Former CIA official on whistleblower: ‘How could this be an intelligence matter?’

By Fred Fleitz

Enlarge Image

AP

MORE ON:

TRUMP UKRAINE PROBE

Pence urged Trump not to release Ukraine call transcript

Trump calls on Adam Schiff to resign for 'lying to Congress'

Russia hoping Trump doesn't release his calls with Putin

In Ukraine scandal, Democrats refuse to wait for actual facts

Fred Fleitz, president of the Center for Security Policy, served in 2018 as deputy assistant to the president and to the chief of staff of the National Security Council. He previously held national-security jobs with the CIA, the DIA, the Department of State, and the House Intelligence Committee staff. He remarks on the whistleblower complaint.

I am troubled by the complaint and wonder how an intelligence officer could file it over something a president said to a foreign leader. How could this be an intelligence matter?

It appears likely to me that this so-called whistleblower was pursuing a political agenda.

I am very familiar with transcripts of presidential phone calls since I edited and processed dozens of them when I worked for the NSC. I also know a lot about intelligence whistleblowers from my time with the CIA.

My suspicions grew this morning when I saw the declassified whistleblowing complaint. It appears to be written by a law professor and includes legal references and detailed footnotes. It also has an unusual legalistic reference on how this complaint should be classified.

From my experience, such an extremely polished whistleblowing complaint is unheard of. This document looks as if this leaker had outside help, possibly from congressional members or staff.

Moreover, it looks like more than a coincidence that this complaint surfaced and was directed to the House Intelligence Committee just after Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), an outspoken opponent of President Trump, expressed numerous complaints in August 2019 accusing President Trump of abusing aid to Ukraine to hurt Joe Biden. This includes an August 28 tweet that closely resembled the whistleblowing complaint.

House Republicans need to ask the whistleblower under oath whether he spoke to the press or Congress about his complaint.

SEE ALSO

What we know — and don't know — about the Trump whistleblower

Also very concerning to me is how the complaint indicates intelligence officers and possibly other federal employees are violating the rules governing presidential phone calls with foreign leaders.

The content and transcripts of these calls are highly restricted. The whistleblower makes clear in his complaint that he did not listen to a call in question, nor did he read the transcript — he was told about the call by others. If true, intelligence officers have grossly violated the rules as well as the trust placed on them to protect this sensitive information.

I refuse to believe that the leaking, timing and presentation of this complaint is coincidence. I don’t think the American people will buy this either.

I’m more worried, however, that this latest instance of blatant politicization of intelligence by Trump haters will do long term damage to the relationship between the intelligence community and US presidents for many years to come.

https://nypost.com/2019/09/26/former-cia-official-on-whistleblower-how-could-this-be-an-intelligence-matter/