Jerry Nadler: If You Don’t Remove Trump, He Will Be a ‘Dictator’
Breitbart shows us that Jerry Nadler now believes that doing what Obama did has turned President Trump to dictatorial tendencies.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) told the Senate during President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial on Friday that if it failed to remove Trump from office, he would become a “dictator.”
Nadler did not argue, as he did on the first day of the trial — before being rebuked by Chief Justice John Roberts — that Senators would be voting “against the United States” if they voted not to remove the president.
He did, however, say that a vote to acquit Trump would remove all constraints on his power.
Other members of the team of House impeachment managers similarly argued that voting to acquit Trump would give all future presidents “veto power” over Congress.
In Maher’s return from a holiday hiatus, the House speaker spoke gleefully about her colleagues impeaching President Trump and doubled down on her Russian-charged attacks against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
After Maher pointed out that Pelosi was initially “rather reluctant” to move forward with impeachment and waited until “it was inevitable,” the California Democrat responded that Trump simply gave his critics in the House “no choice” in the matter.
Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., confirmed to Fox News that some members wore dark colors to mark the tone of impeachment.
“It was informal,” Dingell told Fox News of the coordination. “It’s a somber day.”
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., wore a dark navy pants suit with pinstripes. “I actually was curious whether there was going to be a dress code, but not that I’m aware of,” she told Fox News. She said she chose a dark suit for the significant occasion. “It was not a day for partisan colors or celebration. So I think a lot of us felt like it was a day for sober attire,” she said.
One of Pelosi’s colleagues also told CNN that several female Democrats intentionally wore all black in order to gesture that the day of the impeachment vote was a somber one.
Pelosi, along with Democrat Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York, Donna Shalala from Florida, Robin Kelly from Illinois and Suzanne Bonamici from Oregon were all seen Wednesday wearing dark outfits. On top of Pelosi’s black dress was a golden pin of the Mace of the Republic — a symbol of the House of Representatives’ authority.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton changed his tune on how he felt about the commander-in-chief’s July 25 call with his Ukrainian counterpart after he was fired from his White House post.
While Bolton claims he resigned in early September 2019, Trump said he fired him.
On August 27, 2019, Bolton described Trump’s July 25 phone conversations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) as “very warm and cordial calls” and acknowledged that corruption poses a significant problem for Ukraine.
Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) demanded that the Senate subpoena additional witnesses and documents Wednesday — after declaring that he would not reveal the “whistleblower.”
Schiff later said that he would not release the transcript of an interview with the Intelligence Committee Inspector General (ICIG) about the way in which the so-called “whistleblower’s” initial complaint was handled.
Schiff’s contradictory responses came in response to questions from Republican Senators in the question-and-answer portion of the Senate impeachment trial.
Schiff was first pinned down by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) in a question about the standard or “abuse of power.” They asked a hypothetical about President Barack Obama asking for an investigation about one of then-Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s sons in 2012.
He used a familiar tactic of misquoting the Ukraine call transcript, saying, “Do me a favor.”
Schiff then declared that a president should never ask the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate a political rival.
White House lawyer Jay Sekulow pointed out later that was exactly what President Barack Obama’s DOJ did to then-candidate Donald Trump in Operation Crossfire Hurricane.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee with Schiff, noted the contradiction:
What a stunning turn of events today to hear Adam Schiff declare from the well of the United States Senate that it… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
When it comes to Democrat accountability, there is none in this case.
Misquote (aka, lie), hide proofs (by not releasing the transcript concerning the creation of the “whistleblower” account), and contradict yourself — this seems to be the Democrat playbook.
How Hunter Biden got his job at Burisma – “Who’s your daddy?”
Going back to things that seemed to work
Democrats show their fixation on removing Trump with their 8th scheme
When you have a case, you whisper and pound the facts. When you have no case, you shout and pound the table.
Having squandered the fact-finding portion of the Impeachment, Democrats demand the Senate abandon its jury role and take on the role of prosecutors
Pelosi cartoonishly attempts to seem relevant by ripping the State of the Union address
As reported in The Hill, Nancy Pelosi ripped up her copy of the State of the Union speech.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday ripped up her copy of President Trump‘s prepared remarks at the conclusion of his State of the Union address.
As Trump finished speaking and most lawmakers stood to applaud, Pelosi stood, took the printed copy of Trump’s speech and tore it in half. She placed the shredded copy in a stack on the dais as Trump made his way to greet members of Congress.
Democrats signaled in the runup to the looming conclusion of President Trump‘s impeachment proceedings that they’ll simply refuse to accept his all-but-certain acquittal because his “sham” trial lacked proper witnesses and evidence.
Signaling how they will message the saga in the coming months on the campaign trail, top Democratic leaders in the House and Senate argued Trump can never erase the stain of impeachment because the trial wasn’t legitimate.
“The president’s acquittal will be meaningless,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., declared Friday, “because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink.”
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif. said Republicans may get what they want — a speedy end to the trial — but it won’t have any value.
“There will be no true acquittal if there is no fair trial,” Harris, a former White House hopeful, said Friday.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who for weeks held onto the two articles of impeachment to try to force the Senate to commit to witnesses, said she won’t accept a not guilty verdict in the Senate as vindication.
“He will not be acquitted,” Pelosi said Thursday. “You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial, and you don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and that.”
Pelosi has already been gloating that her House of Representatives gave Trump a black mark in the history books that can never be erased.
“You’re impeached forever,” Pelosi said with a big grin in an interview with HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” “No matter what the Senate does, that can never be erased.”
Democrats have hammered that without witnesses testifying, such as former national security adviser John Bolton, the Senate trial amounts to a cover-up.
Americans know the Democrats’ plan to impeach President Trump did not begin in September 2019. Rather, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., admitted herself, it has been going on for over two and a half years.
Unable to wrap their head around the idea that 60 million Americans disagreed with the socialist agenda propagated by the Democratic Party, Rep Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Rep Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and many others began their plan to impeach President Trump the moment he was elected.
This entire impeachment sham has been a predetermined narrative full of lies and false accusations designed to divide America and harm President Trump.
It’s time to correct the record on Congressional Democrats’ ten most egregious impeachment lies.
Lie: This impeachment process began after an anonymous whistleblower filed a complaint through the proper channels within the Office of the Inspector General.
Fact: An article published on Oct 2, 2019, by the New York Times proved Schiff received an early account of the whistleblower’s complaint despite his persistent denial. This gave Democrats time to come up with an impeachment plan before any information was released to the public.
Lie: Democrats began the impeachment hearings out of concern for the country and the Constitution.
Fact: Time and time again Democrats have gone on the record proving their motivations for impeachment to be political.
Rep. Al Green, D-Texas: “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this President, he will get reelected.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, D-N.Y.: “[Impeaching Trump] is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome [in 2020].”
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.: “The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box.”
(Read the other 8 lies and proofs of those lies at Fox News)
House Democrats: Steele Dossier was OK because we ‘purchased’ it
House impeachment manager Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) told the Senate on Thursday that the so-called “Steele dossier” paid for by Democrats against then-candidate Donald Trump was not improper foreign interference in the 2016 election because they “purchased” it.
Jeffries was responding to a question from Republicans about Democrats’ argument that the president had invited improper foreign interference in U.S. elections by seeking, or being willing to accept, information from abroad on a potential political opponent.
The question asked: “Under the House managers’ standard, would the Steele dossier be considered as foreign interference in a U.S. election, a violation of the law, and/or an impeachable offense?”
Jeffries replied: “The analogy is not applicable to the present situation because, first, to the extent that opposition research was obtained, it was opposition research that was purchased.”
He also referred to allegations about the dossier as a “conspiracy theory.”
The “dossier” was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, using a variety of foreign sources, including sources allegedly close to the Russian government.
A recent Department of Justice Inspector General report noted the FBI had found that the “Steele dossier” was false — but kept referring to it as legitimate in applications for renewals of surveillance warrants.
Steele had been working for the opposition firm Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS was initially paid by a Republican source who wanted to stop Trump from winning the GOP nomination, but the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee later paid the firm, funneling money through the Perkins Coie law firm.
Earlier in the day, the second of two full days of questions and answers with House managers and White House lawyers, Jeffries had falsely accused White House lawyers of condoning foreign interference in U.S. elections, misquoting an answer from Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin from the night before.
All Philbin had done was quote the law, which is that accepting mere information is not a violation of campaign finance law.
White House lawyer Jay Sekulow pounced: “So — I guess you could buy? — this is what it sounds like — you can buy a foreign interference, if you purchase their opposition research, I guess it’s OK.”
Schweizer, the president of the Government Accountability Institute and a Breitbart News senior contributor, noted that one of the articles of impeachment in the current impeachment trial accuses President Trump of committing “abuse of power.”
“It’s funny, because the impeachment charges [include] abuse of power, which really is kind of a widely used term,” Schweizer stated. “That is also in the subtitle of the book, and we picked the subtitle eight months ago, before the trial even began, so it’s this happy strange coincidence. If you want to look for public officials who are making decisions and distorting the rules of government for the benefit of themselves — which is what they’re claiming Donald Trump did in this case — you are going to find multiple examples of the nine, I would argue, top progressives in the country doing exactly that.”
Schweizer began by sharing some findings related to former Vice President Joe Biden’s family’s business dealings.
“People are familiar with Biden stories as they relate to Hunter [Biden],” said Schweizer. “The deals in China, the deals in Ukraine, but there are actually five members [of the Biden family] that have engaged in corrupt behavior — that cashed in — while [Joe Biden] was vice president of the United States, and self-enriched.”
Schweizer continued, “I’ve exposed a lot of Republicans, a lot of Democrats, liberals, conservatives, and the most I’ve ever seen before is three family members involved in an enterprise, so the Bidens have busted through that ceiling.”
On Saturday, President Donald Trump’s defense team had the opportunity to poke holes in the House Democrats’ impeachment case. One of the topics the defense team instantly ran with was House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) totally bogus narrative of what took place in Trump’s July 25th call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.
According to Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), when the defense team played the video of Schiff “reading” his version of the call transcript, “the blood drained from Adam Schiff’s face.”
“Today we heard a presentation that was strong and that was clear and it completely undermined the case of the Democrats and truly undermined the credibility of Adam Schiff,” Barrasso said following the hearing. “The most effective thing that happened was when they first read – this was when the president’s counsel first read the transcript of the phone call with the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine and then played the video of Adam Schiff with his fictionalized, made-up script.”
“From where I was sitting, and I know the press couldn’t see his face, but the blood drained from Adam Schiff’s face as they played that video and his made-up words,” Barrasso said.
CLAIM: The White House believes that it’s OK to take information from a foreign country in an election.
VERDICT: FALSE. The White House merely argued that it was not illegal or a campaign finance violation.
Democrats — and journalists — have been misstating Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin’s reply to a question on Wednesday, the first day of questions and answers in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, as if he said that it was all right, and legal, for foreign countries to interfere in our elections.
Philbin had been asked specifically if foreign information would violate campaign finance law. (Note that if mere foreign information were illegal, the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee would have violated the law for paying vast sums of money for a foreign spy, Christopher Steele, to compile “information” (later found to be false) from his foreign sources, including official sources in Russia.)
The Deputy White House counsel then noted that Congress had made some kind of foreign involvement in elections illegal, but not all.
(He could have added: how many non-U.S. citizens work on Democrats’ campaigns? Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has a senior campaign staffer who is not even here legally.)
Philbin added: “there’s nothing wrong with listening.” He noted that the president had, in interviews, suggested that he might also approach the FBI after hearing the information, hypothetically, from abroad.
House manager Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) then claimed that the president’s counsel were saying it is “okay” to “seek or welcome foreign interference in our elections.”
Philbin was not asked about “foreign interference” in general, nor even about information from a foreign government. He was asked specifically about foreign information.
Nor did Philbin say say that it was “okay,” or that it wasn’t morally wrong. He was asked whether it was legal, and he said — correctly — that it was.
Republican Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst on Saturday reacted to the White House counsel’s defense against impeaching President Donald Trump, saying they “shredded” the House managers’ case in just two hours.
“Within two hours I thought that the White House Counsel and their team entirely shredded the case that has been presented by the house managers,” Ernst said to reporters on Capitol Hill after listening to Trump’s lawyers.
The White House’s defense team had its first opportunity to deliver their opening arguments in the impeachment trial against Trump in the Senate. The team has 24 hours over three days to make its arguments, but they might not use all 24 hours of their time.
Pat Cipollone, Michael Purpura, Patrick Philbin, and Trump’s personal attorney Jay Sekulow all were in charge of laying out their defense during Saturday’s impeachment trial.
During President Trump’s impeachment trial Wednesday night, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul submitted a question for Democrat impeachment managers. More specifically, for Congressman Adam Schiff. Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read it. From The Hill:
A source confirmed that Roberts has indicated he would not read a question from Paul regarding the whistleblower at the center of the House impeachment inquiry.
The question from Paul is expected to name the individual. Because Roberts is responsible for reading the questions that would put him in the position of publicly outing the person on the Senate floor.
Paul indicated to reporters after a closed-door Republican dinner that he was not backing down from trying to ask his question.
“It’s still an ongoing process; it may happen tomorrow,” the libertarian-leaning senator told reporters as he headed back to the Senate chamber.
This morning Paul sent the question again, which Roberts again refused to read.
This prompted Senator Paul to post the question he planned to ask on his twitter page.
Paul, a Kentucky Republican, minutes later Thursday spoke to reporters and read the question Roberts refused to read aloud. “I can tell you that my question made no reference to any whistleblower or any kind of person or a complaint from a whistleblower. I will read you the question so it can be made part of the public record,” said Paul, 57.
“Manager Schiff and counselors for the president. Are you aware that House Intelligence Committee staffer Sean Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella when at the National Security Council together?” Paul said. “Are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the president before there were formal House impeachment proceedings?”
Paul justified his question, saying that it made no reference to the whistleblower.
On Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) attempted to ask a question about two partisan Democrats who reportedly conspired to impeach the president before formal impeachment proceedings even began in the House. During a phase in the impeachment trial designed to allow senators to ask questions, Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read Rand’s question because it contained the name of the partisan Democrat who has reportedly been identified as the whistleblower responsible for this entire impeachment sham. Robert’s refusal to read Rand’s question over concern of outing the alleged whistleblower only bolsters evidence that the partisan Democrat named in Rand’s question is indeed the actual whistleblower.
People who don’t know anything about the Whistleblower Protection Act immediately began calling for Senator Rand Paul to be arrested. Even members of the media act as if a person conspiring to bring down a duly elected president by plotting with the president’s political enemies, and reportedly lying about it under oath, is entitled to complete anonymity and must answer no more than zero follow-up questions about their cockamamie scheme. Sen. Paul was forced to educate such a reporter after she falsely claimed that it was illegal for anyone ever to out a whistleblower.
“Actually,” the senator began, “you got that wrong, too. You should work on the facts. The whistleblower statute protects the whistleblower from having his name revealed by the inspector general. Even The New York Times admits that no one else is under any legal obligation. The other point, and you need to be very careful if you are really interested in the news, is the whistleblower is actually a material witness completely separate from being the whistleblower because he worked for Joe Biden … at the same time Hunter Biden was receiving $50,000 a month, so the investigation into the corruption of Hunter Biden involves this whistleblower because he was there at the time. Did he bring up the conflict of interest? Was there discussion of this? What was his involvement with the relationship between Joe Biden and the prosecutor? There’s a lot of questions the whistleblower needs to answer.”
Thanks to Senator Paul for defining the details of the Whistleblower Protection Act
Sadly for the Democrats, except when we are standing before the House of Representatives, we have the right to face our accuser. Furthermore, outside of the House, when there are answers that must be answered regarding an accusation, we need to hear from the accuser (or we need to abandon the accusations).
Adam Schiff: Trump could sell Alaska to Russia in exchange for election help if ‘abuse of power is not impeachable’
Rep. Adam Schiff insinuated that President Trump could sell Alaska to the Russians in exchange for electoral support if acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial for abuse of power.
While delivering his concluding remarks in the trial on Monday, Schiff, 59, lambasted the president’s legal team for asserting that abuse of power does not fall under “high crimes or misdemeanors.” Schiff argued that if such a defense holds, then Trump could commit a variety of corrupt acts without consequence.
“If abuse of power is not impeachable … Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election or decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and let Jared Kushner run the country, delegating to him the decision whether to go to war,” the California Democrat said on the Senate floor.
“Because those things are not necessarily criminal, this argument would allow that he could not be impeached for such abuses of power. Of course, this would be absurd. More than absurd, it would be dangerous,” he affirmed.
Alan Derschowitz, a Harvard law professor on Trump’s impeachment defense team, argued that the articles of impeachment levied against the president do not fall under the Constitution’s criteria of high crimes and misdemeanors. Derschowitz claimed that the House’s abuse of power and obstruction of Congress articles are so broad that they would have led to the impeachment of many presidents, including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
Despite a warning from the Senate sergeant-at-arms for senators to remain silent as the Democratic impeachment managers laid out their case against the president, a so-called quote read by lead impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) elicited several responses from Republican senators Friday evening.
Rep. Schiff was referencing a CBS news report claiming a Trump ally had warned GOP senators, “vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.” But many senators responded to Rep. Schiff, saying aloud, “That’s not true.”
Witnessed this in real time. A number of Republican senators looked visibly angry and whispered to each other right… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
The lead impeachment manager seems to have alienated some of the very senators the Democrats were hoping to peel away from the Republican majority on important votes like calling forward new witnesses and subpoenaing documents.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appears to be considering an idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.
She declined formally to transmit the articles to the Senate on Wednesday evening after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump.
Unfortunately for them, the Senate can act, regardless — and would vote to acquit.
That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
That is all.
The Chief Justice presides over a trial involving the president, but the Senate makes the rules. And the Senate is controlled by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who regards what the House has done with contempt.
You’re in Cocaine Mitch’s court, now.
Politico outlined Democrats’ new idea, citing constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe (but, interestingly, not the Constitution itself). Pelosi hopes to pressure McConnell into holding a “fair trial” — this, after she and her party broke every relevant House rule and precedent, and several Amendments in the Bill of Rights, all in the name of their “sole Power of Impeachment.”
They forget that a “fair trial” applies to the accused, not the accuser, and has since 1215.
Set aside, for the moment, that holding onto the articles of impeachment would contradict everything Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the Democrats have said for weeks about the “urgency” of impeachment. They needed to stop him before he could “cheat in the next election,” we were told — that’s why the House could not wait for the courts to rule on the White House’s resistance to stop congressional subpoenas.
All of that would be exposed as a lie.
If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.
McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or even hold a vote to acquit the president.
“What are you going to cover?” Biden said in response to a question about the possibility of his participation in the trial. “You guys are going to cover for three weeks anything that I said. And (Trump’s) going to get away.”
But on Saturday, he appeared to partially walk that answer back.
I want to clarify something I said yesterday. In my 40 years in public life, I have always complied with a lawful o… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
“I want to clarify something I said yesterday. In my 40 years in public life, I have always complied with a lawful order and in my eight years as VP, my office — unlike Donald Trump and Mike Pence — cooperated with legitimate congressional oversight requests,” he tweeted.
“But I am just not going to pretend that there is any legal basis for Republican subpoenas for my testimony in the impeachment trial. That is the point I was making yesterday and I reiterate: this impeachment is about Trump’s conduct, not mine,” he said.
Later on Saturday, during a town hall in Iowa, Biden said he “would obey any subpoena sent to me.”
In the least, Biden needs to stand before the nation and testify before the Senate regarding the crimes perpetrated in Ukraine.
Better yet, should there be evidence available to the investigators of Attorney General Barr, then Biden should stand trial for his wrongdoings.
The Democrat focus on impeachment shot another red flare warning into Michigan (another battleground state)
Just as Hillary shot herself in the foot by ignoring the battleground states (spending all of her time in the coastal strongholds), a 29 December 2019 article in Townhall points out how San Fran Nan shot the current crop of hopefuls in the foot by messing with another battleground state.
Often, politicians put too much faith in polls. Since 2012, their accuracy has degraded. In 2016, they were insanely off, which led to the greatest political upset in modern American history. It’s also shakier when the Trump coalition isn’t “loyal” for a lack of a better word. These voters had voted for Democrats in the past, with millions being Obama voters. A great many were two-time Obama voters. In fact, a good chunk voted for Democrats in the 2018 midterms, though two-thirds now say they’re backing Trump this year. And it doesn’t matter who the Democratic rival is; that should cause some pause with Democrats heading into 2020. Oh, and these are all battleground state voters.
Democrats didn’t care. They couldn’t. The 2018 promise was that they’ll impeach Trump. Support for President Trump’s impeachment is now underwater nationally, and it was never popular in the swing states, especially in Wisconsin and Michigan. These are states that Democrats need to win in 2020. And these voters could’ve maybe have been persuaded to vote Democratic if they had an agenda that spoke to working class Americans. They don’t. And now, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her crew getting the article of impeachment through the House and now holding onto them because they face certain death in the Republican Senate, these voters are just Trump Republicans now. Maybe the window was never there, but even if there was—this Democratic Party’s far-left extremism wouldn’t have sold. For starters, the health care plan that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders want will destroy 150+ million private health care plans. That’s the only way Medicare for All works—and those on the casualty list include union households. Talk about an election killer. And now with this impeachment theater; these voters are “sick” of it (via Axios):
The two-plus hour conversation revealed major warning signs for the Democratic Party in a crucial swing county that will be a pivotal area to win in 2020.
This was the biggest takeaway from our Engagious/FPG focus group last week, which included 10 voters who flipped from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016.
While a focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, these responses show how some voters are thinking and talking about the 2020 election in crucial counties.
The big picture:
These voters hate the fact that House Democrats are moving toward impeaching the president. They call it a distraction from the issues that would actually improve their lives, like preserving Social Security, cracking down on illegal immigration, and keeping jobs in the U.S.
“I think she’s wasting a lot of [taxpayer] money on a ghost chase,” said Chad Y., a 43-year-old Obama/Trump voter, of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “The money she’s spending on that could go to help the homeless or go towards health care.”
Another participant, 73-year-0ld Michael G., said Democrats’ focus is in the wrong direction. “Instead of working on policies and things that will help the people, they are just working to basically preserve their own position … [T]hey don’t really care about you and [me], I don’t think.”
Oh, and remember the Armageddon tax bill Trump pushed through Congress? Well, these voters think it made health care more affordable. As Axios noted, “they said…his [Trump] GOP tax law, which some said has saved them more in taxes so they can now reallocate that money to pay for prescription drugs.”
Graham Rips Pelosi, Says She Can’t ‘Be House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader at Same Time’
Biz Pac Review pointed out Senator Graham’s response to Pelosi’s dragging her feet and provided some reasons for her continued procrastination.
On Thursday, just one day after the House of Representatives voted to approve two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, Senator Lindsey Graham warned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that any shenanigans would not be tolerated.
Washington Examiner’s Byron York suggested that it looks like Pelosi may drag her feet when it comes to delivering the articles to the Senate, or perhaps not do it at all.
‘Seems nuts’: Byron York questions why Pelosi might delay articles of impeachment to Senate dlvr.it/RLZjQM
It would appear that Graham is of the same mind as York, and made it clear to Pelosi that if she is thinking about doing such a thing, it would not be viewed favorably.
“If House Dems refuse to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial it would be a breathtaking violation of the Constitution, an act of political cowardice, and fundamentally unfair to President [Trump,]” he tweeted Thursday morning. “Not allowing the Senate to act on approved Articles of Impeachment becomes Constitutional extortion and creates chaos for the presidency. It also sets in motion a tremendous threat to our Constitutional system of checks and balances.”
Not allowing the Senate to act on approved Articles of Impeachment becomes Constitutional extortion and creates cha… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
“What is driving this crazy idea? Democrats have finally realized they have a very WEAK case which NEVER should have been brought forward to begin with,” he added. “Nancy Pelosi’s threat to refuse to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for disposition is an incredibly dumb and dangerous idea. There is a reason one person can’t be Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader at the same time!”
We should keep in touch with Senator Graham to ensure that this deluded old woman does not get to act on her delusions. Sadly, since the main stream media has taken measures to hide the Speaker’s malfeasance, this woman’s megalomania could affect us for the worse.
However, as anyone who has watched just as few minutes of the main stream media can tell you (and — to be clear — I do limit my exposure to the brain-stifling tripe), the main stream media can be counteracted. We can counteract this tripe through continued education of the world in truth.
The informed, though, need to keep the Republicans accountable and the Democrats in check.
Lindsey Graham Promises Biden Investigation: ‘None Of Us Are Above Scrutiny’
Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham promised again Sunday to begin an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden because “none of us are above scrutiny.”
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has previously said he wants to assess any misconduct by Joe Biden in Ukraine. Graham repeated that pledge on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” even though he called the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential race “one of the most decent people I have ever met in my life.”
“Here’s the deal: this whole process around Ukraine wreaks with politics. They have done everything but take a wrecking ball to Donald Trump and his family. We’re not going to live in a world where only Republicans get looked at,” Graham said.
He said his personal opinions about Biden can’t influence his actions as a lawmaker. “As much as I love Joe Biden and I’m sincere when I say that … it’s hard for me to tell my constituents to ignore the fact that Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from a gas company in Ukraine run by the most corrupt person in Ukraine, and two months after the gas company was investigated, the prosecutor got fired,” Graham told CBS News.
The senator said he hopes there’s nothing to allegations that the Bidens acted improperly in Ukraine but that he needs to find out. President Donald Trump, among others, has accused Joe Biden of having a top Ukrainian prosecutor fired because he wanted to investigate corruption at Burisma.
“I hope I can look at the transcripts of the phone calls between Biden and the Ukraine … and say there is nothing there. These are legitimate concerns about what happened in the Ukraine. I love Joe Biden, but none of us are above scrutiny. I’d like to knock all this off and get back on governing the country,” Graham said.
Yes, none of us are above investigation. That includes Democrats on all levels.
Democrats who have broken campaign finance laws (like Tlaib and Omar) need to be investigated. Democrats like Menendez need more than a censure for bribery. Democrats like Schiff (assuming he did not break laws by taking Rep. Nunes’ phone records) need to be investigated to the degree he baselessly investigated others. In fact, Democrats at all levels, especially those who continually show themselves on talk shows and seem to want to step onto the national stage, should answer for involvement in nefarious events.
Pelosi a laughing stock to the world
Tim Scott Blasts ‘Wacky’ House Impeachment Process — ‘Pelosi Is Not Taking It Seriously’
Friday during an interview on Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) lobbied Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) not to allow House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to exert influence over the U.S. Senate regarding what he described as the “wacky” impeachment process.
“The wacky House process is just a joke. And unfortunately, for one of the most important and consequential decisions the House could have made to impeach the President, you would expect an expeditious process for the Senate to start the process, but it’s not happened,” he said. “It’s not happened because Pelosi is not taking it seriously. And frankly, she is now concerned that the terrible process in the House will be invalidated by the Senate, because without any question, having watched that process, it’s hard to understand why we were even in the impeachment process at all.”
Yes, we might need to prove this is not a Banana Republic
Proving that America has not permanently slipped into a permanent might be an event, because getting back to normal will not only involve making certain that law starts being applied to Democrats — it will also involve dishing out some of the Democrat antics on the Democrats (with a similar lack of consequences that smash-the-drives Hillary, Schiff-for-brains, runway-meeting Lynch, Fast-and-Furious Holder, and others escaped). Until then, conservatives had better start their own resistence.
Nancy Pelosi calls President Trump a coward & then invokes God
As reported by Yahoo News on 6 December 2019, Nancy Pelosi reacted violently to a question from James Rosen of Sinclair News. Possibly in response to the observed Trump Derangement Syndrome observed by the reporter, that reporter asked, “Do you hate President Trump?” In response, the following came:
I think the president is a coward when it comes to helping our kids who are afraid of gun violence.
I think he is cruel when he doesn’t deal with helping our “Dreamers.” I think he’s in denial about the climate crisis. However, that is about the election. Take it up in the election. This is about the Constitution of the United States and the facts that lead to the president’s violation of his oath of office.
As a Catholic, I resent you using the word “hate” in a sentence that addresses me. I don’t hate anyone. I was raised in a way that is a heart full of love and always pray for the president. And I still pray for the president. I pray for the president all the time. So don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that.
So she says that she does not hate; however, what do her actions say?
First, take the actions within this presser
Even if we limit our attention to this presser, we see that she called the President a “coward” for not accepting gun control measures. In truth, no gun control law has made people more safe (otherwise, Chicago would be one of the safest cities in the nation — rather than one of the leading murder capitals). Therefore, her calling the President a “coward” was nothing but an empty insult.
Regarding empty insults, Jesus said (but the emphasis is mine):
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘ You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. (Matthew 5:22 NASB)
In addition to endangering herself of fiery hell by assigning an empty insult to the President, Ms. Pelosi went on to mix in several lies. First, she accused him of cruelty regarding “our Dreamers.” The problem is that the last President originally repeatedly said that he could not change immigration law. Then he changed it by executive fiat (also known as abuse of power). No laws were passed to accommodate this new class of non-citizens (although Trump offered a deal that the Democrats and Pelosi rejected). Hence, she cannot honestly claim that Trump alone has acted cruelly toward the Dreamers.
Consider her actions for and against the powerless
By asking you to consider her actions regarding the powerless, I primarily speak of the unborn. Her side calls them “fetuses” and uses other euphemisms. However, more to the point, her party has recently promoted full-term abortion. And though we cannot blame her for the over 45 million babies killed in the US between 1973 and 2015, Democrats cannot be held blameless. Therefore, for Pelosi to claim her Catholic faith while not renouncing her commitment to abortion means denying the core of the following Biblical mandates:
You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; (Exodus 22:22-23 NASB)
You have seen it, for You have beheld mischief and vexation to take it into Your hand. The unfortunate commits himself to You; You have been the helper of the orphan. (Psalms 10:14 NASB)
A father of the fatherless and a judge for the widows, Is God in His holy habitation. God makes a home for the lonely; He leads out the prisoners into prosperity, Only the rebellious dwell in a parched land. (Psalms 68:5-6 NASB)
The Lord protects the strangers; He supports the fatherless and the widow, But He thwarts the way of the wicked. (Psalms 146:9 NASB)
Open your mouth for the mute, For the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy. (Proverbs 31:8-9 NASB)
Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:17 NASB)
Honor widows who are widows indeed; (1 Timothy 5:3 NASB)
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. (James 1:27 NASB)
but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6 NASB)
By asking you to consider her actions regarding the powerless, I also could be talking about her lack of action in support of the poor of America. That is, the people who the Democrats have forgotten in their headlong rush to accommodate illegal aliens. Admittedly, while we will always have poor in America, opportunities for the poor have reduced with the Democrat’s drive to aid the illegal aliens through sanctuary cities, Democrat policies, and other initiatives.
Nancy Pelosi dictatorially proclaimed an impeachment inquiry instead of holding a vote on the impeachment inquiry (as with the Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton impeachments). If she were as much of a loving Christian as she claims, would this unfairness be the case?
Under current Democrat rules, the President does not have the right to face his accuser. In other words, an unknown person (who may not exist) can make accusations against the President and he has to defend himself. In all other American courts, Americans have due process rights. If Nancy were a Christian, would she allow this?
That is, she could make a difference if she were a true follower of the Church.
Give the devil his due, she does make one right references
Pelosi does correctly note that Christians should pray for their leaders, for we are told:
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. (1 Timothy 2:1-2 NASB)
However, as we know of Satan when he came to tempt Jesus, he came misquoting and then ignoring the central points to scripture (Mark 4:1-11).
Additionally, while we know that Christians are saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9), we also know that faith without works is worthless (James 2:18-26). Therefore, Nancy Pelosi’s proclamation of Christian love, prayer, and faith without any proof of it within her professional life seems pretty useless.
President Trump has ordered the Senate to hold a full trial in the event the House impeaches him. A team of top level senators reportedly sat down with White House counsel Pat Cipollone this week to discuss a potential “dooms day” plan.
The White House is reportedly urging senators against immediately dismissing articles of impeachment as some GOP lawmakers have suggested in the past. The administration said establishing a “factual affirmative defense” for the president before dismissing impeachment is important since it shows due process, which is something conservatives say Democrats have lacked during their inquiry.
“It’s a hoax, it’s a disgrace, it’s an embarrassment to our country,” said President Trump. “Shifty Schiff, he stands up and he tells lies all day long and even with that,so we have no due process…”
This comes amid reports the House could be pursuing four different articles of impeachment against the president on charges of obstruction of justice, abuse of power, bribery, and contempt of Congress. The White House maintains that holding a Senate hearing would give them an opportunity to disprove each of those charges.
During a recent interview, the president said that those hearings would allow the upper chamber a chance to question Hunter Biden, the whistleblower, and House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff.
Senators are currently mulling strategies to not only dismantle Democrats’ impeachment narrative, but disrupt Democrat primaries as payback for holding impeachment proceedings during the president’s re-election campaign. One of those plans could entail holding Senate impeachment hearings during primary debates. The move would force senators like Kamala Karris, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to cut into their campaign times to attend hearings.
We’ve endured eight years of Obama and four years of “The Resistance.” Now Conservatives are ready for representation that fights back.
Far from the submissive conservative embodied in President George W. Bush, today’s conservative has been looking for a leader who will resist the evil that comes in the abortion-centered party.
Additionally, just to get things on an even footing, in a similar way to how the Democrat party has changed the rules mid-stream (as with the nuclear option) and thinks nothing of circling the wagons around obviously-guilty Democrats (like Senator Mendoza and Secretary of State Clinton), the Republicans need to start dishing equal amounts back to the Democrats. The years of “my esteemed colleague from across the aisle” have wrought nothing but wins for Democrats and loses for Republicans. Now, we need to live by “an eye for an eye” until there is a sign of Democrats’ collegiality.
Trump: Schiff Risks Senate Grilling If Impeachment Moves Ahead
President Donald Trump on Saturday warned that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., risks voter disapproval — and a grilling in the Senate — if he moves forward with impeachment.
In a tweet, Trump suggested unnamed polling shows Americans are against impeachment.
“Adam Schiff will be compelled to testify should the Democrats decide, despite the fact that my presidential conversations were totally appropriate (perfect), to go forward with the Impeachment Hoax,” Trump tweeted.
“Polls have now turned very strongly against Impeachment!”
Republicans have pushed for Schiff to testify in the impeachment because he was in contact with the whistleblower whose concerns sparked the proceeding.
If Schiff thinks that he can suspend rules, suspend due process, and not have it bite him, he has “another think coming”
Southerners have a colloquialism that they use when a person lives in delusive state where they think their plans will run unchallenged. In those instances, Southerners might admit the person might think something, but “they’ve got another think coming.”
If Schiff thinks that he can eliminate due process and equal protection under the law, he might discover several things. First, he might discover that he does not control the Senate and might come under a revived due process and equal protection under the law there. Second, he might find that he has set a precedent that might be useful against the next Democrat minority or Democrat president. I’m hoping he has.
Biased ABC News backs Schiff in ignoring Biden corruption
After President Donald Trump said it would be “appropriate” for him to speak to his attorney general about initiating an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s diplomacy in Ukraine while Biden’s son was serving on the board of Ukrainian energy company, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Sunday that such a move would not be appropriate and expressed concern that the attorney general — who he said was lacking integrity — “just might do it.”
“Of course it’s not appropriate [to discuss that],” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in an interview with ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos on “This Week” Sunday. “The president of the United States is saying it’s perfectly OK for him — and he’s said this before — to go to the attorney general and get [the Department of Justice] to open an investigation of his rivals. And sadly, this attorney general has turned out to be so … partisan and so without — frankly, without integrity — he just might do it.”
Trump told POLITICO on Friday that he hadn’t yet discussed it with Attorney General William Barr, but also said, “It could be a very big situation.”
So what else is new here? How many years have the main stream media been focused on their own issues?
By the end of this list of articles, we have at least one instance of a main stream media source discovering an inkling of the concepts that the conservative counter-press discusses regularly. However, they don’t spend too much time on those conservative concepts. I guess we cannot expect too much.
Republicans will gain the upper hand with the Senate hearings
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said Friday that the Senate should allow the House and President Donald Trump to make their case before deciding whether to dismiss articles of impeachment that the House might send over.
“I know outside pundits are just bringing up, dismiss this thing out of hand and move on, but at the same time that would not afford President Trump the ability to really defend himself. So I think the consensus viewpoint literally is we’ll take it up in the Senate,” Johnson told KHOW in Colorado.
He added that if the House sends articles of impeachment to the Senate, they will inevitably be “incredibly flawed,” and House leaders and members of Trump’s team would have to make their case to the Senate.
“I don’t think we should ever just bring up a motion to dismiss. I think if at some point in time if we’ve heard enough, if we’ve really got the votes, we should bring up a motion to vote. Let’s actually vote on the articles of impeachment and then dispense with it that way,” Johnson continued.
Have you noticed that many of these articles center on a Conservative reaction to Democrat lawlessness?
Hopefully, this theme will be echoed on thousands of blogs, hundred of thousands of tweets, proportionately more Facebook posts, and in numerous other social media posts. While I don’t have illusions about the effect of this blog, I have great hopes for the voices of the American.
Anti-Trump Schiff Will Be Seriously Responsible for Tearing Our Nation Apart
Lifezette points out how Schiff’s anti-Trump agenda may be responsible for tearing our nation apart.
The Communist Chinese used to love them, especially during the Cultural Revolution.
The Khmer Rouge of Cambodia was fond of the process. They favored a prosecution of anyone who wore glasses.
But the all-time champs were the Soviets. During the 1930s, they perfected the process to such a point that innocent men would plead guilty to anything the state wanted, lest their families be put to death.
Of course, if the state could find them guilty of anything the state desired, then the state had to come up with some pretty interesting stuff, as most of the men tried were actually the recent comrades of the accusers.
Thus, the Soviets perfected a technique that upended reality: They would charge the defendants with crimes so absurd, so ridiculous, so patently untrue on the very face of it.
When the prosecution said the sky was black, no matter what the sky looked like, the defendant agreed. Up was down and wrong was right until biased perceptions, not truth or reality, were the order of the day.
Arthur Koestler wrote an amazing novel about the Soviet show trials called “Darkness at Noon.”
But, hey, chill. That only happened in early 20th century totalitarian countries.
Could never happen here, right?
That brings us to the recently closed impeachment inquiry hearings in front of the House Intelligence Committee, led by Democrat Chairman Adam Schiff of California.
First, it shows the degree to which Democrats will stoop to regain power. Making rules for a “court” that wouldn’t be acceptable in a banana republic does not pass muster here. Second, Pelosi and Schiff have shown that, when the real testimony given at the hearings do not match the summaries uttered by the House leadership and reported in the “evening news,” it’s time to change the leadership and news.
Democrat Representative Adam Smith: Investigation Of Nunes ‘Quite Likely’
Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said Saturday it’s “likely” Rep. Devin Nunes , R-Calif., will face an ethics probe over allegations he met with an ex-Ukrainian prosecutor who’s a key figure in the impeachment inquiry.
In an interview on MSNBC, Smith was asked if Nunes could be investigated for the meeting with former Ukrainian prosecutor general Victor Shokin.
“Quite likely, without question,” Smith responded.
“I understand a lot of this is about Joe Biden, but the bigger thing is about what President [Donald] Trump and the Russians and all these people have been doing … is a systematic problem that is a threat to the country because of what Russia is doing to democracy,” Smith told MSNBC.
A lawyer for Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told CNN a Ukrainian official informed his client that Nunes met with Shokin last December in an attempt to dig up dirt on the former vice president.
Not all military veterans are raving about the credentials and loyalties of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council director who was front and center this week during the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry hearings on Capitol Hill this week.
The former Navy SEAL who shot and killed Osama bin Laden has labeled Vindman (pictured), one of the star witnesses of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, as an “operative with an agenda.” Decorated SEAL Robert O’Neil described the Army officer and combat veteran as a conspiring partisan pawn joining Democrats’ anti-Trump campaign to oust the president before he has a chance at a second term in the 2020 presidential election.
In response to Donald Trump, Jr.’s, critical take on Vindman as a “low-level partisan bureaucrat and nothing more” – as noted by The Western Journal – O’Neil offered his own synopsis via social media on the highly publicized witness.
“I agree [with Trump, Jr.],” O’Neill tweeted Tuesday. “I wish the left wouldn’t use his uniform to make him a saint. He’s an operative with an agenda.”
The Western Journal article suggests that Vindman’s track record is anything but admirable.
“Although Vindman wore his uniform during his testimony, his actions are not exactly what you’d expect from a commissioned officer,” the Journal’s Jared Harris argued. “The lieutenant colonel even went outside his chain of command – a move that lends weight to the theory he is simply an anti-Trump operative taking the one chance he had to hurt the president.”
His questionable conduct while in uniform has raised many brows.
“The importance of a chain of command was even emphasized by Vindman in his own deposition – despite the officer’s apparent disregard for the crucial system,” Harris added. “This – along with Vindman’s other actions to undermine Trump – has not exactly made him a hero in the military community.”
In addition to O’Neil’s unfavorable take on Vindman and his part in the impeachment inquiry, Marine veteran Mark Geist – who defended the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, when it was attacked by Islamic militants – did not view the U.S.S.R.-born witness in high regard.
“Vindman is a disgrace to all who have served,” Geist posted on Twitter Tuesday, using hashtags calling him a traitor and labeling him an expletive. “Transcript of his previous closed-door testimony he clearly admits to undermining the @POTUS foreign policy, and now he has chairman Schiff advising him on how to answer questions.”
With such criticisms against the Democrats’ top witness, it appears their impeachment inquiry could already be unraveling at the seams.
“There’s not much room left for interpretation in these scorching posts,” Harris asserted. “This show of opposition against Vindman from two modern-day military legends proves that the cracks in the Democrats’ impeachment attempt are beginning to show.”
The former FBI lawyer who is reportedly under investigation for altering documents in the Russia probe took part in a 2017 interview with Trump adviser George Papadopoulos, and also wrote anti-Trump text messages that were revealed in a Justice Department report released last year.
Investigators working in the Justice Department’s office of the inspector general (OIG) discovered the email as part of an investigation into whether the FBI abused the FISA process.
A report of the investigation is set to be released Dec. 9.
People briefed on the report said it will fault the FBI for carelessness and unprofessionalism in how investigators conducted the investigation, according to The NYT. But it will stop short of accusing FBI leaders of acting out of anti-Trump bias. The report will also say that the FBI met the low legal threshold to obtain FISA warrants against Page.
But the allegations against Clinesmith are unlikely to alleviate Republican concerns of anti-Trump bias during the investigation.
Clinesmith added material to the bottom of an email from an official at another government agency that was included in a FISA renewal application, according to The NYT. Clinesmith included the email in an affidavit that was presented to another FBI official to sign as part of the process to submit the renewal application.
CNN reported Thursday night that an unidentified FBI official was under investigation in the matter. Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, referred the lawyer, since identified as Clinesmith, to federal prosecutors as part of a criminal investigation.
Clinesmith resigned from the FBI two months ago following an interview with Horowitz’s team, The NYT reported. He was removed from the special counsel’s investigation in February 2018 after the OIG found text messages he wrote criticizing Trump.
An inspector general’s report released on June 14, 2018, found that an FBI lawyer identified as Clinesmith sent another FBI official a text message on Nov. 9, 2016 lamenting Trump’s election victory.
“I am so stressed about what I could have done differently,” Clinesmith wrote in the text.
Clinesmith also expressed concerns about Trump’s election win because of the lawyer’s role investigating the campaign.
“Plus, my god damned name is all over the legal documents investigating his staff,” wrote Clinesmith, who is referred to as “FBI Attorney 2” in the June 2018 report.
A spokesman for the special counsel’s team downplayed Clinesmith’s role on the investigation when contacted last year by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The spokesman described Clinessmith as having an administrative role.
But the OIG report released last year described Clinesmith as the “primary FBI attorney” on the Trump-Russia investigation in early 2017.
CNNreported on Friday morning, and The Washington Post largely confirmed, that the report from Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz on FBI and DOJ surveillance abuses contains a charge that an FBI lawyer allegedly tampered with a document in the bureau’s investigation of a former Trump campaign adviser, according to multiple reports.
The tampering by the FBI attorney apparently changed the gist of the entire document.
And the FBI official who supposedly did the tampering? He’s been fired from the bureau, reports say.
Amusingly, there must have been a call from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on this.
It was gone mere hours after the publication posted it.
The Post’s removed paragraph reads, “The person under scrutiny has not been identified but is not a high-ranking official — they worked beneath former deputy assistant director Peter Strzok, according to people familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss material that has not yet been made public.”
Adam Schiff Is Like A Modern Day ‘Admiral Yamamoto,’ Just ‘Awakened A Sleeping Giant’
Conservative radio host Mark Levin compared Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff to a modern-day Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who after attacking Americans at Pearl Harbor lamented that his country had awakened a “sleeping giant.”
Commenting on Thursday night’s “Hannity” about the ongoing House impeachment inquiry led by Schiff as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Levin contended that the California lawmaker had thrown “everything” he had at President Donald Trump, yet still came up empty.
“After we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto of Japan, he said, ‘I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve,’” Levin said. “You know, Adam Schiff, you are in some ways Admiral Yamamoto — you just awakened a sleeping giant. You through everything you had at the president, at the Republicans at 63 million voters who voted for this president, and this is the best you have? This is the best you have? You have nothing.”
This is, according to Levin, despite the fact that Schiff “controlled everything,” including the witness, information, hearing room, rules, timing, press events and ultimately the charging documents.
“You are the Democrat party’s Yamamoto,” he said. “Even now, with all the control that you’ve had and all the positive press, and all the clownish legal analysts and the rest, and the propaganda that they’re pushing and they’re celebrating, the polls for Donald Trump are going up.”
The Fox News weekend host explained that soon, the GOP-led Senate will have control, and the American people, who “revere their Constitution,” will “demand fairness from their representatives.”
The Constitutional crisis brewing in Washington, D.C., may cost Gordon Sondland.
Congressman Earl Blumenauer on Wednesday called for a boycott of the hotels owned by the businessman-turned diplomat. He did so after Sondland declined to testify before the House Intelligence Committee as part of the Trump impeachment proceedings.
Sondland said he was ordered by the Trump administration not to testify. Sondland’s refusal marks a new strategy by the Trump administration in the face of an impeachment threat. Trump and his administration have refused to cooperate with the impeachment proceedings declaring them to be an illegitimate power-grab by the Democrats.
“Anyone who cares about America should not do any business or stay at any of Gordon Sondland’s hotels,” Blumenauer said. “Not until he fulfills his duty as a citizen to testify and turn over all relevant documents to the House of Representatives. “Nobody is above the law. Mr. Sondland and the entire Trump administration need to be reminded of that.”
Sondland issued his own statement late Wednesday afternoon blasting Blumenauer. “Congressman Blumenauer’s irresponsible attempt to hurt a homegrown business that supports hundreds of jobs in our local economy is just shameful and ought to outrage all Oregonians,” said Jim McDermott, a Portland lawyer representing Sondland.
Sondland, who Trump appointed as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, is the founder of Provenance Hotels, which oversees a slew of upscale hotels across the country, including six in Portland, Oregon—Hotel Lucia, Hotel deLuxe, The Heathman Hotel, Dossier, Sentinel, and The Woodlark.
Sondland said he was ordered not to appear before the House Intelligence Committee about his involvement in the Trump scandal involving the Ukrainian government. Records show that Sondland traveled to Ukraine more than once to pursue the Trump agenda.
Blumenauer has been a vocal supporter of an impeachment inquiry into Trump’s actions. He was the seventh member of Congress to call for an impeachment inquiry.
McDermott said Sondland has turned over all relevant documents sought by Congress to the Department of State, as federal law requires. It is now up to the state department to decide whether to produce the documents to the House committees, he argued.
“Congressman Blumenauer would do well to learn and understand the laws that Congress has passed before he makes reckless and destructive threats that would only economically injure hardworking Oregon employees,” McDermott added.
If you follow politics, you’ve heard people talking about the “deep state”. But is there really some sort of coup going on at a deeper level among career bureaucrats in Washington, or is it just a fantasy?
At a recent Federalist Society dinner in our nation’s capital, US Attorney General William Barr said an “avalanche of subpoenas” and constant attempts to derail Trump administration appointments only serve to ‘incapacitate” the executive branch.
He stopped short of calling what is happening in Washington a political coup, but he suggested forces are engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly-elected government.
Referring to the “resistance” language used by Trump opponents, Barr said, “Now ‘resistance’ is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous and, indeed, incendiary notation to import into the politics of a democratic republic.”
Appearing on this week’s episode of the Global Lane, former CIA Analyst Michael Scheuer says he believes an American insurrection is now underway.
“The federal government, at least the executive branch, is being denied the ability to execute its responsibilities, whether it’s here in Washington, or in places like Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles and San Francisco where, under the supremacy clause, Washington is very clearly responsible for immigration. There’s much more disruption and much more insurrection in this country than Lincoln faced until the Confederates fired at Ft. Sumter. It’s staggering to be in this position 160 years later,” Scheuer said.
He says the only thing we’ve heard so far in the impeachment hearings is staffers saying they’re very offended because the president didn’t listen to their advice, contending it’s more about sour grapes than evidence of a crime.
Scheuer also says there’s clear ignorance about the Constitution on behalf of Congress. “When the Constitution says ‘bribery’, the Founders were talking about the President accepting bribes,” not the president making a quid pro quo in exchange for foreign aid, he argues.
Scheuer says the bottom line is there’s a deeper agenda at work here.
“What they’re doing is, as Mr. Barr said, trying to tear down the institutions of this country. They’re not the loyal opposition, they are an infestation of globalists who want to deny nationality to the United States and blend us in with the rest of the world,” he contends.
Former National Security Council member Fiona Hill condemned criticism of leftist billionaire George Soros as antisemitic during her impeachment hearing testimony on Thursday.
When asked by Democrat Rep. Raja Krishnamoothi if attacks on George Soros were “antisemitic,” she agreed.
She pointed out the history of government officials attacking Jews as disloyal as far back as the early 1900s, citing “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a Russian forgery that claimed Jews had a secret plot to subvert and control other nations.
“This is the longest-running antisemitic trope that we have in history and the trope against Mr. George Soros was also created for political purposes,” she said. “This is the new ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’”
Hill was a member of the board of Soros’s Open Society Institute from 2000-2006 on Russian and European affairs.
As Breitbart News editor Joel Pollak has written, criticism of Soros’s leftist policies and causes should not be automatically branded as antisemitic, even though he has faced those kinds of attacks.
Soros has also funded organizations that often oppose Israel, such as J Street, as well as other far-left groups whose views on Israel have themselves been criticized as antisemitic.
Hill admitted during her testimony that she was planning to write an article criticizing the conspiracy theories surrounding Soros.
“I’ve actually intended to write something about this before I was actually invited into the administration because it’s an absolute outrage,” she said.
Hill responded to attacks that she was a “globalist leftist insider,” adding that “my co-workers would be very surprised to hear this.”
She admitted, however, that she was a “leftist” in the European definition of the word.
Hill was first tapped for the Trump White House by National Security Advisor Gen. Michael Flynn, before H.R. McMaster took over the job, ultimately bringing her in from the Brookings Institute to serve President Trump on the White House National Security Council as a top adviser on Russia and Europe.
Hill resigned her position at the National Security Council in June 2019 and departed the Trump White House in August.
Fiona Hill says ex-Brookings president gave her Steele dossier just before it was published
Fox News reports that Fiona Hill admitted she helped with the Steele dossier (paid for by Hillary Clinton to Ukrainians as opposition research against Trump and the basis for the FISA warrants for investigating Trump).
Fiona Hill, a Russia expert who served on President Trump’s National Security Council, told House lawmakers on Thursday that she obtained the controversial Steele dossier just a day before it surfaced in the media.
Despite Hill’s previous work with Steele, she said she had no knowledge of the dossier before Strobe Talbott, the former president of the Brookings Institution, provided it to her. Talbott, she said, had received a copy of the dossier. It’s unclear how he obtained the dossier, which sparked a media firestorm after BuzzFeed released it in 2017.
Hill, who previously worked at Brookings, was testifying before the House Intelligence Committee as part of House Democrats’ broader probe into the president’s July 25 call with Ukraine. Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., had asked Hill about her relationship with Christopher Steele, the former British spy whose allegations fueled the Russia investigation.
Hill previously served under former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush’s administrations. She left the Trump administration in August 2019. According to Hill, Steele was her counterpart whom she met with in 2016 and in prior years. When asked for specific dates, Hill said she didn’t remember. She also characterized the dossier as a “rabbit hole.”
Hill told Nunes that she wasn’t aware of who funded the dossier at the time she initially saw it.
Earlier in November, she testified that she had “misgivings and concern that [Steele] could have been played.”
The British-born Hill is a Russia expert who’s written extensively on the Kremlin, and she made that clear from the outset when she scolded Republican lawmakers for propagating what she said was a “fictional narrative” — that somehow Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
“I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary and that Ukraine—not Russia—attacked us in 2016,” she said.
The transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky shows Trump asking for a “favor” in the form of Ukraine providing information about the hacking of the DNC server in 2016. He referenced CrowdStrike, a cyber firm used by the DNC to investigate the attacks.
A former top Russia expert at the National Security Council who testified Thursday before the House Intelligence Committee as part of its ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Trump once argued against supplying weapons to Ukraine following the Russian annexation of Crimea.
Fiona Hill, who resigned from her post at the NSC in August, argued in a 2015 opinion piece published in The Washington Post that sending such lethal military aid to Ukraine could provoke Russia further. If Washington were to send weapons to Kiev, the piece argued, “the Ukrainians won’t be the only ones caught in an escalating military conflict with Russia.”
Hill, who at the time was the director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution, said in the piece that while the logic of sending arms to Ukraine may seem a “straightforward” way to counter Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression, the move could actually cause Moscow to ramp up its incursion into its neighbor and erode the Western alliance.
“It is hard to find effective alternatives to the current sanctions policy, but if we plunge headlong into sending weapons, we may lose our allies, and we may never have the opportunity to get things right,” Hill wrote, along with Clifford Gaddy, a senior fellow at Brookings.
Hill, however, has since changed her stance on providing lethal aid to Ukraine. She acknowledged in Thursday’s hearing that she was not initially in favor of sending Javelin anti-tank missiles, but eventually learned that a “lot of work” was put into the planning and there was a system for “sustainability long-term of the Ukrainian military.”
“So, I changed my mind,” she testified.
She likewise told lawmakers in her deposition in October that when she was appointed to her position at the NSC by Trump, she saw that the administration “had a proper plan for the long-term sustainability of the Ukrainian military.”
In her deposition, Hill acknowledged her past statements in The Washington Post on not supporting supplying Ukraine with lethal aid.
“Everybody changes their mind, you know, and kind of learns things, I, you know, was basically persuaded that, you know, this was actually worth doing, even though I still had qualms about Russian escalation dominance and was worried about how this would be provided and making sure not to provoke the Russians,” Hill said, according to a transcript of the testimony.
At the heart of the House impeachment inquiry is the question of whether Trump withheld millions in aid from Ukraine as pressure to get officials in the country to announce they were investigating the business dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
The Democrat’s pathetic “impeachment inquiry” process is over. What will they do next? As polls shifted and overwhelmingly are against impeachment, especially from all-important independents, and TV ratings were in the gutter, do Dems dare to go through with filing articles of impeachment?
Well, if they do, President Trump wants his due process and his day in “court” (Senate court).
He plans to turn the tables on the Dems by dragging in people like Schiff and Joe and Hunter Biden, just to name a few.
In actuality, it seems like Republicans are actually “licking their chops” in anticipation that Democrats in the House will vote to impeach the president.
Revenge is a dish best served ice cold in the Senate:
“Democrats should be worried. They’ve wielded a double-edged sword this whole time.
Every major fact that Democrats have simply glossed over or hand-waved away will be brought up in the Senate. Their sham, partisan stunt will be brought to light.”
Democrats should be worried. They've wielded a double-edged sword this whole time.
Every major fact that Democrats… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Former national security adviser Michael Anton suggested Wednesday the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump looks “like an inside job” lawmakers unhappy with the president manufactured.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff interrupted Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s testimony during an impeachment hearing Tuesday and cited an effort to protect a whistleblower.
“It looks like an inside job of a bunch of career bureaucrats getting together and saying, ‘We’ve wanted to impeach this guy for three years. How do we do it? Oh wait, I think we’ve found a way,’” Anton, a former National Security Council (NSC) spokesman, said to WMAL’s “Mornings on the Mall” co-hosts Vince Coglianese and Mary Walter Wednesday. “Here’s the issue.”
“It just looks phony, and that’s what they’re trying to avoid coming out,” he added.
“I think the reason they don’t want him to say it is not so much to protect the whistleblower’s identity, whoever it is, it’s to protect the phony veneered process that they used to get this impeachment hearing going,” Anton said.
Schiff, a California Democrat, interrupted Vindman Tuesday after the latter said he told an “unnamed official” within the intelligence community about Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s president. GOP California Rep. Devin Nunes, ranking member of the intelligence committee, was questioning Vindman at the time.
After Schiff’s interruption, Vindman refused to “answer specific questions about members of the intelligence community,” the NSC aide said. The interruption caused a stir in the day’s impeachment testimony, as many people could be heard vocally protesting Schiff’s actions.
Many questioned Schiff’s move, particularly after the whistleblower’s lawyer Mark S. Zaid tweeted Tuesday, “#ProtectTheWhistleblower,” ahead of Vindman’s testimony. The tweet came alongside a CNN comment noting there could be a “contentious flareup” during Vindman’s testimony when Republicans ask him about the Ukraine phone call.
The Daily Caller News Foundation journalist Chuck Ross noted that Zaid’s tweet “suggests” the person Vindman spoke to on the call could be the whistleblower.
Laura Cooper, the top Department of Defense official dealing with Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, amended her earlier testimony from October in a public hearing at the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday evening.
Cooper told the committee that in reviewing her previous testimony with her staff, she was told of several instances in which Ukrainian officials had asked about the status of aid that had been upheld.
She said that while the only time a Ukrainian official had raised the issue with her personally had been on Sep. 5 — after the publication of the Politicoarticle that most witnesses pinpointed as the moment Ukraine became aware — her staff had received two unclassified emails from the State Department. One arrived on July 25 stating that the Ukrainian embassy and the House Foreign Affairs Committee “asking about security assistance.” The other arrived the same day, saying that Capitol Hill and the Ukrainian embassy both knew about the hold “to an extent.” Cooper said that she did not receive the emails, her staff did not tell her about them, and she knew nothing about them.
She added that on July 3, her staff received an email from the State Department about a block on the aid, and then on July 25 a staff member received an email from the Ukrainian embassy asking “what was going on” with the aid.
Cooper said she did not know what the Ukrainians knew about the situation, but that she and her staff were aware that Ukrainians might raise concerns in August, but it was never addressed openly and they could not remember a date when the question of the hold had been raised.
Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) noted the fact that July 25 was also the date of the phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Later, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale, testifying alongside Cooper, told Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) that he was not aware of any link between the aid and investigations requested by the president.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Jeffrey Piatt in 2015 joined three impeachment probe witnesses in calling for an investigation into the corruption-linked Burisma company and its owner while then Vice-President’s Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, was working at the Ukrainian company.
Piatt [or Pyatt], who preceded former U.S. Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, is the fourth official who worked under former President Barack Obama to raise malfeasance concerns about Burisma. Piatt, however, is the only individual who has not testified in the ongoing impeachment probe to deem a corruption investigation into Burisma necessary.
The four complainants against Burisma suggest there is merit to U.S. President Donald Trump’s concerns about Hunter Biden’s work on the company’s board of directors. Corruption concerns about Burisma began with allegations against the Ukranian company’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsy. The United States spent hundreds of thousands helping to investigate Zlochevsy. Combating corruption in Ukraine has long been a significant component of American policy towards Ukraine.
House Democrats, however, refuse to allow Hunter to testify, denying that he is at the center of the impeachment probe.
During the public impeachment probe hearing Tuesday, featuring testimony from U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, testified Rep. Devin Nunes from California, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee hosting the hearing, declared:
You wouldn’t be the first ambassador to be interested in Burisma, did you know that in 2015, U.S. Amb. Jeffrey Piatt’s as U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine privately called fro an investigation into Zlochevsky, the president of Burisma. This [Piatt] is the Ukrainian ambassador appointed by Obama in Ukraine. …
You would not be the first one to be mentioning that investigations should be done into Burisma because it happened under the Obama administration. Did you know that financial records show Burisma routed more $3 million into the account of Hunter Biden
Sondland claimed he was not aware of Piatt’s concerns about Burisma. He also claimed ignorance of the company’s decision to route more than $3 million over five years to accounts linked to Hunter Biden. Hunter served on the Ukrainian company’s board directors while his father was President Obama’s head honcho for Ukraine policy.
Impeachment probe witnesses — George Kent, Catherine Croft, and Christopher Anderson — all raised concerns about Burisma’s potential affiliation to corruption, at times when Hunter was working there. Besides former Amb. Piatt, Kent, Croft, and Anderson still all work for the State Department. They did so when they expressed concerns about Burisma.
Kent testified during his October 15 closed-door deposition that he raised concerns about Burisma and its owners, but VP Biden’s office ignored him.
U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker and Sondland had both called for investigations into Burisma and its owner, to no avail.
Echoing Volker, Sondland said during his public testimony Tuesday that an investigation into corruption allegations against Burisma would be appropriate.
Freshman swing district Rep. Cindy Axne (D-IA) said Monday that she has “absolutely no problem” “losing” her district due to her support for the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.
Freshman swing district Democrat Axne said that although that she avoids talking about impeachment, she is willing to lose her reelection campaign to support the impeachment inquiry against Trump.
Rep. Axne claimed:
My job is to work for the people here in this district and do a good job for them. But my job also is to protect this country. If we find out that the president has put us in harm’s way, then I have absolutely no problem losing a seat over that.
The Iowa congresswoman also said that impeachment is not a priority for many Iowans:
These are hard working, salt of the earth people who just want to make a living and provide for their families. They’re tired of what they consider the bureaucracy and the politics of Washington and that’s true to what Iowans are. Impeachment is not a priority in their lives.
Axne’s comments follow from a small town hall she hosted in Mount Ayr, Iowa, where she said that she “did not run” to “impeach” President Trump.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said during a press conference Thursday that she remains skeptical about the House passing the United States-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement this year, as Congress’s lower chamber continues to focus on the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
Speaker Pelosi cast doubt during the presser that Congress has enough time to pass the USMCA in 2019.
“I’m not even sure if we came to an agreement today that it would be enough time to finish [this year], but just depends on how much agreement we come to,” Pelosi said.
Last week, she said that a deal on USMCA was “imminent.”
“I’m eager to get this done,” the California Democrat said.
The USMCA’s delayed passage through the House arises as Pelosi and House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) have launched an impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
Speaker Pelosi and House Ways and Means chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) will meet with U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Lighthizer to discuss the Democrats’ remaining concerns surrounding the USMCA.
Pelosi has faced increasing pressure from moderate Democrats, especially those from districts President Donald Trump won in the 2016 presidential election, to finalize the USMCA negotiations with Lighthizer. The moderate Democrats have become frustrated with the USMCA’s slow movement through the House as they face criticism from their constituents over their backing of the impeachment inquiry.
House Judiciary Committee Invites Trump to Testify in First Impeachment Hearing
According to a 26 November 2019 article in Breitbart, Jerry Nadler has invited President Trump or his counsel to testify. However, no changes in the unfair rules voted in by the Democrats have been since voted upon; therefore, Democrats can:
Deny legal representation to the President
Deny witnesses requested by the President
Hold closed-door meetings, denying the President the ability to face his accusers
Call prosecution witnesses that cannot be questioned by the President
Therefore, the President would not be best advised to participate. Further, the Breitbart article points out:
The House Judiciary Committee announced Tuesday that the panel will hold its inaugural impeachment hearing next week and has invited President Donald Trump to testify.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said the December 4 hearing, called the “the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment,” is expected to feature legal experts weighing on purported evidence of President Trump committing impeachable offenses during his July 25 telephone call with the leader of Ukraine.
In a whistleblower complaint, a partisan CIA officer mischaracterized President Trump’s conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, alleging the president pressured the European leader to investigate allegations of corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in exchange for U.S. military aid. The White House countered this framing of the call with a transcript of the conversation showing neither Trump nor Zelensky tying the potential investigation to the aid money.
House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler’s invitation to (D-NY) has invited President Donald Trump to participate in his committee’s upcoming impeachment hearings, and to have legal representation.
It is a ruse designed to fool the media into thinking that Democrats are offering Trump a fair process.
The president should refuse, and should continue to reject any participation in an illegitimate inquiry that violates every precedent and legal safeguard.
In his Nov. 26 letter to the president, Nadler claimed: “These procedures, and the privileges afforded to you therein, are consistent with those used by the Committee in the [Richard] Nixon and [Bill] Clinton impeachments.”
That is a lie by omission. Those impeachment inquiries were handled entirely by the House Judiciary Committee. Every witness that was called before the House of Representatives could be questioned by the president’s counsel.
In the Trump inquiry, Democrats deputized the House Intelligence Committee — among others — to handle the initial, fact-finding phase of the investigation. They did so because the Intelligence Committee could make use of the Special Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF), which Republicans have taken to calling “Adam Schiff’s basement.” There, Schiff and his committee could “audition” witnesses and control the flow of information.
Chairman Schiff abused his power — most notably in withholding exculpatory evidence, such as the transcript of the deposition of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official Mark Sandy. Sandy testified in a closed-door hearing that the only reason OMB officials heard for the withholding of U.S. aid to Ukraine was that Trump was concerned that other countries were not contributing.
Schiff did not release that transcript until after public hearings.
The White House was never represented in any of those hearings, and — in another departure from precedent — Republicans were unable to object to witnesses called by Democrats.
That was the critical stage in which the president would have benefited from having legal representation. But those witnesses will not be recalled by the House Judiciary Committee, so the president and his legal counsel will probably not be able to question them.
Instead, the “witnesses” that Nadler plans to call will discuss “constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment.” In other words, they will be lawyers and academics discussing whether Trump’s “alleged actions” are impeachable. Nadler’s hearing presumes the president has done something wrong, without allowing the president or his lawyers to question the (non-)factual basis of that presumption. There is no indication that the fact witnesses will be recalled.
To top it all off, Nadler ended his letter with an admonition that the president should behave with “decorum,” in keeping with the “solemn nature” of impeachment. And he added a threat: if the president continued to refuse to participate, or to withhold witnesses and documents, the committee would “impose appropriate remedies.”
Nadler does not want to wait for the courts to sort out balance-of-powers questions: punishment first, Constitution last.
Nadler’s hearing is not a “solemn” proceeding, but a joke — a “parody,” to borrow the word Schiff used to explain why he read a fake version of the transcript of a call between Trump and the Ukrainian president. Like show trials in China or the USSR, Nadler’s hearings will mimic due process to hide the fact that the outcome is predetermined.
The Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports have released a poll that showed American voters are not in favor of socialism or socialist candidates, regardless of party affiliation.
The poll of 1,000 likely voters – 33 percent Republicans, 37 percent Democrats, and 30 percent independents – revealed that when asked which is better “a free-market economic system or socialism,” 69 percent said a free market system, 12 percent picked socialism, and 18 said they were not sure.
Of the Republicans polled, 87 percent said free-market capitalism was better, and 69 percent of independents agreed. But the poll also found that 53 percent of Democrats said a free-market system was preferable to socialism.
The Heartland Institute reported on the poll:
Only 26 percent of voters said they’d vote for a presidential candidate who identifies as a socialist while 50 percent said they would not. Among voters between the ages of 18 and 39, however, 42 percent said they would vote for a socialist president.
The poll found that two of the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for president, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders – who have both embraced socialist policies – had unfavorable ratings of 49 percent and 48 percent, respectively.
The poll also showed lukewarm support for gun control. Asked if they support “legislation that would ban private ownership of ‘assault-style’ rifles,” 49 percent said yes, 43 percent said no, and 8 percent were not sure. A full two-thirds did not support a repeal of the Second Amendment, which guarantees Americans the right to bear arms.
House Democrat Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) flipped back into supporting the impeachment of President Trump after stating that she did not “see the value of taking him out of office.”
Lawrence, a House Democrat hailing from a desirable swing state, made waves in recent days after veering from her Democrat colleagues and suggesting that they censure Trump rather than impeach him.
“We are so close to an election. I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is, I don’t see the value of taking him out of office,” she said during an appearance on No BS News Hour with Charlie LeDuff.
“I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable,” she continued.
“I want to censure,” she added. “I want it on the record that the House of Representatives did their job and they told this president and any president coming behind him that this is unacceptable behavior and, under our Constitution, we will not allow it.”
However, she took a sudden and swift reversal of that position in a statement released on Tuesday.
A veteran of the tea party movement predicts Democratic lawmakers will regret their impeachment push against President Donald Trump.
Congress recessed last week for the Thanksgiving holiday, wrapping up two weeks of impeachment hearings that promised a good plot: a Republican president used military aid to Ukraine as political leverage to convince the country’s leaders to investigate his Democratic rival, but then he got caught thanks to the heroic courage of public servants who are willing to come forward.
But the second-hand testimony of White House officials and State Department bureaucrats failed to interest TV viewers, or may even angered the public who witnessed the “Deep State” at work against the commander in chief.
In fact, a poll of Wisconsin voters showed support dropped four points during the opening week of he hearing, and the same poll found Trump is now leading his potential rivals in the Rust Belt state.
A poll by Emerson shows President Trump’s approval jumped from 43 percent in October to 48 percent in November, and the same poll found Independent voters have literally reversed their support for impeachment; 49 percent oppose it now when 48 percent supported it a month ago.
Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots Action, says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave in to the far-left push for impeachment. That may cost her on Election Day, she says, when 31 freshman Democrats appear on the ballot in 2020 in districts where President Trump won in 2016.
The Republican chairmen of two U.S. Senate committees have asked the Treasury Department, in a letter, for possible reports of money laundering or fraud on the business dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son with a Ukraine energy firm.
The letter, seen by Reuters on Friday, seeks “suspicious activity reports,” or documents that financial institutions file with the department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network when a case of money laundering or fraud is suspected.
It was unclear if any such reports exist regarding Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son. There letter gave no evidence that Hunter Biden engaged in suspicious activity that would have been covered by such reports.
The agency does not comment on the reports, a spokesman said. Fincen, as the network is known, collects more than 2 million such reports each year, and they are tipsheets that make no findings on whether illegal activity has occurred.
The request comes as Republicans seek to defend President Donald Trump against a Democrat-led impeachment probe into whether the president improperly pressured Ukraine to investigate the Bidens to improve his chances of re-election.
Each side is trying to make the case that public opinion is trending in their favor — but there is little evidence either way.
There was a measurable rise in pro-impeachment sentiment around the time that Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky became public in late September.
In that call, Trump prodded Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, as well as a conspiracy theory relating to purported Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
All of the drama since then — high-profile hearings on Capitol Hill and counterblasts from the president’s Twitter account and his political and media allies — has not shifted the ground appreciably.
A CNN/SSRS poll released Tuesday showed exactly the same split as the previous month on the question of whether Trump should be impeached and removed from office. Fifty percent of U.S. adults surveyed were in favor of his removal, 43 percent were against — the same as in late October.
A Quinnipiac University Poll survey, also released Tuesday, showed less robust support for removal and a slight shift in Trump’s direction from a month earlier. The Quinnipiac survey found 45 percent in favor of Trump’s impeachment and removal, and 48 percent against. In October, those figures had been reversed.
Trump’s deeply polarizing nature is a big part of the reason for the relatively static poll numbers. Republican voters overwhelmingly stand with him; Democrats almost universally detest him.
That being so, much is being made of the effect of impeachment on independent voters. But there, too, the jury is still out.
An Emerson College poll released Nov. 21 caused a big stir in political circles because it appeared to show a significant movement against impeachment among independent voters. The CNN poll, on the other hand, showed independents supporting Trump’s removal from office, albeit by a narrow margin — 47 percent in favor of removal versus 45 percent against.
Partisans can make the case that some shift in public opinion is just around the next corner, but there is sparse evidence to back up that argument.
What will the charges be against Trump?
Democrats are already debating how to frame articles of impeachment against Trump — and the outcome isn’t far away.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said this week in a letter to colleagues that his panel would send its report to the House Judiciary Committee “soon after Congress returns from the Thanksgiving recess.” Lawmakers are due back in town Monday.
But Schiff’s colleagues have divergent views on how to approach the next step.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who taught constitutional law before being elected to Congress, told CNN that he would like to “look at the whole pattern of obstructionism by the White House,” while Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) said that going broad could “pose challenges” and that she strongly believes “in being as focused as possible.”
Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University and the author of a 2017 book on impeachment, told The Hill there was compelling evidence of Trump’s involvement in four crimes: bribery, extortion, conspiracy and violations of campaign-finance laws.
Lichtman also argued there should be another article of impeachment dealing broadly with “abuse of power, which need not charge a crime.”
(Read as a liberal-leaning “news” organization ventures into topics like those above and at The Hill)
‘Coup has started’: Whistleblower’s attorney vowed to ‘get rid of Trump’ in 2017
ZeroHedge revealed that the lawyer for the “whistleblower” tweeted that “coup has started” in 2017. Now, that lawyer has been attempting to convince us that the tweet was prophetic and not proof of a conspiracy in its infancy.
The Democratic operative attorney representing the anti-Trump whistleblower vowed to “get rid of Trump”, and said that the “#coup has started” in 2017 tweets.
Mark Zaid, the John Podesta, Clinton and Schumer-linked attorney who founded the anti-Trump nonprofit ‘Whistleblower Aid’ in 2017, tweeted “It’s very scary. We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters. We have to.”
Interesting that the anti-Trump complainant's lawyer (not the one who worked for Clinton or Schumer--that's a diffe… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
If the Democrats want an action (like removal of a President), they need to bring the witness to the open court
In America, we have the right to face our accusers (even when we are a maligned President). Therefore, if the Democrats want to do anything more than grandstand — if Democrats want to bring charges in Congress, then they need to follow the laws that protect the accused bring this “whistleblower” into the public hearing at Congress.
Alleged Whistleblower’s Name Appears In Transcript Released By Schiff
Controversy over whether or not to reveal the name of the man widely believed to be the whistleblower whose complaint prompted the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry ratcheted up even further on Wednesday after Donald Trump Jr. tweeted out an article and quote including the whistleblower’s alleged name. While Democrats and the left-leaning media expressed outrage about Trump’s social media post, an impeachment inquiry transcript released by the office of Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff includes the very name Trump tweeted out.
As reported by RedState, Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee who is heading up the Democrats’ impeachment efforts, appears to have accidentally allowed the name widely identified as the whistleblower to appear in the transcript of the committee’s interview with top U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor.
In the transcript, the interviewer asks Taylor if the name of the man who has been widely reported as the whistleblower “ring[s] a bell?” Taylor responds, “It doesn’t.”
“So, to your knowledge, you never had any communications with somebody by that name?” Taylor is asked, to which he replies, “Correct.”
The failure to redact the name means one of two things, suggests Turning Point USA’s Benny Johnson, either he’s not the whistleblower or the Democrats made a massive error.
Um - why is Eric Ciaramella's name in the congressional Impeachment testimony?
Dems said they would redact the nam… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
The alleged identity of the whistleblower was first reported by RealClearInvestigations’ Paul Sperry, who describes his identity as “an open secret inside the Beltway.”
Sperry reported last week that the whistleblower is allegedly a 33-year-old “registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia ‘collusion’ investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.” The whistleblower reportedly “left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media” and “has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia,” Sperry reports, citing federal documents.
Since this numb nuck Schiff has exposed the identity of the “whistleblower” as Eric Ciaramella, let’s just go with open hearings
Since we know that Schiff met with and coached the “whistleblower” prior to his emergence and we now know the name of the “whistleblower” when Adam Schiff published it in his transcripts, why don’t we just get Mr. Ciaramella sworn in before Congress and get all of the other associated material witnesses under oath?
Before Schiff’s blunder, the whistleblower’s lawyers cite the ‘deep throat’ model for keeping their client’s identity secret
The lawyers representing the so-called “whistleblower” who sparked the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump reportedly argued this week that their client’s identity could remain secret for decades, citing the years-long “Deep Throat” mystery as a model.
The secret of “Deep Throat” was kept from the early ’70s until 2005, when former FBI Associate Director Mark Felt came forward at 91 years old. He died two years later.
Whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid, an aficionado of Watergate history, said leaving his client’s identity unresolved indefinitely would encourage future whistleblowers.
Felt was a prime suspect from the beginning. … Without firsthand sources, the accusation didn’t stick. … It later became known to a prosecutor, but news outlets were left to speculate.
Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, who received information from Felt, his colleague Carl Bernstein, and their editor Ben Bradlee, knew the “whistleblower’s” name. Allegedly, some left-wing mainstream news outlets also know the impeachment “whistleblower’s” name, but refuse to report it.