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 14)

Poor Adam Schiff, What a Difference a Report in the New York Times Can Make

Westlake Legal Group smug-schiff-620x317 Poor Adam Schiff, What a Difference a Report in the New York Times Can Make whistleblower Nancy Pelosi Impeachment of President Trump Impeachment Inquiry Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception adam schiff Abuse of Power 2020

(AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

Poor little Adam Schiff. He thought he had all of his ducks in a row. Then the New York Times had to go and report that a member of his staff had been in contact with the whistleblower before he filed his complaint.

Prior to this revelation, Schiff had insisted that the whistleblower testify under oath before the House Intelligence Committee which he chairs. Ever since news broke that the whistleblower had prior communications with his committee, he’s been trying to avoid it.

Having observed Schiff in action, we can only conclude that he doesn’t want Republican members of Congress to be able to question the whistleblower about his contacts with Schiff’s staff or the media. Also, knowing Schiff, I wouldn’t be surprised if he himself met with the whistleblower before the complaint was submitted.

On September 24th, he tweeted that they’d been “informed by the whistleblower’s counsel that their client would like to speak to our committee and has requested guidance from the Acting DNI as to how to do so. We‘re in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower’s testimony as soon as this week.”

Schiff contacted the acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire, on September 26. He wrote:

Do I have your assurance that once you work out the security clearances for the whistleblower’s counsel, that that whistleblower will be able to relate the full facts within his knowledge that concern wrongdoing by the president or anyone else, that he or she will not be inhibited in what they can tell our committee, that there will not be some minder from the White House or elsewhere sitting next to them telling them what they can answer or not answer? Do I have your assurance that the whistleblower will be able to testify fully and freely and enjoy the protections of the law?

On September 29, Schiff made it clear he expected the whistleblower to testify “without a minder from the Justice Department or from the White House to tell the whistleblower what they can or cannot say. We’ll get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower.”

Shortly afterwards, Schiff was asked on MSNBC if he’d had any knowledge of the whistleblower before the complaint was submitted and he said no.

On October 2, the New York Times published the story that the whistleblower had contacted a House Intelligence Committee aide. The report said the whistleblower had first expressed his concerns to a CIA colleague and asked him to convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. It’s unclear if the issue was ever raised with the CIA’s lawyer or if it had been and he didn’t think the whistleblower had a case. Either way, nothing came from that effort, so the whistleblower reached out to Schiff’s aide. The Times writes that “in both cases, the original accusation was vague.” In fact it was so vague, and after reading a transcript of the call, many of us, like the FBI’s top lawyer, still don’t see what his concern was.

The report said the staffer told Schiff about the whistleblower, but did not reveal his identity. Sure.

He was forced to qualify his earlier denial to MSNBC and after that, “Schiff stopped demanding the testimony, and last Sunday he claimed it was no longer needed. While the extent of their coordination is unknown, the major problem was that the discussions were undisclosed by both Schiff and the anti-Trump complainant. Schiff had publicly denied any such interactions while the bureaucrat failed to mention the contacts when specifically asked about them on a government form.”

Another major change that took place after the story in the Times, is that the Democrats became very secretive to the extent that they wouldn’t allow Republican members of Congress to sit in on the depositions or even view the transcripts. In this way, they could cherry pick the most damaging information to leak to the media.

Last Sunday, Schiff told CBS News, “Given that we already have the call record, we don’t need the whistleblower who wasn’t on the call to tell us what took place during the call. We have the best evidence of that.”

Given that we already have the call record, we don’t need the whistleblower or his complaint. Since we’re talking about impeaching the President of the United States here, something that doesn’t happen everyday, I think a personal appearance is called for.

As most of us are aware, the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is not official because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has refused to hold a vote on the House floor. On Friday, she announced that she “would not be holding a vote anytime soon.”

She has several good reasons for not doing so. It would hurt House Democrats from purple districts where support for Trump is strong.

Once a formal floor vote is taken to open an impeachment inquiry, the Republicans, who have been shut out of the process entirely, would gain the power to subpoena and to question witnesses.

The Federalist’s David Marcus points out another reason why Pelosi might be holding back.

Once the gavel falls on an actual impeachment, the House, the only chamber the Democrats hold, becomes irrelevant. That is a political disaster, and it is why the Democrats are still very unlikely to actually pull that trigger.

The ball will move into the Senate’s court and Pelosi and the House will have no more control over it. That’s a very big deal, because from the day they took over the House the Democrats have been able to frustrate Trump with impeachment talk any time they want to step on his initiatives or triumphs. Once a vote is held, that is over.

What’s a Speaker to do?

The post Poor Adam Schiff, What a Difference a Report in the New York Times Can Make appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group smug-schiff-300x153 Poor Adam Schiff, What a Difference a Report in the New York Times Can Make whistleblower Nancy Pelosi Impeachment of President Trump Impeachment Inquiry Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception adam schiff Abuse of Power 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Liberals Try Smearing Gabbard Over David Duke Endorsement. But One Inconvenient Fact Nukes Their Argument.

Westlake Legal Group TulsiGabbardDemDebate4APimage-620x317 Liberals Try Smearing Gabbard Over David Duke Endorsement. But One Inconvenient Fact Nukes Their Argument. washington D.C. Veterans twitter tulsi gabbard Social Media Politics North Carolina Minnesota Media Ilhan Omar Hawaii Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Endorsements elections democrats Culture Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020

Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-HI, speaks during a presidential primary debate hosted by CNN/NYT at Otterbein University, Tues., 10/15/19, in Westerville, Ohio. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

As Bonchie wrote Friday, Hillary Clinton came out of far left field with provocative comments she made, without evidence, on a recent podcast with former Obama senior adviser David Plouffe suggesting Russia was “grooming” 2020 presidential contender Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to be a third party candidate in order to spoil chances for the eventual Democratic nominee.

She also referred to Gabbard and 2016 Green Party nominee Jill Stein as “Russian assets”, per this recap of the podcast from Fox News:

“I’m not making any predictions but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said, in apparent reference to Gabbard. “She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

She then accused Stein, who ran against her and Donald Trump in 2016, of also being an asset of Russia: “That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset.”

Gabbard pushed back with a blistering response, calling the failed 2016 Democratic presidential nominee “the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long.” Gabbard also challenged Clinton to stop “cowardly [hiding] behind your proxies” and join the presidential race so they could face each other directly.

Sadly, Clinton’s pathetic broadside of Gabbard inspired other Democrats and supporters of other presidential candidates to revive the old smear about how racist David Duke’s February endorsement of Gabbard somehow Means SomethingWestlake Legal Group 2122 Liberals Try Smearing Gabbard Over David Duke Endorsement. But One Inconvenient Fact Nukes Their Argument. washington D.C. Veterans twitter tulsi gabbard Social Media Politics North Carolina Minnesota Media Ilhan Omar Hawaii Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Endorsements elections democrats Culture Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020  , even though she has repudiated it several times.

I logged on to Twitter first thing this morning and saw that “David Duke” was trending. When I clicked on the trending link, it was filled with unhinged liberals trying to convince people that Duke’s endorsement of Gabbard meant she was a racist candidate:

Westlake Legal Group TwitterScreengrabTulsi Liberals Try Smearing Gabbard Over David Duke Endorsement. But One Inconvenient Fact Nukes Their Argument. washington D.C. Veterans twitter tulsi gabbard Social Media Politics North Carolina Minnesota Media Ilhan Omar Hawaii Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Endorsements elections democrats Culture Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020

Source: Twitter screen grab.

That’s just a small sampling. There are many more.

The only problem with liberals who are telling us that Duke’s endorsement Means SomethingWestlake Legal Group 2122 Liberals Try Smearing Gabbard Over David Duke Endorsement. But One Inconvenient Fact Nukes Their Argument. washington D.C. Veterans twitter tulsi gabbard Social Media Politics North Carolina Minnesota Media Ilhan Omar Hawaii Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Endorsements elections democrats Culture Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020  is that these same liberals have conveniently forgotten (or perhaps didn’t know, because it was not widely reported at the time by the LSM) that Duke also endorsed Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) back in March:

In a Thursday podcast at his site, the former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard spoke out strongly in favor of the Muslim Congresswoman who has accused Jewish lawmakers of dual loyalty, attributed support for Israel to foreign money, and said Israel has “hypnotized” the world.

“By defiance to Z.O.G. Ilhan Omar is NOW the most important Member of the US Congress!” Mr. Duke wrote on his site, using the acronym for “Zionist Occupation Government,” a term anti-Semites use to refer to the U.S. government as secretly controlled by Jews.

So going by the left’s standards, if David Duke endorsing Gabbard means she’s a racist, then Duke endorsing Omar means she’s an anti-Semite, right? Isn’t that how this works? Your rules, liberals. Your rules.

That said, there’s plenty of evidence Omar is an actual anti-Semite, regardless of Duke’s praise of her this year. On the other hand, there’s zero evidence Gabbard is a racist.

Liberals who disagree with Gabbard on policy should stick to that, rather than lob false accusations of racism and Russian grooming that they can’t back up.

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 16+ 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 Liberals Try Smearing Gabbard Over David Duke Endorsement. But One Inconvenient Fact Nukes Their Argument. appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group TulsiGabbardDemDebate4APimage-300x153 Liberals Try Smearing Gabbard Over David Duke Endorsement. But One Inconvenient Fact Nukes Their Argument. washington D.C. Veterans twitter tulsi gabbard Social Media Politics North Carolina Minnesota Media Ilhan Omar Hawaii Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Endorsements elections democrats Culture Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Sheriff Sends Beto to the Burn Ward Over His Threat to Send Law Enforcement to Gun Owner’s Homes

Westlake Legal Group gs-beto-orourke-620x413 Sheriff Sends Beto to the Burn Ward Over His Threat to Send Law Enforcement to Gun Owner’s Homes sheriff Politics law Guns gun control Front Page Stories Fourth Amendment Featured Story elections democrats Beto O'Rourke ar-15 Allow Media Exception 2020

Beto O’Rourke by Gage Skidmore, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

While on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Democratic 2020 candidate and wannabe tyrant Robert “Beto” O’Rourke made it clear that in an America where he’s president, he will send law enforcement to the homes of people who choose not to participate in the mandatory buyback program and take their gun by force.

O’Rourke told “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough that in the instance of a gun owner keeping his AR-15 to himself, then he can count on a visit by someone with a badge and a gun.

“In that case, I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and to make sure that it is purchased — bought back — so that it cannot be potentially used against somebody else,” said O’Rourke.

(READ: Beto Clowns Himself Explaining How He’ll Punish “Buyback” Reluctant Gun Owners With “Consequences”)

It would appear that law enforcement has some things to say about that, and O’Rourke may not like what they have to say.

In fact, according to Townhall, San Juan County Sheriff Shane Ferrari said if O’Rourke thinks law enforcement is going to cooperate with “President O’Rourke” to strip the people of their legally owned firearms, he’s “delusional.”

“Mr. O’Rourke is delusional in regards to his gun control ideas,” Ferrari told Townhall.

“The biggest fear of any free society is the government at your door wanting to take away your rights by force. I do not see the men and women of law enforcement sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution doing this,” Ferrari continued.”In an act of desperation, Mr. O’Rourke is shamefully using tragedies our country has experienced and fear for his political gain. The very foundation of law enforcement is public trust. Frankly, no one should trust a man who talks out of both sides of his mouth.”

Eddy County Sheriff Mark Cage also made it clear that O’Rourke is out of bounds.

“I’m not sure whether his statements are naive or just plain ignorant and arrogant. Maybe it’s all three,” said Cage. “The thought of anyone utilizing my sheriff’s office or any other law enforcement agency in this country as their personal Gestapo to go door to door violating citizen’s rights is disgusting, unrealistic and downright un-American.”

Cage noted to Townhall that “bloodshed would be inevitable,” and added that “some of my constituents are already adopting the mantra of ‘Come take mine Beto!’…His rhetoric has gotten old and I look forward to the day when he shuts up.”

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams questioned the constitutionality of O’Rourke’s threat and noted that the entire situation puts both his officers and the citizen in harm’s way.

“I think that you have to be concerned for the safety of the citizen [too] because, at that point, they don’t know if law enforcement is coming to protect them or disarm them and that creates a very tense situation,” Reams told Townhall.

Reams is more or less correct. More than just a few Americans will be hiding their rifles from the government if ever there should be a law passed that bans them. The proof that Americans are okay with this lies in the fact that the purchase of firearms, including AR-15’s, skyrockets whenever the threat of a ban even so much as peaks its head out.

In order to confiscate so many guns, O’Rourke would have to send law enforcement from home to home to search it. Seeing as how you need a warrant for that, just going to search that many homes would be a very long and arduous task, not to mention a dangerous one for everyone involved.

If O’Rourke wants to truly make sure all the guns are confiscated, he’d have to eliminate the Fourth Amendment, which will likely never happen. So calling him “delusional” is more than just a jab, it’s likely an accurate descriptor.

Not to mention that while O’Rourke would sit safely in the White House, law enforcement officers and civilians would be putting each other’s lives at risk in order to defend freedoms. So not only is he delusional, he’s foolish in thinking that this will stop the violence. It will only create more.

 

 

The post Sheriff Sends Beto to the Burn Ward Over His Threat to Send Law Enforcement to Gun Owner’s Homes appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group gs-beto-orourke-300x200 Sheriff Sends Beto to the Burn Ward Over His Threat to Send Law Enforcement to Gun Owner’s Homes sheriff Politics law Guns gun control Front Page Stories Fourth Amendment Featured Story elections democrats Beto O'Rourke ar-15 Allow Media Exception 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hunter Biden Was Hired to “Protect the Company,” Never Even Actually Worked In Ukraine

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenAPimage-620x317 Hunter Biden Was Hired to “Protect the Company,” Never Even Actually Worked In Ukraine Zlochevsky Russia Reuters Protect the Company Politics Obama media bias Joe Biden hunter biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Burisma Board Director Allow Media Exception 83K

Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden speaks at a campaign event Friday, Sept. 27, 2019, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher)

And no, that’s not a point in his favor because he was still raking in gobs of cash from the company.

News has come out that Hunter Biden, while being paid $83,000 a month by a corrupt Ukrainian gas company named Burisma, never even actually visited the company on business. He was on their board for five long years, yet never made one appearance at the place that was shoveling him an enormous about of money for doing essentially nothing.

Nothing suspicious about that at all, right?

Biden got $50,000 a month in salary and never had to come to the home office? That’s quite a gig, especially for a corporate board director. Normally, those positions involve responsibility for overseeing the operations of the organization and ensuring regulatory compliance, which is tough to do when one never sets foot in the country where the corporation operates.

Even more unsurprisingly, one of the people Reuters interviewed (who is the source for Ed Morrisey’s above article at HotAir) admitted that Hunter Biden was hired to try to protect the company from ongoing investigations.

Oleksandr Onyshchenko, a businessman and former member of the Ukrainian parliament who knows the Burisma founder, said it had been Zlochevsky’s idea to appoint Biden as a director. “It was to protect (the company)” at a time when it was facing investigations, said Onyshchenko, who left the country in 2016. In the run up to Biden’s appointment, a popular uprising led to the removal of the Russian-backed Yanukovich in February 2014.

Zlochevsky was tightly connected with the former regime in Ukraine and was seen as corrupted by Russian influence. It was that person, after the ouster of his former government, who thought “hey, let’s hire the U.S. Vice President’s son, pay him a ridiculous sum, and never even have him visit the company or sit in a board meeting.” There’s so much smoke there that I’m choking as I write this.

The reason Hunter Biden was hired is incredibly obvious and it didn’t even take the above admission to see it. Burisma wanted a sort of human shield, betting that Joe Biden would do whatever it takes to protect his son. In the end, the former VP did just that, ensuring the prosecutor that was looking into Hunter Biden was fired and he used the threat of withholding one billion dollars in aid to do so.

If any part of this story had the name Trump in it, it’d not only be bandied about as the worst scandal in 50 years, it’d be headlining the “impeachment inquiry” currently going on.

————————————————

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 Hunter Biden Was Hired to “Protect the Company,” Never Even Actually Worked In Ukraine appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 17329344-1af8-4a1f-8631-ab65d20076a0-1-300x153 Hunter Biden Was Hired to “Protect the Company,” Never Even Actually Worked In Ukraine Zlochevsky Russia Reuters Protect the Company Politics Obama media bias Joe Biden hunter biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats corruption Burisma Board Director Allow Media Exception 83K  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

It’s Back! Joe Biden Gets the Bad Lip Reading Treatment In Hilarious New Video

Westlake Legal Group biden-pointing-620x317 It’s Back! Joe Biden Gets the Bad Lip Reading Treatment In Hilarious New Video Politics Joe Biden Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats comedy Candidates bad lip reading Allow Media Exception 2020

Former Vice President Joe Biden mimics shooting a gun as he speaks at the Chuck Hagel Forum in Global Leadership, on the campus of the University of Nebraska-Omaha, in Omaha, Neb., Thursday, Feb. 28, 2019. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

One of the best parts of the election season is when the YouTube channel Bad Lip Reading does little parody episodes of the ads from presidential candidates, and it looks like the mysterious man from Austin, Texas, is going to continue with the Democrats, just as he did the Republicans in 2016.

This time, it’s Joe Biden whose up to bat.

For those of you who have never seen a Bad Lip Reading video, some footage is taken from various things and dubbed over so that words seem to match up with the lips. The lip-reading is intentionally wrong, so what you end up getting is oftentimes hilarious, nonsensical things being “said” by the speaker.

BLR has done everything from politics to the NFL, and even movies like Star Wars.

It still maintains its hilarity with Biden.

BLR’s take on politicians is one of the best parts of the YouTube channel. Previously, BLR has done some pretty memorable videos, such as the Rick Perry’s “save a pretzel for the gas jets” video.

Debate night between Trump and Hillary…

And Trump’s inauguration…

If the pattern follows, we can probably expect to see more of these come out in the near future with the other Democratic 2020 candidates as the focus. At least we can all hope so.

BLR videos are one of the few things everyone can think are funny, no matter what side you’re on.

The post It’s Back! Joe Biden Gets the Bad Lip Reading Treatment In Hilarious New Video appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group biden-pointing-300x153 It’s Back! Joe Biden Gets the Bad Lip Reading Treatment In Hilarious New Video Politics Joe Biden Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats comedy Candidates bad lip reading Allow Media Exception 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Stunning Data from Trump’s Texas Rally Shows American Voters are Smarter than Democrats Think

Westlake Legal Group DonaldTrumpAPimage2-620x317 Stunning Data from Trump’s Texas Rally Shows American Voters are Smarter than Democrats Think Rush Limbaugh President Trump kamala harris Impeachment of President Trump immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story elections donald trump democrats corruption Congress Campaigns Brad Parscale Allow Media Exception 2020

President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a campaign rally, Thursday, Aug. 15, 2019, in Manchester, N.H. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

 

On Friday morning, Trump’s campaign manager Brad Parscale released some very surprising date from the Dallas, TX rally held the night before. First, their data showed that 53,985 voters had attended. The stadium had a maximum capacity of 20,000. The overflow crowd remained outside watching on a giant television screen.

Next, 12% of those who attended indicated they had not voted in the last four elections. Can you imagine if this group were to actually go to the polls next year and cast their ballot for Trump?

The third data point showed that. The significance of this is monumental. I wonder what the percentage of Republicans attending Democratic rallies is. I imagine it would be low to nil.

This tells us that a certain percentage of Democrats are looking at the weak field of candidates and are searching for an alternative. I would guess many of them are turned off by the party’s sharp left turn. It might surprise them to hear that not every Democrat shares their enthusiasm for a socialist America.

Rush Limbaugh discussed this data on his radio show on Friday. He said, “Folks, if this is right — if this is even close — the Democrats can’t win anything with that amount of defection, if that’s really percolating.”

Finally, Parscale finds that 11% of them were Latino. The implications of such a strong Hispanic presence lays to waste the Democratic talking point that Trump’s insistence on building a border wall and taking a tougher stand against illegal immigration is resonating. Admittedly, close to 40% of the state’s population is Hispanic compared to about 18% for the general U.S. population. Still, an 11% Hispanic turnout to a Trump rally is impressive. The Hispanic vote will have a big impact on the results in 2020.

Parscale’s comment on this data was encouraging. He wrote, “These are winning numbers that will help win #FourMoreYears for @realDonaldTrump! We continue to outperform 2016.”

I’ve watched the last two Trump rallies on television and I’ve concluded:

1. There is no way that any of the 2020 Democratic candidates could ever attract the crowd sizes that Trump regularly receives at his rallies.

2. Nor would supporters line up 24-48 hours to hear any of them speak.

3. No one in the current field could generate the level of excitement Trump creates routinely at these events.

4. President Trump connects with attendees on an emotional level.

5. Trump himself loves holding rallies and the crowd feels it, knows it.

Limbaugh can’t get over the energy of these rallies. He told listeners:

It’s just a guy at a podium and a microphone. It’s not like you’ve got Mick Jagger in there strumming and running around singing with the guitars and drums being played.

I mean, it’s just one guy, and yet this kind of charismatic excitement… I’m telling you that there isn’t anybody anywhere in the Democrat Party who could muster anything like that, and yet we are told to believe that the country hates Donald Trump. We’re told to believe the country wants Trump gone. We’re told to believe the country’s embarrassed as hell and regret really regretful of the decision they made back in 2016 — and this is a giant disconnect.

He also thinks Trump will win Texas. He said:

Now, this is Texas. I’ll tell you something about Texas. The Democrats will tell anybody who will listen that they’re gonna win Texas. They’re not gonna win Texas, but they’ve got the Drive-Bys putting it out there as a possibility. They’re doing it on the basis of a lot of people having left — a lot of liberals leaving California, a lot of liberals leaving the Northeast. And then of course the illegal aliens crossing the border. They will find a way to get them to vote. The counties all along the Texas-Mexico border are turning blue. So the Democrats in the media are out there saying, “Hey, Texas is in play.” Well, it’s not in play.

Aside from excitement, Trump offers hope, a strong economic record, a far more conservative and fair judiciary, strength against the unrelenting attacks from the left, transparency (like his tweeting or not, we know where he stands), and he acts as a bulwark against socialism.

The legacy of the current Democrats in Congress will be one of hatred, injustice, secrecy, lies, anger, bending the rules and norms to advance their toxic agenda and trying to gaslight American voters.

When asked what specifically Trump has done that rises to the level of impeachment, Democrats have little of substance to offer. The 2020 candidates were questioned about their positions on this issue at CNN’s presidential nomination debate held on Tuesday night. Sen. Kamala Harris answered,  “The reality of it is that I don’t really think this impeachment process is going to take very long, because, as a former prosecutor, I know a confession when I see it! And he did it in plain sight. He has given us the evidence, and he tried to cover it up, putting it in that special server. This will not take very long.”

Harris knows a confession when she sees it? He tried to cover it up by putting it on a special server? After two of Trump’s early conversations with world leaders were leaked to the press, he was forced to take extra precautions. She knows this, but since she can’t point to any valid reason for his impeachment, she was forced to use a debunked talking point.

Later in the debate, Harris said, “When I think about where we are right now, in 2020 I do believe justice is on the ballot.”

If justice is truly on the ballot in 2020, then Trump will win in a landslide.

The post Stunning Data from Trump’s Texas Rally Shows American Voters are Smarter than Democrats Think appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group DonaldTrumpAPimage2-300x153 Stunning Data from Trump’s Texas Rally Shows American Voters are Smarter than Democrats Think Rush Limbaugh President Trump kamala harris Impeachment of President Trump immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story elections donald trump democrats corruption Congress Campaigns Brad Parscale Allow Media Exception 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hillary Clinton Attacks Tulsi Gabbard and Gets Absolutely Wrecked In Response

Westlake Legal Group hillary-clinton-pointing-harvard-620x317 Hillary Clinton Attacks Tulsi Gabbard and Gets Absolutely Wrecked In Response tulsi gabbard Take Down Russian Agent Russia Politics Pathetic Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Failed Candidate democrats debate Allow Media Exception 2020

Hillary Clinton points to the audience as she is introduced at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., Friday, May 25, 2018. Harvard University’s Radcliffe Institute honored Clinton with the 2018 Radcliffe Medal. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

After CNN pretty clearly tried to handicap Tulsi Gabbard at the Democrat primary debate earlier in the week, she’s been the topic of several stories. Apparently Gabbard trying to go for the jugular against Elizabeth Warren got the attention of Hillary Clinton. She chimed in during an interview to take a very direct shot at the Hawaii Congresswoman.

Hillary’s spokesman would go on to confirm she was talking about Gabbard later in the day.

I can’t express how intellectually lazy this is. Clinton has turned into a conspiritorial kook who sees Russians behind every corner and under every bed. In this same interview, she asserted that part of why she lost in 2016 were “disappearing videos” from the “dark web.” Yes, she really said that.

That’s called delusion. Disappearing videos that only she knows about but no one can find because they go on the dark web? If this were Donald Trump, the media would be running even more stories pronouncing him mentally ill. Because it’s Hillary Clinton, they’ll ignore the insanity.

The other disgusting part about this is that Gabbard is a veteran. It’s one thing to disagree with here. It’s another for a old, privileged corruptocrat, who’s never done anything outside of getting rich off influence, to call a combat veteran a Russian agent. Especially a combat veteran who fought in the very wars that Clinton helped monger. There’s zero evidence of Gabbard is being controlled by Russia or any other such nonsense.

Tulsi Gabbard is never one to take something lying down though and she decided to go in for choke slam in response.

Holy crap, what a take down.

I don’t know about you, but I’d pay good money to see Gabbard and Clinton take to the same debate stage. Hillary’s too big of a coward to address Gabbard directly though. She’d prefer to snipe from the comfort of friendly lines.

Hillary Clinton is just an awful person. Her excuse tour, where she accuses everyone who has risen above her of being a Russian agent, is just pathetic. I for one hope she is deluded enough to take Gabbard up on her challenge and join the race. It would certainly make things a lot more interesting.

————————————————

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 Hillary Clinton Attacks Tulsi Gabbard and Gets Absolutely Wrecked In Response appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_18202817201422-300x225 Hillary Clinton Attacks Tulsi Gabbard and Gets Absolutely Wrecked In Response tulsi gabbard Take Down Russian Agent Russia Politics Pathetic Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Failed Candidate democrats debate Allow Media Exception 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hillary Plops Out Another: She was Robbed of Her Rightful Presidency by Hacking 10-Year-Old Children

Westlake Legal Group HillaryClintonAPimage-620x317 Hillary Plops Out Another: She was Robbed of Her Rightful Presidency by Hacking 10-Year-Old Children Uncategorized Hillary Clinton hacking Government Front Page Stories Florida Featured Story fake news democrats David Plouffe Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2016

Hillary Clinton speaks during the TIME 100 Summit, in New York, Tuesday, April 23, 2019. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

 

 

I don’t recall any other presidential election where the loser continued on for months and months and months claiming to not really have lost.

The reason I don’t remember could be that my memory is bad or that I’m not old enough. Another possible culprit: The fact that it would be incredibly foolish to do so, so no one does.

Hillary Clinton went her own way.

And she’s still going. Only one year away from the end of the term, she’s still expending time, effort, and the energy of her thoughts on her loss. What she doesn’t seem to understand is it only means she’s continuing to lose: Rather than doing something new and winning, she’s stuck failing in the past.

And I mean that, not critically, but empathetically.

It’s tough to watch.

And speaking of winceworthiness, Hillary recently sat down on the Campaign HQ with David Plouffe podcast to push out more explanation as to why she’s not president, none of which will likely ever be “America voted.”

And a really big one topped the pile.

As it turns out, a reason she was robbed of her rightful place at the head of the nation’s table was stinking kids.

Ten-year-olds, to be exact.

They’ve been hacking our elections.

And, apparently, fourth graders are big Trump supporters.

#ItTakesAVillain

Here’s Hil:

“You know, we don’t really know to what extent the election was interfered in because nobody will look for it. We do know that in Florida a lot more happened than has been admitted publicly.”

And on we go…

“We know we’re really vulnerable.”

Get ready for it…

“Every, you know, every Hackathon that happens, you know, 10-year-olds are hacking our voting systems and the networks that connect them.”

And the federal government likes all the elections being stolen:

“So we have four big problems, and we don’t have a government that is interested in protecting our elections.”

Well there ya go.

Oh, I just thought of this — if you want to know if that’s actually true, it ain’t.

The Daily Wire explains:

Clinton’s claim comes from an August 2018 story about a Florida hacking competition, during which a [11-year-old] boy hacked into a replica election system. The story was widely shared in the media as evidence of America’s vulnerability to hackers.

However, even Politifact rated the vote hacking claim “mostly false” after Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard repeated a similar claim over the summer.

Here’s Politifact:

First, there wasn’t hacking into a replica of the election system — but rather a website made to look like Florida’s Secretary of State website that reports preliminary election results. In other words, not the system that receives and counts actual votes.

And second, what was hacked into was not even a replica — as in an exact copy of the website — because it did not contain the proprietary security features that the Secretary of State website has.

Furthermore, this statement came from Florida’s National Association of Secretaries of State:

“While it is undeniable websites are vulnerable to hackers, election-night reporting websites are only used to publish preliminary, unofficial results for the public and the media. The sites are not connected to vote counting equipment and could never change actual election results.”

But if you’re prone to conspiracy subscription, and if Hillary’s loss is really stuck in your craw, then you should take action.

The little mongrels are probably holing up with swiped Macbooks, unbeknownst to mom or dad. They’re so small at that age — maybe they’re hiding in the cabinet while they steal all the elections.

Trump’s evil must’ve lured them away from their parents. We’ve got to shout down the devil.

If you wanna make a difference, the next time you see a decade-old dude or chick — at a restaurant, at a school, at the mall, at church, or anywhere else, confront that little deplorable.

And give ’em a little bit o’ What For.

And tell ’em Maxine sent ya:



-ALEX

 

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

The post Hillary Plops Out Another: She was Robbed of Her Rightful Presidency by Hacking 10-Year-Old Children appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group HillaryClintonAPimage-300x153 Hillary Plops Out Another: She was Robbed of Her Rightful Presidency by Hacking 10-Year-Old Children Uncategorized Hillary Clinton hacking Government Front Page Stories Florida Featured Story fake news democrats David Plouffe Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2016  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

NEW: State Department Official Reveals He Approached Joe Biden About Hunter Biden’s Dealings In 2015

Westlake Legal Group AS NEW: State Department Official Reveals He Approached Joe Biden About Hunter Biden’s Dealings In 2015 Ukraine Trump-Ukraine testimony State Department Politics official Joe Biden hunter biden George Kent Front Page Stories Front Page donald trump diplomat democrats dealings corruption Allow Media Exception adam schiff 2015

I’m going to guess this isn’t what Adam Schiff wanted to come out of his latest “hearing.”

A State Department official named George Kent, who served during the Obama administration as well, was called in to add nothing of substance to what we already know regarding Donald Trump and Ukraine. Surprisingly though, he managed to drop a piece of new information and it had to do with Hunter Biden.

Namely, that Kent had approached Biden in 2015 about the issues with his son’s dealing and was rebuffed.

This via Fox News.

A State Department official focused on Ukraine policy told Congress this week he raised concerns about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas firm in 2015, but was rebuffed by former Vice President Joe Biden’s staff which said the office was preoccupied with Beau Biden’s cancer battle, Fox News has confirmed.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, who testified behind closed doors before committees spearheading the formal House impeachment inquiry, told congressional investigators that he had qualms about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.

Remember, Biden has repeatedly claimed that he didn’t know of his son’s dealings. We know he’s lying in regards to ever talking to Hunter about them, but now we know they were also brought to his attention through official channels as well.

Certainly, there is some leeway to be given to Joe Biden, as he was dealing with his late son’s illness at the time. But his entire staff wasn’t and he was still the Vice President. Such matters are not wiped away because of personal trials. It would have been very easy for Biden’s Chief of Staff (or someone else) to handle the issue. Further, we know that Hunter Biden’s dealings continued well after his brother’s death.

The report continues.

A congressional source confirmed to Fox News on Friday that Kent testified that when he brought his concerns to the office of the vice president in 2016, his staff “blew him off” and ignored the issue involving the younger Biden’s role at the firm. The Post first reported that the staff said they did not have the “bandwidth” to deal with the issue, as his other son, Beau Biden, was battling cancer. Beau Biden died in 2015.

Biden’s campaign responded to this story on Friday by ripping into President Trump. “Donald Trump’s unprecedently corrupt administration is melting down because of the scandal he touched-off by trying to get Ukraine to lie about Joe Biden–and as the vice president said yesterday, he should release his tax returns or shut up,” a Biden campaign spokesperson told Fox News. “On Joe Biden’s watch, the U.S. made eradicating corruption a centerpiece of our policies toward Ukraine including achieving the removal of an inept prosecutor who shielded wrongdoers from accountability.”

I have no idea what Biden’s ranting response has to do with the actual story here. This isn’t about Donald Trump. It’s about Joe Biden lying about his knowledge of his son’s shady dealings and brushing aside concerns being voiced by the State Department. It should also be noted that at no point did Trump try to “get Ukraine to lie about Joe Biden.” That in and of itself is just a blatant lie. Trump asked that Ukraine get to the bottom of the younger Biden’s dealings. He did not ask them to lie or manufacture information.

There’s another bit of information in this piece that’s interesting as well.

However, Kent testified that while Shokin faced accusations of corruption, his replacement, Lutsenko, did too and that both ex-prosecutors were godfathers to former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s children. However, according to sources, Kent said that while the United States pushed hard for Shokin to be fired, no one ever pushed for Lutsenko to be fired.

Lutsenko ended up closing the cases into Burisma and other corruption within Ukraine. Coincidentally, I’m sure, the Obama administration had no problem keeping him on the job despite his checkered history and the fact that he just happened to be helping out Joe Biden and his son in the process.

Kent’s testimony does two things. It further illustrates that there’s nothing to this Trump-Ukraine matter past what’s in the call transcript, which we already have. No official is going to magically provide context we don’t already know as we have the actual words of the call. That’s been the common theme throughout this ordeal. It’s nothing but political theater. More importantly though, it breaths new life into the allegations against the Bidens.

That’s something I’m sure Adam Schiff wasn’t counting on.

————————————————

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 NEW: State Department Official Reveals He Approached Joe Biden About Hunter Biden’s Dealings In 2015 appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 17329344-1af8-4a1f-8631-ab65d20076a0-1-300x153 NEW: State Department Official Reveals He Approached Joe Biden About Hunter Biden’s Dealings In 2015 Ukraine Trump-Ukraine testimony State Department Politics official Joe Biden hunter biden George Kent Front Page Stories Front Page donald trump diplomat democrats dealings corruption Allow Media Exception adam schiff 2015  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Left’s Reaction to Mark Zuckerberg’s Comments on Political Speech Shows Their True Agenda Is to Silence Their Opponents

Yesterday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was scheduled to give a speech on the future of free speech and free expression at Georgetown University. It was an interesting speech from a number of points of view.

He outlines some of the threats faced by free speech and expression on the internet. While he deserves credit for doing what Google will not do, that is, refuse to cooperate with the Chinese government in developing tools to enforce political conformity on a large population, he backhandedly admits that his own company has a huge issue with free speech and imagines that it has a role as a gatekeeper to keep free speech with acceptable boundaries.

(Read the whole speech)

To me, the contrast between Zuckerberg’s professed respect for free speech and the way Facebook actually operates is simply not reconcilable. In fact, Zuckerberg’s idea of free speech policed by a regime of contracted and highly partisan fact checkers enforcing ambiguous “hate speech” rules is clearly out of Noam Chomsky’s playbook (The Common Good, pg. 43):

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

That is exactly what has been created. While Zuckerberg may have refused to be co-opted by the Chinese, he has created his very own little fascist empire in which there is free speech so long as you agree with the worldview and opinions of the vicious corps of SJW net-nannies that he has chosen to employ. The way the pro-life group Live Action was squashed because Facebook allowed pro-aborts to classify videos as having false information when they were true (there is literally no medical reason for an abortion) but strayed outside the pro-abort orthodoxy required by Facebook shows just how meaningless Zuckerberg’s statements are if they are not read through the lens of Chomsky.

I’ve made no secret of my hope that a brigade of vicious spiteful anti-trust lawyers who are compensated solely on the basis of the damage they inflict shows up at Facebook headquarters with a SWAT team and a 18-wheeler load of subpoenas and blank, signed arrest warrants. So I was taken a bit aback when the major criticism of Zuckerberg came from the left, the people who are net beneficiaries of his scheme.

Oddly enough, of all the problematic concepts that he touts as smoothly as any NewSpeak speech by Big Brother, the one that got the hormones flowing on the left was this:

We recently clarified our policies to ensure people can see primary source speech from political figures that shapes civic discourse. Political advertising is more transparent on Facebook than anywhere else — we keep all political and issue ads in an archive so everyone can scrutinize them, and no TV or print does that. We don’t fact-check political ads. We don’t do this to help politicians, but because we think people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying. And if content is newsworthy, we also won’t take it down even if it would otherwise conflict with many of our standards.

I know many people disagree, but, in general, I don’t think it’s right for a private company to censor politicians or the news in a democracy. And we’re not an outlier here. The other major internet platforms and the vast majority of media also run these same ads.

This apparently is a new development because in 2018, Facebook censored campaign videos by Elizabeth Heng which referred to her family’s escape from the kind of repressive dictatorship the Democrats are well on their way to establishing in California, see Facebook Blocks Republican Candidate Ad For Daring To Show Horrors Of Communism.

For instance, this is some of the criticism:

In a way this is a stunning level of dumbf***ery. Federal law currently makes it illegal for a broadcast station to alter or censor (that word, ‘censor,’ is in the law, so you libertarians who keep claiming that private business can’t censor, take a seat and be quiet) any ad by a political candidate. So long as the speech in the candidate ad is not illegal, per se, it is required to be run. The very idea that Facebook ever had any authority to police candidate ads is simply balderdash and it is quite an indictment of Department of Justice that they sat idly by and let this go on. The idea that any society, much less an ostensibly free one, should tolerate a corporation with a track record of lying to the public and constructing extremely opaque practices to punish WrongThink to control the speech of candidates for election in abhorrent.

It also gives away the real game. The fascists of the totalitarian left have given up on trying to convince people based on arguments, now they are going straight on to silencing ideas they can’t stand. Even Zuckerberg recognizes this impulse.

Increasingly, we’re seeing people try to define more speech as dangerous because it may lead to political outcomes they see as unacceptable. Some hold the view that since the stakes are so high, they can no longer trust their fellow citizens with the power to communicate and decide what to believe for themselves.

Make no mistake about it, I think that at its core, Facebook is at least as hostile to American values as China but in a different way. I also think the sooner the federal government acts to demolish Facebook the safer our freedoms will be. I also think that Zuckerberg’s change of direction on federal candidate ads is driven by fear of federal government action rather than his love of free speech because I think he’s as much of a SJW as any that he employs. As they say, a fish rots from the head down. What is illustrative about this is that the left is actually showing its true colors. It holds free speech and freedom of religion at least in as much disdain as it does the Second Amendment and the Electoral College and any other part of the Constitution that restricts their ability to impose their worldview on the rest of us.

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

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

The post The Left’s Reaction to Mark Zuckerberg’s Comments on Political Speech Shows Their True Agenda Is to Silence Their Opponents appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group mark-zuckerberg-georgetown-300x153 The Left’s Reaction to Mark Zuckerberg’s Comments on Political Speech Shows Their True Agenda Is to Silence Their Opponents Social Media Politics political speech Mark Zuckerberg Internet Censorship Front Page Stories freedom of speech Featured Story facebook democrats Culture Censorship Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com