RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/so_whos_the_democratic_candidate_the_whistleblower_had_a_professional_relationship_with.html

The Democrats’ impeachment show just keeps getting less and less credible, and more and more disgusting.

The latest is from Byron York at the Washington Examiner, who reports that the so-called “whistleblower” had a “professional relationship” with an unnamed Democratic Party presidential candidate:

Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday’s impeachment inquiry interview with [Michael] Atkinson, the [intelligence community’s] inspector general revealed that the whistleblower’s possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year’s election.

“The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates,” said one person with knowledge of what was said.

“The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates,” said another person with knowledge of what was said.

“What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate,” said a third person with knowledge of what was said.

All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship between the two was.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/back-to-you-nancy-11570663218

The White House letter late Tuesday telling Speaker Nancy Pelosi that President Trump won’t cooperate with her impeachment inquiry is causing heartburn among all the usual suspects. Readers should ignore the fainting spells over “a constitutional crisis” and keep in mind that this is largely a political response to a political attack by House Democrats.

“Your inquiry is constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process,” wrote White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who lists the due-process protections that the House is denying Mr. Trump as it pursues impeachment. He’s right about due process but wrong to dress this up in constitutional clothes.

No doubt Mr. Cipollone is doing this for political effect, since he knows that under the Constitution the House can organize impeachment more or less as it wants. The House is under no constitutional obligation to allow Mr. Trump’s lawyers to cross-examine witnesses, as if impeachment were a criminal proceeding. Like the President’s pardon power, the House’s impeachment power is among the least fettered in America’s founding charter.

Mr. Cipollone is trying to make a political point about the unprecedented secret and unfair way the House is proceeding on impeachment, and on that he’s entirely correct. As we’ve been writing, Mrs. Pelosi has refused to let the House vote on a resolution authorizing an official impeachment inquiry with rules that define the scope and procedures.

This contrasts with how the House worked in both the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton impeachments. Mr. Cipollone is now using the lack of a House vote to justify the White House refusal to cooperate with witnesses and documents “under these circumstances.” Mr. Cipollone holds out the prospect of cooperating if Mrs. Pelosi holds such a vote.

Think of this as a “back to you, Nancy” memo. She now faces a political choice of her own. She could treat Mr. Trump’s lack of cooperation as one more impeachable offense, add it to whatever the House decides to do about Mr. Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s president, and impeach Mr. Trump on those grounds. Joe Biden endorsed impeachment on this basis Wednesday. But this rush to impeach might not persuade anyone who hasn’t wanted to oust Mr. Trump since January 2017.

On the other hand, Mrs. Pelosi could let the House vote to authorize an inquiry with regular order and rules that give the minority subpoena power and have everything done in public. This was the House standard for Nixon-Clinton. The risk for Mrs. Pelosi is that she might lose some House Democrats on such a vote without gaining many Republicans—which would make the partisan nature of the exercise clear and undermine its public credibility.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/extortion-liberal-mayor-tries-to-shut-down-trump-rally-with-outrageous-security-fee/

Minneapolis’s liberal mayor, Jacob Frey, has demanded $530,000 in security costs for a Trump campaign rally this Thursday — 26 times the cost of security for a 2009 Obama rally. In violation of its contract, the Target Center threatened to cancel the rally unless the campaign forks over the cash.

“This is an outrageous abuse of power by a liberal mayor trying to deny the rights of his own city’s residents just because he hates the President,” Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale said in a statement. “People want to hear from their President, and no mayor looking to beef up his resume for a run for higher office should stand in the way.”

College campuses have imposed outrageous security costs as a pretext to shut down controversial speakers, often conservatives. In 2018, the University of Wisconsin tried to charge its College Republicans club $17,000 in security fees for a rally. The College Republicans sued, claiming a violation of their First Amendment free speech rights, and the college settled, paying the club $122,500 in legal fees.

The Trump campaign alleged that Frey “is abusing the power of his office and attempting to extort President Trump’s re-election campaign by conjuring a phony and outlandish bill for security in an effort to block a scheduled Keep America Great rally. Democrat Mayor Frey is using the bogus security charges to pressure the Target Center, site of the contracted October 10, 2019 rally, into preventing Minnesota residents from exercising their First Amendment rights in support of President Trump.”

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/10/07/clapper-obama-made-us-do-it/

RUSH: Audio sound bite number 10, this morning on CNN Jim Sciutto is talking to James Clapper, who was as corrupt as Brennan, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence. And Jim Sciutto says, “Are you concerned that Barr or Durham’s investigation will find wrongdoing and seek to punish former intelligence officials like you?”

CLAPPER: The message I’m getting from all this is, apparently what we were supposed to have done was to ignore the Russian interference, ignore the Russian meddling and the threat that it poses to us, and oh, by the way, blown off what the then commander in chief, President Obama, told us to do, which was to assemble all the reporting that we could that we had available to us —

RUSH: Wait, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! Stop the digital. Did you hear what he just said? He just said (imitating Clapper), “And, by the way, should we have just blown off what Obama told us to do?” Does he know what he’s just done here? Clapper on CNN today said Obama made us do it. Here, finish the bite or play it from the top, whichever you have ready to go.

CLAPPER: — and put it in one report that the president could pass on to the Congress and to the next administration. And while we’re at it, declassify as much as we possibly could to make it public, and that’s what we did.

SCIUTTO: One issue I’m — (crosstalk)

CLAPPER: It’s kind of disconcerting now to be investigated for, you know having done our duty and done what we were told to do by the president.

amgreatness.com/2019/10/07/icig-atkinson-refuses-to-tell-congress-why-whistleblower-rule-changes-were-backdated/

Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG), reportedly refused to answer a key question during testimony before the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) on Friday.

Atkinson met with members of the committee in a closed meeting to to answer questions related to the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

When asked to explain why his office made changes to its whistleblower forms in September and backdated those changes to August when the anti-Trump “whistleblower” complaint was filed, Atkinson had no answer, Sean Davis reported at the Federalist on Monday. He also reportedly admitted to lawmakers that the anti-Trump complainant had improperly concealed his previous secret interactions with House Democratic staff prior to submitting the complaint.

The Federalist first reported late last month that the ICIG secretly changed its whistleblower forms and internal rules in September to do away with a requirement that complainants provide first-hand evidence to support their allegations of wrongdoing.

The IC watchdog disclosed in a press release last week that the rule change was in response to an anti-Trump complaint filed on August 12. The whistleblower complaint was based on second-hand information, much of which was shown to be false after President Trump ordered the declassification and release of his telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

During Friday’s HPSCI committee oversight hearing, Atkinson admitted that the whistleblower forms and rules changes were made in September, even though the new forms and guidance state that they were changed in August, sources told the Federalist.

Despite having a full week to come up with explanations for his office’s decisions to secretly change its forms to eliminate the requirement for first-hand evidence and to backdate those changes to August, Atkinson refused to provide any explanation to lawmakers baffled by his behavior.

Graham: If Dems Move Forward With Impeachment, the Identities of Anonymous Whistleblowers Will Be Revealed

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2019/10/07/graham-if-dems-move-forward-with-impeachment-the-anonymous-whistleblowers-will-be-exposed-n2554258

Ratcliffe: DOJ Inspector General’s Report On FISA Abuse Will Be Released Within Next “Week Or Two” Posted By Tim Hains 

https://www.fightful.com/wrestling/cm-punk-jokes-rock-should-call-him-friday-while-

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/07/one-year-after-kavanaughs-confirmation-protestors-gather-outside-supreme-court/

One year ago, then Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court after facing unsubstantiated allegations of sexual assault and weeks of vicious Senate confirmation hearings. Although the hearings concluded, the smears against Kavanaugh’s character did not.

The New York Times promulgated a story that sparked calls for Kavanaugh’s impeachment. Nearly every 2020 Democratic candidate called for Justice Kavanaugh to be impeached amid media attention of more unsubstantiated allegations.

Marking the anniversary Kavanugh’s swearing in, angry protestors gathered at the Supreme Court on Monday. Julio Rosas, a senior writer at Townhall, documented the displays of insanity. Here’s what he saw:

Warning: explicit language displayed in signs below. 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/whistle-joseph-klein/

The House Democrats’ urgency in moving ahead to impeach President Trump over the so-called Ukraine “scandal” is turning into a sequel to Lewis Carrol’s Through the Looking Glass. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less. The question is which is to be master—that’s all.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is following Humpty Dumpty’s advice. She believes that she has the unilateral power, as master of the House of Representatives, to wave her magic wand and convert ordinary legislative oversight investigations into an “official” impeachment inquiry by just declaring it to be so.

“I’m announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry,” Pelosi declared on September 24th without introducing a resolution for adoption by the full House of Representatives to formally launch an impeachment inquiry. With her Democrat cohorts, she is hoping that Ukrainegate will turn into the decisive gotcha moment that finally checkmates President Trump and leads to his removal from office before next year’s presidential election. 

A second whistleblower, who supposedly has first hand knowledge to back up the first whistleblower’s second hand account, has reportedly come forward. More whistleblowers may follow. Mere coincidence or an orchestrated attempt by Trump-haters to build up public pressure to impeach him by inflicting a thousand cuts with drip by drip leaks? Almost certainly the latter, considering that the first whistleblower’s attorney, who said he is also representing the second whistleblower, “co-founded Whistleblower Aid, a small nonprofit that blasted advertisements around D.C. actively seeking whistleblowers during the Trump administration,” as reported by Breitbart. “Whistleblower Aid is heavily tied to far-left activist organizations and Democratic politics.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/pelosi_defends_schiffs_version_of_trumpzelensky_phone_call_he_did_not_make_it_up.html

Nancy Pelosi appears to have shocked even George Stephanopoulos of ABC news yesterday. The Speaker of the House claimed that Rep. Adam Schiff did not invent his own version of the telephone call between President Trump and the (then) newly inaugurated President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25, during a September 26th hearing of the House Intelligence Committee, which he chairs.

Schiff himself later in the hearing characterized his version of what he initially called “the essence” of the call as a “parody.” But the purported humor sailed right over the head of the Speaker.

Here is the entire  ABC News transcript.  This is the relevant exchange with emphases added by me:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You talk about the dignity with which you handle this. You’ve seen the president’s tweets. You’ve heard Republican’s– Leader McCarthy wants to censure Adam Schiff. I know you support Chairman Schiff. But– was it– was it right for him to have that dramatic– reading of the president’s– interpretation of the president’s– transcript of the phone call at the hearing last week? Did that follow the kind of process you want?

NANCY PELOSI: I want the American people to know what that phone call was about. I want them to hear it on their– on their iPhone or whatever. I want them to see it visually. Because this was an absolute betrayal of the American people, this phone call. It was a betrayal of our national security, it was a betrayal of the integrity of elections, it was a betrayal of our Constitution. So yeah, it’s fair. It’s sad. But it’s using the president’s own words. So if he’s–

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-10-5-the-bidens-stone-cold-crooked

The phrase “stone cold crooked” was used on October 2 by President Trump to describe Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Watch the YouTube video here.

Meanwhile, in the Democratic-side press, almost all have been standing up for Joe Biden in the face of large profit-making ventures of his son and brother in countries where Biden as Vice President led U.S. diplomacy. Specifically as to Ukraine, the New York Times on October 5 called President Trump’s charges as to Biden’s misconduct “unfounded” and “wild.”

So which is it: Are Biden and his family “stone cold crooked,” or are such charges “unfounded” and “wild”?

This piece will look specifically at the facts regarding then-Vice President Joe Biden and the dealings of Hunter Biden in Ukraine.

My conclusion: the claim of “stone cold crooked” has been proved.