Thursday, September 24, 2020

Hunter Biden's Foreign Payments & Influence Sales – Money, Hookers & Bribes

 posted by sundance at conservative treehouse

Senators Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, released a report today showing millions in sketchy payments to the son of former Vice-President Joe Biden that showcase compromise and blackmail material.

Included in the release are details of payments made by the wife of the former Mayor of Moscow and what appear to be eastern European prostitutes provided to Hunter Biden.


The Senate report reveals millions of dollars were funneled to Hunter Biden during a series of questionable financial transactions between Biden, his associates and foreign individuals.  The report outlines a system of influence sales that were “very awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine.”

Additionally, the senate report highlights the potential for blackmail against the Biden family, the former vice-president and the U.S. government if Joe Biden was to remain in public office.  The report is damning.  Highlights include:

  • In early 2015 former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, George Kent raised concerns to officials in Vice President Joe Biden’s office about the perception of a conflict of interest with respect to Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board.  Kent’s concerns went unaddressed and in September 2016, he emphasized in an email to his colleagues, “Furthermore, the presence of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board was very awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine.”

  • In October 2015, senior State Department official Amos Hochstein raised concerns with Vice President Biden, as well as with Hunter Biden, that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board enabled Russian disinformation efforts and risked undermining U.S. policy in Ukraine.
  • Hunter Biden was serving on Burisma’s board (supposedly consulting on corporate governance and transparency) when Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky allegedly paid a $7 million bribe to officials serving under Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Vitaly Yarema, to “shut the case against Zlochevsky.” George Kent testified that this bribe occurred in December 2014 (seven months after Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board), and, after learning about it, he and the resident legal adviser reported this allegation to the FBI.
  • In addition to the over four million dollars paid by Burisma to Hunter Biden and his business partner, Devon Archer, for membership on the board, Hunter, his family, and Archer received millions of dollars from foreign nationals with questionable backgrounds.
  • Devon Archer received $142,300 from Kenges Rakishev of Kazakhstan, purportedly for a car, the same day Vice President Joe Biden appeared with Ukrainian Prime Minister Arsemy Yasenyuk and addressed Ukrainian legislators in Kyiv regarding Russia’s actions in Crimea.
  • Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina. Ms. Baturina is the wife (widow) of the former mayor of Moscow.
  • Hunter Biden had business associations with Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, and other Chinese nationals linked to the Communist government and People’s Liberation Army. Those associations resulted in millions of dollars in questionable transactions.
  • Hunter Biden opened a bank account with Gongwen Dong that financed a $100,000 global spending spree with James Biden and Sara Biden.
  • Hunter Biden also moved millions of dollars from his law firm to James Biden’s and Sara Biden’s firm.  Upon being questioned about the transaction, Sara Biden refused to provide supporting documentation and information to more clearly explain the activity. The bank subsequently closed the account.
  • Hunter Biden paid nonresident women who were nationals of Russia or other Eastern European countries and who appear to be linked to an “Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring.”

Senate Website HERE – Full pdf of Report HERE

Ultimately what the senate investigation and report reveals is a remarkable and consistent pattern of the Biden family selling influence and policy manipulation for personal financial benefit.   However, that said, the media will likely play-down the report in an effort to support their preferred 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden.




at

President Trump announces ‘America First Healthcare Plan’

 

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 4:40 PM PT – Thursday, September 24, 2020

President Trump has announced his vision for the future of American healthcare. The “America First Healthcare Plan” relies on three pillars: more choice, lower costs for families and seniors, and better care for American patients.

The President has advocated for 33 million Medicare beneficiaries to receive $200 to help pay for prescription drugs. He also announced a rule to allow for the cheaper importation of prescription drugs from Canada.

He went on to sign an executive order, which called for all Americans with preexisting conditions to be protected and covered, regardless of whether or not Obamacare is repealed.

 

 “As we restore America to full strength, the America First Healthcare Plan will be a core part of our national renewal,” stated President Trump. “In a few moments, I will sign a historic executive order outlining the three pillars of my plan and directing my administration to implement these critical reforms.”

 

https://www.oann.com/president-trump-announces-america-first-healthcare-plan/ 

 


 

at

Facebook, Twitter accused of censorship, empowering violence

 

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 7:40 AM PT – Thursday, September 24, 2020

President Trump said he’s “closely watching” social media companies Facebook and Twitter to make sure they remain unbiased in their influence over the elections.

 

 

During an event at the White House Wednesday alongside Attorney General William Barr, the President said the administration is looking into allegations that social media companies are censoring users based on their political views. He said tech companies have become intolerant of diverse political views “at the urging of the radical left.”

“Twitter routinely restricts posts expressing conservative views, even from a President of the United States, while at the same time it allows Iran’s supreme leader to freely spew vile, anti-Semitic hate and even death threats,” President Trump explained. “Every year, countless Americans are banned, blacklisted and silenced through arbitrary or malicious enforcement of ever-shifting rules.”

Attorney General William Barr went on to note that these companies are able to unfairly control content, leading to the potential for them exerting undue influence over their users.

“These platforms can abuse those positions of trust, whether by deciding which voices they’re going to amplify and which they’re going to throttle,” he stated. “And by improperly tracking and collecting user data, and even facilitating criminal activity.”

 

 

His comments follow a lawsuit filed earlier this week against Facebook, which claims the social media giant reportedly empowered various groups in Kenosha, Wisconsin to “inflict extreme violence” on the city. An attorney representing the plaintiffs said Facebook failed to act on warning signs that were posted by outside actors on the platform.

Barr confirmed a federal inquiry into the behaviors of social media companies is ongoing.

“I’m pleased to report that earlier today, the Department (of Justice) on behalf of the administration sent to Congress proposed legislation to reform Section 230 and that legislation addresses concerns about online censorship by requiring greater transparency and accountability when platforms remove lawful speech,” he explained.

With regards to Section 230, the part of the Communications Decency Act that addresses online freedom of expression, the Federal Communications Commission has recorded more than 19,500 complaints and comments in just the last 30-days.

 

   https://www.oann.com/facebook-twitter-accused-of-censorship-empowering-violence/

 


 

 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage
at

Emotional Cripples

With the death of their demigod Ruth Bader Ginsburg, these broken emotional cripples are once again revving up their engines for another public display of neurosis.

 posted by Dianny at Patriot Retort

Over the last few days we’ve seen an uptick in emotional cripples filming themselves as they shriek and sob over the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. For some odd reason, these broken girls feel the need to have their meltdowns while behind the wheel of a car. Which, let’s be honest, only reinforces the stereotype that women drivers are a hazard on the road.




Why is it these ResistanceLOL girls all treat social media like it’s therapy?

The latest in the long line of emotional cripples was this foolish woman:




Hey, on the plus side, at least this one wasn’t filming herself. That’s a small mercy. I mean, imagine how much damage she could’ve done if she was also trying to hold up her iPhone camera at the same time.

We’ve seen these kinds of emotional cripples before.

They made their national debut after Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016. And for the last four years, they’ve reemerged from time-to-time like locusts.

These emotional cripples descended on Washington the day after Trump’s Inauguration for what I called a very public Group Therapy Session. And it’s been one public tantrum after another ever since.

Whether they’re screaming helplessly at the sky or turning a Supreme Court confirmation hearing into an hysterical madhouse, every time they come out of hiding, they put on full display their inability to handle conflict, disagreement or debate.

And with the death of their demigod Ruth Bader Ginsburg, these broken emotional cripples are once again revving up their engines for another public display of neurosis.

I’ve often asked is it the ResistanceLOL that makes people unstable, or is it simply that unstable people are attracted to the ResistanceLOL?

What turns seemingly intelligent young women into complete emotional cripples?

Look, Donald Trump getting elected didn’t just suddenly flip a switch in their broken minds. The seeds of this kind of emotional immaturity were planted long before Trump even descended the escalator in Trump Tower.

During the Kavanaugh hearing, I endeavored to get to the root of what created these emotional cripples. And instead of simply quoting piecemeal from the column, I decided instead, to reprint it in its entirety.


Revenge of the Angry Broads – October 2, 2018

Did you know that more women than men attend university?

More’s the pity.

While some folks say the worst thing to happen to our society was the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, I disagree.

What really hurt our society was the advent of Women’s Studies programs at universities.

Colleges took relatively intelligent women and turned them into bitter, resentful, angry broads. And the really diabolical part is they got those young women to pay handsomely for the privilege of becoming emotionally ruined and intellectually stunted.

I’ve said more times than I can count that the best thing that could happen to this country is bulldozing every university to the ground then salting the earth.

Gender Studies, Women’s Studies, Feminist Theory – all these majors should really be renamed “Victim Studies.”

Women aren’t being educated to enter the real world prepared for economic independence and success. Instead, they’re being browbeaten into believing they are helpless victims – unable to do for themselves or succeed because the “patriarchy” is keeping them oppressed.

Universities have become victim factories where young women enter with their eyes set to the future only to have it beaten into them that they have no future because the world is stacked against them.

Is it any wonder that they end up pissed off and bitter?

What we’ve seen unleashed over the last couple weeks is the Revenge of the Angry Broads.

It’s completely off base to say, “Boy, when they leave university and enter the real world, they’re in for a shock.”

No they’re not.

Instead, they’re bringing their Angry Broad Victim Mentality into the real world with them.

And sadly, the Real World is currently bending over backwards to accommodate their so-called “Victim Status.”

The fact is, these women graduate from college emotionally stunted.

They’ve never learned to handle conflict, disagreement, disappointments or debate.

And that’s exactly what we’re seeing now, isn’t it?

Instead of reasoned discourse, they resort to histrionics, hysteria and improbable hyperbole.

That paid Leftist agitator who staged the “confrontation” with Jeff Flake in the elevator shrieked that supporting Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation is saying what happened to her doesn’t matter.

That’s not only faulty logic; it has no basis in reality.

Brett Kavanaugh has zero to do with what happened to her – if anything happened to her at all.

On its face, this argument is so silly and specious no reasonable person would give it a moment’s consideration.

Unfortunately, there are precious few reasonable people left in the media, in academia, in Hollywood, and even in the US Senate.

For the Angry Broads, everyone has to pay for their perceived victimhood — even if “everyone” had nothing to do with it.

And even if the angry broad in question isn’t a victim of anything.

The problem we face as a nation right now is that the Angry Broads are well-funded and wholly supported by our media and political establishment.

Anti-American groups funded by billionaires are pouring money into the Revenge of the Angry Broads because they see them as their ticket to undermining our Republic, our rule of law and our civil society.

The news media, equally anti-American, will happily promote these Angry Broads – giving them airtime, fawning interviews and glossy profiles in newspapers and magazines.

Politicians like Kirsten Gillibrand, Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris are capitalizing on the Revenge of the Angry Broads for personal political gain – even if that means jettisoning their oath of office, the presumption of innocence and the very foundation of our justice system.

And if you’re getting that kind of funding, attention and reinforcement, why would you leave your campus angry broad persona behind when you graduate from college?

The Angry Broads have mainstreamed childish tantrums and flagrant bigotry.

The snowflake culture has broken free of the confines of the college campus and infected the rest of the country.

But that was bound to happen.

Why else perpetrate the Victim Culture on college campuses if it doesn’t metastasize to the country at large? That was the goal all along.

Colleges and universities – if not our entire public education system — are responsible for the mess we’re in today.

They’ve taken relatively healthy young women and turned them into emotional cripples – intellectually stunted, socially impaired, and completely incapable of independent, critical thinking.

Is it any wonder they come into the real world and lash out like bad-tempered children?

They are absolutely incapable of coping with an ordered, civil and rational society.

Colleges are no longer preparing young people for adulthood. They are no longer giving young people the tools to become productive members of society.

Quite the opposite actually. Now they are conditioning them to be destructive members of society.

And unless reasonable, rational, intelligent adults fight back, the Revenge of the Angry Broads will never end.

Because revenge can never be sated.

~~~

And if you thought the hysterics during Kavanaugh were bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

What we will witness from miserable, infantile emotional cripples over the next few weeks will make Kavanaugh’s confirmation look like a walk in the park.



at

Breaking the Administrative State Key to a Successful Second Term

President Trump, the great red pill for American society, has finally brought to the surface what has been simmering beneath for over a century.

Ned Ryun for American Greatness

Lost in the shuffle of this week’s breaking news is something Attorney General Bill Barr said last week in a speech calling out the dangers of the bureaucracy, even within his own department.

Eric Tucker of the Associated Press outlined the “issue” with Barr’s speech at Hillsdale College: “Rejecting the notion that prosecutors should have final say in cases that they bring, Barr described them instead as part of the ‘permanent bureaucracy’ and suggested they need to be supervised, and even reined in, by politically appointed leaders accountable to the president and Congress.”

Yes. That is precisely the problem. Yet what we identify as the problem was in fact the goal for the Progressives who established our present-day bureaucracy. 

Read the writings of Woodrow Wilson to understand the Progressive ideal. It is this: to have a massive bureaucracy, an administrative state, filled with unelected, educated elites who would help accelerate “progress” in America. 

Wilson was very clear about what he envisioned. Scholar Ronald Pestritto writes that Wilson advocated “a new kind of national administration—largely removed from popular consent and charged with making the policy requisite for national progress—that could be staffed by university men like himself, as opposed to the political operators of low character who populated the back rooms of Congress.”

This is the essence of the administrative state: an unelected elite bureaucracy drawn (supposedly) from the “smartest of the smart” institutions that will make all the actual policy while being largely removed from “popular consent,” i.e. electoral accountability. In other words, it’s a way to get you and your deplorable opinions out of the way. 

What Barr hit upon is not a glitch of the Progressives’ administrative state, it is the central feature. It was always intended to work this way. 

The problem with the administrative state approach is that eventually a large and powerful bureaucracy, with little real oversight from elected officials, and no electoral accountability by virtue of which the American people can remove them, thinks that it is in charge. It thinks that it decides all important questions that it can wield its power however it damn well pleases. And isn’t that the case in practice even though they never legitimately overturned the Constitution’s assertion of the sovereignty of the people?

This is the great tension that has exploded to the surface in the last four years when one Donald J. Trump showed up in D.C. in 2017 saying, essentially, “I’m the duly-elected president of the United States, by the means laid out in the Constitution. I make the decisions about foreign and domestic policy inside of my administration and how the laws will be carried out.” 

In response, the administrative state actors said: “We don’t think so. We think we’re the ones who should make those decisions.” 

All of this madness, from Russian collusion fairytales to Ukrainian quid pro quo hoaxes, revolves around one question: Who decides? In a constitutional republic, all power flows from the people to their duly elected leaders to entrust them with deciding, whereas in an administrative state, it is the unelected bureaucrats who decide. This tension was bound to have to play out in dramatic fashion.

So Trump, the great red pill for American society, has finally brought to the surface what has been simmering below it for over a century: you cannot have an administrative state governing philosophy at the same time you pretend to be devoted to the Constitution as it was written. They are oil and water—conflicting approaches to government and its role in peoples’ lives. 

No republic can thrive, or even merely exist, when substantial numbers of powerful people believe that bureaucrats in various bloated government departments and agencies have the moral right to make decisions on the behalf of the American people who never voted for them. What kind of a republic is that? 

It’s a joke.

This should be a priority in Trump’s second term: If he truly wants to drain the swamp, he needs to break apart the administrative state, the foundation of the swamp, by 10 percent a year—at a minimum. It is the only way to reaffirm and reestablish the idea that the people of this republic are sovereign. Break the state, drain the swamp, restore the Republic.


at

Their Brutal Kavanaugh Smear Operation Disqualifies Democrats’ Demands Now

Media and Democrats’ decision in 2018 to collude with the criminally minded has rendered today's discussion of power plays meaningless.


 posted by Margot Cleveland at The Federalist

Since Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death on Friday, the propriety of the Senate confirming a replacement justice before the 2020 election has dominated the news. Nearly every take that could be made has been, from both the left and the right.

It is hard to care about propriety, however, when two years ago Democrats served as accomplices to Christine Blasey Ford, who offered false testimony, under oath, to the U.S. Senate in an attempt to thwart the Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. In the words of her whom they hoped would nominate the next several Supreme Court justices: “What difference at this point does it make?” 

What difference does it make what Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell said in 2016 about voting on the nomination of President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland? What difference does it make that at the time the White House and Senate were controlled by different parties, and now they are not? What difference does it make that Sen. Chuck Schumer has threatened that, if Republicans confirm a justice then Democrats regain the Senate, Democrats will expand the size of the court and stack it with leftist justices?

What difference at this point do any of these lawful exercises of raw political power have on our constitutional republic? None.

The brute exercise of political power has consequences and counters, but Democrats’ decision in 2018 to collude instead with the criminally minded—and the media’s willingness to play along—has rendered the discussion of today’s political power plays meaningless.

In 2013, Harry Reid, then Senate majority leader, dropped the “nuclear option,” removing “a long-standing Senate rule, dropping the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster from 60 to a simple majority for executive appointments and most judicial nominations.” 

While Reid left the 60-vote supermajority requirement in place for Supreme Court justices, when Republicans gained control, McConnell, who had warned Reid that he would regret the decision, “used the precedent of Reid’s decision to lower the vote threshold for the confirmations of Justice Neil Gorsuch” in 2017.

Wise or not, both exercises of raw political power were legitimate and legal. So too, will be Trump’s decision to nominate, and Republicans’ decision to confirm before the election, a replacement for Ginsburg. Even stacking the courts, should Democrats retake the White House and the Senate, would remain proper, legal, and subject to legitimate consequences and counters.

But the left entered an abyss in 2018 when they legitimized Ford’s fraud on the U.S. Senate.

Yes, there were electoral consequences, with every “incumbent Senate Democrat in battleground states who opposed the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination” losing his or her re-election bid. Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Bill Nelson of Florida were all replaced by their Republican opponents, while Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia saved his seat by backing Kavanaugh. That fall-out handed Republicans the votes they now need to push through a new nominee to the Supreme Court before Nov. 3, 2020. 

A female nominee, that is. With Ford providing a template, the left now knows it can scuttle any conservative male Supreme Court nominee by finding two witnesses to swear to decades-old claims of sexual misconduct. Here Americans should realize that Ford, her backers, and complicit Democrats failed only because Ford’s lifelong friend, Leland Keyser, refused to join in the fraud. The next “victim” will surely pre-screen her purported “witnesses.”

While male nominees present an easier target for this play, the precedent Democrats established with Ford has no limits. Once the left departed the realms of politics, power, and the law, and welcomed — or at a minimum condoned — fraudulent claims of misconduct, there became no limiting principle.

Lies of extramarital relations, racism, or academic dishonesty will suffice as easily as false claims of sexual assault. And two “witnesses” to the misconduct will be enough to render a nominee unconfirmable.

Given this reality, our country has nothing to fear from any of the ongoing political wrangling, or even the threats of the most odious form of payback via court-packing. The worst was already done when Democrats sacrificed truth to ideology.


at

France street harassment: Strasbourg woman attacked 'for wearing skirt'

 French police have opened an investigation after a woman in Strasbourg said she was attacked in broad daylight for wearing a skirt.

 

 The student, identified only as Elisabeth, 22, said she was punched in the face "by three individuals who complained about me wearing a skirt".
 
 
In an interview with France Bleu Alsace radio, Elisabeth said she was walking home when one of the three men said: "Look at that whore in a skirt."
Presentational white space
Two of the three men then held her while the third hit her in the face, leaving her with a black eye, she told the station. The men then fled.
She said more than a dozen people witnessed the incident, but no-one intervened.
On Wednesday, junior interior minister Marlene Schiappa - who is in charge of citizenship and was previously in charge of equality issues - visited the eastern city to discuss the safety of women in public.
She told France Bleu Alsace that "the skirt is not responsible for the attack and the woman even less".
"A woman is never hit because she wears a skirt. A woman is hit because there are people who are misogynistic, sexist, violent, and who free themselves from any law and any rule of civility by striking them.
"When you're a student and you have to think about the outfit you have to wear and the message it sends, it's an overwhelming mental load," Ms Schiappa said.
She also urged people to call the police if they witnessed any kind of street harassment incidents against women in a public space.
 

 On Thursday, France Bleu Alsace reported that two women had been attacked in another eastern city, Mulhouse, on Wednesday, after a man told one of them her skirt was "too short".

 

 
 

 
at

Mitch Uses Schumer’s Own Words Against Him in Blistering Speech on Nominations

Sister Toldja reporting for RedState

Mitch McConnell has been having a helluva week.

The Senate Majority Leader managed to corral Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) in short order on the issue of moving forward to consider President Trump’s eventual Supreme Court nominee. It’s quite possible he’s managed to convince Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to do the same.

Sen. McConnell has also been having a field day with Senate Democrats and the media, making it a point Monday to – among other things – clear up any confusion as to what his position was in 2016 on confirming SCOTUS Justices in a presidential election year. He also pointed out that, contra to panicked Democrats, there was plenty of time to consider and confirm a nominee this year.

In a blistering speech he gave today, however, McConnell took specific aim at Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who has been throwing temper tantrums in press conferences and pulling cheap political stunts on the Senate floor since the Friday passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In a receipt-filled speech, McConnell said it was time to set the record straight on Schumer’s history on the issue of judicial confirmations. “We need to understand, in clear terms, why our colleague from New York is a uniquely non-credible messenger when it comes to the Senate’s role in judicial confirmations,” McConnell began before unloading on his Democratic colleague:


“It was Senate Democrats who began our modern challenges with their treatment of Robert Bork in 1987. But the acrimony really got going in the early 2000s, when a group of Senate Democrats took the almost-never-used tactic of filibustering nominations and turned it into a constant routine for the first time ever.

Who was a main driving force behind those tactics? Let’s consult some New York newspapers from the year 2003.

Quote: ‘Schumer decided [to] put ideology on the front burner in the confirmation process … ‘I am the leader (of the filibuster movement), and you know, I’m proud of it,’ said the senator from Brooklyn.

Quote: ‘Mr. Schumer urged Democratic colleagues… to use a tactic that some were initially reluctant to pursue, and that has since roiled the Senate.’

Throughout President Bush 43’s two terms, our colleague built an entire personal brand out of filibustering judicial nominees.

“Talented, hardworking people’s careers were destroyed — like the brilliant lawyer Miguel Estrada, a close friend of now-Justice Elena Kagan, who says he is ‘extraordinary’ and ‘thoughtful’ and would have made ‘an excellent addition to any federal court.’ People like that, destroyed by the Democrats’ tactics.”

This version of the now-Democratic Leader said filibustering judges was an essential part of the Senate. He said that if Republicans ever used the nuclear option to ‘change the rules in midstream’ because ‘they can’t get their way on every judge..it’ll be a doomsday for democracy.’

“But of course, in the very next presidential administration, the Democratic Leader leapt at the chance to press that ‘doomsday’ button himself.”

 

He went on to drop more nukes on Schumer’s checkered judicial history, including reminding Schumer of his “you will pay the price” threat to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh from a few months ago. It was McConnell at his best. Watch below and enjoy:


“The American people do not need any more revisionist history lectures, any more threats, or any more performative outrage from the side that launched this unfortunate fight, and escalated it time… after time… after time.” – Mitch McConnell


Also, as I noted Tuesday, even journalists who despise McConnell are begrudgingly giving him credit where due. CNN’s Chris Cillizza penned a piece acknowledging the likelihood that “McConnell is going to win (again)” on the issue of SCOTUS confirmations, ensuring he “would go down as one of the most consequential Senate leaders in modern history.” NBC News/MSNBC analyst Howard Fineman declared McConnell the “apex predator” of politics, “interested only in total dominance” in another piece.

Getting your team in line when it matters most, dunking your political opposition like a boss, and winning the respect of media foes without sacrificing your principles. Like I said, helluva week for Cocaine Mitch.

And it’s only Wednesday.


at