Government Corruption

Nancy Pelosi Pushing for Leftist Provisions in Phase Four Coronavirus Bill

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on Wednesday that she hopes that Democrats can get more Democrat provisions in a phase four coronavirus package. Anderson Cooper asked Pelosi what she thought of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) contention that Congress should wait to see how the phase three coronavirus response package impacts the pandemic before moving to a phase four bill. In response, Pelosi admitted that Democrats were not able to obtain many Democrat provisions in the phase three coronavirus bill drafted by Senate Republicans. “We couldn’t get everything we wanted in the other bill, let’s begin to go down this path,” Pelosi said. Pelosi’s jockeying for a phase four coronavirus response bill appears to be a move to stuff more leftist special interests in the bill. Despite Pelosi’s negotiations with McConnell and the White House on the phase three coronavirus package, she moved to push her own stage three bill that would contain more Democrat provisions. Democrat Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) said in February regarding the Democrat phase three bill, “This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.” The Pelosi coronavirus bill included: Increased fuel emissions standards for airlines receiving coronavirus assistance funds. Student loans payments up to $10,000 Same-day voter registration, early voting, voting by mail, and ballot harvesting Preserving collective bargaining for unions Expansion of wind and solar tax credits Requirements for federal and corporate racial diversity data A Post Office bailout Automatic extension of nonimmigrant visas Restricting colleges from providing information about citizenship status Funds for Planned Parenthood $300,000,000 for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which produces PBS to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.” $278,000,000 for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) $500,000,000 for the Institute for Museum and Library Services $35,000,000 for the John F. Kennedy Center However, despite Pelosi’s move to push her own bill, she ended up supporting McConnell’s phase three bill. Due to Senate Republicans’ victory over Pelosi, the Republican Party was able to block many leftist provisions in the phase three bill including: Money for Planned Parenthood. Green New Deal Federal Mandates for Early and Mail Voting Postal Service Bailout DHS Funding Restrictions. “If Chuck Schumer had his way, he would have eliminated the direct checks,” one Senate Republican aide said…

We are disgusted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) persistent effort to use this national crisis to push her liberal political agenda and pass on the cost to hurting Americans.  She’s pulling this bs while people are being laid off and can’t pay their bills.  But, come hell or highwater, she’s gonna make us pay for AOC’s “Green New Deal,” millions for the Kennedy Center, millions for PBS/NPR, Planned Parenthood, and other ridiculous liberal nonsense that has NOTHING to do with helping hurting Americans around the country.  Sen. Kennedy (R-LA) calls this political “porn.”  Let’s all email our members of Congress and both U,S. Senators and let them know we don’t want them to pack this crap into the next bill.

Rep. Jim Jordan demands DOJ IG Michael Horowitz to testify in wake of second damning FISA report

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday demanded the panel hold a hearing with Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz after his latest missive finding the FBI bungled scores of warrant applications to surveil Americans. Rep. Jim Jordan sent a letter to Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat, saying lawmakers need to hear from Mr. Horowitz as the debate rages in Washington about whether to limit the FBI’s surveillance powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). “The committee must not allow the FBI’s extraordinary power to electronically surveil Americans to be so haphazardly rubber-stamped with incorrect, unsubstantiated or erroneous supporting information,” wrote Mr. Jordan, Ohio Republican. On Tuesday, Mr. Horowitz released the preliminary results of his team’s review of 29 FISA applications the FBI had submitted to obtain surveillance warrants on U.S. citizens. Every one of the 29 applications reviewed did not include supporting materials to back up the FBI’s allegations against their surveillance targets. And in some cases, the FBI couldn’t find the backup files at all or was unsure if they ever existed. In all 25 cases in which the files were available for review, Mr.Horowitz found “apparent errors or inadequately supported facts.” Mr. Jordan said the latest findings highlight the need to question the inspector general. “Because of the pervasiveness and seriousness of the FISA application deficiencies — and the pending reauthorization of FISA — we renew our request that you invite Inspector General Michael Horowitz to testify at a public hearing promptly when the House returns to session,” he wrote. House Republicans have been calling for a hearing with Mr. Horowitz since last December when he released a scathing report about the FBI’s bungling of a surveillance warrant to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. So far, Mr. Nadler has resisted calls to hear from the inspector general. Mr. Horowitz has testified before two Senate committees about the Page report.

Of COURSE Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) doesn’t want to call the IG before his committee.  He doesn’t want any of this to come to light which very likely could make his side look bad in an election year.

Sen. Chuck Schumer Hit with Ethics Complaints for Threat to SCOTUS Justices

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) faces multiple ethics complaints for threatening Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch on the steps of the high court. Schumer declared at a Center for Reproductive Rights rally last Wednesday that the two conservative judges will “pay the price” if they vote against pro-choice advocates in a case regarding a Louisiana abortion law. “Over the last three years, women’s reproductive rights have come under attack in a way we haven’t seen in modern history. From Louisiana, to Missouri, to Texas, Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they’re taking away fundamental rights,” he warned. “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, 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.” Following blowback from Republicans, the New York Democrat offered a non-apology, saying he “shouldn’t have used the words I did” while claiming conservatives were “manufacturing outrage” over the statement. On Friday, the National Legal Policy Center filed complaints against Schumer with both the Senate Ethics Committee and New York bar. “It strains credulity to believe that, regardless of his Brooklyn pedigree, Sen. Schumer, who is a Harvard-educated lawyer, Senator minority leader, and vocal opponent of both Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, did not intend to choose the exact words he spoke as he turned and pointed to the Supreme Court behind him to further emphasize his point,” the NLPC’s complaint reads. “In short, his non-apology is a lame excuse for inexcusable conduct.” The Landmark Legal Foundation, which is chaired by conservative talk radio host Mark Levin, also submitted a complaint to the upper chamber’s ethics panel Thursday. “The Senate must immediately reprimand, if not censure, Sen. Schumer for his outrageous and dangerous attack on Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh,” said the complaint, alleging that the lawmaker’s comments could amount to “improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate.” In a separate complaint, attorney Joseph Gioconda wrote to New York’s Grievance Committee for the Second Judicial District: “At a minimum, Attorney/Senator Schumer’s statements appear to be improper conduct that reflects upon his character and fitness to practice law in New York.” Schumer’s remarks prompted a rare rebuke by Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, who called the New York Democrats’ threat both “inappropriate” and “dangerous.” “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter,” he said. President Donald Trump also took aim at Schumer, calling for him to face “severe” punishment. “This is a direct & dangerous threat to the U.S. Supreme Court by Schumer. If a Republican did this, he or she would be arrested, or impeached. Serious action MUST be taken NOW!” the president tweeted. “There can be few things worse in a civilized, law abiding nation, than a United States Senator openly, and for all to see and hear, threatening the Supreme Court or its Justices. This is what Chuck Schumer just did. He must pay a severe price for this!” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced a motion last Thursday to censure Schumer, with the support of 14 other Republican senators. “Senator Schumer has acknowledged that threatening statements can increase the dangers of violence against government officials when he stated on June 15, 2017, following the attempted murder of several elected Members of Congress, ‘We would all be wise to reflect on the importance of civility in our [N]ation’s politics’ and that ‘the level of nastiness, vitriol, and hate that has seeped into our politics must be excised,’ the resolution reads.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is FINALLY being called to the carpet for his outrageous, and  WAY over-the-top threatening remarks he made on the steps of the Supreme Court while they were literally in session.  Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) is absolutely right in calling for him to be censured by the Senate, and we support his efforts and call on more Senate Republicans to sign on to his motion.  That’s the very least that happen from the Senate’s side.  And, hopefully these complaints to the NY state Bar and elsewhere will bear fruit.   Most in D.C. have grown accustomed to Chuck’s obnoxious grandstanding, and accept him for what he is; a duplicitous, hypocritical, self-serving, arrogant, obnoxious, extremely liberal, elitist blowhard who loves to talk down to the rest of us peasants over his reading glasses.   But, this time he crossed a line, and needs to be held to account.  As was mentioned in the article, he is a Harvard-educated attorney, and has been in politics for a VERY long time.  What he said on those steps he was reading…and he knew EXACTLY what he was saying.  So, the Senate, and the NY State Bar shouldn’t accept his bs and spin as he tries to dance around it.  He needs to be formally held to account and made and example of.  If you agree, the email BOTH of your U.S. Senators, and tell them you want Chuck to be censured.

Federal judge orders Hillary Clinton deposition to address private emails: ‘Still more to learn’

A federal judge Monday granted a request from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sit for a sworn deposition to answer questions about her use of a private email server to conduct government business. Clinton has argued that she has already answered questions about this and should not have to do so again — the matter did not result in any charges for the then-presidential candidate in 2016 after a high-profile investigation — but D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said in his ruling that her past responses left much to be desired. “As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business,” Lamberth said. The judge went on to recognize that while Clinton responded to written questions in a separate case, “those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. Simply put her responses left many more questions than answers.” Lamberth said that using written questions this time “will only muddle any understanding of Secretary Clinton’s state of mind and fail to capture the full picture, thus delaying the final disposition of this case even further.” Lamberth even gave some examples of lingering questions about Clinton’s emails, such as how did she come to believe that her private emails would be preserved under normal State Department processes, who told her this and when, at what point did she learn department records management officials did not know about the server, “[a]nd why did she think that using a private server to conduct State Department business was permissible under the law in the first place?” The ruling comes after Judicial Watch revealed at a December 2019 status conference that the FBI released “approximately thirty previously undisclosed Clinton emails,” and that the State Department “failed to fully explain” where they came from. The State Department has been pushing for the discovery phase of the case to come to a close, but Lamberth said he is not ready to do so, saying that “there is still more to learn.” Judicial Watch, which initiated this case in 2014, is looking for information regarding whether Clinton used her private email server to intentionally get around the Freedom of Information Act, whether the State Department acted in bad faith when they tried to settle the case years ago, and whether the department had adequately looked for records in response to Judicial Watch’s initial FOIA request. Given that the settlement attempts and records search took place after Clinton left office, the judge ruled that the deposition should focus on whether she intentionally tried to use her private server to evade FOIA and her understanding of the State Department’s record management requirements. Lamberth also granted Judicial Watch’s request to depose former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, IT specialist Paul Combetta who was involved in deleting Clinton’s emails, as well as Brett Gittleson and Yvette Jacks, who were State Department officials familiar with Clinton’s private email server. Judicial Watch also wanted to question Clinton and Mills about government talking points in the aftermath of the 2012 Benghazi attack. Lamberth said that while they “cannot be questioned about the underlying actions taken after the Benghazi attack,” they can face questions regarding “their knowledge of the existence of any emails, documents, or text messages related to the Benghazi attack.”

Well, it’s about time!!  FINALLY, Hillary is being forced to answer these questions.  All of us would spend the rest of our lives in federal prison for what she did with that email server.  She’s, of course, a Clinton..  So, she won’t spend a day in jail, unfortunately.  But, at least she is being forced to address her brazen corruption.  It’ll be fun to see how she dances around all of this.  Kudos to Judicial Watch for their efforts here.  Excellent!!    🙂

Al Sharpton’s 2004 campaign still owes $900K after failed presidential bid

Rev. Al Sharpton’s unsuccessful presidential campaign had nearly $1 million in debt at the end of 2019 ⁠— more than 15 years after his 2004 presidential bid. Sharpton’s former campaign treasurer Andrew Rivera is responsible for paying off the $925,713.78 in debt. “I have asked Andrew Rivera, the finance chair of my 2004 campaign, to set up a meeting with the Federal Election Commission so that I can resolve any campaign debts related to Sharpton 2004,” Sharpton told the New York Post. “I am willing to work out a settlement for all claims with my own money to the degree that I’m allowed and will raise money directly … Even if I am not legally liable for it, I am certainly morally responsible.” Sharpton runs the influential nonprofit National Action Network. He made more than $1 million at the organization in 2018, according to the Post. Campaign committees that are unable to pay their debts can file a debt-settlement plan with the FEC, the commission told the Post. “Committees could not just decide not to pay,” an FEC spokesman told the outlet. Sharpton and Rivera settled with the FEC in 2009 on a separate matter: violating federal campaign finance laws. Sharpton and his campaign agreed to pay $285,000 in civil penalties.

This is crazy!   Why aren’t the FEC and the Dept of Justice ALL over this?  Al Sharpton is the very definition of corruption.  Sure, he’s saying all the right things to the New York Post here.  But, he doesn’t mean a word of it.  It’s WAY past time that this corrupt, self-righteous, self-serving, black racist blowhard be held to account.

Alan Dershowitz: House managers’ case falls short of impeachment standard even if true

Alan Dershowitz, who is part of President Trump’s impeachment legal defense team, said Sunday that even if the House managers successfully laid out the facts in their case they would still fall short of the standard needed to impeach and remove Mr. Trump from office. He said abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, which are the charges Mr. Trump stands accused of, are “vague, open-ended” criteria. “Even if the factual allegations are true – which are highly disputed and which the defense team will show contrary evidence – but even if true, they did not allege impeachable offenses,” Mr. Dershowitz said on “Fox News Sunday.” “So there can’t be a constitutionally authorized impeachment.” “The conduct has to be criminal in nature – it can’t be abuse of power; it can’t be obstruction of Congress,” he said. “Those are precisely the arguments that the framers rejected.” Mr. Dershowitz also addressed an old clip from around the time of President Clinton’s impeachment where he said “you don’t need a technical crime” for an impeachment. He said that in 1998, Mr. Clinton was charged with perjury. “I did say that then, and then I’ve done all the extensive research. I’ve been immersing myself in dusty old books, and I’ve concluded that no, it has to be crime,” he said on Sunday. Mr. Trump’s team opened their defense of the president on Saturday, and they’re expected to go into more detail starting on Monday. House impeachment managers had completed about 24 hours of presenting their case on Friday, arguing that Mr. Trump abused his power by improperly withholding military aid to Ukraine and then obstructed Congress by impeding the subsequent House investigation into his conduct. Mr. Trump’s defense team has suggested they won’t take the entire 24 hours they’re allotted over three days to refute the arguments from House Democrats.

Keep in mind, Professor Alan Dershowitz from Harvard is a very liberal, Jewish, registered Democrat who “proudly voted for Hillary” in the last election.  So, not exactly a career Republican hack…and he is a well-respected constitutional attorney, and Harvard professor.  So, the tools over at CNN and MSNBC are having the toughest time taking personal pot shots at him and trying to dismiss his comments.  He was a very smart choice by the Trump team.

Opinion/Analysis: Obama should apologize for shameful cash payment to Iran

Since the elimination of Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani, much of the world has rightfully held its collective breath in fearful anticipation of what might be to come. Iran is indeed a dangerous terrorist state that not only has a powerful standing army, air force, navy and advanced weapons systems — including ballistic missiles and a growing space program — but also controls multiple proxy terrorist organizations responsible for killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Included on that list of victims are thousands of American military personnel and contractors. These were facts that former President Obama knew when he deliberately chose a policy of appeasement and cash payoffs instead of strength and accountability as the way to deal with Iran. President Trump spelled this out in no uncertain terms on Wednesday when he addressed the nation while seeking to dial down the imminent threat Iran may pose to our nation, the Middle East and the world. Said the president in part, “Iran’s hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013 and they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash. … Then, Iran went on a terror spree, funded by the money from the deal and created hell in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq. The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.” As we have seen and heard, some — especially Democrats, their allies in the media and Obama supporters — chose to challenge or quibble with Trump’s statement. That said, I spoke with a former senior intelligence official who said that much of the $1.8 billion cash payoff from the Obama administration was used explicitly to fund terrorism as an additional “screw you” from the leaders of Iran — including Soleimani — to the United States. The rest of the money, my source believes, ended up in the bank accounts of corrupt Iranian leaders and terrorists. The cash payment authorized by Obama is one of the most disgraceful and shameful “negotiations” in the history of our nation. It was a payment the Obama White House first denied, then ignored and then grudgingly acknowledged. We paid in cash, but not U.S. currency. Wary of using U.S. bills for a variety of reasons involving concealment, the Obama White House had the money converted to untraceable Euros, Swiss francs, and other foreign currencies. More troubling than those initial denials and deceptions was the fact that $400 million of that all-cash payment was used to pay a ransom to the government of Iran for the release of four American prisoners, in violation of standing U.S. policy. In a pathetic attempt to hide behind semantics, the Obama administration finally did acknowledge that $400 million was delayed as “leverage” until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran. While the Obama White House hid from the true definition of the word “leverage,” Iran’s state-run media was more than happy to brag that Iran had just forced the United States to pay a ransom. Former Congressman Ed Royce (R-Calif.), who chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee at that time, condemned the deal: “Sending the world’s leading state sponsor of terror pallets of untraceable cash isn’t just terrible policy. It’s incredibly reckless, and it only puts bigger targets on the backs of Americans.” Former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) seconded Royce’s warning: “Paying ransom to kidnappers puts Americans even more at risk. … The White House’s policy of appeasement has led Iran to illegally seize more American hostages.” Said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), “President Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran was sweetened with an illicit ransom payment and billions of dollars for the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.” What many Americans don’t realize is that the Obama White House took the ransom money from something called the “Judgment Fund,” which is administered by the Treasury. That little-known account is entirely paid for by American taxpayers and was set up in such a way that Obama could bypass congressional approval to pay the cash to Iran. Those who continually praise and defend Obama often describe him as “brilliant.” There is no doubt the former president is an intelligent person, certainly bright enough to realize — and admit, at least to himself — that the cash he turned over to the murderous regime leading Iran to ruin was not used for altruistic purposes. Any honest assessment would conclude that at least part of that secretive, massive payment was used to finance terrorist attacks against Americans, our allies and innocent civilians. Trump is correct on that point. For that reason, Obama should apologize for the thousands wounded and killed in terrorist attacks since Iran took possession of that tainted cash. That is his debt to pay.

Exactly!!!  Thanks to Douglas MacKinnon for that absolutely spot-on analysis.  Douglas is a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.  Keep everything you said in mind as you read the next article about John Kerry.  Excellent!!     🙂