Quite interesting …

Impeachment , we are reminded by our betters , is a political process , not a criminal trial.

The president does not need to be accused of violating a specific law ; evidence is whatever the House of Representatives wants it to be. The credibility of any witness , especially one wearing the uniform of the United States military , cannot be questioned. Ditto for the motives of any witness. Hearsay is Exhibit A ; New York Times articles , Exhibit B.

But what truly animates the current impeachment crusade is the same ploy that’s been used against Donald Trump since 2016—a drumbeat of attacks from nameless , faceless partisans tasked with destroying Trump first as a candidate , now as the president. Anonymity gives cover to their political agenda under the guise of courage and “ speaking truth to power.”

Democratic lawmakers , the news media , and NeverTrump Republicans—unable to make a compelling case for Trump’s removal aside from Orange Man Bad—wield the incognito heroes’ charges as incontestable fact.

It is , for the most part , an anonymous coup.

The so-called “ whistleblower ” is just the latest mystery man to make damning accusations about Trump’s alleged malfeasance. After reports leaked about the “ whistleblower’s ” detailed report claiming the president threatened to withhold federal aid from Ukraine unless the country’s new president investigated the Bidens—an attempt to “ solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election ” he warned in the nine-page complaint—there were widespread calls for the patriot’s immediate testimony.

“ We‘re in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower’s testimony as soon as this week ” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) tweeted on September 24. Several days later, Schiff disclosed that he was negotiating the terms of the “ whistleblower’s ” testimony before his committee.

But after the White House released a transcript of the phone call between Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky , the credibility of the “ whistleblower ” began to shred. News reports revealed that a Schiff staffer met with the unnamed accuser before he filed the official complaint in mid-August ; contact Schiff initially denied. Trump and congressional Republicans started raising more questions about the author of the complaint and the suspect timeline of events.

Suddenly , the “ whistleblower’s ” testimony became unnecessary. Insisting that the call’s transcript proved that the “ whistleblower ” accusations were accurate , Schiff lost interest. Further , Schiff warned , the president and his supporters had placed the “ whistleblower’s ” life in danger. The media quickly took its cue and now refuses to name the “ whistleblower ,” even though journalist Paul Sperry last week confirmed his identity as Eric Ciaramella , a partisan operative with ties to former CIA Director John Brennan and former Vice President Joe Biden.

For more than three years , anonymous accounts of wrongdoing by Trump and his associates have been weaponized by the same news media now desperate to conceal the identity of the latest covert agent working to oust Trump. ( The attorney for the “ whistleblower ” declared in January 2017, the “ coup has started.” ) …

A roster of Trump-loathing operatives , protected by journalists as officials speaking on the “ condition of anonymity ,” have revealed classified information intended to get Team Trump and have made false allegations with impunity.

It began with unproven accusations compiled in a “ dossier” authored by a “ former British intelligence officer ” that suggested the Trump campaign was in cahoots with the Kremlin to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

Unnamed “ U.S. intelligence officials ,” according to the first collusion bombshell written by Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff on September 23 , 2016 , were looking at nefarious ties between Trump campaign aide Carter Page and Russia. Citing a “ Western intelligence source ,” Isikoff furnished specific details about Page’s alleged contacts with Putin associates. While Isikoff had no qualms reporting every little dossier-sourced detail about Carter Page , including what he later discovered to be untrue , Isikoff generously covered for his politically-motivated informants and refused to name names.

One week before Election Day , David Corn of Mother Jones juiced the Trump-Russia collusion tale with an article describing how a “ veteran spy ” had damning information about a plot between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the election from Hlilary Clinton. The “ former Western intelligence officer ,” Corn reported , was working with the FBI. The agency expressed “ shock and horror ” upon reviewing the spy’s “ report and other memos.”

When pressed by Corn (who knew the identity of the “ spy ” because he interviewed him personally ) , more unnamed bureaucrats vouched for his credibility. “[H]e has been a credible source with a proven record of providing reliable , sensitive , and important information to the US government ,” according to a “ senior U.S. government official.”

What the public later learned is that the “ Western intelligence officer ,” was Christopher Steele , a London-based consultant who had been hired by an opposition research shop in Washington D.C. to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign ; Steele’s benefactors were the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The reports and memos were not legitimate intelligence or anything of the sort—it was campaign propaganda aimed to smear Team Trump. ( Steele’s identity was concealed by the media until mid-January 2017 ) …

But the anonymous attacks didn’t stop after Election Day. The Washington Post published several articles planted by unnamed Obama holdovers in powerful government agencies to sabotage Trump’s presidency in its infancy. On January 12, 2017 , Post reporter David Ignatius, working with a “ senior U.S. government official ,” revealed information about former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn’s classified phone conversations with the Russian ambassador.

The following month , the Post accused Flynn of discussing sanctions with the ambassador during the calls according to “ nine current and former officials , who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls , [and] spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.” After days of brutal news coverage , Flynn resigned on February 14, 2017.

But the Post wasn’t done. In April 2017 , the Post revealed that the FBI had a FISA warrant on Carter Page. “ The officials spoke about the court order on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss details of a counterintelligence probe ,” Devlin Barrett , Ellen Nakashima , and Adam Entous reported. That bombshell , according to the reporters , offered the “ clearest evidence yet ” that Jim Comey’s FBI was justified in investigating the Trump campaign.

What the reporters fail to note , time and again , is that discussing classified government information , such as intercepted phone calls between White House advisors and foreign officials or the existence of a FISA warrant , is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

There are too many more examples to list here—the ones mentioned are just the most egregious.

And there is more to come. A Warning , a new book authored by an anonymous “ senior official ,” is expected to be published in a few weeks. It’s the same unknown administrative insider who penned a lengthy September 2018 op-ed for the New York Times harshly criticizing the president and extolling the virtues of bureaucrats within the administration working to stop him. “ The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us ,” the nameless snitch warned. “ We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.”

The title already is a bestseller and it won’t be available until November 19.

History is littered with bloodless coup attempts. But in the Trump era , enemy combatants not only are spared bloodshed , they don’t even have to give their names. That’s not courage or “ speaking truth to power ”—it’s calculated cowardice that would be out-of-bounds in any criminal trial , job setting , or personal relationship. Impeachment rules aside , most Americans will , and should , view this as patently unfair and a legitimate danger to our system of government now and in the future.

Source: The Anonymous Coup – American Greatness

Bin a while !!! … But here’s Rex ! …

I think it’s clear to any moderately neutral mind that Andrew Scheer has taken more than his fair share of a mauling since election night. Former party big shots have dumped on him , there have been endless complaints in a compliant press from nameless “ sources high in the party ” about his performance , and the same press on its own has been very busy on the “ can Scheer survive ? ” meme. The question has been plant-food for the political panels and fertilizer for mischievous politicos.

For what it’s worth ( very little ) I think his campaign was weak , unaggressive to a fault , gave the Liberals a pass on some very serious issues , was not nearly hard enough on the Trudeau blackface theatricals , and , most significantly , did not make what it needed to make : a national case for Canada’s oil and gas industry.

Nonetheless , with all that said , the novice leader increased Conservative seats ( by 26 — a wholesome gain ) ; took the Liberals down from their majority ( 20 lost , a notable loss ) ; post-vote owns a whole block of the country ; and has a very powerful presence in the House of Commons. No A++ for the leader , but certainly not the string of Ds and Es he’s getting from the Ottawa sages and some of his anonymous “ friends.”

Jagmeet Singh by contrast is being toasted , not roasted , for his campaign. Objectively this is strange. Under his leadership the NDP were obliterated in Quebec , lost a massive chunk of seats ( went from 39 to 24) , and were seen at one point in the campaign as threatened by the Greens. The latter should be seen as a shameful blot on any leader’s record — the Green party really being a toy car , a Tesla-tot , rather than a genuine eight-cylinder political vehicle. Mr. Singh impressed mainly because his performance in the year and a half before the election was almost brilliantly dismal. Any change was necessarily for the better.

Then , there’s Justin Trudeau. He took a sledgehammer to his “ woke is me ”… “ I am the guardian angel of Canada’s diversity and tolerance ” image via a triplet of revelations that in his pre-PM days he danced and yodelled in blackface. The prior expulsions of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott left his male-feminist banner limp on the flag post , and his refusal to allow any accounting of the SNC-Lavalin interference — his resistance to accountability — put paid to any idea that his was a “ new ” politics. In the matter of shutting down inconvenient questions , he out-Chrétiened Chrétien.

Who lost the most ? A fair argument can be made that it was the Trudeau Liberals. From government to minority, from fresh new leader to just another pol — and let us not neglect that the Bloc is back in force and half of Western Canada is dangerously angry with how it is being treated.

So the question is , why all the drear post-mortems on Scheer , and so few on the leader who birthed the phrase “ sunny days.” The Scheer autopsies reached something of a peak moment this week , when after his first post-election caucus , one reporter thought it necessary to inquire into his theological beliefs. She asked if he thought homosexuality was a “ sin.” ( Scheer is a Catholic , though he does not posit that as an essential element of his candidacy ) …

A very odd , and even artful question. I half-expected a followup along the lines of Name the 12 Gifts of the Holy Ghost ? What are your views on the Transubstantiation ? Now were Mr. Scheer a candidate for Pope ( unlikely ) , or leaving politics for the priesthood ( dubious ) , such questions might even have a point.

The point the sin question did have was to continue the line egregiously put out by his Liberal opponents that Scheer was going to “ smuggle ” his religious views on same-sex marriage and abortion into law should he win the election. It was oppo-politics chaff , and a really cheap brand of that reliably cheap stuff. He rebutted the inane suggestions multiple times on the campaign trail but various supine reporters kept tossing it up , and this post-election catechism was just the most tasteless and ostentatious version of the same sly charge.

To be clear , even the dogs in the street , the very mutts of the alleyways , knew and know that Andrew Scheer was not running for PM to establish a new Catholic Dominion , that he was not some version of a Christian ayatollah plotting to bring Margaret Atwood’s grim fantasy upon Canadian politics.

So why bait him with that faux-concerned question ? For good or ill we have for a long time now left the religion of our politicians out of their public performance. We question them on their ethics and integrity without reference to their moments in the Confessional or their private meditations and prayers.

When Justin Trudeau was rightly being tested by the press on his conduct during the SNC-Lavalin affair , did any in the press gallery ask : Mr. Trudeau , as a Catholic do you think your interference with the Justice Department is a sin ? As a Catholic do you think your treatment of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman violates the commandment about “ bearing false witness ? ”… Even more to the point — As a Catholic how do you justify barring all MPs who oppose abortion ( which in your faith really is a sin ) from your caucus?

Well , if we’re going to have religious questions put to one leader , let’s put them to them all. What are Mr. Singhs’ private religious views on homosexuality and abortion ? This latter is highly unlikely though. For as unspeakable as it may be to mention the obvious here , to question the religion of a person who is not Christian is , under the current progressive ethos , beyond the courage or depravity ( take your pick ) of any journalist who wishes to remain a journalist.

And further , when any leader gives a vague non-religious reply , let those who trill from the highest branches of the blasted Twitter tree , as they have with Mr. Scheer , “ retweet ” ( that is the deplorable verb ) their evasive replies.

So yes , Scheer is bearing more than his fair share of post-mortem scrutiny. This is not to say — I repeat — he performed well. It is just to ask that if the press wants him to have a stay in the grinder , should it then be preparing for Trudeau’s turn, and Singh’s as well ?…

 

More on ( MORON !!! ) KBec’s finely honed skill of irritating Canada !!! …

‘ It’s a bit weird ‘: She’s French , but Quebec denies residency over language

Bewildering rejection from KBek …

A woman from France , who is fluent in French , was rejected in her first steps toward permanent residency in Quebec. 

Emilie Dubois was denied her application because part of her thesis was in English. She talks about why she did it in English and what will happen next.

A graduate student from France says it’s a “ bit weird ” she was denied permanent residency in Quebec after the province said she was unable to demonstrate adequate proficiency in the French language.

Emilie Dubois moved from France to Quebec in 2012, to complete her doctorate at Quebec City’s French-language Laval University.

After Dubois completed her doctorate in January 2018 , she applied for a selection certificate under the Quebec experience program , which allows foreign students with a qualifying diploma or work experience in the province to fast-track their residency applications.

In December 2018 , Dubois received some unexpected news.

The province told her she had not demonstrated adequate knowledge of the French language , a requirement to obtain the selection certificate , because part of her thesis on cellular and molecular biology was written in English.

Dubois explained that only one out of the five chapters in her thesis was in English because it was based on an English article she had published for a scientific journal.

“ In science , we are used to sharing our work and knowledge with the community and this is usually from English-speaking jaws ” she told CTV’s Your Morning on Friday. “ This is just another way to work in science.”

Even though the 31-year-old scientific graphic designer had completed her doctorate at a French-language school , the province’s immigration ministry said her level of French wasn’t enough to obtain the certificate because the thesis chapter in English meant she hadn’t completed the entirety of her studies in French.

Undeterred , Dubois set out to prove her command of the language by taking a French test recognized by the ministry.

She passed the test , but it still wasn’t enough.

Dubois said the ministry sent her a letter this past spring informing her they were maintaining their earlier decision concerning her residency.

“ When I got the answer I was a bit lost ” she said.

While Dubois has been working as a self-employed scientific illustrator and designer , she said she’s considering becoming a “ qualified worker ,” or employee of someone else , so she can reapply for residency before her three-year work permit expires in March 2021.

Dubois said she’s hopeful the province will reconsider its decision after a member of the Coalition Avenir Quebec government tweeted that her case was being reviewed.

Catherine Dorion , Dubois’ local member of the national assembly , has also offered to help her in her cause.

In the meantime , Dubois said she’s just waiting to see if her residency application proceeds so she can stay in Quebec with her partner and puppy.

“ It’s a bit weird , but I’m really hopeful that things will be solved ” she said …

Source: French grad student denied Quebec residency after writing English in her thesis …