Under oath, on the stand. A few moments later I think she realized her mistake and tried to tie the money to here divorce. Remember, her lawyers counseled her not to come in and testify… she barged in and demanded. Lol.
When Fani Willis was defending her carrying of cash around and paying Nathan Wade with said cash, the question came up about the source of that cash.
In answering how cash is fungible and there’s no way to be sure, she made this shocking statement: “When I took out a large amount of money on my first campaign, I kept some of the cash from that…”
Hold up- did Fani Willis just admit under oath to pocketing cash from her first campaign & stashing it away at home for personal use?
WILLIS: “When I took out a large amount of money on my first campaign, I kept some of the cash from that…” pic.twitter.com/vb8WgiuHC7
That sounds like a huge campaign violation, to literally steal money from your campaign.
I’m sure she’ll try and explain it away, assuming she’s held to account for it, but I don’t see how that can be understood in any other context given that she was talking about hoarding money at home.
Nathan Wade testifies that he paid for all the vacations he took with Fani Willis with his business credit card. And that she then reimbursed him in CASH.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, joins ‘The Evening Edit’ to discuss the ‘hard deadline’ he has given the IRS to turn over documents and communications pertaining to ‘Twitter Files’ journalist Matt Taibbi.
‘The Five’ co-hosts react to Twitter Files journalist Matt Taibbi’s ‘unannounced’ timed run-in with the IRS just before his testimony before Congress.
Three of the Prosecutions witnesses completely blew up the Prosecutors case. And the DA got caught, literally, trying to have one of his witnesses fudge the facts. Crazy! No matter what you think about a 17-year old boy going to another state , armed (where were his parents!), has nothing ta do with the law… in court. This is what #WOKE PROSECUTIONS look like. And should be a warning to what is coming down the legal pipeline from the Left.
The prosecutor in the Rittenhouse trial clearly didn’t do due diligence before making the decision to prosecute. This tragedy never would have happened if the government carried out its responsibilities to protect the safety, lives and property of innocent people. pic.twitter.com/BFEOyRbvcj
‘The Five’ panel discuss day seven of the Rittenhouse trial in which the judge admonished the prosecution multiple times
Mayor Lightfoot (Chicago) has cancelled days off from the police force in lieu of the case being dismissed or only one misdemeanor being rendered — vs murder charges. I doubt with the vaccination demand and 40% of the force not working because of it and the feeling that police officers have regarding their mayor having their back…. I doubt many will show up to the riots coming.
Crowder reacts to Kyle getting emotional on the stand.
Democrats, the media ignore attack on the California gubernatorial candidate; ‘The Five’ reacts
“If a white woman wearing a monkey mask threw an egg at a black democratic candidate, there would be wall to wall coverage,” Owens said. “This might actually constitute as a hate crime in Los Angeles.” — POST MILLENNIAL
Owens slammed mainstream media for failing to report on the incident and said if roles were reversed and a conservative woman were to throw eggs and attack a black Democrat candidate there would have been extensive coverage.
“If this was on the other side, if a white woman wearing a monkey mask threw an egg at a black democratic candidate, there would be wall to wall coverage,” Owens said. “This might actually constitute as a hate crime in Los Angeles.”
“We need to find out exactly who this woman is,” Owens continued, host of the Candace Owens Show on Daily Wire.
“She needs to be arrested and charges need to be brought because this is absolutely criminal and disgusting, and it might be racist. I’m unsure why she was wearing the monkey mask. I have no idea why she was wearing it, but I’d like to see more information about that,” Owens fired back.
Republican candidate Larry Elder has been at the on the receiving end of racist attacks by media in the state of California since announcing his campaign for governor. Elder hopes to replace Governor Gavin Newsom in the upcoming recall election on September 14.
Four more witnesses have gone on the record to say that The Atlantic’s anonymously-sourced report claiming President Donald Trump called dead soldiers “losers” and “suckers” is false, bringing the total to 10.
I combined two segments of the Larry O’Connor Show responding to THE ATLANTIC’Sstory. One at his opening to the show yesterday, and the other is his interview with Sean David from THE FEDERALIST. I also add at the beginning a SPECIAL REPORT excerpt regarding Bolton’s assertion from actually being in the meeting (full video @FOX). As well as ending the audio by Larry O’Connor with an excerpt of THE FIVE. The point of this is to note that if a person who is a hostile witness to Trump – substantiates Trump’s claim, that goes a long way to making the point (WESTERN JOURNAL).
MAKE NO MISTAKE, there is an issue with anonymous sources in the media that is on steroids right now. I note this in a book review series I just started on my site (R-PT). But here you have four ON-THE-RECORD sources that rebut the anonymous sources (EPOCH TIMES). Five according to the DAILY WIRE, whom 4 were present and go on the record: Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Hogan Gidley, Dan Scavino, Steven Miller, and Lt. General Keith Kellogg.
And in story-after-story you see this pattern, the Washington post or the New York Times or CNN and the like will have a breaking news story – that in the end cannot be substantiated.
What The Atlantic SHOULD DO is include with every story bashing Trump mention that it’s owner is a mega-donor to Biden’s campaign. Here is the DAILY CALLER’S bullet points:
Billionaire philanthropist Laurene Powell Jobs, the majority owner of The Atlantic, has donated over $1.2 million to former Vice President Joe Biden and other Democratic candidates and groups since 2019, Federal Election Commission records show.
Powell Jobs owns a 70% stake in The Atlantic, and she reportedly communicates often with its editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.
So not only is The Atlantic apparently guided by the same bias CNN is driven by ([undercover video] BREITBART), but an ad that ran on Morning Joe’s MSNBC show was another factor in how well-orchestrated this was. The Atlantic story came out after the business day Thursday (“The story came out at night on the east coast” — video at TWITTER)”
…It is not just an ad featuring a dubbed-over voice, some scary music, and a few screenshots of the Atlantic article. This is a high-quality, sophisticated television spot featuring testimony from multiple Gold Star parents.
That is some amazing turnaround time — getting all those parents together overnight and then getting the ad into MSNBC’s hands, considering the Atlantic story had only just come out Thursday evening….
….We’ve been reporting on this story from The Atlantic from “anonymous sources” claiming the president didn’t go to an American military cemetery in France two years ago, because he called military members “losers” and “suckers,” an obvious and transparent lie. The story has now been debunked six ways to Sunday by real people who are willing to go on the record and who were there at the time.
But this story dropped late Thursday night on the east coast. So we find it rather curious that the anti-Trump leftist group, “Vote Vets,” had this ad up early this morning, talking specifically about what was in the article, using the particular alleged terms, “losers” and “suckers.”
[….]
How were they able to find those six Goldstar families and do interviews over night? Really? And had all the production values? Then they were able to get it on Morning Joe first thing?
It even has a “secure blue” link to donate to on the video.
The Democratic Super PAC American Bridge already has another ad out on this too and launching a $4 million ad buy in Midwestern battleground states to try to pitch to the Midwest that Trump doesn’t like the military. The ad features an alleged former Trump supporter military person now claiming he’ll be voting for Biden.
But unfortunately the story doesn’t have to be true. All that the Democrats need is for any in the middle to think it might be and hold their vote from Trump. That’s what Democrats are aiming for here.
As one comment from the TWITTER thread linked above says:
If anyone wants to offer an explanation other than the media colluded with the Biden campaign, I’m more than happy to hear it.
He takes forever to get to the points… but they are good points. President Trump’s critics are using the natural fear of the coronavirus as a political weapon.
In response to an escalating spread of the Coronavirus President Trump initiated a suspension of entry visa’s for persons traveling from China: “The entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of all aliens who were physically present within the People’s Republic of China, excluding the Special Autonomous Regions of Hong Kong and Macau, during the 14-day period preceding their entry or attempted entry into the United States is hereby suspended and limited” [link].
The travel restrictions went into effect at 5:00pm today. Essentially President Trump is putting the health of Americans first. However, in an effort to politicize the Coronavirus, presidential candidate Joe Biden says travel entry restrictions are “hysteria, xenophobia and fearmongering”:
[…] “We have, right now, a crisis with the coronavirus,” Biden said in Iowa Friday. “This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia – hysterical xenophobia – and fearmongering to lead the way instead of science.” (more)
…And just like that Democrats become the party of pro-virus….
The NEW YORK POSThas a good piece showing all the maligning when Trump got a jump on the virus… and now they are saying he waited too long — WHICH IS IT?
…It’s a unique set of characteristics showing that President Trump understood early the need for decisive measures such as travel restrictions on China, which he imposed in January.
Yet for that sensible decision — in defiance of the World Health Organization — he was criticized by Democrats such as Joe Biden as xenophobic, and by China as racist.
“This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia — hysterical xenophobia — and fearmongering,” said Biden the day after the travel restrictions were imposed.
CNN ran a story warning that “the US coronavirus travel ban could backfire” and have the effect of “stigmatizing countries and ethnicities.”
The Chinese Communist Party’s official mouthpiece, the People’s Daily, called the ban “racist.”
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned it would increase “fear and stigma, with little public health benefit.”
[….]
At the press conference with Trump on Saturday, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the highly respected head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, praised the “original decision that was made by the president … [that] prevented travel from China to the United States.
“If we had not done that, we would have had many, many more cases right here that we would have to be dealing with.”
Trump’s travel restrictions began on Jan. 31. Australia and Singapore instituted their own travel limits the next day. Trump’s move bought valuable time to slow the spread of the virus and ease pressure on the nation’s health system before a vaccine is developed — which experts believe is at least 18 months away.
But that hasn’t stopped the barrage of fake criticisms, including that Trump had left the nation dangerously unprepared to cope with a pandemic by cutting funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Not true. The CDC’s programming budget increased from $7.2 billion in 2019 to nearly $7.7 billion this year, the Associated Press fact-checking unit reported. Trump had proposed a cut, but Congress rejected it.
In an editorial Saturday, the Gray Lady also reiterated its debunked claim that Trump has “muzzled” Fauci.
Yet at Saturday’s 2 p.m. press conference — hours before the Times’ deadline — Fauci emphatically denied the claim.
“I have never been muzzled, ever, and I’ve been doing this since the administration of Ronald Reagan,” Fauci said. “I’m not being muzzled by this administration. That was a real misrepresentation of what happened.”
What shoddy journalism to publish such an incendiary, anonymously sourced claim, without at least including Fauci’s denial.
The anti-Trump narrative rolled on, with increasingly silly attacks. The Washington Post speculated that the coronavirus could be “Trump’s Katrina,” referring to Hurricane Katrina, the response to which had been bungled by President George W. Bush.
When Trump announced a coronavirus task force with the most eminent experts in the nation, CNN blasted him for a “lack of diversity.”….
The media and Democrats push false Trump coronavirus narrative.
AMERICAN THINKERruns some good Tweets by Steve Guest (You can find the entire Twitter thread HERE):
MUZZLED?! CUT FUNDING?!
Earlier this week, Michael Bloomberg and Joe Biden were called out by the AP for lying about President Trump cutting funding to the CDC and NIH.
The facts from the Associated Press: Financing has increased to the CDC and the NIH.https://t.co/DZ7549XNL0
When the AP fact-checks Democrats… you know its bad. More from an earlier AMERICAN THINKER article:
…To set the stage, here are a few indisputable facts:
On January 31, 2020, as China confirmed that 259 people had died and there were about 100 cases reported outside of China, President Trump ordered that the U.S. would prevent foreign nationals who had recently visited China from entering the country. He also ordered quarantined American travelers who posed a high risk.
President Trump held a press conference during which (1) he was surrounded by government scientists who explained what was going on (2) he appointed Vice President Pence, a competent, experienced administrator, to be the White House point person on coronavirus efforts.
Democrats also announced that henceforth they would call coronavirus “TrumpVirus” because Trump had appointed Pence to oversee the administrative end of dealing with coronavirus and because Trump said there was no need for panic.
Nancy Pelosi complained that Trump had waited too long to act, even though when she spoke not a single American had died.
Elizabeth Warren said that she would end the “racist” border wall by taking all wall funds and putting them into coronavirus research (never mind that, since time immemorial, sealing borders has been one of the prime ways in which governments have been able to protect their citizens from epidemic disease).
Trump stated during the rally in South Carolina that the Democrats’ unceasing and dishonest attacks against him for his handling of the coronavirus risk were their latest hoax.
The media reported that Trump had declared that coronavirus itself was a hoax, one of the most blatantly dishonest bits of reporting ever to come from the media.
Leftists are actively hoping that coronavirus causes so much economic disruption that it will hurt Trump politically – never mind that it will also hurt ordinary Americans….
Facebook Back-N-Forth
A “Never Trumper” friend responded to the following post by me:
(hat-tip to JONATHAN SARFATI) President Trump’s TV press conference:
State of emergency declared in the US. $50 billion in aid available and states urged to set up emergency centers.
Laws waived to allow greater availability of hospitals and clear beds for urgent cases—i.e. hospitals can move elderly patients from hospitals to nursing homes more quickly.
Partnership with private sector to test for coronavirus more quickly (results within 24–36 hours). But he says only people should only take tests if they actually have cause to think they have it.
In discussion with pharmacies to make drive-through tests available. Google is developing a website to help people determine whether testing is warranted and direct people to the nearest testing location.
Large retailers are partnering with the administration to fight coronavirus by keeping the supply chain as intact as possible.
One said, “We are normally competitors, but today we are all working together to fight this virus.”
Student loan interest is waived indefinitely.
Secretary of Energy instructed to buy strategic reserve of crude oil as the price is very low.
Unified decisive action to combat coronavirus is imperative.
Coronavirus is now in 46 out of 50 states. Important to look after senior citizens and those with pre-existing chronic conditions.
Nursing homes restricting all visits except for essential staff and end of life situations.
His response was thus:
To which I responded thus:
Since I cannot view behind a pay wall. What is the date of that article JIM G? Important information for me to confirm Fact Check rating it half-true. Out of curiosity… what would have been done different with this “official” was there?? (I THEN LINKED TO THIS POST) Three weeks after it was identified Trump slowed the inflow of it drastically? (<< Against the advice of his Cabinet)
This would have been different?
That is the problem with government… once something is put in place, it never is tore down after it (a) fails, or (b) succeeds in its proposed goal. The Trump Admin is different
JIM G.>>>
…In reality, the pandemic expert — Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer — left the National Security Council (NSC) voluntarily after then-National Security Advisor John Bolton was appointed.
Bolton disbanded the unit that Ziemer was supervising as part of an effort to downsize the bloated NSC staff. The purpose of the unit, which had overseen the global fight against Ebola, had largely been fulfilled.
It is true that Ziemer and his unit have not yet been replaced….
It still should not be put in place, and more of the NSC should be disbanded. And?
A Couple Text Responses
This was in response to someone basically saying Trump got in the way of experts, and that he should just keep his mouth shut:
Dr. Fauci was interviewed at 3am the other morning [March 24th] (10 minutes of you time:DR. FAUCI INTERVIEWED BY WMAL) and the MSM hasn’t referenced his statements once. Also… the quote you are probably referring to is this one: when he was asked if he was worried about this becoming a pandemic:
“No, not at all. We have it totally under control,” Trump said. “It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.” (Jan. 22)
This was essentially three weeks after the first Chinese case was announced, and only 10-days after China shared the genetic information of the virus. (The first American known to have it was January 21st.) So I think you may be wanting something from the President that you wouldn’t expect from another. (In contrast to the below excerpted timeline) Trump ordered all flights from China halted January 31st.
By the time he declared a state of emergency (March 13), we had had 49 deaths by that time. It took the previous administration till there were a thousand Americans dead to declare an emergency. I think this is an “orange man bad” scenario. You should listen to Dr. Fauci’s wise words.
And in another text stream I responded to the idea that South Korea did more tests with a note from a friend via Facebook:
Trump said the US did more testing in 8 days than South Korea did in 8 weeks. Because this is literally true (we did 360,000 in 8 days to their 350,000 in 8 weeks), Politifact decided that “more testing” meant per capita so they could claim it was false.
Originally from the Houston area, Congressman Dan Crenshaw is a 6th generation Texan, a retired Navy SEAL, and a current member of the U.S. House representing Texas’s second congressional district.
This first video is the opening statement by Sen. Graham. And it is important because he details the bias of agents and others involved in the case against Trump and his campaign:
What followed by Lindsey Graham was an excellent Q&A, which I detail a few parts of:
Here is the transcript of a few spots:
Sen. Graham (2:58): “There are five people in that interview, right?”
IG Horowitz (3:01): “Correct”
[….]
Sen. Graham (3:09): “Did they have a duty to report to their supervisors and eventually to the court this [ex]sculpatory information?”
IG Horowitz (3:16): “Absolutely”
Sen. Graham (3:17): “They did not”
IG Horowitz (3:18): “They did not”
Sen. Graham (3:19): “Why”
IG Horowitz (3:20): “That’s the question, um, I can’t specifically answer for you”
Sen. Graham (3:25): “Can you it wasn’t because of political bias?”
IG Horowitz (3:28): “On decisions regarding those FISA matters, I do not know their state of mind at this point.”
[….]
Sen. Graham (11:33): “Would you have submitted the warrant application as a lawyer?”
IG Horowitz (11:38): “Let me put it this way, I would not have submitted the one the put in… no doubt about it it had no business going in with that…” (audio trail off, Sen. Graham continues)
Sen. Graham (11:45): “So what I want you to know is that in January 2017 the whole foundation for surveilling Carter Page collapses. Exculpatory information is ignored. They lie to the [FISA] court about what the interview was all about – is that a fair summary so far?…”
IG Horowitz (12:05): “Um… I’ll ahh… they certainly misled the… [stammering] … it was misleading to the [FISA] court.”
Sen. Graham (12:12): “Okay. Fair enough. And in January – about six months later – when they find more information that could be helpful to Mr. Page, they lie about it. You feel like MR. Page was fairly treated by the Department of Justice and the FBI?”
IG Horowitz (12:27): “Um… I don’t think the Department of Justice fairly treated these FISAs, and he was on the receiving end of them.”
Sen. Graham (12:32): “You would not want to be on the receiving end of this, would you?”
IG Horowitz (12:35): “I would not want agents or anybody failing to put forward all the information their obligated to tell the [FISA] court…”
Graham’s closing statement as well is worth while:
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.
