NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Adam Schiff, ‘Lt. Col.’ Vindman and the impeachment ratings flop The Democrats thought they could transform this tawdry revenge fantasy into reality. It isn’t working Roger Kimball

Posted By on November 21st, 2019

https://spectator.us/schiff-vindman-impeachment-flop/

No.’ ‘No.’ ‘No.’ ‘No.’

That pretty much sums up yesterday’s testimony.

‘Did you receive any indication whatsoever, or anything that resembled a quid pro quo?’

Former envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker: ‘No.’

Devin Nunes to Tim Morrison, former NSC official: ‘Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?’

‘No.’

This follows the responses of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to the question of whether he was offered a quid pro quo: US aid in exchange for investigating Hunter Biden’s corrupt dealings with the natural gas company Burisma: ‘No.’

Ditto Gordon Sondland, US ambassador to the European Union: was there a quid pro quo: ‘No.’ (Sondland’s testimony has just begun at the time of writing: rest assured it will be more of the same.)

Last week’s hearings were preposterous, a disaster for the Democrats. This week’s hearings are shaping up to be even worse news for the partisans of the Adam Schiff Show.

Remember that old hippie slogan, ‘suppose they gave a war and nobody came?‘ It’s been updated and applied not to international conflicts but partisan intramural sniping: suppose they gave a hearing and nobody came?

For that’s the truth of the matter. The ratings for this reality TV show are in the tank. During Watergate, during the Clinton impeachment, people were glued to the news. Now, despite the screaming CNN chyrons, anti-Trump Washington Post and New York Times sermons, nobody cares.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The Founding Fathers’ focus group on impeachment, 1787 ‘What if we really, really don’t like the president? What do you think about that as a reason for giving him the heave-ho?’ Charles Lipson

Posted By on November 21st, 2019

https://spectator.us/founding-fathers-focus-group-impeachment-1787/

House Democrats are concentrating their impeachment drive on “bribery” because focus groups liked it so much better than other terms Democrats have floated.As all thoughtful citizens know, focus-group testing is the best way to deal with grave constitutional matters, as well as marketing breakfast cereals and e-cigarettes.
That’s why we are so fortunate our leading scholars have discovered the most important of focus group in American history, one dealing precisely with this topic. Adam Schiff has finally released the transcript of the 1787 meeting. I am publishing it here for the first time.

Focus-group testing is widely recognized as the best way to deal with grave constitutional matters, as well as marketing breakfast cereals and e-cigarettes. It is not surprising, then, that legal scholars are scouring focus groups throughout American history to see what light they shed on the Trump impeachment.

The most important of these earlier focus groups was that of the Founding Fathers, secretly convened in Philadelphia in 1787. Chairman Adam Schiff has finally released the much-anticipated transcript:

Speaker Pelosi: Hi, everybody. Let’s keep this informal and fun. Just call me Madam Speaker. Anybody want a cappuccino before we get started? Perhaps a vegan sandwich?

Mr Benjamin Franklin: What the hell is a cappuccino? Give me a plain ole venti with soy milk.

Mr James Madison: What the hell is vegan?

Speaker Pelosi: It’s sort of like eating grass, Mr Madison. Let’s just skip it and get to the main topic for today.

Mr George Washington: Yes. Let’s leave this grass thing up to the states. What’s the next topic?

Speaker Pelosi: What if the people are stupid enough to elect the wrong president? How can we kick him out of office?

Mr George Mason: Are they really that dumb?

Speaker Pelosi: Take my word for it. It happens. Have any of you been to Kentucky? Alabama? Just kidding. What if we really, really don’t like the president? What do you think about that as a reason for giving him the heave-ho?

Mr John Jay: ‘Really, really not liking him’ seems a little vague.

ISRAEL Comments turned off

Israel in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) advances US interest Ambassador (Ret.) Yoram Ettinger

Posted By on November 21st, 2019

The US position on the future of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) should be based on US interests in the context of a violent, volcanic, uncontrollable and unpredictable Middle East.

On September 18, 1970, the pro-USSR Syrian military invaded Jordan in an attempt to topple the pro-US Hashemite regime, which would destabilize the regional balance. The invasion was rolled back, largely, due to Israel’s deployment of its military, and Israel’s deterring posture on the Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria. Thus, Israel’s posture of deterrence spared the US the need to deploy its own troops (while it was bogged down in the Vietnam quagmire), in order to secure its Jordanian ally, and prevent a devastating ripple effect into Saudi Arabia and all other pro-US Arab Gulf States (at a time when the US was heavily dependent upon Persian Gulf oil).

Israel’s control of the mountains of Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley – as well as the Golan Heights – dramatically catapulted its regional position from violence-inducing weakness to violence-deterring strength, reducing regional violence and threats to all pro-US Arab regimes.

Israel’s control of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria – the cradle of Jewish history – has transformed the Jewish State from a supplicant and national security consumer to a strategic ally of the US and national security producer.  In the words of the late General Alexander Haig (former Supreme Commander of NATO and US Secretary of State), Israel has become the largest US aircraft carrier with no US boots on board, yielding the US a few hundred percent rate of return on its annual investment in Israel.

FOREIGN POLICY, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Thanks to Trump, the Mullahs Are Going Bankrupt by Majid Rafizadeh

Posted By on November 21st, 2019

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15183/iran-mullahs-bankrupt

One of the reasons behind IMF’s gloomy picture of Iran’s economy is linked to the Trump administration’s decision not to extend its waiver for Iran’s eight biggest oil buyers; China, India, Greece, Italy, Taiwan, Japan, Turkey and South Korea.

Iran’s national currency, the rial, also continues to lose value: it dropped to historic lows. One US dollar, which equaled approximately 35,000 rials in November 2017, now buys you nearly 110,000 rials.

The critics of President Trump’s Iran policy have been proven wrong: the US sanctions are imposing significant pressure on the ruling mullahs of Iran and the ability to fund their terror groups.

Before the US Department of Treasury leveled secondary sanctions against Iran’s oil and gas sectors, Tehran was exporting over two million barrel a day of oil. Currently, Tehran’s oil export has gone down to less than 200,000 barrel a day, which represents a decline of roughly 90% in Iran’s oil exports.

Iran has the second-largest natural gas reserves and the fourth-largest proven crude oil reserves in the world, and the sale of these resources account for more than 80 percent of its export revenues. The Islamic Republic therefore historically depends heavily on oil revenues to fund its military adventurism in the region and sponsor militias and terror groups. Iran’s presented budget in 2019 was nearly $41 billion, while the regime was expecting to generate approximately $21 billion of it from oil revenues. This means that approximately half of Iran’s government revenue comes from exporting oil to other nations.

Even though Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, boasts about the country’s self-sufficient economy, several of Iran’s leaders recently admitted the dire economic situation that the government is facing. Speaking in the city of Kerman on November 12, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani acknowledged for the first time that “Iran is experiencing one of its hardest years since the 1979 Islamic revolution” and that “the country’s situation is not normal.”

Rouhani also complained:

“Although we have some other incomes, the only revenue that can keep the country going is the oil money. We have never had so many problems in selling oil. We never had so many problems in keeping our oil tanker fleet sailing…. How can we run the affairs of the country when we have problems with selling our oil?”

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Iran: Hard Times for Ayatollahs by Con Coughlin

Posted By on November 21st, 2019

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15184/iran-ayatollahs-hard-times

It is an irony that not even the most devoted supporters of the ayatollahs can ignore that a country such as Iran, that prides itself on being one of the world’s largest oil producers, is unable to produce enough fuel to satisfy the needs of its own population.

These are, moreover, hard times for the ayatollahs in many other respects. Not only are the leaders coming under pressure at home for their disastrous handling of the economy. They are also seeing their efforts to export Iran’s Islamic revolution to other corners of the Middle East being roundly rejected, with anti-Iran protests taking place in Iraq and Lebanon.

With the Iranian economy under such intense pressure as a result of the sanctions, however, the regime has little room for manoeuvre, so it faces a stark choice: either radically reform its conduct or continue to face the wrath of the Iranian people.

Any suggestion that the wide-ranging sanctions regime the Trump administration has imposed against Iran was not having the desired effect has been roundly refuted by the nationwide protests that have erupted in response to the regime’s decision to increase petrol prices.

Critics of American President Donald J. Trump’s announcement that he was withdrawing the US from the Iran nuclear deal last year and imposing a fresh round of sanctions against Tehran have argued that the measures would fail to have the desired effect, and claimed that the ayatollahs would be able to circumvent the sanctions by trading with countries such as China, that remained committed to the nuclear deal.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

All Eyes On Judge In Michael Flynn Case After Weeks Of Shocking DevelopmentsMargot Cleveland By Margot Cleveland

Posted By on November 20th, 2019

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/20/all-eyes-on-judge-in-michael-flynn-case-after-weeks-of-shocking-developments/

After a flurry of court filings and blockbuster developments last month, the Michael Flynn criminal case has been dormant for nearly three weeks. The parties and the public now await word from presiding Judge Emmett Sullivan on the pending motion to compel and motion for sanctions filed by Sidney Powell, the lead attorney who took over Flynn’s case shortly after the special counsel team disbanded.

Powell’s motion seeks to force federal prosecutors to provide Flynn an array of documents withheld from his attorneys and to sanction government lawyers for their failure to provide relevant evidence to the defense team in a timely manner. When and how Judge Sullivan will rule is unclear.

A Flurry of October Surprises

In late October, Judge Sullivan issued a short order canceling a hearing on Flynn’s motions previously scheduled for November 5, 2019, prompting predictions that the long-time federal judge had already made up his mind. This development also triggered a panicked filing by the government complaining that Flynn’s lawyers had raised new issues in their reply brief and cautioning the court not to rule without hearing more from the prosecutors. Sullivan okayed a response by the government and a final rebuttal by Flynn’s attorneys, but added a terse endnote that no more briefing would be had on the issue.

Then, mere days after the final briefing came in, federal prosecutors found themselves forced to admit that for nearly three years, they had wrongly identified the authors of the handwritten notes taken by the FBI agents during their January 24, 2017, interview of then-National Security Advisor Flynn. Prosecutors had told defense counsel (and the court) that the notes written by Peter Strozk had been compiled by FBI Agent Joe Pietka, and those taken by Pietka had been written by Strozk.

This embarrassing mea culpa surely added strength to Powell’s plea for access to other withheld evidence. After all, if federal prosecutors made such a basic blunder concerning key evidence, what other mistakes lay buried in the undisclosed evidence?

Foreshadowing a Motion to Dismiss

While the currently pending motion concerns only the question of access to evidence and sanctions for the never-provided, or the late-provision of, evidence, Powell’s briefing foreshadows the filing of a motion to dismiss the indictment. In her briefing, Powell teases several factual and legal theories supportive of such a motion.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Pence, Perry, Pompeo All Reject Sondland’s Claims During Impeachment Testimony By Tristan Justice

Posted By on November 20th, 2019

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/20/pence-perry-pompeo-all-reject-sondlands-claims-during-impeachment-testimony/

Vice President Mike Pence, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo each categorically denied EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s claims that the three White House officials were aware of Trump’s alleged efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens in a quid pro quo for military aid.

During testimony delivered to the House Intelligence Committee Wednesday on day four of the Democrats’ latest round of partisan impeachment hearings, Sondland said he informed each, Pence, Perry, and Pompeo that the ambassador raised concerns about the president withholding aid to Ukraine as part of a quid pro quo to investigate the Biden family, the central issue at the heart of the Democratic impeachment inquiry.

“I mentioned to Vice President Pence before the meetings with the Ukrainians that I had concerns that the delay in [US military aid to Ukraine] had become tied to the issue of investigations,” Sondland told lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

The vice president’s office however, denied the conversation ever took place.

“The vice president never had a conversation with Gordon Sondland about investigating the Bidens, Burisma, or the conditional release of financial aid to Ukraine based on potential investigations,” said Pence Chief of Staff Marc Short in a statement.

“Multiple witnesses have testified under oath that Vice President Pence never raised Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden, Crowdstrike, Burisma, or investigations in any conversation with Ukrainians or President Zelensky before, during, or after the September 1 meeting in Poland,” Short pointed out.

Energy Secretary Perry also pushed back on Sondland’s assertion that he too, was informed of an apparent quid pro quo being put in place by Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani.

MEDIA, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Fake News: AP, CNN, NYT Twist Sondland Testimony on Ukraine By Tyler O’Neil

Posted By on November 20th, 2019

https://pjmedia.com/trending/fake-news-ap-cnn-nyt-twist-sondland-testimony-on-ukraine/

“Sondland admitted that Trump “never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings.” He described the Democrats’ assumed quid pro quo as “my own personal guess.”

As Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the E.U., testified before the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, news outlets twisted his words against President Donald Trump, in service of the Democrats’ impeachment narrative.

First, the Associated Press (AP) tweeted that Trump contradicted Sondland’s testimony. “Contradicting the testimony of his own ambassador, President Trump says he wanted ‘nothing’ from Ukraine and says the [Impeachment hearings] should be brought to an end,” the tweet read. In fact, Trump was quoting Sondland’s testimony in his remarks.

AP deleted the tweet. “An earlier tweet that didn’t make clear that President Trump was quoting from Gordon Sondland’s testimony in which he was quoting Trump has been deleted,” the news outlet admitted.

During his testimony, Sondland told Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the committee, “I finally called the president… I believe I just asked him an open-ended question. ‘What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?'”

“It was a very short abrupt conversation, he was not in a good mood, and he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing,’ something to that effect,” the ambassador said.

Yet this did not stop other liberal-leaning media outlets from twisting Sondland’s testimony in similar ways. During the testimony, a CNN chyron blasted the words, “SONDLAND: I PRESSURED UKRAINE AT ‘EXPRESS DIRECTION’ OF TRUMP.”

As Trump campaign Communications Director Tim Murtagh tweeted, the chyron was “factually wrong.”

Sondland did testify using the words “express direction,” but not in regards to allegedly pressuring Ukraine. “First, Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and I worked with Mr. Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters at the express direction of the President of the United States,” he said.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Gordon Sondland’s testimony frees Team Trump to adopt the best defense: the truth By Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted By on November 20th, 2019

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/gordon-sondlands-testimony-frees-team-trump-to-adopt-the-best-defense-the-truth/

Wednesday’s impeachment testimony by US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland underscored the folly of the main defense strategy adopted by President Trump and his supporters against Democratic allegations that he traded military aid for dirt on the Bidens.

That strategy has been to categorically deny any quid pro quo. Yet contrary to other witnesses’ versions of events, Sondland clearly and explicitly acknowledges that there was a quid pro quo.

Specifically, Sondland testified that he knows Trump was stalling on a promised White House visit for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Sondland came to realize Trump was also withholding $400 million in defense aid. That was the quid.

The quo sought by the president was Kiev’s announcement that it would conduct investigations of Ukraine’s meddling in the 2016 election and of Burisma — a Ukrainian energy company that was lavishly compensating Joe Biden’s son Hunter. While serving as Team Obama’s point man on Ukraine policy, then-veep Joe Biden forced the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.

Sondland later admitted that he presumed the quid pro quo. Even so, the president’s defenders shouldn’t fight the notion that there was a quid pro quo. Virtually all foreign relations involve quid pro quo, a Latin phrase that just means “this for that” — and doesn’t necessarily imply corrupt ends. Plus, discourse between foreign powers typically involves pressure. The domestic criminal-law concept of “extortion” has no application in foreign relations, where countries squeeze each other, and worse, to force accommodations.

P.C.-CULTURE Comments turned off

Feminism as Gender Terrorism: The Mortal Vendetta Against the Male Sex By David Solway

Posted By on November 20th, 2019

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/feminism-as-gender-terrorism-the-mortal-vendetta-against-the-male-sex/

Egyptian-American feminist Mona Eltahawy is in the news again, having gone on record suggesting the weekly “culling” of men. She calls this an imaginary scenario, but it is nonetheless hateful and an obvious incentive to homicidal violence.

As she put it in a fawning CBC interview, anticipating her recent appearance on Australian public television (now scrubbed by ABC but still accessible on Sydney Watson’s channel):

“Knowing that this is very disturbing, I ask people to imagine… a scenario in which we kill a certain number of men every week. How many men must we kill until patriarchy sits across the table from us and says, OK, stop. What must we do, so that you can stop this culling?” She continues: “I want patriarchy to fear feminism. I want patriarchy to fear women… My question here is, how long must we wait so that men stop raping us? What will it take so that men stop murdering us?” Eltahawy claims to have beaten up a groper in a Montreal club, leaving him with a look of terror in his eyes. “I want that terror,” she writes, “to be the way that patriarchy reacts to feminism.”*

Eltahawy’s vehemence, alas, is not new. It is mainly a rehash of Valerie Solanas’ 1967 SCUM Manifesto (an acronym for Society for Cutting Up Men), which reads in part: “No aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.” Solanis leapt to notoriety when, true to her word, she near-fatally shot Andy Warhol. As she wrote: her paramilitary would “coolly, furtively stalk its prey and quietly move in for the kill.” No man is safe.

Feminists like Eltahawy and Solanas may seem like the stuff of farce, whatever suffering, real or fictitious, they may have undergone. But we should not be deceived or amused by the eltasolanic shtick of feminist performance artists, who should be regarded as the clown-world side of feminism’s Medea-like seriousness. The misery inflicted by feminism upon Western societies has a somber and funereal history, going back to the Declaration of Sentiments, signed at Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848. The lies, misdirections, tactical omissions and manipulation of facts assembled by its key author Elizabeth Cady Stanton and her colleagues, scrupulously analyzed in Steve Brule’s recent and brilliant video exposé, The Birth of Feminism, underlies the bad faith and partisan virulence of modern feminism.