Judicial Watch: Justice Department Discloses No FISA Court Hearings Held on Carter Page Warrants

More evidence of the fruit of the poisoned tree.  This newest revelation is overwhelming evidence that proves that this warrant was a fraud.  Either the FISA court is hiding complicity in the fraud, or there really wasn't a hearing.  Either way, it would be a fraud...

Mueller should be sent packing.  This is a political show trial, which is designed to get voters to believe that the Russians stole the 2016 election.

To believe this charade that they are running, you have to be almost willfully blind.

Judicial Watch: Justice Department Discloses No FISA Court Hearings Held on Carter Page Warrants https://t.co/MPIAUyOIRy via @JudicialWatch

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) September 1, 2018

Some folks just won't give it up

Updated,

8.31.18:

The reason I am updating this post is because people ( like Chuck Todd ) want to believe that there is some super secret evidence that the Russian collusion exists, and that Mueller has it.  However, I do not believe this, and that is why I have discounted this made up story from the very beginning.  It is political.  Law gets political and journalism is political, too. 

My reasons for not believing it is because of leaks.  If any such evidence existed, you would have heard about this long ago.  Maybe even during the campaign in 2016.  This is now two years of this belief in the tooth fairy.  These people may go to their graves believing that the Russians put Trump in the White House.

God help us.


Originally posted on 8.13.18 @ 3 pm:

Tried locating an editorial I read on USA Today, or I think it was them.  But it wasn't easy enough to find.   It was about how Trump was a Russian agent after all.  I was wondering how anybody could believe such a thing now, after everything that has come out.

So, I went cruising around the web to look for old sites that I used to visit.  I stopped visiting Patterico when it became obvious that his was a never Trump site.  It has been awhile since my last visit, but the site hasn't changed any.

The current deal is over the Omarosa firing.   The claim is now that it shows Trump to be unfit.  Well, whatever.  You know that every organization has a bad hire from time to time.  Maybe a lot of bad hires.

It isn't a material thing, though.  She was really in a minor position.  If Omarosa is that ungrateful, you don't blame the guy who gave her a chance.  Or do you?  Some people do, evidently.

The same POTUS won't fire Mueller, even though he has abundant cause.  But there are people who still believe that fairy tale.

Trump seems to be a generous enough guy.  This doesn't make him unfit.  If he was that unfit, they wouldn't need the Mueller probe to get rid of him.  This is small stuff.  In fact, it is just downright petty.

Who is Andrew Weissman?

In the previous post, Bruce Ohr is said to have worked with Weissman.  I got a bit of info on this guy, but it is still sketchy to me.

He was the leader of the Enron Task Force that convicted Kenneth Lay and Jeff Skilling.

Now the thing here is that I completely ignored that story back when it was hot.  This explains my ignorance of Weissman.

Stuff like this is likely to be ignored by yours truly.  Not that I am getting blind sided.  I just don't believe these guys.

The case was reviewed by the Supreme Court, partially overturned, and Skilling was re-sentenced.

But the prosecution was upheld.  Nevertheless, there was prosecutorial misconduct.

Kenneth Lay died before sentencing.  So, there's nothing on him.

After reading Sidney Powell's article on Newsmax, the tactics used on Arthur Anderson accounting firm appear once again in the Trump probe.  One example of the tactics employed is forced confessions.  This is happening in America?  Sadly, yes.

Sidney Powell comments upon the Trump/Russia probe in the blog Last Refuge.  This is where I first encountered her name.

Now I am a bit more up to speed on this guy.  I heard that Mueller had gotten some high profile people, but I didn't look any further.  It was me repeating the same pattern of behavior as in the Enron case.  I can't take these people seriously, yet other people do.  How this guy is allowed to continue in the Trump / Russia probe is a scandal in itself.

It may also be the reason the left is salivating over the prospects of this guy bagging the POTUS.

Last Refuge: "Bruce Ohr Worked With Andrew Weissmann"

"Fruit of the poisoned tree."

As I have been saying, the point here is not to have these convictions hold up, but in order to get Trump removed from office.

Same pattern as for Tom DeLay, et. al.

Who is Weissmann?  From the comments section, he is said to be a dirty one.  From Wikipedia ( ahem )?  Not a whole lot there at Wiki, but there was something about him working for Mueller before.  Did anybody ever notice that these guys all seem to know each other???

Dots Connecting Quickly: Bruce Ohr Worked With Andrew Weissmann, While Nellie Ohr Worked For Fusion GPS in 2015... https://t.co/ANlFCeqqgQ via @thelastrefuge2

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 31, 2018

Rasmussen Presidential Approval Poll History

This is not the daily one, but the one that is historical.  It compiles the daily polls into a history of daily polls.

A quick scan shows dramatic improvement over time.

If this continues, it will be hard to see how the Democrats can reverse the trend.  ( But they will try. )

Limbaugh: "What We’ve Learned from Bruce Ohr’s Testimony"

Let's see.  We have Mr. Integrity, who signed off on the FISA warrant app, and Bruce Ohr ( number four man at DOJ ), who has corroborated Mr. Integrity's testimony that the Steele Dossier was not verified.

It is supposed to be verified.  That makes the FISA warrant against Page highly questionable.  Indeed, this is putting it lightly.  It could be claimed to be a FRAUD.

But that should not be anything new by now.  What is new is that Ohr seems to have corroborated this point of fact.

Fruit of the poisonous tree.  Mueller has no reason to be employed. 

What We’ve Learned from Bruce Ohr’s Testimony https://t.co/MGFSOKovWf via @rushlimbaugh

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 30, 2018

More on Ohr here...

The Federalist: "Framing Ted Stevens Was The Deep State’s Trial Run For Framing Trump"

It is but one example.  Scooter Libbey was another.  The Bundy's are yet another high profile example.  Here's another:  Tom DeLay.

This thing needs to be called out and fought while there is still time.

Framing Ted Stevens Was The Deep State’s Trial Run For Framing Trump https://t.co/dNzosmcjQf

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 30, 2018

Althouse: "WaPo is so full of ....

Fill in the blank!

Do you realize that WaPo has gone over the ledge?!  This was a Clinton era case that is finally being enforced.  They are making a racial issue out of it.  It is the law.  Not that the GOP is actually going to support Trump in this.

More liberal supremacy.

Althouse: "WaPo is so full of anti-Trump headlines that I sh... https://t.co/LeQoMzPIGr

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 30, 2018

Off grid post 8.30.18

The project trudges forward, ever so slowly.

I got my squeeze ball thingie.  Actually, it is two of them.  I'm skimming off the water that I use to wash my hands.  The Ivory soap seems to separate out after sitting awhile.  I am also thinking of using the spinner, from the wash machine, as a centrifuge.

What about other water?  Dishwater from the kitchen does not use this soap.  Water does not separate out.

Haven't been using the pots and pans lately.  No dish washing.  It is all sandwiches and such things as that.  No cooking.  If I cook, then I need to have a way to recapture that water.  But I haven't been recapturing that water.  That is another project.

Besides filtering, I have been practicing extreme conservation.  In four days, I have used an average of less than 2 gals a day.  This may gross out you people.  How do I do that?  Very, very carefully.

I am actually going to try to get some of that water back.  But a lot of it is going to have to go in flushing the toilet.  The water isn't worth cleaning up if it is too dirty.

FIB: "No evidence proving Clinton's email servers compromised."

Yeah, the same guys who accepted hearsay as evidence are at it again.

One of the Freepers put it into perspective.  There's no evidence that the FIB ever investigated the claim.

Bingo.

Never saw Hillary's servers.  She denied them access.

Failed polygraph

"Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"

White supremacists v. Liberal supremacists

Updated,

8.30.18:

The name-calling has begun.  Fla. Gubernatorial candidate accused of racism based upon "monkey" remarks.  Some are calling it a "dog whistle".  Now, whether it is or isn't, there is no doubt that liberal supremacy is at work here.

The Democrat nominee is black.  Will it be any surprise then, that he will get black votes just for being black?  The "first black governor" sounds a lot like the "first black president".  Aren't the Democrats riding race as an issue, yet accusing their opponents of using race as an issue?

The pot calling the kettle black.  Ooops!  Can't say that anymore.  It is officially "racist" to talk like that.


Originally posted 8.29.18 @ 6:28 pm:

This is an idea for a post that I had today.  Perhaps you remember a guy named Julian Bond.  He was chairman of the NAACP for a time.  Yes, that guy.  I remember a show that he did for PBS some years ago, in which he compared the word "nigger" with "racist".  He said to call people that name did the same to them that calling a black person a "nigger" did.  That is to ostracize, dehumanize, and to marginalize.

Well, it is no longer socially acceptable to call a person a "nigger" anymore.  It will get you into hot water  People who do this are called "racist".  They are punished.

While calling people who use this word as "racist" may be justified, it does appear that there is no restraint upon calling people racist.  But if there is some restraint on the use of that word, which according to Bond, does the same as calling someone a "nigger", there is certainly no restraint on using the phrase "white supremacist".

What are people who use this phrase doing with that phrase?  Are they not doing the same as calling someone a racist?  It would probably not be denied, although the phrase is a bit more sophisticated way of calling someone that.

I would like to expand upon that thought a bit.  But to do so, I need to make a little light go off in somebody's head.  How to do that?  By getting them to agree with your premises.  Or making it hard to disagree with them.  A liberal is never going to admit being racist, even if he/she is.  But they will agree that they are liberal.  They aren't ashamed of that word, but that label is not highly regarded in all circles.  If you call a liberal a liberal, they may respond "so what"?

If somebody called you white, and if you are a white person, then you might respond to that the same way--- so what?  But add the word "supremacist" to it, and there's a problem.  What is that problem?  It is a subtle way of calling you a racist.  You are made to feel guilty for being white, and being proud of your heritage, and for wanting to preserve it, it is made to seem disreputable.  But why should you be ashamed of that?

You can not only call them liberal, but liberal supremacists in response.  But they will not feel ashamed.  They believe that liberals should be supreme because they like liberals.  That is getting them to agree to your premises, and living up to their own standards.

Why aren't they ashamed then?  Aren't they for equality?  Why aren't they guilty for their supremacist attitude?  If you are supposed to feel guilty for being white, then why aren't they supposed to feel guilty about being liberal?  If supremacy is so bad, then why are they so in favor of it when it comes to themselves?

If you are white, why should you be their doormat?  They are not seeking equality then, but supremacy.  They cannot deny this.

Toward a Debate-Free Life - by Robert Ringer

Toward a Debate-Free Life - by Robert Ringer: Watching the obnoxious but relentless Dirty Dems arguing the inarguable day in and day out is a constant reminder to me that the most time-wasting and exhausting activity in the world is debating someone who thrives on heated exchanges.  An argumentative person is not only unpleasant to be around, he also can consume large chunks …


comment:


"Discretion is the better part of valor."

Meanwhile, the following song comes to mind.

Comey, Yates, Rosenstein and McCabe All Signed Sworn FISA Statements That Did Not Mention Bruce or Nellie Ohr

by Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit.  This blog is referred to a "far right", whatever that is supposed to mean.  Oh, I see.  There is an actual definition:  "extreme conservatism and anti-socialism".  That seems fair enough, but "right wing" is a term that is a smear as far as I am concerned.  Continuing with the description, they are said to be responsible for spreading hoaxes.  Well, I wouldn't know about that.  I don't go there much because THEY DO advertise like crazy.  I don't like that. 

The wikipedia entry lists a number of stories it says are false.  This could be more card stacking and so forth.  How many media stories are false?  These aren't put into prominence.  I suppose this is one reason people don't like wikipedia.

Hoft is a supporter of Trump, so he is automatically a bad guy in some of these circles.  However, I reserve judgement.  If his site wasn't so commercial, I might be able to give a more informed opinion.

Anyway, he has this story.  I know that Comey signed the FISA warrant on Carter Page, which was based upon the Steele Dossier.  Comey testified that the Steele dossier wasn't verified, yet he signed on to this warrant.  Also, Rosenstein signed off on it as well.  Hmm.  McCabe too.  No doubt Yates did as well, but I cannot determine that exactly.

If this story is wrong, then my information in general is wrong.  But if that is so, then nobody is telling the truth, because I know the left is a bunch of damned liars.

Not sure about the so-called right.  Some might lie, but the left lies habitually and willfully.

LIARS GET CAUGHT: Comey, Yates, Rosenstein and McCabe All Signed Sworn FISA Statements That Did Not Mention Bruce or Nellie Ohr https://t.co/E2oHelU1BY via @gatewaypundit

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 28, 2018

Is the GOP full of zombies?

According to Peter Thiel, of Paypal along with Musk, Trump isn't like the other zombies in the GOP.

Indeed, if there were so many zombies in the GOP, this Mueller shit show would have been shit canned a long time ago.

Yet, you have to vote for the zombies in order to avoid the moonbats.  Seems like there are more than just political pundits who are calling the libs nuts.  There was a shrink who used to post a blog called Dr. Sanity, who wrote upon this topic in detail.  Another shrink has come forward to say the liberals are nuts.  Of course, there has always been Michael Savage who has been calling them nuts for years.  And what about the blog Barking Moonbat Early Warning System?  --- still around

Between the moonbats and the zombies, how can you not have a Donald Trump as POTUS?

Somebody has got to be sane amidst all of this madness.

Who Controls the Executive Branch?

By John Hinderaker

From his bio:

practiced law for 41 years, enjoying a nationwide litigation practice. He retired from the practice of law at the end of 2015, and is now President of Center of the American Experiment, a think tank headquartered in Minnesota.... During his career as a lawyer, he was named one of the top commercial litigators and one of the 100 best lawyers in Minnesota, and was voted by his peers one of the most respected lawyers in that state.

I have read the Powerline blog for years.  Not every day though, but fairly often.  They go way back, so to speak.  Back to the days when blogging was a new thing.

Who Controls the Executive Branch? https://t.co/StWwnuXSfF via @powerlineUS

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 28, 2018

Trade agreement with Mexico

It is fine and dandy to hold a big photo op and everything, but quite another to have a real agreement that will be durable.

The Constitution gets in the way.  If the Senate ratifies, then it is a treaty.  Otherwise, you follow the most recent protocol, which is fast track authority, and reach a deal after said authority has been granted.  No fast track authority was granted, unless you count the original fast track deal that produced NAFTA in the first place.

The new agreement doesn't have the force of law, unless Congress agrees.  The only legal thing here is to amend the NAFTA deal.  Again, Congress has to go along.

If I am wrong on that, then WTF.

I will read up a bit more on it before I publish this.

After reading a bit more...

There is a lot of euphoria on Trump friendly sites.  Still wouldn't take Congressional approval for granted.

One final thing.  The deal may be good politics.  You have the President and President elect of Mexico on board with this.  How can it be portrayed as a bad thing for Democrat rank and file?  The initial indications are that it is a better deal than the one that exists.  To refuse this deal requires a lot of explaining.

Blue wave?

It is probably a bit of hype.

Polls say this and that.  However, several polls I looked at indicate that the Democrats probably won't win the Senate.

What about the House?

Generic polls on party preference will not likely matter that much.  These elections aren't national, and the national election isn't national either.  The 2016 election featured an election in which the nominee with most votes lost.  I think they are following the same fallacy that gave Hillary the most votes, but not the votes that count.  It's local, local, local.

In other words, they can gin up the polls in Democrat districts, but they have to win everywhere, and they probably won't.

Collapsing civilization

Is like a collapsing bridge.

There's a reason for it, you know.  If you are fighting an enemy, you'd better know your enemy as you know yourself.  Otherwise, you lose.

This Trump business is same phenomenon.  Trump is trying to restore American Greatness, but the real problem is not restoring greatness, but maintaining some level of competency.

The left attacks competency.  Everything they touch turns to garbage because nobody is competent anymore.  To them, it is not competency that matters, but equality.  ( Which isn't true, they want dominance, not equality. )

What is almost impossible for me to understand is why would anybody conservative be against Trump.

It doesn't make sense, unless they are lying too.  You may have to search a very long time to find a real conservative.

Digital valves to replace camshafts?

Updated,

8.27.18:

I have studied upon the issues discussed here, and for me, the primary issue is reliability.  The more complex something is, the greater the chance of failure.  The problem with this design is its complexity.  If it doesn't work, it isn't much good for anything.

Simplify, simplify, simplify.


Originally posted on 8.26.18:

A bit of grease monkey stuff here.  Engines are interesting to me, and these are no exception.

The idea here is to time valves to fit what the engine needs at various times.  A mechanical valve set up does not have this kind of capability.  Very high tech ICE engines as opposed to all electrical as an option for future.

World's first fully digital valves open up engine possibilities https://t.co/LmgN1EufIs via @nwtls

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 26, 2018

Inside the Democrats' Café California

Clarice's pieces.

She sums up nicely:

"Bummer.  Well, we have a policy advantage, don't we?  Higher taxes, bigger federal government, anti-energy production, open borders, anti-Semite, anti-Christian, anti-male, anti-white, pro-Palestinian, pro-Antifa, pro-MS-13,support for unfair trade policies, anti-military, anti-law-enforcement," said someone out of eyesight who seemed to be sniffling.  "Maybe we should try selling crazy to another group of voters – American voters seem full up on ours."

Inside the Democrats' Café California https://t.co/QkJmkJgOVk

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 26, 2018

"Cafe California" is a reference to Hotel California, the song by the Eagles.

'Relax', said the night man,

We are programmed to receive.

You can checkout any time you like,

But you can never leave!

Watch the video and get the lyrics. Available via https://t.co/OnW8XMwSm3. https://t.co/hAcejNjrRe

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) August 26, 2018

Batman movie scene

What a laugh!  How does he do it?

Can Trump pardon himself?

There are those claiming that he can't.  But there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents it.  Only thing that has a firewall to it is in the one exception of impeachment.  The president is expressly powerless to pardon himself from impeachment and removal from office.

Aside from that, there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents him from issuing a blanket pardon for himself, and pardoning anybody else he pleases.

If a president pardoned everybody, including himself, he would have a PR problem.  He would look guilty.  In order to escape his accusers, he would have to resort to this unprecedented move.

But Trump's case may be justifiable.  This entire "investigation" was phony from the start.  It is an excuse to remove the president from office.  His accusers are only looking for this very excuse.

By the way, it has also been said that impeachment is a political act.  The thing to remember here is that the legal process is being politicized.  The president's critics want to appear to be legal in removing the president.  By pardoning himself and his associates, Trump can take that out of his critics hands.  But in doing so, he will have given them ammunition to remove him from power for purely political reasons.  This escapes the phony show trial aspect, but it doesn't remove his risk of being removed from office.  In other words, by disarming his legal accusers, he would arm his political ones.

All of it, pardons and impeachment, would be legal.  After blanket pardons, it would become completely political.  Furthermore, it would be better because it would put things on their proper foundation.  This legal show trial game is part of a political campaign.  Of course, Trump's critics will scream bloody murder, but they have been doing that already.