Author

Tristan Justice

Browsing

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett corrected Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin multiple times throughout day three of her testimony Wednesday while the senator repeatedly misconstrued the federal judge’s prior rulings.

At the onset of his questioning, Durbin recited Barrett’s earlier testimony given during Sen. Diane Feinstein’s questioning where the California Democrat accused Barrett of preparing to allow the president to unilaterally delay a general election.

Durbin repeated Barrett’s answer that she did not want to provide “off-the-cuff answers like a pundit but rather approach matters with an open mind.”

“Is that still your response?” Durbin asked.

“I’ve given that response to every hypothetical that I’ve been asked in the hearings,” Barrett explained, for probably the hundredth time since the hearings began on Monday to comply with the “Ginsburg Rule” where Supreme Court nominees give no preview on how they might rule on the high bench on specific cases.

“I do that regardless of whether it’s easy or hard … I do that because it would be inappropriate for me to make a comment and I don’t think I’ve answered any legal hypotheticals in keeping with the Justice Ginsburg rule.”

Durbin pressed further, changing the question to a bizarre inquiry on whether the president has the right to deny any person the right to vote based on their race.

“Obviously there are many laws in effect,” Barrett explained to the Georgetown Law School graduate, that protect the citizen’s right to vote, such as the Equal Protection Clause, the 13th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and the 15th Amendment.

When Durbin asked the question again, Barrett gave the same answer.

“I don’t know how else I can say it,” Barrett said. “You’ve asked a couple of different questions about what the president might be able to unilaterally do and I really think that I really can’t say anything more than I’m not going to answer hypotheticals.”

Moments later, Durbin tried to frame Barrett as declaring the right to vote a second-class right.

“You concluded that any felony can take away your right to vote, but only a violent felony can take away your right to purchase an AK-47,” Durbin said. “Why?”

“That’s distorting my position,” Barrett said.

What I said in that case, which is what Heller said and which is convention in all discussions of this to my knowledge is that the right to vote is fundamental, however it is an individual fundamental right that we possess, but we possess it as part of our civic responsibility for the common good. The same thing is true for the example of jury service. Whereas individual rights, and this is again a distinction that’s drawn in case law: individual rights benefit more the individual … Heller had nothing to do with the right to vote.

Author: Tristan Justice

Source: The Federalist: Amy Coney Barrett Explains How The Constitution Works To Georgetown Law Graduate Dick Durbin

More than a month into the fall semester, COVID-related hospitalizations at 50 of the nation’s top colleges remain near zero while reporting not a single student death from the novel Wuhan coronavirus.

According to writer Andrew Bostom, who is tracking coronavirus outbreaks on American campuses using their own reported data, only three students had been hospitalized as of Oct. 5. Only two were hospitalized in September, and no students have died from the virus from the 50 colleges being monitored.

According to AL.com on Friday, a local Alabama news site, cases of the Wuhan virus at the University of Alabama saw their fourth consecutive week of decline. Twenty-four cases were confirmed over the prior seven-day period, after 48 cases were reported the week before. The university, home to nearly 40,000 students, has now seen almost 2,400 cases since the fall semester kicked off on Aug. 19.

While no deaths have been reported on the campuses tracked by Bostom, American campuses have still suffered fatalities from the novel virus. According to the coronavirus campus tracker by the New York Times tracking more than 1,600 colleges, at least 70 deaths have been linked to higher education institutions since the start of the pandemic. The Times critically notes however, that most of the campus deaths occurred in the spring and involved employees, not students.

The dismally-low fatality data among American college students underscores how little threat the virus poses to individuals aged 18-24. Despite thousands of students still testing positive, a mere fraction have succumbed to the lethal consequences of a virus shown to take a disproportionate toll on older demographics. According to the Centers for Disease Control’s “current best estimate,” those aged 19 and younger possess a 99.99 percent chance of survival. Those aged between 20 and 49 face a 99.98 percent chance.

Hysterical media coverage however, has convinced Americans they are dealing with a virus more dangerous than it really is, prompting lawmakers to keep in place strict lockdowns leading to greater public health consequences than the virus itself. Such lockdown measures have raised concern among prominent public health professionals, leading more than 8,000 medical experts to sign the “The Great Barrington Declaration” which urges policymakers to pursue a more targeted approach to the pandemic by protecting the vulnerable while lifting restrictions on the rest of the population.

“As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies,” doctors from Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford wrote, citing lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health. “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk.”

Author: Tristan Justice

Source: The Federalist: The COVID Campus Plague That Never Came: University Student Deaths Remain Virtually Nonexistent

The Detroit construction worker who clashed with former Vice President Joe Biden during a campaign event Tuesday as voters went to the polls is speaking out after being berated by the presidential front-runner.

“I thought I was pretty articulate and respectful. I didn’t try to raise any feathers,” Jerry Wayne said on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends” Wednesday morning. “He kind of just went off the deep end.”

Wayne confronted Biden on guns at an auto worker plant the day of the primary in Michigan, where the former vice president decisively carried the state over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by about 17 points, capturing every county in the state.

“You are actively trying to diminish our Second Amendment right and take away our guns,” Wayne said, prompting an angry backlash from Biden.

“You’re full of sh-t,” Biden said in response, going on to shush his female aid trying to move the candidate along. “I support the Second Amendment. … Just like if you yell fire, that’s not free speech.”

Biden went on to talk about his own gun ownership, denying Wayne’s claims as he pressed Biden on the issue.

“Well, when you were with Beto [O’Rourke] when you said you were going to take our guns —” Wayne said before Biden cut him off.

“I did not say that,” Biden shouted. He continued to argue that the government would only take away “AR-14s,” though he probably meant “AR-15s,” which the National Rifle Association has found to be the most popular firearm in the country. Biden then invited Wayne “to go outside with me.”

Biden, of course, has said he wants to take away firearms and promised in Texas earlier this month that he would be “counting on” former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke to “take care of the gun problem,” if elected. During an early Democratic primary debate, then-candidate O’Rourke said, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”

“Once he got caught in a lie, I kind of wanted to ask him why he wanted to take our long arms rather than the handguns,” Wayne said Wednesday. “To me that’s very skeptical. If you care about human life, wouldn’t you want to go after the tool that’s used the most?”

Author: Tristan Justice

Source: The Federalist: Construction Worker Who Joe Biden Cussed Out Says Biden ‘Went Off The Deep End’

Georgia Congressman Doug Collins, a ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, criticized Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York Thursday for canceling this week’s hearing on reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and charged Democrats with refusing to “acknowledge the problems” with the Watergate-era law.

The Judiciary Committee was slated to consider a FISA reauthorization bill crafted by Nadler’s staff along with Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s plans for a full-chamber vote by the March 15 deadline, when certain provisions of the act are set to expire. A recent report from the Justice Department inspector general unearthed “at least 17” glaring omissions from FISA warrant applications in the FBI’s deep-state “Crossfire Hurricane” operation, complicating the 1978 law’s reauthorization efforts as Republicans call for broader constraints of government surveillance.

On Wednesday, Nadler postponed the Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the issue as Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California planned to propose several amendments with Republicans. Lofgren’s potential requests for wider restrictions on FISA’s powers showcased inter-party divisions on the Democrats’ path forward.

Collins accused Nadler of hiding behind the curtain of caucus conflicts to avoid confronting the gross abuses of the government’s surveillance powers.

“They don’t want to acknowledge the problems that led to this in the past, so I think that’s why they don’t want to do it,” Collins told The Federalist on the sidelines of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Nadler’s decision to cancel Wednesday’s proceedings.

Collins said that the pressure to amend the current legislation on the table stems from both sides wanting to see more comprehensive changes to the existing law.

“There was some pressure from [Nadler’s] own side at the last minute, but it’s also from our side saying we want to see FISA reform change,” Collins said, adding that if the current bill makes it through the committee as is, it would not have the ranking member’s blessing.

“We’re going to keep pushing. I’m not going to approve anything unless we get some FISA changes,” Collins said.

Sitting on a panel with Fox News Contributor Sara Carter appearing before the largest annual gathering of grassroots conservatives in the country, Collins railed against the intelligence community for facilitating a deep-state coup operation to keep President Donald Trump out of the Oval Office that began prior to Trump’s election.

“They were trying to stop candidate Trump, but you know what they were trying to stop is you,” Collins said to applause. “The swamp wanted to stop you!”

Attorney General William Barr privately pushed Republicans to pursue a simple reauthorization of the law on Tuesday. Barr’s endorsement of a less comprehensive reform measure has frustrated GOP lawmakers who want to see significant changes in light of recent revelations from the inspector general’s report exposing government bureaucrats weaponizing the intelligence agencies to destroy their political opponents.

Author: Tristan Justice

Source: The Federalist: Doug Collins Blasts Judiciary Democrats For Postponing FISA Hearing

The Democratic presidential primary’s freshest face, former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick fired leaders of the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry in 2014 for trying to register Patrick’s brother in-law for a 1993 California rape conviction.

Earlier this year, Bernard Sigh, Patrick’s ex-brother in-law was sentenced to eight years in prison for raping his ex-wife in a 2017 attack, three years after the head of the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board rose the issue of registering Sigh as a sex offender to Patrick for a prior spousal rape conviction in California. In response, Patrick sacked the official in an effort to avoid having a family member register as a sex offender, calling it a “family matter,” and therefore “marital” rape, according to Stanford Professor Michele Dauber.

Patrick became the latest candidate to officially enter the 2020 Democratic presidential contest this week with less than three months away from the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses after nine major candidates have already dropped out.

The former Massachusetts governor has less than one month to meet the Democratic National Committee’s qualifying thresholds to earn a spot on the December debate stage, where only six of the field’s 19 candidates including former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg have qualified so far.

Patrick’s late entrance in the race showcases Democrats’ concerns that no candidates currently in the race can pick up the necessary momentum needed to oust President Donald Trump next fall. The field’s frontrunner and former Vice President Joe Biden is plagued by scandals involving the Biden family’s shady dealings with Ukraine being brought to light by the Democrats’ partisan impeachment inquiry, while Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont are running on far-left platforms proving difficult to sell to American voters.

Patrick, 63, served as governor of Massachusetts from 2007 to 2013 and has since worked in the private sector at Bain Capital and in media as a CBS contributor.

Author: Tristan Justice

Source: The Federalist: Deval Patrick Fired State Officials To Protect Rapist Ex-Brother-In-Law From Registering As Sex Offender

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent made the case for launching an investigation into the Bidens and their involvement in Ukraine related to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

Kent, the State Department’s top official on Ukraine, said during testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in the Democrats’ partisan impeachment proceedings Wednesday he was concerned about a, “perception of a conflict of interest,” related to Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, serving on the board of the energy company while his father oversaw the Obama administration’s policy towards Ukraine.

Hunter Biden served on the board of the company for $50,000 a month despite having no prior experience in the energy industry while his father served as vice president deeply involved U.S.-Ukrainian policy.

Kent also testified in a private deposition that he voiced his discomfort over the situation to the White House in 2015 where administration officials brushed off Kent’s concerns.

“I raised my concerns that I had heard that Hunter Biden was on the board of a company owned by somebody that the U.S. Government had spent money trying to get tens of millions of dollars back and that could create the perception of a conflict of interest,” Kent told lawmakers behind closed doors in October. “The message that I recall hearing back was that the vice president’s son Beau was dying of cancer and that there was no further bandwidth the deal with family related issues at that time… That was the end of that conversation.”

During his testimony before the House on Wednesday, Kent reiterated his conviction that officials in Ukraine ought to be investigated to root out corruption related to Burisma.

“To summarize, we thought the [CEO of Burisma] had stolen money. We thought a prosecutor had take an bribe to shut the case,” Kent said.

“Are you in favor of that matter being fully investigated and prosecuted?” asked Minority House Intelligence Committee Counsel Steve Castor.

“I think, since U.S. taxpayer dollars were wasted, I would love to see the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office find who the corrupt prosecutor was that took the bribe, and how much of it was paid,” Kent said.

In an interview with ABC News last month, Hunter admitted to practicing “poor judgement,” by serving on the board as his father’s presidential campaign has struggled amid new details of the scandal coming to light from Trump’s impeachment proceedings.

House Democrats opened formal partisan impeachment proceedings against the president following reports of a July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Media outlets reported details of the call, alleging Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate the Bidens in exchange for military aid.

An unredacted transcript of the phone call has since been declassified, revealing no such quid pro quo as Democrats had charged and continue to claim. Despite the release of the transcript, Democrats have aggressively pushed forward with impeachment as their best hopes to undo the 2016 election after the Russian collusion hoax failed to incriminate the president earlier this year.

Since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opened the anti-Trump investigation in September, the proceedings were held in secret where House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California ran partisan proceedings prohibiting Republican members from asking questions Schiff did not want witnesses to answer, pre-interviewing witnesses in preparation for public testimony.

Even after Pelosi put a formal impeachment inquiry to a vote a month and a half after proceedings had already begun, Schiff continued to run hearings behind closed doors for two weeks before holding the first public hearing Wednesday.

As the hearings get underway, the rules passed entirely by Democrats without one Republican vote bar the minority party from subpoenaing any witnesses or evidence without Democratic approval.

Author: Tristan Justice

Source: The Federalist: Adam Schiff’s Star Witness Just Admitted Burisma Should Be Investigated For Corruption

House Democrats rubber-stamped an ad hoc anti-Trump investigation Thursday aimed at overturning the results of the 2016 election after the spectacular failure of the grand Russian collusion hoax collapsing earlier this year.

The text of the resolution lays the framework for the official impeachment proceedings going forward led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who has been operating an illegitimate process since Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced the beginning an investigation in September.

Despite Democrat claims that the resolution would mean an open and transparent process, House members are still holding hearings in secret even after its passage.

The Democrat passed rules for impeachment also bar Republican lawmakers from calling witnesses or subpoenaing evidence without prior approval from Democrats. Members of the minority party were granted these rights in both the Nixon and the Clinton impeachment proceedings.

Schiff, whose credibility was shattered by his peddling of the Russian conspiracy theory for the last three years, has run an unfair process from the start. Behind closed doors, Schiff interviewed witnesses and selectively leaked parts of their testimonies to frame the president while Trump’s legal counsel has been barred from participating, denying the president rights to due process.

On Wednesday, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., exposed Schiff for directing witnesses testifying not to answer questions asked be Republican members.

“He’s directing witnesses not to answer questions that he doesn’t want the witness to answer if they’re asked by Republicans,” Scalise told reporters on Capitol Hill. “He’s not cut off one Democrat. He’s not interrupted one Democrat and told a witness not to answer Democrat members’ questions but today he started telling witnesses not to answer questions by certain Republicans.”

Pelosi opened the investigation in September after an anonymous “whistleblower” filed a complaint accusing Trump of conspiring with the Ukrainian president to investigate political opponents. While the complaint was marked “credible” and “urgent” by the intelligence community inspector general, it was not given those ratings by the Department of National Intelligence.

The identity of the whistleblower was revealed Wednesday to be a 33-year-old former intelligence official who worked in the Trump White House as a holdover from the Obama administration. According to Real Clear Investigations, which first reported the identity of the whistleblower, the complainant worked with a DNC operative to peddle the Russian collusion hoax in addition to working under former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan.

The whistleblower’s complaint regarding the now infamous July phone call between Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky alleges a quid pro quo offered by the president to his Ukrainian counterpart, threatening to withhold military aid in exchange for investigating the corruption related to Biden’s son’s energy company, Burisma.

Hunter Biden served on the board of the Ukrainian energy company raking in $50,000 a month despite having no prior experience in the industry. In an interview with ABC News, Hunter Biden admitted to practicing “poor judgement.” While serving as a senator from Delaware, Joe Biden reportedly reached out to federal agencies discreetly to discuss matters that his son’s firm was lobbying for, according to records uncovered by the Washington Examiner.

The complaint now at the heart of the Democratic impeachment efforts has been both corroborated and contradicted by witnesses testifying in secret.

On Thursday, the latest testimony came from a former National Security Counsel official who served under Trump, Tim Morrison, who testified before the House that he was not worried that anything in the phone call between the two world leaders was illegal, according to remarks obtained by The Federalist.

“I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” said Morrison, who was the NSC senior director for European affairs. “I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the [military funding] review until August 28, 2019,” which was the day that Schiff claimed that Trump had withheld funding to the eastern European nation as part of a quid pro quo.

Morrison also contradicted key elements of William Taylor’s leaked testimony, who serves in the U.S. embassy in Kiev, Ukraine for the State Department. Morrison said despite Taylor’s comments before the committee, that a meeting between Morrison and the Ukrainian National Security advisor never met at a private hotel.

Morrison also undercut Taylor’s testimony that U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Gordon Sondland requested a public announcement of an investigation into Burisma from the Ukrainian president.

Author: Tristan Justice

Source: The Federalist: The Rules Of The Democrat-Backed Impeachment Inquiry Are Stacked Against Trump

One of the attorneys that assisted the anonymous “whistleblowers” accusing President Donald Trump of conspiring with foreign leaders to interfere in the next U.S. presidential election used to report directly to former director of national intelligence James Clapper.

Charles McCullough, an attorney who assisted Andrew Bakaj, a former staffer for Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, at the beginning of the process was previously the inspector general of the intelligence community (ICIG) at the height of the Clinton email scandal.

McCullough told The Federalist however, that he is no longer involved in the whistleblower’s representation.

“I am not part of the whistleblower legal team,” McCullough wrote to The Federalist in an email. “I assisted with process issues Andrew at the very beginning, and then withdrew.”

Now a partner at the Compass Rose Legal Group with Bakaj, McCullough’s professional biography on the law firm’s website notes that he reported directly to Clapper as ICIG and “oversaw intelligence officers responsible for audits, inspections, investigations.”

Clapper, who joined CNN as a national security analyst after leaving government in 2017, was a central figure in perpetuating the Russia hoax against Trump and lied to Congress about mass surveillance on Americans. When asked under oath in March 2013 by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., whether the federal government was collecting “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans,” Clapper responded “no sir… not wittingly.”

While director of the Department of National Intelligence, Clapper was instrumental in crafting whistleblower protections mandating that no employee of the intelligence committee be made subject to reprisals for reports made in compliance with department guidelines.

Last December, McCullough praised Clapper in an interview with Fox 5. “I enjoyed a very good relationship with Jim Clapper, we got along fabulously.”

Author: Tristan Justice

Source: The Federalist: Anti-Trump Whistleblower Attorney Worked Directly For James Clapper

Ad Blocker Detected!

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