Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Senate’

Senate sends massive $1.5 trillion spending package to President Biden even as Americans get hammered by soaring inflation


Reported by ALEX NITZBERG | March 10, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/senate-sends-massive-1-5-trillion-spending-package-to-president-biden-even-as-americans-get-hammered-by-soaring-inflation-2656919406.html/

The U.S. Senate passed a massive $1.5 trillion spending package on Thursday, sending it to President Biden even as Americans suffer under the financial strain caused by skyrocketing inflation. The package passed in a bipartisan 68 to 31 vote. It will fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year, which runs through the end of September. It increases defense and nondefense spending compared to fiscal 2021. It also includes funding related to Ukraine. The spending package also includes earmarks — the Wall Street Journal performed a review which discovered that around $9.7 billion is going toward earmarks. An amendment from Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) to cut the earmarks from the package failed to pass — the vote on the amendment was 64-35.

The Senate cleared the spending the very same day that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released new consumer price index data that showed prices continuing their disturbing upward trajectory. According to BLS, the consumer price index climbed 0.8% in February.

“The all items index rose 7.9 percent for the 12 months ending February. The 12-month increase has been steadily rising and is now the largest since the period ending January 1982,” BLS reported.

Americans are feeling pain at the pump as gas prices skyrocket, and the situation could get even worse in the days ahead.

President Biden recently signed an executive order banning the importation of Russian oil into the U.S. The order prohibits importing “crude oil; petroleum; petroleum fuels, oils, and products of their distillation; liquefied natural gas; coal; and coal products” from Russia.

Senate Republicans Trash Rick Scott for Telling Voters How He’ll Work for Them


REPORTED BY: RACHEL BOVARD | MARCH 03, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/senate-republicans-trash-rick-scott-for-telling-voters-how-hell-work-for-them-2656832919.html/

Rick Scott and Donald Trump

Sen. Rick Scott recently did what no one else in the Republican Senate thought important: he released an agenda ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. Up to this point, Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, appeared content to proudly run on no strategy at all, convinced that simply pointing at Democrats and shrieking about how bad they are will crown them victorious.

As a point of electoral politics, this is not completely irrational. Polling shows Democratic policy failures and broad cultural overreaches are driving voters to Republicans in record numbers. But as I’ve written previously, a content-free campaign only gets you so far. In many cases, the voters now identifying with Republicans are non-traditional GOP voters. To get them to stick around—that is, to actually expand the base of the party while continuing to motivate traditional base voters—you have to tell them what you’re for, what you’re going to do. And then you have to go and do it.

Establishment politicians dislike agendas because they’re a measure of accountability. An agenda is a tangible reminder of what a majority said they were going to do. On the contrary, traditional establishment rhetoric routinely plays down expectations about what’s possible, makes vague hand gestures about “the long game” (usually undefined), and generally avoids anything that would force them to roll up their sleeves and attempt to legislate on the hard things—that is, what their base voters care about.

What the establishment prefers to do is what McConnell has always done: run on nothing except how bad the other guy is. But the absence of an agenda is a tacit acknowledgment of an agenda. And the agenda-in-the-absence-of-an-agenda is always the same: Wall Street wins, and so do lobbyists on K Street and the defense industrial base. Having no stated priorities just means the priorities are open to the highest bidder, or that the priorities of the status quo prevail.

Scott Leads, and GOP Leadership Excoriates Him

Enter Scott. Not content to follow the strategy of blandly grinning at the base while committing to addressing none of their concerns, Scott and his team wrote their own agenda—60 pages of it. The 11-point overview covers everything from border security to asserting the primacy of the nuclear family, declaring basic facts of biology, election integrity, and taking on Big Tech. It’s a broad and sweeping look at the issues, from economics to culture, that are roiling Americans all over the country.

For his efforts, Scott was not applauded, at least not in Washington. Rather, he was immediately savaged by his own leadership. McConnell and his allies reportedly excoriated Scott in a meeting behind closed doors, followed by a press conference where McConnell, when asked about Scott’s proposal, felt the need to remind everyone that “If we’re fortunate enough to have the majority next year, I’ll be the majority leader.” Someone’s feeling touchy. (The conference-wide election for majority leader will occur in the days following November’s election.)

McConnell, who ripped the Republican National Committee for justifiably censuring Republican Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger because “we support all members of our party, regardless of their positions on some issues,” apparently doesn’t support Scott’s attempt to articulate where he stands—and where he thinks the party should stand. Instead of cultivating the creativity and leadership expressed in Scott’s effort, McConnell dismissed it as an affront to his own power.

He also took issue with one of the bullet points in Scott’s sweeping agenda, specifically the proposal that roughly 60 percent of Americans who don’t pay income tax should be brought into tax parity. After feeling the need to remind everyone that he, not Scott, will be the incoming majority leader, McConnell stated, “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half the American people….”

Fair enough. Scott unveiled a 60-page, detailed proposal, and not everyone is going to agree on the full substance. But to dismiss the full proposal because of a bullet point is an obvious attempt to kneecap the effort entirely, not provide constructive feedback. Moreover, McConnell has, in the past, supported income tax parity, telling CBS News in 2012 that “Between 45 percent and 50 percent of Americans pay no income tax at all. We have an extraordinarily progressive tax code already. It is a mess and needs to be revisited again.”

But McConnell’s flip-flop on the issue will hardly bother him, because his fixation on Scott’s agenda isn’t about the substance, it’s about the perceived affront to his own authority. McConnell notoriously rules the Senate—constructed as a body of equals—with an iron fist. Although only when it suits him.

I Can Lead, Just Not on Anything Voters Want

Just two weeks ago, McConnell and his leadership team cried helplessness in the face of four of their own members failing to show up for a vote to take down what remains of Joe Biden’s federal vaccine mandate. Due to Democratic absences, Republicans could have prevailed on the vote, which failed 46-47 due to Sens. Jim Inhofe, Mitt Romney, Richard Burr, and Lindsey Graham choosing to be elsewhere. Inhofe was said to be with his ailing wife. Graham had jetted off to a defense junket in Germany. Romney and Burr were simply not there. Curiously, McConnell was not outraged by this embarrassing failure of senators to heed his authority. Perhaps that was because the vote—hugely important to the GOP base—wasn’t treated as important by the Senate GOP leadership.

Wittingly or not, McConnell’s failure to lead on a midterm agenda has opened the door for senators who will. Scott should be applauded for his effort, particularly as it’s already achieving results. At the end of the press conference in which he trashed Scott’s agenda, McConnell, who has previously said voters will find out the agenda when they re-elect the Senate GOP, was forced to issue the bare outline of one: inflation, energy, defense, the border, and crime.

This has none of the detail or comprehensive thoughtfulness exhibited by Scott’s effort, but right now, it’s all GOP voters have to hang their hat on. And the fact that it exists at all is because Scott saw a leadership breach and stepped squarely into it. Good on him.


Rachel Bovard is The Federalist’s senior tech columnist and the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute. She has more than a decade of policy experience in Washington and has served in both the House and Senate in various roles, including as a legislative director and policy director for the Senate Steering Committee under the successive chairmanships of Sen. Pat Toomey and Sen. Mike Lee. She also served as director of policy services for The Heritage Foundation.

9 Times Sen. Ron Johnson Triggered the Left — And Turned Out to Be Right


Reported BY: KYLEE ZEMPEL | JANUARY 14, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/14/9-times-sen-ron-johnson-triggered-the-left-and-turned-out-to-be-right/

Ron Johnson in the Senate

Sen. Ron Johnson is not planning his Senate retirement anytime soon. The Wisconsin lawmaker is running for reelection, he announced this week, at which the corrupt media predictably came out, guns blazing.

CNN’s Chris Cillizza, for instance, announced that the “Senate’s leading conspiracy theorist is running for another term,” and The Nation ran an article calling him an “off-the-deep-end” senator.

But while attention-seeking pundits attack Johnson for opinions that don’t conform to the left-wing narrative (opinions held among many Americans outside the Beltway, by the way), his opinions are often proved to be exactly right. There’s quite a long list of “Ron John” statements and actions that, after sending the media into a tizzy and Big Tech giants into a censorship spree, have held up quite well over time. Here are some of them.

Jan. 6

During a February 2021 hearing to examine the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Johnson condemned the violence then went on to read an eyewitness account of the day’s events. Originally published in The Federalist, it detailed the presence of provocateurs in the crowd and confusion among many of the pro-police “MAGA” protesters who didn’t attend the rally to perpetrate violence.

The media lost it, ignoring his condemnation of the violence to smear Johnson as a conspiratorial nutjob. CNNNew York Daily NewsDaily BeastThe Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and even the Washington Examiner ran articles attacking him as “deranged.”

Yet the account Johnson read was entered into the record without objection from lawmakers of either party. And since then, instead of learning more information about Jan. 6 that refutes eyewitness accounts of “provocateurs,” Americans have been treated to political playacting (including literal musical theater) from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s sham commission, more hyperventilating from the media, and repeated stonewalling from the FBI on questions about potential provocateurs caught on video, such as Ray Epps.

Johnson was also ahead of the game on the Capitol Police component of Jan. 6, including pushing to correct the media and Capitol Police’s lies about what happened to the late Officer Brian Sicknick.

COVID Shots

Johnson has been a consistent voice for those who don’t feel they have one on Covid shots and the mandates that accompany them. He’s given Americans a forum to discuss their firsthand adverse shot reactions, for which he’s been smeared in the corrupt media as “fundamentally dangerous” and as a peddler of “misinformation.”

In November 2021, YouTube suspended Johnson’s channel for the fifth time for seven days for a video of a panel on vaccine-related injuries, labeling it “Covid misinformation.” Yet we know adverse reactions do occur.

In April 2021, when Johnson questioned forcing every American to get vaccinated and slammed the idea of pushing vaccine mandates on citizens, Anthony Fauci came after him on MSNBC — which other outlets amplified, calling the senator an “idiot anti-vaxxer.”

Fast-forward to 2022, and Johnson has been vindicated: Even with a federal vaccine mandate in place, case numbers are up higher than ever; and even the triple-vaccinated are still contracting and spreading the virus.

Early COVID Treatment

Big Tech has twice censored the sitting U.S. senator by nuking videos discussing early Covid treatments. In February 2021, YouTube removed videos of sworn testimony from Dr. Pierre Kory about early treatments. Then in June, YouTube suspended Johnson’s account for one week for remarks he made about early Covid treatments in Milwaukee.

Shutting down scientific inquiry and debate is inherently anti-science, however, as scientists who dissent from some of the questionable Covid conventional wisdom have pointed out.

“For science to work, you have to have an open exchange of ideas,” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, has said of this type of censorship. “If you’re going to make an argument that something is misinformation, you should provide an actual argument. You can’t just take it down and say, ‘Oh, it’s misinformation’ without actually giving a reason. And saying, ‘Look it disagrees with the CDC’ is not enough of a reason. Let’s hear the argument, let’s see the evidence that YouTube used to decide it was misinformation. Let’s have a debate. Science works best when we have an open debate.”

[LISTEN: Sen. Ron Johnson Has Some Questions For The ‘Covid Gods’]

‘Rona Vaccines for Kids

In October 2021, Wisconsin radio host Dan O’Donnell’s YouTube account was suspended after he posted an interview with the senator about opposing vaccine mandates for kids.

We didn’t have to wait for ground-breaking scientific discovery on this one; we’ve known since the beginning of the pandemic that children are at almost zero risk of dying from coronavirus, and now we know that Covid shots don’t prevent people from contracting nor spreading the virus. Johnson was scientifically spot-on to oppose vaxx mandates for children, given children’s near-zero risk from a bout with Covid versus the potential risks of shot complications.

Hunter Biden

Corporate media ginned up all types of attacks when Johnson, as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, dug into the Biden family corruption linked to Hunter Biden.

The New York Times described it using the “Russian disinformation” moniker. Time Magazine smeared him as the Senate’s “one-man Biden prosecutor.” And the Washington Post described Johnson’s investigation as a nakedly partisan ploy to get Donald Trump re-elected.

This was all a distraction from the fact that Johnson and Sen. Chuck Grassley successfully revealed millions of dollars in questionable financial transactions between Hunter Biden and his associates and foreign individuals, including the wife of the former mayor of Moscow and people with ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Biden associate Tony Bobulinski confirmed aspects of the report after its release.

Climate Change

Johnson triggered the media in July when he mouthed to a Republican group that climate change is “bullsh-t.” The corporate media went berserk, with CNN and Chris Cuomo calling Johnson a climate change “denier.”

The senator has reinforced repeatedly that he doesn’t deny that the climate is changing, but rather that he isn’t an “alarmist” and doesn’t buy Democrats’ apocalyptic predictions.

Big surprise, plenty of data backs this up. The American Enterprise Institute has documented 50 years of failed doomsday predictions by so-called “experts” in the corrupt media and Democrat Party. For instance, ABC claimed in 2008 that Manhattan would be underwater by 2015. In 2011, The Washington Post claimed that cherry blossoms would bloom in winter.

Climate genius Al Gore also predicted in 2008 that five years later the North Pole would be free of ice. And in 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., predicted that Miami would be underwater in a few years. Yet in 2022, Miami is still very much above ground.

Mouthwash

Last month, Johnson noted a number of simple things Americans can do to keep themselves heathy, such as taking Vitamin D, Vitamin C, and zinc, and gargling mouthwash to reduce viral load if they get COVID.

He was swiftly berated in print and on-air by the likes of MSNBC’s Rachel MaddowHuffPostThe Washington Post, and Rolling StoneForbes said Johnson’s “Advice Exemplifies The Rising Tide Of Anti-Science,” and MSNBC’s Joy Reid called him a “fool” and a “public health menace.”

Johnson’s mouthwash claim about viral load is supported by scientific research, however, such as this study. Additionally, Dr. Bruce Davidson, a faculty member of the Georgetown Department of Otolaryngology, conducted a study on the use of antiseptic mouthwash to control coronavirus, published in the American Journal of Medicine, and found that mouthwash can help protect people from Covid-19 pneumonia.

Even FackCheck.org had to admit, “Johnson is right that mouthwashes ‘may’ reduce the virus’ ability to replicate in people.”

Natural Immunity

On July 14, Johnson claimed natural immunity is “as strong if not stronger than vaccinated immunity,” against which WaPo deployed its fake fact-checkers.

“Fact-checker” Salvador Rizzo gave it “four Pinocchios” (an analysis that Johnson’s team eviscerated), and WaPo’s bogus fact-checker-in-chief Glenn Kessler called it one of the “Biggest Pinocchios of 2021.”

Johnson’s claims, however, come straight out of a pair of studies that confirmed natural immunity is stronger than COVID vaccine-acquired immunity. The pre-print Israeli study found that people with natural immunity could be 13 times less likely to contract the virus than those who were solely vaccinated, contradicting CDC findings.

Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist and biostatistician who was a professor at Harvard Medical School for a decade, dissected and compared the CDC study and the Israeli pre-print and explained why the latter is more reliable.

Russiagate

Johnson’s years-long involvement in getting to the bottom of the Russia hoax and the Ukraine phone call impeachment is enough to fill a book (see hereherehereherehere, and here), but suffice it to say that, true to form, the media were relentless, and the right was pretty much right about everything. In fact, the truth about that story is likely far worse than most have heard. Here’s hoping Johnson continues to pursue that truth using the powers of a U.S. senator.


Kylee Zempel is an assistant editor at The Federalist. She previously worked as the copy editor for the Washington Examiner magazine and as an editor and producer at National Geographic. She holds a B.S. in Communication Arts/Speech and an A.S. in Criminal Justice and writes on topics including feminism and gender issues, religious liberty, and criminal justice. Follow her on Twitter @kyleezempel.

From Climate Change To Tax Cuts, Major Parts Of Democrats’ $2T Spending Bill Could Be On Senate Chopping Block


Reported by ANDREW TRUNSKY | POLITICAL REPORTER | November 28, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/28/climate-change-tax-cuts-senate-chopping-block-major-provisions-democrats-2t-bill/

Senators Meet For Weekly Policy Luncheons
(Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

House Democrats passed President Joe Biden’s nearly $2 trillion spending package Nov. 19 after months of high-stakes negotiations, but it faces an even rockier path through the 50-50 Senate before becoming law. Though the bill faces another vote-a-rama, which allows Republicans the opportunity to force unlimited, politically tricky votes on various amendments, this may prove to be far from the biggest hurdle. Senators from Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the most conservative Democrat in the chamber, to Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, are already on-record opposing various provisions and are preparing to rework the House-passed bill.

After the bill passed the House on near party lines Nov. 19, leadership touted many of the provisions at risk of omission, saying that the differences between House and Senate Democrats were minimal.

“Ninety percent of the bill was written together — House, Senate, White House,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a press conference shortly after the bill passed, adding that while “some minor changes” may occur, they would be “nothing major in my opinion.”

But Pelosi’s optimism may not pan out, as Senate Democrats zero in on policies from paid family leave to state and local tax (SALT) deductions. Other provisions from raising taxes on wealthy Americans and corporations to overhauling IRS monitoring of personal bank accounts, have already been scrapped due to opposition from centrist Democrats like Manchin and Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.

Below are several policies that may fall victim to Senate Democrats, despite their House colleagues’ best efforts to make them law. 

Democrats react to the passage of the Build Back Better Act the morning of Nov. 19. Its passage was undoubtedly a victory Speaker Nancy Pelosi.(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Manchin has repeatedly said that he opposes paid family and medical leave’s inclusion in the package, though he has also said he would support a bipartisan bill establishing it in the future. While the original proposal included 12 weeks of paid family leave, the House-passed bill has just four and would not begin until 2024. 

“That’s a challenge,” Manchin said in early November when news broke that Democrats were planning to re-add the provision to the bill despite his stated opposition. “I just don’t support ‘unpaid’ leave. That means getting more debt and basically putting more social programs that we can’t pay for.”

Manchin has also said that any reconciliation bill must include the Hyde Amendment, which bars Americans’ tax dollars from funding abortions in nearly all cases. The amendment was excluded from the House bill. House Democrats from high-tax states like California, New York and New Jersey insisted that the SALT cap be lifted from the current $10,000 cap adopted in 2017 as part of former President Donald Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In their version of Biden’s package, the cap would be lifted to $80,000 annually through 2030.

While the policy was touted by coastal House Democrats, including Pelosi, some of their Senate colleagues have staunchly objected to including a tax cut that would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy Americans.

“[I’m] not a big fan,” Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester said of the SALT provisions after the House passed the bill. “I think it gives tax breaks to the wrong people: rich people.”

Sanders, who has long opposed raising the SALT cap, was even blunter. “I think it’s bad politics, it’s bad policy … The bottom line is, we have to help the middle class, not the 1%,” he said.

Even Manchin, who constantly torpedoed Sanders’ attempts to broaden the overall bill, has opposed reigning in how much in taxes Americans can deduct via SALT. While he has not commented publicly on the provision, he was the only Democrat who endorsed Republicans’ effort to establish the cap four years ago. 

Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks with reporters as he leaves the Capitol in October. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Manchin has already scrubbed the White House’s proposed Clean Electricity Payment Program from the bill, and, along with Tester, ruling out a carbon tax as a replacement provision shortly after.

Manchin also reportedly objected to a union-made electric vehicle credit. The House-passed bill would allow for a $7,500 tax deduction on all electric vehicles and an additional $4,500 deduction on vehicles from companies meeting particular outlined criteria. As a result, an electric vehicle from General Motors or Ford could receive $12,000 in deductions, while one from Toyota, which has a large presence in West Virginia, could receive just $7,500.

“This can’t happen. It’s not who we are as a country. It’s not how we built this country, and the product should speak for itself,” Manchin told Automotive News on Nov. 11 while at a Toyota plant in his home state. “We shouldn’t use everyone’s tax dollars to pick winners and losers … Hopefully, we’ll get that … corrected.”

Climate change provisions also account for about $550 billion of the House-passed bill, and moderates, including Manchin, have insisted that the bill be fully paid for. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the package would add about $367 billion to the deficit over 10 years, not including potential revenue from IRS enforcement, meaning that the provisions could be tampered down if senators object to the bill’s overall price tag. 

Included in the House-passed bill is a provision that would grant provisional work permits to as many as 6.5 million noncitizen immigrants. Democrats hope that this will be the first step on a pathway to citizenship, but their last two attempts to include some type of immigration reform have been blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian, who ruled that the changes didn’t directly impact the budget to a point where they could be included in the filibuster-proof legislation.

“I do support the immigration proposals that are being offered in the upcoming reconciliation package,” Sinema told the Arizona Republic earlier in November. “I also recognize that there are legal limitations to what can be done in a reconciliation package.”

Senate Passes The Largest Infrastructure Package In Decades, Over A Dozen Republicans Vote In Favor


Reported by ANDREW TRUNSKY | POLITICAL REPORTER | August 10, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/08/10/senate-passes-infrastructure-package-dozen-republicans-join-dems-kyrsten-sinema-rob-portman-joe-biden/

Lawmakers Continue To Work On Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal On Capitol Hill
(Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The Senate on Tuesday passed its bipartisan infrastructure bill, moving what would be the largest public works package in decades one step closer to becoming law months after negotiations first began. The bill, which advocates praised as the largest investment in America’s infrastructure since the construction of the interstate highway system in the 1950s, passed 69-30. Nineteen Republicans joined every Democrat in voting for the package.

The legislation, titled the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), was on a glide path to passage after beating a Senate filibuster Sunday night, when 68 senators voted to end debate.

Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the bill’s lead Democratic negotiator, said Monday on the Senate floor that the bill would “make America stronger and safer, create good-paying jobs and expand economic opportunities across the country,” and praised her colleagues for their commitment to reaching an agreement. “This is what it looks like when elected leaders take a step toward healing our country’s divisions rather than feeding [them],” she added.

The IIJA costs $1.2 trillion over eight years, $550 billion of which is new government spending, and puts hundreds of billions of federal dollars toward roads, bridges, ports, broadband and more. It was led by Ohio Sen. Rob Portman on the Republican side, and was the product of negotiations among 22 senators and President Joe Biden.

“[This is] landmark and needed legislation in fixing our roads, railroads, our ports, electrical grid and more,” Portman said on the floor. “I’m proud of what was done on that … It will improve the lives of all Americans. It’s long-term spending to repair and replace and build assets that will last for decades.”

Talks first began with West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, but collapsed after she and the White House could not agree on the overall size and scope of the bill. Negotiations then shifted to the bipartisan group, but remained precarious for weeks as they struggled to compromise on how to finance the new spending and what it should cover.

It was late July when Portman announced that the group had reached agreement on the “major issues,” and that Republicans were ready to move forward. 

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema speaks after the bipartisan bill cleared its first procedural vote in July. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema speaks after the bipartisan bill cleared its first procedural vote in July. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The bill cleared its first procedural vote hours later with the support of 17 Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a clear indication that it had the necessary support to beat a filibuster and pass. Two days later, 16 Republicans joined Democrats in officially voting to begin debate.

Senators originally sought to pass the bill last week or over the weekend, but were blocked from doing so by Tennessee Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty, who refused to forgo hours of scheduled debate. He cited the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that the bill would add $256 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, arguing that the legislation was not fully paid for, unlike what its negotiators previously said.

Hagerty’s delays earned praise from former President Donald Trump on Sunday, who had repeatedly tried to intimidate Republicans into opposing the package. In multiple email statements he disparaged McConnell for supporting the bill, calling it a “disgrace” and the “beginning of the Green New Deal,” and floated backing primary challengers against other Republicans who backed it. 

With the IIJA’s passing, senators are now set to take up their budget resolution, keeping them in Washington for another marathon session with dozens of politically tricky amendment votes and eating into their prized August recess. The mammoth resolution, unveiled by Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday, addresses priorities omitted from the infrastructure bill including health care, climate change and immigration and as outlined costs $3.5 trillion.

“This legislation in so many ways begins to address the working families of our country,” Sanders said on the Senate floor Monday. “But in one important way, maybe the most important, is as we address the needs of our people in health care and education and climate, we are going to create many millions of good-paying jobs that the American people desperately need.” 

Sen. Bernie Sanders authored Democrats' $3.5 trillion budget, which he has acknowledged will likely pass on party lines. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Sen. Bernie Sanders authored Democrats’ $3.5 trillion budget, which he has acknowledged will likely pass on party lines. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

While Republicans unanimously oppose the reconciliation package, Senate rules allow for Democrats to pass it with just a simple majority vote, meaning that it could pass strictly along party lines if their caucus all votes for it.

McConnell on Tuesday accused Democrats of playing “Russian roulette with our country” and said the budget would be the “largest peacetime tax hike on record.”

“This new reckless taxing and spending spree will fall like a hammer blow on workers and middle-class families,” McConnell said. “If all 50 Democrats want to help [Budget Committee] Chairman Sanders hurt middle-class families … well, that’s their prerogative, but we’re going to argue it out right here on the floor at some length.”

Several progressives, however, have sought to tie the bipartisan bill with the reconciliation package, with some in the House hinging their support for the former on Senate Democrats passing the latter. In an attempt to hold her narrow majority together, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that she will not bring the bipartisan bill up for a vote until the Senate passes the reconciliation package as well, despite moderates urging her to bring up the infrastructure package as soon as possible. 

Others have also been critical of the infrastructure bill, which was adopted as a substitute for the $715 billion surface transportation bill that the House passed in July, arguing that it inadequately invests in climate, housing, child care and more.

Oregon Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio, the chair of the House Transportation Committee, reportedly called the bill “crap” after a deal was reached, lamenting the fact that it omitted large swaths of the transportation bill he authored and disregarding the White House’s endorsement of it.

“I could give a damn about the White House. We’re an independent branch of government,” he told reporters in July. “They cut this deal. I didn’t sign off on it.”

Capitol Rioter Sentenced To 8 Months In Prison In First Felony Case


Reported by ANDREW TRUNSKY, POLITICAL REPORTER for DailyCaller.com | July 19, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/07/19/capitol-riot-paul-allard-hodgkins-sentence-felony-donald-trump/

Congress Holds Joint Session To Ratify 2020 Presidential Election
(Win McNamee/Getty Images)

A Florida man who breached the Senate floor on Jan. 6 while carrying a Trump flag was the first Capitol rioter sentenced with a felony offense.

Prosecutors are seeking a minimum 18-month sentence for Paul Allard Hodgkins. In a July 14 court filing, they alleged that he, “like each rioter, contributed to the collective threat to democracy” as they forced lawmakers, reporters, staff and Vice President Mike Pence into hiding as they convened to certify President Joe Biden’s victory.

He was sentenced to eight months in prison.

Video footage described in the report shows Hodgkins, 38, sporting a Trump T-shirt and flag on the Senate floor. At one point he took a selfie with the self-described shaman, who is also awaiting trial for participating in the riot. 

Rioters enter the Senate Chamber on January 6. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Lawyers for Hodgkins had argued that the court of public opinion was enough punishment to avoid a prison sentence.

“Whatever punishment this court may provide will pale in comparison to the scarlet letter Mr. Hodgkins will wear for the rest of his life,” his lawyer, Patrick N. Leduc, wrote in a filing on July 12.

That filing likens Hodgkins’ actions to those of Anna Lloyd Morgan, a 49-year-old from Indiana who was the first of hundreds to be sentenced. She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in June and was given three years of probation

Hundreds of rioters stormed the Capitol as Congress sought to certify President Joe Biden’s victory. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Though Hodgkins was never accused of assaulting anyone or damaging property, prosecutors noted that when he boarded a bus from Tampa, Florida, to D.C. he had rope, protective goggles and latex gloves, and said that demonstrated that he was prepared for violence.

Prosecutors also said, however, that Hodgkins deserved leniency for immediately coming forward and pleading guilty to his obstruction charge, which carries a maximum sentence of two decades. But they noted that “time and time again, rather than turn around and retreat, he pressed forward.” 

“When a mob is prepared to attack the Capitol to prevent elected officials from both parties from performing their constitutional and statutory duty, democracy is in trouble,” Federal District Judge Randolph Moss said Monday. “The damage that they caused that day is way beyond the delays that day. It is a damage that will persist in this country for decades.”

Leduc argued in his filing that Hodgkins was “a man who for just one hour on one day lost his bearings” and “made a fateful decision to follow the crowd.” It also noted former President Abraham Lincoln’s attempt to reconcile immediately after the Civil War.

“The court has a chance to emulate Lincoln,” Leduc wrote.

COMMENTARY: Lindsey Graham Says Unemployment Benefits Are So High People in His Own Family Aren’t Working


Commentary by C. Douglas Golden June 9, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/lindsey-graham-says-unemployment-benefits-high-people-family-arent-working/

When the disastrous April jobs report came out, President Joe Biden was asked by a reporter whether or not the Democratic push to keep expanded $300 weekly federal unemployment checks contributed to the historic miss.

“No, nothing measurable,” Biden said during a media briefing on May 7, according to a transcript.

“I know some employers are having trouble filling jobs. But what this report shows is that there’s a much bigger problem. … It is that our economy still has 8 million fewer jobs than when this pandemic started. The data shows that more — more workers — more workers are looking for jobs, and many can’t find them. While jobs are coming back, there are still millions of people out there looking for work.”

That’s still the official administration line after two months of disappointing jobs numbers. The fact that the federal government is paying people not to work has nothing to do with the promised economic rebound falling flat, at least when it comes to jobs.

During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Tuesday, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina wasn’t having it. As he questioned Shalanda Young, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, he said he had relatives who weren’t working because unemployment benefits were so high. Graham was arguing that the benefits should be killed before they’re set to expire in September.

“There’s a lot of jobs out there that are unfilled and will never be filled until you change the benefit structure. Does that logic make sense to you, given where we’re at in our economy?” Graham asked Young.

“I understand the logic, but I’ve also not met Americans who would prefer not to work,” Young replied. “There’s a dignity to work in this country.”

A chuckling Graham used his relatives to show why this is problematic. “I got a lot of people in my family that ain’t working because they’re getting — I’ll show you some of my family,” Graham said.

“Bottom line is I think there are people out there, they’re not bad people, but they’re not going to work for $15 an hour if they make $23 unemployed,” he added.

“That doesn’t make you a bad person. If you’re working for $15 an hour, that makes you almost a chump.”

The expanded benefits have been part of a tug-of-war between the White House and Republicans on Capitol Hill and in governor’s mansions. As part of the American Rescue Plan, Biden kept the $300-a-week checks going through Sept. 6. As The New York Times reported last week, the administration has promised not to renew them, but has no plans to cancel the additional aid early.

However, many Republicans have seen enough, with 25 states having already ended the benefits starting this month.

In a Friday media briefing, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that’s OK,” although the Biden administration still sees the $300 payments as an “extra helping hand.”

“Every governor is going to make their own decision,” Psaki told reporters.

That decision should become markedly easier when staring down two months of dreadful jobs reports. April is the month that sticks out; that’s when economists were expecting a million new jobs and the total was 278,000. And let’s not forget May. The 559,000 jobs added still came in below expectations of 675,000 jobs. Let’s also not forget that a roaring economy was set to be a Democratic talking point going into 2022.

Even though the Biden administration inherited a strong economy before lockdowns shuttered businesses, and even though the beginning of mass vaccinations was felicitously timed with Biden’s inauguration, the massive bounceback the White House was counting on hasn’t quite happened yet. But the weekly $300 checks have nothing to do with it, they swear. After all, who wouldn’t choose the dignity of work over getting paid to sit on the couch?

It isn’t just Shalanda Young making this argument — during the May 7 media briefing on the April jobs numbers, Biden claimed “most middle-class, working-class people that I know think the way my dad did.

“He used to say — and I know I’m repeating myself, but I’m going to continue to because I think it’s critical. ‘A job is a lot more than a paycheck,’ he’d say. ‘Joey, it’s about your respect, your dignity, your place in the community.’ More than a paycheck. It’s people’s pride. It’s about being able to look at your child in the eye and say, ‘Honey, it’s going to be OK.’”

I know, empurpled prose like that makes the tears well up in your eyes. However, if you stay at home for $23 an hour instead of working for $15 an hour, it’s a lot easier to look your child in the eye and say, “Honey, it’s going to be OK.” Yes, a job might be “people’s pride.” It’s not the kind of pride that goeth before the fall, but it’s the kind of pride that, in this case, goeth before making considerably less money for doing actual work.

Now, was Graham making a rhetorical point, throwing his family under the bus, or both? Whatever the case, one hopes they — as well as millions of other Americans — get off the dole with all due rapidity.

In a country where anyone over 12 can get a vaccine with ease and employers are desperately looking for workers, the federal government needn’t be throwing $300 a week at the unemployed in the name of recovery.

ABOUT THE COMMENTATOR:

C. Douglas Golden, Contributor,

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.@CillianZeal

Facebook

Mitch McConnell: Capitol Rioters Were ‘Fed Lies‘ and ‘Provoked by the President’ and Others


Reported by HANNAH BLEAU | 

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/01/19/mitch-mcconnell-capitol-rioters-were-fed-lies-and-provoked-by-the-president-and-others/

WASHINGTON, DC – NOVEMBER 19: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) speaks during his weekly press conference at the U.S. Capitol on November 19, 2019 in Washington, DC. Republicans spoke about their desire to work on their legislative agenda despite the impeachment hearings in the House. (Photo by Alex Edelman/Getty …

Speaking on the Senate floor on Tuesday, McConnell said that the “mob was fed lies” and “provoked by the president and other powerful people” — effectively echoing the claims made by his Democrat colleagues, who accuse Trump of inciting the chaos that descended upon the Capitol that day.

“The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people, and they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like,” the Kentucky Republican said.

“But we pressed on. We stood together and said an angry mob would not get veto power over the rule of law in our nation,” he continued:

 

McConnell’s remarks echo the statements made by many of his Democrat colleagues, who contend that Trump incited the violence despite the fact that he, at no point during his “Save America” speech, urged supporters to engage in lawless and violent acts. As the chaos unfolded, Trump — who at the time had access to his personal Twitter account — repeatedly called for protesters to respect law enforcement and refrain from violence.

“Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” he wrote on Twitter shortly after 2:30 p.m. Eastern.

Less than an hour later, the president wrote, “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”

However, one week later, the House impeached Trump for the second time, with the single article asserting that Trump incited members of the crowd.

“President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transfer of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government,” the article states.

“He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States,” it adds.

Ten House Republicans joined Democrats in supporting impeachment. While House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) openly opposed impeachment, he too suggested that Trump “bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters.”

“He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding,” he said on the House floor last week.

“These facts require immediate action of President Trump — accept his share of responsibility, quell the brewing unrest, and ensure President-elect Biden is able to successfully begin his term,” he continued.

McCarthy told House Republicans earlier this month that Trump “told him he bears some of the responsibility for the Washington, DC, riots,” as Breitbart News detailed.

McConnell has not revealed if he would vote to convict Trump in the Senate impeachment trial, stating that he intends to “listen to the legal arguments when they are presented to the Senate.” He has reportedly told colleagues that their decision will be a “vote of conscience.”

Current Congress Least Productive Since 1970s, Mired In Social Media Fights And Pointless Bills


Reported by VARUN HUKERI, REPORTER | December 14, 20201:39 PM ET

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/14/congress-house-senate-bills-productive-social-media-polls-quorum-gallup/

The current 116th Congress will be the least productive with fewer enacted bills than any legislative session since the 1970s, while social media activity among members of Congress and the introduction of legislation skyrocketed in 2020.

recent report published by the public affairs research group Quorum found that only 28 of the 5,117 bills introduced in the House and Senate this year were enacted. Congress by comparison introduced 8,364 bills in 2019 and 169 of those were eventually signed into law.

The number of bills enacted by the 116th Congress is notably smaller than that of its predecessor. While the 115th Congress introduced nearly 3,000 fewer bills during its session in 2017 and 2018, President Donald Trump signed 417 bills into law according to the Congressional record.

The primary reason for this could be attributed to Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress at that time. Democrats gained a majority of House seats following the 2018 midterm elections and current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi replaced former Speaker Paul Ryan.

It is expected that periods of divided government can lead to less enacted legislation, according to Axios, but productivity in Congress is still the lowest it has been in decades.

Social media activity among members of Congress increased dramatically in 2020 as the number of bills passed declined, according to the Quorum report. Lawmakers posted on social media 784,614 times this year across platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.

Researchers found that for every bill introduced in Congress, lawmakers posted 98 times on Twitter, 60 times on Facebook, 5 times on Instagram and 4 times on YouTube. Lawmakers also collectively released 13 press releases for every bill introduced.

For every bill signed into law and enacted, lawmakers posted 17,912 times on Twitter, 11,016 times on Facebook, 874 times on Instagram and 669 times on YouTube. Lawmakers also collectively released 2,312 press releases for every bill signed into law and enacted.

Members of Congress frequently posted about the coronavirus on social media as hashtags and key words related to the pandemic dominated user feeds among both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, according to the Quorum report. Other prominent events lawmakers posted about this year included the 2020 Census and civil unrest related to police violence.

“Congress did a lot more posting on social media and a lot less legislating,” researchers wrote. “Twitter replaced floor debates in 2020. Memes and designed graphics replaced the classic floor posters you spot on CSPAN.” (RELATED: ‘I Never Met Her’: Joe Manchin Slams Ocasio-Cortez After She Took A Jab At Him On Twitter)

Congressional job approval among voters remains low amid criticisms of gridlock and an ineffective legislative agenda, according to Gallup polling data. A Gallup poll released in November found that only 23% of voters approved of the way Congress is handling its job while 73% disapproved.

A Short History Of Democrats’ Vicious Tactics For Controlling The Judiciary


Reported by Frank Scaturro DECEMBER 4, 2020

As the courts have become hyper-politicized over the past few decades, the judicial nomination process has deteriorated. With this presidential term drawing to a close, we should note the new depths of obstruction that have become a part of the Senate Democrats’ playbook these past four years.

Origins of Obstruction

Matters were already bad when a Democratic Senate rejected Robert Bork for the Supreme Court in 1987 with such notorious vilification that “bork” was added to the dictionary as a verb denoting such unfair and harsh tactics. Four years later came personal vilification for Clarence Thomas before he squeaked by the Senate on a 52–48 vote.

Thomas nonetheless made it through a Democratic Senate that had not entirely shaken a long tradition of bipartisanship on judicial nominations. In fact, from the government’s establishment in 1789 through 2000, 97 percent of Senate-approved judges faced no recorded opposition, and 96 percent were confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent as opposed to roll-call votes.

Recorded votes tended to be lopsided. When President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court, instead of Republicans retaliating for past treatment, the nominees were confirmed respectively by margins of 96–3 and 87–9. This was despite a number of known controversial positions Ginsburg had taken during her career that Republicans chose not to highlight.

During George W. Bush’s administration, Democrats engaged in wholesale filibusters of circuit court nominees, a tactic that resulted in the defeat of several. Previously, only one judicial nomination fell apart after coming up short on a vote on cloture — the procedure by which senators, with a supermajority vote, could end debate and force a confirmation vote. That was the fate of Justice Abe Fortas, whom Lyndon B. Johnson tried to elevate to chief justice in 1968.

Whether Fortas could garner the simple majority of senators required for confirmation was unclear. His unusual case included bipartisan opposition and ethical questions — he actually resigned from the Supreme Court the following year — and did not leave even the most strident opponents of Bork and Thomas with a sense that they had the filibuster in their procedural toolbox.

In 2005, early in Bush’s second term, Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist proposed to change the supermajority requirement for cloture on nominations (then at 60 votes) to a simple majority, an idea known as the “nuclear option,” which would have effectively ended judicial filibusters. Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid threatened to retaliate with an unprecedented level of obstructionism that would freeze most Senate business. This scenario did not play out after a compromise, engineered by the “Gang of 14,” derailed any change to cloture.

Eight years later, however, Reid was majority leader, and with the shoe on the other foot, he orchestrated by parliamentary maneuver the very rule change that had once evoked his threats of senatorial Armageddon, essentially ending the filibuster for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court in 2013.

Unprecedented Partisanship During the Trump Era

Gorsuch Filibuster

That exception for filibusters on Supreme Court nominations was quickly put to the test after Donald Trump became president in 2017 and Democrats launched a filibuster of the new president’s first judicial nominee to reach the floor, Neil Gorsuch. Thanks to Reid’s handiwork in 2013, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell garnered support for adding Supreme Court nominations to the others that were subject to simple majorities to invoke cloture.

Abuse of Cloture Motions

Although Democrats were in the minority in the Senate throughout Trump’s term, they used the tools in their arsenal more than any Senate minority before them. While the simple majority threshold made it easier than before to invoke cloture, even when a cloture motion succeeded, a confirmation vote was not immediate but subject to a limit of 30 hours of further consideration.

That time notoriously went by with little-to-no actual debate on the nomination at issue, but of course, actual deliberation was not the goal. By forcing votes on cloture, Democrats could take up more of the Senate’s time and make it that much more difficult to process nominations, not to mention other business.

This the Democratic minority did indiscriminately. All three of Trump’s Supreme Court nominees — Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — were subjected to cloture votes. Adding Samuel Alito (a George W. Bush appointee) to those three, four of the six sitting Republican-appointed justices have faced cloture votes, in contrast to all four of the justices nominated by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Senate Democrats have also regularly forced cloture votes for even noncontroversial nominees to circuit courts, district courts, and even the non-life-tenured courts of federal claims. Eight district court nominees who had previously been nominated by Obama before Trump renominated them were subjected to cloture votes despite a lack of meaningful opposition; five of them received between 95 and 100 votes for confirmation and zero against, and another was confirmed by a voice vote.

It was only after the cloture rule was broadened in 1949, during Harry Truman’s presidency, to cover any pending matter that nominations could be subject to a cloture motion. Since then, there were a total of 136 cloture votes on judicial nominees through the end of the Obama administration. Trump’s nominees have considerably more than that entire total, at 192 and counting.

The Disintegration of Bipartisanship

The bipartisanship that used to attend most judicial nominations is also falling apart. According to the Heritage Foundation, more confirmed judges received more than 30 percent opposition votes during the Trump administration than during all previous administrations combined, from George Washington to Obama. Moreover, the majority of negative votes cast against judicial nominees in American history were against Trump nominees.

The three Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices were confirmed with almost total Democratic opposition. Only three Democrats voted to confirm Gorsuch, one to confirm Kavanaugh, and none to confirm Barrett, making her the first Supreme Court nominee to be confirmed without any votes from a major minority party since 1869.

In Kavanaugh’s case, Democrats employed kitchen-sink tactics of obstruction that included repeated interruptions during his hearings and deluging him with more written questions for the record than the combined number of such questions to prior Supreme Court nominees in American history. All other tactics were eclipsed by the disgraceful last-minute attempt to destroy Kavanaugh, when Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault allegation, after being buried for six weeks by ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, was sprung on the committee after the initial hearings, a desperate tactic that flouted the process for handling sensitive matters.

Weaponization of the Blue Slip

On top of everything else, Democrats tried, in the words of long-serving Senate Judiciary Committee member (and former chairman) Orrin Hatch, to “weaponize the blue slip” tradition for circuit and district courts. That was the courtesy established in approximately 1917 in which a nominee’s home-state senators receive blue pieces of paper on which they could express their views about the nomination to the committee. It was a tradition (as opposed to a rule) intended to encourage pre-nomination consultation, but Democrats during this administration routinely withheld positive blue slips, especially for circuit nominees, as a workaround in the absence of a true filibuster.

“Today, Democrats are trying to turn the blue-slip process into a de facto filibuster,” Hatch charged in 2017. “They want a single senator to be able to do in the Judiciary Committee what it once took 41 senators to do on the Senate floor.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chaired the committee during the first two years of the Trump administration, noted that only two of 19 Judiciary Committee chairmen who served over the span of a century treated the blue slip as a strict veto that would preclude a hearing in the absence of two positive blue slips, and he was not going to allow Democratic obstructionism to prevent him from proceeding with hearings for circuit nominees. Still, the blue slip has impeded the advancement of district court nominations through committee, and many trial court judgeships in states with Democratic senators remain vacant due to the withholding of blue slips or the threat of doing so.

It is thanks to current Republican leadership in the Senate and specifically the Judiciary Committee that so many nominees have been processed and made their way to confirmation. As the repeated operation of the 30-hour rule took its toll on nominations, McConnell garnered a majority to reduce the post-cloture clock to two hours for district court nominations.

To date, the Senate has confirmed 229 Article III (life-tenured) judges nominated by Trump. That total includes 53 circuit court judges, which ranks second among all four-year presidential terms to that of Jimmy Carter, who, boosted by the creation of 35 new seats on the courts of appeals in 1978, holds the record at 56. For several months this year, there was no room for Trump to increase his appointments to the courts of appeals because every vacancy had been filled.

Historical Support for Lame-Duck Confirmations

There are now two more appellate nominees, Thomas L. Kirsch II for Barrett’s former seat on the Seventh Circuit and Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach to fill the First Circuit vacancy created by the death of Juan Torruella on Oct. 26. There is no reason they cannot be confirmed before Inauguration Day. Kirsch already had his hearing before the Judiciary Committee, as have 11 pending nominees to district or federal claims courts.

While any nomination that is not processed by Jan. 3, the end of the current congressional term and beginning of the next, is automatically returned to the president, it can be resubmitted and processed without the need for a new hearing. There is ample precedent for lame-duck judicial confirmations, from John Adams’ appointment of John Marshall as chief justice after his re-election defeat, to Carter’s appointment of Breyer to the First Circuit after his loss to Ronald Reagan.

There is an unmistakable dissonance between Joe Biden’s calls for national unity and his party’s judicial obstructionism over the past four years. As a Judiciary Committee chairman, Biden helped to lay much of the groundwork for this sorry state of affairs. For his Democratic successors in the Senate, obstructionism is an ongoing project that seems to find no limit.

Consider the exception that proved the rule: When leftist interest groups criticized Feinstein after she praised Graham’s handling of Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination hearings and gave the chairman a hug — never mind that every Democrat voted against the nominee — Feinstein’s party compelled her to step down as the Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat. Is there any level of malevolence toward judicial nominations that would satisfy today’s Democratic leadership?

Frank Scaturro served as counsel for the Constitution on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee between 2005 and 2009, in which capacity he worked on the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and Neil Gorsuch to the Tenth Circuit. He is the author of, among other titles, “The Supreme Court’s Retreat from Reconstruction” (Greenwood Press, 2000). Follow him on Twitter at @FrankScaturro.

A Look At The Money And Men Working To Take Georgia — And The Country — Left


Reported by Christopher Bedford NOVEMBER 12, 2020

Georgia’s on the mind this fall as both Senate races head to winter run-offs. The contests pit Republican incumbent Sen. David Perdue against Democrat Jon Ossoff, and Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler, who was nominated to fill a vacant seat just last year, against Raphael Warnock.

At first glance, the two Democrats appear to be dream candidates. In Ossoff, team blue has a young man with a Justin Trudeau look and an economics education from London running against an older incumbent. In Warnock, they have a black Baptist minister who literally leads Martin Luther King Jr’s old church running against a never-elected incumbent accused of insider trading.

Historically, Georgian Democrats have toed a more conservative line. A Georgian congressman was a co-founder of the moderate Blue Dog Democrats, for example, and the last Democratic senator to represent the state was Zell Miller, who famously growled “nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators” in a fiery Republican National Convention speech endorsing George W. Bush over John Kerry.

But southern Democrats don’t run quite like they used to. Ossoff first came onto the scene  in a special election in 2017 with a run for Congress, raising more than 95 percent from out-of-state donors, mainly Californians and New Yorkers. The year after, Stacey Abrams launched her ridiculous, never-conceded 2018 run for governor, landing frequent appearances on “The View” and other popular shows despite her failure.

Since these races, the major contests in the changing state have routinely become marquee-topping, left-wing, Hollywood and New York-funded events, thus far ending in failure, not unlike Texas’s blue hopes. In 2017, for example, despite running “the most expensive House contest in U.S. history,” Ossoff lost. Now he’s back with the same playbook, and in October he raised more than 87 percent of his funds from out of state, besting Warnock’s nearly 80 percent. On Monday, both candidates attended their first fundraiser of the run-off — with Silicon Valley elites in a San Francisco restaurant.

So what about these two Democrats attracts so much progressive money while Ossoff, for one, denies support for Green New Deal, defunding police, Medicare for All, and packing the Supreme Court? Check out Ossoff’s Instagram account for a starter, where he crows about his wife’s testimony against the Georgie heartbeat bill that protects babies with a beating heart. Then dig into his actual positions.

He’s told Georgians he supports the Paris Climate Accord, yes, but he also supports “historic infrastructure plan that includes massive investments in clean energy, energy efficiency, and environmental protection.” “A huge infrastructure plan, you say?” the left-wing New Republic joked. “One that reduces emissions while also providing well-paying jobs? That sounds mighty familiar.”

Similarly, he stands against defunding police while saying he’d “take a look” at the funding for police departments. He supports “comprehensive immigration reform,” including amnesty. He doesn’t like gun rights much either. Sounds right by California.

So how about Warnock? He’s carefully crafted himself after Martin Luther King Jr., attending the same college and now leading the same church. Like King, he’s an activist and a preacher, but unlike King, his sit-in arrest was over Obamacare — and he believes abortion “is consistent with” the Bible.

Warnock also loves Rev. Jeremiah Wright, calling his “God damn America” speech “a very fine sermon.” As recently as the ’90s, the New York City church Warnock pastored at chanted Fidel Castro’s name in jubilation, welcoming a dictator who closed churches, silenced priests, called Catholics “social scum” and even banned Christmas. He stayed with the church, actually rising in its ranks.

While he claims he is against defunding the police, Warnock’s said they have “a gangsta and thug mentality” and that it’s “often those who are sworn to protect cause more trouble.” And then his senior adviser thinks defunding “will actually make us safer.” While he’s to the left of Ossoff on packing the Supreme Court, he sure seems to share Ossof’s hope he beats the president’s supporters so badly they “never show [their] face in public again.”

Democrats face an uphill battle in both Senate races, with anti-Trump turnout non-existent in early January, but both races are still very competitive. “That Jon Ossoff’s message seems moderate,” Vox’s Matt Yglesias wrote in 2017, “is a sign of how far Democrats have shifted.” If that message can work in the strange, only-recently conservative state of Georgia, will serve as an important signal to national Democrats — and could decide control of the Senate.

Christopher Bedford is a senior editor at The Federalist, the vice chairman of Young Americans for Freedom, a board member at the National Journalism Center, and the author of The Art of the Donald. Follow him on Twitter.

Never Forget the Time Joe Biden Said ‘Don’t Assume I’m Not Corrupt’


Commentary By Kipp Jones | Published October 27, 2020 at 4:59pm

An old clip of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden discussing whether he could be corrupted by power has taken on new significance with less than a week before the Nov. 3 election.

The Democrats’ lone shot at seizing power from the American people next week is currently embroiled in controversy surrounding reports that he used his son to peddle his influence while he served as the country’s vice president.

Contents discovered on a laptop that reportedly belonged to his son Hunter Biden continue to bring up questions about Biden’s alleged involvement in the younger Biden’s international business dealings.

Numerous and credible reports that Biden himself was involved in making money from Hunter Biden’s business in ChinaRussiaKazakhstan and Ukraine have also not been challenged on substance.

But they portray a political family rooted in corruption, and they make a case that Biden himself allegedly guided American foreign policy while serving as VP with his own financial interests in mind.

Due to these and other reports, a decades-old unearthed clip of Biden speaking about political corruption are more important now than ever.

This past week, an old Biden interview shows Biden discussing corruption as a side-burned and fast-talking young senator from Delaware.

In 1974, during his second year in the Senate, Biden appeared on the weekly PBS program “The Advocates.”

He was asked, “As the youngest member of the Senate, the one therefore who may expect the longest career there, I wonder if you’d say to us since it’s clear that you’re not corrupt and you got elected, why should people think that the system produces corrupt results when there you are?”

READ THE REST OF THIS REPORT AT https://www.westernjournal.com/never-forget-time-joe-biden-said-dont-assume-not-corrupt/

Biden Insider Tony Bobulinski Provides Trove of Documents to Senate Investigators


Reported by MATTHEW BOYLE | Washington, DC

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/22/biden-insider-tony-bobulinski-provides-trove-documents-senate-investigators/

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 12: 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. (Photo by Teresa Kroeger/Getty Images for World …
Teresa Kroeger/Getty Images for World Food Program USA

Bobulinski, the recipient of one of the emails retrieved from Hunter Biden’s laptop, went public on Wednesday night with a statement saying he confirms its authenticity and detailed how former Vice President Joe Biden — the Democrat nominee for president in this year’s election, which is just over 10 days away — was personally involved in many dealings with his son’s business associates.

Documents that Bobulinski provided to Senators have begun appearing in public, and have been obtained by a number of media outlets including Breitbart News.

In them, text messages, emails, and other documents illustrate a larger picture of concern regarding the Biden family’s operating procedures, and deep connections that Joe Biden himself has to all of this.

“Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face,” Biden family associate James Gilliar—the head of J2cR—says in one WhatsApp text message that Bobulinski provided to the Senate committees. “I know u know that but they are paranoid.”

 

Other text messages reveal details about the negotiations between Chinese officials and the Biden family. In one 2017 text message, Hunter Biden himself says that a Chinese investor intended to become partners with him in order to “be partners with the Bidens.”

 

Senate officials confirmed to Fox News and other outlets that Bobulinski is cooperating with them.

 

 

All of the documents that Bobulinski provided to the Senate investigators have also been provided to media outlets including Breitbart News.

Bobulinski’s statement and cooperation with Senate investigators seems to have blown the scandal wide open, as Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) noted on Thursday morning that the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena Twitter and Facebook over the tech companies’ move to censor the original New York Post story that first revealed emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop. Hawley said that the committee did not have enough GOP support even 24 hours ago for subpoenas of Twitter and Facebook, and that everything seems to have changed in the last day.

This is a developing story. More is forthcoming.

American Bar Association gives Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett its highest rating


The American Bar Association on Sunday announced that it has given Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett its highest rating. Monday is the start of Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearings.

In a Sunday letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the American Bar Association advised that Barrett is “well qualified” for a position on the Supreme Court.

On Sunday, DC Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy shared the letter on Twitter, writing, “The American Bar Association released its determination that Judge Amy Coney Barrett is ‘Well Qualified’ on the eve of the start of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings.”

A portion of the letter reads, “The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the federal judiciary has completed its evaluation of the professional qualifications of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated by the President to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

“As you know, the Standing Committee confines its evaluation to the qualities of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament,” the letter continues. “A substantial majority of the standing committee determined that Judge Barrett is ‘Well Qualified,’ and a minority is of the opinion that she is ‘Qualified’ to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.”

The letter concludes, “The majority rating represents the Standing Committee’s official rating.”

As noted by the Daily Wire, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in 2001 referred to the American Bar Association’s judicial ratings as the “gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.”

On Sunday night, Barrett released the opening statement she plans to issue on Monday morning.

A portion of her remarks read:

Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.

That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit. In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.

You can read the remarks in their entirety here and below.

Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearing greeted by rival protests outside Supreme Court

They held up signs supporting the Affordable Care Act, which Democrats believe is in jeopardy if she is on the highest bench, and one protester held up a sign of a clothes hanger with the phrase “Never Again,” a nod to Roe v. Wade, the prevailing law on abortion. Democrats are fearful that Barrett, who is pro-life, could swing the court the other direction if the case comes in front of the court again.

They left the Supreme Court and began marching toward the Hart Senate Office Building when they briefly encountered a larger group of pro-life protesters who want Amy to “fill the seat.”

“No confirmation until inauguration!” the anti-Trump group chanted as they passed by the pro-life organizers. Most protesters in both groups were wearing masks, but neither was actively trying to keep six feet between themselves and others.

The group in favor of Barrett’s confirmation, which included many young adults, walked around the Hart Senate Office, and they congregated outside one of the entrances to the building. With protesters holding up Barrett versions of Shepard Fairey’s “Hope” poster of Barack Obama, and others waving signs reading, “I am the pro-life generation,” they chanted, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Roe v. Wade has got to go!”

Barrett’s hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee will go on until Thursday. The senators on the committee and Barrett herself are set to testify on Monday, while lawmakers will then question her on Tuesday and Wednesday with outside witnesses both in her favor and against her speaking on Thursday.

Senate Republican leadership plan to get Barrett confirmed to the Supreme Court before Election Day.

‘In a category of excellence’: Graham praises Barrett and warns Democrats against Kavanaugh repeat

Graham, a South Carolina Republican, described Barrett as “in a category of excellence” that should make the nation proud but warned that the confirmation will take place in an election year.

“My Democratic colleagues will say, ‘This has never been done,’” he said, countering, “The Senate is doing its duty, constitutionally,” even though no justice has been confirmed so close to an election.

Graham said there have been 19 justices confirmed in an election year, 17 of them when the White House and Senate parties were aligned.

Monday’s hearing will be composed of opening statements by senators and Barrett, who is now a court of appeals judge for the 7th Circuit, having been confirmed to that bench by the Senate in 2017. Senators will question Barrett on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Graham said the hearing is not about “persuading each other, unless something really dramatic happens,” but said it would give Democrats a chance to “dig deep into her philosophy” and serve the same purpose for the GOP.

“Most importantly, it gives you, the American people, the chance to find out about Judge Barrett,” Graham said. “Find out for yourself.”

Graham warned Democrats that Barrett “doesn’t deserve” the treatment of Kavanaugh, who was scrutinized in an additional hearing to air accusations by a former high school acquaintance who said he sexually assaulted her.

“Let’s remember — the world is watching,” Graham said.

Potential Swing Vote Mitt Romney Announces Support for Vote on SCOTUS Nominee


Reported By Erin Coates | Published September 22, 2020 at 9:05am

Sen. Mitt Romney announced Tuesday that he would support a floor vote on President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, which might give Senate Republicans the votes they need to confirm a new Supreme Court justice before the November election.

“I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the president’s nominee,” the Utah Republican said in a statement.

“If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.”

Romney added that his decision was not based on a “subjective test of ‘fairness,’” but on the “immutable fairness of following the law.”

READ THE REST OF THE REPORT AT: https://www.westernjournal.com/potential-swing-vote-mitt-romney-announces-support-vote-scotus-nominee/

Fauci To Testify Before Senate, Trump Stonewalls ‘Haters’ in House


Reported By Erin Coates | Published May 5, 2020 at 12:44pm

URL of the originating web site: https://www.westernjournal.com/fauci-testify-senate-trump-stonewalls-haters-house/

“The House is a setup. The House is a bunch of Trump haters. They put every Trump hater on the committee. The same old stuff,” Trump told reporters outside the White House.

“They, frankly, want our situation to be unsuccessful, which means death. Which means death. And our situation’s going to be very successful.”

He added that Fauci, the director of the Nationals Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, will testify before the Senate, “and he looks forward to doing that.” The president went on to say that Democrats in the House “should be ashamed of themselves.” “They want us to fail so they can win an election, which they’re not going to win,” he said.

Fauci will join Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in testifying before a Senate committee on May 12, NPR reported.

Trump’s comments about the House confirmed reports that the White House had blocked Fauci from appearing before the House Appropriations Committee as part of its investigation into the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Democratic Reps. Nita Lowey of New York, the chairwoman of the committee, and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut condemned the White House’s decision to allow Fauci to testify before the Senate and not the House panel in a Saturday news release.

“The White House’s decision to allow Dr. Fauci to testify in the Republican-controlled Senate but not before the House Appropriations Committee is letting politics overtake public health. There is no distinction between our two co-equal legislative bodies,” they said in a statement.

“The COVID-19 pandemic should not and cannot become a partisan issue — there are too many lives at risk,” the lawmakers said. “We are all Americans first. But the White House’s partisan politics are clearly at play in this decision during our nation’s most challenging public health and economic crisis, and that is both alarming and offensive to the work the American people have elected us to do.”

White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere said that allowing Fauci to appear before the committee would be “counter-productive.”

“While the Trump Administration continues its whole-of-government response to COVID-19, including safely opening up America again and expediting vaccine development, it is counter-productive to have the very individuals involved in those efforts appearing at Congressional hearings,” Deere said in a statement last week, according to The Hill.

“We are committed to working with Congress to offer testimony at the appropriate time,” he said.

Counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway said Democratic lawmakers should not conduct their “usual fishing expedition” if they hear testimony from Fauci.

“I just hope that the people who are asking the questions are asking intelligent, rational questions that are actually relevant to the American health because we’ve seen what they do before,” Conway told Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” Tuesday.

“For example, they say stupid things like, ‘This is a job interview — this is a job interview for a lifetime appointment’ about Brett Kavanaugh. ‘Let’s believe all women’ — or at least those three women, most of whom then retracted or didn’t have corroborating evidence,” she said.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Senators Who Fought Kavanaugh Found Stumping for Biden Morning After Allegation Evidence Discovered


Commentary By Andrew J. Sciascia | Published April 26, 2020 at 6:41am

It was a shocking news-break Friday as reports indicated evidence had emerged supporting former Senate aide Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations against presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential primary nominee Joe Biden. Potentially more shocking, however, were Saturday morning developments that seemed to suggest that — just like that — the American left’s zero-tolerance, “Believe All Women” approach to sexual assault allegations against prominent figures in the D.C. political establishment had been put to rest.

According to The Intercept, video was found this week in the archives of CNN’s “Larry King Live” revealing an on-air phone call in 1993 in which a female caller complained that her daughter had had nowhere to turn for help with unspecified “problems” while working for a “prominent senator.” The caller is believed to have been Reade’s now-deceased mother.

Receiving incredibly little attention from the establishment media, Reade came forward in March with allegations Biden had, while she was a staffer in his office in 1993, forced himself upon her in private in a hallway in the Capitol complex, kissing her and penetrating her with his fingers.

Confirmation the “Larry King Live” caller was, in fact, Reade’s mother would support Reade’s claims that she had confided in others and considered coming forward shortly after the alleged assault would have taken place.

Still, the news about the phone call wasn’t enough to stop Democratic senators, and former bitter primary opponents, from expressing support for Biden just 24 hours later on social media. Likely still vying for a vice presidential nod, the senators were eager Saturday morning to kiss the boots of their good friend Biden, joining him in promoting a campaign event titled S.O.U.L. of the Nation Saturday.

Coming on the one-year anniversary of Biden’s campaign announcement, “SOUL Saturday” — for service, outreach, unity and leadership — is described as a day dedicated to celebrating American “communities’ heroes” in a time of crisis.

Coincidentally, the event also plays on Biden’s running narrative regarding his candidacy — which he describes as an attempt to “reclaim” the soul of America from the hands of mean, old President Donald Trump.

And wouldn’t you know it, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker had no problem slapping on fake smiles, painting their former opponent with rehearsed compliments and quoting his campaign slogans.

“I’m so grateful to be teaming up with [Joe Biden] to recognize all of the heroes fighting for us on the front lines,” Booker wrote in a Twitter post alongside a promotional video. “The biggest thing you can do today is a small act of kindness for someone else — so please, join us in this day of service.”

“Today I’m joining my friend [Joe Biden] and people across our nation who are coming together to take part in #SOULSaturday,” wrote Harris, whose most notable moment of campaign popularity came from insinuating Biden was an old racist.

“Let’s use this moment to show our appreciation for those on the front lines and connect with our friends and neighbors. We’re all in this together.”

Of course, no such pleasantries were made regarding then-D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh by any of the aforementioned senators at the time of his 2018 Supreme Court confirmation. In fact, Booker, Harris and Klobuchar were all clearly using their positions on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time of the Kavanaugh proceedings as a springboard for their eventual failed White House bids.

This is not to say sexual assault allegations should be taken lightly or ignored. To the contrary, they should be heard and investigated with the utmost seriousness and empathy. But presumption of innocence and all manner of due process were flung to the wind when Christine Blasey Ford, Ph.D., came forward with consistently uncorroborated claims Kavanaugh had assaulted her at a party in high school. One allegation led to more and more still, each one less credible than the last.

Stories of a high school-aged Kavanaugh taking part in methodically planned date-rape rings and thrusting his genitals upon an unsuspecting woman at a Yale University party were all welcomed by Democrats and the media as though they were equally valid — because, once again, you had to “Believe All Women.” That is why Gillibrand repeatedly told the media and the nation that Ford had “no reason to lie,” according to CNN. That is why Klobuchar used her time questioning the judge as an opportunity to grandstand, assassinating his character with implications that his collegiate drinking habits somehow made him a sex criminal as well.

But I guess it’s too much to ask the same level of scrutiny be applied to Biden, even hours after the allegations against him seem to have taken on teeth.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

John Bolton Admits Last-Minute Impeachment Leak Was A Publicity Stunt


Posted By

URL of the original posting site: https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/20/john-bolton-admits-last-minute-impeachment-leak-was-a-publicity-stunt/

John Bolton Admits Last-Minute Impeachment Leak Was A Publicity Stunt

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton admitted Wednesday that his testimony in President Donald Trump’s recent impeachment proceedings involving Ukraine would have had no impact on the trial’s outcome even after sections of his upcoming book leaked attempting to convict the president in its final days.

“People can argue about what I should have said and what I should have done,” Bolton said at Vanderbilt University Wednesday night during a forum with his predecessor Susan Rice, according to ABC News. “I will bet you a dollar right here and now my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome.”

“I sleep at night because I have followed my conscience,” Bolton added.

Rice challenged Bolton’s decision to remain silent throughout the process despite not ever being subpoenaed by the House or Senate in the proceedings.

“It’s inconceivable to me that if I had firsthand knowledge of a gross abuse of presidential power, that I would withhold my testimony,” Rice said. “I would feel like I was shamefully violating my oath that I took to support and defend the Constitution.”

Bolton argued that the House botched the process and condemned House Democrats for having committed “impeachment malpractice.”

“The process drove Republicans who might have voted for impeachment away from the president because it was so partisan,” Bolton claimed.

Bolton’s new book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” is slated to be released next month is expected to reveal what Bolton might have said had he been forced to testify before lawmakers in the impeachment proceedings. Republicans in the Senate defeated Democrats’ efforts to bring Bolton before the upper chamber before the final vote with only Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine voting in favor of the measure.

In the final days of the trial however, sections of Bolton’s upcoming book were leaked to the New York Times, featuring Bolton accusing Trump of tying the nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine with politically motivated investigations as Democrats alleged. The leak happened to come on the same day the book became available for online pre-order revealing the move as nothing more than a publicity stunt.

On Monday, Bolton accused the White House of trying to suppress details in the book in his first public remarks since the president’s exoneration at Duke University.

Tristan Justice is a staff writer at The Federalist focusing on the 2020 presidential campaigns. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

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


A.F. Branco Cartoon – By the Book

Democrats will likely try to use the same dirty tricks as they did with the Russia collusion investigation and the Kavanaugh hearings.
Schiff Senate Trial StrategyPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.

Court Docs: Democrats Still Hope to Impeach Trump over Russia


Filed by Joel B. Pollak | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/23/court-docs-democrats-still-hope-to-impeach-trump-over-russia/

Komrade Trumpov impeachment rally balloon (Joel Pollak / Breitbart News / 

House Democrats are still hoping to impeach President Donald Trump over allegations resulting from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report earlier this year into “Russia collusion,” though Mueller found none existed.

The House Judiciary Committee reportedly told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Monday that it still wanted former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify even though Trump has already been impeached, because his impeachment could reveal that Trump obstructed justice in the Russia investigation.

Democrats voted last Wednesday to impeach the president for “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress,” in claims related to his dealings with Ukraine. But the text of the articles of impeachment cited Trump’s alleged “previous invitations of foreign interference,” referring to debunked allegations that he sought to collude with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Democrats pursued McGahn’s testimony at the time the Mueller Report was released because they were determined to find any evidence that Trump obstructed justice, even though he had made every witness and document available to investigators and declined to exercise executive privilege. Mueller did not refer Trump for prosecution, nor did he  “exonerate” the president, but both Attorney General William Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.

Nevertheless, Democrats continued to look for evidence of obstruction, even trying to obtain the grand jury materials that Mueller had used, which Barr was prohibited, by law, from providing to Congress (which found him in contempt anyway).

The White House, which had previously cooperated with Mueller, balked at allowing the president’s counsel to testify before Congress after the Mueller inquiry ended, citing legal privileges and constitutional boundaries.

But Democrats persisted.

In the Judiciary Committee’s report accompanying the articles of impeachment, which it cited in its court filing Monday, Democrats hinted that they included Trump’s so-called “obstruction of justice” in the Russia investigation in their “obstruction of Congress” article of impeachment, though they did not specifically charge him with obstructing justice (footnotes removed):

The Second Article of Impeachment impeaches President Trump for obstructing Congress with respect to the House impeachment inquiry relating to Ukraine. Yet, as noted in that Article, President Trump’s obstruction of that investigation is “consistent with [his] previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.” An understanding of those previous efforts, and the pattern of misconduct they represent, sheds light on the particular conduct set forth in that Article as sufficient grounds for the impeachment of President Trump.

These previous efforts include, but are not limited to, President Trump’s endeavor to impede the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 United States Presidential election, as well as President Trump’s sustained efforts to obstruct the Special Counsel after learning that he was under investigation for obstruction of justice.

However, a footnote at the end of the first paragraph above suggested that the committee would seek to interview McGahn to obtain evidence for use in a Senate trial on existing articles of impeachment, not new ones:

This Committee has undertaken an investigation relating to the Special Counsel’s report. That includes inquiring into President Trump’s obstruction of the Special Counsel, as well as a review of other aspects of the Special Counsel’s underlying work that the President obstructed. As part of this investigation, the Committee has sought to compel testimony by former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II, and to review certain grand jury materials relating to the Special Counsel’s report. Should the Committee obtain the information, it would be utilized, among other purposes, in a Senate trial on these articles of impeachment, if any. The Committee, moreover, has continued and will continue those investigations consistent with its own prior statements respecting their importance and purposes.

The DC Circuit is scheduled to hear the case on January 3. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has refused to turn over the articles of impeachment to the Senate because she says she is awaiting a guarantee of a “fair trial” — though the Constitution suggests that the Senate could hold a trial anyway.

She may, however, also be awaiting the D.C. Circuit’s ruling on the McGahn case, which would almost certainly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by either side.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

DOJ Inspector General Horowitz to Publicly Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11 About His Investigation Into FISA Abuses


Posted by 

URL of the original posting site: https://steadfastandloyal.com/politics/doj-inspector-general-horowitz-to-publicly-testify-before-senate-judiciary-committee-on-december-11-about-his-investigation-into-fisa-abuses/

We have been waiting so long for the IG report on FISA abuse and we have been teased many times about the release, but now we know the report has to be released by early December because Horowitz has agreed to testify on his report to the Senate on December 11th, That will be televised nationally and he will have no new ground to cover since it will be all over the conservative media. But, he will be able to rebut whatever smears the Democrats make after the post is released.  The Democrats will do whatever necessary to distract from this if they can.

The fun part will be when they talk about criminal referrals. He will not be able to get into specifics but he will be able to name the ones who face prosecution. There is something else we need to consider. Allegedly, the report was being held up because John Durham was convening a grand jury. If that was true, then we may already see indictments by time Horowitz testifies because it would mean the grand jury has done it’s job and was released

From The Gateway Pundit

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is set to publicly testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11 about his investigation into FISA abuse.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced on Monday that Horowitz will discuss the findings of his investigation into DOJ and FBI’s conduct

“I appreciate all the hard work by Mr. Horowitz and his team regarding the Carter Page FISA warrant application and the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign,” Graham said.

“Mr. Horowitz will be appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11, where he will deliver a detailed report of what he found regarding his investigation, along with recommendations as to how to make our judicial and investigative systems better,” Graham added. “I look forward to hearing from him. He is a good man that has served our nation well.”

Horowitz is expected to release his much-anticipated FISA abuse report before Thanksgiving and it is expected to contain several criminal referrals, reported investigative journalist Sara Carter.

Horowitz has been working on a report documenting the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] abuses by Obama’s corrupt DOJ and FBI during the 2016 election targeting Donald Trump.

“It’s as thick as a telephone book,” Sunday Morning Futures host Maria Bartiromo recently said. “More than just FISA abuse.”

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.

It’s Official: This Senate Vote Proves Dems Are Now ‘The Infanticide Party’


Written by Wes Walker on February 26, 2019

This will definitely become one of the defining issues of 2020. It should have been a non-controversial law, and it would have been had not the Democrats gone all-in and become the Party of Kermit Gosnell.

The entire argument about abortion until now hinged upon ‘my body my choice’. This vote proves that has been a lie all along. It has REALLY been about the right to kill the baby and avoid the parental responsibilities that go with it. How do we know this? Because this bill had nothing to do with the mother’s body. It had everything to do with a living, breathing infant that is born — despite the best efforts of an abortionist to kill it — being treated like one.

The logic of it should be uncontroversial: Not in her body. No longer her choice.

We can thank Virginia’s Governor Northam and his $3 Million in political donations from Planned Parenthood for bringing this issue to light. His infanticide statements are all-but-forgotten after the blackface/KKK yearbook photo and the Smollett Hoax, but they still have a legacy.

The GOP-led Senate only mustered 53 votes — seven shy of the 60 needed to overcome the Democratic filibuster. Three Democrats crossed the aisle to back the bill, while three Republicans missed the vote.

Backers said they were driven to act by recent state laws and bills they said would allow abortions up to the point of birth — and, in at least the case of one failed piece of legislation in Virginia, would have allowed a child born despite an attempted abortion to be left to die.

“It isn’t about new restrictions on abortion. It isn’t about changing the options available to women. It’s just about recognizing that a newborn baby is a newborn baby. Period,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican. He said it made him “uneasy” that such legislation was even considered controversial.
Source: Washington Times

In the lead-up to the vote, parties made their respective cases:

The Senate is currently debating the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on the floor and will vote on the legislation later this evening. The bill, sponsored by Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) requires that doctors provide medical care to infants born alive after attempted abortion procedures.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell opened the session, saying of the bill, “It isn’t about restrictions on abortion. It isn’t about changing the options available to women. It’s just about recognizing that a newborn baby is a newborn baby, period.”

“Can the extreme far-left politics surrounding abortion really have come this far?” McConnell added. “Are we really supposed to think that it’s normal that there are now two sides debating whether a newborn, whether newborn living babies deserve medical attention?”
Source: National Review

The answer, clearly, is ‘yes’.

Schumer stood up and lied to the public:

Shortly after McConnell’s remarks, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said on the Senate floor that the born-alive bill “is carefully crafted to target, intimidate, and shut down reproductive health care providers.” He also claimed the bill “would impose requirements on what type of care doctors must provide in certain circumstances, even if that care is ineffective, contradictory to medical evidence, and against the family’s wishes.”

In fact, the bill doesn’t mandate any particular type of care for infants, and the medical specifics are left up to the judgment of the physician in each case. Instead, it enacts a requirement that newborns delivered in the context of abortion be afforded “the same degree” of care that “any other child born alive at the same gestational age” would receive.
Source: National Review

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does NOT extend to only SOME Americans. It extends to even the smallest among us. Our politicians are looking less and less like AMERICANS and increasing like ancient Romans and Greeks that would leave unwanted children in the wild to be devoured by beasts. Not long ago, Abortion activists would have denied wanting abortion on demand right up to the moment of birth — and now, to exercise their ‘choice’ to infanticide even after the baby is born.

Police Report Is Game-Changer in Case of Gay, Black Actor Attacked by ‘Trump Supporters’


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | January 30, 2019 at 9:29am

When gay black actor Jussie Smollett said he was attacked by white men who yelled some stuff about “MAGA,” it didn’t take long for the liberal rage machine to mobilize.

“The star of the tv show ‘Empire,’ Jussie Smollett, was attacked by two assailants early Monday morning in Downtown Chicago according to Chicago Police Department Spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi,” CNN reported.

“Smollett, 36, was walking on the 300 block of E. North Lower Water Street when two men approached him and ‘gained his attention by yelling out racial and homophobic slurs towards him,’ Guglielmi says in a statement.

“Two unknown offenders — it is unknown if they were male or female — then attacked Smollett, hitting him in the face and then poured an unknown chemical substance on him.

“At some point during the scuffle, one of the offenders wrapped a rope around the victim’s neck and then both offenders fled the scene, the statement reads.”

Smollett took himself to Northwestern Hospital, where the incident was reported to police, according to CBS Chicago.

There was plenty of condemnation to go around, particularly after TMZ reported that the attackers had shouted “this is MAGA country.” Two of the outraged included black Democratic senators, who just by chance, happen to either be running for president or widely expected to be running for president.

There was one problem with this “modern-day lynching” narrative: None of that “MAGA country” stuff was originally mentioned to police and they’re having trouble corroborating the fact that the attack even happened.

“According to the victim, the offenders’ faces were concealed,” a police spokesman said, according to Reason. “We have no record indicating that (they shouted ‘MAGA’), we only have record of them shouting racial and homophobic slurs at him.”

A statement from Chicago Police confirmed that, Reason reported.

“We have no record of the ‘MAGA Country’ comment,” the statement said, according to Reason. “We have racial and homophobic comments documented.”

CNN reported that when police heard about the accusation and called the actor, he “relayed it to detectives in a supplemental interview.”

But then again, there’s some doubt as to whether the attack even happened.

In an area that has a “very high density” of surveillance cameras, according to the police spokesman’s statement, there is not a single image of an attack like the one Smollett described.

“A Chicago police spokesperson tells CNN that investigators canvassed the neighborhood where the reported attack occurred on actor Jussie Smollett and have found no still images or video from security cameras of the incident,” CNN reported.

“The only image of Smollett police obtained from security cameras was inside Subway Sandwich shop near the location of the reported crime, the actor was standing alone.”

For all I know, Smollett really was attacked by bigots who shouted the phrase “MAGA country,” and ambitious, Democratic politicians who are calling this a “a modern-day lynching” are absolutely justified. But here’s the thing — I’m going to wait to see whether or not that’s the case, as everyone else should have.

It hasn’t even been a fortnight since the Covington Catholic incident, and the lesson we were should have taken away from that “teachable moment” — be careful dealing with stories that confirm your cultural narrative — has been lost.

No fewer than two senators with eyes on the 2020 Democratic nomination have taken this accusation as gospel because they can use it as an illustration of supposed Trump-fueled hate coursing through the country, even though no arrests have been made and the evidence is scanty. If this turns out to be a hoax, Sens. Booker and Harris own this, as do the legion of liberals who tweeted this out without waiting for a fuller investigation.

Even if this turns out to be true, what they did was supremely irresponsible. That these two individuals are in the Senate is bad enough. Just imagine one of them in the White House, backed by a legion of people who think Donald Trump supporters are irresponsible bigots, but are willing to blame white Donald Trump supporters for a hate crime without any charges or even direct physical evidence. It will make the Obama years look like pure reason.

ABOUT THE REPORTER:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

 

GOP Congressional Members Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Enact Term Limits


Authored By C. Douglas Golden | January 5, 2019 at 2:13pm

A new bill from two top Republicans would limit most people to 18 years in Congress via a constitutional amendment — something that’s bound to have career bureaucrats infuriated.

The amendment, according to CNN, is being introduced in the House and Senate by Rep. Francis Rooney of Florida and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, respectively.

“For too long, members of Congress have abused their power and ignored the will of the American people,” Cruz said.

Term limits on members of Congress offer a solution to the brokenness we see in Washington, D.C. It is long past time for Congress to hold itself accountable. I urge my colleagues to submit this constitutional amendment to the states for speedy ratification.”

Cruz had introduced a similar bill in 2017, but failed to gain traction.

The plan would limit House members to three terms of two years each and senators to two terms of six years each. This means that most people would be limited to 18 years in office, and only if they are elected to one office and then the other.

The language makes it technically possible to serve up to slightly less than 22 years if they’re appointed or elected to fill less than a half-term.

This, according to Rooney, is closer to what the nation’s founders envisioned.

“The founders never envisioned a professional political class,” Rooney said during an interview on Fox News Saturday.

“This is a much better way than having these entrenched politicians who are too aligned with special interests over a period of years. I would say 18 years is plenty of time to serve your country in.”

Neither Cruz nor Rooney would really be benefiting from the arrangement, should any politician be seen as having benefited personally from term limits. Rooney, 65, was first elected in 2016 and would be eligible to serve in the House until 2022. Cruz, who just won his second term, would be out of Congress in 2024.

It’s worth noting, however, that Rooney could possibly take over for Sen. Marco Rubio, who would be term-limited out if he won the Republican nomination. (Lest you think Rubio would be upset about it, consider that he’s a co-sponsor of the bill — along with Mike Lee of Utah and David Perdue of Georgia.)

And Cruz, who came to the Senate from a position as Texas’ solicitor general, could also technically run for the House if he so chose.

Incidentally, if you think that the bill can’t win bipartisan support, consider there was another major Democratic voice calling for term limits this election cycle: Beto O’Rourke, Cruz’s opponent.

“People in Texas and across the country recognize that members of Congress often focus on re-election at the expense of addressing the challenges our country faces,” O’Rourke said in a piece posted to Medium.

“We see that the longer you serve in Congress, the less connected, the less responsive, the less accountable you can become to the people you represent. And we recognize that imposing term limits on members of Congress — along with getting PAC money out of our politics and putting an end to gerrymandering — will help breathe new life and new ideas into our democracy.”

If even Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke can come together on something, maybe Congress can, too.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary
More Info Recent Posts

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Ted Cruz Fires Epic Counterpunch After Jim Carrey’s Latest Haunting Cartoon Hits His Desk


Reported By Ben Marquis | November 6, 2018 at 12:13pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/ted-cruz-fires-epic-counter-punch-jim-carreys-latest-haunting-cartoon-hits-desk/

Ted Cruz pictured speaking in a file photo from 2014.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is pictured in a file photo from April 2014. Cruz used his well-honed wit to slam a cartoon created by liberal actor Jim Carrey. (Andrew Cline / Shutterstock)

Liberal Hollywood actor Jim Carrey was once beloved by audiences across America for his amazing acting ability in roles that ranged from rather serious to absurdly stupid — but incredibly hilarious — in his many popular movies over the years.

Sadly, Carrey succumbed to “Trump Derangement Syndrome” in 2016 and simply hasn’t been the same, trading in his spot in front of a camera for one in front of a canvas as he works out his inner demons through the process of painting what could be described by some as “artwork,” typically of the anti-Trump, anti-Republican variety.

The Daily Caller reported on the latest piece of “art” showcased by Carrey on social media, but it was the response he received from the featured subject of his piece — Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is being challenged in the election by Democrat Texas Rep. Robert “Beto” O’Rourke — that truly garnered the attention.

Carrey tweeted, “Go Beto! Go Democrats! Vote like there’s no tomorrow. Let’s make this Tuesday like the end of every great vampire movie. Pull back the curtains and let the sunshine turn all those bloodsuckers to dust.”

Naturally, Carrey’s painting portrayed Cruz as a vampire that was shrinking away and shrieking in pain as he burst into flames and disintegrated while O’Rourke pulled back a curtain to bathe his opponent in sunlight.

The likening of Cruz to a vampire was possibly inspired by the admittedly funny comparisons of Cruz with the vampiric Grandpa Munster from the 1960s sitcom “The Munsters,” not to mention the leftist belief that Republicans are blood-sucking monsters who hate the living, especially women and children, or something.

For all of the criticisms that Cruz has received — both fairly and unfairly — few could say with a straight face that he doesn’t have a great sense of self-deprecating humor or that he is incapable of suffering and replying to harsh insults exceedingly well.

Cruz linked to Carrey’s tweet mocking him as a vampire, and wrote, “Hollywood liberals all in for Beto. But (self-described socialist) Jim Carrey made a mistake here: Vampires are dead, and everyone knows the dead vote Democrat….”

And then utter hilarity ensued and was enjoyed by all in the comment section of that tweet, as everyone understood the joke about Democrats using the fraudulent votes of dead people to win close elections. Just kidding … Cruz was ruthlessly mocked and excoriated by humorless liberals who failed to see the point or get the joke of his post.

Unfortunately for Carrey and his Cruz-hating fellow liberals, it is highly unlikely that Cruz will burst into flames and disintegrate when the curtains of the voting booths are opened after Election Day and the ultimate outcome of his race against O’Rourke is revealed.

The RealClearPolitics average of polls in the Texas Senate race show that Cruz holds a fairly comfortable 6-point lead over his challenger, with the four most recent polls in October giving Cruz a lead that ranged from as little as 3 points to as much as 10 points.

In all likelihood, given the manner in which pollsters have historically and routinely oversampled Democrats and independents and undersampled Republicans, Cruz could very well hold a more significant lead over O’Rourke than has been announced by the pollsters.

However, every conservative and Republican and right-leaning independent needs to get out and vote for Cruz on Tuesday to help drive a stake through the heart of the monstrous undead Marxist philosophy that continues to drive the Democratic Party increasingly leftward these days, lest they be allowed to suck out the lifeblood of our nation and economy by gaining control of Congress.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Writer and researcher. Constitutional conservatarian with a strong focus on protecting the Second and First Amendments.

In Tight Race, Tenn. Dem’s Own Staff Says He’s Lying To Get Votes


Reported By Karista Baldwin | October 11, 2018 at 11:33am

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas’ undercover reporting just exposed the double-dealing tactics that Tennessee Democratic candidate Phil Bredesen is using in his 2018 election campaign for the U.S Senate. The group released damning undercover video footage of staffers from Bredesen’s campaign revealing that Bredesen is not above lying to voters to get elected. And his staff has no problem helping him get away with it.

On Friday, Bredesen voiced support for Judge Brett Kavanaugh and said that he wanted him on the Supreme Court, according to The Washington Post. This, according to Bredesen’s own staffers, is a total lie.

On the Project Veritas video, a man identified as Will Stewart, a field organizer for Bredesen’s campaign, was asked if Bredesen “would actually vote yes” on Kavanaugh’s confirmation if he were in the Senate. Stewart quickly set things straight.

“Oh, he wouldn’t,” Stewart said. “But he’s saying he would.” (“It’s politics,” another campaign staffer added.)

“Which, I don’t know if it makes it worse or better,” Stewart continued. “No, it makes it better.”

“I don’t understand what’s to gain by saying yes,” the undercover Project Veritas journalist prodded.

“Moderates,” Stewart said.

“Moderate Republicans,” another staffer agreed.

The duplicitous strategy seems to be common knowledge among Bredesen’s staff.

A woman identified as Maria Amalla, another field organizer, responded to why Bredesen would lie about supporting Kavanaugh, saying, “Yeah, because it’s a political move and he’s trying to make up those points.”

“I guess we won’t know until November 6th whether or not this was worth it,” she said.

Apparently, lying was the only way Bredesen could see himself beating Marsha Blackburn.

“We’re down eight points and it also said that … 74 percent of Tennesseans wanted to see Kavanaugh confirmed. Logically, based on those numbers and what I’ve seen, is that he had already known that the gap between him and her has grown more,” Amalla said, referring to Blackburn.

“And so he thought that by coming out in support that it would get more Republicans on his side. He wasn’t doing as well in the rural parts … He thinks that by saying this he’s appealing to more moderate Republicans and he’ll get more of them to vote for us,” Amalla continued.

Bredesen doesn’t hold much respect for the people he wants to represent, with Stewart agreeing that Bredesen can get away with his tactics because Tennesseans are “ignorant.”

The Project Veritas journalist also talked to a man identified as James Miller of “voter protection” on Bredesen’s staff. “I think it’s important to just remind yourself that it’s just a political move, right?” the journalist asked him.

“Yeah.  But isn’t that gross?” Miller said, lowering his voice. “That’s the way it has to go.”

“I just hate that he has to like … lie to get that vote,” the journalist said.

“I know. I know. Tell me about it.  Unfortunately, that’s reality,” Miller agreed.

Another field organizer, identified as Delaney Brown, said she hoped that all the deception at least pays off in the election.

“I know I’m going to be p—ed if this doesn’t pay off,” she said in the video.  “If we lose, I’m going to be so mad.  Because not only did he forfeit a lot of moral high ground … if it’d still lose, if it’s by a small margin, that’s the base.”

But campaign staffers assured the reporter that Bredesen’s just pulling a bait and switch. Fear not! His staff says that once Bredesen gets in office, he won’t feel any obligation to follow through with his campaign promises, since he doesn’t plan on running for re-election again anyway. Phew.

“He’s not going to be running for re-election. He can get in there and do the right thing,” Stewart said. “Between you and me, once Phil actually gets into the Senate, he’ll be a good Democrat.”

Right … once Bredesen’s elected he’ll “do the right thing.” No reason to jump the gun and act ethically while he’s campaigning.

“Once you’re in, six years, you’re going to do the right thing,” Miller also said. He agreed that Bredesen would be a good Democrat, saying, “100 percent. Always has been.”

Stewart also said that despite orders not to act as if Democrats are simply running against Trump, that’s actually pretty much the point.

“We don’t say that out of these walls. But here, of course, we talk about that,” Stewart said. “Cause it’s so funny. The messaging is like, ‘don’t talk about the blue wave. We’re not running against Trump.’ All this sort of stuff. Even though that’s all why we’re all here.  We can’t put it out there.”

Stewart then added that Bredesen “hates Trump.”

But if Democrats want to beat Republicans, they could learn a thing or two from them. Stop looking down on the people you need to vote you and show them respect instead, starting with not blatantly lying to them to try to con them into supporting you.

Also, if you do need to con people to get them to vote for you, maybe re-evaluate some of what you actually stand for.

I’m with Bredesen’s staff on this one in one respect — it’s just plain gross.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

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

Blasey Ford Caves: Legal Team Shuts Down Further Investigation into Kavanaugh



Reported By Bryan Chai | October 7, 2018 at 9:58am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/blasey-ford-caves-legal-team-shuts-investigation-kavanaugh/

Christine Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Christine Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (ABC News screen shot)

And so the Brett Kavanaugh scandal has ended — not with a bang, but a whimper. That could change, of course, if Democrats continue their crusade to remove the judge should they take the Senate after midterms. But as far as the original accuser goes? Christine Blasey Ford is throwing in the towel.

Ford’s lawyers have told CNN that their client “absolutely does not want him (Kavanaugh) impeached if Democrats take control of Congress.”

Debra Katz, one of Ford’s attorneys, told CNN that Ford has done everything she originally sought to do.

“Professor Ford has not asked for (Democrats to continue investigating Kavanaugh.) What she did was to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the FBI and that’s what she sought to do here,” Katz said.

Ford was thrust into the national spotlight after she accused then-Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh of sexual assault at a party while the two were in high school. Countless accusations and investigations ultimately yielded nothing, and Kavanaugh was sworn in as the 114th Supreme Court justice on Saturday after a 50-48 Senate vote.

Some prominent Democrats, such as House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler, have made no secret of Democrats’ desires to further investigate Kavanaugh should Democrats have a successful midterm.

“If he is on the Supreme Court, and the Senate hasn’t investigated, then the House will have to,” Nadler told ABC News George Stephanopoulos. “We would have to investigate any credible allegations of perjury and other things that haven’t been properly looked into before.”

Nadler’s statements fly directly in the face of Ford’s desires. Considering the accusations that Democrats willfully ignored Ford’s request for anonymity, it’s not exactly surprising that Democrats might ignore her requests again.

“She does not want (Kavanaugh) to be impeached?” CNN’s Dana Bash asked Ford’s lawyers.

“No,” Katz bluntly responded.

It’s totally understandable that Ford wants this ordeal finished and tucked away. Another Ford lawyer, Lisa Banks, stressed that Ford wanted closure but had no regrets.

“I don’t think she has any regrets. I think she feels like she did the right thing,” Banks said.

“And this was what she wanted to do, which was provide this information to the committee so they could make the best decision possible. And I think she still feels that was the right thing to do, so I don’t think she has any regrets.”

Katz hinted that she wasn’t thrilled with how everything played out, but still supported Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s handling of the accusations.

“What I can speak to is when victims of sexual assault and violence go to their Congress people — when they go to their senators and they ask for their information to be confidential, I think that that’s a request that needs to be respected,” Katz said.

“Victims get to control when and how and where their allegations get made public,” she added. “Now, if we want to look at all the things that went wrong in this process, there are many. There are many issues that need to be addressed. But I think Sen. Feinstein respected the process of her constituents, and I think that was the right thing to do.”

It’s certainly up for debate whether or not Feinstein actually “respected the process of her constituents.”

But if Democrats continue the assault on Kavanaugh, they most certainly will not be respecting Ford’s request for this to end.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

If I could have two television shows and two movies on a desert island, they’d be “The Office,” (the American version) “Breaking Bad,” “The Dark Knight,” and “Die Hard.” I love sports, video games, comics, movies and television. And I guess my job, too.

Opinion: Scenes from the Kavanaugh Clash — And What the Media Badly Missed


Commentary By Amy Swearer | October 7, 2018 at 3:56pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/opinion-scenes-kavanaugh-clash-media-badly-missed/

Friday morning, as the Senate prepared to vote to advance Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, I took a field trip with some of our interns. It wasn’t anything intensive — just a lap around the Capitol to observe the anti-Kavanaugh protests.

One of our female interns carried a sign. It was a simple sign with four words: “I stand with Brett.”

I somewhat expected those words to attract attention — they are, after all, words so contrary to the sentiments expressed by the majority of individuals who held signs around the Capitol this week.

What I did not expect was the type of attention it would draw and from what type of people.

You see, we were mostly ignored by the large groups of screaming, borderline-hysterical, anti-Kavanaugh protesters. Occasionally, a lone individual would heap some abuse our way, often in the form of telling us we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. But overall, it appeared they had bigger fights to pick than with four fairly innocuous young adults who kept a respectful distance.

No, the attention we attracted was from people largely overlooked amid the shouting. And they were almost unanimously supportive.

Normal, everyday people — tourists from all areas of the country, couples pushing strollers, families with teenage daughters, middle-aged friends, elderly women out for a walk — all quietly, calmly approaching us for a word of thanks.

We could not go 50 yards without being stopped by someone expressing their gratitude or asking if we had any extra signs. I can’t tell you how many wanted to take pictures with the sign. I gave up counting the thumbs ups and smiles. I can’t tell you the number of ways we were thanked by different individuals.

What I do know is that the amount of encouragement received by people who would otherwise have stayed silent in the shadow of the larger anti-Kavanaugh mobs gave me hope.

More than anything, I was heartened by the women. For too many women, “I stand with Brett” is a phrase we’ve been told we mustn’t utter in public. It’s a conclusion we’ve been told we mustn’t reach. A rationale we’ve been told we mustn’t embrace.

And so many women have stayed silent. We’ve quietly absorbed the abuse aimed at us. Without retort, we have stood by and refrained from engaging in a prolonged ideological battle we fear we’ll fight alone.

But inside, we know. We know that there is not and has never been a shred of corroboration for the claims of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. We know that “Believe all women” is an irrational and untenable ideology that undermines every argument that we should be treated equally to men. We know that a good man has been forced to go to war for his honor and his family because he is being slandered on the altar of social justice run amok.

For dozens of women today, these four words printed on poster board were their voice, and they let us know it.

Reason and truth do not always belong to the loudest in the room. Sometimes, they belong to the whisperers the world barely acknowledges, and castigates when it does.

So let me unequivocally state today what so many of us have long known, but have too often refused to say publicly: Women, it’s OK.

It’s OK to not believe other women when the evidence is contrary to their claims.

It’s OK to adhere to basic concepts of rationality and fairness when making a judgment about a man accused of sexual misconduct.

It’s OK to stand with Kavanaugh if your reason so implores you.

These are things we need not only whisper in private. We can say them out loud, and boldly. Behind our whispers is a mighty roar to let others know they are not alone in thinking for themselves.

Amy Swearer is a legal policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

A version of this Op-Ed appeared Friday on The Daily Signal website under the headline “The Power of ‘I Stand With Brett.’”

Ford Ex-Boyfriend Devastates Her Testimony. Alleges Fraud, Polygraph Coaching


Reported By Lisa Payne-Naeger | October 3, 2018 at

7:36am

Tables have certainly turned on the left.

If the Democrats’ strategy was to manufacture a past that comes back to haunt opponents, their game plan to derail the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should have included accusers and witnesses who had untainted histories of their own.

Unfortunately for chief accuser Christine Blasey Ford, a man from her own past has gone public to allege some major holes in her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Those digging deep into Kavanaugh’s personal history to unearth any kind of scandal may have just been thwarted by a page from their own playbook.

Fox News reported late Tuesday that a man has come forward to contradict many of the statements Ford made in her testimony last week.

The man, an ex-boyfriend of Ford, said she never told him of an alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh in all of the six years that they dated.

Further, in the sworn statement, the man contradicts Ford’s testimony that she never helped anyone prepare for polygraph examinations or had a fear of flying or tight spaces and limited exits.

“In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination,” Fox News reported.

“The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her ‘life-long best friend’ prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman, Monica McLean, had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office.

“He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a ‘very small,’ 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door — apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh’s alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.”

All of those statements contradict, or cast serious question on, Ford’s testimony to the committee deciding Kavanaugh’s fate.

In particular, during her testimony, Ford was questioned about her experience with polygraphs several times by the prosecutor hired by committee Republicans. She denied ever helping anyone prepare to take a polygraph.

According to Fox, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley sent a letter to Ford’s attorneys demanding they release: “therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday’s dramatic Senate hearing.”

This isn’t the first time differing statements have come from friends of Ford who knew her back in the day.

On Sept. 22, as Mairead McArdle noted at National Review, longtime Ford friend Leland Ingham Keyser denied statements that she attended the party in which Ford alleges the assault by Kavanaugh took place.

Howard Walsh, an attorney for Keyser said in a written statement: “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Perjury is a serious crime, and at this point I would wonder if Ford isn’t getting a little nervous as figures from her past emerge to shoot down her testimony and paint a picture of a very non-credible individual.

As speculation surrounds the coming conclusion of the FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavenaugh, I wonder if there will be any consequence toward those who came forward with such questionable accusations against the judge.

It shouldn’t be so easy to lie under oath. And the left shouldn’t assume that their obstruction tactics will go unchallenged anymore.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

An enthusiastic grassroots Tea Party activist, Lisa Payne-Naeger has spent the better part of the last decade lobbying for educational and family issues in her state legislature, and as a keyboard warrior hoping to help along the revolution that empowers the people to retake control of their, out-of-control, government.

After Noticing Aide’s Behavior Behind Feinstein, Body Language Expert Says They Betrayed Ford


Reported By Lisa Payne-Naeger | October 2, 2018 at

7:09am

There is an entirely different narrative to be understood about what someone is saying to you, and it goes far beyond listening to their words. It’s what people do when they speak, how they behave, what movements they make, that tells the story.

Body language is sometimes far more telling than the actual words that come from someone’s lips.

Mandy O’Brien studies body language. She’s become an internet go-to expert on reading the truth on many D.C. inhabitants.

And she’s got some pretty interesting things to say about Sen. Dianne Feinstein regarding the leak of Palo Alto University Professor Christine Blasey Ford’s letter accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when both were in high school.

In this video, O’Brien dissects every movement from Feinstein and those around her to come up with some fascinating conclusions regarding Feinstein’s statements in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings as she answers questions about the letter she received from Ford.

Personally, I never believed Feinstein was telling the truth when she said she did not leak Ford’s letter, but O’Brien’s observations offer another interesting perspective.

Feinstein says: “Mr. Chairman, let me be clear. I did not hide Dr. Ford’s allegations. I did not leak her story. She asked me to hold it confidential.”

To that O’Brein responds: “OK, Feinstein has said two statements and neither one of them match. The other part of this, she’s written it down. I don’t know if she wrote it down during this hearing. It wouldn’t surprise me, but it’s suspicious to write it down.

“What did she say? ‘I did not hide it,’ and ‘I did not leak it.’ So if you didn’t hide it, it means others knew, which kind of contradicts ‘I didn’t leak it.’ It’s a very ambiguous statement, especially since she went so far as to actually write it down so she stayed on point, just like lawyer-speak.”

Interestingly, not only does O’Brien find Feinstein’s statements not credible and suspicious, but the rest of the chamber is completely detached and unenthusiastic about her remarks. Bored.

At the 1:26 mark of the video, the camera gives us a wide angle shot of the room and the inattentiveness by the body is overwhelming. The body language by the rest of the committee is an enormous statement in itself.

O’Brien also notes Feinstein speaks to the body of the chamber, but does not make eye contact, a very tell-tale sign of disingenuous behavior.

“She’s not even actually looking up towards anyone of any status, at least in her mind,” O’Brien adds.

It’s possible Feinstein believes she isn’t lying if she can dance around the truth on a technicality.

“Now, there’s quite a few ways, especially since we’re dealing with lawyers, and they’re getting smarter, that you could approach this,” O’Brien says. ‘I did not leak,’ could mean she did not give anyone that letter because that part as she says it seems to be true. Her body sings with her.

“Everything is peaches and cream, and alas you’ve followed your little law. But, you know, whispered bullet points, whispered names, that’s not leaking, at least in their mind,” O’Brien says.

The next question is, if Feinstein didn’t leak, who did? A staff member possibly? Even if it wasn’t Feinstein herself, it was a betrayal nonetheless. And O’Brien gives a detailed description of a woman on Feinstein’s staff sitting behind her, and draws a conclusion that it is possible her staff could have been the culprit.

“But confronted on if your staff leaked it. See how her head goes back almost like a defiance and then she watches Feinstein to see her reaction. ‘Are you going to stand up for us?’ It makes me suspicious if the staff was the ones that were leaking it, whether they actually leaked the documents or, as I said before, leaked those bullet points,” O’Brien says.

Body language is a fascinating science. I can think of no better place to study it than inside the Beltway. There’s enough body language going on there to keep people watchers busy for a very long time.

Hopefully, the Kavanaugh hearings won’t go on much longer and we can watch an excited Justice Brett Kavanaugh take his oath as he proceeds to his seat on the Supreme Court.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

An enthusiastic grassroots Tea Party activist, Lisa Payne-Naeger has spent the better part of the last decade lobbying for educational and family issues in her state legislature, and as a keyboard warrior hoping to help along the revolution that empowers the people to retake control of their, out-of-control, government.

Ford’s Friend Who Was Allegedly at Party Issues Statement on FBI Investigation


Reported By Savannah Pointer | September 29, 2018 at 3:50pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/fords-friend-issues-statement/

Christine Blasey Ford testifies Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Christine Blasey Ford testifies Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Melina Mara / AFP / Getty Images)

Ford claimed that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and attempted to rape her at a party 36 years ago. That accusation put Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote on hold until the FBI can further investigate her claims.

Thus far, the only evidence that Ford has brought in the case is her own testimony. All of the individuals who she claimed attended the party with her and Kavanaugh deny any knowledge of the event taking place.

One of those people is Ford’s close friend Leland Keyser. Last week, Keyser said in a statement from her attorney, on penalty of a felony, that she didn’t attend such a party and didn’t even know Kavanaugh.

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” attorney Howard Walsh III said.

Walsh spoke out again Saturday, saying that Keyser doesn’t have any helpful information.

In a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said, “Ms. Keyser asked that I communicate to the committee her willingness to cooperate fully with the FBI’s supplemental investigation of Dr. Christine Ford’s allegation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.”

Walsh went on to stipulate that “as my client as already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Keyser does, however, believe Ford, she said.

“Notably Ms. Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford’s account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford’s account,” Walsh said.

Her belief in her friend didn’t keep Keyser from conveying that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question.

The president’s stamp of approval on the controversial supplemental investigation came with some limitations.

“I’ve ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file,” Trump said in a statement.

“As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week.”

During Thursday’s questioning, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called out his colleagues for what he called the “charade” and for victimizing both Ford and Kavanaugh.

An earlier version of this article accidentally referred to Ms. Leland Keyser as “he” and, in one instance from her lawyer’s transcribed statement, as “Mr. Keyser.” We corrected these mistakes within a few minutes of their being pointed out by a reader, but failed to issue a correction in accordance with our own Ethics and Editorial Standards. We apologize to Ms. Keyser and our readers for these errors.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Savannah Pointer is a constitutional originalist whose main goal is to keep the wool from being pulled over your eyes. She believes that the liberal agenda will always depend on Americans being uneducated and easy to manipulate. Her mission is to present the news in a straightforward yet engaging manner.

Sex Investigator Issues Her Report: Absolutely Takes Ford Apart


Reported By Cillian Zeal | October 1, 2018 at

5:25am

For liberals, facts are painful.

The sex crimes prosecutor brought on by the Senate Judiciary Committee to assist with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings not only said that she wouldn’t have pressed charges against Kavanaugh in the case, she found the evidence presented by his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, was decidedly weaker even than a “he said, she said” situation.

In a memo released late Sunday, Rachel Mitchell questioned Ford’s version of events, including the shifting timeline of when the attack occurred, Ford’s inability to remember how she got home, the ambiguity of her willingness to remain anonymous, and the failure of other witnesses to back up her story.

“In a legal context, here is my bottom line: A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” the Arizona prosecutor said at the beginning of the memo, which can be viewed here.  The document was addressed to “All Republican Senators.”

“But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses in the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

Among the major problems Mitchell had was the fact that Ford couldn’t give “a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.” In her conversations with The Washington Post, for instance, she said it was the “mid 1980s,” which shifted to the “early ’80s” in a letter to California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Therapy notes seemed to indicate she said it happened in her “late teens,” while Ford’s eventual account had her at age 15.

While Ford eventually narrowed it down to the summer of 1982, Mitchell remained unconvinced.

“While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the time frame to a particular season and particular year,” Mitchell wrote.

Mitchell also referred back to notes taken by Ford’s therapist in 2012, which didn’t seem to identify Kavanaugh by name. The first time her husband recalled hearing a name was in 2012, Mitchell wrote, when Kavanaugh was “widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.”

Mitchell also took aim at Ford’s memories of the party where she claimed the alleged sexual assault happened.

“She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity,” Mitchell wrote. “Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.”

“She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.”

While Ford was able to describe details of the night — including “hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house,” the drive back is more elusive.

Ford “has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver,” Mitchell wrote.

“Given that all of this took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.”

The memo also notes the inconsistencies in Ford’s accounts of who was at the party and her discussions with The Washington Post, and the fact that Ford “refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.” (italics in the original)

Mitchell didn’t examine Kavanaugh’s testimony in the memo. However, this kind of analysis, one assumes, is why the Ford team didn’t want a sex crimes prosecutor present at the hearing. This was something that the left was crowing about the moment this hit the news wires, as evinced by the reaction of BuzzFeed’s legal editor, Chris Geidner:

Yes, and that actually doesn’t refute any of the points made in the memo. However credible — or at least sympathetic — Ford may have seemed as an individual to the layman, there are still significant issues with her account of what happened (and how that account has shifted).

That’s what a prosecutor is supposed to do — provide a dispassionate version of things. Mitchell wasn’t there to take sides. What she did was point out the multifarious inconsistencies in the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford.

In a situation where it’s horribly impolitic to state the facts, that’s an invaluable service.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Classmate Comes Forward, IDs Frat Brother as Guilty Party, Not Kavanaugh: Report


Reported By Cillian Zeal | October 1, 2018 at 7:52am

A New York Post writer claims that a former classmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s has identified a fraternity brother of his as the person who likely exposed himself to Kavanaugh’s Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez during a dormitory party in the early 1980s.

Ramirez, who was Kavanaugh’s second accuser, went public in a New Yorker piece published Sept. 23.

“She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty,” The New Yorker reported.

“After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.”

Ramirez was to be interviewed by the FBI as part of the bureau’s one-week re-investigation of the background of the Supreme Court nominee. However, a new wrinkle may have presented itself in the form of a report about an alleged letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Paul Sperry is best known nowadays as a writer for the New York Post, although he’s appeared in a number of different publications over the years. On Sunday afternoon, he tweeted about the existence of a letter from “(a) classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale has sent a tip into the Senate Judiciary Committee identifying a fraternity brother known for exposing himself as the likely boy who exposed himself to Debbie Ramirez.”

So, what does this mean? As for the existence of the letter, while Sperry has made it clear both on his Twitter account and his writings for the New York Post that he doesn’t believe the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, he’s also usually not blatantly wrong on these sorts of things. The likelihood is better than not that such a letter has been sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee by someone.

As for the truth of the letter? Well, that’s the problem with almost every piece of testimony in the Kavanaugh case: It’s sketchy at best, usually uncorroborated and could likely be contradicted by other testimony the committee’s already received.

Take the case of Dabney Friedrich, a former girlfriend of Kavanaugh’s. In an anonymous letter to Colorado GOP Sen. Cory Gardner, a woman claimed her daughter witnessed a low-level assault against Friedrich by Kavanaugh in the late-1990s.

“Her friend was dating him, and they left the bar under the influence of alcohol. They were all shocked when Brett Kavanaugh shoved her friend up against the wall very aggressively and sexually,” the letter read.

“There were at least four witnesses, including my daughter.”

And that letter was almost immediately contradicted by the former girlfriend in question. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Friedrich — now a judge — said “(t)o the extent the attached letter is referring to me as the ‘friend [who] was dating him,’ the allegations it makes are both offensive and absurd.

“At no time did Brett ever shove me against a wall, including in an ‘aggressive and sexual’ manner. When we dated, Brett always treated me with the utmost respect, and we remain friends to this day. I have never observed (nor am I aware of) Brett acting in a physically inappropriate or aggressive manner toward anyone.”

And then we have a Rhode Island man who is now under investigation for making false statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee about a sexual assault he initially said Kavanaugh perpetrated in the mid-1980s. He has since repudiated the story.

So, this new letter — should it exist — could be materially false. It could be the result of memories corrupted over the process of 35 years. It could be politically motivated. It could be some combination thereof; those aren’t mutually exclusive categories, after all.

But that’s the problem with the entire case against Kavanaugh: At no point have we received concrete corroboration of anything. Christine Blasey Ford can’t remember where the house was where Kavanaugh assaulted her or how she got home.

None of her witnesses can corroborate her story. The same questions linger over the Ramirez case. That makes this letter pretty much the equal of anything that’s been brought against Kavanaugh. Why should we believe one over the other?

This is the problem of throwing these unverifiable cases against a public career that has been unmarred by personal or professional misconduct. We’ve been asked to treat the former as a condition that negates the latter when it ought to be the other way around.

If these are the standards we’re holding ourselves to in 2018, God help us all.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

After Using Her, Feinstein Actually Threw Ford Under the Bus with Jaw-Dropping Accusation


Reported By Cillian Zeal | September 28, 2018 at

11:49am

If you had the stout constitution to sit through every moment of the Kavanaugh/Ford hearings Thursday, I’m both envious and curious. The envy stems from the fact that you could watch a room of craven politicians preen for the camera and donor-email clips and not lose interest. The curiosity stems from the fact that I get paid to do it, while most of our readership does not.

If you waited until the end, however, you got to glimpse the guiding spirit of the whole affair — or what a certain anonymous Op-Ed writer might have called the “lodestar” that directed the proceedings — in a line from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

After being accused of leaking the letter that set this whole thing rolling, the California senator denied either she or her staff released it. Instead, she blamed the leak on a woman who was now utterly disposable to her — Christine Blasey Ford.

The exchange began after Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz questioned the leaking of the letter, which had been passed on to Sen. Feinstein.

“We also know that the Democrats on this committee engaged in a profoundly unfair process,” Cruz said.

“The ranking member had these allegations on July 30th and for sixty days, that was sixty days ago, the ranking member did not refer it to the FBI for investigation, the ranking member did not refer it to the full committee for an investigation.

“This committee could have investigated those claims in a confidential way that respected Dr. Ford’s privacy,” Cruz continued.

“Dr. Ford told this committee that the only people to whom she gave her letter, were her attorneys, the ranking member, and her member of Congress.

“And she stated that she and her attorneys did not release the letter, which means the only people who could have released the letter were either the ranking member (Sen. Feinstein) and her staff, or the Democratic member of Congress, because Dr. Ford told this committee those are the only people who had it.

“That is not a fair process,” Cruz said.

There were two options for Sen. Feinstein in this situation: a) apologize or b) deny. If she chose option b), however, there wasn’t the obligation to take path c): throw Christine Blasey Ford under an entire Greyhound station of buses.

That’s what she decided to do, however.

“Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, I did not hide Dr. Ford’s allegations. I did not leak her story, she asked me to keep it confidential and I kept if confidential as she asked,” Feinstein said in response.

“She apparently was stalked by the press, felt that what happened, she was forced to come forward, and her greatest fear was realized,”Feinstein continued.

“She’s been harassed, she’s had death threats, and she’s had to flee her home.”

After blaming the Republicans for their investigation, which she called “a partisan practice,” she continued to talk up the possible imperilment Ford was in.

“I was given some information by a woman who was very much afraid, who asked that it be held confidential, and I held it confidential until she decided that she would come forward,” Feinstein said.

She was then asked if her staff had leaked the letter by Sen. John Cornyn, another Texas Republican.

“I have not asked that question directly, but I do not believe — the answer is no,” Feinstein responded. “The staff, they did not.”

“Well, somebody leaked it if wasn’t you,” Cornyn said.

“I did not, I was asked to keep it confidential, and I’m criticized for that too!” she said.

“It’s my understanding that her story was leaked before the letter became public, and she testified that she had spoken to her friends about it and it’s most likely that that’s how the story leaked, and she had been asked by press.

“But it did not leak from us,” Feinstein concluded. “I assure you of that.”

Yes, the letter leaked because this woman, who thought she was in grave jeopardy, leaked the whole thing to the press by telling her friends, who were willing to put her in that grave jeopardy by passing it on.

It had nothing — nothing — to do with the Democrats who would have benefited most from this and would have had the motivation to pass it on.

Right.

Every single problem with this entire process can be, in some way, traced back to Dianne Feinstein. She’s the one who sat on the letter, refusing to bring it up when it should have been addressed. She’s the one whose cryptic statements helped stoke the embers of curiosity. She’s the one who would call for an FBI investigation even though the FBI added the letter to Kavanaugh’s background file and moved on. She’s the one who helped oversee the circus we witnessed Thursday.

And, once Christine Blasey Ford was finally disposable to her, she was tossed to the tigers as an encore.

Ford Polygraph Results Released. Did They Just Blow a Huge Hole in Her Story?



Reported By Benjamin Arie | September 26, 2018 at

3:37pm

The narrative that liberals have hung their hopes on to stop Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is falling apart. There are now so many holes in the story, it’s incredible Democrats are still running with it.

Christine Blasey Ford is the woman who accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly groping her at a party way back when he was 17 years old, but she has been largely unable to produce solid evidence or witnesses to back up her serious claims.

One of the only points in her favor was that she took a “lie detector” polygraph test, which was widely reported by the media as supporting her story by showing that she wasn’t lying.

That is, until now. On Wednesday, the actual details from that polygraph were released to the public — and they make her already-flimsy story seem downright unbelievable.

The biggest problem with the so-called “lie detector” results are that the examiner never actually asked questions about Kavanaugh during the polygraph test.

Bizarrely, the person conducting the polygraph — who was a third-party examiner and not a law enforcement official — had Ford scribble down her nearly 40-year-old memory of the drunken party, and then asked her two vague questions.

Those two questions were: “Is any part of your statement false?” and “Did you make up any part of your statement?”

This is absolutely important to understand: Again, the polygraph test didn’t actually ask the main accuser any questions about Kavanaugh. His name was never brought up by the interviewer. Instead, Ford was simply asked if she believed her own hand-written statement.

It gets even more strange, as nowhere in that written statement does the name “Kavanaugh” appear, either.

And, to make matters worse, the statement from Ford that she was then asked about by the polygraph examiner directly contradicts different versions of the alleged event that the accuser has also given.

“Ford’s polygraph letter contradicts letter she sent to Feinstein,” pointed out Charles C. W. Cooke, the editor of The National Review.

“Polygraph letter says ‘4 boys and a couple of girls’ were at party. Letter to Feinstein says ‘me and four others,’” he continued. “No way to reconcile the two — irrespective of whether she’s counting herself in polygraph letter.”

It’s important to remember that fundamental facts such as how many people witnessed the alleged incident and what their genders were have been up in the air already. Even journalists from the left-leaning Washington Post are seemingly unable to keep the details straight.

“July 30 (to Dianne Feinstein): It was me and four other people. August 7 (to polygraph examiner): There were four boys and a couple of girls. September 16 (to Washington Post reporter): There were three boys and one girl,” The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis posted to Twitter, summarizing the inconsistencies.

Here’s another huge point: The fact that Ford “passed” the polygraph based on a statement that she later herself contradicted while telling the story to other people shows how unreliable this “evidence” truly is.

Contrary to how it’s shown in the movies, a polygraph can’t actually determine if a person is lying or not. All it can do is indicate how calm or stressed somebody is compared to a baseline. It can be used to indicate deception, but a completely delusional person can also “pass” a polygraph.

In other words, Ford may believe that something happened at a party four decades ago, and she may be confident that some version of her story is true, but the vagueness and unscientific nature of this process proves absolutely nothing. The problems with this accuser’s story don’t stop there. Buried in the release of the weak polygraph results was the fact that Ford was in Maryland — on the other side of the country from her home in California — to take that test.

But the supposed reason she couldn’t appear to testify in front of the Senate and answer questions about her accusations was that she’s afraid of confined spaces, which means she won’t travel by plane.

“The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington … which means she may need to drive across the country,” reported Politico just five days ago. “Ford has reportedly told friends she is uncomfortable in confined spaces, indicating a physical difficulty in making the trip by plane.”

Yet the letter from Ford to Senator Feinstein made no mention of this difficulty, and casually mentioned that she planned to be back in California from the East Coast in less than three day’s time. It takes at least 42 hours of nonstop driving to go from Maryland, where the polygraph was administered, to Palo Alto, California, where Ford lives and teaches at a university.

This borders on being humanly impossible: Anybody who has done long road trips knows that a realistic daily limit is about ten hours of driving a day before exhaustion sets in. USA Today has recommended that people set aside between four and six days to do this arduous drive.

When none of the details add up or pass even the most basic sniff test, something is wrong.

This entire ordeal looks increasingly like a slimy and desperate effort to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation at any cost. But the truth always has a way of coming out, and it doesn’t even need a polygraph.

HERE IS THE POLYGRAPH REPORT:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Arie has been a political junkie since the hotly contested 2000 election. Ben settled on journalism after realizing he could get paid to rant. He cut his teeth on car accidents and house fires as a small-town reporter in Michigan before becoming a full-time political writer.


Grassley Borrows Trick from Dems, Unveils Game-Changer Hours Before Ford Appears


Reported By Joe Saunders | September 27, 2018 at

6:59am

Timing is everything.

On the eve of pivotal testimony scheduled to take place Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee that could determine whether Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh rises to the high court, committee Republicans released word of a development that throws a new twist on the already tortured proceedings.

And Democrats are screaming that their own trick has been pulled against them.

According to Fox News, Judiciary Committee Republicans released a statement late Wednesday revealing that they had spoken with two men who have said it was possible that they were actually responsible for an alleged sexual assault in the early 1980s that Palo Alto University Professor Christine Blasey Ford is blaming on Kavanaugh.

According to Fox, the statement revealed that the GOP had been in contact with one of the men since Monday. The Republicans, led by committee Chairman Charles Grassley, obviously opted not to share the information with Democratic colleagues.

In a statement to NBC News, an unnamed Democratic congressional aide was outraged.

“Twelve hours before the hearing they suggest two anonymous men claimed to have assaulted her,” the aide stated. “Democrats were never informed of these assertions or interviews, in violation of Senate rules.”

Seriously? This is the same party that kept quiet about a letter received by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein in July but didn’t see fit to reveal its existence to the country until after Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing had ended.

Sen Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, pointed out the hypocrisy in a Twitter post.

“Some might find it exceedingly difficult to imagine Judiciary Committee Democrats expressing this complaint with straight faces,” he wrote.

The bombshell news from Wednesday night was the latest development in a tumultuous week that started when The New Yorker published an account of a second accuser against Kavanaugh in a barely believable piece that was essentially built on a hazy memory, rumor — and Democratic probes.

Then, publicity-hungry attorney Michael Avenatti went public on Wednesday with a tale of a client with a bizarre story that Kavanaugh was part of a gang rape ring in the early 1980s (Avenatti has publicly mused about mounting a 2020 presidential campaign, so Democrat politics are clearly a factor).

Both accusations — like Ford’s — were sprung out of the blue.

Now, Judiciary Committee Republicans have officially released word that there are yet more stories out there that could put the whole thing to rest.

As the New York Post reported:

“On Monday, the timeline recounts GOP staff members interviewing ‘a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982.’

“The ‘encounter’ refers to an episode in which Ford claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in a bedroom at a Maryland house party.

“They had a follow-up interview with that man, and he provided more detail about the assault.

“Then on Wednesday, the committee staff said they spoke with a second man who said he assaulted Ford in 1982.”

No credible conservative has denied it was possible that Ford actually went through some kind of ordeal in the early 1980s. Kavanaugh himself said as much during an interview with Fox News on Monday.

“I am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps Dr. Ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone in some place,” he said, according to a transcript from USA Today. “But what I know is I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or at any time in my life.”

Obviously, it’s too soon to tell where Wednesday’s developments will lead, but it’s possible that they could eventually show Ford’s story was correct to the extent that she actually did go through an ordeal at the hands of a male. It’s also possible they will show, even to Democrats and rabid liberals, that Kavanaugh is innocent of Ford’s accusations.

But considering how they came out, and the Democrats’ hypocritical reaction to them, they prove one thing for sure:

Timing is everything.

Huge: Letter Shows Ford Wanted To Stop Sex Crime Prosecutor from Investigating


Reported By Cillian Zeal | September 25, 2018 at

6:12am

A letter from one of Christine Blasey Ford’s attorneys indicates that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser wanted to dissuade the Senate Judiciary Committee from using an experienced sex-crimes prosecutor, according to a tweet from NBC’s Frank Thorp V.

The letter from attorney Michael Bromwich, as Thorp notes, seems to indicate Ford’s testimony at the hearing “does not appear to be a done deal.”

It addresses several issues, including the fact that Kavanaugh’s background check from the White House won’t be provided and comments made by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that Ford’s account was part of a “smear campaign.”

However, perhaps the most puzzling detail was the fact that Ford’s team objected to an experienced sex crimes prosecutor being brought on in the case.

“In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor’ as (Senate Judiciary Committee Chief Counsel for Nominations Michael) Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority’s repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee’s members to fulfill their constitutional obligations,” Bromwich’s letter read.

“It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s repeated requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning.”

“This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate,” Bromwich said.

This is a curious development indeed. A prosecutor experienced in sex crimes would be utilized questioning not just Ford but Kavanaugh as well. Having a figure like that investigating through questioning at the scheduled hearing could be key. It would be someone who would know how to get down to the truth of the matter.

Yet, Bromwich contends that the hearing “is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate.”

Except that his client is accusing a Supreme Court nominee of a sex crime. That’s kind of a pertinent detail here.

Getting to the truth of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations — if it can indeed be done — is vital, as it’s vital in the case of any sexual assault. The Kavanaugh case has a different dimension, however, in that it could literally decide whether or not a federal judge is morally fit to receive a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest bench.

If Brett Kavanaugh did what Ford is alleging, he shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court. That’s not debatable. However, she hasn’t produced a single piece of evidence or a single witness who’s able to back up her claims. That’s problematic, to say the least.

Even more problematic is the fact that Bromwich doesn’t feel that this should be treated anything like “a criminal trial” where the accused in the United States gets the benefit of the presumption of innocence. One assumes that his client shares his view on this. This means, essentially, she wants the hearing to be as uncritical as possible.

The import of her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee — the mere fact that a Supreme Court nomination and the reputation of a public figure hangs in the balance — apparently doesn’t register with either Ford or her team.

If you’re alleging a brutal rape attempt involving a man who’s poised to be one of the most powerful individuals in America, why would you not want an experienced sex crimes prosecutor investigating? One can think of several reasons, none of which are particularly complimentary to Christine Blasey Ford.

There is nothing in bringing in a prosecutor that gets in the way of the “fair and credible process” Bromwich seems so concerned about in the letter. On the contrary, it’s the only way we can ensure what happens before the Senate Judiciary Committee will be either fair or credible.

The fact that the Ford team is fighting this should be seen as a highly telling move.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Reports: Kavanaugh Has Found 1982 Calendar, Detailed Entries Help Clear His Name


Reported By Benjamin Arie | September 23, 2018 at

5:26pm

The last-minute attempt to derail Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation as the next Supreme Court justice has just hit a serious snag. Facing damaging but almost completely unsubstantiated claims that he acted improperly with a girl back when he was a teenager, the conservative nominee has dug into his personal archives to defend himself.

Up until now, the vague accusations made by Christine Blasey Ford had only resulted in a “he said, she said” stalemate. Liberals insisted that Blasey Ford’s story of a bad encounter at a drunken party be believed, while conservatives have pointed out that the nearly 40-year-old claim is impossible to verify.

Finally, Kavanaugh has presented tangible evidence that the accusation doesn’t hold up.

On Sunday, The New York Times reported that the judge has found old calendars from the period when the unproven groping allegedly took place — and they appear to support his claim that the incident didn’t happen.

“Kavanaugh has calendars from the summer of 1982 that he plans to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that do not show a party consistent with the description of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford,” explained The Times.

“The calendar pages from June, July and August 1982, which were examined by The New York Times, show that Judge Kavanaugh was out of town much of the summer at the beach or away with his parents,” the newspaper continued.

“When he was at home, the calendars list his basketball games, movie outings, football workouts and college interviews. A few parties are mentioned but include names of friends other than those identified by Dr. Blasey.”

Here is perhaps the biggest nail in the coffin for Blasey Ford’s already-flimsy story: The calendar contains entries for parties, but none of the names included in those entries match the names Blasey Ford listed.

That any names were included in his calendar entries for parties shows Kavanaugh was remarkably thorough about recording his social schedule.

That fact is yet another point in favor of Kavanaugh and against his accuser. The woman behind the claim has admitted that she can recall almost nothing specific about the incident, including its location, time, or other people involved.

The few names brought up by Blasey Ford have refuted her story and indicated that they don’t remember a party with both her and Kavanaugh.

“Mr. (Mike) Judge has told the Judiciary Committee that he remembered no such incident and had never seen Judge Kavanaugh behave in such a way,” explained The Times, referring to one alleged witness of the drunken party.

“The only other two people identified as being in the house at the time, but not the bedroom, have also said in recent days that they did not recall the incident. Patrick J. Smyth said he did not remember such a party or see any improper conduct by Judge Kavanaugh.”

“Leland Keyser, a former classmate of Dr. Blasey’s at Holton-Arms, said she did not know Judge Kavanugh or remember being at a party with him,” stated the newspaper.

Accusations of this type are of course serious, and conducting due diligence is part of the vetting process for anyone nominated for a powerful position. There comes a point, however, when weak and impossible to prove allegations need to be put to rest. Blasey Ford may genuinely believe that something like the incident she described did happen; she may be telling the truth about a teenage trauma affecting her for decades, too.

The problem is that there is zero evidence it was Brett Kavanaugh who did what she claims, and no way short of a time machine to prove her accusations.

By all accounts, Kavanaugh has been a responsible and thoughtful family man and legal scholar for the entirety of his adult life — and that record needs to stand far above one person’s increasingly shaky claim.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly claimed that Judge Kavanaugh’s 1982 calendar does not contain any names identified in Christine Blasey Ford’s claim against Kavanaugh. The calendar does reference Mike Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh and, according to Blasey Ford, a witness to the alleged assault. Judge’s name, however, is not mentioned in reference to any parties, while other names are — none of which have been identified by Blasey Ford. We apologize for the mistake.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Arie has been a political junkie since the hotly contested 2000 election. Ben settled on journalism after realizing he could get paid to rant. He cut his teeth on car accidents and house fires as a small-town reporter in Michigan before becoming a full-time political writer.

Breaking: Arizona Governor Announces Replacement for John McCain



Reported By Randy DeSoto | September 4, 2018 at

11:19am

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey named former Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl as the late Sen. John McCain’s replacement on Tuesday. Kyl served with McCain in the Senate from 1995 to Jan. 2013 before his retirement. Sen. Jeff Flake succeeded him. Kyl, 76, was the GOP minority whip before leaving office, which is the second-highest position in the Republican conference, the Arizona Republic reported.

Ducey made the announcement at a press conference from the Arizona capitol in Phoenix.

“There is no one in Arizona with the stature of Sen. Jon Kyl,” the governor said.

“There is no one in Arizona more prepared to represent our state in the U.S. Senate than Jon Kyl,” Ducey added. “He understands how the Senate functions and will make an immediate and positive impact benefiting all Arizonans.”

Ducey also tweeted, “I am deeply grateful to Sen. Kyl for agreeing to succeed his friend and colleague of so many years. Every single day that Jon Kyl represents #Arizona in the U.S. Senate is a day our state is well-served.”

Kyl has agreed to serve out the remainder of the current session of Congress, which will conclude in December.

Ducey expressed the hope that Kyl will stay on through the special election to fill McCain’s seat, which will take place in 2020. That election will be to fulfill the last two years of McCain’s term, which ends in 2022.

McCain’s wife, Cindy, offered support for Ducey’s choice tweeting, “Jon Kyl is a dear friend of mine and John’s. It’s a great tribute to John that he is prepared to go back into public service to help the state of Arizona.”

Kyl spoke at a ceremony at the Arizona capitol honoring McCain last week.

Most recently, Kyl has been serving in the role of “sherpa,” guiding Trump’s Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh through the confirmation process in the Senate.

Kyl will fly back to Washington, D.C., on Tuesday and could take up his seat in the Senate as early as Tuesday night.

Among the first high-profile votes he will be called upon to make is for the confirmation of Kavanaugh, which is expected later this month and likely to be close, given the current 51-49 Republican majority.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

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.”

Donald Trump Speaks at March for Life: ‘Life Is the Greatest Miracle of All’


Reported by Charlie Spiering | 19 Jan 2018

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/19/trump-speaks-march-life-life-greatest-miracle/

President Donald Trump spoke live via satellite at the March for Life in Washington, DC, on Friday, thanking pro-life activists for marching against abortion.

“The March for Life is a movement born out of love,” Trump said. “You love your families, you love your neighbors, you love our nation, and you love every child, born and unborn, because you believe that every life is sacred, that every child is a precious gift from God. We know that life is the greatest miracle of all.”

The president spoke from the Rose Garden surrounded by pro-life activists and even a few parents holding their babies. His remarks were streamed live via satellite to screens on the National Mall.

Trump condemned the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision for increasing abortions in the United States.

“It is wrong. It has to change,” he said.

At one point, Trump was supposed to criticize that “the laws allow a baby to be *torn* from his or her mother’s womb in the ninth month” – but, instead, he mistakenly said, “born.”

“Americans are more and more pro-life,” he continued. “You see that all the time. In fact, only 12 percent of Americans support abortion on demand at any time. Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the right to life.

Trump also endorsed the federal 20-week abortion ban and called for the Senate to pass it.

I call upon the Senate to pass this important law and send it to my desk for signing,” he said.

Ann Coulter Blows the Lid Off the ‘Surprising’ Number of Problems with Accusations Against Roy Moore


Reported By Randy DeSoto | December 7, 2017 at 12:22pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/ann-coulter-blows-lid-off-surprising-number-problems-accusations-roy-moore/?

In an op-ed published Wednesday, conservative commentator Ann Coulter sought to counter the prolific misrepresentations by media outlets in their reporting about Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore.

“It’s hard to disprove accusations from 40 years ago — that’s why we have statutes of limitations — but, despite that, there are a surprising number of problems with the allegations against Moore,” Coulter — a lawyer and former federal court of appeals judicial clerk — wrote in a piece for Breitbart.

“Contrary to what you have heard one million times a day on TV, there aren’t ‘multiple accusers.’ There are two, and that’s including the one with the fishy yearbook inscription whose stepson says she’s lying,” Coulter highlighted.

As reported by The Western Journal, accuser Beverly Young Nelson’s attorney Gloria Allred has refused to turn over a yearbook she claims was inscribed by Moore in 1977 to a neutral party in order for the handwriting and the date of the ink to be analyzed. The yearbook was presented as proof by Allred at a news conference that Moore and Young knew each other.

Regarding Moore’s other accuser, Leigh Corfman (featured in the Nov. 9 Washington Post story alleging Moore sexually touched her in 1979 when she was 14), Coulter contended her account has problems too.

“The main accuser has gotten a lot of her facts wrong, such as where she was living at the time (she moved to another town 10 days after meeting Moore); the corner where she allegedly met Moore for their liaisons (she named a corner more than a mile away from her house, across a busy intersection); and when she began to get into trouble with boys and alcohol (it was before meeting Moore, not after),” Coulter wrote.

Further, “There’s a lot of room between HE’S A CHILD MOLESTER and THE WOMEN ARE LIARS,” she added.

“They could be misremembering. They could be confusing Moore with someone else. They could be suggestible. They could be delusional. They could have repeated the story to themselves so many times that they believe it,” Coulter said.

As for the other “accusers” who claimed they dated Moore when they were between 16 and 19 and Moore was in his early 30s, Coulter pointed out that comedian Jerry Seinfeld dated 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein in the 1990s, when he was 39. Therefore, Moore was closer in age than Seinfeld to those he allegedly dated.

Coulter circled back to one of her main concerns with the allegations.

“It was 40 years ago!” she wrote. “But it’s just weeks before the election and that’s the media’s favorite time to produce wild accusations against Republicans.”

The conservative commentator recounted other late-in-the race grenades lobbed against Republican candidates in the past, including an indictment of former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger four days before the 1992 presidential election by independent counsel Lawrence Walsh, which seemed to implicate George H.W. Bush in a lie regarding the 1987 Iran-Contra Scandal.

In 2004, CBS’s Dan Rather employed documents easily discovered to be forged to report George W. Bush had shirked his National Guard service during the Vietnam War.

Coulter also contrasted the reporting Moore is receiving for alleged sexual contact in the 1970s versus that given to former Democrat Rep. Gerry Studds, who admitted to having homosexual relations with a 17-year-old congressional page in the 1980s. Studds defended his actions, saying it was a “consensual relationship with a young adult,” according to The Associated Press.

“Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy denounced the ‘witch hunt’ against Studds, saying his critics wanted ‘to torch the congressman for his private life,’” Coulter wrote.

The House censured him, but he was not removed from office, and successfully ran for re-election six more times.

Studds was lionized when he died in 2006 by The Washington Post (“Gay Pioneer“), The New York Times (“First Openly Gay Congressman“), NPR (“Congressional Pioneer“) among other mainstream media outlets.

Coulter, who endorsed Rep. Mo Brooks over Moore in the Alabama Republican primary this summer, concluded her piece by writing, “The media say that Republicans support Moore just because they want another GOP vote in the Senate. I support Moore just because I hate the media.”

As reported by The Western Journal, Brooks, who announced last week he had already voted for Moore by absentee ballot, offered a similar rebuttal to the allegations against Moore as Coulter.

“What you have is the mainstream left-wing socialist Democrat news media trying to distort the evidence to cause people to reach the conclusion that Roy Moore engaged in unlawful conduct with a minor and my analysis of the evidence is that is not the case,” Brooks said last week on “The Dale Jackson Show,” a program on Alabama radio station WVNN-AF.

“Most importantly, the media likes to say ‘well, there are nine complainers.’ Seven of them aren’t complainers. In fact, I would be calling seven of those ladies as witnesses on behalf of Roy Moore on the issue of whether he is engaged in any kind of unlawful conduct,” the former prosecutor added.

Brooks continued, “There are only two that have asserted that Roy Moore engaged in unlawful conduct. One of those is clearly a liar because that one forged the ‘love, Roy Moore’ part of a yearbook in order to try to for whatever reason get at Roy Moore and win this seat for the Democrats and there’s a lot more to it as to why I believe that the evidence is almost incontrovertible about whether the yearbook was forged.”

The congressman went on to note that just left one accuser. “Well, that one witness’ testimony is in direct and stark contrast with that of the other seven ladies, who said that he acted like an officer and a gentleman.”

The House Has Passed More Bills In 10 Months Of Trump Than Obama, Bush or Clinton


Reported By Jack Davis | November 14, 2017 at 8:10am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/house-passed-bills-10-months-trump-obama-bush-clinton/?

Productivity came to Washington along with President Donald Trump, according to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. In a Monday Facebook post, McCarthy noted that in Trump’s first few months in office, more bills have passed the House than under any of the previous four presidents.

“Over 400 bills have passed the House during Donald J. Trump’s first 10 months. That’s more than under Obama, Bush, or Clinton,” he posted.

McCarthy displayed a graph that showed the average numbers of bills passed in the first 10 months of a presidency going back to President George H.W. Bush was 306. Under the Trump administration, the House has passed 407, 33 percent above the average.

According to McCarthy, the number of bills passed in the first 10 months under past administrations were:

President Barack Obama, 353;

President George W. Bush, 215;

President Bill Clinton, 263; and

President George H.W. Bush, 292.

Earlier this fall, McCarthy said the House needs help from the Senate to translate their achievements into achievements for the American people.

“Think what we’ve been able to achieve, the number of bills,” he said in September, according to Newsmax. “More so than any modern Congress you had in the first year of a new presidency: 16 human trafficking bills, 16 congressional review acts, 14 signed into law. In the history of America, only one other Congress has ever done one of those.”

“The last time a Republican majority did that, the iPhone wasn’t invented,” he said. “We need a little help on the other chamber.”

While McCarthy appeared pleased by the output of the current administration, his excitement grew when referencing the GOP tax plan.

The bill is expected to pass the House this week.

“It brings the lowest rate for small business, the lowest it has been in 80 years,” said McCarthy, who believes the bill will help all Americans. “That is what creates new jobs. That is what we have to continue to work on.”

McCarthy criticized Democrat opposition to the bill, citing America’s grew sluggish under the Obama administration.

“You know the last eight years under Barack Obama, if you take his very best growth year, that is actually lower than the worst year under Bill Clinton. We have got to get America moving again.”

“Get America moving again” seems to be the theme, as Trump wraps up his tour of Asia, and returns to the U.S.

He is expected to meet with House Republicans on Thursday in an effort to ensure passage of the legislation, which is one of Trump’s top priorities.

Convenient: Mueller Nails Manafort Right After Hillary – Uranium One Scandal Explodes


Reported By Martin Walsh | October 30, 2017 at 4:48pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/mueller-nails-manafort-hillary-scandal/?

Shortly after several reports have linked both former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State/failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to the Uranium One scandal, Democrats are trying to shift everyone’s attention.

As reported by the Daily Mail, Trump’s former campaign manager from the 2016 presidential election, Paul Manafort, and his partner, Rick Gates, surrendered on Monday morning following an indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia probe.

The news comes just days after the Justice Department announcement Thursday that it would lift a gag order on a secret FBI informant who has firsthand knowledge of the Uranium One deal involving the Clintons.

According to Townhall, the informant’s identity will remain anonymous, but they will be speaking with the Senate Judiciary Committee on how the Clintons benefited from selling U.S. uranium to a company connected to Russia.

Mueller’s indictments of former Trump officials come just days after an explosive report from The Hill, which detailed how Clinton approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to Russian nuclear company Rosatom, giving Russia 20 percent of the United States’ uranium.

Both The New York Times and New York Daily News reported that officials associated with the sale donated a reported $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton was given $500,000 from a bank with ties to the Kremlin for giving a single speech in Moscow.

As detailed by a report from The Hill, the FBI had collected a plethora of documents showing that Russia officials involved with the Uranium One deal were engaged in extortion, bribery, kickbacks, and money laundering prior to the Obama administration — with Clinton’s help at the State Department — approving the deal in 2010.

The FBI agents also supplanted a U.S. witness to work closely with the Russian nuclear industry to gain inside access to financial records, collect emails, and make secret recordings on how Moscow violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

And yet, the Obama administration approved the sale and agreed to do business with the corrupt Russia company to sell 20 percent of the U.S.’ uranium.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said last week he wanted the Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Uranium One sale and the Obama administration’s involvement with the deal.

In light of the bombshell report exposing Obama and Clinton for carrying out a shady deal with Russia, Mueller conveniently decided to announce indictments that would move the spotlight back to someone else.

Grassley’s call for a special prosecutor into the Clinton Foundation allowing foreign governments to influence American policy while the Clintons gained personally is a bombshell story the must be investigated, but the mainstream media conveniently distracted everyone from this corruption with Mueller’s recent announcement.

H/T Townhall

Here Are The 20 House Republicans Who Voted Against The GOP Budget


Reported by Photo of Robert Donachie Robert Donachie | Capitol Hill and Health Care Reporter | 12:38 PM 10/26/2017

Twenty Republican House members voted against the Senate budget proposal adopted Thursday morning and sent to President Donald Trump’s desk for approval.

House members voted to adopt the budget in a 216-212 vote, pushing the Republican tax reform plan past a key hurdle. The $4 trillion budget includes Senate budget reconciliation rules, which allow leadership to pass legislation with a simple majority, bypassing filibusters from Democrats altogether.

Here are the Republican representatives who voted “no.”

  • Justin Amash of Michigan
  • Ken Buck of Colorado
  • Dan Donovan of New York
  • John Duncan of Tennessee
  • John Faso of New York
  • Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania
  • Matt Gaetz of Florida
  • Lynn Jenkins of Kansas
  • Walter B. Jones of North Carolina
  • John Katko of New York
  • Pete King of New York
  • Leonard Lance of New Jersey
  • Frank Lobiondo of New Jersey
  • Tom MacArthur of New Jersey
  • Thomas Massie of Kentucky
  • Mark Sanford of South Carolina
  • Chris Smith of New Jersey
  • Elise Stefanik of New York
  • Claudia Tenney of New York
  • Lee Zeldin of New York

Under the new budget, Republicans now only need 50 yes votes to shepherd tax reform through the Senate, with Vice President Mike Pence acting as the tiebreaker. The party holds a slim 52-48 majority in the Senate.

The proposed budget would also allow Senate Republicans’ tax reform bill to add to the federal deficit over the next decade, as long as it does not exceed $1.5 trillion.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Thursday October 26, 2107


Mitch McConnell Gets Bad News… Asked To Step Down


Reported 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/conservatives-demand-mcconnel-step-down-as-senate-leader/?

Advertisement – story continues below

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has been hit with a heavy vote of no confidence from conservative groups around the country. On Wednesday, leaders from several conservative organizations called on McConnell to abdicate his position, citing a list of broken promises he made to Republican voters.

They are calling on not only McConnell, but also members of his leadership team, to step down.

“You and the rest of your leadership team were given the majority because you pledged to stop the steady flow of illegal immigration,” states their letter to McConnell, according to Fox News. “You have done nothing. You pledged to reduce the size of this oppressive federal government. You have done nothing. You pledged to reduce, and ultimately eliminate the out-of-control deficit spending that is bankrupting America. You have done nothing. You promised to repeal Obamacare, ‘root and branch.’ You have done nothing. You promised tax reform. You have done nothing.”

Disgruntled conservatives held a news conference in Washington, D.C. to address their concerns and desire to see the leadership team dissolved.

“We call on all five members of the GOP Senate leadership to step down, or for their caucus to remove them as soon as possible,” Ken Cuccinelli, the president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, said at the conference.

Advertisement – story continues below

The Senate Conservatives Fund, founded in 2008 by former Senator Jim DeMint, has worked for years to elect more conservative GOP candidates to the upper chamber in Congress. The group has regularly clashed with the more moderate wing of GOP leadership. The SCF wasn’t the only group calling for McConnell to vacate his position.

Members from FreedomWorks, For America and the Tea Party Patriots also joined the chorus in demanding GOP Senate leaders step aside after failing to enact conservative legislation, despite voters giving the Republican Party full control of Washington, D.C. on Election Day.

This is not the first time conservatives have called on McConnell to step down as majority leader, but the ferocity of Wednesday’s press conference certainly puts an added weight on Republican lawmakers to get things done this legislative session.

The letter and press conference come as congressional Republicans are currently working to enact tax reform. GOP leaders so far have not succeeded in repealing Obamacare, failing several times to push through their own GOP health care bills. Republicans are hoping tax reform will be an issue the entire party can rally behind.

“If this was a football team, and you’d lost this many times, you’d start seriously considering firing the coaches,” said For America President David Bozell.

Despite all agreeing that they’d wish to see McConnell go, many conservative leaders are not certain who they would like to see as a replacement.

“If I had to pick someone, I’d love to draft like Pat Toomey maybe,” FreedomWorks President Adam Brandon said, referring to the GOP Pennsylvania senator. “There’s a lot of different people out there who I think could unite this caucus and actually lead on some issues.”

Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots group, said she could see herself supporting Georgia GOP Senator David Perdue. “I’m from Georgia, so I’m not opposed to him,” Martin explained, touting the junior senator’s extensive business background as a former CEO.

Conservative candidates are taking notice as well. As the 2018 election cycle begins to heat up, many pro-Trump candidates are hoping to gain traction by displaying stronger support for the president.

“With rare exception, GOP senators blocking Trump’s agenda are impediments we can not afford. Double that for Senate leaders,” Ron Wallace, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia, said in a statement to Western Journalism.

Wallace is an insurgent candidate hoping to win the GOP primary and take on incumbent Democrat Senator Tim Kaine. Wallace is running on a pro-Trump platform and believes it’s imperative the GOP majority pass what they promised to do.

“The American People voted for Tax Cuts, Border Walls, Rapid Growth, Excellent Law Enforcement, and Better Education. I expect strong proactive policies to make those outcomes possible and deliver cost-effective solutions, by whatever means may be necessary,” he said.

Rush Limbaugh Says 1 Person Is Taking Over The GOP


Reported 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/rush-limbaugh-says-1-person-is-taking-over-the-gop/?

Advertisement – story continues below

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh made a bold statement on his program about Steve Bannon and the current state of the Republican Part y.

Limbaugh believes Bannon, the former White House chief strategist, is taking over the roles and responsibilities meant for GOP leadership by enforcing conservatism onto Republican candidates up for re-election.

“I think what Bannon is doing is slowly but surely taking over the role of the Republican Party,” Limbaugh said Wednesday. “The Republican Party is obviously not with Trump on balance — you have some in the House who are — but the Republican Party on balance is not with Trump.”

Steve Bannon played a major role in then-candidate Donald Trump’s presidential victory upset last year and led the formulation of White House policy in the months that followed. He was Trump’s campaign chairman during the 2016 election and later served as a White House chief strategist — leading the nationalist wing of the administration.

After abruptly leaving the administration in mid-August, Bannon returned to his prior position as executive chairman of Breitbart News. Since leaving the White House, he made it clear he would use his position as a media executive to support insurgent conservative candidates running primaries against establishment GOP lawmakers.

Advertisement – story continues below

Bannon already appears good for his word.

In the special election in Alabama to fill the Senate seat once held by now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Bannon went against the Trump administration with his endorsement of Roy Moore. Bannon supported the successful candidacy of Moore, a controversial former judge, in a move that was at odds with Trump, who campaigned vehemently for Moore’s opponent, Sen. Luther Strange. By election day, it wasn’t even close. Moore bested Strange in the GOP primary by almost double digits. Moore now heads into the Alabama general election, where he will likely win in a state that leans red.

The primary results demonstrated the power of Bannon’s support.

The leader of Breitbart is not stopping with the Alabama special election. Bannon has recently announced he is expanding his GOP targets, adding Republican Sens. Deb Fischer of Nebraska, John Barrasso of Wyoming and Orrin Hatch of Utah to his hit list.

> In Wyoming, Bannon is pushing Erik Prince, the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and founder of major security contractor Blackwater, to challenge Barrasso, CNN reported. 

> In Utah, Hatch may very well retire on his own. If he does, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is reportedly eyeing a run in the Mormon-majority state. If that happens, Bannon is ready to run a candidate against him.

According to a source close to Bannon, this is just a “partial” list of elections he is looking to influence.

Bannon is already working to knock off Republican Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake and his beleaguered campaign for re-election. Nevada Sen. Dean Heller and Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker are also on Bannon’s radar.

“Some people make an argument that there really isn’t a Republican Party left. I mean, there are people who call themselves that and they go out and raise money and they raise a lot. But whereas the party used to be known for one, two, or three very serious things, they’re not anymore,” Limbaugh added on his radio show.

The conservative talk radio host believes Bannon and others are trying to keep the identity of the Republican Party alive by enforcing such standards onto them by way of primary challenges.

Insurance Industry Opposes Republican Health Bill


By Chip Bok of http://bokbluster.com/2017/09/23/insurance-industry/ | September 23, 2017   

Fortune seemed surprised that insurers oppose last ditch Republican efforts to replace and repeal ObamaCare. As usual, the industry’s concern is for consumers.

Insurance Industry Explains Why

Industry spokesmen displayed their concern in an article titled “Even the Insurance Industry is Against the Latest GOP Health Care Plan”:

Despite the general view that health insurance companies would benefit from a free and open market, two of the biggest trade groups for insurers — Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and America’s Health Insurance Plans — announced their first opposition to the Republicans’ latest plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Both the Blue Cross and the AHIP came out against the so-called Graham-Cassidy bill Wednesday, arguing that the legislation would lead to an unstable market that would harm both insurers and patients. 

“The bill contains provisions that would allow states to waive key consumer protections, as well as undermine safeguards for those with pre-existing medical conditions,’’ the Blue Cross association said in a statement. “The legislation reduces funding for many states significantly and would increase uncertainty in the marketplace, making coverage more expensive and jeopardizing Americans’ choice of health plans.”

The AHIP doubled down on those sentiments, writing that the bill “would have real consequences on consumers and patients by further destabilizing the individual market” and could “potentially allowing government-controlled, single payer health care to grow,” in a letter to Senate majority and minority leaders Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

The insurance trade associations’ resistance joins a number of health care groups already speaking out against the proposed bill, including the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and the American Association of Retired Persons.

The Graham-Cassidy bill, named after two of its drafters, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), has a voting deadline of Sept. 30. The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation next week after several previously unsuccessful attempts earlier this year.

President Donald Trump talked up the bill Wednesday, saying that it has “a very good chance” of passing in the Senate.

McCain Health Care Bill Kills


By Chip Bok of http://bokbluster.com/2017/09/23/mccain-health-care-bill-kills/ | September 23, 2017

McCain

Senator McCain sided with Jimmy Kimmel in shooting down best bud Lindsey Graham on Friday. He announced he would vote “no” on the Graham Cassidy health care reform.

Two McCain Bill Kills

Those in the know think that pretty much kills the bill. And that would make two health bill kills for McCain.

Damn, should have drawn that on the fuselage.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: