Hope for a Coronavirus Cure

1484847280

In what seems like a split second, life has become very different from what it once was for America and the world.

Despite the surreal changes that COVID-19 has thrust upon us, all that we really need now is a hope that towers over fear.

This type of hope just may have arrived in the form of a medication that actor-producer Daniel Dae Kim describes as the “secret weapon” that helped him recover from the coronavirus.

Best known for his roles in “Lost” and “Hawaii Five-0,” Kim is also currently producing the television series “The Good Doctor.”

During the recent treatment of his coronavirus condition, Kim’s own good doctor prescribed him a “drug cocktail” that consisted of the antiviral medicine TamiFlu, a bacterial antibiotic Azithromycin, a lung disease inhaler treatment Glycopyrrolate, and the antimalarial drug Hydroxychloroquine.

Taking to his Instagram account, Kim revealed that he did not require any hospitalization and now feels “back to normal.”

He is presently displaying “no symptoms” other than a bit of congestion and is crediting the drug Hydroxychloroquine as the stealth remedy that placed him on the path to recovery.

“I am happy to report that my progress has continued and I practically feel back to normal. I am lucky enough to be in the 80% of diagnosed cases that have not required hospitalization,” Kim said in his Instagram video.

He also pointed out that Hydroxychloroquine was used with “great success in Korea in their fight against the coronavirus.”

President Donald Trump made mention of the drug during a recent White House press conference.

“This would be a gift from heaven,” the president said. “This would be a gift from God if it works. We are going to pray to God that it does work.”

Following the press conference, NBC News reporter Peter Alexander lodged an accusation against the president, stating that he was giving people a “false sense of hope.” Numerous media outlets repeated the outrageous line.

The truth is Hydroxychloroquine has been used for many decades to treat malaria and is already approved by the FDA for this purpose.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also invoked the virtue of hope at the daily White House press briefing.

“The president is talking about hope for people and it’s not an unreasonable thing to hope for people,” Dr. Fauci said.

Kim was of the belief that the evidence for the drug’s effectiveness was anecdotal. He wrapped up his Instagram footage with the statement, “Well, add my name to those personal accounts because I am feeling better.”

It is important to note that there is much more than mere anecdotal evidence for the antimalarial drug’s use on COVID-19. A study was conducted in Marseilles, France, which found that 70 percent of coronavirus patients treated with Hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic Azithromycin tested negative for the virus by the sixth day of treatment.

Critics point out that the study was small in scope, consisting of 20 treated patients. However, a rate of 14 out of 20 cures should not be cast aside as insignificant.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is not accepting the “false hope” rhetoric. New York will begin implementing trials with the drug and has acquired 70,000 Hydroxychloroquine, 10,000 Zithromax (a.k.a., Azithromycin), and 750,000 Chloroquine from the Federal Government, with the trials to commence on Tuesday.

Pharmaceutical company Mylan is not accepting the “false hope” label either. The manufacturer’s plant, located in Morgantown, West Virginia, is set to immediately restart production of Hydroxychloroquine.

The Israeli generic drug company Teva sees hope in Hydroxychloroquine and is stepping up the production of the antimalarial drug.

Also added to the hopeful list is the country of Australia. A group of patients has been successfully treated in a trial using a combination of the anti-HIV medication Kaletra (a.k.a., Lopinavir or Ritonavir) and Hydroxychloroquine. All patients experienced a complete recovery. Consequently, the Aussies have decided to distribute these drugs to coronavirus patients in 50 hospitals nationwide.

While it is true that we currently do not have an effective treatment available to combat the new strain of the virus, Hydroxychloroquine, when used in combination with either the antibiotic or the HIV medication, is proving to be effective and needs to be made available as a treatment option in the U.S. as soon as possible.

Thanking God for the researchers who are tirelessly working to find a cure and for a president who for over three years has epitomized the hope that towers over fear.

President Trump Shows Real Leadership in Coronavirus Response

c1_3563945

President Donald Trump’s rough and tumble experience in the business world of Manhattan’s real estate market came into full view in the recent launch of a series of federal actions to combat the spread of COVID-19.

Shortly after the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus to be a global pandemic, President Trump began a threefold engagement in the battle against the outbreak. He unveiled an innovative plan that brought in the private sector in the form of some of the nation’s largest companies to work alongside government to get our country back on a healthy footing.

To allow for the speedy production of coronavirus tests, the Trump administration cut out the red tape and enlisted companies with private labs to effectuate the tests.

Also brought in were leaders of some of the country’s most significant enterprises in order to initiate a public-private plan that could address the nation’s concerns and mitigate the mainstream media-prompted anxiety that had heightened over the virus.

President Trump and his staffers engaged in a series of meetings with business leaders from various relevant industries. Multiple agreements with major firms were successfully negotiated in order to provide, among other crucial protocol, coronavirus testing for Americans.

As a beneficial result of negotiated deals, Target and Walmart will be contributing parking lot space for drive-through testing facilities. Google, via a subsidiary, will work on the construction of a website, which will enable individuals to determine whether a test is needed, and if so, directions to the nearest testing location will be provided.

Other companies joining in with the pro-active efforts include Swiss drugmaker Roche, which received a fast track FDA approval to produce a new coronavirus test. Thermo Fisher will also provide tests. LabCorp and Quest Diagnostics offered their labs for testing purposes. And LHC Group, a company that provides home health services, will provide testing to the homebound.

The facilitation of government working together in conjunction with private enterprise is President Trump’s forte. Reassuring for the nation is the fact that the partnership concept has a demonstrated track record. In times of war, private industry proved to be indispensable in helping to defend the country. No doubt the business sector will once again play a vital role.

President Trump’s acumen in the art of the deal has additionally come to the fore as he has overseen negotiations for a compromise bill, legislation that was passed by the House and is likely to be expeditiously passed by the Senate and signed into law.

The legislation adds significant power to the nation’s efforts to fight the coronavirus as well as provide additional protections with regard to the economy. Paid sick leave, no-cost coronavirus testing, enhanced unemployment insurance, and the provision of additional Medicaid payments in the event of a rise in hospital patients are part of a comprehensive plan.

Passage of the bill in the House came to fruition only after marathon negotiating sessions had materialized. The White House and the GOP were attentive to the necessity of maintaining a cooperative attitude so that a swift agreement could be reached. For example, the inclusion of paid sick leave was secured via the negotiated item of granting employers offsetting tax credits in order to ease the burdens of small business owners.

“People really pulled together. Nice to see!” President Trump tweeted.

It appears likely that the Senate will soon pass the bill.

Excluded from the measure is President Trump’s desired provision of granting a payroll tax cut for working people. The White House and Republican leadership have likely deferred the payroll tax cut for an inevitable future bill.

The third prong of the administration’s strategy involves an additional $50 billion to be made available via President Trump’s State of Emergency declaration.

All in all, the president’s expert leadership should allow the country to recover in the most salutary of ways as together we shake off negativity and live in the light.

No Equal Justice, No Freedom

cnn-fbi-roger-stone-raid-998x562-1

Those who administer criminal justice in our country have historically sought to be consistent with the fundamental American tenet that all are “created equal.”

In recent times, though, criminal laws have been applied by powerful institutions in a manner that is dramatically unbalanced, and the contrast has been jarring.

Former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone was taken into custody in a mode that has traditionally been reserved for the most dangerous criminals. Twenty-nine heavily armed agents, 17 vehicles, a helicopter, and two amphibious units were deployed to carry out a pre-dawn raid on a 67 year-old man with no prior criminal record. By the way, CNN had been tipped off, and the tactical team showed up only after cameras were in place.

Stone was aggressively prosecuted for process crimes that had arisen during the investigation. Contrast this with the case of fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who lied under oath while in his official capacity. McCabe was neither arrested nor prosecuted. Instead he was allowed to cash in on his name recognition as a CNN contributor.

It has become crystal clear to anyone who has observed these cases, as well as other high-profile prosecutions or lack thereof, that the criminal justice system has not been equally applied.

Most Americans sense that fairness requires, even demands, a single justice system be firmly in place, as opposed to a multi-tiered one. Denying the constitutional mandate for the “equal protection of the laws” is dangerous to the freedom that our nation treasures.

The guardrail, which stands between our freedom and tyrannical rule, is much thinner than we think. If lack of equality in the administration of criminal law by a government is left unchecked, what will stop that government from engaging in more serious abuses of the legal process?

The use of the criminal justice system as a means of eliminating political opposition is a practice that has been consistently used by totalitarian regimes, and those governments that are on the road to totalitarianism.

The way fully developed unequal justice would manifest itself in a tyrannical regime is via a public trial in which the guilt of the accused is pre-determined by the judicial authorities before the process ever begins, a.k.a., a “show trial.”

By holding a counterfeit trial, an undemocratic government is able to eliminate foes and, at the same time, warn others as to the consequences of dissent or opposition. The misuse of criminal law and procedure is, in fact, the ultimate propaganda.

The world is full of examples of this malevolent misuse of judicial institutions. In Soviet Russia, criminal trials were meticulously staged. If the accused did not admit guilt for fabricated crimes, he or she was deemed to be “uncooperative” and would oftentimes be summarily executed without a public show trial.

In the early 1920s, fake criminal proceedings known as “model trials” were used by communist oppressors to make an example of individuals both in Russia and the Ukraine.

In the 1930s, the cold-blooded dictator Joseph Stalin used faux criminal justice to suppress any possible criticism, opposition, or dissent via the Moscow Trials of the Great Purge. The discredited New York Times reporter Walter Duranty claimed at the time that these due process-free trials were actually fair.

During the 1950s, after the communists took control of China, the Communist Party under Mao Zedong charged thousands of people with crimes and, after show trials, many ended with a death sentence.

In 1989 the memorable Tiananmen Square student-led protests took place. The demonstrations were indelibly stamped in the minds of Americans when video footage and photographs emerged of a lone man standing in front of a column of tanks. Show trials were given to many of the protestors who were arrested and charged as communist-termed “rioters and counter-revolutionaries.”

Between 1933 and 1945, the Nazi government established a large number of “special courts” that used made-up crimes to wage pre-determined prosecutions on individuals who were perceived as hostile to the regime. Thousands of German lives were taken on the orders of the “special courts.”

These examples compel us to pursue the ideals that are reflected in our founding documents and legal traditions.

A phrase that sums up the legal foundation of fairness is engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. It reads “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.”

These words re-phrase the Court’s unanimous decision applying the Fourteenth Amendment, when then-Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote that “…no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law.”

A Bipartisan Acquittal May Be in President Trump’s Future

trump-manchin-rt-hb-180131_10x7_992

When the Senate impeachment trial wraps up, a supermajority of 67 votes will be necessary for the president to be removed from office.

The math indicates that even if all 47 Democrats in the Senate vote to convict, 20 Republicans would still have to break ranks with their Party and their base in order for the Dem’s dream to actually materialize.

Unlike the House vote on the articles of impeachment, the Senate vote that will ultimately exonerate the president is likely to be bipartisan, with at least one Senate Democrat voting against the president’s removal.

Although attention has been focused on how so-called moderate Senate Republicans may vote, three Democrat senators may serve as potential swing votes in favor of the president.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) looms as a potential vote to acquit. Sinema has a somewhat centrist voting record, and the state that she represents went for President Trump in 2016.

The Arizona senator has not revealed what she thought about the case that was presented by House Democrats. However, as the first Democrat sent to the U.S. Senate from Arizona in 30 years, she is no doubt aware of the eyes that are fixed upon her.

Sinema voted with the GOP to confirm both Attorney General William Barr and Interior Secretary David Bernhardt. She also voted in the positive to confirm many of President Trump’s judicial nominees and to pass a bill that enhanced immigration screening and expedited the cases of those who lack valid asylum claims. Putting herself directly in the crosshairs of the far-left wing of the Democratic Party, Sinema voted against the Green New Deal.

Democrats still carry a grudge, when as a member of the House of Representatives, Sinema voted against the Iran nuclear deal that was put together in 2015 by the Obama administration.

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) is the most vulnerable Democrat senator on the ballot this year, as he seeks to win a full term after his upset victory in a 2017 special election in the solidly red state of Alabama. In 2016 Trump took the state by nearly 28 points. Jones will be seeking a full term in 2020.

The Alabama senator has voted to confirm the vast majority of the president’s judicial nominees. He has additionally voted in favor of appropriations that included border wall funding. He also voted against the Green New Deal.

An outside group aligned with President Trump has targeted Jones in an advertising campaign, which aired during the Senate impeachment trial. The ad, which is appearing on television and other digital platforms, features images of House Manager Rep. Adam Schiff, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Rep. Maxine Waters discussing impeachment.

Jones has joined other Democrats in calling for witnesses and documents to be part of the Senate trial. However, he is aware that if he votes against the president at the conclusion of the Senate trial, his upcoming election chances are likely to be negatively impacted.

The most likely of all Democrats to vote in the president’s favor is Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who was once considered for a cabinet position in the Trump administration. Manchin was the only Democrat to vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Displaying more support than any other Democrat senator, according to the website FiveThirtyEight, Manchin has voted with the president the majority of the time. And he, too, voted against the Green New Deal.

Not only does Manchin represent a state that President Trump won by more than 40 percentage points, he reportedly enjoys a friendly relationship with the president. He has been a guest at White House movie screenings and has lunched with the president. President Trump posed for pictures with Manchin, which were used in the senator’s 2018 campaign.

On Manchin’s urging, the president signed a bill into law in 2019 that dealt with pension and health care benefits for coal miners. After Manchin lobbied the president to do so, President Trump gave two basketball stars, Jerry West and Bob Cousy, the Medal of Freedom.

A recent Club for Growth poll of West Virginia voters indicates that almost 70 percent of those surveyed are opposed to the impeachment of the president.

Many Democrats have concerns about how Manchin will vote, but another issue may carry even more weight.

In December of 2019, Jeff Van Drew, a Democrat congressman from New Jersey, switched parties and became a Republican.

Manchin may find it’s the perfect time to follow suit.

Democrats Implement ‘The Big Reverse’

safe_image-14

“The Big Lie” is a form of propaganda that has been used over time by manipulative figures in and out of government, politics, and institutions. It has generally been adopted and applied with the specific intent to surreptitiously alter the beliefs of large groups of people.

Adolf Hitler utilized “The Big Lie” phrase in his 1925 book “Mein Kampf,” describing a lie that was so enormous in size those hearing it would be compelled to believe it.

As members of the human race, the positive side of our nature does not allow for us to accept the notion that any of our fellow human beings would ever lie to us in such a massively brazen way. Our line of reasoning, as well as our unconscious processing, leads us to believe that the lie we are hearing just may be the truth.

Hitler put it in the following way: “It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

And so it is that if the lie is big enough, people will oftentimes come to the conclusion that it is true, particularly if it is repeated over and over again.

Chiseled on an unholy invisible stone tablet, the insidious principle persists to this day. It was embodied in a quote from Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, which read as follows: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

Our customary psychological defenses endow us with the ability to filter out falsehood from truth so that we are able to deal with the commonplace types of lies that we encounter in everyday life.

However, “The Big Lie” is so extraordinary that it is able to pass through psychological defenses that exist within us. Our minds are temporarily short-circuited and ultimately manipulated to a sufficient degree that allows the lie to emerge as “truth.”

Various members of the Democratic Party have either wittingly or unwittingly come upon a variant of “The Big Lie,” which they have used in their “resistance” efforts against President Donald Trump, his administration, his personal relationships, and his family.

I have given this variant of “The Big Lie” the label of “The Big Reverse.”

Lying, of course, is part and parcel of “The Big Reverse.” However, “The Big Reverse” involves an additional component with an individual or group displaying a sudden and dramatic turnaround of language and conduct. This creates in the recipient population what media psychology refers to as “cognitive dissonance.”

Cognitive dissonance is an intellectual and psychological discomfort caused by the intake of information that involves a conflict between what has been said or done in the past and what is presently being said or done.

As human beings, we will instinctively seek to alter one of the opposing beliefs or behaviors to restore the sense of balance that needs to be maintained for individual stability and functionality.

How does all of the above information relate to where our country finds itself in a political, psychological, and societal sense?

Some recent examples may be instructive.

“Impeachment is a very serious matter. If it happens it has to be a bipartisan initiative,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated in the spring of 2018. “Unless you have bipartisan consensus, impeachment is a divisive issue in the country.”

In an interview with The Washington Post in the early spring of 2019, Pelosi remarked, “I’m not for impeachment. Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.”

Then the turnaround occurred.

It was the fall of 2019. Without a single Republican vote, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted to approve an impeachment inquiry. Two hearings were then conducted, where partisan rules were imposed, restrictions were placed solely upon Republican committee members, witnesses that Republicans wished to call were denied, and evidence, fairness, and due process were ignored.

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives brought the articles of impeachment up for a vote. Not a single solitary Republican voted in favor. In the most partisan way imaginable, the articles passed.

In another turnaround example, Democrats stoked the flames of fear and anxiety for months about the urgency that existed to remove the president from office. They even used the culturally familiar phrase “clear and present danger.”

Democrat committee chairs Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler had pushed through the proceedings without having waited for the judicial branch to decide on the legality of the president’s assertion of executive privilege.

After the articles passed the House, Pelosi suddenly put on the brakes. Shirking her constitutional duty, she held back the articles from the Senate for almost a month.

During the impeachment process, the Democrats went to great lengths to portray themselves as being “prayerful” and the process itself as being a “solemn” and “somber” one.

Then the impeachment signing ceremony happened.

Pelosi and her Democrat colleagues celebrated with abandon. Pens with Pelosi’s name stamped on them were actually handed out as souvenirs.

This caused a bit of short-lived cognitive dissonance on the part of otherwise Democrat-adoring personalities on cable news shows.

CNN’s Dana Bash commented, “We are used to seeing signing ceremonies handing out pens at moments of celebration, when a president is signing legislation.” She added, “It was unusual to see that kind of ceremony and handing out the pens and smiling for a picture in this kind of situation where the House speaker has bent over backward to say publicly and privately that this is somber, this is not a time for celebration.” And Bash’s colleague Nia-Malika Henderson called the odd festivities “a little jarring and certainly off message…”

Note of caution in the upcoming days: Expect to see more use of “The Big Reverse” in the Senate impeachment trial.

On the Brink of Peace

air-force-sun-research-770x434-5df2574cf10fd

Many of the previous foreign policy makers of our country have turned a blind-eye to the evil that has emanated from Iran over the years. A glance back helps to explain where we are now, how we got here, and what we need to do moving forward.

The year was 1979. Fifty-two of our people were being held hostage in a U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Our own would be forced to endure captivity for over a year.

The Iranian regime had claimed that Americans were being held by a group of “students.” This would be the first of many falsehoods to come. The truth was the real hostage takers were actually armed personnel who reported to dictator Ayatollah Khomeini.

Iran adopted a strategy of attacking the United States and her allies in an indirect manner, thereby making things appear to be something other than what they actually were. Plotting continued over the years via the application of a deceitful formula that used proxies, militias, terrorist organizations, and the like as covers behind which the country could slyly hide.

The scheme ultimately expanded into an enterprise of indirect warfare led by international war criminal and terrorist Qasem Soleimani. It would tragically remain in place. But thanks to action taken by President Donald Trump, which culminated in a precision drone strike, Soleimani’s sinister reign came to an end.

For those who dispassionately examine the facts, the take-down of Soleimani is good news, not only for the Middle East, but for the world. As the architect of the Iranian effort to exert influence outside of the country’s borders, under his diabolical direction roadside bombs were provided to Sunni terrorists, support was supplied and advice was given to the terrorist group Hezbollah, a civil war in Yemen was fomented, and Shiite militias were used to attack U.S. personnel and interests.

Soleimani planned and implemented almost all of the terrorist attacks of the Iranian regime and its proxy groups across the globe. The Shiite terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East were under his control. He and his proxy groups were behind the flow of IEDs to Iraq and Afghanistan, he used rooftop snipers in both Iran and Iraq to kill protesters who were demonstrating, and on and on it went.

Much as it did with ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in labeling him an “austere religious scholar,” The Washington Post called international terrorist Soleimani a “most revered military leader.” Rather than revered, the overwhelming majority of Iranians viewed him as a brutal participant of an oppressive regime.

Mere days before Soleimani was removed by the American military, he appeared to be trying to conjure up a sequel to the above referenced hostage crisis of 1979. But this time around, instead of “students” Soleimani used “protesters” to attack a U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

President Trump’s action in removing Soleimani stands in stark contrast to the feeble policies of past administrations toward Iran. This, in part, may explain why Democrat lawmakers and former Obama administration officials displayed such inexplicable and over-the-top public reactions to President Trump’s Iranian action.

Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi used language that implied a war crime had been committed. She additionally used a legislative session to pass an unconstitutional resolution to place restraints on presidential power.

Former Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, who was instrumental in the promotion of the disastrous Iran nuclear deal, came forward to claim that President Trump’s action would lead to war. He wrote via his Twitter account that the drone strike on a terrorist leader “is a really frightening moment…”

Former Obama Defense Department official Kelly Magsamen tweeted that she was “honestly terrified” and sent up an additional prayer petition of “God help us.”

While at a recent campaign event for Democrat 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden, former Obama secretary of state John Kerry weighed in with his assessment of President Trump’s decision, characterizing it as a “tragedy” and stating the following: “If this develops into a tit for tat increased effort, it will become a war that is needless, it didn’t have to happen, and it will be a reckless war of choice by the president of the United States.”

Interestingly, in a recent appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Kerry was asked about his role in releasing billions of dollars to Iran while serving in the Obama administration. He responded to the question with a non-responsive reference to the president’s tweet on the subject.

He had admitted to CNBC back in 2016 that “some” of the money would end up in the hands of “entities, some of which are labeled terrorists.”

Fast forward to 2020. When asked in the above referenced CBS appearance why he believed the release of the money was a risk worth taking, Kerry failed to respond, choosing to attack the president instead. He never did explain why he authorized giving a lawless regime an extraordinary amount of money without knowing where the funds would end up.

President Trump has been remarkably consistent. He has shown a great deal of restraint in his use of limited targeted action, while still displaying strength and resolve. It is clear from Iran’s failed missile attack against U.S. forces in Iraq that the regime has a healthy fear of the Trump administration. And so it should.

In the aftermath of the Soleimani saga, a healthy fear is precisely what is needed to keep our country and the world solidly on the brink of peace.

Why CrowdStrike May Be the Real Reason for the Impeachment Charade

pelosi_impeachment_trump

A single telephone call kick-started the Democrat impeachment ruse.

The call involved a conversation between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. During the inter-continental back and forth, a lone reference to a company named CrowdStrike was made.

Few allies of the president have ventured to speak publicly about CrowdStrike. And in their endless indulgence in pretend journalism, the mainstream media have repeatedly tried to divert attention away from any type of substantive discussion regarding the company and the growing list of questions that seeks cover in darkness.

Media figures have used a tired gambit to diminish the importance of CrowdStrike, suggesting that any belief on the part of individuals and/or groups about the company’s possible ties to the Democratic Party or potential involvement with the losing party’s 2016 campaign gets such persons or groups labeled “conspiracy theorists.”

No theorizing is necessary to arrive at the conclusion that CrowdStrike is at the epicenter of the Russia-collusion narrative, which the Democrats and their media allies crammed down the public’s throat during the first two years of Trump’s presidency.

The story surrounding the company’s origin, connections, and purpose is incomplete to say the least. In early 2016, after the DNC server was reportedly hacked, Perkins Coie, a law firm with connections to the Democratic Party, brought in CrowdStrike to investigate the matter.

If the law firm’s name has a familiar ring, it is because the very same entity hired the infamous firm Fusion GPS on behalf of the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign; this was done in order to obtain so-called opposition research prior to the 2016 election, in an apparent effort to establish a link between the Trump campaign and Russia.

In June of 2016, CrowdStrike made the determination that agents of Russia were the ones who had hacked the DNC’s computers, and a claim was made that Russia was the source of the e-mails that were subsequently published by WikiLeaks.

The widely circulated notion that Russia interfered with the U.S. election is based, in part, on the investigation into the DNC’s servers.

However, CrowdStrike employees, as opposed to U.S. law enforcement in the form of the FBI, were the only people to actually investigate the DNC e-mail servers, which purportedly contained evidence of Russian cyber intrusion.

CrowdStrike provided findings to the FBI but did not produce and hand over to the FBI the actual hardware, i.e., the servers themselves.

An adequate explanation has never been provided as to why the FBI was not given access to the servers, although reportedly there were multiple requests to do so.

The Obama intelligence community subsequently issued the frequently cited “intelligence assessment,” which concluded that Russian hackers had infiltrated the DNC servers, based on data provided by CrowdStrike.

Jeh Johnson, former Homeland Security secretary in the Obama administration, told the House Intelligence Committee that when his department offered to help the DNC with the investigation of server intrusion, he was told that the DNC “did not feel it needed DHS’ assistance at that time.”

CrowdStrike has a multiplicity of relationships with Democrats. The president of CrowdStrike Services is an individual named Shawn Henry, who headed up the FBI’s cybercrimes division during the Obama administration.

The company’s co-founder and CTO is Dmitri Alperovitch.

Alperovitch authored the report, which determined that hackers tied to Russia were responsible for the DNC server breach. A Russian-born immigrant who has since become a U.S. citizen, Alperovitch is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, an anti-Russian think tank, which is backed and financed by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk. Pinchuk is a major donor to the Clinton Foundation.

The Atlantic Council decided in 2013 to grant its Distinguished International Leadership Award to none other than Hillary Clinton. The Ukraine-Russian conflict has involved an extensive and intensive cyberwar, with each side attempting to hack the networks and infrastructure of the other. Major cybersecurity firms are involved with the government of Ukraine, including CrowdStrike.

When President Trump mentioned CrowdStrike during his phone call with the Ukrainian leader, he invoked the questionable nature of the firm’s role in the failed Russia-collusion narrative. This likely prompted some of those who were listening to create what we now see creepily unfolding before our very eyes.

What we have here is an impeachment defense.

Like in the movie “A Few Good Men,” the question is whether or not in the end the Democrats and their media allies will be able to handle the truth.