Fifteen “Small” Problems for Democrats in their impeachment drive


  1. The Democratic presidential campaign has produced confusion rather than clarity

The Stamford Advocate provides an op-ed commentary on the Democrat field as of 30 November 2019.

The Democratic presidential candidates have been on the campaign trail for nearly a year. Confusion rather than clarity continues to be the story of their contest for the 2020 nomination.

Early in the year, the party’s liberal wing seemed to be ascendant, defined by the candidacies of Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and the embrace of a single-payer, Medicare-for-all health-care program. Sanders and Warren were calling for other dramatic changes to the system – economic and political – and their voices stood out. Some other candidates offered echoes of their ideas.

That proved to be a misleading indicator of where the Democratic electorate was on some of the issues, particularly health care, in part because there were fewer moderate voices being heard. Former Vice President Joe Biden didn’t join the race until April. South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg wasn’t being taken very seriously. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., wasn’t breaking through.

The candidate debates provided the setting for the arguments to play out before a larger audience. Warren and Sanders came under attack from moderate Democrats at the first debate in June in Miami, with former Maryland congressman John Delaney the most vocal. But Warren and Sanders more than held their own. It appeared as though the progressive wing was on solid ground.

(Read more at the Stamford Advocate)

Since the modus operandi of Democrats means taking the worst qualities of the speaker and assigning them to the opponent, …

A debate on the merits of Democrat ideals comes up lacking

The only two questions at most of the Democrat debates has been:

  1. Who can sling the most insults against President
  2. Who can be the most socialist without tipping their hand to the Millennials that young, working-class people will be the ones who pay for the socialist programs

  1. Schiff re-inacts Nixon: Schiff pulls the phone records of Republican Nunes

Breitbart reports in a 3 December 2019 article that Democrat Schiff obtained the phone records of ranking Republican Nunes for the Democrat impeachment inquiry.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) investigated Ranking Member Devin Nunes (D-CA) as part of his impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, the committee report revealed on Tuesday.

The revelation that Schiff had obtained telephone records related to Nunes was the only new revelation in the report, which otherwise re-hashed Democrats’ arguments in favor of impeaching Trump for allegedly asking Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election.

In a press conference Tuesday afternoon, Schiff declined to say when the committee had obtained the records, but given the Democrats’ repeated questions during the inquiry about administration officials who had worked with Nunes, such as former Intelligence Committee staffer (now National Security Council official) Kash Patel, it is likely the Democrats sought those records before or during the hearings.

The report cites media reports that Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani who has ben indicted on campaign finance charges, claimed that Nunes tried to meet with Ukrainians to “dig up dirt” on former Vice President Joe Biden. (Nunes had threatened to sue those media outlets, and did so on Tuesday, suing CNN for defamation; he does not appear to have been given an opportunity to answer the allegations in the report.)

Shifts report also cites “phone records” showing apparent conversations between Giuliani and Nunes, as well as Parnas and Nunes, in April 2019, around the time that then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was criticized in the media. The report also cites records of phone calls between Giuliani and Nunes staffer Derek Harvey, as well as between Giuliani and Patel. The phone records were apparently obtained from AT&T, according to a footnote in the report.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Truth of the matter is that Schiff submitted subpeonas for numerous Republicans (but made incorrect assumptions based on those documents)

Making assumptions with limited intelligence (id est, little coordinating information on what the subject was doing — although other definitions of “intelligence” might also apply here) never works well. As Adam Mill points out in The Federalist:

House intelligence committee chairman Adam Schiff has released a 300-page Trump-Ukraine impeachment inquiry report. It’s what you would expect of a rushed report after two weeks of hearsay and opinion testimony: full of unsupported conclusions based upon faulty assumptions.

Garbage assumptions lead to garbage conclusions. Below is a list of several key assumptions Schiff totally failed to support in the report.

Garbage in, garbage out.

  1. Flashback: Jerry Nadler Warns ‘There Must Never Be’ a Partisan Impeachment Effort

Breitbart quotes Jerry Nadler during his efforts to support Bill Clinton.

House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) warned of the dangers of partisan impeachment efforts during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, cautioning that it would “produce decisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come.”

Nadler adamantly opposed a partisan impeachment effort during Clinton’s scandal, emphatically warning his colleagues that they should not impeach a president without the “overwhelming consensus” of the American people and stressing that “an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other” will lead to bitterness and divisiveness and cause people to question “the very legitimacy of our political institutions.”

“And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other,” Nadler said in a throwback clip, which Rep. Roger Marshall (R-KS) reintroduced on the morning of the House Judiciary Committee’s first public impeachment hearing:

“Such an impeachment will produce decisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions,” he warned.

Nadler made, precisely, the same arguments Republicans have made against the Democrats’ partisan impeachment efforts in recent weeks.

(Read more at Breitbart)

We need to make Nadler remember his words now that he has taken part in the impechment

We need to be a thorn in the side of this man and help him grow into a more mature politician. Just as Maxine Waters has encouraged her followers to confront people, we need to (but doing so legally and with the love of Christ for people).

  1. Pamela Karlan presumes to read President Trump’s mind during impeachment hearing

The Daily Caller noted how liberal professor Pamela Karlan assumed that she knew the motivation for Trump’s naming of his youngest son and other actions.

Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford Law School, dragged President Donald Trump’s 13-year-old son Barron into the impeachment drama Wednesday.

Karlan made the comments while explaining the difference between a president and a monarch.

“I’ll just give you one example that shows you the difference between him and a king, which is, the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. So while the president can name his son ‘Barron,’ he can’t make him a baron,” Karlan said.

Karlan was one of four law professors to testify before the House Judiciary Committee about impeachment Wednesday, with three of them arguing in favor of impeachment.

Karlan’s decision to mention the president’s son during the hearing elicited strong reactions from conservatives on Twitter who took offense to Karlan’s comments.

(Read the original at the Daily Caller)

Ms. Karlan may consult familiars, march in degenerate marches, and publish her desire to impeach the President months before claiming she was impartial, but she cannot read minds

However, had Ms. Karlan wanted to project herself as an unbiased expert worthy of belief during the House impeachment hearings, she might have avoided mentioning how she crosses the road to avoid walking in front of Trump tower. That does not project an image of impartiality.

  1. Jonathan Turley: No bribery, no obstruction in Trump’s actions

Breitbart quotes constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley as he points out that this impeachment sets a precedent.

President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine do not constitute “bribery” and resisting Congressional request is not “obstruction” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told the House judiciary committee Wednesday.

Turley took aim at what he called a “boundless” definition of bribery employed by the Democrats in their impeachment report. He also criticized the Democrats for attempting to construe Trump’s challenging House subpoenas or refusing to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry as “obstruction of justice.”

“You can’t accuse a president of bribery and then when some of us note that the Supreme Court has rejected your type of boundless interpretation say, ‘Well, it’s just impeachment. We really don’t have to prove the elements,’” Turley said. “If you are going to accuse a president of bribery, you need to make it stick because you are trying to remove a duly elected president of the United States.”

Turley said that proponents of impeachment, including Rep. Adam Schiff and the legal experts called by Democrats to the Wednesday panel, were wrong when they said that Trump’s alleged actions would fit the definition of bribery at the time the constitution was adopted even if it did not fit the statutory definitions of the current era.

“The bribery theory being put forward is as flawed in the 18th century as it is in this century,” Turley said.

Bribery was not an “over-arching concept” in the 18th century, Turley said. Instead, it constituted such a narrow crime that some of the attendees of the constitutional convention worried that restricting impeach to “Treason and Bribery” was too limited. An originalist interpretation of bribery would limit it to the actual acceptance of money from someone seeking favorable treatment or policy from a public official.

In his prepared remarks, Turley quoted from a legal treatise that explained: “The core of the concept of a bribe is an inducement improperly influencing the performance of a public function meant to be gratuitously exercised.”

“Bribery, as used here, did not indicate some broad definition, but a classic payment of money,” Turley explained in his written remarks.

Turley argued that the narrow definition does not fit Trump’s alleged actions in the current controversy. Even if Trump sought to pressure Ukraine to open investigations by withholding military aid or offering a White House visit, this would not constitute bribery under common law definitions.

(Read more at Breitbart)

  1. Turley To House Democrats: If You Make Going To The Courts An Abuse Of Power, It Is “Your Abuse Of Power”

Real Clear Politics quotes Jonathan Turley as he makes one of several cases against the Democrat argument for impeachment.

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley told House Democrats that charging President Trump with a count of obstruction of justice for going to the courts over the subpoena of witnesses is itself an abuse of power.

“If you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power,” Turley said during the first day of impeachment inquiry hearings in the House Judiciary committee on Monday.

(Read more at Real Clear Politics)

  1. Professor Turley, though not a fan of Trump, takes on three Democrat witnesses and the entire impeachment coup

Biz Pac Review lists the issues identified by Professor Turley.

While “witnesses” who have thus far testified to the House in the impeachment inquiry have been in support of the removal of the president without providing any solid evidence of wrongdoing, a Wednesday witness before the House Judiciary Committee tore apart the legal case presented against Trump and called the inquiry “dangerous.”

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University Law School who also testified in the Bill Clinton impeachment case, called the case presented thus far against Trump “woefully inadequate.”

“President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come,” Turley said during his opening testimony. “I’m concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.”

Turley said the current standard for this potential impeachment “fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments.” He also said the lack of solid evidence presented in the case sets a “dangerous precedent for future impeachments.”

While leftists will likely write Turley off as a blind supporter of the president, the law professor confirmed on Wednesday that he is not a “supporter” of Trump, but rather someone who is concerned that the “integrity” of the impeachment process is quickly being eroded with the current hearings.

“One can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president,” he said.

Further proving he’s not a supporter of the president, Turley said Trump’s reference to Joe Biden’s dealings with Ukraine and Burisma, the company his son worked for, in his phone call with the Ukraine president over the summer should have never happened and is worth criticism. However, he argued, the reference in the phone call — which never led to the imaginary quid pro quo Democrats have accused Trump of — does not equate to “bribery,” which is what Trump is currently being accused of in the impeachment inquiry.

“The reference to the Hunter Biden deal with Burisma should never have occurred and is worthy of the criticism of President Trump that it has unleashed. However, it is not a case of bribery,” Turley said.

While one can argue the comment was not “correct,” Turley said there is nothing “corrupt” in the mentioning of the dealings to the Ukraine president.

“In my view, there is no case law that would support a claim of corrupt intent in such comments to support a bribery charge,” he said.

Turley also argued there was no malicious motivation on Trump’s part as the president “honestly believed that there was a corrupt arrangement with Hunter Biden that was not fully investigated by the Obama administration, the request for an investigation is not corrupt, notwithstanding its inappropriateness.”

The trouble, Turley argued, is that an investigation into Biden — which never actually happened — would have helped Trump politically.

Turley eventually made a call to action, asking those in support of impeachment to put the current process in the context of history and to see beyond their “rage.”

“If we are to impeach a president for only the third time in our history, we will need to rise above this age of rage and genuinely engage in a civil and substantive discussion,” he said.

If impeachment were to actually happen, Turley predicted it would be a black mark on American political history.

“If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president,” he said.

(Read more at Biz Pac Review)

To quote Professor Turley, we are setting a dangerous precedent

On page 12 of the printed version of his testimony before Congress, Jonathan Turley pointed out the low standard the Democrats are setting for impeachment.

In the current case, the record is facially insufficient. The problem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge. This alone sets a dangerous precedent. A House in the future could avoid countervailing evidence by simply relying on tailored records with testimony from people who offer damning presumptions or speculation. It is not enough to simply shrug and say this is “close enough for jazz” in an impeachment. The expectation, as shown by dozens of failed English impeachments, was that the lower house must offer a complete and compelling record. That is not to say that the final record must have a confession or incriminating statement from the accused. Rather, it was meant to be a complete record of the key witnesses that establishes the full range of material evidence. Only then could the body reach a conclusion on the true weight of the evidence—a conclusion that carries sufficient legitimacy with the public to justify the remedy of removal.

  1. All Presidents of the past would have been impeached under the current standard

At Jonathan Turley’s blog, the professor points out how all presidents fall when put up to the standards exacted by the current Democrats.

“This is beyond anything Nixon did.” Those words declared by Democratic House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff capture the vast constitutional challenge for the House Judiciary Committee as it heads toward its announced hearing on the impeachment of President Trump. There is still disagreement, to use a Clintonian twist, of what “this” is.

Yet whatever “this” is, it is not Nixonian, at least not yet. Schiff seems to struggle to reduce the harsh allegations against Richard Nixon in order to elevate those against Donald Trump. Schiff explained that Watergate was merely “a third-rate burglary of the Democratic headquarters” while “what we are talking about here is the withholding of recognition in that White House meeting” of the Ukrainian president and of “the withholding of military aid to an ally at war. This is beyond anything Nixon did.”

The Nixon impeachment began with a felony crime with the Watergate burglary and then swept to encompass an array of other crimes involving political slush funds, payments of hush money, maintenance of an enemies list, directing tax audits of critics, witness intimidation, multiple instances of perjury and even an alleged kidnapping. In the end, there were nearly 70 officials charged and four dozen found guilty. Nixon was also named as an unindicted conspirator by a grand jury.

However, according to Schiff and Katyal, all those federal crimes appear to pale in comparison to the Ukraine controversy. Katyal said on air that Trump has denied Congress the testimony of former national security adviser John Bolton and “a whole bunch of other people.” This on its face, Katyal claimed, constitutes “unprecedented obstruction, in many ways even worse than President Nixon during Watergate. They have gagged every single executive branch employee from going and testifying.”

But that is not exactly unprecedented. Take the Obama administration position, for instance, on the investigation of “Fast and Furious,” which was a moronic gunwalking operation in which the government arranged for the illegal sale of powerful weapons to drug cartels in order to track their movement. One such weapon was used to murder Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, and Congress began a justified oversight investigation. Some members called for impeachment proceedings. But Obama invoked executive privilege and barred essential testimony and documents. The Obama administration then ran out the clock in the judiciary, despite a legal rejection of its untenable and extreme claim by a federal court.

During its litigation, the Obama administration argued that the courts had no authority over its denial of such witnesses and evidence to Congress. Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who has tried Trump associate Roger Stone, ruled that “endorsing the proposition that the executive may assert an unreviewable right to withhold materials from the legislature would offend the Constitution more than undertaking to resolve the specific dispute that has been presented here. After all, the Constitution contemplates not only a separation, but a balance, of powers.” Katyal is likely familiar with this precedent. He was acting solicitor general of the Justice Department at the start of “Fast and Furious” at the start of the controversy.

Presidents have often gone to court to litigate conflicts over Congress calling top White House officials whose conversations are ordinarily protected by executive privilege. George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama all barred evidence on that ground, and presidents are entitled to receive judicial review in conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. In the Obama litigation over the blocking of evidence, Jackson reaffirmed that such judicial review is part of the constitutional system of allowing courts to “determine whether another branch has exceeded its power.” Citing two Supreme Court rulings, Jackson added that it would “elevate and fortify” one branch to dictate the results in such conflicts.

It is difficult to see the “devastating” aspect of such an incomplete record against Trump as it exists today, let alone the claim that Trump has “out-Nixoned” Nixon. That is why, whatever “this” is, in the words of Schiff, it is not Watergate. That does not mean it is not impeachable, but the House will have to build its case to that level, not lower historical impeachments to “this” level.

(Read the full blog post at Jonathan Turley’s blog)

  1. One of Nadler’s ‘Star’ Impeachment Witnesses Misrepresented Himself During Sworn Testimony

Lifezette’s Wayne Dupree points out that one of Jerry Nadler’s star witnesses told a little lie during sworn testimony. Of course, the main stream press will not bring this out.

Jerry Nadler’s impeachment hearing was a bust. It actually made Adam Schiff’s circus look legitimate – and that’s saying a lot since Schiff’s hearings were a total joke and embarrassment.

Nadler trotted out three elitist anti-Trump college professors to share their “feelings” and “opinions” on why they think Trump should be impeached.

What a total waste of time and taxpayer money.

Much like Schiff’s impeachment charade, Nadler’s was just a bunch of Trump-haters complaining. There was no first-hand knowledge of anything, no evidence. Just a #Resistance rally for people who hate President Trump with an abnormal amount of passion.

While Schiff’s witnesses were insufferable windbags, Nadler’s were insufferable and downright mean, not to mention liars.

Nadler’s star witness Noah Freeman said under oath that he was an “impeachment skeptic” until July 2019.

You can watch the video below:

However, investigative journalist Mike Cernovich says “not so fast.”

Will anything be done about it? Don’t hold your breath.

Noah Feldman’s own words contradict his testimony.

In a May 17, 2017 story in Vice about the Comey firing, Professor Feldman said:

What the president did is an outrage. It’s impeachable, and obstruction of justice in the sense of being a “high crime and misdemeanor.” But it’s almost certainly not a crime of obstruction of justice.

When pressed to provide more nuance about impeachment, Professor Feldman said:

So just to clarify, this looks like obstruction of justice in the high crimes and misdemeanors sense but not in the Jeff Sessions–led Justice Department will do anything about it sense? Correct. And frankly, breaking the norm of politicizing law enforcement—it’s a great basis for impeachment. It’s not a crime, and in fact it’s in the president’s constitutional authority, but it’s still impeachable. That’s the whole point—the president can do things within his legal constitutional authority where the only sanction available under our system is impeachment.

Feldman doesn’t qualify his statement. He doesn’t express skepticism or doubt. He is clear with his words: “What the president did is an outrage. It’s impeachable.”


(Read more at Wayne Dupree)

  1. Blue State Blues: Adam Schiff Abused His Power to Dig up Dirt on Opponents

Breitbart reports in a 6 December 2019 article how Schiff abused is power to dig up dirt on opponents.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has done almost exactly what he and fellow Democrats accuse President Donald Trump (falsely) of doing: he abused his power to ask an outside entity to investigate political opponents.

Schiff subpoenaed phone records from AT&T that he then used to claim his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Rep. Devin Nunes (D-CA), was part of a plot to smear a U.S. ambassador.

What Schiff did is arguably worse than what he claims Trump did in his telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. AT&T is an American company, not a foreign government.

But Schiff didn’t simply ask AT&T for dirt on his opponents. He forced it to hand over the records. And he did so without giving Nunes any warning, or any opportunity to respond to the claims he would later sneak into his 300-page impeachment report.

Schiff’s strategy was not to go for Nunes’s phone number directly, but to subpoena the records of numbers of people who might have called him. So when he showed Nunes his unilateral subpoena — which he is required to do — Nunes had no idea what Schiff was doing. Nor did Schiff explain it to the public: the footnotes in his report simply refer to “AT&T Document Production” with no further explanation.

Schiff’s phone records also targeted Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and investigative journalist John Solomon. He risked violating attorney-client privilege, as well as the freedom of the press. And those are just the records that have been identified: other Americans, including journalists, are likely to have been swept up in the search.

Schiff also apparently mis-identified one of the phone numbers as coming from the Office of Management and Budget, basing key accusations on that sloppy mistake.

Kimberly Strassel at the Wall Street Journal notes: “Mr. Schiff claims the ignominious distinction of being the first congressman to use his official powers to spy on a fellow member and publish the details.” She adds, quoting former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, that Schiff’s subpoena may have broken the law. Phone carriers cannot divulge call records without an individual’s consent, except for a legitimate law enforcement purpose: this was not.

(Read more at Breitbart)

  1. House GOP escalate feud over Nunes phone records

One America News Network reports in a 6 December 2019 article how some Republicans in the House have started matching force with force.

House Republicans are accusing House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff of carrying out a smear campaign against his GOP counterpart. House Democrats have refused to explain how some phone records of Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) were obtained and published in the Intelligence panel’s recent report.

They have cited the records to accuse Nunes of working with the Trump administration to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations into the president’s opponents. Call logs show Nunes was in contact earlier this year with Rudy Giuliani and other individuals swept up in the inquiry.

Republicans have warned the move by Democrats is unprecedented and are now demanding answers.

“So two questions are hanging out that everybody’s looking for an answer for, including me: who ordered it? …why was it decided for nothing but smears purposes to be included in the the Schiff report?” asked Rep. Doug Collin (R-Ga.).

Schiff has argued it is standard procedure to seek phone records, while denying they were obtained through subpoenas. Meanwhile, Republicans say they are concerned with names of individuals being revealed who are not under criminal investigation.

(Read more at One America News Network)

  1. Nadler did not swear in witnesses

As pointed out in a 9 December 2019 edition of Roll Call, we know that Jerold Nadler did not swear in the witnesses for the impeachment hearing.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler’s gavel got a workout when Republicans raised a number of objections, unanimous consent requests and parliamentary inquiries in the committee’s impeachment hearing on Monday.

“The steamroll continues!” ranking member Doug Collins said as Nadler called upon Barry Berke, counsel for House Democrats. Republicans were shouting over each other and Nadler’s gavel as they attempted to submit their dissatisfaction with the proceedings.

Collins called Democrats’ investigation inquiry into President Donald Trump a “focus group impeachment” in its opening statement as the committee began its hearing on investigators’ report.

“Presumption has now become the standard instead of proof,” Collins said in his opening statement.

Republicans also reasserted their allegations that the impeachment process is an effort by Democrats to negate Trump’s election.

“Is this when we just hear staff ask questions of other staff and the members get dealt out of this hearing for the next four hours?” asked Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz. “Are you are going to overturn the results of an election of the elected people?”

(Read more at Roll Call)

  1. Court Criticizes Obama Admin for Illegal Spying on U.S. Citizens

Breitbart pointed out how a court criticized the Obama administration for spying on the Trump campaign.

Intelligence agencies violated the constitutional rights of American citizens through illegal surveillance during the Obama administration, recently declassified documents from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) show.

The secretive court also notes a change for the better under President Trump’s team.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorizes two courts to provide judicial review for U.S. intelligence agencies when their activities require them to monitor people on U.S. soil. One is FISC, and the other is the court that hears appeals from FISC decisions, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR). The benches of FISC are comprised of federal judges from regular federal trial courts throughout the nation, and three appellate judges from around the nation comprise the bench of FISCR.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) recently declassified an April 26, 2017, ruling from FISC, detailing violations of Fourth Amendment rights during the final year of the Obama administration.

The problems dealt specifically with Section 702 of FISA. This provision of federal law, found at 50 U.S.C. § 1881a, contains “minimization” procedures for U.S. citizens whose information is scooped up by the intelligence community while those agencies are conducting FISA surveillance. These safeguards minimize the burden on civil rights caused by the intrusion of the federal government into citizens’ lives.

The Fourth Amendment commands:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Writing the 99-page opinion for FISC, Judge Rosemary Collyer castigated the Obama administration for failing to follow the Section 702 procedures designed to ensure that the government does not violate Americans’ civil rights as it is performing work that is vitally important to national security. Collyer declared that the previous administration’s cavalier violations of Section 702’s requirements created “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

This is a day late and a dollar short for a judge who should have responded to Rep. Nunes

Over a year ago, Representatives Nunes and Goodlatte wrote a letter to this judge (warning of the issues brought up in the IG report and more). She should have started investigations and leveled charges then, had she wanted to maintain the honor of her court.

  1. Doug Collins speaks out during the impeachment debacle

In the following video, Representative Doug Collins speaks in the “impeachment” debates (put in quotes because the Democrats limited the terms of debate throughout the process). In this speech, he points out how Democrats have rushed headlong into this “impeachment” from the moment President Trump was elected. Facts and votes have been damned by the Democrats.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And we are here today to enter into a debate, this should surprise no one.

This is not — this has not been a surprise and it’s not even something that we would not have thought about. From the very moment that the majority party in this House won the inevitability that we would be here today was only a matter of what date they would schedule it. Nothing else.

In fact, how it even began to look even further was on September 24, the Speaker announced an impeachment inquiry before even seeing the call transcript that we’re going to hear so much about today. You know, it’s not about what this body can do, in its constitutional oath. And there’s been a lot of “constitutional” and “founders” thrown around and will be all day today. But there’s one thing that I will mention all along and that is also the founders were very concerned about a partisan impeachment in which politics or the majority who have their strength can do what they want to do regardless of any facts.

In fact, I’ve said it before, and I will say it again. I do not believe, no matter what was said today and what has been said, this is not a solemn occasion. When you go looking for something for three years, and especially this year since January, you ought to be excited when you found it. But they can’t. Because I know what has now happened.

It took me last night, but I was thinking about it. Why do we keep calling this a solemn occasion when you’ve been wanting to do this ever since the gentleman was elected? Mr. President came forward and did what he saw fit for the American people, but yet they wanted to impeach him. Now I know. The reason they wanted to is now they realize, when I told them and have been telling them for the last few weeks that the clock and the calendar are terrible masters. The clock and the calendar are terrible masters. They do not care about anything except getting the time done and the calendar fixed. They do not care about facts. They do not care about time. And one day the clock and the calendar will hang along this body in a very detrimental way.

How do I know this? Because one of our members said on the night she was sworn in, we’re going to impeach. Well, you know the rest.

In May of 2019, Al Green said, “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.” That’s probably the most prescient thing said by the majority in the last year. They said, we can’t beat him if we don’t impeach him. There’s a reason behind this impeachment. Even Speaker Pelosi said it would be dangerous to leave it to voters to determine whether President Trump stays in office.

Really? After we just said the pledge of allegiance, we go back to the Speaker’s own words and said it would be dangerous to leave it to the voters? I will tell you right now, Madam Speaker, we on the Republican side have no problem taking our case to the majority and to the people of this country, because they elected Donald Trump and it is a matter — matter for the voters, not this House, not in — voters, not this House, not in this way and not in the way this is being done. It has trampled everything this House believes in.

I said it yesterday and I believe it to be this true today. I will fight this on process which has been deplorable, to use a word of the majority. It has been awful. The calendar and the clock make it impress have we actually do it quickly — impressive that we actually do it quickly. We don’t care about rules and minority days, we don’t care about giving opportunity for witnesses to call, because the chairman gets to determine what is relevant. Wow, that’s pretty good. Let the accuser determine what is relevant to the one being accused.

The people of America see through this. The people of America understand due process and they understand when it is being trampled in the people’s House.

You see, it’s also not a matter of process which will be discussed today, it’s a matter of actual facts.

I will fight the facts all day long. Because what we found here today is a fact — is a President who did not do as being charged. They had to go to abuse of power, this amorphous term that you’re going to hear many arguments about how that abuse of power — except for one thing, the call itself, the two parties say no pressure. Nothing was ever done to get the money. In fact, they didn’t even know the money was held. But there is something that very much bothers me about the facts. There were five meetings, we’ll hear about those today. In which it was never a linkage — there was never a linkage made.

There was one witness that is depended on over 600 times in the majority’s report. That in the end, after questions, had to say, that was not presumption of what was happening. You see, this is an impeachment based on presumption. This is an impeachment basically a poll-tested impeachment on what sells to the American people.

Today’s going to be a lot of things. What it is not is fair. What it is not is about the truth. What is true today, and I just heard it just a moment ago in the articles themselves where it said, and the Speaker I believe talked about this, is, well, if the president weakened a foreign leader. You know what the truth of the matter is, madam Speaker?

The most interesting and deplorable thing that I’ve heard over the last few weeks? Is the actual attack by the majority on President Zelensky. Because they realize the whole crux of their case is if he was not pressured, their House of cards falls and by the way it’s already fell.

But if we can’t pressure, show pressure, then we either have to call him a liar, a world leader, or we have to make up names to call him. And that’s exactly what happened in judiciary committee when a member of the majority actually said, he’s acting (or they compared him to) a battered wife. That’s below the dignity of this body. To take a world leader and when he doesn’t make the case for you, to belittle him. As will be often said by the majority, that they’re in the middle of a hot war with Russia.

You see, President Trump actually did give them offensive weapons. President Trump did nothing wrong. We’re going to talk about that all day long today. We went on process and we went on facts. Why? Because the American people will see through this.

Before I close this first part, I will have to recognize that even the senate, the minority leader in the senate, recognizes that the House did not do their job.

Because he can’t make the case to his own members, so he’s having to ask for witnesses.

Ask for more time. You see, even yesterday, it was sort of funny, I found it hilarious that the minority leader in the senate went out and did a press conference and said, they did not — my witnesses, they denied my witnesses, they denied my process. Welcome to the club. That’s what’s happened here for the last three months.

We’re going to talk a lot about impeachment and the president and two articles of impeachment today. Abuse of power, because they can’t actually pin anything of factual basis on him. The president did nothing wrong in this issue. And then they’re going to talk about obstruction of congress.

You know, obstruction of congress, as I’ve before, is like pet lent children saying, we didn’t get our way when we didn’t ask the right way and we didn’t try to go after and make a case. You know why, Madam Speaker, the clock and the calendar are terrible masters and the majority will own that problem today. Because to the clock and the calendar, facts don’t matter. The promises to the base matter. And today is a promise kept for the majority. Not a surprise.


  1. Kevin McCarthy points out the glaring truth

In this next video, Representative Kevin McCarthy recounts the words and acts of the Democrats when they lied to the American people.

Madam Speaker, I must warn you, I’m about to say something my democratic colleagues hate to hear.

Donald J. Trump is president of the United States. He is President today. He’ll be President tomorrow. And he will be President when this impeachment is over.

Madam Speaker, when they accept that, maybe this House can get back to work for the American people.

Tonight I rise not as the leader of the opposition to this impeachment, or as the elected representative from the central valley of California. I rise as Kevin McCarthy, citizen. No better, no worse than the 435 representatives that are in this chamber. Or the 330 million Americans watching this institution make what I believe is to be one of the worst decisions we have ever made. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, whether you’re liberal or conservative, whether you’re the first generation or the 10th, at our core we are all Americans. All of us.

We choose our future. We choose what kind of nation we want to be. Here’s our choice tonight. Will we let impeachment become an exercise of raw political power, regardless if it damages our country? Or will we protect the proper grounds and process for impeachment now and in the future?

For months democrats and many in the media have attempted to normalize the impeachment process that would remove a duly elected president from office. After three years of breathless and baseless outrage, this is their last attempt to stop the trump presidency.

Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi even recently admitted that democrats have been working on this impeachment for 2 1/2 years. Those were her words, they were not mine. Because they lost to him in 2016, they’ll do anything or say anything to stop him in 2020.

That’s not America. That’s not how democratic republics behave. Elections matter. Voters matter. And in 11 months, the people’s voice will be heard again.

Impeachment is the most consequential decision congress can make other than sending our men and women into war. Yet 85 days ago, Speaker Pelosi chose to impeach the president of the United States. She wrote the script and created an artificial timeline to make the details fit.

Why else are we doing this just hours before Christmas? If that’s all it was, a rush to judgment, she could be forgiven. But before the Speaker saw one word or one shred of evidence, she moved to impeach.

In the path, in this body, such a step demanded a vote from all of us from the start. But not only did she move to impeach before she gave this House and the hundreds of millions of people we represent no say in whether to pursue an impeachment inquiry, she threw out the bipartisan standards this house gave president Nixon and Clinton. That is why I immediately sent Speaker Pelosi a letter, asking her to follow the rules of history, of tradition, and follow those standards that have served America well.

What did she say? She rejected it. She rejected it because democrats knew a fair process would crumble their case. A fair process would have exposed to the American public what many already knew. Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump since the day he was elected. And nothing was going to get in their way, certainly not the truth.

Madam Speaker, chairman Schiff said he had evidence, more than certain, of collusion. That was false. In January, where we all stood in this body, we stood up, we raised our hands, we swore that we’d uphold the constitution — and a few mere hours after that, congresswoman Tlaib said she was going to impeach the mother-f ‘er. Those are not my words.

A year before taking the majority chairman Nadler campaigned to the Democrats that he wanted to be chairman of the Judiciary Committee where impeachment is. “New York Times” writes, Madam Speaker, because he is the strongest member to lead a potential impeachment. And Congressman Raskin, a leading Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, one that the Democrats had represent in the rules committee, for these articles just yesterday, told a crowd he would impeach President Trump two days before he was ever sworn into office.

What we’ve seen is a rigged process that has led to the most partisan and least credible impeachment in the history of America. That is this legacy. Any prosecutor in this country would be disbarred for such blatant bias, especially if that prosecutor was the fact witness, the judge and the jury. Madam Speaker, Democrats haven’t just failed on process, they’ve also failed — failed on evidence.

I heard a lot of debate on this floor today, but I haven’t heard one member of this body dispute this simple fact — President Trump provided lethal aid to Ukraine. It came before the call, it came after the call, and it continues to this day. President trump provided Ukraine tank-busting bombs, the previous administration, they gave blankets. This is the truth. Meanwhile, the Democrats’ case is based on secondhand opinions and hearsay. Simply put, there are no grounds for impeachment.

As constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley (and I would challenge to say he’s probably the most respected — and we all know it — a Democrat who did not vote for the President) said under oath, “There was no bribery. There was no extortion, no obstruction of justice, and no abuse of power.” Based on the facts, based on the truth, based on the lack of evidence, Turley called it “the fastest, thinnest, and weakest impeachment in the U.S. history.” Such a definitive answer should be the end of all of this.

But Speaker Pelosi is still moving forward with this impeachment. Without evidence of facts or truth or public support. The Speaker says it is out of allegiance to our founders. On this I agree. I agree with the Speaker, we should listen to the founders. And if one does, it’s very clear that this impeachment is unfounded and improper.

In the federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote, there will always — there would always be the greatest danger, that impeachment would be driven by partisan animosity instead of real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. That impeachment would be driven by partisan animosity instead of real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. James Madison, another author of the federalist papers, wrote, the danger of legislative abuse must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive abuse. The founders did not want impeachment to be used for political or partisan battles.

If my colleagues do not want to follow the constitutional high standards for undoing a national election, perhaps you could have followed Speaker Pelosi’s standard, at least the one she promised to follow back in March.

It was a very sensible standard. She says impeachment is so divisive that the evidence must be overwhelming, compelling and bipartisan. Not one of those criteria have been met today. Based on the facts, based on the evidence, based on the truth, this impeachment even fails that Pelosi test. Those now who say removing president trump would protect the integrity of our democracy have it backwards. By removing a duly elected president on empty articles of impeachment, Congress will erode the public trust in our system of government.

I understand you dislike the president. His beliefs, the way he governs, and even the people who voted for him. How do I know this? Because you say so day in and day out. In 2016 they even dismissed his supporters. Remember calling us “Deplorables?” Now they are trying to disqualify our voice before the 2020 election. They want to undo the results of the last election, to influence the next one. As I’ve said, President Trump will still be President when this is all over. But Congress will have wasted months of time and taxpayer dollars on impeachment rather than doing what the American people want us to do.

It didn’t have to be this way. Is this why we came here to serve? To trample on due process rights? To issue more subpoenas than laws? To appease the new democrat socialist base? That is not leadership. That is raw political politics and you know it. By refusing to acknowledge the truth or follow the facts, by substituting partisan animosity for real demonstration of innocence or guilt, and by continuing a three-year effort to undermine the President, this impeachment has divided this nation without any concern for the repercussions.

Moreover, politicizing this process has discredited the united states house of representatives. And could forever weaken the remedy of impeachment. To again quote Professor Turley, it is the democrats’ rush to impeachment on these grounds with unfair procedures that is an abuse of power. History will write that.

Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning, we face a choice. Do you trust the wisdom of the people? Or do you deny them a say in their government? Fortunately, the people will have the opportunity to speak up and render their verdict in 11 months, to my fellow Americans.

To my fellow Americans, if you prove of the — approve of the way this House has conducted its business, if you want to see your tax dollars go forward into endless investigations, support this impeachment. — to endless investigations, support this impeachment.

But if you want to restore a working Congress like the previous congress that listened to you and worked to bring the best economy in this country — this country has ever seen and one that once again will work with the president to get things done for you and your family, then join with us in rejecting this baseless impeachment.

That’s what’s wonderful about this system of ours. We are a government of, by, and for the people. Always remember, we work for you, not the other way around. Now I will say this stronger and with more conviction than I have ever said it before. In this time of great trial and tribulation, may God bless America. I yield back.

Twenty-Eight ways the impeachment move could crumble for Democrats


  1. Democrats keep learning that this President fights back and start learning that other Republicans have picked up the habit

In a 22 November 2019 One American News Network article, we find that the White House has pushed the Senate to hold trial if House mobilizes on the impeachment.

WhiteHouseSayaHoldA_TrialPresident 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.

(Read the entire article at One American News Network)

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.

  1. Trump: Schiff Risks Senate Grilling If Impeachment Moves Ahead

NewsMax reports in a 23 November 2019 article that President Trump suggests that Schiff risks a grilling if the impeachment moves forward.

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.

AdamSchiff“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.

(Read more at NewsMax)

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

Left-leaning ABC News in a backward way reports how Adam Schiff does not believe that Biden’s admitted pressuring of Ukrainian officials to fire a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden should be investigated.

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.”

GeorgeStephanopoulos“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.”

(Read more tripe at ABC News)

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.

  1. Republicans will gain the upper hand with the Senate hearings

A 22 November 2019 NewsMax article pointed out how Senator Ron Johnson suggested that the Senate should take up the flawed impeachment case.

GOP-Sen-JohnsonSen. 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.

(Read more at NewsMax)

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.

  1. 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.

death-to-america-terrorists-adam-schiffWe’ve seen show trials before, inquiries before the one the nation has endured in the House of Representatives this week and last.

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.

From the first day of the George Kent, Bill Taylor, and Marie Yovanovitch appearances last week to Thursday’s serving of the Fiona Hill and David Holmes testimonies, we have seen the most absurd charges leveled at the president of the United States with the active collusion of the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

(Read more at Lifezette)

This “inquiry” has shown us several things

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.

  1. Democrat Representative Adam Smith: Investigation Of Nunes ‘Quite Likely’

NewsMax reports in a 23 November 2019 article how Democrat Representative Adam Smith plans to retaliate with an investigation of Representative Nunes. Never mind that Schiff claims that an investigation of the Joe Biden is inappropriate.

Democrat Adam Smith

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.

(Read more at NewsMax)

It seems that Adam Schiff cannot stand the criticism he deserves and wants to investigate in retaliation.

It seems that we have a little megalomaniac in Adam Schiff. It seems that, should anyone stand up against he little dictator, he wants to retaliate.

I wonder how he will react to inquiries from the Senate?

  1. Impeachment witness labeled ‘operative with an agenda’

OneNewsNow digs into the Democrat skulduggery of the impeachment drive.

alexander-vindman-3-energy-v1Not 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.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Kudos to the real journalists who read, connected, and wrote articles that showed the true path of events

Just like the Mueller probe, these continual impeachment inquiries yield nothing but rumor and innuendo. For someone to be removed from office, we need proof.

  1. FBI Lawyer Who Sent Anti-Trump ‘Resistance’ Text Message Also Altered Russia Probe Documents: Report

We find from a 22 November 2019 article in the Daily Caller that the lawyer who sent the anti-Trump “resistance” text message also changed key documents in the Russia probe.

kevin-clinesmithThe 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.

Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith altered an email that was included in an FBI application to renew a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against Carter Page, according to The New York Times.

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.

In a Nov. 22, 2016 text message discussion about Trump, Clinesmith wrote: “Viva le Resistance!”

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.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Just like the other players in the “deep state” act, Clinesmith has nothing but rumors and resistance.

Considering that Clinesmith seems to have been focusing on trying to undermine Trump from the moment of the Trump inauguration, it seems like one of two things: insurrection or example.

Maybe it’s both, Democrats.

  1. Lifezette reports additional details on Clinesmith

A 22 November 2019 article at Lifezette adds certain details to the story about the document-changing lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith.

CNN reported 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.

The Post removed the part of its own story on the development, as Fox News reported, that noted the lawyer who allegedly changed the document worked for disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok.

It was gone mere hours after the publication posted it.

washington-post-logoThe 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.”

  1. Adam Schiff Is Like A Modern Day ‘Admiral Yamamoto,’ Just ‘Awakened A Sleeping Giant’

Mark Levin calls out Adam Schiff through a 21 November 2019 Daily Caller article where he points out the similarities between Adam Schiff and Admiral Yamamoto.

Admiral Yamamoto

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.”

(Read the closing points at the Daily Caller)

An eye for an eye

This may just be the beginning.

  1. Democrat Representative Earl Blumenauer called for boycott of Gordon Sondland hotels prior to Sondland’s testimony before the House

Oregon Live reported that Rep. Blumenauer has been intimidating the witness Gordon Sondland by calling for a boycott of the Sondland hotels.

The Constitutional crisis brewing in Washington, D.C., may cost Gordon Sondland.

Representative Earl Blumenauer
Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. calls for a boycott of Ambassador Sondland’s hotels until he testifies against Trump

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.

(Read the original at Oregon Live)

Odd that a tweet can be considered “witness intimidation” by Democrats and their allies in the press, but BOYCOTTING BY A REPRESENTATIVE DOES NOT GET MENTIONED

When main stream media does not mention a boycott called by Congressman Blumenauer for months prior to Sondland’s testimony, that seems like a type of collusion between press and government.

  1. Jim Jordan Asks Sondland About The ‘Meeting That Never Happened’

The Daily Caller gives some of the better blows in the fight between Jim Jordan and Ambassador Sondland.

Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan questioned U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland Wednesday on a “meeting that never happened.”

“When did the meeting happen again?” he asked Sondland Wednesday on Capitol Hill.

“It never did,” Sondland responded.

  1. Former CIA Analyst: ‘An American Insurrection Is Underway’

The Christian Broadcasting Network tells us how a former CIA analyst told them how an American insurrection is underway.

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.”

Michael_scheuerAppearing 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.

(Read more at the Christian Broadcasting Network)

  1. Fiona Hill tries to build a straw man

In a 22 November 2019 Breitbart article, we find how

FionaHillFormer 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.

(Read the original at Breitbart)

  1. 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.

rabbitholeHill 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.

(Read more at Fox News)

  1. Impeachment witness Fiona Hill once opposed sending lethal aid to Ukraine in fight with Russia

When the Ukrainians were fighting for their lives and Obama was not honoring his agreement to help them, Fox News reports that Fiona Hill was on record as opposing lethal aid to Ukraine.

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.

no_guns_to_UkraineFiona 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.

(Read more at Fox News)

  1. Senate Republicans Can’t Wait to ‘Stick It’ to Democrats

Wayne Dupree reports that the Senate Republicans cannot wait to “stick it” to the Democrats.

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.”

(Read the original at Wayne Dupree)

  1. ‘Looks Like An Inside Job’: Former National Security Official Says Impeachment Is Manufactured By Permanent Washington

The Daily Caller points out how the “impeachment” looks like an “inside job.”

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.

AdamSchiff1After 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.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

  1. Laura Cooper amends her testimony

Breitbart reports in a 20 November 2019 article how Laura Cooper was allowed to amend her testimony.

Laura Cooper changes testimony

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 Politico article 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.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Of course, it was not just Ms. Cooper who amended her testamony.

Go back and compare the opening statements of the people giving testimony to the answers provided to the Republican House members. Very little matches.

  1. Nunes pointed out that four Obama-era officials called for corruption probe of Burisma

Breitbart points out in a 20 November 2019 article how Representative Nunes noted that four Obama-era officials called for a probe of Burisma.

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 KentCatherine 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.

(Read more at Breitbart)



  1. Democrat Cindy Axne: ‘Absolutely No Problem Losing’ Congressional Seat over Impeachment

Breitbart reports in a 26 November 2019 article how Cindy Axne does not mind losing her seat due to voting for impeachment.

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.

(Read more at Breitbart)

  1. Nancy Pelosi Puts Impeachment Ahead of USMCA, Delays Vote

Breitbart reports on how Nancy Pelosi is using USMCA to entice Democrats to vote for impeachment.

house-to-vote-on-impeachment-inquiry-processHouse 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.

(Read more at Breitbart)

  1. 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.

NadlerHouse 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.

(Read more at Breitbart)

  1. Blue State Blues: White House Should Boycott Jerry Nadler’s Impeachment Farce

Breitbart reports in a 29 November 2019 article on reasons why President Trump should skip the impeachment hearings.

NadlerContemptHouse 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.

(Read more at Breitbart)

  1. Poll: 69% of Voters Prefer Free Market Capitalism to Socialism, 50% Won’t Vote for Socialist Candidate

Breitbart reports on a poll through a 26 November 2019 article where we find 69% of voters prefer capitalism.

rasmussen_reports_logoThe 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.

(Read more at Breitbart)



  1. House Democrat Brenda Lawrence Flips Back into Support of Impeachment After Expressing Hesitancy

Breitbart reports in a 26 November 2019 article how Democrat Lawrence flipped in and out of supporting impeachment. It seems she first read the polls and then got threats from Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Brenda LawrenceHouse 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.

(Read more at Breitbart)

The Congressional Black Caucus and San Fran Nan must have talked to Ms. Lawrence

The Congressional Black Caucus and Nancy Pelosi must have seen the popularity of President Trump (and of his jobs). Therefore, they could not stand for an independent voice.

  1. If post-hearing polls right, Dems will regret it bigly

OneNewsNow reports that current polls suggest that Democrats will regret the impeachment push.

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.

EmersonPollingA 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.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

  1. Senators ask Treasury for reports on Hunter Biden

Left-leaning Reuters reports that two Republican committee chairs have asked for Treasury reports on Hunter Biden.

HunterBidenThe 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.

(Read the Democrat talking points at Reuters)

  1. Five questions looming over impeachment

The Hill departs from its slavish commitment to the Democrat line and investigates five questions surrounding impeachment. Here are the first two:

Where will the polls go?

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)


Bad news for Democrats

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.

alexander-vindmanVindman 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.

gordon-sondlandThe 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.

William-Barr-Federalist-SpeechAttorney 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.

ShiftySchiff1House 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.

TwitterLogoHouse 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.

mark-meadowsRep. 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.

donald-trump-dollar-billPresident 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.

Image: Former Ambassador To Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch Interviewed By Intel Committee In Impeachment Inquiry

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?”

Yovanovitch: “No.”

Stewart: “Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with at all?”

Yovanovitch: “No.”

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.”

Obama“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.”

Bernie SandersDemocrat 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.

shredded-constitutionLevin 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.

PETESouth 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.

Buttigeig_dataAs 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.

TlaibPaidHerselfThe 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.

Rep.-Rashida-Tlaib-mouthOpenFreshman 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.

KamalaHarrisKamala 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.

Hoda-MuthanaMuthana, 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.

RussianA 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)

GOP lawmakers storm closed-door impeachment session, as Schiff walks out

GOP lawmakers storm closed-door impeachment session, as Schiff walks out

According to a 23 October 2019 Fox News article, GOP lawmakers stormed a closed-door impeachment session.

House Republicans led by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., on Wednesday essentially stormed a closed-door session connected to the impeachment investigation of President Trump, prompting House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff to suspend the proceedings in a remarkable scene.

The standoff happened Wednesday morning after lawmakers held a press conference in which they accused House Democrats of lack of transparency.

“We’re going to try and go in there, and we’re going to try to figure out what’s going on, on behalf of the millions of Americans that we represent that want to see this Congress working for them and not obsess with attacking a president who we believe has not done anything to deserve impeachment,” Gaetz said.

The Republicans specifically called out Schiff, D-Calif., who is leading the investigation.

(Read more at Fox News)

Matthew Gaetz and the Freedom Caucus stand up to the closed-door Democrats

The following video and table chronicle the speeches of the Representatives who spoke at Matt Gaetz’s gathering.

Speaker Testimony
Gaetz: I’ve gathered here with dozens of my congressional colleagues underground in the basement of the Capitol, because (behind those doors) they intend to overturn the results of an American presidential election.

We want to know what’s going on and it’s only reasonable that we would have questions. Because (so far) Adam Schiff’s impeachment inquiry has been marked by secret interviews; selective leaks; weird, theatrical performances of transcripts that never happened, and lies about contacts with a whistleblower — I’m going to have a few of my colleagues give remarks. Then we’re going to try and go in there. We’re going to try to figure out what’s going on. On behalf of the millions of Americans who we represent, who want to see this Congress working for them and not obsessed with attacking a President who we believe has not done anything to deserve impeachment. Now the Republican Whip. Steve Scalise.

Scalise: Thank you, Matt. What is Adam Schiff trying to hide? I think that’s a question so many people have, so many of my colleagues have, so many people in the press should have. Through those hidden, closed doors over there, Adam Schiff is trying to impeach a President of the United States behind closed doors – literally trying to overturn the results of the 2016 election a year before Americans get to go to the polls to decide who’s going to be the President. Frankly, it should be the people of this country who decide who’s going to be the President. Not Nancy Pelosi and not Adam Schiff (in secret, behind closed doors).

The fact that Adam Schiff won’t even let the press in (you can’t even go in and see what’s going on in that room) …

Voting members of Congress are being denied access from being able to see what’s happening behind these closed doors where they’re trying to impeach the President of the United States with a one-sided set of rules. They call the witnesses. They don’t let anybody else call the witnesses. They don’t even let the President’s legal counsel question people who are making baseless allegations. Maybe, in the Soviet Union, this kind of thing is commonplace. This shouldn’t be happening in the United States of America where they’re trying to impeach a president in secret, behind closed doors.

The American people deserve better. We will demand better for the American people.

With that, I will bring up … Where is Jim Jordan? Is he here? He’s probably in that room right now, fighting. … Mark Meadows … Mark Walker’s up.

Walker: Thank you, Whip. Thank you, Matt. The American people are being shut out. House Democrats are bypassing Constitutional norms and basic standards of due process with their impeachment obsession. It has been said, but bears repeating: the President is not above justice, but — as you know — neither is he below it. Facing your accusers; the ability to call rebuttal witnesses; cross-examinations; the right to object to evidence; and the ability to attend hearings, depositions, and interviews — these are basic standards that every American should expect (including the President of the United States, who is currently being the target of an angry mob, a willing media machine, and a twisted version an an impeachment process that didn’t begin two months ago. It began day one of this administration.)

It is a sham and it’s time for it to end.

Mr. Biggs.

Biggs: Thanks, Mr. Gaetz. Thanks, Mr. Scalise, for putting this together. Let me just tell you something. You should be outraged, if you are an American, at what’s happening here. You should be allowed to confront your accusers. This is being held behind closed doors for a reason: because they don’t want you to see what the witnesses are like. Let me give you an example. Recently, we had the Mueller (testimony). Mr. Mueller came in to give a report in the Judiciary Committee. You were there. You saw it. The American people saw it. You know why Mr. Mueller’s report fell apart and why we knew there was nothing there? Because we got to observe Mr. Mueller himself as he testified. Because, when he was asked questions, you could see he didn’t understand what had happened in his own investigation. You saw him flipping through pages.

(In the American justice system) You get to see who is accusing you. When you’re denied that, you might as well be living in the former Soviet Union. This is a Soviet-style impeachment process. This is closed doors. It is unfair in every way and I don’t care if you are the President of the United States or any other citizen of this country — you should be allowed to confront your accuser. Absent that (absent that), you get nothing but tyranny and that’s what’s going on with Mr. Schiff. We’re going to go in there today and demand that we get our rights as members of Congress. And with that … Zelden.

Zelden: I’ve sat through all the depositions. I’m about to go back in Adam Schiff’s bunker, here in the Capitol basement to sit through another deposition today. I want all of my colleagues to know every single question that’s been asked and every answer that’s been told. I want all my constituents and their constituents to know every question that’s been asked and every answer that’s been told. What is happening behind closed doors is unclassified. There’s no reason why the American public shouldn’t be able to watch this in real-time, live.

This is a process lacking legitimacy, credibility, and fairness. We have a huge problem with that. One fun fact from yesterday: I saw that the opening statement leaked. This is what happens. This is the Democrats’ strategy — they like to cherry-pick leaks. Turn to page 12: the only reference to Joe Biden (other than the one reference to the July 25th transcript). In that one reference, it’s not firsthand from Ambassador Taylor. It’s not secondhand from Ambassador Taylor. It’s not thirdhand from Ambassador Taylor. You all make it a big deal of Ambassador Taylor telling him that Tim Morrison told him that Sandlin told Morrison that the President told Sandlin that the President told Szalinski … Give me a break.

On the process and the substance, this whole thing has been a joke.

I appreciate my colleagues for having today’s press conference. They deserve answers. My constituents deserve answers. I would like to bring up Mo Brooks.

Brooks: Let me focus on just one of the defects foisted on the American people by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff. They used the secretive, infamous Star-chamber-type proceedings in the Capital’s basement rather than public proceedings where the American people can see for themselves, firsthand, the railroad job being presided over by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Chairman Adam Schiff. The American people deserve a public and open process. Bear in mind the significance of what we’re talking about here today. We are a republic. Close to a million Americans have fought in wars, beginning with the Revolutionary War, to give us the rights to control our own destiny.

What the Socialist Democrats seek to do today is to thwart, to disregard, to repudiate the votes of 60 million Americans in the 2016 elections. By golly, if they’re gonna do it, do it in public. Don’t hide it from the American people. Show your face where we can all see the travesty that you are trying to foist on America and the degradation of our republic that you are engaged in.

We demand open proceedings. The American people deserve nothing less. Their representatives in Congress deserve nothing less.

Next is Jim Jordan.

Jordan: I would just say this: why don’t we know? Why don’t we know know who the person is who started this whole charade that Adam Schiff is now doing in the bunker of the basement of the Capitol? If you look at the whistleblower’s complaint (page one of the complaint) he talks about more than half a dozen individuals he’s used to form the basis of his complaint. We have no idea who these folks are.

As I said last night on the floor of the House, there are 435 members of the House representing over 300 million Americans, and the only one of those 435 who know the individuals who started this whole thing — the only one — is Adam Schiff.

Why don’t the rest of us know? More importantly, why don’t the American people know?

The American people — they understand fairness and they instinctively know that what is happening here is not fair. That’s why I want to applaud my colleagues (Whip Scalise, Matt Gaetz, and the rest of the team here) for standing up and saying, “Look, it’s time that we know who started this whole thing.”

The more than a half a dozen folks he references “said over the past four months more than a half dozen people have informed me about the complaint the he filed.” Who are those people? We’ve had seven witnesses. To date, I don’t think any of them have been the ones that the whistleblower (the so-called whistleblower) was referring to.

So we need to hear from them and we need this done in the open so the American people can see. Thank you.

Adams: For two years, Adam Schiff told the American people that he had evidence (proof) that President Trump had colluded with Russia. Then we find out after two years, 25 million dollars spent, twenty-eight hundred subpoenas, 500 interviews that no, that was not the case. Then Adam Schiff, on public TV, says “No, our office didn’t have any coordination — we didn’t hear at all from this whistleblower.” Then that turns out to be false. And then, in a committee hearing, he makes up a totally made-up conversation between President Trump and the Ukrainian president (I assume to try to deceive the American public).

Now, he wants us to believe that he’s like a special counsel in these closed-door meetings over here? … That I can’t go into as a member of the Judiciary Committee and that even Republican members on the committee can’t even see the transcripts???

This is totally unjust. It is totally unfair. There was no vote on the floor of the House of Representatives — as hs been done in the past — to authorize this impeachment inquiry with a standard set of rules and due-process procedures that any American citizen should get. (Let alone the President of the United States.)

So, I say to you, this is unfair and it is a total political hit job on the President of the United States. This is unjust. I hope the American people see it for what it is. Thank you.

: It’s time for Congress to get to work for the American people. The people of my district sent me here to get things done that they care about. Their healthcare costs are too expensive. Their prescription drugs are becoming unaffordable. Roads are crumbling. We need to continue to rebuild our military. Look at the threats from Russia and China.

Yet what does Nancy Pelosi want to do? What do the Democrats want to do? They want to continue America on this terrible road of impeaching our President for something that he hasn’t even bene indicted on or found guilty of. To show you how unfair this process is, we can only look at what happened when President Nixon and President Trump were starting down the road of impeachment. First, there was an indictment. There was a finding of guilt first and then there was a vote in the House of Representatives to start the process. A process was established and the American public had an opportunity to view and to hear from the witnesses — to see the evidence (or not).

The President had an opportunity to have his counsel there by his side. He had the opportunity to ask questions. He had the opportunity to bring other witnesses.

My colleagues on this committee can’t even bring their own witnesses back and they can’t even speak about what is going on in there. Yet the Democrats come out and they tell what is going on.

They leak certain quotes that they select to create a narrative that they want to control, that they want to put forth to the American public as a lie — with one goal in mind: to undo the election — to undo the voice of the American people from a few years ago and to deny the American people the truth, to deny us the truth, and to deny me the truth.

As a member of Congress, I cannot see the testimony that was provide there from Ambassador Volker. I have requested it. I am a member of Congress. I represent over 760 thousand Missourians. I represent their views. So it is time and I call and my colleagues call upon the Democrats to open up this process, to be fair, to shine a light on it for the American people for posterity and because there’s so much at stake. I call upon them to get things done, like pass the USMCA (which will create 176 thousand jobs 63 billion dollars of economic activity). I think that is what we should be focusing on and not trying to impeach a President for something he hasn’t even been found guilty of.

: This is supposed to be the people’s house. We, the legislative branch, cannot make a bill a law without a vote.

That is how the people of Tennessee, the people of America, have a voice. Remember, Speaker Pelosi, this government, through its legislature, is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Speaker Pelosi has tyrannically commandeered the House of Representatives. It is as if she thinks the founders wanted a government of Pelosi, by Pelosi, for Pelosi.

America, whatever you believe about our President, you must realize that senior Democrat leadership in the House is ignoring the founding principles of our democracy.

We need the House to vote on this and it must be done in transparency.

As the Good Book says, those things done in secret are from darkness. These elites, who care nothing for the people, must hear from the people. Call Speaker Pelosi and demand an end to this threat, this violation of freedom and democracy. Thank you.

Waltz: Representative Mike Waltz from Florida. I’m a green beret. I’m a proud veteran. This process does not make me proud. I have fought from Afghanistan to West Africa. I have operated in countries — in third-world countries — who have fairer processes to deal with their elected leadership than what we’re seeing today.

I talked to veterans at home. I talked to veterans abroad. We have operators and special operators in 60 to 70 countries today as we speak.

They’re ashamed of this process. They don’t have a defense bill, yet.

We’re on a continuing resolution (which means all of the new programs that they need to face China, to face Russia, to face Iran, to face North Korea, to continue to combat terrorism can’t start yet), because we can’t seem to get it done in this Congress — because we have six committees (SIX COMMITTEES) dealing with this investigation.

We have our intelligence professionals, all over the world, trying to keep this country safe and we have the Intelligence Committee (day after day after day) dealing with this nonsense, dealing with this unfair process. I, as a sitting member of Congress have been asking for weeks to have access to these transcripts, to have access to Volker’s transcript and you all know more about it than I do. You all, who are not elected in the media.

I am representing nearly a million Floridians and I can’t see it.

Is that fair? Is that worthy of the sacrifice of the men and women who have died for this country?

I would think not and you know what rings loud and clear to me is a veteran back home who said “All you politicians do is fight. All you do is fight amongst each other. You’re doing nothing for me. You’re doing nothing for the care that I fought to deserve. You’re doing nothing to defend this country. You’re doing nothing to move my family’s life forward to a better place.”

And here we are, all fighting over this unfair process.

It’s a shame. It’s not worthy. We can do better as Americans and Americans expect us to do better. Thank you.

Carter: I’m Buddy Carter. I have the honor and privilege of representing the first Congressional District in Georgia. Ladies and gentlemen, if you’re an American and you’re within the sound of my voice (regardless of whether you’re a Democrat, regardless of whether you’re a Republican, or regardless if you consider yourself an independent — regardless if you hate Donald Trump or if you love Donald Trump) — if you’re an American, you have to be outraged by what is going on here.

Since day one, the Democrats have not accepted the fact that Donald J. Trump is President of the United States.

Now, we find ourselves with them behind closed doors, trying to impeach a sitting president. Ladies and gentlemen, if a government can do this to the President of the United States, they can do it to you, as well.

You need to be scared. You need to be very scared. This needs to stop. It needs to stop right now.

We need open government. This is the United States of America.

Please, I beg of you, pay attention. Stay focused. Keep your eye on the ball. What is happening here.

We cannot allow this to go on. Adam Schiff has to stop. Nancy Pelosi has to stop. This process has to stop and it has to stop now.

: Ladies and gentlemen, what makes America the greatest country on Earth?

It’s the fact that we believe in justice. We believe in equal justice under the law.

How is that achieved? It’s acheived though transparancy and it’s achieved through fairness. This is simply not … is not the process that is occurring now. We have secret hearings that are going on that we, as te elected members of the United States Congress (435 members) are not privy to.

That is simply not fair. That is simply not what makes America the greatest country on Earth.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are about the law. We are about justice. We are about doing what is right. This is not right. This is not the right process.

So, ladies and gentlemen, I call upon you to call upon Adam Schiff, to call upon the Speaker, to make these puppet … these processes public.

We hae great work to be done in the United States. We were elected to serve the people and to do their work.

We’re not doing that now. We’re doing a grave injustice to this nation.

Who benefits? North Korea. Russia. China. They’re looking at us and laughing at us making a mockery of democracy. That’s what this is. It’s a mockery. Please, for the sake of America, let us end this miss … this injustice and move on with the work of the people.

Gaetz: We’re going to go and see if we can get inside. So let’s see if we can get in.

Three stories of religious discrimination not widely reported in the mainstream media

  1. Religious clash leaves USA’s best left back an observer of World Cup bid

Hat tip to an American Family Association radio broadcast after I had discovered the first reference

We have to go outside of America’s press to a 12 July 2019 article in The Irish Times to find out that a Christian was cut from the US Women’s Soccer Team because she declined to wear a rainbow jersey.


The curious case of Jaelene Hinkle.

In June, 2017, she was called into the USA women’s squad ahead of a two-match tour of Scandinavia. With eight full caps already and the World Cup two years away, it looked the perfect opportunity for the then 24-year-old to confirm the growing consensus that she was the country’s best left-back.

Shortly after US Soccer announced the team would wear special jerseys in Europe, emblazoned with rainbow numbers in support of LGBTQ Pride month, Hinkle pulled out of the squad, initially citing “personal reasons” before later going into more detail.

“I just felt so convicted in my spirit that it wasn’t my job to wear this jersey,” she said.

“I gave myself three days to just seek and pray and determine what He was asking me to do in this situation . . . I knew in my spirit I was doing the right thing. I knew I was being obedient. If I never get another national team call-up again then that’s just a part of His plan, and that’s okay. Maybe this is why I was meant to play soccer, to show other believers to be obedient.”

The religious justification for her withdrawal came during an interview for The 700 Club, the most popular and incendiary show on the Christian Broadcasting Network, the go-to channel for fundamentalists across America, an outfit that regularly denounces the gay lifestyle.

When Hinkle’s North Carolina Courage visited the Portland Thorns in the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) shortly after the broadcast, opposing fans waved Pride flags and booed her every touch, something supporters of other teams soon began to copy.

(Read more at The Irish Times)

Considering all of the praise heaped on the captain of the team and recognition of her lesbian lifestyle, it would seem that the high standard of acceptance required of everyone when it comes to her lesbianism would also require acceptance (on co-captain Megan Rapinoe’s part) of other people’s point of view.

However, the always-inclusive crowd (at least the one at Slate) lobbied to have Jaelene Hinkle removed from the US Women’s Soccer Team in 2018 because they saw her presence as an affront to the LGBTQ2 community. I was not able to find any letters to the editor written by any Women’s Soccer Team member in support of Jaelene Hinkle, but what can you expect? For liberals, tolerance usually only goes in one direction.

  1. Christian Student Kicked out of Uni for Gay Marriage Views Wins Latest Court Battle

Breitbart reports in a 4 July 2019 article that a Christian student at the University of Sheffield was expelled for a Facebook post and has now won a judgement.


A Christian who was expelled from his university for expressing a biblical view on marriage has celebrated winning his latest legal battle, calling it a victory for freedom of speech and religious conscience.

In 2015, Felix Ngole had defended U.S. state official Kim Davis, who had refused to register same-sex marriages in her state of Kentucky, writing on an open Facebook page: “Same-sex marriage is a sin whether we like it or not. It is God’s words and man’s sentiments would not change His words.”

Mr Ngole at the time had been studying for a Master’s degree in social work at the University of Sheffield, but two months after the Christian student stated the biblical position on marriage he was informed by university administrators that his comments were being investigated. After a professional fitness to practice (FtP) hearing, the university panel deemed Mr Ngole’s comments “derogatory of gay men and bisexuals” and he was expelled from the course.

Mr Ngole took his case to court to have the university’s decision overturned, stating that the decision was a violation of his right to freedom of thought and speech. In 2017, deputy high court Judge Rowena Collins Rice sided with the university.

However on Wednesday, three Court of Appeal judges overruled that judgement, saying Sheffield University’s disciplinary proceedings were flawed and that the institution should reconsider its decision through another FtP hearing, reports The Guardian.

The university had ruled that because Mr Ngole was taking a “professionally qualifying degree” in social care, the openly-shared comments may be of offence to people he may encounter or work with in the future.

“This is great news, not only for me and my family, but for everyone who cares about freedom of speech, especially for those working in or studying for caring professions,” the 41-year-old from Barnsley, south Yorkshire, said.

“As Christians we are called to serve others and to care for everyone, yet publicly and privately we must also be free to express our beliefs and what the Bible says without fear of losing our livelihoods,” he added.

Despite expressing regret that four years of his life were lost to battling his case for religious freedom and freedom of speech, Mr Ngole said: “…I feel overwhelming joy that what I have lost will be so much gain to Christians today and in the future as a result of this important ruling for freedom.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

So, as long as you toe the liberal line, you can stay at the university. Prove me wrong in my belief that liberals will accept tolerance only when it goes in one direction.

  1. Christian student group sues university for ‘equal access,’ alleges religious discrimination

As illustrated by a 12 July 2019 Fox News article, we see that not only have public universities become hotbeds of liberalism, but they have become exclusionary of any other type of thought (particularly Christian thought).


A prominent Christian student organization has sued its university, claiming the group was targeted because of its religious beliefs.

In 2017, Wayne State University kicked Intervarsity Christian Fellowship off campus because it required its leaders to be Christians. It was only when the student group, which had been on campus for 75 years, threatened to sue in March 2018 that the Detroit school reversed its decision, according to a federal lawsuit.

The university claims the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship is just trying to use this case to “set a precedent.” But Becket, the civil liberties firm hired by the student group, argues the school still stands by its original interpretation that claims InterVarsity is “discriminating in violating of the law and could be kicked off at any time.”

“We are proud of and love our university, so we were saddened in fall 2017, when Wayne State deregistered our group, canceled our meetings, kicked us out of campus group events, and made us pay thousands of dollars to use campus space that other groups got for free, all simply because we asked that our student leaders believe our Christian faith, just as we have for over 75 years before,” Deaunai Montgomery, a student from InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, said Wednesday outside the courtroom.

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, a student group at Wayne State University, is suing the Detroit, Mich. school in federal court alleging unfair and unconstitutional treatment. (Becket Law)

“As a Christian, we need our leaders to sincerely believe that what they teach us about Jesus is true,” Montgomery added. “To be clear, we want everyone to feel welcome to attend our group, but why should our Bible studies, prayer, and worship be led by someone who doesn’t believe those things?”

(Read more at Fox News)

Thank God that Intervarsity won this lawsuit.

5 or 9 Stories the main stream media ignored

  1. Avoiding the education behind a hate-filled heart

The Story of the Christian-hating liberal and the transgender


OneNewsNow provided some insights to the boy who hated Christians.

More details are starting to come out about the two teenage shooters who took a life and injured eight others this week at a Colorado high school, but some details might get dropped from the typical news story.

Just before 2 p.m. on May 7, Devon Erickson (pictured at right) and accomplice Maya McKinney allegedly walked into the Highlands Ranch STEM school with two loaded handguns and began firing before they were tackled.


One well-deserved post-shooting story describes the heroism of Kendrick Castillo (pictured below), an 18-year-old senior who helped tackle Erickson and thus helped end the shooting, paying for his courage with his own life.

Two others joined Castillo in stopping Erickson, and an unnamed private security guard is credited with subduing McKinney, The Associated Press reported.

But what about the two shooters themselves? Are they MAGA hat-wearing white supremacists? NRA members?

And why did they do it? Were they inspired by President Trump? By the tea party? By a Fox News host?

News website The American Conservative, which has been following the shooting, points out Erickson’s white car that was towed from his home was spray-painted with “666” and a Pentagram, and the words “fu– society” were spray-painted on its side.

On his Facebook page, Erickson complained in a 2014 post that he hates “all these Christians who hate gays” for their biblical views.

The same story notes that law enforcement authorities misidentified the accomplice as a male when the “he” is a she who claims to be transgender and is transitioning from “Maya” to “Alec.”

American Conservative writer Rod Dreher then writes:

Watch the coverage over the next few days. It hardly needs saying — but I’m going to say it anyway — that these alleged killers do not represent all gays, allies, or non-Christians, any more than Christians or Muslims who shoot up or bomb places represent all in their religion. But it’s going to be very, very interesting to observe how the media craft this narrative to explain what role the identities these two suspects embraced played in justifying their violent actions.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

When I blog, I generally include short comments on the words of main stream media (this way, the main stream media’s words can be used to prove my point). When main stream media refuses (as it increasingly does) to comment on a conservative topic, I use media outlets like Fox, One America News Network, the Christian Broadcasting Network, and similar outlets.

Once again, the American main stream media has largely proven itself lacking in anything but a desire to follow the liberal agenda of the day.

  1. Elderly Pro-Life Woman’s Amazing Christian Response to Attacker Who Broke Her Leg: ‘I’m Forgiving Her’


The Christian Broadcast Network tells in a 10 May 2019 article of a woman who was received a broken leg for protesting abortion.

A 31-year-old woman from Louisville has been charged with second-degree assault after she allegedly shoved an elderly pro-life activist to the ground outside Kentucky’s only abortion clinic.

But the victim, 82-year-old pro-life activist Donna Durning, told the Louisville Courier Journal she has forgiven her alleged attacker, Janaya Alyce Gregory, and is asking others to pray for her.

“I believe that the lady who caused this injury needs prayers,” Durning said, “and I’m forgiving her and I would hope that people would also pray for her.”

Gregory, for her part, pleaded not guilty last week to the incident, which took place April 12 outside the EMW Women’s Surgical Center, according to court documents.

As a result of the assault, Durning sustained a broken femur. She required surgery and rehabilitation in order to recover from the incident. Durning said she is confident “God is watching over me.”

(Read more at the Christian Broadcast Network)

Had this been a Muslim attacked by a someone who once claimed to be a Christian, this would be front page news for a week.

However, with a Christian, older woman having her leg broken by a 31-year-old snowflake, the media gives us crickets.

  1. Pro-Life Activists Rally in Philly to Counter Dem’s Vicious Viral Attack


After gay, pro-abortion Pennsylvania House member Brian Sims bullied three teen girls and an elderly woman protesting abortion, the Christian Broadcast Network reports in a 10 May 2019 article that pro-life groups have come together to protest his methods.

Pro-life activists rallied in Philadelphia Friday morning in response to a viral video of a Pennsylvania state representative harassing pro-life teens and women.

WATCH the entire rally BELOW:

We are LIVE at our pro-life rally against bullying, calling for the resignation of Brian Sims and for the end of abortion.

Faithwire’s Carly Hoilman was on site for the rally, posting numerous highlights from the event on Twitter:

The rally came together to protest the actions of state Rep. Brian Sims who is seen in viral videos harassing and threatening teenagers and a woman silently praying outside of this particular Planned Parenthood clinic. Sims points his camera at the teens, hoping to expose the identity of these minors, saying: “I’ve got a hundred dollars for anyone who can identify these three.”

In his bullying video, Sims hovers around an older woman, taunting her and trying to shove the camera in her face saying, “Today’s protester, now she is an old white lady who is going to try to avoid showing you her face.”

Sims had triumphantly tweeted his harassment, calling on others to target pro-lifers too: “Push back against Planned Parenthood protestors, PLEASE! They prey on young women, they use white privilege, & shame. They’re racist, classist, bigots who NEED & DESERVE our righteous opposition. Push back, please”

In another tweet, he blasted pro-lifers as “Bible bullies.”

(Read more at Christian Broadcast Network)

Since the media wants to portray gays as victims and never bullies, this will never see the light of day. Likewise, the attacks on the teens, the offers to have those teens’ lives ruined (much like the issues the media first tried to impose on the Covington Catholic boys.

  1. Pro-Lifers Pack Street at Philly Planned Parenthood: ‘We Are Not Going to Continue to Be Bullied’

In another article by the Christian Broadcast Network, we find that pro-life groups have a message for Planned Parenthood.

Hundreds of pro-lifers came here Friday to protest a Pennsylvania state representative’s recent verbal attacks against pro-life sidewalk counselors outside a Philadelphia abortion clinic.

As CBN News has reported, state Rep. Brian Sims (D) put out a video of himself blasting a woman who was merely praying a few feet from the Elizabeth Blackwell Planned Parenthood clinic. “An old white lady telling women what to do with their bodies,” he said.

Sims then basically offered a bounty for information on three teenage girls praying at the same clinic.

He called them, “A bunch of pseudo-Christian protestors who’ve been out here shaming young girls for being here. So here’s the deal: I’ve got $100 to anybody who’ll identify any of these three.”


The pro-life advocates who came to this clinic told CBN News they won’t be intimidated or stopped because abortion must be fought.

Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood manager who now helps abortion clinic workers leave their jobs, addressed the rally.

(Read more at the Christian Broadcast Network)

Even without the coverage by the media, maybe Planned Parenthood and Brian Sims will get the message of this rally.

  1. Former Rap Artist Indicted for Obama 2012 Campaign Donations


The Wall Street Journal gives us a hint of some more Obama administration corruption in a

Former Fugees rapper Pras Michel was indicted on charges of funneling millions of dollars in foreign money to then President Obama’s 2012 re-election effort, amid widening fallout of the multibillion-dollar fraud scandal at a Malaysian government fund.

The scandal has toppled Malaysia’s prime minister, threatened Goldman Sachs Group Inc. with criminal charges, and ensnared both Republican and Democratic fundraisers.

(Read more at the Wall Street Journal)

Considering how the media has gone bonkers over 30-year-old IRS reports on Donald Trump’s losses that were otherwise self-reported, we can only imagine what the reporting would have been like if this had been a Trump fund raiser who was convicted.

  1. One America News lists five other stories


Liz Wheeler on One America News lists five other stories not mentioned by the main stream media.

  1. No Democrats viewed the mostly-unredacted version of the Mueller report
  2. California State Education has implemented sex education starting with kindergarten that cannot be opted out of and which is graphic at all levels
  3. Ilhan Omar has ties to the Muslim Amereican Society (which published the video of children singing “we will chop head of unbelievers off”).
  4. Trump told of his losing billions during his first episode of The Apprentice
  5. The Planned Parenthood location where Pennsylvania House member Brian Sims bullied three teen girls and an elderly woman for protesting abortion has failed 14 of the past 20 health inspections

This is a sad state of affairs for the media when they cannot report the news for fear of helping conservatives.

A sad day for many American Christians

The Shocking Speech Wheaton College Doesn’t Want You to Hear

In a 11 January 2019 Black Community News article, Ryan Bomberger provides perspectives on two speakers at Wheaton College.

This is the tale of two lectures at Wheaton College, a Christian evangelical college in the suburbs of Chicago. One was given in September 2017 and the other in November 2018. Though only a year apart, the responses to the two presentations were universes apart. The reaction is very telling and tragic for those who believe that a Christian education is different than a secular one.

The first speech was given by Dr. George Yancy, a philosophy professor at Emory University (huge thanks to Jamie Dean at World Magazine for excellent article on this and uncovering actual audio recording). It was sponsored by Wheaton’s Philosophy department and held in the esteemed Billy Graham Center on campus. It was entitled: “A Post-Racial America? White Gazes and Black Bodies”. It can only be described as an expletive-laced, pornographic, racist, anti-biblical screed. His theme? “To be white is to be racist.” Listen to these shocking excerpts from that speech here.

There was no backlash from Wheaton’s leadership. There were no letters sent out by any staff or student government leaders denouncing him or raising concerns about the hostile, f-bomb-laden speech. There was only internal praise by the school’s own Wheaton Record.

Then there’s that second speech. Wheaton College Republicans courageously invited me to speak about abortion and race. Keep in mind, there’s never been anyone—ever—to address racism and the abortion industry at Wheaton. In fact, no one has addressed the issue of abortion at their thrice weekly chapels but once (briefly) in many years. Wheaton, founded by slavery abolitionists, doesn’t lead whatsoever on the abolition of abortion. One would think a school that (sort of) espouses a prolife worldview, at least in text on its website (“followers of Jesus Christ will uphold the dignity of human beings, from conception until death…”), would encourage students to put that into action by attending the March for Life Chicago or volunteering at a local pregnancy resource center.

Needless to say, I did not speak in the center named after the school’s most famous alum. But I did speak to a standing-room only audience in another Wheaton lecture hall. My multimedia talk was entitled “Black Lives Matter In and Out of the Womb”; it was an expletive-free, fact-based, statistics-driven, Biblically-rooted, deeply personal and grace-filled discussion on the systemic racism of the abortion industry and the hypocrisy of the pro-abortion #BlackLivesMatter movement. As an adoptee and adoptive father who was conceived in rape, I challenged students to see the most vulnerable, the most marginalized, and the most powerless among us as having equal intrinsic worth and God-given Purpose.

Six days later, I was severely denounced by a campus-wide email sent out by two Wheaton staff members and signed by three student government leaders. My entire message was branded as “offensive rhetoric” that made “many students, staff and faculty of color” feel “unsafe” on their campus. And now, the school has cancelled the College Republicans’ next event, because leadership claims their speaker approval process needs to change so Wheaton students aren’t exposed to such factivism (aka truth) again.

(Read more at Black Community News)

While this shows that at least one Christian college has gone full-bore liberal instead of full-bore Christian, this will not be the first time a faithful Christian and pro-lifer has been discriminated against. For examples, refer to my blog posts in

Since Wheaton College so flagrantly contradicted the examples of the Old Testament and the commands of the New Testament, maybe a review of how Christians must not discriminate racially and must not discriminate among Christians is in order.

Galatians 3:28 tells us that “(t)here is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In other words, there are no divisions between Christians (no matter the gender, race, or financial status) due to the uniting properties of Jesus Christ. Let me be more clear: Christ makes all Christians into one body. We must not discriminate against the other parts of our own body any more than the mouth should denounce the nose.

In the Old Testament, we receive the example of a leader who did not consider skin tone and a God who stood by his prophet. In Numbers 12:1, we find …”Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman he had married” … In verses 9 and 10, God shows his backing for Moses when we see …”the anger of the Lord burned against them and He departed. But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow.” From this, we see that God stood against Miriam’s bigoted disapproval of Moses’ black wife. Not only that — God punished Miriam for her bigotry.

Additionally, Christians are commanded to “(b)e devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor.” We should love other Christians like brothers and put the needs of other Christians over our own. Similar commands can be found in 1 Thessalonians 5:11; John 13:34; Galatians 5:13; Ephesians 4:2 and 32; 1 Peter 4:8; and 1 John 4:7.

An Old Testament example of a man who was devoted to his fellow believers comes to us through Joseph, who — when presented with a chance to get back at people who sold him into slavery and thereby caused him to go to prison — said “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20).