Former Clintonista Stephanopoulos pushed the Democratic line, claiming there had been no evidence of widespread fraud. But Noem stopped him short (RED STATE).
“And that is not true,” Noem answered. “People have signed legal documents, affidavits, stating that they saw illegal activities and that is why we need to have this conversation in court. The New York Times itself has said there were clerical errors. … in Michigan we had computer glitches that turned Republican votes to Democrat votes. You look in Pennsylvania, dead people voted in Pennsylvania.” [….]
“So George, I don’t know how widespread it is. I don’t know if it will change the outcome of the election,” Noem admitted. “But why is everybody so scared just to have a fair election and find out? We gave Al Gore 37 days to run the process before we decided who was going to be president. Why would we not afford the 70.6 million Americans who voted for Trump the same consideration?”
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.
Sen. David Purdue (R-GA), who was at the meeting, told ABC News’ This Week with George Stephanopoulos that Durbin’s account of events was a “gross misrepresentation,” adding that it was “not the first time we’ve had a gross misrepresentation by that individual.”
The gross misrepresentation was that language was used in there that was not used, and also that the tone of that meeting was not contributory and not constructive. In 2013, Senator Durbin also made the same accusation against a Republican leader in a meeting with President Obama, and said that he chewed out the president, and was so disrepsectful to President Obama we couldn’t even have the meeting. That’s what he said in 2013. Later that day, the president’s own press secretary came out and said, and I quote: “It did not happen.” This is about a gross misrepresentation. It’s not the first time.
Kirsten Powers has written an important new book entitled: “The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech.” In the interview are a couple examples given of ingrained bias. I excluded discussion of her recent column dealing with George Stephanopoulos, but THAT article can be found here.
Another great book by this evolving Christian where truth is winning out. See my previous “expose” of her faith:
…While Stephanopoulos might be the piñata of the week, singling him out misses the point. Simpson is harkening back to an era of journalism that sadly no longer exists. After all, we have a mainstream news media that took a Democratic Party talking point — “the war on women” — and reported it as if it’s breaking news.
Presuming guilt among Republicans and goodness among Democrats is so reflexive and rewarded in today’s mainstream media culture, it’s not that hard to see how Stephanopoulos truly would not have understood he had an egregious conflict of interest as he faced down Schweizer. Like a fish doesn’t notice the water, today’s mainstream journalists are impervious to their bias in favor of Democratic candidates or liberal issues. They believe they are being objective because they have mistaken their ideological belief system for truth. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has noted repeatedly, “The facts have a liberal bias.“
This view has fertile ground in which to flourish, as the ideological and intellectual diversity of the nation’s newsrooms decreases. Per The Atlantic, “Among journalists who align with one of the two major parties, four in five said they’re Democrats.” While many of these people are able to account for their bias, too many aren’t. A friend recently recalled to me watching journalists at a mainstream media outlet erupt in cheers as election returns came in favoring President Obama. It must have been lonely for the few Republicans: According to an Indiana University survey, in 1971, almost 26% of reporters were Republican. Today, it’s 7%.
The big takeaway for ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in his interview with author Peter Schweizer was that the book Clinton Cash had no “smoking gun” on Hillary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation. ABC News did its own investigation of the allegations in Schweizer’s book, but Stephanopoulos argued that Schweizer didn’t prove a connection between payments and Hillary’s actions as Secretary of State:
A recent report in The New York Times, based on claims made in “Clinton Cash,” raised questions about donations made to the Clinton Foundation that coincided with the approval of aRussian uranium deal during her tenure at the State Department. The undersecretary who worked on the deal, however, has said that Clinton was not involved in the sale.
Schweizer told Stephanopoulos that the evidence comes from the pattern of behavior:
Schweizer said he does not have “direct evidence” that Clinton intervened on the uranium deal, but added that “this is part of the broader pattern” that he said should still be investigated.
“The smoking gun is in the pattern of behavior,” he said, later adding, “You either have to come to the conclusion that these are all coincidences or something else is afoot.”
Later, on Fox News Sunday, Schweizer notes eleven particular “coincidences” involving Bill Clinton and the direct compensation foreign interests could make to the Clintons (via National Review)
Take note that when George Stephanopoulos introduces people at the round table, he introduces Van Jones with professional job characteristics and mention his book… nothing is mentioned about his radical liberalism (Marxist leanings), or the like. When he introduces Ann Coulter, she is simply noted as a “conservative columnist, author.” She clerked for a -known judge, authored 8-books, etc. Why not mention her “Demonic” book (her most recent)? Why not denote Van Jones bio with “liberal” like Ann is a “conservative”?