thelibertydaily--2020-05-07--Bug-Eyed Burbank Bolshevik Adam Schiff May be the Biggest Loser of Russia Hoax Declassification

In a packed hearing room two months into Donald Trump ’ s embattled presidency , Rep. Adam Schiff played the willing protagonist by dramatically reading into the congressional record some of the most explosive claims from Christopher Steele ’ s dossier .
At the time , Steele ’ s dossier had recently burst on the scene , and the Trump White House was under siege as a far-reaching FBI investigation examined allegations — later disproven — that former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and others tried to collude with Russia to hijack the 2016 election .
“ According to Christopher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. intelligence , Russian sources tell him that Page has also had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin , CEO of Russian gas giant Rosneft , ” Schiff declared at a March 20 , 2017 House Intelligence Committee hearing .
“ Sechin is reported to be a former KGB agent and close friend of Putin ’ s .
According to Steele ’ s Russian sources , Page is offered brokerage fees by Sechin on a deal involving a 19 percent share of the company , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s decision to embrace the dossier and read it into a government proceeding gave the document enhanced public credibility with the media , just weeks after it had been leaked to the news site Buzzfeed and before its funding origins and accuracy were determined .
Three years later , Schiff is the House Intelligence Committee chairman .
But his claims that day , and many others like it over the three years of the Russia scandal , have fallen into grave discredit , directly contradicted by intelligence evidence in recently declassified or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports , a Just the News review has found .
For instance , Schiff claimed this about the Steele dossier in a Nov. 15 , 2017 interview with The Wall Street Journal : “ The bigger factor is how much of it can you corroborate and how much of it is true .
A lot of it has turned out to be true.
” By the time Schiff made that remark , the former FBI Director James Comey had publicly warned the dossier contained `` salacious and unverified material '' and the bureau @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dossier possessed several errors and mostly uncorroborated evidence , Justice Department memos show .
Significant errors or contradictions with Steele 's sources had been flagged already by January 2017 .
“ Despite the FBI ’ s efforts to corroborate and evaluate the Steele election reporting , we were told by [ an FBI employee ] that , as of September 2017 , the FBI had corroborated limited information in the Steele election reporting , and much of that information was publicly available .
Most relevant to the Carter Page FISA applications , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 94 , 95 , and 102 , which were relied upon in all four FISA applications , remained uncorroborated and , in several instances , were inconsistent with information gathered by the team , ” Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz wrote in his December report .
More recently declassified memos show Steele was far from being held in “ high regard ” as Schiff claimed at the hearing : By March 2017 , the FBI had already terminated Steele for leaking ( November 2016 ) , been warned he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and been told he had an extreme bias against Trump ( August 2016 ) .
And Steele ’ s primary sub-source had disputed to the FBI facts attributed to him in the dossier , warning that Steele ’ s claim about the Page meeting with Sechin was inaccurate and fed to him by someone connected to Russia intelligence , raising the distinct concern it was disinformation .
“ The Primary Sub-source told the FBI that one of his/her sub-sources furnished information for that part of Report 134 through a text message , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Sechin had offered a brokerage interest to Page , ” Inspector General Horowitz reported .
In a recently declassified footnote , Horowitz added : “ The Primary Sub-Source also told the FBI at these interviews that the sub-source who provided the information about the Carter Page-Sechin meeting had connections to Russian Intelligence Services ( RIS ) .
” At that same March hearing , Schiff pushed another Steele dossier claim .
“ According to Steele ’ s Russian sources , the Trump campaign is offered documents damaging to Hillary Clinton , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that gives them deniability , like Wikileaks.
” But like much of the information in the dossier , the FBI found the claim did not stand up when they interviewed Steele ’ s alleged sources .
“ The Primary Sub-source said , among other things , that he/she had only one , 10- to 15-minute telephone call with someone he/she believed was Person 1 and did not recall any discussion or mention of WikiLeaks , ” Horowitz reported .
“ … His/her statement that he/she did not recall any discussion or mention of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with those allegations.
” Many of Schiff ’ s claims that directly conflict with public evidence today were introduced in formal congressional proceedings .
For instance , here are three claims in Schiff ’ s Jan. 29 , 2018 minority Democratic memo on the House Intelligence Committee ’ s Russia probe and the conflicting evidence : Schiff Report Claim : “ FBI and DOJ officials did not abuse the FISA process , omit material information , or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign .
… DOJ met the rigor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to meet FISA ’ s probable cause requirement.
” Declassified Facts : Horowitz told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Dec. 11 , 2019 , “ I do not think the Department of Justice fairly treated these FISAs.
” His report went even further in describing how the FBI violated its own rules in submitting four FISA applications with a total of 51 pieces of unverified , inaccurate or false information .
“ FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he wrote .
“ We identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application were inaccurate , incomplete , or unsupported by appropriate documentation.
” The FISAs were so flawed in fact that DOJ has formally withdrawn two of the applications from the court in their entirety because they were incontrovertibly inaccurate .
Schiff Report Claim : DOJ and FBI officials “ made only narrow use of information from Steele ’ s sources about Page ’ s specific activities in 2016.
” Declassified Facts : Horowitz directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ played a central and essential role ” in the FISA application .
“ The FISA request form drew almost entirely from Steele ’ s reporting in describing the factual basis to establish probable cause to believe that Page was an agent of a foreign power , ” the IG wrote .
Declassified Facts : “ We found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele ’ s reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the revelations that most undercuts Schiff ’ s early embrace of the Steele dossier came only recently , when footnotes declassified from the Horowitz report showed the U.S. intelligence community first warned that Steele was susceptible to Russian disinformation starting in 2015 and by early 2017 had specific information in his dossier traced to Russian Intelligence Services ( RIS ) .
“ We identified reporting the Crossfire Hurricane team received from [ REDACTED ] indicating the potential for Russian disinformation influencing Steele 's election reporting , ” Horowitz wrote in one explosive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 , report relayed information from [ REDACTED ] outlining an inaccuracy in a limited subset of Steele 's reporting about the activities of Michael Cohen .
The [ REDACTED ] stated that it did not have high confidence in this subset of Steele 's reporting and assessed that the referenced subset was part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations .
“ A second report from the same [ REDACTED ] five days later stated that a person named in the limited subset of Steele 's reporting had denied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ REDACTED ] assessed that the person 's denials were truthful , '' the footnote added .
`` A USIC report dated February 27 , 2017 , contained information about an individual with reported connections to Trump and Russia who claimed that the public reporting about the details of Trump 's sexual activities in Moscow during a trip in 2013 were false , and that they were the product of RIS 'infiltrating a source into the network ' ” of Steele .
Those four red flags about Russian intelligence dirty tricks in the Steele @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community before Schiff read parts of the document into the congressional record .
Schiff ’ s claims on his many television and media appearance during the early days of the Russia collusion narrative have also aged poorly .
In early February 2017 , Schiff fanned the narrative that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn may have sought to undercut President Obama ’ s sanctions on Russia during a phone call with the Russian ambassador and should be prosecuted under the Logan Act .
“ Trump ’ s team , through Flynn , reaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says , 'Don ’ t worry about those sanctions .
We ’ re going to take care of business .
We ’ re not going to bite the hand that fed us . '
That ’ s something that needs to be investigated .
That ’ s hugely consequential , ” Schiff told The Atlantic magazine in a Feb. 14 , 2017 .
By the time Schiff uttered those words , the FBI agent who had investigated Flynn ’ s contacts with Russia had already concluded on Jan. 4 , 2017 that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flynn ’ s contacts and recommended closing down the case , according to recently declassified FBI memos .
And recently declassified documents from Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s probe show that the FBI had informed DOJ by late January 2017 that Flynn was not acting as an agent of Russia .
Likewise , the main prosecutor for national security cases inside the Justice Department , Mary McCord , and others thought prosecuting Flynn under the Logan Act was unlikely or a “ long shot ” after reading Flynn ’ s actual words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Russian ambassador , the memos show .
“ McCord said that upon learning of Flynn ’ s phone calls with Ambassador Kislyak , a Logan Act prosecution seemed like a stretch to her , ” the Mueller summary of her interview stated .
And a top FBI official 's handwritten notes expressed concern the bureau 's treatment of Flynn amounted to `` playing games '' and appeared to involve an effort to get him into an interview where he might so he could prosecuted or fired .
Once again , Schiff was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the intelligence community had already dismissed .
Schiff , whose office has repeatedly declined to respond to request for comment from Just the News , has publicly defended his comments on Steele and Russia collusion by saying : `` There is already , in my view , ample evidence in the public domain on the issue of collusion if you 're willing to see it . ''
History will judge Schiff ’ s claims by the final weight of facts , and there are many more declassifications to come in the Russia case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Intelligence informed Schiff this week it may release transcripts of 53 interviews the House Intelligence Committee did with Russia case figures .
But there is already ample evidence to show that the Steele dossier that the House Intelligence Committee chairman so readily embraced and read into the congressional record was , in fact , erroneous , uncorroborated and tainted by Russian intelligence efforts to inject misinformation .
Many of Schiff ’ s other claims have , likewise , crumbled under the weight of facts now in the public record .
And there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critics intend to make him pay a political price for his past words , as Rep. Jim Jordan and other House GOP colleagues made clear in a letter this week urging the House Intelligence Committee chairman to release the interview transcripts .
“ For almost four years , prominent Democrat politicians and commentators alleged that President Trump colluded with Russia , with Chairman Schiff going so far as to say that he had ‘ direct evidence ’ of collusion , ” the lawmakers wrote .
“ Now that these allegations have been disproven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deserve to have transparency about why public figures such as Chairman Schiff continued to promote such wild accusations .
”

In a packed hearing room two months into Donald Trump’s embattled presidency, Rep. Adam Schiff played the willing protagonist by dramatically reading into the congressional record some of the most explosive claims from Christopher Steele’s dossier.
At the time, Steele’s dossier had recently burst on the scene, and the Trump White House was under siege as a far-reaching FBI investigation examined allegations — later disproven — that former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and others tried to collude with Russia to hijack the 2016 election.
“According to Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. intelligence, Russian sources tell him that Page has also had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin, CEO of Russian gas giant Rosneft,” Schiff declared at a March 20, 2017 House Intelligence Committee hearing.
“Sechin is reported to be a former KGB agent and close friend of Putin’s. According to Steele’s Russian sources, Page is offered brokerage fees by Sechin on a deal involving a 19 percent share of the company,” the California Democrat added.
Schiff’s decision to embrace the dossier and read it into a government proceeding gave the document enhanced public credibility with the media, just weeks after it had been leaked to the news site Buzzfeed and before its funding origins and accuracy were determined.
Three years later, Schiff is the House Intelligence Committee chairman. But his claims that day, and many others like it over the three years of the Russia scandal, have fallen into grave discredit, directly contradicted by intelligence evidence in recently declassified or released FBI and Justice Department memos and reports, a Just the News review has found.
For instance, Schiff claimed this about the Steele dossier in a Nov. 15, 2017 interview with The Wall Street Journal: “The bigger factor is how much of it can you corroborate and how much of it is true. A lot of it has turned out to be true.”
By the time Schiff made that remark, the former FBI Director James Comey had publicly warned the dossier contained "salacious and unverified material" and the bureau’s own spreadsheet had shown the dossier possessed several errors and mostly uncorroborated evidence, Justice Department memos show. Significant errors or contradictions with Steele's sources had been flagged already by January 2017.
“Despite the FBI’s efforts to corroborate and evaluate the Steele election reporting, we were told by [an FBI employee] that, as of September 2017, the FBI had corroborated limited information in the Steele election reporting, and much of that information was publicly available. Most relevant to the Carter Page FISA applications, the specific substantive allegations contained in Reports 80, 94, 95, and 102, which were relied upon in all four FISA applications, remained uncorroborated and, in several instances, were inconsistent with information gathered by the team,” Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz wrote in his December report.
File DOJ IG report on Russia FISAs
More recently declassified memos show Steele was far from being held in “high regard” as Schiff claimed at the hearing: By March 2017, the FBI had already terminated Steele for leaking (November 2016), been warned he was susceptible to Russian disinformation (2015), and been told he had an extreme bias against Trump (August 2016).
And Steele’s primary sub-source had disputed to the FBI facts attributed to him in the dossier, warning that Steele’s claim about the Page meeting with Sechin was inaccurate and fed to him by someone connected to Russia intelligence, raising the distinct concern it was disinformation.
“The Primary Sub-source told the FBI that one of his/her sub-sources furnished information for that part of Report 134 through a text message, but said that the sub-source never stated that Sechin had offered a brokerage interest to Page,” Inspector General Horowitz reported.
In a recently declassified footnote, Horowitz added: “The Primary Sub-Source also told the FBI at these interviews that the sub-source who provided the information about the Carter Page-Sechin meeting had connections to Russian Intelligence Services (RIS).”
At that same March hearing, Schiff pushed another Steele dossier claim. “According to Steele’s Russian sources, the Trump campaign is offered documents damaging to Hillary Clinton, which the Russians would publish through an outlet that gives them deniability, like Wikileaks.”
But like much of the information in the dossier, the FBI found the claim did not stand up when they interviewed Steele’s alleged sources.
“The Primary Sub-source said, among other things, that he/she had only one, 10- to 15-minute telephone call with someone he/she believed was Person 1 and did not recall any discussion or mention of WikiLeaks,” Horowitz reported. “… His/her statement that he/she did not recall any discussion or mention of WikiLeaks during the telephone call was inconsistent with those allegations.”
Many of Schiff’s claims that directly conflict with public evidence today were introduced in formal congressional proceedings.
For instance, here are three claims in Schiff’s Jan. 29, 2018 minority Democratic memo on the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia probe and the conflicting evidence:
Schiff Report Claim: “FBI and DOJ officials did not abuse the FISA process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign. … DOJ met the rigor, transparency, and evidentiary basis needed to meet FISA’s probable cause requirement.”
Declassified Facts: Horowitz told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Dec. 11, 2019, “I do not think the Department of Justice fairly treated these FISAs.” His report went even further in describing how the FBI violated its own rules in submitting four FISA applications with a total of 51 pieces of unverified, inaccurate or false information. “FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are ‘scrupulously accurate,’” he wrote. “We identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation.” The FISAs were so flawed in fact that DOJ has formally withdrawn two of the applications from the court in their entirety because they were incontrovertibly inaccurate.
Schiff Report Claim: DOJ and FBI officials “made only narrow use of information from Steele’s sources about Page’s specific activities in 2016.”
Declassified Facts: Horowitz directly contradicted this claim, concluding the dossier “played a central and essential role” in the FISA application. “The FISA request form drew almost entirely from Steele’s reporting in describing the factual basis to establish probable cause to believe that Page was an agent of a foreign power,” the IG wrote.
Schiff Report Claim: “DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting.”
Declassified Facts: “We found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele’s reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications,” Horowitz reported in December.
One of the revelations that most undercuts Schiff’s early embrace of the Steele dossier came only recently, when footnotes declassified from the Horowitz report showed the U.S. intelligence community first warned that Steele was susceptible to Russian disinformation starting in 2015 and by early 2017 had specific information in his dossier traced to Russian Intelligence Services (RIS).
“We identified reporting the Crossfire Hurricane team received from [REDACTED] indicating the potential for Russian disinformation influencing Steele's election reporting,” Horowitz wrote in one explosive footnote. “A January 12, 2017, report relayed information from [REDACTED] outlining an inaccuracy in a limited subset of Steele's reporting about the activities of Michael Cohen. The [REDACTED] stated that it did not have high confidence in this subset of Steele's reporting and assessed that the referenced subset was part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations.
“A second report from the same [REDACTED] five days later stated that a person named in the limited subset of Steele's reporting had denied representations in the reporting and the [REDACTED] assessed that the person's denials were truthful," the footnote added. "A USIC report dated February 27, 2017, contained information about an individual with reported connections to Trump and Russia who claimed that the public reporting about the details of Trump's sexual activities in Moscow during a trip in 2013 were false, and that they were the product of RIS 'infiltrating a source into the network'” of Steele.
Those four red flags about Russian intelligence dirty tricks in the Steele dossier all were reported inside the intelligence community before Schiff read parts of the document into the congressional record.
Schiff’s claims on his many television and media appearance during the early days of the Russia collusion narrative have also aged poorly.
In early February 2017, Schiff fanned the narrative that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn may have sought to undercut President Obama’s sanctions on Russia during a phone call with the Russian ambassador and should be prosecuted under the Logan Act.
“Trump’s team, through Flynn, reaches out to the Russian ambassador and potentially says, 'Don’t worry about those sanctions. We’re going to take care of business. We’re not going to bite the hand that fed us.' That’s something that needs to be investigated. That’s hugely consequential,” Schiff told The Atlantic magazine in a Feb. 14, 2017.
By the time Schiff uttered those words, the FBI agent who had investigated Flynn’s contacts with Russia had already concluded on Jan. 4, 2017 that there was “no derogatory information” about Flynn’s contacts and recommended closing down the case, according to recently declassified FBI memos.
And recently declassified documents from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe show that the FBI had informed DOJ by late January 2017 that Flynn was not acting as an agent of Russia. Likewise, the main prosecutor for national security cases inside the Justice Department, Mary McCord, and others thought prosecuting Flynn under the Logan Act was unlikely or a “long shot” after reading Flynn’s actual words from a transcript of his conversation with the Russian ambassador, the memos show.
“McCord said that upon learning of Flynn’s phone calls with Ambassador Kislyak, a Logan Act prosecution seemed like a stretch to her,” the Mueller summary of her interview stated.
And a top FBI official's handwritten notes expressed concern the bureau's treatment of Flynn amounted to "playing games" and appeared to involve an effort to get him into an interview where he might so he could prosecuted or fired.
Once again, Schiff was peddling claims that DOJ, FBI and the intelligence community had already dismissed.
Schiff, whose office has repeatedly declined to respond to request for comment from Just the News, has publicly defended his comments on Steele and Russia collusion by saying: "There is already, in my view, ample evidence in the public domain on the issue of collusion if you're willing to see it."
History will judge Schiff’s claims by the final weight of facts, and there are many more declassifications to come in the Russia case. The Office of Director of National Intelligence informed Schiff this week it may release transcripts of 53 interviews the House Intelligence Committee did with Russia case figures.
But there is already ample evidence to show that the Steele dossier that the House Intelligence Committee chairman so readily embraced and read into the congressional record was, in fact, erroneous, uncorroborated and tainted by Russian intelligence efforts to inject misinformation.
Many of Schiff’s other claims have, likewise, crumbled under the weight of facts now in the public record.
And there is growing evidence that Schiff’s conservative critics intend to make him pay a political price for his past words, as Rep. Jim Jordan and other House GOP colleagues made clear in a letter this week urging the House Intelligence Committee chairman to release the interview transcripts.
“For almost four years, prominent Democrat politicians and commentators alleged that President Trump colluded with Russia, with Chairman Schiff going so far as to say that he had ‘direct evidence’ of collusion,” the lawmakers wrote.
“Now that these allegations have been disproven by several investigations, the American people deserve to have transparency about why public figures such as Chairman Schiff continued to promote such wild accusations.”


thelibertydaily--2020-05-07--#MeToo Fail: The Sad Rise of #NeverTara

#MeToo Fail: The Sad Rise of #NeverTara

With at least five people now corroborating that Tara Reade told them of her alleged sexual assault by Joe Biden at the time it happened–which includes a chilling testimonial from her late mother , speaking from beyond the grave in a taped phone call to Larry King Live–it ’ s become increasingly obvious to the Democrat Party that they have a real problem on their hands .
Reade has already presented far more evidence than Christine Blasey Ford ever did when she waged her politically-charged jihad against Brett Kavanaugh , in the process exposing the rank hypocrisy of those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee on the flimsiest of pretexts and yet have now just discovered the virtues of due process when their own presumptive nominee for President stands , in their words , credibly accused .
Moreover , Reade ’ s story isn ’ t just going away , in spite of the mainstream best efforts to bury it .
That only leaves the Democrats with two unappealing options : go after Reade hard and fast in an attempt to destroy her credibility , or make it seem as if they ’ re supportive of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drag Biden ’ s sorry carcass across the finish line .
Luckily for them , Option 1 seems to have been taken up by the # NeverTrump stalwarts over at the Bulwark , who–much like those Japanese soldiers who kept on fighting because they could never accept they had lost the war–have been engaged in rather hamfisted efforts such as this from Charlie Sykes : It does , however , remain a bit of a stretch to insinuate that Putin managed to Plant Reade in Biden ’ s office back in 1993 as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standards .
So that leaves the Democrats with Option 2 , if only to cover their bets with the American public .
On that front , they ’ ve already made their opening gambit–as we see with this op-ed in the New York Times by noted “ feminist ” Linda Hirshman .
The title pretty much speaks for itself .
And yet you keep on voting for them .
Might have something to do with why these men don ’ t take you seriously .
Anyway , moving on… All major Democratic Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budging on the presumptive nominee , and the transaction costs of replacing him would be suicidal .
Barring some miracle , it ’ s going to be Mr. Biden .
So what is the greatest good or the greatest harm ?
Mr. Biden , and the Democrats he may carry with him into government , are likely to do more good for women and the nation than his competition , the worst president in the history of the Republic .
Compared with the good Mr. Biden can do , the cost of dismissing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weakening the voices of future survivors — is worth it .
Ah , yes .
I remember how liberal feminist support for Ted Kennedy was predicated on the same justification .
Sure , Teddy may have left poor Mary Jo Kopechne to a slow , excruciating asphyxiation death in his car after he drove off that bridge in Chappaquiddick–but think of all he did for abortion while in the Senate !
And what ’ s a little waitress sandwich compared to keeping Robert Bork off the Supreme Court ?
[ P ] hilosophy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice .
Philosophers for at least three centuries have known that there can be no call to justice in a situation of extreme scarcity .
David Hume , who originated the analysis , suggested that nobody can be expected to behave justly when trying to survive a shipwreck .
The great modern philosopher John Rawls called moderate scarcity , or the absence of extreme scarcity , one of the “ circumstances of justice.
” It may not be just , but I ’ m swimming away from Mr. Trump ’ s sinking ship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have to , I ’ ll vote for Mr. Biden .
I hope I ’ m not going to drown anyway .
I dunno , all the gentleman who sacrificed their own lives so that women and children could escape the Titanic might beg to differ .
Then again , that was a different age when gallantry and principle were more of the norm , rather than cold , calculating self-interest .
That said , I definitely understand what Hirshman is saying here .
The whole reason so many of us voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we had grown sick of voting for all the good losers that the GOP threw at us , and seeing our own party roll over time and again for Democrats and their allies in the media–as if pretending that the status quo was the only civilized course available to us .
Trump , in spite of his character flaws , turned all that on its head , and proved that we could advance a conservative agenda against the Democrats while beating the media at their own game .
Our latest episode of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , a huge difference at work here , in that Leftists such as Ms. Hirshman will probably be praised for making a difficult choice for the good of the country , while those of us on the Right will continue to be demonized for doing the exact same thing in regards to Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh .
Of course , the Left sees itself as uniquely virtuous , and therefore deserving of this dispensation .
We , on the other had , are the Deplorables , and therefore deserve nothing but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s how the media will portray it .
What people like Ms. Hirshman will never understand , though , is that their side getting a constant pass for their bad behavior only encourages more of it .
Much like those Harvard types she decries for talking the talk on feminist causes while abusing women on the side , Democrat politicians know they ’ ve already been granted an indulgence for their worst proclivities–and if Joe Biden , who is running for the highest office in the land , gets one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last guy who thinks he can mouth a few platitudes and receive absolution for his transgressions .
Check out the NEW NOQ Report Podcast .
Join fellow patriots as we form a grassroots movement to advance the cause of conservatism .
The coronavirus crisis has prompted many , even some conservatives , to promote authoritarianism .
It ’ s understandable to some extent now , but it must not be allowed to embed itself in American life .
We currently have 8000+ patriots with us in a very short time .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive updates .

Subscribe for free to the America First Report newsletter.
With at least five people now corroborating that Tara Reade told them of her alleged sexual assault by Joe Biden at the time it happened–which includes a chilling testimonial from her late mother, speaking from beyond the grave in a taped phone call to Larry King Live–it’s become increasingly obvious to the Democrat Party that they have a real problem on their hands. Reade has already presented far more evidence than Christine Blasey Ford ever did when she waged her politically-charged jihad against Brett Kavanaugh, in the process exposing the rank hypocrisy of those who advocated the destruction of a Supreme Court nominee on the flimsiest of pretexts and yet have now just discovered the virtues of due process when their own presumptive nominee for President stands, in their words, credibly accused. Moreover, Reade’s story isn’t just going away, in spite of the mainstream best efforts to bury it.
That only leaves the Democrats with two unappealing options: go after Reade hard and fast in an attempt to destroy her credibility, or make it seem as if they’re supportive of her even while they’re trying to drag Biden’s sorry carcass across the finish line. Luckily for them, Option 1 seems to have been taken up by the #NeverTrump stalwarts over at the Bulwark, who–much like those Japanese soldiers who kept on fighting because they could never accept they had lost the war–have been engaged in rather hamfisted efforts such as this from Charlie Sykes:
Why did Tara Reade delete this?
"Through my lens, President Putin brought a chaotic and failed nation to become a vibrant, creative, economic force within a decade… just admit that his sheer, calculated vision and willful energy brought Russia back.."https://t.co/fOzdeh7hqe — Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) May 4, 2020
It does, however, remain a bit of a stretch to insinuate that Putin managed to Plant Reade in Biden’s office back in 1993 as some sort of honey trap–even by Bulwark standards. So that leaves the Democrats with Option 2, if only to cover their bets with the American public. On that front, they’ve already made their opening gambit–as we see with this op-ed in the New York Times by noted “feminist” Linda Hirshman.
The title pretty much speaks for itself.
I Believe Tara Reade. I’m Voting for Joe Biden Anyway. I’ll take one for the team. I believe Ms. Reade, and I’ll vote for Mr. Biden this fall. I won’t say it will be easy. I have been writing on and agitating for women’s equality since “The Feminine Mystique” came out in 1963. I know how supposedly “liberal” men abused the sexual revolution in every imaginable way. I am unimpressed by their lip service to feminism, their Harvard degrees or their donations to feminist causes.
And yet you keep on voting for them. Might have something to do with why these men don’t take you seriously. Anyway, moving on…
All major Democratic Party figures have indicated they’re not budging on the presumptive nominee, and the transaction costs of replacing him would be suicidal. Barring some miracle, it’s going to be Mr. Biden. So what is the greatest good or the greatest harm? Mr. Biden, and the Democrats he may carry with him into government, are likely to do more good for women and the nation than his competition, the worst president in the history of the Republic. Compared with the good Mr. Biden can do, the cost of dismissing Tara Reade — and, worse, weakening the voices of future survivors — is worth it.
Ah, yes. I remember how liberal feminist support for Ted Kennedy was predicated on the same justification. Sure, Teddy may have left poor Mary Jo Kopechne to a slow, excruciating asphyxiation death in his car after he drove off that bridge in Chappaquiddick–but think of all he did for abortion while in the Senate!
And what’s a little waitress sandwich compared to keeping Robert Bork off the Supreme Court?
Hirshman concludes:
[P]hilosophy offers an answer to my quest for justice. Philosophers for at least three centuries have known that there can be no call to justice in a situation of extreme scarcity. David Hume, who originated the analysis, suggested that nobody can be expected to behave justly when trying to survive a shipwreck. The great modern philosopher John Rawls called moderate scarcity, or the absence of extreme scarcity, one of the “circumstances of justice.” It may not be just, but I’m swimming away from Mr. Trump’s sinking ship as hard as I can. If I have to, I’ll vote for Mr. Biden. I hope I’m not going to drown anyway.
I dunno, all the gentleman who sacrificed their own lives so that women and children could escape the Titanic might beg to differ. Then again, that was a different age when gallantry and principle were more of the norm, rather than cold, calculating self-interest.
That said, I definitely understand what Hirshman is saying here. The whole reason so many of us voted for Trump back in 2016 was because we had grown sick of voting for all the good losers that the GOP threw at us, and seeing our own party roll over time and again for Democrats and their allies in the media–as if pretending that the status quo was the only civilized course available to us. Trump, in spite of his character flaws, turned all that on its head, and proved that we could advance a conservative agenda against the Democrats while beating the media at their own game.
Dr. Joseph Mercola said, “Synthetic meat is the epitome of ultraprocessed food, and it seems naïve to think it won’t have health effects similar to other ultraprocessed junk foods.” For All-American REAL beef raised in pastures, sous vide, then freeze-dried for long-term storage, visit Whole Cows and use promo code “no junk” at checkout.
There is, however, a huge difference at work here, in that Leftists such as Ms. Hirshman will probably be praised for making a difficult choice for the good of the country, while those of us on the Right will continue to be demonized for doing the exact same thing in regards to Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh. Of course, the Left sees itself as uniquely virtuous, and therefore deserving of this dispensation. We, on the other had, are the Deplorables, and therefore deserve nothing but contempt for our choices. At least that’s how the media will portray it.
What people like Ms. Hirshman will never understand, though, is that their side getting a constant pass for their bad behavior only encourages more of it. Much like those Harvard types she decries for talking the talk on feminist causes while abusing women on the side, Democrat politicians know they’ve already been granted an indulgence for their worst proclivities–and if Joe Biden, who is running for the highest office in the land, gets one, he certainly won’t be the last guy who thinks he can mouth a few platitudes and receive absolution for his transgressions.
Check out the NEW NOQ Report Podcast.
Join fellow patriots as we form a grassroots movement to advance the cause of conservatism. The coronavirus crisis has prompted many, even some conservatives, to promote authoritarianism. It’s understandable to some extent now, but it must not be allowed to embed itself in American life. We currently have 8000+ patriots with us in a very short time. If you are interested, please join us to receive updates.
[yikes-mailchimp form=”1″]
var wWidgetConf_b1a6d20b69 = {rows: 4,cols: 1,backgroundColor: ‘rgb(240, 240, 240)’,textColor: ‘rgb(0, 0, 0)’,displayContent: ‘0’,contentSort: ‘0’,contentType: ‘0’,showTitle: ‘1’,showThumb: ‘1’,widgetID: ‘wWidget_b1a6d20b69’};
(function() {
var sc = document.createElement(‘script’); sc.type = ‘text/javascript’; sc.async = true;
sc.src = ‘//mixi.media/data/js/92936.js’; sc.charset = ‘utf-8’;
var s = document.getElementsByTagName(‘script’)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(sc, s);
}());


thelibertydaily--2020-05-07--Demon-Possessed Democrats Demand Supreme Court Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Pay for Slaughter

Demon-Possessed Democrats Demand Supreme Court Force Little Sisters of the Poor to Pay for Slaughter Precious, Innocent Babies

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday about whether religious charities like Little Sisters of the Poor should be forced to pay for contraception , including types that may cause abortions , in their employee health plans .
The nuns ’ charity has been fighting in court for nearly eight years for relief from the Obamacare contraception mandate .
After the Supreme Court gave them a temporary victory in 2016 , Democrat leaders took the sisters back to court to challenge a new religious exemption from the Trump administration .
“ We are hopeful that the court will protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eager to be rid of this legal trouble which has hung over our ministry like a storm cloud for nearly a decade , ” said Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor .
“ In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic , when the lives of our residents face a real and imminent threat , we are more eager than ever to be able to care for our residents without being harassed by governments.
” In court Wednesday , Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro ’ s office argued that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be burdensome to thousands of women .
Meanwhile , attorneys for the Trump administration and the Little Sisters contended that the contraception mandate violates the nuns ’ religious liberty and jeopardizes their charity work for the poor and elderly .
Breitbart reports the justices seemed to divide along their typical conservative-liberal lines .
Currently , there is a 5-4 conservative majority ; and this is the first case related to the contraception mandate that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have heard since joining the court .
When asked what the Little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mandate , lawyer Paul Clement said they would have to reconfigure their entire charity .
He said there is “ nothing they can do to come into compliance with the mandate.
” REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE !
Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week .
Contact us today .
If the sisters refuse to comply , they could face crippling fines that could shut down their charity work .
However , Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued against the exemption , claiming it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use contraception , according to Breitbart .
AFP News reports some politicians estimated about 70,000 women could lose contraception coverage if the exemption is upheld .
“ You have just tossed entirely to the wind what Congress thought was essential , that women be provided these services with no hassle , no cost to them , ” Ginsburg said .
However , Clement told the justices that lawyers challenging the religious exemption have not been able to identify a single woman who was ever denied contraception under the exemption .
Chief Justice John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in questioning whether President Donald Trump ’ s rollback of the policy went too far .
He and other justices still seemed baffled over how to resolve a fierce dispute over religious freedom and health care access that ’ s persisted for years .
… Roberts asked Solicitor General Noel Francisco , who defended Trump ’ s rollback , whether the administration was interpreting religious freedom laws “ too broadly.
” Roberts and other justices , meanwhile , expressed frustration that the fight over birth control coverage hasn ’ t been resolved after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The problem is that neither side wants the accommodation to work , ” said Roberts , referring to a current workaround for religious groups to avoid the coverage mandate .
At another point in the oral argument , Kavanaugh questioned the Democrat politicians challenging the exemption , “ If we get to the bottom line of , ‘ Is this reasonable , ’ why isn ’ t this a reasonable way to balance it ?
” In 2017 , pro-abortion attorneys general in Pennsylvania , California and several other states filed lawsuits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration .
The new rules protect the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious employers from having to pay for birth control drugs and devices that may cause abortions in their employee health care plans .
The Little Sisters won an initial victory against the mandate in 2016 at the U.S. Supreme Court , but the new lawsuits pushed them back into court .
The Pennsylvania attorney general is challenging the nuns ’ religious exemption granted by the Trump administration .
After a loss in the Third Circuit Court of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is asking the Supreme Court to end their long legal battle and let them keep their focus on serving the elderly poor .
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals placed a nationwide injunction on the Trump administration ’ s new conscience protection rule .
On Oct. 22 , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also placed an injunction on the new rule for the following states : California , Delaware , Virginia , Maryland , New York , Illinois , Washington , Minnesota , Connecticut , North Carolina , Vermont , Rhode Island @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The case consolidates two challenges , Trump v. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania .
Their case is different from the Supreme Court decision involving Hobby Lobby , the Christian-owned craft store chain .
In that decision , the high court gave closely-held for-profit corporations “ exemptions from the contraception mandate , in accordance with the companies ’ owners ’ ‘ sincerely held ’ beliefs , ” the Washington Examiner reports .
Also , Hobby Lobby did not object to providing all forms of contraception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The case is Little Sisters of the Poor v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania .
A ruling is expected sometime later this year .

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday about whether religious charities like Little Sisters of the Poor should be forced to pay for contraception, including types that may cause abortions, in their employee health plans.
The nuns’ charity has been fighting in court for nearly eight years for relief from the Obamacare contraception mandate. After the Supreme Court gave them a temporary victory in 2016, Democrat leaders took the sisters back to court to challenge a new religious exemption from the Trump administration.
“We are hopeful that the court will protect us as it did in 2016 and eager to be rid of this legal trouble which has hung over our ministry like a storm cloud for nearly a decade,” said Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor. “In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the lives of our residents face a real and imminent threat, we are more eager than ever to be able to care for our residents without being harassed by governments.”
In court Wednesday, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro’s office argued that the religious exemption is overly broad and could be burdensome to thousands of women.
Meanwhile, attorneys for the Trump administration and the Little Sisters contended that the contraception mandate violates the nuns’ religious liberty and jeopardizes their charity work for the poor and elderly.
Breitbart reports the justices seemed to divide along their typical conservative-liberal lines. Currently, there is a 5-4 conservative majority; and this is the first case related to the contraception mandate that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have heard since joining the court.
When asked what the Little Sisters would do if required to follow the mandate, lawyer Paul Clement said they would have to reconfigure their entire charity. He said there is “nothing they can do to come into compliance with the mandate.”
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
If the sisters refuse to comply, they could face crippling fines that could shut down their charity work.
However, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued against the exemption, claiming it would create an unfair burden on women who use contraception, according to Breitbart.
AFP News reports some politicians estimated about 70,000 women could lose contraception coverage if the exemption is upheld.
“You have just tossed entirely to the wind what Congress thought was essential, that women be provided these services with no hassle, no cost to them,” Ginsburg said.
However, Clement told the justices that lawyers challenging the religious exemption have not been able to identify a single woman who was ever denied contraception under the exemption.
Here’s more from Politico:
Chief Justice John Roberts joined some of his liberal colleagues in questioning whether President Donald Trump’s rollback of the policy went too far. He and other justices still seemed baffled over how to resolve a fierce dispute over religious freedom and health care access that’s persisted for years. … Roberts asked Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who defended Trump’s rollback, whether the administration was interpreting religious freedom laws “too broadly.” Roberts and other justices, meanwhile, expressed frustration that the fight over birth control coverage hasn’t been resolved after nearly a decade of legal battles. “The problem is that neither side wants the accommodation to work,” said Roberts, referring to a current workaround for religious groups to avoid the coverage mandate.
At another point in the oral argument, Kavanaugh questioned the Democrat politicians challenging the exemption, “If we get to the bottom line of, ‘Is this reasonable,’ why isn’t this a reasonable way to balance it?”
In 2017, pro-abortion attorneys general in Pennsylvania, California and several other states filed lawsuits to overturn new religious protections issued by the Trump administration. The new rules protect the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious employers from having to pay for birth control drugs and devices that may cause abortions in their employee health care plans.
The Little Sisters won an initial victory against the mandate in 2016 at the U.S. Supreme Court, but the new lawsuits pushed them back into court.
The Pennsylvania attorney general is challenging the nuns’ religious exemption granted by the Trump administration. After a loss in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the order of Catholic nuns is asking the Supreme Court to end their long legal battle and let them keep their focus on serving the elderly poor.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals placed a nationwide injunction on the Trump administration’s new conscience protection rule. On Oct. 22, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also placed an injunction on the new rule for the following states: California, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Washington, Minnesota, Connecticut, North Carolina, Vermont, Rhode Island, Hawaii and Washington, D.C. The case consolidates two challenges, Trump v. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania.
Their case is different from the Supreme Court decision involving Hobby Lobby, the Christian-owned craft store chain. In that decision, the high court gave closely-held for-profit corporations “exemptions from the contraception mandate, in accordance with the companies’ owners’ ‘sincerely held’ beliefs,” the Washington Examiner reports. Also, Hobby Lobby did not object to providing all forms of contraception, only those that may cause abortions.
The case is Little Sisters of the Poor v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A ruling is expected sometime later this year.


thelibertydaily--2020-05-07--SCHIFF SHOW: Bug-Eyed Burbank Bolshevik Adam Schiff Reportedly In ‘Panic Mode’ After DNI Grenell Say

SCHIFF SHOW: Bug-Eyed Burbank Bolshevik Adam Schiff Reportedly In ‘Panic Mode’ After DNI Grenell Says ‘Release The Transcripts Or I Will’

Schiff has finally met his match , someone who isn ’ t going to put up with his lawless , partisan , anticonstitutional , authoritarian bullcrap .
And there is nothing Schiff can do about it .
Schiff is a snake , and we all know it .
He ’ s been using his position in Committee to hide things that put his narrative ( and the people who have been spinning it ) in a bad light or might exonerate the political rivals he ’ s worked so VERY hard to destroy .
But now , in Richard Grenell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trending : PROJECT VERITAS : Here ’ s Why NY Funeral Homes Are Calling BS On COVID Stats ( Video ) But first , a quick recap of what got us here… Schiff has enjoyed feasting on a ridiculous amount of power in his tight little fists .
He has quite contentedly used his party ’ s majority to shield him as he weaponized his power against his enemies .
He was almost certainly the source of leaks of classified information .
He opposed Nunes releasing the truth about what was really happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block it , trying to demonize him in the public eye , releasing a counter-narrative memo that — eventually — was shown to be as entirely worthless as the man who wrote it , while the Nunes Memo was vindicated when investigations had run their course .
Schiff assured us that he had evidence of Russian collusion — which never materialized .
He was smack-dab in the center of the alleged ‘ whistleblower ’ conspiracy that leaked THE Ukraine Phone Call to the public , his staff flew to Ukraine before the news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connected to Burisma .
He demanded hearing after hearing in the Russia case , putting people on the stand ( and then leaking closed meeting info to the press even before they were over .
And yet he refused to release transcripts of many of these interviews .
His role as ringmaster in the Impeachment Circus will be fodder for historians generations from now .
In particular , his ‘ parody ’ phone call fiction , his whistleblower connections with a plan to reveal him , until his own connections to him became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaks , while refusing to release transcripts for the hearings , even when they reportedly held testimony exculpatory to the President .
( We would argue BECAUSE it was exculpatory . )
And he forbade any witnesses in the defense of the President that were not ALSO on the Democrats ’ wish list of witnesses .
He secretly subpoenaed 1000s of phone records ( Effectively granting himself the powers of a FISA judge , under dubious authority ) and released private phone records of… among other people… journalists , political rival congressmen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devious , power-hungry snake .
But this snake has met his match .
If Schiff is a snake , Grenell is a mongoose .
There is a ream of documents relating to the now-completed Russia investigation that both parties , in a rare moment of bipartisanship , have agreed to release to the public .
DNI TO SCHIFF : THE TRANSCRIPTS ARE READY TO RELEASE .
A big development in the fight over 53 secret interviews the House Intelligence Committee conducted during its Trump-Russia investigation .
Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schiff notifying him that transcripts of all 53 interviews , over 6,000 pages in all , have been cleared for public release .
“ All of the transcripts , with our required redactions , can be released to the public without any concerns of disclosing classified material , ” Grenell wrote to Schiff in a letter dated May 4 .
The Intel Committee did the first probe into Russia ’ s 2016 campaign interference and allegations of Trump-Russia collusion .
Even today , its findings make up most of what we know about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation — it was run by then-majority Republicans — the committee interviewed some key witnesses in the Trump-Russia matter : Donald Trump Jr. , Steve Bannon , Andrew McCabe , Sally Yates , Michael Cohen , Hope Hicks , and many more .
…The interviews were conducted in secret .
But by September 2018 , with the committee ’ s report long finished and made public , the Republicans who still controlled the committee decided the interview transcripts should be released to the public .
In a rare moment of comity , Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , the committee voted unanimously to release the transcripts .
But there was a catch : The documents would have to first be checked for classified information by the Intelligence Community .
So off they went to the IC — never to be seen again .
Now , in May 2020 , they ’ re still secret .
Two weeks ago , the Wall Street Journal editorial board reported that the IC had finished its review of 43 of the transcripts , but Schiff was refusing to release them .
The paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the remaining ten transcripts .
In the letter , Grenell revealed that the 43 transcripts have been finished since June 2019 .
Schiff has been sitting on them all that time .
Grenell said the final ten have just been finished as well .
“ I urge you to honor your previous public statements , and your committee ’ s unanimous vote on this matter , to release all 53 cleared transcripts to Members of Congress and the American public as soon as possible , ” Grenell said .
Just in case Schiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ I am also willing to release the transcripts directly from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence , as to ensure we comply with the unanimous and bipartisan vote to release the transcripts.
” —WashingtonExaminer Fox reported on Shifty ’ s reaction to this development as being in ‘ panic mode ’ : Transcripts of House Intelligence Committee interviews that have been cleared for release show top law enforcement and intelligence officials affirming they had no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News on Wednesday .
This would align with the results of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation — which found no evidence of illegal or criminal coordination between President Trump , the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016 — but the numerous transcribed interviews could raise further questions about committee Chairman Adam Schiff ’ s past statements saying that there was “ direct evidence ” of collusion .
“ Schiff is in panic mode , ” a senior administration official told Fox News .
— FoxNews What ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t got something you ’ re trying to HIDE , do ya ?
What with all these new developments with Flynn , Papadopoulos , Page and even the Mueller investigation… it ’ s almost like you are concerned about where exactly the breadcrumbs might lead .

Schiff has finally met his match, someone who isn’t going to put up with his lawless, partisan, anticonstitutional, authoritarian bullcrap.
And there is nothing Schiff can do about it.
Schiff is a snake, and we all know it. He’s been using his position in Committee to hide things that put his narrative (and the people who have been spinning it) in a bad light or might exonerate the political rivals he’s worked so VERY hard to destroy.
But now, in Richard Grenell, he has met his match.
But first, a quick recap of what got us here…
Schiff has enjoyed feasting on a ridiculous amount of power in his tight little fists. He has quite contentedly used his party’s majority to shield him as he weaponized his power against his enemies.
He was almost certainly the source of leaks of classified information.
He opposed Nunes releasing the truth about what was really happening in the Russia investigation, trying to block it, trying to demonize him in the public eye, releasing a counter-narrative memo that — eventually — was shown to be as entirely worthless as the man who wrote it, while the Nunes Memo was vindicated when investigations had run their course.
Schiff assured us that he had evidence of Russian collusion — which never materialized. He was smack-dab in the center of the alleged ‘whistleblower’ conspiracy that leaked THE Ukraine Phone Call to the public, his staff flew to Ukraine before the news became public, and met with people connected to Burisma.
He demanded hearing after hearing in the Russia case, putting people on the stand (and then leaking closed meeting info to the press even before they were over. And yet he refused to release transcripts of many of these interviews.
His role as ringmaster in the Impeachment Circus will be fodder for historians generations from now. In particular, his ‘parody’ phone call fiction, his whistleblower connections with a plan to reveal him, until his own connections to him became apparent. His secret hearings and selective leaks, while refusing to release transcripts for the hearings, even when they reportedly held testimony exculpatory to the President. (We would argue BECAUSE it was exculpatory.) And he forbade any witnesses in the defense of the President that were not ALSO on the Democrats’ wish list of witnesses.
He secretly subpoenaed 1000s of phone records (Effectively granting himself the powers of a FISA judge, under dubious authority) and released private phone records of… among other people… journalists, political rival congressmen, and lawyers.
He’s a devious, power-hungry snake. But this snake has met his match.
If Schiff is a snake, Grenell is a mongoose.
There is a ream of documents relating to the now-completed Russia investigation that both parties, in a rare moment of bipartisanship, have agreed to release to the public.
Schiff has been stonewalling.
DNI TO SCHIFF: THE TRANSCRIPTS ARE READY TO RELEASE. A big development in the fight over 53 secret interviews the House Intelligence Committee conducted during its Trump-Russia investigation. Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has sent a letter to chairman Adam Schiff notifying him that transcripts of all 53 interviews, over 6,000 pages in all, have been cleared for public release. “All of the transcripts, with our required redactions, can be released to the public without any concerns of disclosing classified material,” Grenell wrote to Schiff in a letter dated May 4. The Intel Committee did the first probe into Russia’s 2016 campaign interference and allegations of Trump-Russia collusion. Even today, its findings make up most of what we know about the affair. As part of that investigation — it was run by then-majority Republicans — the committee interviewed some key witnesses in the Trump-Russia matter: Donald Trump Jr., Steve Bannon, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Michael Cohen, Hope Hicks, and many more. …The interviews were conducted in secret. But by September 2018, with the committee’s report long finished and made public, the Republicans who still controlled the committee decided the interview transcripts should be released to the public. In a rare moment of comity, Democrats agreed, and on September 26, 2018, the committee voted unanimously to release the transcripts. But there was a catch: The documents would have to first be checked for classified information by the Intelligence Community. So off they went to the IC — never to be seen again. Now, in May 2020, they’re still secret. Two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal editorial board reported that the IC had finished its review of 43 of the transcripts, but Schiff was refusing to release them. The paper said Schiff was also preventing declassification of the remaining ten transcripts. In the letter, Grenell revealed that the 43 transcripts have been finished since June 2019. Schiff has been sitting on them all that time. Grenell said the final ten have just been finished as well. “I urge you to honor your previous public statements, and your committee’s unanimous vote on this matter, to release all 53 cleared transcripts to Members of Congress and the American public as soon as possible,” Grenell said. Just in case Schiff is still not interested, Grenell added, “I am also willing to release the transcripts directly from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as to ensure we comply with the unanimous and bipartisan vote to release the transcripts.” —WashingtonExaminer
Fox reported on Shifty’s reaction to this development as being in ‘panic mode’:
Transcripts of House Intelligence Committee interviews that have been cleared for release show top law enforcement and intelligence officials affirming they had no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, senior administration and intelligence community officials told Fox News on Wednesday. This would align with the results of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — which found no evidence of illegal or criminal coordination between President Trump, the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016 — but the numerous transcribed interviews could raise further questions about committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s past statements saying that there was “direct evidence” of collusion. “Schiff is in panic mode,” a senior administration official told Fox News. — FoxNews
What’s the matter, you little weasel?
You haven’t got something you’re trying to HIDE, do ya?
What with all these new developments with Flynn, Papadopoulos, Page and even the Mueller investigation… it’s almost like you are concerned about where exactly the breadcrumbs might lead.
Are ya getting nervous? Good.


thelibertydaily--2020-05-07--Sean Hannity Warns Bug-Eyed Burbank Bolshevik Adam Schiff ‘Tick-Tock! Tomorrow [Thursday] Will Be th

Sean Hannity Warns Bug-Eyed Burbank Bolshevik Adam Schiff ‘Tick-Tock! Tomorrow [Thursday] Will Be the Day the Congenital Liar Is Completely Exposed’

On Wednesday night the Department of Justice released the August 2017 Rosenstein Scope Memo .
The August 2017 scope memo penned by then-DAG Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller was released with redactions on Wednesday .
Rosenstein wrote a total of three scope memos giving Mueller permission to rove around unchecked in a fishing expedition to not only target Trump officials , but to play defense and cover up the Obama administration ’ s crimes .
The August 2017 scope memo revealed Mueller investigated Mike Flynn , a 3-star General and Trump ’ s National Security Advisor for the “ crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian government officials ” during the Trump transition .
TRENDING : Texas Governor And Attorney General Call For Immediate Release Of Jailed Salon Owner , Rip Judge For 'Political Stunt' Flynn of course was already cleared by the FBI on January 4 , 2017 when the field office found “ no derogatory information ” on Flynn and decided to close CROSSFIRE RAZOR .
On Wednesday night Sean Hannity opened his show on the Rosenstein Scope Memo .
Sean then told his audience that a “ deep state day of reckoning is very close.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way , Adam Schiff , tick-tock .
It ’ s not going to be a good day tomorrow .
Just guessing .
Earlier today acting Director of National Intelligence , Rick Grenell , he called on the congenital , compromised liar Adam Schiff to release secret Russian probe transcripts that the committee had already voted to make public back in 2018 .
Tomorrow , just hearing , what do I know ?
I ’ m just a talk-show host .
It could be the day that the corrupt , compromised , congenital @ @ @ @ @ @

On Wednesday night the Department of Justice released the August 2017 Rosenstein Scope Memo.
The August 2017 scope memo penned by then-DAG Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller was released with redactions on Wednesday.
Rosenstein wrote a total of three scope memos giving Mueller permission to rove around unchecked in a fishing expedition to not only target Trump officials, but to play defense and cover up the Obama administration’s crimes.
The August 2017 scope memo revealed Mueller investigated Mike Flynn, a 3-star General and Trump’s National Security Advisor for the “crime” of “engaging in conversations with Russian government officials” during the Trump transition.
Flynn of course was already cleared by the FBI on January 4, 2017 when the field office found “no derogatory information” on Flynn and decided to close CROSSFIRE RAZOR.
On Wednesday night Sean Hannity opened his show on the Rosenstein Scope Memo.
Sean then told his audience that a “deep state day of reckoning is very close.”
Then Sean Hannity warned Adam Schiff.
Sean Hannity: Oh, by the way, Adam Schiff, tick-tock. It’s not going to be a good day tomorrow. Just guessing. Earlier today acting Director of National Intelligence, Rick Grenell, he called on the congenital, compromised liar Adam Schiff to release secret Russian probe transcripts that the committee had already voted to make public back in 2018. Tomorrow, just hearing, what do I know? I’m just a talk-show host. It could be the day that the corrupt, compromised, congenital liar Schiff is completely exposed.


thelibertydaily--2020-05-07--RINO Comrade DeWine Vows to Veto Bill Curtailing Health Director’s ‘Ultimate Authority’ and Limiting

RINO Comrade DeWine Vows to Veto Bill Curtailing Health Director’s ‘Ultimate Authority’ and Limiting Stay-at-Home Orders

The Ohio House on Wednesday passed a bill stripping the state health director of some emergency powers and limiting stay-at-home orders to 14 days , requiring the approval of the legislature for an extension .
Gov .
Mike DeWine , a Republican who ’ s been basking in the praise of Democrats for his heavy-handed approach to containing the coronavirus pandemic , has vowed to veto the bill .
SB 1 , which originated in the state Senate , was designed as a measure to reduce regulations in the state .
When the House got its hand on it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state health department and altering the language of an archaic 1908 rule passed to deal with a tuberculosis epidemic , which has remained largely unchanged since then .
Ohio Revised Code 3701.13 currently states : DeWine , through health director Amy Acton , has used this statutory power to issue sweeping orders , shuttering businesses and ordering Ohioans to stay at home during the COVID-19 crisis .
DeWine has defended Acton and warned Ohioans that criticism of her is out of line .
“ I ’ m the elected official , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the one who ran for office .
I ’ m the one who makes the policy decisions .
The members of my cabinet , Dr. Acton included , work exceedingly , exceedingly hard , but I set the policy.
” But whether he likes it or not , DeWine has no authority to issue emergency health orders — Acton and Acton alone does , which is why all his edicts are funneled through her office .
[ Aside : Acton shocked pro-life groups in the state last year when it was discovered she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims to have invented partial-birth abortion , get his operating license back after he lost it for failing to have a state-mandated transfer agreement in place with a hospital .
After Haskell lost two appeals to the Ohio Supreme Court , Acton stepped in to not only get his operating license restored but to grant him a variance so he doesn ’ t have to comply with Ohio ’ s transfer agreement law in defiance of the Supreme Court .
That ’ s who DeWine has running his COVID-19 response . ]
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Acton ’ s sweeping powers and asserting the legislature ’ s role during a state emergency .
( C ) ( 1 ) No order of the department shall be effective for a period exceeding fourteen days , except with the approval of the joint committee on agency rule review , as described in section 101.36 of the Revised Code .
For purposes of this division , an order is considered to be effective for a period exceeding fourteen days if the order includes an effective period that exceeds fourteen days or if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in multiple subsequently issued orders whose combined effective period exceeds fourteen days .
( 2 ) The department may adopt rules under this section only in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code , and the department shall not adopt an emergency rule , make an emergency amendment to a rule , or rescind a rule on an emergency basis under this section , as described in that chapter .
If Acton , or a future health director , wants to extend an emergency order beyond 14 days , she ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joint bipartisan legislative committee .
DeWine ’ s office told reporters on Wednesday that should the bill make it to his desk he will veto it .
It does not appear at present that the House would have enough vote to override a veto .
The Senate has yet to take up the measure .
“ My administration is focused on the important things we need to do to help businesses responsibly reopen while protecting Ohioans ’ health and safety , ” DeWine said in a statement .
“ This week alone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , balancing Ohio ’ s budget , and working on plans to move Ohio ’ s economy forward .
Ohioans need their legislators focused on these important issues .
Creating more uncertainty regarding public health and employee safety is the last thing we need as we work to restore consumer confidence in Ohio ’ s economy.
” In other words , the governor has no intention of relinquishing the power he and the unelected health director have amassed .
If that power is taken away , what will he and Acton have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Wine with DeWine ” daily press briefings ?
Ohio citizens and lawmakers alike have been critical of DeWine ’ s overreach during the pandemic .
The state has been under a stay-at-home order since March , and while there are plans to begin reopening the state this month , the stay-at-home is still in effect .
As of Wednesday night , the state has seen just over 20,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases , with 4,052 hospitalizations and 1,114 deaths .
Nearly one-third of those deaths have been clustered in nursing homes .
Twenty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state ’ s prisons .
While DeWine and others are patting themselves on the back for flattening the curve of the virus , others insist that DeWine and Acton went overboard , relying on faulty models—which they refuse to release to the public .
At one point Acton was predicting 100,000 deaths as a result of the coronavirus .
She later backtracked , admitting that the number was merely a “ guesstimate.
” Rep. Scott Wiggan , a Republican who co-sponsored the House version of SB 1 , has been critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Last week he accused Acton of “ moving the goalposts ” after the state had flattened the curve .
After Wednesday ’ s vote , he wrote on Facebook , “ Today , 58 members of the Ohio Houe of Representatives voted to represent the citizens they serve even in a time of crisis .
Sub .
Senate Bill 1 will give a voice to millions of Ohioans that want input into the decisions and lives.
” Rep. Nino Vitale , also a Republican , has been one of the harshes critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 he wrote , “ While you were sleeping , UNELECTED Acton declared Ohio closed until May 29th .
Now when you go to bed at night , you have NO IDEA what your rights will be when you get up in the morning .
Is this America or Amerika ?
” “ Your basic human rights of life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not come from an unelected Globalist Health Director , who signed the order in the dark of night , ” Vitale explained .
“ Your basic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be bought , sold , traded or taken from you.
” He urged the legislature to do their jobs and “ vote on all these unconstitutional orders that defy your liberties and freedoms !
” Republican House Speaker Larry Householder issued a statement blasting DeWine for shuttering small businesses .
“ There is a tremendous amount of frustration from the majority of members in the Ohio House regarding the Administration ’ s unwillingness to recognize that small businesses that have much less daily traffic in their stores are closed while their large chain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Householder said .
“ As long as small retailers continue to be shut down while national chains are allowed to remain open , government is assisting in the demise of many great small businesses .
The big get bigger and the small go away.
” He said calls by the legislature to work with the governor ’ s office “ have been met with deaf ears.
” “ Ohio ’ s three branches of government are to be separate but equal , ” he said .
“ Our members feel disrespected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Administration ” “ I don ’ t know of anybody , any reasonably minded person , someone that could be elected by their fellow people , their peers back in their district , why anybody reasonable wouldn ’ t agree with reasonable orders , ” Householder told WOSU Public Media .
“ And so I don ’ t see it in any way affecting what the governor trying to do .
I commend what the governor has did so far .
But I think there has to be legislative oversight.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday decriminalizing defiance of public health order and reducing the fine for refusal to follow such orders from $ 750 to $ 150 .
Both bills now go to the Republican-controlled Senate .
Editor ’ s Note : Want to support PJ Media so we can keep telling the truth about China and the virus they unleashed on the world ?
Join PJ Media VIP and use the promo code WUHAN to get 25 % off your VIP membership .

The Ohio House on Wednesday passed a bill stripping the state health director of some emergency powers and limiting stay-at-home orders to 14 days, requiring the approval of the legislature for an extension. Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican who’s been basking in the praise of Democrats and the MSM for his heavy-handed approach to containing the coronavirus pandemic, has vowed to veto the bill.
SB 1, which originated in the state Senate, was designed as a measure to reduce regulations in the state. When the House got its hand on it, they added language curtailing the powers of the state health department and altering the language of an archaic 1908 rule passed to deal with a tuberculosis epidemic, which has remained largely unchanged since then. Ohio Revised Code 3701.13 currently states:
The department of health shall have supervision of all matters relating to the preservation of the life and health of the people and have ultimate authority in matters of quarantine and isolation, which it may declare and enforce, when neither exists, and modify, relax, or abolish, when either has been established. [emphasis added]
DeWine, through health director Amy Acton, has used this statutory power to issue sweeping orders, shuttering businesses and ordering Ohioans to stay at home during the COVID-19 crisis. DeWine has defended Acton and warned Ohioans that criticism of her is out of line. “I’m the elected official,” he said. “I’m the one who ran for office. I’m the one who makes the policy decisions. The members of my cabinet, Dr. Acton included, work exceedingly, exceedingly hard, but I set the policy.”
But whether he likes it or not, DeWine has no authority to issue emergency health orders — Acton and Acton alone does, which is why all his edicts are funneled through her office.
[Aside: Acton shocked pro-life groups in the state last year when it was discovered she helped abortion provider Martin Haskell, who claims to have invented partial-birth abortion, get his operating license back after he lost it for failing to have a state-mandated transfer agreement in place with a hospital. After Haskell lost two appeals to the Ohio Supreme Court, Acton stepped in to not only get his operating license restored but to grant him a variance so he doesn’t have to comply with Ohio’s transfer agreement law in defiance of the Supreme Court. That’s who DeWine has running his COVID-19 response.]
The legislature voted on Wednesday to roll back Acton’s sweeping powers and asserting the legislature’s role during a state emergency.
(C)(1) No order of the department shall be effective for a period exceeding fourteen days, except with the approval of the joint committee on agency rule review, as described in section 101.36 of the Revised Code. For purposes of this division, an order is considered to be effective for a period exceeding fourteen days if the order includes an effective period that exceeds fourteen days or if the substance of the order is contained in multiple subsequently issued orders whose combined effective period exceeds fourteen days. (2) The department may adopt rules under this section only in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code, and the department shall not adopt an emergency rule, make an emergency amendment to a rule, or rescind a rule on an emergency basis under this section, as described in that chapter.
If Acton, or a future health director, wants to extend an emergency order beyond 14 days, she’ll have to get the approval of a joint bipartisan legislative committee.
DeWine’s office told reporters on Wednesday that should the bill make it to his desk he will veto it. It does not appear at present that the House would have enough vote to override a veto. The Senate has yet to take up the measure.
“My administration is focused on the important things we need to do to help businesses responsibly reopen while protecting Ohioans’ health and safety,” DeWine said in a statement. “This week alone, this included increasing coronavirus testing and tracing, balancing Ohio’s budget, and working on plans to move Ohio’s economy forward. Ohioans need their legislators focused on these important issues. Creating more uncertainty regarding public health and employee safety is the last thing we need as we work to restore consumer confidence in Ohio’s economy.”
In other words, the governor has no intention of relinquishing the power he and the unelected health director have amassed. If that power is taken away, what will he and Acton have to talk about at their incessant, mind-numbing “Wine with DeWine” daily press briefings?
Editor’s Note: Want to support PJ Media so we can keep telling the truth about China and the virus they unleashed on the world? Join PJ Media VIP and use the promo code WUHAN to get 25% off your VIP membership.
Ohio citizens and lawmakers alike have been critical of DeWine’s overreach during the pandemic. The state has been under a stay-at-home order since March, and while there are plans to begin reopening the state this month, the stay-at-home is still in effect, with no end in sight. As of Wednesday night, the state has seen just over 20,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases, with 4,052 hospitalizations and 1,114 deaths. Nearly one-third of those deaths have been clustered in nursing homes. Twenty percent of the COVID-19 cases have occurred in the state’s prisons.
While DeWine and others are patting themselves on the back for flattening the curve of the virus, others insist that DeWine and Acton went overboard, relying on faulty models—which they refuse to release to the public. At one point Acton was predicting 100,000 deaths as a result of the coronavirus. She later backtracked, admitting that the number was merely a “guesstimate.”
Rep. Scott Wiggan, a Republican who co-sponsored the House version of SB 1, has been critical of the DeWine administration’s response. Last week he accused Acton of “moving the goalposts” after the state had flattened the curve. After Wednesday’s vote, he wrote on Facebook, “Today, 58 members of the Ohio Houe of Representatives voted to represent the citizens they serve even in a time of crisis. Sub. Senate Bill 1 will give a voice to millions of Ohioans that want input into the decisions and lives.”
Rep. Nino Vitale, also a Republican, has been one of the harshes critics of DeWine and Acton. On May 1 he wrote, “While you were sleeping, UNELECTED Acton declared Ohio closed until May 29th. Now when you go to bed at night, you have NO IDEA what your rights will be when you get up in the morning. Is this America or Amerika?”


thelibertydaily--2020-05-07--Democrats Using Chi-Com Virus as an Excuse to Release Criminals, Jail the Innocent

They ’ re using COVID-19 as an excuse to release convicted criminals , and to jail the innocent .
This @ @ @ @ @ So Far , More Than 300 Prisoners Released Due To COVID-19 Under Mass .
High @ @ @ @ @ Meanwhile , this other article is called , “ Dallas salon owner jailed for defying @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re using COVID-19 as an excuse to let convicted criminals out of jail @ @ @ @ @ time , they ’ re using it as an excuse to put an innocent person @ @ @ @ @ some of the worst hypocrisy that I have ever heard of .

They’re using COVID-19 as an excuse to release convicted criminals, and to jail the innocent.
This article is called, “So Far, More Than 300 Prisoners Released Due To COVID-19 Under Mass. High Court’s Ruling.”
Meanwhile, this other article is called, “Dallas salon owner jailed for defying virus shutdown order.”
So they’re using COVID-19 as an excuse to let convicted criminals out of jail.
And at the same time, they’re using it as an excuse to put an innocent person in jail.
This is some of the worst hypocrisy that I have ever heard of.


thelibertydaily--2020-05-07--PROGRESSIVELY GREEDY: DNC Asks Donors To Pay Up To $100,000 For A ‘Virtual Dinner’ With Crooked Hill

PROGRESSIVELY GREEDY: DNC Asks Donors To Pay Up To $100,000 For A ‘Virtual Dinner’ With Crooked Hillary

How much would you pay to have dinner with Hillary Clinton on the internet ?
The DNC is hoping their donors will pay up to $ 100,000 dollars for the chance .
That ’ s a lot of cash for a ‘ virtual ’ event .
Could they possibly get any takers for this ?
TRENDING : Texas Governor And Attorney General Call For Immediate Release Of Jailed Salon Owner , Rip Judge For 'Political Stunt' DNC is asking people to pay upward of $ 100K for a ‘ virtual dinner ’ with Hillary Clinton Former Secretary of State Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ virtual dinner ” campaign event for presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden later this month that could cost attendees up to $ 100,000 .
The event , put on by the Biden for President Victory Fund and the Democratic National Committee , will be hosted on Zoom and is scheduled for May 19 , Politico reported Tuesday .
A PDF of the flyer shows that the event will be extremely pricey to attend .
“ Hosts ” are expected to pay $ 100,000 to attend the virtual dinner , while other tickets are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , $ 15,600 , $ 5,600 , and $ 2,800 at “ limited availability.
” As a bonus , attendees will be joined by DNC Chair Tom Perez for the one-hour dinner .
Clinton endorsed the former vice president last week during a virtual town hall after largely staying out of the political spotlight during the Democratic primary .
Will they be serving virtual food ?
And Democrats think they ’ re the party of the little guy ?

How much would you pay to have dinner with Hillary Clinton on the internet?
The DNC is hoping their donors will pay up to $100,000 dollars for the chance. That’s a lot of cash for a ‘virtual’ event.
Could they possibly get any takers for this?
The Blaze reports:
DNC is asking people to pay upward of $100K for a ‘virtual dinner’ with Hillary Clinton Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is set to appear at a “virtual dinner” campaign event for presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden later this month that could cost attendees up to $100,000. The event, put on by the Biden for President Victory Fund and the Democratic National Committee, will be hosted on Zoom and is scheduled for May 19, Politico reported Tuesday. A PDF of the flyer shows that the event will be extremely pricey to attend. “Hosts” are expected to pay $100,000 to attend the virtual dinner, while other tickets are available for $50,000, $41,100, $15,600, $5,600, and $2,800 at “limited availability.” As a bonus, attendees will be joined by DNC Chair Tom Perez for the one-hour dinner. Clinton endorsed the former vice president last week during a virtual town hall after largely staying out of the political spotlight during the Democratic primary.
Will they be serving virtual food?
HILLARY CLINTON is appearing at a “virtual dinner” on Zoom for the Biden Victory Fund May 19. This is a pricey affair: Hosts have to shell out $100,000. Tickets are available for $50,000, $41,100, $15,600, $5,600 and a “limited” number for $2,800 Invite: https://t.co/J1TfVnwNFT — Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) May 5, 2020
How much would you pay for a virtual dinner with Hillary Clinton? Biden world appears to be testing that with a May 19 fundraiser where spots go for as much as $100K https://t.co/sLpwUUf6Yg — Anna Palmer (@apalmerdc) May 5, 2020
Wait… people are paying HOW MUCH for a virtual Zoom dinner with @HillaryClinton for the Biden Victory Fund ?! (PS Answer appears to be hosts: $100,000. Tickets: $50,000, $41,100, $15,600, $5,600 and $2,800) Virtual?! Politics is nuts! — Jacqueline Fell (@jackiefell) May 5, 2020
And Democrats think they’re the party of the little guy?
Cross posted from American Lookout.