https://apple.news/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Liberals and an assortment of radicals are very concerned about the quality of air in the world. That said the current hearings about whistle blowers seems to me a lot of hot air and smoke.
Their efforts to hang Trump and attack the integrity of those serving the nation and the president sitting in the Oval Office continues unabated.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Waters is an embarrassment. Time for black voters who keep re-electing her to re-think. Remember, you are known by the company you keep. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kim and Biden. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump nominates a Gay for a judicial position and California's Senators continue to block the appointment. (See 3 below.) (More Democrat hypocrisy?)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have absolutely no evidence Biden and his son are guilty of anything but the idea that his son was paid $50,000/month for about 5 years by an Ukraine energy company while his father was V President and involved with Ukraine, does not pass the smell test. Furthermore Biden's son knew nothing about the gas business. That makes the matter even smellier.
Furthermore, Biden boasted about having the Ukrainian, who was investigating his son, fired. The smell test now smells increasingly gassier
Friday, Hillary attacked Trump for using his office for personal gain, betraying his office and is a fraudulent president. This from the Sec.of State who sold 1/4th of our uranium to a Russian company and whose husband was paid $500,000 for making a speech at the time of the uranium transaction and money also flowed into their Charitable Foundation.
What I have written is factual. Therefore, since the mass media are more interested in getting Trump impeached nothing will happen regarding Biden and his son.
Oh yeah. Biden's son is supposed to have received even more "hooch" from China and, once again, I have no knowledge but I do know how to blow whistles.
One more comment:
Even if I had not had 8 operations including three left knee replacements and a new hip, I still would never stoop as low as liberals because I have more self-respect, am not interested in destroying the reputation(s) of my fellow man, nor care about power. Most importantly, I care about my nation unlike Democrats who are more interested in destruction and chaos. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Doug Feith is thoughtful and what he writes makes sense. (See 5 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Maxine Waters Claims Democrats ‘Absolutely’ Have Enough Evidence to Draft Articles of Impeachment - Read More
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Taking Out Joe Biden
The left can impeach Trump and destroy an insufficiently liberal front-runner.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
The Trump years have been rough on Democrats’ sensibilities, and their thinking has become increasingly addled as a result. The party has worked tirelessly to create an issue worthy of impeaching the president—Russia collusion, obstruction of justice, Stormy Daniels, tax returns. This week Democrats jettisoned all that in favor of the only issue that implicates their own front-runner for the nomination. Genius.
The one person who has been as much in the news this week as Donald Trump is former Vice President Joe Biden. It’s a dubious accomplishment. The only way to discuss Mr. Trump’s nonsmoking-gun phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is to acknowledge the subject of the ruckus: Mr. Biden’s glaring conflicts of interest during his vice presidency vis-à-vis his son Hunter’s business interests. Since Democrats insist on making this all about Ukraine, get ready for daily new revelations about the young Mr. Biden’s questionable activities and “Quid Pro Joe’s” involvement.
This is why the former vice president’s promises that this scandal will fade are nonsense. True, the media is doing double-duty on his behalf. Its general line is that Mr. Biden’s conflicts are fine; asking about them is corrupt. We are seeing a lot of stories about how Democrats are determined not to let Republicans “Hillary” Mr. Biden—a historical rewrite that places the blame for Mrs. Clinton’s notorious ethical travails on her rivals. The “fact checkers” are out in force with soothing assurances that there’s no evidence any Biden broke the law.
The problem for Joe Biden is that outright criminality is not necessary for these stories to stink. The appearance of conflict of interest is bad enough, and there is plenty of it. Mr. Biden knew his son worked for Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings, and knew the company faced scrutiny. He nonetheless in 2016 had the Ukrainian prosecutor who oversaw that investigation fired. In 2013 the vice president took Hunter on a government plane to China, where Hunter met with business associates, a moment that even a former senior Obama White House aide admitted in a July New Yorker profile “invited questions about whether [Hunter] ‘was leveraging access.’ ”
And the questions keep mounting. We now, for instance, have Joe Biden’s claim that “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” Which appears to be in direct conflict with that New Yorker piece, in which Hunter acknowledges he did discuss Burisma with his father. The Ukraine issue is now firmly attached to the Biden campaign, and it isn’t going away.
His problem is that this story line cuts to the heart of his candidacy. Mr. Biden has run relentlessly on the argument that he is the one candidate who can beat Mr. Trump. But he has now become the one who can’t prosecute the issue Democrats are moving on for impeachment. How could Mr. Biden broach Ukraine on a debate stage, knowing Mr. Trump would take that subject and pound away? Every Democratic voter who is passionate about victory in 2020 is already rethinking the Biden candidacy.
This could prove campaign-ending because progressives will work to make it so. While the president might want Mr. Biden’s Ukraine history to be an issue, the left wants it even more. They saw in the broader Ukraine issue a twofer: their much-desired impeachment proceeding and the hobbling of a not-liberal-enough front-runner.
In the week over which the whistle blower drama unfolded, activists dramatically ratcheted up the pressure on Speaker Nancy Pelosi and freshman Democrats to embrace impeachment. It had always been there, but this was intense. The campaign included social-media and grass-roots declarations that “time was up,” as well as implicit warnings that Democrats who didn’t get on the train would face primary challenges from the left.
It worked, leading to the surreal sight of the speaker announcing an “official” impeachment inquiry before anybody in Congress had read the phone-call transcript or the whistle blower complaint. The decision is more ludicrous now that the documents have come out and proved there was no Trump quid pro quo, no “repeated” pressure on Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, and nothing else worthy of impeachment. The release prompted Charlie Cook of the well-known Cook Political Report to note that given “the build up,” he was “totally underwhelmed by the transcript.” His prediction: “This will not move malleable voters.”
Maybe not when it comes to Mr. Trump. But Mr. Biden? His leftist antagonists are taking care not to pile on publicly, yet. But with Elizabeth Warren on the rise, more debates coming, and reporters eager for Ukraine stories, Mr. Biden will be fielding a lot more questions about his family dealings and a lot more arguments that he is a fatally flawed candidate. A week that started as Democrats’ big push to destroy Mr. Trump, could instead easily come to be known as the week that ended Mr. Biden’s run.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein Fight to Keep Gay Trump Nominee Off 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
The Washington Blade, an LGBT news outlet, reports that Donald Trump has tried two times "to confirm a gay U.S. prosecutor to a federal appeals court despite objections from Sen. Kamala Harris over his qualifications for a lifetime judicial appointment."
Patrick Bumatay is a gay Filipino serving as a U.S. attorney in Southern California. He was put on a list of six individuals intended for nominations to the federal bench by the Trump administration.
Bumatay has been nominated to serve on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If confirmed, he would become the highest-ranking gay judge serving a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.
Bumatay's nomination has been stymied by objections from both Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). This disagreement led to the president removing Bumatay's nomination for the Ninth Circuit and nominating him for a seat on the U.S. District Court in Southern California instead. However, when U.S. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski left the Ninth Circuit Court because of sexual misconduct allegations that included showing pornography to employees in his chambers, the president nominated Bumatay again.
Once again, the president has put forth a highly flawed nominee to the Ninth Circuit, without the support of California’s senators. I first objected to Mr. Bumatay after his initial nomination to the Ninth Circuit a year ago and again raised concerns about his qualifications and fitness when he was nominated for the district court...A nominee for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench must demonstrate exceptional skill, professionalism and respect for the principle of equal justice under law. Mr. Bumatay does not meet this standard. Mr. Bumatay has a troubling prosecutorial record, lacks the requisite experience, and has drawn criticism from members of California’s legal community, across party lines. It is clear that he lacks the judgment and qualifications to serve on the Ninth Circuit.
The Washington Blade requested specific examples of Bumatay's unfitness for the job from Harris's office. No word on when or if Harris will respond.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) 3 Dem Senators Wrote Ukraine
Demanding Trump Investigations
Continue, Arguably Threatened Aid
By Joe Saunders
This is one story CNN probably wishes it had never published.
Democrats on Capitol Hill are fired up with feigned fury these days over a July phone conversation between President Donald Trump and the leader of Ukraine in which Trump asked Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate allegations of corruption involving Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.
But as it turns out, it’s not the first time this year that an American elected official had communicated with Ukraine over an investigation with political ramifications in the United States.
In fact, in May, three Democratic senators took what’s arguably much less appropriate — and more direct — action toward a law enforcement officer in the Eastern European country.
And they used some thinly veiled threats while doing it.
As Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen pointed out Tuesday, the anti-Trump network CNN published an article in May 2018 about a letter from Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Patrick Leahy of Vermont expressly asking a Ukraine prosecutor if he were fully cooperating with then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged “collusion” between Russia and the Trump 2016 campaign.
The senators’ letter to Ukraine’s then-Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko started with a glowing description of relations between the United States and Ukraine, a country dealing with constant military friction with Russia, its giant neighbor to the east.
“Ours is a relationship built on a foundation of respect for the rule of law and accountable democratic institutions,” the three worthies wrote. “In four short years, Ukraine has made significant progress in building these institutions despite ongoing military, economic and political pressure from Moscow.”
The letter noted that The New York Times had reported that Lutsenko had stopped cooperating with Mueller’s investigators because he feared doing so could jeopardize financial and military aid to Ukraine.
Well, the senators’ letter made clear, not cooperating with Mueller could jeopardize aid, too.
“Blocking cooperation with the Mueller probe potentially cuts off a significant opportunity for Ukrainian law enforcement into possible crimes committed” during the country’s previous regime, the senators wrote.
“This reported refusal to cooperate also sends a worrying signal — to the Ukrainian people as well as the international community — about your government’s commitment more broadly to support justice and the rule of law,” the Democrats said.
Now, it’s true that there was no outright threat to their support for American aid to Ukraine. But considering the context — the linking of the “rule of law” to American relations, as well as the completely unnecessary reminder about “pressure” from Moscow — it wouldn’t take a genius in an embattled country to get the message that he better start toeing the line or risk getting cut off.
To the editors at CNN back in May 2018, reporting on that letter probably looked like a great way to make the Trump administration look bad. Having Democratic senators hectoring foreign officials about the sanctity of law and the Mueller probe was a slam dunk.
But as the world — including the government of Ukraine — knows by now, the Mueller probe turned out to be a bust — a long, expensive indulgence of the Democratic fetish for “collusion.”
What comes across now in the Democrats’ letter is a bullying attempt by three lawmakers to strong arm the top law enforcer in a foreign country to cooperate with a political persecution that was masquerading as a criminal investigation in the United States.
Democrats claim they want to impeach the president for a conversation he had every right to have with the leader of a foreign country. Almost laughably, they’re trying to paint a conversation between two heads of state as some kind of criminal conspiracy on the part of Trump.
But the record shows that in the not-too-distant past, the party had three senators who felt no compunction at all about using their political strength to try to coerce a foreign law enforcement officer into cooperating with their own domestic political attack agenda.
Trump had every right in the world to talk to the president of Ukraine. His critics might be able to argue that it was inappropriate for him to bring up Joe and Hunter Biden, but that’s all it was — an argument over decorum, not an impeachable offense in even the most feverish dreams of Rashida Tlaib.
It’s difficult to imagine an argument, however, for these three senators to take it upon themselves to contact the Ukraine prosecutor general over a story they read in The New York Times and demand that he be more cooperative in their attempt to dislodge a duly elected American president.
Bullying and collusion with foreign officials are some of the charges Democrats have thrown at Trump. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California on Wednesday accused Trump of performing a “mafia boss”
But to any honest observer, that’s exactly what these three veteran Democratic senators were trying to do with their May letter.
Couple this with Joe Biden’s open boasting about intimidating Ukraine officials when he was President Barack Obama’s right-hand man, and it looks like bullying behavior is a favorite mode for Democrats.
As always, when Democrats launch an accusation, it’s a given they’re guilty of it first — and they’re going to be found out.
“Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back on him who starts it rolling.” (Proverbs 26:27)
For CNN, it probably seemed like a great story in 2018.
Now, the network probably wishes it had never been published.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) Proceed With Caution on a Defense Pact With Israel
A treaty looks attractive to both Washington and Jerusalem, but potential pitfalls remain.
By Douglas J. Feith
A political advertisement shows President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, Sept. 16. Photo: ahmad gharabli/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
For all their longstanding defense ties, Israel and the U.S. have no mutual defense treaty. In the weeks before Israel’s Sept. 17 elections President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu both spoke favorably of negotiating one. Whether they were serious or simply wanted to bolster Mr. Netanyahu’s political support is unclear. In any case, a few observations are in order.
The U.S. is party to various kinds of defense treaties. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the most far-reaching. The treaty states that “an armed attack against one [ally] . . . shall be considered an attack against them all.” Other bilateral U.S. defense treaties create lesser obligations—to consult about threats, to recognize that an attack on one would endanger peace and safety of the other, to meet common dangers in accordance with one’s own constitutional processes.
American and Israeli officials have long refrained from negotiating a mutual defense treaty because it was judged unnecessary and potentially harmful to both countries. Israelis worried mainly about their own freedom of action; they didn’t want to have to ask U.S. permission before taking steps to defend their state. U.S. officials didn’t want to have to grant or deny such permission—or to “own” Israeli military operations.
Sometimes U.S. officials have been pleased when Israel took tough and risky military actions—against Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981, against terrorist leaders or operatives during the Second Intifada, and against Syria’s nuclear reactor in 2007. The U.S. could disavow any responsibility but, if the actions succeeded, benefit nonetheless.
In a crisis, the help the U.S. would give Israel (or Israel would give the U.S.) wouldn’t likely increase as a result of a mutual defense treaty. Historically, such assistance has been provided out of national interest, not legal obligation.
The U.S. resupplied Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War even though it had no treaty obligation to do so. Israel helped the U.S. in Jordan in 1970 although no treaty required it. Israel and the U.S. gave each other substantial defense-related help after the 9/11 attacks absent a treaty.
Yet there are reasons to favor a treaty if it is properly limited. U.S. law designates Israel a “major non-NATO ally.” The U.S. and Israel have numerous nontreaty agreements on intelligence-sharing, military aid, defense industrial cooperation, trade and other matters. An umbrella agreement—a broad statement of friendship giving a treaty structure to the various executive agreements already in place—could make sense.
A carefully circumscribed agreement of that kind would elevate Israel to the status of treaty ally of the U.S. Although such a treaty would change little in the way of policy, it would signal American-Israeli friendship and cooperation. It might also help preserve bipartisan U.S. support for Israel. There is value in that.
Yet the longstanding reasons not to conclude a NATO-type mutual defense treaty with Jerusalem remain. Neither country would benefit from a treaty that either impedes Israel’s freedom to act or obliges America to endorse every Israeli action. Leaders in both countries should heed the physicians’ oath—first, do no harm.
Mr. Feith, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, served as undersecretary of defense for policy in the George W. Bush administration. This article is adapted from a report by the University of Haifa-Hudson Institute Consortium on the Eastern Mediterranean.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment