theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer

Tuesday, November 12, 2019

Russia COLLUSION, OBSTRUCTION, Ukraine-Biden FLOP, So Dems Will Claim Trump EXTORTED, BRIBED

President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the InterContinental Barclay New York hotel during the United Nations General Assembly, Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2019, in New York. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) ** FILE **
President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the InterContinental Barclay New York hotel during the United Nations General Assembly, Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2019, in New York.
 (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) ** FILE **


 Ralph Z. Hallow

ANALYSIS/OPINION:
A cleverly sardonic, slickly misleading impeachment line makes fun of how former Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley exploded the Democrats’ impeachment rationale.
Originally posted on social media and undoubtedly making its way around America’s dimly lit dump-Trump circles, the line goes this way:
“True. Nikki Haley’s take on a recent robbery in Albany is that the robbers panicked and fled before the teller could hand over the bag full of money. The bank still has the money, so the case is closed.”
The panicky-robber line parodies Ms. Haley’s take on the Democrats’ long, grueling, stumbling, meandering march to the promised land of impeachment.
The direction of the Dems’ march is no longer toward proving President Trump’s treasonous collusion with Russia! You remember. The one to throw the 2016 election The Donald’s way.
The endless, meandering, Mueller probe wound up proving nothing of the sort.
Yet the government (our government) estimates the investigation cost us between $32 million and $35 million.
Along the way, our government jailed and grabbed the assets of people who had nothing to do with the reason for the Trump-Russia investigation.
How long ago were you thinking this could never happen? Not here. Not in the USA.
Never mind. It did.
Back to Ms. Haley. Her take, you’ll recall, is that Mr. Trump had requested but not demanded that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky find some dirt on former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, a 2020 Democratic front-runner, and his son Hunter.
Mr. Zelensky didn’t comply, but Ukraine got nearly $391 million in U.S. security aid anyway.
So Ms. Haley argued thusly: Aid delivered; case closed.
Let’s acknowledge that the line comparing a failed robbery to the Trump request was a cleverly sarcastic analogy — but not quite apropos.
The put-down of Ms. Haley compared her version of the event to an act that is indeed a statutory crime: attempted robbery.
The facts would seem to point to the conclusion that Mr. Trump’s unrequited request to Ukraine’s leader was improprietous but hardly impeachable.
Unless you are an “oust Trump by hook or crook” type.
Are you?
Just because you’re reading this doesn’t mean you don’t dream nightly of awaking to happily wave bye-bye to the Trump presidency.
More likely, if you’re Trump-phobic, you’ve already given up on impeaching him for attempting to get a foreign government to intervene in a coming U.S. presidential election
If you’re an “impeach first, ask questions later” Dem, you’re probably practicing a new line: Mr. Trump is guilty of bribery and/or extortion. So impeach him!
Here’s an example of the new line based on a post from a social medium site:
Sam is in a neighbor’s kitchen. A range-top fire is threatening to get out of control. Sam, who for some reason has his fire extinguisher with him, says, “Give me your tickets to the Redskins game on Sunday, and I’ll extinguish the fire.”
That’s extortion, according to the social post, which proclaims, “Guilty. Lock Sam up.”
No, it’s not extortion, not any more than it’s bribery (though why Sam would want seats to a Washington Redskins game is barely fathomable).
Extortion would be Sam threatening to tweet that his neighbor has dubious judgment as evidenced by his ownership of Redskins season tickets.
Bribery would be Sam giving his policeman neighbor five big ones to lie about Sam’s son’s arrest record on the son’s police-force job application.
To sell the silly notion that The Donald attempted to bribe or extort Ukraine’s Mr. Zelensky to get the goods on the Bidens in exchange for aid to Ukraine will require a suspension of disbelief that the American people have shown they aren’t willing to make.
Well, at least Americans not of the Pelosi-Schumer-Biden-Warren-Sanders-Buttigieg persuasion.
You know. The Americans who didn’t suspend their common-sense disbelief by voting for Hillary Clinton and who instead elected America’s first America-First president.

Monday, November 11, 2019

Devine: Liberals ENABLED Powerful SEX ABUSERS

Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton
Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton. Getty Images



Miranda Devine

Like a lot of wronged women, Monica Lewinsky now is reassessing her “affair” with Bill Clinton through the lens of the MeToo movement.
It was “an abuse of power … 100 percent,” she said Saturday night in a speech in Australia.
The former White House intern, who was just 22 when the president seduced her, said she had “clung so steadfastly to this notion that [it] was a real, consensual relationship, [but] as we started to have public conversations that were different about consent, as we started to recognize abuse of power in different ways, these structures started to crumble around powerful men who have been able to engage in [bad] behaviors and be lauded and celebrated.”
Lewinsky is right that some rich and powerful men now are being held accountable for past sexual wrongdoing that once was condoned by everyone in their privileged social stratum.
But, on the other hand, many of these men still don’t seem to comprehend that the music has stopped on the sexual free-for-all of previous decades, nor do many of their celebrity enablers and sycophants who turned a blind eye for decades.
A few days earlier, and half a world away from Lewinsky’s Sydney address, Harvey Weinstein was seen canoodling with a nubile actress in a Soho nightclub and reportedly being feted by fans as if he hadn’t a care in the world while awaiting trial in Manhattan Supreme Court on two rape charges.
Also last week, in France, a fourth woman emerged to accuse Oscar winner Roman Polanski of raping her at a Swiss ski resort in 1975, when she was just 18.
The allegation emerged as his latest movie, about the Dreyfus Affair, was showered with prizes at the European Film Awards.
Polanski has been a fugitive from US justice since he skipped bail after being charged over the drugging, rape and sodomy of a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson’s Los Angeles house in 1977.
Despite pleading guilty to statutory rape before he fled, Polanski has been staunchly defended by Hollywood liberals, including Weinstein and Woody Allen, ironically enough, as well as Meryl Streep and Whoopi Goldberg.
“It’s a shocking way to treat a man who went through the Holocaust and his wife’s murder,” wrote Weinstein in 2009, at a time when he himself was riding high on the wings of impunity in the land of the casting couch.
In interviews for “An Officer and A Spy,” which opens in France this week, Polanski has been likening himself to his protagonist, Capt. Alfred Dreyfus, the French Jewish officer falsely accused of being a German spy two decades before World War I.
“I can see the same determination to deny the facts and condemn me for things I have not done,” Polanski had the gall to say.
Yes, it was a big week for MeToo denial. But it wouldn’t be complete without a mention of the late predator Jeffrey Epstein.
Sure enough, a TV news producer was sacked last week over suspicions (which she denies) that she leaked the hot-mic video of ABC News anchor Amy Robach complaining that the network spiked her Epstein scoop, which implicated Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew.
The thread that links all these libidinous men is the power of the progressive Hollywood establishment and the protection racket that fuels it.
As long as they paid homage to favored causes, abortion, LGBTQI rights, open borders, the Clinton Foundation and the Democratic Party, these men bought themselves protection from scrutiny and negative publicity.
Weinstein was so certain that this unspoken contract would hold when he first was accused of being a serial sexual predator that he whined about his virtuous acts as if they would expunge any heinous behavior.
Look at all the good things I’ve done, he wailed, pointing to his fraudulent feminist documentary “The Hunting Ground,” marching in an anti-Trump women’s protest, employing Barack Obama’s daughter Malia as an intern, and hosting a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton.
Epstein, too, supported obligatory progressive causes, including the Clinton Foundation and elite universities.
These men only managed to keep their offending in plain sight for so long because they were darlings of the liberal establishment.
Harvey Weinstein and Meryl Streep
Harvey Weinstein and Meryl StreepGetty Images
After Weinstein was fired in disgrace in 2017 from the company he founded, Oscar winner Streep issued a disingenuous statement, saying she had no idea that her friend had allegedly spent almost three decades forcing himself on young actresses and paying off at least eight accusers.
If the stories were true, said Streep, she didn’t think the media “would have neglected for decades to write about it.”
But of course, every day we see evidence that elements of the media were complicit in the liberal protection racket.
They will go after Brett Kavanaugh with every forensic tool at their disposal over flaky allegations that fall apart at first glance. They persecuted the Covington Catholic High School boys with manic vigor, trying to prop up a false story of racism they wanted so much to be true that they ignored all evidence to the contrary.
They melt down at Donald Trump’s hypothetical “p—y grabbing” and scream about Twitter micro-aggressions from conservatives.
Yet they give a free pass to the atrocities of their ideological fellow travelers, turning a collective blind eye at best, or at worst, stifling and spiking stories.
Yes, the protection racket around powerful abusers is starting to crumble. But until celebrity enablers admit their role, justice will never be done.

Labour pain looms in UK

Donald Trump urged his friend Brexit leader Nigel Farage earlier this month to join forces with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in Britain’s upcoming election.
Good advice, but there are real fears in London that Farage’s Brexit Party will split the conservative vote on Dec. 12 and allow the anti-Semitic socialist Jeremy Corbyn to come through the middle.
To give you an idea of how extreme Corbyn is, on Friday, four senior former Labour MPs urged a vote for the Conservatives, calling Corbyn a “disgrace to the Labour Party and a disgrace to this country.”
“I think Jeremy Corbyn is completely unfit to lead our country,” said Ian Austin. “Decent, traditional, patriotic Labour voters … should be voting for Boris Johnson this election.”
Unless Farage and Johnson make a peace deal, Britain’s answer to Bernie Sanders could become the accidental prime minister, and that’s bad news for everyone.

Blexit fans: Owens for prez in 2024

Readers applauded Candace Owens and her Blexit movement encouraging black Americans to exit the Democratic Party.
“Candace Owens would be the perfect replacement for Trump when he leaves office in 2025,” writes Steve. “Or when Donald Jr. leaves 8 years later. That would really cause Democrat heads to explode!”
Jesse agreed: Owens is “smart, witty, charismatic, and unafraid to see and call out the Democrats for who they truly are … The black and Hispanic vote is what will put Trump over the top in a big way in 2020. They are finally back to work after all these years of the Dems keeping them down with their paltry handouts.
“Nothing would make me happier than seeing the first woman (and woman of color at that) President being a Republican.”
Amen.

Sunday, November 10, 2019

Lindsey Graham Says Impeachment ‘INVALID’ Without Whistleblower Testimony

US Senator Lindsey Graham
AFP via Getty Images


Lee Brown

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham insisted Sunday that the impeachment inquiry is “invalid” without testimony from the whistleblower and a “complete joke” without comments from Hunter Biden.
“I consider any impeachment in the House that doesn’t allow us to know who the whistleblower is to be invalid,” Sen. Graham (R-S.C.) told Fox News on Sunday.
“Without the whistleblower complaint, we wouldn’t be talking about any of this,” he added.  “And I also see the need for Hunter Biden to be called to adequately defend the president. If you don’t do those two things, it’s a complete joke.”
Graham predicted that the whistleblower will emerge as “somebody from the deep state,” saying, “This thing is gonna stink to high heaven.”
He insisted it was crucial for him to be unmasked to investigate reported ties to John Brennan or Joe Biden — and that President Trump’s team must be able to cross-examine him.
“No American can be accused of a crime based on an anonymous allegation,” Graham told Fox.
“The whistleblower is foundational to what they’re doing into the House.
“And the fact that they don’t want to call him tells you everything they know — everything you need to know about how valid this effort is to impeach the president.
“If you think Schiff is looking for the truth you shouldn’t be able to drive anywhere in America because that’s a ridiculous concept.”
House minority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy also insisted on the same show Sunday that the inquiry is a “calculated coup” being “orchestrated” by Schiff.
“We are watching him orchestrate the takedown of a president after we just celebrated 30 years of taking down the Berlin Wall,” he said, calling the Democrat someone who has “consistently lied to America.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) also said the inquiry would be “sort of a sham” without Biden and the whistleblower’s evidence.
“You’ll not meet a person who is more fair than I am,” he told NBC’s “Meet The Press.”
“One of our traditions about justice, about finding justice, is a defense should be able to present their witnesses.
“So I am fair-minded. But the trial has to be fair.”
However, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) insisted the whistleblower’s testimony was redundant now that it had sparked so much fresh information.
“All sources tell us that what the whistleblower said was secondhand information, and they now have firsthand information of diplomats, military people, others that actually heard these actions occur,” Klobuchar said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“Why would you reveal the whistleblower, when you’re supposed to have protections?”

Dem LEADER Tells GOP To 'GET LOST' Over Impeachment Inquiry WITNESS LIST

GET LOST!

Dem leader blasts GOP colleagues over Trump impeachment witness list


 Ronn Blitzer


House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Hakeem Jeffries blasted Republicans and labeled them as a "#CoverUpCaucus" after they submitted a list of witnesses they would like to call for public testimony as part of the ongoing impeachment inquiry of President Trump.
Jeffries, D-N.Y., also questioned the validity of the witnesses in a brief but fiery tweet Sunday morning directed at his counterparts across the aisle.
"House Republican #CoverUpCaucus wants sham witnesses to testify," Jeffries said. "My two cents? GET LOST."
The GOP list includes Hunter Biden and his former business partner Devon Archer, former Democratic National Committee consultant Alexandra Chalupa, and the anonymous whistleblower whose complaint about Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky led to the impeachment inquiry.
In that call, Trump urged Zelensky to launch an investigation into the Biden family’s dealings in Ukraine -- specifically, why former Vice President Joe Biden pressured former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a Ukrainian energy firm where his son Hunter held a lucrative role on the board.
Democrats have claimed the call was part of an attempted quid pro quo in exchange for withheld U.S. military aid and a White House meeting between Zelensky and Trump. Trump has denied the claim, saying the call was “perfect.”
Republicans have called for the whistleblower to come forward to answer questions about their complaint, which came from second-hand knowledge of the phone call.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who runs the inquiry, was quick to reject the GOP's request to have the whistleblower come forward to testify, citing whistleblower protection laws and stating that other witnesses' testimony has already been more substantive than what was stated in the complaint.
"The committee ... will not facilitate efforts by President Trump and his allies in Congress to threaten, intimidate and retaliate against the whistleblower who courageously raised the initial alarm," Schiff said in a letter to Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif. " ... The whistleblower has a right under laws championed by this committee to remain anonymous and to be protected from harm."
The impeachment inquiry, moreover, has gathered an ever-growing body of evidence -- from witnesses and documents, including the president's own words in his July 25 call record -- that not only confirms, but far exceeds the initial information in the whistleblower's complaint ... " Schiff concluded his letter.
President Trump suggested Saturday that Republicans call former Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Schiff himself as witnesses.

Fox News' Brooke Singman and Adam Shaw contributed to this report.

New York AG’s Office Totally DISGRACED Itself In The EXXON Trial

Closing arguments finished up Thursday in the People of New York v. ExxonMobil — a trial that has utterly disgraced the people’s representatives, prosecutors from the state Attorney General’s Office.
Shutterstock


Post Editorial Board

Closing arguments finished up Thursday in the People of New York v. ExxonMobil — a trial that has utterly disgraced the people’s representatives, prosecutors from the state Attorney General’s Office.
Time and again, state Supreme Court Justice Judge Barry Ostrager chided the prosecution — for being unprepared, for indulging in “agonizing, repetitious questioning about documents that are not being disputed”; for pretending a witness was an expert when she wasn’t; for presenting an expert (paid $1,050 an hour) who wouldn’t stop “rambling” and more.
At one point, he snapped: “OK, that’s the fifth time that he has given you the same answer.” At another, he all but accused the state of manipulating Exxon’s stock price on the basis of false information — in a trial where the state was trying to show that Exxon was doing that.
In a final bit of self-disgrace, late Thursday the prosecutors dropped two of their three main charges — the ones that required proving intent.
All that’s left is a charge under the Martin Act, which allows for criminal guilt for an accidental misrepresentation that might mislead the public. But the state failed to even produce any clear evidence that Exxon ever misled the public in any respect, even inadvertently.
That’s a huge comedown for a prosecution that opened under the banner “#ExxonKnew.”
To be clear, the main blame for this debacle falls on disgraced former AG Eric Schneiderman, who started the whole thing as an exercise in headline-hunting back in 2015. He handed off the actual work to subordinates who repeatedly revised the entire theory of the case — that is, the wrong they claimed Exxon had committed — with the charges growing less explosive every time.
They originally claimed Exxon had suppressed research — when in fact its scientists have always published freely, and the company has openly discussed the risks of climate change and so on in its annual reports and on its website.
Then they suggested the company had deceived investors by “overstating” its assets by “trillions.” But it turned out Exxon had clearly disclosed all the relevant info.
Finally, they claimed it used one risk-assessment standard in public, another in private. But the Securities and Exchange Commission cleared Exxon on that front before this trial even opened.
It seems the prosecutors feared it would just be too humiliating to admit they had nothing, and hoped they’d somehow stumble on . . . something.
Still, Thursday’s final retreat, dropping most charges at the very end, was a shocker. It left the judge dismissing those charges “with prejudice,” so the state can never refile them. And Exxon’s infuriated lawyers say those claims “have cost in many respects the most severe reputation harm to the company and to the executives,” so they want still stronger sanctions.
Judge Ostrager has 30 days to issue a decision. The prosecutors are surely praying he’ll find the Martin Act gives them so much leeway that he actually has to find Exxon guilty. If so, it’ll be a blaring alarm to businesses to have nothing to do with New York, because they have no hope of a fair break here.
Otherwise, the judge should explore every possible option for censuring the state’s attorneys — whose abuse of power here has been utterly mind-blowing.