Tag Archives: SCOTUS

Big Red Handle: pulled

Posted on by

The GOP said they’d do it.

The Demorats filibustered Judge Neil Gorsuch for SCOTUS. They didn’t have to. It was their decision.

So the GOP pulled the Big Red Handle.

John McCain thinks they’re “idiots” for having done so.

In the end, however, McCain voted in the same fashion as all the other Republicans in the senate.

From CNN.com (who says I’m not egalitarian?):

Senate GOP triggers nuclear option to break Democratic filibuster on Gorsuch

by Ashley Killough and Ted Barrett

Washington (CNN) The Senate Thursday triggered the so-called “nuclear option” that allowed Republicans to break a Democratic filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.

The chamber is now expected to vote to confirm Gorsuch Friday. The controversial changes to Senate rules, made along partisan lines, allows filibusters of Supreme Court picks to be broken with only 51 votes rather than 60.

The actions on Thursday and Friday cap more than a year of tension over an empty Supreme Court seat, as both parties in the Senate are poised to take action leading to an outcome neither party wants.

It’s a situation loaded with nuance, procedural twists and Senate history — not to mention a spot on the nation’s highest court — and a standoff that reflects a peak in polarization following a deeply divisive presidential election.

The move came after Democrats blocked the nomination under the previous 60-vote threshold. Only four Democrats — Sens. Michael Bennet, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin — crossed party lines to side with the Republicans.

Subsequent party-line votes allowed the GOP majority to change the rules, leading up to the final vote breaking the filibuster. After the final vote was gaveled, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell went down his row and gave high fives to Majority Whip John Cornyn and two aides.

Here, however, is a very interesting article from the NYT.com:

After Senate Filibuster’s Death, Somber Lawmakers Seek Path Forward

by Jennifer Steinhauer

WASHINGTON — The conventional Washington wisdom dictates that the end of the judicial filibuster is also the end of life as it is currently known in the Senate.

In truth, it may not make that much of a difference at all. In an unexpected way, it may well herald the beginning of a better era for the Senate.

The Senate Republicans’ successful effort on Thursday to end the 60-vote threshold to proceed with confirmation of Supreme Court nominees was really only the final step in a process set in motion by Democrats in 2013 when they removed that threshold for other nominees.

That set off a far bigger firestorm, and Republicans now have simply extended that precedent.

Republicans are quick to point out — and many Democrats privately agree — that had former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the White House last year, and Democrats taken the Senate, a similar confrontation was likely in the other direction, and that Democrats may have needed to take the same step as Republicans took to confirm any Supreme Court nominee that Mrs. Clinton had chosen.

Color me gobsmacked, now, because the New York Times just allowed a bit of truth to creep out of an article. Yes, the Demorats would have done precisely the same thing had they been in power. Because of this, I have a sneaking suspicion that Jennifer Steinhauer may not quite have a loving, hallowed and lengthy work future at the Gray Lady.

If you wish to see how all the senators voted, please click here.

The move came after Democrats blocked the nomination under the previous 60-vote threshold. Only four Democrats — Sens. Michael Bennet, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin — crossed party lines to side with the Republicans.

Manchin described Thursday as a “very sad day,” saying the Supreme Court won’t have “have a check and balance” system in which the minority has input on future justices. He argued that senators will “rue the day that this happened.”

“They all know what goes around comes around,” Manchin told reporters. “I was just extremely sad.”

And yes, in a way it was extremely sad. But it was the Demorats who decided to filibuster what is fundamentally a good, honest, serviceable and dedicated individual like Judge Neil Gorsuch who has continued to maintain that he has and can remain independent in his opinions from the bench. He follows the law and allows it to inform and guide him. He does not, unlike Demorat/Leftist judges, attempt to create transformative new law out of thin air where precedent does not primarily exist.

Both sides blamed each other for the episode. Democrats blasted Republicans for using the workaround. Republicans, meanwhile, said they felt they had no other option because of the Democratic filibuster.

But the real truth comes next, from Orrin Hatch.

“For the life of me, I don’t understand why the Democrats made such a fuss about this (nominee),” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “They look stupid. The next one, I mean I expect Armageddon.”

CNN spoke to Senator Hatch on Thursday.

I feel compelled to repeat some things I’ve written before here on the blog and stated on my radio show — which is on tonight, by the way, the Bloviating Zeppelin’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, at 8PM Pacific and 11PM Eastern tonight on the SHR Media Network. At the appropriate time click ON AIR to listen.

Republicans, on the other hand, argue Gorsuch answered more than 20 hours of questions and was abiding by what’s known as the “Ginsburg standard” so as not to show his cards on how he’d rule in cases that may come before him.

Hitting back against the argument that he’s extreme, Republicans say Gorsuch sided with the majority in 99% of his opinions as a federal judge in the past decade, and the GOP said that of the 2,700 cases he has ruled on, 97% were decided unanimously.

On Friday at 11:30 Eastern, the senate will vote up or down on Judge Neil Gorsuch. A majority vote will yield confirmation.

There will be Armageddon as Hatch suggests. I have it on good information there is a chance that, later this year, another opening on SCOTUS will occur. I believe that President Trump will deign to nominate an individual not unlike Judge Gorsuch. That will tend to move the court to the right. Further, as this is only 2017, there is every chance that between now and 2020 there will be another opening on SCOTUS and the opportunity for President Trump to nominate a person similar to Judge Gorsuch.

If this is true, and I believe it so, this may impact the US Supreme Court for, literally, decades to come.

So yes, the Demorats were rather stupid to filibuster Judge Gorsuch.

What will be the immediate result of this? Will the Demorats become even more obstructionist than they are now, considering there are over 1,000 vacancies still requiring installation in the Trump presidency?

Time will tell.

BZ

 

 Share

If it’s Friday it must be Gorsuch

Posted on by

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said this week that, by Friday, Judge Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed as a SCOTUS jurist to replace Antonin Scalia, who died a little over a year ago on February 13th of 2016 at the age of 79 whilst vacationing at a West Texas ranch.

First up, from the WSJ.com:

Next Up Thursday: Cloture Vote and Rule Change

The Senate is on the verge of a major rules change sparked by Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to be a Supreme Court justice, as Republicans and Democrats barrel toward a partisan showdown on the Senate floor over the future of the filibuster.

The first procedural vote on Judge Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s nominee to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, is expected Thursday morning—a vote where the GOP is expected to fall short. As a result, Senate Republicans are expected to use a procedural motion that would eliminate the filibuster for this and future Supreme Court nominations—expanding on changes that Democrats initiated in 2013.

What were the changes initiated in 2013 by then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid? From the WSJ.com:

Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees

by Paul Kane

Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further.

Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades.

The immediate rationale for the move was to allow the confirmation of three picks by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — the most recent examples of what Democrats have long considered unreasonably partisan obstruction by Republicans.

Confirmation of three US DCA picks to the DC Circuit.

In the long term, the rule change represents a substantial power shift in a chamber that for more than two centuries has prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world. Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction.

Reid said the chamber “must evolve” beyond parliamentary roadblocks. “The American people believe the Senate is broken, and I believe the American people are right,” he said, adding: “It’s time to get the Senate working again.”

Translated: it’s best for my party and my party is in charge therefore that’s what we are going to do.

Republicans said the way Democrats upended the rules will result in fallout for years. “It’s another raw exercise of political power to permit the majority to do anything it wants whenever it wants to do it,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the GOP’s parliamentary expert, told reporters.

Republicans vowed to reciprocate if they reclaim the majority.

Thank you. History, meet schadenfreude. Shake hands and come out fighting.

“Democrats won’t be in power in perpetuity,” said Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), a 27-year member. “This is a mistake — a big one for the long run. Maybe not for the short run. Short-term gains, but I think it changes the Senate tremendously in a bad way.”

Shelby was remarkably prescient.

From November 22nd, 2013.

Can anyone remotely say “goose and gander”? WSJ.com continues:

After the Senate Goes ‘Nuclear’ on Supreme Court Nominees, Will Legislation Be Next?

Republicans are expected Thursday to change the Senate’s rules to make it easier to confirm Supreme Court nominees. The move has aroused concern that legislation may be the next target.

The Senate, its occupants worry, is just one step away from acting a whole lot like the House if the party in the minority is no longer able to block legislation.

Right now, most bills need 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles in the Senate. Most of the time, Democrats and Republicans have to work together unless unless one party controls more than 60 seats in the chamber. Currently Republicans hold 52 seats. Both parties have tried to use the chamber’s procedural tools to their advantage, leading to more frequent standoffs.

Then Breitbart.com writes about the situation now.

Constitutional Option Unstoppable: John McCain and Lisa Murkowski Will Vote Yes

by Ken Klukowski

WASHINGTON,D.C.—Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) announced on the Senate floor Wednesday that they will not allow a filibuster of Neil Gorsuch, and will instead vote for the constitutional option to restore a simple-majority vote to confirm Supreme Court nominations, making that outcome now almost certain.

Really? And how will they manage to halt it?

Earlier during the day Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claimed that he had the 50 votes he needs—plus Vice President Mike Pence as a tie-breaker, if needed—to invoke the constitutional option and confirm President Donald Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee.

With his towering stature in the party, both in seniority and later as the 2008 presidential nominee, McCain was seen by some as the de facto chairman of the Gang of 14 effort in 2005 to save the option of filibustering judicial nominees in the future — but allowing through many of President George W. Bush’s nominees that were then being blocked by a Democratic filibuster. Ironically, that strategy’s architect was none other than Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who implemented it in 2003.

Do you see this? Do you see the wheels within wheels? On the other hand, this is McCain serving McCain and, simultaneously when it pleases him, doing the work of the GOP.

“The unprecedented nature of the Democrats’ filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee has left me in a difficult position,” the Arizona senator lamented on the state of affairs in 2017, and after surveying years of past practice in Senate confirmations.

“I’m left with no choice,” McCain declared. “I will vote to change the rules to allow Judge Gorsuch to be confirmed by a simple majority.”

The Nuclear Option. What is it?

That said, what is cloture?

“What if the Republicans become the majority again?” Inside baseball, but very important. Full circle. Should be no shock to anyone. But, zounds, a major shock to the Demorats who hadn’t fully anticipated that the Republicans — heretofore unpossessed of a spine — actually grew a modicum of one under a president who coiffed an orange dead cat on top of his head.

Again, more on the “nuclear option.”

Trent Lott coined the term. But here is a graphic.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has already approved Judge Neil Gorsuch.

One thing that I simply cannot understand. Please, someone attempt to explain to me, obviously, the advantage acquired by the Demorats in the filibustering of Judge Gorsuch. Because, once changed, the rule will allow the GOP to acquire another potential SCOTUS nominee during this term or another subsequent.

I have information to indicate there may likely be another SCOTUS vacancy extant somewhere in 2017. Then, between 2017 and 2020, my guess is that there will likely be another SCOTUS vacancy. That’s three.

By forcing a filibuster the Demorats will have, potentially, enabled the next three SCOTUS replacements. With luck they won’t be Left-leaning. This could be an unprecedented achievement in all of US history.

All under President Donald Trump.

Three Demorat Senators have had the guts to take a stand.

With 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats in the Senate, the GOP needs eight Democrats to join them to break a filibuster, which takes 60 votes.

So far, however, only three Democrats have come out saying they would support Gorsuch – Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana.

Who and what? Time will tell. These are my thoughts.

BZ

 

 Share

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, “The Aftermath,” Thursday, March 30th, 2017

Posted on by

My thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to broadcast in their studio and over their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show™ each Wednesday evening.

My more pointed thanks to Susan Katz Keating for agreeing to appear in the Saloon and for staying up as late as she did, in consideration of Eastern time after all.

SKK is an investigative journalist and popular blogger specializing in national security. A former Washington Times reporter, she is the author of Prisoners of Hope: Exploiting the POW/MIA Myth in America (Random House), and several books for young readers. A People magazine correspondent, she covers high profile stories, including the Virginia Tech and Ft. Hood shootings, and the SEAL assault on Osama bin Laden. Her work has appeared in Readers Digest, The New York Times, Air&Space, American Legion, VFW, Soldier of Fortune, and other publications. She has been cited in The New Yorker, the Wall Street Journal, Salon, and other publications. She is a founding trustee for the National Museum of Americans in Wartime, and serves on the board of Cooking With the Troops. She briefly was in the U.S. Women’s Army Corps, where she earned her Expert rating on the M-16 rifle. She was editor of the Dixon Tribune newspaper in California. She was a director of the Travis AFB Museum, and served as restoration crew chief on a B-52. She belongs to the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.

She is no stranger to controversy, standing with assurance and courage. SKK is one of a handful of actual journalists left in the nation whose articles I’d take to the bank. Further, she was most certainly a fan/chatroom favorite whom everyone would like to see back at the Saloon as soon as possible.

Thursday night we otherwise discussed:

  • Trump vows to kneecap Republicans over healthcare — is that really a good idea?
  • Happy Stories and Good Times — “is that a pistol in your poop?”
  • BZ vows never to unmask “1 Viewer” as it’s policy in the Saloon;
  • Two Demorats defect over to the “confirm Gorsuch” camp;
  • What is the future for SCOTUS openings and subsequent nominations?
  • Foreign Policy magazine says: Trump’s ISIS plan might be a big winner;
  • Chelsea Clinton vs house plants; she loses;
  • Jury nullification needs to come back to California in re the PP videos;
  • What’s the difference between immigrants and illegal aliens?
  • Washington Post continues to prove it is Fake News;
  • Sean Spicer reveals that President Trump consumes Russian salad dressing;
  • House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes is doing his damned job;
  • I continue to prove that Trey Gowdy rocks;

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, “The Aftermath,” Thursday, March 30th, 2017″ on Spreaker.

Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening via podcast. Thanks also to Mary Brockman’s Biker Mafia in chat. You’ve noticed, Mary, that people mostly don’t sit in your chair any more? They’re learning.

Want to listen to the Berserk Bobcat Saloon podcast archives? Go here.

BZ

 

 Share

Democrats confirm: they will filibuster Judge Gorsuch

Posted on by

From the WashingtonPost.com:

Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch nomination

by Robert Barnes, Ed O’Keefe and Ann E. Marimow

Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch ended Thursday on a confrontational note, with the body’s top Democrat vowing a filibuster that could complicate Gorsuch’s expected confirmation and ultimately upend the traditional approach to approving justices.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he will vote no on President Trump’s nominee and asked other Democrats to join him in blocking an up-or-down vote on Gorsuch.

In terms of the Senate, what does this mean for the nominee?

Under Senate rules, it requires 60 votes to overcome such an obstacle. Republicans eager to confirm Gorsuch before their Easter recess — and before the court concludes hearing the current term of cases next month — have only 52 senators.

As we well know, there are 100 members in the Senate, two from each state. Having 52 Senators is a technical majority and, of course, the vote is splitting entirely by party lines. You’ve of course heard of the term “nuclear option.” Here is its application.

Republicans have vowed Gorsuch will be confirmed even if it means overhauling the way justices have long been approved. Traditionally, senators can force the Senate to muster a supermajority just to bring up the nomination of a Supreme Court justice. If that is reached, the confirmation requires a simple majority.

It’s a strategic question for the Demorats. What tactics to use and, more importantly, when?

There are also competing views among Democrats about whether to filibuster Gorsuch’s nomination — which could provoke the Republican majority to rewrite the rules — or instead avoid confrontation and preserve the filibuster threat for the future. Retaining the filibuster could force Trump to select a relatively moderate nominee if in the coming years he gets a chance to replace a second Supreme Court justice.

Then comes the specious argument from the Washington Post, showing its bias by not telling the full truth.

Among recent Supreme Court nominees the 60-vote threshold has not caused a problem. President Barack Obama’s choices of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan each received more than 60 votes. Samuel A. Alito Jr., chosen by President George W. Bush, was confirmed 58-42 in 2006, but 72 senators voted to defeat a possible filibuster and allow his confirmation vote to go forward. Indeed, only Alito — among the last 16 Supreme Court nominees — was forced to clear the supermajority hurdle to break a filibuster.

Historically, the Republicans have proven they lack the balls, the testosterone, the cajones, to do what needs to be done. But, in truth, what are the overarching objections Demorats have to Judge Neil Gorsuch?

First and foremost, Demorats are butt-hurt that they lacked the power to ram through Obama SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland last year, at the end of Obama’s second term. They wanted lame-duck input into a SCOTUS appointment. Apparently they forgot the Joe Biden Rule:

The downplaying of the significance of the Democratic obstructionism exposes just whose side the media are on. They previously flipped out when Republicans used the Joe Biden Rule to put off the hearing of Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. The Joe Biden Rule states that: If a vacancy opens up on the Supreme Court during a presidential election season, then the incoming President gets to fill the seat.

Then there was this question from the AMM in reference to the above video, at the latter portion of Barack Hussein Obama’s imperial presidency with regard to SCOTUS appointments.

The American Media Maggots would have you believe that a situation such as that of Garland had never occurred before in history. Historical Alzheimers? Purposeful? Intentional? I say yes.

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a president’s final year in office have been rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Then there are the words of Barack Hussein Obama himself.

We now know that the Biden Rule is acceptable for Demorats, unacceptable for Republicans (as utilized by Mitch McConnell).

I repeat: what are the major objections by the Demorats of Neil Gorsuch?

Because the left sees its power ebbing. Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, complained that “Judge Gorsuch’s record reveals [that] he holds radical views far outside the mainstream of American legal thought.” And ABC News reported that Obama’s former secretary of Labor, Tony Perez, said, “[s]imply put, a Justice Gorsuch on the Supreme Court is intolerable and it’s up to Democrats to block his nomination.”

Good to know. ABC = signing off on whatever Pelosi says. But again, specifically, what are the so-called “radical” views?

They state the obvious:

Trump’s nominee, despite a Columbia, Harvard Law and Oxford pedigree, is committed to deferring to the wisdom of our Constitution. That 1787 document clearly spells out a short list of what government may do, and concludes with a broad list of what government may not do. The original U.S. Constitution chains down and forbids governmental action not included in its list of 17 enumerated powers. If an action is not authorized by the original meaning of the Constitution’s text, then the government may not do it. Period. Such a view reflects deference to the accumulated wisdom of the founders of our republic.

Sounds bad to you? Sounds good to me. Like a feature, not a bug.

Judge Gorsuch’s view is that judges should only interpret law, not make it. Making law is reserved for elected officials, who can be held accountable. If politicians make a mistake, they can correct it by a later vote. Judicial self-restraint also vindicates the principle of prudence. A judge going rogue, ecstatically inventing a new “positive right,” causes societal upheaval. Conservatives view innovation with great skepticism.

Even worse, from the leftist view, Judge Gorsuch implicitly recognizes the natural law. The natural law says that some things are not up for deciding. Euthanasia, for example, is evil because of the intrinsic worth of each person. A positive law inventing a new right to euthanasia may not be made. This is a recognition that an objective right and wrong exists, and has existed, across all times and cultures. It was the basis for convicting Nazis after World War II, as their state-approved acts were inherently evil.

Judge Gorsuch’s views that judges should only judge, and Congress should legislate, is entirely mainstream despite what Demorats and Leftists say. Judicial restraint was followed in England and the United States for 700 years. The alternative view that whatever a judge thinks is best is no standard at all. It is the very definition of tyranny.

A far-sighted anti-federalist judge, writing under the pen name “Brutus,” noted: “there is no power above them that can control their decisions, or correct their errors.” Let that sink for a moment and rattle around your wheelhouse.

He correctly predicted in 1788 that we would gradually lose our liberties due to Supreme Court justices’ temptation to extend government power.

There are positive vs negative rights with regard to the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. Please click on the link.

Our current Constitution frames government in terms of what it cannot do.

– The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures;
– The government cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment

And therefore, the individual has a right to NOT be subject to various circumstances applied by the government.

Our current Constitution does not “guarantee” so-called “rights” to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs — rights that place onus upon the federal government to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

Let me make this abundantly clear: “RIGHTS THAT PLACE ONUS UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM.”

Not by concession or acquiescence but by force.

Too many judges, federal and otherwise, believe it’s not about what the Constitution or various laws actually mean, it’s about what they mean.

The most recent egregious example is that of Hawaii’s Judge Watson who predicated his ruling on the Trump refugee stay not via the documents submitted and appearing before him, but instead upon words said outside the court by means of hearsay and of no pertinence at all to the very specific issue at hand before his court.

The documents. The words. The law.

Federal judges take and wield power not meant for them in order to impose their personal political views of how we all should conduct our lives. States cannot be independent or tailor their own changes. Oh no; one size must fit all and in all circumstances.

This is the bottom line:

Make no mitsake; the Demorats’ decision to filibuster is nothing more than political payback or revenge for McConnell daring to have an actual memory. Further, Schumer — the new Harry Reid for the Demorats — has to put on his Game Face in every national event now whether he believes in it or not because failure to do so will result in his immediate excommunication and loss of power. The DC Triumvirate:

  • Power
  • Control
  • Money

Filibuster? Nuclear option?

BZ

 

 Share

Comey, Trump, Russia, Gorsuch, hearings, leaks leaks leaks

Posted on by

FBI Director James Comey spoke publicly in DC on Monday in front of the House Intelligence Committee, stating there were in fact investigations occurring with regard to Russia’s meddling in the presidential election and also between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

It was clear to me, from the outset, that it was politics, politics, politics. Something of which Director Comey has become quite adroit in at least the past year.

The line was drawn in this fashion: Demorats wanted President Trump’s wiretap allegation smashed and derided, whilst Republicans were primarily concerned with the leaking of classified information.

Trey Gowdy begins the interaction with Director Comey and sets the foundation for his line of questioning involving FISA and safeguards.

Please note that Congressman Gowdy specifically utilizes the term “wiretap” to describe the acquisition of communications belonging to an “unnamed US citizen.” Again, Comey outs the Trump investigation but refuses to discuss anything to do with the leaks at all. Do you see my point and my resulting frustration?

I highlight this portion because of its incredible importance. Do you see?

GOWDY: Admiral Rogers said there are 20 people within the NSA that are part of the unmasking process. How many people within the FBI are part of the unmasking process?

COMEY: I don’t know for sure. As I sit here, surely more, given the nature the FBI’s work. We come into contact with U.S. persons a whole lot more than the NSA does because we may be conducting — we only conduct our operations in the United States to collect electronic surveillance — to conduct electronic surveillance, so I don’t — I can find out the exact number, I don’t know it as I sit here.

GOWDY: Well, I think, Director Comey, given the fact that you and I agree this is critical, vital, indispensable, a similar program is coming up for reauthorization this fall with a pretty strong head wind right now. It would be nice to know the universe of people who have the power to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name. Because that might provide something of a roadmap to investigate who might’ve actually disseminated a masked U.S. citizen’s name.

COMEY: Sure. The number is relevant but what I hope the U.S. — the American people realize is the number’s important, but the culture behind it is in fact even more important. The training, the rigor, the discipline. We are obsessive about FISA in the FBI for reasons I hope make sense to this committee but we are — everything that’s FISA has to be labeled in such a way to warn people this is FISA, we treat this in a special way.

So we can get you the number, but I want to assure you the culture of the FBI and the NSA around how we treat U.S. person information is obsessive and I mean that in a good way.

GOWDY: Director Comey, I am not arguing with you and I do agree that culture is important, but if there are 100 people who have the ability to unmask and the knowledge of a previously masked name, then that’s 100 different potential sources of investigation and the smaller the number is, the easier your investigation is.

So the number is relevant. I can see the culture is relevant. NSA, FBI, what other U.S. government agencies have the authority to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: I think all agencies that collect information pursuant to FISA have what are called standard minimization procedures, which are approved by the FISA court that govern how they will treat U.S. person information. So I know the NSA does, I know the CIA does, obviously the FBI does. I don’t know for sure beyond that.

GOWDY: How about the department of — how about Main Justice?

COMEY: Main Justice, I think does have standard minimization procedures.

GOWDY: All right, so that’s four. The NSA, FBI, CIA, Main Justice. Does the White House have the authority to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: I think other elements of the government that are consumers of our products can ask the collectors to unmask. The unmasking resides with those who collected the information.

And so if Mike Rogers’s folks collected something and they sent it to me in a report and it says U.S. person number one and it’s important for the FBI to know who that is, our request will go back to them. The White House can make similar requests of the FBI or of NSA but they can’t on their — they don’t own their own collect and so they can’t on their own unmask. I got that about right?

ROGERS: No, that’s correct.

COMEY: Yeah.

GOWDY: I guess what I’m getting at, Director Comey, is you say it’s vital, you say it’s critical, you say it’s indispensable. We both know it’s a threat to the reauthorization of 702 later on this fall. And by the way, it’s also a felony punishable by up to 10 years.

So how would you begin your investigation, assuming for the sake of argument that a U.S. citizen’s name appeared in the Washington Post and the New York Times unlawfully. Where would you begin that investigation?

COMEY: Well, I’m not gonna talk about any particular investigation…

GOWDY: That’s why I said in theory.

COMEY: You would start by figuring out, so who are the suspects? Who touched the information that you’ve concluded ended up unlawfully in the newspaper and start with that universe and then use investigative tools and techniques to see if you can eliminate people, or include people as more serious suspects.

GOWDY: Do you know whether Director Clapper knew the name of the U.S. citizen that appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post?

COMEY: I can’t say in this forum because again, I don’t wanna confirm that there was classified information in the newspaper.

GOWDY: Would he have access to an unmasked name?

COMEY: In — in some circumstances, sure, he was the director of national intelligence. But I’m not talking about the particular.

GOWDY: Would Director Brennan have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: In some circumstances, yes.

GOWDY: Would National Security Adviser Susan Rice have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: I think any — yes, in general, and any other national security adviser would, I think, as a matter of their ordinary course of their business.

GOWDY: Would former White House Advisor Ben Rhodes have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: I don’t know the answer to that.

GOWDY: Would former Attorney General Loretta Lynch have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name? COMEY: In general, yes, as would any attorney general.

GOWDY: So that would also include Acting AG Sally Yates?

COMEY: Same answer.

GOWDY: Did you brief President Obama on — well, I’ll just ask you. Did you brief President Obama on any calls involving Michael Flynn?

COMEY: I’m not gonna get into either that particular case that matter, or any conversations I had with the president. So I can’t answer that.

But wait. I have what I consider to be an obvious question but one I’ve not yet heard people ask. Director Comey stated the investigation has been ongoing since July of 2016. If so, wouldn’t an integral part of such an investigation be surveillance of the Trump campaign and others aligned or linked therein?

Yet Mr Comey says there was no surveillance going on. How can that be? Was the FBI conducting half an investigation? A fraction of an investigation? How otherwise can one explain the information collected regarding General Michael Flynn? How was it gathered? How was it distributed? How did it get leaked and by whom? How does one acquire telephone conversation content — on Michael Flynn or Trump’s conversations with Australia’s PM Turnbull or Mexican President Nieto for example — absent wiretapping or surveillance in the first place?

In the process of conducting said highly important investigations wouldn’t you want to use all the tools at your disposal and, furthermore, collect as much pertinent evidence as possible? Of course you would. The statement makes no sense.

Where was James Comey with regard to Obama’s aides improperly accessing the names of Americans swept up in foreign surveillance or whether they leaked classified documents to the US press? Director Comey could confirm that, well, yes, we’re closely examining President Trump’s Russian “collusion” but otherwise could not confirm there was any sort of investigation on the matters of felonious leaking by government officials (Who else could have done so?) and would not talk about it. Why not? What’s the difference?

Another very important question. By the FBI’s own account and everyone else’s, including the Russians, it was believed with certainty that Hillary Clinton was a shoe-in for the presidency. Why, then, did the Russians magically decide to assist Donald Trump — as James Comey alleges — when people were convinced Trump would lose in a spectacular manner?

It doesn’t make sense. Neither the investigation nor the assumption about the Russians.

Perhaps the biggest question is this: will the leakers be identified and, if so, will they be arrested? Or is it in the best interest of the deep state to obfuscate the matter to the point that the leakers are never found?

Because, trust me, if the leakers are prosecuted and there is federal penitentiary time attached, you’ll hear sphincters slamming shut all around DC and the warm breezes will turn cold. That’s called a chilling effect.

Also quite disturbing is this, from McClatchyDC.com:

FBI’s Russian-influence probe includes a look at far-right news sites

by Peter Stone & Greg Gordon

WASHINGTON – Federal investigators are examining whether far-right news sites played any role last year in a Russian cyber operation that dramatically widened the reach of news stories — some fictional — that favored Donald Trump’s presidential bid, two people familiar with the inquiry say.

Operatives for Russia appear to have strategically timed the computer commands, known as “bots,” to blitz social media with links to the pro-Trump stories at times when the billionaire businessman was on the defensive in his race against Democrat Hillary Clinton, these sources said.

In other words, the FBI under Comey is investigating “fake news.” What is fake news?

The bots’ end products were largely millions of Twitter and Facebook posts carrying links to stories on conservative internet sites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars, as well as on the Kremlin-backed RT News and Sputnik News, the sources said. Some of the stories were false or mixed fact and fiction, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the bot attacks are part of an FBI-led investigation into a multifaceted Russian operation to influence last year’s elections.

For every individual arguing that InfoWars or Breitbart is fake news, I can provide a great deal of documentation indicating, over numerous years, that what people term the mainstream media such as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and many others are equally or more fake than those two named above, and have been specifically colluding with the Democrats and Leftist-themed ideologues for a lengthy period of time.

The FBI investigating “fake news” is indeed disturbing. It is no less true now than any time prior that one must be an enlightened consumer of news and, as an adult, know enough about your country, your surroundings and your world in order to make the best informed decision regarding the portrayal of information to you by various news organizations. In other words, it blows to be stupid and there are penalties for being so, though we know that a “sucker is born every minute.”

Perhaps we should ask what there was to learn from the hearing today with FBI Director James Comey. I conclude below with the real lesson to be intuited from the hearing, but in terms of hard facts we discovered there are, well, no real hard facts. There is still no evidence that Russia hacked the election or somehow influenced the presidential election despite what the American Media Maggots emphatically say. There is still no evidence that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign or his staffers. We learned that James Comey is rather selective in terms of the political topics he’s willing to address.

We learned that no evidence was provided that indicated Obama wiretapped Trump. But if that were true, then why has Fox News summarily fired Judge Napolitano for saying this?

Why indeed.

House Intel Chair Devin Nunes weighed in, and he wasn’t terribly happy.

Then there was this little-publicized questioning of Director Comey by NY newbie freshman Rep. Elise Stefanik, who zeroes in on Comey immediately.

Did you notice Director Comey was a bit nonplussed at her direct first question? I did. She has taken Comey aback. He did not anticipate such pointed and informed questions from a neophyte. When Comey said he didn’t have a DNI, that was bullshit. He did. It was James Clapper. The lying James Clapper. The lying under oath James Clapper. You know. That guy.

Did you also hear James Comey admit to Rep. Stefanik that, along with the Demorats and DNC, the Republicans were tapped as well? He stated so. But what was the difference between the GOP being tapped and the DNC being tapped? That’s right. The lack of corruption in the content of the emails and information.

But let me say this. Elise Stefanik has a great career ahead of her because she appears fearless, resolute, and unimpressed by dark, carved wood. You get my drift. “When did you notify the White House?” Boom. Done. Owned.

Let us transition.

“I am a faithful servant to the Constitution.” So said Judge Neal Gorsuch in his opening statement with regard to his SCOTUS nomination, on Monday. The actual flames and grilling begin Tuesday morning at 9:30. First, here’s the Demorat take on Gorsuch, from CBS.

Then there are the actual words of Judge Gorsuch himself as he makes his opening statement.

Bottom line regarding Neil Gorsuch? He will be confirmed. I also predict the Demorats will not choose to use their filibuster against him. You’re dealing with an individual who

  • Presided over 2,750 case on the 10th Circuit;
  • Wrote 175 majority opinions;
  • Wrote 65 concurrences or dissents;
  • Had 72 in-person meetings with US Senators

Charles Krauthammer may have jinxed things when, on Monday, he said: “Too stupid. Even the Democrats won’t do it.”

But never minimize the ability of Demorats and Leftists to see racists and sexists everywhere. Joe Dinkin, National Communications Director for the Working Families Party (yes, that is a party) states that Neil Gorsuch is a white supremacist and nationalist because Gorsuch hasn’t overtly and publicly disavowed President Trump’s travel ban. It’s a Muslim ban, you see. So Gorsuch wears a white robe and a pointy hat. Insanity.

In conclusion, do not doubt that there is a message to be acquired from Comey’s hearing today, and the message to President Trump as well as his advisors, staff and assistants comes from not just Director James Comey, the Demorats and a portion of the GOP, but much of the embedded deep state as well.

The message is: back off. Leave the DC swamp as it is. Undrained. The creatures prefer it unmolested. If you fail to heed our warning, we’ll destroy you at all costs and by any means necessary.

If you were President Trump you’d have to be asking yourself: whom can you trust?

That potential pool is dwindling by the day.

BZ

P.S.

You should now be asking yourself: is FBI Director James Comey the source of the leaks?

 

 Share