Ethics Committee probing Rashida Tlaib for diverting campaign funds for personal use
Because all of the focus in the media has been on the flimsy allegation that Donald Trump was trying to use Ukraine to take down a political opponent you might have missed the story about freshman Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib.
In case you did miss it, she has been under investigation for alleged campaign finance violations and according to this story that investigation is expanding in light of newly discovered campaign communications which show he basically begging her campaign to give her money for personal use because she was “struggling financially right now.” Here is more:
The House Ethics Committee on Thursday released a trove of striking internal campaign communications sent in 2018 by Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, in which Tlaib urgently requested money from her congressional campaign to defray personal expenses — and, a government watchdog said, possibly violated federal law in the process.
The document dump was related to the committee’s ongoing ethics probe into Tlaib, which the panel said on Thursday would be “expanded” based on a referral from the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).
And here is more still:
Texts and emails released by the Ethics Committee show Tlaib frantically contacting members of her staff for financial help.
In one April 2018 email offered as an exhibit by OCE, Tlaib wrote that she was “struggling financially right now” and was “sinking.” She continued: “So I was thinking the campaign could loan me money, but Ryan said that the committee could actually pay me. I was thinking a one time payment of $5k.”
In another email, on April 4, 2018, Tlaib wrote: “I am just not going to make it through the campaign without a stipend.”In August of that year, Tlaib texted her future chief of staff Ryan Anderson at 6:38 a.m.: “Sorry for the early text but do you think the campaign can still pay me a stipend until the general. Trying to get out of debt.”
Her lawyers are basically using James Comey’s Hillary Clinton defense, they are claiming she did not mean to break the law and there was no bad intent there, but I would like to see what would happen if you or I used the I-didn’t-mean-to defense.
The irony of a person running for office who cannot make ends meet and needing to borrow money from her campaign now being a person who has a vote on taxing and spending is hard to miss…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
I think most of us know that this impeachment is about the Democrats getting the President before the President can get them. To be more exact, the Democrats need to take down Donald Trump before he takes down Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney because all of the aforementioned have ties to the Ukraine that could be a little shady.
This post is going to focus on Joe Biden’s son and John Kerry’s family, for more on Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney and their ties to Ukraine please check out this post.
Donald Trump is being investigated for asking for an investigation into a person who admitted committing a crime while Vice-President while that person is being seriously considered to replace Donald Trump next year. New documents released by Ukraine officials show that millions of dollars were funneled not only to Hunter Biden, but also to John Kerry’s family. Here is more:
I apologize for all the tweets in this post but this is just the beginning, there is quite a bit more and if you care to read more please check out the link above. If there was any doubt before as to why the left is so desperate to remove Donald Trump I think this removes all doubt…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Charles Grassley says he will start asking questions if the IG report does not come out next week
We have been not so patiently waiting for the Inspector General report on possible FISA abuses to come out since May but it has been delayed over and over again with different excuses made for the delay. We are now being told that the report will be out by Thanksgiving, but I will believe it when I see it.
Senator Charles Grassley is finally starting to wonder what is going on and he tweeted that if the report does not come out next week he is going to get suspicious. Here is what he tweeted:
Welcome to the game Chuck but where have you been all this time? We have been asking this question for months.
I am glad that somebody might be getting close to asking some questions but what took so long and where are all the other Republicans?
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Devin Nunes wants Adam Schiff to testify in impeachment inquiry
Adam Schiff has not covered himself in glory during the impeachment inquiry; first he made up a conversation between Donald Trump and Ukrainian officials even though he had the official transcript of the call in front of him, and then he was caught lying about his interaction with the whistleblower.
Devin Nunez believes that the Intelligence Committee does not have jurisdiction to conduct an impeachment inquiry and that because of his interaction with the whistleblower Adam Schiff needs to testify in front of the House Intelligence Committee and the Oversight Committee, here is what he had to say in a letter he sent to Adam Schiff:
“On November 6th, you announced the beginning of public hearings associated with the Democratic Party’s partisan impeachment inquiry into President Donald J. Trump,” Nunes wrote Friday. “Based on the precedent and lack of jurisdiction, the House Intelligence Committee should not take the lead in conducting such hearings; however, by now the American people know your desire to see the duly-elected president removed from office outweighs your sense of responsibility to running a functioning intelligence oversight committee.
“Prior to the start of your public show trial next week, at least one additional closed-door deposition must take place,” he continued. “Specifically, I request that you sit for a closed-door deposition before the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight Committees.”
And:
“Although you publicly claim nothing inappropriate was discussed, the three committees deserve to hear directly from you the substance and circumstances surrounding any discussions conducted with the whistleblower, and any instructions you issued regarding those discussions,” Nunes wrote. “Given that you have reneged on your public commitment to let the committees interview the whistleblower directly, you are the only individual who can provide clarity as to these conversations.”
I think we all know that none of the several committees tasked with trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent during an election investigating the President is going to call Adam Schiff, or anybody else who has not a chance of forwarding the impeachment agenda, in front of them to testify.
From what I understand if the impeachment goes to trial in the Senate the Republicans will be able to call whomever they want to as witnesses so perhaps then Adam Schiff will be compelled to testify, but I would not count on it.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, November 10th open thread: ‘Desert Plains’
“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is this week’s open thread. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Here is Judas Priest performing “Desert Plains” live in 1982:
We have noted before how most of the Democratic candidates for President have had a strategy of trying to out-left each other. While this might be a winning strategy in the primary I believe there is a concern within the party that these radicals are going too far too fast to have a chance at winning the general election. Unfortunately for the Democratic party there is no candidate with name recognition in the race to try to bring some sanity back to the party.
Enter Hillary Clinton, who appears to be preparing herself to jump into the Presidential race, she had some words to say about Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare for all plan. It turns out the former Secretary of State and two-time failed Presidential candidate does not think this is the right path to take.
Here is more:
I don’t believe we should be in the midst of a big disruption while we are trying to get to 100% coverage and deal with costs,” Clinton said at an event The New York Times hosted.
“The smarter approach is to build on what we have; a public option is something I’ve been in favor of for a very long time,” said Clinton.
Clinton said she would support a debate on any universal health care plan, but that it was not politically feasible.
“You just don’t think that that plan would ever get enacted?” Aaron Ross Sorkin, the event moderator, asked.
“No, I don’t. I don’t. But the goal is the right goal,” said Clinton, who polled neck-and-neck with former Vice President Joe Biden in a hypothetical October poll of the Democratic field.
Of course Hillary Clinton still supports a government run healthcare system so she is not any more moderate than those who are already in the race but she sure does sound like she is gearing up to take yet another shot at it and when Hillary Clinton suddenly becomes the voice of reason within the Democratic party I think it is safe to say–to paraphrase Hillary Clinton–the whole party has become irredeemable.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
On November 22nd a new Trump administration rule was set to go into effect which would have protected clinicians who refused to perform abortions for moral or religious reasons, but a Federal judge in New York has thrown the rule out. Here is more:
A federal judge in New York on Wednesday struck down a new Trump administration rule that would have allowed health care clinicians to refuse to provide abortions for moral or religious reasons.
U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York rejected the federal rule after women’s groups, health organizations and multiple states sued the Department of Health and Human Services, arguing the exemptions were unconstitutional.
Engelmayer ruled that the so-called conscience rule was too coercive, allowing HHS to withhold billions in federal funding unless health care providers complied.
“The refusal of care rule was an unlawful attempt to allow health care providers to openly discriminate and refuse to provide necessary health care to patients based on providers’ ‘religious beliefs or moral objections,’” New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the lawsuit for the states, said. “We will continue to use every tool at our disposal to protect access to health care and protect the rights of all individuals.”
First of all, how did we allow the left to change the term “abortion” into “healthcare?” That certainly downplays what the actual procedure is and makes it sound like pro-choice people are anti-healthcare.
And second, when they are talking about protecting the healthcare and rights of individuals they are forgetting about the baby in the whom who will never have either of the two.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Earlier today we learned that a key witness in the impeachment inquiry, Gordon Sondland, modified his previous statement to say there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine which made military funding contingent on corruption investigations. Here is more:
A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.
Mr. Sondland’s testimony offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month. He provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. By early September, Mr. Sondland said, he had become convinced that military aid and a White House meeting were conditioned on Ukraine committing to those investigations.
The additions Mr. Sondland made to his testimony were significant because they were the first admission by a senior figure who had direct contact with Mr. Trump that the military aid for Ukraine was being held hostage to the president’s demands for investigations into his political rivals.
At least that is what the media is telling us and when you read the reports it sounds pretty damning, in fact I was prepared to write a post tonight speculating that this could be the beginning of the end of the Trump administration.
But we know that not everything is as it seems when it comes to what the mainstream media reports and it turns out they might not be giving us the full story. Mark Meadows is claiming the reporting is misleading because it leaves out a key aspect in Sondland’s testimony, here is what he tweeted earlier today:
Gordon Sondland was never told by the President the military funding was contingent on a corruption investigation into the corrupt Biden family, he just assumed on his own that it was and when he met with Ukrainian officials he acted as if he was told it was. I fail to see how this implicates Donald Trump, other than the fact that maybe he should have been more clear, but yet the media will continue push this as the smoking gun.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 