Author

Matt Vespa

Browsing

Let the word go forth: kids don’t get it and they don’t spread it. Also, don’t watch MSNBC or CNN. Actually, you should watch MSNBC which compiled multiple pediatricians who said it was time to get kids back to school. Yes, it seems the experts are actually supporting President Trump’s position that schools should re-open in the fall. MSNBC host Craig Melvin’s face at the end of all of these doctors pretty much dispelling the COVID panic porn being peddled by the national media. You’d think sending your kids back to school would be a death sentence. Granted, the experts have been wrong before, and this group of people has peddled some absolute garbage advice regarding this virus. The best being that everyone else must stay inside now, unless you’re gathering to conduct a mass Black Lives Matter protest because, you see, issues of moral urgency makes the virus non-transmittable in these settings. So, what to make of this? The best part is that liberals who shovel down the propaganda by the liberal media probably either ignored this segment or refuse to believe it was real.

Still, the evidence is piling up that kids don’t get it and don’s spread. Over to the University of Vermont, which noted that kids rarely transmit the virus, which isn’t as lethal as the seasonal flu, albeit safety guidelines should be followed: (via UVM) [emphasis mine]

A commentary published in the journal Pediatrics, the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, concludes that children infrequently transmit Covid-19 to each other or to adults and that many schools, provided they follow appropriate social distancing guidelines and take into account rates of transmission in their community, can and should reopen in the fall.

The authors, Benjamin Lee, M.D. and William V. Raszka, Jr., M.D., are both pediatric infectious disease specialists on the faculty of the University of Vermont’s Larner College of Medicine. Dr. Raszka is an associate editor of Pediatrics.

The authors of the commentary, titled “COVID-19 Transmission and Children: The Child Is Not to Blame,” base their conclusions on a new study published in the current issue of Pediatrics, “COVID-19 in Children and the Dynamics of Infection in Families,” and four other recent studies that examine Covid-19 transmission by and among children.

In the new Pediatrics study, Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, M.D., a faculty member at University of Geneva’s medical school, and her colleagues studied the households of 39 Swiss children infected with Covid-19. Contract tracing revealed that in only three (8%) was a child the suspected index case, with symptom onset preceding illness in adult household contacts.

[…]

In a French study, a boy with Covid-19 exposed over 80 classmates at three schools to the disease. None contracted it. Transmission of other respiratory diseases, including influenza transmission, was common at the schools.

In a study in New South Wales, nine infected students and nine staff across 15 schools exposed a total of 735 students and 128 staff to Covid-19. Only two secondary infections resulted, one transmitted by an adult to a child.

“The data are striking,” said Dr. Raszka. “The key takeaway is that children are not driving the pandemic. After six months, we have a wealth of accumulating data showing that children are less likely to become infected and seem less infectious; it is congregating adults who aren’t following safety protocols who are responsible for driving the upward curve.”

Rising cases among adults and children in Texas childcare facilities, which have seen 894 Covid-19 cases among staff members and 441 among children in 883 child care facilities across the state, have the potential to be misinterpreted, Dr. Raszka said. He has not studied the details of the outbreak.

“There is widespread transmission of Covid-19 in Texas today, with many adults congregating without observing social distancing or wearing masks,” he said. “While we don’t yet know the dynamics of the outbreak, it is unlikely that infants and young children in daycare are driving the surge. Based on the evidence, it’s more plausible that adults are passing the infection to the children in the vast majority of cases.”

Trump supports reopening schools, so you can bet two things will happen. The media will frame him as wanting kids to die, which is very transparent since that’s exactly what the media wants to happen. Hell, they’re jacked up on all these new cases, hoping for an increased death toll. They want more people to die, and if kids are included, the better chances there are to boot Trump from office. It’s horrific. It’s nasty, but that’s the national media. They’re enemies of the people, hoping to keep up afraid. The other end of this panic is to ensure there’s a reason to cancel the upcoming presidential debates. Joe Biden doesn’t know where he is, he’s mind is being eaten by worms, and he wouldn’t last two seconds against Trump. One bad debate can torpedo these supposed polls showing him in good standing with voters. The Democrat-media complex needs a reason to make a case to end the debates, and that would be children dying by the fistful from COVID, despite lack of evidence that they get it, die from it, or spread it. Parents will make their decisions of course, as they should, but ignore CNN’s panic room echo chamber. If the media had their way, we’d all be welded shut in our homes, except for Antifa, where tens of millions more would lose their jobs, the economy would be trashed, and we wouldn’t be allowed outside until nothing could hurt us. Luckily, we can simply tune out these clowns.

Author: Matt Vespa

Source: Town Hall: MSNBC Host’s Face After Pediatricians Say It’s Time to Send Kids Back to School Is Priceless

The loose ends of the Trump-Russia collusion myth are being tied up. Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell declassified troves of documents relating to this investigation. This comes after new documents showed that ex-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was the victim of an FBI entrapment plot.

The FBI had no evidence to subject Flynn to an interview for a counterintelligence probe into Russian collusion. There was no evidence that he should have ever been the subject of a federal investigation period. The FBI knew this and still went ahead because then-FBI Director James Comey and then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe were going to try and get him at all costs. It was a malicious prosecution, which led to the Department of Justice dropping the criminal charges, though the judge, Emmet Sullivan, is trying to keep the case alive for reasons you could probably guess.

What we’ve learned is that on January 5, 2017, Barack Obama met with his top intelligence and national security officials to discuss how to protect the ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation. If anything, the best outcome would be for the incoming Trump administration to not know about it—a tall order. The reason for Flynn actually being roped into this is that he was doing his job. He spoke with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and this was weaponized against him. It was outrageous.

Declassified Susan Rice E-M… by The Federalist on Scribd

On January 20, 2017, Rice sent an email to herself, the contents were classified until now (via Fox News):

Rice’s email to herself was first flagged in 2018 by Grassley, R-Iowa, the former Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who now sits as chairman of the panel. The email was partially unclassified at the time and appeared to detail the Jan. 5, 2017, meeting, which included Obama, Rice, then-FBI Director James Comey, then-CIA Director John Brennan, and then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Vice President Joe Biden.

“President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book,’” Rice emailed to herself. “The president stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.”

The email also appeared to reflect Obama’s guidance on sharing sensitive information with both the Russians and the incoming Trump administration.

Rice wrote that Obama said, “he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”

[…]

After the briefing, Obama asked Yates and Comey to “stay behind,” and said he had “learned of the information about Flynn” and his conversation with Russia’s ambassador about sanctions. Obama “specified that he did not want any additional information on the matter, but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently, given the information.”

At that point, the document said, “Yates had no idea what the president was talking about, but figured it out based on the conversation. Yates recalled Comey mentioning the Logan Act, but can’t recall if he specified there was an ‘investigation.’ Comey did not talk about prosecution in the meeting.”

This would eventually lead to Flynn being interviewed, amid supposed concern he had violated the obscure and never-successfully-enforced Logan Act, and later pleading guilty to lying to investigators about his Kislyak talks. He later sought to withdraw that plea.

Sean Davis at The Federalist noted that this email shows that Flynn was targeted for destruction during this key meeting. It proves that Obama’s marching orders were efficiently and ruthlessly carried out. Again, not something that y’all didn’t know. You’ve known about the shady Obama DOJ for quite some time. It’s for the liberal media folks in the back who mocked us for peddling what they saw as tin foil hat fodder. Nope. The FBI went after Flynn. The FBI weaponized a piece of politically biased opposition research funded by the Democrats and the Clinton campaign that was unverified and loaded with Russian misinformation. And there was no Trump-Russia collusion. All that remains is for Flynn to be rid of this case, which sadly won’t end anytime soon.

Author: Matt Vespa

Source: Town Hall: We Now Know What Susan Rice Emailed to Herself on Trump’s Inauguration Day

This is a common theme when it comes to Democrats trying to corner or destroy Trump. They fail. It blows up. Whatever they think could be something that could embarrass or destroy this administration turns out to be a nothingburger. It’s the same thing with the whole Russia-Trump collusion myth. How many bombshells did we hear about? How many turned out to be nothing? The amount of buckshot Democrats have embedded in their faces cannot be measured. Before the Trump impeachment circus ended, Senate Democrats tried to get extra witnesses into the fold. That’s not how this works. Again, there were 17 witnesses—all picked by Democrats. And they wanted more? If they wanted to go this route, they should have settled this in the House. They didn’t. You don’t get to break procedure because your case, already shoddy, didn’t move the public opinion needle with regards to booting Trump. If anything, it only helped the president who saw his approval numbers increase and pushed swing states further away from Democrats.

The one witness that Democrats wanted was former National Security Adviser John Bolton. They wanted his testimony. They thought it had something in there that could destroy Trump. And after the Senate rightfully gave Trump a total and full acquittal, after the media freaked out, and after Democrats threw a tantrum—Bolton finally says that the impeachment push was a partisan clown show and his testimony wouldn’t have helped Democrats (via Associated Press):

Former national security adviser John Bolton on Wednesday denounced the House’s impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump as ”grossly partisan” and said his testimony would not have changed Trump’s acquittal in the Senate, as he continued to stay quiet on the details of a yet-to-be-released book.

In his second public discussion this week, Bolton was on stage at Vanderbilt University with former national security adviser under President Barack Obama, Susan Rice, who questioned Bolton’s refusal to discuss more details while his book undergoes screening for possible classified national security details by the Trump administration. Bolton was likewise quiet on specifics from the book during a Monday speaking engagement at Duke University.

[…]

Bolton contended that the House “committed impeachment malpractice,” drawing some grumbling from the audience, saying “the process drove Republicans who might have voted for impeachment away because it was so partisan.” He also said he didn’t expect the Senate to vote against having him testify.

“People can argue about what I should have said and what I should have done,” Bolton said. “I would bet you a dollar right here and now, my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome.”

So, once again, another failed Democratic attempt to outmaneuver this administration. Trump won and the Democrats lost. And all this push did was give Donald Trump the largest in-kind contribution towards his 2020 re-election effort.

Author: Matt Vespa

Source: Daily Caller: John Bolton: Trump’s Impeachment Was a Partisan Circus and My Testimony Wouldn’t Have Helped Democrats

UPDATE: Here we go…

Today is the day. The ball gets rolling on this Trump impeachment sham that has engulfed the nation for the better part of this year. The Democrats have been planning this since day one of the Trump presidency. Yet, in 2018, the Democrats retook the House and this whole circus began to come together. Democrats couldn’t use Russian collusion as their main salvo because ex-Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report torpedoed it. The hearings further damaged the collusion narrative which was a media-manufactured myth that was peddled for more than two years. Democrats clung to this conspiracy theory like grim death despite numerous bombshells being gutted due to lack of evidence. To this day, there is zero evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. They’re now using this July phone call Trump has with the Ukrainians where he supposedly threatened to withhold military aid unless an investigation into Hunter Biden’s position at Burisma, an energy company, was launched. Biden’s job there is suspect and the presidential campaign of his father, Joe Biden, has so far been unable to get this story out of the news cycle.

ted to impeach, the articles have finally been transmitted after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat on them for a few weeks (wasn’t this an urgent matter?), and their impeachment managers have been selected. It was a cause for celebration on the Left. At noon, the managers will read aloud the articles in the Senate. At 2 pm, Chief Justice John Roberts will walk over to swear-in all the members of the Senate. The trial begins on Tuesday, according to Fox News’ Chad Pergram. Senate Republicans have declared they can proceed in this trial without witnesses, a Democratic demand, and have the votes to shoot them down. Democrats want only four, including former National Security Adviser John Bolton. If that’s the case, then Democrats have to accept any GOP witnesses, which should include Hunter and Joe Biden, the latter of which said he would not testify even if compelled by a subpoena. Isn’t that obstruction of Congress? One of the two charges against Trump that is not only utterly laughable but reeks of partisanship. It’s why this impeachment push is not popular with those who aren’t Democrats.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram tweeted out the docket for today:

Trump’s legal team is reportedly aiming to block witnesses through invoking good ole’ executive privilege as well. They noted that a former top-level White House official detailing a conversation with the president about national security or foreign policy matter would be “extraordinary,” according to The Washington Post. As with anything, keep your eye out on this. It could change knowing the press corps inability to cover this White House accurately. The publication noted that White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow, and deputy White House counsel Pat Philbin will be key players in the president’s defense (via WaPo) [emphasis mine]:

White House lawyers are trying to engineer the fastest impeachment trial in American history, aiming to have President Trump acquitted by the Senate without witnesses and after just a few days of proceedings, according to senior administration officials.

[…]

“I think it’s extraordinarily unlikely that we’d be going beyond two weeks,” said a senior administration official, who briefed reporters Wednesday on the condition of anonymity. “We think that this case is overwhelming for the president, and the Senate’s not going to be having any need to be taking that amount of time on this.”

President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial in 1868 lasted 11 weeks. President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999 lasted more than a month.

The trial, which begins Thursday in the Senate, will be the Trump legal team’s first official attempt to substantively defend the president against charges that he abused his power by politicizing the U.S. relationship with Ukraine and obstructed Congress by blocking lawmakers’ attempt to investigate him.

[…]

White House aides are also gaming out how to manage Trump during the trial, which they expect him to watch and possibly tweet about while it is underway, as he did during the House impeachment hearings, according to the officials. Trump allies plan to have several surrogates on television defending the president during the trial. Republican House members, many of whom jockeyed for official roles on the defense team for the Senate trial, will instead fan out across television networks to ensure that the president’s message gets out and that Trump feels he is receiving a robust defense, the officials said.

[…]

A senior administration official briefing reporters said that House Democrats’ case lacked evidence of wrongdoing by Trump, but the official refused to address new documentary evidence that Democrats say further implicates the president.

The official indicated that Trump is likely block efforts by Democrats to further build their case through new witnesses, including former national security adviser John Bolton. Allowing testimony from a former presidential aide about his discussions with Trump on foreign policy would be “extraordinary,” said the official, who added that he did not think the Senate should hear from any witnesses. Another official said the White House was prepared to exert executive privilege if the Senate subpoenas Bolton, who has said he is willing to testify under subpoena about Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

Yeah, there’s a reason why no one who is serious should take this so-called new evidence seriously.

This show is about to get rolling. Democrats have reduced the benchmark to impeach because they’re entitled children who think they’re entitled to win every election. In the meantime, no one cares about this impeachment push, its support numbers are now underwater nationally, Trump’s approval ratings have increased, and swing-state voters are decidedly sour on this whole kangaroo court move by Democrats. Trump is more popular than Democrats think and with a booming economy at his back with no signs of slowing up, that doesn’t bode well for their weak 2020 field either.

(H/T Ed Morrissey/Hot Air)

Author: Matt Vespa

Source: Town Hall: How Trump’s Legal Team Will Try to Execute the Fastest Impeachment Trial in American History

The Senate Republican playbook should be put House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on mute and get this trial started. Pelosi and the Democrats have no say in the matter. They don’t. And by withholding the articles of impeachment against President Trump because they know it faces certain death in the Republican Senate creates a new constitutional crisis of its own. This isn’t about a fair trial. As Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel noted, a trial would only further degrade their position in the polls on this impeachment push. It was never popular from the start, and now it’s underwater nationally. It’s especially not popular in the key swing states that Democrats have to win in 2020. I think Democrats know this is a fiasco, the smart ones at least, but they made a 2018 promise to the base to impeach the president. They have to keep it. Strassel noted that Pelosi isn’t a scrub when it comes to political strategy; she can hang in there with McConnell. But the goal of this whole circus is to keep the idea of impeachment alive. It’s “rolling impeachment,” as Strassel noted. And it’s cancerous to constitutional order, but also the Senate GOP could enable it if they think the end goal is to nab a fair trial (via WSJ):

Republicans dismiss Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s refusal to transmit the impeachment articles to the Senate as a weak stunt. They do so at the peril of both the Constitution and President Trump. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may be a master tactician, but Mrs. Pelosi is no slouch.

[…]

How would it benefit Democrats for the Senate to conduct an efficient and solemn proceeding? The House inquiry was a farce, riddled with procedural gamesmanship and shifting definitions of “high crimes.” A serious Senate trial would only further highlight the weakness of the House case. It would also require Democratic presidential contenders including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar to abandon the stump and return to Washington for most of January, on the eve of the crucial Iowa caucuses—or else shirk their senatorial duty.

Mrs. Pelosi has understood from the start that the inevitable outcome was acquittal. There won’t be 20 Republican votes to remove Mr. Trump from office. So why hasten the president’s vindication? If the goal of this exercise all along was to damage Mr. Trump’s prospects for re-election, why wouldn’t Democrats want to hold an unconsummated impeachment over his head for as long as politically possible?

Think of it as “rolling” impeachment. Every day the Senate doesn’t hold a trial, Mrs. Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are free to argue that the process is rigged. They are already claiming that the Senate’s Republican “jurors” have abandoned impartiality, are actively working with Mr. Trump to cover up his crimes, and are afraid to hold a trial.

This bears no relation to reality and is the height of cheek given the House circus. But it’s fodder for the press corps and it may resonate with some voters. More important, it puts daily pressure on Senate Republican moderates to break with Mr. McConnell.

[…]

And as long as the Senate doesn’t hold a trial, Democrats can add additional “crimes” to their case against the president. House lawyers this week argued in federal court that former White House counsel Don McGahn must be forced to testify to the House. They told the court the House may “recommend new articles of impeachment” if Mr. McGahn’s testimony included evidence that the president obstructed special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

How long will this charade go on? As long as Democrats can get away with it.

Now, as impeachment has dominated the news, the more unpopular it has become. If anything, Trump’s approval rating has increased and pushed the battleground states further out of reach. Now, Strassel noted the pressure on moderate GOP senators. There was a bite; Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)—who said she was “disturbed” by McConnell’s actions regarding handling this impeachment fiasco. Yet, she doesn’t hold 20 markers. Still, Democrats going all-in on this whole push damaging his re-election chances. It’s too late now. In the meantime, this unpopular push that’s seen as nakedly partisan and not in the name of the rule of law and institutional integrity, coupled with the looney left-wing 2020 agenda Democrats are putting out there—is only giving Trump a second term. As annoying as this whole circus is, on face value, it could be positive for Trump since the case is super weak. It all depends on whether the Senate Republicans want to deliver the headshot to this mess.

Author: Matt Vespa

Source: Town Hall: WSJ Columnist Details What the Democrats Are Really Doing with This Impeachment Holdup Game

San Francisco is a liberal cesspool. And people are just pooping all over the place. They’re shameless. The city has a poop patrol. It reportedly has opened more public restrooms, but the city is still covered in feces and used needles. And people are still pooping everywhere. You saw that when a man strolled into a Safeway in Nancy Pelosi’s congressional district and casually defecated in the aisle. So, we have the feces police and all of these public initiatives to keep the city clean. The city spent $94 million this year, roughly a little over a quarter of a million a day, to keep the streets clean. Residents are still waiting to see their money’s worth—and Safeway poop man trashed any narrative that progress was being made (via SF Chronicle):

Between street sweeping crews, staffed portable toilets and sidewalk steamers, San Francisco spent $94 million — or about $257,534 a day this year — trying to keep the city clean. And while progress has been made, the effort remains a losing battle.

The years of trench warfare between cleanup crews and bad actors was laid out clearly in two images Monday.

The first image was of Mayor London Breed flanked by city, civic and tourist industry leaders standing together in front of the giant Christmas tree at Union Square. The intent was to reassure tourists that the city is taking seriously concerns about its squalid streets and people behaving badly.

[…]

Here’s a pic of a man on drugs taking a poo in aisle 10 of the (Marina) Safeway, Sunday morning in #SF. Why is this okay?” tweeted Deborah Kan.

He “had plenty of time to find the toilet paper aisle, but not the actual bathroom,” Matt Estrada added in a second tweet.

The publication added that software titan Oracle, which had held its annual convention in San Francisco for nearly two decades, decided to host its event in Las Vegas because the city is absolute trash. It’s not just the serial poopers or drug users. It’s the hordes of homeless people that not only dot San Francisco but major urban areas along the west coast. You get what you pay for when you vote for Democrats to run things.

Flashback:

Author: Matt Vespa

Source: Town Hall: Holy Crap: San Francisco Spent $94 Million Trying to Keep Its Streets Clean

We all know Sen. Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist. He’s peddling the same tired 2016 talking points. ‘Socialists of the world’ unite is the war cry. And being that Sanders wants to pretty much destroy the country with his agenda, he found a nice ally in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) who decided to endorse him over the weekend; AOC’s Green New Deal is also a recipe for economic catastrophe. We’ve long said that progressives and far-leftists hate the U.S. Constitution. It has mechanisms that prevent their agenda from being fully implemented. So, it shouldn’t be shocking that when you analyze Sanders’ economic agenda, not only are the ideas bad—they could be illegal. InsideSources spoke with a couple of economics professors who admit that they’re very much in-line with what Democrats have proposed in the past and even they said the Sanders plan is trash and unconstitutional (via InsideSources):

The notable points in his plan include:

All publicly-traded companies, and private companies with at least $100 million in revenue, must be at least 20 percent owned by their employees;

45 percent of the board of directors at these companies must be directly elected by the company’s workers;

A ban on stock buybacks;

Companies that lay off workers to move operations overseas must share some of the “gains” with the laid-off American workers;

Company boards will be required to maintain representation from “historically marginalized groups” (like women, LGBTQ individuals, African-Americans and others) and submit reports on the racial and sexual orientation makeup of their boards and employees to the federal government;

A ban on mandatory arbitration and non-compete clauses;

And the elimination of offshore tax havens and a corporate tax rate hike from 21 to 35 percent.

According to the Sanders campaign estimates, under his plan Amazon would have paid $3.8 billion in taxes last year.

Ralph Sonenshine, assistant professor of economics at American University, thinks Sanders’ plan will “create a lot of inefficiencies and black markets where companies try to get around [his policies].”

“As somebody that supports a lot of Democratic agenda items, most of this would not be one of them,” he told InsideSources. “I don’t believe in forcing corporations to do certain things, like banning stock buybacks, I think that’s not good at all.”

Sonenshine thinks Sanders could fix a lot of the economic inequalities he discusses with existing reform ideas that both progressives, neoliberals and conservatives agree on, like campaign finance reform, or minimum wage laws, which progressives and neoliberals (but not conservatives) generally agree on.

[…]

Conservatives and progressives alike often talk about closing tax loopholes to ensure a fairer, more just tax system. Sonenshine and Lawrence White, a professor of economics at New York University’s Leonard N. Stern School of Business who describes himself as “markets-oriented,” approve of eliminating offshore tax havens and raising the corporate tax rate a little bit — not quite to 35 percent, but maybe around 25 percent, they said.

“As far as profit-sharing arrangements, I think that’s a mistake,” White said. “I know it works in Germany, I’m less convinced it would work here. We had experiments with worker shareholding arrangements, one of the major airlines had this 15 or 20 years ago. It didn’t work very well.

The publication noted that Sanders probably knows that, but he’s okay with it because he wants a left-wing revolution. As does AOC and the rest of their ilk. They already can’t stand the way we elect our president, so why should we be surprised that they’re promoting policies that would continue to undermine the vision of our Founding Fathers.

Author: Matt Vespa

Source: Town Hall: Economic Professor Breaks Down Bernie Sanders’ Economic Agenda

Tim will have more on Project Veritas latest video where staffers of CNN are seen complaining about how the network has become and left-wing cesspool. Okay—maybe that’s a stretch, but they’re not happy with the liberal tilt the network has taken. It is one of the most prolific and visible anti-Trump networks out there. We all know this, but PV was able to get an insider to speak with CNN employees who confirmed our suspicions about the network. They’re liberal. They hate Trump. And President Jeff Zucker personally intervenes during interviews with members of the Trump administration in the hopes of catching them tripping up live on air. The Trump impeachment circus is front and center, and all of this just adds credence to the chant “CNN sucks.” And if that’s not indicative of how the liberal media has become in the Trump era, PV’s CNN insider, Cary Poarch, caught what they all probably feel about the president during his investigation. Gerald Sisnette, Field Production Supervisor at CNN, said he hoped Trump dies soon (via Project Veritas):

According to CNN insider Cary Poarch, “I want to chase the facts, like the motto that CNN put out earlier this year, ‘the facts first,’ that’s what I want the news to be. That’s what it should be. That’s what it used to be.” It appears a number of CNN staffers agree:

Patrick Davis, Manager of Field Operations at CNN: “…I hate seeing what we were and what we could be and what we’ve become. It’s just awful…I mean, we could be so much better than what we are…And the buck stops with him (Zucker).”

[…]

Scott Garber, Senior Field Engineer at CNN: “We used to cover news. We used to go out and do stories…But Trump is more important.”

Adia Jacobs, CNN Technical Operations Supervisor: “When Zucker took over it wasn’t until Trump that we ended up being all Trump all the time.”

Nick Neville, CNN Media Coordinator: “He (Zucker) basically said f**k all the other stories.”

Mike Brevna, Floor Manager at CNN:“It’s the Trump Network, dog. It’s like everything is all Trump…they not even thinking about anybody else. They sold themselves to the devil.”

Gerald Sisnette, Field Production Supervisor at CNN: “This is a story that’s not gonna go away…The only way this will go away is when he (Trump) dies. Hopefully soon.”

Will the network return to a sense of normalcy? It’s hard to say. Donald Trump has broken the minds of liberal America, maybe irreparably. As for the integrity of the network, that’s long dead. They’ve screwed up so many times in covering this White House. They can’t report him feeding koi fish with the Japanese prime minister accurately, they got played with the ‘Trump knew about his son’s meeting with the Russians’ story, and they totally flopped on the Wikileaks piece, where they alleged Trump and his inner circle got a decryption key for the trove of emails from John Podesta, then-chair of the Clinton campaign, and the DNC—only to end up correcting the ‘bombshell’ because the documents were already made public. This key was sent via emailed from a donor. If they merely just looked at the time stamp of the email and when Wikileaks published the DNC emails—this could’ve been avoided. It was simple. They didn’t do it because they’re at full froth in trying to get this president. With every failed attempt, it only reminds Trump voters to turn out next year. It’s an in-kind contribution to the 2020 re-elect. So, thank you. And to that staffer, sorry—Donald Trump isn’t going to die soon. He has one more election to win—and at this point, he will win it handily.

Author: Matt Vespa

Source: Town Hall: CNN: I Hope Trump Dies Soon

House Democrats began their impeachment push formally based on some whistleblower report that alleged President Trump tried to shakedown Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July. Trump supposedly threatened to withhold military aid unless Zelensky opened a corruption probe against Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden. The whistleblower is reportedly a CIA agent, a registered Democrat, and worked with a 2020 Democratic candidate. There is also a third citation indicating political bias that was not revealed. That portion was redacted. But the report is second-hand sourced and riddled with errors because this person didn’t listen in on the call. The Trump White House also released the transcript, which totally debunked the quid pro quo aspect of this circus.

The complaint wasn’t released to members of Congress prior to them announcing a formal impeachment inquiry. Yeah, no one read the complaint, so that’s all you need to know about Democratic intentions in this matter. This is an attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election, using a biased intelligence operative who had worked with Joe Biden during the Obama presidency. Yeah, that was revealed today by The Washington Examiner:

The 2020 Democratic candidate with whom the CIA whistleblower had a “professional” tie is Joe Biden, according to intelligence officers and former White House officials.

Lawyers for the whistleblower said he had worked only “in the executive branch.” The Washington Examiner has established that he is a career CIA analyst who was detailed to the National Security Council at the White House and has since left. On Sept. 26, the New York Times reported that he was a CIA officer. On Oct. 4, the newspaper added that he “was detailed to the National Security Council at one point.”

Michael Atkinson, the Intelligence Community’s inspector general, told members of Congress that the whistleblower had a “professional tie” to a 2020 Democratic candidate. He had written earlier that while the whistleblower’s complaint was credible, he had shown “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate.”

A retired CIA officer told the Washington Examiner: “From everything we know about the whistleblower and his work in the executive branch then, there is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden when he was vice president.”

As an experienced CIA official on the NSC with the deep knowledge of Ukraine that he demonstrated in his complaint, it is probable that the whistleblower briefed Biden and likely that he accompanied him on Air Force Two during at least one of the six visits the 2020 candidate made to the country.

And we also learned today that both Joe and Hunter Biden were paid by Burisma Group, the Ukrainian energy company at the center of all the questions concerning their working relationship with the former vice president and his son. Hunter was on the board being paid tens of thousands of dollars a month, despite having zero experience in the energy sector. The allegation is that he was there selling access and the Biden campaign has yet to fully address this working relationship. The former vice president insists that he never discussed overseas work with Hunter. That’s never going to hold up. There’s that picture of the former VP and Hunter golfing with Ukrainian energy executives; they never discussed overseas work. Who are you kidding? And now with Biden revealed to have been paid $900,000 for his lobbying efforts on behalf of Burisma, this Ukraine tie will remain a topic of discussion.

Author: Matt Vespa

Source: Town Hall: BREAKING: Whistleblower Worked With Joe Biden At The Obama White House

President Donald Trump is now getting deeper into the House Democrats’ impeachment game. It’s not a fight he wants. In fact, no one with cognitive function wants this, but the Democratic Party has become infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome, so here we are; this plan has been in the works since 2016. They tried to get him on Russian collusion. They couldn’t. The investigation by ex-Special Counsel Robert Mueller also torpedoed that whole circus and debunked the Steele dossier, compiled by an ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele, which was the basis for the whole collusion charade. This was an opposition research project funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrats, by the way. So, they waited and now this whistleblower, who is reportedly a CIA agent, comes forward with a second-hand account that Trump threatened to withhold military aid from Ukraine unless they opened a corruption probe against Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, in July.

The White House released the transcript which debunked all of the juicy allegations. There was no quid pro quo. In fact, it appears as if the Ukrainians only found out about a U.S. foreign aid review a month after the call. Trump insists that other European nations should also contribute to the aid package.

So, the latest impeachment push is based on evidence even shoddier than the Russian collusion myth. And what’s more, is that the Hunter Biden probe might have already begun months before Trump’s phone call. John Solomon has more (via Fox News) [emphasis mine]:

A newly unearthed document shows that Ukrainian officials had opened a new probe into the firm linked to Hunter Biden months before President Trump’s phone call with that country’s leader, Fox News contributor John Solomon reported late Tuesday.

Solomon said Tuesday on “Hannity” that the U.S. government knew Ukraine was planning to look again into activities at Burisma Holdings, an energy company that employed then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son as a member of its board of directors, early this year. The report is noteworthy because President Trump has been accused by Democrats of threatening in July to withhold foreign aid to Ukraine unless its new president pursued an investigation into the company and the younger Biden’s role there.

“The U.S. government had open-source intelligence and was aware as early as February of 2019 that the Ukrainian government was planning to reopen the Burisma investigation,” he claimed. “This is long before the president ever imagined having a call with President Zelensky,” he added, noting Petro Poroshenko was still Ukraine’s president at that time.

[…]

Solomon said the information he obtained, including documents shown on “Hannity” Tuesday, was omitted from a U.S. intelligence community whistleblower’s complaint lodged against Trump last month.

Solomon said that NABU — an FBI-like anti-corruption agency in Ukraine — requested the probe into Burisma and owner Mykola Zlochevsky be reopened earlier this year. The investigation then went forward, Solomon said. The new probe later resulted in a “Notice of Suspicion” being filed, alleging the existence of “illicit funds” running through the firm, Solomon also claimed.

Hunter was with Burisma, being paid tens of thousands of dollars a month despite having zero experience in the energy sector. The whistleblower report is riddled with errors and this person did not listen in on the call. This person was also cited for being politically biased against the president, being a registered Democrat and working for a 2020 Democratic candidate. The complaint wasn’t even released to Congress before the impeachment inquiry began. Yeah, no one read it before the Left pulled the trigger, so you know they’re taking this seriously.

And now this…we’ll just have to see what happens. As of now, the Trump White House has rightfully told House Democrats to shove it, refusing to cooperate in their kangaroo court that is politically motivated and intended to overturn the results of the 2016 election.

***

UPDATE: Ed, our friend at Hot Air, disputes the noteworthiness of the Solomon report, noting that everything he said has been known for many moons ago. So, the timeline hasn’t changed:

The problem for this explanation, and for Trump in the Zelensky call, is that we already know Poroshenko had moved to reopen the Burisma probe. It wasn’t a secret at all; the New York Times reported it in May, two months after the [Petro]Poroshenko government [the previous government before Zelensky] had given it the green light and two months before the call with Zelensky. The circumstances of that decision appeared a little suspect to the NYT at the time

[…]

In other words, this new document doesn’t actually shift the factual timeline at all. Everyone knew by May that the previous Ukrainian administration had been prepared to reinvestigate Burisma and (perhaps) by extension the Bidens. And then everyone knew at the same time that Zelensky was changing prosecutorial priorities, and that the Burisma probe might get dumped once again. The omission of the February/March intel on the Poroshenko government’s actions from the whistleblower complaint doesn’t matter because (a) it had been mooted by the Ukrainian election and (b) everyone already knew it. The incentive for Trump to get Zelensky to continue the Burisma probe still existed at the time of the call, and perhaps was stronger than in March when Poroshenko had already acquiesced to Trump.

That doesn’t mean that Trump demanded a quid pro quo from Zelensky, and the transcript of the call doesn’t support that contention anyway.

So, maybe the timeline hasn’t changed, but it still doesn’t negate the fact that this is still a witch hunt. Even without the Poroshenko-Zelensky angle, the Ukrainians reportedly still didn’t know that the aid package being under review until a month after. That alone is a kill shot; you cannot have quid pro quo without…the quid factor. And the Biden allegation is still lingering in the air because it does seem like an odd position, particularly with his fee, which former Ukranian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov says should be looked into as a way to cross the “t”s and dot the “t”s on a legal front.

Author: Matt Vespa

Source: Town Hall: No Quid: Ukraine Reportedly Opened Probe Into Hunter Biden Position Months Before Trump Phone Call

Ad Blocker Detected!

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