O.K. Buddy … Show Me Something !!! …

The highest-profile case brought so far by John Durham, the Special Counsel tasked with pinpointing the origin of the plot to frame Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, as a Russian spy and traitor to America, starts Monday in a D.C. courtroom.

Durham’s case combines all the worst elements of media frenzy — Rachel Maddow’s fainting couch moments, “Trump Stole the Election” fake headlines, and packing peanut-weight Pulitzer Prizes — in a melodrama embodied in the person of Michael Sussmann, Hillary Clinton’s attorney and the man who represented the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election cycle.

Durham is trying Sussmann for lying to the FBI by saying he wanted his old friend — luckily the FBI general counsel —  to hear a juicy tidbit about the Republican candidate for president, Donald Trump, being a Russian spy. Oh no, Sussmann claimed, he wasn’t coming on behalf of any of his Democrat clients. Not him! He was coming to tell the FBI General Counsel James Baker that he was there to give him a scoop out of the goodness of his heart and for the good of America. Apple pie. Cherry trees. Grandma’s needlepoint. George Effing Washington. Semper Fi.

But Durham says Sussman lied. He thinks Sussmann was doing it to help elect Hillary. Well, he knows Sussmann was doing it for Hillary. If he weren’t working for Hilldog, why did his records show that he billed her for his time to meet with the FBI general counsel? Why would he send a text to Baker indicating he was working only for America and not Hillary Clinton, hence showing the lie?

What’s the big deal about lying to an FBI executive?

Well, it turns out that lying to a federal agent is a Bozo No No and against the federal law “in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.” It’s the Emoluments Clause, FARA, and the Logan Act times a thousand.

Durham now goes to court with his first contested case after being laterally moved from Connecticut U.S. Attorney to special counsel by Trump Attorney General Bill Barr. As special counsel, his job was to find the origins of the hoax that dogged the Trump campaign through the first year of his presidency.

And all fingers point to Hillary, her comrades, and her attorneys, among them Michael Sussmann, formerly of Perkins Coie, the white-shoe of all white-shoe political law firms, except for the law firm representing Sussmann, Latham Watkins.

Hillary, her campaign right hand Robby Mook, Sussmann, Fusion GPS, former MI6 spook Christopher Steele, and Marc Elias stage-managed what is widely believed to be the worst political hit job in the history of political hit jobs. Worse than Donald Segretti’s frat boy “dirty tricks,” Grover Cleveland’s bastard, or any October Surprise dreamt up by the “Christic Institute,” the op against Donald Trump was the pinnacle of political dirty tricks. If they gave out awards for dirty tricks, this one would win.

So maniacal was the total war effort against Donald Trump that Democrats didn’t care who or what got hurt in the crossfire. Durham’s case has highlighted the corruption and the destruction of public trust and credibility in the FBI, CIA, the media, and the Department of Justice the way a trailer park looks when an EF 5 tornado hits it. If you stop and listen, you can hear the sound of a rolling hubcap hitting up against a rusty oil drum.

COVID-19 has slowed Durham’s case down, as it has all of us, but this is the first of what could be several cases by the man tasked with finding something of the truth behind this gaslight operation to depict Trump as a colluder with Russians when it turns out that Hillary Clinton was the one doing that.

The world knew that Al Capone was a mobster and killer, but the feds got him on a tax charge. Michael Sussmann disseminated traitorous poison into Washington, D.C.’s political water table in order to sway an election and frame a president as a traitorous spy. He and his friends did so on behalf of a chardonnay-drenched wretch with no conscience.

Sussmann faces a charge of lying to the feds. He says he didn’t do it.

Let’s see if anyone believes him after this trial.

It’s show time. It’s up to you and the facts now, John Durham.

Source: It’s Show Time for John Durham – PJ Media

I Agree …

Diversity Isn’t Always Good

By M.B. Mathews

Diversity, the integration of people with widely diverging cultures, colors, and persuasions, is not always good.  Nor is diversity always the best idea for a group or nation that wants to cohere in its traditions and remain functionally intact.  It has become a glib aphorism, almost received scripture that “diversity is our strength,” but the reality does not bear that out, and I have seen no evidence that it is always true.  Quite the contrary.

Sohrab Ahmari, author of The Unbroken Thread, opines that when a population devoted to specific traditional ideals that emerge from their religious or ethnic heritage gets too diverse, that population fractures and loses cohesion.  Introducing diverse foreign ideologies into a close-knit population can destroy it more easily than enhancing it.  If a group of Mennonites or Amish, for example, were to encourage diversity of faith and practice, it would risk disintegration of their unique culture.

The same is true of most Christian churches, ethnic groups such as Sons of Italy, Hasidic Jews, and groups like our armed forces …

A general whose troops are divided along racial or cultural lines, which is what forced diversity brings, cannot fight a winning defensive war for America’s survival with such fragmented troops.  I am talking not about color, but about different ideas of what America should be about and why it should be defended.

Maintaining the homogeneity of a group is self-preservation for a specific purpose — perpetuation of the tenets of the group, not perpetuation of the society at large.  Progressive diversity commandants call their invasions of cultures and groups “progress.”  Too often, it is regress for the group involved, and many times it is oblivion.  There is nothing wrong with a group saying they want things to remain as they are.  After all, many people worked hard to form that group under a certain set of ideas.  Who is anyone to say it is not valid because it is not “diverse”?  And why is diversity good and non-diversity bad?  It is not self-evident.

Historically, diversity (here defined as the influx of different-culture people into a homologous population) is supposed to create cohesion.  Supposedly, diversity creates spiritual, intellectual, and cultural growth.  But although many people prefer to live with people who are different from themselves, many do not, preferring to live among like-minded people.  There is nothing racist or bigoted about wanting to be in the company of like-minded people …  

It is called freedom of assembly …

Hit the link below for more …

Source: Diversity Isn’t Always Good – American Thinker