The Left's War Against Trump's Administration

[vector7]

Hubris – Nancy Pelosi Declares: “the senate rules are unfair” – “when rules become fair we will send articles”

Posted on December 18, 2019
by sundance

The entire House effort to impeach President Donald Trump has been a one-sided partisan effort; built upon a foundation of manipulation of process and dismissal of the minority rights throughout.

After the House voted along party lines, and in an act of stunning hubris, Speaker Pelosi now declares she will withhold the articles of impeachment until the Senate makes rules that she determines will be “fair” to the prosecution.



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr1AWCrhw1E



View: https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1207486045547163648

[vector7]

Cunning Lawfare Maneuver – House Will Withhold Submission of Articles from Senate

by sundance

Posted on December 18, 2019

Seemingly overlooked by most, when the House voted on the ‘rules of impeachment’ they removed the traditional appointment of House Managers to a later date.

Normally the House Managers would be appointed at the same time as the impeachment vote; however, by withholding the appointment House Democrats are indicating they will not immediately send articles of impeachment to the senate but will rather hold the articles as support for pending court cases toward their judicial authority.

A cunning Lawfare ploy.



As interested observers will note the House never voted to authorize the full judicial impeachment process; instead they voted to approve an inquiry into whether an impeachment should take place. By not voting to authorize articles of impeachment the House never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘. The absence of judicial authority is now working its way through the courts in various cases.

It appears the absence of appointing House impeachment managers; and the decision to withhold sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate; is now a specific design.

As the process appears to be unfolding, the Lawfare contracted lawyers representing the House: chief legal counsel Douglas Letter, Barry Berke, Norm Eisen and Daniel Goldman will now argue before the courts that all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for a pending judicial proceeding, a trial in the Senate.



What the house crew have assembled is an interesting back-door attempt to position a valid claim for evidence against the accused without having first gained judicial authority for it. The Lawfare crew will argue to the lower courts, and to SCOTUS, the blocked evidentiary material is critical evidence in a soon-to-be-held Senate trial.

The material they have been seeking is: (1) Mueller grand jury material; (2) a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn; and less importantly (3) Trump financial and tax records. Each of these issues is currently being argued in appellate courts (6e and McGahn) and the supreme court (financials/taxes).

The House impeachment of President Trump succeeds in applying the label “impeached president” that was their primary political purpose. President Trump is marred with the label of an ‘impeached president’.

Now the delay in sending the articles of impeachment allows the House lawyers to gather additional evidence while the impeachment case sits in limbo.

The House essentially blocks any/all impeachment activity in the Senate by denying the transfer of the articles from the House to the Senate. Additionally, the House will now impede any other Senate legislative action because the House will hold the Senate captive. Meanwhile the Democrat presidential candidates can run against an impeached President.

Lawfare’s legal svengali Lawrence Tribe recently penned an op-ed with this type of recommendation; and it appears the community that worships Tribe, including the House lawyers writ large, are following his advice.

While Politico outlines the plan from a position if the scheme as a new idea, the fact the House impeachment rules were changed to drop the appointment of the managers speaks to considerable forethought on this type of plan.

It does not appear this is a new idea; rather it looks like this is a pre-planned procedural process by design:

Washington – House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking lawmaker in the House, said Wednesday that Democrats must discuss a last-ditch gambit to delay sending articles of impeachment to the Senate and prevent the Republican-controlled chamber from summarily discarding the case against President Donald Trump.

“Some think it’s a good idea. And we need to talk about it,” Hoyer said just as the House began debating articles of impeachment that charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

In recent weeks, some legal scholars have suggested Speaker Nancy Pelosi could consider refusing to transmit articles of impeachment — likely to pass the House Wednesday evening — to the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has declared he is coordinating trial strategy with the White House.

[…] Notably, House Judiciary Committee Democrats huddled with Tribe earlier this month as they practiced behind closed doors for their series of impeachment hearings.

[…] the House could use the delay to continue to build on its evidence for impeachment, and possibly to score additional legal victories that could unlock troves of new evidence and witness testimony that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress. Some of those court cases could be decided within weeks. (read more)

[MEDIA=twitter]1207477293368647681[/MEDIA]
View: https://twitter.com/RepGosar/status/1207477293368647681

[vector7]

Democrats Celebrate After ‘Sad and Somber’ Impeachment of President Trump

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Kristina Wong

18 Dec 2019336

2:16

House Democrats clapped and celebrated after they passed two articles of impeachment against President Trump, despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly telling them not to, as she has sought to portray the impeachment as a solemn and sad event.


After the first article on abuse of power passed, Democrats broke out in applause for several seconds before Pelosi shot them a stern look.
At least one Democrat shouted “Yay!” according to a Politico reporter:

At least one Democrat shouted "yay!" and several clapped after the House voted to impeach Trump for abuse of power — defying Pelosi's precise orders not to celebrate.
Shortly afterwards, cheers of "four more years" broke out on GOP side.
— Sarah Ferris (@sarahnferris) December 19, 2019

After the second article on obstruction of Congress passed, someone again shouted what sounded like, “Yay!”
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) tweeted out a video that showed Pelosi giving Democrats the stern look to get them to stop clapping:

WATCH → Dems expose their true colors.
Nancy Pelosi had to shut down Democrat applause when the first article of impeachment passed.
So much for Dems claiming impeachment is "solemn" for them.
What a ridiculous lie! pic.twitter.com/NJjzE8y3t7
— Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) December 19, 2019

Pelosi reportedly wore black attire since the impeachment vote marked a “somber day.”


The cheering and clapping went against what Democrat leaders planned. Earlier in the day, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), who presided over the impeachment debate, said, “This is a sad and somber moment in our nation’s history and the responsibility to preside over this important debate is something I will not take lightly.”

Speaker Pelosi has asked me to serve as speaker pro tempore and preside over the House for today’s impeachment debate.


This is a sad and somber moment in our nation’s history and the responsibility to preside is something I won't take lightly.https://t.co/ZIprrgZzO4
— Rep. Diana DeGette (@RepDianaDeGette) December 18, 2019

Democrat strategist Jon Cooper also tweeted earlier in the day: “Today is not a day for celebration. It’s an extremely sad and somber day.”

Today is not a day for celebration. It’s an extremely sad and somber day. No member came to Congress to impeach a president, but all of them took a sacred oath. Failing to act in the face of Trump’s blatant abuses of power would be a dereliction of duty. ���� #DefendOurDemocracy
— Jon Cooper ���� (@joncoopertweets) December 18, 2019

However, despite Pelosi’s instructions, some Democrats appeared to be jovial before the vote. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who has come under fire in her red district, was seen laughing and smiling as she went to vote on impeachment, according to a National Republican Congressional Committee communications staffer:

On this “somber” day, here is ⁦@ElissaSlotkin⁩ laughing and smiling on her way to impeach the President of the United States. #MI08 pic.twitter.com/l4evmvZj7l
— Carly Atchison (@CarlyAtch) December 18, 2019

And House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) was allegedly seen “drinking and cheering” at a fancy restaurant with the entire Democrat committee staff last night:

Adam Schiff and the entire democratic house intel committee were at a fancy restaurant last night drinking and cheering about the ‘impeachment.’


Now they’ll be on TV today saying what a somber and sad day in history this is…


These people disgust me.pic.twitter.com/jKKPUzgJzy


— Alex Bruesewitz (@alexbruesewitz) December 18, 2019

Breitbart News also caught Schiff’s staff celebrating after the last day of impeachment inquiry hearings at a Capitol Hill bar last month. An area was booked and cordoned off for the celebration. The staffers toasted each other at least three times.

[vector7]

Rep. Stewart: If the Dems Impeach Trump, 'Every President in Our Future Will Be Impeached'



https://youtu.be/wapoHXPN-DY

[vector7]

99 Things Democrats Have Said Trump Could Be Impeached For

Dec 18, 2019 9:48 AM
By Tom Elliott



President Trump was only in office two weeks before a Democratic congressman called for his impeachment.

On Feb. 1, 2017, mere days after the Trump’s inauguration, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) said the House should consider impeaching the president in the event he doesn’t abide by court orders related to his travel ban.

President Trump did end up abiding by these court orders, but that didn’t stop Democrats’ calls for impeachment. Over the ensuing months, and years, Democrats have regularly come up with reasons why they should impeach the president.

At current count, Democrats have proffered 96 different reasons for impeaching Trump.

Below you’ll see a news list we’ve cross-posted from our sister site, NewsLists.co — the original is here — which is displayed chronologically.

By far the Democrats coming up with the most reasons for impeachment are Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Rep. Al Green (D-Texas). At current count, Waters has produced 14 different reasons she thinks Trump’s impeachable; Green’s come up with 18.

A few of the more interesting: Rep. Green suggested impeaching Trump after his supporters chanted “send her back” in reference to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.); Rep. Waters has said he should be impeached simply for being “despicable.”

Those, of course, are just a sampling. See below for the comprehensive list. And if we’re missing any, you can add more by visiting NewsLists.co.

#	Summary	Date	Source	Accuser
1	For potentially ignoring court orders on his travel ban	02/01/2017	MSNBC	Joaquin Castro
2	Because "we have to"	02/06/2017	Grabien	Maxine Waters
3	For "creating chaos and division"	02/06/2017	CNN	Maxine Waters
4	For potentially supplying damaging information	02/20/2017	MSNBC	Jerry Nadler
5	For trying to "undermine Hillary Clinton and therefore undermine our democracy"	03/23/2017	Grabien	Maxine Waters
6	Because his "motives and actions are contemptible"	04/15/2017	NTK Network	Maxine Waters
7	For "collusion"	05/11/2017	MSNBC	Maxine Waters
8	Because "he regards himself as above the law"	05/14/2017	ABC	Lawrence Tribe
9	For firing Comey	05/15/2017	MSNBC	Al Green
10	For allegedly disclosing classified info to Russia	05/16/2017	The Washington Free Beacon	Maxine Waters
11	For Comey saying Trump asked him to drop Flynn probe	05/17/2017	MSNBC	Jerry Nadler
12	For being "mentally unstable"	05/22/2017	MSNBC	Ron Reagan
13	Because they've been able to "connect the dots"	05/28/2017	MSNBC	Maxine Waters
14	Because "a plurality of polls" supports it	06/07/2017	ABC News	Al Green
15	For being "abnormal" and possibly "crazy"	07/07/2017	NTK Network	Maxine Waters
16	For banning transgenders from serving in the military	10/11/2017	Grabien	Al Green
17	For "disrespecting and disparaging women"	10/11/2017	CSPAN	Al Green
18	For saying NFL athletes should stand for the national anthem	10/19/2017	CSPAN	Al Green
19	For being "friends" with Putin	10/24/2017	CNN	Maxine Waters
20	For being "a clear and present danger" to Americans	10/25/2017	MSNBC	Tom Steyer
21	For "putting the health and safety of Americans at risk"	10/28/2017	MSNBC	Tom Steyer
22	For being an "inciter" of "ethnocentrism"	11/08/2017	CSPAN	Al Green
23	For promoting "xenophobia"	11/08/2017	CSPAN	Al Green
24	For inciting "bigotry"	11/08/2017	CSPAN	Al Green
25	For being an "inciter" of "hatred"	11/08/2017	CSPAN	Al Green
26	For "undermining the federal judiciary"	11/15/2017	Grabien	Steve Cohen
27	For mocking a disabled journalist	11/16/2017	Bloomberg	Maxine Waters
28	For the "Access Hollywood" tape	11/16/2017	Bloomberg	Maxine Waters
29	For "threatening the media"	11/18/2017	MSNBC	John Yarmuth
30	For "taking money from foreign governments"	11/26/2017	CNN	Tom Steyer
31	For "dereliction of duty"	12/03/2017	MSNBC	Ted Lieu
32	For being incompetent	12/04/2017	MSNBC	Ezra Klein
33	For bringing "dishonor" upon the United States	12/06/2017	CSPAN	Al Green
34	For being "psychologically deranged"	12/16/2017	MSNBC	Richard Painter
35	For being "racist, sexist, and Islamaphobic"	12/30/2017	MSNBC	Anushay Hossain
36	For not believing in the Constitution	12/30/2017	MSNBC	Karine Jean-Pierre
37	For being "unfit" for office	01/08/2018	MSNBC	Tom Steyer
38	For saying some countries are "shitholes"	01/14/2018	MSNBC	Al Green
39	For his aides talking to Russians	01/26/2018	CNN	Cory Booker
40	For urging Sessions to investigate Hillary	02/28/2018	MSNBC	Chris Hayes
41	For not being respectful	03/04/2018	MSNBC	Maxine Waters
42	For being "the most dangerous president in American history"	03/05/2018	MSNBC	Tom Perez
43	For name calling	03/12/2018	MSNBC	Maxine Waters
44	For A.G. Sessions firing Andrew McCabe	03/16/2018	MSNBC	Danny Cevallos
45	For violating the "emoluments clause"	03/20/2018	MSNBC	Tom Steyer
46	For possibly considering "firing" Mueller	03/23/2018	CNN	Ted Lieu
47	For being "unwilling to make it clear" Russians can't hack America's "critical infrastructure"	03/26/2018	MSNBC	John Garamendi
48	For being "unworthy" and "despicable"	03/27/2018	MSNBC	Maxine Waters
49	Because "we have the grounds to do it"	06/27/2018	CNN	Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
50	For staffing Trump Tower with park rangers	01/16/2019	MSNBC	Rashida Tlaib
51	For the BuzzFeed report on Cohen	01/18/2019	MSNBC	Eugene Robinson
52	For the "so many things" he has done	01/20/2019	MSNBC	Maxine Waters
53	Because Virginia's governor wore blackface	02/08/2019	CSPAN	Al Green
54	To prevent his re-election	05/04/2019	MSNBC	Al Green
55	Because the "system of checks and balances is at risk"	05/15/2019	C-SPAN	Al Green
56	To prevent a "monarchy"	05/15/2019	C-SPAN	Al Green
57	For not releasing his tax returns	05/16/2019	Campaign Ad	Tom Steyer
58	To put a "stain" on his presidency	05/25/2019	MSNBC	Karine Jean-Pierre
59	Because it's "critical to our national security"	05/27/2019	MSNBC	Richard Painter
60	Because it would be "crazy not to do it"	05/30/2019	CNN	John Hickenlooper
61	In order to "set a precedent" for future presidents	06/01/2019	MSNBC	Karine Jean-Pierre
62	Because we have a "moral obligation"	06/02/2019	CNN	Cory Booker
63	Because it will help "educate" and "inform" the American public	06/03/2019	MSNBC	Mike Quigley
64	Because the president "is leaving us no choice"	06/04/2019	CNN	Dan Kildee
65	Because it's our "constitutional duty" to "have this debate"	06/08/2019	MSNBC	Seth Moulton
66	For failing to "produce evidence"	06/10/2019	CNN	Steve Cohen
67	For saying the press is the "enemy of the people"	06/10/2019	CNN	Steve Cohen
68	For saying he'd take "dirt" on rivals from foreigners	06/13/2019	CNN	Steve Cohen
69	For Kellyanne Conway's alleged Hatch Act violation	06/14/2019	MSNBC	Richard Painter
70	To ensure Robert Mueller's work is continued	06/19/2019	NTK Network	Katie Porter
71	For being "above the law"	07/11/2019	C-SPAN	Al Green
72	For "inhumane" conditions at the border	07/15/2019	MSNBC	Rashida Tlaib
73	For "high crimes and misdemeanors"	07/15/2019	MSNBC	Ilhan Omar
74	For administration officials defying congressional subpoenas	07/16/2019	C-SPAN	Ann Kirkpatrick
75	For saying fellow Americans should "go back to other countries"	07/17/2019	C-SPAN	Al Green
76	For Trump crowd's "send her back" chant	07/18/2019	CNN	Al Green
77	For attacks on the judiciary	07/19/2019	MSNBC	Steve Cohen
78	Because we're in a "constitutional crisis"	07/25/2019	C-SPAN	Al Green
79	For offering to host G7 summit at Doral	08/31/2019	MSNBC	House Judiciary Committee
80	For influencing the decision of the new FBI building's location	08/31/2019	MSNBC	Mike Quigley
81	For publicising his own assets	08/31/2019	MSNBC	Mike Quigley
82	For suggesting a company for Army Corps to award wall production contract	08/31/2019	MSNBC	Richard Painter
83	For talking like Hitler	08/31/2019	MSNBC	Richard Painter
84	Because every new impeachable offense makes it harder to take action	08/31/2019	MSNBC	David Cicilline
85	To ensure "our democracy" is "saved"	09/10/2019	MSNBC	Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
86	For investigating Hunter Biden	09/22/2019	CNN	Adam Schiff
87	For "hijacking" American foreign policy	09/23/2019	MSNBC	Chris Hayes
88	For betraying his oath of office	09/24/2019	Politico	Nancy Pelosi
89	For "coercing" a foreign government	09/25/2019	MSNBC	Matthew Miller
90	For "extorting" a foreign government	09/25/2019	MSNBC	Matthew Miller
91	For "intimidating" the whistleblower	10/01/2019	ABC	Jon Karl
92	For Kurt Volker's text messages with Ukraine	10/04/2019	CNN	Jim Himes
93	For being a "traitor"	10/06/2019	CNN	Joe Walsh
94	For blocking US ambassador to EU from testifying	10/08/2019	Washington Examiner	Adam Schiff
95	For likening impeachment to "lynching"	10/22/2019	CSPAN	Al Green
96	For pronouncing November 'National American History and Founders Month'	11/05/2019	Twitter	Rashida Tlaib
97	For "intimidation" of witness Yovanovitch with tweets	11/15/2019	CNN	Eric Swalwell
98	For 'trying to use the court system'	11/22/2019	Washington Free Beacon	Pramila Jayapal
99	For joking about shooting someone on 5th Avenue	12/17/2019	Grabien	Norma Torres

List via NewsLists.co

[vector7]

Levin: Dems Impeached Trump to Prevent Him Making Another Supreme Court Pick

Would refuse to vote for any justice selected by an “impeached president.”


Published
1 min ago on
19 December, 2019



Radio host Mark Levin says that one of the real reasons why the Democrats impeached President Trump is to prevent him making another Supreme Court pick.

Levin relayed a conversation he had with his neighbor in which the two discussed how Democrats would refuse to vote for any justice selected by an “impeached president.”

“A neighbor of mine came up to me … and said something that was quite profound,” said Levin. “He said to me, ‘I’m convinced one of the reasons they’re impeaching the president is the Supreme Court.’ I said, really? What do you mean by that?”

“‘Well, the president has less than 11 months to go,'” Levin’s neighbor responded. “‘Ruth Bader Ginsburg appears to be very ill.'”

“‘Should she have to leave the bench, by hook or by crook, they want to be able to say that not only will we not allow this president or, for that matter, any Supreme Court Justice in the remaining — whatever number of months — of his presidency, but we will never allow an impeached president to appoint anybody else to the Supreme Court, whether he wins reelection or not.'”

Levin said he agreed with his neighbor that this is one of the primary reasons why Democrats decided to impeach Trump despite knowing the Senate is guaranteed to shoot it down.

As we highlighted earlier, Nancy Pelosi is also likely trying to delay sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate so Democrats can issue more subpoenas and gather more evidence against Trump.

[vector7]

The Democrats Power Coup is starting to materialize...

Breaking: Adam Schiff Sets Eyes on Pence – Tells MSNBC He’s “Acquired Evidence” from Vice President’s Office on Ukrainian Investigation

by Jim Hoft December 19, 2019 389 Comments


Adam Schiff went on with Rachel Maddow last night to push their Trump-Ukraine conspiracy — something that was completely debunked everywhere after three weeks of testimony except on CNN, MSNBC and the fake news media.

During their conversation Schiff announced he was going after Vice President Mike Pence next and may have “acquired evidence” that the Vice President is hiding information in the House Ukrainian investigation.

Adam Schiff: Well, we have acquired a piece of evidence, classified by Jennifer Williams, something she alluded to in her open testimony. Then going back and looking through her records she found other information that was pertinent to that phone call that we asked her about and made that submission.

There is nothing that is classified in the document but the vice president’s office has said they are going to classify… It is not proper to classify something because it would be embarrassing or incriminating. And that submission does shed light on the vice president’s knowledge. We think the American people should see it.

Jennifer Williams testified before Congress in November and offered nothing. She worked for Vice President Mike Pence. So now Schiff has Democrats thinking Williams holds the key to Pence’s impeachment.
Read more

Then President Pelosi will RULE!

These people are crazy!



Hat Tip Bill

Up Next: Impeach Pence! pic.twitter.com/tIMVEPEDeJ

— Ryan Knight 🏳️*🌈🗽 (@ProudResister) December 19, 2019

Schiff: Americans Should See Evidence Pence Has Made Classified | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC (2:50)

https://youtu.be/1aGClxWBvBU


A warning to conservatives: Don't get complacent on impeachment

By Michael Finch



A march to ruin, a gang of Mafiosi has been unleashed on our great nation from the bowels of Capitol Hill. This is a modern-day NKVD, a Moscow show trial of revolutionary zealots that would made Felix Dzerzhinsky proud. This sham of a witch hunt is tailor-made for Hollywood, Adam Schiff playing Beria, CNN and the N.Y. Times playing Pravda. Stalin just hasn't appeared on stage yet; fear that his time is coming.

Now impeachment is upon us. Anyone who claims with certainty that he knows exactly what the next few months will bring is fooling himself. Yes, the Senate may acquit; those senators may just dismiss this hoax and spare us a trial. But then what? Does one really think the Democrats will fold up the tent and scurry away? The forces unleased by this shredding of the Constitution are unknown to all, and for one to assume that this will easily lead to a Trump landslide and a Democrat massive defeat is delusional and clueless as to the motives and nature of the Left.

The damage being done is incalculable, and what this all could portend is beyond our worst nightmares. The Democrats have shunned our forefathers, the bequeathing of liberty, all lost for their lust for power. What lies beyond that power is nothing but darkness and death — the death of our Republic and so much more, all built on their Utopian fantasies. The world's last best hope of freedom's light extinguished. They are this close to achieving their ultimate goal.

Orwell had it right: the pigs will indeed walk on two feet, take over the House and party like gluttons in their dachas, while the masses will suffer slow, quiet lives of poverty-ridden desperation down on the farm. The Left say we will be like Sweden, but only in their dreams. Within twenty years, we will be Venezuela on steroids, a living hell of rationing, starvation, and torture. It is always so.

This is the worst crisis America has ever faced — more than the Civil War, more than the American Revolution, dare I say. The worst outcome of that struggle would have been that we remained colonies of the British Empire. A colony of 18th- and 19th-century British rule would pale in comparison to what the leftist cabal of thugs of the new Democrat Party has in store for us. Get the Gulags ready.

Say a prayer for Donald Trump, him who is flawed, imperfect, and loathed, but inexplicably the one and only thing that stands between a free America and the abyss. Love or hate him, he is our modern-day Washington. He has been sent to us; God's hand is on him. The smart class will no doubt snicker at that thought, but God's ways are not of our understanding.

The hated Trump is the one man who stood for our cherished beliefs and values. He has been ridiculed, mocked, and insulted, and, sadly, we see this even among many of our fellow conservatives. Some remained NeverTrumps; others hide their disdain, straddling the fence, waiting for him to fail, staying quiet, fearful they will lose their Twitter followers and donors.

I have heard all the buts: but yes, the House has impeached him, but the Senate will not convict. Perhaps, maybe. Or maybe a gaggle of Republican senators will make that walk up Pennsylvania Avenue just like in 1974, urging Nixon to resign, to save the country such grief. As of today, that won't happen, but the Left isn't done. The impeachment vote is just one step.

If the winds blow ill, can one really say with total certainty that a group led by McConnell, Sasse, Graham, and company won't bow to pressure and do the "honorable" thing in order to rid the nation of this travesty? Can't happen, you say? All I know is that to put our faith in the spines of the GOP members on the Hill is nothing but false hope. Pray it ends well, but don't bet on it. Just as with war, when this next act begins, no one knows the outcome.

The establishment of the GOP may just make the backroom deals and rationalize that this is their opportunity to take the party back from the usurper Trump. We all know that loyalty in our Capitol lasts but a moment. Of course, there is no going back; the Republicans of Romney, Ryan, and the rest being back in control will result in our ruin. Maybe a slower slide, a prolonged death of the Republic, but the end comes, all the same.

Titanic shifts are ahead of us. Will Trump survive? Will the movement he has created be suffocated in its cradle, or will it allow for a rebirth of America, the awakening we so desperately need? If Trump survives, we have a brief reprieve, though the Left's relentless pursuit of power will not slow, and the war against Trump will never cease. The impeachment vote in the House is just the beginning.

We had better saddle up.

[vector7]

I Will Never Forgive White People for Donald Trump



Damon Young

Today 1:00PM•
Filed to:donald trump



I forget sometimes that Donald Trump is president.

I’ve tried to convince myself that this is intentional; a willful misremembering of reality necessary to process his span in office. There’d be a nobility there, I think, as this would suggest I’m so empathetic, so down, so woke, that I can’t even sleep without tricking myself into amnesia.

But nah. That would give him (and me) too much credit. I forget sometimes for the same reason I forgot this month that the second Tuesday is street cleaning day in my neighborhood. The same reason I went to bed last night without flossing. There are just too many things to think and feel and do during the day to remember them all. Sometimes, I even forget he’s president while I’m remembering, processing, and reacting to a thing he just did. Which reminds me, in a way, of how a Nexium pill each morning is a part of my daily routine, but I rarely think of the acid reflux it’s prescribed to prevent.

An efficient way of lifting me out of this fog is TV. I don’t watch cable news much, but the impeachment proceedings have glued me to the screen this week, reminding me of his presence in a visceral way his tweets can’t capture. His voice. His face. His words. And then, I am reminded that this guy—the casino guy, the Central Park Five full-page-ad guy, the Birther guy, the “grab them by the” you-know-what guy—was elected president. President. This is the man 60 million Americans voted for. Donald Trump? Him?

When this happens, I’m reminded, again, of exactly who elected him, exactly why he was elected, exactly who still supports him, and exactly who I hold responsible for this happening. And I’m reminded, again, that I’ll never forgive white people for doing this.

I’m aware that this feeling transmutes white Americans into a collective, distilling a demographic of hundreds of millions down to its least desirable parts. While “not all white people” has become the canonical clichéd reply to this sort of charge, it is also not false. Not all white people voted for Trump. Not all white people support Trump. And sometimes it feels wildly unfair to lump all in with the undesirables. But being fair to white people feels, well, irrational today. It feels dumb to offer a benefit of the doubt while knowing that 54 percent of whites either voted for a racist specifically because he’s racist or didn’t believe racism mattered enough to lose a vote. It feels stupid when realizing that this majority isn’t just the frothing seas of MAGA, but also the white people who seem to be otherwise…decent. A morning shift barista at your favorite neighborhood coffee shop. A co-worker you share silly memes and quiche recipes with. A small forward on your rec league basketball team.

Of course, the sort of negotiation necessary to exist while black in America demands both an awareness of the ubiquity of racism and an evolving calculus where we decide how we wish to proceed with that information. We know that the plumber we recently hired or the human resources manager we had coffee with yesterday morning might also be a racist, so if they’re discovered to be one it’s not quite the end of the world. Just “Well, that sucks. But did you fix my bathroom sink leak yet?” While also explosive and violent and deadly and essential to our country’s foundation, racism is mostly just rote as fuck. It’s America’s paint primer.

But what distinguishes support of Trump is scale. They knew that he’s a cheater, a charlatan, a chickenhawk, and a scammer—and also that they’d likely be grifted by him, too—but they just didn’t care. His commitment to preserving whiteness’ status superseded all else, including their own livelihoods. I—and I’ll admit to my own naïveté here—underestimated that appeal. I knew they were willing to sacrifice us to retain America’s racial hierarchy. I didn’t realize they were willing to sacrifice themselves and the rest of the world, too. Cut off a nose to spite a race.

What urges me sometimes to consider being more forgiving is critical race theory, which argues that race is a social construct and that racism is the father of race, not the child. If racism is America’s most essential element—the fulcrum everything from our livelihoods to our legal system hinges upon—then maybe it’s unreasonable to expect individual whites to possess enough willpower to resist the sway of a 400-year-old behemoth. This theory even helps explain the behavior of presumably well-meaning white people, such as the New York Times’ David Leonhardt, who in “No, It Wasn’t Just Racism” suggested that racial and economic fears had equal resonance with Trump voters; anxieties working together like flour and eggs to bake a cake. While it’s true, as he argued, that these forces are symbiotic, their impacts are disproportionate. I mean, both Kawhi Leonard and Jeremy Lin won a championship with the Toronto Raptors last year, but only one was Finals MVP.

I’ve long been fascinated with how people like him can stare at the sun—so bright, so blinding, so there—and just see smog. What’s wrong with your eyes, man? How can you not see what’s so obvious?

But this sort of learned astigmatism is what existing while American in America demands of you. It doesn’t allow you to accept that the innermost core of our national zeitgeist is racism. That’s too indicting, too damning, too gargantuan, too easy. Is it Leonhardt’s fault that he has blind spots? And that this vision gap flattens black working-class anxiety while giving the white working-class complex origin stories and relatable pathoses like they’re Marvel Avengers? And that this flattening alone is proof of racism’s disproportionate impact on America’s behavior? Maybe. I don’t know.

I just know that, when I turn on the TV and see Trump’s face, I’m immediately reminded of why he is president. I’m immediately cognizant of the psychic and physical impacts of his presidency, and the joy he seems to derive from cruelty. I’m immediately mindful of how his presence is perpetually exacerbating, providing racists and misogynists an unambiguous spiritual co-signature.

And I find myself in less of a forgiving mood. Sometimes I wonder if I ever even wanted to attempt forgiveness; if trying to forgive white people for this is a lie I told myself to make me feel better about myself. And, well, I guess we each have stories we tell ourselves to live.



Trump Impeachment Circus: Did a Top Democrat Really Just Say Let's 'Hang' Trump?

Matt Vespa
Posted: Dec 19, 2019 3:08 PM



We all knew the Trump impeachment push was going to be a circus, but this really has careened off the cliff. After House Democrats fulfilled their fantasy of impeaching Trump based on shoddy quid pro quo allegations concerning military aid to Ukraine. This is all based on that infamous July phone call where Trump supposedly threatened to withhold aid unless they investigated possibly corruption allegations into Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, who sat on the board of an energy company. Impeaching Trump has been an obsession since day one of the Trump White House.

On a party-line vote, Democrats approved the obstruction of Congress and abuse of power charges, which are laughable. The Republican Party held firm. There were no defections. During the debate, the GOP beat the Democratic cause to a pulp. Yet, as this impeachment push awaits certain death in the Republican Senate, House Democrats are actually mulling withholding the articles because they know Republicans won’t remove Trump.

All-day yesterday, no—for months, we’ve been hearing from Democrats about how Trump is a threat to democracy. He’s a clear and present danger. And yet, we’re going to hold onto these impeachment articles because…we’re certain to lose. I thought this was an emergency. And now, House Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, want to create a constitutional crisis over this?

We also heard that Democrats were sad about impeaching Trump or something. Yeah, we all remember Rep. Rashida Tliab (D-MI) “impeach the motherf**ker” remarks. The Democrats promised this in 2018. And did Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) suggest that we have a fair trial for Trump in the Senate and then hang him? He also said that House Democrats should withhold the articles as long as required. This is extortion. Democrats are mad that they’re not running the show in the upper chamber and think they can set the rules. Not the case; that’s up to Mitch McConnell. Elections have consequences. We run the Senate.

[MEDIA=twitter]1207720482520342528[/MEDIA]
View: https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1207720482520342528

[MEDIA=twitter]1207654179633803266[/MEDIA]
View: https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1207654179633803266

[MEDIA=twitter]1207717586865213442[/MEDIA]
View: https://twitter.com/EddieZipperer/status/1207717586865213442

Now, the Trump War Room did cut the clip that shows Clyburn making this comment. It’s insane. It exposes the nature of the Trump impeachment push, but there’s more context to this. Frankly, the more shocking part about this is Clyburn declaring that Democrats would be nuts to transmit the articles if McConnell is going to host a—wait for it—kangaroo court. Clyburn’s “hang” comment relates that that. Again, Democrats know what McConnell will do, which is akin to someone saying let’s give him or her a fair trial and then hanging them. Still, the overall conduct of House Democrats has exposed this clown show.

The House investigates and the Senate hosts a trial based on their findings. And the findings are laughably weak. It’s clear that even House Democrats know their argument is garbage. It’s a promise to the base. It’s a political witch-hunt. And that’s why swing-state voters aren’t supportive of impeachment.

[vector7]

BREAKING: John Durham asking for John Brennan’s emails, call logs from CIA!

Dec. 19, 2019 8:05 pm by The Right Scoop • 37 Comments

It’s being reported now that John Durham has set his sights on former CIA Director John Brennan, asking for his emails, call logs, and other documents from the CIA:

NY TIMES – The federal prosecutor scrutinizing the Russia investigation has begun examining the role of the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan in how the intelligence community assessed Russia’s 2016 election interference, according to three people briefed on the inquiry.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates.

Mr. Durham is also examining whether Mr. Brennan privately contradicted his public comments, including May 2017 testimony to Congress, about both the dossier and about any debate among the intelligence agencies over their conclusions on Russia’s interference, the people said.

The people familiar with Mr. Durham’s inquiry stressed that it was continuing and it was not clear what crimes, if any, he had uncovered. Representatives for Mr. Brennan and the Justice Department declined to comment.

This doesn’t look good for Brennan, who undoubtedly played a big part in this Trump/Russia investigation. That doesn’t mean he’s guilty of any crimes, but if I were a betting man…

In their write-up of this article the Times added in one paragraph to tell the anti-Trump media how they should spin this:

Mr. Durham’s pursuit of Mr. Brennan’s records is certain to add to accusations that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies. The president has long attacked Mr. Brennan as part of his narrative about a so-called deep state cabal of Obama administration officials who tried to sabotage his campaign, and Mr. Trump has held out Mr. Durham’s investigation as a potential avenue for proving those claims.

That is complete utter garbage. Even AG Barr, whose interview just aired on McCallum’s show, said he doesn’t even know who Durham is interviewing or investigating because he doesn’t keep up with the day to day. And if he doesn’t know, how the heck is Trump going to know? To suggest Trump is using the DOJ to go after ‘perceived enemies’ is just the NY Times trying to invent an anti-Trump narrative in order to attack the president.

As an aside, Barr said in his interview with McCallum that when he appointed Durham to do the investigation, he didn’t even know Durham personally. He said all that he knew of Durham was that he was legendary in the DOJ as a prosecutor and for being fair. So again, for the NY Times to suggest this is completely baseless and, as I said, garbage.



View: https://twitter.com/AnthemRespect/status/1135320362525179905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[vector7]

Was Trump Actually Impeached? Legal Expert Called By Dems In Hearing Says No
Nick Arama

4-5 minutes



Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman gives his opening statement as he testifies during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on the constitutional grounds for the impeachment of President Donald Trump, Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

If nothing else, Democrats’ manipulations are giving everyone a review of the Constitution.

As we observed yesterday, many liberals didn’t seem to understand that impeachment didn’t mean removal.
Most people of course knew that.

But there’s a finer point here, that Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law professor is claiming and others are also questioning this morning.

Feldman, who ironically was a witness for the Democrats during the impeachment hearings and who argued for Trump’s impeachment, is saying he hasn’t actually been impeached yet.



House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is playing this game of considering whether she will sit on the Articles of Impeachment and not pass them to the Senate, until they get and agreement to a “fair trail,” claiming senators have indicated bias and might not let them have witnesses they want.

That takes some nerve given the manifestly unfair process they’ve employed in the House.

But that sets up a situation that’s never been seen before and Feldman is saying it means that the House hasn’t actually impeached yet.

From Daily Wire:

The Constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment and gives the Senate the sole power over the trial. Current Senate rules provide that the House is to notify the Senate that managers have been appointed to present the articles to the Senate and the Senate shall immediately respond they are ready to receive them.

So while Pelosi may be playing this game to deny President Donald Trump an acquittal and/or to play for more time for more evidence or a change in the Senate, her own expert is undercutting her claim that Trump was impeached at all and is pointing out that she and Democrats are doing harm to the process.

Trump called out the process as being manifestly unfair during his rally in Michigan and he blasted it again on Twitter.

This obvious manipulation and delay only adds even greater credence to the argument it’s all political and that can’t play well for Pelosi with the American public.

[vector7]

Luongo: Pelosi's Coup Attempt Is Now Open Warfare, "There Will Be Casualties"

by Tyler Durden

Fri, 12/20/2019 - 09:0

Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, 'n Guns blog,


The Democrats declared war this week. Not on Donald Trump but on the United States and the Constitution.

What started as a coup to overturn the 2016 election has now morphed into a Civil War as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Fran-feces) presided over the passage of a bill which creates a clear Constitutional Crisis.

And that means we have multiple factions vying for control of our government, the definition of a Civil War.

In passing these articles of impeachment against President Trump Congress has arrogated to itself powers it does not have.

The first article asserts a motive to Trump’s actions to invalidate his role as chief law enforcement officer for the country. It doesn’t matter if you like him or any President having this power, he does have it.

Read that first article and then apply it to a country other than Ukraine where Trump didn’t have ‘probable cause’ for investigation into corruption and malfeasance there.

That could be Abuse of Power.

But this happened in Ukraine where Trump clearly has probable cause.

The following is the scenario the first impeachment article is asserting as the basis for abuse of power, through ascribing political motives to the President:

One day President Trump wakes up and says, “Shit! Joe Biden’s leading me in the polls. I need to do something about this.”
So, Trump twirls his orange comb-over and calls up the Prime Minister of Armenia, a Russian ally, to whom we’ve pledged aid. Since it’s a Russian ally and Trump may have colluded with the Russians, they would be a good candidate to help him.
But Joe Biden has no history of diplomacy or oversight in Armenia as Vice-President. There’s no record of any contact of any kind with Biden in Armenia, for argument’s sake.
Trump then, during the phone call, shakes down the Armenian PM for that aid, explicitly saying he must create dirt on Joe Biden or he would withhold appropriated aid funds to the country.
Then, after getting caught, Trump tries to hide the record of the phone call by hiding behind Executive Privilege.

That would be Abuse of Power and an impeachable offense. It would be regrettable but indefensible that the odious jackals in Congress were right to impeach him. They would, actually, be defending the Constitution and fully within their rights.

But, that’s not what happened.

Biden was put in charge of Ukraine by President Obama. He had full discretion on policy towards Ukraine and was caught on tape bragging about doing exactly what the impeachment article is accusing Trump of doing. Shaking Ukraine down for favors in order to get $1 billion in aid.

Since the prosecutor who Biden had fired was investigating corruption into his son Hunter’s involvement with Ukrainian gas company Burisma, this admission is pretty damning, showing clear personal motive to use his office to stop investigation into his family.

This is Abuse of Power. This is subjecting U.S. foreign policy to the whims of an elected official, squelching an investigation into his personal family, using the office for personal gain.

So, when viewed through this lens the first impeachment article is a complete lie. Trump didn’t do the things asserted. The transcript of the phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky proves that.

Trump made the phone call public immediately.

The phone call and Trump’s order to review the foreign aid were contemporaneous but not conditional. If you have a non-charitable view of the President it may raise some questions, but there was probable cause here.

Your opinions on Trump do not add up to High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The implications of this impeachment article are, however, staggering.

It says explicitly that the U.S. president cannot discharge his duties as a law enforcement official if the person of interest is someone of the opposite party or a potential electoral opponent.

It says that probable cause is not a standard for investigation only political considerations.

That’s a clear violation of Congress’ role. Congress writes laws. The President executes them. If the Congress wants to assume law enforcement powers it should work to amend the Constitution.

This is a clear example of why impeachment is a political process not a legal one. But, if they are going to act this politically, at least they should put the veneer of legality on it. Even the equally odious Republicans who impeached Bill Clinton did that.

But in asserting this as an offence Congress seeks to place the Legislative Branch as superior to the Executive in matters of law enforcement and implementation.
That’s a clear violation of the separation of powers. It may suck that the guy holding the Office of the Presidency is someone you don’t like or not willing to turn a blind eye to corruption, but doing his job is not a ‘high crime or misdemeanor.’

The second article is even worse. Because asserts the power to subpoena members of the Executive branch under the impeachment inquiry into the first article. And since Congress has sole authority over impeachment, no judicial review of its subpoena power can be made.

This is fully unconstitutional since it subverts the power of the Judicial branch to settle disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches as established by the Constitution.

Pelosi and company are broadening the definition of ‘the sole power of impeachment’ to say that whatever Congress deems as worthy of an impeachment inquiry is therefore law and the other branches have no say in the matter.

This is patent nonsense and wholly tyrannical.

Rod Rosenstein and Andrew Weismann tried to use an equally broad interpretation of ‘obstruction of justice’ to include future harm to continue the special council’s investigation into Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia.

Moreover it renders the concept of judicial review as laid down in Marbury vs. Madison null and void. Congress cannot just make up laws and crimes out of whole cloth and then unilaterally declare them constitutional under the rubric of impeachment.

The Supreme Court has the right to strike down bills Congress passes as unconstitutional.

This drives a massive wedge through the separation of powers in a blatant power grab by Pelosi and the Democratic House majority to protect themselves from Trump’s investigations into their crimes surrounding events in Ukraine.

When viewed dispassionately, Obstruction of Congress is not a crime but rather a function of each of the other two branches of government. It’s no better when the President hides behind Executive Orders to legislate unconstitutionally.

And it’s even worse when the Supreme Court makes up laws from the bench rather than kick the ball back to Congress and start the process all over again.
That’s what the whole three co-equal branches of government is supposed to mean.

Now, in practice I don’t believe the three branches are equal, as the Judicial branch routinely oversteps its authority. But in this case if it does not step in immediately and defend itself from this Congress then the basic fabric of our government unravels overnight.

That the second impeachment article is directly dependent on the flawed (or non-existent) logic of the first impeachment article renders the whole thing simply laughable on the face of it.

I’m no legal scholar so when I can see how ridiculous these articles are then you know this has nothing to do with the law but everything to do with power.

And the reality is, as I discussed in my latest podcast, what this impeachment is really about is distracting and covering up the multiple layers of corruption in U.S. foreign and domestic policy stretching back decades. Many of the tendrils emanating from the events surrounding the FISA warrants improperly granted connect directly to the Clintons, Jeffrey Epstein, William Browder and the rape of Russia in the post-Soviet 90’s.

We’re talking an entire generation or more of U.S. officials and politicians implicated in some of the worst crimes of the past thirty years.

The stakes for these people are existential. This is why they are willing to risk a full-blown constitutional crisis and civil war to remove Trump from office.

They know he’s angry at them now. This is personal as well as philosophical. Trump is a patriot, a narcissist and a gangster. That’s a powerful combination of traits.
The polls are shifting his way on this as the average person knows this impeachment is pathetic. They are tired of the Democrats’ games the same way British voters are over the arguments against Brexit.

So the old adage about killing the king come to mind. If Pelosi et.al. miss here, the retribution from Trump will be biblical.

The damage to the society is too great to argue irrelevancies. No one outside of the Beltway Bubble and the Crazies of the Resistance cares about what Trump did here. It’s too arcane and most people are against giving a shithole like Ukraine taxpayer money in the first place.

The whole thing is a giant pile of loser turds steaming up the room and impeding getting any work done.

In the end We’ll know if Trump has his ducks in a row in how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plays his cards versus Pelosi. If McConnell pussy-foots around and gives Pelosi anything on how the trial in the Senate is conducted then the fix is in and Trump is done.

But, if McConnell shuts this down then what comes next will be a righteous smackdown of Trump’s political opponents that will make the phone call with Zelensky look like a routine call to Dominos’ for a double pepperoni.

[B]Either way, this coup attempt by Pelosi is now open warfare. There will be casualties.

[vector7]

Levin: Every president would be subject to impeachment under Dems' current articles (6:46)


https://youtu.be/OqVmwITucAA

[vector7]

Impeachment stalls until 2020: Hoyer announces no more House votes this year, as Pelosi quotes Shakespeare

By Vandana Rambaran | Fox News

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., announced Thursday afternoon that there will be no more House votes until Jan. 7, prompting cheers from his Democratic colleagues in the chamber.

The announcement is confirmation that the House will not approve impeachment managers or send the two articles of impeachment to the Senate until the beginning of the new year.

The decision has drawn the ire of Republicans, who control the Senate where the trial against Trump -- which includes charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress -- will occur.

MCCARTHY MOCKS PELOSI FOR SHOOTING DOWN IMPEACHMENT QUESTIONS FROM REPORTERS

"It’s beyond me how the Speaker and Democratic Leader in the Senate think withholding the articles of impeachment and not sending them over gives them leverage," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters on Thursday. "Frankly, I’m not anxious to have the trial… If she [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] thinks her case is so weak she doesn’t want to send it over, throw me into that briar patch."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., met with McConnell Thursday afternoon and told him that Democrats would like to introduce new witnesses and documents in the next phase of the impeachment process.

“Sen. Schumer asked Sen. McConnell to consider Sen. Schumer’s proposal over the holidays because Sen. Schumer and his caucus believe the witnesses and documents are essential to a fair Senate trial,” Justin Goodman, a spokesman for Schumer, said in a statement.

MCCONNELL: 'IMPASSE' OVER TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, DEMS HAVE 'COLD FEET'

McConnell, in a statement, called the conversation between him and Schumer "cordial" but said that the two parties remain at an "impasse," accusing Schumer of continuing to "demand a new and different set of rules" for the trial.

Pelosi sent a letter to House Democrats late Thursday calling the previous days' vote "an important day for the Constitution of the United States and a somber day for America."

She also thanked her caucus “for the outstanding moral courage that has been demonstrated, not only yesterday but every day of this prayerful process.”

“We have defended democracy for the people: honoring the vision of our founders for a Republic, the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform to defend it, and the aspirations of our children to live freely within it,” she said.

Signaling unity within her party, Pelosi went on to quote the St. Crispin’s Day Speech, from Shakespeare's "Henry V," best known for using the terminology “band of brothers.”

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother," the quote said in part.

[vector7]

The expression on Bill Barr's face when he says "we'll see" @17:28 of the video is telling more information is coming.

The transcript of the question and remarks and answers from Martha and Barr from 16:23 to 17:30 time frame in the video below:

Martha: Just to put a bow on the Durham and Comey investigations if you had been in charge of the FBI at that time and these concerns were brought to you about Papadopoulos, about Page. They were concerned maybe he was working on the Russian side of the equation, how would you have handled it? What would you have set in motion differently?

Barr: Well, as I read the Horowitz report the 3 reactions from AG Loretta Lynch, DA Sally Yates and President Obama appear to have been, well shouldn't we give him a defensive briefing, and I think that would be the natural impulse for anybody who is interested in getting to the bottom of things quickly and was skeptical of any notion that President Trumps campaign was in cahoots with the Russians and was also concerned about protecting the election. If you're interested in protecting the election, you give a defensive briefing.

Martha: And why do you think he didn't do that?

Barr: We'll see.

Martha: That part of the Durham investigation?

Barr: Yes.

EXCLUSIVE: AG Bill Barr goes one-on-one with Martha MacCallum (18:35)

View: https://youtu.be/Jt2LMYIzN1M

[vector7]

Jon Voight: Democrat Party Has Nothing To Offer, But Destruction (5:08)
House Democrats are being slammed for what critics are calling a one-sided impeachment against President Trump. One America's Chanel Rion sat down with Academy Award winning actor and activist Jon Voight for his insight into the matter.



https://youtu.be/wYAFQY30NAU

[vector7]

EXCLUSIVE: Crossfire Hurricane Investigation May Have Been a Joint Operation Between the FBI and CIA

by Joe Hoft December 23, 2019



Indications are that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign may not have been what has been revealed to date. Two facts buried in the recently released DOJ IG Report have explosive implications and strongly suggest that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was a joint CIA/FBI Operation.
The IG Report reveals that Russian Oligarch 1 was the “subject of a Crossfire Hurricane case.” See page 194 of the FISA report:




However, the IG Report states that the FBI only opened Crossfire Hurricane cases against four individuals, Page, Papadopoulos, Manafort and Flynn. This was noted in the first page of the Executive Summary of the FISA Report:



If the FBI did not have a Crossfire Hurricane case open against Russian Oligarch 1, who did and why? Could it have to do with the fact that Russian Oligarch 1 is not a U.S. person? What agency would investigate non U.S.persons?

The IG Report also reveals that FBI officials justified retaining the Crossfire Hurricane case at Headquarters, in part, to “allow for better coordination with…interagency partners.” See page 64 of the FISA Report:



What “interagency partner” might that include?

Both Brennan and Comey have admitted that a lot of information about Russian election meddling (generally) was exchanged between them well before the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation was allegedly opened on July 31, 2016. This would also be consistent with some sort of joint operation.

If Crossfire Hurricane was a joint operation between the CIA and FBI, some of the statements made by Page and Strzok, and others, in texts and elsewhere are more revealing.

We still don’t know the names of some of the key players in these fraudulent investigations and have to guess. We don’t know how closely the FBI and CIA were connected during this sham and the Deep State still won’t tell us. What is it going to take before Americans are provided the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Hat tip Pat

[vector7]

A Russian billionaire said George Soros is funding Fusion GPS

by Martin Walsh


Soros caught funneling money to Fusion GPS.

A Russian billionaire claims that a former Federal Bureau Investigation agent told Congress that “a group of Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros” are funding Fusion GPS, according to the Daily Caller.

In an op-ed published in the Daily Caller by Oleg Deripaska, the Russian said Daniel Jones — who currently works for Sen. Diane Feinstein — told Deripaska’s lawyer that Soros was funding Fusion GPS.

The claim reportedly took place in March 2017, and Deripaska said Soros was funneling millions to spread the “false public manipulation.”

Deripaska’s lawyer, Adam Waldman, said Fusion GPS and Soros are far more connected than many realize.

“Wagging the dog costs money,” Deripaska wrote. “So, who is the funding mechanism of this shadowy government? Why, none other than billionaire financier George Soros, according to Daniel Jones – as relayed to Congressional investigators by Deripaska’s attorney Adam Waldman.”

Here’s an excerpt from the Daily Caller op-ed:

Deripaska said the claims made in House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes’ memo are accurate.

He wrote that top officials in the Obama administration worked with Fusion GPS to trigger the Russia investigation.

The FBI and DOJ used the dossier from former British spy Christopher Steele, which was commissioned when he was working for Fusion GPS.

The Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign paid Fusion GPS over $9 million to fund Steele’s operation.

Deripaska claims Jones confirmed to him that Soros has been using backdoor sources to funnel large sums of money to Fusion GPS for at least two years.

The claim would mean that Soros, Clinton, and the DNC funded Steele’s dossier — which was used to trigger the Russia probe against President Donald Trump.

Many Americans would agree that Soros and Clinton should be held accountable for their actions and using a discredited hit piece to derail Trump’s presidency.

[vector7]

UPDATE: Bill Barr Indicts 8 Including Mueller Top Witness for Funneling Millions in Foreign Donations to Schiff, Hillary Clinton and Democrats —
New Data Shows Bill and Hillary Involved

by Jim Hoft December 23, 2019



Ahmad “Andy” Khawaja and Hillary Clinton (Allied Wallet)

The Liberal Media Is Covering This Up!…
HUGE DEMOCRAT MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR CAMPAIGN DONATIONS SCANDAL BROKEN UP!
Earlier this month The Gateway Pundit reported on the news that Democrat operative and Robert Mueller chief witness George Nader was indicted for his involvement in illegal campaign contributions from foreign entities to the Hillary campaign in 2016.
Nader was one of Mueller’s top witnesses and he is a top Democrat donor and convicted child molester.

But there is more to the story.
Bill Barr indicted eight individuals for illegally funneling foreign money to Adam Schiff, Hillary Clinton and several Democratic senators.
According to News Thud:

The DOJ reported:

[vector7]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: U.S. Is ‘Not an Advanced Society’

Joshua Caplan23 Dec 2019


NEW YORK, NY - DECEMBER 14: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) speaks during a Green New Deal For Public Housing Town Hall on December 14, 2019 in the Queens borough of New York City. (Photo by Yana Paskova/Getty Images) Yana Paskova/Getty Images

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) declared that the United States is “not an advanced society” and is devolving into a fascist country while campaigning alongside presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in Los Angeles Saturday.

“Establishing a loving society in the United States of America” isn’t an “irrational, overly feeling, sympathetic statement,” Ocasio-Cortez said. Instead, it’s part of an ongoing mission to achieve “an advanced society,” she argued, citing past remarks by Harvard University professor and fellow Sanders surrogate Cornel West.

86 people are talking about this

“What we are living in now is not an advanced society,” the far-left freshman congresswoman asserted, before claiming it is “fascism that we’re evolving into” under President Donald Trump.

Want Breaking News from Breitbart Direct to Your Inbox? Takes Just 2 Seconds...

In another part of her remarks, the New York Democrat called Sanders’ campaign “a movement that has been decades in the making” and said the time had come to put the interests of the working class ahead of the elites.

“We can’t go back to the way things were before, because the way thing were before is how we got to where we are now. We cannot go back to a world where the rich are put first and working people are put last in Washington day in and day out,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“I go into work all the time and I hear people saying, ‘What will my donors think?’” she added in an apparent jab at 2020 candidate and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who has faced pointed criticisms for holding a glitzy fundraiser in what fellow White House contender Sen. Elizabeth Warren described as a wine cave. “I see that billionaires get members of Congress on speed dial and waitresses don’t, okay? There’s a difference.”

In addition to Ocasio-Cortez, Shawshank Redemption star Tim Robbins, veteran actor Danny DeVito, and members of the Russian rock band Pussy Riot also attended the event.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...anced-society/

[vector7]

ENEMY WITHIN: Ilhan Omar Threatens President Trump: Divest from Trump Hotels or You May Face “Worldwide” Attacks on Properties

by Jim Hoft January 7, 2020



On Friday morning the United States killed General Qassim Soleimani, a top commander of Iran’s al-Quds Force, in an airstrike at Baghdad’s International Airport. The strike also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces. Seven people were reportedly killed in the airstrike.

The Iranian regime is threatening retaliation against the United States following the death of their terror leader.

On Sunday the Iranian Regime offered an $80 million bounty for anyone who brings in the head of President Donald Trump for killing Qassam Soleimani.

Democrats blasted President Trump over the killing of the world’s number one terrorist.

And on Monday Democrat Ilhan Omar signaled Iran on potential targets — Trump International Hotels.

She truly is the enemy within.



Twitter users saw this for what it was — a signal to the Iranian regime.