Monday, November 18, 2019

‘Doing My Duty As A..

http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2019/11/18/doing-my-duty-as-a-citizen-christine-blasey-ford-accepts-courage-award-from-aclu/

‘Doing My Duty As A Citizen’: Christine Blasey Ford Accepts Courage Award From ACLU

Mary Margaret Olohan on November 18, 2019


Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford accepted an award for courage from the American Civil Liberties Union on Sunday.

The ACLU honored Ford, who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, with the Rodger Baldwin Courage Award at the ACLU of Southern California’s Bill of Rights dinner. Ford works as a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University, according to HuffPost.

“When I came forward last September, I did not feel courageous,” Fordsaid Sunday.

“I was simply doing my duty as a citizen, providing information to the Senate that I believed would be relevant to the Supreme Court nomination process,” she added. “I thought anyone in my position would, of course, do the same thing.”
Ford said she was inspired by Anita Hill and by values her parents instilled in her growing up in Washington, D.C.
“I had a responsibility to my country, to my fellow citizens, to my students, to my children, to live the values that I try to teach them,” Ford told the audience.  

She also said her testimony inspired 20,000 women across the country to send her messages about their sexual assault experiences.

“That’s why it means so much to me to be recognized by you tonight,” Ford told the Bill of Rights dinner’s audience. “Because I know you will continue the work of protecting sexual assault survivors and preventing sexual assault. You will continue the work to protect personal privacy and the rights of citizens.”
at

Did you notice..


at

Bill Maher Gets Deadly Serious (and Right) About Civility and a Coming Civil War


Some of you might compare it to a broken clock, but the fact is, sometimes Bill Maher hits the nail on the head.

He also now and again inadvertently hits the wall, the table, a kitchen counter top, or an expensive living room vase…they can’t all be bullseyes.

But Friday night, for a while, he got it right.

Bill’s as liberal and as partisan as they come, but not as Left — he regularly champions free speech, and his stance on terrorism and its intricacies suggests he’s a man who thinks for himself.

On Real Time, he got patriotic — and gave great advice to both Democrats and Republicans for the coming holiday:
“This year, just celebrate Thanksgiving. Don’t try to win it.”
I’m sure you all could agree on this one:
“And never forget the single shining truth about democracy: It means sharing a country with a******s you can’t stand.”
It’s a truth not only about democracy, but the world at large.

Incidentally, I’ve never understood the inclusion of “democracy” in so many statements about politics where it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

But I digress.

Maher was really laying it out nicely. There’s a saying you’ve probably heard: “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” I wouldn’t be opposed to that being a banner atop every Twitter page.

Speaking of, here’s Bill:
“It’s no longer enough to just make a point. You have to destroy. You have to own people. Except the person who gets owned doesn’t change their mind. They just make a mental note never to interact again with [a vulgar social media username].”
A while back, I asked all of you what you thought about the notion of a coming civil war. I can’t say your comments were very encouraging.

Bill’s aware:
“Lately we’ve been hearing more and more about a second civil war, which sounds impossible in this modern, affluent country. It is not. We talk about Trump as an existential threat, but his side sees Democratic control of government the exact same way. When both sides believe the other guy taking over means the end of the world, yes, you can have a civil war.”
The host’s neutral nesting was nice while it lasted, but then he hopped a train to that same town in which many on the small screen reside. We’re going in deep:
“Yes, I have said things like that, but I’m going to try to stop because I have learned that the anti-intellectualism on the Right doesn’t come primarily through stupidity, it comes from hate. Telling people that you think they’re irredeemable is what makes them say ‘You know what, I’d rather side with Russia than you.’”
But he made a short return to the middle, with an excellent recommendation for Americans arguing politics:
“Home is where you learn that the three magic words in any relationship aren’t ‘I love you;’ they’re ‘Let it go.’”
Then he got serious:
“We are going to have to learn to live with each other. Or else there will be blood.”
He may very well be right.

Then Bill offered a wad of wisdom, followed by a gob of goofiness:
“So don’t freak out if Ellen [DeGeneres] sits next to George Bush at a football game. Bush was not my idea of a good president, but I never worried that he was going to lock up his political opponents or reporters or me.”
Well, it couldn’t last forever.

Let’s all have a moment of silence for the vase.

at

Who is the Coup Ringleader?

PJ Media

Is Former CIA Director John Brennan 
the Leader of the Coup Against Trump?


Real Clear Investigations has published a report about the anti-Trump wheelings and dealings of John Brennan, former director of the CIA. The investigation makes me, and others, wonder whether Brennan is has led the anti-Trump coup from the start.

"Nearly three years later, as the public awaits answers from two Justice Department inquiries into the Trump-Russia probe’s origins, and as impeachment hearings catalyzed by a Brennan-hired anti-Trump CIA analyst unfold in Congress, it is clear that Brennan’s role in propagating the collusion narrative went far beyond his work on the ICA," Real Clear Investigations reports. "A close review of facts that have slowly come to light reveals that he was a central architect and promoter of the conspiracy theory from its inception."

Although many people believe that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe, it was actually John Brennan who relentlessly pushed it on the Bureau. Note that he did this while the CIA is not supposed to intrude on domestic politics. That didn't matter to him. He was anti-Trump, and so he made sure the FBI would do something against the man who'd end up winning the 2016 presidential election.

Not only did he push it to the Bureau, Real Clear Investigations says, "[h]e also supplied suggestive but ultimately false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials."

And there is more. Much more. For example, Brennan pretended he received information directly from a high-ranking source in the Russian government while his source was actually a mid-level official with very limited access to President Putin's inner circle.

Then there is the fact that he "supplied then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid with incendiary Trump-Russia innuendo that Reid amplified in a pair of public letters late in the election campaign," which he did by circumventing normal protocol for congressional briefings.

Furthermore, when Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, Brennan "oversaw the hasty production of the tenuous Intelligence Community Assessment." And when he left his gig at the CIA, he started working as a prominent analyst for MSNBC, where he used his authority as a former CIA director to accuse President Trump of treason.

When Brennan isn't active on MSNBC, he's using Twitter to lash out at the president. See here two of his most recent tweets:

Lastly, as the Real Clear Investigations report points out, "a CIA 'whistleblower' hired and placed in the White House by Brennan has provided the impetus for the current Democrat-led impeachment effort against President Trump."

All of this leads conservative radio talker Mark Levin to wonder whether Brennan is responsible for orchestrating the impeachment-coup against President Trump:
Indeed, that does seem to be the case.

at

Adam Schiff Witness David Holmes Tries to Become the Julie Swetnick of the Impeachment Hearing and May Have Succeeded


On Wednesday, former Ambassador Bill Taylor, who was billed by Adam Schiff as his star witness, testified before the “impeachment” tribunal that Schiff has empaneled.

Mostly he admitted to knowing jack about the quid pro quo (or bribery or solicitation of a bribe or whatever the Democrats are calling their central allegation this week) and what he did know, first hand, was not unhelpful to President Trump.

What was interesting, though, was in his written statement he mentioned a highly improbable story but one tailor-made for the credulous NeverTrumpers who have bought into this story as spun by Schiff.

In short, he claims that a staffer overheard Trump speaking on a phone in a restaurant, that what he heard proved a quid pro quo, and, oh, by the way, that had just slipped his mind. It was quickly revealed that the staffer was a guy named David Holmes who was counselor to Marie Yovanovich at the US embassy in Kiev. In his opening statement from his closed-door session, this is how Holmes describes the scene.
During the lunch, Ambassador Sondland said that he was going to call President Trump to give him an update. Ambassador Sondland placed a call on his mobile phone, and I heard him announce himself several times, along the lines of “Gordon Sondland holding for the President.” It appeared that he was being transferred through several layers of switchboards and assistants. I then noticed Ambassador Sondland’s demeanor change, and understood that he had been connected to President Trump. While Ambassador Sondland’s phone was not on speakerphone, I could hear the President’s voice through the earpiece of the phone. The President’s voice was very loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume.
I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the President and explain that he was calling from Kyiv. I heard President Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine, and went on to state that President Zelenskyy “loves your ass.” I then heard President Trump ask, “So, he’s gonna do the investigation?” Ambassador Sondland replied that “he’s gonna do it,” adding that President Zelenskyy will do “anything you ask him to.” Even though I did not take notes of these statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made. I believe that my colleagues who were sitting at the table also knew that Ambassador Sondland was speaking with the President.
The conversation then shifted to Ambassador Sondland’s efforts, on behalf of the President, to assist a rapper who was jailed in Sweden, and I could only hear Ambassador Sondland’s side of that part of the conversation. Ambassador Sondland told the President that the rapper was “kind of f—-d there,” and “should have pled guilty.” He recommended that the President “wait until after the sentencing or it will make it worse,” adding that the President should “let him get sentenced, play the racism card, give him a ticker-tape when he comes home.” Ambassador Sondland further told the President that Sweden “should have released him on your word,” but that “you can tell the Kardashians you tried.”
After the call ended, Ambassador Sondland remarked that the President was in a bad mood, as Ambassador Sondland stated was often the case early in the morning. I then took the opportunity to ask Ambassador Sondland for his candid impression of the President’s views on Ukraine. In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that the President did not “give a s—t about Ukraine.” Ambassador Sondland agreed that the President did not “give a s—t about Ukraine.” I asked why not, and Ambassador Sondland stated that the President only cares about “big stuff.” I noted that there was “big stuff” going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia, and Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant “big stuff” that benefits the President, like the “Biden investigation” that Mr. Giuliani was pushing. The conversation then moved on to other topics.
Upon returning to the Embassy, I immediately told the Deputy Chief of Mission and others at the Embassy about the call with the President and my conversation with Ambassador Sondland. I also emailed an Embassy official in Sweden regarding the issue with the U.S. rapper that was discussed on the call.
July 26 was my last day in the office ahead of a planned vacation that ended on August 6. After returning to the Embassy, I told Ambassador Taylor about the July 26 call. I also repeatedly referred to the call and conversation with Ambassador Sondland in meetings and conversations where the issue of the President’s interest in Ukraine was potentially relevant. At that time, Ambassador Sondland’s statement of the President’s lack of interest in Ukraine was of particular focus. We understood that in order to secure a meeting between President Trump and President Zelenskyy, we would have to work hard to find a way to explain Ukraine’s importance to President Trump in terms that he found compelling.
Holmes’s account, though, is at odds with that of “star witness” Bill Taylor in several respects.

Holmes claims he told Taylor on or about August 6. He claims he told the Deputy Chief of Mission on July 26. Taylor says he didn’t learn of the incident until November. It is hard to believe that the Deputy Chief of Mission didn’t tell Taylor about the call, for its novelty value if nothing else. And it is equally difficult to believe, given all the attention to the subject, that Taylor would simply block out a story about a call between the President and Ambassador Sondland on the exact same subject as an impeachment inquiry.

Holmes places the Osaka G20 meeting on July 28, two days after the phone call:
On July 28, while President Trump was still not moving forward with a meeting with President Zelenskyy, he met with Russian President Putin at the G20 Summit in Osaka, Japan, sending a further signal of lack of support for Ukraine.
The meeting was actually a month earlier on June 28 and the meeting between Trump and Putin took place before the alleged quid pro quo was a gleam in the eye of the #Resistance. Moreover, on the April 21 call between Trump and Zelensky, Trump invited Zelensky to the White House and promised “we’re with you all the way. Ambassador Volker followed up the call with an official statement (this is the Twitter version) that said:

This all indicates that Holmes is pretty much manufacturing a linkage of events contrary to the actual facts.

You’ll notice from the blockquote of Holmes’s testimony that as soon as Trump stopped speaking with Sondland about Ukraine, Holmes could no longer hear what Trump was saying. Also from Holmes’s statement:
At first, the lunch was largely social. Ambassador Sondland selected a bottle of wine that he shared among the four of us, and we discussed topics such as marketing strategies for his hotel business.
There are four people at lunch and one bottle of wine, which typically yields about 4 glasses? Really. Not much of a lunch on an outdoor patio during a Ukrainian summer.
Holmes provides some pretty extensive direct quotes from the phone call, then slides in:
Even though I did not take notes of these statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made. I believe that my colleagues who were sitting at the table also knew that Ambassador Sondland was speaking with the President.
I would submit that if Dumbo heard the conversation Sondland was having, then everyone at the table heard it. I’d also submit that they discussed it. I’d further submit that if you didn’t take notes in July and immediately went on two weeks leave and didn’t record the events until…well, now…that your memory of events is not only not infallible, but it is colored with everything you’ve heard since this story broke, the rampant State Department rumor-mongering that we’re learning is standard practice, and, quite likely, an antipathy towards Trump and a desire to be seen as a bold #Resistance hero. In fact, Holmes basically admits to his motivation in his statement:
As the current impeachment inquiry has progressed, I have followed press reports and reviewed the statements of Ambassador Taylor and Ambassador Yovanovitch. Based on my experience in Ukraine, my recollection is generally consistent with their testimony and I believed that the relevant facts were therefor being laid out for the American people. However, in the last week or so, I read press reports expressing for the first time that certain senior officials may have been acting without the President’s knowledge in their dealings and suggesting that the only evidence being elicited at the hearings was “hearsay.” I came to realize I had first-hand knowledge regarding certain events on July 26 that had not otherwise been reported, and that those events potentially bore on the question of whether the President did, in fact, have knowledge that those officials were using the levers of our diplomatic power to induce the new Ukrainian President to announce the opening of a particular criminal investigation. It is at that point that I made the observation to Ambassador Taylor that the incident I had witnessed had acquired greater significance, which is what he reported in his testimony earlier this week.
In short, not only is the scenario Holmes describes wildly improbable, just from the sheer physics of the situation, the idea that something this significant would only come to his mind now, four months later, is just not plausible. Added to that the fact that the story is motivated by a desire to participate in the impeachment drama there is zero reason why anyone should take it seriously.

The whole thing is reminiscent of the bizarre tale spun by Julie Swetnick to try to interject herself into the Brett Kavanaugh hearing. The tale was initially mind-boggling, it quickly unraveled and Swetnick was referred for criminal prosecution. It is safe to say that Holmes will not be the last Swetnick to appear in this case.

at

Offered an NFL Workout, Kaepernick's Reaction Shows Exactly Why He's Not on a Team Now

Screenshot from this video

The NFL which has been involved in legal action with Colin Kaepernick, offered him a workout in Atlanta and invited every team in the league to be present to see if they wanted to hire him.

The session would have allowed him to demonstrate his ability and be interviewed, and it would have been taped and made available to the teams.
Kaepernick’s response?

He cancelled shortly before, allegedly stating issues including that he wasn’t able to bring his own camera crew.
“The workout was originally set for 3 p.m. and was to be held at the Atlanta Falcons’ practice facility in Flowery Branch,” CBS News reported. “At 2:30, representatives for the free agent quarterback informed the league that Kaepernick would instead be conducting the workout at 4 p.m. at Drew High School in Riverdale, Georgia.”
After dissing the NFL, Kaepernick, a multimillionaire endorsed by Nike, attended his own workout in a “Kunta Kinte” t-shirt, comparing himself to defiant slave from the movie “Roots.” The film showcases an iconic scene wherein Kunta Kinte is whipped by his master for refusing to acknowledge his slave name, Toby.
Kunta Kinte was ripped from his home, kept as a slave, had his foot chopped off and had his daughter stolen from him.

Kaepernick went free agent, didn’t get an offer and has made millions pitching Nike.

Obviously just like Kunta Kinte.

Kaepernick’s remarks also didn’t sound much like a person applying for a job.

The NFL responded.

And Kaepernick’s antics didn’t go over well.

NFL should just say, sorry, you blew it, we’re done.
at

Now Civility Is Like a...

https://pjmedia.com/trending/gorsuch-north-koreas-bill-of-rights-is-awesome-but-its-not-worth-anything

Gorsuch: 

'Now Civility Is Like a Bad Word and Civics Is Banished'



WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution is “pretty good but there are better ones.”

Gorsuch explained that the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are “only as good as the enforcement mechanisms” that make sure they’re felt in Americans’ lives.

“Our Bill of Rights is pretty good but there are better ones and my favorite one is North Korea’s. It’s awesome. It guarantees all the rights of our Bill of Rights and then a whole bunch of free stuff, right? Medical care, education, and my personal favorite, the right to relaxation,” Gorsuch said at the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention on Saturday evening during the Hon. Robert H. Bork Memorial Lecture.

“Sounds pretty good right about now, but of course it’s not worth the paper it’s written on because of what Jane talked about, because all power resides in one radical individual’s hands, right?”

Gorsuch was joined by his former clerks Jane Nitze and David Feder during the discussion, which was focused on the new book that they co-wrote titled, A Republic, If You Can Keep It.

Gorsuch explained that James Madison “didn’t even think the Bill of Rights was necessary” because the government’s power would be limited with the right “structure” of the U.S. Constitution.

Gorsuch said a Republic is supposed to be a "raucous" place, but it "also depends on the ability of people to talk and listen."

"We have to learn to be more than just tolerant, we have to learn how to cherish one another," he said, encouraging people to realize the people we "disagree with over important things love this country as much as we do."

"We used to teach civics. We used to teach civility in public schools but now civility is like a bad word and civics is banished, so I do worry about that," he said.

During the event, Gorsuch told the audience that he thinks “judges make rotten politicians.”

Gorsuch offered advice to young people at the end of the discussion.

“What I say to you young people: Be courageous; aim high. We need you more than ever; be kind to one another along the way -- be dogged,” Gorsuch said. “And be not afraid, as Justice Kavanaugh said, be not afraid. Because guess what? They can throw their slings and arrows and I’m still here.”

at

Democrats Are in Deep Doo-Doo According to Rep. John Ratcliffe


Maria Bartiromo interviewed Representative John Ratcliffe, R-TX, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, about the Democrats’ impeachment star chamber on her Sunday program She led off her FNC show with a video capturing Rep. Ratcliffe’s excellent question posed to Acting Ambassador to the Ukraine Bill Taylor at the Democrats’ impeachment charade last week. In that video, Ratcliffe asked whether Taylor could identify anything that the President has done that rises to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors. And of course, there was dead silence, as there ISN’T anything, despite what the Democrats falsely claim.

Bartiromo then began her questioning of Rep. Ratcliffe as follows: [paraphrased]

Bartiromo to Ratcliffe: What is your takeaway from the week?

Ratcliffe: None of those three witnesses were have met with the President, none of them were on the July 25th phone call, and none of them have firsthand information, and none of them are aware of any criminal activity or impeachable offense. In short, why are we here?

Bartiromo: What is the process for getting the transcripts out for the public to review?

Ratcliffe: The process is whatever Schiff decides for that particular day. This is the equivalent of the person who accuses you of a crime deciding on who the witnesses are, what order they will testify, how much they will be allowed to testify, & who will be allowed to ask questions. The rules and procedures change just as the crimes of which the president is accused change, almost on a daily basis. For example, the President was originally accused of a quid pro quo, and now the Democrats have changed to extortion and bribery. Regardless of what they claim, the president of Ukraine said there was no pressure and no conditions, and he was happy with the call. You’ve got no crime and no victim, which is the worst impeachment trial ever.

Bartiromo: Nancy Pelosi wrote a letter to her colleague about the Trump administration supposedly blocking the claims made by the whistleblower from being brought forward, yet Adam Schiff now says he doesn’t want to speak to the whistleblower.

Ratcliffe: What we keep getting is parading through one ambassador and diplomat after another without hearing from the most important witnesses, who are the whistleblower, Adam Schiff who met with the whistleblower, and Hunter Biden whose testimony became indispensable this week. We learned that it wasn’t a sham to be concerned about Hunter Biden, but that the Obama State Department was concerned enough about that to have pre-briefed their ambassador-designate before her confirmation hearing on the conflict of interest! Republicans who asked questions about that were gaveled down. The Democrats want to send this to the Senate without testimony from THE most important witnesses.

Bartiromo: The Obama Administration was prepping Yovanovitch for her confirmation hearings…

Ratcliffe: There are thousands of companies doing business in Ukraine, and the Obama-Biden State Department briefed her on ONE company – one CORRUPT company – who was paying Hunter Biden obscene amounts of money. A company who was being investigated. A Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating that company was fired 6 hrs after then-VP Biden demanded it. @POTUS has every right to investigate that criminality because that is a prima facie case of corruption. We ought to have that testimony in this impeachment hearing.

Bartiromo: There is a strong belief that the Democrats are railroading this through before Thanksgiving in order to “beat” the IG report on the origins of the Russia probe. What’s your response to Lindsey Graham’s comments last week that it’s impossible to bring the case forward without bringing the whistleblower forward before it gets to the Senate (it will be thrown out).

Ratcliffe: Several Democrat members of this House Intel committee have already voted to impeach this president. They’ve already made up their minds without regard to evidence. Yes, this is dead on arrival at the Senate without looking at the most important witnesses. They don’t want the whistleblower to testify because we now know that that person coordinated with Schiff’s committee in order for that person to become the whistleblower. Schiff hasn’t even released the first transcript of the first witness (the IC IG) because it will tell you what the IG knew and didn’t know about the relationship between Schiff and the whistleblower based on what the whistleblower and Schiff did or didn’t reveal to the IG. This is such an unfair process. An impeachment should be clear, egregious, and bipartisan, and it’s none of those things.

Bartiromo: We understand that the IG report on originations of the Russia hoax investigation is imminent, and I want to ask you about the connections to this impeachment inquiry. Are congressmen themselves under oath in these hearings, or can he say whatever he wants?

Ratcliffe: Adam Schiff is not sworn in as a witness. Much of what he says is simply not true. We’d like him to testify. Congressman Doug Collins (R-GA) is going to ask him to do that when the House Intel Committee sends its report to the House Judiciary Committee. I doubt that Jerry Nadler (Judiciary Chairman) will allow that, so that is another reason why this will be dead on arrival in the Senate.

Bartiromo: The IG report. When do you expect it? You’ve helped expose the wrong-doing. What will it say?

Ratcliffe: I expect to see it the first week of December. I agree with your earlier point that the Democrats are racing to get this done before that report comes out. That’s why we have 8 witnesses this week. The Democrats know the report will be devastating and detail the role played by Obama administration officials in the set-up. Supposedly 500 pages long. It doesn’t take 500 pages to say that everything was just fine! The IG is going to have to find that things were done wrong, that there was exculpatory information that wasn’t provided to the FISA court, and that I think it’s going to be an indictment of Adam Schiff’s own rebuttal memo that he wrote in 2018 saying, “how dare Republicans criticize Strzrok, Page, McCabe, Ohr, and others who have done nothing wrong?” The IG report is going to find problems with the FISA application process, and Democrats don’t want it to come out before they impeach the President.

Bartiromo: Schiff sent a letter to ranking member Devin Nunes (R-CA) stating that the impeachment hearing is only to be about Ukraine, nothing about Hunter Biden, or supposedly debunked interference in the 2016 election. What exactly is “debunked” about 2016 interference given that John Durham has opened a criminal investigation?

Ratcliffe: It’s not debunked, and the IG report is going to validate the Nunes memo about the FISA abuses. There was some exculpatory evidence about George Papadopoulos that was not delivered to the FISA court in a timely manner. I promise you that the IG report is going to address that. When that is confirmed in the IG report, you’ll probably see a shifting narrative from the Democrats that it didn’t make any difference. There are legitimate questions who have seen the classified documents about the origin of the 2016 election investigation. It’s unraveling, and that’s why they’re rushing to impeach the President. They failed to impeach him for being a “Russian agent” because that was a joke, they failed to impeach him for obstructing justice because it was a joke, and this impeachment charade based on a phone call with a Ukrainian president who said he’s not a victim and nothing happened is also a hoax.

Bartiromo: What are your expectations for when the House will vote to impeach President Trump?

Ratcliffe: Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff are racing the clock; they want to get it done before information comes out damaging to the Obama-Biden administration from the IG report or from John Durham’s criminal investigation.

<end of the interview>

Reminder: Rep. Ratcliffe is a former federal prosecutor and is one of the most effective cross-examiners of the witnesses who have been paraded during the charade, both behind closed doors in the SCIF, as well as during the public hearings last week. In this interview, he clearly stated that there has been no criminality or impeachable crimes attributed to the President by ANYONE. And, by the way, that would almost certainly include the witnesses whose transcripts we’ve not seen yet.

He also inferred that this impeachment star chamber is in reality a political charade on the part of Democrats, who wish to rush to an impeachment vote before the release of the DoJ IG report that looked into the predicate for the 2016 Russian counter-intel investigation which will disclose damaging information on DoJ and FBI officials (and others?) in the Obama-Biden Administration. They want to get the impeachment vote out there for political reasons in order to deflect from that IG report.

This is typical Democrat modus operandi – everything is sacrificed on the altar of Democrat political gain. Never mind doing the country’s business, or actually working toward any bipartisan solutions. And they know they’re in deep kimchi with the DoJ IG report coming out soon.

I love this answer from Rep. Ratcliffe, as this sums up the impeachment charade. Based on Schiff’s tyrannical and one-sided control of the process, “an impeachment should be clear, egregious, and bipartisan, and it’s none of those things.” That’s your takeaway, folks! I expect that this week’s hearings should be more of the same.

The end.
at

The Left tried to debunk the reality of...

American Thinker


Left tries to debunk reality of criminals in DACA, but hard new facts tell a scary story

The left is going into full open-borders mode now, arguing that any illegal with a DACA pass to prevent deportation is a sweet little daisy. The craziness started in response to this tweet by President Trump who noted that DACA was loaded with hardened criminals.

"We rate Trump's claim False," sniffed Politifact, always ignoring the actual facts in favor of its own politicized ones.

Now it comes to light that the leftist spin-blather was much worse than anyone imagined.

According to newly released data from the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service, there are tens of thousands of thugs and criminals among the DACA recipient pool and worse still, there's not a thing the government can do to get rid of them.
WASHINGTON—Today, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) updated data  (PDF, 756 KB) on arrests and apprehensions of illegal aliens who requested Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  
The release of this report reflects the agency’s ongoing focus on transparency. The report provides updated information on known arrests and apprehensions of DACA requestors. The data may include arrests that did not result in convictions or where the charges were dropped or otherwise dismissed. 
Among the findings of the release are the following:  
  • Nearly 110,000 DACA requestors out of nearly 889,000 (12%) had arrest records. Offenses in these arrest records include assault, battery, rape, murder and driving under the influence. 
  • Of approved DACA requestors with an arrest, 85% (67,861) of them were arrested or apprehended before their most recent DACA approval.
  • Of approved DACA requestors with an arrest, more than 31% (24,898) of them had more than one arrest.  
  • Of all DACA requestors, 218 had more than 10 arrests. Of those, 54 had a DACA case status of “approved” as of October 2019. 
“As DACA continues to be the subject of both public discourse and ongoing litigation, USCIS remains committed to ensuring transparency and that the American people are informed about those receiving DACA,” said USCIS Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli. “This agency is obligated to continue accepting DACA requests from illegal aliens as a direct result of the previous administration’s decision to circumvent the laws as passed by Congress. We hope this data provides a better sense of the reality of those granted the privilege of a temporary deferral of removal action and work authorization under DACA.”   
Under current DACA guidelines, illegal aliens may be considered for DACA if they have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more “non-significant” misdemeanors not arising out of the same act, omission or scheme of misconduct, and they do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety. The number of arrests illegal aliens have do not necessarily disqualify them from receiving DACA as a matter of discretion.   

Some 218 of these creeps had ten or more arrests? And if they were operating in a city like San Francisco, where "quality of life" crimes such as peeing in doorways or spraying graffiti on someone's siding are not prosecuted, you can bet that those arrests would have brought convictions otherwise that were so desperately deserved. We also know that if they had committed these crimes and got put before a leftist judge, and told the leftist that any conviction would have affected their DACA status, they also got off scot-free. Leftist judges have been excusing these criminals from day one. Politifact makes a big deal about arrests that never led to convictions but we all know how these blue cities work.

And the stats are really bad actually.

Twelve percent of these people had arrest records? Of stuff like assault, rape, murder, and drunk driving? How much of the general population has arrest records like that? Statistics differ, but a Google search shows it's generally nowhere near that high and it certainly wouldn't include crimes like the ones the DACA kids bear. For the U.S. population, it's closer to the 10% range at most and that 10% would include the nation's abundant illegal immigrants who aren't DACA recipients, whom we know, already are overrepesented in U.S. jails and prisons.

And some 10,000 of them had arrest records that came after their DACA approvals? One can infer that from the before-DACA and after-DACA arrest records. Obviously, some of these creeps have taken the DACA approval itself as a license to go on a crime spree.

It's bad out there, and it lays out well why DACA, an Obama-era executive order that was signed by President Obama after assorted amnesties failed in Congress, and solely for the purpose of winning the Latino vote in 2012, really needs to be thrown out. It's a shelter for criminals who would never been allowed into the U.S. were they to apply to get in legally. There may be a case for allowing some children of illegals into the country, but DACA is exceptionally ineffective at sorting out the good kids from the disgusting criminals and for that the whole thing needs to be thrown out.

It just shows why the Supreme Court should rule to end that program now.


at

Democrats don't want public to know origins of Ukraine probe


Why are House Democrats stonewalling questions about the identity of the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower? 

Start by taking them at their word. Perhaps they really are concerned about the whistleblower's personal safety. They also know that, beyond a limited prohibition applying to the inspector general of the intelligence community, no law bars anyone, in politics, media, or anywhere else, from revealing the whistleblower's identity. So they worry.

But there is more to the story. Should the whistleblower have connections to prominent Democrats, exposure of his identity could be embarrassing to the party. And perhaps most of all, reading through the impeachment inquiry depositions that have been released so far, it's clear that cutting off questions that could possibly relate to the whistleblower has also allowed Democrats to shut off any look at how the Trump-Ukraine investigation started. Who was involved? What actions did they take? Why did some government employees think President Trump's July 25 call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky represented a lost opportunity, or poor judgment, while others thought it represented wrongdoing requiring congressional investigation? 

Democrats do not want the public to know. And in that, their position is familiar to anyone who has watched Washington for the last two years: The Democrats' determination to cut off questions about the origins of the Trump-Ukraine investigation is strikingly similar to their determination to cut off questions about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. In both cases, they fought hard to keep secret the origins of investigations that have shaken the nation, deeply divided the electorate, and affected the future of the presidency.

From their point of view, it makes sense. Democrats were rattled by Republican efforts to uncover the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. The Steele dossier, the use of spies and informants to target the Trump campaign, the Carter Page wiretap, the murky start to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation -- Democrats resisted GOP attempts to reveal them all. But in 2017 and 2018 Republicans controlled the House. Then-Chairman Devin Nunes used the power of the Intelligence Committee to unearth key parts of the story. Nunes' efforts eventually led to a Justice Department inspector general investigation whose results, expected in coming weeks, could further damage the Democratic Trump-Russia storyline. And then there is the ongoing criminal investigation led by U.S. Attorney John Durham.

But Democrats now control the House. As they lead the Trump-Ukraine impeachment inquiry, Chairman Schiff and other Democrats are applying the lesson learned from Trump-Russia: Do not allow inquiry into the origins of the investigation. 

The whistleblower's carefully-crafted August 12 complaint created the template that Democrats have followed in the impeachment campaign. In public hearings, Democrats have praised the whistleblower's action. And behind the scenes, Schiff has exercised his authority to cut off lines of questioning that might reveal something about the probe's origin. The transcripts of depositions his committee has released are filled with example after example of Schiff, or lawyers acting at his direction, stopping questioning that might lead to how the investigation began.

On Saturday Democrats released the transcript of the October 31 deposition of Tim Morrison, who until recently was the top National Security Council official in charge of Russia and Europe. At the deposition, Republicans asked Morrison about Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who served under Morrison in charge of Ukraine. Morrison testified that he had questions about Vindman's judgment. Specifically, Morrison told the committee, "I had concerns that he did not exercise appropriate judgment as to whom he would say what."

Vindman was the first witness to have actually listened to the Trump-Zelensky call. He talked to a number of people about it. Morrison appeared to know something about that. But Schiff did not want to find out.

"We want to make sure that there is no effort to try to, by process of elimination, identify the whistleblower," Schiff said to Morrison. "If you think [Republican] questions are designed to get at that information, or may produce that information, I would encourage you to follow your counsel's advice."

A moment later, GOP lawyer Steve Castor asked Morrison in a general sense who Vindman might have discussed the Trump-Zelensky call with. "What types of officials in the course of his duties would he be responsible for providing readouts to?"

The transcript indicates that an off-the-record discussion took place. Then Morrison said, "He -- he may have felt it appropriate to speak to other departments and agencies if they had questions about the call."

"Do you know if he did?" asked Castor.

"Yes," said Morrison.

"And who -- do you know who he spoke to?"

At that moment, Morrison's lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder, intervened. "I'm not going to allow him to answer that, it is beyond the scope of this inquiry," she said.
Castor protested that he was not asking Morrison to testify beyond his knowledge of events. Van Gelder then read what appeared to be a prepared statement.

"I'm just saying it is outside the scope of what I believe his testimony is, which is whether President Trump jeopardized U.S. national security by pressing Ukraine to interfere with the 2020 election, and by withholding a White House meeting with Ukraine and military assistance provided by Congress to help Ukraine counter Russian aggression, as well as any efforts to cover up these matters." Her language mirrored Democratic language in several Ukraine-related letters to administration officials.

More arguing ensued, but Morrison did not answer the question.

At another moment, Morrison described the time Vindman came to him to express concerns about the Trump-Zelensky call. "Did you have any other communications with [Vindman] about the call?" asked Castor.

"Yes," said Morrison.

"And what were those?"

"You're not going to talk about that," interjected Van Gelder.

Vindham himself testified two days earlier, on October 29. In that session, Schiff again decreed that the witness could not discuss some of the people he might have discussed the Trump call with. In fact, Schiff ordered a blackout on discussion of anyone even associated with the intelligence community. (The whistleblower has been reported to be a CIA analyst.) "Can I just caution again," Schiff said, "not to go into names of people affiliated with the IC in any way."

Vindman said he had discussed the call, in a limited way, with State Department official George Kent. When asked who beyond Kent he might have discussed the call with, Vindman's lawyer Michael Volkov intervened.

"What I'm telling you right now is we're not going to answer that question," Volkov said. "If the chair wants to hold him in contempt for protecting the whistleblower, God be with you....If you want to ask, you can ask -- you can ask questions about his conversation with Mr. Kent. That's it. We're not answering any others."

"The only conversation that we can speak to Col. Vindman about is his conversation with Ambassador Kent?" asked Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin.

"Correct," said Volkov, "and you've already asked him questions about it."

Volkov, like Van Gelder later, was simply following Schiff's directive. The chairman ruled out any talk about the call.

In the Trump-Russia affair, the investigation was entrusted to a special counsel who ultimately could not establish that Schiff's and the Democrats' key allegation, a conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign, ever actually occurred. Now, House Democrats are doing the Trump-Ukraine investigation themselves, making it easier to reach the conclusion they want. 

But so far at least, the investigation seems to have established that Trump's alleged misconduct exists in the eye of the beholder. Some officials heard the Zelensky call as it happened and saw no wrongdoing. Vindman, on the other hand, saw wrongdoing and got in touch with an unknown number of people about it. After that, the story grew and grew.

How did one man's impression turn into the impeachment probe of today?

And that is what Chairman Schiff does not want the nation to know.

at

Dems Caught OMITTING Pro-Trump Evidence From New Impeachment Transcript


On Saturday, the Democratic lead House Intelligence Committee released parts of the transcript of National Security Council official Tim Morrison and purposely left out key information to continue their anti-Trump witch hunt.

The House Democrats purposely waited until Saturday to release the transcript because they knew it made President Trump look good and even when they did release it, they purposely left out key information.

It was reported:
First, the committee withheld the transcript since October 31, only releasing it after the first public hearings began last week. Morrison’s testimony was rumored to be very good for President Donald Trump’s defense — Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) had described Democrats in the room during the closed-door hearing as “sucking lemons” — and Republicans would have made good use of it, had they had the transcript available. But it was not provided.
In the interim, Democrats had sole possession of the document. Schiff does not allow copies of the transcripts to be released to Republicans, either in paper or electronic form. If they want to read transcripts, they must do so one by one, in the presence of a Democrat committee staffer. Not only is that rule humiliating, but it also allows Democrats to control the flow of information and to prepare their public arguments with no fear of timely Republican rebuttal.
In the Morrison case, Democrats released “key excerpts” that highlighted the few facts in his testimony that, they believe, help push the case for impeachment. Chief among these is that Morrison confirmed that he heard U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland claim that he told a Ukrainian official, in a private “sidebar” meeting, that aid would be released if the Ukrainian prosecutor general would publicly announce an investigation into Burisma.
But that is just hearsay evidence, as is Morisson’s confirmation of Charge d’affairs William Taylor’s testimony (repeated in public last week) that Sondland, after speaking to President Trump, “there was no quid pro quo, but President Zelensky must announce the opening of the investigations and he should want to do it.”
Schiff purposely left out key quotes from Morrison that made President Trump look good.

“I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed” Morrison said while talking about the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. This quote doesn't even show up in the Democrats' “key excerpts” document.

Check out the transcript below:
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I just wanted to follow up a bit on this.
One of the concerns, and there may be an overlap between the first two concerns you mentioned about the caII, and if the call became public. First, you said you were concerned how it would play out in Washington’s polarized environment and, second, how a leak would affect bipartisan support for our Ukrainian partners.
Were those concerns related to the fact that the President asked his Ukrainian counterpart to look into on investigate the Bidens?
MR. MORRISON: No, not specifically.
THE CHAIRMAN: So you didn’t think that the President of the United States asking his counterpart to conduct an investigation into a potential opponent in the 2020 election might influence bipartisan support in Congress?
MR. MORRISON: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: And you weren’t concerned that the President bringing up one of his political opponents in the Presidential election and asking a favor with respect to the DNC server or 2016 theory, you weren’t concerned that those things would cause people to believe that the President was asking his counterpart to conduct an investigation that might influence his reelection campaign?
MR. MORRISON: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: That never occurred to you?
MR. MORRISON: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Did you recognize during the — as you listened to the call that if Ukraine were to conduct these investigations, that it would inure to the President’s political interests?
MR. MORRISON: No.
Check out some more highlighted facts:
  • Morrison contradicted Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the Democrats’ star witness in the closed-door hearings, who reported to Morrison directly. Morrison testified that while he admired his subordinate’s patriotism, he was irritated that Vindman failed to report concerns about the call directly to him. He said Vindman never raised concerns that something illegal had happened. He also said he accepted all of Vindman’s proposed edits to the call record, contrary to Vindman’s testimony. And while he did not think that Vindman was a leaker, he testified: “I had concerns that he did not exercise appropriate judgment as to whom he would say what.” He said that Vindman’s sloppy practices were partly the result of his own predecessor at the NSC, Dr. Fiona Hill — another one of the Democrats’ star witnesses, who, like Morrison, is due to testify publicly this week. 
  • Morrison testified that other foreign aid being offered by the U.S. at the time was reportedly under review — not just to Ukraine. And he confirmed earlier testimony that the aid being held up did not include the essential Javelin anti-tank missiles, which were being delivered to Ukraine through a separate procurement process. 
  • Morrison testified that he had no concerns that President Trump asked President Zelensky, during the July 25 phone call, to meet with his personal attorney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
  • Morrison kept NSC lawyers informed about what was going on — not because he was concerned Trump had done anything wrong, but because he wanted “to protect the president” from whatever Sondland was doing.

at