32 thoughts on “News/Politics 6-27-19

  1. Big tech is banding together against conservative messages they disagree with.



  2. The Senate has passed their own immigration bill since the Dem House versions was too illegal friendly. Note also the 88 votes, which means plenty of Dem support for this version as well.


    “The Senate passed its version of a supplemental border funding bill after rejecting the House bill passed Thursday night. The Senate’s bipartisan bill passed with 84 yeas to 8 nays and comes amid renewed scrutiny over the treatment of young migrants in U.S. custody at detention centers.

    The Senate bill includes bipartisan negotiated border security funding language and was expected to pass with the 60 votes necessary. Now it will be returned to the House for consideration, but Congress is leaving at the end of the week for its Independence Day recess, so there is very little time to reconcile the House and Senate versions.

    Senate lawmakers hope the House will adopt the Senate bill, since it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. “


  3. Here’s yet another question for Joe Fraud when he testifies to Congress.

    Why the prosecutorial misconduct, Bob>


    “Michael Flynn Attorney Suggests Special Counsel Withheld Key Information From His Defense

    Michael Flynn’s new attorney Sidney Powell suggested the special counsel may not have produced classified information relevant to Flynn’s case. Powell intends to obtain it.”

    “On Monday, former President Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn appeared before Judge Emmet Sullivan for a routine status hearing. Yet the 15-minute hearing proved anything but usual when Flynn’s new attorney, prosecutor turned defense attorney Sidney Powell, suggested that the special counsel’s office may not have produced classified information relevant to Flynn’s case. And Powell made clear she intends to obtain it.

    The status hearing began friendly enough, with the judge asking Flynn, who had pleaded guilty on December 1, 2017 to a charge of providing false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, how he was doing. “Great,” the retired general replied, with the judge then greeting Powell, who was making one of her first appearances before Sullivan since taking over Flynn’s case.”


    “Then came the bombshell: “And I do think most of the information I will need to review may be classified,” Powell responded. “I don’t know for sure, but out of an abundance of caution,” Flynn’s new attorney continued, before Sullivan interjected, “Notwithstanding the government’s representations?” “That’s with regards to what they produced. There is other information,” Powell replied pointedly, to which the court quipped: “Now you’ve piqued the government’s interest.”

    But Van Grack persisted, noting that “again, in terms of the information the government produced, there’s nothing that the government produced that’s classified.” “But you’d like to know what this other information is, too?” Sullivan queried. Van Grack suggested the “court would want some specificity in terms of the basis for getting a security clearance from government, which is in possession of the classified information,” at which point Sullivan called the classified information security officer to the bench and held a sidebar discussion that was sealed by the court and redacted in the court transcript.

    Did the Special Counsel Hide Key Evidence?

    These exchanges raises the question of whether the special counsel’s office failed to provide Flynn’s prior attorneys all material information related to the case against Flynn. Although in his plea agreement, Flynn had agreed to “forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea,” shortly after Flynn pled guilty before Judge Rudolph Contreras, the case was reassigned to Judge Sullivan.

    Sullivan’s first order of business was to enter the standard order he issues in all criminal cases on his docket. That standing order requires the prosecution to produce “any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Significantly, Sullivan’s standing order directs the government to submit to the court “any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material.” In other words, Robert Mueller’s team could not withhold evidence with the excuse that it was immaterial.

    Yet Van Grack explicitly stated that no classified information had been turned over. In an August 25, 2017, letter, however, then Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley requested that the Department of Defense and the Defense Intelligence Agency “declassify a key piece of information from” a classified briefing provided to Judiciary Committee members about Flynn.

    Grassley stated that declassification would “not pose any ongoing risk to national security,” and “would be in the public interest, and in the interest of fairness to Lt. General Flynn.” That suggests the information, at a minimum, was favorable to Flynn, and since in sentencing a court must consider the character and history of the defendant, it appears those documents should have been provided.”


    And there’s more…..


  4. Concerning Muller’s testimony: Trump, on FoxNews, “Does it ever end?”
    Answer. NO He should know that. He came to destroy the “Deep State”. They will fight back. They will keep fighting until the end.
    Whenever that comes.
    Deep state will eventually win. Too much power and money involved.
    But I hope Trump keeps fighting.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. AJ – I saw an article recently that said that most Democratic voters are on the more moderate side, and would not support the more leftist candidates. Let’s hope that is true.


  6. But they’re almost all pretty leftist. It’s really quite stunning.

    The LA Times published a couple good pieces on that today.


    This is not your father’s Democratic Party: Debate shows how leftward it has moved

    JUN 26, 2019 | 10:20 PM


    … For the night, at least, this was Elizabeth Warren’s party. …

    … The shift in the party goes beyond economics. As the debate made clear, it includes gun control, abortion, climate change and immigration, among other issues. On each of those, candidates took positions to the left of those embraced by either of the last two Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who was barely mentioned by any of the candidates.
    Rather than Clinton’s call for abortion to be “safe, legal and rare,” for example, the debate featured candidates stressing that the universal healthcare plans they backed would include public funds to pay for abortions for poor women. …

    … Pushback against the party’s leftward drift may be more pronounced during Thursday night’s debate, when 10 more candidates will be on stage including former Vice President Joe Biden, who has been leading in early polls and making the case for a more centrist platform that could appeal to swing voters. He will be up against Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a democratic socialist who, like Warren, calls for fundamental changes in the U.S. economic and political system. …

    … That emphasis on ideas from the party’s left pleased Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats, a political group that helped elect the upstart progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

    “Tonight’s debate made one thing clear: Progressive ideas are at the center of debate in the Democratic Party,” she said. “Many of the topics discussed tonight — a 70% marginal tax rate, ‘Medicare for all,’ breaking up large corporations — were originally proposed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.” …



  7. Typically the parties moderate their messages for the general election. But if a Warren or a Sanders is nominated, I’m not sure you’d see much of that.


  8. Among the interesting statements from Warren last night was that we need to make “structural changes to the government and the economy.”


  9. An analysis at Powerline:



    I played a different drinking game than the ones Steve recommended for tonight’s Democratic debate. I filled my Power Line mug with tea and took a sip every time one of the candidates said something I agree with.

    Had it not been for John Delaney, the former Maryland congressman, I would have ended up with a full cup of very cold tea. … John Delaney: A fairly sensible guy. He was the only candidate on stage whose presidency I wouldn’t greatly fear. Too bad he remains a no-hoper. …

    … UPDATE: I’ve now looked at some internet polls. For what they are worth, they show Gabbard as the clear winner with Warren second. After that, it’s Castro and Booker, the two I thought were the winners.

    O’Rourke is near the bottom in all of the online polls I’ve seen.


  10. They all just tried to out left each other, all while promising an ever growing list of free stuff that will be available to us if we just vote for them, paid for by “the rich” of course….

    I thought the best part was Castro lecturing Beto that if you’re gonna come stand up here with the big boys and girls, you need to do your home work first so you don’t look stupid.

    I think from what I’ve seen, about half live, the rest today, Booker and Warren seemed the most together and ready.

    Beto looked out of his league. His campaign ended last night. He just doesn’t realize it yet. Same goes for DeBlasio.


  11. Tonight offers the best chance for the “Unhinged Trainwreck” the Onion mentioned.

    Sanders is slipping, as is Biden. The others will try to keep that moving along. Joe and Bernie have no choice but to hit each other hard. That’s the way they can solidify a grip at the top.

    I hope Joe the Human Gaffe Machine and Crazy Uncle Bernie are ready. Get your popcorn.



  12. chas (@7:26): It’s way early and with a huge candidate field like this there will be a lot of moving parts as the campaign goes on.

    But the initial debates do sometimes eliminate some, boost others in early trends, some surprising, that can influence which direction things go. I only watched part of it, I’ll be more interested as time goes on and the field is winnowed a bit (or a lot in this overcrowded case).

    Again, this harkens back to the early 70s in some ways when the progressives and liberals essentially took control of the party and had their way with it. Maybe it’ll pan out for them this time, but I agree with Kizzie that most voters, including your mainstream, regular Democrats, aren’t nearly so liberal as the party’s candidates in 2020, at least so far. But I think it will be the true believers, the liberal activists, who through this primary season will have most influence in who the nominee ultimately will be.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. A couple of my friends, who are not Democrats, have mentioned liking Tulsi Gabbard, particularly for her anti-war stance. I don’t know much about her other than that, but have seen that she seemed to be the winner last night.


  14. Curious, though …



    … None of this (her search spikes) means that Gabbard is a serious contender. She clashed with fellow Democrats by being critical of President Obama’s foreign policy, saying that his administration “refuses to recognize” that “radical Islam” is responsible for terrorism. And ever since, she’s branded herself as being among the most hawkish Democrats when it comes to terrorism. She’s also been criticized for expressing support for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. …


  15. Kizzie,

    Maybe your non-Democrat friends wanna rethink that. She’s a leftist, like the rest.


    “I consider myself pro-choice. (Sep 2012)
    Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services. (Feb 2014)
    Endorsed Endorsed by EMILY’s list for pro-choice Democratic women. (Aug 2012)”

    “Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
    Endorsed by The Feminist Majority indicating a pro-women’s rights stance. (Aug 2012)
    Supports same-sex marriage. (Sep 2012)
    Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender. (Feb 2013)”

    “Tax incentives for wind, solar, biomass and wave energy. (Nov 2012)
    Supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions. (Sep 2012)”

    “Voted NO on maintaining work requirement for welfare recipients. (Mar 2013)”


  16. And like DJ mentioned, she’s an Assad apologist, even met with him illegally. A large part of the reason she’s not considered top tier by anyone. She’s damaged goods.


    “Democrats were silent on Thursday as Tulsi Gabbard, one of the party’s sitting lawmakers in Congress, announced that she had met with Bashar al-Assad during a trip to war-torn Syria and dismissed his entire opposition as “terrorists”.

    Gabbard, a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, disclosed her meeting with the Syrian president on Wednesday, during what her office called a “fact-finding” mission in the region.

    “Initially I hadn’t planned on meeting him,” Gabbard told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I felt it’s important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we could achieve peace. And that’s exactly what we talked about.”

    Democratic leaders were mum on the decision by one of their sitting lawmakers to meet with a dictator whom the US government has dubbed a war criminal for his use of chemical weapons against civilians.

    Gabbard’s trip raised alarms over a potential violation of the Logan Act, a federal statute barring unauthorized individuals from conferring with a foreign government involved in a dispute with the US. The US currently has no diplomatic relations with Syria.”



    “The Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria has had a quiet but well-funded lobbying effort in Washington since well before he began murdering his own people. But that influence campaign’s clearest triumph came only this month, when it succeeded in bringing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) to Damascus and having her parrot Assad’s propaganda on her return.

    Gabbard was not the first U.S. elected official to meet Assad. In the early years of Assad’s presidency, several senior U.S. lawmakers publicly traveled to see the young English-speaking optometrist-turned-ruler, in the hope that he might be a reformer, break with Iran and even make peace with Israel. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) visited Assad in 2007. Then-Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) led a delegation in 2009.

    After the killing began in 2011, however, Assad’s friends in Washington largely went underground and a covert influence and intimidation campaign blossomed. The FBI began investigating Syrian ambassador Imad Moustapha, due to evidence he was keeping tabs on Syrian Americans who showed disloyalty so the Syrian government could threaten their families back home. Moustapha departed for Beijing in 2012, but he left in place a network of friends, Syrian Americans and others who nurtured close ties to the regime and worked on Assad’s behalf.

    One Lebanese American who was close to Moustapha and would often visit his Washington residence was Cleveland businessman Bassam Khawam, according to three Syrian Americans who saw them together but do not wish to be identified for fear of retribution. Five years later, Moustapha is nowhere to be seen, but Khawam is still active. He organized and joined the trip to Damascus for Gabbard and arranged a meeting with Assad.

    “This guy has been lobbying on behalf of Bashar Assad in the U.S. even before there was a revolution, and we are deeply troubled he would try to help a war criminal build relationships with sitting members of Congress,” said Mohammed Alaa Ghanem, director of government relations for the Syrian American Council, a nongovernmental organization that works with the Syrian opposition.”


  17. ———————

    Liked by 1 person

  18. This woman is a basket case.

    How dare the GOP and Trump not support the Democrat House bill that she voted against?

    The nerve! 🤣



  19. This guy seemed reasonable……. on some issues.

    We kept referring to him as the bald guy because we had no idea who he was. 🙂


    “Winner of #DemDebate Night One: John Delaney, whoever he is”


    “The first night of the Democratic Debate was unimpressive. Most of the candidates were trying to out-liberal the others. It was all so, shall we say, unimpressive.

    The moderators clearly favored Elizabeth Warren, repeatedly going back to her for questions, particularly at the beginning.

    You had Warren’s tough gal act, Beto’s wandering mind and Spanish language lesson plan, Bill de Blasio’s almost full-blown commie schtick, Spartacus, and Amy Klobuchar’s Minnesota nice routine.

    Who won?

    Let’s focus on the purpose of an early debate — for all but the top few candidates, it’s name recognition and not coming across as a marginal freak. Tulsi Gabbard achieved a little of that, but far and away the voice of sanity was someone I never had heard of.

    He spoke about how Medicare for all, which depends on reimbursement rates so low it would bankrupt most hospitals, was not viable. That goes against the grain of the Democratic Party, where most of the leading candidates have jumped on some version of Bernie’s plan.”


  20. Looks like we have a deal, and the House looks irrelevant, thanks to Chuck Schumer.



    “Democrats’ About Face on Senate Border Aid Bill Rankles Caucus Members

    “A senior democratic aide: ‘Schumer threw all of House Democrats under the bus and he will pay a heavy price for that.’””

    “Thursday, Speaker Pelosi made a sudden about face on the border aid war and agreed to pass the Senate’s version of the bill, which has been hotly debated for weeks.

    From Politico:

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi formally bowed to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in a weeks-long battle with the GOP over the border aid bill, saying the House will take up the Senate’s version of the relief package.

    The move caps four days of havoc amid a contentious debate within Pelosi’s caucus over how to respond to the mounting humanitarian crisis.

    In a stunning reversal, Pelosi halted a planned vote on the House Democrats’ version of the border aid bill as she and her deputies faced a revolt by a group of more than 18 Democratic centrists, who vowed to tank the bill on the floor.

    In a high-profile surrender in a faceoff with McConnell, Pelosi sent a letter to her caucus explaining her rationale.

    “The children come first. At the end of the day, we have to make sure that the resources needed to protect the children are available,” she wrote. “Therefore, we will not engage in the same disrespectful behavior that the Senate did in ignoring our priorities. In order to get resources to the children fastest, we will reluctantly pass the Senate bill.”

    Hours earlier, Pelosi had an hour-long call with Vice President Mike Pence during which the two discussed administrative fixes as a possible way to appease Democratic demands for tougher restrictions on the border money, according to a source familiar with the conversation.

    McConnell said the White House’s concession to comply with some of the Democratic requests administratively was an attempt by Pence “to be as accommodating as possible.””


  21. Another Trump win. 🙂



  22. Cowards, every one. Afraid to show the voters who they really are..



    “All 2020 Senate Dems Absent for Vote to Send Humanitarian Relief to Border”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.