bonginoreport--2020-10-13--Tucker Carlson Shows How Democrats See SCOTUS as Entirely Political

Monday on Fox News Channel ’ s “ Tucker Carlson Tonight , ” host Tucker Carlson spoke on Senate Democrats focus on the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings , which has revolved around Coney ’ s view on the Affordable Care Act .
According to Carlson , that was evidence those Democrats viewed the high court in political terms .
CARLSON : Happy Columbus Day .
If you ’ ve been out celebrating the discovery of America , you may have missed the first round of Amy Coney Barrett ’ s confirmation hearings .
So how were the hearings ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ word , we put it this way , bizarre .
Bizarre for this reason .
Almost none of the attacks on Barrett — and of course , there are many of those — had anything to do with the job she is trying to get .
The Supreme Court exists only to determine what the laws that our politicians write are consistent with the Constitution of the United States .
That ’ s why we have the Supreme Court , it ’ s the only reason we have it .
Supreme Court Justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not elected by voters .
We don ’ t let them legislate as a result .
That ’ s how democracy works .
Only people who are elected , get to make laws .
Democrats would like to change that system .
They understand that Congress is an inherently small “ c ” conservative body .
Congress is never going to change the country overnight in some radical way because voters don ’ t want radical overnight change .
They never do .
So if you ’ re going to have a revolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remake America , you ’ re going to have to do it from above , and you ’ re going to have to impose it on people .
And the left would like to use the Supreme Court as their instrument to do that , a kind of super Congress with lifetime tenure .
Imagine power like that .
There ’ s nothing you couldn ’ t do .
So once you understand that perspective , which is very much their perspective , today ’ s hearings made sense .
Democrats spent hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That was baffling at first .
If you ’ re interviewing someone for the Supreme Court , there ’ s only one relevant question about Obamacare .
Is it constitutional ?
That ’ s all they consider .
That ’ s all they ’ re supposed to consider , not how they feel about the law , not whether it comports with their personal values , not whether their party supports it .
Is it constitutional ?
And yet that was one of the few things that Democrats didn ’ t ask because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not it ’ s constitutional .
What they care about is power and whether or not Amy Coney Barrett will diminish or enhance theirs .
So they understand the Supreme Court purely in political terms .
So not surprisingly , they conducted today ’ s hearings like a campaign rally .
“ Healthcare for millions of Americans is at stake , ” barked one finger-wagging senator from California .
Another Democrat pointed to a photo of a middle-aged woman called Laura who looks very unhappy .
Without Obamacare , the senator said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to afford the treatments necessary for her to survive.
” In other words , if any Amy Coney Barrett gets this job , it is curtains for Laura .
Democrat after Democrat made that very same point , as they so often have recently : obey us or many will die .
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR ( D-MN ) : You know that they are trying to push through a Justice who has been critical of upholding the Affordable Care Act .
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN ( D-CA ) : The effort to dismantle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking the Supreme Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act .
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL ( D-CT ) : Your nomination is about the Republican goal of repealing the Affordable Care Act , Obamacare , they seem to detest .
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS ( D-CA ) , DEMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE : They are deliberately defying the will of the people in their attempt to roll back the rights and protections provided under the Affordable Care Act .
CARLSON : Well , it sounds like Obamacare is going away if ACB gets on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not actually .
That ’ s the amazing thing .
Obamacare isn ’ t really at risk .
There is no case currently pending anywhere in this country before any court in America that would eliminate Obamacare , nor by the way , do we have any idea how Amy Coney Barrett would rule in a case like that where it to materialize , which again , it hasn ’ t .
But most bewildering of all , Democrats themselves have spent most of the past two years publicly conceding that Obamacare is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats currently as of today , sitting on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate , that ’ s the same committee that convened today to consider Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination , six of the 10 co-sponsored Medicare-for-All legislation .
That legislation would have completely abolished Obamacare , along with all private health insurance .
Kamala Harris is one of the people who voted for that — amazing — and yet there was Kamala Harris today , warning us that the country will collapse if Amy Coney Barrett votes on a hypothetical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ herself voted to destroy .
It all seems kind of confusing .
But think about it for a second and it begins to make more sense .
When you realize the goal is not to preserve Obamacare , again , they voted to scrap Obamacare .
The goal is to undermine the legitimacy of our systems , and in this case , of the Supreme Court so that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris can pack the court full of partisan Democrats who will rubber-stamp their program .
Again , it ’ s about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the key to the riddle .
When confirmation hearings become partisan political exercises , they make the Supreme Court itself seem like a partisan political exercise and that degrades the public ’ s trust in the court and their support for our institutions .
Democrats know that for the public to go along with court-packing , they have to de-legitimize everything about the court and the confirmation process , and so that ’ s what they did today , again and again .
SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE ( D-RI ) : Lost in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bader Ginsburg .
Let me close by remembering her for a minute in this unseemly charade .
SEN. CORY BOOKER ( D-NJ ) : This is a charade when they say this is a normal Judiciary Committee hearing .
SEN. MAZIE HIRONO ( D-HI ) : They are confident that victory at the Supreme Court is now within their grasp if the Senate confirms Judge Barrett through this hypocritical , illegitimate process .
KLOBUCHAR : Yes , Judge , I think this hearing is a sham .
CARLSON : Oh , Ruth Bader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and you probably learned this in Civics class — in a democracy , you ’ re required to obey the posthumous orders of a dead person who was never elected .
Okay .
And when you don ’ t , it ’ s a sham .
It ’ s a charade .
Never mind the fact that the Senate is of course , by definition following every constitutional procedure for filling a Supreme Court vacancy .
Amy Coney Barrett isn ’ t the outcome though the Democrats want ; therefore , our system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The irony , of course , is that it ’ s Donald Trump who is undermining our democratic norms .
Remember that ?
They tell you that at every turn .
And yet it ’ s not Trump who tried to pack the Supreme Court .
He could have tried when Republicans controlled Congress .
He didn ’ t consider packing the Supreme Court .
Now Democrats are planning to , and it ’ s a familiar path .
Hugo Chavez packed the Supreme Court of Venezuela in 2004 .
Erdogan did the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do that ?
How did they get their populations to go along with it ?
By claiming their judicial systems were already illegitimate .
Sound familiar ?
On Saturday , Joe Biden stumbled through the same rehearsed line you heard from Kamala Harris during the debate last week .
Republicans have already packed the court , Joe Biden declared .
Yes , we ’ ve had nine justices for more than 150 years .
And yet somehow , without anyone noticing , Trump packs the Supreme Court .
He did .
JOE BIDEN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The only court-packing going on right now is going on with Republicans packing the court now .
It is not constitutional what they are doing .
CARLSON : They ’ re the ones violating the Constitution says Joe Biden .
So , when I rewrite the Constitution , it ’ ll be fine .
That ’ s the predicate .
That ’ s the setup for what ’ s coming next .
Joe Biden knows Republicans aren ’ t packing the court .
He also knows he can repeat that lie with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never hold him to account .
They want him to get away with it .
Back in 2013 , when it helped Barack Obama , a partisan operation called PolitiFact wrote , quote , “ Court-packing has involved one branch of government proposing to change the structure of the courts , either expanding or decreasing the number of justices.
” The Republicans are not doing that .
It ’ s pretty simple .
They ’ re not in favor of doing that .
If they ever come out in favor of doing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , because we ’ re not partisan .
But of course , you won ’ t find a PolitiFact fact check of what Joe Biden just said on Saturday .
Instead , our media actually rushed to perpetuate his lies .
Whatever it takes , whatever it takes .
So this weekend , a piece by the Associated Press , referred to court-packing , non-sarcastically , they weren ’ t joking at all as , quote , “ depoliticizing the court.
” You increase the size of the court to dilute the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pack it full of partisans who do your bidding , and that ’ s de-politicizing it .
Here ’ s how the AP put it quote : “ Montana Senate candidate Steve Bullock said that if Coney Barrett was confirmed , he would be open to measures to de-politicize the court , including adding judges to the bench , a practice critics have dubbed packing the court.
” Yes , no , not critics , scholars , historians , politicians , Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself , every person in America referred to court-packing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Right .
It ’ s hard to believe that line made it into print , but it did .
Court-packing is just de-politicizing the court now .
You ’ ll probably see that definition formalized in the AP ’ s next woke-style guide next to their entries on undocumented shoppers and peaceful riots .
Fundamentally though , the AP is onto something inadvertently .
Many judges and justices in this country are obviously political .
They have a lot of power , too much power , more power than any individual should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reside with the electorate .
People who are elected should have the most power not people who are appointed .
Unelected judges shouldn ’ t be deciding issues like abortion and immigration policy for the entire country , but they are .
The solution to that is not to embrace more politics in your judicial branch , though , it ’ s to recognize the proper role of the courts , to de-escalate a little bit , to bring us a little closer to sanity .
In a brief moment toward the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her opening statement , Amy Coney Barrett tried to do exactly that .
Watch .
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT , U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE : Courts have a vital responsibility to the rule of law , which is critical to a free society .
But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life .
The policy decisions and valued judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the people .
The public should not expect courts to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CARLSON : So these hearings of Amy Coney Barrett will continue for the next couple of days , barring some really dramatic development that it ’ s hard to even to imagine .
It does seem very likely that she will be confirmed in the end , so there ’ s not a lot of drama , at least as of tonight surrounding her nomination .
What happens to the Supreme Court itself , however , is very much in doubt , and along with it , our country .

Monday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” host Tucker Carlson spoke on Senate Democrats focus on the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings, which has revolved around Coney’s view on the Affordable Care Act.
According to Carlson, that was evidence those Democrats viewed the high court in political terms.
Transcript as follows:
CARLSON: Happy Columbus Day. If you’ve been out celebrating the discovery of America, you may have missed the first round of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings.
So how were the hearings? Well, we watched. In a word, we put it this way, bizarre. Bizarre for this reason.
Almost none of the attacks on Barrett — and of course, there are many of those — had anything to do with the job she is trying to get. The Supreme Court exists only to determine what the laws that our politicians write are consistent with the Constitution of the United States. That’s why we have the Supreme Court, it’s the only reason we have it.
Supreme Court Justices do not make laws because they are not elected by voters. We don’t let them legislate as a result. That’s how democracy works. Only people who are elected, get to make laws.
Democrats would like to change that system. They understand that Congress is an inherently small “c” conservative body. Congress is never going to change the country overnight in some radical way because voters don’t want radical overnight change. They never do.
So if you’re going to have a revolution, if you’re going to remake America, you’re going to have to do it from above, and you’re going to have to impose it on people. And the left would like to use the Supreme Court as their instrument to do that, a kind of super Congress with lifetime tenure.
Imagine power like that. There’s nothing you couldn’t do.
So once you understand that perspective, which is very much their perspective, today’s hearings made sense.
Democrats spent hours talking about the 2009 Obamacare law. That was baffling at first. If you’re interviewing someone for the Supreme Court, there’s only one relevant question about Obamacare. Is it constitutional? That’s all they consider. That’s all they’re supposed to consider, not how they feel about the law, not whether it comports with their personal values, not whether their party supports it. Is it constitutional?
And yet that was one of the few things that Democrats didn’t ask because they are not interested in whether or not it’s constitutional. What they care about is power and whether or not Amy Coney Barrett will diminish or enhance theirs.
So they understand the Supreme Court purely in political terms. So not surprisingly, they conducted today’s hearings like a campaign rally.
“Healthcare for millions of Americans is at stake,” barked one finger-wagging senator from California. Another Democrat pointed to a photo of a middle-aged woman called Laura who looks very unhappy. Without Obamacare, the senator said, Laura will be, quote, “unable to afford the treatments necessary for her to survive.” In other words, if any Amy Coney Barrett gets this job, it is curtains for Laura.
Democrat after Democrat made that very same point, as they so often have recently: obey us or many will die.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): You know that they are trying to push through a Justice who has been critical of upholding the Affordable Care Act.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): The effort to dismantle the law continues, and they are asking the Supreme Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Your nomination is about the Republican goal of repealing the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, they seem to detest.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), DEMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: They are deliberately defying the will of the people in their attempt to roll back the rights and protections provided under the Affordable Care Act.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Well, it sounds like Obamacare is going away if ACB gets on the court. But it’s not actually. That’s the amazing thing. Obamacare isn’t really at risk.
There is no case currently pending anywhere in this country before any court in America that would eliminate Obamacare, nor by the way, do we have any idea how Amy Coney Barrett would rule in a case like that where it to materialize, which again, it hasn’t.
But most bewildering of all, Democrats themselves have spent most of the past two years publicly conceding that Obamacare is a disaster.
Six of the 10 Democrats currently as of today, sitting on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, that’s the same committee that convened today to consider Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination, six of the 10 co-sponsored Medicare-for-All legislation. That legislation would have completely abolished Obamacare, along with all private health insurance.
Kamala Harris is one of the people who voted for that — amazing — and yet there was Kamala Harris today, warning us that the country will collapse if Amy Coney Barrett votes on a hypothetical case to destroy Obamacare, which she herself voted to destroy.
What?
It all seems kind of confusing. But think about it for a second and it begins to make more sense. When you realize the goal is not to preserve Obamacare, again, they voted to scrap Obamacare. The goal is to undermine the legitimacy of our systems, and in this case, of the Supreme Court so that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris can pack the court full of partisan Democrats who will rubber-stamp their program.
Again, it’s about power. Oh, that’s the key to the riddle.
When confirmation hearings become partisan political exercises, they make the Supreme Court itself seem like a partisan political exercise and that degrades the public’s trust in the court and their support for our institutions.
Democrats know that for the public to go along with court-packing, they have to de-legitimize everything about the court and the confirmation process, and so that’s what they did today, again and again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): Lost in this hypocritical rush is the legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Let me close by remembering her for a minute in this unseemly charade.
SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): This is a charade when they say this is a normal Judiciary Committee hearing.
BLUMENTHAL: Rushing a judge through this sham process.
SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): They are confident that victory at the Supreme Court is now within their grasp if the Senate confirms Judge Barrett through this hypocritical, illegitimate process.
KLOBUCHAR: Yes, Judge, I think this hearing is a sham.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Oh, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, because in a democracy, and you probably learned this in Civics class — in a democracy, you’re required to obey the posthumous orders of a dead person who was never elected. Okay. And when you don’t, it’s a sham. It’s a charade.
Never mind the fact that the Senate is of course, by definition following every constitutional procedure for filling a Supreme Court vacancy.
Amy Coney Barrett isn’t the outcome though the Democrats want; therefore, our system they are telling us is illegitimate.
The irony, of course, is that it’s Donald Trump who is undermining our democratic norms. Remember that? They tell you that at every turn. And yet it’s not Trump who tried to pack the Supreme Court. He could have tried when Republicans controlled Congress. He didn’t consider packing the Supreme Court.
Now Democrats are planning to, and it’s a familiar path. Hugo Chavez packed the Supreme Court of Venezuela in 2004. Erdogan did the same in Turkey. How did they do that? How did they get their populations to go along with it? By claiming their judicial systems were already illegitimate. Sound familiar?
On Saturday, Joe Biden stumbled through the same rehearsed line you heard from Kamala Harris during the debate last week. Republicans have already packed the court, Joe Biden declared. Yes, we’ve had nine justices for more than 150 years. And yet somehow, without anyone noticing, Trump packs the Supreme Court. He did.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN (D), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: The only court-packing going on right now is going on with Republicans packing the court now. It is not constitutional what they are doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: They’re the ones violating the Constitution says Joe Biden. So, when I rewrite the Constitution, it’ll be fine. That’s the predicate. That’s the setup for what’s coming next.
Joe Biden knows Republicans aren’t packing the court. He also knows he can repeat that lie with no consequences whatsoever because the media will never hold him to account. They want him to get away with it.
Back in 2013, when it helped Barack Obama, a partisan operation called PolitiFact wrote, quote, “Court-packing has involved one branch of government proposing to change the structure of the courts, either expanding or decreasing the number of justices.”
The Republicans are not doing that. It’s pretty simple. They’re not in favor of doing that. If they ever come out in favor of doing it, we will attack them for doing it, because we’re not partisan.
But of course, you won’t find a PolitiFact fact check of what Joe Biden just said on Saturday. Instead, our media actually rushed to perpetuate his lies. Whatever it takes, whatever it takes.
So this weekend, a piece by the Associated Press, referred to court-packing, non-sarcastically, they weren’t joking at all as, quote, “depoliticizing the court.” You increase the size of the court to dilute the other side’s power. You pack it full of partisans who do your bidding, and that’s de-politicizing it.
Here’s how the AP put it quote: “Montana Senate candidate Steve Bullock said that if Coney Barrett was confirmed, he would be open to measures to de-politicize the court, including adding judges to the bench, a practice critics have dubbed packing the court.”
Yes, no, not critics, scholars, historians, politicians, Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself, every person in America referred to court-packing as court-packing up until two weeks ago. Right. It’s hard to believe that line made it into print, but it did. Court-packing is just de-politicizing the court now. You’ll probably see that definition formalized in the AP’s next woke-style guide next to their entries on undocumented shoppers and peaceful riots.
Fundamentally though, the AP is onto something inadvertently. Many judges and justices in this country are obviously political. They have a lot of power, too much power, more power than any individual should have.
Power in this country should reside with the electorate. People who are elected should have the most power not people who are appointed. Unelected judges shouldn’t be deciding issues like abortion and immigration policy for the entire country, but they are.
The solution to that is not to embrace more politics in your judicial branch, though, it’s to recognize the proper role of the courts, to de-escalate a little bit, to bring us a little closer to sanity.
In a brief moment toward the end of today’s hearing, in her opening statement, Amy Coney Barrett tried to do exactly that. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Courts have a vital responsibility to the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life.
The policy decisions and valued judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the people.
The public should not expect courts to do so and courts should not try.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So these hearings of Amy Coney Barrett will continue for the next couple of days, barring some really dramatic development that it’s hard to even to imagine. It does seem very likely that she will be confirmed in the end, so there’s not a lot of drama, at least as of tonight surrounding her nomination.
What happens to the Supreme Court itself, however, is very much in doubt, and along with it, our country.


bonginoreport--2020-10-13--What Will Happen to All the Russian Collusion Hoaxers?

The Russian collusion hoax has fallen apart more every day .
And we haven ’ t heard a word of comment from any of the people responsible for pushing it and helping fracture this country .
A year ago , the story dominating headlines was the allegation that President Donald Trump had colluded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election .
The idea of impeaching President Trump due to these allegations was gathering steam , with accusations from elected officials and beyond that the president of the United States was a Russian puppet , a Manchurian candidate installed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agent of a hostile foreign power for the last 30 years .
You don ’ t need to be a fan of Trump to be outraged about the Russian collusion conspiracy .
But it ’ s a mark against your patriotism , your judgement , or your intellect if you aren ’ t .
Beyond just being perhaps the most defining political scandal of our time , the hoax gets under my skin because I fell for it .
And I ’ m enormously angry for having been duped .
Now that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influenced by actual Russian disinformation , it is time to revisit how it was created and dominated U.S. politics for so long , as well as demand justice for its perpetrators .
The “ Russian collusion ” narrative first got its start shortly before the 2016 election , when John Podesta , chairman of the Clinton campaign , told reporters about an FBI investigation into the Trump campaign and suggested Trump was either “ willfully ignoring ” intelligence officials ’ warnings or acting “ as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign .
She pushed the claim on social media , including never-verified allegations about a server connected to future President Trump that was supposedly tied to Russia , and called on the FBI to release information about any connection between Trump and Russia .
Her running mate , Sen. Tim Kaine , suggested Trump was a Russian puppet two weeks before the election .
Even the FBI ’ s own findings from late October , announcing that , despite a months-long investigation , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Russian government , couldn ’ t throw any cold water on the allegations .
Especially after the election , the narrative was picked up by congressional Democrats .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on the FBI to “ investigate the financial , political and personal ties ” between Trump and Russia .
Rep. Adam Schiff , who went on to quarterback the impeachment effort , suggested multiple , unverified claims : that the Trump campaign directed efforts from WikiLeaks , that Trump requested “ dirt ” on Clinton , and that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News outlets breathlessly covered these allegations .
Perhaps the most aggressive was MSNBC , who oriented their media coverage for multiple years around every undulation of the Russian collusion story .
The stories spanned the bizarre , from pushing an unverified conspiracy that the Trump campaign worked with the Russia to leak Democratic National Committee emails to giving a platform for Clinton to suggest—again , without evidence—that Trump associates worked with Russia to undermine the election .
While the network had many personalities pushing these talking points , one host was undoubtedly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told The New York Times she was “ happy to admit ” that she was “ obsessed with Russia.
” She wasn ’ t exaggerating .
On March 17 , 2017 , Maddow speculated that “ the presidency is effectively a Russian op ” borne of collusion with Russian intel .
On May 23 , 2018 , she suggested President Trump was only in office “ because Russia put him there.
” Then , on July 18 , 2018 , Maddow said that not only had Russia elected Trump , but it may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
MSNBC was far from alone .
BuzzFeed News was the first to publish a trove of dubious and since largely disproven information known as the Steele dossier , named for its author , former MI5 officer Christopher Steele , that purported to show a clear connection between future President Trump and the Russians .
CNN even had to force out three reporters over a since-retracted story that claimed to draw a connection between Trump and Russia .
Opinion and reporting headlines from The Washington Post , The Atlantic , Time , The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump was “ acting on behalf of a hostile foreign power ” or otherwise in bed with Russia .
Perhaps the most outlandish claim was made by Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine , who speculated in a cover piece from July 9 , 2018 that Trump may have been an asset of Soviet and then Russian intelligence dating back to 1987 .
While suggesting that the leader of the free world was secretly acting on behalf of a hostile foreign government may have once drawn laughter , Chait was heralded as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , NPR ’ s “ This American Life , ” and other outlets shortly after his article , as sober and serious reporters asked gravely about the implications of his speculation .
After the Mueller Report , the Theory Evaporated Then , just as these stories were seemingly building to a crescendo , they stopped .
The Mueller report , which many believed would finally vindicate the collusion narrative—with supporters even writing their own fanfiction and lighting devotional candles—couldn ’ t demonstrate collusion .
While some of the most committed advocates , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause , the story quickly fell from the attention of the mainstream media and Democratic elected officials .
Since then , many of the core allegations of the collusion narrative have sustained damaging , even damning , body blows .
The Steele dossier ’ s credibility has crumbled .
The “ sub-source ” from the dossier originally published by BuzzFeed News proved not only untrustworthy but to be someone U.S. intel had identified as a threat to national security and investigated for being a potential Russian spy , raising the prospect that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disinformation .
A declassified ruling from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA ) court found that the basis for surveillance against the Trump campaign , which gave rise to the impeachment and broader collusion narrative , was based on a lie , and an FBI agent pleaded guilty to falsifying documents .
Just this week , handwritten documents from former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed that the highest levels of the U.S. government were aware of the Clinton campaign ’ s plan to weaponize the Russian collusion allegation against Trump in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because the Truth Helps Trump Outside of conservative media , these developments have largely been greeted with silence .
The collusion narrative , once the key talking point for Democrats , went unremarked upon at the Democratic National Convention .
While individual voices , such as Paul Farhi and Erik Wemple of The Washington Post , have been deeply critical , most mainstream outlets have avoided discussing the underlying facets of the narrative even as they imploded , or have even brought on key players to push their since-disproven talking points .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to nearly comical .
But it ’ s important to remember that they have had a real , lasting impact on American politics , and that those chiefly responsible have yet to be held accountable .
There ’ s every reason to believe that many , perhaps even most Americans still believe in the hoax : a poll from 2019 found that nearly 50 percent of respondents believed President Trump had colluded with Russia .
Where is the follow up from anyone , at all , about any of this ?
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the clear coordination across multiple organs of the U.S. government , I don ’ t know what to tell you .
I don ’ t know how to convince you to care that the president of the United States has been undermined for four years by a malicious lie from his political opponents .
President Trump has vowed to make public all documents related to investigations into his campaign about alleged connections to Russia .
More bombshells may be coming in the weeks and months ahead , which could further undermine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hopefully , serve as a cautionary tale about the rush to believe thinly sourced allegations that support one ’ s biases .
But that will require that any lessons from this saga are learned at all .

A year ago, the story dominating headlines was the allegation that President Donald Trump had colluded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election. The idea of impeaching President Trump due to these allegations was gathering steam, with accusations from elected officials and beyond that the president of the United States was a Russian puppet, a Manchurian candidate installed by Vladimir Putin, and even an agent of a hostile foreign power for the last 30 years.
You don’t need to be a fan of Trump to be outraged about the Russian collusion conspiracy. But it’s a mark against your patriotism, your judgement, or your intellect if you aren’t. Beyond just being perhaps the most defining political scandal of our time, the hoax gets under my skin because I fell for it. And I’m enormously angry for having been duped.
Now that this narrative has been proven false and possibly influenced by actual Russian disinformation, it is time to revisit how it was created and dominated U.S. politics for so long, as well as demand justice for its perpetrators.
🧵Thread🧵 At some point, we need to have a reckoning about the ways that Dems & the media pushed the “Russian collusion” narrative – absent any evidence – and how they’ve refused to revisit it as the narrative has fallen apart. Just in case you’ve forgotten how bad it was👇 — Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) October 7, 2020
Where is the follow up? From anyone, at all, about any of this? The Russian Collusion hoax has fallen apart more and more everyday. And we haven’t heard a word of comment from any of the people responsible for pushing it and helping fracture this country. — Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) October 7, 2020
The “Russian collusion” narrative first got its start shortly before the 2016 election, when John Podesta, chairman of the Clinton campaign, told reporters about an FBI investigation into the Trump campaign and suggested Trump was either “willfully ignoring” intelligence officials’ warnings or acting “as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”
This accusation eventually became a central pillar of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign. She pushed the claim on social media, including never-verified allegations about a server connected to future President Trump that was supposedly tied to Russia, and called on the FBI to release information about any connection between Trump and Russia.
Her running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine, suggested Trump was a Russian puppet two weeks before the election. Even the FBI’s own findings from late October, announcing that, despite a months-long investigation, they found no clear links between Trump and the Russian government, couldn’t throw any cold water on the allegations.
Especially after the election, the narrative was picked up by congressional Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on the FBI to “investigate the financial, political and personal ties” between Trump and Russia. Rep. Adam Schiff, who went on to quarterback the impeachment effort, suggested multiple, unverified claims: that the Trump campaign directed efforts from WikiLeaks, that Trump requested “dirt” on Clinton, and that Trump had undisclosed financial connections to Russia.
News outlets breathlessly covered these allegations. Perhaps the most aggressive was MSNBC, who oriented their media coverage for multiple years around every undulation of the Russian collusion story. The stories spanned the bizarre, from pushing an unverified conspiracy that the Trump campaign worked with the Russia to leak Democratic National Committee emails to giving a platform for Clinton to suggest—again, without evidence—that Trump associates worked with Russia to undermine the election.
Don’t Forget Chief Conspiracist Rachel Maddow
While the network had many personalities pushing these talking points, one host was undoubtedly the most active: Rachel Maddow. She told The New York Times she was “happy to admit” that she was “obsessed with Russia.” She wasn’t exaggerating.
On March 17, 2017, Maddow speculated that “the presidency is effectively a Russian op” borne of collusion with Russian intel. On May 23, 2018, she suggested President Trump was only in office “because Russia put him there.” Then, on July 18, 2018, Maddow said that not only had Russia elected Trump, but it may also have picked his cabinet, too.
MSNBC was far from alone. BuzzFeed News was the first to publish a trove of dubious and since largely disproven information known as the Steele dossier, named for its author, former MI5 officer Christopher Steele, that purported to show a clear connection between future President Trump and the Russians.
CNN even had to force out three reporters over a since-retracted story that claimed to draw a connection between Trump and Russia. Opinion and reporting headlines from The Washington Post, The Atlantic, Time, The New York Times, and others suggested President Trump was “acting on behalf of a hostile foreign power” or otherwise in bed with Russia.
Perhaps the most outlandish claim was made by Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine, who speculated in a cover piece from July 9, 2018 that Trump may have been an asset of Soviet and then Russian intelligence dating back to 1987. While suggesting that the leader of the free world was secretly acting on behalf of a hostile foreign government may have once drawn laughter, Chait was heralded as a heroic sleuth, appearing on MSNBC, NPR’s “This American Life,” and other outlets shortly after his article, as sober and serious reporters asked gravely about the implications of his speculation.
After the Mueller Report, the Theory Evaporated
Then, just as these stories were seemingly building to a crescendo, they stopped. The Mueller report, which many believed would finally vindicate the collusion narrative—with supporters even writing their own fanfiction and lighting devotional candles—couldn’t demonstrate collusion. While some of the most committed advocates, such as Schiff, vowed to continue the cause, the story quickly fell from the attention of the mainstream media and Democratic elected officials.
Since then, many of the core allegations of the collusion narrative have sustained damaging, even damning, body blows. The Steele dossier’s credibility has crumbled. The “sub-source” from the dossier originally published by BuzzFeed News proved not only untrustworthy but to be someone U.S. intel had identified as a threat to national security and investigated for being a potential Russian spy, raising the prospect that the underlying finds may have been deliberate Kremlin disinformation.
A declassified ruling from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court found that the basis for surveillance against the Trump campaign, which gave rise to the impeachment and broader collusion narrative, was based on a lie, and an FBI agent pleaded guilty to falsifying documents. Just this week, handwritten documents from former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed that the highest levels of the U.S. government were aware of the Clinton campaign’s plan to weaponize the Russian collusion allegation against Trump in the election.
Nothing to See Here, Because the Truth Helps Trump
Outside of conservative media, these developments have largely been greeted with silence. The collusion narrative, once the key talking point for Democrats, went unremarked upon at the Democratic National Convention. While individual voices, such as Paul Farhi and Erik Wemple of The Washington Post, have been deeply critical, most mainstream outlets have avoided discussing the underlying facets of the narrative even as they imploded, or have even brought on key players to push their since-disproven talking points.
In hindsight, the allegations range from overeager to nearly comical. But it’s important to remember that they have had a real, lasting impact on American politics, and that those chiefly responsible have yet to be held accountable. There’s every reason to believe that many, perhaps even most Americans still believe in the hoax: a poll from 2019 found that nearly 50 percent of respondents believed President Trump had colluded with Russia.
Where is the follow up from anyone, at all, about any of this? If you aren’t outraged by all this, and the clear coordination across multiple organs of the U.S. government, I don’t know what to tell you. I don’t know how to convince you to care that the president of the United States has been undermined for four years by a malicious lie from his political opponents.
President Trump has vowed to make public all documents related to investigations into his campaign about alleged connections to Russia. More bombshells may be coming in the weeks and months ahead, which could further undermine the original allegations.
The experience will, hopefully, serve as a cautionary tale about the rush to believe thinly sourced allegations that support one’s biases. But that will require that any lessons from this saga are learned at all.
Drew Holden is a public affairs consultant in Washington, D.C., and a former Republican congressional staff member.


bonginoreport--2020-10-14--Twitter Locks Kayleigh McEnany’s Account for Sharing NY Post Article Exposing Hunter Biden

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Wednesday was locked out of her personal Twitter account for sharing The Post ’ s bombshell cover story on Hunter Biden ’ s alleged hard drive and an email linking Joe Biden to his son ’ s job at a Ukrainian energy company .
“ Your account has been locked , ” a message from the social media network informed McEnany , whose account has more than 1 million followers .
“ We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules , ” the network said , highlighting her prior tweet with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article .
Without providing any evidence , Twitter said McEnany — who shared a screenshot with The Post — violated “ our rules against distribution of hacked material.
” McEnany told The Post she will not comply with Twitter ’ s request that she delete her tweet to restore access to her account .
“ This is a story reported by the New York Post and Fox News with the Biden campaign notably not disputing the authenticity of the emails , ” McEnany said .
“ I will not comply with censoring reporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Silicon Valley .
This is abominable and not the American way.
” Twitter on Wednesday blocked users from sharing The Post ’ s link to the story , which describes an alleged 2015 email from Burisma energy executive Vadym Pozharskyi thanking Hunter Biden for “ giving an opportunity to meet your father.
” Biden , who led the Obama administration Ukraine policy , claimed last year , “ I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings , ” including his reported $ 83,000 monthly pay on Burisma ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ users from tweeting or direct-messaging a link to the article because it violated a ban on distributing hacked material , the same reason it locked McEnany ’ s account .
The alleged Hunter Biden hard drive was given to The Post by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani , a personal attorney to Trump , after he received it from a Delaware computer repairman .
The repairman says he legally accessed the content under an abandonment contract clause when Hunter Biden did not collect a damaged laptop within 90 days .
Facebook , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steps to limit distribution of The Post ’ s article pending “ fact-checking.
” Republican lawmakers and President Trump on Wednesday cited the article censorship by Twitter and Facebook in calls for reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , a foundational internet liability shield for sites that host third-party content .
Sen. Josh Hawley ( R-Mo . )
separately requested a Federal Election Commission investigation .
Supporters of reforming Section 230 say tech giants should lose protections if they operate as a publisher , rather than as a neutral platform .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s time to reform Section 230 , ” wrote Rep. Ken Buck ( R-Colo. ) , a Republican on the House Judiciary Committee .
“ Twitter is attempting to meddle in the election with anti-conservative bias .
@ jack is acting like a publisher , making the case yet again to reform Section 230 , ” Buck wrote .
Rep. Jim Jordan ( R-Ohio ) , the panel ’ s top Republican , wrote , “ Big Tech claims they aren ’ t biased against Conservatives .
So why are they suppressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 230 !
”

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Wednesday was locked out of her personal Twitter account for sharing The Post’s bombshell cover story on Hunter Biden’s alleged hard drive and an email linking Joe Biden to his son’s job at a Ukrainian energy company.
“Your account has been locked,” a message from the social media network informed McEnany, whose account has more than 1 million followers.
“We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules,” the network said, highlighting her prior tweet with a link to The Post’s article.
Without providing any evidence, Twitter said McEnany — who shared a screenshot with The Post — violated “our rules against distribution of hacked material.”
McEnany told The Post she will not comply with Twitter’s request that she delete her tweet to restore access to her account.
“This is a story reported by the New York Post and Fox News with the Biden campaign notably not disputing the authenticity of the emails,” McEnany said. “I will not comply with censoring reporting that may not fit the ideology of Silicon Valley. This is abominable and not the American way.”
Twitter on Wednesday blocked users from sharing The Post’s link to the story, which describes an alleged 2015 email from Burisma energy executive Vadym Pozharskyi thanking Hunter Biden for “giving an opportunity to meet your father.”
Biden, who led the Obama administration Ukraine policy, claimed last year, “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” including his reported $83,000 monthly pay on Burisma’s board.
Twitter said Wednesday it prevented users from tweeting or direct-messaging a link to the article because it violated a ban on distributing hacked material, the same reason it locked McEnany’s account.
The alleged Hunter Biden hard drive was given to The Post by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a personal attorney to President Trump, after he received it from a Delaware computer repairman.
The repairman says he legally accessed the content under an abandonment contract clause when Hunter Biden did not collect a damaged laptop within 90 days.
Facebook, meanwhile, said it was taking unspecified steps to limit distribution of The Post’s article pending “fact-checking.”
Republican lawmakers and Trump on Wednesday cited the article censorship by Twitter and Facebook in calls for reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a foundational internet liability shield for sites that host third-party content. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) separately requested a Federal Election Commission investigation.
Supporters of reforming Section 230 say tech giants should lose protections if they operate as a publisher, rather than as a neutral platform.
“Condemnation is not enough. It’s time to reform Section 230,” wrote Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), a Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
“Twitter is attempting to meddle in the election with anti-conservative bias. @jack is acting like a publisher, making the case yet again to reform Section 230,” Buck wrote.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the panel’s top Republican, wrote, “Big Tech claims they aren’t biased against Conservatives. So why are they suppressing speech to help the Democrats? Section 230!”


bonginoreport--2020-10-14--Twitter Locks New York Post Out of Their Account Following Hunter Biden Bombshell

The New York Post has been locked out of Twitter over a story that they published on Joe Biden 's alleged corruption .
This according to business reporter Noah Manskar , who claimed that it was because the story violated the policy against the `` distribution of hacked material . ''
It was only last month that the Post reported that Carlos Monje , who had served as Twitter 's director or public policy , left Twitter for a position with the Biden transition team .
Now , Twitter is actively suppressing information that reflects badly on the Biden campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Post would be able to have its account back .
Typically , when Twitter suspends an account , their terms are that the offending post be deleted , or the account will not be reinstated .
Senator Ted Cruz sent a letter to Jack Dorsey , Twitter CEO , that asked for the following information : '' Who made the decision to prevent users from sharing this story , on what basis did they make that decision ? ''
`` When was the New York Post made aware of Twitter 's decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the censorship ? ''
`` Has Twitter prevented the New York Times , Washington Post , or any other major news outlet from posting its own reporting ?
If so , when ? ''
`` If Twitter did not precent Buzzfeed from sharing its reporting on the Steele dossier or the New York Times from reporting on President Trump 's tax returns , please explain a politically neutral principle for why the reporting is treated differently ? ''
`` Has Twitter ever restricted a story published by a major news outlet about Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President of the United States ? ''
`` Have Twitter or any of its employees involved in the decision to censor this reporting been in contact in any capacity with the Biden-Harris campaign or any of tis representative regarding this reporting or the allegations contained therein ? ''
This comes on the heels of Twitter having censored a New York Post exclusive story that showed the connection between Hunter Biden , Joe Biden , and money the elder Biden held hostage from Ukraine until that nation fired the prosecutor that was looking into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the younger Biden sat .
The story ran by the Post was based on exclusive emails that were on a laptop computer that was allegedly left at a Delaware computer repair shop .
The Post reported that the FBI seized the laptop in December 2019 .
While part of the story the Post ran was about how the emails were obtained , what the emails revealed was that Hunter Biden , while serving on the board of Ukrainian energy giant Burisma , introduced his father , then Vice President Joe Biden , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after that introduction was made that Joe Biden held back $ 1 billion in aid to Ukraine until that government fired a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma for wrongdoing .
The story is unable to be shared on the platform , and has the potential to have a large impact on the upcoming presidential election .
This is a breaking story and will be updated .

The New York Post has been locked out of Twitter over a story that they published on Joe Biden's alleged corruption. This according to business reporter Noah Manskar, who claimed that it was because the story violated the policy against the "distribution of hacked material."
The Post's primary Twitter account (@nypost) has also been locked because the Hunter Biden stories violate its rules against "distribution of hacked material," per email we received from Twitter https://t.co/wbeYd6c3CA — Noah Manskar (@noahmanskar) October 14, 2020
It was only last month that the Post reported that Carlos Monje, who had served as Twitter's director or public policy, left Twitter for a position with the Biden transition team. Now, Twitter is actively suppressing information that reflects badly on the Biden campaign.
The question arose as to when the Post would be able to have its account back. Typically, when Twitter suspends an account, their terms are that the offending post be deleted, or the account will not be reinstated.
So @nypost gets its account unlocked when, exactly? When they unpublish the story Twitter dislikes? — Ben Domenech (@bdomenech) October 14, 2020
.@Twitter has locked @nypost. Has Twitter ever locked the account of a major news outlet? Why is Twitter attacking the free press — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) October 14, 2020
Senator Ted Cruz sent a letter to Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO, that asked for the following information:
"Who made the decision to prevent users from sharing this story, on what basis did they make that decision?"
"When was the New York Post made aware of Twitter's decision and what process what afforded to contest the censorship?"
"Has Twitter prevented the New York Times, Washington Post, or any other major news outlet from posting its own reporting? If so, when?"
"If Twitter did not precent Buzzfeed from sharing its reporting on the Steele dossier or the New York Times from reporting on President Trump's tax returns, please explain a politically neutral principle for why the reporting is treated differently?"
"Has Twitter ever restricted a story published by a major news outlet about Donald J. Trump during his four years as President of the United States?"
"Have Twitter or any of its employees involved in the decision to censor this reporting been in contact in any capacity with the Biden-Harris campaign or any of tis representative regarding this reporting or the allegations contained therein?"
This comes on the heels of Twitter having censored a New York Post exclusive story that showed the connection between Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and money the elder Biden held hostage from Ukraine until that nation fired the prosecutor that was looking into energy giant Burisma, on whose board the younger Biden sat.
The story ran by the Post was based on exclusive emails that were on a laptop computer that was allegedly left at a Delaware computer repair shop. The Post reported that the FBI seized the laptop in December 2019.
While part of the story the Post ran was about how the emails were obtained, what the emails revealed was that Hunter Biden, while serving on the board of Ukrainian energy giant Burisma, introduced his father, then Vice President Joe Biden, to execs at that company. It was after that introduction was made that Joe Biden held back $1 billion in aid to Ukraine until that government fired a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma for wrongdoing.
The story is unable to be shared on the platform, and has the potential to have a large impact on the upcoming presidential election.
This is a breaking story and will be updated.


bonginoreport--2020-10-14--ACB Smacks Down Amy Klobuchar’s Allegation She “Cut a Deal” With Trump

Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett quickly corrected a suggestion by Democratic Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar Wednesday that Barrett had cut an implicit deal with President Donald Trump on Obamacare .
Klobuchar focused a line of questioning around the Affordable Care Act Wednesday afternoon , like Democratic California Sen Kamala Harris did Tuesday evening , pressing Barrett on whether Barrett knew when she was nominated that one of Trump ’ s campaign promises was to repeal Obamacare .
“ As I said before , I ’ m aware that the president opposes the Affordable Care Act , ” Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reinforced Concrete Barrier ’ : Lindsey Graham Explains Why A Barrett Confirmation Is Groundbreaking For Conservative Women ) “ Well , I know you are aware now , ” Klobuchar said .
“ But were you aware back then ?
When you were nominated ?
” “ Senator Klobuchar , I think that the Republicans have kind of made that clear , it ’ s just been part of the book , public discourse , ” the Supreme Court nominee responded .
“ Is the answer yes , then , ” Klobuchar pressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , Senator Klobuchar , all these questions you are suggesting that I have animus or that I cut a deal with the president , ” Barrett told her .
“ And I was very clear yesterday that that isn ’ t what happened.
” Harris also said Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act and “ all its protections hinge ” on the outcome of the Barrett confirmation hearings .
“ Republicans have spent a decade trying to destroy the Affordable Care Act , ” the California Democrat said Tuesday evening .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who would tear down the Affordable Care Act.
” ( RELATED : Sen Whitehouse Busts Out A Marker And Poster To Expose Conservative Dark ‘ Powers ’ At Work ) Harris , who is also presidential candidate Joe Biden ’ s running mate , noted that President Donald Trump has argued that the Affordable Care Act should be “ struck in its entirety.
” She said that the “ Supreme Court could be just one vote away ” from overturning Obamacare .
“ In other words , the Affordable Care Act and all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outcome of this hearing , ” she said .
“ I believe it ’ s very important that the American people understand the issues at stake.
” Harris asked Barrett whether she was aware of Trump ’ s intention to nominate a justice who would overturn Obamacare .
Barrett told the vice presidential candidate that she “ never made a commitment ” on this matter .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett quickly corrected a suggestion by Democratic Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar Wednesday that Barrett had cut an implicit deal with President Donald Trump on Obamacare.
Klobuchar focused a line of questioning around the Affordable Care Act Wednesday afternoon, like Democratic California Sen Kamala Harris did Tuesday evening, pressing Barrett on whether Barrett knew when she was nominated that one of Trump’s campaign promises was to repeal Obamacare.
“As I said before, I’m aware that the president opposes the Affordable Care Act,” Barrett responded. (RELATED: ‘A Reinforced Concrete Barrier’: Lindsey Graham Explains Why A Barrett Confirmation Is Groundbreaking For Conservative Women)
“Well, I know you are aware now,” Klobuchar said. “But were you aware back then? When you were nominated?”
“Senator Klobuchar, I think that the Republicans have kind of made that clear, it’s just been part of the book, public discourse,” the Supreme Court nominee responded.
“Is the answer yes, then,” Klobuchar pressed Barrett, who interrupted her.
“Well, Senator Klobuchar, all these questions you are suggesting that I have animus or that I cut a deal with the president,” Barrett told her. “And I was very clear yesterday that that isn’t what happened.”
WATCH:
Harris also said Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act and “all its protections hinge” on the outcome of the Barrett confirmation hearings.
“Republicans have spent a decade trying to destroy the Affordable Care Act,” the California Democrat said Tuesday evening. “Donald Trump named a Supreme Court justice who would tear down the Affordable Care Act.” (RELATED: Sen Whitehouse Busts Out A Marker And Poster To Expose Conservative Dark ‘Powers’ At Work)
Harris, who is also presidential candidate Joe Biden’s running mate, noted that President Donald Trump has argued that the Affordable Care Act should be “struck in its entirety.” She said that the “Supreme Court could be just one vote away” from overturning Obamacare.
“In other words, the Affordable Care Act and all its protections hinge on this seat and the outcome of this hearing,” she said. “I believe it’s very important that the American people understand the issues at stake.”
Harris asked Barrett whether she was aware of Trump’s intention to nominate a justice who would overturn Obamacare. Barrett told the vice presidential candidate that she “never made a commitment” on this matter.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


bonginoreport--2020-10-14--Amy Coney Barrett Faces Third Day of SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings

Judge Amy Coney Barrett faces the third day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings on Wednesday after another tense day @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s nominee on topics ranging from abortion to gay rights .
Democrats questioned @ @ @ @ @ suggested might be at odds with her Catholic faith .
Follow below for updates on @ @ @ @ @ .
Mobile users click here .

Judge Amy Coney Barrett faces the third day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings on Wednesday after another tense day in which Democrats pressed President Trump’s nominee on topics ranging from abortion to gay rights.
Democrats questioned Barrett about cases that they suggested might be at odds with her Catholic faith.
Follow below for updates on the Supreme Court nomination process. Mobile users click here.


bonginoreport--2020-10-14--Fox News Obtains 2014 Email From Burisma to Hunter Asking Him to “Use Your Influence” to Stop “Polit

Fox News Obtains 2014 Email From Burisma to Hunter Asking Him to “Use Your Influence” to Stop “Politically Motivated Actions”

Hunter Biden was asked by an adviser for Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings whether he could “ use your influence ” as son of Vice President Joe Biden to help stop “ politically motivated actions , ” according to an email obtained by Fox News .
“ We urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message / signal , etc .to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions , '' a May 12 , 2014 email reads from Vadym Pozharskyi , an adviser to Burisma 's board .
The email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his former business partner Devon Archer .
Less than a year later , Pozharskyi sent another email that mentions an invitation to meet with Hunter 's father .
It indicates that Biden ’ s son introduced the former vice president to a top executive at Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings less than a year before he pressured government officials in Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin , who was investigating the company .
HUNTER BIDEN EMAILS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY SENATE HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE AFTER HARD DRIVE REPORT EMERGES '' Dear Hunter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent some time together .
It 's realty an honor and pleasure , '' the email , dated April 17 , 2015 reads .
`` As we spoke yesterday evening , would be great to meet today for a quick coffee .
What do you think ?
I could come to you office somewhere around noon or so , before or on my way to airport . ''
The emails , initially reported by the New York Post , offered new insight into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ties to Ukraine -- an issue that swept U.S. media last year as House Democrats pursued an impeachment effort against President Trump .
FACEBOOK REDUCING DISTRIBUTION OF HUNTER BIDEN STORY IN NEW YORK POST They turned up in the hard drive of a laptop dropped off at a repair shop in 2019 , the Post reported , adding that a copy of the hard drive ended up in the hands of Robert Costello , a lawyer for Rudy Giuliani , a personal attorney for President Trump .
Biden 's campaign responded on Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former vice president 's schedule showed no meeting taking place .
`` Investigations by the press , during impeachment , and even by two Republican-led Senate committees whose work was decried as 'not legitimate ' and political by a GOP colleague have all reached the same conclusion : that Joe Biden carried out official U.S. policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing .
Trump administration officials have attested to these facts under oath , '' Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement .
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never asked the Biden campaign about the critical elements of this story , '' Bates continued .
`` They certainly never raised that Rudy Giuliani -- whose discredited conspiracy theories and alliance with figures connected to Russian intelligence have been widely reported -- claimed to have such materials . ''
Bates added : `` Moreover , we have reviewed Joe Biden 's official schedules from the time and no meeting , as alleged by the New York Post , ever took place . ''

Hunter Biden was asked by an adviser for Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings whether he could “use your influence” as son of Vice President Joe Biden to help stop “politically motivated actions,” according to an email obtained by Fox News.
“We urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message / signal, etc .to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions," a May 12, 2014 email reads from Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to Burisma's board.
The email is addressed to both Hunter Biden and his former business partner Devon Archer.
Less than a year later, Pozharskyi sent another email that mentions an invitation to meet with Hunter's father. It indicates that Biden’s son introduced the former vice president to a top executive at Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings less than a year before he pressured government officials in Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the company.
HUNTER BIDEN EMAILS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY SENATE HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE AFTER HARD DRIVE REPORT EMERGES
"Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent some time together. It's realty an honor and pleasure," the email, dated April 17, 2015 reads.
"As we spoke yesterday evening, would be great to meet today for a quick coffee. What do you think? I could come to you office somewhere around noon or so, before or on my way to airport."
The emails, initially reported by the New York Post, offered new insight into the controversy surrounding the former vice president's ties to Ukraine -- an issue that swept U.S. media last year as House Democrats pursued an impeachment effort against President Trump.
FACEBOOK REDUCING DISTRIBUTION OF HUNTER BIDEN STORY IN NEW YORK POST
They turned up in the hard drive of a laptop dropped off at a repair shop in 2019, the Post reported, adding that a copy of the hard drive ended up in the hands of Robert Costello, a lawyer for Rudy Giuliani, a personal attorney for President Trump.
Biden's campaign responded on Wednesday by denying any wrongdoing and claiming that the former vice president's schedule showed no meeting taking place.
"Investigations by the press, during impeachment, and even by two Republican-led Senate committees whose work was decried as 'not legitimate' and political by a GOP colleague have all reached the same conclusion: that Joe Biden carried out official U.S. policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing. Trump administration officials have attested to these facts under oath," Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
"The New York Post never asked the Biden campaign about the critical elements of this story," Bates continued. "They certainly never raised that Rudy Giuliani -- whose discredited conspiracy theories and alliance with figures connected to Russian intelligence have been widely reported -- claimed to have such materials."
Bates added: "Moreover, we have reviewed Joe Biden's official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place."


bonginoreport--2020-10-14--Spokeswoman Says Bruce Ohr Retired From DOJ When Disciplinary Review Loomed

Bruce Ohr , a Justice Department official demoted in 2017 following the revelation of his meetings with anti-Trump dossier figure Christopher Steele , retired in late September while awaiting a `` final decision on a disciplinary review , '' a department spokeswoman told Fox News on Wednesday .
Fox News first reported that Ohr was demoted from his senior position at the Justice Department following the revelation of his meetings with ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele , of which his superiors at the DOJ were unaware .
“ Bruce Ohr retired from the Department of Justice on Sept. 30 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer an employee of the department , ” Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement .
“ Mr .
Ohr retired after his counsel was informed that a final decision on a disciplinary review being conducted by department senior career officials was imminent.
” FBI DECLASSIFIES SPREADSHEET USED TO TRY TO CORROBORATE STEELE DOSSIER Ohr was a key contact inside the Justice Department for Steele , who authored an anti-Trump dossier for research firm Fusion GPS as opposition research for Hillary Clinton 's 2016 campaign .
Ohr 's wife , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time .
That dossier , which remains unverified , was instrumental in obtaining the FISA warrant for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page , according to a report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz .
A transcript of a closed-door meeting Nellie Ohr had with the House Judiciary Committee in 2019 revealed that she had worked extensively on opposition research for Clinton 's campaign , although she largely did not work on the dossier itself .
The transcript also confirmed that Bruce and Nellie Ohr met with Steele at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the day before the FBI launched its investigation into the Trump campaign , known as Crossfire Hurricane .
Attorney General Bill Barr , last year , tapped U.S. Attorney from Connecticut John Durham to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe , from the FBI 's launching of Crossfire Hurricane in the summer of 2016 through the appointment of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller in May 2017 .
Durham ’ s investigation has been slowed by the coronavirus pandemic , but that has not blunted the level of anticipation from President Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his supporters , some of whom have called for findings to be released before November 's presidential election .
The investigation has produced one criminal charge so far , against former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith , who was accused of altering an email related to the surveillance of Page .
But that prosecution did not allege a broader conspiracy within the FBI , and the conduct it involved had largely been laid out in a Justice Department inspector general report from last December .
It is not clear if Durham will be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though Barr has not ruled out the possibility of additional criminal charges .
In July , though , Fox News reported that Durham could wait to reveal his findings or initiate further prosecutions until after the 2020 presidential election .
Two sources familiar with Durham ’ s investigation told Fox News at the time that Durham was working expeditiously to try to finish the probe before Labor Day – which he did not – but that several lines of the investigation had not yet been completed .
“ He believes it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one source said at the time .
“ He is feeling more pressure to get this done and wrapped up.
” The source also told Fox News that Durham “ does not want this to be viewed political , ” and the closer it gets to November , Durham could “ punt it to after the election .
”

Bruce Ohr, a Justice Department official demoted in 2017 following the revelation of his meetings with anti-Trump dossier figure Christopher Steele, retired in late September while awaiting a "final decision on a disciplinary review," a department spokeswoman told Fox News on Wednesday.
Fox News first reported that Ohr was demoted from his senior position at the Justice Department following the revelation of his meetings with ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, of which his superiors at the DOJ were unaware.
“Bruce Ohr retired from the Department of Justice on Sept. 30, 2020. As such, he is no longer an employee of the department,” Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement. “Mr. Ohr retired after his counsel was informed that a final decision on a disciplinary review being conducted by department senior career officials was imminent.”
FBI DECLASSIFIES SPREADSHEET USED TO TRY TO CORROBORATE STEELE DOSSIER
Ohr was a key contact inside the Justice Department for Steele, who authored an anti-Trump dossier for research firm Fusion GPS as opposition research for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS at the time.
That dossier, which remains unverified, was instrumental in obtaining the FISA warrant for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, according to a report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
A transcript of a closed-door meeting Nellie Ohr had with the House Judiciary Committee in 2019 revealed that she had worked extensively on opposition research for Clinton's campaign, although she largely did not work on the dossier itself.
The transcript also confirmed that Bruce and Nellie Ohr met with Steele at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., the day before the FBI launched its investigation into the Trump campaign, known as Crossfire Hurricane.
Attorney General Bill Barr, last year, tapped U.S. Attorney from Connecticut John Durham to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, from the FBI's launching of Crossfire Hurricane in the summer of 2016 through the appointment of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller in May 2017.
Durham’s investigation has been slowed by the coronavirus pandemic, but that has not blunted the level of anticipation from President Trump, his Republican allies on Capitol Hill and his supporters, some of whom have called for findings to be released before November's presidential election.
The investigation has produced one criminal charge so far, against former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who was accused of altering an email related to the surveillance of Page. But that prosecution did not allege a broader conspiracy within the FBI, and the conduct it involved had largely been laid out in a Justice Department inspector general report from last December.
JOHNSON, GRASSLEY PRESS FBI FOR ALL MCCABE TEXTS, CALL DELAY 'UNACCEPTABLE'
It is not clear if Durham will be able to conclude his work before the election, though Barr has not ruled out the possibility of additional criminal charges.
In July, though, Fox News reported that Durham could wait to reveal his findings or initiate further prosecutions until after the 2020 presidential election.
Two sources familiar with Durham’s investigation told Fox News at the time that Durham was working expeditiously to try to finish the probe before Labor Day – which he did not – but that several lines of the investigation had not yet been completed.
“He believes it’s critical to do them,” one source said at the time. “He is feeling more pressure to get this done and wrapped up.”
The source also told Fox News that Durham “does not want this to be viewed political,” and the closer it gets to November, Durham could “punt it to after the election.”


bonginoreport--2020-10-14--Richard Branson’s “Virgin Orbit” Seeks $150 Million to Fund New Demo Mission

Sir Richard Branson 's small satellite launch specialist Virgin Orbit is looking to bounce back from the failure of its first demonstration launch in May , aiming to fly its next demo mission in December .
Virgin Orbit , which uses a modified Boeing 747 aircraft to launch its rockets , diagnosed the failure to a high-pressure fuel line in the engine , which caused the rocket to shut down shortly after launching .
But the company is nearly finished testing the rocket that will fly the second demo mission with a modified engine .
`` Right now the back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the new engine on the factory floor and over the next few days we will install that , '' Virgin Orbit CEO Dan Hart told CNBC .
`` We are going to begin pre-launch operations around the beginning of next week ... [ which is usually ] about a four week operation . ''
The company is a spin-off of Branson 's space tourism company Virgin Galactic .
A wholly separate company , Virgin Orbit is privately held by Branson 's multinational conglomerate Virgin Group .
Virgin Orbit is developing an air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small satellites that weigh up to 500 kilograms to orbit .
Its LauncherOne rocket is carried up to about 45,000 feet altitude by the 747 jet , where it is dropped – and then quickly fires its engine and accelerates onto space .
Hart believes Virgin Orbit would have made it to orbit on its maiden launch if that fuel line had n't breached .
`` The systems were operating really nominally ... it was a boring flight out .
The rocket dropped , everything was operating really well and if you look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was right in the center of our predictions , '' Hart said , adding that , other than the fuel line , `` everything was rock solid . ''
Virgin Orbit diagnosed the issue with many of its employees working remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic .
The rocket for the second demo mission , which is the third booster the company has built to date , has been fully tested at Virgin Orbit 's facility in the Mojave desert .
Hart said that Virgin Orbit will repeat some of that testing this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company begins pre-launch operations .
But even with the setback , Virgin Orbit has been able to make progress toward its goal of offering a launch service that can quickly be available for customers .
`` For what we just did with the rocket in Mojave – going through checkout – the first rocket took us about three and a half months to go through .
We just did it in about two weeks '' with the second demo rocket , Hart said .
`` We 're seeing the efficiency ramping tremendously , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in half the time of the engine test before that . ''
Branson , for his part , continues to back Virgin Orbit .
`` I am excited by the prospects of Virgin Orbit and its ability to shake up the satellite launch market with its genuinely new way of launching , '' Branson said in an emailed statement to CNBC .
`` Orbit has spent the last few years building a fast , responsive system , that is versatile and backed by a very talented team in Long Beach and Mojave .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the world approaching it to be its partners and are poised to turn this into a company that could make a real difference . ''
Speculation has varied widely on how much Virgin Orbit has invested to date , with estimates ranging from $ 400 million to $ 500 million and even over $ 700 million .
Hart declined to specify how much Virgin Orbit has spent , instead saying that the company 's investment so far has come from either Branson 's Virgin Group or Mubadala Investment Company PJSC – the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also has a significant stake in Virgin Galactic .
As for Virgin Orbit 's longer term future , since Virgin Galactic went public via a SPAC merger last year , Hart said that `` everything is on the table '' in terms of whether his company might IPO .
`` There are some really interesting developments going on [ in the market ] , but we 're focused on obviously getting to this next flight and ramping up commercially , '' Hart said .
`` There 's a lot we can do with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will take some more capital .
So we will continue looking at our options . ''
Virgin Orbit 's CEO noted that historically , rocket companies can take `` quite a long time to reach cash flow positive . ''
But Hart expects Virgin Orbit will show the fruits of its labors sooner than other rocket builders , as his company has been building its production facility and increasing its launch efficiency at the same time , so `` that upfront investment should bring results sooner . ''
`` We spent our money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Hart said .
`` We have a new kind of rocket and , unlike a bunch of others in the market , we 're not recreating the ground launch rockets of the 60s .
We 've spent a fair amount of money on our factory , with [ rocket ] number seven right now . ''
Virgin Orbit 's high level of investment has attracted attention from others in the space industry – most notably Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck , whose company is currently the well-established leader in the small rocket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 290 million since its founding , with 13 completed missions since its first successful orbital launch in 2018 .
Beck , in comments to technology website Ars Technica , questioned Virgin Orbit 's level of investment to date : `` I do n't see how that business case closes ... How do you spend that much money and have a return on investment ? ''
But Hart thinks the comparison of Virgin Orbit 's air launch approach to other ground-based small rockets is a `` completely flawed '' analogy .
`` It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paying attention , '' Hart said .
`` These stories coming out [ about Virgin Orbit 's investment to date ] are essentially interviewing our competitors , who are a bit nervous about what 's happening in their world and seeing us coming down the tracks like a freight train . ''
Noting that Virgin Orbit still declines to specify how much its invested in developing its system , Hart asked to instead `` focus on the fact that we are bringing a new technology , liquid air launch rocketry , to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the capabilities that we 're bringing : The responsiveness and the physics associated with air launch are very different from what our ground launch buddies offer , '' Hart said .
`` We can fly from any place to any orbit . ''
Additionally , Hart emphasized that Virgin Orbit has `` ramped up operations significantly over the last three years , '' the amount of time the company has spent developing its rocket since beginning `` essentially as a secondary project . ''
Virgin Orbit has a little more than 500 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commercial service `` with a fully fledged factory '' in Long Beach , California .
That factory is capable of producing about 20 rockets a year .
And , while `` there is a lot we can do with one 747 , '' Hart said that Virgin Orbit does plan to add more carrier jets once its launching more regularly .
`` We are also talking to others who may want to have one positioned in their country or in their organization , '' Hart said .
`` And 747s are an inexpensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investment , as well as our customers , it wo n't be very long until there are several 747s up and running . ''
Virgin Orbit estimates the global small launch market has `` upwards of $ 2 billion of launch activity over the next five years . ''
Beyond the U.S. , the U.K. , Japan , and Guam , Hart says that Virgin Orbit has spoken to `` a number of other countries '' with interest in the company 's launch services , `` especially in Europe and South America .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ satellite producers , space agencies and exciting plans and each one of them would like have a nearby launch location , '' Hart said .
Because Virgin Orbit launches its rockets in remote airspace , it works closely with regulators like the FAA and does n't have a schedule that 's dependent on that of a launch facility such as Cape Canaveral in Florida .
Hart sees the small launch market split in three parts : Commercial , NASA , and national security .
The commercial opportunity comes from private companies that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constellations .
Both for deploying and replacing satellites in a constellation , Hart said that the availability and flexibility of launches `` will be key . ''
Hart also has `` been talking quite a bit with the leadership of NASA '' about launch opportunities .
The space agency is increasingly making use of small satellites , Hart said , for utilities such as communications with interplanetary missions and more .
Finally the U.S. national security piece is `` probably the biggest part of the market , '' with all of Virgin Orbit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Pentagon and its various arms .
Branson has spoken to the U.S. Air Force before , promoting Virgin Orbit as having an advantage in rapidly available national security launches .
Hart also emphasized that Virgin Orbit also has the advantage of being more discreet than rockets that launch from the ground .
`` If you are at a fixed launch base , and there is vapor coming out of your tank , everybody knows what is coming next and they probably kind of know where you 're going , '' Hart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 747 from some airport somewhere , it 's not quite the same thing .
You can position wherever you want to go whenever you want to , and that has really caught the eye of the national security community . ''
Virgin Orbit in September joined a Department of Defense exercise known as the advanced battle management system ( ABMS ) .
Hart said the Pentagon chose Virgin Orbit in the middle of the exercise as the launch provider that should replace a simulated damaged satellite .
`` We immediately took off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , did our simulated deployment and then came back down , '' Hart said .
As for Virgin Orbit 's current stake in the small launch market , Hart said the company has about a dozen launches booked .
After the second demonstration flight , which will carry 11 small satellites under NASA 's Venture Class Launch Services program , Virgin Orbit plans to fly about six times in 2021 .
`` And then we want to basically double the cadence the year after , so in 2022 we plan to go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
`` The key this next year will be to ramp up and just get to that regular rhythm . ''

Virgin Orbit
Sir Richard Branson's small satellite launch specialist Virgin Orbit is looking to bounce back from the failure of its first demonstration launch in May, aiming to fly its next demo mission in December. Virgin Orbit, which uses a modified Boeing 747 aircraft to launch its rockets, diagnosed the failure to a high-pressure fuel line in the engine, which caused the rocket to shut down shortly after launching. But the company is nearly finished testing the rocket that will fly the second demo mission with a modified engine. "Right now the back end of the rocket is open, with the new engine on the factory floor and over the next few days we will install that," Virgin Orbit CEO Dan Hart told CNBC. "We are going to begin pre-launch operations around the beginning of next week ... [which is usually] about a four week operation." The company is a spin-off of Branson's space tourism company Virgin Galactic . A wholly separate company, Virgin Orbit is privately held by Branson's multinational conglomerate Virgin Group. Virgin Orbit is developing an air launch system that's designed to carry small satellites that weigh up to 500 kilograms to orbit. Its LauncherOne rocket is carried up to about 45,000 feet altitude by the 747 jet, where it is dropped – and then quickly fires its engine and accelerates onto space.
Virgin Orbit drops a Launcher One rocket from under the wing of its modified Boeing 747 in a key test before the company's first launch. Virgin Orbit | gif by @thesheetztweetz
Hart believes Virgin Orbit would have made it to orbit on its maiden launch if that fuel line hadn't breached. "The systems were operating really nominally ... it was a boring flight out. The rocket dropped, everything was operating really well and if you look at how we did fly, it was right in the center of our predictions," Hart said, adding that, other than the fuel line, "everything was rock solid."
The second demonstration rocket undergoes cryogenic testing at the company's facility in Mojave, California. Virgin Orbit
Virgin Orbit diagnosed the issue with many of its employees working remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The rocket for the second demo mission, which is the third booster the company has built to date, has been fully tested at Virgin Orbit's facility in the Mojave desert. Hart said that Virgin Orbit will repeat some of that testing this month with the modified engine before the company begins pre-launch operations. But even with the setback, Virgin Orbit has been able to make progress toward its goal of offering a launch service that can quickly be available for customers. "For what we just did with the rocket in Mojave – going through checkout – the first rocket took us about three and a half months to go through. We just did it in about two weeks" with the second demo rocket, Hart said. "We're seeing the efficiency ramping tremendously, as we also did our engine test in half the time of the engine test before that."
The rocket for the company's second demonstration mission undergoing final assembly at its factory in Long Beach, California. Virgin Orbit
Branson, for his part, continues to back Virgin Orbit. "I am excited by the prospects of Virgin Orbit and its ability to shake up the satellite launch market with its genuinely new way of launching," Branson said in an emailed statement to CNBC. "Orbit has spent the last few years building a fast, responsive system, that is versatile and backed by a very talented team in Long Beach and Mojave. Virgin Orbit has Governments and companies from around the world approaching it to be its partners and are poised to turn this into a company that could make a real difference."
Seeking fresh capital
Hart confirmed that Virgin Orbit is "having discussions" about further investment, with the company seeking about $150 million in new capital – a raise Hart said the company "will be working on over the next few months." The Wall Street Journal on Sunday reported that Virgin Orbit's raise could be as much as $200 million, with the company's valuation reaching about $1 billion. The company declined CNBC's request for comment on its valuation.
Richard Branson's Virgin Orbit, with a rocket under the wing of a modified Boeing 747 jetliner, takes off for a key drop test of its high-altitude launch system for satellites from Mojave, California, July 10, 2019. Mike Blake | Reuters
Speculation has varied widely on how much Virgin Orbit has invested to date, with estimates ranging from $400 million to $500 million and even over $700 million. Hart declined to specify how much Virgin Orbit has spent, instead saying that the company's investment so far has come from either Branson's Virgin Group or Mubadala Investment Company PJSC – the United Arab Emirates sovereign wealth fund that also has a significant stake in Virgin Galactic . As for Virgin Orbit's longer term future, since Virgin Galactic went public via a SPAC merger last year, Hart said that "everything is on the table" in terms of whether his company might IPO. "There are some really interesting developments going on [in the market], but we're focused on obviously getting to this next flight and ramping up commercially," Hart said. "There's a lot we can do with the system, and some of it will take some more capital. So we will continue looking at our options." Virgin Orbit's CEO noted that historically, rocket companies can take "quite a long time to reach cash flow positive." But Hart expects Virgin Orbit will show the fruits of its labors sooner than other rocket builders, as his company has been building its production facility and increasing its launch efficiency at the same time, so "that upfront investment should bring results sooner." "We spent our money on two or three key things," Hart said. "We have a new kind of rocket and, unlike a bunch of others in the market, we're not recreating the ground launch rockets of the 60s. We've spent a fair amount of money on our factory, with [rocket] number seven right now." Virgin Orbit's high level of investment has attracted attention from others in the space industry – most notably Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck, whose company is currently the well-established leader in the small rocket market. Rocket Lab has raised about $290 million since its founding, with 13 completed missions since its first successful orbital launch in 2018. Beck, in comments to technology website Ars Technica, questioned Virgin Orbit's level of investment to date: "I don't see how that business case closes ... How do you spend that much money and have a return on investment?" But Hart thinks the comparison of Virgin Orbit's air launch approach to other ground-based small rockets is a "completely flawed" analogy. "It's really great to see our competitors paying attention," Hart said. "These stories coming out [about Virgin Orbit's investment to date] are essentially interviewing our competitors, who are a bit nervous about what's happening in their world and seeing us coming down the tracks like a freight train."
watch now
Noting that Virgin Orbit still declines to specify how much its invested in developing its system, Hart asked to instead "focus on the fact that we are bringing a new technology, liquid air launch rocketry, to the launch market." "I focus on the capabilities that we're bringing: The responsiveness and the physics associated with air launch are very different from what our ground launch buddies offer," Hart said. "We can fly from any place to any orbit." Additionally, Hart emphasized that Virgin Orbit has "ramped up operations significantly over the last three years," the amount of time the company has spent developing its rocket since beginning "essentially as a secondary project." Virgin Orbit has a little more than 500 total employees but is ready to begin commercial service "with a fully fledged factory" in Long Beach, California. That factory is capable of producing about 20 rockets a year. And, while "there is a lot we can do with one 747," Hart said that Virgin Orbit does plan to add more carrier jets once its launching more regularly. "We are also talking to others who may want to have one positioned in their country or in their organization," Hart said. "And 747s are an inexpensive airplane right now, so between our investment, as well as our customers, it won't be very long until there are several 747s up and running."
The global market for small rockets
The company's first demonstration launch in May 2020. Greg Robinson | Virgin Orbit
Virgin Orbit estimates the global small launch market has "upwards of $2 billion of launch activity over the next five years." Beyond the U.S., the U.K., Japan, and Guam, Hart says that Virgin Orbit has spoken to "a number of other countries" with interest in the company's launch services, "especially in Europe and South America." "So many countries now have satellite producers, space agencies and exciting plans and each one of them would like have a nearby launch location," Hart said. Because Virgin Orbit launches its rockets in remote airspace, it works closely with regulators like the FAA and doesn't have a schedule that's dependent on that of a launch facility such as Cape Canaveral in Florida. Hart sees the small launch market split in three parts: Commercial, NASA, and national security. The commercial opportunity comes from private companies that are launching networks of satellites, known as constellations. Both for deploying and replacing satellites in a constellation, Hart said that the availability and flexibility of launches "will be key." Hart also has "been talking quite a bit with the leadership of NASA" about launch opportunities. The space agency is increasingly making use of small satellites, Hart said, for utilities such as communications with interplanetary missions and more. Finally the U.S. national security piece is "probably the biggest part of the market," with all of Virgin Orbit's rocket building competitors each providing launches for the Pentagon and its various arms. Branson has spoken to the U.S. Air Force before, promoting Virgin Orbit as having an advantage in rapidly available national security launches. Hart also emphasized that Virgin Orbit also has the advantage of being more discreet than rockets that launch from the ground. "If you are at a fixed launch base, and there is vapor coming out of your tank, everybody knows what is coming next and they probably kind of know where you're going," Hart said. "If you're flying a 747 from some airport somewhere, it's not quite the same thing. You can position wherever you want to go whenever you want to, and that has really caught the eye of the national security community." Virgin Orbit in September joined a Department of Defense exercise known as the advanced battle management system (ABMS). Hart said the Pentagon chose Virgin Orbit in the middle of the exercise as the launch provider that should replace a simulated damaged satellite. "We immediately took off from Mojave and flew over the Pacific, did our simulated deployment and then came back down," Hart said. As for Virgin Orbit's current stake in the small launch market, Hart said the company has about a dozen launches booked. After the second demonstration flight, which will carry 11 small satellites under NASA's Venture Class Launch Services program, Virgin Orbit plans to fly about six times in 2021. "And then we want to basically double the cadence the year after, so in 2022 we plan to go to roughly a dozen launches," Hart said. "The key this next year will be to ramp up and just get to that regular rhythm."
The NASA payloads get loaded into the rocket's fairing ahead of launch. Virgin Orbit