Published on May 5, 2019
Kaitlin Bennett asked Rutgers students that support student loan forgiveness if all of their debts should be forgiven as well.
Pelosi fears Trump may borrow page from Democratic playbook by challenging 2020 election legitimacy
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has warned her fellow Democrats that Donald Trump may question the legitimacy of the 2020 election if he loses by a slim margin – a cowardly political tactic not seen since the Democrats lost in 2016.
In an interview with the New York Times, the house speaker and de facto head of the Democratic Party envisioned a nightmare scenario in which Trump would attempt to “poison the public mind” instead of accepting a Democratic presidential victory in next year’s election.
According to Pelosi, the solution to this terrible conundrum is for the Democrats to abandon all ideas of impeachment and nominate a moderate who won’t rock the boat. Only then, Pelosi mused, will the Democrats be able to crush Trump by such a huge margin that he will never be able to fabricate salacious tales of foreign blackmail and be taken seriously.
Her pearl-clutching faced considerable scrutiny from the Twitterati, who pointed out that Pelosi’s party has spent the last two years questioning the legitimacy of the president, after Hillary Clinton refused to accept responsibility for her humiliating defeat in 2016.
ALSO ON RT.COMRussiagate-pushing Democrats call AG Barr’s ‘spying’ claim conspiracy theory
“This is rich. In 2016 Democrats said Trump would challenge the legitimacy of the election. Then they spent two years challenging the legitimacy of the election. Now, with 2020 approaching, Nancy Pelosi is trying the same thing again,” noted Washington Examiner political correspondent Byron York.
“How ironic given that Hillary & the Dems still haven’t accepted the 2016 results,” a like-minded netizen observed.
Others wondered exactly how Trump would attempt to stay in power even if he lost the 2020 election.
“Let’s just suppose Trump does lose in 2020, how does ANY INTELLIGENT person think Trump will be able to stay in POWER… will he push the desk up against one of the 4 doors blocking entrance to him,” one Twitter user commented.
Pelosi’s talking points also received plenty of love on social media, however. One of her supporters ominously predicted that Trump would contest the election “whether he wins or not.”
‘ANYONE EVER SEEN COCAINE?’: UNEARTHED VIDEO SHOWS BERNIE LECTURING YOUNG CHILDREN ABOUT DRUGS
‘I’m only 5 years old,’ says child
MAY 4, 2019
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a 2020 presidential candidate, once asked a group of children if they had ever seen cocaine and if they smoked cigarettes when he was the mayor of Burlington, while talking to kids as a part of his old television show.
In an episode of Sanders’s show “Bernie Speaks with the Community,” which was created in the 1980s, he is sitting on top of a wooden picnic table with a microphone speaking with a group of children about a variety of issues, with a focus on drugs. Politico obtained footage of the show and released it Friday.
“Do any of the older kids you know have some problems with drugs?” Sanders asked the children. “Who wants to talk to me about that? What about drugs? Is that a problem?”
“I like coke!” one little boy said.
“Tell me about that,” Sanders asked.
“I like Coca-Cola!” the boy corrects himself.
“Oh, Coca-Cola. Alright, but who knows about cocaine?” Sanders continued.
“Anyone ever seen cocaine? Do any of the kids know people who use drugs like that?” Sanders asked. “You don’t have to tell me who, but I bet you do.”
A couple children at the table said they might have seen cocaine, and he cut them off.
“Hold it!” he said, later adding the drug “screws up your mind,” before changing the subject to cigarettes, asking the children, “Who here smokes?”
“Come on, raise your hand.”
“I don’t smoke because I’m a little kid,” a child sitting in someone’s lap responded. “I’m only 5 years old.”
Sanders is a front-runner in the 2020 presidential fight, with a crowded field of Democrats who hope to take on President Donald Trump. However, Sanders’s former press secretary decided to join former Vice President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign for president, deciding to not work for her former boss.
Trump accused the Democratic National Committee of conspiring to oust Sanders from the 2020 Democratic primary in an April tweet.
BIDEN ALIGNS WITH FAR LEFT DEMS: “WE AGREE ON BASICALLY EVERYTHING”
Duly noted
MAY 4, 2019
NYT Chief WH Correspondent: Here’s The Real Reason Obama Didn’t Address Russian Meddling In 2016
“…if I speak out more, he’ll just say it’s rigged…”
In his recently updated and expanded book on former President Obama, “Obama: The Call Of History,” The New York Times’ Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker addresses several hot-button topics, including why Obama failed to adequately address Russian meddling ahead of the 2016 election and his response to “buffoonish showman” Donald Trump shocking the world by defeating Hillary Clinton, a response that involved “multiple emotional stages.”
In one of the sections of the book highlighted by The Daily Mail Friday, Baker peels back the curtain on why Obama was so weak in his response to Russian meddling ahead of the election in 2016 — something for which Trump has hammered Obama amid all the Robert Mueller-debunked “collusion” allegations.
“Anything the Russians did concerning the 2016 Election was done while Obama was President. He was told about it and did nothing! Most importantly, the vote was not affected,” Trump tweeted last month.
The reason Obama didn’t act more decisively and rebuke Russia more directly, says Baker is that he feared that it might “escalate” the Russian interference campaign. This cautious approach, Baker suggests, flows out of Obama’s “don’t do stupid sh**” foreign policy philosophy, an approach for which Obama has been criticized in the past.
But fearing the escalation of the campaign wasn’t the only reason Obama didn’t act more forcefully, says Baker: Obama reportedly once admitted that “if I speak out more, he’ll just say it’s rigged.”
According to Baker, in one meeting Obama — who was convinced like most of the political establishment that Clinton was going to win — said confidently that Russian President Vladimir Putin had “backed the wrong horse” by supposedly helping Trump’s campaign.
As the Daily Mail notes, it was only after the election, which Trump won in stunning fashion, that Obama finally took action against the Russians as punishment for the meddling his administration had known about for months. Obama’s decision to expel a bunch of Russian diplomats conveniently fed into the “collusion” narrative that had already gotten rolling and which the election’s loser, Clinton, helped promote.
The Daily Mail also draws attention to another juicy passage in the book which reveals new details about Obama’s response to Trump’s upset victory over the woman who was supposed to protect Obama’s legacy.
Accoring to Baker, Obama watched the Marvel film “Dr. Strange” on election night with Michelle and Valerie Jarrett. At one point, Baker writes, Obama received an update on his phone and said, “Huh. Results in Florida are looking kind of strange.”
While Michelle went to sleep early, Obama stayed up and witnessed Trump’s devastating defeat of Clinton, which Baker suggests Obama found unthinkable because he thought there was “no way Americans would turn on him.”
According to Baker, Obama phoned Clinton at 1 a.m. and advised her to concede quickly, advice she didn’t take. In response, she supposedly said, “I’m sorry for letting you down.”
Obama and his team, Baker says, did in fact feel that Clinton had let them down. “To Obama and his team … the real blame lay squarely with Clinton. She was the one who could not translate his strong record and healthy economy into a winning message.”
Related: BOMBSHELL: Ukraine Embassy Says DNC Operative Reached Out For Dirt On Trump In 2016, Report Says
Barack Obama’s Ukrainian Collusion Helped Advance Russian Collusion Lie
Obama’s treachery, covered up by the fake news media, is only starting to come to light.
By Shane Trejo
Former President Barack Hussein Obama hid most of his evil scheming under the cover of darkness, but his nefarious behavior in the Ukraine to assist the Russian collusion frame job of Trump is finally coming to light.
Investigative journalist John Solomon issued an op/ed in The Hill explaining the details of Obama’s sordid dealings regarding Paul Manafort’s infamous black ledger in an attempt to frame Trump and punish his Russian enemies.
“Manafort’s case is one of the cases that hurts me a lot,” corruption prosecutor Nazar Kholodnytskyy said in a statement to The Hill.
He continued: “When we discovered first in May 2016, this black ledger list, I ordered the detectives… to give nothing to the mass media in considering this case. Instead, they had broken my order and published themselves… one or two pages of the black ledger.”
The detectives would not give Kholodnytskyy an explanation as to why they released this sensitive information, but he immediately suspected outside interference.
“For me, it was the first… call that something was going wrong and there was some external influence in this case… and [there was] some other interest in this case not only in the interest in the investigation and a fair trial,” Kholodnytskyy said.
The investigation was jeopardized because the Obama regime wanted to build the case against Trump associates ahead of time so they could bamboozle the public with a phony Russian investigation as a backup plan if Trump were somehow to win the Presidency.
Trump would go onto defeat Crooked Hillary, and then Obama’s minions in the deep state and fake news would go on to push a hoax that would tear the United States apart.
Former political officer at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, Andrii Telizhenko, is one of the key whistle-blowers exposing the Obama regime’s foreign meddling efforts in the Ukraine. He exposed a meeting that occurred with Obama officials and Ukrainian officials in Jan. 2016 in Washington D.C. to make sure the nations’ “anti-corruption efforts [were] united.”
Kostiantyn Kulyk, who works as deputy head of the Ukraine prosecutor general’s international affairs office, mentioned that Ukrainian officials offered intelligence at the meeting showing the criminality of many corrupt Western officials, including the now-indicted former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig. The Obama regime did not want to hear it.
“They just discussed Manafort. This was all and only what they wanted. Nobody else,” Kulyk said.
The FBI had previously investigated Manafort’s Ukrainian dealings in 2014, ultimately deciding not to charge the man of any crime. However, that changed when making a scapegoat of Manafort became advantageous to the Obama administration less than two years later.
“Somebody kept this black ledger secret for two years and then showed it to the public and the U.S. media. It was extremely suspicious,” Kholodnytskyy said.
Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) released the sensitive documents on Manafort on May 29, 2016, just ten days after he was announced as Trump’s campaign chairman. A Ukrainian court has declared this illicit collusion to be illegal election interference.
The claims made by Telizhenko and other whistle-blowers are even backed up by the DOJ’s own internal documents, which involved communications between Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, and ex-British spy Christopher Steele – author of the discredited dossier that has made a mockery of the entire intelligence-industrial complex.
“What is already confirmed by Ukrainians looks a lot more like assertive collusion with a foreign power than anything detailed in the Mueller report,” Solomon wrote in his op/ed.
This is likely just the tip of the iceberg, as Obama is shown to be guilty of every crime the Democratic Party has accused Trump of committing, and so much more.
MUELLER DIDN’T FIND BARR’S MEMO INACCURATE, BUT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT MSM COVERAGE
Worried that legacy media would misinterpret the investigation
MAY 1, 2019
Special counsel Robert Mueller didn’t find Attorney General William Barr’s memo summarizing his report inaccurate, but was worried about mainstream media coverage misinterpreting the investigation, according to federal officials.
The mainstream media jumped on a recently released letter Mueller sent to Barr in late March in which Mueller claimed the memo didn’t “fully capture the context, nature, and substance.”
According to the letter:
“There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”
On its own, this paints AG Barr in a bad light; however, the Washington Post had this to say deep within an article on the subject:
A day after Mueller sent his letter to Barr, the two men spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.
In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that media coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and creating public misunderstandings about the office’s work, according to Justice Department officials. Mueller did not express similar concerns about the public discussion of the investigation of Russia’s election interference, the officials said. Barr has testified previously he did not know whether Mueller supported his conclusion on obstruction.
When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr’s memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not but felt that the media coverage of it was misinterpreting the investigation, officials said.
Consequently, critics have suggested that Mueller has ironically fueled media misinterpretation by not initially pointing this out in the letter.
“Did Mueller write this letter knowing it would be leaked to the public? It certainly has a different tone than the phone conversation,” PJ Media pointed out.
Bernie Sanders: Joe Biden Supported Iraq War, NAFTA and TPP — I Opposed Them
By Jeff Poor
Monday on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, reacted to former Vice President Joe Biden’s candidacy for the 2020 Democratic nod, as well.
Sanders pointed out the contrasts between him and Biden on trade and foreign policy.
“Well, look, I’m running against, I think, 19 other people,” Sanders said. “So I’m concerned about everybody. But I think when people take a look at my record versus Vice President Biden’s record, I helped lead the fight against NAFTA. He voted for NAFTA. I helped lead the fight against PNTR with China. He voted for it.”
“I strongly opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” he continued. “He supported it. I voted against the war in Iraq. He voted for it. So I think what I hope, Anderson, what this campaign is about — and I have to tell you, I like Joe Biden. Joe is a friend of mine. But I think what we need to do with all of the candidates, have an issue-oriented campaign, not personal attacks, but talk about what we have done in our political lives, what we want to do as president, and how we’re going to transform our economy so that it works for all of us and not just the 1 percent.”
Tom's Blog 