January 16-18, 2020

Jan 16 01:25 Where's the evidence, Democrats?
Jan 16 06:58 The Democrats' sham investigation
Jan 16 08:25 Warren-Sanders fight intensifies

Jan 17 07:33 Deep State at work?
Jan 17 13:27 This impeachment's fatal flaws

Jan 18 00:32 The Democrats' latest spin
Jan 18 09:53 When Schiff's conjecture starts
Jan 18 20:31 A letter to GOP moderates
Jan 18 23:17 President Trump's defense team won't take prisoners during trial

Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Where's the evidence, Democrats?

When the history books get written about this impeachment, the record won't be complete without mentioning the facts that a) the House Democrats didn't meet their evidentiary burden, b) this was the most partisan impeachment in this nation's history and that c) Democrats attempted to flip the burden of proving innocence to the accused rather than insisting that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

For all of Speaker Pelosi's BS about Democrats doing their constitutional responsibilities, the truth is that Democrats failed at guaranteeing everyone's civil rights. Let's remember that the precedents set during the 2 House impeachment investigations in the Twentieth Century were totally ignored by House Democrats. This wasn't fair in any sense of the word.

What's worst is that the exculpatory evidence produced by Republicans was thrown out or ignored by Democrats. When Republicans on the House Intel Committee blew gaping holes in the Democrats' star testifiers' testimony, Adam Schiff ignored those inconsistencies like they didn't exist. Had this taken place in a court of law, the case would've gotten thrown out the minute the Democrats finished calling witnesses.

That's because Democrats only called one witness who actually spoke with President Trump. That's Ambassador Sondland. Lt. Col. Vindman listened in on the call and quibbled a little with the transcript. Lt. Col. Vindman testified that he objected to parts of the call but his boss overruled him on that. In short, the Democrats' case has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese.

Democrats insist that witnesses need to be called for it to be a fair trial. Due process was written into the Bill of Rights to protect the accused. It wasn't written to protect the government. I won't be lectured by Sen. Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff, Chairman Nadler or Chairman Jefferies on integrity. None of them have any of that virtue. They're nothing more than a collection of partisan hacks who put partisanship ahead of patriotism.

Democrats read off the same script, whether they're talking about Iran, the economy, impeachment or anything else. If the information changes, like it did this week with Iran, they just continue with the same script. At last night's Democrat presidential debate, when the candidates were asked about Iran, the candidates each insisted that President Trump had isolated us from our allies.

These stiffs said that despite the fact that the British, French and Germans notified Iran that they'd better get back into compliance with the JCPOA or they'd snap tougher sanctions on. That doesn't sound like the US is isolated. That sounds like a nation with stout-hearted allies.

That didn't matter to Democrat activists. That's because they don't care about being right. Democrats just care about reciting their talking points correctly. Whether it's evidence in an impeachment trial or the truth on a debate stage, Democrats are indifferent towards those things.

It's been that way for almost 30 years. When Anita Hill testified against Justice Thomas, Democrats said it didn't matter whether it was true or not. What mattered was the seriousness of the charges.
[Video no longer available]

Posted Thursday, January 16, 2020 1:25 AM

No comments.

The Democrats' sham investigation

Yesterday, like other days, Democrats insisted that a Senate impeachment trial without witnesses should be considered a sham trial. Those statements, whether they're made by Sen. Schumer, Speaker Pelosi or Chairman Nadler, are part of the Democrats' strategy to extend their investigation in the hopes of finding a nugget of incriminating evidence against President Trump.

Rather than passively accepting that, Republicans should highlight the sham investigation that Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler conducted for House Democrats. The point should be to highlight the Democrats' intellectual inconsistency. This video highlights the fact that Chairman Nadler refused to allow a hearing where Republicans could call witnesses:
[Video no longer available]
The Judiciary Committee, traditionally the 'impeachment committee, didn't call any fact witnesses. The first hearing consisted of 3 partisan Democrat activists and liberal law professor Jonathan Turley testifying. The other Judiciary Committee hearing consisted of the majority and minority counsels answering questions about the Schiff Report. Chairman Schiff wasn't required by Chairman Nadler to testify about his own report.

A simple question screams out for attention. Where are the witnesses? We're now told that a Senate trial must include witnesses. If we don't have witnesses, we're told, it's a sham trial, a "cover-up":
[Video no longer available]
Why didn't Adam Schiff testify about his own report? Why weren't Republicans allowed to call a single witness in the House impeachment hearings? What are Democrats trying to hide? What exculpatory evidence are these Democrats trying to omit?

Democrats don't want Chairman Schiff testifying because that might force him to explain whether the faux whistle-blower worked with 2 of Schiff's new hires when they worked at the National Security Council. If Schiff testified, he might be forced how many times he or his staff met with the faux whistle-blower. If that happens, they might be forced to tell Congress if they worked with each other to conspire against President Trump.

Democrats didn't permit Republican witnesses because actual fact witnesses would've interrupted the Democrats' carefully-edited narrative. With the weakest articles of impeachment in our nation's history, Democrats couldn't afford a) to let Republicans offer exculpatory evidence or b) to let Republicans call witnesses who might have provided truly bombshell testimony.

It isn't that I want the Senate to conduct an unfair trial. Republicans don't need to shaft Democrats because these facts are on their side:

  1. Neither article rises to the level of Treason, Bribery, high crimes and misdemeanor

  2. The exculpatory evidence that Republicans tried presenting during the impeachment hearings will come in on the Senate side.

  3. This time, the 'jury' won't be composed of outcome-based partisan Democrat hacks.


This time, Democrats won't get a pass from the jury. This time, Democrats will need to actually to prove their case. This time, America will see the difference between the partisan political hacks that make up the House impeachment managers and the professional litigators on President Trump's legal team.

This time, America will notice the difference between a hurried sham impeachment investigation and a fair, properly conducted impeachment trial.

Posted Thursday, January 16, 2020 6:58 AM

Comment 1 by Gretchen Leisen at 16-Jan-20 04:27 PM
My suspicious mind about the so-called Whistleblower tells me that perhaps the Republicans should actually issue a subpoena to the Whistleblower. What if they did and instead of Eric Ciamarella showing up, a committee of three Schiff employees shows up?

Warren-Sanders fight intensifies

If people still entertained the silly notion that CNN was impartial about who wins the Democrats' presidential nomination, that notion just disappeared . That notion disappeared because CNN moderator Abby Phillips ignored Sen. Sanders' answer to her question.

The fight started when Phillips asked "Senator Sanders, CNN reported yesterday, and Senator Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018, you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?" Sen. Sanders replied, saying "Well, in fact, I didn't say that." Sen. Sanders' answer apparently didn't fit CNN's narrative so Phillip asked Sen. Warren "what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?"

Welcome to the club, Bernie. You now know how Republicans feel when the Agenda Media ignore their answers. Implicit in the Agenda Media's response is the inference that both parties know that the aggrieved party is lying. The answer isn't important. What's important to CNN is whether they maintain the narrative.
[Video no longer available]
After the debate, CNN went further in antagonizing Sen. Sanders, releasing audio of Sanders and Warren fighting. During that fight, Sen. Warren said "I think you just called me a liar on national TV." After that accusation, Sen. Sanders replied "What?" That led Sen. Warren to respond, saying "I think you called me a liar on national TV."

Bernie's supporters aren't taking this lightly:


Sen. Warren went into this debate needing to regain momentum going into the first contest for the Democrat presidential nomination. Sen. Warren came across as dishonest and vindictive during the debate and afterwards, too.

Posted Thursday, January 16, 2020 8:25 AM

No comments.

Deep State at work?

This GAO opinion reeks of Deep State intervention into the Democrats' impeachment of President Trump. Today, the Government Accountability Office, Congress's watchdog office, issued an opinion stating that the Trump administration had broken the law by temporarily withholding lethal military aid to Ukraine. The GAO specifically stated that the Trump administration had violated the "Impoundment Control Act.

Anyone who knows the Constitution knows that Article II gives the Executive Branch sole authority on foreign policy. Further, as James Freeman points out, the GAO's boss is the Legislative Branch. Quoting from Freeman's article , "For people who aren't students of the Washington bureaucracy, it should be noted that few people consider GAO the authoritative word on legal issues. The Justice Department and ultimately of course the federal courts make the big calls."

According to the gospel of Schoolhouse Rock, the Legislative Branch isn't equipped to render verdicts. At best, the Legislative Branch might be authorized to offer an opinion on legal matters but that opinion is purely advisory. It isn't the type of thing that has legal weight behind it. It shouldn't be surprising to find out that the Deep State is attempting to tip the Senate's trial of President Trump's impeachment in the Democrats' favor. This is how we know that's what's happening:

At the urging of Sen. Chris Van Hollen, (D-MD) , GAO now says that Trump administration delays in sending aid to Ukraine were illegal. In a new letter GAO's general counsel argues that even though the Trump administration made aid for Ukraine available last September 12 - before the Sept. 30 deadline for obligating funds - it still should have happened earlier. It's not entirely clear which date would have made GAO happy but in the agency's view the White House did not have an unavoidable "programmatic delay" which prevented funds from going to Ukraine.

Again, the Executive Branch doesn't obey the Legislative Branch. If that were reality, then we wouldn't have a constitutional republic. We'd have a parliamentary system in which the president would serve the Parliament. That isn't the system we have. Our system is one that insists upon co-equal branches of government.
[Video no longer available]
The GAO counsel didn't have the authority to say this:

"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act. The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA."

That isn't the GAO's decision to make. The appropriation was spent with time to spare. The GAO admitted that. This was done to give Democrats a fresh talking point. Even if the GAO is right about this potential infraction, at best, this wouldn't be a high crime, which the Constitution requires to impeach.

Despite this declaration, we haven't seen proof that this isn't a president exercising his authority in setting foreign policy. That constitutional question is something that a federal court would need to sort through. It isn't something that the GAO can unilaterally decide.

Posted Friday, January 17, 2020 7:33 AM

No comments.

This impeachment's fatal flaws

The ideal situation for a prosecutor is a crime that a) multiple people saw, b) has a significant amount of forensic evidence (think DNA or fingerprints), and that only one explanation makes sense. This impeachment doesn't have any of those things. For all of the Democrats' huffing and puffing, the evidence is deficient and multiple innocent explanations exist that would explain President Trump's actions.

Thanks to the declassified transcript of the July 25th phone call between President Trump and President Zelenskiy, we know that President Trump asked President Zelenskiy for an official favor, not a personal favor. We know that because of the context and wording. "Can you do us a favor? Our country has been through a lot?"

That isn't the wording of a personal favor. Those words are found at the top of page 3 of the transcript. The Bidens aren't mentioned until the bottom of page 4 of the transcript. Even then, President Trump doesn't connect the Bidens with any official reward. Had the Democrats found a White House document that explicitly said that President Trump wanted dirt on the Bidens, they'd have their smoking gun. Democrats don't have that.

What the Democrats have is a pile of speculation, projection and presumption. That isn't proof. That's the legal equivalent of gossip and innuendo. It isn't the type of thing that professional prosecutors build their case on. Listen to the weasel words in this interview:
[Video no longer available]
This impeachment's biggest flaw is that the evidence is virtually nonexistent. This impeachment's next biggest flaw is that neither article of impeachment accuses President Trump of committing a crime, much less a high crime. This impeachment's other fatal flaw is that it isn't complete.

Republicans should stick together on this. Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul should tell Democrats that it's the impeachment managers' fault if they haven't heard from enough witnesses. If they weren't in hurry-up-and-wait-mode, Democrats could've heard from these additional witnesses. It's their fault that they didn't compel the testimony of Mulvaney, Bolton, Blair and Duffey.

Finally, Republicans need to consistently remind Democrats that it's the House Democrats' responsibility to finish the investigation before voting on articles of impeachment. If Democrats were sloppy, that's their problem. It's the Senate's responsibility to try the House Democrats' case, not finish the House Democrats' incomplete investigation.

Posted Friday, January 17, 2020 1:27 PM

No comments.

The Democrats' latest spin

If you didn't watch tonight's Almanac Roundtable discussion, you're in luck. I watched it so you didn't have to. Predictably, impeachment was the main topic discussed by former DFL State Senator Ember Reichgott-Junge and former GOP Lt. Gov. Candidate Annette Meeks. My first impression of the discussion is that it's painful to watch Ember Reichgott-Junge mix the Democrats' political talking points with the Constitution.

At one point in the discussion, Junge trotted out the latest Democrat talking point. Junge said that "It isn't just President Trump that is on trial. The US Senate is on trial, too." She then posed a hypothetical question, saying "What happens if new information comes out 6 months from now?" Here's what I'd say had I been debating her Friday night:

Ember, you've got it backwards. It isn't the US Senate that's on trial. It's the US House that's on trial. Specifically, it's Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler that are on trial. They're the people who were tasked with the responsibility of conducting a thorough impeachment investigation. If this was truly about patriotism, Speaker Pelosi would have stopped the investigation once she learned that Chairman Schiff's committee didn't unearth proof that President Trump committed high crimes or misdemeanors.

She didn't stop the investigation because she wanted to use impeachment as a partisan weapon. Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump since the morning after he won the election. This wasn't an investigation. It was a search-and-destroy mission. That isn't about finding the truth. That's about crippling the President of the United States for purely partisan purposes.

Democrats who voted for impeachment aren't as guilty as Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff but they're guilty, too. They're guilty of impeaching a president who didn't commit a crime. House Democrats voted to impeach a president without investigators identifying a single piece of direct proof that verifies the crime President Trump committed.

Prof. Jonathan Turley's 'indictment' of the House Democrats still stings. In his testimony, Prof. Turley said "If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the president for doing."

Honestly, it's exceptionally dishonest to blame the US Senate for US House Democrats not finishing their investigation. The Constitution states that the House of Representatives has the sole responsibility for impeachment. If House Democrats don't properly finish their investigation, then that's their fault. Honest historians won't criticize the US Senate for conducting a sloppy impeachment investigation.
[Video no longer available]
Senate Democrats better think this through thoroughly. If Senate Democrats want to call witnesses, they'd best be prepared to get buried with fact witnesses by the defense attorneys. That means the trial lasts until well after Super Tuesday. By then, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar will have been forced to suspend their campaigns.

By the time an extended trial ends, President Trump will be well on his way to winning re-election, Republicans will be well on their way to regaining their House majority and well on their way to solidifying their majority in the Senate. That's the Democrats' worst nightmare.

Posted Saturday, January 18, 2020 12:32 AM

No comments.

When Schiff's conjecture starts

Pundits have talked ad nauseum about whether there will be witnesses when the impeachment trial starts in earnest on Tuesday. Since President Trump has already said that he'll invoke executive privilege should John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney get called to testify, the answer to that is no with an asterisk. They'll certainly be called but they certainly won't testify in any meaningful way. Don't expect Democrats to litigate that issue. They'd rather have the issue than the information. (I can already hear Hakeem Jefferies saying 'What is President Trump hiding?')

Considering the fact that Mulvaney is President Trump's acting Chief of Staff and Bolton is Trump's former National Security Adviser, the answer is obvious that they'd have lots of classified information in their heads. A judge won't side with the Democrats on compelling Bolton and Mulvaney to testify so Democrats can go on a fishing expedition.

Once those things happen, Democrats will have nothing to show for their efforts. What's worse is that the whole world will know that their case is thin. What's worst is that Democrats, especially Schiff, will be forced to either rest their case (which isn't happening) or Schiff will start making foolish-sounding accusations.

When the Trump legal team starts poking holes in the Democrats' case, they'll show that the Democrats' case is virtually nonexistent. That should make for some fun viewing and some interesting closing arguments. What pundits haven't speculated about is the evidence collected during the Democrats' impeachment investigation. Pundits haven't speculated about it because, despite all the headlines of "bombshell" testimony, they know this case is weak.

Accusations aren't evidence. When it's exposed that the Democrats only have accusations, that will deliver a stinging rejection of these articles of impeachment. This isn't a serious exercise. This impeachment was built on the Democrats' rage. It wasn't built on evidence. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put it best, saying that "House Democrats had performed a pale imitation of a real inquiry":
[Video no longer available]
Adam Schiff will make a fool out of himself. After making a series of unserious accusations, which will happen, Republicans will vote to acquit President Trump. Most importantly, Americans will agree with Republicans.

The impeachment trial should then be used by the NRCC against every swing district Democrat on the ballot. Remind voters that House Democrats voted for a flimsy impeachment investigation, then voted for incomplete articles of impeachment. Finally, remind voters that House Democrats wasted 2 entire years on this flimsy investigation while ignoring the people's business.

That's how you maximize the damage to the Democrats. Make them pay a steep political price. That's the only hope of getting them to stop these investigations.

Posted Saturday, January 18, 2020 9:53 AM

No comments.

A letter to GOP moderates

For the past week+, the MSM has talked about how Sen. Schumer plans on making Cory Gardner, Martha McSally and Susan Collins make difficult votes about calling witnesses. This isn't worthy of serious consideration. This is a tempest in a teapot. It's difficult to picture that the issue is that important to most voters. If voters don't care about the issue, it's difficult to picture them voting for or against someone that votes for or against witnesses.

What's important is that these senators can highlight the fact that they've voted for President Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act tax cuts (that have put hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars into the average voter's wallet.) Let's do a brief thought experiment on this. Picture a voter making a decision on who to vote for. Will most people say 'I just can't vote for Sen. Gardner. He voted against calling witnesses'? Or will most people say 'I'm voting for Sen. Collins because she voted to cut my taxes"?

If Republicans polled that pair of questions, there's little doubt that the tax cut vote isn't the most important of the 2 votes. Further, that's before asking if, for instance, voters wouldn't vote for Sen. Collins for fighting to lower prescription drug prices or Sen. McSally voting for additional funding for President Trump's wall with Mexico.

Six months from now, if not sooner, impeachment will be a net negative for battleground state Democrats. Six months from now, lowering prescription drug prices, cutting taxes and building the wall will still be popular.

Voting for or against witnesses isn't that difficult of a decision. That's because it isn't that important with most voters.

After House Democrats make their evidence-free, allegation-filled presentation, impeachment conviction will be on life support. After President Trump's legal team finishes highlighting the holes in the House Democrats' case, the American people will know that the Democrats' impeachment investigation was a waste of time. The Trump legal team's opening filing indicates the fact that they're utilizing a take-no-prisoners approach to defending President Trump.

The first day or 2 will go relatively well for the Democrats. That's because they'll have the floor uncontested. After that, President Trump's team will present their defense. It won't take long for President Trump's team to highlight the no-evidence nature of the Democrats' case. Once that starts, Democrats will wish that they'd never impeached President Trump.

Kevin McCarthy's closing statement highlights just how powerful the arguments from President Trump's legal team will be:
[Video no longer available]
By that time, anyone with common sense will know that President Trump did nothing worthy of impeachment.

Posted Saturday, January 18, 2020 8:31 PM

No comments.

President Trump's defense team won't take prisoners during trial

Pat Cipollone, the White House Counsel, and Jay Sekulow, President Trump's personal attorney, made their first official impeachment filing this weekend. Immediately, they let it be known that they weren't interested in taking prisoners on this particular battlefield.

They started their filing by saying "The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the American people to freely choose their president. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the 2016 election and to interfere with the 2020 election, now just months away."

Next, they write "The Articles of Impeachment are unconstitutional on their face. They fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," as required by the Constitution. They are the result of a lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness."

"In order to preserve our constitutional structure of government, to reject the poisonous partisanship that the Framers warned against, to ensure one-party political impeachment vendettas do not become the 'new normal,' and to vindicate the will of the American people, the Senate must reject both Articles of Impeachment," Trump's legal team wrote. "In the end, this entire process is nothing more than a dangerous attack on the American people themselves and their fundamental right to vote."

It's worth reading the entire Trump team briefing. This team sought to send the message that there's little, if anything, in the Articles of Impeachment that meets the Constitution's requirements.
[Video no longer available]
Cipollone and Sekulow note that House Democrats "sought testimony disclosing the Executive Branch's confidential communications and internal decision-making processes on matters of foreign policy and national security, despite the well-established constitutional privileges and immunities protecting such information." Then Mssrs. Cipollone and Sekulow write "As the Supreme Court has recognized, the President's constitutional authority to protect the confidentiality of Executive Branch information is at its apex in the field of foreign relations and national security."

Notwithstanding these abuses, the Administration replied appropriately to these subpoenas and identified their constitutional defects. Tellingly, House Democrats did not seek to enforce these constitutionally defective subpoenas in court. To the contrary, when one subpoena recipient sought a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the subpoena he had received, House Democrats quickly withdrew the subpoena to prevent the court from issuing a ruling.

Why would House Democrats withdraw a legitimate subpoena if the information sought was important? Did House Democrats withdraw the subpoena because they didn't want the court to rule that the subpoena wasn't legitimate?

Check LFR for the House Democrats' reply to this filing.

Posted Saturday, January 18, 2020 11:17 PM

No comments.

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