Author

JOSEPH CURL

Browsing

The Trump administration on Wednesday announced that 2,200 American troops will be pulled from Iraq, adding that top officials are looking to announce a draw down in Afghanistan in the next few days.

Central Command Commander Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. said the withdrawal means will drop the U.S. troop level in Iraq to 3,000 and will happen by the end of September. “This reduced footprint allows us to continue advising and assisting our Iraqi partners in rooting out the final remnants of ISIS in Iraq and ensuring its enduring defeat,” McKenzie said, according to CNN.

“Over the last seven or eight months, we have had to devote resources to self-protection that we would otherwise devote for the counter-ISIS fight and we’ve had to pull back and our partners have had to pull back,” he said. “At the same time we’ve done things to harden our positions to make it more difficult for Iran to attack us in Iraq — but it has had an effect,” the general said.

Meanwhile, a senior administration official “told reporters on Tuesday to also expect an announcement on troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in a couple days,” CNN reported.

CNN previously reported that the Trump administration plans to reduce the number of US troops in Afghanistan from 8,600 to 4,500, which would be the lowest number since the very earliest days of the Afghanistan war.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump vowed to draw down troops and get the U.S. out of “endless wars.” The new move means more than 40% of U.S. troops currently in Iraq will leave in the next few weeks.

The move will also allow Trump to hit his Democratic opponent Joe Biden for voting in favor of the Iraq War in 2002 as a senator. The president has taken aim at Biden of late.

“Unlike previous administrations, I have kept America out of new wars and our troops are coming home,” Trump said last month while accepting the Republican presidential nomination at the White House. Trump also told reporters late last month that “we look forward to the day when we don´t have to be there.”

McKenzie, who made the announcement alongside the Iraqi Minister of Defense, stressed the drawdown shows “our confidence in the Iraqi Security Forces’ increased ability to operate independently.”

The “ultimate goal,” the general said, is for Iraq to be able to prevent “an ISIS resurgence and of securing Iraq’s sovereignty without external assistance.”

The U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 under President George W. Bush, and at the height of the war in 2007, America had about 175,000 troops in Iraq. More than 3,400 Americans have been killed in action in Iraq, the Department of Defense reports.

In 2011, President Obama declared an end to the Iraq War but then sent more Americans to Iraq in 2014 to fight ISIS.

“The journey has been difficult, the sacrifice has been great, but the progress has been significant,” McKenzie said.

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: Trump To Pull 2,200 Troops From Iraq, Plans Draw Down In Afghanistan

As many as 1,000 Georgians voted twice in the state’s June 9 primary, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced on Tuesday, which is a felony that he vowed to prosecute.

“A double voter knows exactly what they’re doing, diluting the votes of each and every voter that follows the law,” Raffensperger said during a press conference at the state Capitol, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. “Those that make the choice to game the system are breaking the law. And as secretary of state, I will not tolerate it.” Double voting is punishable by one to 10 years in prison and a fine up to $100,000.

Raffensperger said the voters sent in absentee ballots, but then also voted in person. In a post-primary examination, the double votes were detected. About 150,000 people “who requested absentee ballots showed up at polling places on election day, often because they never received their absentee ballots in the mail or decided to instead vote in person,” AJC reported. “Of those, 1,000 of those voters had returned their absentee ballots to county election offices, and poll workers also allowed them to vote in-person.”

The double votes did not alter the outcome of any races, Raffensperger said.

With Democrats pushing for nationwide vote-by-mail, where ballots are mailed to every registered voter, more reports are emerging about problems with the system. For instance, a man in California last month pleaded guilty to charges that he fraudulently cast his dead mother’s ballots in three different elections.

Caesar Peter Abutin was charged in July with one felony count of fraud and one count of fraudulent voting. He pleaded guilty to committing mail-in voting fraud three times from 2012 to 2014 using the ballots of his late mother, who died in July 2006, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office announced. The DA’s office said he signed the name of his mother when applying for vote-by-mail ballots.

President Donald Trump warned last month that if universal mail-in voting is allowed, the U.S. is “never going to have a fair” presidential election.

“I have to tell you, that if you go with this universal mail-in […] tens of millions of ballots being sent to everybody and their dogs, dogs are getting them, OK? People that have been dead for 25 years are getting them, you have to see what’s happening. Then you’re never going to have a fair election,” Trump said in a Fox News interview.

Trump also said he would support extending voting to include the weekend before Election Day and adding additional voting booths to ease crowding. “I would support all of that. That’s what you want to do,” Trump said. “I would be for opening more voting booths.”

And the president also said he’s okay with absentee voting. “I totally support that,” Trump responded. “That’s a great thing.”

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: 1,000 People Double-Voted In Georgia Primary, Face 10 Years In Prison, $100,000 Fine

Amid massive protests in cities across the country, many of which turned violent on Saturday night, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said President Trump has “helped to create this atmosphere.”

“I can tell you this, and this is the blunt truth, the president of the United States helped to create this atmosphere, and that’s the tragedy here,” the mayor said on Saturday. “It doesn’t matter what your party affiliation is, doesn’t matter what you think of President Trump, there’s been an uptick in tension and hatred and division since he came along. It’s just a fact.”

“And it’s not the reason for any specific act, but it has helped to poison the atmosphere. So, we gotta’ get back to leaders talking about unity.”

“We always talk about respect for peaceful protest, respect for communities, respect for different points of view, and obviously that’s not been the tone set from the top in Washington, and that’s one of the reasons we’re in this mess we’re in,” de Blasio said.

More than 345 people were arrested in New York City on Saturday night during a violent anti-police brutality demonstration, which de Blasio called a “tense” night for police officers.

In a late night press conference on Saturday, the mayor addressed a viral video showing police vehicles driving through a crowd of protesters throwing water bottles and other objects.

“The video was upsetting and I wish the officers hadn’t done that, but I also understood that they didn’t start the situation. The situation was started by a group of protesters converging on a police vehicle, attacking that vehicle. It’s unacceptable,” the mayor said. “It’s inappropriate for protesters to surround a police vehicle and threaten police officers. That’s wrong on its face,” de Blasio said during a press briefing.

“A different element has come into play here,” de Blasio said of the protesters involved. “Trying to hurt police officers and trying to damage their vehicles — if a police officer is in that situation they have to get out of that situation.”

De Blasio also encouraged the peaceful protesters in the city. “Peaceful protesters, if you’re out tonight… we hear your issues, the need for justice, real change. If you went out, you have been heard,” de Blasio said just before midnight.

But he warned that anyone out to “create violence … will get arrested tonight,” he added.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) had a different view.

“NYPD officers just drove an SUV into a crowd of human beings. They could’ve killed them, & we don’t know how many they injured,” she wrote on Twitter. “NO ONE gets to slam an SUV through a crowd of human beings. @NYCMayor these officers need to be brought to justice, not dismissed w/’internal reviews.’”

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: De Blasio Blames Trump For Riots, Saying President ‘Helped To Poison The Atmosphere’

“Strong men also cry. Strong men also cry.” – The Big Lebowski

CNN’s Brian Stelter took to Twitter over the weekend to make sure everyone knows he is a deeply emotional man who is so full of pathos that he is shedding buckets full of tears over the horrors he sees each day as a “journalist.”

Stelter said the coronavirus crisis has beaten him down, leading to a copious flow of lachrymal fluid.

“Last night, I hit a wall. Gutted by the death toll. Disturbed by the govt’s shortcomings. Dismayed by political rhetoric that bears no resemblance to reality. Worried about friends who are losing jobs; kids who are missing school; and senior citizens who are living in fear,” Stelter wrote on Twitter.

The CNN host went on further – about himself.

“I crawled in bed and cried for our pre-pandemic lives. Tears that had been waiting a month to escape. I wanted to share because it feels freeing to do so. Now is not a time for faux-invincibility. Journos are living this, hating this, like everyone else,” Stelter wrote.

Stelter, of course, added a link to his CNN newsletter page (a good time to hawk some wares).

We get it: These are trying times. But here’s the thing: The CNN host’s words were intended to call attention to his pathos, his deep feelings about the world, his concerns and longings. He says “I” three times, but never mentions the true warriors on the front lines in the battle against COVID-19 – the health care workers. They aren’t crawling into bed and weeping. They’re out there day after day fighting the good fight.

Social media weighed in on quickly.

“Such bravery. Let’s all take a moment to think about the journos working from home while millions have lost their jobs,” wrote one Twitter user.

“…whilst getting his full paycheck and benefits. Also, you’re not a Journo, maybe that’s what finally hit you,” another chimed in.

“Gutted by the death toll????” wrote another. “1.25 mil ppl die in car accidents every year. 80,000 ppl died from seasonal flu in U.S. alone in 2018. You gutted then, little poor boy?”

Another said that perhaps Stelter should take some action rather than laying in bed crying: “What are you going to do about it beside crawling in your bed and crying? We don’t live in China, we are not helpless Brain, put on your big boy pants and protest your rights along with other Americans.”

And yet another said: “Perhaps you feel guilty [that] you and the Lamestream media contributed to this massive overreaction with misinformation.”

Stelter claimed in his posts that he was “Dismayed by political rhetoric that bears no resemblance to reality,” but each day the CNN host adds to that rhetoric with attacks against Trump (who, it is most assuredly acknowledged by members of both parties, has not been error-free in his efforts. Remember when the White House said there was no need to wear a mask?)

“Viewers of Monday’s White House briefing on the coronavirus saw a president in meltdown mode, clearly rattled by the reporting of national news outlets,” Stelter wrote on Tuesday on CNN.

“President Trump acted like he is at war with the media instead of Covid-19. His instability was on full display. He attempted to argue against The New York Times’ damning examination of his delayed response to the virus. He threw up smokescreens and tried to point the finger back at the media,” Stelter continued. “He tossed to an anti-media propaganda video, which was partly ripped off from Sean Hannity’s show, and which caused CNN and MSNBC to cut away from the briefing.”

That’s not the writing of a “journalist.” Journalists do news. That’s commentary from an opinion columnist. Which is fine, just call it what it is.

And one last note to Stelter: We’ve all cried for everyone in the world beaten down by the coronavirus pandemic. Each and every one of us.

We just didn’t go on Twitter and tell everyone.

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: CURL: CNN’s Brian Stelter Wants Everyone To Know That He Has ‘Cried For Our Pre-Pandemic Lives’

Two House Democrats have introduced legislation – the Emergency Money for the People Act – that would give Americans $2,000 a month throughout the crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic, and “until employment returns to pre-COVID-19 levels.”

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), the sponsors of the bill, think the $1,200 payments Americans are beginning to receive from the federal government as part of a $2.2 trillion economic stimulus are just not enough.

“The economic impact of this virus is unprecedented for our country. As millions of Americans file for unemployment week over week, we have to work quickly to patch the dam – and that means putting cash in the hands of hard-working families,” Ryan said in a press release.

“A one-time, twelve hundred dollar check isn’t going to cut it,” said Khanna in a press release. “Americans need sustained cash infusions for the duration of this crisis in order to come out on the other side alive, healthy, and ready to get back to work. Members on both sides of the aisle are finally coming together around the idea of sending money out to people. Rep. Ryan and I are urging leadership to include this bill in the fourth COVID relief package to truly support the American working class.”

Under the bill, more Americans would qualify for federal payments and the $2,000 monthly payment would stay in effect until employment returns to pre-COVID-19 levels.

Here are the eligibility requirements, according to Ryan’s press release:

  • Every American adult age 16 and older making less than $130,000 annually would receive at least $2,000 per month.
  • Married couples earning less than $260,000 would receive at least $4,000 per month.
  • Qualifying families with children will receive an additional $500 per child – families will receive funds for up to three children.
  • For example, a married couple making under $260K with 3 kids would receive $5,500 per month.
  • Those who had no earnings, were unemployed, or are currently unemployed would also be eligible.
  • Those who were not eligible in 2019 or 2018 but would be eligible in 2020, could submit at least two consecutive months of paychecks to verify income eligibility.
  • The Emergency Money for the People Act also expands the program to millions more Americans who were excluded from the CARES cash rebates – such as college students and adults with disabilities who are still claimed as a dependent. The individual will receive the payment, and their parent or guardian will receive the dependent credit.

Under the bill passed last month by Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump, individuals are eligible for payments of up to $1,200, but that amount declines for those with an adjusted gross income higher than $75,000 a year. The $1,200 payment drops by 5% of every dollar above $75,000, or $50 for every $1,000.

The benefit doesn’t apply for individuals with incomes over $99,000.

Married couples with combined incomes of up to $150,000 would receive $2,400, subject to the same phaseout that applies to individuals. The payments would be phased out entirely for couples making $198,000 or more. Families also get $500 per dependent child under the age of 16.

Paper checks for Americans without direct deposit filed with the IRS won’t start going out until next month, and some people may have to wait up to five months to see their stimulus dollars. About 100 million Americans don’t have direct deposit, Politico reported, adding that “some 5 million checks will be mailed weekly over 20 weeks.”

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: Give Americans $2,000 A Month ‘Until Employment Returns To Pre-COVID-19 Levels,’ House Democrats Say In New Bill

But she’s going to give it another go, this time as Americans are locked down while the coronavirus sweeps across the nation.

Pelosi announced last week that she is setting up a select House committee to “assure that the taxpayer dollars are being wisely and efficiently spent” — but the California Democrat also said she wants to “examine all aspects of the federal response to the coronavirus.”

That means another open-ended investigation into — everything. And she’ll have subpoena power (of course).

Meanwhile, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), who led the failed impeachment process, on Friday proposed the establishment of a bipartisan commission — also with subpoena power — to investigate the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Schiff, another California Democrat, wants to set up a “9/11-style commission” of 10 lawmakers to review the administration’s actions and probe the government’s preparedness in advance of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“After Pearl Harbor, September 11, and many momentous events in American history, independent, bipartisan commissions have been established to provide a complete accounting of what happened, what we did right and wrong, and what we can do to better protect the country in the future,” Schiff said in a statement Friday. “Though we are still in the early days of the coronavirus crisis, there is no doubt that such a comprehensive and authoritative review will be required.”

Imagine that. Imagine lawmakers calling federal health officials off the front lines and into the House chambers to answer a bunch of biased questions, including “What did Trump know and when did he know it?”

To Democrats, everything is a potential Watergate.

Trump blasted the new call for another endless probe as he sought to calm Americans’ fears during a White House briefing on the virus last week.

“We have seen Americans unite with incredible selflessness and compassion,” he said. “I want to remind everyone here in our nation’s capital, especially in Congress, that this is not the time for politics, endless partisan investigations. Here we go again. They’ve already done extraordinary damage to our country in recent years.

“It’s witch hunt after witch hunt after witch hunt,” Trump continued. “And in the end, it’s people doing the witch hunt who are losing — and they’ve been losing by a lot. And it’s not any time for witch hunts.”

Speaking of the virus, Trump said: “It’s time to get this enemy defeated. Conducting these partisan investigations during a pandemic is a really big waste of vital resources, time, attention. And we want to fight for American lives, not waste time and build up my poll numbers, because that’s all they’re doing, because everyone knows it’s ridiculous.”

The president noted that as the virus was sweeping the world, Democrats in Congress were fixated on impeaching him and ousting him from office.

“If you spent less time on your ridiculous impeachment hoax, which went haplessly on forever and ended up going nowhere (except increasing my poll numbers), and instead focused on helping the people of New York, then New York would not have been so completely unprepared for the ‘invisible enemy,’” Trump wrote on Twitter.

For the record, while Democrats focused on impeachment, Trump was busy. On Jan. 30, the World Health Organization declared a global health emergency of international concern. The same day, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the first time confirmed person-to-person spread of the Wuhan virus and applauded WHO’s decision.

That same day, Trump created the White House Coronavirus Task Force to coordinate U.S. efforts regarding the new disease.

The next day, on Jan. 31, the president declared coronavirus a U.S. public health emergency and issued a travel ban between the United States and China.

Campaigning in Iowa that day, Joe Biden criticized Trump’s China travel ban, saying, “This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia.” And on Feb. 24, Pelosi encouraged people to visit San Francisco’s Chinatown for the Lunar New Year celebration, claiming it was “perfectly safe” to be there.

Schiff was also blithely unaware: His Twitter feed did not mention the virus at all until Feb. 24 and his House Office press releases didn’t mention it until March 15.

Still, Pelosi blames Trump for the virus. “As the president fiddles, people are dying,” she said.

But if federal lawmakers want to find someone to blame, they should look closer to home. When the Trump administration held a briefing on Jan. 24 to inform senators about the coronavirus, it was “sparsely attended,” Politico reported, because it “was held on the same day as a deadline for senators to submit their impeachment questions.”

*Joseph Curl ran the Drudge Report from 2010 to 2014 and covered the White House for a dozen years. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on Twitter at @JosephCurl. A version of this article ran previously in The Washington Times.

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: CURL: As Trump Battles Coronavirus, Democrats Plot More Partisan Probes

The trial in the Senate on two articles of impeachment and whether to remove President Donald Trump from office has oftentimes been tedious, thus far. But Alan Dershowitz’s speech from the Senate floor last night was an exception.

Dershowitz has a lengthy resume: He began teaching law at Harvard when he 28 years old (the youngest ever to do so), and he has handled a slew of high-profile cases, from O.J. Simpson to Jeffrey Epstein to Harvey Weinstein. Now 81, Dershowitz retired in 2013, and has since been a regular media contributor, political commentator, and legal analyst.

He recently got the call to join Trump’s defense team, and on Monday held court for a little more than an hour. Below are the highlights of his speech.

“I stand before you today, as I stood in 1973 and 1974 for the protection of the constitutional and procedural rights of Richard Nixon, who I personally abhorred and whose impeachment I personally favored, and as I stood for the rights of Bill Clinton, who I admired and whose impeachment I strongly opposed,” he said as he opened his remarks.

“I stand against the application and misapplication of the constitutional criteria in every case and against any president without regard to whether I support his or her parties or policies. I would be making the very same constitutional argument had Hillary Clinton, for whom I voted, been elected and had a Republican House voted to impeach her on these unconstitutional grounds.”

He said he was there to answer one major question: “Do charges of abuse and obstruction rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the constitution?”

What follows is a transcript of portions of Dershowitz’s Senate floor speech.

WHAT IS IMPEACHABLE?

The main thrust of my argument, however, and the one most relevant to these proceedings is that even if that position is not accepted, even if criminal conduct were not required, the Framers of our Constitution implicitly rejected, and if it had been presented to them, would have explicitly rejected such vague terms as abuse of power and obstruction of Congress as among the enumerated and defined criteria for impeaching a president. …

Now here I am making, I think, a very important point. Even if the Senate were to conclude that a technical crime is not required for impeachment, the critical question remains — and it’s the question I now want to address myself to — do abuse of power and obstruction of Congress constitute impeachable offenses? The relevant history answers that question clearly in the negative. Each of these charges suffers from the vice of being, “So vague a term that they will be equivalent of tenure at the pleasure of the Senate.” To quote again, the father of our Constitution, abusive of power is an accusation easily leveled by political opponents against controversial presidents. …

‘WHAT WAS IN THE PRESIDENT’S MIND?‘

[Constitutional law] Professor [Josh] Blackman drew the following relevant conclusion from this and other historical events. He said, “Politicians routinely promote their understanding of the general welfare while in the back of their minds considering how these actions will affect their popularity. Often the two concepts overlap. What’s good for the country is good for the official’s reelection. All politicians,” he said, “understand that dynamic.” Like all human beings, presidents and other politicians persuade themselves that their actions seen by their opponents as self-serving are primarily in the national interest. In order to conclude that such mixed motive actions constituted abuse of power, opponents must psychoanalyze the president and attribute to him a singular self-serving motive.

Such a subjective probing of motives cannot be the legal basis for a serious accusation of abuse of power that could result in the removal of an elected president. Yet this is precisely what the managers are claiming. Here’s what they say, “Whether the president’s real reason, the ones actually in his mind are at the time legitimate.” What a standard. What was in the president’s mind? Actually in his mind? What was the real reason? Would you want your actions to be probe for what was the real reason why you acted? Even if a president were. It clearly shows in my mind that the Framers could not have intended this psychoanalytic approach to presidential motives to determine the distinction between what is impeachable and what is not.

ON QUID PRO QUOS

As a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, obviously a highly disputed matter in this case that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power. Consider the following hypothetical case that is in our news today, as the Israeli prime minister comes to the United States for meetings. Let’s assume a Democratic president tells Israel that foreign aid authorized by Congress will not be sent or an Oval Office meeting will not be scheduled unless the Israelis stop building “settlements.” Quid pro quo. I might disapprove of such a quid pro quo demand on policy grounds, but it would not constitute an abuse of power. Quid pro quo alone is not a basis for abusive power. It’s part of the way foreign policy has been operated by presidents since the beginning of time. The claim that foreign policy decisions can be deemed abuses of power based on subjective opinions about mixed or sole motives that the president was interested only in helping himself demonstrate the dangers of employing the vague subjective and politically malleable phrase, “abusive power,” as a constitutionally permissible criteria for the removal of a president.

Now it follows that if a president — any president — were to demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, obviously a highly disputed matter in this case, that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power.

Let me repeat: Nothing in the [former National Security Advisor John] Bolton revelations — even if true — would rise to the level of an abuse of power or impeachable offense. That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution — you cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using words like “quid pro quo” and “personal benefit.”

It is inconceivable that the Framers would have intended such politically loaded and promiscuously deployed a term as “abuse of power” and weaponized it as a tool of impeachment.

ON ABUSE OF POWER, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Sure, nobody was above the law, but they created a law. They created a law by which Congress could impeach and they did not want to expand that law to include all the criteria that permitted impeachment in Great Britain. The Framers would never have included and did not include abuse of power as an enumerated and defined criteria for impeachment. By expressly rejecting “maladministration,” they implicitly rejected “abuse.” Nor would the Framers have included “obstruction of Congress” as among the enumerated and defined criteria. It is too vague, indefinable — especially in a constitutional system in which according to [Alexander] Hamilton in Federalist 78, the legislative body is not themselves, the constitutional judge of their own powers. And the construction they put on them is not conclusive upon other departments. Instead, he said the courts were designed as an intermediate body between the people as declared in the Constitution and the legislature in order to keep the ladder within the limits assigned to their authority. …

By their very nature, words like “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” are standard-less. It’s impossible to put standards into words like that. Both are subjective matters of degree and amenable to varying partisan interpretations. It’s impossible to know in advance whether a given action will subsequently be deemed to be on one side or the other of the line. Indeed, the same action with the same state of mind can be deemed abusive or obstructive when done by one person but not when done by another. That is the essence of what the rule of law is not. When you have a criteria that could be applied to one person one way and another person in another way, and they both fit within the terms abuse of power. …

You are entitled to use that rule of interpretation, as well, in deciding whether or not “obstruction of Congress” or “abuse of power” can be defined as fitting within the criteria of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” For the Senate to remove a duly elected president on vague non-constitutional grounds such as “abuse of power” or “obstruction of Congress” would create a dangerous precedent and be construed, in the words of Senator James N. Grimes, into approval of impeachment as part of future political machinery. This is a realistic threat to all future presidents who serve with opposing legislative majorities that could easily concoct vague charges of “abuse” or “obstruction.” The fact that a long list of presidents that were accused of “abuse of power” were not impeached demonstrates how selectively this term has and can be used in the context of impeachment.

I’m sorry, House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria. You picked the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as a precedent for how we supervise and oversee future presidents. The idea of “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” are so far from what the Framers had in mind that they so clearly violate the Constitution and would place Congress above the law. Now, nor are these vague, open-ended and unconstitutional articles of impeachment that were charged here, they’re not saved by the inclusion in these articles of somewhat more specific, but still non-criminal, type of conduct. The specifications are themselves vague, open-ended, and do not charge impeachable offenses. They include such accusations as compromising national security, abusing the power of the presidency, violating his oath of office. In any event, it’s the actual articles that charge “abuse of power” and “obstruction of justice,” neither of which are in the Constitution — it’s the actual articles on which you must all vote, not on the more specific list of means included in the text of the articles.

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: ICYMI: Dershowitz Obliterates Dems’ Case For Removing Trump From Office

President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani recently traveled to Ukraine, and the president says “I hear he’s found plenty.”

Ukraine is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry into Trump, who, Democrats say, asked the Ukrainian president for a “favor:” investigating a state natural gas company there connected to Joe and Hunter Biden.

Trump told reporters on Saturday that Giuliani’s trip was successful and that the former New York City mayor is “going to make a report, I think to the attorney general and to Congress. He says he has a lot of good information.”

“I have not spoken to him about that information yet,” Trump added. “He has not told me what he found, but I think he wants to go before Congress and also to the attorney general and the Department of Justice. I hear he has found plenty.”

The president was also asked about choosing not to participate in Monday’s impeachment hearing. He responded as he has in the past — that he discussed the option with several parties — but said that “nothing came out of the conversation.”

“The impeachment thing is a total hoax,” Trump said. “The numbers have totally swung our way. They don’t want to see impeachment. Especially in the swing states they’ve swung our way. I’ve never seen a swing like this. Because people realize it’s a total hoax. We had a perfect conversation. It was only a conversation. Nothing came out of the conversation, except for the relationship with Ukraine. And the people see that it’s just a continuation of this three-year witch. And I’m looking forward to seeing the IG report. I hear they’re announcing it on Monday. And I look forward very much to seeing what happens with the Durham report, maybe even more importantly. Because it’s a horrible thing that took place, and it should never happen to another president.”

Giuliani reportedly traveled to Hungary and Ukraine last week for meetings, according to The New York Times. The Times reports that he met with former Ukrainian prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko in Budapest on Tuesday, then met with several former Ukrainian prosecutors in Kiev later in the week.

“What Mr. Giuliani is doing at this point is still confidential and is for the sole purpose of proving his clients’ innocence. In doing so he will prove that this latest farce is even more baseless and malicious than the first attempted coup takedown. Once all individuals have returned safely to the United States, we will reveal the significant witnesses involved,” a spokeswoman for Giuliani told CNN in a statement.

“Andriy Telizhenko, a former Ukrainian diplomat and associate of Giuliani, wrote on Twitter Friday that Giuliani was ‘prepping for tomorrow another hard working day’ meeting former Ukrainian prosecutors Yuriy Lutsenko and Viktor Shokin,” CNN reported. “To all conspiracy theorist there is no secret on what we are doing,” Telizhenko wrote. “The TRUTH will come out. God Bless Ukraine and God Bless the United States of America.”

On Friday, Giuliani suggested that the United States and Ukraine launch “a large scale joint investigation” into corruption in their countries.“In reviewing my notes, it seems to me that a large scale joint investigation into Ukraine and the US would uncover and recover billions stolen by crooks, from both countries, at the highest levels,” Giuliani wrote on Twitter. “This would be the most effective way to bring our two countries together.”

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: ‘I Hear He’s Found Plenty’: Trump Says Giuliani’s Recent Trip To Ukraine Was Fruitful

Joe Biden knows he makes a lot of gaffes.

“I am a gaffe machine, but my God what a wonderful thing compared to a guy who can’t tell the truth,” he said last year, referring to President Trump.

And he sure is right. The 76-year-old is just that: A gaffe machine. Or, as the Washington Post put it, “the Lamborghini of gaffes.”

He’s done it again. The former vice president was campaigning in Iowa on Saturday. Or maybe Ohio.

“How many unsafe bridges do you still have here in Ohio?” he said to laughter from the crowd at Abby Finkenauer’s Fish Fry in Cedar Rapids. “I mean Iowa,” he said, quickly correcting himself.

In another weird occurrence, Biden is seen in one clip posted on Twitter talking to a screen, not the audience.

“Joe Biden speaking in an arena in Iowa gets confused where the camera is and keeps talking to a screen. CSPAN keeps cutting away to try and help him out…hahahahahahah,” said the post.

The campaign trail apparently confuses Biden.

“What’s not to like about Vermont?” Biden said one day in August. Problem: He was in New Hampshire. Biden also confused Burlington, Iowa, with Burlington, Vermont.

But Iowa is home to many of Biden’s gaffes. In August, Biden said “poor kids” are just as smart as “white kids.” He also said he was vice president when he met with survivors of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting, but that occurred in February 2018, after he’d let office.

He also makes a lot of gaffes during debates among candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“I would eliminate the capital gains tax. I would raise the capital gains tax to the highest rate of 39.5%,” he said during one debate in October.

At one point, as he was trying to attack rivals Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Biden nearly said he ended the Roe v. Wade decision that declared abortion is a constitutionally protected right.

“Senator Warren said we can’t be running any vague campaigns. We’ve got to level with people. We’ve got to level with people and tell them exactly what we’re going to do, how we’re going to get it done, and if you can get it done. I’m going to say something that is probably going to offend some people here, but I’m the only one on this stage that has gotten anything really big done — from the Violence Against Women Act to making sure that we pass[ed] the Affordable Care Act to being in a position where we, in fact, took almost a[n] … Act that kept us from going into a depression, making us — putting us in a position where I was able to end Roe — excuse me,” he said, breaking off quickly.

At another debate, Biden at one point blurted out, “go to Joe 3-0-3-3-0.” Apparently, he meant to tell viewers they should text “Joe” to 30330, but he looked out of it with the blunder.

The Biden campaign has downplayed the gaffes. Kate Bedingfield, deputy manager of the Biden campaign, said new media are applying an “unfair standard” to him.

“If you listen to what candidates say all day as they’re out campaigning — they’re out in front of cameras, they’re in front of people, they’re talking all day. Everybody’s going to slip up and misstate a name or a date or a location — it happens all the time,” she said last month on MSNBC. “It doesn’t get the outsize attention that Joe Biden gets. So I understand that’s part of being a front-runner. But I also think that people know him, [and] part of his charm is that they understand that they’re getting it straight from him. It’s not overly packaged. He’s always speaking from his heart.

“And sure, that means sometimes he’s going to misstate a couple of things, but frankly, so does every other candidate,” Bedingfield said.

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: Joe Biden Gets Confused About His Location… Again

If you want to know how horribly and disgustingly partisan America has become in the days of Trump Derangement Syndrome, look no further than what occurred over the weekend.

The president ordered the U.S. military to take out the worst terrorist in the world. The special outfit known as Delta Force stormed into Syria, tracked down Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and cornered him in a tunnel. The coward blew himself up with a suicide vest.

America and the world are now safer. That’s a good thing, right?

Wrong.

It’s a terrible thing because Donald Trump is president.

When Barack Obama ordered the mission that took out Osama bin Laden, the heinous terrorist who led the September 11 terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, Americans cheered — as they should.

What did they do this time? They booed. Literally.

Hours after detailing the mission at the White House, Trump attended a World Series game in Washington. When his image came up on the jumbo screen, boos were heard throughout Nationals Park.

The cesspool that is D.C. was weirdly unified over the upstart team, which in May had a 0.1% chance of making the playoffs. Not any more. The mere image of the president, along with First Lady Melania Trump, brought jeers from the rafters.

But let’s back up. Trump was mocked Sunday when he said “bin Laden was a big thing, but this is the biggest there is. This is the worst ever.” Worse than bin Laden? You bet. Here’s why.

Al-Baghdadi was the scum of the earth. As founder and leader of the Islamic State, he was seeking to set up a global caliphate under Islamic law.

“His followers burned victims alive in cages or slowly drowned them. They threw gay people off rooftops, and beheaded others on videos they then broadcast online,” the Daily Mail reported. “They executed 13 teenage boys in Iraq with machine guns because they were watching a football match on TV. They shot, suicide-bombed and massacred any rival Shia Muslims they could find in a relentless frenzied attempt to ethnically cleanse them off the face of the planet.”

During his reign of terror, ISIS was responsible for the attack on the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, as well as massacres at a soccer stadium, European cafes, a festival in France and an Ariana Grande pop concert in England. ISIS killed hundreds in the attacks and injured many more.

But the U.S. media couldn’t give Trump even a modicum of credit.

“Face the Nation” put on James Winnefeld, Barack Obama’s deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who ripped Trump for “piling humiliation” on ISIS after the mission. “If you look back at the bin Laden raid, we treated his body with respect that is due under Islam.” (For the record, they photographed his dead body then dumped him in the sea.)

Nick Paton Walsh, an international correspondent for CNN, said Trump’s statement was reminiscent of ISIS, saying the “explicit details” he gave “echoed, frankly, the crudeness you would often expect to hear maybe from ISIS.”

The Washington Post went so far as to claim al-Baghdadi was courageous in death.

“The assertion that Baghdadi died as a coward was, in any case, contradicted by the fact that rather than be captured, he blew himself up,” columnist Max Boot wrote. Another columnist, Greg Sargent, said Trump’s detailed account of what happened on the raid featured “deeply sick and twisted” rhetoric. (After public shaming, Boot deleted the line.)

And, of course, The Washington Post wrote in a headline Sunday referring to al-Baghdadi as an “austere religious scholar.” Not “world’s worst terrorist.”

Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the Media Research Center, a conservative press watchdog, summed up the MSM’s reaction.

“What a fascinating glimpse into the mind of the liberal media. They have developed such an aversion to covering the president favorably that they cannot even bear to celebrate an American special-forces victory over ISIS,” he told The Washington Times.

That’s where we are today. The mainstream (read: liberal) media cannot even deliver straight news coverage on a major event that made America and the world safer.

And it’s all about to get worse, with impeachment and the 2020 election.

Brace yourselves.

*Joseph Curl ran the Drudge Report from 2010 to 2014 and covered the White House for a dozen years. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on Twitter at @JosephCurl. A version of this article ran previously in The Washington Times.

Author: Joseph Curl

Source: Daily Wire: CURL: Liberals Blast Trump For Taking Out World’s Worst Terrorist. Seriously.

Ad Blocker Detected!

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