Thursday, November 7, 2019

Chuck Grassley Asks the State Department for Documents on Hunter Biden and Ukraine's Burisma

 Article by Katie Pavlich in "Townhall":

Republican Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Thursday asking for documents related to Hunter Biden and Ukrainian gas company Burisma. They want to  "better understand what actions, if any, the Obama administration took to ensure that policy decisions relating to Ukraine and Burisma were not improperly influenced by the employment and financial interests of family members."

More specifically, they want to know how Hunter Biden's position on Burisma's board impacted then Vice President Joe Biden's calls to fire a prosecutor looking into the company for corruption. Hunter Biden was paid $50,000 per month by Burisma despite having no experience or expertise in the gas industry.

"In 2016, while Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were both working for Burisma Holdings, Ukraine’s top prosecutor was conducting an investigation into the company and its owner. The Times reported that, in 2016, Vice President Biden 'threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders did not dismiss the country’s [Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin].' Ukraine’s parliament voted to dismiss Shokin after Vice President Biden called for his removal," the letter states. "Indeed, Vice President Biden later bragged about how he was responsible for Shokin’s firing."

Further, they want to know if Hunter Biden used his position at the company and his last name to access the State Department for personal gain.

"E-mails recently obtained and made public through a FOIA request indicate that Burisma’s consulting firm used Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board to gain access and potentially influence matters at the State Department," the letter continues. "Additionally, other documents obtained and made public through FOIA show other meetings that Burisma board members Hunter Biden and Devon Archer scheduled with high-ranking State Department officials.  In May 2015, Hunter Biden asked to meet then-Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken to “get [his] advice on a couple of things” and again for lunch on July 22, 2015. On March 2, 2016, just one day after Tramontano was scheduled to meet with Under Secretary Novelli about Burisma, Devon Archer was scheduled to meet with Secretary of State John Kerry."

As Matt wrote earlier, new emails show Burisma lobbyists tried to leverage Hunter Biden's famous last name in order to get meetings with the State Department when Secretary John Kerry was in office. Hunter Biden regularly did business with Kerry's stepson, Christopher Heinz. Heinz cut ties with Biden after her joined the Burisma board.

“Mr. Heinz strongly warned Mr. Archer that working with Burisma was unacceptable. Mr. Archer stated that he and Hunter Biden intended to pursue the opportunity as individuals, not as part of the firm. The lack of judgment in this matter was a major catalyst for Mr. Heinz ending his business relationships with Mr. Archer and Mr. Biden,” Chris Bastardi, a representative for Heinz tells Townhall.


BREAKING: FOIA'd email shows Burisma's lobbyists used Hunter Biden's position on the board of the corrupt Ukrainian gas company to request a meeting with Obama/Kerry State Department officials while Joe Biden was Vice President.

This is the evidence the media said didn't exist.
 View image on Twitter



https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/11/07/senators-to-the-state-department-wed-like-all-documents-about-hunter-biden-and-burisma-please-n2556109

 Image result for cartoons about joe biden and hunter biden"

Adam Schiff Calls His First Public Witnesses And It Tells Us Everything



Public hearings are finally about to begin in Adam Schiff’s “impeachment inquiry” and he’s called his first three witnesses. Who he’s choosing to march out first tells you everything about the game the Democrats are trying to play.

The names? Bill Taylor, Marie Yovanovitch, and George Kent.

The problem? Not a single one of these “witnesses” had any direct line to Donald Trump at all. None of them received any order from the President to do anything, by their own admission. Further, nothing in their previous testimony pointed to them having any secondary knowledge of an improper quid pro quo involving Joe Biden.

What these witnesses do provide is political fodder. Take Bill Taylor. Despite admitting the only evidence he had for his impressions was an article in The New York Times, he testified that he felt an improper quid pro quo was taking place. In reality, he had nothing to support that except his own gut feeling and he admits that plainly.


That’s fine if he wants to go write an opinion piece for some liberal rag. It’s not dispositive of anything in an impeachment case.

Former Amb. Marie Yovanovitch is another witness big on flash but low on relevancy. Her only use to Schiff is to proclaim she felt targeted by Trump and that he wanted her out of her position (something well within her power). In her past testimony, she says she had no knowledge of any quid pro quo arrangement, so what is she going to actually add of value? The answer is nothing. She wasn’t even on the call with Zelensky. Why she’s even part of this process is largely a mystery aside from providing yet more hot takes and political fodder, i.e. she suspected things.

As for George Kent, his contribution is to claim he was sidelined from policy altogether, which is apparently impeachable because bureaucrats run the country or something. And that’s really what this continues to boil down to, which us a bunch of bureaucrats mad that Donald Trump actually gets to make his own foreign policy and isn’t subservient to the established order within these agencies.

But more importantly, notice the names not on the list to headline this thing. Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland. Why not have the people most closely connected with Trump, who would possibly know of any official decree, testify instead of a bunch of people repeating assumptions and hearsay?

The answer is that they didn’t give Schiff what he wanted. Sondland revised his testimony this week to say he felt a quid pro quo (but not even necessarily an improper one) was “likely,” but also admitted it was pure presumption on his part. He testified he was given no order regarding the matter and had no idea why the aid was actually on hold.


Volker, who was the closet up the chain to Trump, has point blank said there was no improper arrangement to his knowledge.

Schiff doesn’t want to hear from them first though because it’d blow up his hearings before they begin. Instead, he wants to put up witnesses to provide the political narrative he wants, knowing the media will dutifully push it regardless of whether it’s supposition. Then he’ll get Volker and Sondland in later after the water is sufficiently muddied and make them the bad guys. And of course, we won’t be hearing from the whistle-blower at all despite all the connections he had with Joe Biden and his contact with Schiff’s staff prior to the complaint.

This entire thing is a spectacle. The House does not conduct an impeachment trial. They’ve already gotten these testimonies behind closed doors like Schiff demanded. They should be putting this thing up for a vote now that the information is out there, not redoing it all over again as partisan performance art. Having the same witnesses say the same things publicly changes absolutely nothing about the calculus.

But the purpose here is to simply drag this out as long as possible, likely into the new year, using government power to influence an election. Ironically, that’s exactly what Schiff is accusing Trump of.

The Cartelization of Mexico by WSJ Editorial Board

 Article mostly by the WSJ Editorial staff printed in the "Yucatan Times":

 Following the massacre of members of the LeBarón family, where six minors and three women were murdered, The Wall Street Journal considered that a U.S. military intervention in Mexico “cannot be ruled out”. In its Wednesday editorial, “The Cartelization of Mexico”, they newspaper noted that if Mexico cannot control its territory, the United States will have to do more to protect Americans in both countries.

The Wall Street Journal stated that drug users in the United States are complicit in the violence and murders that take place in Mexican territory. The cites a report by the “Council on Foreign Relations” that says Americans spent nearly $150 billion in 2016 on drugs such as cocaine, marijuana, crystal and heroin, and that synthetic opioids such as fentanyl have aggravated the problem.

—WSJ Editorial—
The slaughter on Monday of three Mormon women and six children, all U.S. citizens who were longtime residents of Mexico, brings home a gruesome reality of the United States neighbor in the south. Drug gangs control huge swathes of the country, and the Mexico City government is too often overwhelmed by the criminal firepower and money.

The women and children were attacked by gunmen as they traveled in SUVs in the northern state of Sonora in broad daylight. Mexican officials said Tuesday that it could have been a case of mistaken identity. But, according to survivors hiding in a nearby forest, one of the women was shot outside her vehicle with her hands up. It seems more likely that the killings were a warning from the drug cartel to everyone in the region, and especially to Mexican officials, that the gangs are responsible.

Details of the killings are shocking, but the truth is that such chaos is a common occurrence in Mexico. A foreign relations paper, updated October 22, reports that killings are rising in the country, often linked to drug cartels. Murder of killings reached a new peak of 36,000 in 2018 and this year has killed an average of 90 a day.

The border states of Sonora and Chihuahua are crucial to the cartels because of their access to the United States and the gigantic US market for illicit drugs. The killings at Sonora police have doubled to around 20 this year, according to Mexico City consulting firm Empra.

The gangs are reckless and want to kill anyone who intervenes, with their families. Last month, about 35 Mexican police and national security forces were forced to release drug lord Ovidio Guzmán after being surrounded and beaten by cartel forces. Ovidio is the son of Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, who is currently serving an American prison.

“The hard truth is that Mexico is dangerously close to being a failed state,” Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse said Tuesday, and despite the country’s economic progress in recent decades, he is not far from the security flaws. Especially along routes of drug trafficking, there are essentially cartels.

Mayhem has risen under the Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who took office last year and promised to end the anti-cartel campaign accused by his two immediate predecessors. He called the war on drugs a failure and promised to “start a peace process with organized crime organizations and adopt transitional justice models that guarantee victims’ rights.” This is left-mumbo-jumbo for surrender, and the cartels have taken the message and gone on the offensive.

Americans should also recognize the role their drug caravan plays in inflicting this violent violence. The Foreign Relations report says Americans spent nearly $ 150 billion in 2016 on cocaine, heroin, meth and marijuana, and synthetic opioids like fentanyl compound the problem. Most of this comes across the Mexican border, and the money from the drug sale allows the cartels to bribe law enforcement in both countries.

We are far from Nancy Reagan campaign for “just say no” to drugs. Now elite and entertainment culture sends a message that drug use is a habit without habit, even glamorous. There is more social stigma in the United States against cigarettes than against cocaine or marijuana. Youth are getting the message, and growing demand for drugs is feeding the cartels.

Drug enforcement against the supply of drugs amid such demand is a losing battle, but that does not mean that the cartels can be allowed to destabilize a government next to or control territory like a drug caliphate. The most basic duty of the government is to protect citizens against lawlessness, which means that the massacre of women and children is not allowed on a motorway on the way to the airport.

President Trump offered help to Mexico in a tweet on Tuesday, although Mr. López Obrador responded that “I think we don’t need intervention.” The truth is that the US already provides intelligence and security assistance to Mexico, and police cooperation is extensive.

But if Mexico cannot control its territory, the United States must do more to protect Americans in both countries from the cartels. The Drug Enforcement Administration should be able to find out the identity and location of those who ordered or carried out Monday’s killings, ensuring that their passing would be a signal that American justice has long reach. An American military operation cannot be ruled out.

https://www.theyucatantimes.com/2019/11/the-cartelization-of-mexico-by-wsj-editorial-board/ 

 

House Votes to ‘Enhance the...

House Votes to 'Enhance the Border Security' of 

Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Tunisia -- 

Not the USA


Source: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has voted to fund efforts to "enhance the border security" of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Tunisia while moving to deny all funding to build walls, fencing or any other structures to enhance the border security of the United States.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants have their priorities.

To them, borders on the other side of the world are more important than our own.

On June 19, the House approved a massive spending bill. In an act of legislative polygamy, it "married" the appropriations bill for the Department of Defense to the appropriations bills for the Department of State, the Department of Energy, and the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated this monstrosity would cost taxpayers $984.7 billion in fiscal 2020.

Yet there is one thing on which this bill would forbid the Trump administration from spending one penny to accomplish.

On page 304 (of 650), it says: "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act or any prior Department of Defense appropriations Acts may be used to construct a wall, fence, border barriers, or border security infrastructure along the southern land border of the United States."

A month later, the House Appropriations Committee sent the full House a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

This bill -- so far -- is unmarried and would cost taxpayers $63.8 billion.

President Trump had requested that it include $5 billion to use in constructing barriers at the border.

How much did the committee give him?

"No funding is provided in the bill for new physical barriers along the southwest border," said the committee report.

It also said, "The recommendation provides no funding for additional Border Patrol Agents."

Thus, the Democrat-controlled House is advancing discretionary appropriations bills that would spend more than $1 trillion in one year but provide zero dollars to build physical barriers to stop illegal aliens, human traffickers and drug smugglers from crossing our southern border.

Yet that does not mean the Democrat-controlled House is not planning to spend some money to enhance border security.

It just depends where the border is.

In that 650-page spending bill that prohibits Defense Department money from being used to defend the southern border of the United States, there is a section that creates a $1.295 billion fund for use by the secretary of defense.

"For the 'Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Train and Equip Fund', $1,295,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2021," says the bill. "Provided, That such funds shall be available to the secretary of defense in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide assistance, including training; equipment; logistics support, supplies, and services; stipends; infrastructure repair and renovation; and sustainment, to foreign security forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals participating, or preparing to participate in activities to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and their affiliated or associated groups."

"Provided further," says the bill, "That these funds may be used in such amounts as the Secretary of Defense may determine to enhance the border security of nations adjacent to conflict areas including Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Tunisia resulting from actions of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria."

So, the secretary of defense could take a chunk of this $1.295 billion and give it to the government of Egypt to secure its border with post-Gadhafi Libya, where the Islamic State group, or ISIS, is active.

And he could give a chunk to Tunisia to secure its border with Libya.

Or he could give some American tax dollars to unnamed "irregular forces, groups, or individuals" who, someplace in this world, are "preparing to participate in activities" to counter ISIS, or at least groups that are "affiliated or associated" with ISIS.

But according to the House appropriations bills, President Trump cannot spend a penny to build structures at our own border to secure our own territory and our own people.

By contrast, the Republican-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee has approved a Homeland Security spending bill that does include $5 billion to build "pedestrian fencing" -- to stop people on foot and in vehicles from crossing our southern border. Also, that committee's defense spending bill does not prohibit the president from using defense money to build barriers to defend our own border.

It even includes a larger fund ($1.8 billion) than the House bill that, among other things, can be used "for enhanced border security" not only in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Tunisia but also in Oman.

We are now more than a month into fiscal 2020. The government is running on a continuing resolution that expires Nov. 21.

President Trump should deliver a simple message to Speaker Pelosi: He is not going to sign a spending bill that funds border security in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Tunisia but not California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

He should put America first -- even if Pelosi will shut down the government trying to stop him.
Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor in chief of CNSnews.com. 

An Impeachment About Ideology, Not...

Written by Star Parker at Townhall
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own 
and do not represent the views of Townhall

Impeachment About Ideology, 

Not the Constitution


Impeachment About Ideology, Not the Constitution
Source: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Two American women of color.

Two diametrically opposed views about America.

This clash of worldviews helps us to understand that what is going on in our nation is not a legitimate impeachment process but an attempt to wipe out a sitting president for personal and ideological reasons.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib was sworn in as a freshman Democratic congresswoman for Michigan on Jan. 3, 2019.

At a reception following the event, Tlaib, speaking about the president of the United States, said, "We're gonna impeach the (expletive)."

It had to be unprecedented that a newly elected representative publicly used that kind of language about the nation's president and expressed intent to impeach him, with no support from leadership of her own party.

Were there grounds for impeachment? No. The alleged basis was the Mueller investigation, which subsequently found that allegations that President Trump and his campaign conspired with Russia to interfere with the presidential election were false.

What happened to the sacred principle of innocent until proven guilty?

Tlaib had already convicted Trump. He's guilty for being Donald Trump and for what he stands for. The law is irrelevant.

Months later she held a press conference calling President Trump a racist and again calling for his impeachment. She noted: "I represent the third-poorest congressional district in this country. ... I was elected to fight for them."

The Bureau of Labor Statistics just issued its October jobs report, which the Wall Street Journal called "impressive." "The current job market is attracting middle- and working-class workers who have been on the sidelines for years," reported the Journal.

And, black unemployment ticked down a notch to 5.4%, another new historic low.

But just as legal facts mean nothing to Rep. Tlaib, economic facts mean nothing.

Let's now turn to another American woman of color, former South Carolina governor and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley.

She recently spoke at a dinner at Washington's American Enterprise Institute.

Haley, who as Republican governor of South Carolina had the Confederate flag removed from the grounds of the state Capitol, said at AEI: "when we retreat into identity and grievance politics, we make the choice for victimhood over citizenship. By constantly blaming others, we reject personal responsibility for ourselves, our families and our communities."

Are you listening, Congresswoman Tlaib?

Haley spoke about her parents, who immigrated to the U.S. from India: "We were different. We stood out. And my family felt the pain of being judged by our difference. ... But my parents refused to let it define them. They chose citizenship over victimhood."

Haley quoted Lincoln, who, in 1862 when the country was torn apart in civil war, called America "the last best hope of Earth."

She added: "President Trump is a disruptor. That makes ... some people very mad. But if we are a country that lives by the rule of law, we must all accept that we have one president at a time and that president attained his office by the choice of the American people."

Haley hailed the American freedom and exceptionalism enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and noted how, at the UN, representatives from despotic countries would approach her in private and express admiration for our country.

Rashida Tlaib is a poster child for her party. Despite the Russia conspiracy charges discredited by the Mueller report, Democrats have not given up looking for an excuse to impeach a president they hate. Now we have the ridiculous claims from a tainted whistleblower about a conversation Trump had with the president of Ukraine.

It's not about Russia or Ukraine. It's about Nikki Haley or Rashida Tlaib; loving our free country or hating it; citizenship or victimhood; rule of law or guilty until proven innocent.

I meet so many wonderful Americans in my travels around the country.

I'm optimistic we'll make the right choice.

10 Reasons I Like Donald Trump....

10 Reasons I Like Donald Trump, From A Female, Former-Democrat Immigrant




Donald Trump is the perfect president to counter the D.C. swamp and the foreign policy blob.

As a voter who lives far away from the Beltway bubble, I increasingly find myself harboring an uncomfortable secret: I like Donald Trump, and think he’s the perfect president for these times.

Now, I know that’s a big no-no. In fact, I probably should keep it to myself. After all, the mainstream media has been working non-stop to make me and countless others hate the president and see him as Public Enemy No. 1.

I’m also decidedly not the kind of voter who is supposed to like Trump; in fact, all my intersecting identities are supposed to hate Trump with a vengeance: I’m a woman, a legal immigrant, a person of color (never liked the term), a former Democrat, and a third-party voter in 2016.

Liking Trump openly is very difficult these days, and it is not recommended that you do so. It’s especially difficult in the social circles I move in.

If you’ve noticed, even some Trump voters and Trump-supporting commentators say things like, “I don’t like Trump, but I like his policies,” or “He has flaws, but…” which is a neat way of putting distance between oneself and the president.

Enumerating the reasons Trump is alright is especially necessary because of the constant vituperation he faces everyday from different liberal quarters. Here are 10 reasons I like Trump.

First, he is sui generis, a singularly unique individual who has single-handedly transformed almost everything about American politics, by sheer force of his personality and ideas. Presidents dream of being transformational, and Trump has transformed politics in ways many presidents can only dream about.

He has transformed both political parties, the mainstream media, and the presidential campaigns, and moved the Overton Window on many issues. He has shown many of our institutions for what they actually are and for what we suspected them to be, and broken their brains in the process. His methods may not always be good, but the results have been okay.

Second, by loudly questioning everything in his unorthodox way he has made us re-examine many things: our bloated bureaucracy, some of our egoistic federal civil servants who believe they’re in charge of our republic, the much-vaunted liberal international order, our awful elites and the meritocracy that produced them. Most important, his foreign policy ideas and actions have generated a long- overdue discussion on America’s global policeman role and its unsustainable costs to our people.

Third, he loves America, and his love is genuine, palpable and almost retro. We could do with a little of that nowadays, swimming as we are in a sea of self-loathing, self-flagellation, and history-rewriting from the left. America, of course, has its flaws and sins, but it is refreshing to be reminded by our president that it still stands tall.

Fourth, he says what he thinks, is remarkably accessible, and is probably the only president who can’t seem to resist answering questions thrown at him. In this, he demonstrates a guilelessness and, shall we say, honesty quite unlike any politician, past or present. It gets him into trouble, of course, but also gets him admirers.

His rhetorical style is, to say the least, unconventional but often effective. By talking like a real person and not trafficking in platitudes and liberal pieties, he has made it difficult for conventional politicians to do their thing.

Fifth, he is clearly a non-ideologue and pragmatic, shown in spades in the way he has refashioned the Republican Party’s orthodoxies on trade, immigration, and foreign intervention.

Sixth, his care for American voters seems genuine, especially toward the people who voted for him and show him unflagging support. He is indeed an odd president: a Manhattan billionaire who has a “blue collar sensibility” and relates to voters who’ve suffered bipartisan neglect from D.C. politicians for decades.

And may I say that his rallies are a thing to behold: all camaraderie and affection between Trump and the crowd, characterized by his playful, extemporaneous riffs, funny and sarcastic, with the underlying theme being a conspiratorial partnership against the smug, self-dealing ruling class and media elites that need to be defeated. No wonder Democratic leaders are anxious about the 2020 election—they can’t compete with Trump’s offbeat charisma.

Not to mention that he’s funny, but you need a special sensor to appreciate it, which the dour, humorless left doesn’t have anymore.

Seventh, he has had the greatest influence, perhaps, in transforming how we talk about needless, endless foreign military incursions. He expresses in clear, succinct terms why America’s global policeman role is getting to be untenable, as in his press conference after the raid on ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, when he stated, “But the United States taxpayer is not going to pay for the next fifty years (for endlessly staying in the region).”

One of his finer moments came when he mused movingly during a recent campaign rally about being present at Dover Air Force Base, seeing caskets return from war zones and witnessing the families’ grief. Would that we have more commander-in-chiefs caring—and publicly at that—about dead American soldiers more than gallivanting around the Middle East looking for civil wars to support endlessly.

Eighth, he has challenged China, our most important geopolitical threat, and done what hasn’t been attempted in our status quo politics so far.

Ninth, he says he’s “president of America and not president of the world,” and that American citizens have to be taken care of first before we take care of the world. What a novel idea. This should be said and practiced more often.
In a sane, common-sense world, Trump’s recent United Nations address touting these ideas would be lauded; instead they were pilloried as isolationist and dangerous. But that is the cognitively dissonant media world we live in now—what is pragmatic is framed as radical and transgressive.

Tenth and lastly, I like his chutzpah and pugilistic style, with its underlying theme of “Honey Badger don’t care.” It’s perfectly suited for this moment, where the overarching issue is: Who is really in charge in this republic, the voters or arrogant, unelected federal bureaucrats who think they know best and try to override the will of voters? He seems uniquely suited to take on the combined onslaught coming from many quarters.

Obviously, I don’t like or agree with everything Trump has said and done. Equally obviously, he has moral and ethical failings like many in D.C., but with a difference: he’s no hypocrite and has never pretended to be something he’s not, which can’t be said of his many critics and adversaries. But his flaws and missteps are small potatoes compared to the decades-long, monumental corruption and dishonesty of our ruling and media elite, and the contempt they have toward voters.

The most fun and illuminating part has been watching the mainstream media, academia, Hollywood, and the Democratic Party rip their tolerant masks off and show themselves for what they actually are: vicious, intolerant people who are dangerous when backed into a corner.

I’m now squarely in the camp who believes that Trump is alright, and that nothing he says or does is worse than what the ruling class and media elites do and are capable of. He is far better—or at least far less worse—than them. Truly, as someone said, the office sought the man.

Nato alliance experiencing brain death, says Macron

President Emmanuel Macron of France has described Nato as "brain dead", stressing what he sees as waning commitment to the transatlantic alliance by its main guarantor, the US.
Interviewed by the Economist, he cited the US failure to consult Nato before pulling forces out of northern Syria.
He also questioned whether Nato was still committed to collective defence.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a key ally, said she disagreed with Mr Macron's "drastic words".
Russia, which sees Nato as a threat to its security, welcomed the French president's comments as "truthful words".
Nato, which celebrates 70 years since its founding at a London summit next month, has responded by saying the alliance remains strong.

What else did the French president say?

"What we are currently experiencing is the brain death of Nato," Mr Macron told the London-based newspaper. 
 He warned European members that they could no longer rely on the US to defend the alliance, established at the start of the Cold War to bolster Western European and North American security.

The alliance, Mr Macron is quoted as saying, "only works if the guarantor of last resort functions as such. I'd argue that we should reassess the reality of what Nato is in the light of the commitment of the United States".
The French leader urged Europe to start thinking of itself as a "geopolitical power" to ensure it remained "in control" of its destiny.

What reaction has there been?

Mrs Merkel was speaking in Berlin alongside the visiting Nato Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.
Mr Macron "used drastic words - that is not my view of co-operation in Nato," she said.
Mrs Merkel acknowledged there were problems, but said she did not think "such sweeping judgements are necessary".
"Nato remains a cornerstone of our security," she added.
Russia's reaction came from foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.
"Well said. Truthful words, and ones that get to the nub of the matter," she posted on Facebook.
"An accurate description of Nato's current state," she wrote.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50335257

A Crimeless Impeachment Is An Innovation


A Crimeless Impeachment Is An Innovation 
We Don’t Want 
And 
Don’t Need


A Crimeless Impeachment Is An Innovation We Don’t Want And Don’t Need

Democrats have been thirsty for an impeachment ever since Donald Trump took office.

Unwilling to accept the results of the 2016 presidential election, Democrats have tried everything in their power to delegitimize Trump’s triumphant victory. They’ve advocated to overturn the constitutionally created Electoral College. They’ve drummed up conspiracy theories alleging Trump colluded with the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton. They’ve claimed that Russia “hacked” the election. And they’ve claimed Trump’s victory was a consequence of “fake news,” all before Trump’s inauguration.


Since then, Democrats have come up with 86 bogus reasons to impeach the president. They claimed Trump should be impeached for implementing a travel ban. That failed. They claimed Trump should be impeached over alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause. That failed. They claimed Trump should be impeached for firing former FBI Director James Comey. That failed.

After a two-year special counsel investigation with unlimited resources spearheaded by Robert Mueller accompanied by wall-to-wall media coverage investigating whether Trump worked with the Russian government to secure the Oval Office, Democrats failed to find anyone, not one person, guilty of such an act.

Now, Democrats have taken their latest efforts to impeach the president a year out from the next election to a July phone call between Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart where Democrats are charging Trump of withholding military aid in exchange for investigating political opponents at home. The unredacted transcript of the phone call has been declassified and released to the public in plain sight. The grand revelation to surface from its release? That Trump requested the Ukrainian government investigate corruption and the origins of its role in peddling the grand Russian conspiracy theory that damaged the United States.

In the 1970s, Richard Nixon did something that was clearly wrong. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton did something that was clearly wrong. Trump’s crime? That he requested a foreign government weed out corruption in its own country, hardly a “high crime and misdemeanor” constitutionally required to remove a president from office.

The transcript’s release showcases how desperate Trump’s opponents have become to oust the democratically elected president. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the opening of an impeachment inquiry prior to the transcript’s release based on an anonymous whistleblower complaint whose accusations were made relying on hearsay.

The charges in the complaint, which was deemed “credible” and “urgent” by the intelligence community inspector general but not by the Department of National Intelligence, had been contradicted by the transcript. Despite this, Democrats pushed forward with an illegitimate inquiry run in secrecy by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California, who played a key role in promoting the Russia hoax.

Last week, Pelosi finally put the impeachment inquiry to a full House vote, where Democrats rubber-stamped an ad-hoc anti-Trump investigation to be run by Schiff without any Republican support. The only bipartisan vote taken was in opposition, where two Democrats joined Republicans in refusing to participate in the latest Democratic witch hunt.

The House impeachment efforts are on course to set a dangerous precedent where the majority party will abuse congressional authority to whip up baseless charges to frame a president they simply don’t like, which, given the polarized nature of our modern political environment, will be every single future president of the opposite party.

Democrats have already shown a willingness to abuse such power on other targets. Prominent Democrats began calling for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh after new uncorroborated claims of sexual assault surfaced in September that allegedly took place more than 30 years ago. The New York Times authors who broke the story were even forced to admit that the alleged victim had no recollection of the incident.

If Democrats are successful in Trump’s crimeless impeachment, which has sown further division in an already bitterly divided country, they will open the floodgates to years of endless circus investigations for every new chief executive to hold office, making actual governance impossible.

Some Times Vigilante Justice Is Necessary

Opinions of the contributor do not necessarily represent management. 

https://www.scribd.com/document/392233494/Chuck-Grassley-Munro-Leighton-Referral-Letter-With-Redacted-Enclosures#from_embed


According to Grassley, when investigators finally managed to speak to Ms. Munro-Leighton in person, she denied that she had ever met Judge Kavanaugh or been sexually assaulted by him, and she also denied having written and sent the letter she had previously claimed credit for:
Eventually, on November 1, 2018, Committee investigators connected with Ms. Munro-Leighton by phone and spoke with her about the sexual-assault allegations against Judge Kavanaugh she had made to the Committee. Under questioning by Committee investigators, Ms. Munro-Leighton admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original “Jane Doe” letter. When directly asked by Committee investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the “Jane Doe” from Oceanside California who had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: “No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe … but I did read Jane Doe’s letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee … I saw it online. It was news.”
She further confessed to Committee investigators that (1) she “just wanted to get attention”; (2) “it was a tactic”; and (3) “that was just a ploy.” She told Committee investigators that she had called Congress multiple times during the Kavanaugh hearing process — including prior to the time Dr. Ford’s allegations surfaced — to oppose his nomination. Regarding the false sexual-assault allegation she made via her email to the Committee, she said: “I was angry, and I sent it out.” When asked by Committee investigators whether she had ever met Judge Kavanaugh, she said: “Oh Lord, no.”
 https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/11/03/woman-denies-sent-graphic-jane-doe-letter-claiming-sexual-assault-kavanaugh/

It has been 1 year and 4 days since Senator Grassley requested the DOJ  seek possible prosecution of this vile Liberal and perhaps why Senator Feinsten and Senator Harris both pushed this known lie.

What the f*ck good are these bureaucrats?

Why can this woman Ms. Munro-Leighton not be exposed to the American people so we can administer justice if these useless bureaucrats can't?

Hot Take Swalwell spills the beans

For weeks, Democrats have claimed identifying the whistleblower is illegal. Then that gormless twit Eric Swalwell inadvertently nuked that talking point.




You can always count on one hell of a hot take from Eric Swalwell.  This guy’s foot spends so much time in his mouth, he has athlete’s tongue.

From nuking citizens who refuse to surrender their guns to his entire embarrassing campaign for President, Eric is the Hot Take King.

Last night, Hot Take Swalwell totally nuked the whole “it’s against the law to name the Whistleblower” defense.

And because he’s an utterly gormless twit, Eric didn’t even realize it.


So, if you have to write legislation to make it illegal to “out a whistleblower,” then clearly no legislation exists right now that makes it illegal.

In other words, it might become illegal “in the future,” but it ain’t illegal in the here and now.

For days now the Democrats and their handmaids in the media have been howling like wounded poodles telling us that it is against the law to identify the so-called whistleblower.

And in one dumb ass tweet, Hot Take Swalwell blew that talking point out of the water.

Thanks for the hot take, Eric!

“If folks find out who this whistleblower is, we’re screwed! I know!  I’ll write legislation making it illegal to reveal the identity of someone trying to take out the President of the United States!!  And I’ll tweet about it letting folks know that in the future this will put you in jail!  Yeah, that’s the ticket!”

Derp, derp, derp.

From the coup-tweeting attorney to Adam Schiff the Walking Parody to Hot Take Swalwell — this Shampeachment is being run by the most inept, incompetent clowns on the face of the planet.

As Rita Panahi famously said;

President Trump is blessed with monumentally moronic opponents.

His Impeachment Evidence Is Something He Heard From Somebody Who Heard It From Somebody



Testimony Transcript Shows William Taylor Never Talked To Trump, Wasn’t Even On July 25 Phone Call

A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimonylast month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy.

“[Y]ou’ve never spoken to Mr. [Rudy] Giuliani?” Taylor was asked.

“No, no,” he replied.

“Has anyone ever asked you to speak to Mr. Giuliani?”

“No,” Taylor said.

“And if I may, have you spoken to the president of the United States?” Taylor was asked.

“I have not,” he said.

“You had no communications with the president of the United States?”

“Correct,” Taylor said.

He also admitted he had never spoken to Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s chief of staff.

When asked who exactly he had spoken to about the brouhaha, Taylor confirmed that his only contacts about the matter were with John Bolton, the former national security adviser who was fired by Trump, Fiona Hill, Alexander Vindman, and Tim Morrison. Both Hill and Vindman are rumored to have been sources for the so-called whistleblower who filed a complaint against Trump in August.

Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge.

“And this isn’t firsthand. It’s not secondhand. It’s not thirdhand,” Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., said to Taylor. “But if I understand this correctly, you’re telling us that Tim Morrison told you that Ambassador Sondland told him that the president told Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an investigation into Biden?”

“That’s correct,” Taylor admitted.

Zeldin noted that the only reference to Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden in Taylor’s opening statement stemmed from that convoluted game of telephone. The New York lawmaker hammered Taylor for relying on third-hand information about the state of mind of an elected official to whom he had never spoken.

“So do you have any other source that the president’s goal in making this request was anything other than The New York Times?” Zeldin asked.

“I have not talked to the president,” Taylor said. “I have no other information from what the president was thinking.”

Under questioning from Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Taylor also testified that the Ukrainian government wasn’t aware U.S. military funding had been temporarily suspended until late August, and then only after the information was leaked to the news media, meaning an alleged quid pro quo would have been impossible.

“So, if nobody in the Ukrainian government is aware of a military hold at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, then, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact, there can be no quid pro quo, based on military aid,” Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, said. “I just want to be real clear that, again, as of July 25th, you have no knowledge of a quid pro quo involving military aid.”

“July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance,” Taylor testified. “And July 25th, they had a conversation between the two presidents, where it was not discussed.”

“And to your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian government was aware of the hold?” Ratcliffe asked.

“That is correct,” Taylor responded.

Taylor also testified that he didn’t see any official readout of the July 25 phone call until it was declassified and released by Trump in late September.

“I did not see any official readout of the call until it was publicly released on September 25th,” he said.

Impeaching America’s Future

Impeaching America’s Future 

Washington

What does the future have in store for us if Congress succeeds in impeaching President Donald Trump, the president who presides over the best economy America has had in the last 50 years? I think you can look to South America for a glimpse of the Great Republic that will be vouchsafed us by the congressgirls from what is called “the Squad” and from the most foul-mouthed field of Democratic candidates ever to run for the presidency. Already the Democratic National Committee has asked the candidates to avoid crude back-alley language in their debates, and NBC News has requested that they abide by the guidelines of the FCC.

Last week as many as a million Chileans poured into the streets of Santiago demanding that President Sebastián Piñera step down and that someone confect a new constitution for the country that a generation ago was saved from communism by the dictator Augusto Pinochet. Irving Kristol, the wise 20th-century political commentator, was given to saying that the problem with South America was that its leaders could not govern themselves. The Latin Americans now swarming over our southern border and rampaging through the streets of Santiago are still more evidence of Kristol’s wisdom.

A former Chilean government minister, Sergio Bitar, who is trying to bring the political parties together in Chile, last week expressed his frustration, saying, “There’s no political or social rationality” for the protests. Viewing the destruction, he explained, “It’s a sickness of destruction.” It seems that way to me, Mr. Bitar, but now the Colossus to the North is on a similar path. The Squad (the synonyms of which, for instance “gang” or “mob,” bring to mind fascism) and the foul-mouthed politicians seeking the Democratic nomination want our fairly elected president removed from office one year before the citizenry holds another election. Moreover, they are very impatient with the Constitution that has governed our country for more than 200 years. Already Congressgirl Ocasio-Cortez has denounced the Electoral College as a “scam.” I think she thinks its tuition is exorbitant.

Peter J. Wallison, one of the most astute political observers today, has written that if the Squad and the Democrats have their way and President Trump is impeached — even if he is acquitted — the strength of the presidency and the steadiness and reliability of our government are finished. If this impeachment succeeds, we are on our way to becoming a country with the fixity of South American countries.

Wallison writes, “If Congress could remove a president from office — in other words, overturn an election — for insubstantial reasons, it will destroy the stability of the presidential office in the future. Any time that Congress is controlled by an opposing political party, the president will be in danger of impeachment for some minor offense.”

The Constitution requires that the president commit “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors” to be impeached. An impeachable act has to be equivalent to treason or bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors. For the duly elected president to talk to a foreign leader in the course of a wide-ranging conversation about foreign aid in July and do nothing to stop that foreign aid shipment in September is not a high crime. It might be a sign of lapsed judgment, especially when the president knows that other White House staffers of questionable loyalty are listening in on the telephone call. But it is not a crime.

Yet such heretofore minor lapses are going to hamstring our presidents for years to come. It will be a new day for America. Get used to the tumult of the last few years to continue for years to come. It is a great irony to see the Democratic Party, the party that has long favored a strong president capable of taking on powerful enemies of the people — the giant corporations! the health-care industry! the National Rifle Association! — in the future being hampered by fears of impeachment threats. Either that or our presidents will be met by riots in the street when they want to do the really grand thing. And the Republican Party — what will it favor? Probably the strong chief executive.

If this impeachment comes about, we are about to see the parties change their roles: the Democrats for an easily impeached president and the Republicans for a strong president. Change is in the air.



The Democrats’ Nomination is Hillary's to Lose


 Article by Bill Schanefelt in "The American Thinker":

Be afraid, be very afraid.  Barring some serious event in her life, Hillary Clinton likely will be nominated for President of the United States by the Democrat party in mid-July next year.

“Ridiculous,” you say.  “Why, even Bill Maher and Doug Schoen are against her,” you continue.

That is true, but it means nothing.  As do all of the other disparaging stories in the MSM about her public appearances and the possibility of her entry into the race.. 

Before anyone sweeps the notion her becoming President under the rug, it is important to understand, in the first instance, that, of the current crop of contenders, only Elizabeth Warren has a chance of exiting the Democratic Convention in Miami next July 16th with the nomination in hand.

Let's take a cursory look at the field now before we go into Hillary's entrance and eventual dominance of the race for the nomination.  You may disagree with my opinions, but making the case for anybody else prevailing will be a challenging task for anyone.

One more health- or age-related incident, and Bernie is toast.  He still has an army of supporters, but the health issue will eventually take its toll, especially as Warren vigorously appears in multiple venues and rises in the polls:

...Sanders’ health poses a concern to Democrats....most seriously, given his Oct. 1 heart attack, leaned Democrats divide about evenly, 48-45%, on whether or not Sanders, 78, is in good enough overall health to serve as president. That’s a stark contrast to both Biden, age 76, seen as in good enough health by 74%, and Warren, age 70, seen as healthy by 80%....[But younger] adults, who are among Sanders’ strongest supporters, are most apt to think he’s in good enough health to serve – six in 10 18- to 39-year-olds say so. Just 40% of those age 40 and older agree.

Biden's campaign is on life-support.  In addition to the Ukraine problem, he's having trouble raising money and falling in the polls, he lies constantly, he loses track of what he's saying or where he is, he's often confused, he sometimes talks like he's still in office, and, frankly, he looks like hell!  I'll be amazed if he's still in the race when the December debate rolls around.

Pete Buttigieg is strong in the polls now and seems to have a good strategic plan, but being gay hurts him badly among black, Hispanic, and rural voters.  He will continue to put up a good fight, but he will soon top out as the caucuses and primaries unfold.

Amy Klobuchar is feisty and may well get close to Warren, but only if she can raise enough money.

Tulsi Gabbard will remain a burr under the saddles of everyone and might do very serious damage to Bernie and/or Biden at the upcoming debate on the 20th of this month, but she has no chance of coming close to Warren as time passes.

Kamala Harris' campaign is crumbling, and she will soon go the way of the skate-boarder from El Paso.
Spartacus Booker will never be taken seriously.

Andrew Yang also has a big army of donating supporters and may well stay in the race for several more months, but he will never come close to Warren in the polls.

Julián Castro will also soon run out of money, but that's OK with him because he probably knows that he's going to be Hillary's running mate.

Mr. Steyer has tons of his own money, but he'll always be “Tom Who?” to voters.

That's the sorry lot going to Atlanta on the 20th of this month.  I don't think anyone else will qualify, and I do not think that a rational argument can put the nomination in the hands of any of the current wannabes other than Warren.

Hillary's going to get in and dominate when she does because the field is so pitiful.  The aside about Bloomberg is also important because he wants to get in, and Washington wants him to get in.  I think he's waiting to see what Hillary will do.  I also think that, despite his wealth and prominence, he has doubts that he can get enough delegates to win before the Convention should it come to his getting in.

So, I think that where we stand is that Elizabeth Warren is on track to securing the nomination in early Spring.

At some point Democrats will realize that this cannot be allowed to happen.  Her ideas are just too radical.  She is a serial fabulist from her Cherokee heritage to her non-elopement to her father's occupation to her leaving of a teaching job to what next!  She scares Wall Street.  She's for open borders, free healthcare for illegal immigrants, gun confiscation buy-back, and the most leftward position on every issue.

Enter Hillary.

She's personally unpopular, unlikable, and often looks like a rag-doll..  She's a poor candidate who ran a horrible campaign in 2016 in part because she thought she had a lock and in part because she can't be bothered to run a strong campaign.  After all, she waltzed to victory in New York's Senate race and was waltzing to victory in 2008 ntil Ted Kennedy realized that Obama's running would give him, Kennedy, the congressional majority he needed to get the Healthcare plan he'd been wishing for since forever.

Dick Morris all but says Hillary believes not only that she is entitled to the Presidency but that it is for her  a divine imperative.  Her lust for the office is at best sensual, even... well, you can fill in that blank.

Once Hillary declares (maybe even before), Democrats will flock to her because the Democrats will realize that only she has a chance to defeat Trump, whom they universally despise:

Former San Francisco mayor and California State Assembly speaker Willie Brown has declared that only Hillary Clinton can defeat President Donald Trump in 2020....“Depression over the current field was swirling through my head the other day,” Brown wrote....“Think about it. Hillary is still the smartest of the bunch. She’s also better known than any of the candidates, so she doesn’t need a lot of money....[and] is the only candidate short of Barack Obama who has the brains, the battle-tested brawn and the national presence to take out Trump. And Obama can’t run....”

Gone will be calls for her to stay out of it.  Gone will be all misgivings about her suitability and all else that would militate against her again getting on the stage, and polls, as in 2016, will be overwhelmingly in her favor.  However, this time those polls might hold up through the wee hours following Election Day, the 3rd of November next:

If Hillary Clinton entered the presidential race today, she would essentially be vying to be the frontrunner.  Despite some 20 candidates competing for the nomination, a weak media-appointed leading candidate is providing an opportunity for the 2016 loser to rethink getting into the race.  A new poll from Harvard Harris finds Clinton nipping at the heels of Joe Biden in a hypothetical match up. Hillary, so far, has not declared her candidacy, though she has repeatedly teased the idea.... What this poll finds is that if Clinton were to enter the race, roughly one-half of Biden’s supporters would drop him for Hillary.

Yes, some will then argue that Michelle Obama should get in, but that's the last thing she and Barack want.  For them, they're on Easy Street now with what G. H. W. Bush called CAVU (ceiling and visibility unlimited) forever!  Here's an excellent piece on that by Liz Peek, but I must caution that there's unfortunate auto-play embedded.

Hillary may not enter the convention with a majority of delegates pledged to her, but she doesn’t have to in order to win. If no one wins a majority on the first ballot, the superdelegates, roughly 16% of the total delegates and almost a third of a majority, become eligible to vote on the nomination in the second ballot and beyond, while the delegates pledged to nominees become free to change their support. The superdelegates are party pros and office holders, and the vast majority, who built their careers over the same period that Hillary and Bill Clinton did,  can be expected to support Hillary.  The momentum that they add to Hillary, along with the poor prospects of the hard left candidates, will be enough to hand her the top of the ticket. Again.
  Image result for images for hillary clinton"