November 12-14, 2019
Nov 12 01:01 When did Hunter Biden's actions become offlimits? Nov 12 10:42 Byron York, truth-telling reporter Nov 13 05:49 St. Cloud hate crimes rising? Nov 13 06:30 Do-Nothing Democrats did nothing Nov 14 05:55 Jordan's 'clarifying' moment Nov 14 06:19 President Trump's triumphant note Nov 14 12:22 Democrats' impeachment obsession Nov 14 23:15 James Rosen vs. Pelosi
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
When did Hunter Biden's actions become offlimits?
Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Democrats' Impeachment Committee, has let it be known that the Bidens, especially Hunter Biden, is beyond congressional scrutiny. That's Schiff's justification for not allowing Hunter Biden to testify at the Democrats' Impeachment Committee's hearing. Chairman Schiff and other Democrats have already settled on a verdict. That verdict was arrived at 3 years ago when President Trump was just President-Elect Trump.
We all know the story. Just 19 minutes after President Trump's swearing in, the Washington Post ran an article saying that impeachment begins now. Further, we know that there were impeachment rallies in Chicago, Washington DC and NYC the day after Election Day, 2016. Obviously, Democrats didn't have anything that rose to the level of an impeachable offense. To Resistance Democrats, Trump defeating Hillary was the impeachable offense.
Over the years, Adam Schiff lead the Democrats' impeachment charge. Schiff was the lying Democrat who told Chuck Todd that he'd seen evidence that was "more than circumstantial" verifying that then-Candidate Trump had colluded with Russia to win the election. Adam Schiff is the lying dirtbag Democrat who wrote a lie-filled speech, then pretended that it was what President Trump said during his phone call with Ukraine President Zelenskiy:
[Video no longer available]
Schiff has ruled that potential Biden wrongdoing is offlimits for these hearings even though it's entirely relevant to the charges being brought against President Trump. They're relevant because, if Hunter Biden engaged in influence-peddling, then that's no different than what Paul Manafort did.
Stop and think this through because it's important. If Hunter Biden engaged in influence-peddling, then President Trump is justified in having Ukraine investigate the Bidens because he'd be trying to investigate corruption. At that point, President Trump wouldn't be trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent.
Democrats won't admit that since that'd be like admitting that they're impeaching President Trump because they hate him. Republicans should make this case daily and tirelessly. Republicans should highlight the Democrats' hatred of Trump. Once Democrats admit that they hate Trump, the Democrats' claims of patriotism disappear. It isn't possible to hate the president if you're a patriot.
It's painfully obvious that Democrats don't care about this nation. If Democrats loved the United States, they'd rejoice that minorities are doing exceptionally well economically under President Trump. If Democrats loved the United States, they'd fight with President Trump in eliminating corruption.
If Schiff won't let Republicans call the 2 witnesses most central to their defense of President Trump, then Republicans should take some of their time during the televised hearing to simply explain their theory of the case. If Schiff tries preventing that, then Republicans should remind voters that Schiff is a lying partisan who's been trying to impeach President Trump for 3 years. Why not have a 'Schiff's Greatest Hits' video ready for that moment?
It's time for Republicans to put Democrats on defense. If Democrats insist on playing by crooked rules, Republicans should ignore the rules whenever it's needed to prove their point.
Posted Tuesday, November 12, 2019 1:01 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Nov-19 01:17 PM
Joe and Hunter Biden are a separate question, but one that should be asked. It would become more a question if Joe Biden ends up the Democratic Party's convention endorsed candidate. It reflects upon trust. The GOP will goad questioning of Biden and his son if he is nominated. They will for now let the press ignore it, but later, there will be a drumbeat. If Bernie is the nominee the contest will be over issues and policy, not sleaze.
Byron York, truth-telling reporter
Byron York's article about the "Democrats' Colonel Vindman problem" highlights the things that Col. Vindman said that might hurt Democrats by the time Democrats wrap up Col. Vindman's public testimony. Of particular interest to Republicans will be Col. Vindman's verification of the July 25th Trump-Zelenskiy phone call.
Democrats have suggested that the rough transcript was doctored by the White House. Though that hasn't gotten much traction, it's still out there. Col. Vindman put that to rest.
Another problem that Democrats have comes from John Ratcliffe's cross-examination of Col. Vindman:
"I'm trying to find out if you were reporting it because you thought there was something wrong with respect to policy or there was something wrong with respect to the law," Ratcliffe said to Vindman. "And what I understand you to say is that you weren't certain that there was anything improper with respect to the law, but you had concerns about U.S. policy. Is that a fair characterization?"
"So I would recharacterize it as I thought it was wrong and I was sharing those views," Vindman answered. "And I was deeply concerned about the implications for bilateral relations, U.S. national security interests, in that if this was exposed, it would be seen as a partisan play by Ukraine. It loses the bipartisan support. And then for - " "I understand that," Ratcliffe said, "but that sounds like a policy reason, not a legal reason."
Saying that you're worried about the conversation sounds ominous. Without pinning the source of the concern down, it might mean that Col. Vindman was worried for legal reasons. That's certainly how Democrats tried portraying it. Rep. Ratcliffe's cross-examination pinned that down as policy concern. That matters because you don't impeach sitting presidents over policy disagreements. That's a dispute best settled with elections, not impeachment.
This back-and-forth highlights another problem for Democrats:
At another point, Castor asked Vindman whether he was interpreting Trump's words in an overly alarmist way, especially when Vindman contended that Trump issued a "demand" to Zelensky. "The president in the transcript uses some, you know, words of hedging from time to time," Castor said. "You know, on page 3, he says 'whatever you can do.' He ends the first paragraph on page 3, 'if that's possible.' At the top of page 4, 'if you could speak to him, that would be great.' 'So whatever you can do.' Again, at the top of page 4, 'if you can look into it.' Is it reasonable to conclude that those words hedging for some might, you know, lead people to conclude that the president wasn't trying to be demanding here?"
"I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions," Vindman answered, in what may have been one of the more revealing moments of the deposition. "I'd also point your attention to 'whatever you can do, it's very important to do it if that's possible.'" "' If that's possible,'" Castor stressed . "Yeah," said Vindman. "So I guess you can interpret it in different ways."
That isn't a demand as much as it's a petition or request. There's lots of literary distance between demand and request. In fact, they're close to being opposites. Saying that President Trump demanded an investigation is provocative. Saying that President Trump requested help with something doesn't sound provocative.
That's why Democrats intentionally chose the word demand. It isn't surprising that Democrats used the provocative-sounding word considering the fact that they're trying a weak case. You might even say that Democrats are trumping up the accusations because they know that the evidence doesn't get them there. Then there's this:
Vindman portrayed himself as the man to see on the National Security Council when it came to issues involving Ukraine. "I'm the director for Ukraine," he testified. "I'm responsible for Ukraine. I'm the most knowledgeable. : Yet at times there were striking gaps in Vindman's knowledge of the subject matter. He seemed, for instance, distinctly incurious about the corruption issues in Ukraine that touched on Joe and Hunter Biden.
"What do you know about Zlochevsky, the oligarch that controls Burisma?" asked Castor. "I frankly don't know a huge amount," Vindman said. "Are you aware that he's a former Minister of Ecology"? Castor asked, referring to a position Zlochevsky allegedly used to steer valuable government licenses to Burisma. "I'm not," said Vindman.
"Are you aware of any of the investigations the company has been involved with over the last several years?" "I am aware that Burisma does have questionable business dealings," Vindman said. "That's part of the track record, yes."
If that's the NSC's definition of an expert, we should be worried. I'd make an exception if Col. Vindman was holding his cards close to his vest. I suspect that's what Lt. Col. Vindman was doing.
Schiff steps in it
"Both those parts of the call, the request for investigation of Crowd Strike and those issues, and the request for investigation of the Bidens , both of those discussions followed the Ukraine president saying they were ready to buy more Javelins. Is that right?" asked Schiff.
Mr. Schiff just stepped in it mightily. An action can't be both a request and a demand. Those words are close to being opposites definition-wise.
For the record, it's obvious from President Trump's softened language that request is the accurate word. Demand is a stretch.
Posted Tuesday, November 12, 2019 10:42 AM
No comments.
St. Cloud hate crimes rising?
The SC Times' latest guilt trip article is worth highlighting. It isn't worth highlighting because the content. It isn't worth highlighting because the writing was exceptional. It's worth highlighting because the picture of hateful graffiti spray-painted on a business's windows is from July, 2010.
How big of a problem are hate crimes when the most recent hate crimes picture is 9 years old? With the number of hate crimes event scheduled for St. Cloud since Labor Day, you'd think that St. Cloud was the hate crimes capitol of Minnesota. While hate crimes have risen slightly statewide, the numbers simply don't bear out the notion that St. Cloud is a hotbed of hate crimes. The chart in this article highlights hate crime incidents per bias motivation in 2017. According to the statistics compiled by the FBI, the number of hate crimes in St. Cloud totaled 2, 1 based on the person's race, ethnicity or ancestry. The other hate crime was based on the victim's religion.
According to the St. Cloud Times' article, a "new three-part series of forums is planned to replace an event on Dismantling Hate Crimes that was abruptly cancelled Sept. 18 'because of safety and logistical concerns,' according to the St. Cloud Area Human Rights Commission." That's, at best, misleading. When I wrote this post , I quoted "a statement by St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton. The Times wrote that 'Despite the public safety concern' cited by the human rights department, St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton said Wednesday ' the department received no reports of threats related to the event. '"
Since St. Cloud's Chief of Police was participating in the event, it's likely that the St. Cloud PD was monitoring the chatter. At the time, there was lots of speculation that the cancellation was part of a hoax. What I found was that the event's cancellation was posted on the St. Cloud Human Rights Commission's Facebook page at 1:16 pm on the day of the event. The 'protesters' were mostly just concerned citizens who showed up after 2:00 pm, well after the event had gotten cancelled.
Further, the Minnesota Department of Human Resources issued a statement after 4:30 pm. I wrote in this post about how the Minnesota Department of Human Resources tried belittling the protesters:
"Hate is not a value in St. Cloud or in any part of our state," Minnesota Department of Human Rights Commissioner Rebecca Lucero said in a news release issued just over an hour before the planned start of the event. "Our community deserves better."
"I am heartbroken by the attempts to silence discussion on hate crimes. The goal of the forum was to discuss the community we want to create. One that is full of dignity and joy,' she said.
MDHR is full of it. There were 2 groups of protesters at the event. The smaller group was protesting the event. The other group was actually praying for the Persecuted Church. Neither group attempted "to silence discussion on hate crimes."
The best proof of that came in the form of Jaylani Hussein, who showed up at 6:30, which was half an hour after the event was scheduled to start. He held an impromptu event at the site that was deemed too dangerous. It went off without a hitch. The Times wrote this late in the article:
The St. Cloud Human Rights Commission and Minnesota Department of Human Rights initially planned a forum on hate crimes in September and cancelled it. A group opposed to the Council on American-Islamic Relations' involvement in the panel planned a protest of the event and showed up even after it was called off.
I'd be surprised if the handful of protesters and people praying for the Persecuted Church were monitoring the St. Cloud Human Rights Commission's Facebook page. The way that paragraph was written made it sound like the people had something nefarious planned.
Posted Wednesday, November 13, 2019 5:50 AM
Comment 1 by dega at 14-Nov-19 07:15 PM
The Times does not report the news exactly just their version of it. Sad that they are called the St. Cloud Times when they do not represent the city at all. CAIR is one of the biggest spreaders of hatred and will continue to do so because it is the major item that keeps their organization alive.
Do-Nothing Democrats did nothing
It's pretty obvious that the Do-Nothing Democrats are so locked in on impeachment that they're willing to ignore ratifying a major trade agreement . Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell highlighted the Do-Nothing Democrats unwillingness to get their work done in a speech on the Senate Floor:
By one analysis, twelve million American jobs are dependent upon trade with Mexico and Canada. Together they make up a $500 billion-dollar market for U.S. exports. So it's no surprise that updating our trading relationships with both of our North American neighbors would stand to have a major positive effect on our economy. To be more specific, according to data from the International Trade Commission, the USMCA would generate about 176,000 new American jobs. It would pump nearly $70 billion into the U.S. economy. And the already massive markets for U.S. products would be expected to grow by tens of billions more.
For months, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have been claiming they notionally support this agreement and want to get to "yes." But, month after month, this happy talk has seemingly led to no tangible progress, just more heel-dragging. Hardworking Kentuckians, people like our farmers and our cattlemen, keep writing to me, asking Congress to pass the USMCA. But Speaker Pelosi won't make time for it. House Democrats have enough time to continue their three-year-old obsession with impeaching the president, but they cannot find the time to pass a landmark trade deal that would create 176,000 new American jobs. Just saying their priorities out loud indicates how backwards they are."
Pelosi might get around to putting USMCA up for a vote. If she does, it'll pass with overwhelming bipartisan support. Speaker Pelosi hates President Trump so much that she can't stand the thought of giving him another legislative victory, especially one that strengthens an already-strong economy.
While Pelosi wastes time, the freshman Democrats sit silent out of sight. They've learned not to cross her. The candidates who swore that they wouldn't vote for Pelosi as Speaker are now obedient Pelosi puppies. These aren't moderate Democrats. They're simply obedient to Pelosi.
Rest assured that this is Pelosi's final term as Speaker. Republicans will pick up the 19 seats they need to retake the majority and then some.
[Video no longer available]
Posted Wednesday, November 13, 2019 6:30 AM
No comments.
Jordan's 'clarifying' moment
If there was a more mesmerizing moment Wednesday morning than Jim Jordan's ridiculing of Ambassador Bill Taylor, it's impossible to believe. After having time given to him to cross-examine Ambassador Taylor, Mr. Jordan referenced EU Ambassador Sondland's amended testimony. In the amended testimony from Ambassador Sondland, Sondland affirms "Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I convey this message to Mr. Yarmack on September 1, 2019 in connection with Vice President Pence's meeting to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.'"
According to Ambassador Taylor, this is the part of Ambassador Sondland's testimony that gave Ambassador Taylor a clear understanding of what was going on with the connectivity of the investigation of Hunter Biden to the lethal foreign aid to Ukraine. After Taylor affirms that, Jordan replies that "I've seen church prayer chains that were less complicated."
Here's the video of Jordan's questioning of Taylor:
[Video no longer available]
That's as clarifying as mud. It's impossible to think that Taylor suddenly had a clearer understanding of US lethal military aid being tied to investigating Hunter Biden after Taylor read Sondland's additional testimony. That's after Taylor testified to Jordan that he'd met with President Zelenskiy 3 times in 55 days but that the connectivity between the investigation into the Bidens and military aid never came up during the discussions.
If Ukraine felt threatened by Russia militarily in July, 2019, why wouldn't President Zelenskiy bring that subject up? We know that President Zelenskiy brought up the subject of purchasing additional Javelin anti-tank missiles from the US during his call with President Trump of July 25, 2019. What's amazing is that that's a day prior to Ambassador Taylor's conversation with President Zelenskiy.
If Zelenskiy was worried about protecting Ukraine from Russia, wouldn't he have asked forcefully about the missiles from both President Trump and Ambassador Taylor? The transcript shows he mentioned the Javelins but that's it.
Democrats have lost the impeachment fight. Wednesday was their only chance to make a first impression. Instead, the phrase that people will remember is Jim Jordan's. Finally, Never Trumper Steve Hayes is dining on foot tonight. On Monday night's All-Star Panel, Hayes said that Jim Jordan had done a good job prior to getting his Intel Committee assignment but then suggested that he wasn't a good fit on the Committee. Here's to that fine dining, Steve.
Posted Thursday, November 14, 2019 5:55 AM
No comments.
President Trump's triumphant note
Tuesday, President Trump sounded a triumphant note in a speech to the Economic Club of New York. At one point, President Trump said "Blue-collar jobs are leading the way in our middle class boom. We've added 25,000 mining jobs, 128,000 energy jobs, and 1.2 million manufacturing and construction jobs. And manufacturing was supposed to be dead in our country. You would need, according to a past administration representative at the highest level of that past administration - you would need a magic wand to bring back manufacturing jobs. Well, we brought them back, and we brought them back to over 600,000 manufacturing jobs as of today. And those are very important jobs."
Trump continued, saying "Nearly 7 million people have been lifted off, very importantly, food stamps. Seven million people off of food stamps. And we're getting Americans off of welfare and back into the workforce. Nearly 2.5 million Americans have risen out of poverty. That's a record. The rate of African American and Hispanic American families in poverty has plummeted to the lowest level ever recorded, by far. And most of you people wouldn't know these numbers because most of you aren't very active in the market."
It's impossible to say that people aren't feeling uplifted about an economy that's lifted 2,500,000 Americans out of poverty in a 3-year period. Despite these major improvements, Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren insists that the economy is working only for the wealthy. It's dishonest to say that the economy is only working for the wealthy when 7,000,000 people have gotten lifted off of food stamps.
[Video no longer available]
American markets have vastly outpaced the rest of the world. This exceptional growth is boosting 401(k)s, pensions, and college savings accounts for millions and millions of hardworking families. You hear so much about inequality and all of the differences and all of the problems. The single biggest benefactors of what we've done are middle-class workers and low-income families. It's been amazing, actually.
This is what I'd hang my hat on:
Perhaps most importantly, after years of stagnation and decline, American wages, salaries, and incomes are rising very fast. Median household income is now at the highest level in the history of our country. The average median income under President Bush rose only $400 over an eight-year period. Under President Obama, it rose $975 over an eight-year period. And under my administration, it rose $5,000 over slightly more than just two and a half years. That's a big difference.
That's a very positive statistic. Certainly, President Trump's predecessors didn't come close to achieving in 8 years what he's done in less than 3 years. Elizabeth Warren can yap all she wants about the economy only working for the rich. Middle-class people are feeling the effects of President Trump's policies and they're liking it.
So, we've achieved this stunning turnaround because we've adopted a new economic policy that finally puts America first. As President, I understand and embrace the fact that the world is a place of fierce competition. We're competing against other nations for jobs and industry, growth and prosperity. Factories and businesses will always find a home. It's up to us to decide whether that home will be in a foreign country, or right here in our country, our beloved USA. And that's where we want them to stay, and be, and move to.
I wish Tim Walz was willing to learn this. Minnesota is getting its butt kicked by other states. But I digress. If this is the message that President Trump deploys on the campaign trail, he'll win. Period.
Posted Thursday, November 14, 2019 6:19 AM
No comments.
Democrats' impeachment obsession
This morning, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke on the Senate floor to accomplish 2 things. First, he wanted to get Democrats to agree to passing positive legislation like National Defense Authorization Act and ratifying the USMCA trade agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada. Sen. McConnell's 'other' goal this morning was to shame Democrats, starting with Nancy Pelosi, for their obsession with impeachment.
We want to pass the USMCA and the 176,000 new American jobs it would create. But Speaker Pelosi continues to block it. The far left objects to their passing anything the president likes. We want to pass a conference report for the NDAA, critical legislation for our national defense. Congress has passed a bipartisan NDAA every single year since 1961. But now it's another casualty of the impeachment obsession. House Democrats steamrolled Republicans in order to pass a wholly partisan bill. I believe this may be the first time ever that either chamber has passed a purely partisan NDAA. Now they're stalling the conference committee and jeopardizing the whole process.
And we want to pass the defense funding bill that our Democratic colleagues have now filibustered twice, so that our servicemembers and commanders get what they need. Back in the summer, the Republican and Democrat leaders in the House and the Senate all signed onto an agreement with President Trump. A bicameral, bipartisan agreement. Everybody signed it.
We brokered this deal to make sure the appropriations process did not get bogged down with bickering over other policy issues. All sides agreed to keep poison pills out so that government funding could move forward. But just a few months later, our Democratic colleagues are now insisting on the exact kinds of poison pills they foreswore.
Good faith negotiations are in short supply, especially from the Democrats' side. It's apparent that that's the problem since both sides reached an agreement this summer. Senate Republicans have stuck to that agreement. Democrats haven't.
In short, my friends in Democratic leadership smelled an opportunity to pick a political fight. Our servicemembers need their funding. American workers and small businesses need their new trade deal. Our armed forces need the authorizing legislation that has been a bipartisan slam-dunk every year for almost sixty years.
It's apparent that Pelosi isn't interested in bipartisanship. She's as partisan as Adam Schiff, AOC + 3 or Chuck Schumer. That's why she needs to get bounced from the Speaker's office. Pelosi's Democrats consistently put partisanship over patriotism.
Sen. McConnell is right about this:
We cannot cease all legislation just because Democrats would rather fight with this president. We won't neglect the business of the American people just because a House committee is holding some public hearing. If they are going to keep plowing ahead with their impeachment obsession, they cannot abdicate their basic governing responsibilities at the same time.
Here's the video of Sen. McConnell's speech:
[Video no longer available]
Posted Thursday, November 14, 2019 12:22 PM
No comments.
James Rosen vs. Pelosi
When he was at Fox, James Rosen was one of the most-respected correspondents at FNC. Now that he's with the Sinclair Broadcast Group, Speaker Pelosi has given Rosen the nickname of " Mr. Republican Talking Points ." How quaint.
Rosen must've gotten under Pelosi's skin by asking "I wonder if you could explain to the American people, why the legal rights of the whistleblower should prevail in this political setting over those of President Trump, who should ordinarily enjoy a right to confront his accuser?" That's when Pelosi replied "Well, let me just say this, I will say to you, Mr. Republican talking points, what I said to the President of the United States. When you talk about the whistleblower, you're coming into my wheelhouse. I have more experience in intelligence than anybody in the Congress."
At LFR, we've discussed President Trump's right to confront his accuser. It's found in the Sixth Amendment. (Apparently, the Constitution isn't that important to Pelosi when it applies to President Trump's ability to defend himself.) It's apparent that Ms. Pelosi doesn't know the law, either, especially in her 'wheelhouse'.
The snitch who spoke with Schiff's staff isn't covered by the ICWPA. We talked about that in this post :
In order to submit an ICWPA complaint the following elements must be met:
Eligible Originator: Only applies to employees (civilian, military or contractor) assigned to the four DoD intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA, NRO, and NGA). Does not apply to activities of the military services, combatant commands, or Office of Secretary of Defense.
The snitch has been identified as a CIA employee. As such, the snitch doesn't qualify for any whistleblower protections. Period.
Pelosi might have the most experience in Congress but that doesn't make her an expert.
Posted Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:15 PM
No comments.
