Multiple top Democrats connected to corrupt Ukrainians
DECEMBER 17, 2019
A Ukrainian oligarch reportedly paid $700,000 to the husband of Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL), who sits on the House Judiciary Committee that recently drafted two articles of impeachment against President Trump.
In the two years leading up to Mucarsel-Powell’s election in 2018, her husband Robert Powell made nearly a million dollars working as a lawyer for Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, who has previously been accused of contract killings and embezzlement.
Kolomoisky, one of Ukraine’s wealthiest men, is currently being investigated by the FBI for alleged money laundering.
With Mucarsel-Powell voting to impeach President Trump on Friday, her husband’s lucrative financial ties to the Ukrainian oligarch who is being investigated by Trump’s FBI is an obvious conflict of interest.
Additionally, Kolomoisky has a vendetta against Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who he criticized in the past, saying, “A big scandal may break out,” and that “It may turn out to be a clear conspiracy against Biden.”
Following Mucarsel-Powell’s vote to impeach Trump on Friday, GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted about the connection, calling it a “double standard.”
Similar to Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden, whose son received $86,000 per month from a Ukrainian gas company under investigation for embezzling state funds, Mucarsel-Powell’s family ties to Kolomoisky is concerning.
By Mark Dice – 12/17/2019
They can move to the Middle East. And see how they like Muslim culture
Another day of being told that being a Straight White Male is a bad thing.
Democrats in the House of Representatives are poised to impeach President Trump but not all members are on board, as there are lawmakers in question
A group of President Donald Trump supporters on Monday showed up to Michigan Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin’s town hall to protest her decision to vote in favor of impeachment.
Slotkin, who was undecided on impeachment until Monday, after taking the weekend to make up her mind on how she would vote, said she has came to the conclusion that she will vote to impeach Trump after reviewing the two articles of impeachment passed by the House Judiciary Committee.
Democrats in the House of Representatives are poised to impeach President Trump but not all members are on board, as there are lawmakers in question.
The Daily Caller contacted the offices of all 31 House Democrats from districts that Trump won in 2016 to ask them if they would vote to impeach President Trump, as many have not publicly stated where they stand on impeachment.
Each office was contacted at least three times and all offices were given ample time to respond. Slotkin’s office was one of many who did not respond to multiple inquires.
This comes as a group of House Democrats are reportedly considering censuring the president instead of impeaching him.
A group of about 10 Democratic members of Congress, including New Jersey Rep. Josh Gottheimer, Oregon Rep. Kurt Schrader, New York Rep. Anthony Brindisi, and Utah Rep. Ben McAdams, are all reportedly open to a censure resolution of Trump instead of moving forward with impeachment, according to Politico.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told reporters on Thursday that Democrats won’t be asking how others plan to vote, and that she is not trying to convince anyone to vote a certain way.
“We’re not whipping this legislation, nor do we ever whip something like this. People have to come to their own conclusions,” she said. “They’ve seen the facts as presented from the Intelligence Committee. They’ve seen the Constitution as they know it. They took an oath to protect and defend it.”
Despite Pelosi’s early reluctance to push for impeachment, there are currently 228 Democrats who have voiced support for impeachment or an impeachment inquiry. Pelosi has said she believes Trump is “goading” Democrats to impeach him because he thinks it will help him fire up his base.
Democrats have continued to send congressional subpoenas to those close to Trump for documents related to the ongoing scandal regarding the president’s phone call with the president of Ukraine — specifically whether Trump asked him to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden in exchange for U.S. military aid. The House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight committees are all investigating Trump, his cabinet members and closest allies.
The House will vote on the articles of impeachment for Trump on Wednesday.
December 17, 2019
The FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance) Court is in the news this weekend after President Trump tweeted that former President Obama had petitioned a court twice in order to wire tap current President Trump when he was running for office. [At this time we were not aware of the multiple renewals of the Carter Page FISA warrant application used to validate spying on President Trump.]
In his first tweet President Trump tweeted:
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
He next tweeted:
Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!
The FISA Court was put in place in 1978 when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA):
The Court sits in Washington D.C., and is composed of eleven federal district court judges who are designated by the Chief Justice of the United States. Each judge serves for a maximum of seven years and their terms are staggered to ensure continuity on the Court. By statute, the judges must be drawn from at least seven of the United States judicial circuits, and three of the judges must reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia. Judges typically sit for one week at a time, on a rotating basis.
Pursuant to FISA, the Court entertains applications submitted by the United States Government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and other investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes. Most of the Court’s work is conducted ex parte as required by statute, and due to the need to protect classified national security information.
Only two in over 10,000 applications were turned down by the FISA Court.
According to ABC News:
More than a thousand applications for electronic surveillance, all signed by the attorney general, are submitted each year, and the vast majority are approved. From 2009 to 2015, for example, more than 10,700 applications for electronic surveillance were submitted, and only one was denied in its entirety, according to annual reports sent to Congress. Another one was denied in part, and 17 were withdrawn by the government.
A very disturbing fact about the wire tapping request of President Trump is that the FISA Court turned down President Obama’s Administration’s first request to wire tap President Trump that was evidently signed off on by Attorney General Lynch. With only two applications denied out of 10,700 from 2009 through 2015, the fact that the Obama Administration’s application was denied by the FISA Court is very disturbing. The odds of this happening were 0.02% .
The Obama Presidency is clearly the most corrupt in US history.
Horowitz remains silent on this in his 450 plus page report –>>
According to the FISA Report on page 412, Obama’s Deep State DOJ and FBI decided to move forward with obtaining a FISA Warrant to spy on Carter Page and therefore candidate Trump in mid-August of 2016:
We also now know that this is when Deep State lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page discussed the insurance policy via texts on August 15, 2016 –
The DOJ OIG FISA Report does not mention that the first FISA warrant for Carter Page was denied. It only states that the Deep State attempted to put together information to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page in August 2016 and by September, the Deep State believed they had enough information to obtain the warrant.
We know that the first FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page and Trump was obtained in October 2016 shortly before the 2016 Presidential election. This now confirmed garbage report was then renewed three times.
Omissions like this leave the reader to question the validity of the the entire FISA Report. Was more than this omitted from the massive report? If so, why?
Hat tip D. Manny
By Jose Nino -12/17/2019
Democrat politicians in D.C. say that local police who refuse to enforce gun control bills likely to pass in Virginia should be subject to prosecution and even intimidation from the National Guard.
Following Democrats’ success at the polls in Virginia’s November elections, gun control legislation such as universal background checks, “assault weapons” bans, and red flag laws are back on the menu.
Grassroots gun organizations have teamed up with sheriffs across the state to form Second Amendment sanctuary counties, which have the explicit purpose of empowering law enforcement to protect the Second Amendment against any of the gun control bills passed in the Virginia state legislature.
So far, over 75 counties in Virginia have passed Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions in the state, with the latest being Spotsylvania County. The board of supervisors unanimously voted to approve a resolution stating that county police will not enforce state-level gun laws that infringe upon the Second Amendment.
Virginia Democrat officials, however, have another view about these law enforcement agents’ actions. They believe they will face consequences if they don’t carry out any law the legislature passes.
“I would hope they either resign in good conscience, because they cannot uphold the law which they are sworn to uphold, or they’re prosecuted for failure to fulfill their oath,” Democratic Virginia Congressman Gerry Connolly told the Washington Examiner of local county police who may not enforce laws that infringe upon on gun rights. “The law is the law. If that becomes the law, you don’t have a choice, not if you’re a sworn officer of the law.”
Democratic Congressman. Donald McEachin even suggested slashing state funds to counties that do not comply with any gun control laws passed by the Virginia legislature.
“They certainly risk funding, because if the sheriff’s department is not going to enforce the law, they’re going to lose money. The counties’ attorneys offices are not going to have the money to prosecute because their prosecutions are going to go down,” he stated.
McEachin also highlighted that Democrat Virginia Governor Ralph Northam could summon the National Guard, if things get really out of hand.
“And ultimately, I’m not the governor, but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law,” he added. “That’s his call, because I don’t know how serious these counties are and how severe the violations of law will be. But that’s obviously an option he has.”
Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring pinned the blame on the “gun lobby” for moving numerous Second Amendment resolutions as a tactic to supposedly” scare” state residents.
“The resolutions that are being passed are being ginned up by the gun lobby to try to scare people. What we’re talking about here are laws that will make our communities and our streets safer,” Herring told CBS 6.
“So, when Virginia passes these gun safety laws that they will be followed, they will be enforced,” he continued.
Despite what the Virginia political class says, Virginia gun owners are taking cues from other grassroots activists across the nation who are using their counties and municipalities to revolt against federal and state level gun grabs.
The current two-party system has no reliable bloc that will automatically defend gun owners’ interests, so gun owners will have to get creative in trying to preserve their Second Amendment freedoms.