Advertisements
Open post

WATCH: Ted Cruz Sums up the House Impeachment Scam

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

If you don’t think there was very good reason to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden’s influence game vis a vis Ukraine, then you, friend, are a liberal hack. – That’s the one and only conclusion any reasonable person can reach after Pam Bondi’s tour de force on the Senate floor Monday, where she literally evicerated the father/son gang of thugs.

Bondi, a former Attorney General of Florida who is a key part of the Trump defense team, not only exposed the Bidens’ racketeering in Ukraine, but also in China and Iraq, two other countries where Quid Pro Joe served as Obama’s “point man” on foreign policy. During the course of her expose’, Bondi not only exposed the Bidens, she also exposed the House Managers as dishonest hacks, and exposed the news media for the manner in which it actually made token efforts to expose the Biden corruption, but then turned on a dime to defend Quid Pro Joe once he declared himself a candidate for the presidency.

This exposure naturally threw the Capital press corps into a rage, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz became a target of their ire when he held a brief presser after Bondi had finished. Watch as Cruz exposes the Democrat/media hacks for what they are in this clip, which is followed by a transcript.

Here’s the Clip:

 

Here’s the transcript for those of you who still like to read stuff:

Cruz: This was the first time in the entire proceeding we have heard just the beginning of the serious evidence of corruption involving Burisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company that paid Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, a million dollars a year…[reporter interrupts]… let me finish, I’ll answer the question…[another interruption] … let me answer the question without interrupting me please.

Burisma paid Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, a million dollars a year while Hunter [Joe]  Biden threatened Ukraine to withhold a billion dollars in aid unless and until they filed the prosecutor investigating his son.

Reporter: When did Hunter Biden threaten anyone, sir?

Cruz: Joe Biden. Joe Biden, the Vice President of the United States, and we just saw a video, and I would encourage each and every news outlet here to actually show the video of Joe Biden bragging how he told the President of the Ukraine he was gonna cut off a billion dollars…he was gonna block a billion dollars in foreign aid to Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor.

And Joe Biden, in his own words, ‘son of a bitch, the fired the guy.’

Reporter: So, why not have Bolton testify? [lots of belligerent crosstalk here from reporters]

Cruz: So, I get that the press loves to obsess over the latest bombshell. Listen, I don’t know what John Bolton’s book says or doesn’t say. I’ve seen the New York Times coverage, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t impact the legal issue before this senate.

The legal issue before this senate is whether the President has the authority to investigate corruption. The House Managers built their entire case [reporter tries to interrupt] on the proposition that investigating Burisma corruption, investigating the Bidens for corruption, was baseless and a sham. [more reporter interruptions]

Hold on, let me finish this…[more interruptions – note how desperate the media hacks are to prevent him from getting this point made] no, I’m gonna finish my point and then I’ll be happy to answer your question. The House Managers based their entire case on the proposition that investigating Burisma – and concerning the Bidens – was baseless and a sham.

That proposition is absurd. We’ve just seen…they said there wasn’t a shred of evidence concerning corruption. We’ve just seen two hours of evidence. And at a minimum, it was not only reasonable and justified, but the President, I think, had an obligation to investigate corrupt that potentially extended to the very highest levels of government.

Reporter: Senator, in that two hours, none of the President’s attorneys mentioned a single possible crime that Hunter or Joe Biden are accused of. [Cruz laughs out loud at this] What this basically is, is Hunter Biden got a job, and his father was Vice President. If that’s a crime, shouldn’t half of your children be in jail?

Cruz: [Laughing in the idiot’s face] My children are 9 and 11, and I’m sorry that you want to throw a 9 year-old in prison, but at this point, my third-grader plays basketball and softball at her school, so stop playing the nasty [reporter interrupts] no, stop playing the nasty Washington game [reporter interrupts again] attacking a 9 year-old? [lost of crosstalk here]

Reporter: Senator, we have seen reports of a possible one for one trade on witnesses. Would you be open to that idea?

Cruz: In my view, additional witnesses are not necessary. The House Managers have presented their case, and they haven’t come remotely close to meeting their burden of proof. Now, that being said, if the senate later this week when we vote on witnesses decides to go down the road to additional witnesses, I think at a minimum, the most important witness for the senate to hear from is now Hunter Biden. [reporter interrupts] Let another reporter have a chance [talking to the previous idiot]

Reporter: Why don’t you want to hear from John Bolton under oath?

Cruz: I don’t believe the testimony is necessary. The House Managers have a burden of proof. A burden of proof to prove their case. They have fallen woefully short. The standard under the constitution is high crimes and misdemeanors. They have not demonstrated any law was violated, and the President was entirely justified in asking for an investigation concerning corruption in the Ukraine and potentially Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.

At the end of the day, there might have been [lots of crosstalk here before the next idiot reporter asks the idiot reporter question of all time]

Reporter: What about the shadow over the presidency? If you don’t have witness testimony in this trial…

Cruz: [laughing out loud at the idiot hack again] Look, the “shadow over the presidency” is the last several months of sham proceedings in the House, where they only heard from prosecution witnesses, and they ignored the very substantial evidence of corruption with the Vice President, going potentially to the very top of the [Obama] Administration.

And let me – by the way, the Obama Administration pointed out the conflict of interest over and over and over again, and so did the press, until the press decided to defend the House Democrats’ partisan impeachment attack. This has been a sham from the beginning. Presidents have the authority to investigate corruption, and it was overwhelming.

[End]

Thank you, Senator Cruz, for summing it all up so succinctly and clearly. No wonder the media hates you so damn much.

That is all.

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Advertisements
Open post

Ted Cruz Sends Some Shots Across Multiple Bows in Fox News Interview

Today’s Campaign Update, Part II
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

Texas Senator Ted Cruz appeared in a pre-recorded interview with Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures yesterday. In his segment, the Senator lays out how he expects the Senate impeachment trial will proceed, including his clear expectation that the trial will begin “in early January.” So, Sen. Cruz either expects that San Fran Nan Pelosi will relent in her idiotic tactic of withholding the Houses’s imbecilic articles of impeachment, or that Mitch McConnell will simply deem the articles to have been transmitted to the Senate and proceed without her. Oh, how I do hope it will be the latter scenario.

Regardless, a clip of the interview appears below, followed by a verbatim transcript of the Senators remarks:

 

For those who still prefer to read stuff, here is a Transcript:

Bartiromo: Senator, it is always a pleasure to see you.

Sen. Cruz: Good to be with you, Maria, thank you.

Bartiromo: So, Nancy Pelosi said, after the impeachment, that maybe she will sit on the articles of impeachment before sending it over to you and your colleagues in the Senate. Can she do that?

Sen. Cruz: [Laughing] You know, you can’t make this up. Listen, I think this is a sign of weakness. This is a sign she understands just how weak these articles are. These articles of impeachment that they actually voted on were really an admission of failure.

The House Democrats haven’t even alleged any ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ much less proven any. And so now, Pelosi is in a situation where she knows that when it goes to the Senate there’s going to be a fair trial, we’re going to give both sides the opportunity to present their case, we’re going to protect due process. But she also knows that the result of a fair trial is that these impeachment claims are going to be thrown out, because they haven’t met the constitutional standard.

Bartiromo: Would you want to see witnesses in a Senate trial?

Sen. Cruz: I would, but let me tell you how I think it’s likely to play out. The trial will start in early January. It will start with the Chief Justice of the United States swearing in all 100 senators.

It will then shift to the House managers presenting their case – that’ll probably take several days. They’ll stand up, they’ll present evidence, they’ll make arguments.

Then it will shift to the White House, to the defense team for the President making their case. The President’s going to have a full and fair opportunity to defend himself.

It then will shift to questions. Now, here’s where it’s a little weird. I think some people, having seen what happened in the House, they’re expecting in the Senate to see a bunch of Senators asking questions. Well, the Senate impeachment rules prohibit any Senator from speaking in open session, in other words, when the TV cameras are on.

You’re not gonna see Elizabeth Warren and me going 15 rounds on the Senate floor because that’s not allowed. We’re both gonna be sitting quietly at our desks. Now, we can submit questions, but the questions have to be in writing. We can write out the questions, we hand them down, and the Chief Justice asks the questions from the senators.

I think at that point, we are likely to recess and have a discussion. I think one of two things will happen:

One, it is possible that a majority of the Senate will be prepared [to say], let’s move forward, let’s vote, they haven’t met their threshold, they haven’t come close, let’s reject these claims. I think that’s an outcome that could happen.

Secondly, there could well be a procedural fight. Do we need more evidence? Do we need more witnesses? In which case, that question is decided by 51 senators.  Every legal question, the Chief Justice can rule in the first instance, but the Chief Justice can be overruled by 51 senators.

I think John Roberts is very likely to follow the Rhenquist precedent and just defer the procedural questions to the Senate, which means if 51 Republicans agree, we can resolve any legal issue. And to me, that means if the President wants to call Hunter Biden, if the President wants to call the Whistleblower, due process mandates that we allow the President to defend himself, to make his case.

And so, I think we should do so. But, that’s a decision in the first place for the White House and his legal team.

Bartiromo: Based on what you know today, do you expect any Republicans to vote to impeach [remove] in the Senate?

Sen. Cruz: You know, I don’t. It is certainly possible, and there are a couple that could vote that way. But I think anyone voting on the facts, anyone voting on the law, this is a very easy vote.

What they have alleged is not a ‘high crime or misdemeanor.’ There are two articles:

The first article is just this amorphous ‘abuse of power’, which, by the way, is ‘mal-administration.’ It’s literally the term that was rejected in the Constitutional Convention. That’s what they’re alleging. That plainly does not meet the Constitutional threshold.

The second article, though, is orders of magnitude weaker. The second article is ‘obstruction of congress,’ and interestingly enough, people are used to obstruction of justice…

Bartiromo: …Yeah, I’ve never heard of that, of ‘obstruction of congress,’ but I’ve heard of obstruction of power, or obstruction of justice…”

Sen. Cruz: Well, and obstruction of justice is a real crime, it’s a felony, it’s a serious felony…

Bartiromo: …But they have named it ‘obstruction of congress…’

Sen. Cruz:Because they couldn’t prove obstruction of justice. By the way, Bill Clinton was impeached on obstruction of justice; Richard Nixon was going to be impeached on obstruction of justice. But they couldn’t prove obstruction of justice.

The basis for their so-called ‘obstruction of congress’ claim is that the President and aides in the executive asserted privileges. That’s it.

For example, when they wanted John Bolton to testify – John Bolton, National Security Advisor to the President – his lawyer went to a federal district court and said, the House has asked me to testify, the White House is asserting executive privilege: Your honor, what do I do? Judge, I’ve got two conflicting demands here: I will do what you tell me to do.

You know what the House Democrats did? They said, ‘nevermind.’ They just backed away. They didn’t subpoena Bolton, they didn’t litigate it.

Remember, the Nixon case was litigated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court, at the end of the day, ordered the Nixon White House to hand over the White House tapes, and I think two days later, Nixon resigned. That’s how you actually fight these matters.

The House Democrats didn’t do that. Instead, their assertion is that simply claiming the privilege is an impeachable offense. If that were true, all 45 presidents going back to George Washington, every one of them would have committed impeachable offenses. That’s just laughable.

Bartiromo: This is a new precedent – it sure is.

[End]

Now, the thing to remember about Ted Cruz is that he is truly a Constitutional scholar. As a former Solicitor General of Texas, Senator Cruz argued nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He understands the Constitution and he understands better than most current Senators the rules and laws surrounding impeachment and removal of a President.

Cruz and the other 52 GOP senators have also spent much of the past two weeks in meetings and calls with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in an apparently successful effort to reach consensus on how to conduct the Senate trial. So, when Cruz states flatly that he expects the trial to begin “in early January,” that statement carries a lot of weight, and might indeed mean that Leader McConnell plans to convene the trial regardless of Pelosi’s cynical tactics.

I personally think that Cruz’s reminder that any procedural decision initially made by our very unreliable Chief Justice can be overruled by 51 Republican votes is meant as a shot across Justice Roberts’ bow. It is likely an indication that Cruz is confident that there are at least 51 GOP senators who are tired of this crap dragging on for weeks on end, and who are intent upon bringing it to as fast a conclusion as possible.  If that is the case, then Justice Roberts might want to avoid embarrassing himself by being overruled by 51 senators, and just play the case straight.

This interview, and the messages Senator Cruz – who remember, was Donald Trump’s chief competitor for the 2016 GOP nomination and who still harbors presidential ambitions of his own – sends within it, are a very important marker in the impeachment debate. This was not just a courtesy interview by the Senator, and that’s good news for America.

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

 

 

Open post

Did Nikki Haley Just Reveal the Leaders of the 25th Amendment Push?

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

Tired of all this #WINNING yet? Yeah, neither am I. – For what seems like the 16,000th time during President Donald Trump’s term in office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at yet another record high on Monday, as the Trump economy just keeps roaring along. Democrats and fake journalists everywhere were doubling up on their depression meds as the markets closed.

When Nikki Haley speaks, people listen. – When people start surveying the GOP landscape post-Trump, whether that comes in January after being removed from the the presidency by the Senate (which is not likely to happen), in January 2021 after a loss in the 2020 election (also not in the cards) or in January 2025 following the completion of his second term in office (bingo!), the survey inevitably lands to the name of Nikki Haley as one of his most likely successors.

Other names also arise, of course: Names like Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo and Ted Cruz, and the less obvious names like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan and even Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw. Lindsey Graham, with his thrice-weekly appearances on one Fox News evening program or another, is obviously angling for another run at the gig, as are Rand Paul and even Kanye West. But inevitably, the name of Nikki Haley always comes up.

She is, after all, a former successful governor of South Carolina, and a person who, after not really being on board with the Trump Train during the 2016 campaign, created a very high profile for herself as Trump’s very loyal, very aggressive and very outspoken UN Ambassador. Although her record as Governor was decidedly mixed from a conservative perspective, perhaps more than any of Trump’s cabinet-level officials, Haley has stood out as the most aggressive advocate for his international policies.

Thus it is that anything she has to say about the goings-on inside White House during her two-year tenure is given a lot of weight by most Trump supporters. In a Sunday interview with Kelly O’Donnell of CBS, Haley basically accused both then-Chief of Staff John Kelly and then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson of rank insubordination, even though she said they claimed that was not their intent.

Here’s the key outtake:

Haley recounts a closed-door encounter with then-White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson: “Kelly and Tillerson confided in me that when they resisted the president, they weren’t being insubordinate, they were trying to save the country … Tillerson went on to tell me the reason he resisted the president’s decisions was because, if he didn’t, people would die. This was how high the stakes were, he and Kelly told me. We are doing the best we can do to save the country, they said. We need you to work with us and help us do it. This went on for over an hour.”

O’Donnell asked, “You memorialized that conversation? It definitely happened?”

“It absolutely happened,” said Haley. “And instead of saying that to me, they should’ve been saying that to the president, not asking me to join them on their sidebar plan. It should’ve been, ‘Go tell the president what your differences are, and quit if you don’t like what he’s doing.’ But to undermine a president is really a very dangerous thing. And it goes against the Constitution, and it goes against what the American people want. And it was offensive.”

[We asked them to respond. John Kelly tells “Sunday Morning”: “If by resistance and stalling she means putting a staff process in place … to ensure the (president) knew all the pros and cons of what policy decision he might be contemplating so he could make an informed decision, then guilty as charged.”]

Undermining a president from the inside is indeed a very dangerous thing, as Haley notes, and her accusation against Kelly and Tillerson rings true given everything else we know about the two men and their behavior while serving in those positions. Tillerson repeatedly made his personal disdain for the President and his lack of support for Trump policies related to North Korea, China and other parts of the world very clear while serving as SOS, which is the main reason why his tenure in the office was so short. Kelly’s first move after moving into his Chief of Staff role was not to go after the myriad leakers inside the White House, but rather to cut the President off from his most loyal supporters and start to systematically force them out of their jobs.

Rumors have run rampant for more than two years now that both men were willing participants in the mid-2017 plot to dummy up a rationale for removing Trump from office under the 25th Amendment, a plot we know beyond any reasonable doubt that Rod Rosenstein was a part of. If you believe in the whole “where there’s smoke there’s fire” paradigm, it seems extremely likely that those persistent rumors must have some basis in reality.

If Haley’s contention about the approach by Tillerson and Kelly is accurate – and there is little reason to believe that it is not – then it would be consistent with a move that would be made as a part of a larger 25th amendment effort targeting the President. Haley’s contention here, and cryptic use of the term “sidebar plan,” is troubling in the extreme, and Tillerson’s refusal to even respond to it does not reflect well on him. Kelly’s response, which does not in any way address the accusation, may be even worse.

As mentioned earlier, Haley’s interview – promoting her new book – is also a not-so-subtle attempt to keep herself in the public eye, ready to quickly move in the unlikely event of Trump’s actual removal by the Senate. The following passage reveals that part of her personal agenda:

Haley insists she has no immediate plans to run for any office, including the presidency, and as she departed the Trump administration last year she said, “I can promise you what I’ll be doing is campaigning for this one.”

She told O’Donnell, “A year is a long time in politics. It really is a lifetime in politics. And so, I think what’s best for me is take it a year at a time and see what happens.”

With her new book, lucrative speaking engagements, and a seat on the corporate board of Boeing, Nikki Haley acknowledges there are still chapters to be written:  “I’m too young to stop fighting. I’ll always be out there. I’ll always use the power of my voice for what I believe is good.”

So, whether the jumping off point becomes early 2020, early 2021 or the 2024 election campaign, you can be sure that Nikki Haley will be vying to become the face of the GOP in the wake of the Trump presidency. Lining herself up as this President’s most loyal and vocal supporter helps her cause immensely.

That is all.

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Why Stacey Abrams and Beto O’Rourke Won’t Go Home and Run for the Senate

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

So, why aren’t the Democrat Party’s favorite “rising star” loooooosers running for the senate in 2020?– That is a question that is on a lot of people’s minds today, especially in Georgia and Texas.

In case you missed it yesterday, Georgia Republican Senator Johnny Isakson announced he would resign his seat at the end of this year, meaning that Governor Brian Kemp will be able to appoint his successor. However, although Isakson would not have been up for re-election until 2022, Georgia law requires the holding of a special election in November, 2020 to determine who will get to serve the final two years of his term. That means that both Georgia senate seats will be on the ballot in 2020, as Republican incumbent David Perdue is also up for re-election.

All of which makes many Georgia Democrats long for the second coming of their beloved loooooooser, Stacey Abrams. Abrams, if you’ll remember, lost her run for governor to Kemp last November by 56,000 votes, but has been running around the country ever since then claiming to be the rightful governor of Georgia. That utterly false claim has been echoed by pretty much every prominent Democrat in the country, everyone of whom fully knows they’re lying.

But hey, they’re Democrats. That’s what they do.

Abrams has been roundly characterized by our fake news media as one of the Democrats’ most promising “rising stars.” She was given the role of responding to President Trump’s State of the Union Address, a role in which she proved to be a rank mediocrity. She has been rumored to be a shoe-in to be Joe Biden’s running mate in 2020, assuming the nation’s Unfrozen Caveman Senator still knows who he is a year from now.

So, you’ll have to excuse Georgia Democrats today if they’re all sitting around wondering, “Where’s our Stacey?” They’ve got not one, but two open senate seats now, and Stacey’s nowhere to be found. Indeed, within moments of Isakson’s announcement on Wednesday, an Abrams spokesperson made it very clear that “Leader Abrams” would not be running for his seat, just as she will not be running for Perdue’s seat.

The spokesperson gave us no idea as to what Abrams is actually the “Leader” of, other than her nascent effort to create even more vote fraud opportunities for Democrats in Georgia and all over the country. The spokesperson also did not elaborate on the reasons why Abrams refuses to run.

But the answer is clear: Abrams and her fellow Democrats cleared out every cemetery and drove every illegal alien in Georgia to the polls in 2018, and she still got clobbered by Kemp. If she thought she could win one of these senate seats, she would run. But she has no confidence that she could win either seat, or indeed any statewide election in Georgia.

Abrams also knows one of the most rigid laws of politics: a person can lose one statewide election in any given state and live to fight another day; indeed, you can even be your party’s fantasy hero. But lose two statewide elections in a span of two years, and your career as a viable political figure is well and truly done.

She’s a Democrat, so she’d much rather be the “Leader” of the next iteration of the famous voter-fraud factory ACORN for the next few years and see how things shape up in 2024, 2026 and beyond. It’s the only smart play she has.

We see the exact same dynamic at work with Irish Bob O’Rourke in Texas. O’Rourke’s pathetic presidential campaign has been dead in the water for four solid months now despite his continuing very strong fundraising efforts, yet he still plugs along, embarrassing himself on the national stage 3 or 4 times each week.

Meanwhile, incumbent Republican Senator John Cornyn is up for re-election in 2020, and he has yet to draw anything resembling a credible opponent from the Texas Democrat Party. Of course, that’s mainly because Irish Bob is the only thing resembling a credible opponent the Texas Democrat Party actually has on its roster.

But how credible would he be this time around? It’s obviously a question the clownish ex-congressman runs around in his own mind these days. We have to remember that, while he managed to come within 3% of beating Ted Cruz in 2018, Sen. Cruz is far less popular and far more controversial in Texas than Cornyn is. Running against Cornyn would be much more like challenging Gov. Greg Abbott, who easily won his own re-election campaign in 2018 by a comfortable 12 points.

And what about money? Would Irish Bob be able to raise another $80 million from all of his California supporters for a run against Cornyn? You can bet Cornyn won’t get caught flat-footed on that money situation like Cruz did last year, when O’Rourke was able to out-spend him by a 3 to 1 margin.

So again, Irish Bob was able to remain viable after losing one statewide election, so viable that, as late as January, it was reasonable to consider him among the favorites to win the Democrat nomination. But go back and lose a second statewide election, and Irish Bob would have a very hard time even going back to El Paso and trying to win back his old congressional seat.

So that’s why you folks in Georgia and Texas won’t be seeing the Democrat Party’s favorite looooooooooooser “rising stars” on the 2020 ballot. Far better to to be a fantasy “star” and live to fight another day than to be a two-time statewide loooooooooser with nowhere to go but down.

That is all.

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

The Curious Potential Bombshell Case of Patrick Byrne

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

I honestly don’t know what to make of this, so I’m just going to let you watch and judge for yourselves. – Overstock founder Patrick Byrne resigned his CEO position at the company on Thursday, and shortly thereafter appeared on Fox Business’s Varney & Co. program. What he had to say about his alleged involvement in several FBI domestic espionage efforts against various political campaigns would, if true, amount to grounds for scattering the raging dumpster fire agency to the winds.

Here’s the clip of the interview:

The interview is too long to do a complete transcript, but here are the highlights:

Byrne claims the following:

  • “Because 17 years ago, I helped them crack a murder…they knew me, and they called me in 2015, 2016 to assist in something. I didn’t know who the orders came from, but I assisted.
  • “I took some orders that seemed a little fishy, didn’t know who the orders came from, but last summer while watching television, I figured out …that the name of the man who sent me the orders was a guy named Peter Strzok.”
  • Question: Are you working with the Attorney General? “Let me be clear: I’m not working with anybody.  The last time I talked to a federal office was five months ago. I explained everything to them between April 5 and April 30, and then I disappeared.”
  • “Bill Barr – there’s gonna be a sculpture of granite of this guy somewhere – I couldn’t come forward for three years until there was rule of law in this country. I wasn’t gonna come forward when this guy Jeff Sessions…Truman said of an opponent I can carve a better man out of a banana, that’s how Americans should feel about Jeff Sessions.”
  • ” Now, we have rule of law and I came forward to them in April. There are other whistle blowers within the federal bureaucracy with similar stories.
  • The bottom line is there’s a big coverup, there was political espionage conducted against Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.”
  • ” I was in the room when it happened. I was a part of it. I thought I was doing law enforcement. Sorry.”

That’s all in the first 4:30 of the clip. Byrne does not get more specific about exactly what activities he undertook for Strzok and the FBI, but goes onto say that he has told the whole story to Barr and that his information has been rolled into U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the whole Spygate scandal. Byrne says he resigned because he expects to soon become very publicly embroiled in the scandal as the Horowitz Report on FISA abuse is rolled out and the results of Durham’s investigation begin to bear fruit.

Byrne in fact claims that Barr’s decision to appoint Durham on May 13 was in part motivated by the story he delivered to Barr on April 30. Byrne also claims that he decided to resign now after consulting with his “guru” Warren Buffet, who advised him to do it now because if he didn’t, the Deep State would use his company to “grind me down.”

Byrne appeared again on Fox News later with Martha Macallum, but did not reveal any more details.

Another very interesting facet of Byrne’s statements is his contention that another reason why he was approached by the FBI was the fact that he was carrying on an affair with Russian lawyer Maria Butina, who has popped up in several places during the whole “Russia Collusion” fantasy play.

Readers may remember that Butina was arrested by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s thugs on charges that she was a Russian agent. After reaching a plea deal amid claims she had become a “cooperating witness” with the Mueller team, she had curiously been held in maximum security isolation until May 9, when she was suddenly moved to a white collar facility. Byrne claims that that move was also made due to his testimony to Barr.

No further charges against anyone have come from Butina’s supposed cooperation with Mueller’s thugs. Byrne’s story, combined with this curiously harsh treatment of a “cooperating” witness makes one wonder if Mueller’s people had isolated Butina in order to prevent her from making any public statements.

The clear outlier in all of this, however, is Byrne’s contention that the FBI wasn’t just spying on Trump and other Republican candidates, but on the Hillary Clinton campaign as well. While such a massive domestic spying operation within Obama’s corrupted FBI and Justice Department is certainly not difficult to imagine, given everything else we now know, the motivation they might have had for spying on the Pantsuit Princess is a mystery until we have more data.

If Byrne is to be believed, we will begin getting that additional data from Horowitz, Durham and Barr after Labor Day.

After so many previous false promises of such damaging new data, all I can say is that I will believe it when I see it.

That is all.

 

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time. 

Open post

Project Veritas Exposes How Google Gives Billions of in-Kind Value to the Democrat Party

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

The folks at Project Veritas have done God’s work one more time. – This time they have gotten the smoking gun on Google’s Orwellian efforts to not only control Americans’ political opinions, but to actually control their entire thought processes to favor the Democrat Party and its candidates. Here is the video in its entirety:

The video features two people: The first is Jen Gennai, head of Google’s “Responsible Innovation” team – an Orwellian name in and of itself, given what they actually do – bragging about how her team and indeed, the entire company are working to fix their search results in a way that will help “avoid another Trump situation” happening in the 2020 elections. The second is an anonymous whistle blower who who further describes the kinds of things Google has been doing in order to influence public opinion in the Democrat Party’s favor.

Here are some key quotes from Gennai [all emphasis is added]:

“The reason we launched our A.I. principles is because people were not putting that line in the sand, that they were not saying what’s fair and what’s equitable so we’re like, well we are a big company, we’re going to say it. The people who voted for the current president do not agree with our definition of fairness.”

“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.”

“We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was — the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over — so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again. We’re also training our algorithms, like, if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?”

Gennai, of course, responded exactly as all those who get caught red-handed by Project Veritas always do: by claiming Veritas “selectively edited” and “distorted” her comments, and took them “out of context.” In other words, she lied, which is what these people invariably do.

In a hearing yesterday afternoon on Capitol Hill, Texas Senator Ted Cruz grilled another executive from Google, a woman who did her best imitation of Sgt. Schulz from Hogan’s Heroes, claiming to “know nothing! nothing!” about literally everything Cruz asked her about, including the Veritas video and damaging internal Google documents that have recently been made public as well. Here’s that clip:

Now, I have previously discussed the likelihood that the Trump Administration and congress would be going after Google and other social media giants under the nation’s laws governing anti-trust and restraint of trade – yesterday’s senate hearing is a part of advancing that effort. These companies – all of them, not just Google – have long obviously been rigging their various algorithms to favor the political left in general and the Democrat Party specifically, because it is the political left in our country, and getting lefter all the time.

These companies have also long been discriminating against anyone who expresses conservative viewpoints on their platforms, outright banning many, and “shadow-banning” others so that only a small portion of their followers can actually see their content. The latter has been done repeatedly to me on both Twitter and Facebook.

This practice and bias, both of which are rampant across all big social media platforms and growing more ubiquitous over time, are clear violations of the law, violations that should threaten these companies’ very licenses to remain in business. Senator Cruz points directly to this in his first comment on the video above:

“As you know, Google enjoys a special exemption under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The predicate for that immunity was that Google and other big tech media companies would be neutral public forums.”

The other aspect of what these companies are all doing is one that should come under review by the Federal Elections Commission and ultimately the courts. That is the obvious, blatant fact that their practice of discriminating against conservative political thought and intentionally attempting to brainwash their users to support Democrat political candidates without any real question at all amounts to a massive in-kind political contribution, one that should have to be reported under and governed by the federal campaign contribution laws.

Google’s now-documented practices alone have already been worth literally billions of dollars to the Democrat Party, with billions more in-kind value coming in from Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, Youtube, et al. This is one of the largest abuses of the process in American history, and it simply must be addressed.

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Texas Dems Clamor for Their Precious Beto to Run Back Home

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

There’s a senate race in Texas, and the Democrats have no viable candidates. – Texas Dems floated Wendy Davis’s name as a potential challenger to incumbent Senator John Cornyn back in March, and boy did that one come up a crapper. No one, it seems, not even the ghouls at the Texas chapter of Planned Parenthood, want to return to the days of “Abortion Barbie.”

But what are the Democrats to do? Who are they going to field as an alternative to Davis who might scratch the 40% mark against Cornyn? San Antonio Congressman Joaquin Castro – the twin brother of presidential hopeful Julian Castro – was approached, but he knows a losing proposition when he sees one. The Dems could try to run the former Dallas Sheriff who ran for governor last year, but hey, everyone’s already forgotten her name, me included. So that’s not a likely winner. You might think that Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner would make a strong challenger to Cornyn, but right now it’s looking like he’s going to have a tough time just getting re-elected to his current job this coming November.

So, what are the Texas Democrats to do? They have to run somebody in the race, don’t they? Well, sure they do, and that’s why their eyes have more recently turned back to their heartthrob from El Paso, Irish Bob O’Rourke.

Hey, they’re thinking, you’re sitting there at about 3% in the Democratic presidential horse race right now, your campaign has become a national joke even among many Democrats, the fawning fake reporters who all wanted to be your girl- or boyfriend last fall are now all making goo-goo eyes at the mayor of a mid-size town in Indiana, and your chances of making a comeback on that national stage are roughly the same chance Benny Hill has of becoming the next James Bond. So, here’s an idea – why not come back to Texas and redeem yourself for that loss to Ted Cruz last fall?

Sounds like a peachy idea, right? Sure, it does. Let our precious Beto return triumphantly to Texas and…er…ok, well, he’s sort of have to just skulk on back to Texas with his tail between his legs, but still. Texas is where his home is, where his heart is, kind of, if you ignore the fact that he has taken positions that would destroy the state’s economy by killing the oil and gas industry, take away all of our guns, and open the southern border even more than it already is to the human-and-drug-smuggling that is causing so much misery here.

With friends like Beto, Texans need no enemies.

But, boy, do Texas Democrats want him back, regardless. When Quinnipiac polled them in early June on the subject, fully 60% of them said they want Irish Bob to challenge Cornyn while just 27% said they want him to continue his joke of a presidential bid. Texas Democrats, it seems, do love their political jokes, but they just want them to run for lower offices.

So, come on home, Irish Bob. Come back to Texas where all the fake reporters at the Austin American-Statesman and Texas Tribune can fall madly in love with you again. And fall in love again they will, since you would be running against a detested Republican instead of a bunch of fellow Democrats.

You’ve made an ass of yourself on the national stage long enough; come back to Texas where you will be praised by all the local news outlets for making an ass of yourself at home. All that Hollywood money that you’ve been unable to collect for your presidential campaign is just itching to pour back into a senate race here.

This is what Texas Democrats are imagining, anyway.

To Texas Dems, O’Rourke is like the home town favorite son who rejects their pleas to stay home and make their town a better place, choosing instead to move off to the big city to make his fortune there. Now that he’s failed in that quest, they’re wanting him to come back home to recapture that magic.

The problem with such returns is that, in real life, they seldom work out too well. By the time the favorite son returns home, everyone back home has heard about his big city failures and his former glow has lost its luster. To make matters worse, a whole new crop of other favorite sons have graduated from the local high school and some of them have decided not to leave.

There is no doubt that Irish Bob O’Rourke captured a sort of political magic that we seldom witness in his race against Cruz last year. But his was a flash-in-the-pan sort of magic that dissipates as quickly as it was conjured up, and is almost never recaptured once it’s gone.

Texas Democrats are clamoring for their precious Beto to come back home right now, but are likely to end up being extremely disappointed in the results should he decide to do so.

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

About that Nervous Nancy…

Today’s Campaign Update, Part II
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

A killshot for the ages. – Don’t look now, but President Donald Trump has leveled what is going to be a very, very effective killshot at Nancy Pelosi. He tagged her with it during yesterday’s interview with Fox’s Laura Ingraham, and followed it up this morning with this pair of tweets:

“Nervous Nancy.” How perfect is that? Think about it: What political figure are you familiar with who appears to be more constantly, overtly nervous than San Fran Nan?

Here’s a great example from the 2018 State of the Union address – watch her working her mouth so nervously that it looks like she has a gerbil running around in there:

Or how about this video of her stammering and fidgeting through a typical press availability?:

This could go on and on, because these are very typical public performances by the doddering Speaker.

So, the first requirement of an effective killshot – that it is accurate and cannot be proven to be untrue – is firmly in place.

The next requirement – equally important here – is that the killshot be something about which the target will become self-conscious. Pelosi is already so self-conscious about her fidgety, stammering, speech-slurring public appearance that she and her media allies just spent an entire week attempting to get Facebook to ban one video of her on the utterly false claim that it was “doctored.”

Trump’s tagging her with the “Nervous Nancy” nickname will inevitably result in Pelosi becoming extremely self-conscious about controlling her myriad nervous tics, most likely to such a point that they will only become even more self-evident. The new nickname will just as inevitably cause Pelosi’s target audiences – the fake news media and the public – to pay close attention to her tics and comment on them.

Back in mid-March, the President issued a killshot on Irish Bob O’Rourke, as follows:

“Well, I think he’s got a lot of hand movement. I’ve never seen so much hand movement. I said, ‘Is he crazy or is that just the way he acts?’” Trump said at the White House. “I watched him a little while this morning, during I assume it was some kind of a news conference, and I’ve actually never seen anything quite like it.”

That one was so immediately effective that Irish Bob was filmed the very next day answering a reporter’s questions with his normally-waving arms seemingly glued to his sides. O’Rourke has basically never recovered, as his poll numbers have fallen from around 10% support to about 3% in the wake of the killshot. The President didn’t tag him with a nickname, but his remarks about Irish Bob caused the public to take notice of just how weird and un-serious he truly is.

During the 2016 GOP nominating process, we saw the very same process take place with “Little Marco” Rubio, Jeb! “Low Energy” Bush, “Annoying” John Kasich, and others. The “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz moniker was not nearly so effective given Cruz is most often demonstrably not lying, but by the time Trump tagged him with that nickname he was so far ahead in the race that he didn’t need a killshot related to Cruz in any event.

“Nervous Nancy” has all the hallmarks of being an immediately effective, potentially devastating killshot, mainly because Nancy is indeed extremely nervous pretty much all the time, and has no real means of demonstrating otherwise. I’m betting it will be so effective in quickly diminishing Pelosi’s public credibility that even members of her own caucus in the House will be remarking on the Speaker’s nervousness within a few weeks.

Won’t that be fun?

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Open post

Beto O’Rourke Must Turn on the Media that Invented Him

Today’s Campaign Update
(Because The Campaign Never Ends)

Some free advice for Beto O’Rourke. – I suppose that I should preface this long piece by reminding readers that I have no love for Irish Bob O’Rourke. In fact, what I really hold for him more than anything else is contempt. The substance-devoid empty suit from El Paso finds himself today in a predicament of his own making, a situation in which his once-promising presidential campaign is mired in weak also-ran status in a crowded field that is occupied by more capable and more-clever candidates.

Irish Bob’s situation is compounded by the reality that the elite, northeastern fake news media establishment that literally put the presidential bug in his ear by fawning all over him for the last six months of 2018 has now turned on him because he waited too long to bend the knee and consummate its courtship of him. Since he finally announced his candidacy in March – the fickle nature of the fake media demanded he do so in December, January at the outside – he has been treated as a stepchild, hit by a series of negative stories and given the back of the hand by elitist media outlets angry that he hasn’t shown up on their doorsteps with a bouquet of roses in-hand and tickets to that night’s Knicks game for them.

A friend pointed me to a really good May 15 piece posted by Vanity Fair titled “How the Media Fell Out of Love with Beto O’Rourke,” which interestingly sounds like a title we would use here at the Campaign Update. We’ve certainly come close to it in the past, and written on the same basic theme, albeit in a more sarcastic way.

The Vanity Fair piece is written from an obviously more friendly perspective towards O’Rourke, but chronicles the same basic story we’ve chronicled here. It is very long, but a really good read and I encourage everyone to read it in full.

Here are some outtakes I want to emphasize this morning:

Since announcing his campaign for president in mid-March, just two months ago, O’Rourke has gone from the media darling who almost beat Ted Cruz in Texas to the designated punching bag of the pundit class. Harry Siegel of the Daily Beast called Beto a “manchild” on Twitter, while sharing a lacerating piece from the columnist Margaret Carlson, who wrote about “her unscientific poll asking every woman I see” and the conclusion that O’Rourke, the married father of three who enjoys making Sunday morning pancakes for his family, reminds them of “the worst boyfriend they ever had.”

Oof.

The press commentary swirling around O’Rourke has been like this for months—mockery first, re-tweets second, sober analysis third.

“A presidential campaign is several universes away from a statewide campaign,” said Republican strategist Kevin Madden, a former adviser on both of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns. “It’s 10 times harder. The scrutiny is just so much greater. Your worst day on Capitol Hill or in the statehouse or on a Senate campaign is three times worse every day on a presidential campaign…You can’t escape the media. You have to have a plan to deal with them.”

O’Rourke is trying to repair the damage this week, stopping by New York greenrooms that’s he’s so far been shunning, making appearances on The Rachel Maddow Show and The View. And as he did during his Senate run, he’s also booked an appearance at a CNN town hall, a format that’s proven to be a ratings and fund-raising bonanza for candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg.

So, those capture the basic theme, which is: 1) The media fell in love with “Beto” last year and made him as a senatorial candidate; 2) Beto tried to mostly ignore them early in his presidential campaign, taking it right to the grassroots instead; 3) The fickle media elitists turned on him in a typically vicious manner; and 4) Beto is now dutifully making the rounds on bended knee.

But it’s probably all too late, if the goal is to have the media elitists go back to loving their former flame. The damage has been done, and it’s hard to rekindle the kind of media love Irish Bob received in 2018. Besides, in 2018 he was running against one of the most media-hated Republican in the nation; now, he’s running against a pack of beloved fellow Democrats. Making the rounds and passing out Knicks tickets probably isn’t gonna undo this damage.

To me, the key for a possible O’Rourke comeback lies in one passage a little over halfway through the piece:

“I guess I still haven’t heard the Ted Kennedy answer from him,” said former South Carolina legislator Boyd Brown, an early O’Rourke supporter in the primary state. Brown was invoking Kennedy’s devastating failure to answer CBS anchor Roger Mudd’s question “Why do you want to be president?” days before his 1980 campaign launch. Still, Brown, who is 32, told me that O’Rourke “personifies” and “embodies” the “views of my generation,” pointing to his climate-change plan as the most ambitious of any Democrat running. But he also bristled at the national press for harping on O’Rourke’s personality and missteps. “Who the hell wants to go on TV and get talked over and lectured by a bunch of D.C. and New York types? I’m old enough to remember when friends of mine in the journalism profession would go out of their way not to show bias. Now it feels like they have cheapened the overall profession because they want a lot of likes and re-tweets on Twitter. Reporters want to be woke on Twitter and get their 15 minutes of fame. It’s devalued journalism.”

You hear that, Irish Bob? Your natural base voters don’t really have any more use for the Margaret Carlsons of the world than I do. They have different reasons for that dislike, but it is there and it is simmering just below the surface, waiting for you or some other candidate in the race to tap into it.

Here’s the thing: O’Rourke is sitting there at 3-5% in the polls, mired in the middle of a field crowded with politicians who are just as craven and ambitious as he is. It is in that millieu that he must find a way to differentiate himself, to stand out in that crowd.

Is he going to get that done by dutifully doing the same lame appearances on all the daytime and late night talk shows and CNN townhalls that everyone else is doing? Is he going to do that by announcing a “Climate Change” plan that wastes one or two trillion dollars more than these 7 rivals, but one or two trillion less than those other 10 to 12 rivals?

The answer is obvious. That’s just spinning your skateboard wheels, waving your arms and failing.

But ask yourself this: Which Democrat candidate right now is loudly criticizing any media outlet other than the standard Democrat bogeyman, Fox News?

There’s your opportunity to stand out. Get out there and talk about how you’re a Texan from Flyover Country, from the heart of our nation, fighting against the elite northeastern media. Talk about how these snarky fake journalists are devaluing their profession in their never-ending grasp for more re-tweets and followers. Talk about how you are suddenly the outsider in this race, fighting for the interests of the little guy against the elite media and your party’s establishment, which want to tilt the playing field in favor of Party regulars like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, elitists favoring fellow elitists.

In other words, Irish Bob, if you really want to stand out among this crowd of pandering, groveling, hack politicians, you need to start sounding a lot like…wait for it…Donald J. Trump, circa 2015.

Mr. Brown has given you some really sound advice in that Vanity Fair piece, and Mr. Trump has already shown you the way. It may or may not work, but it’s really the only chance you have remaining at this point.

Are you smart enough to take that chance?

That is all.

Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

Posts navigation

1 2 3 4 5
Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: