dailysignal--2020-12-23--The Perversion of Science

The Perversion of Science

America ’ s scientists are essentially miracle workers .
Within mere months , they have developed highly effective vaccines for COVID-19 .
By year ’ s end , millions of Americans will have received their first doses .
We should begin to see death rates from COVID drop precipitously in the coming weeks as more and more Americans gain immunity from the virus .
Yet never has there been a larger gap between America ’ s scientists and America ’ s public health professionals .
Science is supposed to guide the decision-making for both groups .
Yet public health professionals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their lodestar , instead sacrificing their credibility on the altar of intersectional politics .
Throughout the summer , public health professionals ignored perfectly obvious dangers surrounding mass protests over alleged racial injustice ; many of those top health professionals suggested that the risks of racism in American society amounted to a health problem all their own .
Throughout the pandemic , public health officials have caved to the political incentive toward overbroad lockdown policies , simultaneously exempting themselves from the rules .
Now we learn that public health officials pushed for vaccine distribution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial factors .
As the U.K. ’ s Daily Mail reported this week : This insanity is rooted in eugenic concerns .
“ Older populations are whiter , ” public health “ expert ” Dr. Harald Schmidt of the University of Pennsylvania told The New York Times in early December .
“ Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer .
Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them , we can start to level the playing field a bit.
” In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people survive to old age ; we should , therefore , give vaccines to younger , less vulnerable nonwhite citizens in “ essential industries ” and let Grandma die .
Not only is this obviously racist ; it happens to engender policy that kills more black people in absolute terms .
Age is a far better predictor of COVID vulnerability than race : As Dr. Gbenga Ogedegbe of the New York University Grossman School of Medicine found , infected patients die at the same rate regardless of race .
This means that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients based on racial concerns rather than age concerns , the most vulnerable black and Latino populations—elderly blacks and Latinos—are more likely to die so that younger blacks and Latinos can receive a vaccine for a disease to which they are probably 10 times less vulnerable .
This is the price of social justice thinking .
By treating people as members of racial groups rather than as individuals , and by prioritizing race above age , more black and brown people die in absolute terms , even if the overall proportionality of black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Equitable ” statistical outcome has become a higher goal than actually saving lives .
That ’ s absurd and tragic .
And it should undermine our trust in our public health officials .
So , trust the scientists when they root their decisions in science .
But doubt them at the top of your lungs when they start proclaiming that they are experts on morality .

America’s scientists are essentially miracle workers. Within mere months, they have developed highly effective vaccines for COVID-19. By year’s end, millions of Americans will have received their first doses.
We should begin to see death rates from COVID drop precipitously in the coming weeks as more and more Americans gain immunity from the virus.
Yet never has there been a larger gap between America’s scientists and America’s public health professionals. Science is supposed to guide the decision-making for both groups. Yet public health professionals have consistently failed to utilize science as their lodestar, instead sacrificing their credibility on the altar of intersectional politics.
Throughout the summer, public health professionals ignored perfectly obvious dangers surrounding mass protests over alleged racial injustice; many of those top health professionals suggested that the risks of racism in American society amounted to a health problem all their own. Throughout the pandemic, public health officials have caved to the political incentive toward overbroad lockdown policies, simultaneously exempting themselves from the rules.
Now we learn that public health officials pushed for vaccine distribution not based on health risk but on racial factors. As the U.K.’s Daily Mail reported this week:
Every US state has been advised to consider ethnic minorities as a critical and vulnerable group in their vaccine distribution plans, according to Centers for Disease Control guidance. As a result, half of the nation’s states have outlined plans that now prioritize black, Hispanic and indigenous residents over white people in some way.
This insanity is rooted in eugenic concerns. “Older populations are whiter,” public health “expert” Dr. Harald Schmidt of the University of Pennsylvania told The New York Times in early December. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”
In other words, a disproportionate number of white people survive to old age; we should, therefore, give vaccines to younger, less vulnerable nonwhite citizens in “essential industries” and let Grandma die.
Not only is this obviously racist; it happens to engender policy that kills more black people in absolute terms. Age is a far better predictor of COVID vulnerability than race: As Dr. Gbenga Ogedegbe of the New York University Grossman School of Medicine found, infected patients die at the same rate regardless of race.
This means that if you give tranches of the vaccine to patients based on racial concerns rather than age concerns, the most vulnerable black and Latino populations—elderly blacks and Latinos—are more likely to die so that younger blacks and Latinos can receive a vaccine for a disease to which they are probably 10 times less vulnerable.
This is the price of social justice thinking. By treating people as members of racial groups rather than as individuals, and by prioritizing race above age, more black and brown people die in absolute terms, even if the overall proportionality of black and brown deaths drops versus white deaths. “Equitable” statistical outcome has become a higher goal than actually saving lives.
That’s absurd and tragic. And it should undermine our trust in our public health officials. So, trust the scientists when they root their decisions in science. But doubt them at the top of your lungs when they start proclaiming that they are experts on morality.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-12-24--Our Upside-Down Postelection World

Our Upside-Down Postelection World

After Nov. 3 , the meaning of some words and concepts abruptly changed .
Have you noticed how new realities have replaced old ones ?
Media cross-examination of the president is now an out-of-date idea .
The time for gotcha questions has come and gone .
Why ask a president whether he is a traitor or a crook when you can focus on his favorite flavor of milkshake or compliment him on his socks ?
The old pre-election truth was that new vaccines take years to develop .
The new postelection truth is that it ’ s no big deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months .
Impeaching a first-term president after his first midterm election—on a strictly partisan vote , for political reasons other than the Constitution ’ s “ treason , bribery , or other high crimes and misdemeanors ” —is now a terrible idea .
Worse would be to appoint a special counsel to harass a president on unfounded charges of collusion with China .
An even scarier notion would be a conservative dream team of partisan lawyers hounding a President Joe Biden—using a 22-month , $ 40 million blank check .
It would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a distance to diagnose , in pop fashion , the mental faculties of a President Biden .
Certainly , there would never be talk about Department of Justice officials contemplating wearing a wire as part of an entrapment scheme to remove a President Biden through the 25th Amendment .
That would almost constitute a coup attempt .
Almost as bad would be for the holdover FBI director to start “ memorializing ” his private conversations with Biden on FBI devices .
He might then leak such memos to the press—just in case he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden for “ Chinese collusion ” and then lying about such a probe .
What happened to the Logan Act ?
Not long ago it was assumed to be a critically needed guardrail .
Wouldn ’ t it now ensure that presidential transition team members were not calling foreign leaders while Donald Trump is still president ?
How has it suddenly become a defunct , ossified relic ?
Leaking classified material would be about the worst thing government officials could do .
Imagine if a Trump holdover , burrowed into the new Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s private conversations with the Mexican president or the Australian prime minister .
Such a breach of trust would be almost as bad as a turncoat anti-Biden mole seeking to resist presidential directives .
Imagine if this anonymous staffer were given an op-ed in The New York Times to claim that a cadre of old-time Democrats was shocked by Biden ’ s cognitive decline and resisting his directives .
Is extending security clearances to former high-level officials-turned-cable TV pundits still a bad idea ?
Who would wish to see , for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ratcliffe issuing warnings each night on Fox News ?
With a wink-and-nod hat tip to his “ confidential sources , ” Ratcliffe could spin conspiracy theories that Biden is facing bombshell disclosures about his family misadventures with the Chinese .
Is it still important that we keep the tradition of retired high-ranking military officers—all subject to the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice—not disparaging the president ?
Who would want former Pentagon officials , some of them serving on the boards of military contractors , warning us that Biden should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , generals and admirals should not compare a President Biden ’ s policies to those of Mussolini or the Nazis .
At least “ dark money ” no longer exists .
The old idea of right-wing billionaires pouring money into candidates ’ political campaigns was supposedly a dangerous practice .
It would be far more civic-minded for left-wing billionaires to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the coffers of nonpartisan state bureaucracies entrusted with guaranteeing the sanctity of national elections .
And apparently after , not before , an election is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Like the rollout of a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine ?
Like a revised upward Fannie Mae report on the economy ?
Like the ties between a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee and a suspected Chinese spy ?
Like a federal investigation of Biden ’ s son and his possible profiteering with rich Chinese elites affiliated with China ’ s government ?
To keep track of our brave new American world is easy .
Just consider everything said to be bad by the “ Animal Farm ” media before Nov. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that everything said to be good two months ago is now actually bad .

After Nov. 3, the meaning of some words and concepts abruptly changed. Have you noticed how new realities have replaced old ones?
Media cross-examination of the president is now an out-of-date idea. The time for gotcha questions has come and gone. Why ask a president whether he is a traitor or a crook when you can focus on his favorite flavor of milkshake or compliment him on his socks?
The old pre-election truth was that new vaccines take years to develop. The new postelection truth is that it’s no big deal to bring out new vaccines in nine months.
Impeaching a first-term president after his first midterm election—on a strictly partisan vote, for political reasons other than the Constitution’s “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”—is now a terrible idea.
Worse would be to appoint a special counsel to harass a president on unfounded charges of collusion with China. An even scarier notion would be a conservative dream team of partisan lawyers hounding a President Joe Biden—using a 22-month, $40 million blank check.
It would be unprofessional for university psychologists and physicians from a distance to diagnose, in pop fashion, the mental faculties of a President Biden.
Certainly, there would never be talk about Department of Justice officials contemplating wearing a wire as part of an entrapment scheme to remove a President Biden through the 25th Amendment. That would almost constitute a coup attempt.
Almost as bad would be for the holdover FBI director to start “memorializing” his private conversations with Biden on FBI devices. He might then leak such memos to the press—just in case he were to be fired for secretly investigating Biden for “Chinese collusion” and then lying about such a probe.
What happened to the Logan Act? Not long ago it was assumed to be a critically needed guardrail. Wouldn’t it now ensure that presidential transition team members were not calling foreign leaders while Donald Trump is still president? How has it suddenly become a defunct, ossified relic?
Leaking classified material would be about the worst thing government officials could do. Imagine if a Trump holdover, burrowed into the new Biden administration, released a transcript of Biden’s private conversations with the Mexican president or the Australian prime minister.
Such a breach of trust would be almost as bad as a turncoat anti-Biden mole seeking to resist presidential directives. Imagine if this anonymous staffer were given an op-ed in The New York Times to claim that a cadre of old-time Democrats was shocked by Biden’s cognitive decline and resisting his directives.
Is extending security clearances to former high-level officials-turned-cable TV pundits still a bad idea? Who would wish to see, for instance, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe issuing warnings each night on Fox News? With a wink-and-nod hat tip to his “confidential sources,” Ratcliffe could spin conspiracy theories that Biden is facing bombshell disclosures about his family misadventures with the Chinese.
Is it still important that we keep the tradition of retired high-ranking military officers—all subject to the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice—not disparaging the president?
Who would want former Pentagon officials, some of them serving on the boards of military contractors, warning us that Biden should be removed because of cognitive challenges? Certainly, generals and admirals should not compare a President Biden’s policies to those of Mussolini or the Nazis.
At least “dark money” no longer exists. The old idea of right-wing billionaires pouring money into candidates’ political campaigns was supposedly a dangerous practice. It would be far more civic-minded for left-wing billionaires to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the coffers of nonpartisan state bureaucracies entrusted with guaranteeing the sanctity of national elections.
And apparently after, not before, an election is the proper time to announce critically important news.
Like the rollout of a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine?
Like a $900 billion stimulus package?
Like a revised upward Fannie Mae report on the economy?
Like the ties between a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee and a suspected Chinese spy?
Like a federal investigation of Biden’s son and his possible profiteering with rich Chinese elites affiliated with China’s government?
To keep track of our brave new American world is easy.
Just consider everything said to be bad by the “Animal Farm” media before Nov. 3 as now good. And remember that everything said to be good two months ago is now actually bad.
(C)2020 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.


dailysignal--2020-12-28--A Pastor’s Misguided Attack on Israel

A Pastor’s Misguided Attack on Israel

What would our nation look like if every day , every American—of every background and ethnicity—were to wake up with the conviction that they are 100 % responsible for the circumstances of their lives ?
No blame , no victimhood , no excuses saying that what is happening to them is because of someone else .
It touches , I believe , the heart of Christianity .
At any given moment , you may not have control of what is outside of you .
But you have control over what is inside of you .
Change what is inside first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is outside .
We have faith in a loving God who wants us to take responsibility , and when there is failure , there is forgiveness and another chance .
Too many in our country are paying a great price by listening to politicians on the left who are telling them the opposite .
Consider the Rev .
Dr. Raphael Warnock , who is now running as a Democrat in one of the two U.S. Senate runoff elections in Georgia .
Warnock , who is black , is a poster child of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world is unfair , controlled by racists and exploiters .
And for some reason , Warnock , like so many of this point of view , chooses to zero in on Israel , the very model of success through personal responsibility , as a problem rather than a solution .
Just last year , after visiting Israel , he affixed his signature to a Group Pilgrimage Statement on Israel and Palestine .
That statement identifies Israel as an “ oppressive ” regime , accuses Israel of segregation , speaks of militarization “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by apartheid South Africa ” and of “ excessive use of force ” by Israel in Gaza .
These total distortions of the truth in service of a left-wing political agenda should be a wake-up call .
Regarding the reality of Israel , we can turn to the nonpartisan organization Freedom House in Washington , D.C. , which annually rates 210 nations around the world as being “ free , ” “ partly free , ” or “ not free.
” Israel is the only nation in the Middle East rated “ free.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppression throughout the region and only choose to attack the one country that is free .
This freedom is enjoyed not only by the Jewish citizens of Israel but also by the nearly 2 million Arab citizens of the country .
In my first visit to Israel , I couldn ’ t help but notice the amazing diversity , with Jews from all over the world—white , brown , and black .
Regarding the situation in the West Bank and Gaza , where Palestinian Arabs live , their absence of freedom and prosperity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their future , not Israel .
Rather than aspiring to build better lives for their citizens , they choose regimes that set a priority to destroy Israel .
In 2005 , for example , Israel unilaterally withdrew its presence from Gaza .
The Palestinian regime there was free to start building a nation .
Rather than doing this , it started lobbing missiles into Israel .
The Palestinian Authority prime minister announced , “ We are telling the entire world : today Gaza and tomorrow Jerusalem.
” Israeli settlers who were displaced when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the desert with desalinized water , and , within five years , were exporting $ 50 million worth of organic potatoes , carrots , and peppers a year .
I wrote about it then , quoting the late Art Linkletter , television personality and outspoken Christian , who observed : “ Things turn out best for people that make the best of the way things turn out.
” I said then that Linkletter ’ s observation captured why Israel has grown and prospered and why Palestinians have languished .
The same is true @ @ @

What would our nation look like if every day, every American—of every background and ethnicity—were to wake up with the conviction that they are 100% responsible for the circumstances of their lives?
No blame, no victimhood, no excuses saying that what is happening to them is because of someone else.
It touches, I believe, the heart of Christianity.
At any given moment, you may not have control of what is outside of you. But you have control over what is inside of you. Change what is inside first, and then you will change what is outside.
We have faith in a loving God who wants us to take responsibility, and when there is failure, there is forgiveness and another chance.
Too many in our country are paying a great price by listening to politicians on the left who are telling them the opposite.
Consider the Rev. Dr. Raphael Warnock, senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, who is now running as a Democrat in one of the two U.S. Senate runoff elections in Georgia.
Warnock, who is black, is a poster child of the left, which embraces the view that the world is unfair, controlled by racists and exploiters.
And for some reason, Warnock, like so many of this point of view, chooses to zero in on Israel, the very model of success through personal responsibility, as a problem rather than a solution.
Just last year, after visiting Israel, he affixed his signature to a Group Pilgrimage Statement on Israel and Palestine.
That statement identifies Israel as an “oppressive” regime, accuses Israel of segregation, speaks of militarization “reminiscent of the military occupation of Namibia by apartheid South Africa” and of “excessive use of force” by Israel in Gaza.
These total distortions of the truth in service of a left-wing political agenda should be a wake-up call.
Regarding the reality of Israel, we can turn to the nonpartisan organization Freedom House in Washington, D.C., which annually rates 210 nations around the world as being “free,” “partly free,” or “not free.”
Israel is the only nation in the Middle East rated “free.”
But Warnock and his colleagues ignore oppression throughout the region and only choose to attack the one country that is free.
This freedom is enjoyed not only by the Jewish citizens of Israel but also by the nearly 2 million Arab citizens of the country. In my first visit to Israel, I couldn’t help but notice the amazing diversity, with Jews from all over the world—white, brown, and black.
Regarding the situation in the West Bank and Gaza, where Palestinian Arabs live, their absence of freedom and prosperity is their own choosing. They control their future, not Israel. Rather than aspiring to build better lives for their citizens, they choose regimes that set a priority to destroy Israel.
In 2005, for example, Israel unilaterally withdrew its presence from Gaza. The Palestinian regime there was free to start building a nation. Rather than doing this, it started lobbing missiles into Israel. The Palestinian Authority prime minister announced, “We are telling the entire world: today Gaza and tomorrow Jerusalem.”
Israeli settlers who were displaced when Israel withdrew moved inland, started irrigating the desert with desalinized water, and, within five years, were exporting $50 million worth of organic potatoes, carrots, and peppers a year.
I wrote about it then, quoting the late Art Linkletter, television personality and outspoken Christian, who observed: “Things turn out best for people that make the best of the way things turn out.”
I said then that Linkletter’s observation captured why Israel has grown and prospered and why Palestinians have languished.
The same is true in America.
At Christmastime, let’s choose freedom and personal responsibility.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


dailysignal--2020-12-28--Amazon Hires Lobbying Firm Connected to Top Biden Adviser

Amazon , the trillion-dollar tech company , has hired lobbyist Jeff Ricchetti , whose brother will be the top White House counselor to Joe Biden .
Jeff Ricchetti ’ s firm , which he founded in 2001 with his brother Steve Ricchetti , the incoming Biden adviser , registered as a lobbyist for Amazon on Nov. 13 .
According to disclosure forms filed with Congress , Jeff Ricchetti will lobby for Amazon on “ [ i ] ssues related to COVID-19 , including implementation of the CARES Act.
” Biden tapped Steve Ricchetti , his longtime aide , to serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNBC first reported that Amazon had hired Jeff Ricchetti .
Ricchetti Inc. is poised to be a lobbying powerhouse in the Biden administration .
Amazon is the 10th company the firm has registered as a client since May 1 , 2020 .
Ricchetti has a stable of other corporate clients , but had inked only one lobbying deal since July 1 , 2016 , according to records filed with Congress .
Ricchetti Inc. registered in August to lobby on behalf of Applied Materials , a California-based firm that produces semiconductor materials .
Ricchetti @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House and other executive agencies on U.S. trade policy with China .
Ricchetti also signed an agreement on Nov. 13 to lobby for Vaxart , a biotech company that is developing an oral vaccine for the coronavirus .
Vaxart is under federal investigation over its claims to have been part of Operation Warp Speed , the Trump administration ’ s effort to develop a vaccine this year .
Prosecutors are looking into whether Vaxart misled investors by falsely claiming to be part of Operation Warp Speed .
The Ricchettis formed their lobbying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton administration , where he served as deputy chief of staff .
In that role , Steve Ricchetti helped Clinton lobby Congress to pass a controversial trade deal with China .
Ricchetti served as Biden ’ s chief of staff when Biden served as vice president .
Biden will reportedly rely heavily on Ricchetti as a liaison to Congress .
Jeff Ricchetti did not respond to a request for comment .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original content , email [ email protected ] .

Amazon, the trillion-dollar tech company, has hired lobbyist Jeff Ricchetti, whose brother will be the top White House counselor to Joe Biden.
Jeff Ricchetti’s firm, which he founded in 2001 with his brother Steve Ricchetti, the incoming Biden adviser, registered as a lobbyist for Amazon on Nov. 13.
According to disclosure forms filed with Congress, Jeff Ricchetti will lobby for Amazon on “[i]ssues related to COVID-19, including implementation of the CARES Act.”
Biden tapped Steve Ricchetti, his longtime aide, to serve as his counselor on Nov. 16. CNBC first reported that Amazon had hired Jeff Ricchetti.
Ricchetti Inc. is poised to be a lobbying powerhouse in the Biden administration. Amazon is the 10th company the firm has registered as a client since May 1, 2020. Ricchetti has a stable of other corporate clients, but had inked only one lobbying deal since July 1, 2016, according to records filed with Congress.
Ricchetti Inc. registered in August to lobby on behalf of Applied Materials, a California-based firm that produces semiconductor materials. Ricchetti disclosed that he plans to lobby the White House and other executive agencies on U.S. trade policy with China.
Ricchetti also signed an agreement on Nov. 13 to lobby for Vaxart, a biotech company that is developing an oral vaccine for the coronavirus.
Vaxart is under federal investigation over its claims to have been part of Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s effort to develop a vaccine this year. Prosecutors are looking into whether Vaxart misled investors by falsely claiming to be part of Operation Warp Speed.
The Ricchettis formed their lobbying shop after Steve Ricchetti left the Bill Clinton administration, where he served as deputy chief of staff. In that role, Steve Ricchetti helped Clinton lobby Congress to pass a controversial trade deal with China.
Ricchetti served as Biden’s chief of staff when Biden served as vice president. Biden will reportedly rely heavily on Ricchetti as a liaison to Congress.
Jeff Ricchetti did not respond to a request for comment.
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 opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-12-29--Gabbard’s Exit From House to Leave Democrats With 1 Less Centrist Voice

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard opted not to run for reelection to a fifth term in Congress and will be leaving office when the 116th Congress adjourns this week , but the Hawaii Democrat will be missed .
That ’ s because Gabbard is one of the few remaining voices of moderation in her increasingly left-wing party in Congress .
Her recent sponsorship of three pieces of legislation , as well as her principled vote against the COVID-19 relief bill , bear that out .
On Dec. 10 , she introduced a bill that , if enacted , would protect girls and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sports against transgender biological males .
Gabbard sponsored H.R .
8932 , the Protect Women ’ s Sports Act , with Rep. Markwayne Mullin , R-Okla. , “ to clarify Title IX protections for female athletes [ are ] based on biological sex , ” according to a statement announcing the introduction of the bill .
The legislation would stop schools from receiving federal funding if they allow transgender males and females to play athletics on teams with students of the opposite biological sex .
Gabbard , who unsuccessfully sought the 2020 Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect Title IX ’ s original intent , “ which was based on the general biological distinction between men and women athletes , based on sex.
” The Hawaii lawmaker released an eight and a half-minute video on Twitter offering detailed background on Title IX and an explanation of why she ’ s co-sponsoring the bill .
“ It is the height of hypocrisy for those who claim to be advocates for women ’ s rights to deny that there is even such a thing as a woman , biologically speaking—to deny the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and not men , ” she said .
Emilie Kao , director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation , commended the Hawaii Democrat .
A day earlier , on Dec. 9 , Gabbard also introduced H.R .
8923 , which would amend the U.S. criminal code “ to ensure a health care practitioner exercises the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.
” The bill is similar to a bipartisan piece of legislation introduced earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received criticism on social media for offering “ redundant ” legislation .
But Melanie Israel , a research associate at Heritage ’ s DeVos Center , said Gabbard ’ s bill should be praised , not mocked .
Protecting babies who survive an abortion procedure shouldn ’ t be controversial .
And this is not a hypothetical problem .
Data from both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , as well as various state health departments , report disturbing cases of infants surviving abortions .
Current federal law recognizes these infants as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no requirements that health care practitioners provide care for such infants .
In effect , a baby can be left to die after surviving an abortion without any clear legal consequences .
The status quo is unacceptable , and the remedy shouldn ’ t be subject to partisan handwringing .
Gabbard introduced yet another pro-life bill , H.R .
8939 , “ to protect pain-capable unborn children.
” It essentially would ban abortions after 20 weeks , unless the life or health of the mother is at risk .
These bills are all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect the vulnerable among us , whether they are infants fighting to survive or women looking just to compete on a level playing field in a world where transgender males “ identify ” as females and win competitions unfairly .
But Gabbard ’ s support for these bills makes her an outlier in an increasingly liberal party .
The prospective Biden administration has said it would seek to enact the so-called Equality Act , which would expand anti-discrimination laws to protect LGBTQ individuals , posing a threat to religious freedom , and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1980 has barred federal funding for most abortions .
Gabbard , whose 2nd Congressional District encompasses the entire state of Hawaii outside of Oahu , has also departed from her party ’ s left-wing orthodoxy in other ways .
She announced she would refuse to receive the COVID-19 vaccine available to members of Congress until after elderly Americans have received it .
In a tweet , she lambasted “ arrogant , unelected [ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ] bureaucrats ” for failing to put older generations—who are more vulnerable to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dec. 21 against the COVID-19 relief package and described the $ 600 qualifying Americans will receive as “ a slap in the face to every American struggling due to the pandemic.
” Gabbard described the bill as a “ representation of the screwed-up priorities of Washington ” and tweeted , “ You deserve better.
” Of course , Gabbard ’ s voting record was hardly perfect , but her refusal to reflexively fall in line with fellow liberals when important issues are involved was a breath of fresh air in an era when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem to speak for their constituents and instead automatically align with their respective sides .

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard opted not to run for reelection to a fifth term in Congress and will be leaving office when the 116th Congress adjourns this week, but the Hawaii Democrat will be missed.
That’s because Gabbard is one of the few remaining voices of moderation in her increasingly left-wing party in Congress. Her recent sponsorship of three pieces of legislation, as well as her principled vote against the COVID-19 relief bill, bear that out.
On Dec. 10, she introduced a bill that, if enacted, would protect girls and women from being forced to compete in sports against transgender biological males.
Gabbard sponsored H.R. 8932, the Protect Women’s Sports Act, with Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., “to clarify Title IX protections for female athletes [are] based on biological sex,” according to a statement announcing the introduction of the bill.
The legislation would stop schools from receiving federal funding if they allow transgender males and females to play athletics on teams with students of the opposite biological sex.
Gabbard, who unsuccessfully sought the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, said she wants to protect Title IX’s original intent, “which was based on the general biological distinction between men and women athletes, based on sex.”
The Hawaii lawmaker released an eight and a half-minute video on Twitter offering detailed background on Title IX and an explanation of why she’s co-sponsoring the bill.
“It is the height of hypocrisy for those who claim to be advocates for women’s rights to deny that there is even such a thing as a woman, biologically speaking—to deny the very biological distinction that makes women women, and not men,” she said.
Emilie Kao, director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, commended the Hawaii Democrat.
Rep. Gabbard took a courageous stand for fairness and female athletes around the country. Biology matters in many areas. It matters in sports because it determines competitiveness, performance, and results. There is widespread bipartisan support for keeping male and female sports separate. Americans know that the law should protect fair competition by acknowledging the reality of sex differences.
A day earlier, on Dec. 9, Gabbard also introduced H.R. 8923, which would amend the U.S. criminal code “to ensure a health care practitioner exercises the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”
The bill is similar to a bipartisan piece of legislation introduced earlier this year that was rejected. Gabbard received criticism on social media for offering “redundant” legislation.
Tulsi Gabbard also introduced a redundant bill that claims to protect infants in the infinitesimally rare cases they are born after attempted abortions (infants are already legally protected) but in fact just criminalizes doctors, vilifies women, and fear-mongers about abortion. — Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) December 11, 2020
But Melanie Israel, a research associate at Heritage’s DeVos Center, said Gabbard’s bill should be praised, not mocked.
Protecting babies who survive an abortion procedure shouldn’t be controversial. And this is not a hypothetical problem. Data from both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as various state health departments, report disturbing cases of infants surviving abortions. Current federal law recognizes these infants as ‘persons,’ but there are no requirements that health care practitioners provide care for such infants. In effect, a baby can be left to die after surviving an abortion without any clear legal consequences. The status quo is unacceptable, and the remedy shouldn’t be subject to partisan handwringing.
Gabbard introduced yet another pro-life bill, H.R. 8939, “to protect pain-capable unborn children.” It essentially would ban abortions after 20 weeks, unless the life or health of the mother is at risk.
These bills are all commonsense and based on science. They protect the vulnerable among us, whether they are infants fighting to survive or women looking just to compete on a level playing field in a world where transgender males “identify” as females and win competitions unfairly.
But Gabbard’s support for these bills makes her an outlier in an increasingly liberal party.
The prospective Biden administration has said it would seek to enact the so-called Equality Act, which would expand anti-discrimination laws to protect LGBTQ individuals, posing a threat to religious freedom, and to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which since 1980 has barred federal funding for most abortions.
Gabbard, whose 2nd Congressional District encompasses the entire state of Hawaii outside of Oahu, has also departed from her party’s left-wing orthodoxy in other ways.
She announced she would refuse to receive the COVID-19 vaccine available to members of Congress until after elderly Americans have received it. In a tweet, she lambasted “arrogant, unelected [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] bureaucrats” for failing to put older generations—who are more vulnerable to the coronavirus—first.
The outgoing congresswoman also voted Dec. 21 against the COVID-19 relief package and described the $600 qualifying Americans will receive as “a slap in the face to every American struggling due to the pandemic.”
Gabbard described the bill as a “representation of the screwed-up priorities of Washington” and tweeted, “You deserve better.”
Of course, Gabbard’s voting record was hardly perfect, but her refusal to reflexively fall in line with fellow liberals when important issues are involved was a breath of fresh air in an era when identity politics reign and when few politicians seem to speak for their constituents and instead automatically align with their respective sides.


dailysignal--2020-01-31--7 Questions and Answers From Day 9 of Trump Impeachment Trial

Chief Justice John Roberts declined to read a sensitive question from Sen. Rand Paul , R-Ky. , in the Senate impeachment trial Thursday , as other senators asked about the withholding of U.S. aid to Ukraine and about Joe Biden and his son ’ s employment by a Ukrainian energy company .
The ninth day of the impeachment trial was the second straight day in which President Donald Trump ’ s defense team and House prosecutors took turns answering questions from senators .
Senators submitted 93 questions Wednesday and were on track to ask about as many Thursday .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether to call witnesses for the impeachment trial , which Democrats want .
Most reports of head counts say not enough Republican votes will be there to continue the trial with witnesses .
That outcome would make this the shortest presidential impeachment trial in history , following an abbreviated House impeachment inquiry that lasted about 70 days .
Trump ’ s acquittal is a near certainty , as it takes 67 senators , or a two-thirds majority , to remove a president .
Here are seven key highlights of the proceedings Thursday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Reports surfaced Wednesday that Roberts , presiding over the Senate impeachment trial as chief justice , would not expose the anonymous whistleblower who first complained about a phone conversation July 25 between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy .
Trump withheld $ 391 million in aid .
In opening the session Thursday , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said , without being asked : “ We ’ ve been respectful of the chief justice ’ s unique position in reading our questions , and I want to be able to continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him will continue.
” Early in the day , Roberts called on Paul .
“ I have a question to present to the desk for House manager [ Adam ] Schiff and for the president ’ s counsel , ” Paul said .
Schiff , D-Calif. , is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , which led the impeachment inquiry targeting Trump .
He is the leader of the seven House managers , or prosecutors , making the case for the Senate to remove Trump .
When the card with Paul ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he looked at it for 11 seconds , then said : “ The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.
” Paul reportedly was upset and at one point left the chamber and , talking to reporters , criticized Roberts for censoring questions .
The Kentucky Republican , an ally and former rival of Trump ’ s , sent out several tweets repeating the name of the person widely reported—without confirmation—to be the whistleblower .
This first tweet , however , did not : “ My question today is about whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings , ” Paul tweeted , before naming someone widely reported to be the whistleblower .
Paul rephrased his question about Schiff later in the hearing , and Roberts was willing to read it this time : Vindmand , an Army officer , testified about his concerns with the Trump-Zelenskyy call during the House impeachment hearings .
Schiff , chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , which led the impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate floor to respond , looking and sounding indignant .
“ First of all , there have been a lot of attacks on my staff .
As I said when this issue came up earlier , I ’ m appalled at some of the smearing of some of the professional people that work for the Intelligence Committee , ” Schiff said , adding : House Democrats voted Dec. 18 , without a single Republican vote , to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
The House based its two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July 25 phone call to Zelenskyy and the president ’ s refusal to allow certain executive branch witnesses or provide certain documents for House hearings .
According to a White House transcript of the Trump-Zelenskyy call , released by the president , the two leaders briefly talked about Trump ’ s interest in Ukraine ’ s investigating former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s dealings there and the role of his son , Hunter Biden , on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma .
Trump also asked Zelenskyy to look into whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Zelenskyy did not know at the time that Trump had put a hold on $ 391 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine to help it counter a Russian invasion .
Trump would release the funds in September .
House Democrats allege that Trump withheld the military aid to pressure Zelenskyy into initiating politically motivated investigations .
Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , submitted a question on behalf of himself , Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , and Sen. Josh Hawley , R-Mo .
Roberts , saying the question was for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pam Bondi , the former attorney general of Florida who days earlier had laid out the Biden-Burisma timeline , took the podium on the Senate floor to answer .
“ It is very interesting he said he never spoke to his son about overseas dealings ; his son said different things , ” Bondi said .
“ Joe Biden was the [ Obama administration ’ s ] point man for Ukraine .
At the time , Ukrainians were investigating a corrupt company , Burisma.
” In 2016 , Biden has said publicly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin , who was investigating Burisma , where Biden ’ s son had been on the board since 2014 .
During on-camera remarks in 2018 , Biden said he threatened Ukraine ’ s leaders that the country would not get $ 1 billion in U.S. assistance unless the government fired Shokin within hours .
Bondi noted that Burisma reportedly paid Biden $ 83,000 per month , although he had no qualifications in the energy sector .
She said Burisma ’ s owner , oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky , was known for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The entire time Joe Biden knows that this oligarch is corrupt .
Everyone knows that .
There are news reports everywhere .
No one will dispute that , ” Bondi said .
“ In fact , it raised eyebrows worldwide that the vice president , by his account , never once asked his son to leave the [ Burisma ] board .
Instead , he started investigating the prosecutor who was going after Burisma and this corrupt oligarch , who they say was corrupt even by corrupt oligarch standards.
” “ Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bragging about firing the prosecutor , linking it to aid , ” Bondi added .
Rep. Val Demings , D-Fla. , one of the seven House impeachment managers , or prosecutors , steered away from a direct answer .
“ I know you have asked about a conversation between a father and his son , ” Demings said .
“ And what I can tell you is , probably like just about everyone in this chamber , there are probably some conversations that I can ’ t repeat about my conversations with my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know the answer to your question.
” She then said the Senate needed to hear from “ fact witnesses , ” and sought to pivot to familiar talking points of the prosecution team .
“ We have no evidence to point to the fact that either Biden has anything at all to tell us about the president shaking down a foreign power to help him cheat in the next election , the precious election , trying to steal each individual ’ s vote , ” Demings said .
Sen. Jack Reed , D-R.I. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It has been reported that President Trump has not paid Rudy Giuliani , his personal attorney , for his services .
Can you explain who has paid for Rudy Giuliani ’ s legal fees , international travel , and other expenses in his capacity as President Trump ’ s attorney and representative ?
” Schiff , D-Calif. , the leader of the House prosecution team , stood to answer the question .
“ I don ’ t know who is paying Rudy Giuliani ’ s fees , ” Schiff said , adding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Giuliani , a former New York mayor and federal prosecutor , brokered a quid pro quo with the Chinese ?
He argued that the president ’ s defense team would claim that would be OK. “ So , who is paying the freight for it ?
” Schiff asked .
“ I don ’ t know who is directly paying the freight for it , but I can tell you the whole country is paying the freight for it because there are leaders around the world who are watching this and saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” With that comment , Schiff walked right into a rebuttal from Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow .
“ What came out of the manager ’ s mouth : open for business , ” Sekulow said , adding : Sekulow , however , did not say who was paying Giuliani .
Sen. John Thune , R-S.D.
, submitted a question on behalf of himself and several other Senate Republicans about something House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , said .
Roberts read the question , which was directed only to the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who is leading Trump ’ s defense , responded : “ Absolutely , you should take that into account.
” “ Speaker Pelosi was right when she said that .
Unfortunately , she didn ’ t follow her own advice , ” Cipollone said .
“ We ’ ve never been in a situation where we have the impeachment of a president in an election year , with the goal of removing the president from the ballot .
As I ’ ve said before , that is the most massive election interference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s domestic election interference .
It ’ s political election interference .
And it ’ s wrong.
” During a morning press conference , before the Senate convened , Pelosi suggested she would not accept the Senate ’ s verdict on the president if no witnesses are called .
“ He will not be acquitted , ” Pelosi said .
“ You can not be acquitted if you don ’ t have a trial .
You don ’ t have a trial if you don ’ t have witnesses and documentation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know right from wrong ?
I don ’ t think so.
” Roberts read a question about abuse of power from Sen. Mike Lee , R-Utah , that brought up Trump ’ s two immediate predecessors , Barack Obama and George W. Bush .
“ Under the standard embraced by the House managers , would President Obama have been subject to impeachment charges based on his handling of the Benghazi attack , the Bergdahl swap , or DACA ?
” Roberts read .
“ Would President Bush have been subject to impeachment charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , detention of combatants , or use of waterboarding ?
” Cipollone , the White House counsel , answered the question , saying that the House managers are making an argument with “ no standard.
” “ Presidents would be subject to impeachment for exercising long-standing constitutional rights even when the House chose not to enforce their subpoenas , ” Cipollone said , adding : “ You might want to get a lock on that door , because they are going to be back a lot if that ’ s the standard.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a question citing two Federal Election Commission opinions that anything of value given by a foreign country to a political campaign would be an illegal campaign contribution .
“ How valuable would a public announcement [ by Ukraine ] of an investigation into the Bidens be for President Trump ’ s reelection campaign ?
” she asked .
Stabenow directed her question to both sides .
“ The idea that these investigations were something of value was specifically examined by the Department of Justice , as I explained the other day , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back in September that there was no election law violation , because it did not qualify as a thing of value.
” The White House counsel added : “ There would be tremendous First Amendment implications if someone attempted to enforce the laws that way.
” “ How valuable would it be for the president to get Ukraine to announce his investigations ?
The answer is immensely valuable , ” Schiff said , adding : Other coverage of the impeachment trial for The Daily Signal by White House correspondent Fred Lucas includes : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lawyers as Defense Opens in Impeachment Trial 7 Highlights From Day 3 of the Trump Impeachment Trial What to Know About Democrats ’ 7 Impeachment Managers

Chief Justice John Roberts declined to read a sensitive question from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in the Senate impeachment trial Thursday, as other senators asked about the withholding of U.S. aid to Ukraine and about Joe Biden and his son’s employment by a Ukrainian energy company.
The ninth day of the impeachment trial was the second straight day in which President Donald Trump’s defense team and House prosecutors took turns answering questions from senators.
Senators submitted 93 questions Wednesday and were on track to ask about as many Thursday.
The Senate is set to vote Friday on whether to call witnesses for the impeachment trial, which Democrats want.
Most reports of head counts say not enough Republican votes will be there to continue the trial with witnesses. That outcome would make this the shortest presidential impeachment trial in history, following an abbreviated House impeachment inquiry that lasted about 70 days.
Trump’s acquittal is a near certainty, as it takes 67 senators, or a two-thirds majority, to remove a president.
Here are seven key highlights of the proceedings Thursday, the ninth day of the Senate trial.
1. Roberts v. Paul
Reports surfaced Wednesday that Roberts, presiding over the Senate impeachment trial as chief justice, would not expose the anonymous whistleblower who first complained about a phone conversation July 25 between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump withheld $391 million in aid.
In opening the session Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, without being asked: “We’ve been respectful of the chief justice’s unique position in reading our questions, and I want to be able to continue to assure him that that level of consideration for him will continue.”
Early in the day, Roberts called on Paul.
“The senator from Kentucky,” the chief justice said.
“I have a question to present to the desk for House manager [Adam] Schiff and for the president’s counsel,” Paul said.
Schiff, D-Calif., is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which led the impeachment inquiry targeting Trump. He is the leader of the seven House managers, or prosecutors, making the case for the Senate to remove Trump.
When the card with Paul’s question was brought to Roberts, he looked at it for 11 seconds, then said: “The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.”
Paul reportedly was upset and at one point left the chamber and, talking to reporters, criticized Roberts for censoring questions.
The Kentucky Republican, an ally and former rival of Trump’s, sent out several tweets repeating the name of the person widely reported—without confirmation—to be the whistleblower. This first tweet, however, did not:
My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings. — Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) January 30, 2020
“My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings,” Paul tweeted, before naming someone widely reported to be the whistleblower.
Paul later tweeted:
My question is not about a ‘whistleblower’ as I have no independent information on his identity. My question is about the actions of known Obama partisans within the NSC [White House National Security Council] and House staff and how they are reported to have conspired before impeachment proceedings had even begun.
2. Schiff Won’t Answer About Coordinating With Whistleblower
Paul rephrased his question about Schiff later in the hearing, and Roberts was willing to read it this time:
Recent reporting described two NSC [National Security Council] staff holdovers from the Obama administration attending an all-hands meeting of NSC staff held about two weeks into the Trump administration, and talking loudly enough to be overheard saying, ‘We need to do everything we can to take out the president.’
On July 26, 2019, the House Intelligence Committee hired one of those individuals, Shawn Misko. The report further describes relationships between Misko, Lt. Col. [Alexander] Vindmand and the individual alleged as the whistleblower. Why did your committee hire Shawn Misko the day after the phone call between President Trump and Zelenskyy, and what role has he played throughout your committee’s investigation?
Vindmand, an Army officer, testified about his concerns with the Trump-Zelenskyy call during the House impeachment hearings.
Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which led the impeachment inquiry, took the microphone on the Senate floor to respond, looking and sounding indignant.
“First of all, there have been a lot of attacks on my staff. As I said when this issue came up earlier, I’m appalled at some of the smearing of some of the professional people that work for the Intelligence Committee,” Schiff said, adding:
Now, this question refers to allegations in a newspaper article, which are circulating smears on my staff and asks me to respond to those smears. I will not dignify those smears on my staff by giving them any credence whatsoever.
Nor will I share any information that I believe could or could not lead to the identification of the whistleblower.
3. Conflicting Stories From Bidens on Burisma
House Democrats voted Dec. 18, without a single Republican vote, to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
The House based its two articles of impeachment on Trump’s July 25 phone call to Zelenskyy and the president’s refusal to allow certain executive branch witnesses or provide certain documents for House hearings.
According to a White House transcript of the Trump-Zelenskyy call, released by the president, the two leaders briefly talked about Trump’s interest in Ukraine’s investigating former Vice President Joe Biden’s dealings there and the role of his son, Hunter Biden, on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.
Trump also asked Zelenskyy to look into whether Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.
Zelenskyy did not know at the time that Trump had put a hold on $391 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine to help it counter a Russian invasion. Trump would release the funds in September.
House Democrats allege that Trump withheld the military aid to pressure Zelenskyy into initiating politically motivated investigations.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, submitted a question on behalf of himself, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.
Roberts, saying the question was for both sides, read:
USA Today reported that when asked about it [his son’s employment by the Ukrainian company], Biden said quote, ‘He hadn’t spoken to his son about his overseas business.’ That account was contradicted by Hunter Biden, who told The New Yorker that he told his father about Burisma and ‘Dad said I hope you know what you’re doing, and I said I do.’ Why do Joe and Hunter Biden’s stories conflict? Did the House ask either one that question?
Trump lawyer Pam Bondi, the former attorney general of Florida who days earlier had laid out the Biden-Burisma timeline, took the podium on the Senate floor to answer.
“It is very interesting he said he never spoke to his son about overseas dealings; his son said different things,” Bondi said. “Joe Biden was the [Obama administration’s] point man for Ukraine. At the time, Ukrainians were investigating a corrupt company, Burisma.”
In 2016, Biden has said publicly, he pressured the government of Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma, where Biden’s son had been on the board since 2014.
During on-camera remarks in 2018, Biden said he threatened Ukraine’s leaders that the country would not get $1 billion in U.S. assistance unless the government fired Shokin within hours.
Bondi noted that Burisma reportedly paid Biden $83,000 per month, although he had no qualifications in the energy sector. She said Burisma’s owner, oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, was known for being part of corruption in Ukraine.
“The entire time Joe Biden knows that this oligarch is corrupt. Everyone knows that. There are news reports everywhere. No one will dispute that,” Bondi said. “In fact, it raised eyebrows worldwide that the vice president, by his account, never once asked his son to leave the [Burisma] board. Instead, he started investigating the prosecutor who was going after Burisma and this corrupt oligarch, who they say was corrupt even by corrupt oligarch standards.”
“Then we hear the video of Joe Biden bragging about firing the prosecutor, linking it to aid,” Bondi added.
Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., one of the seven House impeachment managers, or prosecutors, steered away from a direct answer.
“I know you have asked about a conversation between a father and his son,” Demings said. “And what I can tell you is, probably like just about everyone in this chamber, there are probably some conversations that I can’t repeat about my conversations with my son. So I don’t know the answer to your question.”
She then said the Senate needed to hear from “fact witnesses,” and sought to pivot to familiar talking points of the prosecution team.
“We have no evidence to point to the fact that either Biden has anything at all to tell us about the president shaking down a foreign power to help him cheat in the next election, the precious election, trying to steal each individual’s vote,” Demings said.
4. Who Pays Rudy?
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., submitted a question that read: “It has been reported that President Trump has not paid Rudy Giuliani, his personal attorney, for his services. Can you explain who has paid for Rudy Giuliani’s legal fees, international travel, and other expenses in his capacity as President Trump’s attorney and representative?”
Schiff, D-Calif., the leader of the House prosecution team, stood to answer the question.
“I don’t know who is paying Rudy Giuliani’s fees,” Schiff said, adding:
If he is not being paid by the president to conduct this domestic political errand, for which he has devoted so much time, if other clients are paying and subsidizing his work in that respect, it raises profound questions, questions we can’t answer at this point.
There are some answers that we do know. As [Giuliani] has acknowledged, he’s not there doing foreign policy. So, when counsel for the president says this is a policy dispute, [that] you can’t impeach a president over policy, what Rudy Giuliani was engaged in has nothing to do with policy.
Schiff gave a hypothetical: What if Giuliani, a former New York mayor and federal prosecutor, brokered a quid pro quo with the Chinese? He argued that the president’s defense team would claim that would be OK.
“So, who is paying the freight for it?” Schiff asked. “I don’t know who is directly paying the freight for it, but I can tell you the whole country is paying the freight for it because there are leaders around the world who are watching this and saying the American presidency is open for business.”
With that comment, Schiff walked right into a rebuttal from Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow.
“What came out of the manager’s mouth: open for business,” Sekulow said, adding:
I’ll tell you who was open for business. You want to know who was open for business? When the vice president of the United States was charged by the then-president of the United States with developing policies to avoid and assist in removing corruption from Ukraine, and his son was on the board of a company that was under investigation … And you are concerned about what Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, was doing when he was over trying to determine what was going on in Ukraine?
Sekulow, however, did not say who was paying Giuliani.
5. White House Counsel: ‘Pelosi Was Right’
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., submitted a question on behalf of himself and several other Senate Republicans about something House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said.
Roberts read the question, which was directed only to the president’s counsel:
On March 6, 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: ‘Impeachment is so divisive that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country.’
Alexander Hamilton also warned in Federalist 65 against the ‘persecution of an intemperate or designing majority of the House of Representatives with respect to impeachment.’
In evaluating the case against the president, should the Senate take into account the partisan nature of the impeachment proceedings in the House?
White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who is leading Trump’s defense, responded: “Absolutely, you should take that into account.”
“Speaker Pelosi was right when she said that. Unfortunately, she didn’t follow her own advice,” Cipollone said. “We’ve never been in a situation where we have the impeachment of a president in an election year, with the goal of removing the president from the ballot. As I’ve said before, that is the most massive election interference we’ve ever witnessed. It’s domestic election interference. It’s political election interference. And it’s wrong.”
During a morning press conference, before the Senate convened, Pelosi suggested she would not accept the Senate’s verdict on the president if no witnesses are called.
“He will not be acquitted,” Pelosi said. “You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial. You don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and all of that. Does the president know right from wrong? I don’t think so.”
6. Obama and Bush Comparisons
Roberts read a question about abuse of power from Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, that brought up Trump’s two immediate predecessors, Barack Obama and George W. Bush.
“Under the standard embraced by the House managers, would President Obama have been subject to impeachment charges based on his handling of the Benghazi attack, the Bergdahl swap, or DACA?” Roberts read. “Would President Bush have been subject to impeachment charges based on his handling of NSA surveillance, detention of combatants, or use of waterboarding?”
Cipollone, the White House counsel, answered the question, saying that the House managers are making an argument with “no standard.”
“Presidents would be subject to impeachment for exercising long-standing constitutional rights even when the House chose not to enforce their subpoenas,” Cipollone said, adding: “You might want to get a lock on that door, because they are going to be back a lot if that’s the standard.”
The White House counsel continued:
I try to seek areas of agreement. I think we all agree they don’t allege a crime. That’s why they spend all their time saying you don’t need one. … No crime is necessary.
That’s not what impeachment is all about. This is dangerous. It’s more dangerous because it’s an election year. So, yes, under the standardless impeachment, any president could be impeached for anything and that’s wrong.
By the way, they [the House prosecutors] should be held to their own articles of impeachment. A lot of what they are trying to sell here, their own House colleagues weren’t buying. They didn’t make it into the articles of impeachment.
7. Campaign Finance Violation
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., submitted a question citing two Federal Election Commission opinions that anything of value given by a foreign country to a political campaign would be an illegal campaign contribution.
“How valuable would a public announcement [by Ukraine] of an investigation into the Bidens be for President Trump’s reelection campaign?” she asked.
Stabenow directed her question to both sides.
“The idea that these investigations were something of value was specifically examined by the Department of Justice, as I explained the other day,” Cipollone said. “… They announced back in September that there was no election law violation, because it did not qualify as a thing of value.”
The White House counsel added: “There would be tremendous First Amendment implications if someone attempted to enforce the laws that way.”
Schiff strongly challenged this view.
“How valuable would it be for the president to get Ukraine to announce his investigations? The answer is immensely valuable,” Schiff said, adding:
If it wasn’t going to be immensely valuable, why would the president go to such lengths to make it happen? Why would he be willing to violate the law, the Impoundment Control Act? Why would he willing to ignore the advice of all his national security professionals? Why would he be willing to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from an ally at war if he didn’t think it was going to really benefit his campaign? You have only to look at the president’s actions to determine just how valuable he believed it would be to him.
Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.
***
Other coverage of the impeachment trial for The Daily Signal by White House correspondent Fred Lucas includes:
6 Scenes From Day 8 of Trump Impeachment Trial
5 Big Points by Trump’s Lawyers as Defense Opens in Impeachment Trial
7 Big Moments in Democrats’ Final Arguments to Remove Trump
7 Highlights From Day 3 of the Trump Impeachment Trial
5 Flash Points From Impeachment Trial’s Opening Arguments
What to Know About Democrats’ 7 Impeachment Managers


dailysignal--2020-01-31--4 Big Moments Before the Senate’s Vote Against New Impeachment Witnesses

In the lead-up to the Senate vote not to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump , another John Bolton bombshell dropped , Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska rendered the debate moot , and the Senate chaplain almost stole the show .
About 5:40 p.m. Friday , the Senate voted 51-49 against calling witnesses , meaning the inevitable vote to acquit Trump on two articles of impeachment will come soon .
How soon is uncertain , but the final vote likely will be Wednesday .
Sens .
Mitt Romney , R-Utah , and Susan Collins , R-Maine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in voting for new witnesses as Democrats sought to convict and remove Trump from office nine months before the presidential election .
The House impeached Trump on Dec. 18 , alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and accusing Trump of tying military assistance to Ukraine to its agreement to investigate interference by the former Soviet republic in the 2016 U.S. election and the dealings there of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son , Hunter Biden .
After the vote against calling new witnesses , senators went on to confer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which would be after Trump delivers his State of the Union address Tuesday night .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , noted the House had numerous witnesses and 28,000-plus pages of documents already in evidence , which he said is enough for a Senate trial .
“ There is no need for the Senate to reopen the investigation , which the House Democratic majority chose to conclude and which the [ House impeachment ] managers themselves continue to describe as ‘ overwhelming ’ and ‘ beyond any doubt , ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Never in Senate history has this body paused an impeachment trial to pursue additional witnesses with unresolved questions of executive privilege that would require protracted litigation , ” McConnell said .
“ We have no interest in establishing such a new precedent , particularly for individuals whom the House expressly chose not to pursue.
” Here are highlights from the day on which the Senate heard arguments over calling witnesses .
Murkowski , an Alaska Republican , was among four Republicans considering voting to call witnesses , particularly after The New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book by Bolton , Trump ’ s former national security adviser , says Trump told Bolton that he sought to have the Ukraine government get information on Democrats .
To call new witnesses in addition to the 17 who testified in the House impeachment proceedings , it would have taken four Republicans to join the 47 senators in the Democrats ’ caucus .
Romney announced that he would vote to hear new witnesses , after Collins already had done so .
Sen. Lamar Alexander , R-Tenn. , had announced late Thursday that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year ’ s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.
” Alexander ’ s announcement signaled that Democrats would not be able to gain a majority for witnesses .
However , House Democrat managers argued that Chief Justice John Roberts could break a tie , based on precedent from the 1868 Senate trial of President Andrew Johnson .
Just before 2 p.m. , ending speculation about a tie , Murkowski announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she would not vote for witnesses .
She explained her reasons in a thread of five tweets in which she concluded that “ the Congress has failed.
” The Senate chaplain , Barry Black , who has opened each day of the trial with a prayer , made news with a prayer Friday that spurred media and social media speculation that Black was pushing senators for witnesses or a specific outcome .
“ Remind our senators that they alone are accountable to you for their conduct , ” Black said in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remember that they can ’ t ignore you and get away with it .
For we always reap what we sow.
” Black , a retired Navy rear admiral , became the 62nd Senate chaplain in 2003 .
The Baltimore native was commissioned as a Navy chaplain in 1976 .
His first duty station was the Fleet Religious Support Activity in Norfolk , Virginia .
Before the Senate debate on witnesses , The New York Times dropped another big story about Bolton , who Democrats wanted to call as a witness .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ resigned last year as Trump ’ s national security adviser , has a book coming out in March .
Rep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , leader of the seven House impeachment managers , read parts of the Times article on the Senate floor .
Later , excerpts were shown on a large screen .
“ Today , ” Schiff said , “ we were greeted to yet another development in the case when The New York Times reported with a headline that says , ‘ Trump told Bolton to help his Ukraine pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to The New York Times , more than two months before he asked Ukraine ’ s president to investigate , President Trump directed John R. Bolton , then his national security adviser , to help with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats from Ukrainian officials , according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton.
, ” Schiff said , reading from the Times .
The Times reported that the meeting included Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani , acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney , and White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s defense team at the Senate trial .
“ You will recall Mr. Cipollone suggesting that the House managers were concealing facts from this body .
He said all the facts should come out , ” Schiff said .
“ Well , there is a new fact , which indicates that Mr. Cipollone was among those in the loop .
Yet another reason why we ought to hear from witnesses.
” House manager Rep. Jason Crow , D-Colo. , warned senators about the judgment of history , since all the facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The truth continues to come out , again in an article today , more information , ” Crow said .
“ The truth will come out—and it ’ s continuing to .
The question here , before this body , is what do you want your place in history to be ?
Do you want your place in history to be let ’ s hear the truth , or that we don ’ t want to hear it ?
” Rep. Sylvia Garcia , D-Texas , argued that if Trump really is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow later countered that the House prosecution team seems to suggest the president must prove his innocence , which is not how the system works .
“ You ’ re not going to have a witness wand here , where we say , OK , you ’ ve got a week to do this and get it done , ” Sekulow said .
“ There is no way that would be proper under due process.
” Sekulow noted that the House had 17 witnesses , 13 of whom testified in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 192 video clips were shown from that public witness testimony during the course of the Senate trial .
Only the House took testimony .
Sekulow said that for a fair trial , the president ’ s legal team would have the right to cross-examine each witness : Sekulow added that the House Intelligence Committee , which Schiff chairs , opted not to subpoena Bolton , fearing it would delay a House impeachment vote into the new year .
Sekulow appealed to the Senate , saying it wasn ’ t their job to clean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a thorough investigation .
“ How many constitutional challenges will we have in this body because they placed a burden on you that they wouldn ’ t take themselves in putting their case forward ?
” Sekulow said .
“ We look at our constitutional framework and our constitutional structure .
That ’ s not the way it ’ s supposed to work , ” he said .
Other coverage of the impeachment trial for The Daily Signal by White House correspondent Fred Lucas includes : 7 Questions and Answers From Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Danger , Danger ’ : 4 Highlights From Final Day of Defense Arguments in Impeachment Trial Under Bolton Shadow , 6 Big Moments From Day 6 of Trump Impeachment Trial 5 Big Points by Trump ’ s Lawyers as Defense Opens in Impeachment Trial 7 Highlights From Day 3 of the Trump Impeachment Trial What to Know About Democrats ’ 7 Impeachment Managers

In the lead-up to the Senate vote not to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, another John Bolton bombshell dropped, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska rendered the debate moot, and the Senate chaplain almost stole the show.
About 5:40 p.m. Friday, the Senate voted 51-49 against calling witnesses, meaning the inevitable vote to acquit Trump on two articles of impeachment will come soon. How soon is uncertain, but the final vote likely will be Wednesday.
Sens. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, joined all Democrats and two Independents in voting for new witnesses as Democrats sought to convict and remove Trump from office nine months before the presidential election.
The House impeached Trump on Dec. 18, alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and accusing Trump of tying military assistance to Ukraine to its agreement to investigate interference by the former Soviet republic in the 2016 U.S. election and the dealings there of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.
After the vote against calling new witnesses, senators went on to confer about finishing the Senate trial by Wednesday, which would be after Trump delivers his State of the Union address Tuesday night.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., noted the House had numerous witnesses and 28,000-plus pages of documents already in evidence, which he said is enough for a Senate trial.
“There is no need for the Senate to reopen the investigation, which the House Democratic majority chose to conclude and which the [House impeachment] managers themselves continue to describe as ‘overwhelming’ and ‘beyond any doubt,’” McConnell said in a formal statement.
“Never in Senate history has this body paused an impeachment trial to pursue additional witnesses with unresolved questions of executive privilege that would require protracted litigation,” McConnell said. “We have no interest in establishing such a new precedent, particularly for individuals whom the House expressly chose not to pursue.”
Here are highlights from the day on which the Senate heard arguments over calling witnesses.
1. Murkowski Decides
Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, was among four Republicans considering voting to call witnesses, particularly after The New York Times reported Sunday that a forthcoming book by Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, says Trump told Bolton that he sought to have the Ukraine government get information on Democrats.
To call new witnesses in addition to the 17 who testified in the House impeachment proceedings, it would have taken four Republicans to join the 47 senators in the Democrats’ caucus.
Romney announced that he would vote to hear new witnesses, after Collins already had done so.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., had announced late Thursday that he would vote against calling witnesses, saying: “The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.”
Alexander’s announcement signaled that Democrats would not be able to gain a majority for witnesses.
However, House Democrat managers argued that Chief Justice John Roberts could break a tie, based on precedent from the 1868 Senate trial of President Andrew Johnson.
Sens. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., talk Friday during a recess in the Senate impeachment trial, Romney voted yes on calling witnesses, Alexander voted no. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Just before 2 p.m., ending speculation about a tie, Murkowski announced on Twitter and in a formal statement that she would not vote for witnesses. She explained her reasons in a thread of five tweets in which she concluded that “the Congress has failed.”
(1/5) I worked for a fair, honest, and transparent process, modeled after the Clinton trial, to provide ample time for both sides to present their cases, ask thoughtful questions, and determine whether we need more. — Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) January 31, 2020
(2/5) The House chose to send articles of impeachment that are rushed and flawed. I carefully considered the need for additional witnesses and documents, to cure the shortcomings of its process, but ultimately decided that I will vote against considering motions to subpoena. — Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) January 31, 2020
(3/5) Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. — Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) January 31, 2020
(4/5) It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed.
It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the Chief Justice. — Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) January 31, 2020
(5/5) I will not stand for nor support that effort. We have already degraded our institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish to pull down another.
We are sadly at a low point of division in this country. — Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) January 31, 2020
2. Flap Over Chaplain’s Prayer
The Senate chaplain, Barry Black, who has opened each day of the trial with a prayer, made news with a prayer Friday that spurred media and social media speculation that Black was pushing senators for witnesses or a specific outcome.
“Remind our senators that they alone are accountable to you for their conduct,” Black said in the prayer. “Lord, help them to remember that they can’t ignore you and get away with it. For we always reap what we sow.”
Black, a retired Navy rear admiral, became the 62nd Senate chaplain in 2003.
The Baltimore native was commissioned as a Navy chaplain in 1976. His first duty station was the Fleet Religious Support Activity in Norfolk, Virginia.
3. New Bolton Revelations
Before the Senate debate on witnesses, The New York Times dropped another big story about Bolton, who Democrats wanted to call as a witness. Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador who resigned last year as Trump’s national security adviser, has a book coming out in March.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., leader of the seven House impeachment managers, read parts of the Times article on the Senate floor. Later, excerpts were shown on a large screen.
“Today,” Schiff said, “we were greeted to yet another development in the case when The New York Times reported with a headline that says, ‘Trump told Bolton to help his Ukraine pressure campaign, book says.’”
“According to The New York Times, more than two months before he asked Ukraine’s president to investigate, President Trump directed John R. Bolton, then his national security adviser, to help with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats from Ukrainian officials, according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton.,” Schiff said, reading from the Times.
The Times reported that the meeting included Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and White House counsel Pat Cipollone.
Cipollone leads the president’s defense team at the Senate trial.
“You will recall Mr. Cipollone suggesting that the House managers were concealing facts from this body. He said all the facts should come out,” Schiff said. “Well, there is a new fact, which indicates that Mr. Cipollone was among those in the loop. Yet another reason why we ought to hear from witnesses.”
House manager Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., warned senators about the judgment of history, since all the facts will come out sooner or later.
“The truth continues to come out, again in an article today, more information,” Crow said. “The truth will come out—and it’s continuing to. The question here, before this body, is what do you want your place in history to be? Do you want your place in history to be let’s hear the truth, or that we don’t want to hear it?”
4. Trump Should ‘Prove’ Innocence
Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, argued that if Trump really is innocent, he would want witnesses:
If the president is telling the truth, and he did nothing wrong, and the evidence would prove that, then we all know he would be an enthusiastic supporter for subpoenas. He would be here probably himself if he could, urging you to do subpoenas if he had information proving he was totally not in the wrong. If he is innocent, he should have nothing to hide.
Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow later countered that the House prosecution team seems to suggest the president must prove his innocence, which is not how the system works.
“You’re not going to have a witness wand here, where we say, OK, you’ve got a week to do this and get it done,” Sekulow said. “There is no way that would be proper under due process.”
Sekulow noted that the House had 17 witnesses, 13 of whom testified in public. Further, he said, 192 video clips were shown from that public witness testimony during the course of the Senate trial.
Only the House took testimony. Sekulow said that for a fair trial, the president’s legal team would have the right to cross-examine each witness:
Due process is supposed to be for the person accused and they are turning it on its head. They brought the articles [of impeachment] before you. They are the ones who rushed the case up and then held it before you could actually start the proceedings. They are the ones who passed the articles before Christmas.
Sekulow added that the House Intelligence Committee, which Schiff chairs, opted not to subpoena Bolton, fearing it would delay a House impeachment vote into the new year.
Sekulow appealed to the Senate, saying it wasn’t their job to clean up after the House’s lack of a thorough investigation.
“How many constitutional challenges will we have in this body because they placed a burden on you that they wouldn’t take themselves in putting their case forward?” Sekulow said.
“We look at our constitutional framework and our constitutional structure. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work,” he said.
Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.
***
Other coverage of the impeachment trial for The Daily Signal by White House correspondent Fred Lucas includes:
7 Questions and Answers From Day 9 of Trump Impeachment Trial
6 Scenes From Day 8 of Trump Impeachment Trial
‘Danger, Danger, Danger’: 4 Highlights From Final Day of Defense Arguments in Impeachment Trial
Under Bolton Shadow, 6 Big Moments From Day 6 of Trump Impeachment Trial
5 Big Points by Trump’s Lawyers as Defense Opens in Impeachment Trial
7 Big Moments in Democrats’ Final Arguments to Remove Trump
7 Highlights From Day 3 of the Trump Impeachment Trial
5 Flash Points From Impeachment Trial’s Opening Arguments
What to Know About Democrats’ 7 Impeachment Managers


dailysignal--2020-02-03--Lindsey Graham Moves to Investigate Hunter Biden, Pledges Hearings on FISA Abuse

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham said Sunday that he and other Republicans will begin calling witnesses within weeks for hearings related to Hunter Biden ’ s work in Ukraine , as well as the FBI ’ s surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page .
“ We ’ re going to get to the bottom of this , ” Graham pledged in an interview on Fox News ’ “ Sunday Morning Futures.
” Graham urged Sen. Jim Risch , R-Idaho , chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee , to call the chief of staff to former Secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he reportedly raised about Burisma Holdings , a Ukrainian energy company where Biden served as a director .
Biden joined the firm in 2014 , shortly after his father , then-Vice President Joe Biden , took over as the Obama administration ’ s main liaison to Ukraine following the overthrow of its pro-Russia president , Viktor Yanukovych .
Republicans have questioned whether Joe Biden , as vice president in 2016 , improperly pressured the Ukrainian government to shut down an investigation into Burisma .
The elder Biden and Democrats have accused Republicans of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump .
Democrats allege that Trump pressured Ukraine ’ s new president , Volodymyr Zelenskyy , to open investigations into the Bidens in exchange for U.S. military aid .
The Senate is poised this week to vote to acquit Trump on two articles of impeachment related to his actions toward Ukraine .
Graham said he also wants to hear from Kerry ’ s stepson , Christopher Heinz , who was a business partner of Hunter Biden .
State Department emails show that Heinz contacted officials at Foggy Bottom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise red flags about Hunter Biden ’ s relationship with Burisma , which has been investigated for corruption .
The South Carolina senator said he also wants to hear from George Kent , a State Department official who testified in the Trump impeachment hearings that he raised concerns about Burisma in 2016 .
Graham said Republicans will “ eventually get to Hunter Biden ” after the first round of witnesses are called .
He also said he “ can prove beyond any doubt ” that Joe Biden ’ s efforts to root out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ son ’ s position on Burisma ’ s board .
“ We ’ re not going to give him a pass on that , ” Graham said .
Graham said his committee expects to call former top FBI officials James Comey and Andrew McCabe and former Justice Department officials Rod Rosenstein and Sally Yates to testify about warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act , or FISA , that they signed in order to wiretap Page .
“ When it comes to FISA , I ’ m going to call Rosenstein , Sally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find out how a warrant was issued to [ surveil ] Carter Page on four different occasions without adequate foundation and find out about how the Department of Justice and FBI became so out of bounds when it came to Trump , ” Graham said .
The Justice Department inspector general issued a report Dec. 9 that found the FBI submitted false and misleading information about Page to obtain the four warrants .
The Justice Department conceded Jan. 7 that two of the warrants were “ not valid.
” The inspector general ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inform the secretive court that issues FISA orders about exculpatory information related to Page .
The report also said that investigators failed to disclose numerous problems with the so-called Steele dossier , which the FBI cited extensively in its FISA applications .
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 opportunities of our original content , email [ email protected ]

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham said Sunday that he and other Republicans will begin calling witnesses within weeks for hearings related to Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine, as well as the FBI’s surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
“We’re going to get to the bottom of this,” Graham pledged in an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”
Graham urged Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to call the chief of staff to former Secretary of State John Kerry to testify about concerns he reportedly raised about Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company where Biden served as a director.
Biden joined the firm in 2014, shortly after his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, took over as the Obama administration’s main liaison to Ukraine following the overthrow of its pro-Russia president, Viktor Yanukovych.
Republicans have questioned whether Joe Biden, as vice president in 2016, improperly pressured the Ukrainian government to shut down an investigation into Burisma. The elder Biden and Democrats have accused Republicans of using the Burisma issue to distract from impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.
Democrats allege that Trump pressured Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to open investigations into the Bidens in exchange for U.S. military aid.
The Senate is poised this week to vote to acquit Trump on two articles of impeachment related to his actions toward Ukraine.
Graham said he also wants to hear from Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Heinz, who was a business partner of Hunter Biden. State Department emails show that Heinz contacted officials at Foggy Bottom on May 13, 2014, to raise red flags about Hunter Biden’s relationship with Burisma, which has been investigated for corruption.
The South Carolina senator said he also wants to hear from George Kent, a State Department official who testified in the Trump impeachment hearings that he raised concerns about Burisma in 2016.
Graham said Republicans will “eventually get to Hunter Biden” after the first round of witnesses are called. He also said he “can prove beyond any doubt” that Joe Biden’s efforts to root out corruption in Ukraine were undermined by his son’s position on Burisma’s board.
“We’re not going to give him a pass on that,” Graham said.
Graham said his committee expects to call former top FBI officials James Comey and Andrew McCabe and former Justice Department officials Rod Rosenstein and Sally Yates to testify about warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, that they signed in order to wiretap Page.
“When it comes to FISA, I’m going to call Rosenstein, Sally Yates, McCabe, and Comey to find out how a warrant was issued to [surveil] Carter Page on four different occasions without adequate foundation and find out about how the Department of Justice and FBI became so out of bounds when it came to Trump,” Graham said.
The Justice Department inspector general issued a report Dec. 9 that found the FBI submitted false and misleading information about Page to obtain the four warrants. The Justice Department conceded Jan. 7 that two of the warrants were “not valid.”
The inspector general’s report said FBI agents failed to inform the secretive court that issues FISA orders about exculpatory information related to Page.
The report also said that investigators failed to disclose numerous problems with the so-called Steele dossier, which the FBI cited extensively in its FISA applications.
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 opportunities of our original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.