Obama administration pressured Ukraine to investigate Paul Manafort during the 2016 election
We already know about the liberal double standard in Washington, for instance it is okay for Democrats to talk to Ukraine officials and ask them to investigate Donald Trump or face losing funds but it is not okay for Donald Trump to ask Ukraine officials to investigate Joe Biden or face losing funds.
Democratic apologists could possibly defend this by claiming there is a difference between these two examples and that difference is that in the former case there was not an upcoming election whereas there was in the latter, but they might find it a little more difficult to defend this story.
It turns out this was not the first time the Democrats pressured Ukraine to investigate Donald Trump, the first time was during the 2016 election while Barack Obama was still President.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy noted at National Review on Thursday that then-President Barack Obama’s administration asked Ukraine to investigate Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, in 2016.
McCarthy notes that “the Obama administration’s law-enforcement agencies pressured their Ukrainian counterparts to revive a dormant corruption investigation of Paul Manafort” in the middle of the 2016 presidential election.
Obama administration officials urged Ukrainian prosecutors to investigate Manafort — which amounted to “effectively meddling in the American presidential election.” The results were soon clear: leaks about Manafort’s activities in Ukraine began to appear in the U.S. media, spun in the worst possible light. He was replaced at the Trump campaign and became a target in the phony “collusion” narrative.
Here we have the Obama administration doing exactly what they are trying to impeach Donald Trump for and they are so arrogant they do not even care about the hypocrisy. The double standard is astonishing and the selective outrage is on full display.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Senate bill would ban 205 different guns and magazines which hold more than 11 rounds
While Washington, the mainstream media, social media, and frankly the whole nation is in the grip of impeachment talk it is important that we keep our eyes open to see what is going on while our attention is diverted.
It seems like weeks ago already but before it all broke loose the hot topic was gun control. Just because it is no longer getting the media attention does not mean the gun grabbers in our government have forgotten about it.
The Senate–where we could at least hope would offer less radical gun control legislation–is working on a bill and this is what it is being reported is in it:
In addition to banning 205 different guns, “high capacity” magazines, and bump stocks, the Senate “assault weapons” ban includes a universal background check requirement for any future transfer of firearms covered by the ban.
Apparently the Senate has not received the memo that Donald Trump already banned bump stocks by an overreach of executive power but let that go…
Suddenly it is not just AR-15s and AK-47s, the list is up to 205 different weapons and that is not including the the “high capacity” magazine ban. According to the article linked above this bill would ban magazines which hold more than 11 rounds.
As gun owners know an 11 round magazine is certainly not “high capacity” and with the exception of revolvers and sub compact handguns most magazine-fed weapons would be banned under this plan.
I already feel Donald Trump can not be trusted on the Second Amendment and with all that is going on around him right now he might feel added pressure to sign gun control legislation to sign this legislation if it makes it to his desk. We need to watch this very closely.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Democrats threatened Ukraine funding over Donald Trump investigation
Over the course of the last week we have learned that it is acceptable for Joe Biden to threaten Ukrainian officials with the withholding of funds if a prosecutor investigating his son was not fired, but that it is an outrage for Donald Trump to ask Ukrainian officials to investigate the story. (I would say allegation but Joe Biden bragged about it.)
But the selective outrage by Democrats does not stop there because it turns out, if this story is true, that the Democrats threatened Ukrainian funding if that country did not help investigate Donald Trump. Here is more:
in May, CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”
For the second time we have the Democrats threatening Ukrainian funding and in this case they stand accused of doing exactly what they are trying to impeach Donald Trump for doing–surely they have to see the hypocrisy in this! I have to believe they are so blinded with hatred that they are not thinking this through and I still believe that Nancy Pelosi caving in to the radical left of her party could end up backfiring on the Democrats. Although, with reports beginning to surface about some Republicans cracking who knows where this is going to lead…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Democrats to begin formal impeachment inquiry
Calling Donald Trump’s alleged request for Ukrainian officials to investigate Joe Biden’s influence peddling in that country a “betrayal of his oath of office” Nancy Pelosi announced the House will begin a formal impeachment inquiry. Here is more:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Democrats behind closed doors that she is ready for the House to open a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump for pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his family.
“It would be my intention with the consent of this caucus … to proceed with an impeachment inquiry,” she said, according to two Democratic sources in the room. “He is asking a foreign government to help him in his campaign, that is a betrayal of his oath of office.”
This is all based on a whistleblower who came forward a few days ago making this accusation but from what is being reported this whistleblower has no first-hand knowledge of the phone call in question, he is simply going on hearsay. That seems like a flimsy reason to seek impeachment, especially when Donald Trump ordered the release of the transcript of that call to be released tomorrow.
It certainly does not seem like Donald Trump feels like he did anything wrong and this could eventually come back to haunt the Democrats. There is no doubt in my mind the House will eventually vote to impeach the President but in doing so they might take Joe Biden down with him.
Of course you have to scramble a few eggs to make an omelette, as an ATF official said of Brian Terry’s death during the Obama years, so this would be acceptable collateral damage to them.
And it is highly unlikely the Republican controlled Senate will vote to remove Donald Trump from office so there is the chance this could actually galvanize and motivate his base at a time where I feel many of them are feeling dejected and let down. Donald Trump’s base may see impeachment as proof the Democrats are afraid of him and as justification for why they voted for him in the first place.
With the election a little over a year away I think the Democrats would be better off just riding it out at this point and trying to defeat him at the ballot box but it is on now and it is going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Whistleblower has no first-hand knowledge of Ukraine phone call
I would like to take a moment or two to welcome the mainstream media to the Biden/Ukraine scandal. Most people probably have not heard about Joe Biden’s alleged abuse of power and influence peddling with Ukraine while he was Vice President because, with the exception of a few blogs and conservative websites, the media has ignored this scandal. So here is a little background on what it is believed good ole Uncle Joe was up to in regards to his son Hunter and Ukraine:
“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.
“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event, insisting that President Obama was in on the threat.
Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn’t mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.
U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.
The general prosecutor’s official file for the Burisma probe — shared with me by senior Ukrainian officials — shows prosecutors identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.
What it amounts to is this: Joe Biden threatened to withhold billions of dollars of United States funding from Ukraine unless that country fired a prosecutor who was investigating a firm that Hunter Biden worked for…and the Ukrainian officials did.
But this story was ignored by the mainstream media until late last week when a so-called whistleblower stepped forward with the shocking accusation that the President of the United States wanted the former Vice President investigated for corruption by Ukraine officials. The Democrats’ and the mainstream media’s collective hearts were aflutter at the possibility that this could be the scandal they have been hoping for and there are now renewed calls for Donald Trump’s impeachment.
It turns out however that this whistleblower has no first-hand knowledge of the phone conversation that Donald Trump supposedly had with Ukrainian officials. Here is more:
The anonymous whistleblower who claimed that President Donald Trump pressured the Ukraine’s head of state to investigate Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden didn’t have direct knowledge of what was said, according to a new report.
CNN‘s Stephen Collinson reported Friday that the whistleblower “didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications,” citing an official briefed on the matter:
Instead, the whistleblower’s concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration’s determination that the complaint didn’t fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said.
So this great witness the left is hinging its hopes and dreams on did not even hear the conversation he or she is tattling on. In other words this is nothing but hearsay. That does not sound like much of a viable witness to me but that will not stop the media and the Democrats from sounding the alarms. Ironically they are accusing Donald Trump of interfering in foreign affairs by asking a foreign country to investigate the interference by the Vice President in foreign affairs.
The media and the Democrats are in a tough spot here because by going after Donald Trump they might put the spotlight on Joe Biden’s activity and this could backfire on them. They might think they can walk this tightrope but they are not nearly as clever as they think they are.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, September 22nd open thread: ‘You’re All I Got Tonight’
“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.
Last week we lost the lead singer from the band The Cars, Ric Ocasek, so here is “You’re All I Got Tonight” live in 1978. Aerosmith, Smaroesmith, in my opinion The Cars are the greatest band to come out of Boston.
Judge orders Donald Trump to give deposition in protester case
A judge has ordered Donald Trump to give a videotaped (do they still use videotape?) deposition in a case involving some Mexican protesters who allege they were “roughed up” in front of Trump Tower while he was running for President. The lawsuit alleges the billionaire businessman should have known the people he hired for security would act in a “negligent or reckless manner.”
Here is more:
A New York judge Friday ordered President Donald Trump to give a videotaped deposition in a lawsuit filed by protesters who claim they were roughed up outside Trump Tower in 2015.
State Supreme Court Judge Doris Gonzalez of the Bronx denied Trump’s effort to quash the subpoena, ordering him to videotape a deposition for the trial before jury selection begins Sept. 26.
The lawsuit stems from a Sept. 3, 2015, protest outside Trump Tower over negative comments Trump made about Mexico and Mexican immigrants when he began his presidential campaign that summer.
Six protesters of Mexican origin who claimed they were assaulted sued Trump, the Trump Organization, his presidential campaign and security personnel.
The judge wrote that Trump’s testimony is “indispensable,” given his relationship to the other defendants, who are described in court papers as either employees or under contract.
It is highly unusual for a sitting President to be ordered to give a sworn deposition but this judge ruled because of Donald Trump’s relationship to the security guards his testimony was “indispensable.”
So what was this relationship? They were hired by Donald Trump to protect him and they were protecting him at his place of employ. They were doing what they were hired to do.
Maybe the security guards got a little too rough, I do not know but I imagine we will find out during the trial, but what, exactly, that has to do with Donald Trump, other than questioning his hiring practices, I am not sure. But this will give the media something to run with and that is all they care about.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Federal Judge blocks California law requiring Presidential candidates to release tax returns
Back at the end of July California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law which would require all Presidential candidates to release five years of tax returns in order to appear on his or her party’s primary ballot. This was a not so veiled attempt at forcing Donald Trump to release his taxes after the Mueller investigation did not result in the desired outcome.
Donald Trump sued to block the measure and today a Federal Judge has ordered a temporary injunction against the new law. Here is more:
A federal judge ordered a temporary injunction Thursday against California’s first-in-the-nation law requiring candidates to disclose their tax returns for a spot on the presidential primary ballot, an early victory for President Trump but a decision that will undoubtedly be appealed by state officials.
U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. said he would issue a final ruling in the coming days but took the unusual step of issuing the tentative order from the bench. He said there would be “irreparable harm without temporary relief” for Trump and other candidates from the law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in July.
I believe that issuing this injunction just days before he makes his final decision is a clear indication that he is going to strike the law down, but you just do not know nowadays.
Even if this judge does strike the law down we know this is only the opening salvo in this fight and it is a guarantee that the left will find a judge to reverse this decision.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Democratic Senator Joe Manchin to Beto O’Rourke: ‘not taking my guns away from me’
Okay, let us face it; Beto O’Rourke is not going to be taking any guns away from anybody because Beto O’Rourke is never going to be President, but just in case he pulls off a miracle and does implement his confiscatory gun policies Democratic Senator Joe Manchin has a message for him:
“Beto’s one human being,” Manchin said, according to a Journal reporter. “He gave his own opinion, OK? I think it was very harmful to make it look like all the Democrats. I can tell you one thing: Beto O’Rourke’s not taking my guns away from me. You tell Beto that OK?”
It is nice to see that there are still some Democrats out there who believe in the Second Amendment, they are few and far between, but Beto does speak for more Democrats on this issue than Manchin does at this point in time.
It is interesting to see the free pass he is getting for this comment by the liberals. Liberals were disgusted by comments a Texas State Representative that nobody had ever heard of before, Briscoe Cain, said in response to Beto O’Rourke’s plan to confiscate scary looking weapons. They claimed this comment was a threat and proof that he should not own an AR in the first place. Liberals also claim that when gun owners say what Joe Manchin said that it is a veiled threat but yet when one of their own say it they are silent…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
New York Times authors of Kavanaugh article claim the editors removed crucial information
Over the weekend several of the Democratic Presidential candidates made fools out of themselves (and they were not the only ones) by calling for the impeachment of Brett Kavanaugh based on a spurious hit piece put out by the New York Times.
It turned out the woman in the story has no recollection of the event described in the article–which relied on the second-hand account of a person with ties to Hillary Clinton–and the paper had to backtrack from the story.
How could the once reputable paper screw up so badly other than the fact they wanted the story to be true so much that they were willing to run with an uncorroborated story? That is one way, but there are other possibilities; what if the paper did not care whether or not the story was true? What if the paper went out of its way to libel a Supreme Court Justice?
That is beginning to sound like the case because it is now being reported that the authors of this story claim they wrote that the victim had no recollection of the alleged incident which supposedly scarred her for life, but that the editors decided that was not pertinent information that the public needed to know.
And liberals wonder why the people no longer trust the mainstream media…or the reactionary, vindictive Democrats for that matter.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 