Climatologist Pat Michaels on “Life, Liberty, and Levin”

(Hat-Tip to WUWT) Video Description:

The first segment subject was Michaels’ “Lukewarm” synthesis of climate change, with special attention to the spectacular disconnect between forecast and observed  upper  tropical tropospheric temperatures as documented by University of Alabama’s John Christy.  Michaels believes it is in part because  the models are “tuned” to relate the warming of the early 20th century to carbon dioxide and other anthropo-generated emissions.   He points out that when it began, the concentration was a mere twenty parts per million above the background, and that tuning them to predict the nearly 0.5°C warming from 1910 to 1945 almost certainly predisposes them to be overly sensitive.

Levin then asked Michaels for his views on the larger federalization of science, and how the political process can color the scientific literature.  You could see where it was headed, when he noted  that the aforementioned model disparity was enough to justify voiding EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding.  Just to make sure viewers got the point, he finished the interview with a repetition.

There is an interesting new twist that I don’t think Michaels has put on TV before, which is that if the climate forecast were made in the same manner as the daily weather forecast, we would be using the (one) model that works, the Russian model INM-CM4, to which he said something like “Call the Special Prosecutor!”

This may be the first long-format climate interview that wasn’t cut into disjointed sound bites. It’s wide- ranging  and really worth a look. Mark Levin did a thorough job.

ffffffffffffffffffffffff

ddddddddddddddddddd

Illegal Immigration: It’s About Power (Tucker Carlson for Prager U)

Historically, Democrats supported strong borders because they knew American workers could never compete with illegal immigrants. Now, they regularly support “open borders.” So why the drastic change? Tucker Carlson, host of Tucker Carlson Tonight, explains.

Via SOOPERMEXICAN! (h/t to LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN – now defunct):

The popular Mexican-born comedian Paul Rodriguez shocked the CNN panel on illegal immigration when he advocated for deportation for illegal immigrants. Shamelessly, Don Lemon accosted him by insinuating that legal immigrants like Rodriguez can’t be against illegal immigration. Yeah, that’s pretty pathetic.

What about the leftist hero who was recently lionized by Obama? Mark Levine takes you on a short tour-de-forces of how Democrats try and re-write history:

BREITBART notes a recent visit by Mark Levin to the Sean Hannity Show:

Chavez, who was also against ethnic organizations like La Raza, would tell illegal immigrants to get out of the country, especially because they lowered the wages of American workers. And he was often far from compassionate in handling illegal immigrants.

As Breitbart News has reported, “Chavez was so opposed to amnesty that even the film’s producers, who have a history of making politicized movies, decided, out of respect, to steer clear of the subject”:

As the New York Times noted, Participant Media, which produced the film, has a “fondness for films about social issues.” The company made Lincoln as a statement about bipartisanship, The Help to “highlight the plight of domestic workers,” and Promised Land as a “call for environmental action” against fracking.

But the producers avoided immigration reform in the movie because Chavez “fought for better wages and conditions for workers but held complex and evolving views on the status of unauthorized immigrants, some of which would be at odds with the changes many Hispanics and others are seeking today.”

Breitbart News has also detailed how much Cesar Chavez opposed amnesty:


Ruben Navarrette, Jr., a supporter of comprehensive immigration who has “studied and written about Chavez and the United Farm Workers … for more than 20 years,” wrote in a 2010 essay that “the historical record shows that Chavez was a fierce opponent of illegal immigration.” He added that “it’s unlikely that he’d have looked favorably on a plan to legalize millions of illegal immigrants.”

Chavez also wanted stiffer sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants, and Navarrette emphasized that it was “absurd for anyone to invoke the name of Cesar Chavez to pass immigration reform.” He stressed, “As I said, were he alive today, it’s a safe bet that Chavez would be an opponent of any legislation that gave illegal immigrants even a chance at legal status.”

Navarrette wrote that, according to numerous historical accounts, “Chavez ordered union members to call the Immigration and Naturalization Service and report illegal immigrants who were working in the fields so that they could be deported.”  

He noted that while Chavez was with the UFW, “UFW officials were also known to picket INS offices to demand a crackdown on illegal immigrants,” and the UFW even “set up what union officials called a ‘wet line’ to stop Mexican immigrants from entering the United States. Under the supervision of Chavez’s cousin, Manuel, UFW members tried at first to convince immigrants not to cross the border”:

When that didn’t work, they physically attacked the immigrants. Covering the incident at the time, the Village Voice said that the UFW was engaged in a “campaign of random terror against anyone hapless enough to fall into its net.” A couple of decades later, in their book The Fight in the Fields, Susan Ferris and Ricardo Sandoval recalled the border violence and wrote that the issue of how to handle illegal immigration was “particularly vexing” for Chavez.

Chavez was also against ethnic groups like La Raza. In fact, he saw the dangers of such organizations from the beginning. 

“I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride, you know,” Chavez told Peter Matthiessen, the co-founder of the Paris Review, for a profile piece in The New Yorker in 1969. “Some people don’t look at it as racism, but when you say ‘la raza,’ you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and it won’t stop there.”

Birthright Citizenship (Re-Posted)

(Originally Posted In Sept 2015)

Here is a snippet of the history of this:

in 1866, the actual author of the post-Civil War Amendment – Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan – explained the real purpose of what become the 14th Amendment.

Unfortunately for liberals, it was only for granting citizenship to recently freed African slaves, not foreigners. In fact, it didn’t even include Native Americans.

Howard wrote “that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Sadly, the 14th Amendment is a wildly-abused amendment, as it was also justification in the Roe V. Wade abortion case. Clearly, not enough Americans know what the amendment actually was intended for.

Hannity

Radio

Lindsey Graham

Affirmative Actions Unequal Consequences

UPDATE!!

The trial itself began October 15th in a federal court with Harvard as the accused (HOT AIR). FOX NEWS reports on the trial’s revelations so far:

Harvard University’s dean of admissions has testified the Ivy League school applies different SAT score standards to prospective students based on factors such as race, but insisted the practice is not discriminatory.

Students for Fair Admissions, a group headed by legal strategist Edward Blum, sued Harvard in 2014 claiming Asian-Americans, who have the highest academic records, unfairly receive the lowest admission rate at the elite school.

Regardless of the outcome of the three-week, non-jury trial in Boston that began Monday, the lawsuit involving affirmative action and backed by the Trump administration is expected to reach the Supreme Court.

William Fitzsimmons, the 30-year dean of admissions, who oversees the screening process of about 40,000 applicants and narrows them down to 2,000 acceptance letters that are handed out each year, testified that African-Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanic high schoolers with mid-range SAT scores out of a possible 1600 combined math and verbal, are sent recruitment letters with a score as low as 1100, whereas Asian-Americans need to score at least 250 points higher – 1350 for women and 1380 for men.

“That’s race discrimination, plain and simple,” argued John Hughes, a lawyer for SFFA.

“It is not,” Fitzsimmons shot back, adding that the school targets certain groups to “break the cycle” and convince students who normally wouldn’t consider applying to the Ivy League school.

[….]

Chinese-American Harvard graduate Lee Cheng, a lawyer for the Asian-American Legal Foundation, supports the lawsuit as a simple and straightforward case for the right not to be discriminated against based on race.

“It’s about saying Harvard cannot set different and more difficult standards for admitting Asian students relative to students of any other ethnic group,” Cheng said. “It’s that simple – and it’s undeniable that Harvard has.”

Blum told Fox News he’s confident after four years of evidence gathering that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies are “unconstitutional.”….

Here is Mark Levin reading about this discrimination from August of last year:

Continuing with older post (from February 2017)

Here is part of a LOS ANGELES TIMES article regarding the above (hat-tip, CONSERVATIVE TREE HOUSE):

“Let’s talk about Asians,” she says.

Lee’s next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant’s race is worth. She points to the first column.

African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.

She points to the second column.

“Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”

The last column draws gasps.

Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.

Ben Ferguson Works Through Kanye’s Illiteracy

Ben Ferguson fills in for Mark Levin. The topic I zero in on is the Left’s [selective] outrage when one of their own starts to change opinion. The old Kanye who said “Bush doesn’t like black people” was a media hero, who was apparently literate then. But you change your mind and you lose sanity and magically become illiterate. It reminds me of when a leading atheist rejected after 50-years his atheism, he was said to have dementia. Ben also compares the Left’s adoration of Taylor Swift alongside Kanye.

Media Standards (Joe Concha | Mollie Hemingway)

(RIGHT SCOOP) This is a great segment from Mark Levin’s show last night where he interviews both Joe Concha and Mollie Hemingway on the very apparent media bias and smears during the Kavanaugh allegations.

MOLLIE:

The media are working overtime not just to prevent the eminently qualified Brett Kavanaugh from being confirmed to the Supreme Court, but to destroy his life as well. One of their avenues is to make it impossible for him to coach girls’ basketball in the future.

USA Today’s Erik Brady wrote:

The U.S. Senate may yet confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, but he should stay off basketball courts for now when kids are around…

The nation is deeply divided. Sometimes it feels like we don’t agree on anything anymore. But credibly accused sex offenders should not coach youth basketball, girls or boys, without deeper investigation. Can’t we all agree on that?

The article, which was illustrated with a picture of Kavanaugh and one of the girls’ basketball teams he coaches, has since been dramatically revised. Apparently editors at USA Today realized that calling a human being a pedophile with precisely zero actual evidence of any sexual impropriety was indefensible.

“This is disgraceful,” wrote Jedediah Bila. “The man was accused of atrocities with no evidence, no corroboration, no proof. He’s undergone 6 FBI investigations in his life. Maybe wait to criminalize someone till you have damn good reason? I’m utterly disgusted.”….

(More MOLLIE)

JOE:

Stelter argued that the press is being targeted as part of a “hate movement” spearheaded by the president, who regularly decries the news media as “fake news” and “the enemy of the people.”

“He has been wonderful for the industry,” said Koppel, who currently serves as a CBS contributor.

“But that means what?” responded Stelter, a staunch critic of the Trump. “If ratings are up, that means what?”

“It means you can’t do without Donald Trump,” Koppel replied. “You would be lost without Donald Trump.”

“Ted, you know that’s not true,” Stelter said.

“CNN’s ratings would be in the toilet without Donald Trump,” Koppel declared.

“You know that’s not true; you’re playing for laughs,” Stelter said. “You’ve lived through enough presidencies to know there will be more presidents.”

After some back-and-forth over what CNN’s ratings would look like if Trump hadn’t won the presidency, Stelter said he didn’t accept the notion that broadcast networks were benefiting from money generated from the additional eyeballs Trump brings to the table.

“I reject the premise that these networks are making so much money off of Trump and thus, we benefit from it,” Stelter said.

Koppel joked that discussing CNN’s ratings was “a sensitive subject” for Stelter, and pivoted instead to MSNBC.

“Tell me for a moment if you will — let’s get away from CNN; sensitive subject,” he said to laughter from the audience. “Let’s go to MSNBC. Is there a moment of the day when they’re not focusing on Donald Trump, or some intimately related subject?”

(More JOE)

 

Federalist #10 | Mark Levin

Mark Levin reads from and comments on FEDERALIST #10:

  • “Federalist No. 10 is an essay written by James Madison as the tenth of The Federalist Papers: a series of essays initiated by Alexander Hamilton arguing for the ratification of the United States Constitution. Published on November 22, 1787 under the name ‘Publius’, Federalist No. 10 is among the most highly regarded of all American political writings” (WIKI).

See also: Limiting an Overreaching Federal Government: Is State Nullification the Solution? A Constitutional Analysis

Rachel Mitchell’s Memo | Mark Levin

Mark Levin reads from a memo, written by the sex-crimes prosecutor Republicans hired to question Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh at last week’s hearing (Rachel Mitchell), that points out numerous inconsistencies and lack of corroboration for Ms. Blasey Ford’s account of the sexual assault she says she suffered when they were in high school 36 years ago.. Enjoy, this is classic Levin!

The below is from ZERO HEDGE, not a favorite site to visit (some wild-eyed conspiracy hacks over there), but this is a good summation of the memo (the WASHINGTON TIMES and NATIONAL REVIEW has a good article as well):

…Mitchell listed several reasons for that conclusion. Courtesy of Heavy.com, these included:

Dr. Ford “has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.”

Under this header, Mitchell listed different accounts she says Ford gave, ranging from “mid 1980s” in a text to the Washington Post to “early 80s” in a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, among other things.

Dr. Ford “has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.”

According to Rachel Mitchell, no name was listed in 2012 and 2013 individual and marriage therapy notes. She did note that Ford’s husband “claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012” and added “in any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.”

“When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.”

Mitchell stated that Ford told The Washington Post that she told her husband she was the victim of “physical abuse,” whereas she has now testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault.”

“Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question – details that could help corroborate her account.”

Among the lack of details, Mitchell said that “she does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it. She does not remember how she got to the party.” Mitchell continued: “She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party to her house.” The memo then continued listing more details.

Mitchell pointed out that Ford “does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.”

“Dr. Ford’s Account of the Alleged Assault Has Not Been Corroborated by Anyone She Identified as Having Attended – Including Her Lifelong Friend.”

Mitchell wrote that Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party – Mark Judge, Patrick PJ Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser, formerly Ingham. She said another boy attended but she couldn’t remember his name, but Mitchell pointed out that “no others have come forward.”

“All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever,” Mitchell wrote. She stated that Keyser stated through counsel in her first statement that “Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

In a later statement, Keyser’s lawyer said, “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”

Ford testified that Leland did “not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.”

“Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged attack.”

Mitchell wrote that Ford wrote in her letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein that she had heard Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault but testified that she could not hear them talking to anyone.

Her “account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.”

Mitchell said The Washington Post’s account of Dr. Ford’s therapist notes say there were four boys in the bedroom when she was allegedly assaulted. Ford told The Post the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party but only two in the bedroom.

In her letter to Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were at the party but in her testimony she said there were four boys in additional to Leland Keyser and herself. She listed Smyth as a bystander in a text to The Post and to a polygrapher and then testified it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. “She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s,” wrote Mitchell.

“Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.”

Mitchell said that Ford doesn’t remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post. She doesn’t remember if she showed the Post the notes or her summary of the notes.

Mitchell stated that Ford refused to provide her therapy notes to the Senate Committee.

“Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.”

Mitchell says that Ford wanted to remain confidential but called a tipline at the Washington Post. She testified that she had a “sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president.” But she also said she did not contact the Senate because she claimed she “did not know how to do that.”

Mitchell also noted that Ford “could not remember if she was being audio or video-recorded when she took the polygraph. She could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral. It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.” (Ford’s attorneys have said she took and passed a polygraph.)

“Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.”

According to Mitchell, the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was told that Ford’s symptoms prevented her from flying, but she agreed during testimony that she flies “fairly frequently.” She also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing. Mitchell noted that Ford testified that she was not “clear” whether investigators were willing to travel to California to interview her.

She said she struggled academically in college, but she didn’t make the claim about the last two years of high school.

“The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.”…

Trump Didn’t Violate Campaign Finance Law (Media Myths)

The first hour of Thursdays show where Mark Levin discusses the false media reports that Donald Trump violated campaign finance laws. A good dealing with the topic.

Former CIA chief Hayden warns against impeaching Trump (“One-third of America will believe it was a soft coup’)

….“If President Trump is somehow forced to leave office before the end of his first term [] one-third of America will believe it was a soft coup,” added Mr. Hayden, a career intelligence official who retired in 2009 after leading the CIA under former President Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

An outspoken critic of the president, Mr. Hayden warned against impeachment in light of prosecutors securing convictions this week against Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former personal attorney and election campaign chairman, respectively….

(WASHINGTON TIMES)

Mueller’s Probe Is Under Internal Pressures

RED STATE does a BANG-UP job in the following list:

A comparison of the carnage at the very highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ to the complete lack of evidence of wrongdoing by President Trump following over two years of investigations should tell Robert Mueller that it’s time to extricate himself, as gracefully as possible, from this fraud. He needs to admit defeat in his attempt to undo the results of a fair election.

Seamus Bruner of The Epoch Times has just put together a list of 25 DOJ and FBI officials who have resigned in the last year. Some of them, Rachel Brand for example, have left to take positions in the private sector. Mike Kortan has said he was planning to retire anyway. But many on this list have been fired, or forced out (largely in disgrace) or demoted, because of the Trump/Russia investigation.

FBI Departures:

  1. James Comey, director (fired)
  2. Andrew McCabe, deputy director (fired)
  3. Peter Strzok, counterintelligence expert (fired)
  4. Lisa Page, attorney (demoted; resigned)
  5. James Rybicki, chief of staff (resigned)
  6. James Baker, general counsel (resigned)
  7. Mike Kortan, assistant director for public affairs (resigned)
  8. Josh Campbell, special assistant to James Comey (resigned)
  9. James Turgal, executive assistant director (resigned)
  10. Greg Bower, assistant director for office of congressional affairs (resigned)
  11. Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director (resigned)
  12. John Giacalone, executive assistant director (resigned)

DOJ Departures:

  1. Sally Yates, deputy attorney general (fired)
  2. Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general (twice demoted)
  3. David Laufman, counterintelligence chief (resigned)
  4. Rachel Brand, deputy attorney general (resigned)
  5. Trisha Beth Anderson, office of legal counsel for FBI (demoted or reassigned*)
  6. John P. Carlin, assistant attorney general (resigned)
  7. Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, congressional liaison (resigned)
  8. Mary McCord, acting assistant attorney general (resigned)
  9. Matthew Axelrod, principal assistant to deputy attorney general (resigned)
  10. Preet Bharara, U.S. attorney, SDNY (firedalong with 45 otherS. Attorneys)
  11. Sharon McGowan, civil rights division (resigned)
  12. Diana Flynn, litigation director for LGBTQ civil rights (resigned)
  13. Vanita Gupta, civil rights division (resigned)
  14. Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)

*Status Unclear

As I look at this list, I know it includes only a fraction of those who have risked their careers and their reputations because they simply couldn’t bear to see Donald Trump in the White House.

Before this is over, others will be added to the list. Perhaps even Rod Rosenstein. And there will likely be former top-level Obama officials caught in the net as well. Perjurers John Brennan and James Clapper come to mind.

In addition to the men and women who have been working against Trump in the DOJ and the FBI, there were/are employees in the State Department and the CIA, holdovers from the Obama administration, who are complicit.

The mainstream media has played a huge role in perpetuating this hoax. They have breathlessly distorted events to influence public opinion. Instead of reporting the news, they have worked overtime to shape it.

For an example of how the mainstream media has aided and abetted the left’s attempt to impeach Trump, we need to look no further than their outrage over the revocation of John Brennan’s security clearance….

Even contention in the ranks of the upper echelon of SPOOKS is starting to maske it’s way to the public as people “cover their asses”

THE HILL notes about the above:

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Sunday that he thinks former CIA Director John Brennan‘s rhetoric is becoming an issue “in and of itself.”

“John and his rhetoric have become an issue in and of itself,” Clapper said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “John is subtle like a freight train and he’s gonna say what’s on his mind.”

Clapper’s comments came in response to an op-ed penned by Brennan in The New York Times this week, in which he wrote that President Trumpcolluded with Russia during the 2016 election.

Clapper said he empathized with Brennan, but voiced concerns for Brennan’s fiery rhetoric toward Trump and his administration.

“I think that the common denominator among all of us [in the intelligence community] that have been speaking up … is genuine concern about the jeopardy and threats to our institutions,” Clapper said.

Brennan’s claims drew criticism from some in the intelligence community who said the timing was suspect.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) on Thursday took aim at Brennan for “purport[ing] to know, as fact, that the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power.”

“If his statement is based on intelligence he has seen since leaving office, it constitutes an intelligence breach. If he has some other personal knowledge of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the special counsel, not The New York Times,” Burr said……..

REMEMBER, Brennan has a shoddy intelligence past and had his clearance removed due to it — among other things. See my previous post entitled: Brennan Leaked Top Secret Info That Blew A US Operation

Rep. Trey Gowdy Focuses on Bruce Ohr Next (7th Fired?)

CNS NEWS has more on the above:

…Ohr’s wife Nellie worked for Fusion GPS, which hired Christopher Steele to produce the opposition research on Donald Trump. The Clinton Campaign and the Democrat National Committee paid for the Steele dossier through a law firm.

The FBI used Steele as a source for a while. And recently revealed documentsindicate that Bruce Ohr was funneling information from Christopher Steele to the FBI, even after the FBI fired Steele as a source. It appears that Ohr served as a go-between at a time when the FBI had ended its association with Steele.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) told Fox News Monday night that he used to work at the Justice Department “doing what Bruce Ohr does now.” Both men are or were prosecutors.

“It’s unbelievable that a prosecutor would insert himself into an ongoing investigation for which he had nothing to do,” Gowdy said.

According to Gowdy, “Bruce Ohr worked for the Department of Justice. He had nothing to do with the Russia investigation other than he inserted himself by having contact with Christopher Steele.”

Ohr “even had contact with Chris Steele after the FBI terminated its relationship with Chris Steele.” Gowdy noted that one branch of the Justice Department — the FBI — decided Steele was “not even fit to be an informant,” yet a high-ranking Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr, was continuing to funnel information from Steele to the FBI.

“We’re going to interview him on August 28th,” Gowdy said. “I am going to come back to Washington — I’m going to leave my beloved South Carolina and I’m going to go back, and I’m sure others will, too…we’re going to be back, and we’re going to interview Bruce Ohr — not in a public circus setting, but in a deposition with no time limits and we’re going to get to the bottom of what he did, why he did it, who he did it in concert with, whether he had the permission of the supervisors at the Department of Justice.

“I used to work doing what Bruce Ohr does now. It’s unbelievable that a prosecutor would insert himself into an on-going investigation for which he had nothing to do.”….

Jim Jordan was on Neil Cavuto’s show discussing the recent firing of Peter Strozk:

This is the main point Jim Jordan made, among the others:

Dan Bongino fills in for Mark Levin and discusses John Solomon’s recent article entitled, “Did FBI Get Bamboozled by Multiple Versions of Trump Dossier?“. Devastating information keeps coming out, and the FBI is looking worse-and-worse by the day (well, it’s leadership is):