December 10-13, 2019

Dec 10 07:08 Devin Nunes got it right
Dec 10 11:30 Jonathan Turley on the Horowitz Report
Dec 10 15:42 Articles of Impeachment first; minutes later, USMCA deal reached

Dec 11 07:03 The Dems' impeachment disease

Dec 12 08:01 Nadler, Schiff lead the Democrats over the impeachment cliff
Dec 12 13:45 Highlighting the Democrats' corruption

Dec 13 06:10 Dems' impeachment solemnity
Dec 13 06:44 Dems' impeachment strategy
Dec 13 07:25 Targeting Adam Schiff's defeat

Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Devin Nunes got it right

While Jim Comey takes a victory lap of sorts, the truth isn't on Mr. Comey's side. In his op-ed, Comey said "For two years, the president of the United States and his followers have loudly declared that the FBI acted unlawfully in conducting a counterintelligence investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. They repeatedly told the American people that the FBI had done all sorts of bad things, such as tapping Donald Trump's wires during the campaign, opening an investigation without adequate cause, with the intent to damage Trump, and inserting secret informants into the Trump campaign."

Kim Strassel, though, sticks with the facts in a series of tweets that are best titled "Horowitz findings of facts." In the first tweet, she wrote "Yup, IG said FBI hit threshold for opening an investigation. But also goes out of its way to note what a "low threshold" this is . Durham's statement made clear he will provide more info for Americans to make a judgment on reasonableness."


Ms. Strassel's third tweet is especially sweet:



4)In fact, IG report says dossier played "central and essential role" in getting FISA warrants. Schiff had access to same documents as Nunes, yet chose to misinform the public. This is the guy who just ran impeachment proceedings.

In other words, Schiff lied while Devin Nunes got it right. That's the inescapable truth.

Yes, Mr. Holier-Than-Thou (Mr. Comey, not Schiff), President Trump's well-informed followers have said "that the FBI acted unlawfully in conducting a counterintelligence investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential campaign." Let's talk about that a little. The Horowitz Report emphatically stated that "6) IG finds 17 separate problems with FISA court submissions, including FBI's overstatement of Steele's credentials . Also the failure to provide court with exculpatory evidence and issues with Steele's sources and additional info it got about Steele's credibility."

Mr. Comey, if you think that vindicates the FBI, then you're as delusional as Adam Schiff. In fact, it's difficult determining who looks worse after reading the report's findings. Let's just call it a tie -- for last place in the gutter.

10)Overall, IG was so concerned by these "extensive compliance failures" that is has now initiated additional "oversight" to assess how FBI in general complies with "policies that seek to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons."

Does Mr. Comey think that the inspector general adding additional oversight "to assess how FBI in general complies with 'policies that seek to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons'" is vindication for the FBI?

When the dust finally settles, the FISA warrant application process will be significantly changed to protect against the FBI's abuses of the system. Those abuses started happening on Mr. Comey's watch. Whether Mr. Comey or others in the upper echelons of the FBI committed crimes hasn't been determined. That's for Mr. Durham to determine. What's been determined, though, is that Mr. Comey's FBI made a series of mistakes (is it a mistake if it's intentional?) that kept the surveillance on Carter Page intact.

What's been determined is that the Horowitz Report vindicates Devin Nunes, the man that Democrats and Mr. Comey criticized from pillar to post. Unlike Mr. Schiff, Mr. Nunes didn't just see what he wanted to see. Mr. Nunes saw what was actually there.

Posted Tuesday, December 10, 2019 7:08 AM

No comments.

Jonathan Turley on the Horowitz Report

Last week, the nation found out that Jonathan Turley a) voted for Hillary Clinton and b) is a man of integrity. This morning, it's worth examining Prof. Turley's op-ed about the Horowitz Report.

For instance, Prof. Turley wrote "Justice Department officials insisted to Horowitz that they choose not to interview campaign officials because they were unsure if the campaign was compromised and did not want to tip off the Russians. However, the inspector general report says the Russians were directly told about the allegations repeatedly by then CIA Director John Brennan and, ultimately, President Obama."

Prof. Turley continued, saying "In the meantime, the allegations quickly fell apart . Horowitz details how all of the evidence proved exculpatory of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians." How can that be? Jim Comey insists that the FBI did nothing wrong. Comey saying that the FBI did nothing wrong ranks right up there with Adam Schiff saying that he'd seen evidence that was "stronger than circumstantial."
[Video no longer available]
Then there's this:

Horowitz also finds no sharing of information with FISA judges that undermined the credibility of the dossier or Christopher Steele himself.

This won't turn out well for Adam Schiff, who put out a report in February, 2018. In that report, which was published after Devin Nunes published "a memo with these explosive revelations that the FBI had targeted [former Trump campaign adviser] Carter Page with surveillance warrants that the dossier from a rival campaign had been the basis for that, and that the FBI had not been straight up with the FISA court."

Posted Tuesday, December 10, 2019 11:30 AM

No comments.

Articles of Impeachment first; minutes later, USMCA deal reached

Isn't it amazing that Speaker Pelosi announced that they'd reached agreement with Richard Trumka on the USMCA trade deal that President Trump negotiated minutes after House Democrats announced 2 articles of impeachment? Speaker Pelosi did her best to pretend that Trumka and House Democrats did the heavy lifting when, in fact, President Trump and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer did the heavy lifting. Sen. Grassley got it right when he said this:

Renegotiating NAFTA was a central campaign promise made by President Trump. He kept his word and Americans will enjoy the many benefits of this upgraded trade deal as a result.

This is a huge deal for industrial and agricultural states. Think Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. While only bitter partisan Democrats care about impeachment, literally millions of Americans living in Rust Belt states care about USMCA.

While Democrats take the blame for the most bitterly partisan impeachment process in US history, President Trump gets the credit for pushing the USMCA. At the time, Democrats expressed skepticism that President Trump would be able to renegotiate NAFTA. President Trump isn't just on the verge of replacing NAFTA with USMCA. President Trump is on the verge of finalizing a major trade deal with China, too. If those trade agreements are finalized, ratified and officially signed in the next 3-6 months, the economy will take off. On the strength of that red-hot economy, President Trump will cruise to victory in November.
[Video no longer available]
Despite Ms. Pelosi's pro-Democrat spin, the American people know that Democrats didn't influence the main agreement. Despite Pelosi's statements at the press conference that Richard Trumka and Richard Neal played major rolls in a major recrafting the USMCA agreement, Democrats won a few concessions, which is typical on trade agreements.

Tonight, President Trump will hold another campaign rally, this time in Hershey, PA. Rest assured that President Trump will trumpet the victory on USMCA. Rest assured that he'll spend time criticizing Democrats, especially the Schiff-Nadler-Pelosi partisan articles of impeachment. Tonight's rally figures to be highly animated.

Posted Tuesday, December 10, 2019 3:52 PM

No comments.

The Dems' impeachment disease

The Democrats' impeachment fever has turned into the Democrats' impeachment disease. Rep. Karen Bass, a California Democrat, told TMZ's Harvey Levin that she's willing to impeach President Trump again if he's re-elected:

Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., said Tuesday she's willing to impeach President Trump again if he wins reelection in 2020. TMZ founder Harvey Levin presented Bass with a scenario in which Trump wins a second term but Democrats take over the Senate from the Republicans.

"There's no such thing, really, as double jeopardy in an impeachment trial because it's political," Levin said. "Suppose he gets reelected... and you win back the Senate in a big way. If you did that, would you be inclined to take a second bite at the apple and reintroduce the exact same impeachment articles and then send it through again a second if you have a Democratic Senate on your side?"

"So, you know, yes, but I don't think it would be exactly the same and here's why," Bass responded, "because even though we are impeaching him now, there's still a number of court cases, there's a ton of information that could come forward. For example, we could get his bank records and find out that he's owned 100 percent by the Russians."

She continued, "You are absolutely right in your scenario, but the only thing I would say slightly different is, it might not be the same articles of impeachment because the odds are we would have a ton more information, and then the odds of that, sadly enough, is that, you know, he probably has other examples of criminal behavior."

It's frightening to think that there's someone in the House who's crazier than Al Green, Maxine Waters or Adam Schiff. If that's possible, though, Ms. Bass is a contender.


Check this out:

For example, we could get his bank records and find out that he's owned 100 percent by the Russians."

That's frightening. What other fantasies has she concocted in her head?

Earlier in the day, Bass spoke with Fox News' Neil Cavuto and expressed her "rock-solid" confidence that House Democrats had enough votes to pass articles of impeachment. The Democrats unveiled two impeachment articles earlier in the day: one for abuse of power and one for obstruction of Congress.

Bass isn't the only warped Democrat. Check this out from Leslie Marshall:

President Trump and his defenders claim the decision by House Democratic leaders Tuesday to propose two articles of impeachment against him is all about politics. They say the misconduct he is accused of is a hoax and that he is the victim of a witch hunt. Don't believe them. Democrats are acting in spite of politics. They know impeachment could hurt them politically and perhaps even give Republicans a House majority in elections next year.

And Democrats are acting even though they know the Republican-controlled Senate will acquit Trump in a trial and not throw him out of office. That's because removing the president in a Senate trial takes 67 votes, and there are only 47 Democrats and allied independents in the Senate.

Sadly, Republicans are putting party loyalty over patriotism and circling the wagons around Trump to support him no matter what, closing their eyes to the overwhelming evidence of his impeachable conduct. There is no way 20 Republican senators will vote to remove Trump from office.

Republicans aren't putting party loyalty ahead of patriotism. The Constitution requires that impeachment only be done if the "President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors . " The 2 articles of impeachment don't even identify a crime, much less a high crime.

Contrary to Ms. Pelosi's statements, Democrats don't respect the Constitution. They talk about their love of the Constitution, then display their ignorance of it. The thought of impeaching a president for abuse of office is frightening. That's the type of subjectivity that James Madison didn't want. Using that type of criteria, every president would've been subject to impeachment.

Democrats need to regain their faculties. Their thinking is beyond the pale.

Posted Wednesday, December 11, 2019 7:03 AM

No comments.

Nadler, Schiff lead the Democrats over the impeachment cliff

In a display of the worst partisanship in Washington, DC in decades, Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are set to lead the Democrats over the impeachment cliff . Nadler gave away the reason why Democrats are impeaching President Trump:

"We cannot rely on an election to solve our problems when the president threatens the very integrity of that election," Nadler claimed during Wednesday's session.

Saying that President Trump is a threat to the 2020 election is BS. That's a statement that Nadler doesn't have proof for, though it's a provocative accusation he's thrown around before. The American people have seen through Nadler's and Schiff's nonsense and have started turning on Democrats:

Democrats from districts that supported Trump in 2016, however, have been less enthusiastic. Recent polls have shown declining support for impeachment in key swing states, with two polls released Wednesday indicating that most Americans did not want Trump removed.

Politico reported earlier this week that the numbers were making a "small group" of moderate Democrats, who have held seats in districts where Trump won in 2016, nervous about how to vote. They instead have suggested Trump be censured, which would prevent the GOP from holding a potentially damaging Senate trial and give them political cover in the upcoming election.

To complicate matters for these so-called moderates, if they vote for censuring President Trump, it's virtually guaranteed that they'll get primaried by the Justice Democrats , the organization that propelled AOC. Follow this link to read the Justice Democrats' platform. But I digress.

Over the cliff they go

Republicans, meanwhile, have vociferously opposed the impeachment effort. The committee's ranking member, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, stated that Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump since he took office. He echoed the White House's argument that the impeachment was politically motivated theater, long in the works and foreshadowed openly by Democrats for months, if not years.

He and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., each argued that unlike previous presidents who have faced impeachment, Trump was not accused of an offense actually defined by law: neither "abuse of power" nor "obstruction of Congress" is a recognized federal or state crime. Those are the two offenses outlined in the articles of impeachment before the committee. (The separate charge of contempt of Congress, according to the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, exempts the president for separation-of-powers reasons.)

In the Nixon articles of impeachment, one of the articles would have been abuse of power. In that instance, though, there were multiple crimes attached to the article of impeachment. It wasn't some fuzzy accusation like this article will be. Further, the obstruction of Congress article is utterly laughable.

After President Trump asserted various privileges, Nadler and Schiff insisted that this was obstruction of Congress because President Trump insisted that Congress go through the courts to enforce their subpoenas. That is how the system is supposed to work. That's the remedy envisioned by the men who wrote the Constitution. Alan Dershowitz, who I think of as a consistent constitutionalist, highlights the fatal flaw of the Democrats' articles of impeachment in this op-ed :

Neither of these proposed articles satisfy the express constitutional criteria for an impeachment , which are limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned within the Constitution.

Both are so vague and open ended that they could be applied in partisan fashion by a majority of the House against almost any president from the opposing party. Both are precisely what the Framers had rejected at their Constitutional Convention. Both raise the "greatest danger," in the words of Alexander Hamilton, that the decision to impeach will be based on the "comparative strength of parties," rather than on "innocence or guilt."

Nadler and Schiff won't listen to Prof. Dershowitz so over the cliff they'll go. Good riddance to these self-destructive Democrats.

Posted Thursday, December 12, 2019 8:01 AM

No comments.

Highlighting the Democrats' corruption

God bless Louie Gohmert for exposing the Democrats' total corruption . Last night, Rep. Gohmert highlighted the Democrats' utter corruption in this rant:

"A vague abuse of power, obstruction of Congress, the very things the majority has done in preventing us from having the witnesses that could shed light on this, not opinion, but fact witnesses. We needed to hear from those witnesses," Gohmert said. "People like Sean Misko [a former National Security Council aide who joined Adam Schiff's staff], Abigail Grace [who also worked at the NSC], Eric Ciaramella, Devon Archer [an American businessman who worked at Burisma], Joe Biden, Nellie Ohr [a contractor for Fusion GPS in 2015 and 2016], and Alexander Chalupa, and so many others. They don't want fact witnesses. Let's hear from professors who hate Donald Trump , who are willing to sell their education just to make a point against somebody they don't like. This is a dangerous, dangerous time in America."

Instead of hearing from people with firsthand knowledge of President Trump's nonexistent crimes, Democrats brought in testifiers who didn't like President Trump. Nadler brought in 3 Democrat activists that insisted that they were constitutional law experts. Within 15 minutes, it was obvious that they weren't unbiased legal historians. These professors were Democrat activists brought in to do a hit job against President Trump. Their legal theories were debunked by a legitimate constitutional scholar named Jonathan Turley.

Chairman Schiff brought in Democrat-friendly witnesses like Marie Yovanovitch, a woman who'd been fired by President Trump months before the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. What she added to the hearings is still a mystery. Schiff brought in Lt. Col. Vindman, who told the committee that he'd a) listened to the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call and b) told superiors that he had concerns about the call. That definitely got Schiff's attention. Upon cross-examination, though, we learned that his superior, who also listened in on the call, found nothing wrong with the call.

It isn't coincidence that virtually every piece of evidence found that either contradicted the Democrat witnesses' testimony or that showed President Trump not guilty of the Democrats' accusations was ignored by Chairman Schiff. It isn't coincidence that Chairman Nadler rejected a request from Republicans to hold a hearing where Republican-requested witnesses. (Why let facts contradict the Democrats' carefully-crafted storyline?)

That's how you get 2 articles of impeachment that are so vague that every president in history would've been impeached by these Democrats. Think about this: the first article of impeachment, abuse of office, isn't a crime. Democrats included it because it would've been an article of impeachment had Nixon gotten impeached. The difference is explained here :

ARTICLE II, ABUSE OF POWER. (Approved 28-10)
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon , in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens , impairing the due and proper administration of justice in the conduct of lawful inquiries, of contravening the law of governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.

Nixon told the FBI that they didn't need warrants to wiretap the phones of antiwar protesters. It isn't difficult to argue that's exponentially more egregious than what President Trump did.

The Democrats' impeachment process shouldn't be taken seriously. However, the division and hatred that the Democrats have created through this dishonest process should be studied by historians. The Democrats' abuse of power shouldn't be allowed again.

Here's Louie Gohmert's rant:
[Video no longer available]
This is Prof. Turley's admonition to Congressional Democrats on abuse of power:
[Video no longer available]
Obviously, Democrats ignored Prof. Turley. That's proof of the Democrats' total corruption.

Posted Thursday, December 12, 2019 1:45 PM

No comments.

Dems' impeachment solemnity

The next time Speaker Pelosi talks about the solemnity of impeaching President Trump, throw this story into her face:

Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., may have been distracted on Thursday during the marathon impeachment hearing focused on President Trump. Richmond appeared to have been watching a golf tournament on his laptop during a procedural roll call, which aired in full-view on CNN.

"What on earth is Democrat Rep. Cedric Richmond watching on his laptop during this impeachment markup?" GOP rapid response director Steve Guest asked. "To me, it looks like Rep. Richmond is watching the President's Cup golf tournament. Richmond's actions are a DISGRACE."

Rep. Richmond couldn't have gotten the memo telling him that this week was 'Solemnity/Impeachment Week' in the House. If a picture is worth a thousand words, is this video worth 5,000 words?


On a different aspect of impeachment, Democrats will move it another step closer to the finish line when it votes impeachment out of the Judiciary Committee. After that, freshmen Democrats will be forced to make the most important decision of their political lives. These freshman Democrats will have to decide whether to vote with Chairman Schiff or vote with their constituents. They can't do both. A vote for impeachment is a vote for early retirement. It's that simple for the 31.

Most likely, these freshmen Democrats' votes won't matter that much. These freshmen Democrats promised their constituents to be different. They told their constituents they'd be different. Then these Democrats voted with Speaker Pelosi's and AOC's agendas. This is typical:

Rose is among the 31 House Democrats from districts where Trump won in 2016. Those swing districts were critical to Democrats' winning control of the House last year, and now those members are needed by the party leadership if Trump is to become the third president ever impeached.

Rose announced he was against impeachment in the wake of the Russia report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller, but then supported the inquiry over Trump's request for Ukraine to investigate Democrats. Whether he and other swing-district Democrats would extend that support to impeachment itself remains unclear, and may continue to be right up until the floor vote.

Good luck with the ticket-splitting, Max. Rose spent his first year doing nothing.

Posted Friday, December 13, 2019 6:10 AM

No comments.

Dems' impeachment strategy

This article has me wondering about something. The article starts by saying "House Democratic leaders are bracing for some defections among a group of moderate Democrats in swing districts who are concerned a vote to impeach President Trump could cost them their seats in November. Lawmakers and senior aides are privately predicting they will lose more than the two Democrats who opposed the impeachment inquiry rules package in late September, according to multiple officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly. Two senior Democratic aides said the total could be as many as a half-dozen, while a third said the number could be higher."

This isn't surprising. In fact, it's quite predictable. Pelosi wants it both ways. She wants her Democrats to maintain their majority in 2020 and she wants to impeach President Trump in the hopes of defeating him in 11 months. President Trump will get impeached but he won't get defeated. The worst news for Pelosi, aka the Red Queen, is that she'll lose her Speaker's Gavel next November. Good riddance.

Many of these freshman Democrats have virtually nothing in terms of accomplishments. They voted for the impeachment inquiry. Anyone that votes against the articles of impeachment after voting for the impeachment rules package will look like this:
[Video no longer available]
These so-called moderates aren't principled politicians. They're just swampy-smelling politicians.

Posted Friday, December 13, 2019 6:44 AM

No comments.

Targeting Adam Schiff's defeat

It's time for the NRCC to target and defeat Adam Schiff. It isn't just that he's a despicable liar, though there's little doubt that he's one of the Democrats' most despicable liars. It isn't just because he led a faux impeachment investigation, though he's guilty of that, too. It's because, in addition to those things, Schiff is accusing Republicans of doing the disgusting things he's already don e.

"We are hearing astounding things from Republican members who are saying it's okay to solicit foreign interference in an election, things I never would have imagined I would ever hear either party say," Schiff said, adding, "For some of our members who are defending the Constitution, it is their finest hour. But for others who are willfully blinding themselves to this president's misconduct, it is the most shameful hour."

It's also time for Mr. Schiff to get sued. Saying that Republicans are advocating for soliciting foreign interference in our elections is a lie. Schiff isn't a man of integrity. He's a thoroughly dishonest politician. Consider what he said in the so-called Schiff Memo:


Thanks to the Horowitz Report, Devin Nunes' reputation is at least partially restored:


Schiff is so loathsome that he doesn't deserve to be the ranking member of the HPSCI. He doesn't deserve to be a member of Congress, though he deserves to be stripped of his security clearance. Then there's this :

We now know from the Horowitz report that the dossier played a "central and essential role" in obtaining warrants to spy on the 2016 Trump campaign. We also know that Schiff lied to the public about what had happened, as his media handmaidens protected him and trashed his fellow House Intelligence Committee member, U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, a California Republican, who tried to warn the country of the FISA abuse.

It's time to throw this bum out. He isn't welcome in the People's House anymore.

Posted Friday, December 13, 2019 7:25 AM

Comment 1 by John Palmer at 13-Dec-19 09:44 PM
Schiff's 28th congressional district has seen a 12 percent spike in homelessness over the last year, with 59,000 homeless people now living in Los Angeles County, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. And 75.2 percent of those homeless citizens are unsheltered and without refuge. From. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schiff-past-comments-criticizing-clinton-impeachment-emerge

I guess if the congressional district you represent has 59,000 homeless the title bum fits that congressman.

Popular posts from this blog

January 19-20, 2012

Image
Jan 19 02:57 Minnesota Majority report an indictment against Minnesota's election integrity Jan 19 03:41 Ron Paul's Logic Jan 19 08:08 Newt thrives despite Mitt's hatchet job efforts Jan 19 09:19 Potential Game-Changer: Perry dropping out this am Jan 20 05:12 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Jan 20 00:56 ABC, CNN, crawl into bed with National Enquirer Jan 20 04:00 Child Care small businesses file federal lawsuit Jan 20 04:41 Mitt's biggest policy blunder Jan 20 18:58 Gingrich, Reagan re-united Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Rick Santorum was really feeling it Thursday night. Then he said something that's certain to cause him pain this morning. Here's what he said that got him in trouble: SANTORUM: But you also have to admit that this freshman congressman who wasn't supposed to win a race came and did something you never did, which is blew the li...
Read more

March 21-24, 2016

Image
Mar 21 01:28 SCSU's budget cuts? Mar 21 02:29 When will the Range change? Mar 21 08:54 DFL's Marty in charge of environment Mar 21 11:45 OLA report, DFL & Meyer Associates Mar 23 12:48 Liberals' definition of moderate Mar 23 14:37 DFL activists: Government is racist Mar 24 08:59 IRRRB: Revamping vs. scrapping Prior Months: Jan Feb Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SCSU's budget cuts? Cuts in Athletics at SCSU - Will it Really Save Money? by Silence Dogood With a $6,000,000 "structural deficit" and the need to "rebuild reserves by at least $3 million," SCSU has a $9,000,000 hole in its' FY17 budget. It doesn't take a Noble Prize in economics to figure out that reductions in expenditures (i.e., cuts) are going to be made at SCSU. On the Wednesday before Spring Break, SCSU President Dr. Earl H. Potter sent an email to the campus community announcing cuts to the athlet...
Read more

October 31, 2007

Oct 31 01:01 Media Matter's Alter Ego? Oct 31 03:32 Iraqi Civilian Casualties Dropping Oct 31 10:52 Hillary's Panderfest Blows Up in Her Face Oct 31 13:15 Brod, Emmer Call For Investigation of Mark Ritchie Oct 31 19:43 Ritchie's 'Episode' a Tempest in a Teapot? Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Prior Years: 2006 Media Matter's Alter Ego? One Media Matters-like organization is already too many. It appears as though there's another liberal apologist blog out there. Their name is News Hounds . The post that caught my attention dealt with last weekend's interview of Justin and Darryl Sharraltt on Hannity's America. To say that their post didn't attempt to refute Justin's story is understatement. In fact, they jump right into criticizing Mr. Hannity: Last night's (October 27th) Hannity's America was a strange magazine format which combined stories about mediums and haunted houses...
Read more