Schumer Threatens Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, “You Will Pay the Price! You Won’t Know What Hit You!” (Video)”

 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) threatened two conservative Supreme Court justices as he spoke at a pro-choice rally in front of the Supreme Court Wednesday as the Court heard a Louisiana case on restricting abortion, June Medical Services v. Russo, described by ScotusBlog,

“Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision upholding Louisiana’s law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.”

Schumer gives the thumbs down as he mentions Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Schumer turned and pointed at the Supreme Court building behind him and menacingly screamed as he shook his fist:

“I want to tell you Gorsuch! And I want to tell you Kavanaugh! You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you! If you go forward with these awful decisions…”

Flashback: CDC Workers Were “Crying in the Hallways” When Trump Was Elected President

 

Are concerns expressed by Rush Limbaugh and others that workers in the federal bureaucracy may try to politicize the response to the coronavirus as a weapon against President Trump’s reelection that far fetched? Workers in many federal government departments and agencies have tried since his election to sabotage Trump from within, proudly calling themselves part of the Resistance.

On Tuesday while Trump was wrapping up a state visit to India, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) official, Dr. Nancy Messonnier, gave an alarmist briefing to reporters that ran counter to Trump’s efforts to calm the public and markets. While some, including TGP’s Joe Hoft, have noted Messonnier is the sister of controversial former Trump Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, suggesting that relationship may have been behind the alarmist briefing, Trump himself has said he does not believe the CDC is trying to hurt him.

However, a November 9, 2016 report by NPR station WABE-FM in Atlanta where the CDC is headquartered headlined an article on CDC employees’ reaction to Trump’s victory: “Atlanta CDC Employees Express Anxiety Over Trump’s Win”.

The WABE article details a somber, depressing, tearful, binge eating reaction by CDC staff:

Employees at the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say the mood in their office is somber.

The employees of one of the largest federal agencies in Atlanta said they’re concerned about job safety, funding and new public health policies under Donald Trump’s presidency.

At the General Muir deli across the street from the CDC, a few employees talked to WABE, asking that their names not be used. One microbiologist said her colleagues were crying in the hallways.

“It’s really sad,” she said. “It’s depressing. I’m eating a bagel to try and be happy.”

See the source image

One anti-TRUMP CDC worker spoke of using the CDC to ‘reach out to (the) electorate’

But, she said, they are looking for a silver lining, specifically reaching out to low-income, rural communities.

“My team is trying to identify how to reach out to this electorate that has clearly expressed that they’re hurting,” she said. “We’re thinking, you know, how can we reach out to these people so they don’t feel the need to feel disenfranchised, I guess.”

Trump Q&A about the CDC at Wednesday’s press briefing on the coronavirus:

Q Thank you, sir. A number of your supporters online have embraced these theories reported — these theories that the CDC may be exaggerating the threat of coronavirus to hurt you politically. Rush Limbaugh the other day said this has been advanced to weaponize the virus against you.

THE PRESIDENT: You don’t mean my supporters. You mean my — my people that are not supporters?

Q Right. Your opponents.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, I agree with that. I do.

Q Have you seen evidence of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I think they are. I think — and I’d like it to stop. I think people know that when Chuck Schumer gets upset — I mean, he did the same thing with a couple of trade deals that are phenomenal deals now — everybody has acknowledged they’re phenomenal deals — before he ever saw the deal. He didn’t even know we were going to make a deal. They said, “What do you think of the deal with China?” “I don’t like it. I don’t like it.”

He talked about tariffs. I left the tariffs on: 25 percent on $250 billion. He said, “He took the tariffs off.” He didn’t even know the deal. And he was out there knocking it because that’s a natural thing to say. But when you’re talking about especially something like this, we have to be on the same team. This is too important. We have to be on the same team.

Q Have you seen evidence that the CDC is trying to hurt you? That there are career officials —

THE PRESIDENT: No, I don’t think the CDC is at all. No, they’ve been — they’ve been working really well together. No, they really are. They’re professional. I think they’re beyond that. They want this to go away. They want to do it with as little disruption, and they don’t want to lose life. I see the way they’re working. This gen- — these people behind me and others that are in the other room, they’re incredible people. No, I don’t see that at all.

Link to the CDC website on the coronavirus.

Trump Administration Has Removed 70 Obama Holdovers at NSC

US President Donald Trump(L)speaks next to new national security advisor Robert O'Brien on September 18, 2019 at Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California. - Last week, Trump abruptly fired John Bolton, a vigorous proponent of using US military force abroad and one of the main hawks in the …

By HANNAH BLEAU

The Trump administration has removed 70 Obama holdovers at the National Security Council (NSC), Washington Examiner columnist Paul Bedard reported on Monday.

President Trump and National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien have removed 70 Obama holdovers from the NSC, which previously boasted a staff of roughly 200 people, according to the Washington Examiner:

CAP

CAP

CAP

The news follows Saturday’s CNN report, which indicated “major cuts” to NSC staff in the coming days, citing “two sources familiar with the matter.”

It comes days after the contentious impeachment battle on Capitol Hill — a battle ignited by a complaint from a so-called “whistleblower.” The “whistleblower’s” complaint, regarding Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, sparked the House Democrats’ partisan impeachment inquiry, which ultimately ended in a full acquittal.

The administration removed Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a key witness in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, from his post at the NSC last week. It also removed his twin brother Yevgeny, who worked as a lawyer on the NSC.

While Vindman has denied knowing the identity of the “whistleblower,” he has been suspected of being a leaker in the past. Some Republican lawmakers, such Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), believe the former NSC official leaked details the president’s July 25 phone call to the “whistleblower.”

As Breitbart News reported:

First and foremost, Vindman admitted openly during his testimony before HPSCI last year under questioning from ranking GOP member Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) that he leaked the contents of President Trump’s call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to two officials who were not in the White House. Vindman claimed during his testimony then that these two officials he leaked the call to were “cleared U.S. government officials with appropriate need to know.” While Vindman claimed under oath he did not know who the whistleblower was, Schiff intervened saying that answering Nunes’s questions identifying the individuals outside the White House to whom Vindman leaked the Trump-Zelensky call details may out the identity of the whistleblower who filed the original complaint.

The person who filed the complaint has been long been–and was at the time of this hearing–publicly reported to have been CIA official Eric Ciaramella. According to a follow-up report published this week by the outlet that first reported Ciaramella’s identity, RealClearPolitics, Vindman was the person who leaked the call details to Ciaramella.

Vindman’s removal drew a strong reaction from Democrat leaders. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CAcalled his firing “shameful” and a “brazen act of retaliation,” and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Monday wrote a letter to 74 inspectors general, requesting an investigation into “any and all instances of retaliation” against whistleblowers, according to the Hill.

“These attacks are part of a dangerous, growing pattern of retaliation against those who report wrongdoing only to find themselves targeted by the President and subject to his wrath and vindictiveness,” Schumer claimed.

The Trump administration has also identified and will remove the senior official who penned an anonymous “resistance” op-ed and book, according to U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova.

Democrats failed to impeach Trump, but they won’t give up trying – it’s all they’ve got

CAP

by Nebojsa Malic

Even before President Donald Trump was elected US president, Democrats began talking about impeachment. Now that it has failed, will they finally accept the result of the 2016 election? Don’t get your hopes up.

Trump’s acquittal in the Senate on Wednesday was a foregone conclusion, given as it takes two thirds of the senators present to convict. The only way for 20 Republicans to switch sides was for the House case to be open and shut – something that only Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California) and ‘Russiagate’ truthers in the media actually believed.

In the end, the sole Republican to break ranks was Mitt Romney, and only on one of the articles. Not guilty, exonerated, case closed, let’s “move on” – as Democrats themselves advised in 1999, after the same thing happened to Bill Clinton.

Not so fast. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has rejected the verdict, calling it “meaningless” because what happened in the Senate “wasn’t a trial.” It’s a retreat to last week’s talking points, arguing that the Senate should have called additional witnesses and documents that the House didn’t care to obtain before rushing to impeach back in December.

Never mind that doing this would have meant the House process was flawed, fatally undercut the second article – “obstruction of Congress” – or that the House managers themselves objected to any new evidence being introduced. If you’re expecting logic rather than lawfare, you’re in the wrong town.

Democrats began talking impeachment from the second Trump took office, having failed to prevent that from happening through a variety of long-shot schemes such as “Hamilton electors.” Their initial strategy was to allege “emoluments” and harp on Trump’s undisclosed tax returns, before settling on “Russiagate.” Then the Mueller Report came out and proved to be a dud of epic proportions. Hopes to at least get obstruction of justice charges out of it were decisively crushed by Attorney General William Barr.

Report came out and proved to be a dud of epic proportions. Hopes to at least get obstruction of justice charges out of it were decisively crushed by Attorney General William Barr.

Under tremendous pressure to find something – anything – to impeach Trump over, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi turned to Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff, a fellow Californian. Schiff seized upon a phone call between Trump and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, which he was told about by staffers in touch with their former colleagues inside the intelligence community.

Schiff seized on Trump’s reference to Joe Biden’s bragging about getting a corruption prosecutor in Ukraine fired, to claim that this amounted to “soliciting foreign interference” in the 2020 election, since Barack Obama’s former VP was the front-runner for the Democrats’ presidential nomination.

While Schiff and his crew did their best to conjure a crazy conspiracy involving Trump holding up military aid for political leverage – mind-reading and inventing fake transcripts along the way – their case was ultimately smoke and mirrors. Zelensky himself said he was not being extorted, and the parade of other witnesses from within the very bureaucracy Trump had sworn to purge (but obviously hadn’t) had only their personal, anti-Trump opinions to offer.

Paradoxically, impeachment only made Trump stronger – and more popular, if the latest polls are anything to go by. By contrast, Democrats have gone from one defeat to the next this week, starting with Monday’s fiasco at the Iowa caucuses and continuing with Pelosi’s tantrum at Trump’s State of the Union on Tuesday.

“This impeachment was a destructive debacle in every conceivable respect, but don’t worry I’m sure [Democrats] will change their behavior moving forward, they have a well-established track record of taking responsibility for failure,quipped political journalist Michael Tracey after the Senate acquittal.

If Trump wins re-election in November – which increasingly looks like it might happen – expect the Democrats to try to impeach him again. What for? It doesn’t matter, any excuse will do.

CAP

Simply put, they have to. In retrospect, impeachment seems to have always been a coping mechanism for 2016, the election that neither Hillary Clinton nor her party ever recovered from losing.

Clinton herself offered more proof of that on Wednesday, accusing 52 Senate Republicans of betraying their oath to the Constitution and saying the US was “entering dangerous territory for our democracy.”

She’s actually correct about that, though not in a sense she may have intended. Democracy works only so long as all participants agree to abide by electoral results. Refusing to accept defeat and attempting to rules-lawyer one’s way out would be bothersome enough at a board game night, but is downright toxic when it infects national politics.

Kaiser Report co-host Stacy Herbert summed it up best, calling the last three years “one horrible remake of ‘Goodbye, Lenin’ in which the entire political and media classes have constructed an elaborate alternative reality so as to avoid having Hillary encounter any further distress which might compound her humiliation.”

Unlike in the 2003 German film, nothing so far has been capable of bursting this particular delusion bubble – which means that America’s long national nightmare is nowhere near over.

 

Schumer Melts Down as Impeachment Implodes, Demands Every Senator Explain Their Impeachment Vote (VIDEO)

CAP

 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer melted down on Friday as impeachment against President Trump imploded.

McConnell will be holding a vote on additional witnesses Friday after closing arguments wrap up.

In a huge blow to Democrats, Senator Lamar Alexander announced Thursday night he will be voting against new witnesses, giving the Republicans a probable victory with a 50-50 tie.

Chief Justice Roberts is not expected to cast a tie-breaker vote, according to Republicans.

Once the witnesses are blocked, Republicans will move to acquit President Trump.

Schumer knows it’s over and he looked defeated and angry Friday morning.

Schumer wants to drag out the impeachment circus as long as possible so he wants every Senator to explain to the American public why they voted the way they did.

“I believe that the American people should hear what every Senator thinks and why they’re voting the way they’re voting. And we will do what we can to make sure that happens.”

It’s over, Cryin Chuck. Move on.

 

Perfect Timing: Anonymous Sources Claim Bolton Book Manuscript Accuses Trump of Tying Ukraine Aid to Biden Investigations

Several anonymous sources have reportedly told The New York Times that a book manuscript by Ambassador John Bolton, the former National Security Advisor to President Trump, accuses Trump of tying the hold up of aid to Ukraine last year with his desire for investigations into the Bidens and interference by Ukraine in the 2016 election, something Trump has vehemently denied but has been impeached by the House and is on trial for in the Senate.

The Times reported on descriptions of the manuscript Sunday evening, as the President’s defense team prepares for day on two Monday of their rebuttal to the Democrat House Managers’ case against Trump. Bolton was blocked by Trump from testifying in the House impeachment inquiry on national security grounds of executive privilege, however Bolton has said he would testify in the Senate trial if he was issued a subpoena. Motions to allow witness testimony in the trail have been tabled until after the first stages of the trial are complete: Prosecution, defense and then questions from senators. The report by the Times is timed to influence the votes of Republicans to allow witnesses as the Democrats are all on record as being in favor.

The Times does not claim to have seen the manuscript, but is basing its report on anonymous sources who claim to have given The Times descriptions. There are no quotes from the manuscript.

Excerpt:

President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.

Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.

The book presents an outline of what Mr. Bolton might testify to if he is called as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, the people said. The White House could use the pre-publication review process, which has no set time frame, to delay or even kill the book’s publication or omit key passages.

…Key to Mr. Bolton’s account about Ukraine is an exchange during a meeting in August with the president after Mr. Trump returned from vacation at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J. Mr. Bolton raised the $391 million in congressionally appropriated assistance to Ukraine for its war in the country’s east against Russian-backed separatists. Officials had frozen the aid, and a deadline was looming to begin sending it to Kyiv, Mr. Bolton noted.

He, Mr. Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper had collectively pressed the president about releasing the aid nearly a dozen times in the preceding weeks after lower-level officials who worked on Ukraine issues began complaining about the holdup, Mr. Bolton wrote. Mr. Trump had effectively rebuffed them, airing his longstanding grievances about Ukraine, which mixed legitimate efforts by some Ukrainians to back his Democratic 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, with unsupported accusations and outright conspiracy theories about the country, a key American ally.

…In his August 2019 discussion with Mr. Bolton, the president appeared focused on the theories Mr. Giuliani had shared with him, replying to Mr. Bolton’s question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine…

End excerpt. The entire Times article can be read at this link at MSN.com. It includes Bolton going after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr.

Democrats have responded to the report with renewed calls for Bolton’s testimony.

The Democrat House Managers issued a statement:

CAP

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), “John Bolton has the evidence. It’s up to four Senate Republicans to ensure that John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, and the others with direct knowledge of President Trump’s actions testify in the Senate trial.”

CAP

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), “For months there just hasn’t been any question what happened. But Republicans hung on to the idea that if they kept Trump’s top people from testifying, they could plausibly deny he was behind it all.
The game is now up. Their coverup has fallen apart. BOLTON MUST TESTIFY.”

CAP

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), “Last month, I wrote in @nytimes that we need to hear from John Bolton—who shopped his testimony to book publishers instead of speaking with Congress—because he clearly has a lot to say. It’s undeniable now: Bolton must testify in Trump’s trial.”

CAP

UPDATE: Statement from Bolton aide Sarah Tinsley reported by many in the media, “Several weeks ago, the ambassador sent a hard copy of his draft manuscript to the White House for prepublication review by the National Security Council. The ambassador has not passed that manuscript to anyone else for review. Period.”

CAP

More from Tinsley, “Bolton spokeswoman says he did not leak his own manuscript to the NY Times — and had only submitted it for pre-review to the National Security Council.”

CAP

And, “The ambassador transmitted a hard-copy draft of his manuscript to the White House for pre-publication review by the National Security Council. The ambassador has not passed the manuscript to anyone else, only the NSC.”

Video: Nadler Goes Nuts, Accuses GOP Senators of ‘Treacherous Votes’, ‘Cover-Up’ and ‘Voting Against the US’ for Rejecting Schumer Subpoenas for Trump Impeachment Trial

 

House Manager Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) went off on the Senate in a late night harangue, accusing Republican senators of casting “treacherous votes”, participating in a “cover-up” and voting “against the United States” for rejecting by tabling every proposal by Democrats for witnesses and new evidence at the outset of the impeachment trial of President Trump. Nadler was arguing in support of a proposal by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to subpoena former Trump National Security Advisor Amb. John Bolton to testify at the impeachment trial.

Nadler was nasty and insulting to the Senators:

“The President is on trial in the Senate. But the Senate is on trial in the eyes of the American people. Will you vote to allow all of the relevant evidence to be presented here? Or will you betray your oath to be an impartial juror? Will you bring Ambassador Bolton here? Will you permit us to present you with the entire record of the President’s misconduct? Or will you instead choose to be complicit in the President’s cover-up? So far, I’m sad to say, I see a lot of senators voting for a cover-up, voting to deny witnesses. An absolutely indefensible vote. Obviously, a treacherous vote. A vote against an honest consideration of the evidence against the President. A vote against an honest trial. A vote against the United States. A real trial we know has witnesses. We urge you to do your duty, permit a fair trial. All the witnesses must be permitted. That’s elementary in American justice. Either you want the truth or you, and you must permit the witnesses or you want a shameful cover-up. History will judge and so will the electorate.”

Nadler was attacking Republicans, like Romney, Collins, Gardner and Murkowski whose votes he and the Democrats will need later when votes are held after opening arguments next week for witnesses and evidence.

 

FAKE NEWS MEDIA – Rand Paul DEMANDS for the Fake News Media to Publish Identity of Deep State ‘Whistleblower’

Paul appeared with President Trump at a rally in Kentucky on Monday night.

By Shane Trejo – 11/5/2019

President Donald Trump appeared in Kentucky on Monday night to promote the re-election campaign of Gov. Matt Bevin, the staunchly conservative Republican who faces tough Democratic opposition in Tuesday’s off-year election.

During the rally, President Trump briefly handed the podium to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who has emerged as Trump’s top ally on foreign affairs in Washington D.C. Paul talked about the latest witch hunt against the President and the new drive toward impeachment based upon his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Paul made adamant his belief that the whistleblower’s identity must be known, and challenged the fake news to actually do their jobs and expose his identity as well as his extensive ties to Democratic Party officials to the public.

“We also now know the name of the whistleblower. The whistleblower needs to come forward as a material witness because he worked for Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was getting money from corrupt oligarchs,” Paul said at the Kentucky rally on Monday night.

“I say tonight to the media, do your job and print his name,” Paul said to the crowd as they erupted with cheers.

An attorney for the whistleblower claims that Paul is “betray[ing] the interests of the Constitution and the American people” for demanding accountability.

“A member of Congress who calls for the identity of any lawful whistleblower to be publicly revealed against their wishes disgraces the office they hold and betrays the interests of the Constitution and the American people,” attorney Mark Zaid told The Hill.

However, it has been revealed that the whistleblower is being given legal representation by lawyers with deep connections to Democratic Party leaders.

Zaid’s partner, Andrew Bakaj, worked for Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton before he began representing the whistleblower:

Former CIA official Andrew Bakaj, who once worked at Hillary Clinton’s office while she was a Senator, is representing the whistle-blower who filed a complaint against President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky…

Bakaj was influential in crafting regulations regarding whistle-blowers while serving in the administration of former President Barack Obama

He started his career working under influential former Democratic lawmakers. Bakaj served as an intern for the late former Sen. Daniel Moynihan (D-NY), then as an intern under Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and then he worked under Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

Curiously, Bakaj also interned at the US Embassy in the Ukraine, showing that he has ties to the country that is under the microscope right now for President Trump’s reported communication with their leader about Joe Biden’s dealings.

Considering the whistleblower had prior contact with the office of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) before filing his complaint and reportedly worked to dig up dirt on President Trump while working for the Obama administration, Paul’s calls for transparency are more than justified. The whistleblower’s name must be revealed, and he must testify under oath, or the rule of law is dead.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑