Fiona Hill’s False Dilemma (Larry Elder and Elise Stefanik Respond)

One of the dumbest things I heard from Fiona Hill is the following:

Rep. Elise Stefanik responded well to this false binary choice. It is like “Freydo” asking time-and-time-again if his guest didn’t trust the CIA when his guest was just speaking about Brennan. It is true that Russia interfeared with our elections in minor ways…

  • President Donald Trump rejects the narrative that Russia wanted him to win. USA Today examined each of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by the Russian-based Internet Research Agency, the company that employed 12 of the 13 Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for interfering with the 2016 election. It turns out only about 100 of its ads explicitly endorsed Trump or opposed Hillary Clinton. Most of the fake ads focused on racial division, with many of the ads attempting to exploit what Russia perceives, or wants America to perceive, as severe racial tension between blacks and whites…. (must read the entire article at LARRY ELDER’s SITE)

…it is ALSO true that Ukraine interfered with our elections. Here is the kick-ass Representative responding:

 

Gregg Jarrett Documents 6-Lies To The FISA Court

Gregg Jarrett filled in for Sean Hannity on Friday (11-27-19) and discussed aspects of the FISA Warrants I am sure many do not know. All of this can be found in his book, “Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History“.

I add a quote from HotAir (just pass the 8-minute mark) discussing the New York Times saying the Steele Dossier is garbage and probably Russian propaganda. But this is after two years of them using it as “Gospel Truth” – here is that and a couple other noteworth articles:

  • NY Times: Say, This Steele Dossier Appears To Be False (And Maybe Was A Russian Disinformation Effort) (HOT AIR)
  • If This New York Times Reporter Suspected the Dossier Was a Fraud Why Is He Only Reporting on It Now (RED STATE)
  • NYT Finally Acknowledges That Steele Dossier Might Not Be That Factual (DAILY WIRE)
  • WTF MSM!? NY Times Admits the Dossier May Have Been a Russian Disinformation Operation (THE BLAZE)

At any rate, this is a great pre-cursor to the December 9th IG Report… which will be followed up by clarifications from Durham, surely.

Dems and the Media Had Their Asses Handed To Them (Day 4)

I listened to almost all of Sondland’s early testimony while out dropping deliveries off for work. I thought to myself, “wow, that sounds pretty bad.” I got back from my morning deliveries, loaded up the van, and by the time I was on the road… the earlier testimony was destroyed and the media was eating crow. Here is an example of the frothiness of the reporting via NEWSBUSTERS:

So SCHIFF ran out to the reporters and gave a “got em'” speech. Except… the Republicans hadn’t yet examined the witnesses… that was a problem — and really made my day. Here is Rep. Michael Turner’s cross examination of Gordon Sondland:

Hahahaha… what just happened!? Not only that… Ambassador Sondland told Schifty Schiff something that obliterated Schiff’s “half-time ‘book em’ Dano’” speech (GATEWAY PUNDIT):

TO BE CLEAR, here is a montage of his denials:

 

RIGHT SCOOP has these videos in a post:

Sondland also testified that he never heard Trump link aid to the investigations:

Swallwell at least got Sondland to laugh… at the line of questioning. Damn the GOP are smart MF’ers comparatively.

JIM JORDAN

TRUMP noted the obvious!

Dems Had Their Asses Handed To Them (Day 3)

In the fight between left vs right, Democrats vs Republicans, progressives vs conservatives, the sides are clear. The motives are clear. One side will say what they believe helps them the most and hurts their opponents at the same time. It may be ugly, but it’s honest (at least in their intentions if not in substance).

On Tuesday, Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) laid out the Republican case against impeachment in his opening statement as the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. In his statement, he did as most expected and attacked the Democrats’ case, but the real meat and potatoes from his statement came in the form of attacks against mainstream media. (NOQ REPORT)

Rep. John Ratcliffe, notes that Democrats have called Trump’s conduct “bribery” and then pulls out a mountain of papers of deposition transcripts. He says at no point have witnesses described his conduct as “bribery” in the last six weeks. He says the word appears only once — and that’s in relation to former Vice President Joe Biden’s alleged conduct.

LEGAL INSURRECTIONRep Elise Stefanik!


OTHER VIDEOS


RIGHT SCOOP:

Here’s a few notable clips from this evening’s hearing, the first of which is both Tim Morrison and Kurt Volker agreeing that Zelensky had no idea that the Ukraine ad was being held up at the time of the July 25th phone call…

Volker also testified that there was no quid pro quo or ‘bribery’, as they are now calling it:

And finally, Morrison, who was listening in on the July 25th phone call between Trump and Zelensky says nothing concerned him about the call:

RIGHT SCOOP:

 

Ambassador Bill Taylor’s LAUGHABLE “Testimony” (UPDATED)

THIS VIDEO below has been removed by YouTube twice. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY. But I removed almost all of the description in the text of it thinking that is why? (HERE IS MORE ON THAT!) Below is an expansion of the original comments and then some.

MUST LISTEN TO Rush Limbaugh — who reads from Rep. Lee Zeldin’s questioning of Ambassador Bill Taylor. The media went with the Democrats summary of the witness testimony — so the media [in other words] didn’t report just how horrible the witness was. As usual, it took a couple minutes to cut through the muck by a Republican. TWITCHY notes some of the devastating “fact” witness B.S.

The “Whistleblowers” name appears in both the Mueller Report (PUBLIC ACCESS) and released PUBLIC documents by Schiff. And, he is not a whistleblower.  The statute does not say anywhere in it that a name cannot be released. It merely protects a whistleblower from being fired arbitrarily or having work-place harassment from happening. Second, the “blower” did not mention anything to do with intelligence from his community. He passed along (leaked) 3rd-hand information.

TWITCHY has a great story on Lee Zeldin’s cross-examination… here is one of the Tweets noted by them:

More RUSH STUFF:

Also, the lawyer for Ciaramella said he was beginning a coup against President Trump… something he should (and may) lose his law licence over. Here President Trump reads the Tweets you will dind below:

LEGAL INSURRECTION has more, but here are a couple Tweets by Zaid, dating back to the day of Trump inauguration (2017):

REMEMBER, the WASHINGTON POST also mentioned the impeachment plan had begun… 19-minutes after Trumps inauguration (NOQ REPORT):

Kimberley Strassel | American Thought Leaders

Who exactly are the “Resistance,” as explored in Kim Strassel’s new book “Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump Haters are Breaking America”?

How are “Trump haters” different from “Trump critics?” How is the Resistance different from past political movements? What are the long-term implications of its activities? And how are the media involved?

And, how can the Trump “impeachment inquiry” be seen as the latest chapter of the Resistance’s efforts?

This is American Thought Leaders 🇺🇸, and I’m Jan Jekielek.

Today we sit down with Kim Strassel, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board and a prominent political commentator. She was the recipient of the Bradley Prize in 2014, and she writes the Journal’s long-running “Potomac Watch” column.

Fox News’ “Impeachment Poll”

I was challenged by a friend when I brought up the weighted aspect by this: “Have you taken any graduate level courses on polling Sean? I have.” So I guess you have to take graduate level courses in statistics to be fooled? I don’t know… I don’t put ANYTHING past these #NeverTrumpers any-longer. But I never say, “have you read over 2,000 books cover-to-cover, have a library of over 5,000 books as well as 3,000 more digitally?” — to make a point become true.

BIZPIC has this about the Fox News Poll:

The problem is that the poll was heavily biased because it over-sampled Democrats, thereby leading to skewed results.

According to analysis by the New York Post, a poll weighted for party affiliation would’ve concluded that 44.9% of voters favor impeachment, while 44.4% oppose it.

In other words, a less-biased poll would’ve shown that the majority of voters (55.1%) oppose impeachment.

Braun Research conducted the Fox News poll by sampling a pool comprised of:

  • 48% Democrats.
  • 40% Republicans.
  • 12% Independents.

In reality, registered American voters are:

  • 31% Democrat.
  • 29% Republican.
  • 38% independent.

Any poll that oversamples Democrats will lead to a skewed result. This is exactly what Fox News host Greg Gutfeld said this week when he dismissed the Fox News poll as bogus.

“We got to point out that it’s weighted toward Democrats,” Gutfeld said. “It’s 48% Democrats, 40% Republicans, 12% other. Also, it’s being taken at the fever pitch of media coverage about a single topic, so what do you expect?”

Gutfeld underscored: “We have to remind ourselves how many Democrats and how many Republicans are in this poll, and that these polls have been known to be wrong.”

AMERICAN THINKER continues the breakdown and shows how Rasmussen attempts to correct for such things:

How did the Fox polling unit come up with this number?

The Fox news polling companies interviewed 1,003 registered voters, ostensibly throughout the length and breadth of the United States.  Many polling companies use either all adult Americans (254 million) or registered voters (158 million in 2016) as their universe for polling.  Obviously, the greater the number of potential people to contact and question, the easier a poll is to complete and to skew a result.  In reality, what matters is who votes in an election.  In 2016, 86% (or 136.6 million) of registered voters cast a vote.  A poll of likely voters would inherently be more reliable but more difficult to achieve.  Currently, only Rasmussen among national polls uses exclusively likely voters and they are among the most reliable.

As the issue of impeachment is overtly political, the political make-up of the respondents in any poll is critical.  In this recent Fox poll, 48% of those polled claimed to be Democrats, 40% Republican, and 12% independent.  However, as Gallup points out in its most recent research, 31% of all Americans identify as Democrats, 29% as Republican and 38% as independent.

Ideally, all polls, as does Rasmussen, should strive to reflect that political affiliation dichotomy or as close as possible, considering the difficulty in finding people willing to be polled and be honest in their responses.

Therefore, the Fox poll, with its political make-up of respondents, is manipulated to come up with a desired result.  The issue isn’t the difference between the number of Democrat and Republican respondents, but the gross undercounting of independents and the massive overcounting of Democrats.

Over the past three months to date, in a variety of polls, an average of nearly 84% of all Democrats favored the impeachment of Donald Trump.  Therefore, when Fox uses 48% Democrat registered voters, the poll immediately, before taking into account any other group, will indicate 41% in favor of impeachment and removal.  Thus, to get to 51%, only 20% of those identifying as Republican or independents in this poll would have to be in favor of impeachment.

However, if Fox had used the actual political breakdown of 32% of Americans identifying as Democrats, then instead of an immediate impact of 41% in the result, it would have been 27%, or 14 percentage points less.

Further, over the past three months, polls have averaged 92% of Republicans and 56% of independents opposed to impeachment and removal.  If the Fox poll sample had been 29% Republican and 39% independent, using these average poll results, the final tabulation would have been 44% instead of 51%.

But there would have been no headlines and breathless anchors on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and ABC, nor any banner headlines in the Washington Post and New York Times trying to convince the nation that the citizenry is turning on Donald Trump….

 

CNN Exposed Again! (Blue Collar Logic – Project Veritas)

As if it’s not obvious to a lot of us, CNN’s true agenda has been exposed, again. Thanks to Project Veritas for confirming what we all know. Below is a link to the full Project Veritas Video.

PROJECT VERITAS EXPOSES:

  • PART 1: CNN Insider Blows Whistle on Network President Jeff Zucker’s Personal Vendetta Against POTUS
  • Part 2: CNN Leadership and Staffers Reveal True Sentiments; Network Picks Favorites Among Democratic Candidates on Eve of Debate

Impeachment Efforts Harm Intel Community/Whistleblower Laws

Amidst the latest attempt to remove President Trump, Larry discusses the circumstances of the whistleblower’s report to Congress over President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—in what was claimed to be diplomatic pressure to investigate Joe Biden and his son’s business dealings in the country. Larry further delves into all the other failed attempts to unseat a duly elected president.

I have to think this is all choreographed… that the full script was written and the MSM is following it to the “T.” This second “whistle blower” was set to come out at this time and the media was suppose to run with it because they all thought Trump would still be obfuscating the details. EXCEPT, Trump fast-lined the call transcript and complaint to be released…. hence the responses to George Stephanopoulos on his Twitter:

TWITCHY notes Legal Insurrections take down of the latest revelation of a 2nd whistle blower:

LEGAL INSURRECTION continues it’s cogent thinking by noting that the “[w]eaponization of whistleblower laws is yet another breach of norms in an effort to unwind the 2016 election and manipulate the 2020 election.” Continuing LI notes failure after failure of the Left to oust Trump:

Circulating claims of Trump-Russian collusion prior to the 2016 election didn’t work.

Using foreign-supplied fake intelligence, from a British spy who utilized Russian sources, to obtain surveillance of the Trump campaign and transition team didn’t work.

Intimidating Electoral College Electors to change their votes after the election didn’t work.

Having the Director of the FBI lie to, set up and try to entrap the president didn’t work.

Having that same FBI Director leak memos to the media to manufacture grounds for a Special Counsel didn’t work.

Trying to invoke the 25th Amendment to declare the president unable to perform the job didn’t work.

Two years of the Mueller Investigation didn’t work.

Three years of a permanent crisis news cycle meant to paralyze the administration didn’t work.

After all these failures to unwind the 2016 election, Democrats and the mainstream media are trying a new tactic: Create a Star Chamber “impeachment” process fueled by anonymous whistleblowers and selective leaks that is not so much designed to remove the president, though they would if they could, but to manipulate the 2020 election.

The first intelligence community whistleblower is not so much a whistleblower as a politically biased operative (according to the Inspector General) who gathered information from various sources, went to Adam Schiff’s office for guidance, then filed a so-called Whistleblower Complaint that almost certainly was drafted by a team of lawyers. WhistleBlower No. 1, because he or she filed the claim as a whistleblower, is entitled to anonymity, there will not be the type of cross-examination and investigation of the whistleblower’s background and information that was so critical when Democrats rolled out a series of accusers against Brett Kavanaugh.

With Whistleblower No. 1 failing to fulfill the mission, there was a leak to the NY Times of a potential Whistleblower No. 2. That’s how this is going to work, there will be leaks to the media to frame the public narrative just like regarding supposed Russian-collusion.

That potential Whistleblower No. 2 is not actually a whistleblower, he or she is reportedly a witness already interviewed as part of the first Whistleblower Complaint. Whistleblower No. 2 is not blowing the whistle on anything.

[….]

At the same time that evidence is being funneled through whistleblower secrecy, Democrats are intent on shutting Republican’s out of the investigative process by conducting a non-impeachment impeachment investigation……

(Video added by RPT)

…..There has been no formal vote authorizing an impeachment investigation, so Republicans are without procedural mechanisms to fully participate in the process and to use congressional powers to conduct their own investigation.

Expect Schiff and team to leak like sieves, but only the information they gather in secret that they think helps them.

This has all the makings of a congressional Star Chamber of secret “whistleblowers” and Democrat leaks meant to manipulate both the public perception of the need for impeachment and the 2020 election.

And to end, this is a great “Tweet Storm” by Fred Fleitz:

1/ As a former CIA analyst and former NSC official who edited transcripts of POTUS phone calls with foreign leaders, here are my thoughts on the whistleblower complaint which was just released… (Complaint PDF)

2/ This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are not an intelligence concern. The fact that IC officers transcribe these calls does not give the IC IG jusrisdiction over these calls.

3/ It appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these sensitive calls was breached. This official was not on this call, not on the approved dissem list and should not have been briefed on the call.

4/ The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members?

5/ It is therefore important that Congress find out where this complaint came from. What did House and Senate intel committee dem members and staff know about it and when? Did they help orchestrate this complaint?

6/ My view is that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower. Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved?

7/ This complaint will further damage IC relations with the White House for many years to come because IC officers appear to be politicizing presidential phone calls with foreign officials and their access to the president and his activities in the White House.

8/ Worst of all, this IC officer — and probably others — have blatantly crossed the line into policy. This violates a core responsibility of IC officers is to inform, but not make policy.

9/ This is such a grevious violation of trust between the IC and the White House that it would not surprise me if IC officers are barred from all access to POTUS phone calls with foreign officials.

Katy Tur — Russian Media Propagandist (John Solomon)

Here is another example of the media and the Left doing what they accuse others of. In this case, spreading a statement that is obvious propaganda… like the race card, the media and Democrats use the “Russian Card.” Sean Hannity and John Solomon discuss everything Ukraine in the time allotted for him on the show (10-01-2019). I added the Bill Maher and Katy Tur videos that were mentioned by Solomon.

Here are two of John’s recent articles:

 

Yes, The Central Park Five Are Guilty (Updated)

This is an update to the post by way of a visual adaptation by the interviewer, Larry Elder. How anyone can even think these kids weren’t involved is beyond me. A great video update to the original post. (Video description to follow)


UPDATE


Larry takes a look at the accuracy of the Netflix mini-series When They See Us. The series was inspired by the 1989 Central Park jogger case where 28-year-old Trisha Meili was raped and assaulted, while other victims were attacked and robbed. Five black teens were indicted for attempted murder and other charges in the attack. They were found guilty, but the charges were later vacated. Claims of mistreatment and abuse by police were claimed by the defendants, popularizing the incident. Larry takes a look at the details and shares his interview with black detective Eric Reynolds, who was on the scene at the time, to see just who was to blame for what in this incident. See the interviews for yourself: https://centralpark5joggerattackers.com

Below are three separate shows, weeks apart, by LARRY ELDER. The first upload garnered a mass amount of thumbs down and negative comments. All by people who didn’t listen to it and are incurable victicrats. If you listen to these three uploads — below — and still believe the crap peddled over at NETFLIX… you may also be an incurable victicrat.


PART ONE


This is basically an excoriation of the idea that the “Central Park Five” are innocent. Psalm 97:10 says, “Let those who love the LORD hate evil.” I think of that when Trump mentions society “hating” these rapists (12:05 mark) Larry Elder plays how Van “commie” Jones and Chris Cuomo deal with one of the few Republicans left over at CNN (a MUST read article about CNN can be found at the WASHINGTON TIMES) who differed on the “Central Park Five.” Around the 6:00 mark Larry interviews (from last year) Ann Coulter, and then later (at the 14:41 mark) reads from a DAILY BEAST article, “The Myth of the Central Park Five”

Ann Coulter has a couple good articles on the topic:

The refusal to allow dissenting views is a BIG issue at CNN and MSNBC. In fact, Larry Elder says this episode where Lawrence O’Donnell refused to let John O’Neill of Swift Boat fame speak is what got him a job on MSNBC. NOT ONLY does the MSM censor conservative and Republicans, by doing so they perpetuate the innocence of thugs and killers. Thus, bringing a net evil to society in various ways (attacking truth, attacking innocent civilians, allowing criminal to be emboldened).

See also:

  • 7 Things You Need To Know About The Central Park Jogger Case (DAILY WIRE, August 2016)
  • Donald Trump Isn’t Alone in Believing “Central Park Five” Are Guilty (LAW and CRIME, October 2017, )
  • The “Central Park Five”: Still Guilty (FRONT-PAGE MAGAZINE, August 2014)

PART TWO


Larry Elder reads from various sources, one being the Wall Street Journal piece by Linda Fairstein entitled, “Netflix’s False Story of the Central Park Five: Ava DuVernay’s miniseries wrongly portrays them as totally innocent—and defames me in the process“. A previous upload can really be PART ONE to this audio: “Yes, The Central Park Five Are Guilty“. I highly suggest LEGAL INSURRECTION’S post on this topic as well.

Enjoy… I will share a thought from a comment from part one:

  • “The comments are filled with people who didn’t listen to the video and didn’t look at the evidence independently.”

I can only assume the same will happen here.


PART THREE


Larry Elder interviews Detective Eric Reynolds regarding his intimate knowledge of the Central Park Five.

This really is a death knell for the lies regarding this case. Detective Reynolds mentions a website where one can view all the confessions and read the judges ruling and the police report. The website is called: “THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE JOGGER ATTACKERS: Guilty – In Their Own Words”. This is great radio, enjoy, and I hope to get the detectives book at some point when (not if) he is published.

Detective Reynolds recently appeared on CNN to discuss the matter as well: