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 66)

Democrats Pursuing New Trump Scandal Involving A Whistleblower, The Intelligence Community IG, and A Promise To A World Leader

Westlake Legal Group 99CB8FEA-3EC4-4E75-A6D4-53E011083E7B-620x620 Democrats Pursuing New Trump Scandal Involving A Whistleblower, The Intelligence Community IG, and A Promise To A World Leader President Trump Politics New House investigations of Trump Michael Atkinson Joseph Maguire Jason Klitenic Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story donald trump democrats Congress cia Allow Media Exception adam schiff 2020

Official portrait of President Donald J. Trump, Friday, October 6, 2017. (Official White House photo by Shealah Craighead)

 

A whistleblower, who is said to be an intelligence community official, submitted a formal complaint to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG) Michael Atkinson, on August 12, which alleges that President Trump made an unknown “promise” to a foreign leader during a phone call.

The identity of the foreign leader and the nature of the “promise” are unknown.

The Washington Post reported early Thursday morning that “two former U.S. officials familiar with the matter” said this complaint has “triggered a tense showdown between the U.S. intelligence community and Congress.”

Their sources said, “Trump’s interaction with the foreign leader included a “promise” that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community.”

When an IG regards a matter as “urgent,” according to the Washington Post, it meets a “legal threshold that requires notification of congressional oversight committees.” But acting Director of National Intelligence Chief (DNI) Joseph Maguire, has refused to turn over the details to Congress.

On Friday, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, issued a subpoena for Maguire. Politico reported that Maguire is being accused of taking extraordinary steps to illegally withhold a whistleblower complaint from Congress that could potentially be covering up the president’s misconduct. I posted about this here.

Schiff issued the following statement:

A Director of National Intelligence has never prevented a properly submitted whistleblower complaint that the [inspector general] determined to be credible and urgent from being provided to the congressional intelligence committees. Never. This raises serious concerns about whether White House, Department of Justice or other executive branch officials are trying to prevent a legitimate whistleblower complaint from reaching its intended recipient, the Congress, in order to cover up serious misconduct.”

The Committee can only conclude, based on this remarkable confluence of factors, that the serious misconduct at issue involves the President of the United States and/or other senior White House or Administration officials.

Politico reported that Maguire’s office replied with the following statement:

We received the HPSCI’s subpoena this evening. We are reviewing the request and will respond appropriately. The ODNI and Acting DNI Maguire are committed to fully complying with the law and upholding whistleblower protections and have done so here.

On Sunday, Schiff appeared on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” and said Atkinson had described the complaint as “urgent” and “credible.” He said:

I can’t go into the contents but I can tell you that at least according to the Director of National Intelligence, this involves an issue of privileged communications. So, I think it’s fair to assume this involves either the president or people around him or both.

If the Director of National Intelligence is going to undermine the whistleblower protections, it means that people are going to end up taking the law into their own hands and going directly to the press instead of the mechanism that Congress set to protect classified information.

Today, Atkinson testified before a closed-door session of the House Intelligence Committee.

Fox News reported that following his testimony, Schiff “voiced concerns about not having access to the information, warning Congress could use legal action or budgetary powers as leverage.” He said, “What’s at stake here goes well beyond this complaint and this president.”

The general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jason Klitenic, wrote that “the allegation does not meet the definition of “urgent concern.” The complaint concerned conduct from someone outside the intelligence community and did not relate to intelligence activity under the DNI’s supervision.”

Maguire is scheduled to testify publicly on Sept. 26.

Atkinson received the whistleblower complaint on August 12th and “submitted it to Maguire two weeks later. By law, Maguire is required to transmit such complaints to Congress within seven days. But in this case, he refrained from doing so after turning for legal guidance to officials at the Justice Department.”

Atkinson informed the House and Senate intelligence committees about the complaint — without revealing its substance — in early September. The Post reported:

Schiff responded with almost immediate indignation, firing off a letter demanding a copy of the complaint and warning that he was prepared to subpoena senior U.S. intelligence officials. The DNI has asserted that lawyers determined there was no notification requirement because the whistleblower complaint did not constitute an urgent concern that was “within the responsibility and authority” of Maguire’s office.

Legal experts said there are scenarios in which a president’s communications with a foreign leader could rise to the level of an “urgent concern” for the intelligence community, but they also noted that the president has broad authority to decide unilaterally when to classify or declassify information.

Revealing how the United States obtained sensitive information could “compromise intelligence means and methods and potentially the lives of sources,” said Joel Brenner, former inspector general for the National Security Agency.

At this time, there is too little information out there to make a determination one way or the other. However, based upon the deep state’s campaign to destroy Trump over the last three years, it’s difficult to take this seriously. And Schiff’s involvement makes it nearly impossible. Schiff played a major role in perpetuating the bogus Russian collusion allegations and then refused to let go.

President Trump has forcefully denied any wrongdoing. Via twitter, he sent the following message.

Another Fake News story out there – It never ends! Virtually anytime I speak on the phone to a foreign leader, I understand that there may be many people listening from various U.S. agencies, not to mention those from the other country itself. No problem!

Knowing all of this, is anybody dumb enough to believe that I would say something inappropriate with a foreign leader while on such a potentially ‘heavily populated’ call. I would only do what is right anyway, and only do good for the USA!

Presidential Harassment!

The post Democrats Pursuing New Trump Scandal Involving A Whistleblower, The Intelligence Community IG, and A Promise To A World Leader appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 99CB8FEA-3EC4-4E75-A6D4-53E011083E7B-300x300 Democrats Pursuing New Trump Scandal Involving A Whistleblower, The Intelligence Community IG, and A Promise To A World Leader President Trump Politics New House investigations of Trump Michael Atkinson Joseph Maguire Jason Klitenic Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story donald trump democrats Congress cia Allow Media Exception adam schiff 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Left Accuses President Trump and Conservatives Of Taking Advantage Of the New York Times’s Libel Of Justice Kavanaugh

What started out as a cynical and ugly effort by the New York Times to drag the name of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh through the mud…again…and to help the Democrats delegitimize the Supreme Court has blown up in their face.

Two New York Times reporters, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, who also have a new book coming out on the Kavanaugh hearings, had an story based on that book appear in the New York Times “Sunday Review” that purported to reveal a new instance of alleged inappropriate conduct by Kavanaugh at Yale. The only problem was that in the book, the authors say that the alleged victim says she doesn’t remember it happening. Pogrebin and Kelly threw their editors under the bus during a cable television appearance saying they had included that fact in their draft of the story. By yesterday, they were reduced to blaming FoxNews.

Read all of our Kavanugh coveage.

Since the day of the first article, President Trump has been in the forefront of the effort to stuff this story deep up the backside of the New York Times.

Now the left is claiming that President Trump is [show my shocked face] milking the entire episode: Trump milks the Kavanaugh backlash.

For Team Trump, the ongoing focus on Kavanaugh is a political gift. The president and his aides are latching on to the uproar to energize conservatives about another hot-button emotional issue that resonates with the base, a move that can support GOP fundraising and ultimately bolster get-out-the-vote efforts.

“Grabbing guns and smearing Supreme Court Justices? Next the Democrats will hold up a dismembered eight-month-old fetus!” said Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president. “They are handing the election to President Trump.”

The Kavanaugh allegations continue to carry such weight because they will set the tone for the next Supreme Court vacancy and nomination process regardless of the president in office.

“This is a warning to anyone who will put their names out there for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat when it becomes vacant. This is all about Ginsburg,” said one conservative activist. “This is not going away. This ripped the scab off of what happened last summer and that is why people are so upset.”

A senior administration official rebutted this idea, however. “The White House is not concerned that the shameful episode involving The New York Times will impact the quality of future federal court appointees at any level.”

I think that any relatively sane conservative who is nominated to the Supreme Court would anticipate a vicious and unhinged campaign of character assassination that, like the attacks on Kavanaugh, are totally unmoored from reality. They have to know stuff is just going to be made up out of whole cloth and the salaciousness of the allegations used to demand further investigation. What this incident is signaling, in addition to how the nominee will be attacked, is that the President and his administration will fight back on behalf of their nominee. That will go a long way towards attracting an nominee who will be an actual conservative and not a stealth candidate like David Souter or Anthony Kennedy who made it to the Supreme Court because they really didn’t seem to believe in anything…until they showed they were actually fairly liberal.

The Times came under intense scrutiny for its Kavanaugh story, which ran as an excerpt in the book review section, because it left out a crucial detail that the woman who was allegedly harassed by Kavanaugh at a drunken Yale party has told friends she does not remember the incident, and she declined to be interviewed by Times reporters.

The newspaper also put out an insensitive tweet, since deleted, promoting the Sunday story. Both liberal and conservative activists criticized it because they said it trivialized sexual assault, misconduct and victims with its breezy tone.

I think this is another key data point in what will eventually be seen as a massive “own goal” by the New York Times. What they did wasn’t even supported by their sisters-in-arms in the liberal media. In fact, what the New York Times managed to do was shock the vestigial bit of conscience that remained in the world of professional journalism by actually lying about the facts of the story. This will not be forgotten. Between Avenatti, and Blasey Ford, and now the New York Times future allegations will face a bit of a higher bar before being accepted.

Conservatives have been in overdrive trying to elevate boogeymen out of the Times’ Kavanaugh piece. They’ve used the publication’s snafus as an opportunity to bash and try to weaken the integrity of the institution, which has published a raft of critical coverage of the Trump administration.

Very true. The New York Times and other media have completely torched their credibility with their cheap and nasty hits on an honorable man. The nation realizes what went on and they will be looking for it again in the future. It will be much easier for those of us defending President Trump’s next nomination to point back to this disgraceful incident and show how it is actually a template of behavior and not merely an unfortunate accident.

So, yes, we are milking it. And we’re milking it for all the reasons stated in the article. But you know what, if there is no lactating cow, you really can’t milk anything.

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

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

The post The Left Accuses President Trump and Conservatives Of Taking Advantage Of the New York Times’s Libel Of Justice Kavanaugh appeared first on RedState.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: Beto Finally Admits What His Gun Plan Is Really About After Aggressive Questioning From … Chris Cuomo

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeDemDebate3APimage-620x317 Video: Beto Finally Admits What His Gun Plan Is Really About After Aggressive Questioning From … Chris Cuomo Texas Social Media Politics North Carolina Media Guns gun rights gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Culture CNN Chris Cuomo Campaigns Beto O Rourke beto Allow Media Exception 2nd Amendment 2A 2020 Elections 2020

Democratic presidential candidate former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke answers a question Thursday, Sept. 12, 2019, during a Democratic presidential primary debate hosted by ABC at Texas Southern University in Houston. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)

CNN Prime Time talk show host Chris Cuomo can be super-annoying and narcissistic most of the time, but there are rare moments where he slips up and engages in actual journalism instead of spouting off flawed Democratic talking points.

Such was the case Wednesday night when 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke appeared on Cuomo’s program to discuss his controversial gun control plan and the “Hell yes” remarks he made at last Thursday’s presidential debate.

First, a recap of what O’Rourke said at the debate when asked whether or not he planned to take away people’s guns if elected president:

I am, if it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield. If the high impact, high velocity, when it hits your body, shreds everything inside of your body because it was designed to do that so you would bleed to death on a battlefield and not be able to get up and kill one of our soldiers.
[…]
Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against a fellow Americans anymore.

Cuomo started off the segment last night by noting that President Trump tweeted yesterday that “Dummy” O’Rourke’s extreme position would make a gun control compromise bill harder. Cuomo then asked O’Rourke directly if he was in favor of actual gun confiscation:

CUOMO: All right, so let’s state the proposition. Are you, in fact, in favor of gun confiscation?

O’ROURKE: Yes, when it comes to AR-15s and AK-47s, weapons designed for use on a military battlefield.

The high impact, high-velocity round that is fired from those weapons, when it hits your body, expends all of its kinetic energy, destroying everything that’s inside. And I’ve met those who’ve survived fire from an AK-47. I’ve met those who’ve lost a family member. That belongs on the battlefield, does not belong in this country. So, when it comes to those weapons, Chris, the answer is yes. But when it comes to firearms used for hunting or self-defense, the answer is no.

After Beto admitted he was calling for gun confiscation, he then got testy with Cuomo by telling him not to “fearmonger” that the governnment was coming to take away people’s guns. Cuomo pushed back aggressively:

O’ROURKE: And I don’t want you or anyone else to get into the fear-mongering that some have fallen prey to, saying that the government’s going to come and take all of your guns. What we are talking about exclusively is weapons of war that have no place in our homes…

CUOMO: I hear you.

O’ROURKE: …no place on our streets, and should remain on the battlefield.

CUOMO: I hear you. We’ll talk law first and then politics. It’s not about fear-mongering. You just said it, Beto. You said you’re going to confiscate guns.

I don’t think you can do it legally. The Heller case makes it pretty clear that there’s an individual right to own. And I don’t think we’ve ever seen the U.S. government do a taking of private property like what you’re suggesting. So, I’m not fear-mongering. I’m repeating what you’re saying.

Watch the exchange between O’Rourke and Cuomo below:

Cuomo getting Beto to admit he was advocating for gun confiscation was significant, because the candidate has repeatedly and erroneously called his plan a “buyback” plan, which suggests the government will simply “buy back” your weapon. This is is faulty for two reasons:

1) The weapon was never the government’s to begin with so they wouldn’t be “buying back” anything, and 2) a “buy back” implies that the plan is voluntary. Beto’s plan is not voluntary in any way.

Cuomo also noted during the segment that a number of Democrats had more or less said what Trump did, that Beto had hurt chances for a compromise bill. O’Rourke then threw his fellow Democrats under the bus by suggesting they, too, had been “complicit” in the stalemate over gun control.

Beto’s position on this issue has not moved the needle on his presidential polling numbers. He still lags way behind the top tier.

The next Democratic debate is October 15th in Ohio. It remains to be seen if he will qualify.

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Video: Beto Finally Admits What His Gun Plan Is Really About After Aggressive Questioning From … Chris Cuomo appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group BetoORourkeDemDebate3APimage-300x153 Video: Beto Finally Admits What His Gun Plan Is Really About After Aggressive Questioning From … Chris Cuomo Texas Social Media Politics North Carolina Media Guns gun rights gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections democrats Culture CNN Chris Cuomo Campaigns Beto O Rourke beto Allow Media Exception 2nd Amendment 2A 2020 Elections 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

James Comey’s Congressional Testimony Isn’t Matching What He Told the Inspector General

Westlake Legal Group ap-james-comey-grimace-620x413 James Comey’s Congressional Testimony Isn’t Matching What He Told the Inspector General Politics mccabe Mark Meadows james comey investigation Inspector General Horowitz IG Report Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story FBI donald trump doj democrats corruption

Former FBI Director James Comey reacts after bumping something under the table, during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, Thursday, June 8, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

The Inspector General report covering abuses in the Trump-Russia investigation, including FISA abuse, is done. Members of Congress are already looking at portions of it and the results are expected to be pretty bad for several former Obama officials.

In the case of former FBI Dir. James Comey, questions are arising about whether he told IG Horowitz and Congress the same story. Initial indications are producing doubt that he did.

This via Rep. Mark Meadows during a hearing yesterday with Horowitz (quotes from HotAir).

“We’ve taken, now, your report and we’ve put it side by side [with] congressional testimony that James Comey made before the joint oversight and judiciary hearing and I’m finding just a number of irregularities,” Meadows said. He continued, “So would it be appropriate if ranking member Jordan and I were to refer those inconsistencies to the IG and if we did that would the IG look at those inconsistencies?”

“It’s certainly appropriate for us to get a referral about a then-employee of the department, which is I think the hearing you’re probably referencing, and then we would assess it,” Horowitz replied.

What Meadows is asking is if he (and other members) can send a referral to Horowitz to look at specific discrepancies between the two testimonies. This could conceivably lead to even more changes being made to the IG report it self.

The problem here is the example Meadows gives.

“I’ll give you one example,” Meadows said. Referring to testimony Comey gave in December of 2018, Meadows continued, “Mr. Gowdy was asking, he said ‘Did you initiate an obstruction of justice investigation based on what the president said?’ It was a very clear question. Mr. Comey said ‘I don’t think so. I don’t recall doing that so I don’t think so.’

“However, on page 13 of your IG report, it says that Comey purposefully leaked the memo so that they could have a special counsel appointed to investigate obstruction of justice. So two of those can not be true. They’re at opposite dynamics in terms of what they’re constructing. And we have dozens of examples where that has happened.”

Yes, those two ideas are opposed and signal that Comey was saying one thing while trying to do another, but it’d be difficult to prove he lied. Starting an investigation vs. trying to get a special counsel appointed are technically different things even if they arrive at the same end game, i.e. an obstruction investigation of the President. Comey was clearly lying in spirit to Congress when he told them he didn’t initiate an obstruction investigation because that’s exactly what he did and had the intent to do by leaking the memo. But again, technically, he didn’t start the investigation, Rod Roseinstein did.

Meadows does claim he has dozens of other instances to share and perhaps he’s holding those close to his vest to give to the IG first. It’s always safe to be skeptical though. We’ve heard a lot of things over the past few years that simply haven’t materialized. No doubt Comey was corrupt, but will he actually be charged? That’s really all that matters and as long as the answer is no, faith in those institutions will continue to wane.

As far as the IG report itself, I’d expect its release next month. It’s already going through the process of revisions and redactions. All indications are it’s going to be brutal and find the Page FISA warrants were illegal, but don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

————————————————

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 James Comey’s Congressional Testimony Isn’t Matching What He Told the Inspector General appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-comey-eyes-closed-300x200 James Comey’s Congressional Testimony Isn’t Matching What He Told the Inspector General Politics mccabe Mark Meadows james comey investigation Inspector General Horowitz IG Report Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story FBI donald trump doj democrats corruption  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Schumer lies: I don’t know of a single Democrat who supports Beto O’Rourke on gun confiscation

Westlake Legal Group cs Schumer lies: I don’t know of a single Democrat who supports Beto O’Rourke on gun confiscation The Blog schumer mandatory kamala harris gun democrats Cory Booker confiscation buyback ar-15

He doesn’t know Kamala Harris or Cory Booker, both of whom support O’Rourke’s gun-grabber fantasy?

I mean, they’ve been in the room during Senate Democratic caucus meetings for years now.

Between their mid-single-digit presidential polling and their frequent absences from the chamber to campaign, I suppose it’s understandable that they’d slip Schumer’s mind. Or … is he deliberately misleading the public about this because he knows O’Rourke’s “take the guns” plea is a political calamity for gun-control and for the party?

When he says “any other Democrat,” does he mean any other Democrat *in Congress* or any other Democrat anywhere? Because each of those claims is a lie even if you exclude Booker and Harris. The Squad hasn’t spoken up about Beto’s plan yet, likely because they don’t want to risk giving his candidacy a boost with progressives that might undermine Bernie or Warren, but I’d bet good money that they’re all aboard with a mandatory buyback. How could they not be? Their politics is to take the maximalist left-wing position on every issue. That’s what Beto did.

If Schumer meant Democratic voters generally, well…

Westlake Legal Group w-5 Schumer lies: I don’t know of a single Democrat who supports Beto O’Rourke on gun confiscation The Blog schumer mandatory kamala harris gun democrats Cory Booker confiscation buyback ar-15

Supporting confiscation is a safe-ish issue in very blue jurisdictions. In a national campaign with a purplish electorate, it’s not so safe, as O’Rourke is discovering. In a red state it’s political poison, of course, which explains why Joe Manchin from West Virginia sounds like he wants to fight Beto:

“Beto’s one human being,” Manchin said. “He gave his own opinion, OK? I think it was very harmful to make it look like all the Democrats. I can tell you one thing: Beto O’Rourke’s not taking my guns away from me. You tell Beto that OK?”

Eh. If Beto’s stunt at last week’s debate didn’t kill off the gun-control talks in Congress, Trump’s squeamishness about committing to anything would have. The Times has an update on that mysterious background-check proposal Bill Barr was shopping around on Capitol Hill yesterday. It came from the White House, yet Trump aides were adamant in telling reporters that the president hadn’t signed off on it or anything else. It was, in other words, a pure trial balloon, likely aimed at gauging how the right-most side of the Republican caucus would react to it. Answer: Not well.

Republicans who favor gun rights said they wanted more specifics, and several said it was pointless to even talk about Mr. Barr’s plan at this point. As the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, the attorney general will be a central figure in the debate over gun legislation, but senators agree that the president will have the final say.

“My question was: ‘Where is the president on this?’ And I asked this question directly: ‘Is this something the president supports?’ And they didn’t have an answer for that,” said Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, who met with Mr. Barr on Tuesday evening. “That’s an important piece. If the president doesn’t support it, then there’s no point.”

And Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, who also met with Mr. Barr on Tuesday evening, warned against any legislation that “raised the specter of confiscation” and said he was not interested in a bill that would “restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

So, yeah, it’s not happening. Trump could almost certainly get the bill passed over Hawley’s and Cruz’s objections if he endorsed it but then he’d have other prominent Republican pols to his right on a nuclear-hot cultural issue. And that’s an uncomfortable place for President Populist to be.

Here’s Beto yesterday on CNN doing a little damage control by emphasizing that only “weapons of war” would be confiscated under his administration, not weapons designed for self-defense. That plan would last about five seconds after it was implemented, of course, as Democrats quickly realized that confiscating assault rifles will do next to nothing to reduce total gun violence in the United States.

The post Schumer lies: I don’t know of a single Democrat who supports Beto O’Rourke on gun confiscation appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group cs-300x153 Schumer lies: I don’t know of a single Democrat who supports Beto O’Rourke on gun confiscation The Blog schumer mandatory kamala harris gun democrats Cory Booker confiscation buyback ar-15  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Zing: Joe Manchin Channels Charlton Heston in Fiery Response to Beto’s Gun Confiscation Plan

Westlake Legal Group JoeManchinAPimage-620x317 Zing: Joe Manchin Channels Charlton Heston in Fiery Response to Beto’s Gun Confiscation Plan west virginia washington D.C. Social Media Politics North Carolina Media Joe Manchin Guns gun rights gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Congress Beto O'Rourke beto Allow Media Exception 2nd Amendment 2A

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., speaks at a roundtable on the opioid epidemic at Cabell-Huntington Health Center in Huntington, WVa., Monday, July 8, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Most high-profile Democrats who have criticized Beto O’Rourke’s gun confiscation plan have done so from the perspective that they believe it’ll hurt the party in years to come, and that it’s undoable.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), however, is a different kind of Democrat with a different kind of perspective when it comes to the issue of gun rights. He was asked about O’Rourke’s gun control position on Thursday and gave a response reminiscent of the late actor Charlton Heston’s “cold, dead hands” 2000 NRA convention speech:

Manchin told a Wall Street Journal reporter that the former Texas representative did not speak for all Democrats when vowing to complete mandatory buybacks for certain high-powered rifles.

“Beto’s one human being,” Manchin said, according to a Journal reporter. “He gave his own opinion, OK? I think it was very harmful to make it look like all the Democrats. I can tell you one thing: Beto O’Rourke’s not taking my guns away from me. You tell Beto that OK?”

However, Manchin’s office reportedly told NBC news the senator does not own an AR-style gun.

At last Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate, O’Rourke said “Hell yes” in response to ABC News debate moderator David Muir’s question about whether or not he was going to take away people’s guns if elected president:

MUIR: Some of the stage have suggested a voluntary buy-back for guns in this country. You have gone further. You said, quote, “Americans who own AR-15s and AK-47s will have to sell them to the government, all of them. You know that critics call this confiscation. Are you proposing taking away their guns and how would this work?

BETO O’ROURKE: I am, if it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield. If the high impact, high velocity, when it hits your body, shreds everything inside of your body because it was designed to do that so you would bleed to death on a battlefield and not be able to get up and kill one of our soldiers. When we see that being used against children and in Odessa, I met the mother of a 15-year-old girl who was shot by an AR-15 and that mother watched her bleed to death over the course of an hour because so many other people were shot by that AR-15 in Odessa, there weren’t enough ambulances to get to them in time. Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against a fellow American anymore.

President Donald Trump also lashed out at Beto Thursday, noting on Twitter that “Dummy Beto’s” debate declaration on taking guns had “made it much harder to make a deal” in Congress on a compromise gun control bill by basically confirming what gun rights activists have been saying about Democrats for years: They’re coming for your guns.

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Zing: Joe Manchin Channels Charlton Heston in Fiery Response to Beto’s Gun Confiscation Plan appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JoeManchinAPimage-300x153 Zing: Joe Manchin Channels Charlton Heston in Fiery Response to Beto’s Gun Confiscation Plan west virginia washington D.C. Social Media Politics North Carolina Media Joe Manchin Guns gun rights gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Congress Beto O'Rourke beto Allow Media Exception 2nd Amendment 2A  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Newest Claim By Authors of Kavanaugh Book Is The Most Farfetched Of Them All

Westlake Legal Group kavanaugh-620x349 Newest Claim By Authors of Kavanaugh Book Is The Most Farfetched Of Them All The Education of Supreme Court Robin Pogrebin Politics Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism Kate Kelly Justice Brett Kavanaugh journalism Huffington Post Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Allow Media Exception 2020

 

On Wednesday evening, New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, co-authors of the hit piece about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, attended a National Press Club event in Washington, D.C. The president of the club, Alison Kodjak, later tweeted that the women told fellow guests that Kavanaugh had agreed to be interviewed “for their book – If they wrote that they didn’t talk with him.” She wrote that they refused to this condition and “walked away from the interview.”

Fox News’ reported they had contacted Kavanaugh’s office, but did not receive an immediate response.

Call me skeptical, but I can’t imagine Kavanaugh even entertaining an interview with hostile reporters knowing there was a 100% chance that his words would be twisted to fit their narrative.

Nor do I find it conceivable that Kavanaugh would take the risk of putting himself into the very situation that he now finds himself – the women reporting ‘Kavanaugh told us that if we lied and said he didn’t meet with us, he would meet with us.’

The Huffington Post reported the story with this headline, “NY Times Reporters Say Kavanaugh Asked Them To Lie In Exchange For An Interview.” And this was their lede: “New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly said that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed to let them interview him for their upcoming book ― as long as they would publicly lie about it.”

According to the Huffington Post, “Kelly and Pogrebin said they couldn’t agree to the justice’s terms, so they couldn’t conduct the interview.” The article includes tweets from the Washingtonian’s Andrew Beaujon writing that Kavanaugh “wanted a line in there saying he had declined an interview. They were on their way to Washington to interview him.” This implies something even worse, that Kavanaugh had initially agreed to an interview, then once they were on their way, he altered the conditions.

But, in the end, Beaujon implies that Kelly and Pogrebin had too much integrity to agree to those terms. Please.

It sounds too much like the fable of the crocodile who convinces a frog he will transport him safely across a fast moving river and, of course, eats him before they reach the other side. Why? Because it is in the crocodile’s nature.

Pogrebin and Kelly will go on dropping incendiary soundbites to keep the Kavanaugh story alive and to sell books. Because it is in their nature.

Note: I will update this post if Kavanaugh’s office issues a comment.

The post Newest Claim By Authors of Kavanaugh Book Is The Most Farfetched Of Them All appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group kavanaugh-300x169 Newest Claim By Authors of Kavanaugh Book Is The Most Farfetched Of Them All The Education of Supreme Court Robin Pogrebin Politics Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism Kate Kelly Justice Brett Kavanaugh journalism Huffington Post Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Allow Media Exception 2020  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Reuters’ Photo of the Day: ‘Money Is Seen In President Trump’s Back Pocket As He Boards Air Force One’

Westlake Legal Group trump-face-nuclear-cloud-620x741 Reuters’ Photo of the Day: ‘Money Is Seen In President Trump’s Back Pocket As He Boards Air Force One’ Social Media President Trump Mainstream Media Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Culture Allow Media Exception

 

Reuters has a daily feature on their website called “Editor’s Choice Photos” where photographs of items in the days’ news cycle can be viewed. For example, today they show Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife casting their votes in the Israeli election as well as Brazilian fire brigade members trying to control a fire in the Amazon. Also included is an image of a “man carrying a gun walking along a street blocked by barricades during a general strike day to protest against the shortage of fuel and against the government, in Port-au-Prince, Haiti and a man entering his flooded home after torrential rains in Dolores near Alicante, Spain.”

You get the idea. The editors present the news of the day through a series of photographs, most of which contain some element of drama.

Included in today’s collection is a photo showing President Trump climbing the stairs to board Air Force One. The wind has blown up the side vent of his jacket revealing – wait for it – a $20 bill stuffed into his back pocket.

How is this newsworthy?

Here are some reader responses to the photograph:

Hard hitting news…Keep up the good job.

LOL at making a story about the President having $20 in his back pocket.

President Trump was always known for being a very good tipper.

He carries $3000 around at all times to tip people that gives him good service. Nice.

Tip money at the ready.

Trump is prolly trolling y’all in the press since he went to 3 private fund raisers Westlake Legal Group 1f602 Reuters’ Photo of the Day: ‘Money Is Seen In President Trump’s Back Pocket As He Boards Air Force One’ Social Media President Trump Mainstream Media Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Culture Allow Media Exception  Westlake Legal Group 1f60e Reuters’ Photo of the Day: ‘Money Is Seen In President Trump’s Back Pocket As He Boards Air Force One’ Social Media President Trump Mainstream Media Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Culture Allow Media Exception  If so, kudos to him Westlake Legal Group 1f44f-1f3fc Reuters’ Photo of the Day: ‘Money Is Seen In President Trump’s Back Pocket As He Boards Air Force One’ Social Media President Trump Mainstream Media Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Culture Allow Media Exception  Westlake Legal Group 1f44f-1f3fc Reuters’ Photo of the Day: ‘Money Is Seen In President Trump’s Back Pocket As He Boards Air Force One’ Social Media President Trump Mainstream Media Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Culture Allow Media Exception  Westlake Legal Group 1f44f-1f3fc Reuters’ Photo of the Day: ‘Money Is Seen In President Trump’s Back Pocket As He Boards Air Force One’ Social Media President Trump Mainstream Media Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Culture Allow Media Exception

A $20 bill!?!?!? Start the impeachment proceedings!!!!

BREAKING:
Billionaire has cash in his pocket

The post Reuters’ Photo of the Day: ‘Money Is Seen In President Trump’s Back Pocket As He Boards Air Force One’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group trump-face-nuclear-cloud-251x300 Reuters’ Photo of the Day: ‘Money Is Seen In President Trump’s Back Pocket As He Boards Air Force One’ Social Media President Trump Mainstream Media Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Culture Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hillary Clinton Has a New Excuse For Why She Lost the 2016 Election

Westlake Legal Group hillary-clinton-pointing-harvard-620x317 Hillary Clinton Has a New Excuse For Why She Lost the 2016 Election Wisconsin voter suppression Stacey Abrams Politics Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Fake Numbers Excuses donald trump democrats delusion 2016 Election

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)

Hillary Clinton is apparently still a thing and she continues to blame everything but herself for losing the 2016 election to President Trump. We’ve seen her blame Russia multiple times, but now she’s got a new excuse – voter suppression.

Here’s Kyle Griffin, notable for being one of the biggest hacks on Twitter, dutifully parroting her claim.

Per The Daily Wire.

Clinton told an audience at George Washington University that she’s been counseling 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls, according to The Hill, and among her pearls of wisdom is a warning to watch out for Republican “voter suppression,” which she believes comes in the form of laws requiring a photo ID to vote.

Clinton specifically blames Republican voter suppression for Stacey Abrams losing the election for Georgia governor, but, for the first time, extrapolated the problem to the 2016 presidential election, claiming that around 200,000 voters in Wisconsin were turned away from the polls because of that state’s voter ID requirement (Clinton, of course, lost Wisconsin in a brutal swing state defeat, despite what she claims were internal polls showing her far ahead of Trump)

Who in this country could possibly, with years of prior notice, not be ready to present an ID when they go to vote? How is it even an argument that such is an insurmountable burden? The idea that 200,000 people, in a state with less than 1.8 million total votes, were turned away because of not having an ID simply doesn’t pass muster. And the reason it doesn’t pass muster is because it’s abject nonsense.

The number she’s citing is actually based on a baseless claim made by a judge, who claimed that Wisconsin’s voter ID law could disenfranchise 300,000 people. The assertion that a full 15% of prospective voters in Wisconsin don’t have an ID is ludicrous. You can’t do anything without an ID these days, including having a bank account, collecting welfare benefits, and having electricity. The judge in question made a wild claim. It was not dispositive of reality.

Yet, Clinton is now claiming it anyway, albeit misquoting it by 100,000 less. Of course, even then, the law was struck down in 2014. By 2016, it had been rewritten to ensure a lack of disenfranchisement, no matter how small the numbers may have been.

In other words, Hillary Clinton is full of it. Shocking, right?

She simply can’t accept that voters simply didn’t want her. Her vast history of corruption and double dealing, along with her being incredibly inauthentic, are what ultimately sunk her. Those things are on Clinton, not voter ID laws or Russia or Donald Trump’s voodoo. It amazes me people still pay this woman to come speak. You’d do better to set the money on fire. At least then you’d get the value of the heat it produces for a short time.

————————————————

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 Has a New Excuse For Why She Lost the 2016 Election appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_18202817201422-300x225 Hillary Clinton Has a New Excuse For Why She Lost the 2016 Election Wisconsin voter suppression Stacey Abrams Politics Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Fake Numbers Excuses donald trump democrats delusion 2016 Election  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ilhan Omar Demands Twitter “Deplatform” Trump After Tense Exchange, But There’s Just One Problem

Westlake Legal Group ilhan-omar-pensive-620x317 Ilhan Omar Demands Twitter “Deplatform” Trump After Tense Exchange, But There’s Just One Problem white house washington D.C. twitter The Squad Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina Minnesota Media Ilhan Omar Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture Congress Allow Media Exception

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., listens as Office of Management and Budget Acting Director Russell Vought testifies before the House Budget Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 12, 2019, during a hearing on the fiscal year 2020 budget. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

President Trump and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) engaged in a brief but tense war of words on Twitter earlier today that had the freshman Congresswoman demanding the social media platform take action against him.

Politico reports:

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) today called on Twitter to take action against President Donald Trump’s account and remove a tweet in which he shared a false claim that Omar had “partied” on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

“They have a responsibility and they set community standards and clearly the president has shown many-a-times that he has violated their community standards,” she told POLITICO. “I don’t even know why his account is not fully suspended — why he’s not deplatformed.”
[…]
Trump today shared a tweet by conservative actor and comedian Terrence Williams that erroneously claimed Omar was out dancing on the anniversary of 9/11. “IIhan Omar, a member of AOC Plus 3, will win us the Great State of Minnesota. The new face of the Democrat Party!” Trump wrote in a caption.

Williams ended up deleting the original tweet after it was noted that the Omar dancing video was actually from a September 13th event, but Trump’s tweet is still up as of this writing:

Here is how Omar responded:

She also retweeted several tweets from others who called for Twitter to take action, as well as one from 2020 presidential candidate and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) condemning Trump:

Here’s the problem with what Omar is all but telling Twitter to do in response to Trump’s tweet: If Twitter makes it the rule and not the exception to delete tweets and suspend and/or deplatform elected officials for misleading claims, unintentionally erroneous claims, deliberately false claims (lies), and/or any tweet the offending party alleges incited threats of violence, then Omar’s account will need to be suspended or deplatformed, too.

That goes for all members of The Squad, and in fact for most Republicans and Democrats in Congress as well. Because there’s not a single Twitter account out there from a politician that doesn’t contain at least one or more of the types of tweets I mentioned above, including Omar’s.

In fact, Omar has been resistant to deleting tweets she posts that are clearly anti-Semitic and prone to incite threats, and has only done so in certain instances – including deleting one that had been up for seven years.

Not to mention they weren’t deleted due to Republican complaints or because of any genuine feelings of guilt, but instead because of intense pressure from some of her own party members that the tweets were a distraction from their far left agenda.

While I don’t doubt that Omar is on the receiving end of some pretty nasty threats, the same holds true for most other members of the House and Senate. Unfortunately, it comes with the territory. The threats and those behind them should be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if deemed credible and serious.

But I suspect that the issue with Omar is not just that Trump’s tweet was inaccurate, it’s the fact that she was criticized – period. It’s become Standard Operating Procedure for Squad members to flash the “incitement” card when someone criticizes them – even when the criticism is legitimate. It’s a way for Omar and her Congressional BFFs to try and shut down the debate.

Demanding Trump be suspended or deplatformed for his tweet is just another on a long list of shutuppery tactics utilized by the left, another way to try and silence an outspoken critic.

Even with Twitter’s well-documented left-wing biases in mind, it’s not likely to work. But it won’t stop Omar from trying.

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Ilhan Omar Demands Twitter “Deplatform” Trump After Tense Exchange, But There’s Just One Problem appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ilhan-omar-pensive-300x153 Ilhan Omar Demands Twitter “Deplatform” Trump After Tense Exchange, But There’s Just One Problem white house washington D.C. twitter The Squad Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina Minnesota Media Ilhan Omar Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture Congress Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com