Wednesday AM ~ thefrontpagecover

TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Upcoming Horowitz Report Shows 
FBI/FISA Shenanigans
Ebc3RuJcTFQ-4Fd9x35wBWgqPu8LCp7t_61QQrm0K4DyrhRffDYSCuzJLEkgxgKobNzsd2zetHeAgGg8uyOacS6pVfCw7LNGLhJOoCPRV1Y8C3iXSsqgry6UDEtHJ-_soBvKWmNJhV8a1OyZ7P9KY_GuXi58XDKAa8u52xI=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
Nate Jackson
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
Unraveling the Impeachment Inquiry Testimony
By Jonathan Cohen
{ americanthinker.com } ~ The several days of hearings produced lots of melodrama but no direct evidence that President Trump held up aid to Ukraine to pressure the Ukraine to investigate meddling in the 2016 election or the company Burisma that hired Hunter Biden to its Board of Directors... There were hints and presumptions, but the only factual evidence was Trump’s firm statement to Gordon Sondland that there was no quid pro quo. National Review’s Rich Lowry has suggested that with more patience, the Democrats could have compelled testimony from Bolton, Mulvaney and Giuliani that would have confirmed their suspicions. Lowry is not a fan of impeachment, but his argument is that it was a fool’s errand for the House Republicans to argue there was no quid pro quo. He, and many others such as Representative Hurd are more at ease with the argument that Trump’s actions fall far short of an impeachable offense. Whatever the political merits of Lowry’s point, a close look at the actual fact pattern contained in the hearing testimony suggest that Trump never offered to schedule a meeting or stop the hold on aid in return for a public announcement of the desired investigations. It is very telling that US Ambassador to the Ukraine Bill Taylor emailed Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland to express fear that the Ukrainians would make the announcement and Trump would not lift the hold anyway. In other words, no such offer of a quid pro quo for the release of aid was ever made to the Ukrainians because in addition to not wanting to alarm their Ukrainian counterparts, the American diplomats had no assurances that Trump would go along with it. To be certain, from the phone call and Trump’s endorsement of the transcript, we know he asked President Zelensky to investigate the possible Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 campaign and added later on the call that they should also look into what loose lips liar-Biden had meant when he boasted that he had pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma. There is nowhere on the call where he even hinted at any linkage between his requests and either the scheduling of a meeting or the release of aid. Indeed, it would have made no sense for him to demand the announcement of the investigations as a pre-condition for the release of aid because he was literally telling Zelensky directly that he thought loose lips liar-Biden’s using American aid to pressure Ukraine was horrible. The most likely explanation of why the hearing produced no direct evidence of a quid pro quo is because Trump never offered one. The theater of the absurd that played out in the hearing room was a drama in which the Democrats presented a succession of self-proclaimed selfless public servants who were playing Marquis de Lafayette to Zelensky’s George Washington. Sent to the Ukraine to save the fledgling democracy from the evil Putin’s King George, their heroic efforts were betrayed by Trump’s Benedict Arnold. The drama was further enhanced by the damsel in distress role played by Ambassador Yovanovich. It was all political theater but if you looked carefully at the testimony, it offered a fairly clear picture of what actually happened, the most revealing of which was the testimony of U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine, until his resignation on September 27, 2019, Kurt Volker...  https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/unraveling_the_impeachment_inquiry_testimony_.html 
Jonathan Turley Throws Cold Water 
on Impeachment: “Designed to Fail”
vx6h19Sb9B8X3SRxI1ZnX5n5veqtWau_1TbPDlMHkrgQUO2rVhoUSm2yIaEYe40xY28xRo9nvGK9pHXnyUumxo8NGCojzcDrEQhu71nhN9cXMV-fDFOsLIJgGqEPI5kHXCrWsDjguPRFoJygnsR3_jgvyecBxA=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by Mike LaChance
{ legalinsurrection.com } ~ Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University recently appeared on CBS This Morning to offer legal analysis of the Democrat impeachment inquiry... His take on the situation will not please the left. As Kyle Drennen of Newsbusters notes, the CBS hosts seemed disappointed: Turley Tells Disappointed CBS Hosts: Impeachment ‘Designed to Fail’. Appearing on Friday’s CBS This Morning, legal analyst and constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley completely shattered the hopes of Democrats and the liberal media that President Trump would be successfully impeached and removed from office. He trashed the proceedings for presenting “the thinnest evidentiary record” and declared the effort was “designed to fail.” After fellow CBS News legal analyst and anti-Trump Bulwark writer Kim Wehle assured the morning show anchors that Democrats “absolutely” made the case for impeachment, co-host Gayle King turned to Turley and wondered: “Jonathan, do you feel the same?” Turley threw a wet blanket on the discussion: “I’m afraid I don’t.” Turley didn’t mince words: The fact is I think that this is the – well certainly the shortest investigation, it’s certainly the thinnest evidentiary record, and it’s the narrowest impeachment ever to go to the Senate, if they were to go on this record….did they prove something was contemptible or impeachable? Contemptible is not synonymous with impeachable. The President does set policy. They have three conversations, two of them directly, one with Senator Johnson, one with Ambassador Sondland, where Trump denies a quid pro quo….so you have a conflicted record. And the question is what do you need to remove a sitting president?… Whether this is intentional or not, it seems designed to fail in the Senate...   https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/11/jonathan-turley-throws-cold-water-on-impeachment-designed-to-fail/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=fde5dc43-a391-408d-a792-e7513c52c534  
.
Napolitano Goes Full scumbag/liar-Schiff
5ne7i84Remooi-RU28Ge4vrZf0t3rdlAzX0oHF5rs4fjqGp5Vm5M1NyV5z4LNJxEfuuyC_uyJor7FVlG1VxWpmLgldT3Ft1mZXgOee5gpfUyWnky7r4=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
By Daniel John Sobieski
{ americanthinker.com } ~ The descent of Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano into foolishness continues with a series of TV appearances... in which the former New York Superior Court judge adopts the scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff interpretation of the Constitution where you are not allowed to confront your accuser where being a fact witness does not require you to recuse yourself from running a kangaroo court impeachment inquiry, and where hearsay and presumption determine you are guilty until proven innocent. In the face of public hearings in which scumbag/liar-Schiff unloaded his clown car of hearsay witnesses who made every presumption about President Trump except for the presumption of innocence, Napolitano warmly embraced scumbag/liar-Schiff’s fables, telling Reason’s Nick Gillespie that there is more than enough, and he uses the word very loosely, "evidence" to justify three or four articles of impeachment against President Trump: In an interview with Reason’s Nick Gillespie on Friday, Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano said there was “overwhelming” evidence of impeachable actions by President Donald Trump. Napolitano said, “The Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee have unearthed enough evidence, in my opinion, to justify about three or four articles of impeachment against the president. We have to start this conversation by underscoring the fact that impeachment is not legal, it is political. Its only Constitutional base is treason, bribery, or other hard crimes and misdemeanors.” He continued, “Here’s what I think the Democrats will want, Nick. Here’s what I think they will advance. One is bribery. The technical definition of bribery is the failure to perform an official duty until a thing of value comes your way, and they will argue that the president’s failure to disperse [sic] funds that the Congress ordered be dispersed [sic] until the recipient of the funds agreed to investigate a potential political opponent is an act of bribery. That is enough, in my opinion, to make it over the threshold of impeachable offenses. I don’t think it’s enough to convict of bribery, but it’s enough to allege it for the purpose of impeachment. The second charge will be high crimes and misdemeanors -- election law violation. The third crime will be obstruction of justice. The fourth will be interference with the witness, and the fifth, maybe, lying under oath.”... Napolitano has lost his mind.
.
Byron York Digs Up Old Washington Post Article 
And Proves What We’ve Thought All Along
EBaM6_EupEwFxWfn0K5eXeNrt7cvC4FeXhcfevnzgwlIrPJGrqKJUOjXHio7IHy2ttdMfYJ8SQ-8Ja6mBOS7YFA1WHJpCxjKZeZLCgV68AyFNDuGiPipV5lwG3JTEQMBQ5FApsbN_g=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by DEAN JAMES
{ rightwingtribune.com } ~ When Donald Trump descended the Trump Tower escalator in New York City to announce his bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2015, no one gave him a snowball’s chance in Hades of winning... First on the #NeverTrump bandwagon, of course, was the mocking, deriding mainstream media, followed closely behind by the establishment wings of both major political parties. Of course, the media — and the political establishment — were wrong in declaring that Trump ever had a chance at the presidency, as his huge electoral majority Nov. 8, 2016 proved when he beat the most criminally investigated opponent in the history of the republic: scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton. Since that night, however, the mainstream media has been all-in with the political establishment, a.k.a. “The Swamp,” to depose our duly-elected president. And while these posers and pretenders claim that the recent impeachment inquiry was spontaneous and comes as a result of ‘the president’s actions,’ the Washington Post gave away the plot more than two years ago with a story on Inauguration Day declaring, “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.” The reminder, compliments of the Washington Examiner’s Byron York: “From Washington Post on January 20, 2017 at 12:19 pm, when Trump had been president for 19 minutes:” This newspaper, this headline should convince any fair-minded person that the fix has been in for Trump from the outset of his candidacy. This is what we like to call a “conspiracy.” He’s not ‘one of them,’ he ‘doesn’t belong’ in the White House, and the Garbage Party, along with their sycophantic propagandists in the legacy media, have no problem blowing up our democratic institutions just to tear down one president…no matter how much good he’s done for the country. “Enemy of the people?” You bet, they are. There is some good news, however. Americans are ‘fighting back’ by simply refusing to believe the BS. They are, however, interested in real  corruption, apparently. “And according to Google Trends more Americans are interested in Hunter Biden than the  #ImpeachmentHoax. #BackFire”
.
If You Think Health Care Is Expensive Now, 
Just Wait Until It’s ‘Free’ 
MASJo8N32t485OSmlcakTxcmu9VFBCb-fbZr6kBlOyYBLKI3jKJrBQGRT43CexOs3xtXKLN--QfkpjNKBwcURYtxxx0P0iNmxWttU2bIPAC7ec4xifDcnVxuBc_XLbYroBeLjD7R=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
By Christopher Jacobs
{ thefederalist.com } ~ Libertarian columnist P.J. socialist-O’Rourke once famously claimed that “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”... A left-of-center think-tank recently confirmed socialist-O’Rourke’s assertion. In analyzing several health care proposals, the Urban Institute demonstrated how eliminating patient cost-sharing from a single-payer system would raise total health care spending by nearly $1 trillion per year. Those estimates have particular resonance given the recent release of a health care “plan” such as it is by Sen. Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren (D-Mass.). dinky/liar-Warren’s policy proposals contain  myriad gimmicks and rosy scenarios, all designed to hide the obvious fact that one cannot impose a $30 trillion-plus program on the federal government without asking middle-class families to pay—a lot—for its cost. The Urban Institute estimates show that a single-payer plan maintaining some forms of patient cost-sharing i.e., deductibles, co-payments, etc. seems far more feasible—or less unfeasible—than the approach of dinky/liar-Warren and Sen. commie-Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who promise unlimited “free” health care for everyone. Mind you, I would still oppose such a plan—for its limits on patient choice, economically damaging tax increases, and likelihood of government rationing—but at least it would have the advantage of being mathematically possible. Not so with commie-Sanders’ and dinky/liar-Warren’s current approach. In the October policy paper, several Urban researchers examined the financial effects of various health coverage proposals, including two hypothetical single-payer systems. The first single-payer system would cover all individuals legally present in the United States. Urban modeled this system to cover all benefits required under scumbag/liar-nObamacare, and fund 80 percent of Americans’ expected health costs per year, equivalent to a Gold plan on the scumbag/liar-nObamacare exchanges. Americans would still pay the other 20 percent of health spending out-of-pocket. This proposed “lite” single-payer system would still require massive tax increases—from $1.4-$1.5 trillion per year. But it would actually reduce total health spending by an estimated $209.5 billion compared to the status quo. This single-payer system generates calculated savings because Urban assumed the plan would pay doctors current rates under the Medicare program, and pay hospitals 115 percent of current Medicare rates. Because Medicare pays medical providers less than private insurers, moving all patients to these lower rates would reduce doctors’ and hospitals’ pay—which could lead to pay and job cuts for health professionals. But in the Urban researchers’ estimates, it would lower health spending overall...  https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/25/if-you-think-health-care-is-expensive-now-just-wait-until-its-free/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=abfc072c11-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-abfc072c11-83771801  
.
Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren Lies About Her 
Son Attending Two Different Private Schools
Yw_bUoX6UVc4V7qn5oQWipLTXU3BXuQhyNOdBSaRbwfB97nfwAJRd6_q9ItZOVqKVrQfpxynH428VYdZQhkkVPRaHpOt6GKYZhUWaRDT-ePr5XdiKBkv5O9ZZeP-k6CKoW_DnpjC8aUVn7H7rS-U=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
By Chrissy Clark
{ thefederalist.com } ~ Senator Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren of Massachusetts told a school choice activist last week that she sent her children to public schools, but new records show her son, Alex Warren, attended private schools in both Austin, Texas and Haverford, Pennsylvania... The New York Post reported dinky/liar-Warren initially sent her son to a private school in Austin while she was a professor at University of Texas-Austin. But, dinky/liar-Warren also sent her son to Haverford School in Pennsylvania, while she was teaching at the University of Pennsylvania. Alex Warren was born in 1976, making him 15 years old when he started at Haverford and 17 years old by the end of his time there. A Haverford alumna, who attended the private school at the same time as Alex Warren, submitted his yearbook picture to The Federalist. The same Haverford alumna said tuition at the time of Alex Warren’s graduation was approximately $11,000 a year. Last week, while talking to a school-choice activist, dinky/liar-Warren said her children only attended public schools. “No, my children went to public schools,” dinky/liar-Warren told school-choice activist Sarah Carpenter... Once again she lied.   https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/24/elizabeth-warren-lies-about-her-son-attending-two-different-private-schools/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=abfc072c11-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-abfc072c11-83771801 
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
Upcoming Horowitz Report Shows 
FBI/FISA Shenanigans
Ebc3RuJcTFQ-4Fd9x35wBWgqPu8LCp7t_61QQrm0K4DyrhRffDYSCuzJLEkgxgKobNzsd2zetHeAgGg8uyOacS6pVfCw7LNGLhJOoCPRV1Y8C3iXSsqgry6UDEtHJ-_soBvKWmNJhV8a1OyZ7P9KY_GuXi58XDKAa8u52xI=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
Nate Jackson:  “It doesn’t take 500 pages to tell the inspector general that everything was done properly,” said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX). “The IG report is going to find that there were problems.”

The IG report Ratcliffe is referencing is that of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, planned for release on Dec. 9. “For more than a year and a half,” reports Fox News, “Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been investigating alleged misconduct related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, warrants delivered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The Justice Department and FBI obtained warrants in 2016 to surveil Trump adviser Carter Page. It is unclear, at this point, if Page was the only Trump official that the DOJ obtained a FISA warrant against.”

The House and Senate have already determined that the FBI relied far too heavily on the phony scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton-funded dossier to obtain the FISA warrant.

In advance of the Horowitz report’s release, CNN, of all places, dropped a bit of a bombshell yesterday, reporting, “A former FBI lawyer is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser.” Furthermore, “Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed early this year by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a broad investigation of intelligence gathered for the Russia probe by the CIA and other agencies, including the FBI. The altered document is also at least one focus of Durham’s criminal probe.” That’s because “the alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document’s meaning.”

The Washington Post insists the alterations “did not affect the overall validity of the surveillance application,” but allow us to remind folks that the phony dossier was at the beginning of the Democrats’ efforts to sink Donald Trump with allegations of Russian collusion. When that didn’t pan out, they opted for impeachment over Trump’s Ukraine call. And it was this same Washington Post that reported at noon on Inauguration Day that “the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.”

Trump has been the target of an attempted Democrat/ Leftmedia/Deep State coup since literally Day One — and that resistance began in earnest from the moment he won the nomination. That attempted coup evidently includes altering forms to bolster FBI investigations. We expect that’s the tip of the iceberg in Horowitz’s full report.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/66951?mailing_id=4681&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4681&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Command Center to add comments!

Join Command Center