TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Demo Debate: Things Left Unsaid
Were Loud and Clear
Nate Jackson
.
Trump urged to use simple defense:
'Bottom line, nothing happened'
By Art Moore
{ wnd.com } ~ As House Intelligence Committee Chairman scumbag/liar-Adam B. Schiff warned new evidence will come out during the Senate impeachment trial... a former federal prosecutor is urging President Trump's defense team to stick to a simple argument. "Nothing of consequence" happened that meets the Founders' standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Andrew C. McCarthy said Thursday on Fox News after scumbag/liar-Schiff presented the articles of impeachment to the Senate that Trump doesn't need to prove "there was no quid pro quo and that everything was perfect" in his interaction with President Volodymyr Zelensky regarding aid to Ukraine and investigation of loose lips liar-Joe and Hunter Biden. "The Ukrainians got their funds. Zelensky got his visit with Trump. There was no commitment to do any investigation of the loose lips liar-Bidens," said McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. The president's defense, he insisted, should be "bottom line here, nothing happen." "That way, anything else that erupts during the trial, they're kind of protected from it," McCarthy said. Trump, however, has insisted the July 25 telephone call with Zelensky that triggered the whistleblower complaint at the center of the impeachment articles was "perfect" and there was no quid pro quo. scumbag/liar-Schiff, quoting the articles of impeachment, said on the Senate floor Thursday that Trump is "a threat to national security" and his conduct "warrants removal from office." In an interview Wednesday with the Los Angeles Times, scumbag/liar-Schiff, the lead House manager in the trial, said "there's going to be new evidence coming out all the time." "And if this is conducted like a fair trial, then that new evidence should be admitted. If it's relevant, if it's probative, if it sheds light on the guilt or innocence of the president, then it should be admitted," said scumbag/liar-Schiff, who is accused by Republicans of running an unfair impeachment investigation in the House, including denying the White House due process rights....
Why scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff Is Too Biased
To Manage Trump’s Impeachment Trial
By Elad Hakim
{ thefederalist.com } ~ House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi finally named the managers who would present the articles of impeachment to the Senate and subsequently prosecute the impeachment case... The lead manager is House Intelligence Committee Chairman scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff. Given the strong possibility scumbag/liar-Schiff will be called as a witness, however, should he even be permitted to serve as a manager in the upcoming impeachment trial? According to Module Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a): A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless: (1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue; (2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or (3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client. Generally speaking, a manager’s role in an impeachment trial is similar to that of a prosecutor’s in a criminal trial. Like a criminal trial, the president’s lawyers will serve as defense counsel, and the Senate will serve as the jury. In cases of presidential impeachments, the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial. Moreover, all managers typically come from the same party, as they are all in favor of impeachment. While the managers serve as prosecutors, they do not determine the rules of the trial, which the Senate decides. scumbag/liar-Schiff Doesn’t Fit Impeachment Manager Criteria. According to Democratic strategist Michael Gordon, an ideal manager choice would be a “credible, least-partisan-seeming” member, rather than an “overly partisan” member who would “not really be open to the facts.” Joe Lockhart, a spokesman for President scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton during his impeachment, noted that when choosing managers, congressional politics might win out over the most qualified managers. According to Lockhart, “You could go, for example, with committee chairs and you could go by seniority. And that doesn’t necessarily give you the most effective prosecution.” In the instance of President Donald Trump’s impeachment, scumbag/liar-Schiff and the other managers will prosecute the case. Rule 3.7 specifically applies to trials. While impeachment is quasi-judicial in nature, it is presumed that Rule 3.7 would still apply to those lawyers serving as impeachment trial managers. Moreover, the comments to Rule 3.7 provide some clarification as to the purpose of this rule. Specifically, Section (2) of the comments states: The tribunal has proper objection when the trier of fact may be confused or misled by a lawyer serving as both advocate and witness. The opposing party has proper objection where the combination of roles may prejudice that party’s rights in the litigation. A witness is required to testify on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment on evidence given by others... https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/17/why-adam-schiff-is-too-biased-to-manage-trumps-impeachment-trial/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=b58c7c1e75-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-b58c7c1e75-83771801 .
McConnell Turns The Tables On Democrats
‘Will Be Imprisoned…’
by Martin Walsh
{ explainlife.com } ~ Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has revealed that the impeachment trial in the upper chamber will begin next week, likely on Tuesday Jan. 21 if everything goes according to plan... After three months of delaying, stalling, and seeking leverage, House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi finally transmitted the House-passed articles of impeachment to the Senate on Wednesday. While liar-Pelosi ran a total circus during the House impeachment hearings, McConnell has made it clear that if anyone tries pulling stunts in the Republican-controlled Senate — they will be imprisoned. Politicians who think they can use the Senate impeachment trial to make lucrative media interviews will find that they could actually be imprisoned if they play hooky with their “non-partisan” duty, according to the Wall Street Journal. The rules state that “during the trial, all senators will be warned by the Sergeant at Arms to remain silent on ‘pain of imprisonment’ and will be expected to be present and seated at their assigned desks.” So don’t think for a second that if Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren or commie-Bernie Sanders tries to make a political show out of the trial for publicity purposes that McConnell won’t make them pay dearly. If any senators — especially the 4 Democrats in the upper chamber running for president — violate the rules on McConnell’s watch, they can be arrested and jailed by the Sergeant at Arms. And don’t think that McConnell wont’ do it, as he commands a foreboding respect even from the most liberal outlets. The conduct on the Senate floor will be much different than the circus liar-Pelosi ran in the House. According to the draft, phones are prohibited from being on any persons, whether it’s a senator or hearing attendee: “No use of phones or electronic devices will be allowed in the Chamber.” Additionally, Senators will be severely limited in terms of access to their staff, who normally help with creating questions and compiling information. Not only is staff access curtailed, but physical movement around the floor isn’t allowed either. McConnell and scumbag-Schumer instructed their colleagues “to remain in their seats at all times they are on the Senate floor during the impeachment proceedings.” This would be “strictly enforced,” per the rules....
Trump impeachment team to include
Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz
by Katherine Doyle
{ washingtonexaminer.com } ~ President Trump's impeachment team will include two former independent counsels, Ken Starr and Robert Ray, and constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz... The team will be led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and will include Jay Sekulow, a personal attorney to the president. Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi will also join the president's defense, according to one report, along with longtime Trump counsel Jane Raskin, adding two women to the team. Dershowitz, 81, shared a statement this morning written in the third person that read: "Professor Dershowitz will present oral arguments at the Senate trial to address the constitutional arguments against impeachment and removal. While Professor Dershowitz is non partisan when it comes to the Constitution — he opposed the impeachment of President scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton and voted for scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton — he believes the issues at stake go to the heart of our enduring Constitution. He is participating in this impeachment trial to defend the integrity of the Constitution and to prevent the creation of a dangerous constitutional precedent." Starr, 73, who in December said impeachment was "absolutely" an effort to overthrow the president, led the investigation into President scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton, the second U.S. president to be impeached. As independent counsel, he also led the Whitewater investigation and was succeeded in the role by Ray, 59. Ray and Dershowitz share checkered histories. Ray was charged with stalking in 2006, while Dershowitz is dogged by his longstanding ties to Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender for whom Dershowitz helped arrange a plea deal in 2008. "Establishment Republicans" stopped Dershowitz from testifying in the House, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida said in December, citing "consternation" over Epstein, who died in jail after an arrest on separate charges last year. "He would have carved them up." “I think that was a mistake,” Gaetz said at the time. “I don't think there is anyone we could put in that chair better than Alan Dershowitz. There's a decent chance Dershowitz would have been the professor of some of the Democrat witnesses." https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-impeachment-team-to-include-ken-starr-and-alan-dershowitz?utm_source=breaking_push&utm_medium=app&utm_campaign=push_notifications&utm_source=WEX_Breaking%20News%20Alert_01/17/2020&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEX_Breaking%20News&rid=5261 .
DHS Approves $100k Grant
of Taxpayers' Money to CAIR
by Sam Westrop
{ meforum.org } ~ In October, the Trump administration handed out $100,000 of federal government money to the terror-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Middle East Forum has found... In 2009, the FBI blacklisted CAIR after federal prosecutors named the Islamist group as an unindicted co-conspirator during the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial. In 2014, the United Arab Emirates designated CAIR as a terrorist organization. And today, its officials continue to promote and excuse violently anti-American and anti-Semitic rhetoric. To fund CAIR, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) first awarded monies to the Washington D.C. government, which then selected CAIR and a number of other extremist organizations as suitable sub-recipients. The federal government would likely have been aware, however, that CAIR was a grantee –according to government documentation, it seems sub-grantees must be approved by DHS before funds are distributed. The administration's funding of CAIR was the product of the DHS's Nonprofit Security Grant Program. As my colleague David Swindle recently wrote in the Daily Wire, Congress's current proposed expansion of the program's budget, however "well-meaning," carries enormous "potential for abuse" and will end up providing "millions of taxpayer dollars" to "pro-jihadist Islamist groups ." This program and others seem to be doing just that. Additional new federal grants of taxpayers' money handed out to Islamist organizations include over $57,000 to the Muslim American Society (MAS), a national Islamist organization whose Philadelphia branch hosted an event last year at which young children from an MAS-run school recited poetry about the killing of Jews; and $100,000 to Dar al-Hijrah, a hardline Virginia mosque once home to former Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki, and long considered a key terror hub by law enforcement agencies... A very bad decision. Trump you need to look into this. https://www.meforum.org/islamist-watch/60298/dhs-approves-100k-grant-of-taxpayers-money-to-cair?utm_source=Middle+East+Forum&utm_campaign=bab992bf71-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_17_03_56&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_086cfd423c-bab992bf71-33703665&goal=0_086cfd423c-bab992bf71-33703665 .
Muslim Deceit and the Burden of Proof
By Raymond Ibrahim
{ americanthinker.com } ~ In his recent defense of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya (dismantled here), Usama Hasan of the UK think tank Quilliam made the following admission... It is true that hardened islamist terrorists, such as the Al-Qaeda & ISIS supporter Usman Khan who murdered two people at Fishmongers’ Hall after pretending to have been “rehabilitated”, do misuse the principle of taqiyyah in order to further their cause. However, the charge that all Muslims are generally religiously obligated to lie, and do so routinely, is both dangerous and untrue. However true this may be, it is also irrelevant. After all, how is the infidel to know which Muslim is and isn’t “misusing the principle of taqiyyah”? Moreover, why should the burden of proof be on the non-Muslim -- who stands to and often does suffer and even die from ignoring the role of deceit in Islam -- and not on the Muslim, whose religion allows deception in the first place? This is particularly so since more than a few “hardened islamist terrorists” are convinced that their creed allows them to dissimulate to their heart’s content -- so long as doing so can be seen as helping further the cause of Islam. In this, as in virtually all things Islamic, Muslims have their prophet’s example -- two that are especially poignant -- to turn to. First is the assassination of Ka‘b ibn Ashraf (d. 624), an elderly Jew. Because he dared mock Muhammad, the latter exclaimed, “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his messenger?” A young Muslim named Ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that to get close enough to Ka‘b to murder him, he needed permission to lie to the Jew. Allah’s messenger agreed. So Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka‘b and began to complain about Muhammad until his disaffection became so convincing that Ka‘b eventually dropped his guard and befriended him. After behaving as his friend for some time, Ibn Maslama eventually appeared with another Muslim, also pretending to have apostatized. Then, while a trusting Ka‘b’s guard was down, they attacked and slaughtered him, bringing his head to Muhammad to the usual triumphant cries of “Allahu Akbar!” In another account, after Muhammad and his followers had attacked, plundered, and massacred a number of non-Muslim Arabs and Jews, the latter assembled and were poised to defeat the Muslims at the Battle of the Trench, 627. But then Naim bin Mas‘ud, one of the leaders of these non-Muslim “confederates,” as they came to be known in history, secretly went to Muhammad and converted to Islam. The prophet asked him to return to his tribesmen and allies -- without revealing that he had joined the Muslim camp -- and to try to get them to abandon the siege. “For,” Muhammad assured him, “war is deceit.”... https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/muslim_deceit_and_the_burden_of_proof.html .
.
Demo Debate: Things Left Unsaid
Were Loud and Clear
Nate Jackson: Hours before Tuesday night’s seventh (but first all-white) Democrat debate in Des Moines, an undercover video was released showing a paid commie-Bernie Sanders campaign worker saying “the only thing that fascists” (by which he hilariously means supporters of Donald Trump) “understand is violence,” calling for “gulags” to reeducate Trump supporters “to not be a f—king Nazi,” and threatening that “cities [will] burn” if Trump is reelected — or even if commie-Sanders doesn’t win the nomination.
You know who wasn’t asked about this appalling anti-Americanism during Tuesday night’s debate? commie-Bernie Sanders. Or any Democrat candidate, actually. Just imagine if a Republican staffer had been the one saying such things. The Leftmedia spent weeks hyperventilating over Trump’s policies for temporarily detaining illegals — policies a federal court just upheld yesterday. “Reeducating” American citizens in gulags because of political disagreements? Not a peep.
And it’s not as if commie-Sanders supporters don’t already have a history of violence. Remember that “commie-Bernie Bro” who attempted to murder elected Republicans?
Another thing to remember: commie-Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist who spoke highly of breadlines and honeymooned in the Soviet Union (albeit not in a gulag). Whether he wins the nomination or not, his radical ideas have transformed the Democrat Party — even if he refuses to put a price tag on his redistribution schemes.
What else went almost completely unmentioned at the debate? Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian terrorist terminated at Trump’s order. He’s a man about whom leftists couldn’t say enough nice things; nor could they complain loudly enough that Trump had taken him out. Yet he received just one passing reference in a question about something broader, illustrating that Democrats are utterly unserious about national security.
The things that were covered provided some enlightening moments, as well.
As we noted yesterday, Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren’s campaign slyly seeded another victim narrative to tweak commie-Sanders ahead of the debate. It worked — even better than she might have hoped.
CNN moderator Abby Phillip asked commie-Sanders, “I do want to be clear here — you’re saying that you never told senator dinky/liar-Warren that a woman could not win the election?” commie-Sanders replied, “That is correct.” Phillip immediately turned to dinky/liar-Warren and asked, “Sen. dinky/liar-Warren, what did you think when Senator commie-Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”
CNN moderators taking sides in a debate — where have we heard that before? Oh, right. Candy Crowley sided (wrongly) with Barack scumbag/liar-nObama over rino-Mitt Romney in 2012.
While dinky/liar-Warren tried to defuse the situation by calling commie-Sanders “my friend,” after the debate, she pointedly refused to shake hands with him.
The rest of the debate could be summed up by Fox News’s Greg Gutfeld, who said, “Take home notes: I’m no commie-Sanders fan, but CNN totally knifed him, again. The real thinkers were missing on that stage. The moderators were amateurs. The candidates were bored by their own words. Trump will eat any of these alive.” Better yet, The Babylon Bee headlined, “Warning: Gang Of Known Criminals Holds Meeting To Discuss How Much Of Your Money To Steal.”
Final question: Who benefited most from Tuesday’s debate? Maybe loose lips liar-Joe Biden, whose name we hadn’t yet mentioned because he mostly stayed out of the ridiculous fray.
Next up: The eighth debate on February 7 in New Hampshire, after the Iowa caucuses on February 3. ~The Patriot Post
Comments