9/26/2019
I say BRAVO MR. TRUMP ! THEY TOOK IT HOOK LINE AND SINKER ! BRAVO SIR !
Pelosi transcript: eh but it tutt Tut Tut the fakcht izz….duh prescedint isen breach of his constushunal eh but Tut acckkkht.
9/26/2019

September 25, 2019
Great America is one of the top Super PACs supporting President Donald Trump’s re-election.
The organization has reportedly spent six figures to run the ad on Fox News Channel. They also launched a website, InvestigateBiden.com, which hosts a petition urging Congress to act.
On Wednesday, the White House released a transcript of a July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president, in which he asked the leader about Biden’s involvement in the prosecutor losing his job. The former Vice President’s son, Hunter Biden, was on the board of directors for a Ukrainian energy company that was being investigated by the prosecutor.
“What does white privilege really look like?,” the ad begins. “Weeks after Joe Biden visits China as vice president, his son secures a private billion dollar deal with the Bank of China. After Biden is named America’s top diplomat to Ukraine, his son joins Ukraine’s largest private gas producer with no relevant experience and lands another million dollar deal. And before Ukraine’s top prosecutor can investigate the shady dealings of Biden’s son, he gets the prosecutor fired, then brags about it.”
The ad features Biden boasting at the Council of Foreign Relations about how he got the prosecutor fired.
“I said I’m telling you, you’re not getting a billion dollars,” Biden says in the ad. “I said you’re not getting a billion and I’m going to be leaving here in six hours, if the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well son of a bitch. He got fired.”
“Instead of another failed presidential witch hunt, House Democrats should investigate one of their one – Joe Biden,” the ad asserts.

By Shane Trejo
Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) wrote a letter to General Prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko from the Office of the Prosecutor General in Ukraine on May 4, 2018 demanding compliance with the Mueller probe.
“We are writing to express great concern about reports that your office has taken steps to impede cooperation with the investigation of United States Special Counsel Robert Mueller,” they wrote, referring to the investigation that ultimately found no evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians to impact the resulf of the 2016 presidential election.
They referenced a report from the New York Times indicating that Ukraine was not properly cooperating with the Mueller witch hunt, and implied that their refusal to comply could jeopardize diplomatic relations with the United States.
“This reported refusal to cooperate with the Mueller probe also sends a worrying signal—to the Ukranian people as well as the international community—about your government’s commitment more broadly to support justice and rule of the law,” they added.
The Democratic Senators ended their letter with a request that the following three questions be answered:
1. Has your office taken any steps to restrict cooperation with the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller? If so, why?
2. Did any individual from the Trump Administration, or anyone acting on its behalf, encourage Ukrainian government or law enforcement officials not to cooperate with the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller?
3. Was the Mueller probe raised in any way during discussions between your government and U.S. officials, including around the meeting of Presidents Trump and Poroshenko in New York in 2017?
Fake news conspiracy theorists were floating the baseless notion at the time that Trump had bribed Ukranian leaders to prevent them from cooperating with the Mueller probe:
In December, the administration allowed the sale of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. Supporters of the administration held up the sale as evidence that Trump could not have colluded with Russia — here he was, arming Russia’s enemy. “The year that began with the narrative of Trump-Russia collusion is ending with an unexpected plot twist — the Trump administration is confronting and cracking down on Russia,” reported Fox News. The Wall Street Journal editorial page mocked “people who say President Trump colluded with Mr. Putin to win the election and wants to appease him now.” Skeptics merely saw the sale as evidence that the foreign policy bureaucracy operated at some distance from Trump’s whims.
Today’s New York Times suggests a darker interpretation altogether. In response to the missile sale, Ukrainian officials have frozen out the Mueller investigation. Ukraine’s government had previously cooperated eagerly to expose the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia — providing, among other importance evidence, ledgers detailing payments to Paul Manafort by the Russian-backed Ukrainian party he had advised.
Now Ukraine is withholding cooperation from Mueller, and Ukrainian officials are not even hiding the fact that they’re doing so because of the missile sale. “In every possible way, we will avoid irritating the top American officials,” one Ukrainian lawmaker says. “We shouldn’t spoil relations with the administration.”
It is of course possible that Ukraine reached this decision on its own, completely independent of any suggestion from Washington. It is far more likely that somebody in the administration proposed a quid pro quo, and Ukraine quite rationally decided it would rather have weapons to defend itself against the next Russian aggression than participate in an investigation that the president of the United States regards as a mortal threat.
It does not appear that the Ukrainian government ever responded to the letter, and the fake news bribery speculation quickly dissipated due to lack of evidence.
By the new standards of the Democrats, these three lawmakers committed criminal actions by demanding the investigation of their political adversary. Perhaps an impeachment inquiry of Menendez, Durbin, and Leahy should be in order!
9/25/2019

By Danielle Ryan
Perhaps a worse sin than his purposeful omission of Assange’s pertinent case, though, is Sulzberger’s utterly disingenuous claim that before Donald Trump came along, the US government was “the world’s greatest champion of the free press.”
Readers who make it to the end of the piece would be none the wiser as to the fact that Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, waged a war on whistleblowers, prosecuting more of them than all previous US administrations combined and paving the way for Trump’s further attacks.
Assange’s name may be appearing less frequently in the news these days, but Sulzberger will be well aware that the Australian whistleblower and WikiLeaks co-founder is still a prisoner at London’s top security Belmarsh Prison, despite the fact that his sentence for skipping bail is up.
Though he was due for release on September 22, a court ruled that Assange must stay in prison until his extradition hearing next year, citing his “history of absconding.” In other words, the whistleblower who exposed US war crimes managed to evade persecution by US authorities once before — and the British government is determined not to let that happen again.
Sulzberger knows all this but consciously chose to ignore it in favor of anecdotes about the heroism of the Times’ own reporters around the world and the Trump administration’s reluctance to stand up for journalists, American and otherwise. Some of the stories he tells are indeed worrying and deserve to be told — but let’s be clear: No defense of the free press is sincere and complete without a strong and unambiguous defense of Julian Assange.
Nonetheless, the piece was praised by mainstream journalists on Twitter. “A call to arms,” said NYT columnist Jim Rutenberg. “The best analysis” of the damage Trump has done to the free press, said Brazilian journalist Rosental Alves. “A powerful defense,” of journalism, declared Gannett CNY editor Jeffrey Platsky.
But Sulzberger’s things-were-great-and-then-Trump-happened tone is typical of the overly simplified manner in which US media elites have been framing the Trump presidency from the outset. From targeting whistleblowers, to deporting migrants, to turning a blind eye to Saudi atrocities in Yemen — if Obama did it, it was fine, admirable and initiated without malice. If Trump does it, it’s unacceptable, reprehensible and rooted in evil — even if there is little meaningful difference in outcomes.
Without a hint of Assange-related irony, Sulzberger warns that governments around the world are targeting journalists who have been “exposing uncomfortable truths and holding power to account.” The current administration has “retreated from our country’s historical role as a defender of the free press,” he continues, throwing in a quote from the late Senator John McCain — chief senate warmonger and friend to Ukrainian neo-Nazis and Syrian terrorists, who the intrepid muckrakers over at the Washington Post once lauded for his ability to “make journalists love him.”
Truly explosive stuff; someone find these risk-takers a free cell at Belmarsh immediately.
Back at home, Trump’s attacks on the media have served to “undermine” the public’s faith in journalists, Sulzberger argues, noting that the president has tweeted about“fake news” 600 times since taking office. There is no denying that Trump has undermined the public’s already waning faith in the free press by labelling all reporting which displeases him as “fake.”
Yet, what Sulzberger fails to acknowledge is how the media has been so helpful to him in this regard. Times editor Dean Baquet admitted recently that three years of Russiagate coverage which essentially amounted to nothing had left the paper of record “flat-footed.” Trump, of course, took full advantage of the genuinely abysmal coverage of his presidency.
Concluding, Sulzberger assures the reader that he has raised his concerns with Trump personally, to no avail, and warns that threatening to prosecute journalists for doing their jobs gives repressive leaders around the world “implicit license” to do the same. Someone should remind him that if Trump bears responsibility here, he rightfully shares it with Obama.
As for those repressive leaders, they need look no further than Assange — and when they examine his case, they’ll be emboldened further, knowing that even his fellow journalists failed to stand up and loudly advocate for him.
9/25/2019

By Shane Trejo
It’s looking like her move will go down as one of the great miscalculations in political history after the release of another explosive revelation. A senior Trump administration official claims that the intelligence community inspector general determined that the whistle-blower who alleged Trump’s wrongdoing was motivated by “political bias” due to their support for “a rival candidate” of the President.
A different senior Trump administration official said to Fox News that the Trump administration is now working to release the whistle-blower’s complaint to Congress, as it appears that Trump has baited desperate Democrats into making fools of themselves yet again.
Earlier today, Trump announced his intention to release the full transcript of his conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He claims he has nothing to hide, but Democrats believe that Trump tried to strong-arm Zelensky into investigating his political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden.

Biden boasted in 2016 during a meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations that he maneuvered to get a Ukrainian state prosecutor fired who was investigating a firm that employed his son, Hunter Biden. The admission that Biden would probably like to take back was immortalized on video.
The firm, Burisma Holdings, paid Hunter $50,000 per month to sit on its board. President Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has pointed out the ridiculous conflict of interest that went into this shady agreement.
“When Biden got the prosecutor fired, the new prosecutor who Biden approved — you don’t get to approve a prosecutor in a foreign country unless something fishy is going on — the new prosecutor dropped the case,” Giuliani said.
Giuliani also believes that Biden and his son engaged in nefarious cronyism after traveling aboard Air Force Two to visit China in 2013. In the days following their trip, a Chinese businessman made a $1.5 billion donation to BHR Partners. BHR is a private equity firm with Hunter sitting on its board.
“When he comes back … eight days later, the kid gets a billion dollars in his ridiculous private equity fund run by a recovering drug addict,” Giuliani said, referring to Hunter’s well-documented cocaine problem.
Not only are the Democrats attempting to impeach President Trump over yet another a nothing burger, but they are also putting the spotlight on their presidential front-runner’s scandals. The Democrats continue to be their own worst enemies heading into year’s crucial elections.

The investigation by the Southern District of New York, which focused on whether several prominent Washington lobbyists violated foreign lobbying rules, grew out of special counsel Robert Mueller‘s inquiry into the finances of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who is now serving a 7.5 year sentence in federal prison.
Manafort had organized a public relations campaign for a non-profit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, which promoted Ukraine’s image in the West from 2012 to 2014. Podesta’s Democratic-leaning lobbying firm, the Podesta Group, was one of many firms that worked on the campaign, including Weber’s firm, Mercury Public Affairs.
NBC News was the first to report in 2017 that Podesta and his firm had been ensnared in Mueller’s probe because of their work on the campaign.
Podesta is the chairman of the Podesta Group and the brother of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton‘s former presidential campaign chairman. John Podesta has not been affiliated with the Podesta Group since the 1990s and was not a subject of the investigation.
Both firms were being investigated for possibly failing to file Foreign Agents Registration Act reports for their work with the ECMU and on behalf of Ukraine, NBC News has previously reported.
According to an October 2017 indictment, the two lobbying firms were paid $2 million from offshore accounts controlled by Manafort for their work on the campaign.
In a statement to NBC News, Vin Weber’s attorney said they had been notified the investigation was over.
“As we have previously stated, at all times Mr. Weber acted in good faith and in keeping with the legal advice his company received from its outside counsel,” Weber’s attorney Robert Trout said.
“We are obviously pleased by this development,” Trout added.
Podesta did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the Southern District of New York declined to comment.
The dropping of the investigation comes on the heels of the not guilty verdict in the trial of former Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig, another case that Mueller’s office had passed to federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.
In that case, the New York attorneys decided not to prosecute, sources said, and the case was ultimately brought by federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., only to result in an acquittal for Craig.
Several people briefed on the Podesta and Weber probe told NBC News they thought that the investigation into the two lobbyists had a better chance of succeeding than the probe into Craig, but in the end the legal hurdles would’ve been too high.

SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
“I believe Christine Blasey Ford. I believe Deborah Ramirez. It is our responsibility to collectively affirm the dignity and humanity of survivors,” Pressley said in a statement, reported WBUR.
“Sexual predators do not deserve a seat on the nation’s highest court and Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process set a dangerous precedent,” she said. “We must demand justice for survivors and hold Kavanaugh accountable for his actions.”
Pressley plans to introduce the resolution even after the Times issued a major correction noting the accuser of the alleged misconduct claims she has no memory of the alleged incident even taking place, and refused to be interviewed.
The Squad’s leader Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) also called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment on Twitter before the NYT’s clarification, deleted her post following the clarification, then curiously, reposted her impeachment call on Monday.
The latest accusation against Kavanaugh has been outright debunked. So why is the left still moving forward with efforts to remove Kavanaugh?
The answer is because their aim has always been about preventing Kavanaugh from serving in the court due to their belief that he will attempt to outlaw abortion and repeal Roe v Wade.
The lawyer of Kavanaugh’s original accuser Christine Blasey-Ford said just weeks ago that her client’s motivation to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct was rooted in her desire to protect abortion.
Pressley’s impeachment resolution has virtually no chance of passing, as it requires a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Republican-led Senate to unseat Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court.

By Aaron Klein
Demand Justice is fiscally sponsored by a nonprofit arm of the secretive, massively funded Arabella Advisors strategy company that pushes the interests of wealthy leftist donors. Arabella specializes in sponsoring countless dark money pop-up organizations designed to look like grassroots activist groups, as exposed in a recent extensive report by conservative watchdog Capital Research Center.
Within hours of the release of the questionable Times article, Demand Justice not only launched a social media campaign but used the piece to push their October 6 event to “protest this corrupt Supreme Court and demand an investigation of Kavanaugh.”

The event is being organized with the radical Soros-funded Women’s March and CPD Action, whose sister group, Center for Popular Democracy, is also funded by Soros.
Within less than 24 hours, Demand Justice used the Times piece to further promote their rally and renew the event’s aim “to #ImpeachKavanaugh.”
Together with the Women’s March and CPD Action, Demand Justice went on a public relations offensive against Kavanaugh utilizing the latest accusation storyline to comment in the news media.
“This new report corroborates the allegations made by Debbie Ramirez and proves the FBI investigation conducted last year was a sham from the start,” the three groups said in a statement widely picked up by the news media.
“At this point, an impeachment inquiry in the House is the only appropriate way to conduct the fact-finding that Senate Republicans refused to conduct.”
The trio called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler to immediately launch an impeachment inquiry.
Demand Justice has since blasted out emails and other messages to supporters urging Kavanaugh’s impeachment, based in part on the Times piece.
Demand Justice has been at the forefront of anti-Kavanaugh activism. Even before President Donald Trump first announced Kavanaugh as his official nominee, Demand Justice committed to spending about $5 million to oppose any eventual Trump nominee for the Supreme Court. The organization seeks to raise $10 million in its first year.
Breitbart News reported that within less than one hour of Trump’s announcement that Kavanough was his nominee, Demand Justice had already put up the website stopkavanaugh.com, exclaiming: “We need to demand that the Senate defeat the Brett Kavanaugh nomination.”
The news media has routinely produced articles on Demand Justice protesters, with many pieces failing to inform readers that this is not a grassroots group but an organization spawned by professional organizers and tied to deep leftist funding.
Brian Fallon, the head of Demand Justice, served as press secretary for Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. The group’s digital team is headed by Gabrielle McCaffrey, who was a digital organizer for Clinton’s campaign.
In an interview with the New York Times, Fallon would not comment on the source of the group’s financing, but the newspaper noted that he was recently a featured speaker at the conference of the Democracy Alliance, a grouping of progressive donors.
Democracy Alliance’s founding donors include billionaires George Soros and Tom Steyer. Indeed, Fallon’s panel at Democracy Alliance was moderated by Sarah Knight of Soros’s Open Society Foundations.
Demand Justice is fiscally sponsored by the Sixteen Thirty Fund, one of four nonprofits run by Arabella Advisors.
The Capital Research Center’s expose documented that from 2013-2017 alone, Arabella’s four nonprofits spent a combined $1.16 billion with the aim of advancing “the political policies desired by wealthy left-wing interests through hundreds of ‘front’ groups.”
“And those interests pay well: the network’s revenues grew by an incredible 392 percent over that same period,” the report related.
“Together, these groups form an interlocking network of ‘dark money’ pop-up groups and other fiscally sponsored projects, all afloat in a half-billion-dollar ocean of cash,” states the report. “The real puppeteer, though, is Arabella Advisors, which has managed to largely conceal its role in coordinating so much of the professional Left’s infrastructure under a mask of ‘philanthropy.’”
The New York Times piece at the center of Demand Justice’s latest anti-Kavanaugh push purports to have “uncovered” a “previously unreported story” about the Supreme Court justice. The article was adapted from a forthcoming anti-Kavanaugh book by the newspaper’s reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly.
At first, the Times reported these standalone details:
A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.
The Times issued a massive correction after it was reported that the newspaper had omitted the detail — included in the book — that the female accuser does not remember the incident.
The correction reads:
An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.
The allegation itself is “confusing” to National Review writer John McCormack, who opines:
If you take this confusing accusation in the essay at face value, it doesn’t even appear to be an allegation of assault against Kavanaugh.
If Kavanaugh’s “friends pushed his penis,” then isn’t it an allegation of wrongdoing against Kavanaugh’s “friends,” not Kavanaugh himself? Surely even a modern liberal Yalie who’s been to one of those weird non-sexual “naked parties” would recognize both the female student and Kavanaugh are both alleged victims in this alleged incident, barring an additional allegation that a college-aged Kavanaugh asked his “friends” to “push his penis.”
Despite Demand Justice’s activism and amid the collapsing Times claim, Nadler does not seem to be in a rush to impeach Kavanaugh, saying, “We have our hands full with impeaching the president right now and that’s going to take up our limited resources and time for a while.”