Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is demanding the Senate Republicans allow witnesses during President Donald Trump’s upcoming Senate trial which directly contradicts statements that he made in the past during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

Schumer has repeatedly made the demand in media interviews, speeches on the Senate floor, and in tweets, suggesting the Senate Republicans are engaged in a cover-up if they do not allow witnesses during the Senate trial.

Yet, on January 14, 1999, Schumer said during Clinton’s impeachment that witnesses were supposed to be called prior to the Senate trial and that it “doesn’t make sense” to call them during the Senate trial.

A reporter asked Schumer, “You said that one of the reasons they didn’t call witnesses in the House was to accommodate Democrats. How do you respond to that?”

“Let me say this idea that they didn’t have to call witnesses in the House and they should call them in the Senate doesn’t make sense,” Schumer responded. “You call witnesses before a grand jury and you call witnesses before a trial. So, there were some on my side, I was not among them, but some on my side who argued strongly that they outta call witnesses and they resisted it every step of the way.”

“There has not been a good explanation why 60,000 pages of testimony was good enough for the House but isn’t good enough for the Senate,” Schumer continued.


Fox News reported that approximately two weeks after Schumer made the remarks he “roundly dismissed the importance of, and voted against, such witness testimony — suggesting it amounted to ‘political theater.’”

“It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses,” Schumer said during a press conference on January 27, 1999, later adding, “I wonder if the House managers aren’t a little more interested in political theater than in actually getting to the bottom of the facts.”

It’s worth noting that Schumer only wants witnesses to be called that he believes would help the Democrats’ case against the president and appears to oppose allowing witnesses to testify who would hurt their case.

“Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) told CNN [in mid-December] that former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, should not testify in a likely Senate impeachment trial, with the Senate minority leader arguing it would result in the process becoming a “circus,’” The Hill reported in December. “Republicans have accused Joe Biden of pushing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that had investigated the Ukrainian company that employed Hunter Biden.”

Jonathan Turley, a Trump critic and Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University, wrote in a recent op-ed in The Washington Post that Hunter Biden would be a disaster for Democrats if he was called on to testify:

In a conventional trial, Biden would be a relevant defense witness. Biden’s testimony would have bearing on a key question in an abuse-of-power trial. Trump insists that he raised the issue of Hunter Biden’s relationship with a Ukrainian energy firm to the Ukrainian president as part of an overall concern he had about ongoing corruption in that country. If that contract with the son of a former vice president could be shown to be a corrupt scheme to advance the interests of a foreign company or country, it might be Trump’s best defense.

Trump’s position is that he did not arbitrarily ask a country to investigate a possible political rival. Had Trump called for an investigation into Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) husband, for example, without a scintilla of proof of corruption, it would be entirely indefensible. However, the Biden contract was so openly corrupt it would have made Jack Abramoff blush.

If the Biden contract was an ongoing corrupt effort to secure influence and money from the United States, Trump’s reference to it in a discussion of corruption has a possible public purpose. While one can certainly conclude that self-dealing by the president is a plausible explanation, there is no question that the testimony of Biden would be relevant.

Schumer knows that neither Biden nor his contract will show well under the glare of a public impeachment trial. In addition to his glaring lack of relevant experience, the younger Biden has a checkered history — from drug addiction to being thrown out of the Naval Reserve — that would have led most companies to avoid him. The trial might also force the public to consider Joe Biden’s failure to ask about his son’s dubious foreign dealings. Joe Biden himself seems delusional in claiming, “No one has said my son did anything wrong.”

Schumer has shown has repeatedly shown his hypocrisy throughout the current impeachment process, as he recently slammed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for admitting his pro-Trump bias and saying that he was not a “impartial juror.”

“Let the American people hear it loud and clear, the Republican leader said, proudly, ‘I’m not an impartial juror. I’m not impartial about this at all.’ That is an astonishing admission of partisanship,” Schumer said last month. “The American people want Mitch McConnell to be an impartial juror in this situation. … I’m withholding any final decision until we hear all the evidence.”

However, CNN later reported that Schumer essentially said the same exact thing during the Clinton impeachment in 1999:

But in several appearances on television in 1998 and 1999 reviewed by CNN’s KFile, Schumer noted that senators had previously formed opinions heading into the trial and that the Senate was “not like a jury box.” Schumer was elected to the Senate in 1998 after saying during his campaign that a vote for him would be a vote to not impeach Clinton.

CNN provided remarks that Schumer made at the time during an interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live” in January 1999:

“We have a pre-opinion,” Schumer said, citing himself and two newly-elected Republican senators who had voted on impeachment in 1998 as members of the House of Representatives who said they would vote in the Senate. “This is not a criminal trial, but this is something that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics.”

“So therefore, anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion; it’s not a jury box,” King asked Schumer.

“Many do,” Schumer responded. “And then they change. In fact, it’s also not like a jury box in the sense that people will call us and lobby us. You don’t have jurors called and lobbied and things like that. I mean, it’s quite different than a jury. And we’re also the judge.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) noted in an interview this week that the idea that Democrats should be able to call witnesses that help them but that the Republicans should not be able to call witnesses that Trump is absurd.

Paul made the remarks in response to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler demanding that “all relevant witnesses” be included in the Senate trial.

“Well, it’s kind of interesting,” Paul began. “The comment is that all relevant witnesses. Would he agree that Hunter Biden is relevant, that Joe Biden’s relevant, and that the whistleblower’s relevant?”

“My guess is no. They want all witnesses that they want. And they don’t want any witnesses that the president wants,” Paul continued. “So, I say this. Either allow all witnesses, all witnesses that the president’s defense team deems necessary to their defense, or no witnesses. We’re not going to do a kangaroo court, like they did in the House. The House only produced witnesses that Adam Schiff agreed to.”

“So, I mean, what kind of kangaroo court is it where only the Democrats get to pick the witnesses, and they decide who’s relevant? Paul continued. “So, no, that’s absurd. So, I think the Senate will be more fair. I think both Republicans and Democrats want a more fair-minded presentation. But it’s not going to be — we’re not going to just invite witnesses the Democrats want and say, oh, the president can’t invite witnesses that he think would help him.”

Author: Ryan Saavedra

Source: Daily Wire: Schumer Demands Witnesses At Senate Trial. Here’s What He Said During Clinton’s Impeachment.

Federal law enforcement officials are reportedly investigating whether disgraced former FBI Director James Comey illegally leaked classified information about a Russian intelligence document to reporters.

“Law enforcement officials are scrutinizing at least two news articles about the F.B.I. and Mr. Comey, published in The New York Times and The Washington Post in 2017, that mentioned the Russian government document, according to the people familiar with the investigation,” The New York Times reported. “Hackers working for Dutch intelligence officials obtained the document and provided it to the F.B.I., and both its existence and the collection of it were highly classified secrets, the people said.”

The Times continued, “The document played a key role in Mr. Comey’s decision to sideline the Justice Department and announce in July 2016 that the F.B.I. would not recommend that Hillary Clinton face charges in her use of a private email server to conduct government business while secretary of state.”

The Times noted that the document in question came from Dutch intelligence operatives who scraped sensitive information from Russian computers, which included an alleged email exchange between then-Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and an official of leftist billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

The email, which Wasserman Schultz and the official from Open Society Foundations both deny, apparently suggested that then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch would make sure that the Department of Justice did not criminally prosecute then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“That document was one of the key factors that drove Mr. Comey to hold a news conference in July 2016 announcing that investigators would recommend no charges against Mrs. Clinton,” The Times added. “Typically, senior Justice Department officials would decide how to proceed in such a high-profile case, but Mr. Comey was concerned that if Ms. Lynch played a central role in deciding whether to charge Mrs. Clinton, Russia could leak the email.”

The Times framed their report in a highly favorable manner toward Comey as the report repeatedly raised the possibility that the investigation was politically motivated and that federal prosecutors have been overly aggressive in the District of Columbia because U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu is “an ambitious prosecutor who has angled for bigger jobs in the Trump administration.”

The Times continued:

Previously, federal prosecutors in New York scrutinized Mr. Comey after his personal lawyer and friend, Daniel C. Richman, provided the contents of a memo about Mr. Comey’s interactions with Mr. Trump to a Times reporter at Mr. Comey’s request. Though officials retroactively determined that the memo contained classified information, prosecutors declined to charge Mr. Comey with illegally disclosing the material. The Justice Department’s inspector general, who had examined Mr. Comey’s conduct and referred his findings to prosecutors in New York, concluded that Mr. Comey violated F.B.I. policy.

Prosecutors are also looking at whether Mr. Richman might have played a role in providing the information to reporters about the Russia document and how it figured into Mr. Comey’s rationale about the news conference, according to the people familiar with the investigation. Mr. Comey hired Mr. Richman at one point to consult for the F.B.I. about encryption and other complex legal issues, and investigators have expressed interest in how he operated.

The Department of Justice inspector general slammed Comey in a previous investigation for illegally leaking sensitive information to the press “in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.”

Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility. By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees—and the many thousands more former FBI employees—who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information,” The inspector general wrote. “In a country built on the rule of law, it is of utmost importance that all FBI employees adhere to Department and FBI policies, particularly when confronted by what appear to be extraordinary circumstances or compelling personal convictions. Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a Special Counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure. What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.”

Author: Ryan Saavedra

Source: Daily Wire: BREAKING: Feds Investigating Comey Over Leak Tied To Hillary Investigation, Report Says

President Donald Trump revealed during a press conference on Thursday some details surrounding his decision to kill Iranian terrorist Qassem Soleimani last week, saying that Soleimani was planning to blow up a U.S. embassy.

“We killed a man who killed many, many Americans and many, many people, thousands and thousands of people,” Trump said during a press conference at the White House. “We caught a total monster and we took him out and that should have happened a long time ago. We did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy.”

“We also did it for other reasons that were very obvious, somebody died, one of our military people died, people badly wounded, just a week before, and we did it,” Trump continued. “And we had a shot at him and I took it and that shot was pinpoint accurate and that was the end of a monster. Really, that was the second attack. We didn’t start it, they started it by killing one of our people and wounding badly other of our people. That you call retribution.

“Iran went in and they hit us with missiles. Shouldn’t have done that,” Trump added. “Fortunately for them, nobody was hurt, nobody was killed, nothing happened. They landed. Very little damage, even, to the base. They landed. But we had a chance to take out a monster, we took him out and it should have been done a long time ago.”

When asked about whether he would go to Congress to seek approval if further military action is needed, Trump responded, “It would all depend on the circumstance. I don’t have to and you shouldn’t have to because you have to able to make split second decisions. Sometimes you have to move very, very quickly. In certain cases, I wouldn’t mind doing it.”

“You know what bothers me? When I see a Nancy Pelosi trying to defend this monster from Iran whose killed so many people,” Trump continued. “So many people are walking around now without legs and without arms because he was the big roadside bomb guy. He was the one that sent them to Afghanistan, he send them to Iraq. That was his favorite thing. He thought it was wonderful. He doesn’t think it’s so wonderful anymore. When Nancy Pelosi of the Democrats wanted to defend him, I think that’s a bad thing for the country. I think it’s a big losing argument politically, too.”

Trump concluded his remarks about ongoing tensions with Iran by noting that the Iran nuclear deal was about to expire, so criticisms that his withdrawal from the deal sparked Iran’s aggression are not accurate.

“The JCPOA is close to expiring,” Trump said. “In other words, if I didn’t terminate it, it expires in a very short period of time. One of the problems, of which there was many, there was $150 billion, $1.8 billion in cash, all that money, and then that money was used for terror. If you look at Iran, it wasn’t so bad until they got all that money. They used that money for terror. That’s when it became really bad. Take a look, it really got bad when they $150 billion, $1.8 billion in cash.”

Author: Ryan Saavedra

Source: Daily Wire: Trump Reveals Attack That Soleimani Was Planning That Led To Drone Strike

Far-left Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) laughed and giggled during a press conference on Wednesday while her colleague, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), discussed U.S. casualties from the Iraq war.

“I’m very glad to say that I was part of the 132 and also the vote for Barbara Lee’s amendment, but I think that the point of that is that that is the same war that we’re dealing with today,” Lee said. “We never solved any problems with AUMF, we left four thousand plus, maybe even forty four hundred dead, and over sixty thousand who came back injured in some form and the war never ended.”

As Lee spoke, Omar could be seen standing behind her laughing while talking to her Democrat colleagues.

“I recall the language in AUMF, it deals with hostilities in Iraq,” Lee continued. “It doesn’t deal with an incident or a dislike or someone in a car coming in from the airport. That is the danger of not acting and I do think with our leadership, meaning the leadership CPC, that will come together around specific answers.”


At a different point in the press conference, Omar said that talking about the possibility of war with Iran was causing her to be “stricken with PTSD.”

“I feel ill a little bit because of everything that is taking place and I think every time I hear of conversations around war I find myself being stricken with PTSD,” Omar said.


Omar later attacked President Donald Trump for imposing additional sanctions against Iran after they fired multiple missiles at U.S. forces stationed in Iraq on Tuesday night.

“This makes no sense. Sanctions are economic warfare,” Omar tweeted. “They have already caused medical shortages and countless deaths in Iran. You cannot claim to want deescalation and then announce new sanctions with no clear goal. This is not a measured response!”

Omar, who is a documented anti-Semite, is an avid supporter of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, which is designed to destroy Israel.

Omar regurgitated her comments during the press conference about not wanting to sanction Iran, saying, “Since he got into office, the president of the United States has been angering Iran into war, first he canceled our best shot at avoiding armed conflict: the Iran nuclear deal. Then he announced crippling sanctions to starve the innocent people of Iran.”

The Jerusalem Post reported this week “announced that Omar would be awarded the title of biggest antisemite of the year on Monday, including a video listing her achievements in the field of Jew-hatred, accompanied sarcastically by congratulatory music and confetti.”

The video highlighted just some of Omar’s anti-Semitism:

  • She accused American Jews of having dual loyalties
  • She ranted about the influence Jews allegedly buy with their money
  • She accused Israel of “hypnotizing the world.”
  • She supports the anti-Semitic BDS movement.
  • She introduced a resolution comparing boycotting Israel to boycotting Nazi Germany.
  • Omar’s anti-Semitism has been endorsed by neo-Nazi leader, David Duke.


Here is some of the reaction that Omar received online over her comments about sanctions:

Author: Ryan Saavedra

Source: Daily Wire: WATCH: Ilhan Omar Laughs While Colleague Talks About U.S. Casualties In Iraq

Attorneys representing House Democrats have told a federal court that House Democrats intend to continue impeachment investigations against President Donald Trump after they vote on impeachment this week, regardless of the eventual outcome of the Senate’s impeachment trial.

“In a filing to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, House General Counsel Douglas Letter argued that the House’s demands for grand jury materials connected to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation were still urgent because such evidence might become relevant to the Senate’s expected impeachment trial next month,” Politico reported. “But Letter went further to note that even apart from the Senate trial, the House Judiciary Committee intends to continue its impeachment investigation arising from the Mueller probe on its own merit.”

In the court filing, Democrats accused the Department of Justice (DOJ) of essentially engaging in a cover-up to protect Trump, claiming that the DOJ took an “extraordinary position in” the Democrats’ impeachment investigations by not “disclosing grand-jury material needed for the House’s impeachment of President Trump and the Senate’s trial to remove him from office.”

Democrats’ insistence at continuing to investigate the findings of the Mueller probe comes after Attorney General William Barr said last week in an NBC News interview that “there was and never has been any evidence of collusion.”

House Democrats have said in recent days that there is no limit to the number of times that they can impeach the president.

“A president can be impeached more than once,” Rep. Al Green (D-TX) said earlier this month. “So, we can do this, we can move forward with what we have on the table currently, we can take this before the Senate and we can still investigate other issues and when the president has committed additional offenses, and my suspicion is that he will, we can take those before the Senate.”

“There is no limit on the number of times the Senate can vote to convict or not a president, no limit to the number of times the House can vote to impeach or not a president,” Green continued. “So, my belief is that the speaker will probably say we’re going to move forward with what we have now, but we’re not going to end investigations and that there may be possible opportunities to do other things at a later time.”

Neal Katyal, an acting solicitor general under former Democrat President Barack Obama, made remarks along the same lines earlier this month.

Katyal tweeted: “[Important] note on future: If the Senate doesn’t vote to convict Trump, or tries to monkey w his trial, he could of course be retried in the new Senate should he win re-election. Double jeopardy protections do not apply. And Senators voting on impeachment in the next months know this.”

Democrat Rep. Jeff Van Drew (NJ) is leaving the party and becoming a Republican over the issue of impeachment, which he has long been opposed to.

Van Drew told CNN earlier this month that Democrats should “be careful what [they] wish for” because impeachment “is tearing the nation apart.”

Author: Ryan Saavedra

Source: Daily Wire: Democrats Vow To Continue Impeachment Investigations Regardless Of Senate Outcome

Far-left climate extremist Greta Thunberg tweeted a photograph of herself riding on a train over the weekend that showed her sitting on the floor while complaining about the train supposedly being “overcrowded” which earned a sharp response from the train.

“Traveling on overcrowded trains through Germany,” Thunberg tweeted. “And I’m finally on my way home!”

The Guardian reported that in a two-part tweet, Deutsche Bahn (DB) responded to Thunberg’s tweet, writing, “Dear Greta, thank you for supporting us railroaders in the fight against climate change! We were happy that you travelled with us on Saturday in the ICE 74 … but it would have been even nicer had you also reported how friendly and competently you were looked after by our team at your seat in the first class.”

After being repeatedly mocked online over the incident, Thunberg claimed, “Our train from Basel was taken out of traffic. So we sat on the floor on 2 different trains. After Göttingen I got a seat. This is no problem of course and I never said it was. Overcrowded trains is a great sign because it means the demand for train travel is high!”

Thunberg has been at the center of controversy over her push for extreme climate proposals and has been mocked by leaders around the world, and was even mocked in the most recent episode of South Park.

Earlier this month, famed British tv personality Jeremy Clarkson unloaded on Thunberg after a series of extreme speeches she delivered during 2019.

“She’s mad and she’s dangerous and she’s causing young children sleepless nights with her idiocy,” Clarkson said in an interview this week, according to The Daily Mail. “I think she needs to go back to school and shut up.”

“But rather than having her jumping up and down and waving her arms in the air, you can actually go there and say, ‘Bloody hell, fire! Look at what this climate change has done to this place,’” Clarkson continued. “We simply said, ‘Here’s an example of it.’ What do you want me to do now? Get on my carbon fiber yacht and go and shout at Donald Trump?”

When Clarkson was further asked about what he thought about Thunberg, Clarkson responded: “She’s a stupid idiot.”

“I think she’s a weird Swede with a bad temper. Nothing will be achieved by sailing across the ocean in a diesel-powered yacht, and then lying about the diesel engine,” Clarkson continued. “And did you see she went to Chile for the climate conference which was then moved to Madrid? I literally s**t myself laughing. She’s an idiot because scientists will solve this, and nobody is going to solve it by running around and going on strike and not going to school, because then you’re not in your science lessons, so she’s a fool.”

Thunberg recently admitted in an op-ed that her extreme climate plan was about more than just the environment, it was also about fighting the “colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression.”

Thunberg noted that the goal of her “climate resistance movement” is “to change everything.”

Author: Ryan Saavedra

Source: Daily Wire: Greta Thunberg Tweets Pic Of Herself On Floor Of ‘Overcrowded’ Train. Train Company Rips Her For Not Telling Full Story.

Justice Department Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz confirmed during his testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the FBI used fraudulent evidence that it created as the basis for a sworn statement to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that it used to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act application to surveil the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election.

“A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies on,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said. “Am I stating that accurately?”

“That’s correct,” Horowitz confirmed. “That’s what occurred.”

The IG report found: “In an email from the liaison to the OGC Attorney, the liaison provided written guidance, including that it was the liaison’s recollection that Page had a relationship with the other agency, and directed the OGC Attorney to review the information that the other agency had provided to the FBI in August 2016. As noted above, that August 2016 information stated that Page did, in fact, have a prior relationship with that other agency. However, the OGC Attorney altered the liaison’s email by inserting the words ‘not a source’ into it, thus making it appear that the liaison had said that Page was “not a source”; the OGC Attorney then sent the altered email to SSA 2. Relying upon this altered email, SSA 2 signed the third renewal application (that again failed to disclose Page’s past relationship with the other agency).”

Earlier during the hearing, Horowitz essentially implied to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham that what the FBI did was tantamount to “illegal surveillance.”

Here’s the interaction between Graham and Horowitz:

Graham: Let’s play this out. They never told Trump about the concerns, is it fair to say there came a point to where surveilling Carter Page became unlawful?

Horowitz: I will let the court decide that. The court has this report and will make that decision.

Graham: Let’s put it this way, if you don’t have a legal foundation to surveil somebody and you keep doing it, is that bad?

Horowitz: Absolutely.

Graham: Is that spying?

Horowitz: ‘It’s illegal surveillance, it’s not court authorized surveillance.

Graham: What ever illegal surveillance means, they did it. … They had no legal basis after the January 2017 data dump by the Russian guy to believe that the dossier was reliable. They alter exculpatory information in June of 2017 that would have further proven that Carter Page is not a Russian agent and he was actually working with the CIA.

On Tuesday, Attorney General William Barr told NBC News that “in January, after the election, the entire case collapsed when the principal source says ‘I never told — I never told Steele this stuff and this was also speculation and I have zero information to support this stuff.’ At that point, when their entire case collapsed, what do they do? They kept on investigating the president well into his administration, after the case collapsed.”

Barr continued, “But here to me is the damning thing: They not only didn’t tell the court that what they had been relying on was completely, you know, rubbish, they actually started putting in things to bolster this Steele report by saying, ‘we talked to the sources and they appeared to be truthful,’ but they don’t inform the court that what they’re truthful about is that the dossier is false.”

Author: Ryan Saavedra

Source: Daily Wire: Horowitz: FBI Created ‘Fraudulent Evidence’ In Investigation, Implies ‘Illegal Surveillance’

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) slapped CNN with a massive lawsuit seeking nearly half a billion dollars on Tuesday over a report last month that he says was “demonstrably false” which claimed that an indicted associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani was willing to testify that Nunes met with a Ukrainian prosecutor last year in Vienna to dig up dirt on former Vice President and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Fox News reported that the 47-page lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeks “at least $435,350,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.”

“CNN is the mother of fake news. It is the least trusted name. CNN is eroding the fabric of America, proselytizing, sowing distrust and disharmony. It must be held accountable,” the lawsuit, obtained by Fox News, states. “The ulterior purpose of the CNN Article is to advance the impeachment inquiry, to seed doubt in the minds of Americans, and to influence the outcome of the 2020 election.”

The lawsuit came in response to a CNN report last month that stated: “The attorney, Joseph A. Bondy, represents Lev Parnas, the recently indicted Soviet-born American who worked with Giuliani to push claims of Democratic corruption in Ukraine. Bondy said that Parnas was told directly by the former Ukrainian official that he met last year in Vienna with Rep. Devin Nunes.”

“Mr. Parnas learned from former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin that Nunes had met with Shokin in Vienna last December,” Bondy told CNN. “Nunes had told Shokin of the urgent need to launch investigations into Burisma, Joe and Hunter Biden, and any purported Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.”

CNN reported that Bondy claimed that Parnas and Nunes began communicating with each other around the time of the Vienna trip and that Parnas worked to set Nunes up with Ukrainian government officials who could begin looking into Biden.

Nunes slammed the story shortly after it was published last month, telling Breitbart News: “These demonstrably false and scandalous stories published by the Daily Beast and CNN are the perfect example of defamation and reckless disregard for the truth. Some political operative offered these fake stories to at least five different media outlets before finding someone irresponsible enough to publish them. I look forward to prosecuting these cases, including the media outlets, as well as the sources of their fake stories, to the fullest extent of the law. I intend to hold the Daily Beast and CNN accountable for their actions. They will find themselves in court soon after Thanksgiving.”

CNN claimed last month that they began to ask Nunes questions about his Vienna trip in mid-November and that he responded to their questions by stating: “I don’t talk to you in this lifetime or the next lifetime. At any time. On any question.”

CNN said when it published it report that it again asked Nunes to comment on it and that he again responded: “To be perfectly clear, I don’t acknowledge any questions from you in this lifetime or the next lifetime. I don’t acknowledge any question from you ever.”

Author: Ryan Saavedra

Source: Daily Wire: Devin Nunes Hits CNN With Massive Lawsuit Over ‘Demonstrably False’ Ukraine Report

Attorney General William Barr reportedly has taken issue with a key claim made by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz in his soon-to-be released report on possible FBI misconduct toward the Trump campaign in 2016.

Barr has told associates that he disagrees with the conclusion that “the FBI had enough information in July 2016 to justify launching an investigation into members of the Trump campaign,” The Washington Post reported, citing numerous sources that were familiar with the matter.

“Barr has not been swayed by Horowitz’s rationale for concluding the FBI had sufficient basis to open an investigation on July 31, 2016,” The Post continued. “The attorney general has privately contended that Horowitz does not have enough information to reach the conclusion the FBI had enough details in hand at the time to justify opening such a probe. He argues that other U.S. agencies, such as the CIA, may hold significant information that could alter Horowitz’s conclusion on that point, according to the people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.”

The Post notes that the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign was launched after then-Trump campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos made statements to Clinton-connected Australian diplomat Alexander Downer about Clinton’s emails.

Papadopoulos responded to The Post’s report by writing on Twitter: “It’s not difficult to understand why the Attorney General is objecting to Australia’s version. Truth is Australia was spying on me in London to set up Trump. Durham has been interviewing both Israeli and Australian officials who know EXACTLY who Alexander Downer’s handlers were!”

In late November, CNN reported that an FBI official is under criminal investigation for allegedly altering a document that was key to the FBI’s surveillance of the Trump campaign.

“The finding is expected to be part of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s review of the FBI’s effort to obtain warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide,” CNN reported. “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.”

It is important to note that the IG report from Horowitz — who will testify in front of Congress next week — is separate from the criminal investigation that U.S. Attorney John Durham is conducting on the origins of the Russia investigation.

At the end of October, The New York Times reported that Durham’s probe had shifted from an administrative review into a full fledged criminal investigation due to the amount of evidence that was being uncovered.

“Mr. Durham has indicated he wants to interview former officials who ran the C.I.A. in 2016 but has yet to question either Mr. Brennan or James R. Clapper Jr., the former director of national intelligence,” The Times reported. “Some C.I.A. officials have retained criminal lawyers in anticipation of being interviewed.”

Author: Ryan Saavedra

Source: Daily Wire: BREAKING: AG Barr Disputes Key Finding In IG Report On FBI’s Russia investigation

The United States Supreme Court is set to hear its first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade on Monday which has caused panic among left-wing activists who worry that the case could undo their freedom-restricting agenda.

The case centers around New York City’s handgun “premises” licenses which, according to NBC News, allow residents with the proper permit to “take a handgun outside the home to a city shooting range, provided it was unloaded and in a locked container” but prohibit the gun from being taken “beyond the city limits.”

The Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board slammed Democrats on Sunday for using politically motivated tactics to get the Supreme Court to drop the case:

Democrats have gone to great lengths to get the Justices to drop the case. After the High Court accepted it in January, the New York Police Department revised its ban to allow gun owners to take their handguns (locked up and unloaded with the ammunition stored separately) “directly to and from” second homes and shooting ranges outside the city.

But as amicus briefs note, the Court has criticized this kind of strategic “voluntary cessation” of challenged conduct by defendants to preserve favorable judicial outcomes or avoid adverse rulings. Courts are only supposed to review “live controversies,” but the Justices are loath to rule a case moot unless it is “absolutely clear” a defendant won’t resume the challenged conduct.

New York’s behavior offers no such confidence. Crafty city officials coaxed fellow Democrats in the New York State Legislature to pass a law pre-empting their abandoned transport ban.

“The court has steadfastly declined to take up any gun rights cases since ruling in 2008’s Washington, D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment provides a right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense, and later clarifying in 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago that the right applies nationwide,” NBC News added.

Gun control advocates, who promote an anti-freedom agenda that seeks to restrict constitutionally guaranteed rights, have started to panic about the upcoming case over the possibility that the court could rule in a manner that gives those who want to protect the United States Constitution the legal backing needed to fight against many of the hundreds of anti-gun laws enacted across the country in recent years.

Leftist Giffords Law Center litigation director Hannah Shearer said, “The future of life-saving gun safety laws across our country is very directly on the line with this case.”

Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, an extreme anti-gun activist who has pumped tens of millions of dollars to anti-gun activists and politicians, tweeted: “The NRA’s latest effort to undermine public safety may be its most absurd yet – and its most dangerous. The Supreme Court must side with the millions of Americans fighting for gun safety and send the NRA packing.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) – the same U.S. Senator who questioned then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about farting in high school – said about the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case: “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.”

Senate Republicans fired back at Senate Democrats, saying, “The implication is as plain as day: Dismiss this case, or we’ll pack the court. We share Justice Ginsburg’s view that ‘nine seems to be a good number,’ and it will remain that way as long as we are here.”

Author: Ryan Saavedra

Source: Daily Wire: SCOTUS Takes Gun Case That Could Decimate Gun Control Laws. Left-Wing Activists Begin To Panic.

Ad Blocker Detected!

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