The Treachery of VP Mike Pence

 

In the 2020 election, Mike Pence rubber-stamped the state vote certifications, when there were many members of Congress voting to reject some certifications and send them back to states where fraud was rampant (on video surveillance; in anomalies – eg. more votes than registered voters; sequentially numbered mail-in ballots, and so on). Dinesh D’Souza’s new documentary provides a convenient summary and compilation video of the fraud; this blog posted on the documentary here. 

Paul Mirengoff argues at PowerLine that Pence had no authority to challenge suspected certifications, but I remain skeptical.  Even if Mr. Mirengoff is correct, and there were legal restraints on Pence, it hardly exonerates the former VP from all the sabotage during President Trump’s term, as Emerald Robinson outlines:

Whenever the subject of Mike Pence comes up in casual conversation, I always ask the same question: “Do you know Olivia Troye? Do you know Jennifer Williams? Do you know Katherine Seaman and Josh Pitcock?”

If you’re drawing a blank with these names then I’m sorry to inform you that you were not paying close enough attention to politics during the Trump Years. Also, you were not paying attention to my Twitter feed — because I was reporting on these problems all the time during the Trump Administration.

So, without further ado, let’s review all the evidence against Mike Pence. Trust me: there’s a lot of evidence.

1) Who Fired General Michael Flynn?

Let’s begin with Mike Pence’s least favorite question: “Why did you insist that President Trump fire his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn in the opening days of the administration?” The official story is that Gen. Flynn had lied to Mike Pence about Flynn’s contacts with Russian diplomats. Nobody has bothered to ask Pence exactly how he was informed about Flynn’s private conversations. Think about it: somebody went to Pence with transcripts of Flynn’s calls, and told Pence that Flynn was a national security risk. Who would have access to such phone calls? Who would want to lie about the nature of those phone calls to get Flynn fired?

It almost certainly must have been disgraced FBI agent Peter Strozk.

It’s likely that Strzok was the one who pushed for VP Pence to fire Flynn because we know that Peter Strozk's assistant was Katherine Seaman — the wife of Mike Pence’s chief of staff Josh Pitcock. We also have the text exchanges between Strozk and Page discussing infiltrating the Trump White House in great detail. (This was the subject of an extraordinary letter from Senator Grassley and Senator Johnson to AG Bill Barr.) What did Pence know about the FBI’s attempts to spy on the Trump White House? Is it even possible that Mike Pence was totally unaware that his chief of staff’s spouse worked directly for the chief of the counter-espionage unit of the FBI?

We know that President Obama warned President Trump not to hire Flynn in 2016. We also know that Flynn himself believes that Obama advised Trump against hiring him because Flynn knew about the Obama administration’s role in spying on Trump’s presidential campaign. Removing Flynn as Trump’s National Security Advisor was a top priority for the Deep State.

In other words, Mike Pence was the first person to set the Russia Hoax into motion.

. . .

Much more by Ms. Robinson here. 

Mr. Pence is a swamp-dwelling, card-carrying Deep State.  I first suspected that when, as Governor of Indiana, he claimed to oppose and cancel Common Core in Indiana’s schools, while at the same time he was ushering in the same policies under a new name through the back door.  My alarm bell didn’t go off loudly enough. But as Ms. Robinson points out, I wasn’t paying close enough attention. 

# # #

 

Unwatchable debates : Part 2

photo credit: inquirer.com

Stephen Green, a/k/a Mr. Vodkapundit, will be live drunk-blogging Round Two of the debates this evening. He watches so you don’t have to. Here’s the link.

He activated his live drunk-blog about 8:50 pm last night, so he’ll probably be going live at about the same time this evening.

For Powerline blogger Paul Mirengoff’s wrap-up of last night’s extravaganza, click here.

# # #

Jailbreak and Ohio Issue #1

art credit: uclu.org

Paul Mirengoff at PowerLineblog was considering the case of the dud bomber – what was this guy doing out on the streets and not in jail for priors.

Our Under-Incarceration Problem, Explosive Packages Edition

Inevitably, Democrats and their partners in the mainstream media want to focus on the political leanings of the man suspected of sending packages to leading leftists. However, Daniel Horowitz contends that the real story here is “jailbreak,” i.e., the failure to put criminals behind bars and keep them there.

I agree that this is a key element of the story. The suspect apparently has a lengthy rap sheet that included dealing drugs, theft, traffic violations, and battery. A close analysis of his record will likely show he should have been in jail.

This is a recurring but almost always ignored phenomenon. In one high-profile case after another, we learn that the criminal is a chronic offender with a rap sheet that, in a properly functioning society, would have mandated his incarceration at the time of his latest offense.

Yet, Democrats and too many Republicans, including some in the White House, are dead set on increasing the number of convicted felons, including dealers of drugs like fentanyl, on the streets. They want shorter sentences for such offenders and they want them released from jail early — an obvious recipe for more crime faster.

In short, the bipartisan leniency-for-felons crowd seeks to make our under-incarceration problem worse, even though doing so can only increase the occurrence of crime, including violent crime. The consequences of this perverse policy are there for all to see, but the leniency crowd averts its eyes.

This line of reasoning also relates to Ohio Issue #1, on the ballot in just over a week. Issue #1 would reduce penalties for drug offenses. An earlier CTP blog quoted Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor’s views on Issue 1. Click here.   

# # #