|
Post by soonernvolved on May 21, 2019 4:03:29 GMT -6
Steve Bannon brings up a great point:
Steve Bannon says Joe Biden must prove he is not compromised by the Chinese.
Steve Bannon: Joe Biden is hiding from this. We have to know how much wealth his family created off of this. We have to know why he took a billion-and-a-half dollars from an oppressive government.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 22, 2019 7:48:35 GMT -6
Another state votes to give votes to popularity winner: www.dailywire.com/news/47520/nevada-passes-bill-give-electoral-votes-national-james-barrettIf Nevada's Democratic governor signs a bill passed by the state senate Tuesday into law, his state will have moved the National Popular Vote movement six votes closer to effectively nullifying the Electoral College as established in the U.S. Constitution. By a vote of 12-8, the Nevada Senate passed AB 186 on Tuesday, which if signed by Gov. Steve Sisolak, will add Nevada's six electoral votes to the 189 votes already pledged by 14 other states in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would "guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia." If triggered, the pact would override the majority decision of voters in particular states. Thus far, 14 states and one district have officially passed the measure, their collective electoral vote total currently at 189. The compact requires a minimum of 270 total pledged electoral votes to go into effect. Should Sisolak sign the bill, the total would edge up to 195 votes. The 15 jurisdictions, which are predominantly blue, that have signed on thus far are: California (55), Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), the District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), New Jersey (14), New Mexico (5), New York (29), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (12). "The bill has passed one house in 9 additional states with 82 electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK, OR), including a 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House and a 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, and been approved unanimously by committee votes in two additional Republican-controlled states with 26 electoral votes (GA, MO)," the National Popular Vote website explains. As CNN underscores suggestively, the Electoral College "clinched President Donald Trump the 2016 presidential victory despite Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton winning a popular-vote majority by nearly 3 million votes." Among the high-profile Democrats pushing for the elimination of the Electoral College are presidential candidates, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA), Sen. Kamala Harris (CA), and former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (TX), CNN notes. Including Trump's victory over Clinton, there have been a total of "five instances where a presidential candidate has been elected without winning the popular vote since the Electoral College was created in 1787," The Hill reports. In a video for PragerU (below), Electoral College expert Tara Ross explains the rationale behind the current U.S. presidential voting system and the pitfalls of the National Popular Vote agreement, including the impact of states' widely varying voting policies, the exponentially increased threat of voter fraud, and the encouragement of presidential candidates neglecting the needs and concerns of rural areas and smaller states. "If NPV is adopted, and winning is only about getting the most votes, a candidate might concentrate all of his efforts in the biggest cities, or the biggest states," she argues. "We could see the end of presidential candidates who care about the needs and concerns of people in smaller states or outside of big cities." In every presidential election, only one question matters: which candidate will get the 270 votes needed to win the Electoral College? Our Founders so deeply feared a tyranny of the majority that they rejected the idea of a direct vote for President. That's why they created the Electoral College. For more than two centuries it has encouraged coalition building, given a voice to both big and small states, and discouraged voter fraud. Unfortunately, there is now a well-financed, below-the-radar effort to do away with the Electoral College. It is called National Popular Vote or NPV, and it wants to do exactly what the Founders rejected: award the job of President to the person who gets the most votes nationally. Even if you agree with this goal, it's hard to agree with their method. Rather than amend the Constitution, which they have no chance of doing, NPV plans an end run around it. Here's what NPV does: it asks states to sign a contract to give their presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner of the state's popular vote. What does that mean in practice? It means that if NPV had been in place in 2004, for example, when George W. Bush won the national vote, California's electoral votes would have gone to Bush, even though John Kerry won that state by 1.2 million votes! Can you imagine strongly Democratic California calmly awarding its electors to a Republican? Another problem with NPV's plan is that it robs states of their sovereignty. A key benefit of the Electoral College system is that it decentralizes control over the election. Currently, a presidential election is really 51 separate elections: one in each state and one in D.C. These 51 separate processes exist, side-by-side, in harmony. They do not -- and cannot -- interfere with each other. California's election code applies only to California and determines that state's electors. So a vote cast in Texas can never change the identity of a California elector. NPV would disrupt this careful balance. It would force all voters into one national election pool. Thus, a vote cast in Texas will always affect the outcome in California. And the existence of a different election code in Texas always has the potential to unfairly affect a voter in California. Why? Because state election codes can differ drastically. States have different rules about early voting, registering to vote, and qualifying for the ballot. They have different policies regarding felon voting. They have different triggers for recounts. Each and every one of these differences is an opportunity for someone, somewhere to file a lawsuit claiming unfair treatment. Why should a voter in New York get more or less time to early vote than a voter in Florida? Why should a hanging chad count in Florida, but not in Ohio? The list of possible complaints is endless. And think of the opportunities for voter fraud if NPV is passed! Currently, an attempt to steal a presidential election requires phony ballots to appear or real ballots to disappear in the right state or combination of states, something that is very hard to anticipate. But with NPV, voter fraud anywhere can change the election results -- no need to figure out which states you must swing; just add or subtract the votes you need -- or don't want -- wherever you can most easily get away with it. And finally, if NPV is adopted, and winning is only about getting the most votes, a candidate might concentrate all of his efforts in the biggest cities, or the biggest states. We could see the end of presidential candidates who care about the needs and concerns of people in smaller states or outside of big cities.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 24, 2019 16:19:57 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/05/24/supreme-court-gerrymandering-michigan-ohio/The Supreme Court temporarily blocked two decisions Friday requiring Republican-controlled legislatures in Michigan and Ohio to produce new legislative district lines ahead of the 2020 election. There were no noted dissents from the Friday orders. The decision was not surprising, as the justices are currently deciding whether federal courts should even hear partisan gerrymandering disputes. Three-judge panels in both cases said the current district lines are unconstitutionally rigged to the benefit of Republicans. The GOP has strong majorities in the congressional delegations of both states, though Democrats and Republicans run competitively in Michigan and Ohio. Both decisions set fast-moving schedules for the legislatures — the Michigan ruling gave the state until Aug. 1 to draw new lines, while the Ohio decision required a remedial plan by June 14. Friday’s order from the high court means that neither state will have to create new district maps in the short-term.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 24, 2019 19:33:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 27, 2019 6:10:26 GMT -6
EU elections are in & it's not good news for the elitists/leftists of the world:
Dominik Tarczynski won in Poland.
Baudet is a populist who ran against the Vvd and cda and their failed agenda. The former academic is anti-EU, anti-immigration and a climate change skeptic.
Thierry Baudet: What a wonderful election result for #FVD! With a lot of energy we are now going to Brussels to defend the Dutch interests and stop the European train. Thank you very much to all the people who voted for us and who helped us with our campaign! Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 28, 2019 6:00:01 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2019/05/28/europes-shocking-right-turn-opportunity-united-states/Why Europe’s Shocking Right Turn Is An Opportunity For The United States European liberals labeled everyone an inch right of Antonio Gramsci ‘far-right.’ Now they have no mode of reference to explain what just happened in the European elections. Sumantra Maitra By Sumantra Maitra MAY 28, 2019 “The one system that absolutely does not work and never will is ersatz democracy,” Tucker Carlson writes in his book, “Ship of Fools,” adding that, “If you tell people they’re in charge, but then act as if they’re not, you’ll infuriate them. It’s too dishonest. They’ll go crazy. Oligarchies posing as democracies will always be overthrown in the end. You can vote all you want, but voting is a charade. Your leaders don’t care what you think. Shut up and obey.” For a while, analysts on both sides of the Atlantic after 2016 would have given anyone the idea that everything that had happened was a dream, and a rotten one at that: an aberration, a short deviation from the inevitable progressive arc of history. Brexit was treated as simpleton Brits making a mistake. Donald Trump as president was considered even worse. And most Americans had no idea what was brewing in Europe, after German Chancellor Angela Merkel disastrously carried on her country’s tradition of deciding finance, military, and demographic issues for Europe and inviting a backlash. Well, what a backlash it has been. The latest round of European elections was a total meltdown for the managerial and technocratic center-left and center-right parties. It is hard to put in words how broken the European landscape is, but to put it simply, the center no longer exists. In Poland, the battleground of the future direction of Europe, the national conservatives won the majority, and the hardcore nationalists also get representation in the European Parliament for the first time. The center-right liberal conservative coalition barely managed to survive, and the social liberal and the left parties are wiped off the electoral map. In Italy, another battleground nation, Matteo Salvini’s La Lega netted an overwhelming majority. Italy had been the worst-affected by German financial strangling and mass migration from Africa. Salvini tweeted that he led the number one party in Italy, and behind him was a recognizable and highly symbolic red cap with Make America Great Again and a statue of Jesus. In Hungary, Victor Orban won an absolute majority while vowing to stop mass migration. And in France, Emmanuel Macron’s centrist liberals got an absolute belting, in an electoral map that looked eerily like Hillary Clinton’s 2016 journey, with the cities and urban areas voting for his En Marche Party and the rest of the country going to Euro-sceptic Marine Le Pen. Meanwhile, in the original Brexit Land, the new Brexit Party walloped the craven Conservatives and Labour both, becoming the single largest U.K. party to be represented to the European Parliament. A country in which commentators regularly remind us that everything will change if there’s another referendum showed it remains stubbornly Eurosceptic and willing to leave the EU. Almost all of England other than London and Wales voted for Leave parties, and only Scotland voted for Remain, by a thin majority. Boris Johnson, the front-runner for the next Conservative leadership, said his party is on notice after the disastrous premiership of Theresa May for the last three years, arguably the worst in the history of the post-war United Kingdom. And in parts of Scandinavia and Germany, the hard left coalesced behind the Green parties, thereby finally shattering the carefully crafted illusion that the Greens are any different than the Cold War-era Euro-Marxists, who instead of promoting violent revolution believed in undermining society from within. This is except the Danish left, which stayed to the Social Democrats, but only after the Social Democrats moved right on stopping migration. Interestingly, the analysis has been predictable from the liberal commentators. Wherever liberals and Greens won, they gained a victory for “the people and true democracy,” and wherever there is any shade of right, they proclaim a win for the “fascists.” In reality, however, the only simple answer is that Europe is permanently broken. Since anyone to the right of Antonio Gramsci is considered “far-right” by the mainstream commentators, it is difficult for them to explain, without the help of any racism or xenophobia narrative, what just happened in Europe. In reality, however, patterns emerged. For example, the right parties that won in the United Kingdom, France, Netherlands, etc. are not xenophobic, as portrayed in the media. They are not even socially conservative, much less “borderline fascist.” In the United Kingdom, both the Brexit Party led by Nigel Farage and the Conservatives want to get out of the EU not because they want to isolate into a little Britain, but because they want to trade freely with the rest of the Anglosphere without EU control and to side more freely with the United States on defense issues, instead of being forced to be a part of the EU Army. Likewise, in both France and the Netherlands, the right-wing parties are not socially conservative at all. In fact, they want to restrict mass migration from Africa and the Middle East because they want to safeguard the liberal society, LGBT rights, and the separation of church and state from groups of people considered extremely socially unorthodox. Contrast that with the right parties in Hungary, Italy, and Poland, all of which want to transform the EU from within and, in their own words, preserve the “Christian civilization” and Judeo-Christian values of Europe. The stringent issues in these countries included the increasingly hard-left LGBT and transgender movement. The Polish, Hungarian, and Italian right are also distinctly socially conservative and in some cases anti-free market, instead focusing on heavy subsidies for the elderly and promoting pro-natalist policies for new mothers. In the common liberal siege mentality, all these people are considered “far right” when in reality the only common theme tying these parties is their opposition to a European empire under German hegemony, and their support for national sovereignty. As I wrote earlier, the biggest folly was to ever believe that Europe can be united without force, and the European Union, while turning into an empire, faces an existential challenge from sovereigntist and conservative forces from within. The latest election proves that national-conservatism is here to stay, and that the conservative parties that refuse to acknowledge this simple reality will be obliterated. In fact, the desire for Westphalian nation-state sovereignty never left us. How to channel that new energy to a more constructive force across the continent, instead of pockets of sporadic resistance, remains to be seen. However, this is the moment for the American government to channel these forces and shape Europe towards a more pro-American direction. The conservative forces within the continent are desperate for leadership against Berlin and Brussels. Washington DC should urgently take note. Sumantra Maitra is a doctoral researcher at the University of Nottingham, UK, and a writer for The Federalist. His research is in great power-politics and neorealism. You can find him on Twitter @mrmaitra.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 29, 2019 5:08:17 GMT -6
First, Joe Biden disappears over Memorial Day weekend, & then this happened yesterday:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 29, 2019 5:35:03 GMT -6
Liberal reactions:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on May 29, 2019 5:47:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 3, 2019 2:09:28 GMT -6
Tuned in for as much of the Gillibrand town hall on Fox. What a fucking screaming harpie. Big surprise she was crying about the evil NRA. She also said she would only nominate justices that shared her view of Roe. Trump doing so is, of course, corrupt. Sorry I can't report more but I had just eaten.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 3, 2019 3:28:59 GMT -6
Tuned in for as much of the Gillibrand town hall on Fox. What a fucking screaming harpie. Big surprise she was crying about the evil NRA. She also said she would only nominate justices that shared her view of Roe. Trump doing so is, of course, corrupt. Sorry I can't report more but I had just eaten. Basically, same old, same old with the left.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 3, 2019 3:35:26 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/06/02/populists-australia-india-uk/Populist groups in Australia, India and the United Kingdom recently racked up decisive election wins. Pollsters worldwide lost face as the right-wing populists in each nation outperformed their projected gains. Anti-establishment victories across Europe managed to pull enough seats from the ruling parties to break up the 40-year-old coalition governing the European Parliament. A string of populist electoral wins in Australia, India and the U.K. are beginning to transform the global political landscape as nations revolt against mass migration, climate change legislation and traditional party establishments. In recent weeks, several nations have placed anti-establishment groups in power, many of which advocate strict immigration policies and hold nationalist sympathies. As discontent with the establishment continues to fester across the globe, here are some of the highlights from the biggest developments in the past month. Australia returns Scott Morrison’s conservative Liberal party in election upset Polling pointed to a disaster for Australia’s right-leaning Liberal-National Coalition in the federal election held May 18. But what was supposed to be Australia’s “climate change election,” with leading parties supporting sweeping climate legislation, turned to a stunning upset, according to The New York Times. Not only did the Liberal-National Coalition retain power; it gained seats in Parliament and earned an outright majority, with 77 seats, the Guardian reported. (RELATED: The Global Revolt Against Climate Change Policies Continues As Conservatives Sweep Aussie Elections) The party leader, incumbent Prime Minister Scott Morrison, came to power when the nation’s previous leader, Malcolm Turnbull, resigned in 2018. Morrison campaigned against greater immigration and cut the nation’s net intake, per the Sydney Morning Herald. He also moved against radical climate legislation, the Guardian reported. India returns Narendra Modi as Prime Minister with a clear majority A few days later, on May 23, India tallied the ballots for its general election. Results showed a landslide victory for incumbent Prime Minister Narendra Modi. His party outperformed expectations, winning 303 out of 542 seats in the lower house, according to The Associated Press. With the victory of Modi’s group, the Indian National Congress, which had been the dominant group for most of India’s history, failed to win 10% of the seats in the legislature. Modi’s campaign embraced both Indian nationalism and heavily courted the country’s strong Hindu majority, reported the AP. He also emphasized national security and military strength in response to flaring tensions with India’s Muslim-majority neighbors. Modi is the first prime minister to hold consecutive outright majorities in the Indian lower house since 1971, according to the BBC. Nigel Farage leads Brexit Party to landslide win in European Union Parliamentary election Nigel Farage, the former leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), was a pivotal “Leave” supporter during the U.K.’s referendum on continued membership in the European Union in 2016. Leave supporters campaigned heavily on issues of migration and sovereignty. The U.K. is part of an agreement with the EU that allows for free movement between citizens of certain states. The U.K. faces high rates of net migration into its territory. Farage and his allies sought to reassert the U.K.’s authority over its borders and international dealings. With Parliament in deadlock on how to deliver “Brexit,” the government twice delayed the U.K.’s departure date, which forced the country to participate in elections to the European Parliament. Farage formed the Brexit Party, which quickly attracted a large following. Party messaging abandoned most of the policy arguments made for leaving the EU and instead argued the dithering of the major parties was a betrayal of democracy. Most polls predicted a Brexit Party victory May 23. A seat projection from Britain Elects suggested the party would win as many as 24 of the 73 U.K. seats in the European Parliament. With the results were formally announced May 26, the Brexit Party outperformed its polling numbers. Farage’s nascent group claimed 29 seats in the elections, The Sun reported. Ironically, the anti-EU group became the single-largest party in the European Parliament. (RELATED: Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party Is ‘Clear Winner’ In UK European Parliament Elections) Traditional parties fared far worse. The incumbent Conservative party came in fifth place, winning only four seats and losing its delegation leader. The opposition Labour Party won only 10, according to The Sun. Europe’s Traditional Coalition collapses Other nations across Europe saw similar up-endings of the governing parties in the May 26 tallies. Enough nations elected representatives outside of the center-right and center-left that the longstanding coalition in the EU Parliament lost its majority. In France, right-wing National Rally under Marine Le Pen narrowly defeated President Emmanuel Macron’s own party, Politico reported. In Italy, Mateo Salvini’s conservative Lega Party, a junior partner in the ruling coalition, won a decisive victory, according to CNBC. In Spain, the far-right Vox managed to win seats in the European Parliament for the first time, The Irish Times reported. The European results mark the first time in 40 years the center-right and center-left coalition has not held a majority in the body, according to the BBC.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 3, 2019 8:20:36 GMT -6
Basically, same old, same old with the left. I would like to see her at 25. She has a nice rack.
|
|
|
Post by redrex on Jun 7, 2019 15:20:45 GMT -6
Biden is a very weak person----Wonder what he will cave to next ?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 8, 2019 8:49:28 GMT -6
Does not surprise me in the least:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 8, 2019 12:06:28 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/08/joe-bidens-spygate-linked-top-aide-hoped-for-resistance-within-trumps-cabinet-purging-nationalists/WASHINGTON — In social media remarks that got little attention, Colin Kahl, who served as Vice President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, called for “purging or marginalizing the ‘Axis of Ideologues’ in the West Wing” in order to ensure what he described as “any hope of a sane foreign policy” during the Trump administration. Kahl took to Twitter to make those little noticed remarks on March 11, 2017, two months after he departed the White House along with the rest of the Obama administration for the incoming Trump team. He opined that the so-called “ideologues” Kahl’s call to arms against White House officials with whom he maintains policy differences gives a window into his mindset. It takes on renewed significance in light of a Breitbart News report from yesterday highlighting that the Biden senior White House adviser participated in the secretive and highly compartmentalized early principals’ meetings that took place at the White House to discuss the controversial early stages of the Russia investigation, according to a book. Kahl attended the meetings to keep Biden informed of matters that transpired inside, the book related. The matter is also newly relevant in light of renewed scrutiny over Biden’s role during the Obama administration’s initial operations related to the Russia probe. Attorney General William Barr has over the past two weeks made a series of public comments that the U.S. administration’s early handling of the Russia investigation may itself raise questions. He noted that it was first handled at a “very senior level” and then by a “small group.” Barr recently appointed a U.S. attorney to investigate the origins of the Russia collusion claims. Kahl served as Biden’s national security adviser from October 2014 to January 2017. Taking to Twitter in March 2017, Kahl unleashed a series of tweets explaining the need to “purge” officials who were inside the Trump administration at the time, singling out then-chief strategist Steve Bannon, senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller, then-senior national security official Michael Anton, then-deputy assistant to the president Sebastian Gorka and then-deputy national security adviser K. T. McFarland. He called for foreign policy to be concentrated instead under “a working ‘Axis of Adults’” led by then-National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, then-Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, then-Secretary of State Tillerson, Mike Pompeo, then-White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Mike Pence. Kahl’s twitter storm unfolded as follows: The tidbit about Kahl participating in the early Russia probe meetings, meanwhile, was contained in the March 2018 book Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump by Michael Isikoff, chief investigative correspondent for Yahoo News, and David Corn, Washington bureau chief of Mother Jones. The detail is newly relevant in light of renewed scrutiny of Biden’s role during the Obama administration’s initial operations related to the Russia probe. Attorney General William Barr has in the past two weeks made a series of public comments that the U.S. administration’s early handling of the Russia investigation may itself raise questions. He noted that it was first handled at a “very senior level” and then by a “small group.” Barr recently appointed a U.S. attorney to investigate the origins of the Russia collusion claims. In their book, Isikoff and Corn confirmed other mainstream media reports describing a small, tightly-held unit of senior officials and experts handling the initial probe efforts. By July 31, 2016, they note, “the FBI had formally opened a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump’s campaign’s ties to Russians, with sub-inquiries targeting four individuals” — Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos. Then-CIA Director John Brennan got together with FBI Director James Comey and NSA Chief Mike Rogers, they document, asking them “to dispatch to the CIA their experts to form a working group at Langley that would review the intelligence and figure out the full scope and nature of the Russian operation.” In discussing how to respond to the information gathered, Isikoff and Corn write, the traditional interagency process of deputy chiefs meeting to formulize options for the heads of agencies — also referred to as principals — was bypassed for a more secretive route. They write: Usually, when the White House invited the deputies and principals to such meetings, they informed them of the subject at hand and provided “read ahead” memos outlining what was on the agenda. This time, the agency officials just received instructions to show up at the White House at a certain time. No reason given. No memos supplied. “We were only told that a meeting was scheduled and our principal or deputy was expected to attend,” recalled a senior administration official who participated in the sessions. Also, they write that principals and deputies could not bring additional staffers, as is routine in other briefings. Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, chaired the principals meeting, which the authors write included Kahl, who served as Biden’s national security adviser from October 2014 to January 2017. Kahl was present to inform Biden about what happened inside the meetings, they write: Rice would chair the principals’ meetings — which brought together Brennan, Comey, Kerry, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Defense Secretary Ash Carter, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — with only a few other White House officials present, including White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco, and Colin Kahl, Vice President Joe Biden’s national security adviser. (Kahl had to insist to Rice that he be allowed to attend so Biden could be kept up to speed.) Kahl did not return a Breitbart News request for comment. He is currently co-director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. Kahl has drawn media attention for his frequent anti-Trump tweets and boasts on his Twitter profile that he is the “Likely Ops Chief” of the “Echo Chamber” — clearly a sarcastic reference to reports about a 2017 document titled “The Echo Chamber” that was purportedly circulated among Trump advisers listing former Obama administration officials accused of working to undermine the Trump administration. At the early meetings about the Russia probe, meanwhile, the authors write that from the State Department “only a small number of officials were cleared to receive the most sensitive information on the Russian hack,” notably including John Kerry’s chief of staff, Jonathan Finer. An extensive New Yorker profile of anti-Trump dossier author Christopher Steele named Finer as obtaining the contents of a two-page summary of the dossier and eventually deciding to share the questionable document with Kerry. An official from Kerry’s State Department, Victoria Nuland, reportedly also greenlit the July 5, 2016 meeting in which Steele officially handed the dossier to the FBI, Isikoff and Corn write elsewhere in their book. Notably, Kahl, Finer and Nuland were each on a list of 10 former Obama administration officials that Devin Nunes, then-chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, recommended for further investigation last July in a letter to the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform committees. Nunes wrote that his Committee “discovered matters” related to those individuals that “likely fall within the purview” of the other House committees. Nunes further wrote that the “matters” were discovered during the course of his committee’s “ongoing investigation of FISA abuse and other matters related to certain actions” taken by officials at the FBI and Justice Department, including “information that may have been received from and/or provided to” officials at the State Department and other agencies. The principals meetings at which Biden’s national security adviser Kahl participated reportedly started a few weeks after Steele met with the FBI. The dossier was infamously produced by Fusion GPS, which was paid for those efforts by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign via the Perkins Coie law firm. Confirming other reporting, Isikoff and Corn write that Rice ordered the video feed in the Situation Room to be turned off during the meetings. “She did not want others in the national security establishment to know what was underway, fearing leaks from within the bureaucracy,” they write. Breitbart News reported last week that Biden himself was reportedly one of the few Obama administration officials who participated in the secretive meetings during the early stages of the Obama-era intelligence community’s initial operations regarding suspected Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. That tidbit was contained deep inside a 7,700-plus word Washington Post article published June 23, 2017 in which the newspaper also detailed the highly compartmentalized nature of the original Russia interference investigation and the manner in which other U.S. intelligence agencies were deliberately kept in the dark. Breitbart News reported Biden was also present at an Oval Office briefing about the Russia probe and possible concerns about sharing intelligence with members of Trump’s incoming administration, a meeting memorialized by Rice in an email to herself penned in the final hours of her time at the White House. That action was characterized as “odd” last year by then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. Rice documented the confab in the email to herself describing Obama as starting “the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’” Obama, Biden, Comey, Rice, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and other senior officials participated in the meeting. Grassley, in a letter to Rice about the email, commented: “It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation.” Grassley noted the unusual timing of the email sent by Rice to herself more than two weeks after the January 5, 2017 White House meeting on the Russia investigation, but mere hours before she vacated the White House for the incoming Trump administration. The email, Grassley documented, was sent by Rice to herself on Trump’s inauguration day of January 20, 2017. “If the timestamp is correct, you sent this email to yourself at 12:15 pm, presumably a very short time before you departed the White House for the last time,” Grassley wrote to Rice in a letter seeking clarification on a number of issues regarding the email and the Oval Office briefing at which Biden was documented as being present. Also in the email, Rice used the “by the book” phraseology a second time, writing (emphasis added): President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book.” The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book. From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia. The next part of Rice’s email was classified. After that, Rice discussed the possibility of issues with sharing classified information with the incoming Trump administration — presumably referring to alleged concern that the Trump campaign had been colluding with Russia. That part of the email reads: The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would. An attorney for Rice responded to Grassley’s letter saying Rice wrote the email to herself with the goal of “memorializ[ing] an important national security discussion,” since “President Obama and his national security team were justifiably concerned about potential risks to the Nation’s security from sharing highly classified information about Russia with certain members of the Trump transition team, particularly Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.” The attorney denied that the Steele dossier was discussed in the Oval Office meeting. Regarding the time stamp on the email, the attorney said that noon was not accurate and that the email was sent in the morning “since Ambassador Rice departed the White House shortly before noon on January 20.” Still, Rice waited two weeks after the meeting to memorialize the conversation and sent the memo as one of her final acts in the White House on the last day. The attorney said that Rice waited until the last minute “because that was the first opportunity she had to do so, given the particularly intense responsibilities of the National Security Adviser during the remaining days of the Administration and transition.” Barr has been raising questions about the intelligence community’s early handling of the Russia investigation. In an interview on Fox News, Barr stated: The thing that’s interesting about this is that this was handled at a very senior level of these departments. It wasn’t handled in the ordinary way that investigations or counterintelligence activities are conducted. It was sort of an ad hoc, small group — and most of these people are no longer with the FBI or the CIA or the other agencies involved. I think there’s a misconception out there that we know a lot about what happened. The fact of the matter is, Bob Mueller did not look at the government’s activities. During an appearance on CBS last Friday, Barr commented that the secretive initial stages should have instead been handled as a “normal” investigation. He said: “I think the activities were undertaken by a small group at the top which is one of the … probably one of the mistakes that has been made instead of running this as a normal bureau investigation or counterintelligence investigation. It was done by the executives at the senior level, out of headquarters.” Asked if his comments were referring to Comey or disgraced former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Barr would not be more specific. “I’m just not going to get into the individual names at this point. But I just view that — I don’t view it as a bureau-wide issue. And I will say the same thing for other intelligence agencies. And they’re being very cooperative in helping us,” he said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 8, 2019 15:58:52 GMT -6
Biden is a very weak person----Wonder what he will cave to next ? It gets better: www.dailywire.com/news/48174/alyssa-milano-persuaded-joe-biden-taxpayer-funded-paul-boisIt turns out that Hollywood's favorite abortion cheerleader Alyssa Milano may have been instrumental in persuading former Vice President Joe Biden to completely flip on his position of taxpayer-funded abortion. According to The Hill, Milano had a phone call with Biden's campaign manager Greg Schultz earlier this week, advising that the former vice president would be wise to change his stance on the Hyde Amendment. CNN even reported on Friday that Milano spoke with Biden directly. Take a look: thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447518-alyssa-milano-urged-biden-to-reverse-stance-on-hyde-amendment-reportsWhatever Milano told Biden, it appears to have worked. On Thursday, he immediately reversed his position after several 2020 Democrats began to unilaterally blast his support for the Hyde Amendment. "We now see so many Republican governors denying healthcare for millions of the most poorest [sic] and most vulnerable Americans by refusing even Medicaid expansion, I can't justify leaving millions of women out of access to care they need and the ability to exercise their constitutionally protected right," Biden told a crowd supporters. "If I believe healthcare is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone's ZIP code." The former "Charmed" actress then celebrated Biden's flip-flop on Thursday, thanking him for "listening to the American people," even though the Hyde Amendment enjoys broad support among the American people. townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2019/06/07/nprmarist-poll-fewer-than-one-in-five-americans-support-democrats-radical-abortion-stance-n2547759According to Townhall, Biden's shift leftward can mean only one thing: the Democrats have taken up an extremist position on abortion with which most Americans do not agree. townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2019/06/07/nprmarist-poll-fewer-than-one-in-five-americans-support-democrats-radical-abortion-stance-n2547759"Biden has now walked away from a majority-supported viewpoint on the Hyde Amendment, even as he seems to have the "moderate" lane basically to himself. The playbook to drag him leftward is now established," said Guy Benson. "By a double-digit margin, the American people oppose public funding of abortion. And the population for whom the Hyde Amendment would be jettisoned is even less likely to support the idea than wealthier Americans." Of course, Biden's flip on the issue, which apparently happened after a few phone calls with a B-list actress-turned-activist, could be politically costly in the long run, since it shows he has no principles whatsoever and will say anything for the sake of garnering progressive support. It also helps him little when several political commentators earlier this week were saying his support of the Hyde Amendment stemmed from his personal convictions. "I am told explicitly that it is Joe Biden, himself, who says: 'this is my conviction and I’m not changing it. This is how I have felt and this is how I have voted for my four decades in public service, and I’m not changing," said Dana Bash on CNN. "He is a deeply religious man...he is guided by his faith, his position on the Hyde Amendment has been consistent," said Rep. Cedric Richmond, national co-chairman of the Biden campaign.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 9, 2019 12:39:26 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2019/06/09/bernie-snaps-cnn-dana-bash-election/Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders snapped at CNN’s Dana Bash Sunday during a heated segment of “State of the Union.” Bash, hosting the show for Jake Tapper, began the interview by confronting Sanders with a recent poll that showed him losing his hold on second place in the 2020 Democratic primary. (RELATED: Joe Biden’s Lead Shrinks As First Democratic Debate Approaches) Sanders explained away the drop in support by claiming that an increase in the number of candidates supporting far left ideals would split the vote. Later in the interview, Bash pressed harder, challenging Sanders to explain how he claims to have always been against the Hyde Amendment — which bars federal money from funding most abortions — when he has voted for spending packages that included Hyde. Sanders fired back, saying, “Well, look, sometimes in a large bill you have to vote for things you don’t like. I think my record has been literally 100% pro choice is absolutely correct. Look, if you believe, as I do, that a woman’s right to control her own body is a constitutional right, then that must apply to all women including low income women.” Bash continued, pointing out several issues on which Sanders disagreed with the current frontrunner, former Vice President Joe Biden. “If you’re right on all these issues and Joe Biden is wrong, why is he in the lead?” she asked. “Dana, that’s the poll of today,” Sanders explained. “It’s not just one poll,” Bash pressed. “I’m not even talking about Iowa. National polls, all of them.” Sanders fired back, “Dana, last I heard the election was eight months from today, when the first ballots are going to be cast in Iowa.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 10, 2019 4:44:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 10, 2019 4:48:12 GMT -6
Agree with Steve Bannon on this. Joe Biden must release all of his family's tax returns to insure there is no foreign influence, you know, for transparency reasons: nypost.com/2019/06/09/bannon-biden-must-release-tax-returns-to-address-china-connections/President Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon said Sunday that former Vice President Joe Biden must release his tax returns to prove that he’s not benefiting economically from China. “We have to see Joe Biden’s tax returns because we have to see if Joe Biden was a financial consultant to [the fund] or an adviser. Biden has got to answer some basic questions: if he’s been compromised by the Chinese Communist Party? What was his involvement during the Obama administration?” Bannon told John Catsimatidis on 970 AM in New York. The fund Bannon was referring to was Rosemont Capital, an international private equity firm started by Biden’s son Hunter and Chris Heinz, the stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry. Rosemont struck a deal with the state-owned Bank of China in 2013, which coincided with a trip Hunter Biden took to the country with his father, then the vice president. “The Bank of China is the Chinese Communist Party’s piggy bank,” Bannon stated. The timing and ability for such a small firm to win the business has raised eyebrows since. “Biden has got to be the worst,” Bannon said Sunday. “He’s got this private equity fund his son runs. I believe most of the net worth of his family is tied up in that.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 11, 2019 21:36:03 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/48298/union-boss-la-mayors-green-new-deal-pushing-jeffrey-cawoodOrganized labor in Los Angeles recently launched an ad campaign blasting Democratic Mayor Eric Garcetti over his proposed "Green New Deal," claiming the environmental plan would cost union jobs, increase energy bills, and erode the middle-class. ....... The drive is sponsored by the Working Californians Research Fund, a nonprofit advocacy organization and front group for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 18. The union represents about 9,000 workers at the L.A. Department of Water and Power, the largest municipal utility in the United States. Brian D’Arcy, who founded Working Californians and also serves as business manager of IBEW Local 18, said Garcetti’s proposal is one of several progressive environmental policies pushing union workers toward Donald Trump and the Republican Party. “It’s already happening,” D’Arcy revealed. Politico recently reported that D’Arcy “said he has heard from scores of members who are so angered about the issue they are considering sitting out the election – or even casting a ballot for Trump.” “I’m getting hate mail and blowback from our workers, saying the Democratic Party is doing nothing for us,” D’Arcy claimed. In April, IBEW members protested Garcetti’s decision to abandon plans to rebuild three coastal natural gas plants. The mayor unveiled his Green New Deal at a press conference later that month. According to Politico, “hundreds of jeans-wearing, tattooed union members outside of the event chanted ‘Garcetti’s gotta go’ and denounced the move as a betrayal.” Garcetti’s aggressive goals include phasing out gas-fueled cars and call for 80% of electricity to be generated by the sun, wind, or water. They were sold as L.A.’s version of the Green New Deal climate change policies advocated by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). Several energy workers’ unions spoke out against Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal earlier this year, calling her suggested reforms “threats to our members’ jobs and families’ standard of living.” According to a Working Californians spokesman, Garcetti’s idea would result in “the loss of 1,800 jobs for electrical workers,” sacrificing highly-skilled organized labor for low-paying ‘green jobs.’ Occupational data indicates that many employment opportunities created by the green economy are for landscaping, maintenance, and areas that require a minimum amount of training.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 12, 2019 0:01:32 GMT -6
She puts amash on uber blast.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 12, 2019 1:52:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 12, 2019 10:33:35 GMT -6
Well, it’s all over, folks. Nothing to see here. Go home. A new poll by Quinnipiac shows President Trump being beaten next November by … nearly everyone. In a first look at head-to-head 2020 presidential matchups nationwide, several Democratic challengers lead President Donald Trump, with former Vice President Joseph Biden ahead 53 – 40 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. In other matchups, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University National Poll finds: Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders over President Trump 51 – 42 percent; California Sen. Kamala Harris ahead of Trump 49 – 41 percent; Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren tops Trump 49 – 42 percent; South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg edges Trump 47 – 42 percent; New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker by a nose over Trump 47 – 42 percent. Yup, Trump gets beaten by everyone. “It’s a long 17 months to Election Day, but Joe Biden is ahead by landslide proportions,” Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, said in a statement. poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2627But hang on. Didn’t this happen last time? All the big pollsters predicted Hillary Clinton would win. Even Fox News in its last survey before the 2016 election put Clinton up +4. “The HuffPost presidential forecast model gives Democrat Hillary Clinton a 98.2 percent chance of winning the presidency. Republican Donald Trump has essentially no path to an Electoral College victory,” the HuffPost wrote Nov. 7, 2016. “Clinton’s win will be substantial, but not overwhelming. The model projects that she’ll garner 323 electoral votes to Trump’s 215.” elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/presidentwww.huffpost.com/entry/polls-hillary-clinton-win_n_5821074ce4b0e80b02cc2a94Opposite. Trump won by a count of 304-227. (Write-ins picked up 7 electoral votes). “Clinton should fairly easily hold onto Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania,” HuffPost said. Uh, again, opposite. In a Nov. 14, 2016, piece, National Public Radio explained the massive error by saying “some people just don’t answer the phone.” www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502014643/4-possible-reasons-the-polls-got-it-so-wrong-this-yearMany pollsters that do phone polling conduct it via random digit dialing. That means they should theoretically get a pretty representative sample — after all, they’re reaching out to people randomly. It’s possible that some pollsters managed to miss Trump supporters in a big way, explains Claudia Deane, vice president of research at the Pew Research Center. “The problem is if you get what pollsters call nonresponse bias, people are less likely to take your call or stay on the phone with you,” she explained. The New York Times, too, in a May 2017 article sought to explain the breakdown in polling. www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/upshot/a-2016-review-why-key-state-polls-were-wrong-about-trump.htmlAt least three key types of error have emerged as likely contributors to the pro-Clinton bias in pre-election surveys. Undecided voters broke for Mr. Trump in the final days of the race, or in the voting booth. Turnout among Mr. Trump’s supporters was somewhat higher than expected. And state polls, in particular, understated Mr. Trump’s support in the decisive Rust Belt region, in part because those surveys did not adjust for the educational composition of the electorate — a key to the 2016 race. The Times, though, had this ominous conclusion: “Many of the challenges that pollsters faced in 2016 aren’t going away. Next time, the challenges could easily be greater.” Ya’ think?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 12, 2019 10:50:54 GMT -6
Census related. DOJ & President Trump gives Cummings the finger,(yet again): www.nationalreview.com/news/donald-trump-asserts-executive-privilege-over-citizenship-census-question/President Trump on Wednesday asserted executive privilege to block lawmakers from accessing documents related to his administration’s plan to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census. The Department of Justice announced the move just minutes ahead of a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing in which Attorney General William Barr and Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross were expected to be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with the panel’s subpoenas. “These documents are protected from disclosure by the deliberative process, attorney-client communications, or attorney work product components of executive privilege,” Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd wrote in a letter to Oversight and Reform Committee chairman Elijah Cummings (D., Md.). “Regrettably, you have made these assertions necessary by your insistence upon scheduling a premature contempt vote.” Barr said Tuesday that he would ask the president to assert executive privilege over the documents if Cummings moved forward with the contempt vote. Stay Updated with NR Daily NR's afternoon roundup of the day's best commentary & must-read analysis. Cummings said Wednesday morning that he would delay the scheduled contempt vote in order to give lawmakers the opportunity to read Boyd’s letter. He also cast Trump’s continued stonewalling as evidence of wrongdoing. “This begs the question: What is being hidden?” Cummings said. “This does not appear to be an effort to engage in good-faith negotiations or accommodations. Instead, it appears to be another example of the administration’s blanket defiance of Congress’s constitutionally mandated responsibilities.” “Despite more than two months since we issued the subpoenas and more than a week since we told the agencies we were moving to contempt, the agencies have made no commitment or counter-offer regarding any of the critical documents in our subpoenas,” he added. 5 The requested documents relate to Ross’s March 2018 decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial national census, which is used to allocate federal funding and determine the number of House seats from each state. Democrats in the lower chamber believe the documents will help determine whether Ross, who claims he was simply following Department of Justice instructions, was motivated by a desire to give Republicans an electoral advantage by identifying which Democratic-stronghold congressional districts were benefiting from the inclusion of illegal immigrants on the census.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 12, 2019 12:29:08 GMT -6
Agree with Rush Limbaugh. This would be a brilliant move & the Democrats can't deny any of it, as they own that state: www.foxnews.com/politics/rush-limbaugh-trump-needs-to-go-to-california-remind-americans-what-a-dem-run-state-looks-likeGo West, President Trump! That's what conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh advised Trump to do Tuesday, saying he should start appearing periodically in California to remind Americans about the failures of Democratic policies in California. HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS INCREASINGLY AFFECTING CALIFORNIA TRAIN TRAFFIC "I think Trump ought to start going to California. I think he ought to go there once a month. I think the Republican National Committee ought to schedule a debate in California," Limbaugh said on his radio show. "I think the campaign should have ads showing and highlighting the homelessness in downtown Los Angeles and pointing out that this is what happens when Democrats run things with no opposition, no checks, no balances." In downtown Los Angeles, homeless encampments have taken over multiple city blocks and have fueled a public health crisis as garbage pileups, rat infestations and outbreaks of disease have become common. Last week the annual point-in-time count recorded nearly 59,000 homeless people in Los Angeles County, a 12 percent increase despite the government spending $619 million to alleviate the problem. The largest number, 36,000, came from the city of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, a county agency, conducted the count. ........ African-Americans because they already "own" their votes and their problems will reflect badly on themselves. "The Democrats have to ignore California. They already own it! And just like African-Americans, they can ignore you because they think they’ve got your vote no matter what they do. So they’re not gonna focus much on your complaints or problems. They don’t need to. And they don’t need to fix anything," Limbaugh said. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP The radio host argued that Democrats won't want to highlight their failures or admit they don't know how to "raise economic circumstances," something he said Trump has been able to do. "Put simply and succinctly, the left is desperate to stop Donald Trump because he’s doing what they can never do. Donald Trump is doing what the left can never do. They can’t politically do it, and they couldn’t do it if they wanted to do it. They simply do not know how to raise economic circumstances for people. Not across the board," Limbaugh said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 12, 2019 18:35:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 12, 2019 18:44:52 GMT -6
Brennan being himself: Excerpt for clarification purposes: abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-exclusive-interview-trump-listen-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304Asked by ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in the Oval Office on Wednesday whether his campaign would accept such information from foreigners — such as China or Russia — or hand it over the FBI, Trump said, “I think maybe you do both.” “I think you might want to listen, there isn’t anything wrong with listening,” Trump continued. “If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent’ — oh, I think I’d want to hear it.” “It’s not an interference, they have information — I think I’d take it,” Trump said. “If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI — if I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, they come up with oppo research, ‘oh let’s call the FBI.’ The FBI doesn’t have enough agents to take care of it. When you go and talk, honestly, to congressman, they all do it, they always have, and that’s the way it is. It’s called oppo research.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 12, 2019 18:52:15 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/12/jim-jordan-william-barr-wilbur-ross-contempt-vote-political-theatre/House Oversight and Reform ranking member Jim Jordan (R-OH) charged in a statement Wednesday that the Democrat-led contempt vote against Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross amounts to “political theatre,” designed to interfere in the Supreme Court’s potential decision on the citizenship question on the 2020 census. The House Oversight Committee voted Wednesday to hold Barr and Ross in contempt for their refusal to comply with subpoenas for documents relating to the Donald Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. Congressman Jordan said that Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings’ (D-MD) contempt vote serves as another instance of “political theatre” designed to “interfere” with the Supreme Court’s potential decisionr egarding putting a citizenship question on the 2020 census. Jordan said in a statement: Chairman Cummings’s decision to proceed with holding the Attorney General and Secretary Ross in contempt represents a sad day in this Committee’s history. Today’s vote was an unwarranted action by the Chairman and a misuse of the Committee’s contempt authority. This vote was another act of political theater designed to interfere with the Supreme Court’s consideration of the reinstitution of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. Rep. Jordan has continually criticized Cumming’s leadership. Ranking member Jordan demanded last week that Cummings hold former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen accountable for his “perjury-laden” testimony the House Oversight committee. In April, a Hill-HarrisX poll found that 60 percent of Americans approve of a citizenship question on the 2020 census. Congressman Jody Hice (R-GA) told Breitbart News Sunday in March that Democrats continue to fight the citizenship question because they fear that it might endanger their House majority by losing seats in Democrat-leaning states. Hice explained: From that, the apportionment districts are drawn and frankly, the Democrats are trying to protect the fact that there are who knows how many, 10, 15, 20 million people who are not citizens in the United States who are in states like California, where there are high numbers of people who are not citizens. That enables states like that have more representatives in Washington, and I would suspect at the end of the day that is the issue for them. Jordan then asked rhetorically, “The Democrats’ desperation to affect the outcome of the case raises the question: why don’t Democrats want to know how many American citizens are in the United States of America?”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 13, 2019 11:21:46 GMT -6
|
|