Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Was Brenda Lawrence presented with a quid pro quo?

As quickly as day turns to night, Brenda Lawrence backtracked and once again began singing from the Shampeachment hymnal. Gosh. I wonder what happened?


It made big news the other day when Detroit-area Democrat Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence said that she was not in favor of impeaching the President over the piss-poor testimony from Adam Schiff’s shampeachment hearings.  Instead, she believed the House should vote to censure President Trump.

It’s one thing if Democrats from swing districts voice reservations.  But Brenda Lawrence is from a solidly safe Democrat seat.  And for her to doubt the party line was a big deal.

But Brenda’s moment off the plantation was brief.

As quickly as day turns to night, Brenda Lawrence backtracked and once again began singing from the Shampeachment hymnal.

Gosh. I wonder what happened?

Could it be that Nancy and Adam presented Brenda Lawrence with a quid pro quo?

“Stick to the party line on impeachment or else you’ll face a primary challenger.”

Or “Support impeachment or you won’t get one red cent in campaign funds from the DCCC.”

It would be rather ironic if Brenda Lawrence changed her tune because Nancy and Adam gave her a quid pro quo, wouldn’t it?

Ironic, but hardly surprising.

You’d have to be a halfwit to think there isn’t a hell of a lot of horse trading going on behind closed doors to make sure every House Democrat sticks to the script.

It’s how things work in Washington.

That’s what makes the whole “Impeach the President for quid pro quo” so ridiculous.

Everything is quid pro quo in Washington.

You do this for me, and I’ll do this for you.  It’s how the game is played.

This “come to impeachment” moment of Brenda Lawrence was no doubt the result of some kind of quid pro quo.

Let’s face it, Nancy brooks no dissent.  Ever.

All of this reminds me of the wheeling and dealing that went on back in 2009 and 2010 to force Obamacare through.

Shaky Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats, pro-life Democrats – those guys were nervous as hell about voting for Obamacare.  And the Democrats needed every vote possible to shove that garbage law through.  So the quid pro quo kicked into hyperdrive to get it done.

And how did that work out for Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority in 2010?

Not good.

Not good at all.

Nancy may be an expert horse-trader, but forcing every Democrat to fall in line to vote for something the majority of Americans do not want will not end well for her this time either.

USMCA Rumblings – After Letter from Mexico to Pelosi, USTR Lighthizer, FM Seade and FM Freeland Meet in DC

Something is shaping up in the political background around the USMCA. 

Yesterday Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez-Obrador (AMLO) sent a second letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging USMCA ratification.  Team Trump and Team AMLO are working together against Team Pelosi & AFL-CIO Richard Trumka.

Essentially AMLO has been saying the labor provisions within the USMCA trade pact are already being put in place by Mexico, and Pelosi should quit trying to hide behind labor concerns to avoid ratification.
sourcesundance at CTH

Tomorrow, on the eve of Thanksgiving at the request of the Trump administration, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Mexican Foreign Minister Jesus Seade and Canadian Deputy Minister Chrystia Freeland are holding a meeting to discuss the  AFL-CIO/Pelosi issues within the USMCA labor provisions.

FM Chrystia Freeland is irrelevant to the meeting; she’s a potted-plant rubber stamp for whatever scheme Pelosi is cooking. It is House Speaker Pelosi who is using her pressure over labor unions to hide behind AFL-CIO Richard Trumka and claim U.S. labor unions have issues with the USMCA labor provisions. It ain’t about labor; it is all political cover.

However, it is interesting that USTR Lighthizer, a man with the patience of Job, called Jesus Seade and Freeland to DC:
WASHINGTON – The three trade ministers from the United States, Canada and Mexico are set to meet in Washington on Wednesday to discuss the deal to replace NAFTA, seven people familiar with the plans told POLITICO.
The meeting involving U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Deputy Canadian Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland and Mexican Undersecretary for North America Jesús Seade comes as the Trump administration is nearing a compromise with House Democrats to make changes to the USMCA.
Lighthizer has been negotiating with a group of nine House Democrats to address four main concerns involving the pact’s labor, environmental, enforcement and drug pricing provisions.
Any changes to the text would have to be approved by Canada and Mexico before the Trump administration can finalize the agreement and send it to Congress for a vote. Canada is expected to accept changes to the text without issue. (more)
In her effort to stall the growth of the North American economy, Speaker Pelosi has been trying to block the USMCA by demanding [falsely and with cover by Trumka (AFL-CIO)] that Mexico start a national Social Security program for all Mexican workers.
There’s a bucket load of political obfuscation on the issue, but that’s generally Pelosi’s intentional poison pill.  Meanwhile Mexican President Lopez-Obrador has told Lighthizer that Pelosi can go drink a bucket of spit if she thinks the U.S. is going to dictate domestic economic policy to a sovereign country.

Now remember, the USMCA is an agreement between Lighthizer and Seade that Canada joined. The architecture of the agreement was exclusively the U.S. (Team Trump) working with Mexico (Team AMLO) when the deal was constructed in 2018.  Canada joined after everything was already assembled; the deal hardly changed at all… you’ll see why.

My hunch is that Robert Lighthizer (Trump) has informed Jesus Seade (AMLO) that Pelosi is just trying to kill any USMCA compact simply because she is attempting to derail the U.S. economy for maximum 2020 political benefit (which she is).

This meeting is going to be Lighthizer and Seade extending some deal framework that will functionally stop Nancy Pelosi and Richard Trumka from making ridiculous claims.

Something akin to modified provisions within the agreement where Mexico agrees to a border enforcement mechanism if a labor dispute panel arbitrates a U.S. labor union challenge within the deal. A mini three nation binding arbitration trade panel of sorts (example: 2 from Canada, 2 from Mexico and 3 from U.S.). This panel would create faster  labor/trade dispute resolution than going through an extensive multi-year court case.

There’s going to be paper here…. not talk… an actual papered outline.  Trump wouldn’t be having Lighthizer call for Seade if he and AMLO had not already worked the paper.
This is a little weedy, and my hunch is that Lighthizer (Trump) is telling Seade (AMLO) the U.S. panel would be stacked in favor of Mexico [nudge-nudge, wink-wink, say-no-more, say-no-more]. An effort to cut-off Pelosi’s scheme to derail the agreement.

The multinationals are lined up and ready to go all-in, BIGLY, on North American investment that will benefit Mexico. There are tens-of-billions of private sector dollars ready to go, they just need to clear the insufferable Pelosi blockage.

This $44bn investment package is why AMLO has been willing to assist the Trump administration on border security etc. President Trump has leveraged major economic benefit to Mexico because in the larger picture the USMCA, in combination with prior ASEAN agreements, is the economic breech that drains China. However, to receive the benefits, Mexico has to be a stable partner on geopolitical issues including immigration, border security, internal corruption and dealing with drug cartels.

If all goes according to the Trump/AMLO plan Wall Street’s U.S. investment in China will have an alternative in Mexico, and that’s the cornerstone that allows President Trump to begin a more consequential decoupling with Beijing.  [Insert India watching here]

Phase-One of the U.S-China deal, if cemented, will be the only phase; and that phase objective is simply constructed to fill the purchase void for the U.S. Agriculture Sector. China opens the financial sector and makes Ag purchases, in exchange POTUS stalls further tariffs on designated sectors that touch upon Phase-one agreements.

If the landscape ends were the compass is heading, there isn’t going to be a multi-sector (manufacturing, IP, big-tech, etc.) phase-two or phase-three deal in the U.S-China future. Instead there will be a decoupling of the U.S-China relationship in direct proportion to the opportunity opened within the U.S-Mexico alliance.  [Insert Stock Market Stability Here]
This is the incentive for AMLO, via Jesus Seade, to work with Trump, via Lighthizer, to get Pelosi out of the picture. Once she’s out of the way, the big picture starts moving forward.

Chrystia Freeland and Justin Trudeau are irrelevant, Canada has already destroyed its manufacturing base and cannot enjoy the benefits of massive North American investment. Canada has consigned itself to be a service-driven economy living in the shadow of the U.S. and Mexico.  If Canadian politics and social outlooks change later on, well… !

CNN’s Joan Walsh Tweets She’s ‘Shocked’ Trump Did Not Sexually Assault Hero Dog


CNN’s National Affairs Correspondent, Joan Walsh, said she was “shocked” President Trump didn’t sexually assault the hero military dog visiting the White House on Monday. 
Walsh dedicated a whole Twitter thread to critiquing the body language of both Trump and First Lady Melania Trump as they welcomed Conan, the dog that took down ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. 

The president described Conan as the “the ultimate fighter” and awarded her a medal and a plaque for her role in the death al-Baghdadi. Naturally, Trump can’t give a heroic dog a medal without facing scrutiny from the mainstream media. Walsh described the scene as “terrifying” and wrote that the First Lady’s floral coat was “macabre.” 

“This is terrifying. Trump and Melania exude coldness to Conan the hero dog. Melania … moves away from Conan multiple times,” Walsh tweeted.
This is terrifying. Trump and Melania exude coldness to Conan the hero dog. Melania, whose coat is slightly macabre (to me, but others may find it lovely), moves away from Conan multiple times. 1/3 https://t.co/s9T3Y4ZYTn
— Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) November 25, 2019
The CNN journalist continued to share her bizarre and unfounded interpretations of Trump’s interactions with the dog, including Trump’s alleged “fear” of the dog. 
“Conan is a tough cookie,” we learn. Still nothing about his breed. Trump repeatedly “jokes” about siccing the dog on journalists. Also, again, his command of the language rivals (maybe) a five-year-old. Terrifying 3/3
— Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) November 25, 2019
Walsh faced backlash on Twitter by Trump supporters and others who found the tweets unhinged. She then feigned an apology, which not an apology at all but rather an apparent reference to the allegations of sexual misconduct against the president. Walsh said she was “shocked” Trump didn’t sexually assault Conan because she is a female.
I am being slammed for my Conan tweets by MAGA and I do want to apologize: Conan is actually a female dog, God bless her. So I'm especially shocked Trump didn't…well, you know.
— Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) November 25, 2019
“I am being slammed for my Conan tweets by MAGA and I do want to apologize: Conan is actually a female dog, God bless her. So I’m especially shocked Trump didn’t… well, you know,” Walsh tweeted.

NYT Columnist Demands Pompeo Defy Trump Or Be Condemned To Hell


In Tom Friedman's world, a Cabinet officer’s faithful execution of a president’s policies after private disagreement is both 'cowardly' and 'slimy,' not to mention cause for eternal damnation.

In 42-plus years of analyzing lawyers’ briefs, I have gained some experience in spotting written advocacy that resorts to a variety of mechanisms to camouflage a weak argument. Sometimes authors use personal attacks and inflammatory but baseless accusations to cover up the weakness of their argument.

So it is with political journalists and advocates (an overlapping set, to be sure). Tom Friedman, The New York Times’ resident “intellectual” foreign affairs columnist, demonstrates this technique in spades in his recent unhinged personal attack on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for not publicly disagreeing with President Trump’s decision to recall Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovich.

Friedman’s charge is that Pompeo’s failure to voice his public disagreement with Trump’s decision shows that even though Pompeo finished No. 1 in his class at West Point — a composite of academic, leadership, and physical fitness rankings — “he must have flunked all his courses on ethics and leadership.” Friedman lards up his baseless argument with inflammatory, red-meat personal attacks that can fairly be described as sophomoric, in the sense that they are more typical of something written by an inexperienced but passionate youth, rather than a serious man.

Thus, Friedman’s analysis is that Pompeo is “cowardly” and “slimy,” he must have “failed or skipped” all West Point’s classes on ethics and leadership, and his failure to behave as Friedman would demand is “one of the most shameful things I have ever seen in 40 years of covering U.S. diplomacy.” He has “the mark of Cain on his forehead” and it “will not wash off.” Continuing his biblical references, Friedman assures us it is really a “simple” matter: Pompeo will “lose his soul.”

Well, what on Earth is the basis for damning Pompeo’s soul to hell? It is this, in Friedman’s words:
Though he reportedly argued privately to the president to keep Yovanovitch in place, Pompeo faithfully executed Trump’s order without uttering a word to defend his ambassador’s reputation in public.
In the Friedman world, a Cabinet officer’s faithful execution of a president’s policies after private disagreement is both “cowardly” and “slimy,” not to mention cause for eternal damnation.

Surely Pompeo must have skipped all his ethics and leadership classes, as Friedman asserts, to put himself in such a pickle. But what would Pompeo have learned in all those classes? The Army Field Manual on Leadership (known as FM 6-22) provides guidance. In its discussion of “Responsible Subordinates,” it concludes an example about a team chief’s disagreement with his superior with this admonition:
Ultimately, the discussion must conclude and the chief has to accept his superior’s final decision whatever it may be. From that point on, he is obligated to support that decision and execute it to the highest of standards. Just imagine what chaos would engulf an organization if subordinates chose freely which orders to obey and which to ignore. In the end, it is important for all leaders to preserve trust and confidence in the chain of command and the collective abilities of the organization.
That is precisely what Pompeo did, at least according to the Times’ leading “intellectual.” He had a private discussion with Trump about Yovanovich, disagreed in private, and accepted his superior’s final decision. He then supported that decision. But, like many a person who has been fired or demoted, this hurt the ambassador’s feelings:
Daniel Goldman: So just like that, you had to leave Ukraine as soon as possible?
Yovanovich: Yes.
Goldman: How did that make you feel?
Yovanovich: Terrible honestly. After 33 years of service to our country it was terrible. It’s not the way I wanted my career to end.
By all means then, let us impeach!

Despite the risk of hurting the ambassador’s feelings, the secretary of state’s duty, consistent with West Point’s leadership principles, was to execute the commander-in-chief’s orders and fully support them as if they were his own. Any lukewarm enforcement or public distancing of himself from the president’s decision would be a prescription for chaos.

Finally, Friedman’s overwrought attempts at military analogies are weak tea indeed. Replacing ambassadors who have lost the president’s confidence is in no way comparable to leaving your wounded on the battlefield, as Friedman asserts.

As for his triple-emphasized caution about Trump — “I would never, ever, ever want to be in a trench with that man” — Friedman does not make clear how much time he has spent under fire or in a trench. I think, however, I am safe in concluding that Friedman’s chances of spending time under fire in a trench with anyone are about the same as my chances of serving on The New York Times editorial board with Friedman.

New Fusion GPS Info Confirms The Special Counsel Probe Was A Hit Job


In April, when the special counsel’s report on Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election was released to the public, a glaring omission quickly made clear indicating Robert Mueller was either incompetent or a political hack. As I wrote at the time: “Not once in the 448-page tome does Mueller mention an investigation into whether Russia interfered with the U.S. presidential election by feeding dossier author Christopher Steele misinformation.”

Today’s release of Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch’s book on the Steele dossier, “Crime in Progress: Inside the Steele Dossier and the Fusion GPS Investigation of Donald Trump,” has put the former MI6’s collection of anti-Trump memoranda back in the news. The renewed focus on the Steele dossier are cementing the case that the special counsel probe served as a taxpayer-funded political hit on President Trump and not a true investigation into Russia’s election interference.

A Serious Investigation Would Have Included the Dossier

Former Wall Street Journal reporters who co-founded Fusion GPS, Simpson and Fritsch appeared Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” The bit was intended as a PR push to increase sales for their new book on Steele. Whether the media blitz that began in stride over the weekend will prove successful is unclear. But one thing the interview made clear is that a serious investigation into Russia’s interference in our elections would have focused on the Steele dossier.

This point became evident when host Chuck Todd confronted the Fusion founders with a video of the impeachment testimony of Fiona Hill. Hill, an expert on Europe and Russia and a former member of Trump’s National Security Council, testified that the Steele dossier was a “rabbit hole” and “very likely” contained Russian disinformation. Hill also testified that she “thought he got played.”

Simpson responded that Hill is entitled to her opinion and that while Hill is a Russia expert, she is not a disinformation specialist, like Steele. The Fusion GPS founders sought to further bolster Steele’s work during the interview by stressing that he ran the Russian desk for MI6. “This is one of the most capable and one of the most knowledgeable experts on Russia in the world today,” Fritsch said, adding that Steele “spent a lot of time going through the dossier to separate information from disinformation, credible facts from non-credible facts.”

That Fusion GPS continues to sell the dossier and Steele as solid is baffling. After all, the dossier got a pretty straightforward and easily verified (or refuted) detail wrong—that Michael Cohen was in Prague in August of 2016. Steele also bought into the “pee tapes” scene painted by the Russian sources. So much for separating “information from disinformation” and “credible facts from non-credible facts.”


Mueller Was Curiously Uninterested in Steele

Given that “one of the most knowledgeable experts on Russia in the world today” got these facts (and others) wrong, the question remains: Why? Was Steele pushing a disinformation campaign on behalf of Hillary Clinton in his dossier? Or was Steele “played” by the Russians, as Hill thought?

It’s hard to know. But you know who should have found out? Robert Mueller!

Yet, as I wrote shortly after the release of the special council’s report: “Even though Mueller was authorized, as he put it in the special counsel report, to investigate ‘the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,’ the report is silent of efforts to investigate Russia’s role in feeding Steele misinformation.”

Hill made this same point in her closed-door deposition testimony before the House Intelligence Committee last month. During her October appearance before that Democratic-controlled Committee, Rep. Jim Jordan asked Hill whether she though the Steele dossier was Russian propaganda.

The Russian expert said that she was not “in a position to assess that,” but “that I felt that it [should] also be looked at and investigated.” Hill added that she believed “that the Mueller report and Mr. Mueller and his team did look at some of this information.”

But Hill then noted that she would “have much preferred to see . . . [the] Mueller report focusing at the outset on what was in [the Steele] dossier that the Russians were doing and then, as the course of that, following the ‘investigative leads, which, you did in any case to find out what doors were opened for them into our political system.”


Was Steele Played by the Russians?

While Mueller ignored these questions, in her deposition testimony Hill also expanded on why she believed Steele had been “played” by the Russians. After seeing the dossier in BuzzFeed, “I expressed the misgivings and concern that he could have been played,” Hill told the House Committee.

“If you also think about it,” the Russian expert explained, “the Russians would have an ax to grind against [Steele] given the job that he had previously. And if he started going back through his old contacts and asking about, that would be a perfect opportunity for people to feed some kind of misinformation. He’s obviously out there soliciting information. What a great opportunity to, basically, you know, present him with information that he’s looking for that can be couched—some truth and some misinformation.”

Hill then illustrated how this works by explaining that when she was working on a book, her phone was hacked repeatedly and that it became clear that a draft of her manuscript had been accessed. “After this, I started to get emails from people who purported to have met me at different points in my career. . . . And they’d start offering me information, you know, that somehow pertained to, strangely enough, some of the chapters that I was actually working on.”

They were trying to play me, Hill explained to the House Intelligence Community, and from her testimony that’s what Hill believed the Russians had done to Steele. But after nearly two years and more than $30 million wasted, Mueller’s team didn’t even consider these questions.


Mueller Didn’t Only Ignore Steele

While the absence of any discussion concerning whether Steele had been played by the Russians was an obvious omission in the special counsel report, Simpson and Fritsch’s Sunday sit-down with Todd revealed another area of inquiry ignored by Mueller’s crack team.

In that interview, Todd quizzed the Fusion GPS founders about Natalia Veselnitskaya. Veselnitskaya is a former Russian prosecutor who served as a lawyer for the Russian company Prevezon. After the DOJ instituted a civil forfeiture case against Prevezon in New York, Veselnitskaya hired an American law firm to represent her client. In turn, the American law firm hired Fusion GPS to assist in their representation of Prevezon.

As Todd noted in last weekend’s “Meet the Press” interview, Simpson saw Veselnitskaya on the same day as the “infamous Trump Tower meeting.” That was the June 2016 meeting which Trump Jr., Jared Kushner (Trump’s son-in-law), and then-Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort attended in hopes of obtaining “some information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia.” And the supposed source of that information? The same Veselnitskaya.

The promised dirt, however, merely served as “a pretext to provide Veselnitskaya access to Trump Jr. so she could lobby against the Magnitsky Act—a law establishing sanctions against Russian human rights abusers—and to discuss Russian adoptions.” Yet Veselnitskaya’s connection with Fusion GPS and the fact that the evening before the Trump Tower meeting she had dinner with Simpson and then dined with him again after the Trump Tower meeting seems entirely too coincidental.


Was Veselnitskaya Playing Simpson?

Simpson has long maintained that he did not know of the Trump Tower meeting and had never discussed with Veselnitskaya Fusion GPS’s investigation into Trump. He repeated that claim on Sunday, prompting Todd to note, “You even write in the book that now you’re starting to wonder that maybe you were drawn in and worked in a way,” by Veselnitskaya.

If Simpson truly did not know of the Trump Tower meeting and Veselnitskaya’s efforts to meet with Trump Jr., his reaction makes sense. Maybe Veselnitskaya was playing Simpson.

And you know who else should have pondered Veselnitskaya’s connection to Simpson and Fusion GPS? Robert Mueller!

Yet for all the investigation into the Trump Tower meeting and for all the many references to Veselnitskaya in the special counsel report, no mention is made of this dual role. There is also no suggestion that Mueller’s team even considered the possibility that Veselnitskaya was somehow “working Fusion GPS” while other Russians were “playing Steele,” with the possible goal being to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Notwithstanding Mueller’s incompetence or partisanship, we may nonetheless find out the truth when the various Department of Justice investigations into the Russia collusion hoax conclude. We may also learn more about what Mueller did—and did not—deign to investigate, as shortly after his confirmation, Attorney General William Barr told the Senate Judiciary committee that he was also reviewing the special counsel investigation to determine what the special counsel looked at.

The public and the legacy press may have forgotten that pledge, but here’s hoping Barr hasn’t.

Interesting Development – DOJ Requests Delay in Flynn Case Until After Publication of IG Report

source: sundance at CTH

A curiously interesting development in the DOJ case against Michael Flynn.  Judge Emmet Sullivan is weighing the merits of the Flynn defense Motion to Compel (MTC), which requests a significant amount of information on DOJ/FBI conduct in the lead-up to Flynn’s prosecution. A decision and court briefing was anticipated soon.

However, today the DOJ files a joint motion with the defense asking Judge Sullivan to suspend scheduled briefing dates and sentencing deadlines until after the DOJ inspector general report is published on December 9th.   The implication is that some of the “Brady” material at issue; or tangential issues that touch upon the material; may be outlined in the upcoming IG report.
The joint motion asks for a delay to the briefing schedules, and a delay in the subsequent sentencing therein. 

The full motion: View this document on Scribd

How The Media’s Impeachment Push Harms Democrats


The corporate media simply don't have the power that they once did to control the narrative and control political outcomes.

Right up through the end of Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-Calif.) impeachment hearings, the media were impeachment’s most enthusiastic supporters. While they’ve been convinced of the need to impeach President Donald Trump for several years now, the hearings convinced them even more of the urgent need to do so.

The media weren’t entirely clear on exactly what grounds he should be impeached, a problem shared by Schiff and his team, but that didn’t dint their enthusiasm one bit.

Instead of making the case that Trump had committed some sort of high crime or misdemeanor meriting immediate removal, they instead just asserted that an unspecified crime had occurred and that witnesses had testified unambiguously that it had occurred. People who actually suffered through the hearings might be forgiven for not having the same impression.

Sure, viewers saw a bunch of hand-selected bureaucrats assert that Bad Orange Man wanted Ukraine to investigate various things, but we already knew that from Trump’s release of the transcript of his call with the Ukrainian president and his many public statements on the matter. The question was never about whether Trump wanted these investigations, or even whether one involved the Bidens, but whether it was criminal, much less impeachable, to want these things from a country that receives hundreds of millions of dollars in American taxpayer funds each year.

Trump’s well known efforts were so anodyne and frankly ineffective that — despite the media’s promises of bombshells after bombshells — the best evidence there was for him wanting these things were his own public statements, and not any of the testimony from third- or fourth-hand witnesses.

Having lost the argument, the media switched to asserting that the case had already been successfully argued by the Democrats. A pitch-perfect example of assertion over argument was the Washington Post headline “Trump’s GOP support hardens despite damning impeachment testimony.”

In Philip Rucker’s opinionated writeup of the week’s events, he asserted — without evidence — that witnesses “implicated the president in a scheme to pressure Ukraine to influence the 2020 election.” He appeared to be recasting efforts to investigate Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election, and the involvement of Biden family members in Ukrainian corruption, as a “scheme” focused on 2020. Rucker appeared oblivious to the fact that last week’s impeachment hysteria appeared to be a scheme by the media and Democrats to influence the 2020 election, as he puts it.

Supposedly objective reporters and the NeverTrump pundits that are overrepresented at all the networks tweeted out their frustration and rage that even the squishiest of squishy Republicans was not falling for the impeachment effort, which, again, they asserted was conclusive.

They knew that for impeachment to have even a fig leaf of legitimacy, it needed strong bipartisan support. In fact, given the establishment Republican participation in the anti-Trump Resistance, it needed even more than the usual bipartisan support. Instead, it had no Republican support. What’s more, the opposition was bipartisan, and giving every indication it might grow.


Media Pumping Brakes

After the high of their impeachment hearings wore off, it appeared that the media realized that their approach wasn’t quite working. Vanity Fair did a polling analysis with truly devastating results for the media and Democrats.
Independents say that the impeachment issue is ‘more important to politicians than it is to me’ (62% to 22%) and ‘more important to the media than it is to me’ (61% to 23%). It is hard to read this as anything but a warning to the Democratic leadership and candidates: Stop talking about issues that matter to you, not to me. Impeachment proceedings are viewed as bread and circuses for the anti-Trump crowd in Washington and the media—or, as Stanford political science professor Morris Fiorina described it to me, ‘entertainment and confirmation.’ That’s a dangerous perception as Democrats approach one of the most consequential and fraught elections of our times.
It’s dangerous for Democrats, but a stunning indictment of the media.

It is impossible to overstate how much the media marched in lockstep together in their view that Trump’s criminality was obvious and proven. Nearly every headline and every article read as if they were written by Schiff himself, instead of an objective look at the witnesses, the evidence, the fairness of the proceedings, or any of the issues that were in the minds of non-Resistance voters.

The complete rejection of this narrative by those outside their shared political milieu is revealing. The corporate media simply don’t have the power that they once did to control the narrative and control political outcomes.

By Sunday, many in corporate media appeared to realize they’d overstepped. The Sunday shows were all more reticent. Media figures haven’t given up impeachment totally, and still speak as if a Senate trial is more of a foregone conclusion than it likely is, but their rhetoric was neutered from the almost hyper-manic zeal of previous weeks.

It appears that the media have moved into a pause stage, perhaps in preparation for a new impeachment push on more favorable grounds in December. Schiff seemed aware of his failure, not just with his angry closing statement on Thursday, but with the news that he may have to call new witnesses.


Media Use of Polling

While I’m not a huge fan of the overuse of polls, it is clear that polls drive much of the media narrative. Nearly every media outlet put out polls suggesting that impeachment was far more popular than it seemed to be in reality. These polls helped push Speaker of the House Nancy Pelois to open a more formal impeachment process, which she’d been trying to avoid on the grounds it would be politically devastating to the moderates who had secured Democratic control of the House in 2018.

So isn’t it interesting that after the enormous amount of news last week, there are so few polls? Why would the media decide not to do polls after their biggest week of news in a year? Now, maybe they’ll release them here soon, but doesn’t it appear like they made a decision to not poll?

To be clear, the norms of polling are that if media outlets do polls, they are supposed to release them. If results are what they like, they release them quickly. If the results are not what they like for their narratives, they downplay them and quietly release them. So it is possible that they did some polling and are working on their release. But it’s safe to say that if the polling results were bad for Trump and Republicans, we’d know about them.

The lack of polling — or their delayed release, if they did in fact occur — are not a good sign for Democrats or the media.

The Media Are Hurting Democrats Via Taranto Principle

The Wall Street Journal’s brilliant James Taranto is responsible for the “Taranto Principle,” which is described as “the press’s failure to hold left-wingers accountable for bad behavior merely encourages the left’s bad behavior to the point that its candidates are repellent to ordinary Americans.”

That is the best possible version of what the media did to Democrats in recent months. At best, they failed to hold Democrats and other Resistance members accountable for their impeachment fantasies.

The Robert Mueller probe was supposed to be the impeachment vehicle until it exploded under questioning of Mueller. He was the lone Republican on the probe, and picked to give it a protective legitimacy while it was actually run by bureaucratic operatives with far worse reputations. But his testimony revealed someone with limited knowledge of the probe and its claims, a devastating problem considering the failure of the special counsel to find any evidence of any American colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election, much less anyone close to Trump having done so.

When the Russia hoax imploded, the media didn’t hold Democrats accountable for perpetrating it because they had joined forces with Democrats to perpetrate it.

And when the Ukraine impeachment effort began in the immediate aftermath of the Russia collusion hoax, the media couldn’t ask tough questions of Democrats because they needed the impeachment as much, if not more, than Democrats did. The alternative was to admit their failures over the last several years, and that wasn’t going to happen. Until and unless Trump is impeached and defeated in 2020, they will not be able to be honest about their failures.

So the media presented a map of where Democrats wanted to be instead of where they actually were and where they were actually going. The end result was that they led their Democratic colleagues dangerously close to a cliff. Democrats should think seriously about whether their allies in the media are truly serving their interests or are putting them in increasingly difficult situations.

Deep down, Democrats seem to understand “Collusion 2: Ukraine Boogaloo” isn’t selling all that well at the box office. Thus many are shifting back to the Mueller probe, of all things, as the real basis for impeachment against Trump.

What they don’t seem to understand, though, is that their never-ending impeachment mania isn’t failing because they haven’t stumbled upon the right combination of magical words to cast a spell on Americans to get them to support overturning the 2016 election. Their main problem, and one they seem completely incapable of realizing, is that their entire approach is what’s being rejected.

Americans will go to the polls less than a year from now and decide for themselves whether Trump deserves to stay in office. Voters understand that it’s their job to make that decision, not the job of Trump-deranged politicians and media personalities whose Trump obsession has led them to push for his removal rather than the things that people actually care about, like a strong economy, border security, and lowering health-care costs.



New Poll Shows Voters Aren’t Buying Into The Progressive Sales-Pitch For Socialism


While soak-the-rich progressives lead the Democratic presidential field, a new poll released Tuesday shows voters remain skeptical of their socialist policies.

Just 12 percent of likely voters reported preferring a socialist economic system, according to a new Heartland Institute/Rasmussen poll. Sixty-nine percent said they preferred “a free-market economic system.”

When it came to the 2020 contenders, only 26 percent of likely voters said they would vote for a presidential candidate that identified as a socialist. Fifty-percent said they would not. It’s no surprise then that Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who have both openly embraced socialism, scored high unfavorable ratings among respondents with 49 percent and 48 percent respectively.

The poll interviewed 1,000 likely voters of a relatively even partisan distribution by telephone between Nov. 13-14 with a +/-3 percent margin of error.

The Heartland Institute/Rasmussen survey’s results corroborate the findings of a wide-ranging survey published by the libertarian Cato Institute in September.

Cato found that 75 percent of Americans rejected the idea that it is “immoral for society to allow people to become billionaires,” in direct contradiction to Sanders who argues that billionaires have no place in society.

“I don’t think that billionaires should exist,” Sanders said in an interview with the New York Times on the same day of the study’s release. “I hope the day comes when they don’t.”

Sanders and Warren have both campaigned as the Democratic primary’s most left-wing candidates, each running on a platform to implement a wealth tax and single-payer health care in competition to be the progressive standard-bearer in a crowded field of candidates each pushing the party further left.

While the race’s frontrunner, former Vice President Joe Biden has attempted to carve out a moderate lane, Biden would be considered the most radicalliberal in any other primary prior to the 2020 election cycle for his stances on health care and climate change, illustrating just how far left the party has swung.

The polls however, show that voters aren’t quite yet buying the socialist fantasyland that Democrats are selling “for free” on the campaign trail.

Winter storms expected to hit U.S. ahead of busy holiday travel season

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 8:18 AM PT — Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Two powerful storms are threatening to snarl Thanksgiving travel plans for millions of Americans from coast to coast. According to the National Weather Service, the back-to-back storms will unleash strong winds, thunderstorms as well as heavy rain and snow.
The first storm system is already wrecking havoc on Colorado, where parts of the state are seeing up to two feet of snow and wind gusts up to 40 miles per hour. That system will make its way across the country hitting the Midwest early Wednesday into Thursday, and then the East Coast and Northeast by the end of the week.
Many states like Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota are already under winter storm warnings. Officials in the Gopher State have warned residents to prepare diligently as they brace for the conditions.
“Make sure you have supplies, weather that’s a small bottle of water, definitely a charger for your phone…make sure you have a flash light, a radio, your medication…make sure you have it accessible if you get stuck in the snow somewhere,” said , deputy director of Homeland Security and Emergency Management.
Meanwhile, a second storm brewing in the Pacific is expected to strike the West Coast with hurricane force winds and heavy snow in parts of California and Oregon. Meteorologists are calling it a “bomb cyclone,” which is a mixture of blizzard-like conditions and powerful winds. They say it could break records. The National Weather Service warned it is no ordinary storm, and said the conditions will be treacherous for travel by road and by air.

Hundreds of flights have already been cancelled at Denver International Airport and more are expected. Additional airports nationwide, including Minneapolis, Chicago, New York and Los Angeles, could also see major delays or cancellations through Friday.
This comes as AAA predicts more than 55 million people will be taking to the roads and skies this Thanksgiving holiday, which is the second highest number of travelers in nearly two decades.
https://www.oann.com/winter-storms-expected-to-hit-u-s-ahead-of-busy-holiday-travel-season/

Obama Privately Warned He Would Speak Out To Stop Sanders, Voiced Doubt Over Biden

Former President Barack Obama privately claimed he would intervene in the Democratic primary to stop Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders from clinching the nomination if it looked as if Sanders was close, according to a new Politico report.

One top Obama adviser told the paper that he was unsure whether the former Democratic president would actually speak out against Sanders, but noted that it would be likely if Sanders began to claim a demanding lead in the crowded contest.

“He hasn’t said anything to me…The only reason I’m hesitating is at all is because, yeah, if Bernie were running away with it, I think maybe we would all have to say something. But I don’t think that’s likely. It’s not happening,” the source said. 

Another top Obama adviser voiced more doubt over the former president intervening to stop any single candidate.

“I can’t even imagine with this field how bad it would have to be for him to say something,” the adviser told Politico.

Obama also privately raised concerns over Biden’s ability to make it through the nomination, citing his former number two’s lack of connection with voters on the campaign trail, specifically in Iowa. Politico reports that during one conversation with a candidate, Obama noted during his 2008 campaign that he developed an “intimate bond with the electorate,” that dissipated after the election, and added that Biden has failed to cultivate it just months away from the first state contest. “And you know who really doesn’t have it? Joe Biden,” Obama said.

President Donald Trump’s predecessor has notably remained quiet as the primary for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination rages on with little more than two months to go until the Iowa caucuses, though there are some signs that his silence may be changing.

During a speech to wealthy liberal donors earlier this month, Obama cautioned Democrats lurching to the left at lightning speed.

“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in reality. The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it,” Obama said.

Still, despite the warning, Democrats seeking their party’s coronation in Milwaukee as the nominee next year have shown little willingness to slow down their run to the left, doubling down on socialist proposals just days later at the fifth Democratic debate in Atlanta.

Polls show that continuing their calls for the radical creation for a socialist welfare state are likely to bear an electoral cost. A new survey released from the Heartland Institute/Rasmussen on Tuesday shows that just 26 percent of likely voters said they would vote for a candidate who identified as a socialist. The same survey illustrated high unfavorable ratings for Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, both of whom have embraced socialist agendas with 49 and 48 percent respectively.

Obama has continued to offer his advice to any candidate, including Sanders, wishing to meet or speak with the former president.

Doctor calls for standardized mental fitness test for elected officials

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 8:49 AM PT — Tuesday, November 26, 2019
A physician is calling for elected officials to undergo mental fitness tests to determine whether they are fit to serve. In an interview with The Hill Monday, physician and journalist James Hamblin said while a mental assessment is typically part of a president’s physical exam, they have not been standardized for other elected officials.
The doctor went on to suggest that knowing an official’s cognitive state may be even more important than knowing their physical health.
“It’s certainly relevant to know whether someone has a terminal diagnosis that would really suggest that it’s unlikely that they would live through their term, but beyond that what you’re really asking is ‘does this person have the ability to do the job cognitively?’ he stated. “The idea that there might be physical encumberments to doing the job is less relevant today than it might have been decades ago.”
This comes amid concern over Democrat front-runner Joe Biden’s mental state, following his recent debate performances where he has made a number of gaffes and often slurred his words.
https://www.oann.com/doctor-calls-for-standardized-mental-fitness-test-for-elected-officials/


Democratic Voters Poised To Back Trump Less Than A Year From Election Day


New polling released earlier this month from the New York Times Upshot with Siena College depicts a troubling picture for Democrats a year out from election day.

Nearly two-thirds of Trump voters who supported Democratic congressional candidates in the 2018 midterms that flipped control of House to Democrats reported they would back the president over the three candidates currently leading in the Democratic primary, according to the Times.

Further, the new polls show Trump maintaining or strengthening his edge in the six key battleground states that swung the election in the Republican’s favor, particularly among white working-class voters who flipped to Trump after eight years of backing President Barack Obama while Democrats continue to fall behind this critical voting bloc.

“The poll offers little evidence that any Democrat, including Mr. Biden, has made substantial progress toward winning back the white working-class voters who defected to the president in 2016, at least so far,” the Times noted. “All the leading Democratic candidates trail in the precincts or counties that voted for Barack Obama and then flipped to Mr. Trump.”

While the election remains just more than 11 months away with no clear Democratic candidate quite yet, the Times reports that “on average of the last three cycles, head-to-head polls a year ahead of the election – matching the eventual nominees of each party – have been as close to the final result as those taken the day before.”

The polls suggest that former Vice President Joe Biden stands the best chance to oust Trump next fall, leading the president by an average of two points among registered voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona, and Wisconsin.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, in contrast, is trailing Trump by an average of two points among registered voters in the six battleground contests mirroring the margins of Trump’s win over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders remains tied.

The Times report suggests the Democratic candidate will need to carry at least three of six states that handed Trump his electoral victory to capture the White House next November.

Democrats however, are in the midst of prolonging a bruising primary with 18 candidates still in the race little more than two months away from the Iowa caucuses. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg became the latest candidate to enter the race this week dropping more than $31 million of his own money on campaign ads in key nominating contests indicating how the party is gearing up for a competitive primary process well past Iowa in February.

Bloomberg, by far the richest candidate to run for president this election cycle with an estimated net worth of more than $54 billion according to Forbes, has pledged to self-fund his campaign, and has given Sanders and Warren fresh ammunition to launch attacks on the nation’s wealthy trying to buy elections.

Whether the ad blitz for a last-minute entry into the race will pay off remains to be seen, though Bloomberg’s late announcement showcases heightened anxiety among Democrats that none of top three candidates currently in the lead have the ability to capture the momentum in the primary and beyond to flip the White House in 2020.