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 > Posts tagged "democrats" (Page 132)

Facts First: CNN Has a Problematic History When It Comes to Fostering a Climate of Hate and Anti-Semitism

Westlake Legal Group CNN-620x349 Facts First: CNN Has a Problematic History When It Comes to Fostering a Climate of Hate and Anti-Semitism Social Media Politics North Carolina New York Media journalism Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture CNN anti-semitism Allow Media Exception #FactsFirst

Red State‘s Bonchie wrote a must-read post earlier today about how CNN announced on Thursday the resignation of photo editor and occasional news article writer Mohammed Elshamy after virulently anti-Semitic posts were discovered on his Twitter feed.

It probably won’t surprise many of you to find out that this isn’t the first time the network has had to part ways with an employee who has engaged in anti-Semitism.

Ed Driscoll at Instapundit‘s blog writes:

A week ago, Jewish Insider reported that “Former CNN commentator Marc Lamont Hill claimed that news outlets like NBC and ABC were ‘Zionist organizations’ that produced ‘Zionist content,’ during a panel on Friday at the annual Netroots Nation summit held by progressive activists in Philadelphia…Hill’s comments came less than a year after he lost his CNN perch after calling for a ‘free Palestine from the river to the sea,’ during an appearance at the U.N. The statement was interpreted by many as a call for the elimination of Israel, something Hill denied.”

In 2014, the Washington Free Beacon reported that “CNN International correspondent Diana Magnay referred to a group of Israelis as ‘scum’ after she claimed that they were standing on a hill near the town of Sderot cheering as bombs landed in Gaza, according to a screen-shot of the comment captured by National Review.”

When CNN’s senior editor of Mideast affairs Octavia Nasr was fired in 2010, for tweeting, “Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.. One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot,” Cal Thomas opined, “The dirty little secret here is that she was simply expressing viewpoints that is widespread not only in the American media but much of the Euro media. […] Christiane Amanpour [CNN international journo] holds many of these views as well, I would daresay, but she is smart enough and sophisticated enough not to stick them on a Tweet.”

Yep. Like Democratic politicians in Washington, D.C. (like, for example, the Congressional Black Caucus), some liberal journalists and commentators at major news networks are better at hiding their anti-Semitism than others.

As Bonchie noted earlier in his write-up, CNN‘s chief media firefighter Brian Stelter has barely touched this issue. We know that would not be the case if this had happened at Fox News, of which Stelter has been unrelentingly critical:

Would Stelter and the rest of CNN shrug this off if any other outlet made this mistake? Of course they wouldn’t. Imagine for a second that The Daily Caller hired a white supremacist, even inadvertently. Would CNN at least put out a story detailing what happened? Would there be a myriad of scolding tweets from CNN personalities? The answer is unequivocally yes, so while I can perhaps believe that CNN didn’t intentionally hire this guy, their hypocrisy is glaring enough to not ignore.

Not only that, but consider this, too, in the context of CNN‘s history of flirting with anti-Semitism: Not only have they had these hate-filled individuals on their staff, but they also provide cover for anti-Semitical politicians, as they have done for Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).

As I wrote last week on the issue of Stelter backpatting himself over his network’s definitive labeling Trump’s controversial tweets about The Squad as “racist”, CNN’s standards on how to label controversial comments made by politicians is staggeringly inconsistent.

They’ll call Trump’s tweets “racist”, but when it comes to anti-Semitical comments made by Omar and Tlaib, qualifiers similar to “critics say” and “some suggest” always apply in their straight news reporting.

Lastly, there is this, too:

Yeah. Odd, that.

—————-
— 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 Facts First: CNN Has a Problematic History When It Comes to Fostering a Climate of Hate and Anti-Semitism appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group CNN-300x169 Facts First: CNN Has a Problematic History When It Comes to Fostering a Climate of Hate and Anti-Semitism Social Media Politics North Carolina New York Media journalism Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture CNN anti-semitism Allow Media Exception #FactsFirst  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A Delusional Pelosi Claims Mueller Hearing Proved Trump Obstructed Justice, but Let’s See What Mueller Said

Westlake Legal Group NancyPelosi-AP-620x352 A Delusional Pelosi Claims Mueller Hearing Proved Trump Obstructed Justice, but Let’s See What Mueller Said Robert Mueller Politics obstruction of justice Nancy Pelosi Mueller Investigation Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

If you sat through the slog that was the hearings about the Mueller investigation with Robert Mueller, you would have pulled away with very little in the way of useful information, at least if you were a Democrat. If you were a Republican, it reaffirmed what you already knew; that this three-year investigation that cost us $20 million was a shame of a desperation move by Democrats to impeach Trump.

Even CNN admitted that Trump came out as the clear winner of that hearing.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently came away with an entirely different take. According to her, Mueller “confirmed in the public mind that the president has obstructed justice.”

Yeah, I’m not sure how she walked away with that either. Not only did the hearing not give off that impression at all, but Mueller himself was very clear that no obstruction took place.

Just so we’re all on the same page, here’s Mueller giving a very direct answer to the question “at any time during the investigation was your investigation curtailed or stopped?”

Just to be clear, and because some of the Democrats seem to be very confused here, Mueller’s answer was “no.”

No obstruction took place. Period. Done. Finito.

I actually thought after the Democrats received their proverbial whooping after the Mueller hearings had concluded that they would walk away. It would appear, however, that Pelosi has no intention of letting dead horses lie. She’s going to beat the corpse of the Mueller investigation until it’s nothing but atoms.

It’s interesting to me that Democrats are far more interested in a failed investigation, and would make up blatant lies about the conclusion of said investigation than they are with the current crop of 2020 Democrats who are running against Trump.

As I wrote earlier this week, this doesn’t speak well to the Democrats faith in their chances in 2020. They’d rather continue to focus on an impeachment that definitely isn’t going to happen now than actually give attention to their last best chance at kicking Trump out of the White House.

 

The post A Delusional Pelosi Claims Mueller Hearing Proved Trump Obstructed Justice, but Let’s See What Mueller Said appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group NancyPelosi-AP-300x170 A Delusional Pelosi Claims Mueller Hearing Proved Trump Obstructed Justice, but Let’s See What Mueller Said Robert Mueller Politics obstruction of justice Nancy Pelosi Mueller Investigation Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Democrats Still Appear Shocked That Robert Mueller Gave Them Nothing

Westlake Legal Group jerry-nadler-monkey-face-j-620x317 The Democrats Still Appear Shocked That Robert Mueller Gave Them Nothing Robert Mueller Media Jerry Nadler impeachment House Democrats Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., gives his opening statement as former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on his report on Russian election interference, on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, July 24, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

In the fallout from the ill-fated testimony from Robert Mueller, we are seeing reports from media outlets who are by and large allies of the Democratic Party detailing just how disappointed the Democrats are that they couldn’t get a definite impeachment case from the special counsel.

In reports from CNN, Washington PostThe Hill, and the New York Times, the picture we see painted is one of a caucus of Democrats who appear to have actually expected Mueller to give them something new and exciting.

From the New York Times:

Liberal House members who have been agitating for impeachment were buoyed by Mr. Mueller’s nearly seven hours of testimony, asserting, despite modest viewership numbers and no dramatic revelations, that the former special counsel’s words confirmed their case that Mr. Trump had tried to obstruct justice. They showed signs of momentum.

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has gradually become convinced that his panel should proceed with impeachment hearings and do so as expeditiously as possible, though he has not stated so publicly, according to lawmakers and aides familiar with his thinking. In a closed room of lawmakers on Wednesday evening after the hearing, he broached the idea that House committees could soon begin contemplating articles of impeachment, though Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pushed back on the idea of quick action.

At The Hill:

Several rank-and-file Democrats in the House are feeling deflated over former special counsel Robert Mueller‘s public testimony, with some blaming the media and their own party for overhyping hearings they say fell short of expectations.

While many Democrats publicly heralded Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees as a resounding success, some privately expressed disappointment in his, at times, shaky performance, the brevity of his answers and the lack of a big moment that would have shifted the electorate’s sentiment on whether President Trumpwas guilty of obstruction.

“Remember, I spent months trying to tell people that there will be no headlines out of this,” Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, told The Hill. “Quite frankly, I think it was both the Democrats and the media that sort of created this narrative that there was going to be some bombshell from Bob Mueller, there is going to be a bombshell from his deputies — there is not going to be a bombshell from him.

At CNN:

House Democrats who are publicly and privately agitating to begin impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump are growing worried that their time is running short — and that they are missing key opportunities to give them a clear opening to mount a formal probe.

New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who would be in charge of leading an impeachment inquiry, has repeatedly made a behind-the-scenes case to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others to begin a probe, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

And at the Washington Post:

House Democrats are struggling to figure out their next move against President Trump after their highly anticipated hearing with Robert S. Mueller III fell flat, forcing some Democrats to second-guess their strategy while aggravating divisions in the party over impeachment.

Several centrist Democrats seized on the absence of a major revelation to argue it was time to end House investigations into whether Trump tried to obstruct the former special counsel’s probe and pivot to legislation.

Anyone who was looking for the smoking gun yesterday didn’t get it,” said Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.), who ousted a Republican incumbent by fewer than 500 votes in last year’s midterm elections. “It’s time to move on and focus on getting some bills passed here that can get signed into law.

It would appear that the most liberal of Democrats – largely those in deep blue districts – believed that Mueller was going to deliver the goods on Donald Trump during that hearing. It could be that they represent a reality-rejecting segment of the population, one that has repeatedly insisted that Trump worked hand-in-hand with Russia to win the election, repeatedly committed and commits crimes against the office and the country, and will surely fall if they file the articles of impeachment together.

The ones cautioning against it are many of the leadership Democrats and Democrats whose districts are more representative of the American public: Diverse in opinion and wary of extreme action.

The unity some might find in being the opposition party is fading fast, and the result is a party that will be unable to score a 2020 upset against the incumbent. The longer-serving members of the House know this, and they know that they have to try to appear moderate and sane. But many of the Democrats pushing for impeachment are also relying too much on media and social media opinions telling them just how right they are.

There is a large swath of the American public who does not want this, and really just want more sanity from Washington. Impeachment will hurt them, but they don’t buy it. Not yet.

The post The Democrats Still Appear Shocked That Robert Mueller Gave Them Nothing appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group jerry-nadler-monkey-face-j-300x153 The Democrats Still Appear Shocked That Robert Mueller Gave Them Nothing Robert Mueller Media Jerry Nadler impeachment House Democrats Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Sanders Campaign Allegedly Isn’t Holding Up Labor Agreements and Is Firing Union Staffers Who Complain

Westlake Legal Group bernie-sanders-flickr-cc-620x349 The Sanders Campaign Allegedly Isn’t Holding Up Labor Agreements and Is Firing Union Staffers Who Complain unions union Politics Labor Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats charges campaign Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception 2020

Watching the hard left collapse in on itself is one of those simple pleasures in life that make it all worth it. Especially when its the campaign of America’s top “democratic socialist” and 2020 contender Sen. Bernie Sanders who has found himself being charged by labor unions for not upholding agreements with union members he employs.

According to The Hill, the charges claim the Sanders campaign allegedly fired union employees who were trying to push the campaign to uphold contract agreements the campaign had made with the union. The campaign was failing to do so, and when union workers complained, the campaign reportedly had them fired:

The charge, which was filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by a former campaign employee on July 22, also alleges that the campaign violated a collective bargaining agreement with unionized workers by making staffers work additional days and failing to provide commensurate days off.

When the individual asked the campaign to abide by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, management retaliated, the charge alleges.

The person who submitted the charge has so far remained anonymous but alleges that they were attacked after sending the email requesting compliance.

“[Campaign management] retaliated against me when I organized the bargaining unit and sent an email requesting compliance with the [collective bargaining agreement],” the anonymous person wrote in the charge according to The Hill.

The Sanders campaign has been plagued with union problems in this election cycle. Earlier this week, Sanders ran into a payment controversy where he wasn’t dishing out $15/hr to his employees. In order to fix the problem, Sanders promised to pay his staff the full $15, but in order to do so, had to fire some staffers and increase hours on the ones that remained.

Some socialist.

As I wrote of the debacle, Sanders continues to prove that Sanders is proof that socialism can’t work and that even the most ardent of socialists don’t truly believe in socialism when it comes to their own personal business.

 

The post The Sanders Campaign Allegedly Isn’t Holding Up Labor Agreements and Is Firing Union Staffers Who Complain appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group bernie-sanders-flickr-cc-300x169 The Sanders Campaign Allegedly Isn’t Holding Up Labor Agreements and Is Firing Union Staffers Who Complain unions union Politics Labor Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats charges campaign Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ted Lieu Spins Wild Conspiracy Theory To Explain Robert Mueller’s Befuddlement

Westlake Legal Group ted-lieu-j-620x317 Ted Lieu Spins Wild Conspiracy Theory To Explain Robert Mueller’s Befuddlement Wolf Blitzer ted lieu Special Counsel Robert Mueller Politics obstruction of justice Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Congress CNN Allow Media Exception

A Wednesday’s Congressional goat-rope involving House Democrats and a befuddled Robert Mueller, the Democrats tried time and again to elicit from Mueller some new bit of information or sound bite that they could use to re-energize the push for impeachment by the radical fringe of a radical fringe party. The closest they came was when Ted Lieu questioned Mueller. Lieu walked Mueller through his understanding of how President Trump managed to obstruct justice while not actually obstructing anything. Mueller, who stares at the report of which he was allegedly the architect much as your average hog would stare at a Timex, reflexively answers “yes.” Then Lieu asks Mueller if the only reason he did not charge Trump with obstruction was the existence of Office of Legal Counsel guidance that says a sitting president may not be indicted by Department of Justice. Mueller says “yes.” This is the video cued up to that exchange:

This is significant. Because not only does the report declare that no determination was reached on obstruction, Attorney General Bill Barr testified to Congress that in briefings on the report that Mueller had on several occasions been asked if the OLC opinion was what kept him from doing his job:

[W]e specifically asked Robert Mueller about the OLC opinion and whether or not Robert Mueller was taking the position that Robert Mueller would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion, and he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.

Later, Mueller corrected his statement.

Yesterday, Lieu was on Wolf Blitzer’s little show and spun up a conspiracy theory.

 

 

BLITZER: It’s a serious problem. You were at the center yesterday of one of the most dramatic moments of the hearings with Robert Mueller. You have to walk back this testimony to you in response to your questioning that the reason that they didn’t formally indict the President was because of the Justice Department guidelines, a sitting president can’t be indicted.

But you say Mueller fully understood your question. Doesn’t Mueller’s correction, which he later provided, prove otherwise?

LIEU: This is what’s so odd about that exchange. Special Counsel Robert Mueller agreed that the OLC opinion prevented a sitting president from being indicted. And then the republican member after me asked him a series of questions to try to get him to walk it back, and he did not do that. And then it wasn’t until there was a recess in the Intel Committee that he started walk some of that back. I don’t know who got to him. I don’t know who talked to him, but that was very odd what he did.

BLITZER: Well, what are you suggesting? Because he said he misspoke, he didn’t understand or whatever it was. That’s why he wanted to clarify and walk back his response to your question. Are you saying he only did that because of pressure from someone?

LIEU: I don’t know. But he clearly answered the way he answered to me, and then he had numerous times to walk that back by the next republican member who asked a series of questions on exact same issue trying to get him to walk it back. So I don’t really understand what happened.

But we all agree and even Robert Mueller would agree that there is an OLC, Department of Justice opinion that says the sitting President of the United States cannot be indicted.

BLITZER: Yes. That’s what he repeatedly said that. He was working under those guidelines.

Mueller declined to even read from his report in response to a lot of questioning from the democrats. His answers were short, sometimes stilted. Do you think he did a disservice to his report during those hours of testimony yesterday?

LIEU: I would have liked if Special Counsel Robert Mueller was more talkative, but he did say yes and true to a large number of devastating facts. He also admitted in my questioning to the first two elements of obstruction of justice that were satisfied and then on the third element, intent, I simply read from his report, and it said, quote, substantial evidence, unquote, of evidence for intent.

So, basically, it’s as if Robert Mueller says, look, here is a piece of bread. I’m putting a piece of ham on that bread. Then I’m going to put another piece of bread on the ham, and we say that’s a ham sandwich. And he goes, no, I’m not going to call it that. Well, it’s a ham sandwich.

So that’s essentially what he did. He laid out the evidence and it meets the elements of obstruction of justice.

BLITZER: The House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, says it’s still not time to open impeachment proceedings in the House. Is this debate more about a lack of political will than a lack of evidence?

LIEU: Speaker Pelosi is an amazing speaker. I’m honored to be on her leadership team. She’s going to make this decision and consultation with the democratic caucus. And whatever decision she makes, I’m going to respect.

BLITZER: How unlikely is it that your committee, the Judiciary Committee, would launch a formal impeachment inquiry on its own without a full House vote?

LIEU: We’re not going to go rogue, Wolf. Everything that the Judiciary Committee does will have the blessing of Speaker Pelosi.

I’m going to tell you what’s going to come next. We’re going to file litigation to get the grand jury materials that we have not yet been able to see. We’re going to file litigation to compel Don McGahn to come and testify publicly before the Judiciary Committee, and we’ve asked Hope Hicks to come back and testify because she lied to us the first time that she testified.

This is nuts. What happened was pretty obvious. Mueller just gave an incorrect answer. And the technique Lieu used is one that I used frequently as an investigator for the Army’s Inspector General. Ask a series of questions that require all “yes” or all “no” answers, toss in your conclusion at the end and the subject will invariably answer the way he has before even when it carries an admission of guilt. After the break, Mueller corrected the record. The key factor here is that there was no other place in his testimony where Mueller diverged from the report in his answers.

Lieu, however, sees himself as some kind of a political wizard who elicited a game changing admission from Mueller…when no one else could…and who was foiled by unknown forces “got to” Mueller. It isn’t true. None of it.

The post Ted Lieu Spins Wild Conspiracy Theory To Explain Robert Mueller’s Befuddlement appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ted-lieu-j-300x153 Ted Lieu Spins Wild Conspiracy Theory To Explain Robert Mueller’s Befuddlement Wolf Blitzer ted lieu Special Counsel Robert Mueller Politics obstruction of justice Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Congress CNN Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ted Lieu Spins Wild Conspiracy Theory To Explain Robert Mueller’s Befuddlement

Westlake Legal Group ted-lieu-j-620x317 Ted Lieu Spins Wild Conspiracy Theory To Explain Robert Mueller’s Befuddlement Wolf Blitzer ted lieu Special Counsel Robert Mueller Politics obstruction of justice Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Congress CNN Allow Media Exception

A Wednesday’s Congressional goat-rope involving House Democrats and a befuddled Robert Mueller, the Democrats tried time and again to elicit from Mueller some new bit of information or sound bite that they could use to re-energize the push for impeachment by the radical fringe of a radical fringe party. The closest they came was when Ted Lieu questioned Mueller. Lieu walked Mueller through his understanding of how President Trump managed to obstruct justice while not actually obstructing anything. Mueller, who stares at the report of which he was allegedly the architect much as your average hog would stare at a Timex, reflexively answers “yes.” Then Lieu asks Mueller if the only reason he did not charge Trump with obstruction was the existence of Office of Legal Counsel guidance that says a sitting president may not be indicted by Department of Justice. Mueller says “yes.” This is the video cued up to that exchange:

This is significant. Because not only does the report declare that no determination was reached on obstruction, Attorney General Bill Barr testified to Congress that in briefings on the report that Mueller had on several occasions been asked if the OLC opinion was what kept him from doing his job:

[W]e specifically asked Robert Mueller about the OLC opinion and whether or not Robert Mueller was taking the position that Robert Mueller would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion, and he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.

Later, Mueller corrected his statement.

Yesterday, Lieu was on Wolf Blitzer’s little show and spun up a conspiracy theory.

 

 

BLITZER: It’s a serious problem. You were at the center yesterday of one of the most dramatic moments of the hearings with Robert Mueller. You have to walk back this testimony to you in response to your questioning that the reason that they didn’t formally indict the President was because of the Justice Department guidelines, a sitting president can’t be indicted.

But you say Mueller fully understood your question. Doesn’t Mueller’s correction, which he later provided, prove otherwise?

LIEU: This is what’s so odd about that exchange. Special Counsel Robert Mueller agreed that the OLC opinion prevented a sitting president from being indicted. And then the republican member after me asked him a series of questions to try to get him to walk it back, and he did not do that. And then it wasn’t until there was a recess in the Intel Committee that he started walk some of that back. I don’t know who got to him. I don’t know who talked to him, but that was very odd what he did.

BLITZER: Well, what are you suggesting? Because he said he misspoke, he didn’t understand or whatever it was. That’s why he wanted to clarify and walk back his response to your question. Are you saying he only did that because of pressure from someone?

LIEU: I don’t know. But he clearly answered the way he answered to me, and then he had numerous times to walk that back by the next republican member who asked a series of questions on exact same issue trying to get him to walk it back. So I don’t really understand what happened.

But we all agree and even Robert Mueller would agree that there is an OLC, Department of Justice opinion that says the sitting President of the United States cannot be indicted.

BLITZER: Yes. That’s what he repeatedly said that. He was working under those guidelines.

Mueller declined to even read from his report in response to a lot of questioning from the democrats. His answers were short, sometimes stilted. Do you think he did a disservice to his report during those hours of testimony yesterday?

LIEU: I would have liked if Special Counsel Robert Mueller was more talkative, but he did say yes and true to a large number of devastating facts. He also admitted in my questioning to the first two elements of obstruction of justice that were satisfied and then on the third element, intent, I simply read from his report, and it said, quote, substantial evidence, unquote, of evidence for intent.

So, basically, it’s as if Robert Mueller says, look, here is a piece of bread. I’m putting a piece of ham on that bread. Then I’m going to put another piece of bread on the ham, and we say that’s a ham sandwich. And he goes, no, I’m not going to call it that. Well, it’s a ham sandwich.

So that’s essentially what he did. He laid out the evidence and it meets the elements of obstruction of justice.

BLITZER: The House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, says it’s still not time to open impeachment proceedings in the House. Is this debate more about a lack of political will than a lack of evidence?

LIEU: Speaker Pelosi is an amazing speaker. I’m honored to be on her leadership team. She’s going to make this decision and consultation with the democratic caucus. And whatever decision she makes, I’m going to respect.

BLITZER: How unlikely is it that your committee, the Judiciary Committee, would launch a formal impeachment inquiry on its own without a full House vote?

LIEU: We’re not going to go rogue, Wolf. Everything that the Judiciary Committee does will have the blessing of Speaker Pelosi.

I’m going to tell you what’s going to come next. We’re going to file litigation to get the grand jury materials that we have not yet been able to see. We’re going to file litigation to compel Don McGahn to come and testify publicly before the Judiciary Committee, and we’ve asked Hope Hicks to come back and testify because she lied to us the first time that she testified.

This is nuts. What happened was pretty obvious. Mueller just gave an incorrect answer. And the technique Lieu used is one that I used frequently as an investigator for the Army’s Inspector General. Ask a series of questions that require all “yes” or all “no” answers, toss in your conclusion at the end and the subject will invariably answer the way he has before even when it carries an admission of guilt. After the break, Mueller corrected the record. The key factor here is that there was no other place in his testimony where Mueller diverged from the report in his answers.

Lieu, however, sees himself as some kind of a political wizard who elicited a game changing admission from Mueller…when no one else could…and who was foiled by unknown forces “got to” Mueller. It isn’t true. None of it.

The post Ted Lieu Spins Wild Conspiracy Theory To Explain Robert Mueller’s Befuddlement appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ted-lieu-j-300x153 Ted Lieu Spins Wild Conspiracy Theory To Explain Robert Mueller’s Befuddlement Wolf Blitzer ted lieu Special Counsel Robert Mueller Politics obstruction of justice Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Congress CNN Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ted Lieu Spins Wild Conspiracy Theory To Explain Robert Mueller’s Befuddlement

Westlake Legal Group ted-lieu-j-620x317 Ted Lieu Spins Wild Conspiracy Theory To Explain Robert Mueller’s Befuddlement Wolf Blitzer ted lieu Special Counsel Robert Mueller Politics obstruction of justice Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Congress CNN Allow Media Exception

A Wednesday’s Congressional goat-rope involving House Democrats and a befuddled Robert Mueller, the Democrats tried time and again to elicit from Mueller some new bit of information or sound bite that they could use to re-energize the push for impeachment by the radical fringe of a radical fringe party. The closest they came was when Ted Lieu questioned Mueller. Lieu walked Mueller through his understanding of how President Trump managed to obstruct justice while not actually obstructing anything. Mueller, who stares at the report of which he was allegedly the architect much as your average hog would stare at a Timex, reflexively answers “yes.” Then Lieu asks Mueller if the only reason he did not charge Trump with obstruction was the existence of Office of Legal Counsel guidance that says a sitting president may not be indicted by Department of Justice. Mueller says “yes.” This is the video cued up to that exchange:

This is significant. Because not only does the report declare that no determination was reached on obstruction, Attorney General Bill Barr testified to Congress that in briefings on the report that Mueller had on several occasions been asked if the OLC opinion was what kept him from doing his job:

[W]e specifically asked Robert Mueller about the OLC opinion and whether or not Robert Mueller was taking the position that Robert Mueller would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion, and he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.

Later, Mueller corrected his statement.

Yesterday, Lieu was on Wolf Blitzer’s little show and spun up a conspiracy theory.

 

 

BLITZER: It’s a serious problem. You were at the center yesterday of one of the most dramatic moments of the hearings with Robert Mueller. You have to walk back this testimony to you in response to your questioning that the reason that they didn’t formally indict the President was because of the Justice Department guidelines, a sitting president can’t be indicted.

But you say Mueller fully understood your question. Doesn’t Mueller’s correction, which he later provided, prove otherwise?

LIEU: This is what’s so odd about that exchange. Special Counsel Robert Mueller agreed that the OLC opinion prevented a sitting president from being indicted. And then the republican member after me asked him a series of questions to try to get him to walk it back, and he did not do that. And then it wasn’t until there was a recess in the Intel Committee that he started walk some of that back. I don’t know who got to him. I don’t know who talked to him, but that was very odd what he did.

BLITZER: Well, what are you suggesting? Because he said he misspoke, he didn’t understand or whatever it was. That’s why he wanted to clarify and walk back his response to your question. Are you saying he only did that because of pressure from someone?

LIEU: I don’t know. But he clearly answered the way he answered to me, and then he had numerous times to walk that back by the next republican member who asked a series of questions on exact same issue trying to get him to walk it back. So I don’t really understand what happened.

But we all agree and even Robert Mueller would agree that there is an OLC, Department of Justice opinion that says the sitting President of the United States cannot be indicted.

BLITZER: Yes. That’s what he repeatedly said that. He was working under those guidelines.

Mueller declined to even read from his report in response to a lot of questioning from the democrats. His answers were short, sometimes stilted. Do you think he did a disservice to his report during those hours of testimony yesterday?

LIEU: I would have liked if Special Counsel Robert Mueller was more talkative, but he did say yes and true to a large number of devastating facts. He also admitted in my questioning to the first two elements of obstruction of justice that were satisfied and then on the third element, intent, I simply read from his report, and it said, quote, substantial evidence, unquote, of evidence for intent.

So, basically, it’s as if Robert Mueller says, look, here is a piece of bread. I’m putting a piece of ham on that bread. Then I’m going to put another piece of bread on the ham, and we say that’s a ham sandwich. And he goes, no, I’m not going to call it that. Well, it’s a ham sandwich.

So that’s essentially what he did. He laid out the evidence and it meets the elements of obstruction of justice.

BLITZER: The House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, says it’s still not time to open impeachment proceedings in the House. Is this debate more about a lack of political will than a lack of evidence?

LIEU: Speaker Pelosi is an amazing speaker. I’m honored to be on her leadership team. She’s going to make this decision and consultation with the democratic caucus. And whatever decision she makes, I’m going to respect.

BLITZER: How unlikely is it that your committee, the Judiciary Committee, would launch a formal impeachment inquiry on its own without a full House vote?

LIEU: We’re not going to go rogue, Wolf. Everything that the Judiciary Committee does will have the blessing of Speaker Pelosi.

I’m going to tell you what’s going to come next. We’re going to file litigation to get the grand jury materials that we have not yet been able to see. We’re going to file litigation to compel Don McGahn to come and testify publicly before the Judiciary Committee, and we’ve asked Hope Hicks to come back and testify because she lied to us the first time that she testified.

This is nuts. What happened was pretty obvious. Mueller just gave an incorrect answer. And the technique Lieu used is one that I used frequently as an investigator for the Army’s Inspector General. Ask a series of questions that require all “yes” or all “no” answers, toss in your conclusion at the end and the subject will invariably answer the way he has before even when it carries an admission of guilt. After the break, Mueller corrected the record. The key factor here is that there was no other place in his testimony where Mueller diverged from the report in his answers.

Lieu, however, sees himself as some kind of a political wizard who elicited a game changing admission from Mueller…when no one else could…and who was foiled by unknown forces “got to” Mueller. It isn’t true. None of it.

The post Ted Lieu Spins Wild Conspiracy Theory To Explain Robert Mueller’s Befuddlement appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ted-lieu-j-300x153 Ted Lieu Spins Wild Conspiracy Theory To Explain Robert Mueller’s Befuddlement Wolf Blitzer ted lieu Special Counsel Robert Mueller Politics obstruction of justice Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Congress CNN Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Abortion Activist Alyssa Milano Defends Death Row Inmates, Says They Are “Actual People” Unlike Unborn Babies

Westlake Legal Group Alyssa-Milano-620x326 Abortion Activist Alyssa Milano Defends Death Row Inmates, Says They Are “Actual People” Unlike Unborn Babies Social Media Politics North Carolina Hollywood Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post democrats death penalty Culture crime Capital Punishment California Alyssa Milano Allow Media Exception Abortion

When it comes to priorities, you’d think a person like actress Alyssa Milano who paints herself as a compassionate leftist who cares about protecting the innocent and vulnerable in this country would actually do something to prove their commitment.

Such is not the case with Milano, who on Thursday put a disturbing twist on an old, tiresome liberal argument about the death penalty vs. abortion.

2020 presidential candidate and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) posted a Tweet yesterday noting she was prepared to take executive action if elected president on the issue of gun rights, because “thoughts and prayers are not enough”

Milano responded that she was fully on board with that idea. But another Twitter user reminded her of her support for abortion, which has killed far more innocent lives than gun violence:

The pro-abortion mouthpiece did not like that reminder, and fired back by suggesting pro-lifers were hypocritical on the issue of life by referencing the recent reinstatement of the federal death penalty by the Trump administration, and declaring that death row inmates are “actual people”, unlike unborn babies:

She was promptly called out on her phony (and disturbing) comparison by other Twitter users:

The arguments did not phase Milano, however. She doubled down in the comments:

Bless her heart.

—————-
— 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 Abortion Activist Alyssa Milano Defends Death Row Inmates, Says They Are “Actual People” Unlike Unborn Babies appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Alyssa-Milano-300x158 Abortion Activist Alyssa Milano Defends Death Row Inmates, Says They Are “Actual People” Unlike Unborn Babies Social Media Politics North Carolina Hollywood Front Page Stories Front Page Feminism Featured Story Featured Post democrats death penalty Culture crime Capital Punishment California Alyssa Milano Allow Media Exception Abortion  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

CNN Hired a Vicious Anti-Semite, Media Watchdog Brian Stelter Oddly Uninterested

Westlake Legal Group stelterCNN-620x331 CNN Hired a Vicious Anti-Semite, Media Watchdog Brian Stelter Oddly Uninterested Politics Mohammed Elshamy Media Watchdog Jews Israel Hypocrisy Front Page Stories Front Page democrats CNN Briant Stelter arthur schwartz Antisemistism anti-semite

CNN apparently needs better vetting of their employees because this was a pretty big swing and a miss.

After a man named Mohammed Elshamy was recently hired by the liberal network to do photo editing, Arthur Schwartz brought to the forefront a myriad of past anti-Semitic posts in Elshamy’s Twitter history. We aren’t talking mildly anti-Semitic, but full blown rabid antisemitism.

 

This guy is so racist and crazed that he even lost his mind when his assumed favorite soccer team added a Jewish player.

I mean, I don’t like soccer either, but settle down bro.

How did CNN miss this? They are a top media company (well, in stature at least) and should have the abilities in place to do a quick social media keyword search on prospective employees. What makes this worse though is that CNN has had no trouble hunting down people they view as ideological foes, including people that have no connection to them and are otherwise private citizens.

Take this poor woman, who didn’t do anything but share a Facebook group. But CNN’s crack team of investigators were on it and had a guy on her front lawn ready to harass her within a few days.

Yet, a guy can have multiple, blatantly anti-Semitic posts on his Twitter and get hired by CNN with no issue. I’m going to assume a CNN reporter won’t be showing up at his place of residence anytime soon either.

So what was CNN’s response to this?

They waited around until he resigned? Why would you even allow him to resign? He should have been fired with prejudice just to make the point.

Notice that self-described media watchdog Brian Stelter has no comment. He can’t shut up when Fox News does even the most mundane things, but his own network hires a rabid anti-Semite and all he can muster is a copy and paste of a PR release. Real bravery comes in all shapes and sizes apparently.

Would Stelter and the rest of CNN shrug this off if any other outlet made this mistake? Of course they wouldn’t. Imagine for a second that The Daily Caller hired a white supremacist, even inadvertently. Would CNN at least put out a story detailing what happened? Would there be a myriad of scolding tweets from CNN personalities? The answer is unequivocally yes, so while I can perhaps believe that CNN didn’t intentionally hire this guy, their hypocrisy is glaring enough to not ignore.

————————————————-

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

 

The post CNN Hired a Vicious Anti-Semite, Media Watchdog Brian Stelter Oddly Uninterested appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group stelterCNN-300x160 CNN Hired a Vicious Anti-Semite, Media Watchdog Brian Stelter Oddly Uninterested Politics Mohammed Elshamy Media Watchdog Jews Israel Hypocrisy Front Page Stories Front Page democrats CNN Briant Stelter arthur schwartz Antisemistism anti-semite  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Dear American Left, We Fought a Civil War to Make You Understand You Can’t Own Minorities Anymore

Westlake Legal Group black-trump-supporter-620x413 Dear American Left, We Fought a Civil War to Make You Understand You Can’t Own Minorities Anymore republicans republican racism Politics minority Kira Davis hispanic Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats civil rights black Bette Middler Allow Media Exception

Black Trump supporter by Johnny Silvercloud, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

Imagine being a black individual in this country who, after much thought and consideration, expressed that you align more with the right than you do the left. You express your desire to pull the lever for Donald Trump in 2020 and believe that when it comes to how this country is run, you say that fewer entitlements, lower taxes, and more policing is good for the nation.

Then one morning you wake up and are informed that you’re not black anymore. You’ve been unpersoned. You hear from leftists in Hollywood and social media that your identity as a black person has been revoked!

You receive messages like this one below.

You don’t have to be black for this to apply to you either. You can be Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern. It doesn’t matter. Your heritage, experience and more are subject to the approval of the left.

I might just be a white guy who supports and his supported by the white patriarchy, but why is it that members of the left believe that they have this kind of power? How is it that they believe to have the authority to label who is and isn’t a valid member of this society.

Didn’t we fight a very bloody civil war to get it across to Democrats that we don’t do that here in American anymore? They lost the power to define a minority person’s worth as a citizen. Yet we’re still seeing leftists toss out a minority individual’s worth and look down on them because of who they are.

My colleague Kira Davis wrote an excellent open letter to Hollywood actress Bette Middler who did this very thing to a group of black people at a Trump rally. Middler, without knowing these men or even considering them individuals, accused them of being “blackground” figures who were paid to be seen standing behind President Donald Trump at a rally in order to make him look good.

Davis’s response was spot on:

For all of our talk about tolerance, diversity and how racist those big, bad scary Republicans were, the worst discrimination and stereotyping I ever experienced came from my left-wing brethren. It didn’t take me long to figure out that for many non-Black progressives I was not an individual…I was a box to check on their diversity list.

Ms. Midler, that is what you did with that truly thoughtless tweet – you revealed that you only see Black Americans as quotas while suggesting Trump was paying people to be quotas. Project much?

We see thinking like Middler’s come from the left a little too often, and they seem very comfortable with it. This is because they bought their own lie, hook, line, and sinker, that they are truly the defenders of the minority and Republicans are only out to, as Joe Biden once said, put them back in chains.

Hilarious, since it was the right that broke their chains and fought for civil rights.

To the left, they seem to think that as the sole protectors of minorities they know what’s in a minority community’s best interest and have the authority to tell them what is and isn’t good for them to do. How they should and shouldn’t act. What’s more, they become highly offended when a minority individual thinks individually and decides to side with the very people that they just know hate them.

With that mentality, they unperson an individual without any feelings of remorse. To them, a black person is supposed to fall into a specific box, and if they don’t, then they’re a race traitor and worthy of the worst kind of derision. Middler still hasn’t apologized for her comment despite the fact that she received an astounding shellacking for her racism.

To be clear, this is the definition of racism. It’s the idea that if a person of a certain race can’t be owned by a certain party, then they should be disappeared. The disappearing may have taken on a different meaning decades ago, but the idea is pretty much the same.

This country was based on individualism, and that should be maintained. However, too many Democrats have had, and still, have trouble understanding that minorities don’t belong to them. If a minority individual wants to vote for Trump, he has his or her reasons. People are more than their skin color and don’t have to be in one box or another.

 

The post Dear American Left, We Fought a Civil War to Make You Understand You Can’t Own Minorities Anymore appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group black-trump-supporter-300x200 Dear American Left, We Fought a Civil War to Make You Understand You Can’t Own Minorities Anymore republicans republican racism Politics minority Kira Davis hispanic Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats civil rights black Bette Middler Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com