Beth Baumann


The White House on Sunday notified House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NJ) that they would not be participating in the Committee’s impeachment hearings scheduled for Wednesday.

“As you know, this baseless and highly partisan inquiry violates all past historical precedent, basic due process rights, and fundamental fairness,” White House Counsel Pat Cipollone wrote to Nadler.

In his letter, he blasted Nadler for giving the White House little time to respond to the letter and for scheduling the hearings “during the time that you know the President will be out of the country attending the NATO Leaders Meeting in London.”

Cipollone also suggested the hearing is a waste of time because it will focus on the “historical and constitutional basis of impeachment,” and will feature academics, not witnesses relating to Ukraine or the current impeachment inquiry.

Nadler sent another letter with a different deadline, something Cipollone said provides absolutely no details for the White House.

“Again, your letter provided no information whatsoever as to what the schedule will be, what the procedures will be, or what rights, if any, the Committee intends to afford the President,” he wrote. “In other words, you have given no information regarding your plans, set arbitrary deadlines, and then demand a response, all to create the false appearance of providing the President some rudimentary process.”

Cipollone said the White House would respond further if Nadler provided any further information.

He did, however, blast Nadler for making it seem as though he was affording Trump and his legal team any sort of due process. According to Cipollone, Nadler isn’t following past precedent, like during the Clinton impeachment saga. When the Clinton impeachment hearings took place, the president’s legal team had two-and-a-half weeks to prepare and allowed the president to have a say in a hearing date. None of those things have been done in this case, Cipollone said.

The White House Counsel slammed the Democrats for the moves they’ve made thus far, specifically House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) refusal to allow Trump to participate in closed-door hearings.

“There, Chairman Schiff attempted to concoct a false narrative through selective citation of the testimony of witnesses of his choosing, after vetting them during closed-door depositions hidden from both the President and the American public,” he wrote. “The President was not allowed to present evidence, to call witnesses, to cross examine witnesses, or to even see transcripts until weeks after testimony had been taken, and he was allowed absolutely no participation in the public hearings that followed. Further, witness requests made by Republicans were denied. In addition, certain questioning of the witnesses who did testify was censored by Democrats.”

Cipollone pointed out the clear difference between the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings and the Democrats’ current impeachment push. In the past, both parties had subpoena powers. In the Trump impeachment inquiry, only Democrats have that power and any Republican requests have been stifled. He argued that this will cause “long term institutional harm.”

The announcement comes after Nadler sent the White House a letter telling them they have until 5 p.m. EST on December 6th to let the Committee know whether or not Trump’s legal counsel will participate in the hearings. The Committee Chairman sent a similar letter to Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-GA) letting him know he has the same deadline to send a list of witnesses to Committee Democrats to review. Although Republicans can issue subpoenas and interrogatories, Nadler has the final say in whether or not they can and will be issued.

Author: Beth Baumann

Source: Town Hall: White House Sends Blistering Response to Nadler: No, We Aren’t Participating in Your Bogus Hearings

House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) on Sunday told “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan Democrats failed to prove a quid pro quo took place during President Donald Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“No one’s testified there’s been a quid pro quo,” Jordan explained. “Everyone’s got second, third, fourth-hand information. Mr. Morrison, who was on the call, said he didn’t think anything was improper or illegal in the call. Ms. Williams didn’t think anything improper or illegal happened in the call.”

The congressman reminded Brennan of one important tidbit, the same one he has made in the past: the four facts surround the call have not changed.

“That’s the funny thing about facts. They don’t change. The fact that we have the transcript and there was no linkage of any type of assertion of dollars for an investigation on the call. We have the two guys on the call. President Trump and President Zelensky said no pressure and no linkage,” he explained. “My point is that he [Zelensky] didn’t know that their aid was held up at the time of the call. And, most importantly, they didn’t do anything, any specific action or investigation to get the aid released.”

Democrats have continually said President Trump threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine unless Zelensky launched an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. At the time, the VP was handling international relations with Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration. Hunter was being paid $50,000 a month by Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company, despite having no natural energy experience. Trump asked Zelensky to look into the corruption but the transcript showed there was no quid pro quo.

Author: Beth Baumann

Source: Town Hall: Jim Jordan: ‘No One Has Testified That There Has Been a Quid Pro Quo’

The House Ethics Committee on Wednesday announced its intent to investigate freshman Congresswoman Katie Hill (D-CA) for having an extra-marital affair with a congressional staffer. The announcement was made after intimate photos of Hill were posted online without her consent.

The Committee is aware of public allegations that Representative Katie Hill may have engaged in a sexual relationship with an individual on her congressional staff, in violation of House Rule XXIII, clause 18(a). The Committee, pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), has begun an investigation and will gather additional information regarding the allegations.

The Committee notes that the mere fact that it is investigating these allegations, and publicly disclosing its review, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee. No other public comment will be made on this matter except in accordance with Committee rules.

Two weeks ago, our friends at RedState broke news that Hill was allegedly having an affair with her Legislative Director, Graham Kelly, and a throuple relationship with a female campaign staffer, whose name has yet to be released.

Hill has repeatedly said she’s going through a divorce from her abusive husband but text messages show Hill, her husband, Kenny Heslep, and the female staffer had an ongoing relationship. The husband admits in text messages to the campaign staffer that he and Hill abused her.

According to RedState, this is the letter Hill sent out to constituents (emphasis mine):

To my family, friends, supporters and members of my community,

It pains me deeply that I have to send you this note at all, but I want you to hear from me so that I can hopefully put to rest some of the gossip, innuendo and lies that have been told in recent days.

During the final tumultuous years of my abusive marriage, I became involved in a relationship with someone on my campaign. I know that even a consensual relationship with a subordinate is inappropriate, but I still allowed it to happen despite my better judgment. For that I apologize. I wish nothing but the best for her and hope everyone respects her privacy in this difficult time.

But the truth is, distributing intimate photos with the intent to publish them is a crime, and the perpetrator should be punished to the full extent of the law. I have notified Capitol Police, who are investigating it, and therefore will have no further comment on the matter.

I am going through a divorce from an abusive husband who seems determined to try to humiliate me. I am disgusted that my opponents would seek to exploit such a private matter for political gain. This coordinated effort to try to destroy me and the people close to me is despicable and will not succeed. I, like many women who have faced attacks like this before, am stronger than those who want me to be afraid.

I am saddened that the deeply personal matter of my divorce has been brought into public view, even the false allegations of a relationship with my congressional staffer, which I have publicly denied, and I am fully and proactively cooperating with the Ethics Committee.

This smear campaign will not get in the way of the work I am doing every day to move our district and our country forward. I am truly grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from colleagues and constituents alike, and I know we will get through this together.

There is important work to do on behalf of our district and I promise to keep working as hard as I can to fight for the ideals that I committed to from day one. Out of respect for the law enforcement and the Ethics Committee, I will not have more to say on this subject until their work is concluded.

House Rule XXIII, clause 18(a) clearly states a member of Congress cannot engage in a sexual relationship with an employee:

18. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not engage in a sexual relationship with any employee of the House who works under the supervision of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, or who is an employee of a committee on which the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner serves. This paragraph does not apply with respect to any relationship between two people who are married to each other.

Hill can make this out to be a smear tactic but really, she’s upset that she got caught doing something that she’s not supposed to. This has nothing to do with her politics or her being a woman. This has everything to do with her breaking a very simple, easy-to-understand rule.

Author: Beth Baumann

Source: Town Hall: House Ethics Committee Launches Investigation Into Katie Hill’s Sexcapades With Staffers

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sat down with Texas Tribune CEO Evan Smith for a Q&A session. One of the questions that came up was very political in nature: Isn’t Pelosi worried about the Democrats losing their majority in the House in 2020, especially on the heels of her formal impeachment inquiry announcement.

“I wanna ask you, Speaker, heading into the next election cycle, do you have any anxiety at all, about anything we’re talking about, or anything we’re not talking about, impacting your ability to hold control of the House in 2020?” Smith asked, a clear reference to the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

“It doesn’t matter,” she replied.

“It doesn’t matter?” he asked.

“Our first responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” Pelosi said.

According to the Speaker, she doesn’t take any joy in moving forward with an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, ABC News reported.

“This is a very sad time for our country. There is no joy in this,” she said. “We must be somber, we must be prayerful and we must pursue the facts further to make a decision as to did this violate the Constitution of the United States? Which I believe it did.”

“I’m heartbroken about it. I would just have hoped that there would be something exculpatory, something that would say, ‘This is not what it seems to be,’ but that’s not where we are right now,” she said. “I think that right now there’s a cover up of the cover up. This really goes beyond.”

Pelosi said the political risk “doesn’t matter” because the president took an oath that he needs to uphold.

“We cannot have a President of the United States undermining his oath of office. His loyalty is to his oath of office,” she explained.

She argued Trump is undermining the United States’ national security and the integrity of our elections.

“Our elections are the fundamental point of our democracy,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi sure is changing her tune. It wasn’t long ago that she refused to move forward with impeaching Trump. Now we’re suddenly at this major crossroads where election meddling took place? She announced her official impeachment inquiry before anyone knew what the transcripts of President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said. It’s hard for anyone to take this political charade seriously, especially when there’s absolutely zero evidence of quid pro quo.

Author: Beth Baumann

Source: Town Hall: Pelosi: It Doesn’t Matter If Dems Lose The House Over Impeachment

President Donald Trump delivered a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition on Saturday. During his remarks he took the opportunity to mock Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), the Congresswoman who believes people hold a dual allegiance to the United States and Israel if they are pro-Israel.

“And a special thanks to Rep. Omar of Minnesota. Oh, oh — oh, I forgot. She doesn’t like Israel, I forgot. I’m so sorry. Oh,” Trump mocks. “No she doesn’t like Israel, does she?”

Of course, Democrats were quick to slam Trump for his comments.

For some reason, Democrats seem to think that if anyone criticizes Rep. Omar that they’re suddenly advocating for violence against her. They seem to think Trump saying Omar doesn’t like Israel is condemning what death threats she received on Friday. But it doesn’t.

It is possible to slam Omar for her anti-Semitic tropes. It is possible to condone someone sending her death threats because they disagree with her policies.

Why is it so hard for Democrats to see that not everything is as black and white as they like to make it?

Author: Beth Baumann

Source: Townhall: Cue The Outrage: Trump Mocks Ilhan Omar At A Republican Jewish Coalition Event And Liberals Are Triggered

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!