Between 50 and 70 members of the US Army Delta Force and Rangers flew in on six helicopters and surrounded al-Baghdadi during the overnight raid in Syria’s Idlib province, an official source told Fox News.
The JAMES FOLEY FOUNDATION released the following statement on Twitter about Bagdadi’s death: “I am grateful to our President and brave troops for finding ISIS leader Al-Bagdadi. I hope this will hinder the resurgence of terror groups and pray that captured ISIS fighters will be brought to trial and held accountable.”
The DAILY MAIL has the story that my wife pointed out was similar to the THREE AMIGOS (following headline).
‘He died like a dog’ Donald Trump addresses the nation and confirms that ‘coward’ ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed by U.S. Special Forces and died ‘whimpering and crying and screaming’ after being cornered inside his Syrian lair and detonated his suicide vest
Donald Trump announced Sunday morning that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead
U.S.-led forces descended on al-Baghdadi’s lair in Idlib, Syria overnight
The president said al-Baghdadi ‘died like a dog’ after being run down a dead-end tunnel and cornered
Baghdadi detonated his suicide vest, killing himself and three of his children
Eleven children were cleared from the lair
Baghdadi’s two wives were killed during the operation without their suicide vests being detonated
Trump teased Saturday night that he would be making a ‘major statement’
Al-Baghdadi issued a chilling call to arms in 2014 declaring an Islamic ‘caliphate’
Under his leadership, smaller-scale higher-frequency attacks became the norm
Trump says he does not regret pulling U.S. forces from northern Syria
NED NEDERLANDER: “Tell us, ‘we will die like dogs’.”
EL GUAPO: “What?”
NED NEDERLANDER: “Tell us, ‘we will die like dogs’.”
EL GUAPO: “You will die like dogs.”
DUSTY BOTTOMS: “No we will not die like dogs! We will fight like lions! Because we are!…”
NED NEDERLANDER, LUCKY DAY & DUSTY BOTTOMS: “The Three Amigos!”
Inside the raid that killed al-Baghdadi: ISIS leader detonated suicide vest as US Army Delta Force and Rangers closed in on his lair in overnight firefight
Major ISIS target, believed to be Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, reportedly killed in Syria
Between 50 and 70 members of the US Army Delta Force and Rangers flew in on six helicopters and conducted Sunday’s overnight raid in Syria’s Idlib province
Al-Baghdadi is believed to have detonated a suicide vest as forces closed in
Unverified video showed the moment he was killed, along with his three children
President Donald Trump held a morning press conference on Sunday and confirmed al-Baghdadi ‘died like a dog’ in the extended firefight
Defense Secretary Mark Esper said there were two minor injuries to US soldiers after Trump indicated that a US K-9 was injured
Al-Baghdadi issued a chilling call to arms in 2014 declaring an Islamic ‘caliphate’
Under his leadership, smaller-scale higher-frequency attacks became the norm
Trump said Al-Baghdadi was surveilled for a few weeks before the raid
Below you will see in my upload (3rd video below), that it is true that the witnesses the Democrats call are refuting their narrative. EVEN WITHOUT REPUBLICANS calling witnesses of their own. So while the total count on the committees are 58 Democrat and 47 Republicans — the Founders set it up for the entire House to be involved. And as you will see, the inquiry has begun last week (again, 3rd video).
And when they are allowed to cross examine (the Democrats often times stop this from happening by shift which committee is handling the interview, or making it an Intel case), QUID PRO QUO is not crossing the witnesses lips:
REP. RATCLIFFE: Ambassador Taylor again today I found him to be forthright. He had very strong opinions on Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy. But again the mainstream media reporting that he provided evidence of a quid pro quo involving military aid is false. I questioned him directly on that. Under Adam Schiff’s rules I can’t tell you what he said but I can tell you what he didn’t say. Neither he or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aide was being withheld. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo!
I put together a “collage” of issues detailing why Republicans would “STORM” these secretive — nonConstitutional — hearings in order to try and make them public. Public. They are not trying to cover up anything, they are trying to make it fair and open. You would think the media would flock to this idea… however they are not. What follows are talking heads, politicians, and the like discussing and clarifying the issues.
Here is a person intimately involved in the process during the Clinton process in the house, Newt Gingrich. His NEWSWEEK article is excellent!
…two very different approaches can be seen in the voting pattern in the House. In November 1973, the House voted to fund the investigation into President Richard Nixon on a bipartisan 367-51 vote. By February 1974, everyone was so convinced that Rodino was being fair and nonpartisan that the resolution to conduct a formal investigation passed 410-4.
[….]
The result of our openness was that a substantial number of Democrats continued to vote with us on the procedures despite intense pressure from the White House and outside groups. In September 1998, the House voted to release the Starr report by 363-63 (nine failed to vote). Among Democrats, 138 voted to proceed in a fair way, and only 63 voted against investigating President Clinton.
Think about that. In 1998, we carried House Democrats by better than 2:1 to investigate President Clinton.
In the current atmosphere—with the dishonest, one-sided rigged game, and indeed, an obvious liar as chair of the investigation—can you imagine two-thirds of the House Republicans voting with Pelosi and Schiff for a witch hunt conducted under totally partisan rules?
Everyone who is interested in better understanding how fair people used judicial standards and basic fairness in 1973 and 1998 should read former Congressman and current Judge Jim Rogan’s personal history of the process in an important book: Catching Our Flag: Behind the Scenes of a Presidential Impeachment.
It will make crystal clear that the current partisan actions are a complete sham.
Mark Levin had an excellent dressing down of Jake Tapper from CNN regarding his recent commentary on the GOP “STORMING” the sham process the Democrats are calling an impeachment inquiry. Levin plays audio of Jake Tapper discussing the impeachment issue of the recent “STORMING” of the sham process the Democrats have made the vaunted impeachment inquiry. The GOP, mind you, merely wants the process in the public with the same rights afforded to Trump as were afforded to Nixon and Clinton. You would assume the media want the same thing… but in fact they are supporting the “Star Chamber” like process.
What kind of issues might the GOP regarding witnesses they would call up? Hunter Biden maybe? Joe Biden? Bill Taylor… in cross-examination? Maybe on the following snippet from ACE OF SPADES?
Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, who provided key testimony to the Democrats’ controversial impeachment inquiry yesterday, has evidenced a close relationship with the Atlantic Council think tank, even writing Ukraine policy pieces with the organization’s director and analysis articles published by the Council.
The Atlantic Council is funded by and works in partnership with Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.
In addition to a direct relationship with the Atlantic Council, Taylor for the last nine years also served as a senior adviser to the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), which has co-hosted events with the Atlantic Council and has participated in events co-hosted jointly by the Atlantic Council and Burisma.
Meanwhile, a search of government records reveals that Joe Biden intervened with both the DHS and the DOJ on behalf of Graft Hunter’s clients.
Joe Biden privately contacted the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice when he was a senior and influential U.S. senator to discuss issues that his son Hunter’s firm was being paid to lobby on, according to government records.
On at least two occasions, Biden contacted federal departments to discuss issues related to Hunter’s firm’s lobbying clients, according to records reviewed by the Washington Examiner.
…
Government records show that Biden, who has always insisted he knows nothing about his son’s business activities, helped Hunter’s work with strategic and highly specific interventions that could have benefited his son to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars….
If the hearing was fair and honest… the Democrats know they would lose the public confidence. Hence the secrecy. Even with the Republicans — with biased rules, are prevailing when allowed to cross examine.
More Video Fodder
After Rep. Adam Schiff read a false version of President Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Zelensky and claimed it to be parody, Larry decides to do a little investigating into why the Congressman is so confident in the whistleblower, whether he had contact with him, and whether the whistleblower actually had firsthand knowledge of the call. Larry also takes a look into why the whistleblower process requirement for firsthand knowledge was mysteriously removed.
With the NBA in a tough spot over their condemnation of Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey’s tweet supporting Hong Kong protests, Larry looks into coaches Brian Kerr, Greg Popovich, and player Lebron James and how they are quick to criticize President Trump and comment on other political issues in the US, but are reluctant to criticize China for any of its human rights abuses. Larry thinks one sports commentator knows the reason why.
PART 1
After Lebron James lambasted Daryl Morey for supporting Hong Kong protesters, Larry decides to look into one of the NBA’s biggest issues: fatherless households. He cites a number of well-known figures about the issue that he says faces not only NBA players but America’s black community in general.
PART 2
Larry Elder does a great job (in two segments) of showing the incredible hypocrisy of the NBA, China’s Orwellian fruition of it’s use of technology to keeps it’s communist regime in power. A must listen to excoriation of the issue with professional sports. Here is the CNN article Larry was reading from: “CHINA’S CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY YOU’VE NEVER HEARD OF“.
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.
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.
…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….
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.
Larry Elder reads from the VERY Left wing magazine, THE NATION’S — article: “The Ukraine Scandal Might Be a Bad Gambit for Democrats”. In it we find some damning tear-downs of positions taken at times over the past days by the media, and Facebook friends. An excellent tour of an honest Lefty worried about 2020.
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, )
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:
I was told by #NeverTrumpers that this soo shocked the DNI (internal watchdog, inspector general’s office) that the whistle-blowers complaint was raised to immediate “dealing with.” I was told this was done by a Trump appointee, Joseph Maguire. In other words, he is unbiased and committed to the truth. Come to find out that,
…the DNI general counsel said days later that, after consulting with the DOJ, the matter did not meet the legal definition of an ‘urgent concern,’ and was not subject to mandatory disclosure to Congress… (NEWSBUSTERS)
I asked a friend if the Facebook post he relayed by a friend would change:
So your friends FB post has been wrong in almost every point made…. NOW I wonder if this statement (“…The Inspector General who determined that the whistleblower complaint was “credible” and “urgent” is himself not just a Republican but a Trump appointee”…) will be used derisively rather than supportively of the conspiracy theory: “well, the IG is a Trump appointee. What else did you expect!?”
Maybe he was pressured! This story was the latest debunked conspiracy theory, and shows the amount of vitriol towards the President. “Acting director of national intelligence threatened to resign if he couldn’t speak freely before Congress on whistleblower complaint,” the Washington Postheadline ran. Also this from MSN
The acting director of national intelligence threatened to resign over concerns that the White House might attempt to force him to stonewall Congress when he testifies Thursday about an explosive whistle-blower complaint about the president, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter. (MSN)
PJ-MEDIA notes how the DNI himself debunked the story:
…Yet Maguire denied the report less than an hour after the Post published it. “At no time have I considered resigning my position since assuming this role,” he told Fox News congressional reporter Chad Pergram. “I have never quit anything in my life and I am not going to start now. I am committed to leading the Intelligence Community to address the diverse and complex threats facing our nation.”
Maguire is set to testify about a whistleblower complaint that the inspector general for the intelligence community said was of “urgent concern.” Controversially, the acting DNI prevented the whistleblower complaint from being released to Congress in a move some experts have condemned as illegal.
Maguire defended his actions in a statement Tuesday. “I want to make clear that I have upheld my responsibility to follow the law every step of the way,” he said. He also praised the whistleblower, adding, “the men and women of the Intelligence Community have a solemn responsibility to do what is right, which includes reporting wrongdoing.”
The Washington Post report seemed to contradict the basic claims against Maguire. If the acting DNI refused to release the whistleblower complaint to congressional committees, why would he threaten to resign in order to be more forthcoming to Congress?
It seems the sources behind the false story may have been attempting to gin up more controversy over the whistleblower complaint to add some legitimacy to the impeachment inquiry…
I was told by Facebook peeps the whistle-blower was in on the information personally and needed “whistle-blower status, protection.” But the problem was, he did not have first-hand knowledge, but heard it from someone. Brit Hume notes this in a Tweet:
Here’s a “new revelation” in this article: the whistleblower complaint is based on hearsay. From the article: “The whistleblower didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN.” https://t.co/rPPVRD88Qp
…The CNN story cited by Hume suggests, “It is hard to see how any of this ends well” but doesn’t mention the whistleblower’s precarious grip on his inside information until the reader is deep within the report.
“The whistleblower didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower’s concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration’s determination that the complaint didn’t fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said.”…
Representative Mark Meadows is noted as joining the fray with this:
…Rep. Mark Meadows, North Carolina Republican, tweeted that “amazingly Democrats now say the whistleblower complaint is more important” than the transcript of the phone call.
“Folks, the ‘whistleblower’ wasn’t on the call,” Mr. Meadows tweeted. “They think a secondhand account of the call will tell you more than the *actual call*.”… (WASHINGTON TIMES)
After noting the second-hand-hearsay — which I am convinced was dropped on purpose to get the Biden controversy front-n-center. The Trump admin KNOW how the #NeverTrumpers, the Leftist media, and Democrats will react… and the bonus? The Biden’s corruption are now the talk of the town. What did Rep. Matt Gaetz call it?Catfishing! But I digress.
Okay, again… After noting the second-hand-hearsay, the DOJ’s criminal division investigated Trump’s phone call to the Ukrainian president and found nothing wrong (RIGHT SCOOP). In fact, what came out later is the whistle-blower is intimately intwined with an org that pays people to come out against the Trump admin and is represented by Clintonistas… and is themself BIASED against Trump:
It was a fact completely omitted from the cascade of Trump impeachment coverage found on ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News. “The Dependent of Justice warned the whistleblower’s information was ‘secondhand’ and that there are indications, quote, ‘of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant,’” reported CBS chief congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes. (NEWSBUSTERS)
Democrat Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump on Tuesday based on second-hand information from a confirmed anti-Trump leftist operative of a July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky. The alleged “whistle-blower” is being represented by a former Schumer and Hillary Clinton operative. (GATEWAY PUNDIT)
What was the best moment however? I was told Trump was the initiator of the topic about corruption and the Biden’s. Bwahahaha… the President of the Ukraine initiated the discussion:
…In the transcript released today President Zelensky brought up Rudy Giuliani and his investigations of the Biden Crime Family with President Trump….. (GATEWAY PUNDIT)
To say Democrats and #NeverTrumpers jumped the gun on this is understated. Where is Mitt Romney on this??? He came out saying how aweful it was? Why is he all of a sudden silent? Behind closed doors the Dems know they effed up. Funny.
These are just some excerpts of guests discussing the Ukraine and the Democrats outrage [nothing burger 2.0] starting with the earliest show (AM) to the latest (PM). I had time yesterday to upload the following (Dr.’s Appointment), I hope to get to Larry Elder tonight.
HUGH HEWITT (+ Rep. Gallagher)
This is why I like listening to Hugh Hewitt. Apparently Nancy Pelosi didn’t start an inquiry into impeachment like the Republicans started one with Bill Clinton. Nothing has changed after Nancy Pelosi’s presser. In other words, we aren’t even one step closer to an impeachment trial or investigation. And representative Gallagher said that they are meeting to prematurely release The whistle-blower complaint, which was already scheduled for the end of the week. So the Washington Post noted that this was not first hand information from said whistle-blower. And the Wall Street journal debunked quid pro quo. In other words the Democrats have bupkis. But now President Trump has a new whipping boy. Which is: Hunter Biden getting $50,000 a month for 5 years for doing nothing but “going into business” with John Kerry’s son and Whitey Bulger’s son.
SEAN HANNITY (+ JOhn Solomon & Gregg Jarrett)
John Solomon and Gregg Jarrett discuss everything Ukraine, the Biden’s, and even some Russia thrown in for good measure — with Sean Hannity.
MARK LEVIN (+ John Solomon)
What a great interview! Have any misunderstanding or feel ignorant about how hypocritical Democrats are? Wonder no more.
(Video Description) Thanks to a “whistleblower,” Joe Biden says attention should be placed on President Trump for “threatening” the Ukraine president for dirt. But…what’s the dirt on what Biden did? Because the media isn’t talking about it. Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, partnered with John Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Hines, and an old roommate Devon Archer to create their own private equity firm, Rosemont Seneca. Obama made VP Biden the point person for Ukraine foreign policy, and before you know it, the company Hunter, Hines, and Archer developed is in a direct partnership with the Ukraine’s largest oil company, Burisma. Smell fishy to you?
Most important article wise comes from PJ-MEDIA… here are some excerpts:
The so-called whistleblower “scandal” that the media is hyping up every which way has Democrats once again falling all over each other to declare another “impeachable offense,” despite having virtually no details about the conversation between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. But, like everything else that’s been thrown at Trump, this appears to be another phony scandal. The Daily Wire’s Ashe Schow reported Saturday that the whistleblower complaint “is nothing more than a rumor reported by someone in the intelligence community.” In fact, CNN reported this fact, but buried it in an article:
The whistleblower didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower’s concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration’s determination that the complaint didn’t fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said.
Schow noted, “this is yet another anonymous source giving more context on what another anonymous source told a different outlet, but it still calls the entire story into question.” The original Washington Post story, despite being on the front page, was vague, relying on “two former U.S. officials familiar with the matter” who were “speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.” They alleged that Trump had made a “promise” to a world leader—which, based on what we know right now, is incorrect.
The Post filled out its story with information about a “standoff” between Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire and Congress.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson – who was appointed by Trump – determined the whistleblower complaint to be of “urgent concern,” according to the Post. But Maguire argued he was not required by law to turn the complaint over to congressional Democrats seeking to impeach Trump.
The reason Maguire didn’t turn the complaint over is because of what CNN reported – that the person who made the complaint had no direct knowledge of what was said and was merely reporting a rumor. Why the inspector general determined it “urgent and credible” remains to be seen.
All the reactions to the story since have been based on speculation as to what occurred on the call. Trump is alleged to have pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and offered a quid pro quo… which, according to the Wall Street Journal, there wasn’t:
President Trump in a July phone call repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden ’s son, urging Volodymyr Zelensky about eight times to work with Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, on a probe, according to people familiar with the matter.
“He told him that he should work with [Mr. Giuliani] on Biden, and that people in Washington wanted to know” whether allegations were true or not, one of the people said. Mr. Trump didn’t mention a provision of foreign aid to Ukraine on the call, said this person, who didn’t believe Mr. Trump offered the Ukrainian president any quid-pro-quo for his cooperation on an investigation…
[….]
So far, all we know is that the whistleblower at the heart of this situation didn’t actually overhear anything. The one thing we do know is that in 2016, Joe Biden successfully pressured then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to ax the country’s top prosecutor, who was investigating his son’s company, by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees. Biden even bragged about it.
With economic pundits predicting disaster over the horizon for the Trump economy, Larry decides to compare the doom and gloom to the months prior to the 1992 presidential election, which propelled Bill Clinton to the presidency. Just what were the pundits saying leading up to that election, and what were they saying directly afterwards? How does this parallel the leadup to 2020? Larry answers all these questions and more. He also gives us a peak into a lucrative career path he decided to pass up, despite his obvious talent.
