Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Donald Trump’

Report: Justice Department Has Been ‘Quietly’ Reviewing Ukraine Materials For Several Weeks, Separate From Durham Probe


Written By  James Barrett | DailyWire.com

URL of the original posting site: https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-justice-department-has-been-quietly-reviewing-ukraine-materials-for-several-weeks-separate-from-durham-probe

World Food Program USA Board Chairman Hunter Biden (L) and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden attend the World Food Program USA’s Annual McGovern-Dole Leadership Award Ceremony at Organization of American States on April 12, 2016 in Washington, DC. / Teresa Kroeger/Getty Images

According to CBS News’ sources, Department of Justice officials, at the direction of Attorney General William Barr, have been “quietly” reviewing over the past “several weeks” records and documents related to the “Ukraine matter,” including documents provided by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani.

Citing a source familiar with the matter, CBS News’ Catherine Herridge and Clare Hymes reported Tuesday that “staff outside of Main Justice in Washington have been assigned by Attorney General William Barr to review the Ukraine matter, adding that the review is being handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Pittsburgh and is separate from U.S. Attorney John Durham’s probe into the origins of the FBI’s Russia probe.”

Among the materials reportedly being reviewed by Justice Department officials at Barr’s behest are some provided by Giuliani, who was specifically mentioned by President Trump in his famous July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and who appears to have served as point man for the pursuit of investigations into allegations of corruption involving former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.

Herridge and Hymes note that that investigation also “goes beyond” matters related to the Bidens, according to the source.

In the call which sparked the Democrats’ impeachment campaign, President Trump asked Zelensky to “look into” the allegations involving the Bidens and Burisma. After a whistleblower complaint accused Trump of attempting to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rival, Democrats launched an impeachment inquiry resulting in two articles of impeachment, which passed in the House but for which Trump was acquitted by the Senate.

As Herridge and Hymes reports, the allegations involving the Bidens and Ukraine “have gained new life” since Trump’s acquittal, with Barr stating Monday that the department has established an “intake process in the field” for material concerning Ukraine.

During the impeachment trial in the Senate, Trump’s lawyers repeatedly brought up the issue of corruption in Ukraine, around which Trump’s request to Zelensky centered. At one point, President Trump’s deputy counsel Patrick Philbin connected the “Ukraine matter” to the whistleblower whose complaint sparked the impeachment.

“If the whistleblower, as is alleged in some public reports, actually did work for then-Vice President Biden on Ukraine issues, exactly what was his role?” asked Philbin. “What was his involvement when issues were raised — we know from testimony that questions were raised — about the potential conflict of interest that the vice president then had when his son was sitting on the board of Burisma. Was the alleged whistleblower involved in any of that and in making decisions to not do anything related to that? Did he have some reason to want to put the deep-six on any question raising any issue about what went on with the Bidens and Burisma and firing Shokin and withholding a billion dollars in loan guarantees and enforcing a very explicit quid pro quo — you won’t get this billion dollars until you fire him? We don’t know. And because Manager [Rep. Adam] Schiff was guiding this whole process, because he was the chairman in charge of directing the inquiry and directing it away from any of those questions, that creates a real due process defect in the record that has been presented here.”

Amy Klobuchar: ‘I Am Troubled by Having a Socialist Lead Our Ticket’


Posted by Kyle Morris | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/10/amy-klobuchar-i-am-troubled-by-having-a-socialist-lead-our-ticket/

WASHINGTON, DC – FEBRUARY 3: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) speaks to members of the media at the U.S. Capitol on February 3, 2020 in Washington, DC. Closing arguments begin Monday after the Senate voted to block witnesses from appearing in the impeachment trial. The final vote is … Alex Edelman/Getty Images

Democrat presidential hopeful and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), during an interview with CBS News, said she is “troubled” by the thought that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) could lead the Democrat Party’s ticket in November against President Donald Trump.

Klobuchar’s remarks were made during an interview with CBS News’s Ed O’Keefe on her campaign bus after an event in Keene, New Hampshire. O’Keefe pressed Klobuchar on her decision to raise her hand on the debate stage after the candidates were questioned on whether they worry about having a democratic socialist for a presidential nominee.

“The question should be why didn’t everyone else raise their hand?” Klobuchar told O’Keefe. “But they didn’t because people are looking at each other, and it may not be popular, and you’re going to anger some people, but I believe in leading and doing what you think is right, and that’s why I raised my hand because I am troubled by having a socialist lead our ticket.”

Klobuchar also said voters “are tired of the extremes in our politics and the noise and the nonsense” and claimed they want a candidate who can “bring in ideas and actually get them done.”

The Minnesota senator went on to say that it would be a “lot tougher” for freshman Democrats to keep their seats in November should Sanders be the nominee.

“The debates have been an even playing field for me,” Klobuchar told CBS News. “People can’t buy their way into being able to respond on the debate stage. They can’t have the bigger name. So, people are able to look at the candidates and think, ‘Wait a minute, who can really stand up to Donald Trump? Who has ideas that are similar to mine?’”

According to a national average from Real Clear Politics, Klobuchar sits in sixth place with 4.3 percent support from voters.

Follow Kyle on Twitter @RealKyleMorris and Facebook.

Trump Continues To Clean House, Fires Ambassador Gordon Sondland


Posted By  Ryan Saavedra | DailyWire.com | February 10, 2020

WASHINGTON, DC – NOVEMBER 20: Gordon Sondland, the U.S ambassador to the European Union, makes an opening statement before testifying to the House Intelligence Committee in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill November 20, 2019 in Washington, DC. The committee heard testimony during the fourth day of open hearings in the impeachment inquiry against U.S. President Donald Trump, whom House Democrats say held back U.S. military aid for Ukraine while demanding it investigate his political rivals and the unfounded conspiracy theory that Ukrainians, not Russians, were behind the 2016 computer hacking of the Democratic National Committee.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

President Donald Trump continued to clean house late on Friday after removing two brothers from the National Security Council, notifying Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union that he was fired.

“I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States ambassador to the European Union,” Sondland said in a statement. “I am grateful to President Trump for having given me the opportunity to serve, to Secretary Pompeo for his consistent support, and to the exceptional and dedicated professionals at the U.S. Mission to the European Union. I am proud of our accomplishments. Our work here has been the highlight of my career.”

Sonland, who testified in Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, initially said during his testimony that there was a quid pro quo involving withholding aid to Ukraine for the announcement of an investigation into Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Later, Sondland later admitted that what he had stated was just his assumption.

HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF: And you’ve also testified that your understanding — it became your clear understanding that the military assistance was also being withheld, pending Zelensky announcing these investigations. Correct?

SONDLAND: That was my presumption, my personal presumption, based on the facts at the time. Nothing was moving.

Sondland later continued:

GOP COUNSEL STEVE CASTOR: I want to turn back to your – your opener on Page 5, under – when – when you talk about in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations. Correct?

SONDLAND: Correct.

CASTOR: And you acknowledged that this is speculation, right?

SONDLAND: It was a presumption.

Sondland later admitted that he had no evidence to prove his initial claim.

Sondland late confirmed again during his testimony that what he had initially claimed was just his presumption:

REP. MIKE TURNER (R-OH): OK. Well, you know, after you testified Chairman Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said, he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony. And if you pull up CNN today right now their banner says “Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid,” is that your testimony today, Mr. — Ambassador Sondland, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid? Because I don’t think you’re saying that.

SONDLAND: I’ve said repeatedly, Congressman, I was presuming. I also said that President Trump —

TURNER: So no one told you. Not just the president — Giuliani didn’t tell you, Mulvaney didn’t tell you — nobody — Pompeo didn’t tell you? Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations, is that correct?

SONDLAND: I think I already testified to that —

TURNER: No, answer the question. Is it correct, no one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations? Because if your answer is yes, then the Chairman’s wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?

SONDLAND: Yes.

TURNER: So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?

SONDLAND: Other than my own presumption.

TURNER: Which is nothing. I mean, that’s what I don’t understand. So you know what hearsay evidence is, Ambassador? Hearsay is when I testify what someone else told me. Do you know what made up testimony is? Made up testimony is when I just presume it.

I mean, you’re just assuming all of these things and then you’re giving them the evidence that they’re running out and doing press conferences and CNN’s headline is saying that you’re saying the president of the United States should be impeached because he tied to investigations and you don’t know that, correct?

SONDLAND: I never said the president of the United States should be impeached.

TURNER: Nope, but you did — you have left people with the confusing impression that you were giving testimony that you did not. You do not have any evidence that the president of the United States was tied to withholding aid from Ukraine in exchange for investigations. I yield back.

WATCH:

Trump DOE Promotes School Prayer on National Religious Freedom Day


Written by Penny Starr | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/16/trump-doe-promotes-school-prayer-on-national-religious-freedom-day/

Girl closed her eyes and folded her hand in prayer on a Holy Bible / Sasiistock/Getty Images

President Donald Trump is marking National Religious Freedom Day with a ceremony at the White House on Thursday and is also issuing a guidance letter to educational institutions and the public on students’ Constitutional right to prayer.

The guidance will be posted in the Federal Register on January 21, 2020 and it states, in part:

Section 8524(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act and codified at 20 U.S.C. 7904(a), requires the Secretary to issue guidance to State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and the public on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools. In addition, section 8524(b) requires that, as a condition of receiving ESEA funds, an LEA must certify in writing to its SEA that it has no policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer in public schools as detailed in this updated guidance.

Education Week’s report on the guidance noted precedent for the Trump administration’s move:

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, in its current and past versions, requires the U.S. Department of Education to provide guidance on prayer in schools every two years, but that guidance hasn’t been updated since 2003, a senior administration official said.

“President Trump is committed to making sure that people of faith, particularly children,” are not discouraged from constitutionally protected rights to pray, an administration official said in a conference call with reporters.

The new school prayer guidance, which will be published in the Federal Register Thursday Jan. 21, reiterates requirements under existing law that school districts must annually certify to their state departments of education that they have “no policy prohibiting participation in constitutionally protected prayer,” officials said. State education departments must have a process for fielding complaints the right to prayer has been violated, and they must report any complaints or lawsuits over school prayer to the federal Education Department, the guidance says.

The guidance also states that student religious groups should have the same access to school facilities as secular groups, which has been in place since 1998, Education Week reports.

The Trump administration will also issue a directive on Thursday that states religiously affiliated groups can get federal grants even if the group is located in a state that prohibits public funding of such groups.

“Those laws, known as Blaine amendments, are the subject of a case on tax-credit scholarships for private schools that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court next week,” Education Week notes in its report.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

I’ve Never Seen Anything Like It’: Lara Logan Doesn’t Understand Americans Defending Iran


Written by Virginia Kruta |  Associate Editor |

URL of the original posting site: https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/08/lara-logan-americans-defending-iran/

Fox Nation host Lara Logan admitted Tuesday evening that she doesn’t understand how Americans are essentially siding with Iran to attack President Donald Trump.

Logan, speaking with Fox News host Laura Ingraham and fellow guest Dinesh D’Souza, recounted some of her own experiences with the Iranian regime during her time in the Middle East.

Ingraham began the segment by asking Logan what she thought of the media outlets which, at times, appeared to be “carrying the water of the Iranian regime.” (RELATED: Lara Logan’s Response To Mueller Report Is An Indictment Of American Media)

“It is kind of depressing,” Logan replied. “I’ve been a journalist for more than 30 years and I’ve never seen anything like it. What about the voices of the Iraqi people? What about the voice of the Syrians and the Yemenis and all the people across the region who have been celebrating Soleimani’s death? You won’t see them on the streets of Tehran. You are not going to see this great display because they are afraid. They are so afraid of what the proxy forces, the revolutionary guards are capable of.”

Ingraham turned the question to D’Souza, who argued that if former President Barack Obama had been the one to order the strike against Soleimani the response would have been very different.

“If Obama had taken him out there would be celebrations, Obama is a genius,” D’Souza said. “But since it is Trump, they want to mobilize the Soleimani assassination against Trump. They are, in a way, willing to go to bed with the far enemy to defeat the near enemy, who is a greater threat to their agenda here at home.”

Logan went on to recount her experiences in the region with Iranian proxy forces, noting the extreme brutality of Soleimani and his proxies.

“That commander that was trained in Iran, loyal to Iran, run by Soleimani, he killed, according to the U.S. Embassy, two and a half thousand Sunnis,” Logan said. “His preferred method to kill them was to drill holes in their heads while they were alive. They would be meat hooks on the wall that the Iranian militias used to hang people there.”

“And I remember interviewing a young Iraqi boy, his father was taken in the night by an Iranian militia, and I will never forget him holding my hand and saying, when they took his father he had no shoes,” Logan continued, adding that the boy was turned away when he caught up to them. “He won’t need shoes where he’s going,” was what the militia member told the boy.

Logan concluded by saying that that boy’s father was one of many bodies that was eventually found in a dumpster after interacting with Iranian militias.

IG Report Reveals Steele Funneled Claims Through John McCain After FBI Dropped Him


Written by Aaron Klein | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/26/ig-report-reveals-steele-funneled-claims-through-john-mccain-after-fbi-dropped-him/

In this Aug. 25, 2009 file photo, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., holds a healthcare town hall meeting in Sun City, Ariz. McCain’s family says the Arizona senator has chosen to discontinue medical treatment for brain cancer. (AP Photo/Matt York) AP Photo/Matt York

Late Senator John McCain provided disgraced former FBI chief James Comey with five separate reports from Christopher Steele that the FBI didn’t previously possess related to unsubstantiated allegations of collusion between Russia and President Trump’s 2016 campaign, the Justice Department’s recent Inspector General report revealed.

There have long been questions about why it was necessary for McCain to pass Steele’s anti-Trump dossier to Comey on December 9, 2016, several weeks after the November 2016 presidential election. By then, Steele had already met numerous times with FBI agents to provide them with his controversial reports. Steele, however, was terminated as an FBI source in the fall of 2016 because he spoke to the news media.

The IG report discloses that McCain gave five new Steele reports to Comey that the FBI did not previously possess, showing that McCain served as a conduit for Steele’s information to reach the FBI even after the British ex-spy was formally cut off as an FBI source.

It is not clear whether McCain knew at the time that Steele had previously been terminated as an FBI source.

The IG report also verifies that a McCain aid obtained the Steele reports directly from Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, meaning that when McCain transferred the anti-Trump charges to Comey he had to have known that the material originated with a firm that specializes in controversial opposition tactics. Fusion GPS was paid for its anti-Trump work by Trump’s primary political opponents, namely Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) via the Perkins Coie law firm.

States the IG report:

Several weeks later, on December 9, 2016, Senator John McCain provided Comey with a collection of 16 Steele election reports, 5 of which Steele had not given the FBI. McCain had obtained these reports from a staff member at the McCain Institute. The McCain Institute staff member had met with Steele and later acquired the reports from Simpson.

The unnamed McCain staff member is known to be David J. Kramer, who also infamously provided BuzzFeed with the Steele dossier.

BuzzFeed published Steele’s full dossier on January 10, 2017 setting off a firestorm of news media coverage about the document.

Prior to his death, McCain admitted to personally handing the dossier to Comey but he refused repeated requests for comment about whether he had a role in providing the dossier to BuzzFeed, including numerous inquiries sent to his office by this reporter.

In his book published last year, McCain maintained he had an “obligation” to pass the dossier charges against Trump to Comey and he would even do it again. “Anyone who doesn’t like it can go to hell,” McCain exclaimed.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Written with research by Joshua Klein.

Democrats Tell Court: More Impeachment Articles, Maybe, if Trump Lawyer Testifies


Filed by Joshua Caplan | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/23/democrats-tell-court-more-impeachment-articles-maybe-if-trump-lawyer-testifies/

WASHINGTON, DC – DECEMBER 18: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) delivers remarks alongside Chairman Jerry Nadler, House Committee on the Judiciary (D-NY) and Chairman Eliot Engel, House Foreign Affairs Committee (D-NY), following the House of Representatives vote to impeach President Donald Trump on December 18, 2019 in Washington, … Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images

The House Judiciary Committee told a federal appeals court Monday that it still wants former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify as it could potentially lead to the introduction of “additional articles of impeachment” against President Donald Trump over his contacts with Ukraine.

In a brief submitted to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the panel’s counsel Doug Letter argued its subpoena of McGahn, who departed the White House last year, is not moot despite the House’s approval of two impeachment articles — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — in a partisan vote on Wednesday evening.

“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly—including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” the brief reads.

The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), subpoenaed McGahn in March for its investigation into whether President Trump or senior White House officials obstructed justice during special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into now-debunked collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.

The Trump White House requested McGahn refuse to comply with the subpoena, citing “absolute immunity” that has long shielded top advisers from testifying before Congress.

Late last month, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay of previous ruling directing McGahn to testify. The court said it would consider granting a longer stay and scheduled a hearing for oral arguments on January 3.

In a ten-page filing, the Department of Justice argued the House’s impeachment vote “eliminate[d] the need” for McGahn to answer congressional questioning and “underscore the reasons why this Court should dismiss or deny the Committee’s suit without adjudicating the subpoena’s validity.”

“Indeed, if this Court now were to resolve the merits question in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial,” DOJ lawyer wrote. “That would be of questionable propriety whether or not such a judicial resolution preceded or post-dated any impeachment trial.”

TWO Great Articles About a Recent CNN Pole That Backfired on the Leftist


CNN Poll: Support for Impeachment Dropping, Even Among Democrats

Written by Hannah Bleau | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/17/cnn-poll-shows-support-impeachment-dropping-even-among-democrats/

US President Donald Trump speaks at the White House Summit on Child Care and Paid Leave on December 12, 2019, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)

Support for impeaching President Trump is dropping while opposition is growing, a CNN poll released this week reveals.

A full House vote on the two approved articles of impeachment against the president, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, is expected to take place this week. However, as recent polls have indicated, support for impeachment is dropping and opposition is growing.

A CNN poll released this week, conducted by SSRS December 12-15, among 1,005 adults, found that 45 percent support impeaching the president. That reflects a 5-point drop from November’s results, which showed support for impeachment at 50 percent.

Support for impeaching the president, even among Democrats alone, is dropping. In November, 90 percent of Democrats supported impeaching the president. The most recent results show the number falling to 77 percent — a 13-point drop in one month.

Meanwhile, opposition is growing. According to the poll, 47 percent oppose impeaching the president, reflecting a four-point jump from last month’s results, when opposition stood at 43 percent.  The poll’s margin of error is +/- 3.7 percentage points.

The results coincide with the House Judiciary Committee’s decision to advance articles of impeachment against the president. The full House is expected to vote this week. According a report from the Wall Street Journal, Democrats have enough votes to impeach, making a trial in the Senate inevitable.

WSJ reported:

By Monday afternoon, at least 18 from the 31 Democratic-held districts that Mr. Trump won in the 2016 presidential race had announced they would support the abuse-of-power and obstruction of Congress charges, according to a Wall Street Journal survey, with two saying they are opposed.
With the new announcements of support, and assuming no unexpected defections, Democrats have enough votes to impeach the president. While Americans nationally are about evenly split on whether they back impeachment, according to an average of polls by RealClearPolitics, some of the Democrats in the Trump-won districts acknowledged potential political risks.

About one-third, 32 percent, believe the partisan impeachment effort will ultimately help Trump’s reelection bid. The number is even greater among Republicans, with 54 percent indicating that impeachment will help him in the 2020 election.

An IBD/TIPP poll released Monday suggested that impeachment is already having an impact on the 2020 race, with voters shifting to the president over his potential Democrat contenders in hypothetical general election matchups.

“Yet another poll bad for House Democrats impeachment. CNN poll out today: Impeachment under water at 45-47,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) wrote, noting the significance of impeachment support dropping and opposition growing.

“Support for the charade falling just about everywhere,” he added:


Must Watch: CNN Host Melts-Down After Revealing Their Own Polls Data About Impeachment Support

Written by Staff Writer | December 17, 2019

Poor Jeffery Toobin, he had a rough day when the results of a CNN poll about impeachment support were announced.

As we have been reporting the support for impeachment has dropped and continues to, especially in battleground states. Look no further than CNN’s poll that showed support for impeachment has dropped dramatically in recent weeks – WITH DEMOCRATS!

According to CNN’s polling data, during Rep. Adam Schiff’s secret meetings in the bunker of the Capitol Building, Democrat support for impeachment was 90%. Once the Republicans forced House Democrats to hold public hearings support among Democrats dropped to 77% meaning in just a few week support among Democrats for impeachment dropped 13% points.

The news of this drop was just too much for CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and during a “New Day” segment he melted down over the polling data. Toobin exclaimed “that poll is wrong,” because well he, “said so!”

Mark Finkelstein at Newsbusters described Toobin’s meltdown the best:

Here was poor Jeffrey, in the depths of denial:

“I don’t believe that poll for one second, the 90 to 77%. I don’t believe it. It makes no sense that that number would change like that . . . David, that poll is wrong. Just because I said so, okay?”

Toobin stopped just short of stamping his feet, banging his fists, and knocking over his Lego tower.

The David in question was CNN political director David Chalian, who defended his own poll:

“I don’t know what’s not to believe. You call people on the telephone, you get their information. You pop out a survey. This is what those that we polled told us.”

If you enjoyed reading the transcript just watch below the man loses his mind, Toobin is in straight denial. 

RedState

Jim Jordan: ‘Deeply Troubling’ that FBI Spied on Trump Campaign


Written by Sean Moran | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/09/jim-jordan-deeply-troubling-fbi-spied-trump-campaign/

WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 22: U.S. President Donald Trump (C) shakes hands with James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), during an Inaugural Law Enforcement Officers and First Responders Reception in the Blue Room of the White House on January 22, 2017 in Washington, DC. Trump today … Andrew Harrer-Pool/Getty Images

House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jim Jordan (R-OH) said Monday that James Comey’s FBI spied on the Donald Trump campaign in 2016.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general (IG) released his report, which found that the FBI had an authorized “purpose” to investigate the 2016 Trump campaign; however, the agency committed a series of wrongdoings in the process.

The IG report found that the FBI made “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in the agency’s applications to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, stating agents “failed to meet the basic obligation” to make sure their applications were accurate.

The report found:

We do not speculate whether the correction of any particular misstatement or omissions, or some combination thereof, would have resulted in a different outcome. Nevertheless, the department’s decision-makers and the court should have been given complete and accurate information so that they could meaningfully evaluate probable cause before authorizing the surveillance of a US person associated with a presidential campaign.

House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jordan said that this report revealed that the FBI spied on more people than previously known as part of its investigation into the Trump campaign.

Jordan said in a statement Monday:

We thought they spied on two Americans, we now know it was four. The Inspector General’s report confirms what many of us feared: James Comey’s FBI ignored guidelines and rules in spying on President Trump’s campaign in 2016. We now know that within one week of the investigation opening, the FBI was surveilling the campaign and four specific individuals associated with it.
“The U.S. government’s powerful tools designed and authorized for international intelligence gathering were deployed to monitor the activities of a Presidential campaign,” Jordan added. “This is a grave matter that should deeply trouble Americans of all political stripes. There are many lingering questions and I expect both Chairman Nadler and Chairwoman Maloney to convene hearings with Inspector General Horowitz as soon as possible.”

Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.

Schiff hired former NSC colleague of alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella the day after Trump’s Ukraine call


Posted by Kerry Picket | Washington Examiner | December 3, 2019

URL of the original posting site: https://1776coalition.com/featured-content/schiff-hired-former-nsc-colleague-of-alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-the-day-after-trumps-ukraine-call/#ixzz675XhW9Fc

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff hired a former National Security Council aide who worked with alleged Ukraine whistleblower Eric Ciaramella at the NSC during the Obama and Trump administrations the day after the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

It was previously reported by the Washington Examiner that public records indicated Sean Misko, 37, started work on Schiff’s committee in August as a professional staff member. A specific start date was not available until this week, when the latest congressional quarterly disbursements were released.

The new records show that Misko’s official hire date was July 26.

Misko was the director for the Gulf States at the NSC between 2015 until the first half of 2018. The Washington Examiner has established that the whistleblower is a CIA officer who was on the NSC during the Obama administration and worked on Ukrainian issues with Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic candidate, when he was vice president.

Ciaramella, 33, is a career CIA analyst and was the Ukraine director on the NSC from 2016 until the summer of 2017. In October 2016, he was Biden’s guest at a State Department banquet.

Read the full article: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/schiff-hired-former-nsc-colleague-of-alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-the-day-after-trumps-ukraine-call


Featured Posts by 1776coalition.com


Poll: Opposition to Trump impeachment jumps 10% among independents

by John Gage | Washington Examiner
November 20, 2019

More independents oppose the impeachment proceedings against President Trump than support them, according to a recent poll conducted after the beginning of public testimony.

A Morning Consult- Politico poll released Tuesday said 47% of independents “oppose the current impeachment inquiry,” while only 40% of independents support impeachment. The poll represents a 10% drop in support among independents for the impeachment.

Overall, opposition increased to 45%, while support for impeachment dropped from 50% to 48%. The decrease in support follows the start of the second week of testimony by impeachment witnesses.

House Democrats opened the impeachment proceedings against Trump, claiming he threatened to withhold aid from the Ukrainian government if they did not investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. The poll was taken by 1,994 United States voters between Nov. 15 and 17.

Emails: Open Society Kept Alleged ‘Whistleblower’ Eric Ciaramella Updated on George Soros’s Personal Ukraine Activities


Written by Aaron Klein | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/17/emails-open-society-kept-alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-updated-on-george-soross-personal-ukraine-activities/

George Soros, Chairman, Soros Fund Management and Open Society, testifies before US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry on ‘Foreign Policy and the Global Economic Crisis’ March 25, 2009, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, DC. AFP Photo/Paul J. Richards (Photo credit should read PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)

Eric Ciaramella, whom Real Clear Investigations suggests is the likely so-called whistleblower, received emails about Ukraine policy from a top director at George Soros’s Open Society Foundations.

The emails informed Ciaramella and a handful of other Obama administration foreign policy officials about Soros’s whereabouts, the contents of Soros’s private meetings about Ukraine and a future meeting the billionaire activist was holding with the prime minister of Ukraine.

A primary recipient of the Open Society emails along with Ciaramella was then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who played a central role in the anti-Trump dossier affair. Nuland, with whom Ciaramella worked closely, received updates on Ukraine issues from dossier author Christopher Steele in addition to her direct role in facilitating the dossier within the Obama administration.

The emails spotlight Soros’s access to national security officials under the Obama administration on the matter of Ukraine. In one instance, Jeff Goldstein, senior policy analyst for Eurasia at the Open Society Foundations, sent a June 9, 2016 email to Nuland and Ciaramella, who were the missive’s primary recipients.

CC’d were three other State Department officials involved in European affairs, including Alexander Kasanof who worked at the U.S. embassy in Kiev.

The message read:

I wanted to let you know that Mr. Soros met with Johannes Hahn in Brussels earlier today. One of the issues he raised was concern over the decision to delay the visa liberalization for Georgia and the implications for Ukraine.

The email revealed that “GS” – meaning Soros – “is also meeting [Georgian] President [Giorgi] Margvelashvili today and speaking with PM Groyman,” referring to Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman.

The email stated that Soros told Hahn “that Ukrainian civil society is concerned that without reciprocity from the EU for steps Ukraine has taken to put in place sensitive anti-corruption and anti-discrimination legislation and institutions it will not be possible to continue to use the leverage of EU instruments and policies to maintain pressure for reforms in the future.”

Soros also “urged Hahn to advocate with member states to move ahead with visa liberalization for Ukraine,” the email related.

“I’m sure you’ve been working this issue hard; if you have any thoughts on how this is likely to play out or where particular problems lie I’d appreciate if you could let us know,” the email concluded.

Goldstein’s email text sent to Nuland and Ciaramella was not addressed to any one individual. Nuland replied that she would be happy to discuss the issues by phone. Goldstein set up a phone call and wrote that Soros specifically asked that an employee from the billionaire’s “personal office” join the call with Nuland.

The email was released last August as part of a separate Freedom of Information Act request by the conservative group Citizens United.  The FOIA request was unrelated to Ciaramella.

Johannes Hahn, referenced in the emails as meeting with Soros about Ukraine, is the European Commissioner for Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations. In 2015, Hahn participated with Nuland in the YES Summit, which bills itself as “the leading public diplomacy platform in Eastern Europe.” Another summit participant was Vadym Pozharskyi, a board advisor to Burisma, the Ukranian natural gas company at the center of the impeachment trial and the allegations related to Hunter and Joe Biden.

On scores of occasions, Hahn was a featured speaker at roundtables and other events produced by the Atlantic Council think tank, which is funded by and works in partnership with Burisma. The Atlantic Council is also financed by Soros’s Open Society Foundations and has been in the news for ties to various actors associated with the impeachment issue.

In one of several instances, Breitbart News reported, itinerary for a trip to Ukraine in August organized by the Atlantic Council reveals that a staffer on Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held a meeting during the trip with Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, now a key witness for Democrats pursuing impeachment. The Schiff staffer is also an Atlantic Council fellow, while Taylor has evidenced a close relationship with the Atlantic Council.

Breitbart News previously reported on other emails that show Ciaramella worked closely with Nuland. Nuland has come under repeated fire for her various roles in the anti-Trump dossier controversy.

In their book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, authors and reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn write that Nuland gave the green light for the FBI to first meet with Steele regarding his dossier’s claims. It was at that meeting that Steele initially reported his dossier charges to the FBI, the book relates.

FBI notes cite career Justice Department official Bruce Ohr as saying that Nuland was in touch with Fusion GPS co-founder and dossier producer Glenn Simpson.

Sen. John McCain, who infamously delivered the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey, reportedly first dispatched an aide, David J. Kramer, to inquire with Nuland about the dossier claims.

Meanwhile, looped into some other email chains with Ciaramella was then-Secretary of State John Kerry’s chief of staff at the State Department, John Finer.

An extensive New Yorker profile of Steele named Finer as obtaining the contents of a two-page summary of the dossier and eventually deciding to share the questionable document with Kerry. Finer reportedly received the dossier summary from Jonathan M. Winer, the Obama State Department official who acknowledged regularly interfacing and exchanging information with Steele, according to the report. Winer previously conceded that he shared the dossier summary with Nuland.

After his name surfaced in news media reports related to probes by House Republicans into the dossier, Winer authored a Washington Post oped in which he conceded that while he was working at the State Department he exchanged documents and information with Steele. Winer further acknowledged that while at the State Department, he shared anti-Trump material with Steele passed to him by longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, whom Winer described as an “old friend.” Winer wrote that the material from Blumenthal – which Winer in turn gave to Steele – originated with Cody Shearer, who is a controversial figure long tied to various Clinton scandals.

In testimony last year, Nuland made statements about a meeting at the State Department in October 2016 between State officials and Steele, but said that she didn’t participate.

At a June 2018 hearing, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) revealed contents of the State Department’s visitor logs while he was grilling Nuland. At the hearing, Burr asked: “I know you talked extensively with our staff relative to Mr. Steele. Based upon our review of the visitor logs of the State Department, Mr. Steele visited the State Department briefing officials on the dossier in October of 2016. Did you have any role in that briefing?”

“I did not,” Nuland replied. “I actively chose not to be part of that briefing.”

“But were you aware of that briefing?” Burr asked.

“I was not aware of it until afterwards,” Nuland retorted.

Nuland did not explain how she can actively chose not to be part of Steele’s briefing, as she claimed, yet say she was unaware of the briefing until after it occurred. Nuland was not asked about the discrepancy during the public section of the testimony, which was reviewed in full by Breitbart News.

Nuland previously served as chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott under Bill Clinton’s administration, and then served as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

Nuland faced confirmation questions prior to her most recent appointment as assistant secretary of state over her reported role in revising controversial Obama administration talking points about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks. Her reported changes sought to protect Hillary Clinton’s State Department from accusations that it failed to adequately secure the woefully unprotected U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi.

Likely ‘whistleblower’

A RealClearInvestigations report by investigative journalist and author Paul Sperry named Ciaramella as best fitting the description of the so-called whistleblower.

Officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings say Ciaramella’s name has been raised in private in impeachment depositions and during at least one House open hearing that was not part of the formal impeachment proceedings.

Federal documents show Ciaramella also worked closely with Joe Biden and worked under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked with former CIA Director John Brennan, an anti-Trump advocate who has faced controversy for his role in fueling the questionable Russia collusion investigation.  Rice participated in Russia collusion probe meetings and reportedly unmasked senior members of Trump’s presidential campaign.

Sperry cites former White House officials saying Ciaramella worked for Biden on Ukrainian policy issues in 2015 and 2016, encompassing the time period for which Biden has been facing possible conflict questions for leading Ukraine policy in light of Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma.

Mark Zaid and Andrew Bakaj, the activist attorneys representing the so-called whistleblower, refused to confirm on deny that their secretive client is indeed Ciaramella.

“We neither confirm nor deny the identity of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower,” the lawyers told the Washington Examiner in response to an inquiry about Ciaramella.

Zaid and Bakaj added, “Our client is legally entitled to anonymity. Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that individual and their family in great physical danger. Any physical harm the individual and/or their family suffers as a result of disclosure means that the individuals and publications reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm. Such behavior is at the pinnacle of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless.”

Soros funding and ‘whistleblower’ complaint

Besides Burisma funding, the Atlantic Council is also financed by Soros’s Open Society Foundations, Google, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc., and the U.S. State Department. Google, Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund, and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower’s complaint alleging Trump was “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country” in the 2020 presidential race.

The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the so-called whistleblower’s document and released by the Google and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower’s own claims, as Breitbart News documented.

One key section of the so-called whistleblower’s document claims that “multiple U.S. officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov.”

This was allegedly to follow up on Trump’s call with Zelensky in order to discuss the “cases” mentioned in that call, according to the so-called whistleblower’s narrative. The complainer was clearly referencing Trump’s request for Ukraine to investigate the Biden corruption allegations.

Even though the statement was written in first person – “multiple U.S. officials told me” – it contains a footnote referencing a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

That footnote reads:

In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on 22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.

The so-called whistleblower’s account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three more occasions. It does so to:

  • Write that Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko “also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these matters.”
  • Document that Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani “had spoken in late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani.”
  • Bolster the charge that, “I also learned from a U.S. official that ‘associates’ of Mr. Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team.” The so-called whistleblower then relates in another footnote, “I do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced above.”

The OCCRP report repeatedly referenced is actually a “joint investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and business records in the United States and Ukraine.”

BuzzFeed infamously also first published the full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and was produced by the Fusion GPS opposition dirt outfit.

The OCCRP and BuzzFeed “joint investigation” resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed publishing similar lengthy pieces on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump’s political rivals. The so-called whistleblower’s document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP and does not reference BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia collusion claims.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.

Alleged ‘Whistleblower’ Eric Ciaramella Worked Closely with Anti-Trump Dossier Hoaxer


Reported by Aaron Klein | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/06/alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-worked-closely-with-anti-trump-dossier-hoaxers/

WASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 20: Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland testifies during a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee June 20, 2018 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The committee held a hearing on “Policy Response to Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. … Alex Wong/Getty Images

Eric Ciaramella, whom Real Clear Investigations suggests is the likely so-called whistleblower, was part of an Obama administration email chain celebrating the eventual signing of a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to Ukraine.

That and other emails show Ciaramella interfaced about Ukraine with individuals who played key roles in facilitating the infamous anti-Trump dossier produced by Fusion GPS and reportedly financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. One of those individuals, then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland (pictured), received updates on Ukraine issues from dossier author Christopher Steele in addition to Nuland’s direct role in the dossier controversy.

Also part of the email chains was Christopher J. Anderson, who was a special adviser to former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker. Anderson testified to the Democrat-led House committees running the impeachment inquiry.

Ciaramella’s name comes up in six Obama-era government emails that were released by the State Department as part of two previous Freedom of Information Act requests.  At the time of the exchanges, Ciaramella served as the Director for Baltic and Eastern European Affairs for the Obama-era National Security Council, where he worked on Ukraine policy.  He is now an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency.

One email, titled, “Loan Guarantee,” involved Nuland, who was reportedly a key champion of the Ukraine loan guarantee policy.

“Hurray,” a celebratory Nuland wrote in response to a translated Ukrainian government announcement about the signing of the $1 billion loan guarantee.  The announcement singles out Joe Biden as being present for the conclusion of an agreement leading to the loan guarantee.

Ciaramella was one of several people CC’d in the email, which was sent from the U.S. ambassador at the time, Geoffrey Pyatt, who was another key champion of the loan guarantee to Ukraine along with Nuland.

The email is one of several that shows Ciaramella in the loop with top officials such as Nuland working on Ukraine policy under the Obama administration.

The loan guarantee was pushed through after Ukraine agreed to several reforms, especially the firing of the nation’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. This at a time that Shokin was reportedly investigating Burisma, the Ukranian natural gas company paying Hunter Biden.  Joe Biden infamously boasted on video about personally threatening to withhold loan guarantees from Ukraine unless Shokin was removed.

Another released email shows Ciaramella himself sending a message to Nuland and others. Most of the contents are blocked out, including the email’s subject line. One non-classified section of that email shows a reply stating, “Embassy Kyiv — coordinated with our USAID mission folks — will have detailed input tomorrow.”

One email involving Nuland was sent two days before the loan guarantee was signed on June 3, 2016. “Can you confirm who will be doing the actual signing for each side?” the exchange asked.

Nuland has come under repeated fire for her various roles in the anti-Trump dossier controversy.

FBI notes also cite career Justice Department official Bruce Ohr as saying that Nuland was in touch with Fusion GPS co-founder and dossier producer Glenn Simpson.

Sen. John McCain, who infamously delivered the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey, reportedly first dispatched an aide, David J. Kramer, to inquire with Nuland about the dossier claims.

In their book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, authors and reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn write that Nuland gave the green light for the FBI to first meet with Steele regarding his dossier’s claims. It was at that meeting that Steele initially reported his dossier charges to the FBI, the book relates.

Meanwhile, looped into email chains with Ciaramella was then-Secretary of State John Kerry’s chief of staff at the State Department, John Finer.

An extensive New Yorker profile of Steele named Finer as obtaining the contents of a two-page summary of the dossier and eventually deciding to share the questionable document with Kerry.

Finer reportedly received the dossier summary from Jonathan M. Winer, the Obama State Department official who acknowledged regularly interfacing and exchanging information with Steele, according to the report. Winer previously conceded that he shared the dossier summary with Nuland.

After his name surfaced in news media reports related to probes by House Republicans into the dossier, Winer authored a Washington Post oped in which he conceded that while he was working at the State Department he exchanged documents and information with Steele.

Winer further acknowledged that while at the State Department, he shared anti-Trump material with Steele passed to him by longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, whom Winer described as an “old friend.” Winer wrote that the material from Blumenthal – which Winer in turn gave to Steele – originated with Cody Shearer, who is a controversial figure long tied to various Clinton scandals.

In testimony last year, Nuland made statements about a meeting at the State Department in October 2016 between State officials and Steele, but said that she didn’t participate.

At a June 2018 hearing, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) revealed contents of the State Department’s visitor logs while he was grilling Nuland.

At the hearing, Burr asked: “I know you talked extensively with our staff relative to Mr. Steele. Based upon our review of the visitor logs of the State Department, Mr. Steele visited the State Department briefing officials on the dossier in October of 2016. Did you have any role in that briefing?”

“I did not,” Nuland replied. “I actively chose not to be part of that briefing.”

“But were you aware of that briefing?” Burr asked.

“I was not aware of it until afterwards,” Nuland retorted.

Nuland did not explain how she can actively chose not to be part of Steele’s briefing, as she claimed, yet say she was unaware of the briefing until after it occurred. Nuland was not asked about the discrepancy during the public section of the testimony, which was reviewed in full by Breitbart News.

Nuland previously served as chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott under Bill Clinton’s administration, and then served as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

Nuland faced confirmation questions prior to her most recent appointment as assistant secretary of state over her reported role in revising controversial Obama administration talking points about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks. Her reported changes sought to protect Hillary Clinton’s State Department from accusations that it failed to adequately secure the woefully unprotected U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi.

Likely ‘whistleblower’

A RealClearInvestigations report by investigative journalist and author Paul Sperry named Ciaramella as best fitting the description of the so-called whistleblower. Officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings say Ciaramella’s name has been raised in private in impeachment depositions and during at least one House open hearing that was not part of the formal impeachment proceedings.

Federal documents show Ciaramella also worked closely with Joe Biden and worked under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked with former CIA Director John Brennan, an anti-Trump advocate who has faced controversy for his role in fueling the questionable Russia collusion investigation.  Rice participated in Russia collusion probe meetings and reportedly unmasked senior members of Trump’s presidential campaign.

Sperry cites former White House officials saying Ciaramella worked for Biden on Ukrainian policy issues in 2015 and 2016, encompassing the time period for which Biden has been facing possible conflict questions for leading Ukraine policy in light of Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma.

Mark Zaid and Andrew Bakaj, the activist attorneys representing the so-called whistleblower, refused to confirm on deny that their secretive client is indeed Ciaramella.

“We neither confirm nor deny the identity of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower,” the lawyers told the Washington Examiner in response to an inquiry about Ciaramella.

Zaid and Bakaj added, “Our client is legally entitled to anonymity. Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that individual and their family in great physical danger. Any physical harm the individual and/or their family suffers as a result of disclosure means that the individuals and publications reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm. Such behavior is at the pinnacle of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless.”

On Sunday, Trump responded to press reports naming Ciaramella, calling him a “radical” known for his close ties to Brennan and Rice.

“Well, I’ll tell you what. There have been stories written about a certain individual, a male, and they say he’s the whistleblower,” Trump told reporters. “If he’s the whistleblower, he has no credibility because he’s a Brennan guy, he’s a Susan Rice guy, he’s an Obama guy.”

Trump added, “And he hates Trump. And he’s a radical. Now, maybe it’s not him. But if it’s him, you guys ought to release the information.”

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.

Exclusive — Fake News Echo Chamber: New York Times Prints Lies by Adam Schiff Witness Made in Secret Testimony


Authored by Matthew Boyle | Washington, D.C.

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/24/exclusive-fake-news-echo-chamber-new-york-times-prints-lies-by-adam-schiff-witness-made-in-secret-testimony/

The New York Times building is seen on September 6, 2018 in New York. – A furious Donald Trump called September 5, 2018 for the unmasking of an anonymous senior official who wrote in the New York Times that top members of his administration were undermining the president to curb …ANGELA WEISS/AFP/Getty 

The New York Times on Wednesday published what would have been a major story on White House National Security Council (NSC) aide Kash Patel—if only it had been true.

The story, which relies on leaks from Democrats conducting the “impeachment inquiry” into President Donald Trump of testimony by one witness who had no firsthand knowledge of the allegations she was making, claims Patel had provided President Trump with documents on Ukraine and met with the president about them.

Citing as its sources “people briefed on the matter,” the Times’ Julian Barnes, Adam Goldman, and Nicholas Fandos wrote that Patel was referred to by President Trump as “one of his top Ukraine policy specialists” and that President Trump “wanted to discuss related documents with him.” The Times reporters claimed that Patel’s NSC and White House colleagues “grew alarmed” over all this.

Later in the Times piece, it became clear where exactly this allegation came from—Fiona Hill, a former Trump administration Russia hand, whom the Democrats have been relying on for testimony in the impeachment inquiry. Hill testified earlier this month in the secret room in the basement of the Capitol building from which Democrats have been running their private impeachment proceedings.

Barnes, Goldman, and Fandos wrote:

Fiona Hill, the National Security Council’s former senior director for Eurasian and Russian affairs, testified to House investigators last week that she believed Mr. Patel was improperly becoming involved in Ukraine policy and was sending information to Mr. Trump, some of the people said. Ms. Hill grew alarmed earlier this year when an aide from the White House executive secretary’s office told her that Mr. Trump wanted to talk to Mr. Patel and identified him as the National Security Council’s ‘Ukraine director,’ a position held by one of Ms. Hill’s deputies. The aide said Mr. Trump wanted to meet with Mr. Patel about documents he had received on Ukraine. Ms. Hill responded by asking who Mr. Patel was. While the aide from the executive secretary’s office did not state explicitly that Mr. Patel sent the Ukraine documents to Mr. Trump, Ms. Hill understood that to be the implication, according to a person familiar with her testimony.

As the Times notes, if true, this would mean there were multiple backchannels for Trump on Ukraine matters—the other being through his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Giuliani’s associates—and it would make it appear as though Trump was up to something by circumventing established channels for such policy, even though the president as the nation’s chief executive officer is well within his rights to do that.

But the problem with the Times story, and its sources that appear to be leaks from Democrats of Hill’s testimony, is that the entire premise is untrue, sources familiar with Patel’s meetings with the president told Breitbart News. Since the Times published its story, Breitbart News has spoken with a dozen sources including current White House officials, then-current-now-former White House officials, congressional officials familiar with the investigation and the meetings Patel had with President Trump, and others in the know about what actually happened and discovered that Patel’s meetings with President Trump had “absolutely nothing,” in the words of one source, to do with Ukraine whatsoever.

One now-former White House official confirmed that President Trump did in fact meet with Patel on a number of occasions, though it’s unclear if these were one-on-one meetings or there were others present.

A source close to House GOP leadership told Breitbart News that Patel’s meetings with the president were focused on domestic national security matters, and that Ukraine did not come up at all.

That source said of the Times story:

This story is complete nonsense. The meeting was arranged at the suggestion of multiple GOP congressmen and senators to discuss domestic national security issues that Kash has specific knowledge and unique expertise in. This meeting had absolutely nothing to do with Ukraine.

A second well-placed source familiar with Patel’s interactions with the president told Breitbart News that the Times story that relies on Hill’s testimony—leaked by Democrats—is “100 percent false.”

“The New York Times story is 100 percent false,” this source familiar with Patel’s interactions with Trump told Breitbart News. “Kash did not discuss Ukraine with Trump in any meeting, nor did he discuss any Ukraine-related documents with him. The Democrats involved in the impeachment interviews were obviously tipped off that Fiona Hill would invent some story like this if asked about Kash, and that’s why they brought up his name to her, then they leaked the exchange to their lackeys at the Times.”

Hill, Breitbart News has learned, was asked a number questions about Patel by the Democrats during her testimony, and a source in the room said her “responses appeared scripted,” suggesting that there was some coordination between Hill or her lawyers and the Democrats on Capitol Hill before her appearance.

Then, as has happened with so much more that has gone on in the secretive U.S. Capitol basement room in which House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is running the impeachment proceedings away from public view, this information was leaked to the Times and weaponized against the president and his administration—the actual truth and facts be damned.

This episode paints a broader and darker picture of what exactly Schiff and his team are doing in the secretive room and raises bigger questions about why Schiff is not holding these hearings in public.

The system Democrats have set up basically goes as such: They bring witnesses in for testimony and depositions and transcribed interviews for hours on end to a private room known as a Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF)–behind closed doors and away from the press and public.

They allow no lawyers for the administration inside to challenge anything, present facts in defense of the president, or hear what’s happening down there. Then, Schiff and his team control the information gathered and collected down there—not allowing the minority sufficient access to it.

After that, Schiff, his team, and other Democrats leak the most damaging information to the media—usually out of context, and without the full story—in order to create a public narrative that the president is in serious trouble.

Then it takes a couple days at least for Republicans to get the full truth out about each of these instances to turn around the narrative and expose each “fact” the Democrats are putting forward as flawed. This latest example saw the Times story on Hill’s testimony as the official public record on this matter, until now, for about a full day.

Technically speaking, Hill did make these claims that the Times reported in her testimony—but the veracity of them was never checked by the Democrats who gathered said testimony then leaked it to the New York Times for publication.

The Times also did not check their veracity, even though the first source who spoke to Breitbart News, the one close to House GOP leadership who confirmed Hill’s claims were false, noted that Hill’s inaccurate claims were reproduced uncritically by the Times based upon Democrat leaks. And the Times, this source said, as an institution was aware of the fact that Hill’s claims were false because a separate White House correspondent at the Times was aware of Patel’s meetings with the president at the time of said meetings well before Hill’s testimony happened and well before Democrats even launched an impeachment inquiry—and that this Times reporter was aware that the content had nothing to do with Ukraine.

“What’s particularly shameful is that at least one New York Times White House reporter was told about this meeting in advance off the record, and knew what this meeting was about—and that it was not about Ukraine—but they printed this fake story anyway,” the source close to House GOP leadership told Breitbart News.

Part of the reason the media and the Democrats wanted to smear Patel and attempt to tie him into the impeachment madness, the second source who was familiar with Patel’s conversations with the president said, is because Patel was critical of exposing the failures of the narrative surrounding the previous attempts by the so-called “deep state” to entangle Trump in a scandal on the Russia narrative.

“The story is a lazy hit piece based entirely on rumors and purported second-hand and third-hand information,” that source told Breitbart News. “Both the Times and the Democrats have a vendetta against Kash because he helped blow up their three-year investment in the Russia hoax.”

In fact, this is evident by the fact that the Times story actually opens with a recounting of Patel’s history as an aide on the House Intelligence Committee when Republicans were in the majority and his role in exposing what has become known as “Spygate.”

Barnes, Goldman, and Fandos wrote to open their article, before they even got into the substance of the new but false allegations that Hill leveled against Patel over meetings with the president:

When Kashyap Patel was an aide to the House Intelligence Committee in the first years of the Trump administration, he played a key role in helping Republicans try to undermine the Russia investigation, writing a memo that accused law enforcement officials of abusing their power. The memo, which consumed Washington for weeks, was widely dismissed as a biased argument of cherry-picked facts. But it galvanized President Trump’s allies and made Mr. Patel a hero among them. After Republicans ceded control of Congress this year, he landed on Mr. Trump’s National Security Council staff.

Later in the story, the Times reporters further explain Patel’s role in exposing the Russia scandal as a hoax designed to harm the president.

“Mr. Patel was previously best known as a lead author of the politically charged memo released early last year accusing the F.B.I. and Justice Department leaders of abusing their power in the early stages of the Russia investigation,” Barnes, Goldman, and Fandos wrote. “Mr. Patel worked at the time as an investigator for the House Intelligence Committee under Representative Devin Nunes of California, who ran the panel when Republicans had control of the chamber. Mr. Patel’s efforts to discredit the Russia investigation made him a minor celebrity in conservative circles but a divisive figure on Capitol Hill.”

Pelosi: ‘The Voters Are Not Going to Decide’ Impeachment Issue


Written by Pam Key | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/10/17/pelosi-the-voters-are-not-going-to-decide-impeachment-issue/

 
On Thursday at her weekly press briefing, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the American people were “not going to decide” if President Donald Trump should be impeached.

When asked about the impeachment timeline, Pelosi said, “I keep saying to people, impeachment is about the truth and the Constitution of the United States. Any other issues that you have, disapproving of the way the president has dealt with Syria, whatever the subject is, reluctance, the cowardice to do something about gun violence, the cruelty of not wanting to help our Dreamers and transgender people, the denial about the climate crisis that we face, the list goes on, that’s about the election. That has nothing to do with what is happening in terms of our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution and the facts that might support. And we don’t know where this path will take us, it could take us down further path but the two are completely separate.”

A reporter asked,  “At what point might you say let’s just let the voters decide.”

Pelosi said, “The voters are not going to decide whether we honor our oath of office. They already decided that in the last election.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Nolte: ABC Fails to Fact-Check Hunter Biden’s Claim of ‘Not One Cent’ from Chinese Govt. Deal


Written by John Nolte | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/10/15/nolte-abc-fails-to-fact-check-hunter-bidens-claim-of-not-one-cent-from-chinese-govt-deal/

Hunter-Biden-interview-5577c-abc-ps-191014_hpMain | ABC News

ABC News allowed Hunter Biden to get away with the claim he did not make “one cent” from his company’s mega-deal with a Chinese bank that is a subsidiary of the Chinese government — when its own past reporting has said just the opposite.

During the sit-down interview, ABC’s Amy Robach set up the segment about Hunter’s China deal with the background on President Trump’s desire to look into Hunter’s shady $1.5 billion — with a “B” — deal with the Chinese bank (starts at around 5:03)::

ROBACH: Also on Trump’s list of accusations against Hunter Biden: that Hunter flew on Air Force Two with his father during an official government trip to China in 2013, leveraging that connection for financial gain in an investment deal with Chinese businessman Jonathan Li.

What Robach’s question omitted is that the deal was not just with an individual businessman but with the Bank of China — a subsidiary of the Chinese government itself.

She then asks Hunter directly:

ROBACH: The president has repeatedly said you have received $1.5 billion, despite no experience and for no apparent reason. Obviously fact checkers have said that that is not true.

HUNTER: This literally has no basis in fact in any way.

ROBACH: Have you received any money from that business dealing?

HUNTER: No.

ROBACH: At all?

HUNTER: Not one cent.

ROBACH: Definitely not 1.5 billion.

HUNTER: It’s crazy. They feel as though they have the license to go out and say whatever they want.

Hunter is then allowed to trash Trump and his family as liars while Robach, who has just lauded fact checkers and their fact checking,  says nothing about the fact that — and this is important — according to her own network’s reporting,  and Hunter’s own attorney, Hunter has a ten percent stake in BHR, the company that made that mammoth $1.5 billion China deal.

Just a few months ago, ABC aired an in-depth report on Hunter’s shady business dealings that included this nugget (starts at about the 2:00 minute mark):

This video shows Chinese diplomats greeting Vice President Biden as he arrives in Beijing in December of 2013. Right by his side? His son Hunter. Less than two weeks later, Hunter’s firm had new business, creating an investment fund in China, involving the government controlled Bank of China, with reports they hopes to raise $1.5 billion. Hunter still plays a role in the fund. His lawyer says his stake is worth about half a million dollars.

Where was Robach’s followup question? Where was her oh-so-vital fact checking? Why did she let him get away with saying “not one cent” when her own network reported just a few months ago that he had equity in the firm that made a massive $1.5 billion deal?

Obviously, Hunter is playing a semantic game with that “not one cent” comment. Hunter’s attorney appears to do the same in a statement he released just two days ago, on October 13, 2019:

Hunter neither played a role in the formation or licensure of the company, nor owned any equity in it while his father was Vice President. He served only as a member of its board of directors, which he joined based on his interest in seeking ways to bring Chinese capital to international markets. It was an unpaid position.

To date, Hunter has not received any compensation for being on BHR’s board of directors. He has not received any return on his investment; there have been no distributions to BHR shareholders since Hunter obtained his equity interest.

So Hunter hasn’t “received” “one cent” because there has been no payout to investors. There was no direct commission for that deal, which dum-dums would obviously suspect like he’s a bottom-run sales rep. But here’s the rub, according to no less than FactCheck.org: Hunter might not have been paid “one cent” yet, but he is still could be looking at an eventual payoff that hits the $20 million mark:

[Hunter’s lawyer George] Mesires told the New York Times that while Hunter Biden now has a 10% stake in BHR, which he acquired through a company he created named Skaneateles LLC, “there have been no distributions to the shareholders since Hunter has been an equity owner.”

But that doesn’t mean Biden won’t eventually make millions from the deal. Steven Kaplan, who conducts research on issues in private equity, venture capital, entrepreneurial finance, corporate governance and corporate finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, told us that a private equity fund with $2 billion under management will typically generate fees over its life of hundreds of millions of dollars.

“It is difficult to imagine, if not incomprehensible, that a 10% stake in those economics is worth only $420K,” Kaplan told us via email. “The distinction they appear to be making is they capitalized the management company with $4.2 M even if the fund manages $2 B.  The value of that management company is likely far in excess of $4.2 M if they are managing $2 B.”

Kaplan pointed to two large publicly traded private equity firms for reference, both of which have a market value of about 10% of the assets under their management. Using that as a rough guide, that would put the value of Hunter Biden’s share closer to $20 million, he said.

Basically, it looks as though Hunter claiming not have made one cent off the China deal is like a CEO claiming he was not paid one cent to run a company because his compensation came from stocks or bars of gold or pearls or the gift of a home. But the fact is this: any deal that increases the value of the company that Hunter Biden has a stake in — and a $1.5 billion deal with a bank owned by one of the world’s biggest economies does just that — is a deal where Hunter Biden has a financial interest.

Maybe ABC will reveal Hunter’s semantic dishonesty when the rest of the interview airs later tonight. Maybe Robach will ask him what he has “earned” or “gained” as a result of the deal, rather than “received.” If not, it is a gross dereliction of duty on the network’s part. And all of this comes just one day after ABC was caught presenting 2014 video from a Kentucky gun range as video of  Turkish military operation against the Kurds.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

Whistleblower had ‘professional’ tie to 2020 Democratic candidate


Written by Byron York  | October 08, 2019 03:04 PM

URL of the original posting site: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-tie-to-2020-democratic-candidate

In an Aug. 26 letter, the Intelligence Community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson, wrote that the anonymous whistleblower who set off the Trump-Ukraine impeachment fight showed “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate.”

A few weeks later, news reports said the whistleblower’s possible bias was that he is a registered Democrat. That was all. Incredulous commentary suggested that Republicans who were pushing the bias talking point were so blinded by their own partisanship that they saw simple registration with the Democratic Party as evidence of wrongdoing.

“Give me a break!” tweeted whistleblower lawyer Mark Zaid. “Bias? Seriously?”

Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower’s part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday’s impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower’s possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year’s election.

“The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates,” said one person with knowledge of what was said.
“The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates,” said another person with knowledge of what was said.
“What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate,” said a third person with knowledge of what was said.

All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship between the two was.

In the Aug. 26 letter, Atkinson said that even though there was evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower’s part, “such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern ‘appears credible,’ particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review.”

Democrats are certain to take that position when Republicans allege that the whistleblower acted out of bias. Indeed, the transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a public document, for all to see. One can read it regardless of the whistleblower’s purported bias.

Nevertheless, Republicans will want to know more about the origins of the whistleblower complaint, especially given the unorthodox use of whistleblower law involved. There is more to learn — like who the Democratic candidate is — before Republicans will say they know enough about what happened.

Rasmussen Poll: Donald Trump Approval Rating Jumps to 53 Percent; Highest in Five Months


Reported by Charlie Spiering | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/24/rasmussen-poll-donald-trump-approval-rating-jumps-to-53-percent-highest-in-five-months/

P

resident Donald Trump smiles during a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Tuesday, July 16, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

President Donald Trump received an approval rating of 53 percent from likely voters, according to a Rasmussen poll released Tuesday.

The latest poll reflects the highest approval rating for the president in five months, as the last time Trump got a 53 percent approval rating was in April 2019. 

Forty-five percent of likely voters disapproved of his performance as president.

The president’s approval rating dipped as low as 44 percent in late August but has steadily risen in September — a nine-point jump in 35 days.

Trump received a string of 53 percent approval ratings in February 2017 after he was inaugurated.

Rasmussen tracks daily results via 500 likely voters per night from telephone surveys as well as an online survey tool. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 likely voters is +/- 2.5 percentage points.

Black Poverty Hits Record Low Under President Trump


Reported by Neil Munro | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2019/09/10/black-poverty-record-low-under-trump/

US President Donald Trump arrives for a “Keep America Great” campaign rally at The Crown Arena in Fayetteville, North Carolina, on September 9, 2019. (Photo by JIM WATSON / AFP) (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump can claim credit for pushing poverty among black American adults to record lows, according to data in the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018 economic report.

The good news is hidden deep in the 77-page report, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2018, which was released Tuesday, September 10. Table B5 on page 65 shows that poverty among married black families dropped to 18.8 percent, down from 20.2 percent in 2015 and 23.8 percent in 2007, which was the peak of the housing boom and bubble inflated by Congress and President George W. Bush’s terms.

  • Poverty among black female-headed families also dropped to 31.7 percent, down from 35.7 percent in 2015 and 39.7 percent in 2007.
  • Poverty among all black Americans dropped to 20.8 percent, down from 24.1 percent in 2015 and 24.5 percent in 2007

For comparison, black poverty is still somewhat higher than the poverty rate for all Americans, which is at 11.8 percent, and at 9.7 percent for all intact families and 26.8 percent for female-headed households.

The report does not suggest why the poverty rate is falling. But other data — including comments from industry CEOs — show that wages are gently rising as employers reluctantly begin to compete for employees in a low-immigration, tight labor economy.

Trump’s unprecedented combination of  “Hire American” and economic growth policies is helping create those wage gains nationwide. The growth policies pressure companies to hire more workers.

The “Hire American” policy suppresses the inflow of legal and illegal migrants and also blocks demands from businesses for special infusions of cheap foreign labor, such as extra refugees, asylum-seekers, visa workers, and legal immigrants. Trump’s low-immigration policies have prompted many progressives and Democrats to claim he is racist. But his growth and “Hire American” combination is pressuring companies to compete for Americans workers — including blacks and Latinos — by offering higher wages and better benefits.

One expected impact of the shortage is a growing number of non-white Americans who are being hired and are getting wage increases. The Washington Post reported September 9:

Economists say the minority hiring boom is explained mainly by a tight labor market that is forcing employers to look beyond their normal pool of candidates …
“Now there are more job opportunities, I think. I look for jobs that want English and Spanish speakers,” said [Milagros] Tasayco, who spends her mornings at the community center and her afternoons at a private day care. “My children say, ‘Wow, Mommy, you have two jobs!’ My husband is proud, too.”

The Census Bureau said men who work full time and year-round got an average earnings boost of 3.4 percent in 2018, pushing their median salaries up to $55,291, a 3.4 percent gain after adjusting for inflation. Women gained 3.3 percent in wages, to bring their median salaries to $45,097 for full time, year-round work.

Trump’s wage gains may mark a historic shift in the nation’s economy.

This growth is already visible as a rising line at the end of a Census Bureau chart, which shows the flat-lined wages between 1973 and 2018. The flat wages followed 25 years of rapid wage growth in a low-immigration economy between 1959 and 1973,

Immigration Numbers:

Each year, roughly four million young Americans join the workforce after graduating from high school or university. This total includes about 800,000 Americans who graduate with skilled degrees in business or health care, engineering or science, software, or statistics.

But the federal government then imports about 1.1 million legal immigrants and refreshes a resident population of about 1.5 million white-collar visa workers — including approximately one million H-1B workers and spouses — and about 500,000 blue-collar visa workers.

The government also prints out more than one million work permits for foreigners, it tolerates about eight million illegal workers, and it does not punish companies for employing the hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants who sneak across the border or overstay their legal visas each year.

This policy of inflating the labor supply boosts economic growth for investors because it transfers wages to investors and ensures that employers do not have to compete for American workers by offering higher wages and better working conditions.

This policy of flooding the market with cheap, foreign, white-collar graduates and blue-collar labor also shifts enormous wealth from young employees towards older investors, even as it also widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment,  increases state and local tax burdens, reduces marriage rates, and hurts children’s schools and college educations.

The cheap-labor economic strategy also pushes Americans away from high-tech careers and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.

The labor policy also moves business investment and wealth from the Heartland to the coastal cities, explodes rents and housing costs, undermines suburbia, shrivels real estate values in the Midwest, and rewards investors for creating low-tech, labor-intensive workplaces.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Cover Your Assets

The mainstream-media use Trump knowing Jeffrey Epstein as a way to cover for Bill Clinton’s close relationship with the famous pedophile and his many rides on his Lolita Express.

Media Covers for Clinton Epstein ScandalPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
More A.F. Branco cartoons at Flag And Cross.com here.

An adult children’s Book for all ages APOCALI NOW! brilliantly lampoons the left. ODER >  HERE

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Weapons of Assault

The mainstream media like to ignore the leftist violence while focusing on fringe almost nonexistent white supremacist, and they blame Trump.

Left vs Right Assault and the MeadiaPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

Branco’s Faux Children’s Book “APOCALI” ORDER  HERE

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – The Squad

Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley are known for their racist anti-American rhetoric now calling Trump a racist for saying if you hate America you can leave.

The SquadPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

Branco’s Faux Children’s Book “APOCALI” ORDER  HERE

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

take our poll – story continues below
  • Which Democrat Presidential Hopeful Has The Wildest Campaign Promise So Far?

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

Exclusive: Donald Trump Attempts to Revolutionize GOP Fundraising; Consultant Class Pushes Back


Written by Matthew Boyle | Washington, D.C.

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/12/donald-trump-attempt-revolutionize-gop-fundraising-consultant-class-pushes-back/

AFP/Nicholas Kamm
 

President Donald Trump, his 2020 re-election campaign, and the Republican National Committee (RNC) are attempting to revolutionize GOP fundraising by bringing the whole process for all party candidates under one roof in an outfit called “WinRed,” but some in the consultant class who stand to lose significant business are fighting back against it.

Democrats have had, for more than a decade under their banner fundraising tool “ActBlue,” essential uniformity, especially among small-dollar donors with a tool that allows them to, at peak effectiveness, steer dollars to where they are most needed to win elections. Republicans, because they have used a variety of fundraising vendors and tools across a disparate array of firms, have essentially been at a disadvantage as a party.

In late June, Politicos Alex Isenstadt explained the thinking behind WinRed in a piece just ahead of its launch:

Republicans are set to launch a long-awaited, much-delayed online fundraising platform on Monday, a move aimed at closing Democrats’ massive small-donor money advantage ahead of the 2020 election.

WinRed is being billed as the GOP’s answer to the Democratic Party’s ActBlue, which has already amassed over $174 million this year. The new tool is intended to reshape the GOP’s fundraising apparatus by creating a centralized, one-stop shop for online Republican giving, which the party has lacked to this point.

The launch caps months of behind-the-scenes discussions involving top Republicans. President Donald Trump and White House senior adviser Jared Kushner were involved, as were GOP congressional leaders and mega-donor Sheldon Adelson. The end product, Republican leaders hope, will fill a gaping void in the party’s machinery.

The RNC and the Trump campaign envision WinRed as the future of GOP fundraising.

“WinRed has the full backing of President Trump and his campaign,” Mike Reed, a senior RNC official, told Breitbart News on Friday. “WinRed is a revolutionary tool in the fundraising arsenal for Republicans that will transform the way GOP candidates and conservative causes across the country raise money. This platform offers candidates and committees convenience, a user-friendly interface, and allows them to efficiently raise money while allowing supporters to more effectively donate to candidates with like-minded beliefs.”

Brad Parscale, Trump’s campaign manager, added in a statement to Breitbart News that the GOP committees and president’s campaign are fully behind WinRed and expect all candidates, state parties, and other political action committees (PACs) affiliated with the GOP to get on the WinRed platform.

“There’s a reason President Trump and all the major GOP campaign committees are united behind WinRed: it has the best technology and data integration that will lift all conservative boats and actually help Republicans win in 2020,” Parscale said.

Republican officials insist that all candidates will have access to the WinRed platform, no Republican will be barred from it for any reason including anti-establishment primary challengers, and that all candidates and party committees nationwide are encouraged to sign onto it because uniformity on this front is the only way the GOP can create a true grassroots countermeasure to the left’s ActBlue fundraising machine. Putting their finger on the scale by barring anyone access to the platform, party officials agree, would be harmful to the overall goal of building a grassroots machine that they say they only have an opportunity while Trump is president to get up and running because of his unique ability to connect with small-dollar donors. In other words, the GOP views this setup as the long-term future of the party’s fundraising apparatus and is working to ensure that they seize this chance to implement it party-wide.

A problem Republicans are running into as they seek to implement WinRed across the GOP with all candidates and committees is pushback from consultants with other competing technology. For it to process fundraising donations, WinRed has contracted with Revv–which is a vendor that serves a back-end fundraising platform. Trump’s campaign has used Revv for years. Competing processor Anedot has created a competing website that used the RNC’s and the president’s likeness to try to hit back at the party for not being the selected vendor.

Part of the reason why party officials selected Revv over Anedot, however, is because Revv is partisan and only works with Republicans, but Anedot is nonpartisan and does work with candidates and people outside the Republican Party. While Democrats are all on ActBlue, Anedot has done fundraising work with Never Trump types like Evan McMullin and former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld–who is challenging Trump in the GOP primary in 2020, but polling in the single digits at best–and bills itself as a nonpartisan firm. Revv, on the other hand, is partisan–and only works with Republicans–hence the GOP’s decision to choose that route as the way to go.

“The decision to not use Anedot was made in part because of their long history of working with scam PACs,” the RNC’s Reed added in his quote to Breitbart News. “Anedot also positions itself as a non-partisan entity. It obviously makes more sense for the RNC to work with a platform that is aligned completely with the Republican Party and the president.”

But Anedot, which previously has done significant amounts of work with many senior Republicans, ranging from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to House GOP leaders to many state parties and lawmakers across the party, stands to lose that business as the RNC and GOP across the board make the shift to WinRed and, by extension, Revv. As such, in response, Anedot recently launched a website called Give.GOP that, until the GOP sent cease-and-desist letters demanding they be removed, included imagery that had the GOP’s likeness on them.

In a follow-up story this week, Politico’s Isenstadt wrote about the rising tensions inside the GOP over the WinRed fight with Anedot:

Tensions over the future of the GOP’s grassroots fundraising are reaching a breaking point, with the national party turning to strong-arm tactics to get Republicans behind its new, Donald Trump-endorsed platform for small donors.

The Republican National Committee is threatening to withhold support from party candidates who refuse to use WinRed, the party’s newly established online fundraising tool. And the RNC, along with the party’s Senate and gubernatorial campaign arms, are threatening legal action against a rival donation vehicle.

The moves illustrate how Republican leaders are waging a determined campaign to make WinRed the sole provider of its small donor infrastructure — and to torpedo any competitors.

On Monday, the RNC sent an eight-page cease-and-desist letter to Paul Dietzel, a Republican digital strategist who earlier this month launched Give.GOP, a fundraising platform that includes a directory through which donors can give to party candidates and organizations. In the letter, RNC chief counsel Justin Riemer writes that while Give.GOP has a page inviting donors to give to the RNC, the committee hasn’t yet received any funds from the platform or received any outreach from it. Riemer also accuses Dietzel of using the committee’s trademark and logo without its permission.

The cease-and-desist letter from the RNC, provided to Breitbart News, also questions where the money from Give.GOP is going and how it would be provided to the party committees if it does end up going there. There is no answer to that question from the Anedot leaders at this stage, which has party leaders concerned that anyone who gives to Give.GOP could be getting hoodwinked into donating to a structure that does not help the party or the president or Republican candidates but, instead, is enriching political consultants attempting to hold onto the cash flow they are likely to lose if WinRed is implemented across the board as the Trump campaign and party officials envision.

Regarding the Anedot situation, Trump’s campaign manager, Parscale, in his quote to Breitbart News, described it as a “scheme” that hurts the GOP and helps Democrats.

“This is the same kind of scheme that has prevented Republicans for having an answer to ActBlue for 15 years,” Parscale said.

While WinRed was just rolled out a couple of weeks ago, party officials are working across the country with candidates, state parties, and other party fundraising vehicles to implement it universally–and are convinced that if it can be utilized everywhere, they can stand up to ActBlue once and for all down the road. It remains to be seen if the GOP will be successful in doing this, but if they pull it off–and if they are able to do it without hurting grassroots anti-establishment candidates–it could, in theory, be a major step forward for Republicans. Couple this machine with GOP fundraising numbers at record levels, and Republicans believe they can significantly strengthen their chances in elections down the road long into the future.

Poll: Democrats Cause Patriotism to Plummet Ahead of July 4th


Written by HARIS ALIC |

Protesters try unsuccessfully to burn an upside down US flag during a protest outside the White House in Washington, DC on November 25, 2014, one day after a grand jury decision not to prosecute a white police officer for the killing of an unarmed black teen in Ferguson, Missouri. AFP …
MLADEN ANTONOV/AFP/Getty
 

The number of Americans who consider themselves “extremely proud” of their country is at a record low ahead of Independence Day.

A new Gallup poll released on Tuesday found that while 70 percent of all U.S. adults say they are proud to be Americans, only 45 percent say they are “extremely” proud of their country.

This was the second consecutive year in which the number of individuals identifying as extremely patriotic fell below 50 percent. Overall the share of Americans identifying as “extremely” patriotic is now at the lowest level since Gallup began asking the question in 2001.

Gallup found the decline in patriotism to be largely driven by Democrats. Of those identifying with the party, only 22 percent said they were “extremely” proud to be Americans. Similarly “subgroups that typically identify as Democrats — women, liberals and younger adults,” also expressed lower levels of patriotism, according to Gallup.

The new polling confirms trends witnessed among Democrats since President Donald Trump took office. The share of Democrats expressing patriotism plummeted by double digits from 43 percent in 2017 to 32 percent in 2018. Although Democrats have historically reported lower levels of pride in their country, this year’s total of 22 percent is the lowest on record since Gallup began measuring the question.

Republicans, on the other hand, continue to express record levels of patriotism. Gallup found that 76 percent of individuals associated with the GOP identified as “extremely” proud to be Americans—only ten percentage points less than the group’s recorded high in 2003.

Even though Gallup shows a correlation between levels of patriotism and which party controls the White House, the level of pride among Democrats since Trump took office is exponentially low. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the percent of Democrats expressing extreme pride in their country never fell under 46 percent. In comparison, during the presidency of Barack Obama the share of Republicans identifying as extremely proud to be American never dropped below 68 percent.

Gallup, however, did find that the two parties more broadly agreed about “American economic achievements,” with 89 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Democrats expressing pride. Likewise, Republicans and Democrats showed reverence for the U.S. military, with 98 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of Democrats saying they were proud of the institution.

Gallup conducted the poll between June 3 through June 16 by surveying 1,015 adults from across the country. The poll had a margin of error of +\- 4 percentage points.

Democrats plot strategy to win back Senate


Written

Democrats plot strategy to win back Senate
© Greg Nash

Democrats planning their bid to win back control of the Senate will run hard against the Washington swamp next year, repurposing one of President Trump’s most effective campaign messages from the 2016 election as their own.

Top party operatives are poll-testing messages aimed at winning over voters who are fed up with a gridlocked capital, searching for ways to build an advantage among swing voters who may still like Trump, but not the senators who are seeking reelection in 2020.

And while Democrats could not convince some of their best-known candidates to forgo long shot presidential campaigns in favor of bids for Senate seats, the party will now rely on a once-unorthodox stable of candidates with little or no experience in elected office. 

It is a strategy reminiscent of 2006 and 2018, when House Democrats ousted Republican majorities on the backs of candidates with unusual profiles. This year, the stable of Senate Democratic candidates includes more women and veterans than has been typical in recent cycles.

“In races around the country, there are strong Democrats stepping up to run who fit their states and will be a breath of fresh air with new perspectives to bring to the Senate,” said Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), who heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

When former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D) and Rep. Joaquin Castro (D) opted against challenging Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Democrats turned to M.J. Hegar, a veteran and businesswoman who lost a closer than expected bid for Congress last year. 

In Iowa, another former congressional candidate, Theresa Greenfield, is Democrats’ preferred candidate against Sen. Joni Ernst (R), though she faces a primary fight.

Arizona Sen. Martha McSally (R) will face Mark Kelly, the retired astronaut making his first run for public office. In North Carolina and Maine, Democrats recruited two state legislators to challenge Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). 

Those candidates will pitch themselves as fresh-faced outsiders who can shake up a corrupt and broken political system — even if, as is the case in Texas, Iowa and North Carolina, the favored Democratic candidate has lost a race before.

“In this race for Senate, it’s time for somebody who will stand up and fight, to build an economy that works for everybody, for the health care that each family deserves, and to reform the corrupt political system in Washington,” former North Carolina state Sen. Cal Cunningham (D) said in a video announcing his bid to unseat Tillis.

Complicating matters for Democrats, only two states that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 have incumbent
Republican senators today: Maine and Colorado. To win back the Senate majority, Democrats must win states like North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa and even Texas — all states that gave Trump their electoral votes three years ago and where he remains either popular or at least competitive today.

That has Democrats also focusing on a different villain: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Several Democratic groups are testing whether portraying Republican senators as McConnell’s minions can be effective. 

Those surveys and public polls show McConnell is surprisingly well-known, and not in a good way. 

A Harvard-Harris Poll survey conducted in May pegged McConnell’s favorable rating at just 23 percent, lower than Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), at 36 percent, or Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), at 27 percent. His unfavorable rating stood at 44 percent, lower than Pelosi’s 50 percent but higher than every other politician tested except Trump, Clinton and Vice President Pence.

In a poll conducted for the Democratic group End Citizens United, Global Strategies Group found reading messages against McConnell moved voters toward Democratic candidates more effectively than messages against Trump or the Republican Congress at large.

“Mitch McConnell is beholden to special interests and he’s blocking progress on everything from making prescription drugs more affordable to addressing political corruption to making health care more affordable,” said Patrick Burgwinkle, who heads communications for End Citizens United.

McConnell appears twice in Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon’s (D) video announcing her bid against Collins. Greenfield lumped Ernst and McConnell together in her own video. In Texas, Hegar called Cornyn “that tall guy lurking behind” McConnell.

More than half of the 295 advertisements the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is currently running on Facebook show McConnell’s image or mention his name.

Attacks against national party leaders are nothing new to Republicans, who spent several cycles using Pelosi as shorthand to tie every prominent Democratic challenger to liberal San Francisco values.

Republicans aren’t convinced that McConnell will be the poison pill that they saw in Pelosi.

“You use party leaders in midterms to polarize an electorate when you have registration advantages in the state or district. In a presidential election the electorate is polarized and motivated. The middle isn’t making a decision to show up for a presidential election based upon a three-way bank shot in the side-pocket about whether a senator serves in the same conference as somebody else,” said Josh Holmes, a longtime Senate Republican strategist and top aide to McConnell.

“The reality for him is that any resource spent attacking Mitch McConnell is a resource that is not used to attack his Republican colleagues, and that’s just the way he likes it,” Holmes said.

But Democrats hope the focus on corruption can be the beginning of a discussion of other issues, too: That health care costs rise because of pressure from special interest groups or that gun safety legislation has not passed because of the power of the National Rifle Association.

Democrats “can make the case that Mitch McConnell and special interests in Washington are the ones preventing these priorities from being addressed,” Burgwinkle said.

Pence: Reports of conditions in detention centers prove ‘Congress has to act’


Reported

Vice President Pence briefly sparred with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday over reports of unsanitary, dangerous conditions in migrant detention centers.

“No American should approve of this mass influx of people coming across our border,” Pence said on “State of the Union.” “I was at the detention center in Nogales, [Ariz.]. … It is a heartbreaking scene. These are people who are being exploited by human traffickers. … Congress has to act.”

Tapper played a clip of Justice Department lawyer Sarah Fabian suggesting detained migrant children did not need toothbrushes or soap, prompting Pence to respond, “I can’t speak to what that lawyer was saying.” He then insisted congressional Democrats had resisted expanding bed space in detention centers.

Pence, asked about additional reports of conditions inside the facilities, said that “we’ve got to get to the root causes” by improving border security.

Tapper continued to press Pence on conditions in the facilities, telling him he had “the power right now to go back to the White House” and raise the issue. Pence defended U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel, calling them “dedicated men and women” who are “doing their level best every day.”

Immigration attorneys have said that four toddlers were sent to the hospital last week after they were held at a Border Patrol facility.

Pence’s comments came in the wake of reports that President Trump had canceled sweeping Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in several major cities Sunday, saying he would give congressional Democrats two weeks to reach an immigration deal.

Trump EPA finalizes rule to gut Obama coal plant regulations


Written by Josh Siegel | June 19, 2019 12:00 AM | Updated Jun 19, 2019, 10:23 AM

The Trump administration finalized Wednesday its much-anticipated rule gutting President Barack Obama’s signature plan for reducing carbon emissions from coal plants to combat climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency released its replacement of Obama’s Clean Power Plan with a modest rule intended to encourage efficiency upgrades at coal plants to help them exist longer and emit less pollution.

“ACE will continue our nation’s environmental progress and will do so legally and with respect for the states,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said at a press conference Wednesday, where he was joined by White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, other administration officials, and Republican members of Congress from coal states. “The ACE rule will incentivize new technologies so coal plants can be part of our energy future.”

The Trump administration plan, known as the Affordable Clean Energy or ACE rule, encourages states to allow utilities to make heat rate improvements in power plants, enabling them to run more efficiently by burning less coal to produce the same amount of electricity. Under current rules, power plants must undergo new pollution reviews when they upgrade facilities, making it prohibitively expensive.

The rule is not projected to meaningfully reduce emissions, and is expected to have little effect on the actions of electric utilities that are already switching away from expensive coal to cheaper natural gas and renewables without a federal regulation.

The focus on regulating power plants individually is a rejection of the Clean Power Plan, which allowed for efficiency upgrades, but also sought to push the overall power sector to switch away from coal to natural gas and renewables.

The Clean Power Plan required states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 32% below 2005 levels by 2030.

The Trump administration rule, unlike the Clean Power Plan, does not set a specific target for the power sector to reduce carbon emissions, giving states the authority to write their own plans for reducing pollution at individual plants.

In choosing to replace the Clean Power Plan, rather than repeal it outright, the EPA is acknowledging the federal government is legally obligated to regulate carbon emissions that cause climate change. Environmentalists and Democratic states, however, plan to sue the Trump administration, arguing the rule does not meaningfully fulfill the bare-bones requirement of the Clean Air Act since it would not significantly cut carbon emissions by keeping alive coal plants with efficiency improvements that would otherwise retire.

Carbon emissions rose in 2018 for the first time in eight years.

“What a responsible administration would do is strengthen the Clean Power Plan, not kill it,” said David Doniger, senior strategic director of the Climate and Clean Energy Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which will be among the groups suing the EPA. “We will attack this because it attempts to cripple the Clean Air Act as a tool to tackle climate change.”

Courts never ruled on the legality of the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan — even though the Supreme Court stayed the rule.

Trump’s EPA, and conservative state attorneys general who filed suit, argued that Obama’s approach was expansive and illegal.

The relevant section of the Clean Air Act, section 111(D), says carbon pollution regulations must reflect “the best system of emission reduction” — without defining what that means. The Trump administration, critics say, is seeking to have the federal courts enshrine its narrow view of law.

“They are looking to define the limits of EPA’s regulatory authority,” said Jeff Holmstead, a former deputy administrator of the EPA in the George W. Bush administration and energy industry attorney who agrees with the Trump administration’s approach. “The ACE rule can establish what EPA can do when it comes to regulating emissions from the power sector.”

EPA says the new rule will reduce carbon emissions by as much as 35% below 2005 levels in 2030 — similar to projections for the Clean Power Plan — but most of that would occur from market forces absent any regulation. EPA, in a fact sheet accompanying the rule, projects ACE will cut carbon emissions 11 million tons by 2030, but that’s only about a 0.84% reduction compared to what would occur with no regulation.

A senior EPA official, briefing reporters Wednesday, acknowledged some coal plants will increase emissions over their lifetime if they apply efficiency improvements and operate longer, rather than retire.

“It will yield virtually no reductions in C02 emissions,” said Joseph Goffman, an environmental law professor at Harvard University who was a chief architect of the Clean Power Plan, speaking on a phone call with reporters. The EPA is looking to “simply be a grudging cheerleader for what the utility sector is doing anyway, not for climate change reasons, but simply for business reasons,” he added.

Large utilities that are transitioning off coal have said EPA’s effort to encourage efficiency upgrades at coal plants will not inspire them to alter plans to switch to cleaner energy.

“We are on our path. We are going to stay on our path,” Dominion CEO Thomas Farrell told the Washington Examiner this month at a utility industry conference.

Coal has fallen from 55% of power produced by Dominion to 11%, he said, helping the company stay on track for its goal of reducing emissions 50% by 2030 and 80% by 2050.

Ohio-based American Electric Power, one of the nation’s largest utilities, has similar views on the Trump pitch, even though it opposed the Clean Power Plan. It aims to reduce coal use from nearly half its electricity mix to 27% by 2030, while cutting its carbon emissions 80% by 2050.

“AEP’s long-term strategy remains focused on modernizing the power grid, expanding renewable energy resources and delivering cost-effective, reliable energy to our customers,” Tammy Ridout, an AEP spokeswoman, told the Washington Examiner.

Indeed, many coal plants across the industry are too old to make upgrades worth investing in. Others have already done the efficiency work EPA outlines in its proposal, utility industry analysts say.

Trump EPA’s coal plan could be most beneficial for smaller utilities, like co-ops that provide energy to rural consumers. These utilities aim to keep rates as low as possible because many of their users are low-income, and it would cost less to upgrade an existing coal plant than to invest in a new facility.

“The final ACE rule gives electric cooperatives the ability to adopt evolving technology and respond to market and consumer demands while continuing to serve as engines of economic development for one in eight Americans,” said Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative, a trade group representing more than 900 co-ops in 47 states.

THREE New Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Changing of the Guard

The Democrat party was once called the party of JFK, but as they further to the left, they’re starting to look more like the party of AOC.

The Party of AOCPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Pet Smart

Stephanopoulos interviews President Trump on a Hypothetical situation involving foreign oppo-research, and now the left is in fake outraged mode again, not having a problem with Hillary’s collusion with Russia and the Steele dossier.

Stephanopoulos, Foreign Oppo-ResearchPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Happy Birthday Mr. President

Trump turns 73. Happy Birthday Mr. President with a cake complete with fake news candles.

Trump 73rd BirthdayPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
See more Conservative Daily News cartoons here

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and most recently President Trump.

Democrats plan Capitol Hill event to put Trump’s mental health under fire


Reported by Kimberly Leonard |  June 05, 2019 12:00 AM

Democrats are planning to host a Capitol Hill event featuring psychiatrists who will warn that President Trump is unfit for office based on his mental health. The event will be led by Dr. Bandy Lee, a Yale School of Medicine psychiatrist and editor of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, a book that argues psychiatrists have a responsibility to warn the public when a president is dangerous. The position is controversial because psychiatric associations urge members never to diagnose patients they haven’t personally evaluated, saying it undermines the scientific rigor of the profession.

But Lee and others who agree with her stance say that their description of the president’s behavior, of his showing mental instability and dangerousness, shouldn’t be interpreted as issuing a diagnosis.

“The president’s condition has been visibly deteriorating to the point where there’s a lot of talk right now about his mental state beyond mental health professionals,”Lee said. “It no longer takes a mental health professional to recognize the seriousness of the current presidency.”

The date for the town hall hasn’t been set but would be held “imminently soon within the next couple of weeks,” said Lee, who said the event was meant to be bipartisan. Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth, D-Ky., who has called for Trump’s impeachment, confirmed the event was in the works, but said it would be more likely to occur in July because lawmakers have a full plate in June with spending bills.

“We’re planning to put together an event,” Yarmuth said. “She’s calling it a town hall. We haven’t actually determined the format, but it’s going to be an event where she is going to present her findings, and media will be invited.”

Yarmuth said every House member would be invited but that he hadn’t yet gauged who would be interested because not many people knew about it. Lee said the group would reconsider the event if no Republicans planned to show up.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.

According to Lee, attendees at the town hall would watch a condensed video that was recorded at a Washington, D.C., event held at the National Press Club in March that featured 13 experts discussing how they didn’t think Trump was fit for office. The experts, who came from the fields of mental health, philosophy, history, and journalism, said they were worried about the president’s access to nuclear weapons and the impact his administration would have on climate change.

Lee said the event is to allow members of Congress to ask her and other experts questions, but planners hope the town hall will be broadcast live so that people who aren’t in D.C. also would be able to watch and submit questions.

Lee said the experts won’t make specific recommendations about whether Congress should consider invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office or whether they should do so by impeachment. The political process should be determined by members of Congress, she said.

Yarmuth said that, to him, the event was a separate question from impeachment. “I don’t think an assessment of someone’s mental health is an impeachable issue,” he said. He decided to hold the event “for the same fears she has,”he said, referring to Lee. “That the president is manifesting dangerous behavior and the American people need to be alert to it.”

“Their position is that as professionals, when they see patterns of behavior that are endangering people, that they have a professional obligation to go public and alert the people who are threatened, and in this case it’s the American people,” Yarmuth said. “I think the American people deserve to have wider dissemination of that perspective.”

It’s not yet clear who else will participate. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who has a 25th Amendment bill that would set up a body in Congress to determine presidential fitness, had been asked to be on a panel that was based on the topic and set for sometime around May 20. The panel was then canceled or postponed because of scheduling conflicts, and Raskin’s office said it hadn’t heard about a new one in the works.

His deputy communications director, Samantha Brown, said in an email that he likely would have discussed the 25th Amendment from a historical and legal perspective.

Lee has been outspoken about Trump’s mental state. She’s the public face of a five-person group that is meeting regularly in D.C. and working to set up a medical panel to evaluate the mental capacity of Trump and Democratic presidential candidates.

“It’s deceptive because it seems like he’s alert, it seems like he’s responding to things in a rational manner, but it is not the case from every measure that we have taken,” Lee said of Trump. “And this is very serious. In fact, worse than if he had a stroke and were unconscious because he can mislead the country in destructive or nefarious ways.”

One of the other members of the working group is Dr. James Merikangas, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, but the others haven’t identified themselves publicly and aren’t known to the Washington Examiner.

In April, Lee and other psychiatrists wrote a report using the former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian election interference to make an assessment about the president’s mental health. They at first refrained from issuing a conclusion and gave Trump three weeks to undergo an evaluation. After they didn’t hear back, they released a conclusion that Trump “lacks mental basic mental capacity for duties of office” and recommended his access to nuclear weapons and war powers be curtailed.

“Our concern is that the dangers be contained — the dangers of having a president who lacks the mental capacity, lacks the fitness to discharge his duties of office for the remainder of his term,”Lee said. “I mean, this is really a national emergency.”

Bannon and Kobach unveil crowdfunded border wall amid unspent millions


Reported by Anna Giaritelli |  | May 31, 2019 12:05 AM

A group of immigration hardliners who used millions of crowdfunded dollars to build a border barrier on private land along the U.S.-Mexico border unveiled the nearly completed half-mile steel bollard fence Thursday following construction delays.

The 2,300-feet-long project marks the first time a nongovernment organization or individual has built a wall on privately owned land on the international boundary. It runs up a rocky 320-feet-tall hill and is 18 to 20 feet tall, depending on the point on the hill where it is measured.

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, former Kansas State Secretary Kris Kobach, World Series MLB player Curt Schilling, Blackwater USA founder Erik Prince, and other longtime supporters of President Trump were on site at the project in Sunland Park, N.M., to showcase the fence, which stands on less than half a mile of the 1,954-mile border.

The undertaking has evolved, prompting questions about how money is being spent and the Trump administration’s involvement in the process.

Brian Kolfage, a triple amputee veteran, created a crowdfunding page in December with the intent of raising $1 billion for border wall construction following the Trump administration’s failure to obtain $25 billion for the project last December. The GoFundMe website did not state where the wall would be built or any other details. Kolfage vowed to return everyone’s money if the project did not reach $1 billion.

Kolfage insisted the campaign was not a scam despite having run a since-shuttered Facebook “news” page known for spreading conspiracy theories. He was also sued in 2017 after he reported the wrong name of the suspect involved in the fatal car accident during a white supremacy rally in Charlottesville, Va.

Kolfage’s page did not come close to its $1 billion goal and topped out at $22.9 million earlier this year. The more than 330,000 people who donated were informed by GoFundMe that they were eligible for a refund because Kolfage had changed the terms of the fundraiser to move to a different fund money people did not request back.

Weeks ahead of the crowdfunding campaign’s failure, Kolfage had launched We Build the Wall, Inc., a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. Bannon, Kobach, and other staunch conservatives who have been criticized as anti-immigrant were appointed to the organization’s board. The money from the crowdfunding campaign was then funneled to the outside organization.

About the same time this spring, Bannon and fellow board members, including former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, held a couple rallies in Midwestern cities to raise money for the organization, though they have not shared how much they raised in addition to the crowdfunding dollars.

Tommy Fisher, president and CEO of Fisher Industries, was paid to install the steel fence and said it is expected to come in at $7 million after taxes.

We Build the Wall has raised nearly $23 million for the project, though it is unclear how the nonprofit group plans to spend the remaining donations. The group did not respond to a request for comment.

Fisher told the Washington Examiner on Thursday he got involved in the project in April after receiving a call about his company’s claims it could build a mile of border wall per day. We Build the Wall officials, including Kobach, attended a demonstration of the construction in Coolidge, Ariz., last month.

Fisher said the organization signed a contract for him to build the half-mile portion of steel fence over the course of eight days, but it took longer because the city of Sunland Park shut down construction for two days. The suspension was lifted Wednesday.

Despite the board’s connections to Trump, organizers have insisted the project is not affiliated with the White House.

That claim was called into question in a recent Washington Post article that said Trump was adamant about the Army Corps of Engineers hiring Fisher Industries to carry out border wall projects.

Fisher dismissed being described as having lobbied Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., to get his name in front of Trump and insisted Trump was calling for the Pentagon to hire his company because of personal frustration with the less than 40 miles of border wall that has been installed in the two years and four months that he has been in office.

“I’d be mad if I were him,” Fisher said.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – The Torch Has Passed

Mueller says no evidence of collusion nor is there any evidence he is innocent and that is all the proof Nadler and the Congress need to move ahead on impeachment.

Mueller SpeaksPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Sharpshooter

Some feel Pelosi is trying to hold back many in the Democrat party from impeaching President because it could hurt their chances in the coming 2020 election.

Impeachment Democrat SuicidePolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

Branco’s Faux Children’s Book “APOCALI” ORDER  HERE

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Toxic Brew

The Democrats can’t find anything on President Trump no matter how hard they try. Plan A; the dossier, plan B; Russia collusion, plan C; obstruction, plan D; impeach him anyway.

Witch-hunt and ImpeachmentPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

Branco’s Faux Children’s Book “APOCALI” ORDER  HERE

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

take our poll – story continues below
  • Who is most likely to win the Democrat nomination?

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

Two Politically INCORRECT Cartoons from A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Comrades

It appears that all the Democrat presidential candidates have gone mad and have moved way over to the extreme left.

Democrat Presidential Candidates 2020Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Obstruction

Trump would like to work with Pelosi and the Democrats on out badly needed infrastructure, but they would rather resist and play politics than do the peoples business.

Trump Wants InfrastructurePolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

Branco’s Faux Children’s Book “APOCALI” ORDER  HERE

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

take our poll – story continues below
  • Who is most likely to win the Democrat nomination?

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

Classified Iran briefing becomes heated as Trump team clashes with Democrats


Reported by Joel Gehrke | May 21, 2019

A classified Senate briefing on Iranian plots against the United States turned into a tense clash between top U.S. officials and lawmakers frustrated with President Trump’s strategy toward Tehran.

“I would say there was a lot of heat in that room,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told the Washington Examiner following the Tuesday afternoon briefing.

Key congressional Democrats suggested that President Trump’s administration was preparing for military conflict with the regime based on faulty intelligence or even false pretenses after ambiguous U.S. warnings that Iranian proxies might attack American personnel in Iraq. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan sought to allay that suspicion in separate meetings, first with House lawmakers and then the Senate Tuesday afternoon.

“Today I walked them through what the Department of Defense has been doing since May 3, when we received credible intelligence about threats to our interests in the Middle East and to American forces, and how we acted on that credible intelligence,” Shanahan told reporters after the Senate briefing. “That intelligence has borne out in attacks, and I would say it’s also deterred attacks. We have deterred attacks based on our re-posturing of assets, deterred attacks against American forces.”

The controversy shifted in the briefing to complaints that they didn’t communicate with Congress enough in recent weeks and a broader protest against the administration’s withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a top contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, was among the most aggressive in raising the specter of being misled into a conflict with Iran.

“Most Americans know way back when we were lied to about the situation in Vietnam and we went into a war which ended up costing us 59,000 lives, based on a lie,” he said. “In 2003, we were lied to in terms of Iraq supposedly having weapons of mass destruction.”

Sanders refused to answer whether he believes such lies are being told now. “I won’t talk about what we heard in the meeting,” he said. “But let me just say that I worry very much that, intentionally or unintentionally, we create a situation in which a war will take place.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer avoided that controversy entirely, focusing only on the frustration that the administration didn’t provide more information to lawmakers over the last three weeks.

“I told the people who were briefing us that I thought the consultation with the American people and the Congress was inadequate,” the New York Democrat told reporters in a brief appearance, without taking additional questions. “Both the American people and the Congress read about a lot of actions in the newspapers and had no idea what was going on. I told them they had to make it better next time.”

Shanahan acknowledged that desire for more information. “We heard feedback that they’d like more conversation,” he said. “They’d also like us to be more communicative with the American public, and we agreed to do more of that.”

Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, a senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, conceded that the meeting was a “very helpful” survey of the intelligence reports and U.S. responses. Another lawmaker confirmed that the meeting was testy, but in this telling the confrontation was bipartisan and focused more on the administration’s policies than suspicions that they are fabricating intelligence.

“A number of them questioned the conclusions of the administration about the reaction of the Iranians and what it might lead to,” a Democratic senator, speaking on condition of anonymity, said after the briefing. “I think there’s a lot of us with real misgivings about how serious this is and how much is a creation of the administration’s own provocative policy.”

Shanahan stressed that the administration, which has deployed an aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf and threatened devastating consequences for attacks on Americans, is trying to avoid a conflict.

“Our biggest focus at this point is to prevent Iranian miscalculation,” he told reporters. “We do not want the situation to escalate.”

Cruz kept the focus on Democratic hostility to Trump and their fidelity to the nuclear agreement that former President Barack Obama’s team negotiated with Iran.

“Far too many congressional Democrats are invested in appeasement for Iran, which manifests in effectively defending the mullahs against maximum pressure,” he told the Washington Examiner.

New Cache of 339 Emails Shows Fusion GPS Emailing Anti-Trump Intel Directly to Obama’s DOJ: Report


Reported By Benjamin Arie | Published May 2, 2019 at 3:55pm

It’s no secret that liberals across the country have tried desperately to stop Donald Trump since he became a candidate, but their efforts to undermine him may now be coming back at themselves like a boomerang.

A scandal which began before the 2016 election was even held has just exploded, at least if a bombshell report from the watchdog group Judicial Watch is accurate. The organization has been diligently unraveling the facts around Fusion GPS, and what they recently found is jaw-dropping.

Fusion GPS, of course, is the “opposition research” firm which was contracted by the DNC to dig up dirt on Trump in the run-up to the election. The company is linked to the infamous dossier containing scandalous — and thoroughly debunked — claims about the president, but the controversy is much wider than just those papers.

It now appears that someone working for Fusion GPS was purposely and frequently collaborating with a deputy attorney general within the Obama administration, sending anti-Trump material in a way that was certainly unethical if not completely illegal.

The Obama-era official is Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, and the anti-Trump figure working for Fusion GPS was his wife.

TRENDING: Ukrainians Say Obama WH Tried Getting Them To Do Hillary’s Dirty Work in Jan. 2016

“[A] series of ‘Hi Honey’ emails from Nellie Ohr to her high-ranking federal prosecutor husband and his colleagues raise the prospect that Hillary Clinton-funded opposition research was being funneled into the Justice Department during the 2016 election through a back-door marital channel,” explained veteran investigative journalist John Solomon for The Hill.

“Ohr has admitted to Congress that, during the 2016 presidential election, she worked for Fusion GPS — the firm hired by Democratic nominee Clinton and the Democratic National Committee to perform political opposition research,” the journalist said.

That kind of research is often used by political campaigns against their opponents, and is not by itself off limits. But Judicial Watch uncovered 339 emails which reveal that Nellie Ohr likely crossed the line by using her marriage as a political tool, and sending pages of anti-Trump research directly to official Department of Justice email accounts.

“They clearly show that Ohr sent reams of open-source intelligence to her husband, Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, and on some occasions to at least three DOJ prosecutors: Lisa Holtyn, Ivana Nizich and Joseph Wheatley,” Solomon said.

“Such overt political content flowing into the email accounts of a DOJ charged with the nonpartisan mission of prosecuting crimes is jarring enough. It raises additional questions about potential conflicts of interest when it is being injected by a spouse working as a Democratic contractor trying to defeat Trump,” he continued.

But the scandal is deeper than just emails. Nellie and Bruce Ohr apparently had key roles in pushing the debunked Trump dossier and the false narrative that the future president was colluding with Russia.

“For instance, just 24 days after the anti-Trump screed was emailed, both Ohrs met in Washington with British intelligence operative Christopher Steele,” Solomon said. “She said she learned that Steele had concerns that he hoped the DOJ or FBI would investigate, with help from her husband.”

And that appears to be exactly what happened.

“The next day, Bruce Ohr used his official DOJ position to go to then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe with Steele’s allegations (later to become known as the Steele dossier), and the bureau opened its first investigation into Russia collusion,” he said.

There are obvious parallels to Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI officials who were also having an affair all while texting back and forth about how Trump should be stopped. More and more, it looks like partisan politics and anti-Trump collaboration was widespread within agencies which are supposed to be unbiased.

That is the real scandal here: Not that liberals tried to uncover dirt on a candidate, but that official government personnel within our own government eagerly participated in the partisan witch hunt.

It looks like there was collusion, but not by Trump.

Instead, the real collusion took place between Obama-era government officials and activists who saw nothing as off limits in order to install Hillary Clinton as president — and that should alarm every American, no matter their party.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Benjamin Arie is an independent journalist and writer. He has personally covered everything ranging from local crime to the U.S. president as a reporter in Michigan, before focusing on national politics. Ben frequently travels to Latin America and has spent years living in Mexico. Follow Benjamin on Facebook

Dems want climate change, tax hikes in infrastructure deal


Reported

The top two Democratic leaders on Monday told President Trump that any bipartisan infrastructure package needs to take into consideration climate change and include “substantial, new and real revenue” — a preview of the coming fight over tax hikes.

Trump will host Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) at the White House on Tuesday for discussions on a major infrastructure bill, one of the few policy areas that could see action amid divided government and as the 2020 race heats up.

Democrats want the measure for roads, bridges, waterways and other projects to be paid for with tax increases, and with a final price tag of at least $1 trillion over 10 years. Trump’s fiscal 2020 budget calls for $200 billion in federal spending on infrastructure, which White House officials say will leverage an additional $800 billion in investment through public-private partnerships over the next decade.

“America’s unmet infrastructure needs are massive, and a bipartisan infrastructure package must meet those needs with substantial, new and real revenue,” Pelosi and Schumer wrote in a letter to Trump on Monday. “We look forward to hearing your ideas on how to pay for this package to ensure that it is big and bold enough to meet our country’s needs.”

The leaders laid out other Democratic priorities: Any deal must extend beyond traditional infrastructure projects, take into account climate change, include “Buy America” provisions and provide jobs for a broad swath of workers.

“A big and bold infrastructure package must be comprehensive and include clean energy and resiliency priorities,” Pelosi and Schumer wrote. “To truly be a gamechanger for the American people, we should go beyond transportation and into broadband, water, energy, schools, housing and other initiatives. We must also invest in resiliency and risk mitigation of our current infrastructure to deal with climate change.”

“A big and bold infrastructure plan must have strong Buy America, labor, and women, veteran and minority-owned business protections in any package,” they added. “This bill can and should be a major jobs and ownership boost for the American people – manufacturers, labor contractors, and women, veteran and minority-owned businesses.”

Pelosi told reporters earlier this month that an infrastructure package “has to be at least $1 trillion. I’d like it to be closer to $2 trillion.”

Trump last year reportedly told lawmakers and senior White House officials that he was in favor of a 25-cent gas tax hike to help pay for an infrastructure overhaul. The gas tax, which supports the Highway Trust Fund and pays for road projects, has not been raised in more than two decades. But on Monday, a source familiar with Schumer’s thinking said the senator would not entertain any gas-tax proposal unless Trump also rolled back some tax cuts from his 2017 landmark tax law.

“Unless President Trump considers undoing some of the 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy, Schumer won’t even consider a proposal from the president to raise the gas tax, of which the poor and working people would bear the brunt,” the Democratic source said.

Tuesday’s gathering marks the first meeting between Trump and the top Democratic leaders since the report from special counsel Robert Mueller was made public. It comes as multiple Democratic-led committees in the House have launched investigations into Trump, his administration, his business dealings and whether he obstructed justice.

A handful of other House Democrats will be attending Tuesday’s meeting: Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.), Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (S.C.), Assistant Speaker Ben Ray Luján (N.M.), Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (Mass.) and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (Ore.).

On the Senate side, Democratic attendees will include Minority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), Assistant Democratic Leader Patty Murray (Wash.), Democratic Policy Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), and Sens. Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Tom Carper (Del.), the ranking members of the Finance and Environment and Public Works committees, respectively.

Americans Just Sent Democrats a Loud and Clear Message About Impeachment: Don’t Do It


Reported By Karista Baldwin | Published April 28, 2019 at 8:01am

Democratic leaders are in a tough spot as their base pushes for the president’s impeachment while most Americans oppose it.

A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that the majority of Americans are against impeaching the president following the publication of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. According to the poll, around 37 percent of Americans are pro-impeachment, a slightly lower figure than last month. Meanwhile, 56 percent of Americans oppose impeachment.

Breaking the results into parties: 62 percent of Democrats responded to the poll in support of impeachment, while 87 percent of Republican respondents opposed to it. Among independents, 36 percent support impeaching the president, showing a drop in the group’s support for impeachment since before the release of the Mueller report, according to January’s Washington Post/ABC News poll. Poll respondents who strongly oppose impeachment also outnumber those who strongly support, with strong opposition at 49 percent and strong support at 29 percent.

According to ABC News, this shows a 10-point rise since August in those strongly opposed to impeachment. It also reflects an 11-point decrease since August in those strongly in favor of impeachment.

The results reveal a dilemma for Democratic politicians at the moment: keeping their increasingly leftist base happy without alienating the majority of Americans who are against impeachment. The impeachment issue has already shown itself to be divisive within the Democratic party. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, both Democratic presidential nominee contenders, are placing their bets on pro-impeachment voters. Both senators have publicly urged Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against Trump.

“I believe Congress should take the steps towards impeachment,” Harris said, reported by CNN. “I believe that we need to get rid of this President.”

Warren has also taken a firm stance in support of impeaching Trump.

“The severity of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political considerations and do their constitutional duty,” Warren wrote on Twitter last week. “That means the House should initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States.”

Meanwhile, old-school Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has taken it upon herself do damage control for her party. Her more pragmatic approach to impeachment has shown itself to be at odds with her younger Democratic colleagues.

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” Pelosi told The Washington Post in March. “And he’s just not worth it.”

The public’s views on impeachment may be backing Democrats into a lose-lose situation. While Pelosi is working to appeal to the largest group of Americans on the issue of impeachment, she’s risking angering more leftist Democrats.

And while Harris and Warren cite the Mueller report as grounds for impeachment, 58 percent of Americans say that the results of the report had no effect on their view of the Trump administration, according to the Washington Post/ABC poll. In fact, 46 percent of the poll respondents said they won’t be taking the report into consideration when they vote in the 2020 presidential election.

Democratic nominee hopefuls may have to choose between upsetting their more extreme leftist supporters or alienating the general populace, who obviously aren’t eager to initiate impeachment. Either way could cost Democratic contenders their party’s nomination.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Karista Baldwin studied constitutional law, politics and criminal justice at the University of Dallas and the University of Texas at Dallas.

Trump Sends Warning to Mexico After Its Soldiers Draw Guns on US Troops in US: ‘Better Not Happen Again!’


Reported By Jack Davis | Published April 24, 2019 at 10:21am

President Donald Trump sent Mexico a warning Wednesday in response to an incident in which Mexican troops reportedly pointed their weapons at U.S. troops.

“Mexico’s Soldiers recently pulled guns on our National Guard Soldiers, probably as a diversionary tactic for drug smugglers on the Border. Better not happen again! We are now sending ARMED SOLDIERS to the Border. Mexico is not doing nearly enough in apprehending & returning!” Trump tweeted Wednesday.

On April 13 near Clint, Texas, two U.S. Army members were conducting an operation very close to the Rio Grande, which marks the official border between the two countries.

“[F]ive to six Mexican military personnel questioned two U.S. Army soldiers who were conducting border support operations in an unmarked [Customs and Border Protection] vehicle near the southwest border in the vicinity of Clint, Texas,” the Department of Defense told CNN.

Although the American troops were on U.S. soil, they apparently drove past a border fence that the Mexicans thought marked the boundary, while the incident actually took place just north of the official border. The foreign soldiers pointed weapons and confronted the Americans, even temporarily disarming them. The confrontation was resolved peacefully, officials said.

“After a brief discussion between the soldiers from the two nations, the Mexican military members departed the area,” Northern Command said in a statement, according to Army Times. “The U.S. soldiers immediately contacted CBP, who responded quickly. Throughout the incident, the U.S. soldiers followed all established procedures and protocols.”

Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, said there was probably more to the story than a simple geographical mixup, according to Fox News.

“These things don’t just happen by accident,” he said. “I don’t know one Border Patrol agent that is going to accept that story that the Mexican military thought that these national guardsmen were in Mexico.”

“We have hundreds upon hundreds incursions by the Mexican military into the U.S., yet we have very few incursions by Border Patrol agents into Mexico,” he said.

The Washington Examiner reported that the incident has triggered a review of the rules for American forces patrolling along the Southern Border. An official whose name was not given said the incident “will help us modify any instructions that we’re giving the troops” about unexpected encounters with Mexican soldiers.

Trump on Wednesday also demanded Mexico take action to block a caravan of migrants from ever reaching the U.S. border.

“A very big Caravan of over 20,000 people started up through Mexico. It has been reduced in size by Mexico but is still coming. Mexico must apprehend the remainder or we will be forced to close that section of the Border & call up the Military. The Coyotes & Cartels have weapons!” Trump wrote.

Mexico said Monday that it detained 371 migrants. Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said human traffickers have infiltrated migrant caravans, requiring an active response from Mexican officials.

“We don’t want for them to just have free passage, not just out of legal concerns but for questions of safety,” he said.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Jack Davis is a freelance writer who joined The Western Journal in July 2015 and chronicled the campaign that saw President Donald Trump elected. Since then, he has written extensively for The Western Journal on the Trump administration as well as foreign policy and military issues.

Trump Responds to Barr’s Summary of Mueller Report with Epic Image


Reported By James Luksic | Published April 18, 2019 at 8:40am | Modified April 18, 2019 at 8:58am

President Donald Trump didn’t waste much time expressing his thoughts about Attorney General William Barr’s news conference Thursday morning. Moments after Barr asserted the Mueller report concluded that Trump’s campaign didn’t collude with Russia and that no evidence of obstruction was established, the president posted on social media. True to form, the image Trump tweeted was commensurate with trolling the opposition, with an assist from HBO’s series “Game of Thrones.

Game on, indeed. Not unlike Pavlov’s dogs, Trump critics — including overzealous Hill editor Brian Krassenstein — were swiftly triggered and reacted in kind, with a side of profanity.

Democrats and other NeverTrumpers will follow suit — via social media or before the cameras — with their predictable litany of liberal platitudes. Never mind that, as Barr emphasized Thursday, the president didn’t invoke “executive privilege” over the Mueller report.

Such assessments evidently aren’t good enough for those in denial on the left, chiefly Rep. Adam Schiff who continues to perpetuate the desperate myth that there’s “incriminating evidence” against Trump. Forget the fact that listening to Schiff ramble on is akin to reviewing brake fluid.

Countless Democrats will strive to emasculate the commander in chief, despite little or no proof of any wrongdoing related to his 2016 campaign.

Another certainty is that shameless members of the mainstream media will blur the lines between reporting and coloring. That’s a given, even though Barr assured reporters that a version of Mueller’s report with few redactions will soon be made available to a bipartisan group.

Onward we go, with the left’s high-octane accusations peppered with whining. Cue the drama queens, stage left.

Breitbart reported that Hillary Clinton, despite her torpor these days, compared the current political climate to the “Twilight Zone” — something the former first lady would know about. Evidently, she feels the need to voice her opinion nationwide, even when it falls on deaf ears.

Within minutes of Trump tweeting the “Game of Thrones” image, his enemies took the bait.

Game over? It’s more like “Let the games begin.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Time for Comey To Sweat: Rep. Nunes Confirms Multiple Criminal Referrals on Witch Hunt Going to DOJ


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published April 8, 2019 at 6:17am

Ever since the release of Attorney General William Barr’s synopsis of the Mueller report, Rep. Devin Nunes — the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee — has been talking about criminal referrals for acts committed during the 2016 presidential campaign and its aftermath.

Now, the California congressman is making it clear just how many people he’s going after — and former FBI Director James Comey is just one of those who has a reason to sweat.

In an appearance on Fox News on Sunday, Nunes said he’d sent eight criminal referrals to Barr, the latest sign that high-level Republicans were going on the offensive in the wake of the Mueller report. Nunes told Fox News he’d been working on the referrals for over two years. However, he had delayed sending them over until Barr’s confirmation. (The Mueller report, one imagines, didn’t hurt his case either.)

“We’re prepared this week to notify the attorney general that we’re prepared to send those referrals over,” Nunes told host Maria Bartiromo. “First of all, all of these are classified or sensitive. … Five of them are what I would call straight up referrals — so, just referrals that name someone and name the specific crimes.

“Those crimes are lying to Congress, misleading Congress, leaking classified information. So five of them are those types.”

“There are three (referrals) that I think are more complicated,” he added.

They involve material investigators presented to the special court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

“So, on the first one, is FISA abuse and other matters. We believe there was a conspiracy to lie to the FISA court, mislead the FISA court by numerous individuals that all need to be investigated and looked at that, and we believe the (relevant) statute is the conspiracy statute,” he said.

That likely referred to the use of the “Trump dossier” — assembled as opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee — to obtain a warrant in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court against a Trump campaign official.

Nunes later said that “we’ve had a lot of concerns with the way intelligence was used” in the probe into the Trump campaign and possible collusion with the Russians.

“The second conspiracy one is involving manipulation of intelligence that also could ensnarl many Americans,” he continued.

“The third is what I would call a global leak referral,” Nunes said. “So, there are about a dozen highly sensitive classified information leaks that were given to only a few reporters over the last two-and-a-half-plus years. So, you know, we don’t know if there’s actually been any leak investigations that have been opened, but we do believe that we’ve got pretty good information and a pretty good idea of who could be behind these leaks.”

The “horrific” leaks Nunes referred to involved Trump’s conversations with major world leaders as well as the transcripts of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s phone calls.

“I think it’s impossible to ignore,” Nunes said. “If the Mueller team was busting people for lying to the FBI — there are some pretty simple times when people lied to Congress for the sole purpose of obstructing our investigation.”

The criminal referrals also might involve more than one person. In fact, Nunes said that a conspiracy referral could ensnare “a dozen, two dozen people.”

There are a few individuals we can possibly guess will be among those referred. Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen is being investigated for lying to Congress by both sides after inconsistencies in his testimony last month arose. And then there’s House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, who was suspected by Donald Trump Jr. when it came to leaking his closed-door testimony before the committee.

Fox News reported that in January, Trump Jr. said “there’s a 99.9 percent chance (House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is) the guy” who leaked the 2017 testimony, adding that he “came out of testimony 8 at night and CNN is running quotes from noon on about my testimony, you know, in the House Intelligence Committee.”

“I mean, that has to say something about what is going on and who they are. Since (Schiff has) never met a camera he didn’t love, I would bet a lot of money that it was him.”

The FISA warrant, however, might be of more concern to Democrats, particularly when it comes to Comey. Even if the criminal referrals don’t include him, they’re bound to include those close to him — and that’s something that’s probably going to make him sweat. Others who have reason to sweat? Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. They all signed FISA warrant applications.

The Republicans have increasingly gone on the offensive since the release of the Mueller report. Nunes’ criminal referrals aren’t even the most aggressive move — that award, thus far, has to go to Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who’s proposed a special counsel to look into all matter of Obama-era shenanigans in regard to the 2016 election — but it’s in the same vein.

The message is clear:

Now it’s the Republicans’ turn. And unlike the chimerical Russiagate accusations — what President Donald Trump repeatedly called a witch hunt — this is actually real. The idea that a dossier consisting of dodgy opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats was used to get a FISA warrant against a Trump campaign employee — that’s real.

Lives being destroyed to promote a narrative? That’s real, too.

Peter Strzok’s text messages and conflicts of interest in several investigations? Again, real.

This is about justice. Now that the phony “collusion” narrative is out of the way, we can finally seek it.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia.

Today’s Poilitically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Jokers to the Left of Me

Democrats have exposed themselves as deceivers, deniers, and just plain stupid when it comes to supporting policies that keep America strong.

Fools in AprilPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
More A.F. Branco cartoons at FlagAnd Cross.com here.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

Beto O’Rourke Wastes No Time Making Disastrous Trump Claim After Mueller Nothingburger


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published March 24, 2019 at 10:14am | Modified March 25, 2019 at 5:17am

President Trump gave two thumbs up as he left Air Force One in West Palm Beach, Florida, on Friday. And really, he had every reason to do so. The Mueller report — that Key to All Mythologies that liberals kept on believing would put Trump and his retinue behind bars for good — has been turned over to Attorney General William Barr. We don’t know the details of it and probably won’t for a while, but what we can glean thus far looks good for the president.

The biggest news is that there aren’t going to be any more indictments from the special counsel. That likely means that the report won’t contain solid proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Without any solid proof, the Russian collusion theory collapses into the dustbin of conspiracy theory.

But Beto O’Rourke isn’t above pronouncing Trump in cahoots with the Kremlin, even if Congress hasn’t been briefed on the Mueller report and he won’t be anyhow.

“You have a president, who, in my opinion, beyond the shadow of a doubt, sought to — however ham-handedly — collude with the Russian government — a foreign power — to undermine and influence our elections,” O’Rourke said at a town hall in South Carolina, according to CNN.

“If you are wondering about collusion then when you saw the President of the United States standing next to the leader of Russia on that stage in Helsinki, Finland, defending him and taking his word for it against our own intelligence community in our country, in (conservative columnist) George Will’s words, not mine, that is collusion in action,” O’Rourke said.

“Ultimately, I believe this will be decided at the ballot box in 2020 by you, by me, by all of us in this country.”

Just another day in Beto-land. It almost makes you forget about all that weird hacking stuff and concomitant lewd cow poetry.

So, all right, let’s unpack all of that. First, O’Rourke is straightforward in what he’s telling the crowd: He thinks Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia — a country he had to remind his audience is “a foreign power” because apparently he doesn’t think highly of their intelligence — “to undermine and influence our elections.” (I neither know nor care how he did this “ham-handedly” or how this apparent patina of plausible deniability covers O’Rourke when the Mueller report eventually provides a cosmic thwack to this sort of rhetoric.)

His evidence of this is somehow the Helsinki summit, which may not have been Trump’s finest hour but certainly wasn’t the heart-clutching death-of-our-democracy moment the left maintains it was.

His attempt at making this sound bipartisan is bringing pundit George Will into it. This doesn’t work for two reasons.

First, Will is one of those conservatives who immediately checked into the Bill Kristol Psychiatric Center for the Trumpically Deranged the moment that he realized Trump’s candidacy wasn’t being treated by voters as the farce he thought it was. I have no small regard for Mr. Will’s oeuvre, but take this morsel of his fulmination from this past January and try to attribute it to someone who is either conservative or on an even keel: “Dislike of (Donald Trump) should be tempered by this consideration: He is an almost inexpressibly sad specimen. It must be misery to awaken to another day of being Donald Trump. He seems to have as many friends as his pluperfect self-centeredness allows, and as he has earned in an entirely transactional life. His historical ignorance deprives him of the satisfaction of working in a house where much magnificent history has been made. His childlike ignorance — preserved by a lifetime of single-minded self-promotion — concerning governance and economics guarantees that whenever he must interact with experienced and accomplished people, he is as bewildered as a kindergartener at a seminar on string theory.”

And second, what Will said about Helsinki actually proves O’Rourke wrong. Here is the passage to which the 2020 Democratic hopeful assumedly refers: “Like the purloined letter in Edgar Allan Poe’s short story with that title, collusion with Russia is hiding in plain sight,” Will wrote in July of last year.

We shall learn from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation whether in 2016 there was collusion with Russia by members of the Trump campaign. (Emphasis mine.) The world, however, saw in Helsinki something more grave — ongoing collusion between Trump, now in power, and Russia. The collusion is in what Trump says (refusing to back the United States’ intelligence agencies) and in what evidently went unsaid (such as: You ought to stop disrupting Ukraine, downing civilian airliners, attempting to assassinate people abroad using poisons, and so on, and on).”

By “collusion,” what Will meant was that Trump was paying fealty to the Russians. When it came to collusion by the Trump campaign, however, Will saw fit to leave that matter in the hands of Robert Mueller.

When O’Rourke took the stage during his Saturday whistle-stop and invoked Will, he’d almost certainly been disabused of the notion that Mueller’s investigation was going to provide any definitive link to show that Trump or members of his campaign colluded with the Kremlin “to undermine and influence our elections.”

But then, symbolic “collusion” between Trump and Putin on stage at Helsinki doesn’t get crowds in early primary states whipped up the same way that collusion to undermine our elections does, and it’s not as if many people in attendance are George Will readers anyway. (Crowds that need to be reminded Russia is “a foreign power” probably aren’t too keen on obscure polysyllabic words.)

But that’s the point about conspiracy theories: They don’t require evidence to keep on going. You can explain to your chemtrail-believing neighbor how condensation works when hot air comes out of jet engines at high altitudes, and he’s still going to think that the CIA is spraying mind-altering chemicals on all of us in the most inefficient way possible.

Kennedy assassination theories are marginally more plausible, but you’re still dealing with individuals who will never believe that a violent, pathetic specimen like Lee Harvey Oswald could alter history so easily even with the evidence right in front of them.

In the same way, the Democrats still can’t believe that — if indications are correct — the Mueller report will be two years of nothing. It’s a nothingburger of finely aged beef. It may provide intimations or innuendoes — though one would hope Mueller wouldn’t be that irresponsible — but no one will have been indicted by the special counsel for conspiracy with the Russians.

And yet, O’Rourke counts himself as a perfervid believer in the idea that there was collusion between Trump and the Russians to influence our elections. Or, at the very least, he thinks that his audiences believe there was — and that’s all that really matters, right?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Nadler Announces House Committee Investigation Underway After Mueller Report Shows No Collusion


Reported By Jack Davis | Published March 25, 2019 at 7:38pm

House Democrats are not letting the conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report impede them from further investigations of President Donald Trump. “We’re going to move forward with our investigations of obstruction of justice, abuses of power, corruption, to defend the rule of law, which is our job,” House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, said Sunday, according to Bloomberg.

Nadler insisted his wide-ranging probe, which he has already begun, is not a rehash of the Mueller report.

“It’s a broader mandate than the special prosecutor had,” he said.

Mueller was initially charged with investigating allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in 2016. As noted by Attorney General William Barr in a note to Congress, those allegations have been proven false.

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US Presidential Election,” Barr said in a letter to Congress.

But Nadler is now digging into the gray area in the Mueller report — whether Trump obstructed justice.

Barr’s letter said the report “leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”

Nadler said that he wants to put Barr in the hot seat to determine how Barr decided not to pursue an obstruction case against Trump.

“Attorney General Barr, who auditioned for his role with a memo saying that it was almost impossible for any president to commit obstruction, made a decision in under 48 hours,” Nadler said Sunday, according to CBS.

He referenced a 2018 memo Barr wrote that said “Mueller’s obstruction theory is fatally misconceived” and based “on a novel and insupportable reading of the law.”

Mueller said Barr needs to better explain himself.

“Given what Barr found on obstruction of justice, I think all of us should be very concerned about the even-handedness,” Nadler said Monday. “The American public needs to know how exactly did he conclude there is no obstruction of justice.”

Nadler issued a statement co-authored with fellow Democrats House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California and House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings of Maryland that gave Barr a zinger for not charging Trump.

“It is unacceptable that, after Special Counsel Mueller spent 22 months meticulously uncovering this evidence, Attorney General Barr made a decision not to charge the President in under 48 hours. The Attorney General did so without even interviewing the President. His unsolicited, open memorandum to the Department of Justice, suggesting that the obstruction investigation was ‘fatally misconceived,’ calls into question his objectivity on this point in particular,”the statement said.

The three Democrats maligned Barr’s impartiality.

“The only information the Congress and the American people have received regarding this investigation is the Attorney General’s own work product,” the chairmen said.

“The Special Counsel’s Report should be allowed to speak for itself, and Congress must have the opportunity to evaluate the underlying evidence,” the statement said.

It is unclear yet whether the full Mueller report will ever be released. Both Trump and his Democratic critics, however, have said it should be released in full.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Jack Davis is a freelance writer who joined The Western Journal in July 2015 and chronicled the campaign that saw President Donald Trump elected. Since then, he has written extensively for The Western Journal on the Trump administration as well as foreign policy and military issues.

Famous Trump Painter Redefines ‘Border Emergency’ with Newest Work


Reported By Ben Marquis | Published March 7, 2019 at 4:11pm  | Modified March 7, 2019 at 4:13pm

While much of the art world and entertainment industry leans decisively to the left, there are those among them who hold a more conservative ideology, and some of those are increasingly speaking out about their beliefs through the use of their own talents.

One of those is conservative artist Jon McNaughton, a Utah-based artist who over the years has painted a number of compelling portraits that were first exceptionally critical of former President Barack Obama and are now supportive of President Donald Trump.

McNaughton’s latest work of art centers around the current sharp divide between Trump, who aims to secure the nation by securing the southern border, and numerous prominent Democrats who have staunchly opposed and obstructed those efforts.

The painting is titled “National Emergency,” and it features a number of prominent Democrats standing atop a tattered American flag — while holding various flags representing other nations or groups — as the president looks sadly upon the lost doll of a little immigrant girl forced to make the dangerous and illicit cross-border journey into the U.S. … as a caravan of countless illegal migrants approach the border in the distance behind them.

In McNaughton’s description of the work, he wrote, “In my new painting, the Democrat establishment declares victory against President Trump as he announces a national emergency to secure the border. They proudly hold the flags they represent and cherish.

“Our politicians have become traitors to this country, in most cases they are more loyal to whichever country, lobbyist, corporation, or special interest group that will keep them in office and line their bank accounts. I’m sick of how they trample our flag and do not seek America’s interests first,” he continued.

McNaughton added, “Trump stands apart from them with his head bowed contemplating the state of our border situation. He sees a lost doll left behind by a little girl forced to make the dangerous journey. To not build the wall is to allow people on both sides of the border to suffer needlessly.”

As can be seen in the painting, McNaughton provided great detail in his representation of those who currently stand most opposed to his border security efforts, and shows by way of the flags they are holding where their interests lie, ahead of those of the American people.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is holding the flag of communist China, while Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren holds one for the European Union. They stand beside Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who are holding a Mexican flag together.

To the other side of Pelosi and Schumer stand failed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton with an Iranian flag and former President Obama with a United Nations flag.

In the background stands New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with a New York flag alongside Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, who hold up a Palestinian flag. California Reps. Adam Schiff and Maxine Waters can also been seen holding a California flag.

Meanwhile, a veritable horde of people are crossing through the desert toward the border in the far distance behind all of them, as the Democrats cheer about blocking Trump’s efforts to halt that flow of humanity.

President Trump made numerous efforts to reach out and negotiate with a Congress to find an agreeable solution to the ongoing crisis at the border, to no avail.

As a result of the decided lack of cooperation from Democrats, Trump finally fell back on congressionally authorized presidential powers to declare a national emergency to directly address the situation himself.

Of course, the Democrats are fighting that, too, and have refused to relent in their incessant opposition to everything done by Trump, up to and including stomping on the desires and interests of the American people who voted to elect the president that is so despised by the left.

This painting beautifully, if quite tragically, sums up the current situation in a rather stark, but necessary, manner.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Ben Marquis is a writer who identifies as a constitutional conservative/libertarian. His focus is on protecting the First and Second Amendments. He has covered current events and politics for Conservative Tribune since 2014.

After Trump Invites Him Onstage, Activist Reveals Truth Behind What’s Happening to Conservatives on College Campuses


Reported By Alec Schemmel | Published March 2, 2019 at 2:16pm | Modified March 3, 2019 at 2:12pm

During President Donald Trump’s speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday, he took a moment to recognize the discrimination conservative students face on college campuses.

“I turn on my television the other day and I saw somebody that was violently punched in the face,” Trump said to his audience at CPAC.

“The man’s name is Hayden Williams,” Trump added. “Hayden come up here please.”

Williams jumped onstage to say a few words, but he refused to use his several seconds of fame to talk about himself.

“It’s great that I’m being recognized,” he said, “but there’s so many conservative students across the country who are facing discrimination, harassment and worse if they dare to speak up on campus.”

Williams is a field representative at the Leadership Institute, a non-profit organization based of Arlington, Virginia, which aims to help fight the liberal bias that has infested America’s campuses. Williams was on UC Berkley’s campus on Feb. 19 helping local student activists when Zachary Greenberg, 28, allegedly assaulted him. Greenberg was arrested by UCPD on Friday afternoon and was being held on a $30,000 bond at Glenn Dyer Jail in Oakland.

“It’s as important now than ever the work at Leadership Institute and Campus Reform exposing these liberal abuses to the public,” said Williams, “and these students do it because they have a love of our nation and freedom.”

Williams said that if progressive socialists had their way, the Constitution would be put through a paper shredder.

“If you keep defending us, we’ll keep defending you,” Williams said of Trump.

The audience roared in approval as Trump announced a new executive order which requires colleges and universities to support free speech.

“If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions, they’ve got to allow people like Hayden, and many other great young people … to speak,” Trump said.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

Recent Posts Contact

Founded by Tucker Carlson, a 25-year veteran of print and broadcast media, and Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, The Daily Caller News Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit providing original investigative reporting from a team of professional reporters that operates for the public benefit.

NYT Tries To Fact Check Trump’s Tweet on Abortion, Immediately Ends Up Backfiring on Twitter


Reported By Ben Marquis | Published March 1, 2019 at 1:21am

In light of the recent fierce discussion over late-term and even post-birth abortions, Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse introduced a bill called the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would require doctors and medical personnel to make all efforts to save the life of a baby that survived an attempted abortion, rather than kill it or stand idly by while it died naturally.

Incredibly, that bill failed to achieve the necessary votes for passage on Monday, according to The Daily Wire, after only three Democrats joined with Republicans to vote in favor of saving an abortion survivor’s life, while 44 other Senate Democrats heartlessly voted against the measure.

In response to that grotesque and disheartening outcome, President Donald Trump excoriated Democrats in a pair of fiery tweets Monday evening, calling the left “extreme” for being in favor of “executing babies” after they had been born.

Trump tweeted, “Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth.”

He added, “This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

As if on cue, The New York Times set about the next day with an attempt to “fact check” the president’s outraged tweets, but that effort failed in rather stunning fashion — at least on social media.

Just scroll down through the overwhelmingly negative comments on the tweet from The Times.

The article from The Times glossed over what the bill would actually do — “require doctors to use all means available to save the life of a child born alive after an attempted abortion” — while highlighting criticism from opponents who falsely claimed the measure was “aimed at discouraging doctors from performing legal abortions.”

The article also argued that the bill was redundant due to a 2002 law known as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, though they failed to mention that prior law had no teeth for enforcement.

The Times article then quoted a couple doctors who insisted that babies surviving attempted abortions “hardly ever happens,” and provided various facts and figures about the age of infant viability to support the notion that late-term abortions are exceedingly rare — around 1 percent of all abortions — without mentioning that the 1 percent is still in the ballpark of around 10,000 such deadly procedures per year.

Yet, the Times admitted near the end of the article that aborted babies sometimes are born alive, and that doctors and patients will allow the baby to die naturally, all while being kept comfortable” — echoing what Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said in early February.

The article also admitted in the eighth paragraph, “The bill would force doctors to resuscitate such an infant, even if the parents did not want those measures.”

The tweet-trackers at Twitchy compiled a couple dozen of the brutal responses they received from Twitter users to highlight just how enormously the “fact check” of Trump’s tweets had backfired on The Times.

Countless users wondered why Democrats would vote against the bill if the issue the bill addressed was truly so “rare” and uncommon, as if that were indeed the case, a vote in favor of it really wouldn’t matter.

One user referenced Gov. Northam’s despicable commentary, and tweeted, “How can you work for the NYTimes and not know what Northam said, which kicked all this off? He specifically talked about newborns being born and then a discussion on what to do with them. This is why you’re fake news.”

Still another user hinted at Northam’s remarks and noted, “‘rarely born alive’ I guess that’s okay then! As long as they’re just rarely murdered after they’re already born and alive! Hopefully they’re kept comfortable!”

There isn’t near enough room here to include all of the saddened or snarky replies to The Times, but suffice it to say, the effort to “fact check” the president’s righteous and justified anger while defending Democrats voting against saving the life of newborn infants did not go over well, at all.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Ben Marquis is a writer who identifies as a constitutional conservative/libertarian. His focus is on protecting the First and Second Amendments. He has covered current events and politics for Conservative Tribune since 2014.

Irate Woman All Smiles Attacking Man in MAGA Hat. ICE Learns She’s Illegal and Makes Arrest


Reported By Benjamin Arie | Published February 26, 2019 at 5:02pm  | Modified February 26, 2019 at 5:04pm

Illegal Alien Showing Off The Hat She Assaulted

Assaulting someone over their hat is a crime, but bragging and seeking media attention for doing it while you’re in the country illegally seems particularly unwise.

Rosiane Santos was recently arrested for after assaulting a Trump supporter who was wearing a “MAGA” hat inside a Mexican restaurant in Falmouth, Massachusetts. Even employees of the restaurant confirmed that Bryton Turner had simply ordered food before he was accosted by Santos.

“Santos started yelling at him because of his hat, which bears the theme that President Donald Trump campaigned on,” Boston news station WFXT explained. “The woman is seen walking behind him and hitting his hat off his head.”

Even after being arrested, Santos claimed that simply being an immigrant allowed her to attack Turner.

“(B)eing discriminated for so many times in my life, I just had to stand up for myself,” she said in a phone interview with WFXT. “He’s not a victim. I am the victim. I have been bullied, OK?”

Going after someone because of a campaign hat and then drawing attention to herself on the news wasn’t a very wise choice. It turns out that Santos is from Brazil, and now the U.S. government says she was living in the United States illegally.

“The woman who was charged with confronting a man wearing a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat inside a Falmouth Mexican restaurant is now in ICE custody,” WBZ-TV reported on Tuesday.

Her attention-seeking stunt definitely worked, but it will likely get her a one-way ticket out of the country.

“Deportation officers with ICE’s Fugitive Operations Team arrested Rosiane Santos, an unlawfully present citizen of Brazil, today near Falmouth, Massachusetts,” ICE spokesman John Mohan told the local CBS News affiliate.

“Santos is currently facing local charges for assault and other offenses. She is presently in ICE custody and has been entered into removal proceedings before the federal immigration courts.”

For his part, Turner told WBZ-TV that the entire incident could have been avoided if the woman had simply respected other people’s right to wear hats or hold opinions she might not agree with.

“It’s just a hat at the end of the day,” he said. “I don’t really understand why people can’t just express themselves anymore, everybody has to get mad.”

The real irony of this story is that Santos just proved Trump and his supporters’ point. The left insists that “undocumented immigrants” are all good people who only want to join the melting pot and have better lives.

Conservatives, of course, have pointed out that there’s a lot more going on. While many immigrants don’t cause problems once they cross the border, a solid number seem to have a mentality of entitlement, making demands while stirring up trouble.

That’s exactly what this woman did on camera while continuing to play the victim. She and others like her wail about “MAGA” hats and angry Trump supporters, but it was her own unhinged behavior and illegal actions that got her arrested.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Benjamin Arie is an independent journalist and writer. He has personally covered everything ranging from local crime to the U.S. president as a reporter in Michigan, before focusing on national politics. Ben frequently travels to Latin America and has spent years living in Mexico. Follow Benjamin on Facebook

Congressman Backs Trump’s Emergency Declaration After Border Deployment: ‘What I Saw Was Really Disturbing’


Reported By Randy DeSoto | Published February 25, 2019 at 10:11pm  | Modified February 26, 2019 at 9:10am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/congressman-backs-trumps-emergency-declaration-border-deployment-saw-really-disturbing/

Adam Kinzinger

Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., speaks with members of the media during a news conference at the Republican congressional retreat in Philadelphia, Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2017. (Matt Rourke / AP Photo)

Brennan first asked Kinzinger if what he saw constituted a national emergency.

“Yeah, I think it does,” the lawmaker responded. “You know, I went down there kind of undecided. You know I put on my lieutenant colonel hat, was apolitical but obviously I’m looking at this, getting the information I can.”

And I think if this was just an issue of immigration it wouldn’t constitute a national emergency but what I saw was really disturbing.”

The Air Force pilot recounted finding a woman abandoned in the desert by her border trafficking coyotes, while on another mission they assisted in apprehending a person carrying 70 pounds of methamphetamines.

Kinzinger, who was flying his missions out of Tucson, said the situation in Arizona is completely different than what he saw during a prior border deployment in Texas during the Obama administration. During this deployment, Border Patrol informed him that they find at least 200 dead people a year in the arid, rough terrain.

Brennan pushed Kinzinger on whether there is truly a crisis, saying according to Border Patrol, apprehensions are near a 50-year low. Kinzinger responded that while the total apprehended may be down, his experience was large numbers were still crossing.

“There were many, many groups that we would see on technology with camera radar or something like that that we could not go address because there were not enough Border Patrol agents,” the congressman said.

“These agents sometimes left to take a truck and then walk two miles through terrible terrain to get to these groups only to have them run while they’re already exhausted and they get lost in that chaos.”

Kinzinger further observed that part of the decrease in illegal crossings outside the ports of entry can be attributed to more migrants learning how to abuse U.S. asylum laws.

RELATED: ‘Largest’ Gathering of Young Latino Conservatives Meets in AZ: ‘We Support Trump, We Want the Wall’

“But I’ll tell you what I saw was a lot of people coming over the border, a lot of drugs in the border and a lot of human trafficking,” the congressman reiterated. “I mean these coyotes that would get paid a lot of money to bring groups over and then desert them to save their own backside. It was extremely disturbing.”

Kinzinger contended that he believes Trump’s national emergency declaration is constitutional, and he will be voting against the Democratic resolution to overturn it.

“(B)ecause in this case like I said at the beginning, if this was just about immigration I would disagree,” he stated. “I do think this is a security threat. It’s a security threat with the amount of drugs coming over the border and the human trafficking that I’ve seen.”

A resolution rescinding Trump’s national emergency declaration is expected to pass the Democrat-controlled House on Tuesday. The fate of similar legislation in the Senate is less certain, where the Republicans hold a 53 to 47 advantage. GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have indicated they would back Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s resolution, NBC News reported.

Several other Republican senators have expressed reservations about the president’s emergency declaration, including  Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, John Cornyn of Texas, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Marco Rubio of Florida. For the measure to pass, two more Republican senators must back the Democrat resolution.

In addition to the $1.375 billion Congress voted to authorize for barrier funding, the White House plans to redirect $3.6 billion from a military construction fund, $2.5 billion from a Department of Defense drug interdiction program and $600 million from the Treasury Department from a drug forfeiture fund.

The national emergency is specifically being used to tap the $3.6 billion from the military construction fund.

Trump tweeted on Monday, “I hope our great Republican Senators don’t get led down the path of weak and ineffective Border Security. Without strong Borders, we don’t have a Country – and the voters are on board with us. Be strong and smart, don’t fall into the Democrats “trap” of Open Borders and Crime!”

He added in a second tweet quoting from Fox Business Network’s Stuart Varney: “Why on earth would any Republican vote not to put up a Wall or against Border Security. Please explain that to me?”

If the resolution passes both the Senate and the House, Trump has the veto power, which would require a two-thirds vote in both chambers to override him. Politico reported that Trump expressed confidence on Friday if he vetoed the measure, it would not be overridden.

“We have too many smart people that want border security so I can’t imagine it (the resolution) will survive a veto,” Trump said.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

GREAT NEWS: President Trump Announces Release of Hostage Danny Burch from Yemen


Reported by John Hayward | Monday February 25, 2019

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/02/25/president-trump-announces-release-hostage-danny-burch-yemen/

American held hostage in Yemen freed: Trump
AFP SAUL LOEB

President Donald Trump on Monday announced the release of Danny Burch, an American citizen who has been held hostage in Yemen since 2017. Trump thanked the United Arab Emirates for assisting with Burch’s liberation and said his administration has now secured the freedom of 20 Americans held captive in various countries.

Trump delivered the good news on Monday through his preferred social media platform, Twitter:

Danny Burch was taken from his car by a squad of gunmen in broad daylight on the streets of Yemen’s capital Sanaa in September 2017. A native of East Texas, Burch was 63 years old at the time of his abduction and had been living in Yemen for several years while working as an engineer for the Yemeni Safer oil company. Burch converted to Islam during his time in Yemen and married a Yemen woman. The couple has three children, the oldest of whom was 12 when he was taken.

The abduction occurred in an area controlled by the Iran-backed Houthi insurgents who drove Yemen’s internationally-recognized government out of Sanaa. The Houthis initially denounced the kidnapping as a “criminal and cowardly act” and vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice, but were eventually revealed to be holding him prisoner.

Burch was transferred from Yemen to Oman in January 2018, traveling in the company of a senior Houthi official. This event was widely described as the Houthis “releasing” Burch, but he was evidently unable to return to his family until today. A March 2018 briefing from CriticalThreats.org stated the Houthi official who traveled to Oman with Burch was a negotiator named Mohammed Ali al-Houthi and noted the timing of Burch’s purported “release” coincided with “renewed al-Houthi overtures for negotiations.” Salam subsequently left Oman for Iran and met with Iranian officials including Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

At the time of this writing, the White House has not clarified Burch’s status since January 2018 or detailed the negotiations that ultimately reunited him with his family.

New Section of Wall Completed Whopping 47 Days Ahead of Schedule & Trump Has the Video


Reported By Kara Pendleton | Published February 22, 2019 at 4:40pm

President Donald Trump has been under heavy fire from all sides over the southern border wall. He has been criticized for not doing enough, for signing a bad bill and for declaring a national emergency to pay for the barrier. But in typical Trump fashion, the businessman with building experience has been working hard to keep his campaign promise about building the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

So while the hits have been coming, construction has been taking place along the border. As you might expect when the president is more of a builder than a bureaucrat, the work on one section in New Mexico was completed early.

Trump shared video of the astonishing feat Wednesday on Twitter:

While this construction being finished 47 days ahead of schedule should leave some eating crow, not everyone eased up on the attacks against the president and the wall. A common theme has been the semantics of the thing.

In his tweet, Trump called what was built a “wall.” To some, it is a “fence” or “steel slats.” Others have taken to calling the border security construction a “barrier” instead of a “wall” now.

Whatever name it is given, the purpose remains the same.

Trump addressed the question of building materials late last year.

So while some are upset about various aspects of the wall and its funding, Trump is, in fact, working to get the border secured.

Does it really matter what it looks like if it works? This speedy construction in New Mexico raises new hope. The faster the barrier can be completed, the better for national security.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Specializing in news, politics and human interest stories, Kara Pendleton has been a professional writer and author since 2002. One of her proudest professional moments was landing an interview that even mainstream media couldn’t get.

Tag Cloud