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 5)

Clinton Consigliere Sid Blumenthal Goes to the Mattresses Over Book On the Russia Hoax

Westlake Legal Group hrc-620x413 Clinton Consigliere Sid Blumenthal Goes to the Mattresses Over Book On the Russia Hoax tyler drumheller Special Counsel sid blumenthal russia hoax Politics Lee Smith Hudson Institute Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

One of the most prolific and insightful chroniclers of the Russia Hoax that the Obama administration, the Clinton campaign, and their allies and lackies in the FBI and Intelligence Community perpetrated upon the United States has been Lee Smith. He’s as Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and has been instrumental in teasing out the various strands of this slow-motion coup. Now Lee has a book coming out next week titled The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History. And that book has drawn the attention of long time Clinton consigliere Sid “Sid Vicious” Blumenthal.

Clinton family associate Sidney Blumenthal has made legal threats to the publisher of a forthcoming book featuring allegations against Democrats in connection with the Russia investigation in an attempt to stop publication, Fox News has learned.

A source familiar with the matter told Fox News that Blumenthal claimed the book – “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History,” by Lee Smith – was defamatory.

“Blumenthal tried to stop it from being published,” the source told Fox News, saying the Hillary Clinton confidant sent threatening letters to Smith and publisher Center Street, a division of Hachette Book Group.

Defaming a public figure, particularly one as odious as Hillary Clinton, is a very difficult barrier to overcome in any legal action but I suspect that Blumenthal has an additional agenda.

Back when Hillary Clinton’s emails came out, we found that Hillary Clinton was using an off-books intelligence service rather than relying upon the Intelligence Community (note to self: why is it that no one in government seems to trust the Intelligence Community very much?). Of course  there was an uproar over the Secretary of State using some cronies to provide her with the information she used to set foreign policy–just joking, because her name wasn’t Donald Trump no one thought very much of it. The head of this off books project was non other than Sid Blumenthal. He was partnered with a skeevy ex-CIA goon named Tyler Drumheller…who had the foresight to die in August 2015 as the email investigation was heating up. One of the emails included Top Secret information that did NOT originate at State. If this had been pursued with anything like the energy used trying to frame George Papadopoulos I think it would have made Comey’s decision to not prosecute Clinton impossible. Read these two speculative pieces:

The Real Email Question: Did Hillary Clinton Sell US Secrets?

Do Hillary Clinton’s Emails Expose A Scheme To Trade US Secrets For Political Influence?

The more attention that is drawn to Clinton by Lee’s book, the more attention that is going to be drawn to the activities of Sid Vicious and court sycophant and fixer. The more people start looking at Blumenthal, the more interesting he’s going to become. And unlike most of the other players in this melodrama, absolutely no one in DC likes Blumenthal.

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

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

 

The post Clinton Consigliere Sid Blumenthal Goes to the Mattresses Over Book On the Russia Hoax appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group hrc-300x200 Clinton Consigliere Sid Blumenthal Goes to the Mattresses Over Book On the Russia Hoax tyler drumheller Special Counsel sid blumenthal russia hoax Politics Lee Smith Hudson Institute Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Graham: We’ve got 46 U.S. senators right now willing to condemn the House impeachment inquiry as unfair

Westlake Legal Group l-1 Graham: We’ve got 46 U.S. senators right now willing to condemn the House impeachment inquiry as unfair unfair Ukraine The Blog sponsors Senate romney resolution murkowski Lindsey Graham Inquiry impeachment House gardner democrats collins

The number of co-sponsors of Graham’s impeachment resolution as of 6 p.m. ET last night was 44, meaning that nine Senate Republicans were still holding out. But two of those holdouts, Rob Portman and Dan Sullivan, made no sense. They’re each from red states. They’d have nothing to gain and everything to lose by crossing Trump on impeachment matters (especially Sullivan, who’s up for reelection next fall). Sure enough, Graham himself reported soon after on his Twitter feed that both senators had joined his cause. That left just seven holdouts — but all seven *could* potentially be hard for Graham to get. Or at least harder than the average Republican.

Alexander
Collins
Enzi
Gardner
Isakson
Murkowski
Romney

Two anti-Trumpers, two highly vulnerable purple-state senators who are on the ballot next fall, and three retiring senators. Hmmm!

It turns out that the new resolution wasn’t Graham’s first option for attacking the House inquiry. The White House wants him to be more aggressive against Schiff and company and so, per the Dispatch, Graham initially proposed to Senate Republicans that they should send a letter to Pelosi indicating that they were on Trump’s side — not just in his complaints about the procedures Democrats were using but on the merits of the Ukraine matter too. I think Graham, realizing how leery Pelosi is of impeachment, thought that a united front among Senate Republicans on the merits might give her the excuse she’s looking for to drop the inquiry. “Senate Republicans seem to have made up their minds before seeing the evidence,” she might have said. “That’s a dereliction of duty, but there’s nothing I can do about it so let’s move on from impeachment.”

The idea didn’t go over so well in the Republican caucus room, though, because there simply isn’t a united front on the merits of Trump’s defense.

Graham presented the idea of an aggressive letter to Speaker Pelosi, as first reported by The Hill, in which Republican senators would make clear that they would not vote to remove President Trump from office. The proposed letter would have included a defense of the president and a critique of the process run by House Democrats.

Numerous senators voiced concerns about Graham’s proposal. Tom Cotton argued that such a public missive would put vulnerable Republicans up for reelection in 2020 in a difficult spot: sign it, and you’re committing yourself to defend the president; refuse, and you’re making yourself a potential target of Trump’s ire. The former risks alienating conservative skeptics and independents and the latter would infuriate the Trump-friendly GOP base. Graham, whose office did not respond to a request for comment, was reportedly “blindsided” by the negative response from his Senate colleagues.

So, with McConnell’s help, Graham proceeded to Plan B: Forget the merits of the Ukraine matter and focus on process exclusively. Surely the caucus would agree to a resolution criticizing the way Democrats are running the inquiry. That would let all of them earn a little breathing room from the GOP base while they brace themselves for the momentous vote on removal after the president’s trial a month or two from now. And more importantly it would hopefully get TrumpWorld off of Graham’s back. They keep asking him to be a warrior for the president and meanwhile the president keeps making Graham’s job harder by griping about Senate Republicans:

That Graham’s maneuver fell short of satisfying the political bloodlust among Trump’s allies didn’t go unnoticed by his colleagues, many of whom have privately griped in recent days about Trump’s eagerness to air his disapproval of the very people he needs in his corner in the event of an impeachment trial. One top GOP Senate operative said that patience on the Hill is “wearing thin.”

“It’s exhausting and they don’t know what they don’t know in terms of where this is going,” the operative added.

Other aides said that they found the attacks from Trump-allied operatives to be counterproductive.

“It’s an interesting strategy,” a senior Senate GOP aide told The Daily Beast, “to attack Republican senators after they try to defend you.”

I’m surprised that McConnell would get behind Graham’s resolution unless he had commitments in advance from 51 Republicans to support it. If Graham’s resolution fails, it’ll trigger a thunderstorm of media coverage about how Republican solidarity behind Trump might be weaker than everyone thought. Then we’ll have a real sh*tshow between Trump and the Senate GOP. I think Graham *will* end up getting at least five of the seven holdouts in the end, though. After all, unless you’re a stalwart anti-Trumper like Romney, there’s no incentive not to play nice with Trump at this stage of the process. If you’re open to removing him from office later, why turn adversarial so soon? Just vote with Graham, be a team player, and keep your powder dry until the removal vote. Frankly, I don’t think any of the seven except Romney or Murkowski are any real threat to cross the aisle on removal either. Collins and Gardner would be committing political suicide if they did so, and the retirees Alexander, Enzi, and Isakson are loyal Republicans who doubtless move in Republican social circles. Why cast a vote on removal that’ll alienate everyone around them back home when the removal effort won’t remotely approach 67 votes?

The one wrinkle is that if Collins, Gardner, and the retirees have already quietly made up their minds to vote against removal later, then they might choose not to support Graham’s resolution now as a way of tossing Trump’s critics a bone in anticipation of the disappointment to come. They’d all be kidding themselves if they believe anti-Trumpers will care about anything else if they end up opposing removal, but siding with Democrats on Graham’s resolution is one very tiny thing they could all do to signal “bipartisanship.” If they end up refusing to support Graham’s resolution, that’s probably why. It’s not because they’re going to try to oust Trump later, it’s because they aren’t and are looking for conciliatory gestures to pro-removal constituents back home.

Anyway, the complaints about process are a fun sideshow but Republicans “are also keenly aware that there is an expiration date on that approach, given that Democrats soon plan to hold a series of public hearings to lay out their case, raising the possibility that their bind will only deepen as the more information pours out.” That’s why Trump and his inner circle are so peeved at Graham and so dissatisfied with this current stunt. A resolution denouncing Democratic secrecy won’t matter once the proceedings are no longer secret. A Judiciary Committee investigation of Burisma and CrowdStrike led by Graham potentially has much longer legs.

The post Graham: We’ve got 46 U.S. senators right now willing to condemn the House impeachment inquiry as unfair appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group l-1-300x159 Graham: We’ve got 46 U.S. senators right now willing to condemn the House impeachment inquiry as unfair unfair Ukraine The Blog sponsors Senate romney resolution murkowski Lindsey Graham Inquiry impeachment House gardner democrats collins  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Americans See Right Through the Democrats’ Impeachment Star Chamber

Westlake Legal Group star-chamber-620x332 Americans See Right Through the Democrats’ Impeachment Star Chamber Uncategorized Ukraine schiff Rep. Adam Schiff President Trump Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story fake news democrats democratic corruption corruption Corrupt Democrats Abuse of Power

THE STAR CHAMBER [US 1983] Date: 1983

Wednesday was “smoking gun” day according to the despicable Adam Schff, the House Intel Committee chairman who narrowly survived a censure vote this week. His serial lying began with over 250 public promises (mostly on the thoroughly discredited CNN and MSNBC) since January 2017 that he “had the goods” on President Trump that would decisively prove Russian collusion and lead directly the articles of impeachment.

Who could forget his opening statement before his own committee during hearings in late September in which Kurt Volker was questioned about the President’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky? Schiff later during that same hearing was forced to back off on that bald-faced lie and call his own opening statement a “parody” because POTUS released the phone call transcript.

Then he lied about his prior coordination with the Ukraine “leaker”, as well as his own and staffers’ direct connections to Ukraine (Schiff took money from a Ukrainian arms dealer). Here is just one example:

Westlake Legal Group Schiff-fuhd-raiser-259x300 Americans See Right Through the Democrats’ Impeachment Star Chamber Uncategorized Ukraine schiff Rep. Adam Schiff President Trump Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story fake news democrats democratic corruption corruption Corrupt Democrats Abuse of Power

Then Schiff violated House traditions by preventing committee Republicans from having direct access to witness testimony, enabling Schiff and other Democrats to selectively leak and spin damaging testimony  while at the same time precluding the release of testimony that exonerates the President from the salacious quid pro quo accusations that form the basis for the Democrats’ fake “impeachment inquiry.”

Things really came to a head on Wednesday, as Republicans confronted Schiff’s Soviet-style control of House Intel Committee hearings:

House Republicans led by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., on Wednesday essentially stormed a closed-door session connected to the impeachment investigation of President Trump, prompting House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff to suspend the proceedings in a remarkable scene. The standoff happened Wednesday morning after lawmakers held a press conference in which they accused House Democrats of lack of transparency. The Republicans specifically called out Schiff, D-Calif., who is leading the investigation. “Voting members of Congress are being denied access from being able to see what’s happening behind these closed doors where they’re trying to impeach the president of the United States with a one-sided set of rules,” Scalise continued. “They call the witnesses. They don’t let anybody else call the witnesses.”

[Rep. Byrne:] “Adam Schiff just SHUT DOWN his secret underground impeachment hearing after I led a group of Republicans into the room. Now he’s threatening me with an Ethics complaint! I’m on the Armed Services Cmte but being blocked from the Dept. Asst. SecDef’s testimony. This is a SHAM!” Rep. Bradley Byrne, R-Ala., tweeted.

Read the rest here.  It’s about damn time Republicans upped their game against Schiff, isn’t it? But it gets better.

In two minutes of devastating testimony before the House Intel Committee in a SCIF on day before the Republicans’ committee-crashing activities, John Ratcliffe (R-TX) destroyed the Democrats’ star witness, Ukraine’s top diplomat, William Taylor. While the Democrats selectively leaked Taylor’s opening statement and stated that Taylor provided the “smoking gun” proving the supposed quid pro quo (trumpeted everywhere in the legacy media), here is what Rep. Ratcliffe accomplished in directly questioning Taylor in his own words, as he reported afterwards on FNC:

I found [Taylor] to be very forthright. He had very strong opinions about Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy. But again, the mainstream media reporting that he provided evidence of a quid pro quo involving military aid is false. I questioned him directly on that. And under [House Intelligence Chairman] Adam Schiff’s rules I can’t tell you what he said, but I can tell you what he didn’t say. And neither he or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo.

Watch the whole interview here.  Yes, you read that right: Taylor provided zero evidence of a quid pro quo; to the contrary, Taylor denied there was a quid pro quo offered during the two presidents’ phone call! And yet Schiff’s committee rules precluded Ratcliffe from reporting Taylor’s actual testimony! That’s direct confirmation that Schiff is running a Soviet-style kangaroo court focused solely on impeaching the President, regardless of the existence of exonerating testimony!

Fortunately, rational and normal Americans retain a sense of fairness and can see through the Democrats’ charade. Now comes a report that the Democrat-media attempts to sway public opinion toward impeachment is in fact backfiring on them:

A memo by the Republican National Committee (RNC) that contains internal GOP polling data shows the American public, even Democrat voters, are turning against the Democrat Party’s “impeachment inquiry” into President Donald Trump. The memo, obtained exclusively by Breitbart News, shows independent voters nationwide en masse oppose impeachment—with 54 percent opposed and only 34 percent in favor. “We have seen public polling drastically under sample Independent voters, which is one of the many reasons for so much incorrect public data over the past month,” the memo explains regarding the disparity between internal GOP numbers and public polling from news organizations and polling institutions.

What’s more, internal RNC polling data, according to this memo, shows Democrats have lost support among their own base significantly in just the past week. “Support among Democrats for the ridiculous attempt to remove the President from office is down 10 points over the past week,” the memo says.

Read the rest here. There is much more in that article about the flawed polling methods employed by Gallup and Fox News that resulted in the sensational (and false!) claims that over 50% of Americans support impeachment!

Normal people can see through the B.S. The Democrats, including those who infest the legacy media, have been trying every which way from Sunday to drum up public support for impeachment through false allegations, lies, sensationalist reporting, and selective leaking. And it’s NOT WORKING! To the contrary, support for the President’s successful policies and demonstrated results has been climbing inexorably. But for the Democrats, impeachment is all they’ve got, as they are desperate to protect their Ukrainian slush-fund which, when fully exposed, will likely implicate the lot of them – including that miserable Adam “Shifty” Schiff!

I can’t wait for AG Barr and US Attorney Durham to bring the pain. That day is coming soon. The Democrats have sown the wind with the false allegations against the President for over two years, and they will soon reap the political whirlwind.

The end.

Late note! It turns out that Schiff’s “star witness” was on the board of an Ukrainian NGO with direct ties to George Soros! How rotten and corrupt are these Democrats, anyway? Check this out.

The post Americans See Right Through the Democrats’ Impeachment Star Chamber appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group star-chamber-300x161 Americans See Right Through the Democrats’ Impeachment Star Chamber Uncategorized Ukraine schiff Rep. Adam Schiff President Trump Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Featured Story fake news democrats democratic corruption corruption Corrupt Democrats Abuse of Power  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Former Speaker Boehner Contradicts Fox’s Napolitano, Says GOP Did Not Change Impeachment Rules in 2015

Westlake Legal Group HouseGOPimpeachmentpresser-620x317 Former Speaker Boehner Contradicts Fox’s Napolitano, Says GOP Did Not Change Impeachment Rules in 2015 washington D.C. Social Media republicans Politics Ohio North Carolina Newsweek Media Matters Media journalism John Boehner Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page fox news Fox and Friends Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture Congress Brit Hume Andrew Napolitano Allow Media Exception

House Republicans gather for a news conference after Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper arrived for a closed door meeting to testify as part of the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Newsweek gleefully reported yesterday about comments Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano made on Fox and Friends Thursday morning in the aftermath of the storming that took place on Wednesday by dozens of frustrated House GOP members into House Intel Chief Adam Schiff’s secret hearings.

During the segment, Napolitano told the hosts that the GOP had no one to blame themselves for how the current impeachment inquiry was being conducted. Why? According to him, the impeachment inquiry rules were written in 2015 by the GOP and signed by then-House Speaker John Boehner:

“As frustrating as it may be to have these hearings going on behind closed doors…they are consistent with the rules,” Napolitano, who previously served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge, explained during a segment of the Fox News morning show Fox & Friends.

“When were the rules written last?” the legal expert asked. “In January of 2015. And who signed them? John Boehner [the Republican speaker of the House]. And who enacted them? A Republican majority,” he asserted.

A video of the clip was tweeted out by Media Matters’ Bobby Lewis, who apparently is their designated monitor for Fox and Friends. The clip went viral, and as of this writing has over 29,000 retweets and nearly 80,000 likes:

In the next tweet, Lewis asserted – without evidence – that Napolitano “demolishe[d] Fox’s talking point that Dems need transparency.” Similarly, the Daily Beast ran a piece on the Judge’s comments, and uncritically passed them off as factual. “Napolitano … effectively dismantl[ed] the primary talking point of both Fox News and the Trump White House,” senior writer Matt Wilstein stated.

There’s just one problem: Boehner himself called BS on Judge Napolitano’s comments, as Brit Hume noted in a couple of tweets responding to the reports:

Boehner later confirmed that that’s what he said:

I assume Judge Nap is talking about a rule that was/is supposedly in the House Rules and Manual, an updated one of which is distributed every two years to the new Congress. Here’s how the process works:

Printed as a “House Document,” the Manual is usually authorized by House resolution at the end of a Congress for printing at the beginning of the following Congress. As such, the House document number reflects the Congress that authorized the printing although the cover page identifies the applicable Congress for the contents.

Let’s assume for grins and giggles that Napolitano is correct here. Even if he was, the book changes for each new Congress. 2015 was when the 114th Congress convened. We’re now in the 116th Congress. And as Rep. Dan Crenshaw (TX) pointed out Wednesday, the rulebook for this Congress clearly states on page 568 all House members should have access to the documents/transcripts, etc that Schiff is keeping under wraps:

Is Napolitano not aware of this?

As far as depositions being held in the public view goes, Byron York made this great point this morning:

Indeed. Too bad our intellectual betters in the mainstream media aren’t interested in finding out why that’s the case.

——-
— 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 Former Speaker Boehner Contradicts Fox’s Napolitano, Says GOP Did Not Change Impeachment Rules in 2015 appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group HouseGOPimpeachmentpresser-300x153 Former Speaker Boehner Contradicts Fox’s Napolitano, Says GOP Did Not Change Impeachment Rules in 2015 washington D.C. Social Media republicans Politics Ohio North Carolina Newsweek Media Matters Media journalism John Boehner Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page fox news Fox and Friends Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture Congress Brit Hume Andrew Napolitano Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Makeup of the Crowd of Democrats Who Don’t Want Trump Impeached May Surprise You

Westlake Legal Group DonaldTrumpAPimage2-620x317 The Makeup of the Crowd of Democrats Who Don’t Want Trump Impeached May Surprise You republicans polls Politics Never Trumpers Minorities impeachment Front Page Stories elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

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

NBC polling on the impeachment of President Donald Trump shows that the nation is split down the middle on whether or not it should happen, but that’s not the interesting part.

The new NBC/Survey Monkey poll gets in the details about who is falling on which side when it comes to things like race, sex, and age. Nothing has changed much about the approval numbers for the impeachment proceedings down party lines. Republicans don’t want it by a vast majority (9/90) and Democrats do want it by more or less the same number (89/10).

The Republicans that do want it are, of course, the “Never Trump” crowd who are of the mind that Trump can do no right no matter what he does.

But that’s not surprising. What is surprising is looking at the Democrats who don’t want Trump impeached. According to NBC, this consists of a very diverse crowd of younger people:

About 6 in 10 Democrats who don’t think Trump should be impeached still disapprove of the job he’s doing as president. Still, 4 in 10 of those Democrats approve of the job he’s doing, compared to only 2 percent approval among Democrats who think he should be impeached. …

Again, in this group, a majority are white (56 percent) but 21 percent are Hispanic and 17 percent are black.

Forty-three percent of Democrats who don’t think Trump should be impeached are under 45 years.

This is significant for two reasons. The first is that it may have something of an impact on the election. As Ed Morrissey of Hot Air highlighted, the geographic location of these voters could not only tilt the election further for Trump in 2020, but that little chunk could also have something of an effect on the House races:

NBC doesn’t mention the geographic distribution of these Democrats, but it might be more important than their ethnic or age demos. If these come mainly in suburban areas, it might turn into a real headache next year for Democrats. It would have a subtle impact on their ability to win the presidential election, but such a development would have a major impact on their ability to hold the House majority. Can we assume that the 51% who either didn’t vote in 2016 or voted for Trump came primarily from the suburbs? Probably not, although that seems a little more likely than the urban cores. Perhaps NBC can follow up with more data on regional distribution.

The other problem, and possibly the longer lasting one for Democrats, is that it shows that their narrative isn’t resonating as well as they’d like with groups they took for granted as belonging to them. Younger, minority crowds whom Democrats counted on as static voters (or at least supportive non-voters) have turned away.

The question is “why?” The right has launched several campaigns and figures from minority communities have begun stepping up to proclaim they’re turning their backs on the Democrats more than ever. Be it Candace Owens or Kanye, the trend is up and shows no signs of slowing down.

Zogby Analytics cobbled together approval ratings from minority communities and found that Trump’s support among minorities has been rising:

Race also played a factor in Trump’s job approval rating. Hispanics, this time around, were much more likely to approve of his job performance (49% approve/51% disapprove), while the president also saw his numbers jump with African Americans. This was his second straight poll with over a quarter support from African Americans (28% approve/70% disapprove). If Trump wins half of Hispanics and a quarter of African Americans in 2020, Democrats will be in trouble!

All this shows that Democrats are losing ground with minority Americans. What’s more, they’re young to boot. If this continues, then Democrats may have more trouble on their hands for years to come than just in 2020.

The post The Makeup of the Crowd of Democrats Who Don’t Want Trump Impeached May Surprise You appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group DonaldTrumpAPimage2-300x153 The Makeup of the Crowd of Democrats Who Don’t Want Trump Impeached May Surprise You republicans polls Politics Never Trumpers Minorities impeachment Front Page Stories elections donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Somethings Up: Tusli Gabbard Will Not Run For Congress Next Year

Westlake Legal Group TulsiGabbardDemDebate4APimage-300x153 Somethings Up: Tusli Gabbard Will Not Run For Congress Next Year white house washington D.C. warren republicans Rep Tulsi Gabbard progressives President Trump MSN military International Affairs Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Constitution Conservatives Congress communism Climate Campaigns biden Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception 2019

 (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

I don’t like to put on the tin foil hat often but this is a strange move to me. Presidential hopeful and non-favorite of Hillary Clinton, Tulsi Gabbard has just announced she will NOT seek reelection in her home district next year so she can focus on her Presidential campaign.

What is going on here?

According to MSN

While lagging behind in a crowded Democratic presidential field, Gabbard has gotten renewed attention lately after a heated argument with former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

The squabble seemed to give Gabbard renewed energy on the campaign trail.

Gabbard noted in her early morning announcement that the threats of war, international tensions and the threats of a new cold war convinced her she should focus on the presidential race

“I believe I can best serve the people of Hawaii and our country as your President and Commander-in-Chief,” she said in her statement.

The whole brush up with Clinton was a gift for Gabbard being it did give her renewed attention. She capitalized on it with her smack back of Clinton about her being a Russian operative while Clinton still holds the reset button she presented with the Ruskies as Obama’s Secretary of State.

Why give up a safe seat in Congress though? She is not going to be the nominee of the party.

Gabbard could be a rising star in the Democratic party as she comes across as not crazy while holding most of the same views as those who look and act crazy. Make no mistake about that. Tulsi might be more moderate on the timetable to achieve some of the horrible ideas that Bernie and Elizabeth are hashing out, but she is lockstep with the same overall goal.

If she is calculating that her announcing over a year early she is not running again for her seat will make her look more viable for the Presidential run, I personally don’t see how.

Maybe she has started off the 4th quarter raising more money than her campaign anticipated after the Hillary dust-up. Possibly she just doesn’t like being a congress critter anymore after traveling to Iowa and New Hamshire. Could it be that MSNBC wants to hire her after she drops out as a commentator on the network that currently is offering every excuse in the book for Hillary?

This is one of the stranger moves I have ever seen for someone who does not have a viable path to the nomination of her party. I have to admit I’m stumped and wondering how it unfolds.

I’m going to have the tinfoil hat on standby though just in case I need it.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Somethings Up: Tusli Gabbard Will Not Run For Congress Next Year appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group TulsiGabbardDemDebate4APimage-300x153 Somethings Up: Tusli Gabbard Will Not Run For Congress Next Year white house washington D.C. warren republicans Rep Tulsi Gabbard progressives President Trump MSN military International Affairs Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Constitution Conservatives Congress communism Climate Campaigns biden Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception 2019  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ilhan Omar Makes Up a Story About a Boy Dying to Yell Orange Man Bad

Westlake Legal Group omar-tlaib1-620x317 Ilhan Omar Makes Up a Story About a Boy Dying to Yell Orange Man Bad The Squad The New York Times story Politics Orange Man Bad medicaid Mark Zuckerberg Made up lied Ilhan Omar Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats Congress CHIP AOC Allow Media Exception

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., left, joined at right by Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., listens to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2019. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Rep. Ilhan Omar has managed to stay out of the news lately. By pure coincidence, right as her personal life started to become an issue, including evidence she married her brother, campaign finance violations, and an affair with a consultant, the press suddenly stopped talking about here. Weird stuff.

We still occasionally get some crazy thrown at us though and that happened yesterday. Omar decided she needed something to yell at Trump about, so she essentially made up story blaming Medicaid for a boy’s death.

There’s just one problem. Well, actually there are many.

I looked into this and Greg is right. Not only is the boy alive, which seems like a pretty big oversight on Omar’s part, this was not the fault of the government at all. As per law, the hospital admitted the boy regardless of whatever irrational fears the mother had about them not treating him.

Also, the reason he wasn’t covered under Medicaid via CHIP is because the mother had not filled out the proper paperwork. I know Democrats expect the government to be all powerful, but reading minds to register kids probably isn’t in their purview.

Even still, the hospital took it upon themselves to get all the paperwork done and get the boy covered. They did everything right here and deserved praise, not being vilified by Omar. Further, Medicaid is run and distributed at the state level based on each state’s program. Blaming Trump for this made no sense to begin with.

Now, guess where you could have found all this information? If you guessed in the article she linked to, congrats.

Omar did put out a “correction.”

This is the kind of thing you delete the original tweet over. Instead she pretends her only oversight was that the boy was still alive.

Oddly enough, not a single media “fact-checker” has found this worthy of pursuit yet.

There’s one last bit of irony here as well. On the same day Omar posted this blatant lie, Democrats were grilling Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook about “fact-checking” material on social media sites. I wonder if any of them will call Omar out over doing exactly what they claim is so dangerous? Gonna guess nah.

————————————————

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 Ilhan Omar Makes Up a Story About a Boy Dying to Yell Orange Man Bad appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group IlhanOmarAOCAPimage-300x153 Ilhan Omar Makes Up a Story About a Boy Dying to Yell Orange Man Bad The Squad The New York Times story Politics Orange Man Bad medicaid Mark Zuckerberg Made up lied Ilhan Omar Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats Congress CHIP AOC Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Major Development: The Deep State is in Deep Trouble

Westlake Legal Group comey-620x413 Major Development: The Deep State is in Deep Trouble william barr Ukraine Steele dossier spying Russia Rachel Maddow President Trump Mueller Investigation Michael Horowitz Michael Flynn Mainstream Media john durham John Brennan James Clapper Impeachment of President Trump Hillary Clinton george papadopoulos Front Page Stories FISA Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption elections donald trump democrats corruption cia Campaigns bill barr Allow Media Exception alexander downer Abuse of Power 2020

Former FBI director James Comey testifies before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, June 8, 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

 

On Thursday evening, the New York Times reported that U.S. Attorney John Durham’s administrative review of the origins of the Trump/Russia investigation has shifted into a criminal inquiry. This major development grants Durham the power to subpoena witnesses and documents and to impanel a grand jury. Speculation has increased in the wake of reports that Attorney General William Barr and Durham had twice traveled to Rome and London to meet with intelligence officials recently and the news that Durham was interested in questioning both former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan.

My colleague, Bonchie, posted on this story last night (here), writing that the mainstream media is portraying this as a political move. The following excerpt from the Times will give you an idea of how they plan to spin it. (Emphasis mine.)

The opening of a criminal investigation is likely to raise alarms that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies.

…] The move also creates an unusual situation in which the Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into itself.

Mr. Barr’s reliance on Mr. Durham, a widely respected and veteran prosecutor who has investigated C.I.A. torture and broken up Mafia rings, could help insulate the attorney general from accusations that he is doing the president’s bidding and putting politics above justice.

[…] Federal investigators need only a “reasonable indication” that a crime has been committed to open an investigation, a much lower standard than the probable cause required to obtain search warrants. However, “there must be an objective, factual basis for initiating the investigation; a mere hunch is insufficient,” according to Justice Department guidelines.

Rather than acknowledging that Durham is zeroing in on the truth about the plot to destroy Donald Trump’s candidacy and following his unexpected victory, his presidency, they are characterizing it as Trump’s revenge. Still, there’s no doubt the major players involved in this travesty are starting to feel the squeeze.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, who has been peddling lies to her viewers for three years, characterized this latest move as a “frame job” and a “false flag operation” of the Trump campaign. She said, “This is the news that honestly, we’ve been sort of expecting for some time or thinking that if things got really bad, it might come to this…That is the conspiracy theory that the attorney general of the United States appears to have been going around the world trying to prove.”

It’s just crazy, isn’t it Rachel? Yes, now that Trump is on the verge of being impeached, his good buddy, Bill Barr, is going to bat for him. She will continue spewing this nonsense until Durham presents solid evidence of misconduct. At that point, her ratings, which fell by 25% following the release of the Mueller report, will crater.

Also last night, DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced that his long-anticipated report on alleged FISA abuse will be released in the next week to ten days with limited redactions. In a letter to lawmakers yesterday, which can be viewed here, he wrote that the classification process is “nearing an end” and explained that there will be one version of the final document. “Given the constructive progress that has been made during the classification review process, I do not anticipate a need to prepare and issue separate classified and public versions of the report.”

We know that Durham has questioned a number of CIA officials recently leading to speculation that the CIA outsourced some of their operations to their foreign counterparts to circumvent U.S. laws governing spying on U.S. citizens. Central to their investigation is the Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud. It was said that, on their most recent trip to Rome (at the end of September), Barr and Durham listened to a recording of a deposition provided by Mifsud in the summer of 2018 in which he explained his role in the saga. Additionally, Durham obtained two cell phones which Mifsud had used in 2016. Mifsud’s Swiss attorney, Stephan Roh, has been cooperating with Durham’s team for several months now.

In fact, the legal team of Trump’s former National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn, believes there may be exculpatory evidence on those phones and they’re working to obtain them from Durham.

Former junior advisor for the Trump campaign George Papadopoulos, who was targeted by several “informants” in 2016, appeared on Fox News’ Martha MacCallum’s show recently and said:

Basically how I would summarize this, the grand statesman under Rome, Cicero, you know what he said?  What I think happened in 2016 and all of the events surrounding the 2016 campaign and the spying that took place on me and Michael Flynn and others was tantamount to treason. What happened was there was an intelligence agency with an ax to grind with candidate Trump and obviously President Trump, where we see the Russia hoax now evolving into Ukraine-gate. This is not going to stop. I predicted that Joseph Mifsud, that individual who now both of his Blackberries are now in the hands of the DOJ was a Western Intelligence agent. I wrote about it in my book exactly how I came in contact with this person who introduced me to him and what he wanted. Something I did not know and actually something that surprised me very much is that Joseph Mifsud was also spying on Michael Flynn just two months before he started his encounters with me… I joined the Donald Trump campaign in March of 2016. Before even the Washington Post or the American media knew that I was joining this campaign I had Joseph Mifsud and other intelligence agencies knowing all about me, what I was doing and what Donald Trump’s campaign was all about. So the notion that this investigation, Crossfire Hurricane, started spontaneously on July 31st 2016 is absurd. It’s completely absurd.

This is an extremely complex story which involves an enormous number of people. Durham’s team has been working on it formally since May. However, there were indications that he was actually on it several weeks or even months prior. If I recall correctly, Durham appeared at one or two Congressional hearings to listen to the testimony of former FBI officials.

In addition to the involvement of the British and Italian intelligence communities, there is reason to believe that Australian intelligence officials participated in the conspiracy. We need only look to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer’s May 2016 meeting with George Papadopoulos at a London bar where the Trump campaign’s newest advisor told him the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. The FBI claims it was this event which triggered their counterintelligence investigation of Donald Trump.

Following Clapper’s lengthy trip to New Zealand and Australia in the late spring, Papadopoulos hinted he may have traveled there to cover his tracks. He posted the following tweet.

It looks like Trump is about to fight back. Fasten your seatbelts everybody!

The post Major Development: The Deep State is in Deep Trouble appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group comey-300x200 Major Development: The Deep State is in Deep Trouble william barr Ukraine Steele dossier spying Russia Rachel Maddow President Trump Mueller Investigation Michael Horowitz Michael Flynn Mainstream Media john durham John Brennan James Clapper Impeachment of President Trump Hillary Clinton george papadopoulos Front Page Stories FISA Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption elections donald trump democrats corruption cia Campaigns bill barr Allow Media Exception alexander downer Abuse of Power 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

First Katie Hill, Now Another Dem Is Under Investigation for Alleged Relationship with Staffer

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-24-at-8.56.45-PM First Katie Hill, Now Another Dem Is Under Investigation for Alleged Relationship with Staffer washington D.C. sexual misconduct House rules Guam Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Congress Allow Media Exception

Screenshot from this video

Democrats have been shellshocked by the allegations concerned Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA) that were broken exclusively by RedState about Hill being involved in a “throuple” with a campaign aide and her husband. Hill also allegedly had an affair with a staffer, her legislative director, Graham Kelly.

Hill has now admitted to having an “inappropriate relationship” with the campaign aide, but is still denying having a sexual relationship with her congressional staffer.

House Rules forbid having sexual relationships with staffers.

The House announced on Wednesday that they had launched an investigation into Hill based on the report by RedState.

From Fox News:

“The committee is aware of public allegations that Representative Katie Hill may have engaged in a sexual relationship with an individual on her congressional staff, in violation of House Rule XXIII, Clause 18(a),” Committee Chairman Ted Deutch, D-Fla., and Ranking Member Kenny Marchant, R-Texas, wrote. They added that the panel had launched “an investigation and will gather additional information regarding the allegations.”

But now it turns out that Katie Hill is not the only person they’re investigating.

Turns out there’s another Democrat who allegedly had an inappropriate relationship with a staffer.

The House Ethics Committee announced that they were also investigating Delegate Michael F.Q. San Nicolas (D-Guam) over allegations that he had a sexual relationship with a staffer & campaign finance abuses. They are looking into allegations that he converted campaign funds to personal use and accepted improper or excessive campaign contributions.

According to the Washington Times, legal counsel for San Nicolas said, “The congressman welcomes the opportunity for due process.”

Territories of the United States, like Guam, have non-voting delegates instead of representatives. San Nicolas has represented Guam’s at large district since January. He was elected to serve as the Vice Chair of the House Committee on Financial Services by fellow committee members.

Kuam News reported that in San Nicolas’ former chief of staff John Paul Manuel had filed a complaint with the Guam Election Commission about his former boss’ actions.

Here’s what Manuel said in September before the House announcement and he didn’t hold back.

From Kuam News:

Manuel told KUAM News, “How can you truly be supporting our troops when he is engaging in sexual relations with their wives while they are away? There is never a convenient time to reveal a friend’s wrong-doings. But the truth needed to be said. How is it responsible to have your chakmak on government payroll for $85,000? Powerful men need to realize the era of using political office as their own personal sexual playground is over. Government budgets don’t have any more room for chakmaks.”

Here’s more from Kuam News:

Kuam News also reported San Nicolas has a pretty poor voting record, according to Roll Call, observing that:

[I]n the Committee of the Whole, Congressman San Nicolas “voted just 47% of the time he has been eligible through October. 23rd”. Roll Call reports “overall he’s missed 138 or 259 votes so far”.

The post First Katie Hill, Now Another Dem Is Under Investigation for Alleged Relationship with Staffer appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-24-at-8.56.45-PM-300x206 First Katie Hill, Now Another Dem Is Under Investigation for Alleged Relationship with Staffer washington D.C. sexual misconduct House rules Guam Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Congress Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Sure sounds like John Bolton is going to be an important witness on impeachment

Westlake Legal Group jb Sure sounds like John Bolton is going to be an important witness on impeachment witness Ukraine Trump trade The Blog quid pro quo lighthizer john bolton impeachment drug deal democrats

We already knew that from Fiona Hill’s testimony, I suppose. Hill told a House committee last week that Bolton knew enough about irregularities in Ukraine diplomacy to have once said to her, “Giuliani’s a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up,” and who instructed her to inform lawyers on the National Security Council, “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.” Bolton knew something was up. But how much did he know, exactly?

WaPo has a story out tonight alleging that he knew enough to tell U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer in August that Trump was probably going to reject his recommendation to restore some of Ukraine’s trade privileges. August was a critical month in the Ukraine matter. That’s when Ukrainian officials reportedly finally figured out that their military aid had been delayed, and it’s also when Gordon Sondland and Kurt Volker were trying to get Ukraine’s president to release a statement publicly committing to reopening the Burisma and CrowdStrike probes.

Why did Bolton suspect that Trump might want to delay restoration of trade relations with Ukraine too at that moment?

The August exchange between Bolton and Lighthizer over the trade matter represents the first indication that the administration’s suspension of assistance to Ukraine extended beyond the congressionally authorized military aid and security assistance to other government programs. It is not clear whether Trump directed Bolton to intervene over Ukraine’s trade privileges or was even aware of the discussion.

“It was pulled back shortly before it was going to POTUS’ desk,” one administration official said, referring to the Ukraine paperwork and using an acronym for the U.S. president. “Bolton intervened with Lighthizer to block it.”

Bolton’s intervention came as the president was telling White House aides that any assistance for Ukraine depended upon Zelensky publicly stating that his government would investigate Hunter Biden’s role as a board member of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, according to congressional testimony this week by acting U.S. ambassador William B. Taylor Jr…

Taylor testified Tuesday that Bolton was “so irritated” by a linkage between “investigations” and a proposed meeting between Trump and Zelensky that he had shut down a July 10 White House Ukraine policy gathering and told National Security Council staffers there “that they should have nothing to do with domestic politics.”

There could be an innocent explanation for not restoring Ukraine’s trade privileges at the time, with a source telling WaPo that there had been a delay due to a routine “country review process.” It seems odd, though, that an official as high-ranking as the National Security Advisor would make a point of warning the trade representative not to bother trying to restore Ukraine’s privileges for a reason as mundane as that, to the point where Lighthizer eventually withdrew his recommendation. The claim from Taylor about Bolton being “irritated” about the “investigations” is tantalizing context: Exactly how much did John Bolton know about an illicit quid pro quo involving state business and “domestic politics”?

And where does this leave Trump’s justifications for delaying Ukraine’s military aid? At various times he’s claimed that he withheld the aid because he wanted to make sure Europe gave its fair share of aid too and because he feared that the aid would be misappropriated due to foreign corruption. The fact that trade privileges were being withheld at the same time points to a more comprehensive reluctance to reward Ukraine with any new largesse from the United States, including in matters where concerns about corruption and Europe’s behavior weren’t as strong. So maybe there’s a different explanation that connects the two.

In any case, the key question is what Bolton knew, or thought he knew, to make him so skeptical that the trade request would be denied. It’s hard to imagine that Trump put him up to talking to Lighthizer or kept him in the loop about what was going on with Giuliani, Burisma, and CrowdStrike. After all, the story of Bolton’s final few months in office as NSA was of him being left *out* of the loop on certain major foreign policy matters. That’s why he ended up quitting; he’d lost influence. Why the hell would Trump would have involved him in the Ukraine matter if he was unwilling to involve him on, say, Iran and North Korea? Maybe Bolton doesn’t know all that much about what was going on.

But by the same token, given his disgruntlement, maybe Bolton will be perfectly happy to share what he does know with Democrats instead of clamming up as a good soldier for Trump. And of course it’s possible that he knows plenty about Ukraine despite Trump not looping him in. If the whistleblower was able to glean a basic picture of what was happening from chatting with witnesses, surely the National Security Advisor was able.

We’re clearly building to a season finale in our real-life reality show in which John Bolton buries Trump with his Ukraine testimony, or at least tries to. In lieu of an exit question, here’s Trump’s new White House press secretary affirming to “Fox & Friends” this morning that Never Trumpers are “human scum,” just like the president tweeted yesterday. I think, after Sean Spicer and Sarah Huckabee Sanders, he finally found a spokesrobot who’s fully in sync with the tone of his White House. Meanwhile, if you can spare the time, I recommend reading this piece by law prof Philip Zelikow published a few days ago about what House Democrats might eventually charge Trump with in the articles of impeachment. Everyone believes it’ll be some generic “abuse of power” accusation but Zelikow makes a strong case that they can and should charge him with bribery. That’d be risky for Dems since then they’d have to prove the elements of an actual statutory crime, but it has the great advantage of being a crime that’s specifically named in the Constitution as proper grounds for impeachment. Senate Republicans couldn’t acquit Trump on grounds that what he’s done is “bad but not impeachable.” Bribery *is* impeachable, per Article II. The GOP would need to acquit him on the facts. And a battle for public opinion on the facts could be hard to win, especially if Bolton knows things and is willing to disclose them.

The post Sure sounds like John Bolton is going to be an important witness on impeachment appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group jb-300x153 Sure sounds like John Bolton is going to be an important witness on impeachment witness Ukraine Trump trade The Blog quid pro quo lighthizer john bolton impeachment drug deal democrats  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com