Tuesday, November 5, 2019

A Corrupt Resolution’s..

Gatestone Institute.org


A Corrupt Resolution's Damning Consequences
House Resolution 660 is a false and maliciously dishonest legislative maneuver by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, intended retroactively to inoculate Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), et al. from their earlier "inquiry" abuses, and possible criminality. Pictured: Schiff and Pelosi at an October 2, 2019 press conference in Washington, DC. (Photo by Tom Brenner/Getty Images)

November, the month signaling the approach of winter, brings the American public the promise of a bitter, dishonest, political spectacle -- casting a poisonous gloom over the traditional winter holidays celebrating faith and family. Worse -- the long-term consequences may irreparably damage our constitutional republic.

House Resolution 660 is a false and maliciously dishonest legislative maneuver by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, intended retroactively to inoculate Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), et al. from their earlier "inquiry" abuses, and possible criminality. Criminality? Yes -- abuse of power on a grand scale, as well as the violation of individual rights and constitutional due process guarantees can be criminal. Speaker Pelosi's unilateral declaration on September 24, 2019, of an "official inquiry," now bears the phony, partisan imprimatur of the House of Representatives, by a slim margin of 232-196.

We are not witnessing a legitimate impeachment process, and certainly not any form of justice recognizable in America since the Massachusetts Spring of 1693. Let's examine the particular dishonest elements of Pelosi's "Open and transparent investigative proceedings by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence" -- that's Section 2 of her Resolution.
  • Schiff, unilaterally, decides "witness testimony relevant to the investigation."
  • Schiff, unilaterally, controls subpoena authority.
  • Schiff, unilaterally, controls record production and evidence designation.
  • Schiff, unilaterally, controls written interrogatories.
  • Schiff, unilaterally, controls the outcome of Minority referrals to the Committee for reconsideration.
  • Schiff, unilaterally, controls all transcripts, to include: release, redactions and edits.
  • Schiff, unilaterally, controls "custody of records or other materials relating to the inquiry."
  • Schiff, unilaterally, controls the final report.
"Open and transparent" -- right.

I have written previously of the Schiff committee's "Star Chamber" characteristics and activities. Now, with House Resolution 660, the aberration is the norm. Interestingly, opposition to the resolution was bipartisan: Two Democrats -- Van Drew (NJ) and Peterson (MN) -- joined all the Republicans and voted "No". With Pelosi's slim 36-vote margin of "victory", the House of Representatives has engaged and enacted the odious philosophical principles of Legal Positivism -- the perversion antithetical to the Founders' Natural Law foundations in our Constitution. Legal Positivism gives us: "We say it's legal, so it is." Think about the historical lessons of that mephitic mentality. How does that end?

Assuming the worst about the conduct of the various committees of the House of Representatives -- and it is entirely safe to do so -- the Constitution's "safety valve" remains the United States Senate.

Setting aside the Senate's "Benedict Arnold Caucus" of weak, self-promoting, Establishment types – the phony "Impeachment" (predicated on the lies embroidered by Schiff from the criminal leaker and political operative masquerading as a "whistleblower") will fail. It will fail in the Senate in a bipartisan fashion. There may not even be a trial, per se, as contemplated in the Constitution. The Senate can take the matter up and summarily dismiss it. That is what should happen -- pray Senator Mitch McConnell (a master of parliamentary procedure) rises to the occasion.

Come November 2020, Trump will win reelection from an American public disgusted and fatigued by more than three years of hysterical, false exaggerations and near-Soviet levels of public corruption utterly contaminating federal law enforcement and our national intelligence apparatus. The Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, Page, McCabe, Ohr (add two dozen more names of senior officials -- literally) "syndicate" would make J. Edgar Hoover blush.

What are the consequences for the Republic? Will it manifest itself as something more than a political-emotional "hangover" for the public? Will all future presidents face imminent impeachment by any House controlled by the opposing party? Will there be a 2021 version of the Church Committee to enact sweeping reforms with consequences and "teeth" to preclude the professional political operatives of the unlawful "fourth branch" of government from "resisting" the outcome of elections? Will United States Attorney John Durham empanel a grand jury and indict anyone? What of the "journalists" in the overtly partisan American press corps? Will a brave US Senator dare to ask: "What did President Obama know, and when did he know it?" While the House Intelligence Committee negligently fixates on carrying out their coup against the President, what are they missing from the real threats arrayed against our country? Surely, they can't do more than one thing well at a time.

Next: How to recover from the aftermath of the damning consequences we face....

Chris Farrell is a former counterintelligence case officer. For the past 20 years, he has served as the Director of Investigations & Research for Judicial Watch. The views expressed are the author's alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.

at

Tom Perez Fumbles to Explain..

Townhall


Tom Perez Fumbles to Explain 

How Dems Can Compete With Trump’s Record-Low Hispanic Unemployment Rate

Beth Baumann
Tom Perez Fumbles to Explain How Dems Can Compete With Trump’s Record-Low Hispanic Unemployment Rate
Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez was stumped when a Univision anchor Patricia Janiot asked him how Democrats could argue against President Donald Trump's record-low Hispanic unemployment rate.

"Mr. Perez, President Trump has achieved something important, especially for Latinos, which is to reduce the unemployment rate to historic lows," she said. "How then can the Democrats compete with a president that has been beneficial to Latinos on economic matters?”

It was obvious Perez was caught off guard by the question. He naturally went to typical liberal talking points about how the rich get richer and poor get poorer. 

“The economic situation in the United States is excellent for the wealthy like Trump,” Perez explained. “But the economic situation is still bad for our community, and that’s why we have to elect Democrats.”

The Hispanic unemployment rate currently sits at 4.2 percent, the White House revealed back in September. 

Even the mainstream media, who hates President Trump and everything he stands for, had to give him credit for the achievement. 

“The total economic output of Latinos in the United States was $2.3 trillion in 2017, up from $2.1 trillion, according to a new report," MSNBC reported last month. 

"The Hispanic women unemployment rate was 3.8% in September and the Black adult women jobless rate was 4.6%," CNBC reported in October.

"Hispanic unemployment fell to 3.9%, setting a record low, while black unemployment remained at a record low of 5.5%," CNN reported back in September. 

Perez had no response to Janiot's question because there's no adequate response. How do you tell American voters, those who are finally feeling economic relief, to abandon the path they're on – one that is working for them – and completely change course? Why would Hispanic voters want to take two steps forward and 10 back? They saw what eight years under Obama did. They've seen what Trump has been able to accomplish over the last almost three years. 

Admit it, Tom. Trump caught your tongue.

at

Biden Lied – Emails Show Burisma Executives Leveraging Hunter Biden Membership as Pressure on U.S. State Dept. For Assistance in Removing Ukraine Corruption Probe


Well, well, well…. everything Joe Biden and the Obama administration previously denied taking place is now documented as having taken place.  Newly discovered emails between Ukrainian energy company Burisma and State Dept. officials show the company was leveraging Biden’s affiliation with the company to get U.S. govt assistance.

As a result of a FOIA lawsuit journalist John Solomon has received emails between the Burisma energy company and U.S. State Department; where Burisma seeking U.S. government assistance to get the Ukraine prosecutor to drop a corruption probe against the energy co., and leveraging Hunter Biden’s board membership toward their efforts.

 This is the evidence the media said didn’t exist:


The eventual outcome was Vice-President Joe Biden threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. financial aid to Ukraine if the Ukrainian government did not fire the prosecutor and drop their investigation of Burisma.  Ukraine fired the prosecutor and dropped the investigation.   [Full Solomon Article Here]

at

Delusional: Michelle Obama says people across world feel Barack is 'their president'

Delusional:
Michelle Obama says people across
world feel Barack is 'their president'

 
Barack Obama isn't the president of the United States anymore -- much to the chagrin of liberals everywhere, I'm sure. However, during an appearance last week, his wife said that there are plenty of people around the world who wish he was "their president."

The remark came during the Obama Foundation Summit at the Illinois Institute of Technology on Tuesday when former first lady Michelle Obama said the 44th president's library could have been built anywhere across the globe. It's being built in Jackson Park in Chicago, mind you, but it could have been anywhere.

“There’s power in the selection of Jackson Park,” Michelle said.

“Barack and I don’t do things incidentally," she said. "There’s a strategy.

"Barack's presidential library could have been anywhere in the world because there are so many people who feel like he is their president all over the world."

“New York wanted it," she said. "Hawaii wants it. Because it’s also an economic engine, right. Because it will be a visited presidential library."

I know President Donald Trump gets a lot of flak for allegedly being a narcissist, but at what point has he ever suggested his presidential library, when he's done, could be anywhere in the world because people around the globe love him so much?

I can see it now: "I could build my library anywhere. It would be so great for the world. So great." Cue the Russia jokes, cue the ginned-up outrage, cue all of that.

Michelle Obama says her husband could build his library anywhere in the world because "there are so many people who feel like he is their president all over the world"? Eh, we'll let it slide. This got almost zero play in the media.

It did get some reactions on Twitter, however:







Read the rest: HERE
at

Lou Dobbs One-on-One With Secretary of State Mike Pompeo


Fox Business host Lou Dobbs interviews Secretary of State Mike Pompeo about the issues with the ongoing sub-contracted Lawfare impeachment program and the exploitation of State Dept. personnel to attain their objectives.

Additionally Secretary Pompeo discusses Iran continuing to work toward building nuclear weapons; the ongoing confrontation with China, and the headline issue today of the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Treaty.


With everything we have discovered about the CIA [SEE HERE] I find myself wondering if former CIA Director Mike Pompeo ever discussed the 2016 issues with POTUS, while curiously watching their relationship for signs of handling.
at

Who knew ABC News has standards

What’s more shocking? That ABC News spiked the Epstein story or that they have standards?


Patriot Retort

James O’Keefe and Project Veritas dropped one hell of a video this morning showing ABC News morning anchor Amy Robach complaining about her Jeffrey Epstein story getting spiked in 2015.  If you haven’t seen the entire video, you can watch it HERE.

But for me, the utterly shocking part of this Project Veritas exposé was the official statement from ABC News in response.

According to them, Robach’s explosive story did not meet their standards to air.

I mean, I’m gob smacked.

Who knew ABC News had standards?

Any news network that repeatedly invited Michael Avenatti on probably shouldn’t claim to have some highfalutin standards.  Know what I mean?

Somewhere in the halls of the Supreme Court, Justice Kavanaugh must be chuckling at ABC’s so-called “standards.”

I remember when ABC News reported that President Trump referred to “some who cross the border illegally as ‘animals.’”  Yeah, no he didn’t.  He referred to MS-13 as animals.  Odd how ABC News’ vaunted “standards” left that part out.

And then there’s ABC News reporter Brian Ross.

That guy was the pinnacle of journalistic standards, now wasn’t he?

He’s the reporter who, after the Aurora shooting in 2012 found out the shooter’s name, then searched the Colorado Tea Party records and found a Tea Party member with the same name. The Tea Party guy wasn’t the shooter.  But rather than rigorously fact check his big Tea Party Killer Scoop, Brian simply rushed it to air.

Speaking of Brian Ross.  In 2017, Brian reported that Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was going to flip on Trump and testify that candidate Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians.

Yeah.  It was bullshit.

But don’t worry.  Brian’s standards were impeccable!

ABC News can try and squirm off this hot seat Project Veritas just set them on. But as I see it, this is more than just an inconvenient embarrassment.  Sure, self-adoring “media reporters” like Brian Stelter will probably avoid this Project Veritas report like the plague.

Okay, maybe Stelter will report on it, but not in a way that makes ABC News look bad.

My guess is Brian is, at this very moment, scouring through James O’Keefe’s Twitter feed counting the typos.

Unfortunately for ABC News, we’re not idiots.

One of the biggest names connected to Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophile ring is none other than Bill Clinton.  And who exactly is ABC’s chief anchor and political correspondent?

Clinton flack George Stephanopoulos.



But tell us more about your standards, you hacks.

The American news media, which never tires of slapping itself on the back and telling us how noble they are, like to claim that they hold the powerful to account – speak “Truth to Power” if you will.

But in spiking this exposé on Jeffrey Epstein in 2015, they weren’t so much speaking “Truth to Power” as they were covering Power’s ass.

As a result, they happily remained silent while Epstein spent another three years preying on young girls.

In other words, they protected the Powerful at the expense of the Vulnerable.

And if that’s ABC News’ idea of Standards, they should rot in hell.

UPDATE:

Steve, a follower of PatriotRetort.com’s Facebook page, reminded me of another example of ABC News’ highfalutin standards that I totally forgot:



at

Where Are the..

https://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2019/11/05/where-are-the-high-crimes-n2555883

Where Are the 'High Crimes'?

Pat Buchanan

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
Where Are the 'High Crimes'?
Source: Carlos Barria/Pool Photo via AP
"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be impeached and removed from office.
Which of these did Trump commit?

According to his accusers in this city, his crime is as follows:
The president imperiled our "national security" by delaying, for his own reasons, a transfer of lethal aid and Javelin missiles to Ukraine -- the very weapons President Barack Obama refused to send to Ukraine, lest they widen and lengthen the war in the Donbass.

Now, if Trump imperiled national security by delaying the transfer of the weapons, was not Obama guilty of a greater crime against our national security by denying the weapons to Ukraine altogether?

The essence of Trump's crime, it is said, was that he demanded a quid pro quo. He passed word to incoming President Volodymyr Zelensky that if he did not hold a press conference to announce an investigation of Joe Biden and son Hunter, he, Zelensky, would not get the arms we had promised, nor the Oval Office meeting that Zelensky requested.

Again, where is the body of the crime?

Did Zelensky hold the press conference Trump demanded? No.

Did Zelensky announce Ukraine was investigating the Bidens? No.

Did Zelensky get the Oval Office meeting? Yes.

Did Zelensky get the U.S. weapons? Yes, $400 million in arms and Javelin missiles.

Where then is the crime? When was it consummated?

Or was this a thought crime, a bluff to get Zelensky to look into how Hunter Biden got a $50,000-a-month seat on the board of the most corrupt company in Ukraine, days after Joe Biden was in Kyiv threatening to block a $1 billion loan guarantee to the regime.

By the way, what was Biden doing approving a $1 billion loan guarantee to Petro Poroshenko's regime, which was so corrupt that it ferociously fought not to fire a prosecutor whose dismissal all of Europe was demanding?

Should Biden be nominated and elected, a special prosecutor would have to be appointed to investigate this smelly deal, as well as the $1 billion Hunter got for his equity fund from the Chinese after his father visited the Middle Kingdom.

Given last week's party-line vote in the House, where all but two Democrats voted to proceed with the inquiry, the impeachment of President Donald Trump seems baked in the cake. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's designation of Adam Schiff to head the investigation tells us all we need to know about the sincerity of her pledge to make the inquiry bipartisan.

Suppose Zelensky had agreed to an investigation into how Hunter Biden, with no experience in the energy industry, got his sweetheart deal.

Would that be impeachable for Trump? How so?

Does not the U.S. have a right to put conditions on its foreign aid and to seek guarantees that our money will not be used as graft to grifters?

A few of those listening in on Trump's phone call with Zelensky have gone public asserting that withholding the arms transfer to Kyiv imperiled our national security.

But if east Ukraine rises up and secedes from Kyiv, as Kyiv itself seceded from the Russian Federation at the end of the Cold War, how does any of that endanger America's national security? Did not George H.W. Bush himself warn, three decades ago, that a declaration of independence by Ukraine from the Russian Federation would constitute an act of "suicidal nationalism"?

And who does the Constitution charge with making the decisions as to whether military aid goes to Ukraine?
The president, or some NSC staffer who sits on the Ukraine desk?

Since the U.S.-backed overthrow of the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv in 2014, and Vladimir Putin's counter-seizure of Crimea and support for pro-Russian secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, there has been a debate in the USA over how to deal with this faraway problem.

Obama decided not to send lethal aid or tank-killing Javelin missiles, lest the U.S. arms escalate a war between Russia and Ukraine that Kyiv could not win.

The Republicans argued the issue at their Cleveland convention. Trump's team won that argument, but lethal aid and Javelin missiles were eventually sent to Kyiv. Now Trump has sent even more weapons.

But again, the authority to make this decision resides in the Oval Office, not in the NSC, not in the CIA, and not with those in the "deep state" who have their own settled view of what U.S. foreign policy should be.

The authority lies with the elected president of the United States.

This impeachment battle will almost surely reach the Senate.
And in the end it will be about what it has been about since the beginning: An attempt by the deep state and its media, bureaucratic and political allies to overturn the democratic verdict of 2016 and to overthrow the elected president of the United States.

The establishment's coup attempt is now approaching end game.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever." To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.
at

Lengthy Interview – Lee Smith: From Spygate to Impeachment “The Plot Against The President”

Journalist and author Lee Smith sits down for a lengthy interview with Jan Jekielek about his new book “The Plot Against The President”:



at

Karma hits a Grand Slam, Booing Resistance Strikes Out

Anyone with feet firmly planted in reality knew that elation over Trump getting booed was fleeting.  
We knew Karma was just around the corner waiting to pounce.

Patriot Retort

Is the Trump Curse just another way of saying Karma?
I’m thinking it is.
Last Sunday during Game 6 of the World Series, President Trump was met with a chorus of boos from the DC lobbyists, bureaucrats and government employees who live fat and happy on taxpayer dollars.
And as I said last week, their booing the President isn’t going to be the own they think it is.
As I put it last week, “Sure, it may give them a temporary happy. But it will only galvanize us.”
And I was right.
It was most assuredly a temporary happy.  And what put an end to it?
Karma.
One temporarily-elated Trump hater who recently discovered the PatriotRetort.com Facebook page decided to try his hand at goading folks.  He failed.  His comments, meant to get under everyone’s skin, were ignored.
But one of his comments made me smile – mostly because I knew when it comes to Trump, Karma is not only a bitch, it’s also swift and devastating.
Commenting on my post about Brian Stelter, the pansy, the troll wrote:
Karma for a troll

Oh, you Trumpanzees!  You’re melting like snowflakes over Trump getting booed!!! 😂
Clearly the nudnik didn’t read my column about the booing smirking class because then he’d have realized his comment was more wish-casting than fact. Then again, these gormless dinks never read the linked post.
Any old how.
Yesterday, when the Washington Nationals visited the White House, I thought of Mr. Facebook Troll.  I wondered how he was handling the image of Kurt Suzuki donning a MAGA hat or Ryan Zimmerman thanking President Trump for making America the greatest country in the world.
Do you think he was melting like a snowflake?
I’m thinking he was.
Karma, man.  It has the uncanny ability to exposed the Left’s chronic Projection.
All those ResistanceLOL goblins who high-fived each other over Trump getting booed found their elation short-lived.  Just as I knew they would.
This is the trouble with living a life devoid of anything but resentment and anger.
Karma has a tendency to rear its head and cut you off at the knees.
This is why I said at the time that Trump getting booed at the World Series wasn’t the win they thought it was.
Normal people — those not eaten alive by Trump Derangement — just shake our heads and smile to ourselves knowing that their vicious glee won’t last.  Instead, it will curdle in their mouths like rotten milk.
And it did.
Now the real snowflakes are revealed.
They’re the angry, bitter ResistanceLOL who are now calling for Karl Suzuki to be banned from baseball for wearing a MAGA hat.  And they’re vowing to never support the Washington Nationals again!!!!!!!
Dare I say it, they’re melting down.
They’re calling this Asian ball player a racist and white supremacist.  And they swarmed his Twitter account with such ferocity, he had to make his account private.  Because Loves Trumps Hate … or something.
I keep telling you, it isn’t Trump they hate; they hate everyone who doesn’t fall in lock-step with the ResistanceLOL.  They want everyone as angry, bitter and miserable as they are.
These are not happy people.
Sure they add a lot of “LOLs” and 🤣😂 emojis to their comments and tweets.  But the fact is they are utterly humorless, joyless people.
Bitterness is a cancer that devours you whole.  And that’s no way to go through life.
Now anyone with feet firmly planted in reality knew that elation over Trump getting booed was fleeting.  We knew Karma was just around the corner waiting to pounce.
But these sad, pathetic cranks are so blinded by hatred, they didn’t see Karma coming until it put on a MAGA hat and smacked them in the face.

at

The Number Of Democrats Showing Up At Trump Rallies Is Stunning




One day after the House voted along party lines to pass the impeachment inquiry resolution, President Trump held a rally at the BancorpSouth Arena in Tupelo, MS. Trump traveled to the state to support the Republican gubernatorial candidate, Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves who is running against Democrat Jim Hood.

A local reporter wrote that some supporters arrived before dawn. By 10 a.m., they had begun to line up.

The arena, which has a maximum capacity of 10,000 was packed and a large overflow crowd remained outside watching on a giant television screen.

The arena was full an hour before Trump spoke.

On Sunday night, Trump’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, released some very surprising data guaranteed to send a shiver up Democrats’ spines.

Of the 16,432 voters who provided data, 27% were Democrats. The significance of this is monumental. I wonder what the percentage of Republicans attending Democratic rallies is. I imagine it would be low to nil.

This tells us that a certain percentage of Democrats are looking at the weak field of candidates and are searching for an alternative. I would guess many of them are turned off by the injustice of the current impeachment inquiry as well as the party’s sharp left turn. It might surprise Democrats to hear that not every Democrat supports impeachment or the vision of a socialist America.

The next data point showed that 24% had voted once or less in the last four elections. Half of them have not voted at all. Can you imagine if this group were to actually go to the polls next year and cast their ballot for Trump? It’s not a crazy assumption. It takes less time and effort to cast a vote than to attend a campaign rally.

The data also showed that 20% were black. The state of Mississippi has the largest black population in the U.S. at approximately 37%. It’s also one of the reddest states. (The District of Columbia has the largest black population – 50.7%.) Still, 20% is an impressive number for African-American turnout at a Trump rally.

Parscale’s comment on this data was encouraging. He wrote, “More winning numbers that will help secure #FourMoreYears for @realDonaldTrump! Continue to outperform 2016.”
Parscale reported the data from the previous rally, held on October 17th in Dallas, TX and it was equally impressive.

First, their data showed that 53,985 voters had attended. (The Dallas venue was larger than the Tupelo venue.) The stadium had a maximum capacity of 20,000.

Next, 21.4% were Democrats.

12% of those who attended indicated they had not voted in the last four elections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


at

The Bloom is Off The Ruse – Marie Yovanovitch Transcript a Case Study in Narrative Construction

Good grief, it was always inferred that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff had assembled a ‘star chamber’ proceeding in the HPSCI basement, but after actually reading the transcript of former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch to Schiff’s assembly the bloom is officially off the ruse.

Start by remembering: after the 2018 mid-terms, in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare group members to become House committee staff.
Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link), and Chairman Nadler hired  Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke(link).  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi then hired Douglas Letter as House General Counsel – all are within the Lawfare network.

Why is that important?  Because hired Lawfare contractor Daniel Goldmanwas the inquisitor for the “deposition” of Ms. Yovanovitch.  There are no Democrat politicians present other than Chairman Adam Schiff; it’s all staff. This deposition is a political ruse.

Not only was her appearance carefully orchestrated with Chairman Schiff’s staff, but Ms. Yovanovitch brought three lawyers with her to help construct the needs of the committee and protect Yovanovitch’s legal interests.  [Transcript pdf available here]


We can only imagine who actually paid for lawyers Lawrence Robbins, Laurie Rubenstein and Rachel Li Wai Suen at the rate of $1,500/hr, per lawyer, ($4,500/hr).

I honestly don’t think Chairman Adam Schiff anticipates anyone actually reading these transcripts; particularly this one.

By design the State Department, nor any official or representative therein, was not allowed to attend the ‘deposition’ to monitor the interests or “equities” of the executive branch.

This might strike readers as a little curious who remember the DOJ and FBI witness interviews of current and former FBI and DOJ staff, where FBI and DOJ lawyers attended testimony and stopped witnesses from answering any question they decided were adverse to the interests of the institutions.

How is it that House hearing rules in 2017 and 2018 did not forbid executive branch FBI and DOJ lawyers, but yet House hearing rules in 2019 block the executive branch?
A curious shift in priority.

Additionally, prior to her appearance before the HPSCI “committee” (staff, lawyers and not politicians) to give her “deposition”, Ms. Yovanovitch, working with committee staff for maximum impact, gave her opening statement to the Washington Post so they could coordinate the media narrative surrounding her appearance.   That little surface fact essentially encapsulates the entire purpose for Yovanovitch’s appearance.   This is all a constructed political pantomime.

The back-and-forth where Yovanovitch’s lawyers would not allow her to admit to working with Washington Post journalists, under the precept of that communication being coordinated through her lawyers and thus would be attorney-client privilege, is a case study in obtuse legalese.

The end result was Yovanovitch did not admit to working with the Washington Post, while it is clearly evident she was working with the Washington Post and the staff of Adam Schiff’s committee…. hence, her need for three lawyers.

You can read the full transcript HERE:  It is pure propaganda.

at

The Left-Right Divide Is About Reality Itself

If half of this country cannot distinguish truth from falsehood, that is not a good sign for the nation’s future. On that point, ironically, Left and Right can agree.



The Left-Right divide in America is, unfortunately, unbridgeable. There are three reasons.

First, we are divided by our vision of what we want America to be. The Right believes the Founders’ vision was brilliant and moral, that bourgeois middle-class values are superior to alternative value systems; that rights come from God, not man; and that the state must  be as small as possible. The Left (not liberals) shares none of those values.

Second, we are divided by the means we use to achieve our vision. Given their different ends, left and right obviously differ on what means to use to achieve their ends.

Third, and perhaps most troubling, there is a reality-perception divide.

Left and Right have different perceptions of reality.
I have been aware of this for many years, but it was dramatically brought home last week when I was a guest on “Real Time With Bill Maher.” Given that the other two guests on the panel and more or less the entire studio audience were on the Left, their reactions to what I said proved my point.

For example, I said that though there are, of course, racists in the United States, America is the least racist multiethnic and multiracial country in the world.

I was booed.

I said the United States military has brought so much liberty to the world it deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

I was booed.

Clearly, there is an unbridgeable divide in the way we perceive the reality of the American military’s role in the world.

I said that it turned out the Russia-Trump campaign collusion never happened.

I was booed.

There is an unbridgeable divide in the way left and right perceive this reality.

I said the Trump-Ukrainian president phone transcript did not show a quid pro quo.

I was booed, and one of the other panelists said it actually showed “extortion.”

This, too, constitutes an unbridgeable divide between the way left and right view reality.

I said John Brennan, the former CIA director, has voted Communist. (He has admitted that he voted for the Communist Party USA presidential candidate Gus Hall in 1976.) I was dismissed as having made something up. Bill Maher sarcastically responded that he didn’t recall Mao having been on any ballot.

And I said that people on the Left say men can menstruate.

For that, I was not merely booed; I was laughed at by the panel, Maher and the audience.

Anyone can Google this and learn that I was entirely right. Just type “can men menstruate.” One of the first results will be from the popular left-wing website The Daily Beast: “Yes, Men Can Have Periods and We Need to Talk About Them,” reads one of its headlines. “How is this possible?” you might ask. Well, if a woman declares herself to be a man, then “a man” can have a period. In fact, last month, Procter & Gamble announced that it will remove the female Venus symbol from its Always line of menstrual products. After all, not only women menstruate.

The irony is that as soon as most progressives become aware that LGBTQ groups say that men menstruate, they will say that men menstruate. And that will be another differing perception of reality.

On each of these issues—all the issues for which I was booed—Right and Left have different perceptions of reality. That—even more so than differing values—makes the Left-Right divide unbridgeable. When you cannot agree on what is real, there is no possible bridging of the gulf.

The Left believes the president colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. The reality is that there was no collusion. This is the conclusion of the Mueller report, but still, the Left doesn’t accept it.

The Left is certain President Trump said the neo-Nazis are “very fine people” when referring to the protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. The right is certain the president didn’t say there are good neo-Nazis any more than he said there are good “Antifa” members. When he said there were “very fine people on both sides,” he was referring to those demonstrating on behalf of keeping Confederate statues and those opposed. See “The Charlottesville Lie” by CNN analyst Steve Cortes.

The Left believes socialism is economically superior to capitalism. But the reality is that only capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty. This is, therefore, not an opinion divide—”You prefer capitalism. I prefer socialism”—but a reality divide.

The reason this is so frightening is that it means one side has lost its grip on reality. If half of this country cannot distinguish truth from falsehood, that is not a good sign for the nation’s future. On that point, ironically, Left and Right can agree.


at