Liberals shoot themselves in the impeachment foot

Featured

‘Coup has started’: Whistleblower’s attorney vowed to ‘get rid of Trump’ in 2017

ZeroHedge revealed that the lawyer for the “whistleblower” tweeted that “coup has started” in 2017. Now, that lawyer has been attempting to convince us that the tweet was prophetic and not proof of a conspiracy in its infancy.

The Democratic operative attorney representing the anti-Trump whistleblower vowed to “get rid of Trump”, and said that the “#coup has started” in 2017 tweets.

zaid 1

Mark Zaid, the John Podesta, Clinton and Schumer-linked attorney who founded the anti-Trump nonprofit ‘Whistleblower Aid’ in 2017, tweeted “It’s very scary. We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters. We have to.

He also tweeted “#coup has started” after former AG Sally Yates was fired for “refusing to enforce a legal order” from Trump.




(Read more at ZeroHedge)

If the Democrats want an action (like removal of a President), they need to bring the witness to the open court

In America, we have the right to face our accusers (even when we are a maligned President). Therefore, if the Democrats want to do anything more than grandstand — if Democrats want to bring charges in Congress, then they need to follow the laws that protect the accused bring this “whistleblower” into the public hearing at Congress.

Alleged Whistleblower’s Name Appears In Transcript Released By Schiff

The Daily Wire pointed out that Schiff-for-brains was the one who accidentally exposed the name of the whistleblower.

schiff-for-brainsControversy over whether or not to reveal the name of the man widely believed to be the whistleblower whose complaint prompted the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry ratcheted up even further on Wednesday after Donald Trump Jr. tweeted out an article and quote including the whistleblower’s alleged name. While Democrats and the left-leaning media expressed outrage about Trump’s social media post, an impeachment inquiry transcript released by the office of Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff includes the very name Trump tweeted out.

As reported by RedState, Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee who is heading up the Democrats’ impeachment efforts, appears to have accidentally allowed the name widely identified as the whistleblower to appear in the transcript of the committee’s interview with top U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor.

In the transcript, the interviewer asks Taylor if the name of the man who has been widely reported as the whistleblower “ring[s] a bell?” Taylor responds, “It doesn’t.”

“So, to your knowledge, you never had any communications with somebody by that name?” Taylor is asked, to which he replies, “Correct.”

The failure to redact the name means one of two things, suggests Turning Point USA’s Benny Johnson, either he’s not the whistleblower or the Democrats made a massive error.

The alleged identity of the whistleblower was first reported by RealClearInvestigations’ Paul Sperry, who describes his identity as “an open secret inside the Beltway.”

Sperry reported last week that the whistleblower is allegedly a 33-year-old “registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia ‘collusion’ investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.” The whistleblower reportedly “left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media” and “has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia,” Sperry reports, citing federal documents.

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

Since this numb nuck Schiff has exposed the identity of the “whistleblower” as Eric Ciaramella, let’s just go with open hearings

Since we know that Schiff met with and coached the “whistleblower” prior to his emergence and we now know the name of the “whistleblower” when Adam Schiff published it in his transcripts, why don’t we just get Mr. Ciaramella sworn in before Congress and get all of the other associated material witnesses under oath?

Before Schiff’s blunder, the whistleblower’s lawyers cite the ‘deep throat’ model for keeping their client’s identity secret

Breitbart reports in a 7 November 2019 article how the lawyers for the “whistleblower” were citing the Nixon-era “deep throat” for keeping this now-exposed Democrat’s name from being exposed.

whistleblower-silouette-anonymousThe lawyers representing the so-called “whistleblower” who sparked the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump reportedly argued this week that their client’s identity could remain secret for decades, citing the years-long “Deep Throat” mystery as a model.

On Wednesday, the Washington Examiner explained:

The secret of “Deep Throat” was kept from the early ’70s until 2005, when former FBI Associate Director Mark Felt came forward at 91 years old. He died two years later.

Whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid, an aficionado of Watergate history, said leaving his client’s identity unresolved indefinitely would encourage future whistleblowers.

Felt was a prime suspect from the beginning. … Without firsthand sources, the accusation didn’t stick. … It later became known to a prosecutor, but news outlets were left to speculate.

Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, who received information from Felt, his colleague Carl Bernstein, and their editor Ben Bradlee, knew the “whistleblower’s” name. Allegedly, some left-wing mainstream news outlets also know the impeachment “whistleblower’s” name, but refuse to report it.

{Read more at Breitbart)

If everything was sunshine and rainbows, then we wouldn’t be having this conflict.

As much as the Democrats would like to have their cake and eat it, too — they have to live in the real world. They have to open up and be fair to both sides. If they don’t, there will be a reckoning.

Impeachment twists

Featured

The fact that Brit Hume could ask this proves that we trust too much in “experts”

Vindman claimed to be ‘deeply troubled’ by Trump’s effort to ‘subvert’ US foreign policy; however, then Brit Hume pointed out this ‘huge fallacy’

Brit Hume of Fox points out how the American public has become conditioned to unquestioningly accept the arguments of “experts” that the left-leaning press trots out — like the supposed “whistleblower” (as detailed in a 2 November 2019 Daily Caller article).

alexander-vindmanLt. Col. Alexander Vindman was reportedly “deeply troubled” by what he saw as President Donald Trump’s efforts to “subvert U.S. foreign policy,” but Fox News commentator Brit Hume pointed out a “huge fallacy” in that line of thinking.

“[Vindman] told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy and an improper attempt to coerce a foreign government into investigating a U.S. citizen,” The Washington Post reported Friday, referring to the NSC official’s Tuesday impeachment inquiry testimony.

Hume, however, used Twitter to point out the fact that there is a “huge fallacy” in Vindman’s reasoning.

“Anyone know what it is?” Hume asked in the Saturday tweet.


The answer, as nearly every respondent to Hume’s tweet pointed out, is that it is the president himself who is tasked to set United States foreign policy.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Just because someone with scrambled eggs on his cap and ribbons on his chest voices opposition to a President, it doesn’t mean we don’t have to examine the situation

trump-allies-charge-VindmanVindman may have served honorably in the armed force. However, if he is trying to tamper with evidence (revise the transcripts to something that none of the transcriptionists heard), then we do not have to accept his word.

In the case of Vindman, in contradiction to what all transcriptionists heard, Vindman argued unsuccessfully to have the transcripts changed.

Three crippling facts about the lies promoted by the Democrats focused on impeachment

The Western Journal outlines how the call for impeachment came from one National Security staff employee and, based on that fact, exposes three crippling issues with the testimony.

On Tuesday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff’s super-secret committee heard testimony from the Democrats’ latest star witness — Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

But if Vindman’s opening statement is any indication, the impeachment narrative pushed by Schiff, the Democratic Party and the establishment media took another brutal shellacking.

Vindman, a career Army officer, Purple Heart recipient, and the National Security Council’s top Ukraine expert, appeared before Schiff’s kangaroo court — which included lawmakers on the House Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform Committees as well — to discuss his “concerns” regarding President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

NYTwitsWithout a hint of irony, The New York Times reported Monday, ahead of his testimony, that Vindman “will be the first White House official to testify who listened in on the July 25 telephone call.”

It should strike anyone as bizarre that it has taken over a month since the entire Trump-Ukraine “scandal” began for Schiff and company to finally get someone in the room who was actually on the call.

The intelligence community whistleblower who sparked the entire controversy wasn’t on the call. He just heard grousing from people who were.

Also, what the whistleblower reported was incorrect — and he or she submitted it around the time that the intelligence community whistleblower form was reportedly updated to — wait for it — allow submissions like theirs.

The whistleblower’s earliest memo regarding the call also relayed at least seven lies or pieces of misinformation (We compared that memo to the call transcript and counted ourselves) that did not at all correspond with the call transcript Trump shrewdly released.

Then, there were assorted other witnesses, including former, and now acting, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor.

Taylor imploded on the stand in Schiff’s super-secret SCIF by confirming he could only offer hearsay and that Zelensky’s people didn’t even know of the much-ballyhooed suspension of U.S. military aid to Ukraine until after the much-ballyhooed July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky.

Now we come to Vindman, whose testimony anti-Trumpers everywhere were certain would prove Trump tried to execute a quid pro quo scenario with Zelensky.

Vindman, however, not only bombed in terms of helpfulness to the Democrats, but he also revealed four pieces of information — one of them extremely important — and effectively pulled a Tonya Harding on the quid pro quo narrative’s knees.

First, Vindman appears to have at least attempted to mislead the committee, claiming on page five of his pre-written opening statement that he “did not think it was proper [for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen.”

The only problem with that comment is that it’s predicated on a complete lie.

Trump didn’t demand anything during the call. Remember, it was Zelensky who urged Trump to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine, and it was Zelensky who offered to investigate.

“We are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine,” Zelensky said during the call, adding, “I guarantee as the president of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.”

Whether Vindman was actually trying to mislead (which seems foolish given the transcript) or genuinely doesn’t recall the conversation he heard (which obviously presents other credibility problems), the net effect was not good for Democrats.

Second, Vindman took note of an earlier Trump-Zelensky call he sat on that took place on April 21, 2019.

During that call, Vindman claimed that “Trump expressed his desire to work with President Zelenskyy and extended an invitation to visit the White House.”

That testimony undermines the idea that Zelensky’s invitation to the White House was predicated on him launching investigations into the Bidens, Burisma Holdings (where Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, sat on the board) and Crowdstrike.

Taylor helped undermine that Democratic chestnut when he confirmed the Ukrainians — and the general public — didn’t know about the aid freeze until August, after the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky.

Now, Vindman’s testimony makes the quid pro quo premise that much more unlikely by moving the date that the White House invitation was extended back to April 21.

If Trump invited Zelensky to the White House back in April with no strings attached, how could the White House visit been part of the alleged quid pro quo?

Third, …

(Read more at the Western Journal)

To restate the third point, we need to elevate US national security above Democrat partisanship

To restate the third point made by the Western Journal commentator Josh Manning, we need to put national security above protecting politicians who take bribes on the side. National security needs to be ranked over the current liberal pet project of the day.

However, on the same note, the NSC should not be involved in an apparent attempt to frame the President in a set-up conversation.

Fishing: House Democrats impeachment lawyer suggests probe May Extend Beyond Ukraine

Breitbart reports in an 18 October 2019 article that House Democrats seem to be fishing for reasons to impeach the President.

Fishing_Hook_Illustration_featHouse Democrats may extend the impeachment inquiry beyond U.S. President Donald Trump’s Ukraine-related activities, the general counsel behind the investigation recently indicated.

Democrats can impeach Trump even if his Ukraine-related actions are not criminal, Douglas Letter, the lawyer, argued before a federal judge last week.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) handpicked Letter in January to serve as the general counsel for the Democrat-led House of Representatives.

Since then, he has been at the center of strategizing the House Democrats’ impeachment fight against the president, CNN reported Thursday.

Letter does not talk to the press. CNN, however, quoted him as telling a federal judge last week that the impeachment probe may extend beyond Ukraine.

“I can’t emphasize enough: It’s not just Ukraine. If it’s criminal, but even if it’s not — President Trump can clearly be impeached if he was obstructing justice,” the lawyer reportedly said.

CNN added:

Letter also said that even simply lying to the American public could prompt impeachment. In the court proceeding, Letter was fighting on behalf of House Democrats to obtain the FBI memos from interviews with key White House witnesses that Robert Mueller conducted as part of his two-year probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and whether anyone from President Donald Trump’s campaign was involved.

The lawyer, who reportedly spent four decades at the U.S. Department of Justice, is reportedly working on behalf of House Democrats with a team of nine attorneys.

The impeachment probe is supposed to focus on determining whether Trump abused his power as president by withholding aid to Ukraine in a bid to get dirt on Joe Biden.

A “whistleblower’s” allegation that Trump made a quid pro quo offer to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a call on July 25 triggered the impeachment probe. The “whistleblower” claimed Trump demanded Zelensky’s cooperation in investigating Biden and his son Hunter in exchange for aid.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the leader of the probe, has also said, however, that there does not need to be a Ukraine-linked quid pro quo to impeach Trump.

House Democrats have accused President Trump of obstruction of justice for refusing to cooperate with their impeachment probe, particularly for not relinquishing documents.

Former President Barack Obama refused to cooperate with congressional investigators seeking information on his administration’s fatal gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious. Nevertheless, neither Republicans nor Democrats sought to impeach him for it.

Under Fast and Furious, the Obama administration allowed criminals in Mexico to buy hundreds of guns. Some of the weapons were used to kill U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. They were also used to kill or wound an estimated 300 Mexicans.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Just as this blog has pointed out, certain Democrat members of Congress want to use any measure possible to remove their opposition

Maxine Waters has trumpeted her desire to impeach the President from November 2016. Al Green famously said as recently as May 2019:

I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected. If we don’t impeach him, he will say he’s been vindicated. He will say the Democrats had an overwhelming majority in the House and didn’t take up impeachment. He will say we had a constitutional duty to do and we didn’t. He will say he’s been vindicated.

I think we should do everything we can to make certain that every point Al Green made comes true. Otherwise, they might see it as an endorsement of their socialistic, baby-killing agenda.

The “whistleblower” is identified as a Democrat who worked with John Brennan and Joe Biden

Lifezette reported in a 31 October 2019 article on the previously-unknown “whistleblower” in the Democrat’s impeachment scheme.

The identity of the whistleblower behind the Ukraine hoax has reportedly been revealed as CIA officer Eric Ciaramella, a registered Democrat who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan.

Paul Sperry of RealClearInvestigations identified the man suspected of initiating allegations against the president — allegations that resulted in today’s impeachment proceedings.

Attorneys for the whistleblower have, naturally, declined to confirm their client’s name.

“But,” Sperry wrote on Wednesday, “the name of a government official fitting that description — Eric Ciaramella — has been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings.”

He indicated that Ciaramella’s identity was raised as well “in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry.”

Democrats all along have been very clearly shielding the whistleblower’s identity, claiming they were doing so because of concerns about his or her safety.

The media, who have no obligation to keep the name under wraps, have been obediently following the Democrat Party’s lead, in our view — to nobody’s surprise.

That very identity, however, seems to indicate the individual was being protected for more nefarious reasons.

Who he is and what he stands for undermines the resistance party’s efforts to portray the impeachment proceedings as anything other than a charade.

Ciaramella isn’t just a politically neutral and concerned citizen.

“Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan,” Sperry reported on Wednesday.

He added that the ardent Democrat is “a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia ‘collusion’ investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.”

In other words — the man bears a striking resemblance to every single Democrat lawmaker pushing for impeachment right now.

Ciaramella is their golden boy and everything they are — as determined to undo the results of a presidential election as they were.

And that is why they tried hiding him from the public, as we see it.

As Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) pointed out, the outing of Eric Ciaramella as the whistleblower calls into question the entire genesis of the drive to impeach President Donald Trump.

His motivations are well known to the intelligence community, if not the public.

“He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” a former NSC official told RealClearInvestigations.

Ciaramella reportedly huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.

“Guidance” is a suspect word — the true description should be “coaching.”


(Read more at Lifezette)

Odd that all of these socialists and their supporting cast have such close ties to Biden

Additionally, it is certainly odd how communists like Comey, Brennan, and Ciaramella all got together to work against Donald Trump.

Just like the Democrat’s Nuclear Option, House approves Democrat’s impeachment rules

The left-leaning Associated Press reports in a 21 October 2019 article how the Democrats again slit their own throats. Just as Democrats previously approved and then condemned the use of the “nuclear option,” the Democrats need to regret this subversion of due process.

Nonetheless, the Associated Press reported it as follows:

Democrats swept a rules package for their impeachment probe of President Donald Trump through a divided House, as the chamber’s first vote on the investigation highlighted the partisan breach the issue has only deepened.

By 232-196, lawmakers on Thursday approved the procedures they’ll follow as weeks of closed-door interviews with witnesses evolve into public committee hearings and — almost certainly — votes on whether the House should recommend Trump’s removal.

All voting Republicans opposed the package. Every voting Democrat but two supported it.

Underscoring the pressure Trump has heaped on his party’s lawmakers, he tweeted, “Now is the time for Republicans to stand together and defend the leader of their party against these smears.”

Yet the roll call also accentuated how Democrats have rallied behind the impeachment inquiry after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spent months urging caution until evidence and public support had grown.

She and other Democratic leaders had feared a premature vote would wound the reelection prospects of dozens of their members, including freshmen and lawmakers from Trump-won districts or seats held previously by Republicans. But recent polls have shown voters’ growing receptivity to the investigation and, to a lesser degree, ousting Trump.

That and evidence that House investigators have amassed have helped unify Democrats, including those from GOP areas. Rep. Cindy Axne, D-Iowa, said she was supporting a pathway to giving “the American people the facts they deserve,” while Rep. Andy Kim, D-N.J., said voters warrant “the uninhibited truth.”

Yet Republicans were also buoyed by polling, which has shown that GOP voters stand unflinchingly behind Trump.

“The impeachment-obsessed Democrats just flushed their majority down the toilet,” said Michael McAdams, a spokesman for House Republicans’ campaign arm.

Elsewhere at the Capitol on Thursday, three House panels led by the Intelligence Committee questioned their latest witness into the allegations that led to the impeachment inquiry: that Trump pressured Ukraine to produce dirt on his Democratic political rivals by withholding military aid and an Oval Office meeting craved by the country’s new president.

Tim Morrison, who stepped down from the National Security Council the day before his appearance, testified — still behind closed doors — that he saw nothing illegal in Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president that is at the center of the Democrat-led investigation.

(Read more at the Associated Press)

Add to these rules, Adam Schiff blocks Republicans from being legally exposed

As reported at The Last Refuge and as shown in the below table. Alexander Vindman was available to attend and listen in to the conversation between the Presidents of the United States and the Ukraine.

alexander-vindman-2-faraSimilarly, as reported by Sundance of The Last Refuge, it seems that Vindman did not exclusively wear his military uniform while executing his (Democrat, conniving) duties at the White House. (Yes, that is Vindman in the red oval below.)

alexander-vindman-3-energy-v1

I guess that the lawyers in Schiff’s office figure that a military uniform provides a certain level of respect that a gapping suit doesn’t.

Trump impeachment hearings must include Obama, Bidens

Tom Del Beccaro from Fox News argues that Republicans should start doing their jobs by calling witnesses close to the issue central to the impeachment narrative. Therefore, Republicans must call Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and other witnesses before Congress.

It’s official now. Democrats are careening toward the impeachment of a president and dragging the American people along with them. In today’s mass media age, it will consume this nation like few other events ever have.

I outlined a broader strategy for the GOP in my recent article for Fox News Opinion: “Republicans must win the impeachment trial – and they can by following these five steps.”

At this point, the formal House vote deprives the Republicans the right to subpoena witnesses without the permission of Adam Schiff – the man who has repeatedly lied to the American people. That is a stark departure from the procedure that was afforded the minority party under Nixon and Clinton.

If the Republicans are serious about winning this truly political fight, here are three witnesses they should demand be subpoenaed:

  • Hunter Biden
  • Joe Biden
  • Barack Obama

Before we talk about them, you might ask the question: What is an impeachable offense?

The Constitution explicitly states: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  That is the easy part when it comes to presidents.  Treason and bribery are easily defined but “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” are not.

Did those words refer to a president challenging a suspect law passed by a Congress seeking to determine who could serve in a president’s cabinet? In 1868, a Republican-dominated House of Representatives impeached Democratic President Andrew Johnson, with an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, for just that. The Senate, however, never convicted Johnson.

Johnson’s acts related to his exercise of official presidential powers.  The Nixon impeachment proceedings started based on the ill-famed Watergate break-in and a subsequent cover-up.  Nixon’s acts were a combination of private acts and executive power.

Bill Clinton you ask?  Well, that was based on his perjurous statement to a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice in a private lawsuit against him – largely private actions thought far too unfit for a president by the Republican House. The Senate did not convict Clinton either.

(Read more at Fox News)

Hat tip to the Chris Salcedo Show

Joe Biden on the stand would be a Republican advertisement writer’s dream

Considering Joe’s propensity for gaffing, having him on the stand would be heaven on Earth for Trump’s advertisement team.

Republican PACs are already attacking vulnerable Democrats who voted for impeachment resolution

It seems that Fox News has observed some Republicans growing a spine as certain Republican political action committees have started attacking vulnerable Democrats who voted for impeachment.

House Democrats in red districts who voted for the House resolution setting rules for the Trump impeachment inquiry are already under attack after a political action committee dedicated to boosting Republicans launched a digital ad campaign Thursday.

The Congressional Leadership Fund said in a statement that it had targeted 29 vulnerable Democrats with ads that will appear when constituents search for impeachment-related terms online. Those ads will redirect to a website with a petition titled: “Tell your member of Congress: Stop Impeachment Now!”

“The Democrats are so blinded by their personal hatred of President Trump that they’re willing to sacrifice all work on the issues voters care about, just to have one last shot at removing him from office to avenge their 2016 loss,” said CLF President Dan Conston. “Now that they’ve cast their votes in favor of marching headfirst into impeachment, vulnerable Democrats have shown voters there is zero difference whatsoever between them and the radical leftists fighting tooth and nail to impeach this president.”

The House of Representatives passed a resolution Thursday setting rules for the public phase of the impeachment inquiry Democrats have been pursuing into President Trump. A complaint from an anonymous whistleblower and testimony from other administration officials has indicated that Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to open investigations that would be politically beneficial to his 2020 reelection campaign — notably into Joe Biden and his son, Hunter — while withholding nearly $400 billion in military aid.

Democrats and others have accused Trump of trying to use the aid as leverage to get Ukraine to deliver the investigations. Trump and his defenders have said there was no quid-pro-quo — aid for investigations — with Trump describing a July 25 phone call in which he discussed the investigations, but not the aid, with Ukrainian President Voldomyr Zelensky as “perfect.”

Conor Lamb, D-Pa., who won his seat in a competitive 2018 special election, is one of the higher-profile Democrats targeted by the campaign. On Thursday, he said his vote for the impeachment rules resolution was simply to establish rules for the investigation and that he had not yet made up his mind if he would vote to impeach Trump.

“This resolution sets the rules for the upcoming hearings. I believe everyone benefits from clear rules, so I voted yes.  I have not made any decision about impeachment, nor will I until all the evidence is in,” he said in a statement. “I do believe that Russia is a major threat to the United States in Ukraine and around the world, and our oath requires us to put our country first, always.”

The CLF provided an example of what one of the ads would look like with a screenshot of one ad aimed at Anthony Brindisi, D-N.Y. It appears as a search result with a hyperlink that reads, “Anthony Brindisi | Just Voted For Impeachment | He’s with Radical Dems Not Us.”

(Read more at Fox News)

There are many more new and old Democrats who need to be voted out

In the Houston area, there is lying Lizzie Fletcher, who promised she would work for the business community and said that she would not be Nancy Pelosi’s rubber stamp (even though her campaign was financed by Pelosi). Lizzie needs to answer for her inaction and for her lies.

Clinton-Obama emails sought by Sen. Ron Johnson amid Democrats’ impeachment inquiry

Now we find that Fox News has observed that Ron Johnson has begun seeking certain certain Clinton-Obama emails amid the impeachment inquisition.

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson on Thursday formally sought “all email communications” between Hillary Clinton and former President Obama, saying the Justice Department was blocking their release — even though they could shed light on whether the former secretary of state discussed sensitive matters on her unsecured personal email system while she was overseas.

Johnson’s letter came as House Democrats approved procedures for their impeachment inquiry against President Trump, warning he may have endangered U.S. national security by allegedly withholding aid to Ukraine for political reasons. Earlier this month, a State Department report into Clinton’s use of a private email server for government business found dozens of people at fault and hundreds of security violations.

In a letter to the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Johnson, R-Wis., said summer 2016 communications from FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok to FBI Director James Comey’s Chief of Staff James Rybicki hinted at the existence of the Clinton-Obama messages that were relevant to the issues raised by her private server.

Johnson noted that on June 28, 2016, a week before Comey’s public statement declaring that “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge Clinton, Strzok wrote, “Jim – I have the POTUS – HRC emails [Director Comey] requested at end of briefing yesterday. I hesitate to leave them, please let me know a convenient time to drop them off.”

“I write to request email communications between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama,” Johnson wrote, setting a deadline of Nov. 14, 2019. “In January 2018, I requested the Department of Justice (DOJ) produce emails Secretary Clinton sent to President Obama while she was located in the ‘territory of a sophisticated adversary.'”

He added: “Given that DOJ acknowledged that they ‘are not in a position’ to produce emails to the committee that contain ‘equities of other executive branch entities,’ I ask that, pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, you please provide all email communications between Secretary Clinton and President Obama.”

May 2016 email from Strzok, obtained by Fox News last year, said “we know foreign actors obtained access” to some Clinton emails, including at least one “secret” message “via compromises of the private email accounts” of Clinton staffers. However, last year, the DOJ watchdog slammed Comey for speculating publicly that Clinton’s emails had been hacked by foreign actors.

Interviews with intelligence community officials released this past August indicated that senior FBI leaders “seemed indifferent to evidence of a possible intrusion by a foreign adversary” into Clinton’s non-government email server, and that State Department officials allegedly sought to “downgrade classified material found on the server,” according to Senate investigators probing the matter.

(Read more at Fox News)

The more about Democrat corruption that comes out, the better

We can only hope that this drags out until the months before the election.

Bolton will not voluntarily testify, says his lawyer

The Hill reports in a 31 October 2019 article that former Obama-era ambassador John Bolton will not testify unless he receives a subpoena.

Former national security adviser John Bolton will not appear voluntarily to testify in connection with the House impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

Bolton’s attorney Chuck Cooper told The Hill in an email late Wednesday that Bolton would not appear voluntarily and would need to be subpoenaed.

House Democrats have issued subpoenas to several witnesses in order to compel their testimony amid efforts by the White House to prevent their appearance. The White House has refused to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, describing it as illegitimate and an attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election.

House investigators on Wednesday invited Bolton, who was dramatically ousted as Trump’s third national security adviser in September, to testify at a deposition on Nov. 7, next week.

It is not clear whether a subpoena will be enough to compel his appearance. Charles Kupperman, former deputy national security adviser, filed a lawsuit on Friday asking a federal court to weigh in on whether he should obey a subpoena to testify or instructions from the White House against cooperating, describing himself as caught between two competing branches of government.

 

I’m not sure whether Bolton is playing Brier Rabbit or he has done something

Either which way, we should give this guy the treatment that those who would undermine our government would deserve.

Good news that went unreported in main stream media

Featured

74 Miles of Border Wall Completed, 158 More Under Construction

In a 26 October 2019 Breitbart article, we get a report on the 74 miles of border wall completed and the 158 miles still under construction.

WallBorder Patrol officials say communities along the border are safer following the completion of 74 miles of improved border wall systems. Those systems include 30-foot bollard walls, new border-access roads, lighting, and electronic surveillance. Construction on an additional 158 miles is underway with 450 miles scheduled to be completed by the end of 2020.

Construction crews under the direction of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a report on Friday showing the completion of 74 miles of replacement border wall systems along the southwestern border with Mexico. Officials stated that 158 miles of additional walls are currently under construction and 276 miles are in a “pre-construction phase,” according to information provided to Breitbart News by CBP officials.

The new border wall system in Calexico, California, is the first section of replacement wall to be completed, El Centro Sector Assistant Chief Patrol Agent Joshua C. Devack said in a video presentation on Friday. “Since the border wall system was completed in this area, local business and commerce is thriving and areas once considered dangerous are now secure,” Devack stated. “In addition, overall crime in this area has been significantly reduced thus making our community a safer place to live and work.”

Prior to the new wall systems installed in January 2017, many sections of the border were relatively unsecured. Those areas consisted of landing mat walls that could easily be cut or climbed and other barriers designed only to stop vehicle traffic, Devack reported. The newly completed wall system includes 30-foot high bollard walls, new border-access roads allowing faster response by agents, additional lighting, and electronic surveillance systems, which provide advance warning and faster detection of border-crossing activities.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Nobody in the main stream press will report this win

humantraffickingJust as they will not report the reduction in human trafficking due to the construction of the border wall, main stream media outlets refuse to credit President Trump for building the wall.

Oddly, in the age of #MeToo, none of the main stream media want to champion a wall that reduces forced prostitution, forced marriage, child abduction, and other similar crimes.

Although their hypocrisy sticks in my craw, the opportunity for news distribution by alternative news sources does find support with me. In other words, I like supporting outlets like Breitbart, One America News, and Newsmax by visiting their websites and buying products there.

Lives saved: nine illegal aliens rescued from Texas border river

Breitbart continues its tradition of reporting on the heroics of Customs and Border Control agents.

Del-Rio-Migrant-RescueBorder Patrol agents assigned to the Texas-Mexico border region rescued nine migrant family members in two incidents from possibly drowning while illegally crossing the border from Mexico. The incidents occurred in the El Paso and Del Rio Sectors.

Del Rio Station Marine Unit agents patrolling the Rio Grande near the Del Rio Port of Entry on October 17 encountered a group of six Haitian migrants attempting to wade across the swiftly moving river currents. The group included two infants, according to information obtained from Del Rio Sector Border Patrol officials.

The agents observed the group appearing to struggle during the crossing and maneuvered their boat into position to affect a rescue. The agents pulled the Haitian migrants, including two children under the age of one, into their boat and transported them to the bank where ground-based agents evaluated their medical condition. The agents determined none of the migrants sustained injuries and transported them to the Del Rio Station for processing under current U.S. Customs and Border Protection guidelines.

Again, the main stream will not report heroics of the Border Patrol

Served_Congress_twice_subpoenaed_Bryan_PaglianoJust as Jeff Sessions would not prosecute Bryan Pagliano because he was “too close to Hillary,” the main stream media will not cover the saving of illegal aliens by Border Patrol agents because those agents are “too close to Trump.” Acknowledging the heroics of the Border Patrol would, in effect, provide a win for President Donald Trump in their eyes.

And, as the unhinged headlines on the Washington Post show, those members of the main stream media will not give an inch to President Trump.

Durham’s probe into possible FBI misconduct expanded based on new evidence, sources say

According to a 22 October 2019 article at Fox News, several sources report that Durham’s investigation into FBI misconduct has been based on new evidence.

U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the FBI’s 2016 Russia probe has expanded based on new evidence uncovered during a recent trip to Rome with Attorney General Bill Barr, sources told Fox News on Tuesday.

The sources said Durham was “very interested” to question former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, an anti-Trump critic who recently dismissed the idea.

The two Obama administration officials were at the helm when the unverified and largely discredited Steele dossier, written by British ex-spy Christopher Steele and funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, was used to justify a secret surveillance warrant against former Trump adviser Carter Page.

In Italy, Barr reportedly told embassy officials he “needed a conference room to meet high-level Italian security agents where he could be sure no one was listening in.”

A source in the Italian Ministry of Justice told The Daily Beast earlier this month that Barr and Durham were played a taped deposition made by Joseph Mifsud, the professor who allegedly told ex-Trump aide George Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Mifsud reportedly was explaining to authorities in the deposition why people would want to harm him, and why he needed police protection.

Papadopoulos has suggested he was connected with Mifsud as part of a setup orchestrated by intelligence agencies.

Additionally, reports have it that FBI top lawyer James Baker may be turning

According to the Washington Examiner and other sources, the FBI’s former top lawyer James Baker (pictured at the top of this post) may be cooperating with the investigation. If this is true, James Comey and other players in the Obama-FBI soft coup against Trump might want to have their own deals in place (or be in a country that has no extradition treaty with the United States).

Texas Right to Life got a voice outside the Texas Democrat debate

According to Texas Right to Life, they were able to provide a strong pro-life voice outside of the Houston Democrat Debate (even though it was totally embargoed by the main stream media and the local press).

Pro-life-democratic-debate-billboard-abortion-1Today, 10 of the most radical anti-Life Democrats will take the debate stage in Houston, trying to convince America — and more importantly, Texas — to vote pro-abortion in 2020.

But the media and the Democratic Party want to hide the issue of abortion at all costs! They know their position is out-of-step with most Americans; that’s why moderators didn’t ask about abortion in the last debate, and other than crazy Kamala Harris, none of the candidates dared to bring up their stance.

Analysts agree that Democrats have a real chance at turning Texas blue. You must expose them now… before we’re too late.

Thanks to your support thus far, Texas Right to Life will launch a Pro-Life billboard truck outside tonight’s Houston debate.

The message “Abortion separates children from their families” will make candidates and voters consider the issue, but only YOU can make them pick a side: Life or death. Biblical truth or anti-Life lies.

Your gift today can expose Democrats’ abortion agenda.

The Democratic Party platform calls the decision to murder an innocent unborn child a “right,” and every major candidate in the field supports totally unrestricted abortions until birth (sometimes even after birth!) with taxpayers like you footing the bill!!

And these Democrats are cunning. They know that only 6% of Americans agree with this rabidly anti-Life platform, so the mainstream media covering tonight’s debate will do everything possible to hide and disguise the abortion holocaust.

(Read more at Texas Right to Life)

If I had not seen this truck, I would not have known to search the news venues for it

Had I not been required by my daily commute to drive by the outskirts of TSU on the day of the debate, I would not have known about the presence of this truck. Additionally, had the Texas Right to Life not posted a picture of their truck on Facebook, I would not have been able to provide a picture (since I’m not so good at taking pictures on the fly while driving).

Therefore, I have to both scold local media for not covering the whole story provided by the Democrat debate and thank Texas Right to Life for their getting the word out themselves.

President Trump is “stacking” the 9th Circuit

We hear through the Daily Caller that President Trump has been accused of “stacking” a court that continually gets overruled.

TrumpWinningPresident Donald Trump named two nominees for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, tapping a federal prosecutor and a conservative appellate lawyer for the west coast court.

The nominees, Patrick Bumatay and Lawrence VanDyke, are likely to elicit strong opposition for Democrats. If confirmed, the pair would raise the number of Trump’s 9th Circuit appointees to nine, with one other nomination pending.

Trump has clashed frequently with the 9th Circuit, which upheld injunctions against top administration policy priorities like the travel ban. His criticisms drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who rejected Trump’s charge that judges are sometimes motivated by politics.

Friday’s nomination is the latest twist in Bumatay’s meandering path to the federal bench. Trump nominated Bumatay to the 9th Circuit in October 2018 over the objections of California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, but his nomination lapsed with the end of the previous Congress. Thereafter, Trump nominated Bumatay to a federal trial court in southern California. That nomination was pending before the Senate until Friday, when the president changed course and named Bumatay to the 9th Circuit.

Bumatay currently advises senior officials at the Department of Justice on organized crime, incarceration and the national opioid strategy, according to a dossier compiled by supporters of his nomination. In that capacity, he helps manage federal law enforcement agencies like the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Before coming to Washington D.C. in 2017 he was a federal prosecutor in southern California.

“Patrick Bumatay will make a terrific judge on the 9th Circuit,” former Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement following his nomination. “He has dedicated his career to upholding the rule of law. Patrick’s many fine qualities, including his integrity, intellect, and collegiality, make him exceedingly worthy of this position. And his fidelity to the text of the Constitution is exactly what this country needs.”

(Read more at Daily Caller)

News to the Left: It is the President’s prerogative to provide judicial nominees

As much as I did not like the nominations made by Obama, I tolerated them and prayed for them to gain wisdom. Likewise, when Obama made appointments to predominantly conservative courts, I did not protest (but just prayed and hoped for a turning of the political tide). However, now that the court that has done more to overturn President Trump’s actions is being “fixed” — now the lefties cry out.

‘It is exactly what Hillary Clinton’s campaign did’: Newt Gingrich turns the tables on The View

The Daily Caller details how Newt straightened out the story-line the women of The View were trying to spin.

HuntsmanGingrich sat in for Joy Behar, and Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich turned the tables Tuesday on “The View,” laying out the differences between President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton with regard to impeachment.

Abby Huntsman pressed him to revisit the Clinton impeachment — over which he presided — for the sake of comparison.<

Huntsman began by pointing out that Gingrich had once occupied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s seat. “You did go down the impeachment road,” she said. “If you were Nancy today and you had a president that did exactly what Trump did that was a Democrat, what would you do?”

“Well first of all, I’m sitting here trying to be Joy and now you want me to be Nancy. All I can tell you is this is getting to be a pretty heavy load to carry psychologically,” Gingrich laughed. “But there are two big differences.”

Gingrich then laid out the fact that an independent counsel had delivered a report indicating that Clinton was guilty of a felony. “I think had speaker Pelosi referred the Ukrainian phone call to a special counsel, they could do a lot of things,” he added.

The former speaker also mentioned sending someone to interview former Democratic House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, who spearheaded the Nixon impeachment inquiry, in order to ensure that the process was fair.

“Rodino had a set of rules that were very bipartisan and we brought them back and implemented exactly what Rodino did,” Gingrich explained. “Today, the White House doesn’t have a lawyer in these hearings. Secretary Pompeo’s staff went into a hearing, he has no lawyer there, has no idea what they’re saying.”

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Thanks to Newt Gingrich for going to hostile venues like this to spread a message of logic

As much as Newt did a great job of explaining how the current hearings are unjust, you have to wonder about how much of the message got through to the audience. That is, one has to wonder whether the audience just responds to a “cheer” sign that got turned on once or twice too often.

Religious liberty cases reaching nation’s highest court

According to s 33 October 2019 article at OneNewsNow, a number of religious liberty cases have made it to the Supreme Court.

Supreme-CourtExpect to hear a lot more about the Supreme Court and religious freedom cases in coming months.

“There are two big religious freedom cases at the Supreme Court right now,” advises attorney Luke Goodrich of Becket, a religious liberty law firm. “One involves federal employment discrimination laws, and the question is whether employers can be punished if they discriminate against their employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

That case is R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Oral arguments took place Oct. 8.

“The religious freedom issue there is there are thousands of religious organizations across the country that have traditional beliefs about sexuality and they often expect their employees to uphold those traditional religious beliefs,” says Goodrich. “If the Supreme Court goes the wrong way, all of those religious organizations would suddenly be exposed to new lawsuits and new potential liability.”

Another religious freedom case at the Supreme Court is Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. At issue is government funding for religious schools.

Goodrich says that issue is over a state program that provides tax breaks to Montanans who donate to a scholarship program. Those scholarship funds can be used at private schools, both religious and secular.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Pray for wisdom and God’s will

Pray that, through whatever may need to happen, God’s wisdom will be granted to the justices and that we will see God’s will prevail.

Under the heading of liberal hypocrisy that went unreported:

Democrats compared Clinton’s impeachment to lynching

As reported in the Daily Caller, Democrats used the term “lynching” multiple times when defending Bill Clinton.

Democrats compared President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial to a lynching as they debated whether to impeach him in 1998.

President Donald Trump similarly compared the impeachment inquiry he’s facing to a lynching, and Democrats quickly condemned his comment as racist.

“It makes you no better than those who burn crosses. It makes you no better than those who wear hoods and white robes,” Democratic Texas Rep. Al Green said Tuesday.

In December 1998, congressional representatives debated whether or not to impeach a president for the first time since the House voted to impeach President Andrew Johnson on Feb. 24, 1868, according to The New York Times. Multiple representatives compared Clinton’s impeachment to a lynching, and several others condemned it as a Republican attempt to remove Clinton from office.

Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny K. Davis condemned the impeachment trial as “a lynching,” and former Democratic Rhode Island Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy called it “a political lynching.”

Former Democratic Michigan Rep. John Conyers Jr. said that he was seeing a “Republican coup d’etat” — a phrase that Democratic Reps. Jerrold Nadler of New York and Maxine Waters of California both used as well.

Watch:

{Read more at Daily Caller)

Rather than reporting the peoples’ ideas, Pew pushes polling propaganda

OneNewsNow reports on Pew, saying that they seem less interested in reporting the thoughts of the people than in molding those thoughts.

Pollsters are at it again, pushing sketchy polls – not to reflect public opinion, but to shape it. This is called propaganda, a popular tool for dictators who want to control the information flow from an all-powerful government to their subjects, the people.

What once passed for journalism is now mostly propaganda, an effort by major media organizations to insert themselves into the political process, to push their agenda, even if it means throwing any pretense of journalistic principle and integrity to the wind. Look at the Project Veritas undercover videos of CNN for the latest example.

Polls of any type are designed to take a scientific snapshot of opinion at a particular point in time. A small sample is taken from a larger population – and if the sample is representative of the entire population, then the poll should be valid.

When cooking a sauce, the chef might taste a bit to determine if additional seasoning is needed. If the sauce is mixed properly, then the small sample represents the entire sauce. Polls work the same way. A skewed sample will produce bogus results. This may be accidental or intentional. Which is it? I’ll report, you decide, to coin Fox News’s latest catch phrase.

Pew Research Center is the latest pollster to weigh in on President Trump and impeachment. Let’s see whether their polling sample sauce was well stirred before they took a taste.

analyzing-poll-resultsPew sampled 3,487 “randomly selected” adults between October 1-13. That may or may not be representative of the general population, but given that only about half of eligible voters actually vote in presidential elections, a better sample would be registered, or even likely, voters.

Who was in that sample? Of the 3,487 total sampled, 1,453 were or leaned Republican, 1,942 were or leaned Democrat. In other words, 56 percent Democrat and only 42 percent Republican, a 14-point difference favoring Democrats.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Odd thing is that Pew doesn’t think that we notice

Pew must think of the general public the same way that a con artist thinks of the mark.

During my years as an undergrad, I took a course on marketing writing and, as I researched another topic, ran across a study of the attitudes that con artists hold toward those who they attempt to fool and swindle. According to that study, con artists almost across the board think of their “marks” as being stupid and beneath contempt. In fact, these con artists often might assign nick names to the “marks” that might thinly veil the contempt the con artist holds.  Based on this, one wonders what the original versions of the graphs at Pew might be labelled.

MadJoeWould we see a resurrection of Hillary’s “deplorable” or Biden’s “dregs of society?”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lets her hypocrisy shine as bright as the sun

Breitbart reports in a 21 October 2019 article on the hypocrisy of AOC as she calls out income inequality just after endorsing the multi-millionaire Bernie Sanders.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on Sunday decried income inequality and the “top one percent” just one day after endorsing a millionaire.
Ocasio-Cortez tweeted a Business Insider report, which found that an individual needs to make “at least $500,000 a year” in order to make the “top one percent” in the United States.

“A lot of people think that folks like your typical lawyer or doctor are in ‘the 1%.’ That may be bc it’s hard to conceive how bad runaway inequality has gotten,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote.

“Even this number – $500k – reflects top income, & even THAT doesn’t hold a candle to recognizing concentrated wealth,” she added:

{tweet https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1185992674517626880 ]

The socialist lawmaker’s public complaint regarding the reality of “income inequality” comes just one day after she endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) – a millionaire – for president.

According to Forbes, Sanders has a $2.5 million fortune, which he acquired via “estate, investments, government pensions—and earnings from three books,” many of which lament the very system that made his wealth possible. While his senator’s salary is $174,000 per year, Forbes notes that the socialist lawmaker has made a “six-figure annual salary since he joined Congress in 1991”:

With 28 years in office and a current salary of $174,000, Sanders is entitled to around $73,000 a year from the federal government for the rest of his life. If he were to sell that guaranteed income stream for a lump-sum pile of cash, Forbes figures he could get around $650,000 for it.

In 2016, Sanders purchased a $575,000 lake house – dubbed a “summer home” – in the Champlain Islands, making the socialist the proud owner of not one, not two, but three homes.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Hopefully, if the only news of AOC is bad news, she will go away

Since this woman see-saws from demanding that climate change will destroy us in 12 years to insisting that this demand was a joke, maybe the electorate will see through her. However, since she knows how to apply make-up and has a large Twitter following, this may take some work.

Cases where left-wingers were so unhinged that they did crazy things

WaPo calls al Baghdadi an “austere religious scholar”

As reported in a 28 October 2019 article in USA Today, Twitter erupted in mocking tweets in response to the Washington Post obituaary that announced “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.”

The Washington Post is facing backlash after a headline characterized the Islamic State leader who was killed in a U.S. raid over the weekend as an “austere religious scholar.” The headline was quickly changed, but critics say it sugar coated the terror inflicted by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

President Donald Trump announced Sunday morning that al-Baghdadi was killed when he detonated a vest he was wearing after being cornered by U.S. forces on Saturday evening.

The Post article says that when al-Baghdadi first rose as a leader of ISIS, he was a relatively unheard of “austere religious scholar with wire-frame glasses and no known aptitude for fighting and killing.”

Its original headline read, “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Islamic State’s ‘terrorist-in-chief,’ dies at 48.” But it was later changed to “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.”

As of Monday morning, the headline was “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48.”

As noted later in the article, al-Baghdadi encouraged followers to commit acts of violence and terror. He was also perhaps the most wanted terrorist leader in the world and the highest ranking since the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011.

(Read more at USA Today)

The weirdest thing about all this seems to be the way WaPo writers persisted

In addition to the obituary issues, it seems that Max Boot went to the mat for al-Baghdadi, saying that the rapist and murderer who committed suicide while killing three children was “not a coward.”

‘Angry’ Katie Hill Blames Right-Wing Media for ‘Electronic Assault’ Leading to Her Resignation

Breitbart reports in a 28 October 2019 article how Katie Hill doesn’t blame either her affair with a female staffer or another affair with a male staffer for her having to resign, but blames “right-wing” conspirators.

Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA) released a statement on Monday formally announcing her resignation following allegations of inappropriate sexual relationships with congressional staffers, blaming “right-wing media” and “hateful political operatives” for “enabling and perpetuating my husband’s abuse by providing him a platform.”

Hill confirmed the reports of her resignation in a video announcement released Monday. Her resignation comes weeks after mounting allegations of inappropriate sexual relationships with congressional staffers, including a “throuple” relationship with a female staffer and a separate affair with a male staffer.

While Hill issued a relatively ambiguous statement confirming a relationship with a staffer the day after denying an affair with a male member of her congressional staff, she directly blamed her departure on a “coordinated campaign carried out by the right-wing media and Republican opponents,” accusing both of “enabling and perpetuating my husband’s abuse by providing him a platform” and calling it “disgusting and unforgivable.”

“They will be held accountable, but I will not allow myself to be a distraction from the constitutional crisis we’re faced with and the critical work of my colleagues, and so I have to take my personal fight outside the halls of Congress,” she said, stressing the importance of legislative policies — ensuring “quality health care, housing we can afford, and a government that works for the people” — that Democrats have largely ignored due to their endless pursual of impeachment.

“I cannot let this horrible smear campaign get in the way of that work,” she continued, telling her supporters that they “showed the nation that there is hope even in the darkest of moments.”

Hill added that she will “take on a new fight” to “ensure that no one else has to live through what I just experienced.”

“Some people call this electronic assault, digital exploitation. Others call it revenge porn. As the victim of it, I call it one of the worst things that we can do to our sisters and our daughters,” she said, adding that she will “not allow my experience to scare off other young women or girls from running for office.”

“For the sake of all of us, we cannot let that happen,” she added.

“I’m hurt. I’m angry. The path that I saw so clearly for myself is no longer there,” Hill continued. “I’ve had moments where I’ve wondered what the last three years of my life were for and if it was worth it.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

This comes right out of Hillary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” playbook

When you (or your philandering hubby) gets caught red-handed, throw the stained blue dress in the corner and start screaming about the right wing. It works every time for some Democrats.

House Democrats to Vote on Impeachment Procedures Thursday

Within the words of a 28 October 2019 Breitbart article, it seems that San Fran Nan has capitulated to the demands of Republicans within the Senate (or there will be no trial after the “impeachment”).

house-to-vote-on-impeachment-inquiry-processHouse Democrats will vote on Thursday to establish the procedures for their ongoing impeachment investigation against President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced Monday afternoon.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), chairman of House Rules Committee, said he will introduce the resolution’s text for approval on Tuesday and the panel will move to mark it up by Wednesday.

“As committees continue to gather evidence and prepare to present their findings, I will be introducing a resolution to ensure transparency and provide a clear path forward,” McGovern said in a statement. “This is the right thing to do for the institution and the American people.”

The development comes as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) faces pressure from House and Senate Republicans to bring the impeachment probe from out of the shadows.

In recent weeks, the House intel panel has interviewed several current and former Trump administration officials inside Capitol Hill’s SCIF room, also known as a sensitive compartmented information facility. Arguing against the secret bunker’s use, Republicans say no discussions involving classified information have occurred inside and assert Democrats are using it to selectively leaking excerpts of witnesses’ testimony to the media. Nearly 30 House Republicans attempted to storm the chamber on Wednesday as Laura Cooper, a senior Department of Defense official working on Ukraine, was scheduled to testify.

“Behind those doors they intend to overturn the results of an American presidential election. We want to know what is going on,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who led the group of frustrated Republicans, said at a press conference prior to attempting to enter the secured room.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have introduced a resolution to condemn Pelosi and Schiff’s handling of the impeachment inquiry, which has already garnered 50 Republican cosponsors. Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) do not support the measure.

(Read more at Breitbart)

Will Pelosi actually hold a vote or will she try to fool the Senate?

Can we expect a Kabuki theater between the lying Democrats that want to deny due process and the Never-Trumper Republicans that want to accomplish their globalist dreams? Or can we expect Pelosi to drop the pretense of a vote when she just decides to keep holding her closed-door hearings?

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.

Stories you probably did not hear about impeachment

Featured

NPR Regrets Interviewing Republican Who Called Out Schiff and Democrats on ‘Political Impeachment’

Breitbart reports on the National Public Radio interview that varied from their selected topic.

IdiotSchiffNational Public Radio (NPR) regrets a live radio interview with a Republican lawmaker who called out Democrats and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which is overseeing investigations against President Donald Trump, for what he called a “political impeachment.”

NPR sent out its public editor, Elizabeth Jensen, to defend the taxpayer-funded left-wing media outlet for it “journalistically strong” coverage of the impeachment effort after its supporters criticized an interview with Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN):

Unlike some of the critics, I think that overall the coverage has the handling of misinformation in an interview on Wednesday’s All Things Considered with Rep. Jim Banks, an Indiana Republican, raised journalistic concerns that I don’t think are explained away as purely partisan posturing (although there has also been plenty of partisan pushback from both sides about the interview). And once again, the journalistic challenge resulted from a format choice: the decision to interview a politician on live radio.

Live interviews have increased greatly on NPR’s newsmagazines in recent years. As readers of this column well know, listeners (and I) have raised many concerns about their execution.

When they work, live interviews are a valuable way to hear the point of view of a newsmaker in their own words. An interview runs into problems, however, when the guest says something that is provably inaccurate or seriously misleading. At that point the host is obligated to push back to correct it, which to some listeners sounds partisan (and it can be unpleasant and unproductive when an interview turns argumentative).

(Read more at National Public Radio)

If only NPR would come clean, it would be much more simple

All that they would have to do would be to change their banner. Once it read “NPR provides all news that supports the current narrative of liberals and Democrats.” Of course, for anyone who has listened to 10 minutes of PAll Things Considered, Morning Edition, or Here and Now would know that a liberal slant predominates just about everything that comes across their airwaves.

Democrats make arguments against impeachment

If you listen to the Democrats in the following video, you will hear them make strong arguments against impeachment.

Speaker Testimony
Biden: It is simply antithetical to our constitutional democracy to use impeachment to overturn an election on partisan grounds.
Pelosi: I think it has dramatic impact on the confidence the American people have in government.
Nadler: The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election.
Schumer: Their hatred of the President exceeds their caring about this country and its people.
Biden: It would trample on the choice made by the people through the electoral process and do great harm.
Nadler: The people elected the President. They still support him. We have no right to overturn the considered judgement of the American people.
Sanders: But what the American people are saying loudly and clearly is — let’s get on with the business of the American people.
Nadler: Impeachment of a president is an undoing of a national election …
Biden: … it violates the independence of the presidency and it usurps the people’s voice.
Nadler: They are ripping asunder our votes. They are telling us our votes don’t count and that the election must be set aside.
Waters: Send a message through the ballot box. That’s what we do in this democracy.
Green: I’m concerned that, if we don’t impeach this President, he will get re-elected.

I will agree with all of these Democrats on these statements

However, unlike the times that we endured while Bill Clinton philandered and lied about the philandering, we do not have a media that wants to cover for the President.

So, it is completely up to the reasonable people of America to look at how things are being twisted and to vote accordingly.

Going into the next election, we need to remember that:

  1. Pelosi has not put out a level field for impeachment like the Republicans of the Clinton era did. She has not yet put the impeachment inquiry up to a vote, which would:
    • Allow both sides to issue subpoenas.
    • Allow the defenders of Trump to mount a defense.
    • Take the anonymous accusers out of the shadows (since, in the American judicial system, we have the right to face our accusers).
  2. Adam Schiff lied into the Congressional record with his opening statements to the House Intelligence Committee (later calling it a “parody”).
  3. In conflict with most Americans’ sense of fairness, Democrats have not allowed Republicans to ask questions or participate in the impeachment hearings so far.

Women for Trump have organized a march

With a hat-tip to the Chris Salcedo Show, I have found that Women for America First has organized at least one march for 17 October 2019.

I would encourage all who can to attend this march

The more support we can provide, the less cocky the Democrats will be. Therefore, send money, attend marches, and attend rallies.

State Department testifies US diplomats gave Ukrainians a do-not-prosecute list

The One America News Network points out how US diplomats gave Ukrainian officials a do-not-prosecute list of Americans.

Trump ImpeachmentTop U.S. diplomats will testify this week on Capitol Hill, including former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and Deputy Secretary of State George Kent. Yovanovitch was removed from her post after she allegedly gave Ukrainian prosecutor Yuri Lutsenko a “do not prosecute” list of American allies she felt were above the law.

Also scheduled to testify is U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who made headlines when private text messages between him and top Ukrainian officials were released. In the messages he confirmed there was never a request for a “quid pro quo of any kind” from the president. The texts follow the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where Trump congratulated Zelensky on his landslide victory.

“I actually spoke with President Trump just a few minutes before he placed the call and not only did the president call to congratulate president Zelensky, but also to begin the collaboration of charting the pathway forward with the U.S. support of Ukraine and a White House visit that’s upcoming for President Zelensky,” stated Sondland.

The U.S. Ambassador to the European Union and U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker made frequent visits to Ukraine in the hopes of improving U.S. relations. Volker has been interviewed in regards to the matter and although Democrats attempted to pry him for information they could use in their impeachment inquiry, he maintained the president’s innocence.

(Read more at One America News Network)

Add to this, Volker has come out attacking Democrats for their bias in using his report

Now it seems that the Democrats want to ignore Ambassador Volker because he has discredited their little lie about Trump and Ukraine.

Biden berates reporter for question on Ukraine ‘conflicts of interest’

The Daily Mail reports that Biden berated a reporter for asking him questions about Ukraine.

Joe Biden has lashed out at a reporter in response to a question about his family’s potential conflicts of interest in the Ukraine, insisting that press should focus on allegations against President Donald Trump.

BidenSnapsAt a Service Employees International Union forum in Los Angeles on Friday, Biden was asked about his work overseeing foreign policy for Ukraine as vice president while his son Hunter served on the board of a major Ukrainian company.

‘It’s not a conflict of interest. There’s been no indication of any conflict of interest, in Ukraine or anywhere else. Period,’ Biden snapped.

Asked how his son’s cushy $50,000-a-month gig didn’t at least create the appearance of a conflict of interest, Biden rejoined: ‘I’m not going to respond to that. Focus on this man. What he’s doing that no president has ever done. No president.’

Biden has previously demanded that reporters ‘ask the right questions’ and accused Trump of trying to ‘hijack’ the campaign with unfounded assertions that Biden and his son had corrupt dealings in Ukrainian business and politics.

In late September in Iowa, the former VP scolded a Fox News reporter who asked about his family’s ties to Ukraine. ‘You should be asking him the question: why is he on the phone with a foreign leader, trying to intimidate a foreign leader?’ he said.

‘This appears to be an overwhelming abuse of power. To get on the phone with a foreign leader who is looking for help from the United States and ask about me and imply things … this is outrageous. You have never seen anything like this from any president.’

(Read more at the Daily Mail)

Considering the number of days the press spent on covering Trump’s blow-up …

When you think back a few days to Trump;’s verbal bout with the press, it seemed that the talking heads would not let it go.

On the other hand, now that Joe Biden is the one on the catbird seat, the press does not want to mention the dust up.

Why did you mostly hear about impeachment?

The Democrats want to distract us from 2019 having the most illegal crossings in 12 years

The Washington Examiner reports that illegal crossings rose in 2019 while San Fran Nan blocked all debate on the border wall.

Border Patrol agents working along the United States-Mexico border took into custody approximately 851,000 people in the U.S. government’s fiscal 2019, marking the highest number of arrests since 2007, according to federal data exclusively obtained by the Washington Examiner.

borderwallBut the 40,000 people taken into custody in September is less than one-third of the 132,000 arrests made in May at the height of a surge of illegal immigrants.

Roughly 40,000 people were apprehended after crossing into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California during the month of September. That number was added to the previous 11 months to bring fiscal 2019, which ran Oct. 1, 2018, through Sept. 30, to slightly more than 851,000 arrests. Those arrested for illegally crossing into the U.S. from Mexico may have claimed asylum once in custody, but that figure is not released by the government each month.

The 851,000 arrested at the southern border does not include the number of people who approached ports of entry, or border crossings, to claim asylum or pass through but were turned away. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Department of Homeland Security agency that oversees these figures, is expected to release this and related data in a few weeks.

As of Aug. 31, another 263,000 people were encountered at ports by the Office of Field Operations, a component of CBP. Border Patrol agents are stationed on the land between ports of entry while field operations officers stay at ports. These people are not arrested but are simply denied entry.

These numbers do not include additional arrests and denied port crossers at the U.S.-Canada border and along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, nor does it include the September figure for those encountered at the ports.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

Due to the fact that the Democrats have a complicit press and we are too easily distracted, this bait-and-switch might work

Unless the grassroots of the conservative movement gets out and points out how the press and Democrats are covering this and other failings, they will get away with it. Unless we continually post and talk about the murders at the hands of illegal aliens, the Democrats will win here.

Should we fail to point out that the Democrats’ sanctuary cities have become cesspools of crime, drug use, and disease, the Democrats will win here.

Should we not point out that Democrats have failed to deliver on the infrastructure, Medicare, or anything else.

Democrats in the Press and Congress twist the rules

Fox’s Ed Henry blasted for twisting question to exonerate Biden

As recounted by the One America News Network, Fox’s Ed Henry has been blasted for twisting a question to blame President Trump and exonerate former Vice President Biden (who confessed to doing what our president is accused of doing).

EdHenryConservative commentator Mark Levin blasted Fox News host Ed Henry for pushing a “dishonest” narrative regarding the president’s Ukraine call. Levin appeared as a guest during a Sunday interview on the network, where he talked about the president’s discussion with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski.

Early in the interview, they discussed Joe Biden and his son’s business dealings in Ukraine. Soon enough, however, things got heated when Henry pressed Levin on whether or not he was “okay” with President Trump asking for “dirt” on Biden. Levin hit back by calling the question misleading and dishonest. He then pointed out that nowhere in the transcript of the call did the president ask for any kind of information on Biden or anyone for that matter.

Henry was appearing to reference House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff’s infamous dramatization of President Trump’s phone call with Zelenski. The shutdown quickly attracted the attention of the president, who retweeted over 20 reactions to the exchange.

(Read more at the One America News Network)

This seems to be the norm for most main stream media

Lie, accept the lies of Democrats as gospel, and cry when you get caught.

Then blame Trump. Just because you’re a Democrat.

Democrats subpoena Giuliani for documents related to impeachment inquiry

Even though a vote has not been held (and, therefore, this is not a legal impeachment inquiry that would include real subpoenas), in contradiction to the concept of executive privilege, and despite lawyer-client confidentiality (already thoroughly undermined by the Mueller’s/Democrats’ raid on President Trump’s lawyer, Cohen), the Daily Caller points out how Democrats have insisted on receiving documents from President Trump’s lawyer.

Democratic lawmakers subpoenaed former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani Monday for documents related to the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

fullofschiff-liarcummings-natanengelHouse Democrats’ inquiry “includes an investigation of credible allegations that [Giuliani] acted as an agent of the President in a scheme to advance his personal political interests by abusing the power of the Office of the President,” Reps. Elijah Cummings, Adam Schiff, and Eliot Engel wrote in a letter to Giuliani Monday.

They asked Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, to produce documents related to their request by Oct. 15. The move comes one day after Giuliani told ABC Sunday that he would not cooperate with Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Cummings, Schiff, and Engel are investigating whether Trump attempted push Ukraine into probing former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his dad was in the White House.

Giuliani alleges that Biden worked to remove a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating the company Hunter was affiliated with.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

This should not surprise anyone, because Democrats have sunken lower during the last three years

We should expect that Democrats would have no respect for the lawyer-client relationship. They had no respect for it when Mueller combed through the files and computers of the President’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen.

For all of the things Democrats “passed” with great fanfare (with no Republican or presidential support — so it went nowhere), none of it was in support of the regular American who works to keep this nation together.

The problem with this inaction becomes magnified when you also consider the ways that attacks made through their maniacal search for impeachable offenses. For example, although General Flynn had once been determined to have told the truth, he was later convicted on the process crime of lying to the FBI.

Also consider the way CNN recorded and the FBI staged the early-morning raid on the home of Roger Stone, who was so little of a flight risk and threat that he was able to bond out during the morning of the same day. For nothing but the hope of finding some impeachable offense, this man was routed from his home at gunpoint at the command of a party that wants to disarm us all.

Coincidentally, now that it has come out that Mueller may have lied to Congress and the testimony against him seems every bit as convincing as the evidence held against Flynn, do you think that Mueller see years in prison?

Schiff ‘helped write’ whistleblower complaint, after House panel admits advance knowledge

According to The Greg Jarrett and Lifezette, Adam Schiff had prior knowledge of the whistleblower complaint (and helped write it).

From The Greg Jarrett, we find:

A spokesperson for Congressman Adam Schiff confirmed Wednesday that the whistleblower alleging misconduct by President Trump had contacted the legislator before officially filing his complaint.

Schiff&RedStain“A spokesman for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., acknowledged Wednesday that the whistleblower alleging misconduct in the White House had reached out to Schiff’s panel before filing a complaint — prompting President Trump, in an extraordinary afternoon press conference at the White House, to directly accuse Schiff of helping write the document,” reports Fox News.

“It shows that Schiff is a fraud. … I think it’s a scandal that he knew before,” said the President during a press conference at the White House. “I’d go a step further. I’d say he probably helped write it. … That’s a big story. He knew long before, and he helped write it too. It’s a scam.”

“Like other whistleblowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled Committees, the whistleblower contacted the Committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Community,” Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News. “This is a regular occurrence, given the Committee’s unique oversight role and responsibilities. Consistent with the Committee’s longstanding procedures, Committee staff appropriately advised the whistleblower to contact an Inspector General and to seek legal counsel.”

(Read more at The Greg Jarrett)

How many layers of lies can Schiff press into this investigation

Consider that Schiff lied:

  1. By creating his imagined dialogue between Trump and Zelensky (which he, naturally, called “parody” once he got called on it)
  2. By remaining in the investigation even though he was involved in reviewing (if not creating) the whistleblower story
  3. By likely setting up all of the whistleblower scenarios.

Trump supporters greet Pelosi in South Carolina: ‘Impeach Pelosi’

Breitbart reports in a 5 October article how San Fran Nan was greeted with a banner saying “Impeach Pelosi” when she went to speak at an event.

Donald Trump supporters in South Carolina sent a clear message to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Friday evening, flocking to her event’s venue and holding up signs to express their support of the president.

Pelosi-in-South-CarolinaPelosi was featured as the keynote speaker at a South Carolina Democratic Party fundraising event at the Hyatt Regency in Greenville, South Carolina, on Friday. Trump supporters gathered outside of the event’s venue to express their support for the president. Videos show supporters shouting “Trump” and holding American flags, Trump-Pence 2020 banners, and homemade signs reading, “Impeach Pelosi”

Pelosi-in-South-Carolina1Pelosi-in-South-Carolina2Pelosi-in-South-Carolina3

(Read the bullshit response from Pelosi and other Democrat idiots at Breitbart)

Make a real difference. Follow in the steps of these Resistance Resistance.

If Hillary and Pelosi with their compatriots in Antifa can constitute the resistance, then we can make a new group. We can resist the resistance. We can be the Resistance Resistance.

At every Maxine Waters fundraiser, Pelosi speech, and even their trips to their limos — we can stand up. While nobody who claims salvation can advocate the things that Mad Max called for her followers to do, we can surely defend the defenseless.

The ‘Never Trump’ Coalition that decided Eh, Nevermind, He’s Fine

According to even the biased writers at the New York Times, we find independents, conservatives, and Republicans have come to support the President of the United States.

BrentBozellThey signed open letters, dedicated a special magazine issue to criticism of him and swore he would tear at the fabric of this nation. Now they have become the president’s strongest defenders.

In 2016, Erick Erickson could not have been clearer. Donald Trump was “a racist” and “a fascist.” It was no wonder, Mr. Erickson wrote, that “so many people with swastikas in their Twitter profile pics” supported him. “I will not vote for Donald Trump. Ever,” he insisted, adding his voice to the chorus of Never Trump Republicans.

This past week, Mr. Erickson, a well-known conservative blogger, titled one of his pieces “I Support the President.” In three years, he had come completely around, a transformation that is a testament to President Trump’s remarkable consolidation of support inside the Republican Party. The effort to impeach the president, Mr. Erickson wrote, was a desperate move by people “who have never come to terms with him.”

“Never Trump” no more, conservatives have largely resigned themselves to a more accommodating state of mind: “Never mind Trump.” And their change in attitude helps to mute the much smaller group of conservative voices who remain highly critical of the president and have questioned his conduct.

Glenn Beck, the radio host who once called Mr. Trump “an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity,” now says that his defeat in 2020 would mark “the end of the country as we know it.” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who so bitterly feuded with the president during the 2016 primaries that Mr. Trump gave out Mr. Graham’s cellphone number on national television, declared last week that impeachment was nothing but “a political setup.”

It can be difficult to remember that indignation and contempt for Mr. Trump once simmered in every corner of the conservative world. In August 2016, dozens of the most senior Republican national security officials signed a letter warning he would “put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

Female leaders of the anti-abortion movement joined together before the Iowa caucuses in 2016 and issued a joint statement declaring themselves “disgusted” at his behavior, saying he had “impugned the dignity of women.” National Review published an “Against Trump” issue that featured essays from 22 prominent conservatives who all made a case for why he should not be the Republican nominee.

At least half of those writers are now on the record making supportive comments about the president. Some, including Mr. Erickson and Mr. Beck, now fiercely defend Mr. Trump, joining many former foes who are speaking out loudly against the impeachment inquiry. Others who contributed to the issue, like Ed Meese, the attorney general under Ronald Reagan, have helped Mr. Trump plan his transition and build his administration.

(Read more, but expect a liberal slant from the New York Times)

A number of current supporters of Trump came from the ranks of other groups

As for myself, I supported Senator Cruz until candidate Trump eclipsed the Senator. I do admit that, like all Republicans (and most independents and conservatives), I think for myself. Therefore, when the administration steps away from my values, I speak up (maybe not in this blog, depending on how busy I am, but often here).

So, when Trump initially announced pulling out and abandoning the Kurds, I called. When the administration voiced support for the LGBT community, I pointed out how their agenda stands antithetical to God’s best in our lives. Still, in this age of grace and in this current political climate, God may be allowing us time to seek Him (however, our enemies here are putting up every obstacle to their possible loss of power).

Still, whether it is because of his support of religious rights or his appointment of conservative justices or his removal of inane bureaucratic regulations or his implementation of capitalism in place of Obama’s dream, I support my President.

If the Presidential election were today, who has earned your vote

Featured

Do not let them shift the blame

Featured

Just as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA, pictured above) tried to blame the President for the crisis that the Congress created through years of inaction, Democrats continue to try to shift the blame. Do not let them do it.

Do not let Democrats shift the blame for 9/11

“Airplanes Took Aim”: NY Times Shamefully Goes the Ilhan Omar Route in Describing How 9/11 Happened

On 11 September 2019, Red State pointed out the hypocrisy of the New York Times as the NYTwits cover for Ilhan Omar.

Five months ago, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) said “some people did something” in a CAIR speech she gave where she talked about the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks. The “some people” she was referring to, of course, were the radical Islamic terrorists who “did something” by committing the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people.

Hands-Off-Ilhan-RallyOutrage was swift and came from many corners including from President Trump. The New York Post published a brutal front page reminder in response to Omar’s reprehensible comments:

Unfortunately, on the 18th anniversary of 9/11 it seems that the New York Times took a page from Omar’s book in characterizing the horrific events of that awful day.

In a now-deleted tweet they posted early this morning, the paper wrote that “airplanes took aim” at the World Trade Center, rather than noting terrorists “took aim.” They also noted the WTC was where “more than 2,000 people died” rather than accurately reporting it was where “nearly 3,000 people” were killed. Here are a couple of screen captures of the original tweet:

Not only was that how the tweet was written, but the actual story originally contained the same language:

(Read more at Red State)

“Never forget” was the promise — not reassign blame

Although we must not assign guilt to the innocent, we also cannot become blind to the real danger. We cannot think that radical Islam can be disassociated with the murder of innocents (unless it turns from the more violent commands within its own tradition — at which point it ceases to be radical Islam). We cannot let our guard down, because the remembrance does not link to a sense of vengeance desired, but from the need to protect future generations.

Do not let Democrats lie about the border crisis

Former ICE Director to Wasserman-Schultz: “I’ve forgotten more about this issue than you’ll ever know”

Real Clear Politics shares a recent dust-up between DWS and Former ICE Director Holman.

Former ICE director Tom Homan shoots down Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in a heated exchange over deferred action.

From Wednesday’s House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties hearing on Medical Deferred Action for Critically Ill Children:Former ICE director Tom Homan shoots down Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in a heated exchange over deferred action.

From Wednesday’s House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties hearing on Medical Deferred Action for Critically Ill Children:

Speaker Testimony
Wassserman Schultz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my questions, since it has not yet been done I think it’s important to really make sure that the jingoist, bigoted testimony of Mr. Homan is called out as nearly completely untrue, as being an outrage. And as a former official directing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, he should know better. So making sure that I am–
Unknown: Mr. Chairman.
Wassserman Schultz: No, no, this is my five minutes.
Homan: What did I say that was inaccurate?
Wassserman Schultz: I’m not asking a question.
Raskin: Okay, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. She’s made her point, and I will try to resolve any other issues at the end of her questioning.
Wassserman Schultz: Thank you. So I just think it’s important that it’s not accepted as accurate testimony.
Jordan: I just want to get–because your–your testimony is that the broader issue and I–this is critically important but we also have a broader issue that we have unbelievable numbers we have seen on the border with apprehensions and everything else, right?
Homan: Absolutely. And if I can respond to the earlier remark from Wasserman Schultz I have forgotten more about this issue then you will ever know. So to say my testimony is inaccurate is wrong. Everything I said here is accurate. Bottom line. If you want to go toe to toe I am here. I am here on my own time to speak to the American people about what is what and what is fact.
Wassserman Schultz: I am sure happy to go toe to toe with you Mr. Homan. Happy to do that any day.
Homan: Well, I–I am here. But you’ve got to let me respond to your question rather than dropping a bomb and running away.
Wassserman Schultz: It was my time (mumbling).
Homan: There is a crisis on the border and–and it is not going to go away if we keep enticing more and more–if we want to abolish ICE, we want to give away college education and drivers licenses and free medical care and rewarding illegal behavior you are never going to solve the immigration crisis on the border. It’s not going to happen.

I, for one, am tired of the Main Stream Media ignoring Democrats as they compound the border issue

Of course, to me, Democrats include the likes of the Koch brothers (who lobbied for and profited from illegal aliens in their chicken processing plants).

Furthermore, these Democrats also include those shamelessly ignoring the crisis at the border in order that they might:

  1. Absolve their compatriots of the inaction required by the likes of the Koch brothers
  2. Build a new identity-politics group from the illegal aliens
  3. Create a feeling of distrust between conservatives and the communities that might identify with the illegal aliens

With these groups identified, we must watch these Democrats and demand action.

Do not let Democrats re-write the genetic code

Although there is no “gay” gene, journalists continue the search

Kirby Anderson of Point of View points out a central flaw within the “gay” gene debate.

DNA molecule research

Two weeks ago, the largest study of the genetic basis of sexuality was published in Science. Based on the genomes of nearly 500,000 people, the research concluded that there was no “gay gene.” But you wouldn’t know that from some of the headlines.

Associated Press proclaimed that “New Genetic Links to Same-Sex Sexuality Found in Huge Study.” The Washington Post was a little less spectacular: “There’s No One Gay Gene, but Genetics Are Linked to Same-Sex Behavior.” Fortunately, you had some headlines like NPR that offered a better perspective: “Search for Gay Genes Comes Up Short in Large New Study.”

The range of headlines illustrates how political and politically correct any discussion of same-sex attraction and homosexuality has become. Researchers and gay activists have been looking for this elusive “gay gene” for decades in order to affirm the cliché that homosexuals were “born that way.”

What the researchers found is that a few genes might have some influence on same-sex sexual behavior. To put that in perspective, consider that about 60 percent of height is influenced genetically, while the rest is due to environment. The research concludes that genetic influence of same-sex behavior is less than a third of that.

I also found it interesting that the researchers actually consulted with LGBTQ groups before publication in order to “clarify wording and highlight caveats.” I doubt that has been done for too many other scientific research studies.

(Read more at Point of View)

If you took just a sampling of the studies on identical twins and homosexuality, you could have predicted this reaction

By looking at the conclusions of a wide sampling of the scholarly articles on the occurrence of homosexuality with identical twins, you would have found phrases like:

  1. “(A)ttempts at final answers are only partially successful and beget still other scientific puzzles” (Whitam, Diamond, & Martin, 1993)
  2. “(M)ale homosexuality may be associated with a complex interaction, in which genes play some part” (Eckert, Bouchard, Bohlen, & Heston, 1986)
  3. “(T)he need of additional work in relation to the genetic aspects of homosexuality cannot possibly be questioned” (Kallman, 1952).

However, statements like the following were either cryptic or missing:

  1. “Discordance for sexual orientation in the monozygotic pairs confirmed that genetic factors are insufficient explanation of the development of sexual orientation” (King & McDonald, 1992). [Homosexuality cannot be inherited by only one individual out of two identical twins.]

Do not let Democrats redefine normalcy

Patriots’ Ben Watson Tells Media to ‘Stop Lying’ about Brees, Focus on the Family

Christian Headlines shows how Ben Watson called out the media for lying about Drew Brees and Focus on the Family.

ben-watson

A 15-year veteran of the NFL is defending New Orleans quarterback Drew Brees and Focus on the Family following mainstream media criticism of both.

Benjamin Watson, a tight end for the New England Patriots, said Monday the criticism against Brees and Focus on the Family was unfair and inaccurate. As Christian Headlines previously reported, Brees faced a backlash after he recorded a video promoting Bring Your Bible to School Day, which is being held Oct. 3 this year and is sponsored by Focus on the Family.

The criticism focused on the organization’s stance on LGBT issues, including its defense of the traditional definition of marriage. The articles that sparked the controversy said Focus on the Family was “anti-LGBT.”

Watson, who is known for his Christian views, previously played with Brees.

“My reaction was, first, that the article itself was misleading and a mischaracterization of Focus on the Family and of Drew. It was slanderous,” Watson said Monday on Fox and Friends. “And so my response was to stop lying with those sorts of labels.”

It is a lie, Watson said, to label Focus on the Family “as anti-gay, anti-non discrimination.”

“It’s a shame in this country right now, where if you adhere to certain biblical beliefs that we all have a right to choose what religion we adhere to, you’re labeled as anti,” he added. “What Focus on the Family does is uphold marriage. Family is the basic building block of society. [Focus on the Family] upholds those things, and they’re labeled [as] anti by other people. And there’s an agenda there. And that’s what really upset me.”

(Read more at Christian Headlines)

At one time, the Gay groups said all they wanted was acceptance
Now they seem to want to vilify anyone who doesn’t join them

As Jack Philips, Melissa Klein, Elaine Huguenin, Barronelle Stutzman, and a number of other Christians might testify, gay groups have been known to take peoples’ livelihoods in response to a perceived slight. This has to stop.

Loving and praying for our enemies must continue; however, standing by as our Christian brothers and sisters become victims of gay groups has to stop.