Nov. 5, 2019
Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.
Quid pro quo becomes quid pro no in Democrats’ crumbling impeachment farce
Democrats and some Republicans in Washington, D.C.
and the media throw around the term quid pro quo quite a bit these days with
the intonation that it describes the ultimate evil, convincing me that they don’t
really know what it means. What Adam
Schiff and his impeachment mob would have us believe is that Donald Trump, the
man who wrote “Art of the Deal” forgot the most basic part of any negotiation —
leveraging something those you are negotiating with by threatening something
they desperately want or need. The
simple choice for the public is that you can believe that President Donald Trump
forgot to bring the hammer down on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a
phone call that he had every reason to believe would remain classified, or that
the so-called quid pro quo is a figment of the imagination of the impeachment
desperate far left House Democrats.
Cartoon: It's In The Bag
Quid pro no.
Video: Ukrainian involvement in 2016 Russiagate hoax and corruption are U.S. national security concerns
In the final
analysis, an investigation into Burisma Holdings is not the same thing as an
investigation into the Bidens, and in any event, President Donald Trump has a
constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws and to investigate
the origins of the Russia collusion hoax, whether it is in Ukraine or the Obama
administration or intelligence agencies.
Rick Manning on with Lars Larson talking President Trump’s connection to average Americans
President Donald Trump connects with average
Americans in a way no one ever as.
Margot Cleveland: CIA, FBI informant was Washington Post source for Russiagate smears
“The Federalist
has learned that the now-outed CIA and FBI informant Stefan Halper served as a
source for Washington Post reporter David Ignatius, providing more evidence
that the intelligence community has co-opted the press to push anti-Trump
conspiracy theories. In addition, an email recently obtained by The Federalist
from the MI5-connected Christopher Andrew bragging that his long-time friend
Ignatius has the “‘inside track’ on Flynn” adds further confirmation of this
conclusion. Svetlana Lokhova, the Russian-born English citizen and Soviet-era
scholar, told The Federalist that she only realized the significance of her
communications with and about Ignatius following the filing of attorney Sidney
Powell’s reply brief in the Michael Flynn case. In last week’s court filing,
Powell highlighted how the CIA, FBI, Halper, and possibly James Baker used the
unnamed and unaware Lokhova and the complicit Ignatius to destroy Flynn. This
James Baker is not the one who worked under James Comey at the FBI, but a James
Baker in the Department of Defense Office of National Assessment.”
Quid pro quo becomes quid pro no in Democrats’ crumbling impeachment farce
By Rick Manning
Democrats and some Republicans in Washington, D.C. and the media throw around the term quid pro quo quite a bit these days with the intonation that it describes the ultimate evil, convincing me that they don’t really know what it means.
So I consulted the Merriam-Webster dictionary which defines it this way, “From a legal perspective, quid pro quo indicates that a good or service has been traded for something of equal value. In particular, quid pro quo is used explicitly to indicate that there has been ‘consideration’ in a contract, meaning that there are goods or services being delivered and that acceptable payment is made for these goods or services.”
To quote Rush Limbaugh, “for those in Rio Linda, California” this means that there has to be a trade with one thing offered and accepted in exchange for another.
The transcript for the July 25 call between President Donald Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky never mentioned that military aid for Ukraine had been put under review the prior week, even as Trump asks the Ukrainian to do him a favor and help get to the bottom of the origins of the Russia-gate scandal.
In fact, according to an August 28, 2019 story in the left-wing D.C. web publication Politico, “Now, that funding is being called into question. The senior administration official, who asked to remain anonymous in order to discuss internal matters, said the president wants to ensure U.S. interests are being prioritized when it comes to foreign assistance, and is seeking assurances that other countries are ‘paying their fair share.’”
And it was this story which two of the Democrats’ key witnesses, Tim Morrison and former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor testified alerted Ukrainian officials that the security assistance was being withheld.
Math majors will note that it took six weeks for the Ukrainian government to find out that U.S. security assistance was being evaluated by the Trump administration, a full five weeks after President Trump himself spoke with Zelensky. Not surprisingly, Zelensky has stated publicly that he did not feel pressured by the President to take any actions, largely because he was unaware that the U.S. was exerting any leverage on him to do anything.
Remember, a quid pro quo requires delivering goods in exchange for an acceptable payment.
After the oligarch who owns Burisma had his home raided by Ukrainian authorities in 2016, the company contacted the State Department asking why Washington, D.C. had made a determination that the company was corrupt, citing the fact that Hunter Biden served on the board, according to a response to a Freedom of Information Act request made by John Solomon.
An example of a quid pro quo in foreign policy would be former Vice President Joe Biden’s claim that he directly threatened to withhold $1.2 billion of U.S. loan guarantees to the Ukraine if their government did not fire their prosecutor who says he was investigating the natural gas firm Burisma. The very same company had recently added the Vice President’s son, Hunter Biden, onto its Board of Directors in a heavily compensated position.
That would be a quid pro quo.
But what Adam Schiff and his impeachment mob would have us believe is that Donald Trump, the man who wrote “Art of the Deal” forgot the most basic part of any negotiation — leveraging something those you are negotiating with by threatening something they desperately want or need.
The simple choice for the public is that you can believe that President Trump forgot to bring the hammer down on Zelensky in a phone call that he had every reason to believe would remain classified, or that the so-called quid pro quo is a figment of the imagination of the impeachment desperate far left House Democrats.
Occam’s Razor simply states, “The simplest solution is often the likely one.” In the weird case being manufactured by House Intelligence Committee to impeach Donald Trump, the American public is being asked ignore the simple explanation that the Ukrainian aid was withheld because the president wanted to ensure U.S. interests are being prioritized when it comes to foreign assistance, and is seeking assurances that other countries are “paying their fair share.”
The very complaint that the President voiced to Zelensky in the transcript of the July 25 phone call between the two men. Trump said, “I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you… A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it’s something you want to look at…”
To which Zelensky replied, “Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100 percent, but actually 1000 percent and I can tell you the following: I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her. I alsmo met and talked with Macron and I told them they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner…”
One thing, if nothing else, is very clear, House Democrats demonstrate that foreign policy quid pro quos are acceptable as normal behavior to them due to their lack of outrage over the Biden brag which resulted in a giant yawn.
If there was an honest bone in the crumbling corpse of the House Democratic leadership, they would drop this increasingly bitter and divisive attempt to throw out President Trump. Sadly, it appears that House Democrats are bitterly clinging to the raw emotion of today.
Rick Manning is the President of Americans for Limited Government.
Cartoon: It's In The Bag
By A.F. Branco
Click here for a higher level resolution version.
Video: Ukrainian involvement in 2016 Russiagate hoax and corruption are U.S. national security concerns
To view online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctUwLMuNXgA
Rick Manning on with Lars Larson talking President Trump’s connection to average Americans
ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured column from The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland, CIA and FBI informant Stefan Halper has been named as a source for Washington Post reporter David Ignatius’ reporting on former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn including his
CIA, FBI informant was Washington Post source for Russiagate smears
By Margot Cleveland
November 4, 2019
The Federalist has learned that the now-outed CIA and FBI informant Stefan Halper served as a source for Washington Post reporter David Ignatius, providing more evidence that the intelligence community has co-opted the press to push anti-Trump conspiracy theories. In addition, an email recently obtained by The Federalist from the MI5-connected Christopher Andrew bragging that his long-time friend Ignatius has the “‘inside track’ on Flynn” adds further confirmation of this conclusion.
Svetlana Lokhova, the Russian-born English citizen and Soviet-era scholar, told The Federalist that she only realized the significance of her communications with and about Ignatius following the filing of attorney Sidney Powell’s reply brief in the Michael Flynn case.
In last week’s court filing, Powell highlighted how the CIA, FBI, Halper, and possibly James Baker used the unnamed and unaware Lokhova and the complicit Ignatius to destroy Flynn. This James Baker is not the one who worked under James Comey at the FBI, but a James Baker in the Department of Defense Office of National Assessment.
Powell wrote:
“Stefan Halper is a known long-time operative for the CIA/FBI. He was paid exorbitant sums by the FBI/CIA/DOD through the Department of Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment in 2016. His tasks seem to have included slandering Mr. Flynn with accusations of having an affair with a young professor (a British national of Russian descent) Flynn met at an official dinner at Cambridge University when he was head of DIA in 2014. Flynn has requested the records of Col. James Baker because he was Halper’s ‘handler’ in the Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon, and ONA Director Baker regularly lunched with Washington Post Reporter David Ignatius. Baker is believed to be the person who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn’s calls to Ignatius. The defense has requested the phone records of James Clapper to confirm his contacts with Washington Post reporter Ignatius—especially on January 10, 2017, when Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of ‘take the kill shot on Flynn.’ It cannot escape mention that the press has long had transcripts of the Kislyak calls that the government has denied to the defense.”
Lokhova has known of Halper’s role in targeting Flynn since Halper was outed as a CIA and FBI informant in May 2018. She then sued Halper and several media outlets for defamation after they falsely repeated Halper’s lies that she was a Russian spy engaged in an intrigue with Flynn.
This honey pot storyline originated with Lokhova’s mentor at Cambridge, the official MI5 historian, Professor Christopher Andrew, when on February 19, 2017, Andrew penned an article for the London Sunday Times, “Impulsive General Misha Shoots Himself in the Foot.” That article portrayed the unnamed Lokhova’s brief meeting with Flynn during a dinner event two years prior at Cambridge as the beginning of a compromising relationship between Flynn and a Russian spy.
Andrew’s article later served as the second confirmation needed for outlets like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post to run stories about Flynn and a supposed Russian spy. But before those pieces hit the press, Lokhova remained in the dark about the media’s interest in her.
“Halper had been pushing the story that I was a Russian spy and Flynn’s mistress since December of 2016,” Lokhova told me. “The New York Times’ Mathew Rosenberg told me a source had been circulating these stories since December 2016,” Lokhova said, “but they held the story until they could find a second source and someone at the Cambridge dinner.”
In his book “The Plot Against the President,” Lee Smith confirms that the story about a Flynn-Lokhova intrigue was circulated to the press starting in December 2016.
But it wasn’t until the Wall Street Journal published its March 17, 2017, article suggesting she had inappropriate contacts with Flynn that Lokhova discovered the earlier article Andrew had written about her for the Sunday Times, Lokhova said. Before then, within days of February 28, 2017, several journalists reached out to her for comment, including two working for the Wall Street Journal, but Lokhova didn’t know why.
She also didn’t comprehend who the inquiring journalists were at the time. That remained true even after her mentor and unknown betrayer, Andrew, wrote Lokhova telling her that “David Ignatius of Washington Post is in UK at moment. I’ve known him for years and trust him. I’ve given him your email and he accepts that if you don’t wish to respond, that an end to it.”
Then, significantly, Andrew noted that “Flynn’;s [sic] career for years past is obviously going to continue to be investigated. David has an inside track on that which I think he’d share with you if you’re interested.”
What “inside track” Andrew meant is unknown—and when asked what his “inside track” on Flynn was, Ignatius did not respond—but his note came a mere month after Ignatius reported the illegally leaked details of Flynn’s conversation with the Russian ambassador, which eventually led to Flynn’s firing.
Ignatius’ introductory email to Lokhova also proves informative, with the long-time Washington Post journalist branding the MI5-connected Andrew “my friend,” and stressing that Andrew invited him “to speak to his seminar a dozen years ago.”
Lokhova did not talk to Ignatius at the time, but her partner, David North, later forwarded Ignatius an email he had sent to the Wall Street Journal on March 1 2017, making clear that Lokhova had no relationship with Flynn, having “met General Flynn on only one occasion at a dinner in Cambridge in February 2014. The dinner was attended by upwards of a dozen people, and she had a twenty-minute public conversation with General Flynn and others. They have not met or spoke since then.”
Nonetheless, the Wall Street Journal ran a story about Flynn meeting Lokhova at Cambridge, and for that she is now suing the media mogul for defamation.
When the Wall Street Journal and other media outlets picked up on the story, Lokhova also did not know Halper’s role in the rumor-mongering. “I had known Halper at Cambridge,” Lokhova told me for a previous story, “but he was just a boring old academic. I couldn’t see why he was painting me as a Russian spy until Halper was exposed as an informant. Then the pieces all fit together.”
After Halper was outed as a CIA and FBI informant in May 2018, Lokhova contacted Ignatius. In an email recently obtained by The Federalist, Ignatius replied to Lokhova that he’d “like very much to ask you about Stefan Halper.” When they spoke, Lokhova registered surprise about Halper’s role. That prompted Ignatius to say “he always found Halper reliable as a source,” Lokhova told me. “When I said ‘Wow, he was your source,’ Ignatius hung up. We never spoke again.” Ignatius also did not respond to questions about his use of Halper as a source.
These close connections between the Washington Post’s Ignatius and individuals connected to the American and British intelligence communities, and the false reporting that has taken place over the last three-plus years, raise grave concerns that the warfare of the soft coup aimed at President Trump includes using the media to push propaganda.