web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Washington Post

Marianne Williamson: No, I’m not dropping out. Why do you ask?

Westlake Legal Group Williamson Marianne Williamson: No, I’m not dropping out. Why do you ask? Washington Post The Blog marianne williamson editorial drop out 2020 Democratic primaries 2020 Democrat debates

If you watched the Democratic debates on Tuesday night, there was one face missing on the stage that still attracts a lot of attention. Marianne Williamson didn’t make the cut and was forced to watch the proceedings remotely. So does that mean she’s giving up and dropping out? Not on your life, brother. She’s just inspired to ride the power of love and keep on trucking. (Washington Post)

The establishment’s paternalistic insistence that, in essence, “it’s time to shut this thing down” — making sure only its preordained category of people, discussing its preordained category of topics, is placed before the American people for consideration as contenders for the nomination to run against President Trump — has created a false, inauthentic piece of high school theater posing as the Democratic debates.

Last night’s debate was a lot of things, but it was not exciting. It contained no magic. If anything, it reduced some very nice people to behavior their mothers probably raised them not to engage in. Which woman who claims feminist ideals can be the nastiest to another woman? Which young person can show the greatest arrogance toward those with decades of experience under their belts? Which intelligent person can best reduce a complicated topic to pabulum for the masses? …

“Isn’t it time for you to drop out now, Marianne?” After that debate Tuesday night, are you kidding? Let me get this right. You think a sanitized wish list of Democratic proposals, focused just enough on appealing to people’s self-interest but not going anywhere near a serious discussion of what ails us, is going to defeat the Republicans?

Just for full disclosure, the author is a donor to the Willamson campaign. (I sent her a dollar to help her make the cut for the previous debates because it thought it would keep the entertainment factor higher.)

Now, after reading this op-ed she published, I wish more than ever that she was still on the stage. The list of grievances she airs in this piece is both entertaining and also potentially accurate. She’s opening up in the DNC with both rhetorical barrels, accusing them of peddling “tepid, corporatized, compromised truths.” As for the current frontrunners, Williamson has a piece of her mind for them as well. They are described as, “political leftovers, prepackaged as bromides with all the vitality and richness of spoiled food.”

Assuming she wrote this herself (and I have no reason to suspect otherwise), I’ll have to confess to being impressed. She knows how to turn a phrase and hurl some snark. And a dose of that certainly would have livened up that tedious debate on Tuesday.

Look, I’m not saying I actually want the woman to become the leader of the free world. She still comes off all too often as ten pounds of crazy packed into a five-pound bag. But she can definitely liven up any forum she’s involved in. When she really gets revved up, you never know where she’s going next. And sooner or later she’s bound to invoke the mystical power of love as the only path to defeating the Bad Orange Man.

But hey… if this presidential thing doesn’t work out for her, she might consider applying for a job writing with us. That was some Class A bombast on display.

The post Marianne Williamson: No, I’m not dropping out. Why do you ask? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Williamson-300x153 Marianne Williamson: No, I’m not dropping out. Why do you ask? Washington Post The Blog marianne williamson editorial drop out 2020 Democratic primaries 2020 Democrat debates   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WaPo: Reporting on Elizabeth Warren lying is an unfair smear

Westlake Legal Group EWarren WaPo: Reporting on Elizabeth Warren lying is an unfair smear Washington Post WaPo The Blog lying Elizabeth Warren 2020 Democratic primaries

This whole story about Elizabeth Warren supposedly being fired from a teaching job because she was pregnant has taken on a life of its own. This is almost entirely her own fault because I don’t recall anyone else bringing it up until she started telling the tale repeatedly on the campaign trail. A bit of investigation by the Washington Free Beacon soon revealed that she had actually been offered another term teaching and her resignation had been accepted “with regret.”

Reporting on the story is, however, apparently some sort of sin, at least in the eyes of Margaret Sullivan at the Washington Post. It’s a “smear.” And this terrible attack on Warren’s honesty and credibility must be put to rights one way or another. With that in mind, the author launches into a defense of Warren, opening with the mindboggling sentence, “A news report can be narrowly factual, and still plenty unfair.”

Lady, you had me at “narrowly factual.” Let’s see what this is about.

It wasn’t until the next day that some much-needed perspective began to emerge, thanks to a CBS News report.

It included crucial context that would have been ever-so-helpful in the initial piece, like this interview with a retired Riverdale teacher, Trudy Randall:

“The rule was at five months you had to leave when you were pregnant. Now, if you didn’t tell anybody you were pregnant, and they didn’t know, you could fudge it and try to stay on a little bit longer. But they kind of wanted you out if you were pregnant.”

The author goes on to quote Warren’s latest explanation of this apparent contradiction, saying that she was pregnant but “nobody knew it.” And when it became too obvious to hide, the principal called her into the office, wished her luck and said he was going to “hire somebody else for the job.” That’s a statement full of implications, but notice how she still never comes out and says the words “he fired me” or any variation along those lines.

And why would the official record show that the school accepted her resignation “with regret” if the official policy was to ask female teachers to leave at five months into their pregnancy?

This all supposedly took place almost fifty years ago in 1971, before many people reading this were even born. Presumably, anyone who had been around long enough to rise to the rank of principal or sit on the school board was at least in their thirties or forties by then, so they’re likely no longer alive. Certainly someone would have sought out an interview with the principal were he still among the living. So what we have here is Warren’s word against that of a dead man.

The statement from the retired teacher offers no indication that she was familiar with the circumstances of Warren’s departure or if the two even knew each other. She’s describing her impression of what could generously be called an unofficial policy. In other words, you can believe what was reported in the minutes from the Riverdale, N.J. school board or what Warren is now saying. (I specify “now” because it’s also been pointed out that she described her departure from the school during a 2007 interview without ever mentioning being fired.)

In other words, this entire piece builds a case for why it’s still possible that Warren is telling the truth without offering a single bit of factual evidence or even first-person testimony from anyone involved in the situation in 1971. It’s pure speculation, but apparently sufficient to call any reference to the school’s records a “smear.” Of course, Sullivan later goes on to describe Warren’s claims of significant Native American heritage as a “blunder.” (Which sounds so much nicer than a lie.)

But hey… just because something is “narrowly factual” doesn’t mean it’s true, right?

The post WaPo: Reporting on Elizabeth Warren lying is an unfair smear appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group EWarren-300x153 WaPo: Reporting on Elizabeth Warren lying is an unfair smear Washington Post WaPo The Blog lying Elizabeth Warren 2020 Democratic primaries   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WaPo: Reporting on Elizabeth Warren lying is an unfair smear

Westlake Legal Group EWarren WaPo: Reporting on Elizabeth Warren lying is an unfair smear Washington Post WaPo The Blog lying Elizabeth Warren 2020 Democratic primaries

This whole story about Elizabeth Warren supposedly being fired from a teaching job because she was pregnant has taken on a life of its own. This is almost entirely her own fault because I don’t recall anyone else bringing it up until she started telling the tale repeatedly on the campaign trail. A bit of investigation by the Washington Free Beacon soon revealed that she had actually been offered another term teaching and her resignation had been accepted “with regret.”

Reporting on the story is, however, apparently some sort of sin, at least in the eyes of Margaret Sullivan at the Washington Post. It’s a “smear.” And this terrible attack on Warren’s honesty and credibility must be put to rights one way or another. With that in mind, the author launches into a defense of Warren, opening with the mindboggling sentence, “A news report can be narrowly factual, and still plenty unfair.”

Lady, you had me at “narrowly factual.” Let’s see what this is about.

It wasn’t until the next day that some much-needed perspective began to emerge, thanks to a CBS News report.

It included crucial context that would have been ever-so-helpful in the initial piece, like this interview with a retired Riverdale teacher, Trudy Randall:

“The rule was at five months you had to leave when you were pregnant. Now, if you didn’t tell anybody you were pregnant, and they didn’t know, you could fudge it and try to stay on a little bit longer. But they kind of wanted you out if you were pregnant.”

The author goes on to quote Warren’s latest explanation of this apparent contradiction, saying that she was pregnant but “nobody knew it.” And when it became too obvious to hide, the principal called her into the office, wished her luck and said he was going to “hire somebody else for the job.” That’s a statement full of implications, but notice how she still never comes out and says the words “he fired me” or any variation along those lines.

And why would the official record show that the school accepted her resignation “with regret” if the official policy was to ask female teachers to leave at five months into their pregnancy?

This all supposedly took place almost fifty years ago in 1971, before many people reading this were even born. Presumably, anyone who had been around long enough to rise to the rank of principal or sit on the school board was at least in their thirties or forties by then, so they’re likely no longer alive. Certainly someone would have sought out an interview with the principal were he still among the living. So what we have here is Warren’s word against that of a dead man.

The statement from the retired teacher offers no indication that she was familiar with the circumstances of Warren’s departure or if the two even knew each other. She’s describing her impression of what could generously be called an unofficial policy. In other words, you can believe what was reported in the minutes from the Riverdale, N.J. school board or what Warren is now saying. (I specify “now” because it’s also been pointed out that she described her departure from the school during a 2007 interview without ever mentioning being fired.)

In other words, this entire piece builds a case for why it’s still possible that Warren is telling the truth without offering a single bit of factual evidence or even first-person testimony from anyone involved in the situation in 1971. It’s pure speculation, but apparently sufficient to call any reference to the school’s records a “smear.” Of course, Sullivan later goes on to describe Warren’s claims of significant Native American heritage as a “blunder.” (Which sounds so much nicer than a lie.)

But hey… just because something is “narrowly factual” doesn’t mean it’s true, right?

The post WaPo: Reporting on Elizabeth Warren lying is an unfair smear appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group EWarren-300x153 WaPo: Reporting on Elizabeth Warren lying is an unfair smear Washington Post WaPo The Blog lying Elizabeth Warren 2020 Democratic primaries   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

‘Flat-Out False’: Unlikely Source Calls Out Adam Schiff For Lying About Dealings With Whistleblower

Westlake Legal Group AdamSchiffAPimage-620x317 ‘Flat-Out False’: Unlikely Source Calls Out Adam Schiff For Lying About Dealings With Whistleblower Washington Post washington D.C. Ukraine Social Media Politics North Carolina Media journalism Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Glenn Kessler Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Fact Check donald trump democrats Culture Congress California Allow Media Exception adam schiff

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., talks to reporters about the release by the White House of a transcript of a call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelenskiy, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2019. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

As we all know, a broken clock is right twice a day, and in this instance the broken clock is none other than the reliably left-leaning crew at the Washington Post.

Glenn Kessler, the paper’s fact checker, surprisingly took House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff to the woodshed today for recent (false) claims he made stating his office had “not spoken directly with the whistleblower” at the center of the Trump/Zelensky phone call controversy:

“Have you heard from the whistleblower? Do you want to hear from the whistleblower? What protections could you provide to the whistleblower?” [Sam] Stein, an MSNBC contributor, asked on “Morning Joe.”

“We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to,” Schiff responded. “But I am sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires, by the inspector general or the director of national Intelligence just how he is supposed to communicate with Congress, and so the risk to the whistleblower is retaliation.”

The Post said Schiff’s response was “flat-out false.”

“Schiff on ‘Morning Joe’ clearly made a statement that was false,” the fact-checker said. “He now says he’s was answering the wrong question, but if that was the case, he should have quickly corrected the record. He compounded his falsehood by telling reporters a few days later that if not for the [inspector general’s] office, the committee would not have known about the complaint. That again suggested there had been no prior communication.”

Kessler also pointed out two other instances of Schiff being dishonest on this same question. One of them was during a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper and the other was during a Capitol Hill press conference.

As a result of his “flat-out false” comments, Kessler awarded Schiff with four Pinocchios.

Kessler, who I suspect has a mostly liberal audience of loyal Twitter followers, took issue with President Trump’s touting of the ruling, and made note several times of the fact that he had ruled similarly on some Trump claims as well. But his tweets sorta kinda missed the point:

I helpfully fact checked the fact checker himself:

Sometimes they make it too easy.

Related:

  • Brit Hume Lays The Smack Down On Adam Schiff’s Defenders
  • Video: Pelosi Just Outright Lies About Schiff’s Parody Stunt, Gets Called Out By Fellow Democrat
  • ——-
    — Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

    The post ‘Flat-Out False’: Unlikely Source Calls Out Adam Schiff For Lying About Dealings With Whistleblower appeared first on RedState.

    Westlake Legal Group AdamSchiffAPimage-300x153 ‘Flat-Out False’: Unlikely Source Calls Out Adam Schiff For Lying About Dealings With Whistleblower Washington Post washington D.C. Ukraine Social Media Politics North Carolina Media journalism Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Glenn Kessler Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Fact Check donald trump democrats Culture Congress California Allow Media Exception adam schiff   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

    WaPo, Chris Matthews Make the Case for Pence to be Impeached and You Know What THAT Means

    Westlake Legal Group Chris-Matthews-620x399 WaPo, Chris Matthews Make the Case for Pence to be Impeached and You Know What THAT Means Washington Post President Trump Nancy Pelosi Mike Pence kamala harris Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Congress Chris Matthews Chris Coons Campaigns Allow Media Exception Allapundit Abuse of Power 2020

     

    Here’s a subject that no Democratic lawmakers will touch right now. The thinking is: Pence is implicated in Trump’s campaign to pressure Ukraine to reopen their investigation into Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. Although Pence never mentioned Biden’s name to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, he was after all, involved in communicating the delay of the U.S. aid and at the request of President Trump, he skipped Zelensky’s inauguration. Shouldn’t Pence be impeached too? A rather low bar for impeachment to be sure, but that’s all they’ve got right now.

    The media, on the other hand, has no such reservations. The last few days have seen a couple of Washington Post articles arguing for Pence’s impeachment, a story in the Associated Press and a handful of others.

    In the video below, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews speaks to Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE). Matthews asks: “The Vice President now according to reporting as of tonight seems to have engaged in the same thing Trump was engaged in which is basically shaking down a foreign leader to get dirt on a political opponent, the candidate you’re supporting, Joe Biden. Shouldn’t he be the subject of an impeachment inquiry as well at this point?”

    Coons, a bit taken aback, replies, “Well, at this point, look Chris, I think it’s important that we focus on the facts here. The facts are that we tie –”

    Matthews, not hearing what he wants to hear, abruptly cuts him off and says, “I’m talking the facts. I realize [Trump has] got William Barr, the Attorney General in cahoots with him. He’s got Secretary of State, Pompeo, in cahoots with him. Now, he’s got the Vice President dragged into this cabal.”

    The video then shows him speaking to Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA). “You know, if possible, if it comes to a Senate trial, and it may well by the end of this year where you’ll be a juror in that trial for removal of the President from office after he’s impeached, if that develops as the history of this year, you’re going to a Vice President of the United States who would take the presidency after having been involved personally in the cabal that we’d be impeaching the President for. How does that make sense historically? If Pence was part of this how could he survive as president when Trump goes?”

    Kamala does not muster a tremendous amount of enthusiasm over the idea.

    Last night, the Washington Post channeled Matthews and published a lengthy piece enumerating Pence’s interactions with Zelensky. It reads like a primer on the anatomy of a political smear. Here are some excerpts:

    The president used Pence to tell Zelensky that U.S. aid was still being withheld while demanding more aggressive action on corruption, officials said. At that time — following Trump’s July 25 phone call with Zelenksy — the Ukrainians probably understood action on corruption to include the investigation of former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

    Officials close to Pence insist that he was unaware of Trump’s efforts to press Zelensky for damaging information about Biden and his son, who had served on the board of an obscure Ukrainian gas company, when his father was overseeing U.S. policy on Ukraine.

    Pence’s activities occurred amid several indications of the president’s hidden agenda. Among them were the abrupt removal of the U.S. ambassador to Kiev; the visible efforts by the president’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, to insert himself in the U.S.-Ukraine relationship; as well as alarms being raised inside the White House even before the emergence of an extraordinary whistleblower complaint about Trump’s conduct.

    Perhaps most significantly, one of Pence’s top advisers [national security advisor Keith Kellogg] was on the July 25 call and the vice president should have had access to the transcript within hours, officials said.

    The authors do at least acknowledge that Kellogg found nothing unusual about the call, nor did he “flag any concerns” to Pence.

    Democrats will find a way to interpret anything involving Trump in the most negative way possible which is what they are doing here. The impeachment of both Trump and Pence would set the stage for a President Pelosi, a dream come true for war weary Democrats.

    Why is this idea starting to gain traction among the left leaning press, yet no one in Congress appears to want to talk about it?

    For one thing, the optics would be bad for them. Maybe they realize they’ve already grossly overstepped by basing their case for Trump’s impeachment on a routine phone call.

    Hot Air’s Allapundit has a theory and it goes like this. President Trump, along with many Republicans, myself included, see the Democrats impeachment inquiry as another coup attempt. The thinking is, that if lawmakers call for Pence to be impeached along with Trump, it’s the same as saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should be President.

    Now that would truly seem like a coup. Actually, it would be a coup. In fact, it’s already a coup.

    The post WaPo, Chris Matthews Make the Case for Pence to be Impeached and You Know What THAT Means appeared first on RedState.

    Westlake Legal Group Chris-Matthews-300x193 WaPo, Chris Matthews Make the Case for Pence to be Impeached and You Know What THAT Means Washington Post President Trump Nancy Pelosi Mike Pence kamala harris Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Congress Chris Matthews Chris Coons Campaigns Allow Media Exception Allapundit Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

    As Many as 130 Democrat State Department Employees May Lose Security Clearances Because of Hillary Clinton’s Bathroom Server

    You thought it was dead, but it was just lying dormant waiting for the right moment to rise and to the maximum possible damage.

    The Trump administration is investigating the email records of dozens of current and former senior State Department officials who sent messages to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email, reviving a politically toxic matter that overshadowed the 2016 election, current and former officials said.

    As many as 130 officials have been contacted in recent weeks by State Department investigators — a list that includes senior officials who reported directly to Clinton as well as others in lower-level jobs whose emails were at some point relayed to her inbox, said current and former State Department officials. Those targeted were notified that emails they sent years ago have been retroactively classified and now constitute potential security violations, according to letters reviewed by The Washington Post.

    State Department investigators began contacting the former officials about 18 months ago, after President Trump’s election, and then seemed to drop the effort before picking it up in August, officials said.

    The list of State officials being questioned includes prominent ambassadors and assistant secretaries of state responsible for U.S. policy in the Middle East, Europe and Central Asia. But it also includes dozens of current and former career bureaucrats who served as conduits for outside officials trying to get important messages to Clinton.

    What is interesting is that the Democrats understand exactly what the stakes are here. They don’t care about Hillary’s gravy infused ass bouncing off the curb. They con’t care about has beens like Susan Rice or Samantha Power. The stakes here are nothing less that the next generation of Democrat foreign policy apparatchiks.

    To many of those under scrutiny, including some of the Democratic Party’s top foreign policy experts, the recent flurry of activity surrounding the Clinton email case represents a new front on which the Trump administration could be accused of employing the powers of the executive branch against perceived political adversaries.

    A former senior U.S. official familiar with the email investigation described it as a way for Republicans “to keep the Clinton email issue alive.” The former official said the probe was “a way to tarnish a whole bunch of Democratic foreign policy people” and discourage if not prevent them from returning to government service.

    If people like Phillipe Reines, just for instance, because I know he’d never do anything totally skeevy, broke some security policy or regulation, of if Jake Sullivan was found to have, say, stripped classification markers from emails so he could send them to Hillary’s private email, then their ability to obtain a future security clearance would be zero without White House direction…and that would cause a reopening of this scandal which on president would want.

    In short, every Democrat in State Department who communicated with Hillary Clinton about government matters, particularly classified matters, will have their clearance in placed in jeopardy.

    But there is more. Several of the document located on Hillary Clinton’s bathroom server originated inside the highly secure SIPRNet and could only be seen in a SCIF. Either someone violated the law and downloaded those documents/images or someone violated the law by bringing into the SCIF a smartphone and using the camera to take a picture of the document/image. These people’s careers are over.

    What is hilarious is the way the Washington Post shills on this, Greg Miller, Greg Jaffe and Karoun Demirjian, blatantly engage in the use of Democrat talking points to defend the Democrats who are now under investigation.

    Former Obama administration officials, however, described the probe as a remarkably aggressive crackdown by an administration with its own troubled record of handling classified material. Trump has improperly disclosed classified information to foreign officials and used phones that national security officials warned were vulnerable to foreign surveillance, according to current and former officials.

    What you’re reading there is not an argument it is a very lame excuse. Trump can’t “improperly disclose” classified material because he is the at the top of the nation’s classification system. He can literally declassify whatever he wishes. The major breaches of security under Trump have all originated with leakers trying to damage his presidency.

    Imagine, though, a world in which 130 Democrats who worked for Hillary Clinton are unable to ever again hold a security clearance or work in the Federal government. Imagine the baristas regaling customers about the wars they started for no particular reason or the nations they turned over to Islamic extremists simply to show they weren’t Bush. What a wonderful place it would be, right?

    =========
    =========
    Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

    I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
    =========
    =========

    The post As Many as 130 Democrat State Department Employees May Lose Security Clearances Because of Hillary Clinton’s Bathroom Server appeared first on RedState.

    Westlake Legal Group hillary-clinton-email-flickr-cc-300x169 As Many as 130 Democrat State Department Employees May Lose Security Clearances Because of Hillary Clinton’s Bathroom Server Washington Post State Department Politics Media Karoun Demirjian hillary cllinton email scandal Hillary Clinton Greg Miller Greg Jaffe Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

    The Media Tries To Cover For Adam Schiff’s Dishonesty But He Knows Exactly What He’s Doing

    Westlake Legal Group schiff-bug-eyes-620x566 The Media Tries To Cover For Adam Schiff’s Dishonesty But He Knows Exactly What He’s Doing whistleblower complaint Washington Post Politics Politico Media Front Page Stories Featured Story douchebaggery donald trump democrats Congress Allow Media Exception adam schiff Aaron Blake

    Yesterday, California congressman and renowned pencil-neck Adam Schiff made his history of bizarre and inappropriate actions even more bizarre and inappropriate by reading his own made-up version of President Trump’s conversation with Ukraine President Zelensky into the Congressional Record as though it were real.

    This is the essence of what the president communicates: We’ve been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what, I don’t see much reciprocity here. You know what I mean? I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of dirt, on this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, and not just any people. I’m going to put you in touch with the Attorney General of the United States — my Attorney General, Bill Barr — he’s got the whole weight of American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy, you’re going to love him. Trust me. You know what I’m asking, so I’m only going to say this a few more times, in a few more ways. And don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.

    As soon as sane people objected to Schiff trying to turn an allegedly serious hearing into a dramatic reading try-out for America’s Got Talent, the media jumped to his defense. Here’s the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake carrying water for Schiff:

    Here’s Politico doing the same. In their deranged little fantasy, the GOP are the bad guys for complaining about Schiff’s tactic.

    — House Intelligence Chairman ADAM SCHIFF (D-Calif.) focused on whether MAGUIRE went to the White House before DOJ to seek guidance on how to deal with the whistleblower complaint. Note: Schiff started the hearing with an imagined conversation between Trump and the Ukrainian president. Republicans continually brought this up, saying he was trying to mislead people.

    CNN’s Wolf Blitzer tried to give him a way out but Schiff declined. Why? Because he knows he can literally do anything he wants and the stump-broke political press in Washington, D.C., will still give him a tongue-bath.

    This was not a parody, it was a calculated strategy. Schiff knows his allies at CNN/MSNBC?ABC/CBS/NBC will play his soliloquy without any preface and leave the viewers under the impression that he read from the transcript directly. Again, this type of bone-deep dishonesty and lack of integrity is just who Adam Schiff is. We’ve known that for three years…at least. What is becoming obvious is that the media aren’t just left-leaning, they are every bit a duplicitous as Schiff.

    =========
    =========
    Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

    I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
    =========
    =========

    The post The Media Tries To Cover For Adam Schiff’s Dishonesty But He Knows Exactly What He’s Doing appeared first on RedState.

    Westlake Legal Group schiff-bug-eyes-300x274 The Media Tries To Cover For Adam Schiff’s Dishonesty But He Knows Exactly What He’s Doing whistleblower complaint Washington Post Politics Politico Media Front Page Stories Featured Story douchebaggery donald trump democrats Congress Allow Media Exception adam schiff Aaron Blake   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

    Has Pelosi’s impeachment dam been breached by freshman Democrats?

    Westlake Legal Group Nancy-Pelosi-downcast Has Pelosi’s impeachment dam been breached by freshman Democrats? Washington Post Ukraine The Blog President Trump impeachment democrats Common Defense

    The ground is shifting under Speaker Pelosi’s feet. Freshmen Democrat lawmakers are moving to the dark side as they align themselves with their colleagues calling for impeachment inquiries to begin.

    Monday night, the Washington Post published an op-ed signed off on by seven freshman Democrats These lawmakers are noteworthy because they were elected in districts that went for President Trump in 2016. They are part of the Democrat caucus that up until now have gone along with Speaker Pelosi in her decision to hold off on moving toward impeaching the president. As a matter of fact, all but one were very vocally against moving in that direction. They didn’t want to be forced to cast a vote and mire up their re-election campaigns.

    Reps. Gil Cisneros of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Elaine Luria of Virginia, Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Abigail Spanberger of Virginia have a new message. Of those seven, only Crow had previously called for impeachment proceedings to begin. They are all ready to speak up and align themselves with the far left, like the Squad. It’s all because of the Ukraine story. These representatives are military veterans or national security types who look upon the alleged withholding of military aid to Ukraine as a national security risk that President Trump unnecessarily took, thus he is unfit to be president. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, (D-NJ) said on CNN this morning, “The president has crossed a line.” Rep. Jason Crow said, “Our adult lives have been defined by national security. We call on all of our colleagues in both chambers in Congress, in both parties to step up to the plate and make sure we are defending our country.”

    Sherrill said they told Pelosi that the op-ed would run in WaPo this morning but it was published online last night when I read it. I could feel the excitement of reporters gleefully tweeting about a “significant development”.

    These freshmen consider themselves a “close group” as Crow told CNN’s Alisyn Camarota. What neither Crow nor Sherrill admitted, though, to Ms. Camarota is that all but Cisneros were lobbied by a group of liberal veterans in Common Defense. All last week, members of Common Defense were meeting with Democrat members of Congress and their staffs on the question of impeachment. They met with six of those seven — all except Cisneros. The language in the WaPo op-ed is the same as the language found on Common Defense’s website.

    Here are two examples:

    “We have devoted our lives to the service and security of our country, and throughout our careers, we have sworn oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States many times over…”

    “To uphold and defend our Constitution, Congress must determine whether the president was indeed willing to use his power and withhold security assistance funds to persuade a foreign country to assist him in an upcoming election.”

    To be clear, Common Defense is a group of veterans working against President Trump. Their website explains “Common Defense was founded in 2016 by veterans who oppose Trump’s corrupt agenda of hate. Together we will reclaim our democracy and build a truly grassroots movement to fight for our future.”

    We empower veterans to stand up for our communities against the rising tide of hate and violence, serve on the front lines for social, economic, and environmental justice, champion a truly equitable and representative democracy and preserve the core American values we swore to uphold and defend.

    Historically, right-wing billionaires and politicians have exploited veterans like us as political props. In order to win in 2020 and build a sustainable progressive movement going forward, we must invest in organizing the country’s 6-8 million progressive veterans – and not just by helping elite veterans run for office or appear in television ads.

    The majority of American veterans are working class, diverse, heavily located in key swing states and districts, and among the most trusted and persuasive organizers, canvassers, and leaders within our communities. Common Defense is the only organization focused on engaging this critical demographic, which could hold the key to the progressive movement’s long-term success.

    Pelosi has held Democrats who are eager for impeachment proceedings back so far but that may be changing. She meets today with leaders in the caucus and seems to be more open to the opening of impeachment inquiries now that the Ukraine story is all over cable news.

    Pelosi, according to multiple senior House Democrats and congressional aides, has been gauging the mood of her caucus members about whether they believe that allegations that Trump pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate a political foe are a tipping point. She was making calls as late as Monday night, and many leadership aides who once thought Trump’s impeachment was unlikely now say they think it’s almost inevitable.

    But an official familiar with her thinking warned that just because she was considering impeachment didn’t mean it would happen right away. The person said the process still needs to play out.

    The impeachment dam hasn’t burst yet but it is definitely springing leaks. More moderate Democrats – those not in the Squad or the far left – are feeling more emboldened to push forward with impeachment inquiries, though not necessarily impeachment proceedings. It’s a way for them to continue to move slowly while not jumping all – in for impeachment. All of this, mind you, still over the latest story of corruption that the Democrats are using against President Trump. The Ukraine story is still little more than gossip – details haven’t been brought forward publicly and debate is going on within the administration as to if they should release the complaint or the transcript of the telephone conversation between Trump and Zelensky.

    The latest Democrats joining the impeachment chorus have to be conflicted about coming out for it now. Rep. Debbie Dingall, a Democrat from Michigan who is in leadership, now calls for an inquiry after remaining cautious all long. As Rep. Sherrill noted on CNN this morning, most of the voters in her district likely will not agree with her decision. I live in a district that voted to send a Democrat to Congress for the first time ever in 2018. I doubt my district would have enough voter support for impeachment, though.

    It is amazing to watch the Democrats toss due process out the window once again. Will this new enthusiasm for impeachment unite conservatives, Republicans, and Independents against the strengthening Democrat tide, as it did during the Kavanaugh hearings? I think it very well may.

    The post Has Pelosi’s impeachment dam been breached by freshman Democrats? appeared first on Hot Air.

    Westlake Legal Group Nancy-Pelosi-downcast-300x153 Has Pelosi’s impeachment dam been breached by freshman Democrats? Washington Post Ukraine The Blog President Trump impeachment democrats Common Defense   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

    Reports: Trump ordered military aid to Ukraine blocked not long before phone call with president

    Westlake Legal Group t-14 Reports: Trump ordered military aid to Ukraine blocked not long before phone call with president zelensky Washington Post Ukraine Trump The Blog shokin New York Times military aid investigation biden

    This isn’t proof that Trump intended to use the money as leverage to get the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens, but obviously it’s something one would do *if* one intended to use it that way. Turn off the foreign-aid spigot, make a polite request of Zelensky about corruption and the Biden/Burisma matter, then wait to see how he reacts. If the probe is opened, the spigot reopens too. If not, then not.

    The most notable detail in these stories from WaPo and the NYT — apart from the fact that it was Trump himself who ordered that the Ukraine aid be withheld — are how many U.S. officials were reportedly surprised to see the money suddenly and mysteriously bottled up. There are various non-sinister excuses offered by different sources in the two stories for why Trump may have wanted to delay it:

    — he wanted to reduce foreign aid generally;
    — he wasn’t sure about the “effectiveness” of new aid to Ukraine;
    — he couldn’t tell yet if Zelensky was pro-western or pro-Russian;
    — he was concerned about domestic corruption;
    — he resented that Europe hadn’t done more to provide its own aid to Ukraine, a claim he made this morning at the UN.

    The countertheory to all of that is that he was hoping to muscle Zelensky into going after the Bidens and wanted to hold onto the money until he saw some action on the Ukrainians’ part. Either way, notes WaPo, various Americans who were part of the aid process were concerned about the mysterious delay.

    Administration officials were instructed to tell lawmakers that the delays were part of an “interagency process” but to give them no additional information — a pattern that continued for nearly two months, until the White House released the funds on the night of Sept. 11…

    Besides [John] Bolton [who wanted the money released to help combat Russia], several other administration officials said they did not know why the aid was being canceled or why a meeting was not being scheduled

    By mid-August, lawmakers were acutely aware that the OMB had assumed all decision-making authority from the Defense and State departments and was delaying the distribution of the aid through a series of short-term notices. Several congressional officials questioned whether the OMB had the legal authority to direct federal agencies not to spend money that Congress had already authorized, aides said.

    That’s a new angle for impeachment-minded Democrats to chew on. Was it even legal for Trump to have OMB intervene to block aid that had already been appropriated?

    The Times’s account makes the sequence of events sound even more suspicious:

    The decision to hold back the aid, which had been approved by Congress, came at a time when the president was looking for ways to curb a variety of foreign assistance programs, and some aides at least initially saw it in that broader context. But Mr. Trump singled out Ukraine as a place he considered corrupt and railed about wasting money there, according to people who heard him discuss the matter, and he questioned the aid package for weeks…

    It soon became clear that the Ukraine aid freeze was different from the hold placed on other programs. Even after other foreign aid was restored, the money for Ukraine remained blocked.

    American government officials were left in the dark, as well. When staff members at the State and Defense Departments who work on issues related to Ukraine learned of the holds in July, they were puzzled and alarmed, according to current and former government officials familiar with the situation.

    Pentagon officials tried to make a case to the White House that the Ukraine aid was effective and should not be looked at in the same manner as other aid. But when those arguments were ignored, and when the other aid was allowed to move forward, the Pentagon officials began to wonder about the White House’s skepticism, a former official said.

    The U.S. government doles out a lot of money to a lot of corrupt regimes, yet somehow Ukraine drew Trump’s special attention. Eventually members of Congress began sniffing around the aid delay, notes the Times, with some Republicans and Democrats sending a letter to Mick Mulvaney earlier this month pressing him to release the funds. Republican Rob Portman called Trump about it too. Still nothing from the White House. Eventually Dick Durbin played hardball with Trump by warning that he would block the appropriation of $5 billion in money for the Pentagon unless Trump released the money. Trump buddy Lindsey Graham allegedly told the president that he was prepared to support Durbin’s amendment. That’s how alarming and unusual this was — even one of Trump’s friendliest Republican allies were prepared to join with Democrats to force his hand.

    Trump eventually released the money on September 11. Which raises a question: How long was he prepared to withhold Ukraine’s aid if Congress hadn’t twisted his arm to fork it over? Was he hoping to keep it in his pocket until Zelensky formally opened an investigation into the Bidens? Because that would look an awful lot like extortion.

    The Times notes that Zelensky hadn’t realized yet when he spoke to Trump on July 25 that the aid package had been delayed. That’s a good fact for Trump in that it means POTUS must not have issued any ultimatums to Zelensky during the call. He did, however, allegedly press Zelensky repeatedly to speak to Rudy Giuliani, who was his point man on the Biden matter. And Zelensky figured out soon enough that there was a hold up in American military aid — and, if you believe Dem Sen. Chris Murphy, he also figured out the likely reason. From WaPo:

    Murphy, who spoke with Zelensky during an early September visit to Ukraine, said Monday that the Ukrainian president “directly” expressed concerns at their meeting that “the aid that was being cut off to Ukraine by the president was a consequence” of his unwillingness to launch an investigation into the Bidens.

    Trump himself admitted today at the UN that he put “pressure” on Zelensky about the Biden matter during their call, although he continues to insist that there was no threat involving the military aid tied to that pressure. (Watch below at around 1:25.) His problem from the standpoint of impeachment is that Democrats aren’t looking for evidence of an explicit quid pro quo demand here. The fact that he was leaning on a foreign government to use state power to investigate an American political rival will be grounds enough for them to act, whether or not Trump dangled the aid that Ukraine was owed — although, if he did, obviously that would make the abuse-of-power case even easier.

    It’s interesting to see Bolton’s name pop up in all of this, incidentally, particularly as portrayed in the WaPo piece as the man of rectitude who wanted to do the right thing by releasing the aid ASAP and making life harder for the Russians while Trump dithered. Is Bolton a source for the papers on the Ukraine story? He’s one of the few people who was high enough up in the administration to have been in the room for some of these conversations *and* who’s incentivized to settle scores with the president.

    The post Reports: Trump ordered military aid to Ukraine blocked not long before phone call with president appeared first on Hot Air.

    Westlake Legal Group t-14-300x153 Reports: Trump ordered military aid to Ukraine blocked not long before phone call with president zelensky Washington Post Ukraine Trump The Blog shokin New York Times military aid investigation biden   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com