Bad news related to the Democrat impeachment effort
Contradictions in Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s Past Testimony
Breitbart provides a timeline of the Vindman account (along with the contradictions).
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman will testify Tuesday morning in the third public hearing before the House Intelligence Committee in the impeachment inquiry.
Vindman serves on the National Security Council as the director of Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, the Caucuses, and Belarus. In this capacity, he prepared talking points for Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and was listening into the call along with five other officials at the White House.
Vindman also has a twin brother who works at the NSC as an ethics lawyer. They are Ukrainian immigrants, who arrived in the U.S. as young children, who both joined the Army. Vindman was awarded the Purple Heart after being wounded by a roadside bomb in Iraq.
Vindman arrived at the NSC in July 2018, and is slated to be there until July 2020, when he takes an assignment at the Army War College. He showed up to his closed-door deposition in his full military dress uniform, despite wearing civilian clothes to work at the NSC, thrilling liberal pundits. He previously served at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as an adviser on Russia.
He is primarily important, however, because he was the first witness to testify who had actually heard President Donald Trump’s telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25. He immediately told NSC counsel John Eisenberg about the call (without informing his direct supervisor, Tim Morrison, who testifies later Tuesday).
Vindman might appear to be a good witness for Democrats, in that he is a patriotic citizen whose concern about the Trump-Zelensky call mirrors the concerns expressed by the so-called “whistleblower”: namely, that the president appeared, to Vindman, to be placing his personal or political interests above the national security of the U.S.
However, what emerged in Vindman’s closed-door testimony was also a resentment at the fact that the president was determined to conduct his own foreign policy, independent of the bureaucrats and the “interagency consensus.”
Morrison would later testify that he did not trust Vindman’s judgment, and the witness often seemed evasive. Democrats were determined to prevent him from answering any questions that could lead to the identity of the whistleblower, which he said he did not know — though it was not clear how widely he had shared information. As Washington Examiner columnist Byron York observed:
The Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman’s approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions.
(Read on for the contradictions at Breitbart)
For a military man who did not go up the chain of command, but went to a lawyer
Considering that Mr. Vindman (who insisted on being called “Lt. Col. Vindman” by someone who out-ranked him — a member of Congress) went to a lawyer and to a number of anti-Trump individuals (including the “hoaxblower”) rather than the chain of command — how can we trust any of his judgments?
As the Democrats’ start the second week of impeachment hearings, contradictions surface in testimony
Fox News mentions the many hiccups in the first few days of impeachment testimony.
Beginning Tuesday morning, in a rush of five hearings ahead of the Thanksgiving recess, nine witnesses — including several who have provided inconsistent accounts of key events — are set to testify over three days in what could be a make-or-break week in House Democrats’ impeachment investigation.
Less than 24 hours before the proceedings are set to be gaveled in at 9 a.m. ET, President Trump floated the idea of testifying, rather than tweeting, during the inquiry. A top Republican called for a last-minute postponement, citing secretive new developments behind closed doors. And, the Trump campaign has pointed out apparent inconsistencies in some testimony already on the record.
The key witness to focus on amid the rapid-fire series of developments is likely to be Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, the wealthy donor who has bragged about his proximity to President Trump — and who repeatedly has frustrated Democrats’ narrative by contradicting several other key witnesses in the probe. Though he won’t testify until Wednesday, Sondland will loom large in Tuesday morning’s proceedings.
In part, that’s because Sondland previously testified behind closed doors that Trump directly told him there were to be “no quid pro quos of any kind” with Ukraine, and that he didn’t recall any conversations with the White House about withholding military assistance in return for Ukraine helping with the president’s political campaign. Democrats have alleged that Trump held up the aid to ensure a public probe into the Ukraine business dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
Then, William Taylor, the U.S. chargé d’affaires for Ukraine, told lawmakers that Sondland himself said “everything” — a White House visit for Ukraine’s new leader and the release of military aid to the former Soviet republic — was contingent on a public announcement of investigations into the 2016 election and into Ukraine gas company Burisma. (Hunter Biden held a highly lucrative role on the board of Burisma, despite having little relevant experience, while his father oversaw Ukraine policy as vice president.)
Weeks later, after testimony from Taylor and National Security Council [NSC] official Tim Morrison placed him at the center of key discussions, Sondland suddenly amended his testimony and claimed his recollection had been “refreshed.” Sondland said he now could recall a September conversation in which he told an aide to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky that military aid likely would not occur until Ukraine made public announcements about corruption investigations. Sondland said he came to “understand” that arrangement from other sources.
Morrison, the NSC’s outgoing senior director of European and Russian affairs and White House deputy assistant, is to testify Tuesday afternoon. In his closed-door deposition, which Democrats released over the weekend, Morrison said Trump didn’t want tax dollars funding Ukrainian corruption, and remarked that he wasn’t concerned Trump’s calls with Ukraine’s leader were tied to his political interests.
(Read more at Fox News)
The facts have been forgotten. These people want to be rid of the Deploralbes
They want to be rid of a deplorable President that fights back and exposes their tripe. They want to be rid of the people who would dare to vote against their beloved programs. If they weren’t so deeply involved in abortion up to and beyond the third trimester, they would be beating us with their former marching orders of “do it for the children.”
Barr: Democrats have tried to ‘sabotage’ the Trump Presidency from before the start
According to a 16 November 2019 article in the Daily Caller., Attorney General Barr has accused Democrats of sabotaging the Trump presidency.
Attorney General William Barr came out swinging in a speech Friday night against the “resistance” and House Democrats whom he accused of “using every tool” to bring down President Donald Trump.
Speaking to the Federalist Society’s dinner in Washington, D.C., Barr also said the legislative branch of government is increasing its powers beyond its Constitutional parameters and is usurping the executive branch.
The attorney general said the “sabotage” inflicted by an increasingly aggressive Congress is establishing a dangerous precedent for American government by suggesting a the president is illegitimate, Fox News reported Saturday.
“I deeply admire the American presidency as a political and constitutional institution,” he began. “Unfortunately over the past several decades, we have seen a steady encroachment on executive authority by the other branches of the government.”
Barr cited an “avalanche of subpoenas” and constant interference in presidential appointments as examples of how the House has maneuvered to “incapacitate” the executive branch.
“Immediately after President Trump won the election, opponents inaugurated what they called the ‘resistance’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch and his administration.”
“The cost of this constant harassment is real,” he said.
Barr said Trump’s opponents are referring to his presidency as if it were established illegally in a coup and must be overthrown and returned to normal rule.
Impeachment hearings began this week with House Intelligence Committee Chairman and Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff reprimanding the executive branch of government. “The president has instructed the State Department and other agencies to ignore Congressional subpoenas for documents. He has instructed witnesses to defy subpoenas and refuse to appear. And he has suggested that those who do expose wrongdoing should be treated like traitors and spies.”
(Read more at the Daily Caller)
The night after Podesta told Hillary supporters to go home, Waters was resisting
Maxine Waters called for violence against Trump supporters in November 2016 (as shown in the video below). On the day of Trump’s inauguration, Antifa went on a rampage, smashed car windows, broke store windows, and trashed DC streets.
Adam Schiff Lies About Vindman Testimony in Next Hearing
For those not paying attention to the impeachment sham, Breitbart reports in a 19 November 2019 article how Adam Schiff lied about the Vindman testimony.
House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) lied openly Tuesday about the earlier testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, falsely claiming that Vindman thought the president might have broken the law.
Schiff, delivering an opening statement at the fourth public hearing in the impeachment inquiry, claimed that Lt. Col. Vindman had reported his concerns about President Donald Trump’s telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to a National Security Council lawyer because he thought Trump might have done something illegal.
“Lt. Col. Vindman’s fear was that the president had broken the law, potentially,” Schiff told the committee.
That statement flatly contradicts what Vindman told the committee earlier that day, as well as in his closed-door testimony before the committee last month.
When he was asked in October whether he thought anything illegal had occurred, Vindman told the committee: “I wasn’t prepaned to necessarily make that kind of judgment. I thought it was troubling and disturbing, but, you know, I guess, I guess I couldn’t say whether it was illegal. I’m not an attorney.”
On Tuesday, in his prepared remarks, Vindman said he found the call “inappropriate” and “improper” — but not “illegal.”
In both the closed-door and public hearings, Vindman testified that he was not a lawyer.
Rep. Chris Stewart summed up Vindman’s testimony — which Vindman did not contradict: “Your concerns regarding this phone call were not legal. They are based on moral, ethical and policy differences.”
(Read more at Breitbart)
I am tired of the lies
I am tired of the lies from Schiff, Vindman, and everyone else involved in the conspiracy that causes Schiff to stop any Republican questioning and insert the observation that he does not want to expose the “hoaxblower.”
I am tired of the lies created by those who just stand silently by.
I am tired of the lies created by the absence of a lack of due process. If anyone were able to defend the non-Democrat version of events, there might be some balance.
Democrats say Trump tweet is “witness intimidation”
The Hill reported on how Democrats claim a tweet is witness intimidation that fuels the impeachment push.
House Democrats wasted no time Friday saying President Trump’s real-time Twitter attack on a top U.S. diplomat — as she was testifying on Trump’s dealings with Ukraine — was more evidence of presidential misconduct as they charge ahead with their impeachment probe.
“The president in real time is engaging in witness intimidation and witness tampering,” an exasperated Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters during a break in the hearing with Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who was removed abruptly in May.
“I don’t know how much more egregious it has to get before the American people are going to recognize we have someone in the White House who conducts himself in a criminal manner on a day-to-day basis.”
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), another member of the Intelligence Committee, described the tweet as “real-time intimidation” and suggested it could become a part of articles of impeachment against Trump.
“I think it speaks for itself,” he said. “Everything the president does, from obstruction to intimidation, becomes part of the record. And we’ll decide later — or not — whether it’s part of the articles.”
Other Intelligence Committee Democrats said Trump’s intimidation tactics are simply evidence of his guilt.
“Innocent people don’t intimidate witnesses. Guilty people do,” Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) leadership team. “It should be considered for obstruction. It’s evidence of more obstruction, intimidating the witness, tampering with the witness’s testimony.
(Read more at The Hill)
If people are intimidated by a tweet, so be it. What happened to Free speech?
What happened to due process? The statements of Adam Schiff seem to indicate that he has already made up his mind (although the hearings are far from over).
What happened to being able to face your accuser? At one point, even mafia bosses were given this right in the past. Now, Schiff continually interrupts hearings to ensure that the “hoaxblower” identity does not see the light of day.
What happened to letting both sides ask any question of the witnesses?
What happened to letting both sides call witnesses?
Mark Meadows: ‘We’re here to get the facts — and they haven’t changed’
Breitbart reported in a 15 November 2019 article how Mark Meadows pointed toward the facts behind the Ukrainian case.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) joined SiriusXM host Matt Boyle on Thursday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily, where he slammed Democrats for their impeachment efforts against President Donald Trump.
Meadows stated he believes Democrats risk losing support and run the “potential of not reaching 218 because the evidence is so incredibly weak.”
“Let me tell you who the big losers were,” Meadows said. “There are 31 freshmen Democrats that won in Trump districts, or 31 of the Democrats who actually have the most to lose because what they’re gonna do is they’re gonna be forced into a vote not based on evidence but based on politics.”
Meadows went on to explain how the newer Democrat members of Congress will have a hard time explaining their actions against Trump.
“A lot of them do not realize how difficult it’s going to be to explain to the American voter why this has all been a partisan attack on the president of the United States, trying to chill the voice of the American people. But it didn’t just start with Ukraine, as you know it started with the Russian collusion narrative,” Meadows said.
“Now, after almost three years, they’re going to bring something to the floor of the House to undo the will of the American people,” Meadows added. “We shouldn’t be doing anything close to this, and I think the Democrats, ultimately, a few more of them will side with the Republicans and say, ‘Enough is enough.’”
Meadows then shifted focus to the Democrats’ legislative accomplishments, referring to a conversation he recently had with President Trump.
In his discussion with the president, Meadows said Trump is having a hard time finding a Democrat to work on issues for the American people because most are only concerned with impeachment.
In a tweet Friday, Meadows called out the Democrats who felt “moved” by former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.
(Read more at Breitbart)
We need more fighters like Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Matt Gaetz
However, we need them to show up in the House and Senate. I don’t care when they show up on TV and radio shows. I do care (and support) when they support conservative ideals in the halls of Congress.
Trump campaign raises $3.1M on first day of impeachment hearings
Fox News discusses in a 16 November 2019 article the way Trump raised $3.1 million on the first day of impeachment hearings.
President Trump’s reelection campaign announced that on Wednesday it raised over $3.1 million in donations – the same day as the first public hearing of the House’s impeachment inquiry into Trump.
“$3,144,257 RAISED YESTERDAY!” Brad Parscale, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, tweeted Thursday. “’[Trump] loves these huge numbers. He knows that it isn’t enough to end this IMPEACHMENT SCAM.”
Even before the public hearings began, Trump fundraisers reported seeing a surge in donations in response to impeachment talk. Parscale tweeted in September that donors gave $5 million in the 24 hours after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry.
Other pro-Trump groups also saw a spike in donations. Linda McMahon, chair of the America First Action PAC board of directors, previously told FOX Business’ Neil Cavuto that the group had raised about $1 million each day in the week after Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry.
“That speaks, I think, volumes to how people are rallying around the president,” she said.
(Read more at Fox News)
As of 29 September 2019, surge in impeachment acts surges donations to Trump
As reported by the Telegraph, donations to President Trump started to surge as the impeachment effort got off of the ground.
Donald Trump and the Republican party are using the prospect of impeachment to raise a record election war chest, firing up supporters and hauling in unprecedented amounts of money.
Republican officials said there had been a “groundswell” of support from the party’s rank-and-file in the days after Democrats in Congress announced an impeachment inquiry into the president over the Ukraine scandal. It looks set to spur Mr Trump to an extraordinary total for the 2020 campaign, which could ultimately hit $2 billion.
In the 72 hours after Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat House speaker, announced the impeachment inquiry Mr Trump’s re-election campaign took in $15 million, which his campaign manager Brad Parscale described as “amazing”.
The more significant figure was that it included money from 50,000 new small donors, who were from all 50 states.
At one point Mr Trump sent out an email saying “I’ve done nothing wrong, trust me,” asking for support for an “Impeachment Defense Task Force”. Around $1 million arrived in the next three hours.
(Read more at the Telegraph)
These two stories must cause significant problems for the Democrats and Never-Trump crowd
I would love to see President Trump deliver a thank-you note to San Fran Nan at the end of all of this (that is, just after winning the election).
Chris Stewart takedown of Yovanovitch shows Democrats have ‘no case,’ GOP says
Fox News reports how the Stewart takedown of Yovanovitch shows how Democrats have no case for impeachment.
From the view of the White House and some top Republicans, U.S. Rep. Chris Stewart’s questioning of former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch on Friday was the point where House Democrats’ impeachment argument showed the party had “no case” against President Trump.
During Friday’s public hearings, Yovanovitch told Stewart, a Utah Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, that she could supply the panel with no information regarding criminal activity or bribes that President Trump may have been involved with.
Stewart: “I would now feel compelled to ask you, Madam Ambassador, as you sit here before us, very simply and directly, do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?”
Stewart: “Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with at all?”
Stewart thanked Yovanovitch before predicting that public support for impeachment would decrease after the hearings.
“The American people know this is nonsense,” Stewart said. “The American people know this is unfair.”
Both the White House and some top Republicans reacted to the exchange, saying it proved their argument that the impeachment inquiry was without merit.
“In 30 seconds,” a White House message on Twitter read, “@RepChrisStewart got the answers that House democrats have spent 7 hours trying to avoid.
(Read more at Fox News)
Thanks to Rep. Chris Stewart
Thank you for your homework, your tenacious questioning, and your results.
Yovanovitch caught in lie under oath
World News Daily reports on how Yovanovitch lied under oath to Congress.
Did former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch perjure herself during her appearance before the House impeachment inquiry? It sounds like political mudslinging — and yet, the evidence says that Yovanovitch definitely did something she says she didn’t.
According to Fox News, emails obtained by the network show Yovanovitch communicating with a congressional staffer in the days after the whistleblower complaint.
The report, published late Thursday, said Yovanovitch “communicated via her personal email account with a Democratic congressional staffer concerning a ‘quite delicate’ and ‘time-sensitive’ matter — just two days after the whistleblower complaint that kickstarted the inquiry was filed, and a month before the complaint became public.”
The reason this is important: In her testimony, Yovanovitch responded to a question from Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin of New York by saying she’d never had contact with the staffer, Laura Carey.
Yovanovitch, who was fired by President Trump allegedly because she wouldn’t go along with his Ukraine policy, told Zeldin during her testimony that she had received an email from the staffer but had never responded to it.
So, even though Fox News “is told it is a breach of normal procedure for congressional staff to reach out to a current State Department employee at their personal email address for official business,” Carey mailed it anyway, apropos of nothing.
Yovanovitch said the email was a communication “from the Foreign Affairs Committee,” and “they wanted me to come in and talk about, I guess, the circumstances of my departure.”
“I alerted the State Department,” she said, “because I’m still an employee, and so, matters are generally handled through the State Department.
“So, she emailed me. I alerted the State Department and, you know, asked them to handle the correspondence. And, she emailed me again and said, you know, ‘Who should I be in touch with?'”
End of story, right? Not exactly. Tucker Carlson of Fox News managed to get ahold of the email in which Carey talks about the “delicate/time sensitive” issues.
“I’d appreciate the chance to ground-truth a few pieces of information with you, some of which are delicate/time sensitive and thus, we want to make sure we get them right,” Carey wrote.
Here’s the important part: Yovanovitch had responded to the email in question, telling Carey she “would love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you.”
“Could you let me know if you have any time this week or next to connect? Happy to come to a place of your choosing, or if easier, to speak by phone at either of the numbers below. I’m also around this weekend if meeting up over coffee works,” Carey responded on Aug. 15.
“Thanks for reaching out — and congratulations on your new job. I would love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you. I have let EUR [Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs] know that you are interested in talking and they will be in touch with you shortly,” Yovanovitch said the same day.
Carey, Aug. 19: “Great — thanks for the response and I look forward to hearing from them. As mentioned, it would be ideal to connect this week… assuming this week is doable for you schedule-wise?”
Zeldin was not happy with the revelation.
“I would highly suspect that this Democratic staffer’s work was connected in some way to the whistleblower’s effort, which has evolved into this impeachment charade,” he told Fox News.
“We do know that the whistleblower was in contact with [House Intelligence Committee Chairman] Adam Schiff’s team before the whistleblower had even hired an attorney or filed a whistleblower complaint even though Schiff had lied to the public originally claiming that there was no contact,” Zeldin said. “Additionally, while the contents of the email from this staffer to Ambassador Yovanovitch clearly state what the conversation would be regarding, Yovanovitch, when I asked her specifically what the staffer was looking to speak about, did not provide these details.”
It’s unclear whether Yovanovitch perjured herself. This could just be a case where she forgot about the email thread.
(Read more at World News Daily)
The standard that was applied to Flynn and others should be used here
If equal under the law means anything, the same standard that was used against Flynn should be used here. A lie is a lie.
Obama warns 2020 Dems Americans don’t want to ‘tear down the system’
Could it be that Obama sees how impeachment hearings favor the President? According to Fox News. Obama has warned 2020 Democrats that Americans don’t want to “tear down the system.”
Former President Barack Obama on Friday warned 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls to pay attention to what voters actually think — warning that most of them don’t want to “tear down the system.”
“The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think it’s important for us not to lose sight of that,” Obama said.
“There are a lot of persuadable voters and there are a lot of Democrats out there who just want to see things make sense. They just don’t want to see crazy stuff,” he said. “They want to see things a little more fair, they want to see things a little more just. And how we approach that I think will be important.”
The two-term Democratic president made the remarks at a gathering of the Democracy Alliance, a group of wealthy Democratic donors. He was interviewed by Stacey Abrams, who lost Georgia’s gubernatorial race last year.
Obama has largely stayed on the sidelines on the 2020 Democratic primary, and has not yet backed a candidate — even as former Vice President Joe Biden has invoked his name on numerous occasions. But Obama has made remarks indicating he is nervous about the drift to the extreme left on a number of issues by parts of the Democratic Party.
On Friday, he did not mention any candidates by name, but did cite immigration and health care reform as examples of where Democrats may be out of sync with the broader electorate.
Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who have both released plans on immigration and “Medicare-for-all” respectively in recent weeks. Warren’s government-led overhaul of the health care system would eventually abolish private insurance and cost $52 trillion, while Sanders’ immigration plan includes radical policies including welfare for illegal immigrants and a moratorium on all deportations.
“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality and the fact that voters, including the Democratic voters and certainly persuadable independents or even moderate Republicans, are not driven by the same views that are reflected on certain, you know, left-leaning Twitter feeds,” Obama said.
The comment about Twitter feeds echoes remarks he made last month, when the former president took a swipe at “woke” virtue signalling and cancel culture, telling a Chicago audience to “get over” their obsessions with ideological purity tests.
(Read more at Fox News)
Democrats reject being called “too far left”
One America News Network reported in a 19 November 2019 article that Democrat presidential candidates have rejected being called “too far left.”
Democrat presidential contenders are rejecting recent criticisms of falling too far left. This comes after former President Barack Obama warned the White House hopefuls not to alienate voters by becoming too radical. He pointed out they don’t have to completely tear the system down in order to remake it.
While he did not direct his comments at anyone specific, Obama alluded to controversial proposals by progressive candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. He cited immigration and health care reform as examples where Democrats may be out of sync with voters. The former president’s comments became talking points at Democrats’ campaign events over the weekend.
“When I talk about health care being a human right and ending the embarrassment of America being the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care for every man, woman and child — that’s not tearing down the system, that’s doing what we should have done 30 years ago,” said Sanders. “I’m not tearing down the system, we’re talking about justice.”
(Read more at One America News Network)
No matter what Obama says, Bernie and the rest of the contenders will not moderate
The reason that Bernie and the rest will not moderate is that the base of the Democrat party has gone so far left. Either Bernie, Warren, and the rest of the socialists need to break off and create a new socialist party or there will be yet another continued mass exodus from the Democrat party (refer to #Blexit, #WalkAway, and similar movements.)
Democrats demonstrate tyranny
Mark Levin: Democrat Impeachment Inquiry ‘an Outrageous Violation of the Constitution’
Breitbart provides an outline of how Democrats have violated the Constitution.
Friday during Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” conservative talker Mark Levin, author of “Unfreedom of the Press,” slammed the day’s so-called impeachment inquiry proceedings underway in the House Intelligence Committee.
Levin called them an “outrageous violation of the Constitution” for being devoid of due process, and also attacked the media for its claim of wrongdoing regarding President Donald Trump’s tweet earlier in the day during the proceedings.
“You know, Sean, this is amazing,” Levin said. “I hope the American people know what you are witnessing is tyranny. You can have tyranny of the legislature. You can have tyranny of the executive branch. You can have tyranny of the judiciary. You are witnessing tyranny in the House of Representatives in the Intelligence Committee that doesn’t do intelligence work anymore. This is an outrageous violation of the Constitution. Here’s the constitution. How often is the Constitution read during these hearings? Never. Never. And it’s never going to be because they are destroying the Constitution of the United States. They are undermining the franchise. By they, I not only mean the Democrats on this committee, I mean the media.”
“To listen to the media analysis of what’s taking place in these hearings is absurd,” he continued. “It’s disgraceful. They talk about Russia. They sound like the Russian media. The Democrat Party and the media are like this. That’s why I wrote the book. They are like this. So, the president is never going to get a break from the media. So, he tweets. So due process — even though it’s not a criminal case. Even though it’s not a civil case, due process. Western civilization believes in due process. Due process even before the Bill of Rights does not apply to the president because Congress can do whatever it wants. Is what the Constitution says? Is that what that says? No, that’s not what that says. The president is not allowed to tweet to defend himself. Well, then he can’t defend himself. You name one newsroom, in this country that is calling it straight here? None of them. I’m not picking on anyone. I’m saying none of them.”
(Read this at Breitbart)
Bad news related to Democrat officials
Buttigieg Claiming Black Support That Doesn’t Exist
The Daily Caller outlines in a 18 November 2019 article how Pete Buttigieg seems to have claimed Black support that does not exist.
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg has gone to great lengths to promote his Douglass Plan for black Americans — reportedly including enlisting bogus endorsements from prominent black people from South Carolina.
The campaign also used a picture from Kenya to promote his platform that also includes legalization of marijuana and the abolition of the death penalty.
The Buttigieg campaign heralded the news in a news release that was picked up by the HBCU Times— a journal devoted to black colleges and universities.
The article uncritically lauds the Douglas Plan, Buttigieg’s proposed affirmative action plan for blacks, as a policy initiative on the scale of the Marshall Plan that will ignite black progress in America. Buttigieg has virtually no support from black voters — in South Carolina or anywhere. The mayor’s own focus groups are telling him that many male Southern blacks are uncomfortable with Buttigieg’s open homosexuality.
Research conducted by The Intercept discovered that two of the black politicians allegedly in Buttigieg’s corner aren’t supporters and 40% of the 400 people supposedly backing his Douglass Plan are white. The list itself is composed of people who Buttigieg hopes will endorse his plan, and people had to indicate any opinion to the contrary by asking for their names to be removed.
Democratic State Rep. Ivory Thigpen told the Intercept: “Even though I had had conversations with the [Buttigieg] campaign, it was clear to me, or at least I thought I made it clear to them, that I was a strong Bernie Sanders supporter—actually co-chair of the state, and I was not seeking to endorse their candidate or the plan,”__
Interesting. And if this comes in after this lack-luster campaign, there must be more.
There must be more things wrong with the Buttigeig candidacy that will certainly come out.
Pete Buttigieg lost black support between 2 mayoral runs, data shows
As published in Politico, Buttigieg lost Black support between his mayoral runs.
As Mayor Pete Buttigieg contends with the fallout from the shooting of a black man by a white police officer in his city, a POLITICO analysis of data from his earlier mayoral elections shows he struggled to win the confidence of the city’s black voters following a series of controversies in his first term.
Detailed precinct results from South Bend’s 2011 and 2015 mayoral races show Buttigieg repeatedly lagging in contests against black primary challengers in many of western South Bend’s predominantly black neighborhoods. And though Buttigieg still managed to win those precincts in two general elections against white Republican opponents, his support in these areas fell after his first term.
In the 2011 general election, Buttigieg had some of his highest margins of victory in these neighborhoods — a typical result for a Democrat facing a Republican opponent in South Bend. But by 2015, western South Bend gave him his weakest results after his support plunged more than 20 points in some precincts.
Interviews with city council members, former political opponents and local residents suggest that Buttigieg’s management style — heavy on outside expertise and top-down implementation — may have alienated grassroots voices, a complaint that registered strongly in South Bend’s black communities, where the desire to be heard and consulted has historic resonance.
“Because he’s the smartest guy in the room, he’s gonna tell you that what you believe is true is not factual, and that his study and his understanding of it is better than yours,” said Henry Davis Jr., a former city council member and Buttigieg’s primary opponent in 2015. Davis won 22 percent of the vote against the incumbent Buttigieg citywide, but ran even with Buttigieg in South Bend’s predominantly black precincts.
(Read more at Politico)
Tlaib frantically asked campaign for personal money, messages show, as ethics probes announced
Fox News reports that Rep. Tlaib has been caught using campaign finances for personal expenses.
The House Ethics Committee on Thursday released a trove of striking internal campaign communications sent in 2018 by Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, in which Tlaib urgently requested money from her congressional campaign to defray personal expenses — and, a government watchdog said, possibly violated federal law in the process.
The document dump was related to the committee’s ongoing ethics probe into Tlaib, which the panel said on Thursday would be “expanded” based on a referral from the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). Additionally, the Ethics Committee acknowledged for the first time on Thursday an investigation into Florida Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings concerning a “personal relationship with an individual employed in his congressional office.”
Texts and emails released by the Ethics Committee show Tlaib frantically contacting members of her staff for financial help.
In one April 2018 email offered as an exhibit by OCE, Tlaib wrote that she was “struggling financially right now” and was “sinking.” She continued: “So I was thinking the campaign could loan me money, but Ryan said that the committee could actually pay me. I was thinking a one time payment of $5k.”
In another email, on April 4, 2018, Tlaib wrote: “I am just not going to make it through the campaign without a stipend.”
“With the loss of a second income to lean back on,” she wrote. “I am requesting $2,000 per two weeks but not exceeding $12,000. The cost of living stipend is going towards much needed expenses due to campaigning that includes car maintenance, child care and other necessities. Please let me know if I can proceed.”
In August of that year, Tlaib texted her future chief of staff Ryan Anderson at 6:38 a.m.: “Sorry for the early text but do you think the campaign can still pay me a stipend until the general. Trying to get out of debt.”
“I think we definitely afford to do so. But we need to really clearly define your time and space,” Anderson responded, noting that the arrangement could arouse “concern” among the media.
The OCE also attached scans of checks made out to Tlaib from her campaign, totaling thousands of dollars.
(Read more at Fox News)
We need to have Ms. Tlaib follow the law
Laws have been enacted for a purpose. She needs to follow them. Our representatives and senators need to make certain that the laws are applied.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib may test Democratic claims that no one is above the law
Fox News recounts how the actions of Rashida Tlaib might test the Democrat claims that nobody is above the law.
Freshman House Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., reportedly received payments from her campaign while running for office in 2016. While such unusual arrangements can be legal under narrow guidelines during the campaign season, Tlaib allegedly continued to take money from the campaign after the election, potentially violating federal law. Any payments prior to the election also must meet stringent requirements regarding legitimate campaign expenses.
In a report last week, the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) announced that the House Ethics Committee would extend its investigation into Tlaib after finding “substantial reason to believe” she violated campaign finance laws.
It was unusual and significant that specific documentation, including emails from Tlaib, was released to the public.
The OCE wrote, “(If Tlaib) converted campaign funds from Rashida Tlaib for Congress to personal use, or if Tlaib’s campaign committee expended funds that were not attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes, then Tlaib may have violated House rules, standards of conduct, and federal law.”
In April 2018, Tlaib allegedly wrote, according to the OCE, that she was “struggling financially right now” and was “sinking.” She added, “So I was thinking the campaign could loan me money, but Ryan said that the committee could actually pay me. I was thinking a one-time payment of $5k.”
It is my understanding that payments made from a campaign to a candidate because someone needs extra money does not meet the standards requiring reimbursement or payments only if there is a legitimate campaign expense. While some of the facts have emerged, not all the facts have been exposed. This is what the House Ethics Committee has historically done well.
Unlike the kangaroo court impeachment proceedings run by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the House Ethics Committee is truly bipartisan – with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans on the committee. That means that no one party can stack the deck in favor of one side or another as Schiff is able to do on the House Intelligence Committee.
It is imperative the committee embrace the long-standing tradition of holding members of Congress accountable on both sides of the aisle.
There will be no recommendation for action unless there is bipartisan support. The fact that the committee has agreed to expand the investigation indicates that these allegations are strong and they are serious.
It also means there is real evidence that can lead to a variety of recommendations including no action, criminal referral, or a host of options somewhere in between.
(Read more at Fox News)
‘No discipline. No plan. No strategy:’ Kamala Harris campaign in meltdown
Politico reports in a 15 November 2019 article how the presidential campaign of Senator Harris has descended to a meltdown.
Kamala Harris’ campaign is careening toward a crackup.
As the California senator crisscrosses the country trying to revive her sputtering presidential bid, aides at her fast-shrinking headquarters are deep into the finger-pointing stages. And much of the blame is being placed on campaign manager Juan Rodriguez.
After Rodriguez announced dozens of layoffs and re-deployments in late October to stem overspending, three more staffers at headquarters here were let go and another quit in recent days, aides told POLITICO. Officials said they’ve become increasingly frustrated at the campaign chief’s lack of clarity about what changes have been made to right the ship and his plans to turn the situation around. They hold Rodriguez responsible for questionable budget decisions, including continuing to bring on new hires shortly before the layoffs began.
Amid the turmoil, some aides have gone directly to campaign chair Maya Harris, the candidate’s sister, and argued that Rodriguez needs to be replaced if Harris has any hope of a turnaround, according to two officials.
“It’s a campaign of id,” said one senior Harris official, laying much of the blame on Rodriguez, but also pointing to a leaderless structure at the top that’s been allowed to flail without accountability. “What feels right, what impulse you have right now, what emotion, what frustration,” the official added. The person described the current state of the campaign in blunt terms: “No discipline. No plan. No strategy.”
This account is based on interviews with more than a dozen current and former staffers as well as others close to the campaign, including donors. The sources were granted anonymity to speak freely about the turmoil within the organization and protect them from repercussions.
(Read more at Politico)
Bad news related to Democrat support groups
Judge rules that US-born Alabama woman who joined ISIS is not an American citizen
Fox News reports that a woman who once renounced the US and embraced ISIS has been denied entry to the US.
A federal judge ruled Thursday that an American-born woman who traveled to Syria to join the Islamic State (ISIS) group and now wants to return to her family in Alabama is not a U.S. citizen.
U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton dismissed a lawsuit brought by the family of Hoda Muthana to force the federal government to let her in the country.
Muthana, 25, currently lives with her 2-year-old son in a refugee camp in Syria and has since repudiated the terrorist group. A court motion said she and child, identified only as John Doe, were moved from the Roj refugee camp after receiving death threats from ISIS supporters and that their lives are in danger, The New York Times reported.
“The citizenship status of minor John Doe depends upon the status of Ms. Muthana; accordingly, regardless of the choices made by his mother, the health and survival of a young U.S. citizen depends upon the expeditious resolution of Ms. Muthana’s civil case,” the claim said.
In addition to dismissing a lawsuit, Walton also ruled that Muthana’s father, Ahmed Ali Muthana, could not provide financial support to his daughter or grandson without being subject to charges of providing material support of terrorism.
Walton ruled that Ali Muthana, who formerly represented Yemen in the United Nations, is still a diplomat. Children born to diplomats are not granted automatic citizenship in the U.S.
Ali Muthana left his post before his daughter was born in 1994 in Hackensack, N.J., according to The Times. However, the federal government said it wasn’t notified of the change until 1995 and stopped recognizing his diplomatic status only then.
Muthana’s lawyer, Christina Jump, told BuzzFeed News that there was a “likely basis” to appeal Walton’s ruling.
“While we are disappointed with and disagree with the court’s ruling today, this is not the end of our client’s legal options,” Jump said.
In 2014, Muthana withdrew from college and left her home in Alabama to travel to Syria after being radicalized by ISIS online. She promoted the group’s ideology on social media and called on Muslims to commit attacks in America, such as drive-by shootings and attempts to assassinate former President Barack Obama.
(Read more at Fox News)
Bad things happen to bad people
If you promise to kill Americans, if you join ISIS (who was in the practice of beheading and otherwise killing thousands of Christians), if you burn your passport and renounce your citizenship in the USA — don’t expect America to lose all judgement and just forgive you.
Bad news for projects Americans care about
Border Patrol Agent Shoots Russian Migrant After Being Assaulted
Breitbart reports in a 15 November 2019 article how a border agent shot a Russian illegal alien after the agent was attacked.
A Tucson Sector Border Patrol agent shot a Russian migrant during a struggle near the Arizona-Mexico border. Neither the agent nor the migrant sustained life-threatening injuries.
A Lukeville Station Border Patrol agent responded to a report of a single migrant crossing the border just east of the border community of Lukeville, Arizona, on November 14. After the agent arrived on the scene, he attempted to take the migrant into custody, according to a statement from Tucson Sector Border Patrol officials.
As the agent attempted to place the migrant under arrest, the migrant became combative and “a physical altercation ensued,” Tucson Sector officials stated. During the fight, the Border Patrol agent discharged his firearm striking the suspected illegal alien. Border Patrol officials reported the agent identified the migrant as a citizen of Russia.
A helicopter aircrew transported the migrant to a Phoenix-area hospital for treatment of “non-life threatening injuries,” officials stated. The Russian illegal alien remains hospitalized for treatment of his injuries.
Officials report the Border Patrol agent did not sustain a serious injury during the altercation.
The FBI and a CBP Use of Force Incident Team will investigate the agent-involved shooting incident.
A couple of weeks earlier, a Border Patrol agent returned fire after being attacked by a group of migrants near Dryden, Texas. The agent struck one of the attacking migrants while the remainder of the group fled the scene, Breitbart Texas reported.
(Read more at Breitbart)