Thursday AM ~ thefrontpagecover

TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
There Is Nothing Wrong With Quid Pro Quos
It Just Depends What the Quo Is
E5rnhagIdQYjqGbgiumKKuPNJCQvroqefJ8b7BsNrupnePhy338e4rizij9yDAbkKIIWJOy0Jigkvo3mhtcOexTTzyMJ7fwJt0vOuW8glQJLZ4AgXGwSQcVk-DfDqw2bs4vZAib6vZVKE_pK5nqGRVEiYNwtfHo=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href= Marc A. Thiessen
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
Giuliani Associates Plead Not Guilty 
To Campaign Finance Charges
RaFww91Uf2v0XxmwrbDnXqKre76BZ0mPD9h57xuFEB4O2t-_JNYu73G7ZRXVDjm-QPvGr0hkPyh9BHr22WlWR7ZhczWFUhvoSC5huZxJ085uyVwslZqUGlHYR38dTO2T_rtCjj9qvyFTMU52rVBApgJByJltYmSDO-6eTb19xFe-0vIEr28OpdWUGs1w4uqQkuaEHygHgu2yDXqECSvq80-Mh0QU34xxKO2l=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by CHUCK ROSS
{ dailycaller.com } ~ Two associates of Rudy Giuliani who helped the Trump lawyer in his Ukraine-related investigations pleaded not guilty in federal court in New York City on Wednesday to campaign finance charges... Prosecutors have accused Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman of illegally masking the source of contributions to Republican political candidates in order to advance personal and political interests.  According to an indictment unsealed on Oct. 10, Parnas, Fruman and two other associates “conspired to circumvent the federal laws against foreign influence by engaging in a scheme to funnel foreign money to candidates for federal and State office so that the defendants could buy potential influence with candidates, campaigns, and the candidates’ government.” Prosecutors also alleged that the Soviet-born Parnas and Fruman made illegal campaign contributions in order to “cause the U.S. government to remove or recall the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine.” That scheme involved campaign contributions to a former lawmaker identified as Pete Sessions, a Republican from Texas. “PARNAS’s efforts to remove the Ambassador were conducted, at least in part, at the request of one or more Ukrainian government officials,” the indictment says. Parnas met with Sessions on May 9, 2018 to discuss Yovanovitch. That same day, Sessions sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accusing the diplomat of making derogatory statements about Trump. The Trump administration recalled Yovanovitch from her post in May 2019. Parnas made a $2,700 campaign contribution to Sessions on June 25, 2018. According to the indictment, Parnas and Fruman committed to raising another $20,000 for the Republican, who lost his re-election bid several months later...
.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy
GOP Destroyed Impeachment Witness 
William Taylor’s Testimony
RT6wcrE80amiXWynfxhz-fQhlpjXMz6L7mI7kPMTwDCs44zQb4dg7eR30y0NW45FoCVK-9ddxwS8Lie9HLjvPdnJwvxCFtAMO-vgiijxoPJgsqbvVzSq7DDxLUX7NGhd82HLf3ozAqEPcSGegm_bEBD2Lu1EjwpEd7E9xliw_-21tV-6=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by DAVID KRAYDEN
{ dailycaller.com } ~ Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Tuesday that the GOP dismantled a suggestion from Ukrainian Envoy William Taylor during his closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence Committee... that President Donald Trump had tied aid to Ukraine to an investigation into former Vice President loose lips liar-Joe Biden. “In 90 seconds, we had Republican Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe destroy Taylor’s whole argument,” McCarthy told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on “The Ingraham Angle. ”Numerous media reports suggested Taylor’s testimony was devastating and provided ammunition for the impeachment inquiry. However, McCarthy claimed those reports are based on leaks coming from the committee chairman, Democratic California Rep. scumbag-Adam Schiff, and do not reflect Ratcliffe’s efforts to disprove Taylor’s testimony.The House minority leader told Ingraham that he cannot get into specifics about the questioning because of the veil of secrecy that scumbag-Schiff has placed over the impeachment inquiry. “scumbag-Adam Schiff won’t let us talk about what happened,” he said in reference to the closed-door session. “There is no quid pro quo.” Ratcliffe told Fox News after listening to Taylor that the envoy brought up some interesting information but said nothing “worthy of impeachment.” McCarthy also said the GOP members of the intelligence committee are being treated like children by scumbag-Schiff’s people...   https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/23/house-minority-leader-kevin-mccarthy-gop-john-ratcliffe-impeachment-witness-testimony/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=10638  
.
Hannity blasts scumbag-Adam Schiff, says he doesn't want impeachment transcripts public 
for fear of exposing 'corrupt narrative'
KithtCLL_7GaAot69sDNsMyyhrx2E-feercWrTjZnQ35Oni5qu3siSLIYgtzzcZEqDQAj1I-Y4tyXjRZ6o6elNqNFZidFHMgSpbqIqTSyB07ANsT-Yo3KtShvIiGJZjO5JD2OYzoKcvL-6HiWLCMszy_O1m4ZGflHcFO3chIKBDYun1NstffZCg5UWZF6Z6zvumjZiwnVn_bSGMJtqFeycQF42Zy=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
By Charles Creitz 
{ foxnews.com } ~ Sean Hannity on Tuesday night slammed House Intelligence Committee Chairman scumbag-Adam Schiff, D-Calif., claiming closed-door Trump impeachment inquiry hearings... he is overseeing remain hidden from many Republicans, the White House and the public because of the "corrupt narrative" they could expose. Hannity said former Presidents Richard Nixon and scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton faced much more transparent impeachment proceedings, with then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich using the 1970s as a model for his caucus' inquiry into scumbag/liar-Clinton. However, scumbag-Schiff's hearings, though secretive, are not going well for the Democrats, the "Hannity" host claimed. Hannity said he has sources who claim the impeachment inquiry proceedings are, "blowing up in the corrupt scumbag-Schiff's face." "Nothing is transparent," he said."Democrats don't want these transcripts to become public because it will destroy this phony, corrupt narrative. Instead, they want to control all the information so they can selectively leak that one sentence that they think helps them." Hannity accused scumbag-Schiff and other top Democrats of "editorializing" testimony in order to garner further opposition to President Trump. "The whole process is more corrupt, lacking all due process, all constitutionality, and constitutional protections. It is based on utter and complete nonsense. All the president is really guilty of is faithfully executing the laws of this land and fulfilling his constitutional duty," he said. The host also claimed scumbag-Schiff and other Democrats involved in the inquiry are "a lawless mob" that continues to disregard the truth and reject legislative norms. Claiming scumbag-Schiff is operating in a cowardly manner, Hannity said the impeachment proceedings must be rejected in order to ensure the U.S. continues to be a functioning Republic. "We better stop or we're not going to have a country, and yes it's that serious," he said. "scumbag-Adam Schiff -- he is holding secret hearings, secret meetings, that result in secret transcripts all hidden from the American people."
.
Breathe Free: Capitalism Helps 
Protect the Environment
FCrknIPHPgoquTr4b5tHp4AaHhBJaU0ZriQYRGGcxseM5wHNaF7kaZBZ4a5MNepN4JnfO2R6uRDkANt8zC1TH_p7dhM5XhhCavFllP5RIBDmN06-fZ13MdDZ9ugCmllPrg=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by Nicolas Loris
{ dailysignal.com } ~ A recent Rasmussen poll found 20% of voters feel we should eliminate capitalism to protect the environment. That’s like saying we should eliminate teachers to improve education... Truth be told, capitalism has helped cleanse our planet—improving living standards while protecting the environment. Rather than eliminate capitalism, policymakers need to unleash it. Markets incentivize efficiency by rewarding people for coming up with ways to do more or do better with less. People choose—and businesses make—more efficient products because it saves them money while delivering what customers want. Over the past decade, market forces have driven a massive transition within the energy industry. In 2008, coal provided roughly half of the country’s electricity generation. Now, coal’s share is about a quarter. Increased production of natural gas has driven energy bills and emissions downward. In direct response to cheap gas, the Nuclear Energy Institute organized nuclear power plants nationally to find operating efficiencies that have reduced costs by 19%, saving consumers $1.6 billion and keeping emissions-free electricity in the marketplace. The energy industry is far from the only sector that has made positive economic and environmental contributions. For instance, the cement industry is collaborating with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to explore how to refine its processes in ways that will improve resiliency, reduce emissions, and save lives. Investments in cement, steel, plastic, and other building materials will make our houses and highways sturdier and our products more durable—with a smaller environmental footprint. All of these activities result directly from free enterprise—companies providing consumers with the goods and services they want while using fewer resources and emitting fewer unwanted emissions. As a country prospers, its citizens are better able to care for the environment and reduce pollutants emitted from industrial growth. In fact, The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom and Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index show a strong correlation between a country’s environmental performance and economic freedom i.e., its embrace of capitalism...   https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/10/22/breathe-free-capitalism-helps-protect-the-environment/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=breathe-free-capitalism-helps-protect-the-environment&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWlRJMU56STVZelEwWXpZMCIsInQiOiJmWU5WTXhNVE9TWUMrb2pINjQrcHRsY09wS3k0WkJsejhhdDdtSzNOb0dDNThRSUNaXC91Q3NTUVVsWndWcUdWaTk5T0JDRWVHZDViQVduaWdiNWtkUVU5cmlkYkR2Tmo1c0NLNlZKVW5ubXYwT0NNTDl6U2R1aXE2b1RmTEtuWkgifQ%3D%3D   
Fake Refugees Make
Themselves at Home in U.S.
A40r5NafOW3CKb_NkL5zEvSgBi-Z4WwoVnGwVKaIfIMdxEZ4AhHBPaqowKws1Tu4wsUXAM4vdMvJJ_UB2PevaY6nIlqDfrqP2eiYGbjIj850QDzT3YU0zenp2WWBrBuWddPYywJBAb-BlLwpK_SnBwQQLHMP4NMl=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
By BOB DANE
{ immigrationreform.com } ~ “Tens of thousands”of fraudulent refugees from Africa bought their way into the United States since the late 1990s and are still living here, a CNN investigation reported this month... Kenyans, posing as persecuted Somalis, told the news network how they and their families came to the U.S. and used food stamps and other public services for years. “I feel bad for the real refugees, but at the same time it is all about first come, first served,” one Kenyan said. Abuse of the African resettlement program was uncovered in 2008. The Bush administration halted admission of “P-3” Third Priority, Family Reunification refugees after DNA tests by the State Department  revealed a nearly 90 percent fraud rate in the system. The program restarted in 2012, reportedly with tighter DNA screening. The Trump administration maintains its enhanced vetting system is vigorous. But for African “facilitators” — middlemen who take and distribute bribe money on the continent — it is the first layer of vetting by the Kenyan government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) that matters the most. “At the very beginning, before the applicant even gets to the U.S. embassy vetting, the selection has been done at the UN level,” one facilitator said. He told CNN he has been gaming the UN resettlement system for years. The CNN report on refugee fraud comes five months after NBC News  exposed chronic corruption at UNHCR. Clearly, deep-seated problems are not being fixed. It’s equally obvious that continued reliance on African governments and a tainted UN agency won’t clean up the mess. By lowering future annual refugee intakes, the Trump administration may curtail opportunities for fraudsters. Alas, it doesn’t do anything about the tens of thousands of refugees who scammed their way into this country and remain here...
.
Baltimore’s Global Warming Lawsuit Against 
Energy Companies Can Proceed, Supremes Say
by Kevin Daley 
{ thepoliticalinsider.com } ~ The Supreme Court allowed the city of Baltimore to proceed with its climate change lawsuit against two dozen fossil fuel companies Tuesday... after the corporate defendants asked the justices to put the dispute on hold. The oil and natural gas companies — among them BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch Shell — are fighting to move Baltimore’s lawsuit out of a Maryland state court into a federal court. They wanted the justices to stop state court proceedings while they fight to remove the dispute to a federal forum. “It is difficult to imagine claims that more clearly implicate substantial questions of federal law and require uniform disposition than the claims at issue here, which seek to transform the nation’s energy, environmental, national security, and foreign policies by punishing energy companies for lawfully supplying necessary oil and gas resources,” the corporations told the high court in legal filings. “Respondent wants a Maryland state court to declare applicants’ historical energy production and promotional activities across the United States and abroad to be a public nuisance, thereby regulating interstate and international energy production in the name of global warming,” the application adds. The lawsuit alleges that the fossil fuel companies have engaged in a “coordinated, multi-front effort” to conceal the harm of greenhouse gas emissions that attend the use of their products. The plaintiffs claim the energy industry has been investigating atmospheric carbon accumulation since at least 1958, and has long been aware of its environmental consequences...  https://thepoliticalinsider.com/baltimores-global-warming-lawsuit-against-energy-companies-can-proceed-supremes-say/?utm_campaign=TPI10232019PM&utm_source=criticalimpact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=4b4ea4948726422aa6473c7b9fa19141&source=TPICI   
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
There Is Nothing Wrong With Quid Pro Quos 
It Just Depends What the Quo Is
E5rnhagIdQYjqGbgiumKKuPNJCQvroqefJ8b7BsNrupnePhy338e4rizij9yDAbkKIIWJOy0Jigkvo3mhtcOexTTzyMJ7fwJt0vOuW8glQJLZ4AgXGwSQcVk-DfDqw2bs4vZAib6vZVKE_pK5nqGRVEiYNwtfHo=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href= Marc A. Thiessen
 

It’s Washington’s new favorite Latin phrase: quid pro quo. On Capitol Hill, Democrats seeking to impeach the president are trying to prove that he engaged in a quid pro quo (“this for that”) with U.S. aid to Ukraine. The president has insisted “there was no quid pro quo.” But then last week, White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney seemed to admit to a quid pro quo during his hapless news conference.

It seems as though the fate of the Trump presidency hangs on those three Latin words. Find proof of a quid pro quo and Trump is a goner.

But that’s not exactly true. The United States engages in quid pro quos all the time when it comes to foreign assistance. Our aid is not charity; Americans expect to get something in return for it. We have leveraged U.S. assistance in exchange for a host of objectives: economic reform, democratic reform, better pursuit of corruption, access to strategically important areas and so on.

In 1978, Jimmy Carter agreed to provide Egypt with billions of dollars in foreign aid in exchange for making peace with Israel, as part of the Camp David Accords. That was a quid pro quo. In 2004, George W. Bush created the Millennium Challenge Account, which required countries to meet a host of eligibility requirements — free speech, free assembly, rule of law, property rights, transparency — before they could receive a grant of aid. That program was one big quid pro quo.

Congress imposes quid pro quos on U.S. foreign aid all the time, as well. Democrats howled when Trump cut aid to Central America earlier this year, but as Lester Munson, former staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, points out, “If you look at the appropriations bill that actually provided the president with the money to give assistance to Central America, there are 15 different reasons you might suspend the aid there.”

Even former vice president loose lips liar-Joe Biden has admitted to a quid pro quo with Ukraine. He held up $1 billion in loan guarantees (a quid) to get them to fire a prosecutor who was not investigating corruption (a quo). This was perfectly legitimate, he says, and he may well be right.

So, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with quid pro quos. It just depends what the quo is.

In his news conference, Mulvaney said “the money held up had absolutely nothing to do with loose lips liar-Biden.” Good, because holding up U.S. aid as a quid pro quo for investigating the president’s political rival would be highly problematic. Rather, Mulvaney said, it was based on three issues: first, concerns about corruption in Ukraine; second, concerns about burden-sharing by our European allies in supporting Ukraine; and third, “whether they were cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our Department of Justice” into the origins of the Mueller probe that is being led by U.S. Attorney John H. Durham, a career prosecutor. It was the third — conditioning aid on the Durham investigation — that prompted Democrats to say: Gotcha!

Mulvaney later said he misspoke, and that’s probably true. As Kurt Volker, the former U.S. envoy to Ukraine, explained in his sworn deposition before the House Intelligence Committee, the Ukrainians did not know that the aid was being held up until more than up a month after Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (during which Trump never mentioned the aid was on hold). “They became aware later [that the aid was held up], but I don’t believe they were aware at the time, so there was no leverage implied,” Volker told the committee. If you are demanding a quid pro quo, you have to tell the country that you are holding up the quid until they deliver the quo. The Ukrainians didn’t even know there was a quid.

But let’s say Trump had in fact withheld U.S. aid to get Ukraine to cooperate with the Durham probe. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with that. The president, as the country’s chief law enforcement officer, would be entirely within his rights to use aid as leverage to get Ukraine cooperate with an official Justice Department investigation. If it turns out that the quo was “investigate my 2020 opponent,” as Ambassador William Taylor reportedly alleged during testimony on Capitol Hill Tuesday, then Trump is in big trouble; but if the quo is “cooperate with the Justice Department,” that’s perfectly fine.

So, while Democrats may be insisting that Trump delenda est — “Trump must be destroyed” — they will need something more than this quid pro quo to do it.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/66287?mailing_id=4603&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4603&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