Saturday, February 1, 2020
SHOCKED..! They even bust guys for $7 million fentanyl case....and then LET THEM GO..!
‘Bail reforms’ lead to shock jump in NYC crime: 157% more shootings, 50% more murders, 37% more robberies January 31, 2020 By Victor Skinner The American Mirror
Crime is skyrocketing in New York and police blame NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Democrats in the state assembly for fueling the fire.
“We haven’t seen crime numbers like this in a very long time,” the NYC PBA union posted to Twitter Wednesday.
The post includes a chart of crimes in the city for the week of January 20-26, which included a week to date comparison with 2019 that showed a 157.1% spike in shooting incidents, 242.9% more shooting victims, a 58.8% increase in grand larceny auto, 37.2% more robberies, and a 50% jump in murders.
NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea, the NYC PBA and others are placing the blame exactly where it belongs: so-called “bail reforms” created by Cuomo and Democrats that require immediate release of the vast majority of criminals without bail, a nod to “progressives” like de Blasio who argue the bail system punishes the poor. –
listen to Boltons OWN words in Fox News interview in Jan. 2020
Trump tweets 'game over' after Bolton, Schiff videos resurface Jan 30, 2020
Senator David Perdue weighs in on the Bolton and Schiff interviews that have resurfaced and brought their credibility into questions. He also discusses the ongoing impeachment trial.
Why am I just seeing this and why wasn't something done about it....???
Former Obama officials tell Iran to ‘hang on’ until 2020 when Trump loses By M. Dowling - January 2, 2020
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo addressed that support in a recent interview, claiming former Obama officials are meeting with Iranian leaders, undermining the President.
The Secretary has said this before but — mysteriously — no one is pursuing charges against the offenders.
TELLING IRAN TO ‘HANG ON’
Mr. Pompeo accused members of the Obama administration of undermining President Trump’s maximum pressure campaign on Iran by telling the Iranians to “just hang on” until Trump loses in 2020.
“I’ll be straight up with you,” Pompeo says in an interview for the American Enterprise Institute’s national security podcast “What The Hell Is Going On?,” co-anchored by Dany Pletka and Marc Thiessen, “you have folks who served in the previous administration who are telling the Iranian leaders today, ‘Just hang on.”
“President Trump will lose in the election in November, and we’ll go back to appeasement. America will write you a big check, we’ll underwrite your terror campaign around the world, we’ll give you a clear pathway to a nuclear weapon system. Just wait until the Trump administration is finished.’”
He should be thrown out of the republican party...he acts like a demoRat anyway
CPAC says Romney 'not invited' this year after vote at Trump trial Tal Axelrod THE HILL
."The 'extreme conservative' and Junior Senator from the great state of Utah, @SenatorRomney is formally NOT invited to #CPAC2020," tweeted Matt Schlapp, the head of the American Conservative Union, which puts on the annual GOP confab.
The conference, which is scheduled for the end of next month, is one of the largest conservative gatherings in the country that has emerged as a top meeting place for some of President Trump's highest profile supporters.
Friday, January 31, 2020
Lindsey Graham Rips Democrats for Lies About 'Blocking' Witnesses Katie Pavlich Posted: Jan 31, 2020
At a press conference with reporters Friday morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued President Trump cannot be acquitted because he hasn't "had a fair trial." Why? Because it's unlikely new witnesses Democrats in the House refused to compel for testimony will be subpoenaed.
What Pelosi is saying is, of course untrue. If 51 Senators vote to acquit President Trump, he will in fact have been acquitted. In addition and as she learned when she held the articles of impeachment for 33 days, she has no control over the Senate trial or process.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham is blasting Democrats for claiming new witnesses are being "blocked."
It was the House of Representatives who refused to pursue the testimony of the witnesses because they wanted to impeach the President before Christmas.
Only in Washington would someone call that decision “Blocking Witnesses.”
Source: (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
What Pelosi is saying is, of course untrue. If 51 Senators vote to acquit President Trump, he will in fact have been acquitted. In addition and as she learned when she held the articles of impeachment for 33 days, she has no control over the Senate trial or process.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham is blasting Democrats for claiming new witnesses are being "blocked."
GRAHAM RESPONDED
Of all the insane things being said about this impeachment debacle - and there is a lot to choose from - one of the most ridiculous is to say Senate Republicans are “Blocking Witnesses.”
This is an outrageous claim.
This is an outrageous claim.
It was the House of Representatives who refused to pursue the testimony of the witnesses because they wanted to impeach the President before Christmas.
Only in Washington would someone call that decision “Blocking Witnesses.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham: "The President will be acquitted in a bipartisan manner."
..........……………………………
Earlier this week, White House attorney Patrick Philbin explained why it is crucial for the Senate to reject a sloppy investigation from the House and deny new witnesses in order to maintain the integrity of the upper chamber.
Rand Paul Schools Reporter on Whistleblower Protection
Bronson Stocking Posted: Jan 31, 2020
On Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) attempted to ask a question about two partisan Democrats who reportedly conspired to impeach the president before formal impeachment proceedings even began in the House. During a phase in the impeachment trial designed to allow senators to ask questions, Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read Rand's question because it contained the name of the partisan Democrat who has reportedly been identified as the whistleblower responsible for this entire impeachment sham. Robert's refusal to read Rand's question over concern of outing the alleged whistleblower only bolsters evidence that the partisan Democrat named in Rand's question is indeed the actual whistleblower.
People who don't know anything about the Whistleblower Protection Act immediately began calling for Senator Rand Paul to be arrested. Even members of the media act as if a person conspiring to bring down a duly elected president by plotting with the president's political enemies, and reportedly lying about it under oath, is entitled to complete anonymity and must answer no more than zero follow-up questions about their cockamamie scheme. Sen. Paul was forced to educate such a reporter after she falsely claimed that it was illegal for anyone ever to out a whistleblower.
"Actually," the senator began, "you got that wrong, too. You should work on the facts. The whistleblower statute protects the whistleblower from having his name revealed by the inspector general. Even The New York Times admits that no one else is under any legal obligation. The other point, and you need to be very careful if you are really interested in the news, is the whistleblower is actually a material witness completely separate from being the whistleblower because he worked for Joe Biden ... at the same time Hunter Biden was receiving $50,000 a month, so the investigation into the corruption of Hunter Biden involves this whistleblower because he was there at the time. Did he bring up the conflict of interest? Was there discussion of this? What was his involvement with the relationship between Joe Biden and the prosecutor? There's a lot of questions the whistleblower needs to answer."
Congressmen familiar with the testimony of the 18th witness in the Democratic-led House impeachment inquiry have accused House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of attempting to bury the transcript of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson. According to Rep. Ratcliffe (R-TX), the transcript shows the whistleblower perjured himself about his contact with a member of Adam Schiff's staff. Maybe this is why liberals want Sen. Rand Paul thrown in jail for asking a question.
Bronson Stocking Posted: Jan 31, 2020
On Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) attempted to ask a question about two partisan Democrats who reportedly conspired to impeach the president before formal impeachment proceedings even began in the House. During a phase in the impeachment trial designed to allow senators to ask questions, Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read Rand's question because it contained the name of the partisan Democrat who has reportedly been identified as the whistleblower responsible for this entire impeachment sham. Robert's refusal to read Rand's question over concern of outing the alleged whistleblower only bolsters evidence that the partisan Democrat named in Rand's question is indeed the actual whistleblower.
People who don't know anything about the Whistleblower Protection Act immediately began calling for Senator Rand Paul to be arrested. Even members of the media act as if a person conspiring to bring down a duly elected president by plotting with the president's political enemies, and reportedly lying about it under oath, is entitled to complete anonymity and must answer no more than zero follow-up questions about their cockamamie scheme. Sen. Paul was forced to educate such a reporter after she falsely claimed that it was illegal for anyone ever to out a whistleblower.
"Actually," the senator began, "you got that wrong, too. You should work on the facts. The whistleblower statute protects the whistleblower from having his name revealed by the inspector general. Even The New York Times admits that no one else is under any legal obligation. The other point, and you need to be very careful if you are really interested in the news, is the whistleblower is actually a material witness completely separate from being the whistleblower because he worked for Joe Biden ... at the same time Hunter Biden was receiving $50,000 a month, so the investigation into the corruption of Hunter Biden involves this whistleblower because he was there at the time. Did he bring up the conflict of interest? Was there discussion of this? What was his involvement with the relationship between Joe Biden and the prosecutor? There's a lot of questions the whistleblower needs to answer."
Congressmen familiar with the testimony of the 18th witness in the Democratic-led House impeachment inquiry have accused House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of attempting to bury the transcript of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson. According to Rep. Ratcliffe (R-TX), the transcript shows the whistleblower perjured himself about his contact with a member of Adam Schiff's staff. Maybe this is why liberals want Sen. Rand Paul thrown in jail for asking a question.
This woman is NUTS..!! Sometthing needs to be done to stop the partisan harassment of our Duly Elected President Donald J. Trump.....
Pelosi Claims Trump Cannot be Acquitted and his Lawyers Should be Disbarred 2020-01-31 Source: TTN by: TTN Staff
Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems to be panicking as she watches her impeachment gamble go up in smoke. The controversial Speaker is now making up her own rules.
Pelosi is now claiming that President Trump can never be acquitted without witnesses and that his lawyers should be disbarred.
According to Fox News:
In scathing comments Thursday as her party appeared on the verge of defeat in the Senate impeachment trial, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi argued that President Trump "cannot be acquitted" if the trial lacks the witness testimony and documentation that Democrats have been seeking.
The San Francisco Democrat also fired on Trump's impeachment defense team, saying they've "disgraced themselves" during this week's trial and suggesting they deserve disbarment over their trial remarks.
The comments came hours before Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said he would not back efforts by Democrats to have witnesses testify at the Senate trial – all but sealing an acquittal for Trump.
"He will not be acquitted," Pelosi insisted during her weekly news conference, according to Politico. “You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial. You don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and all of that. Does the president know right from wrong? I don't think so.”
Some commentators have noted that the hyperbole used by the Democrats where they claim President Trump's every action is the worst ever, has backfired. When everything is bad nothing is actually bad.
Pelosi Tries to Take Credit for Trump’s Trade Deal
Dec 10, 2019....Rush Limbaugh show
RUSH: Greg in South Haven, Michigan. Welcome, sir. Great to have you here.
Dec 10, 2019....Rush Limbaugh show
RUSH: Greg in South Haven, Michigan. Welcome, sir. Great to have you here.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, just absolutely wonderful to talk to you today. I’m talking to you on my iPhone 11, my brand-new iPhone 11. Anyway, a longtime listener here since you were on WLS in ’88. But here’s my issue, my comment to you is, Pelosi, after the ridiculous charade this morning of the articles of impeachment and all that phony crap they talked about.
They come out an hour later and try to talk about taking credit for the USMCA, saying that the original bill they got from the administration was terrible and it took ’em a whole year —
RUSH: Look.
CALLER: — to get it straightened up.
RUSH: I saw that exactly one hour after impeaching the president as a reprobate scumbag they go out and sign this Mexico trade agreement, the NAFTA replacement, claiming they — they’ve been holding it up for a year. Why, if this guy is so bad, why would you make any kind of a legislative agreement with him?
We’ll have more on this tomorrow, by the way.
Why Adam Schiff doesn’t want anyone talking to the whistleblower By Betsy McCaughey December 30, 2019 New York Post
That’s good news. Because no matter what comes of Trump’s Senate trial, Schiff should be held accountable for his devious methods.
The public also needs the truth about the so-called whistleblower. Real whistleblowers deserve to be treated like heroes. But Eric Ciaramella — the man Judicial Watch and many media accounts have identified as the whistleblower and who doesn’t deny it — is no hero.
To dignify Ciaramella with the term “whistleblower” misrepresents what he did. Sure, he filed what is technically called a whistleblower complaint. But he had no firsthand knowledge of Trump’s controversial July 25 phone call or motivations. Every allegation in the complaint begins with “I learned from multiple US officials,” or “multiple officials told me,” or “officials with direct knowledge informed me.” Just gossip. He never names any sources. Ciaramella acted as the anti-Trumpers’ front man. As for courage, not an ounce: He is cowering from public view.
Compare him to real whistleblowers. Jay Brainard, the top Transportation Safety Administration official in Kansas, blew the whistle this month, warning the TSA is lowering metal-detector sensitivity levels to shorten airport lines. He went on TV to warn against sacrificing safety for convenience.
Similarly, Boeing ex-employee Ed Pierson is blowing the whistle against the company for allegedly overworking assembly-line employees, leading to production errors that could cause 737 MAX planes to malfunction or crash. (Boeing denies a connection.)
Real whistleblowers speak from firsthand knowledge. They muster the courage to expose dangers or abuses that would otherwise go unreported. Movies are made about heroes like former cigarette company executive Jeffrey Wigand, who went on “60 Minutes” to expose the industry coverup of addiction.
During hearings, Schiff cracked his gavel repeatedly to silence questions from Republicans about the whistleblower. Truth is, Schiff was protecting himself. Even now, if the whistleblower talks, details of Schiff’s role in launching the complaint may come out.
What is already known is that on July 26, one day after Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president, Schiff hired Sean Misko to join his staff. Shortly after that hire, Schiff’s staff met with Ciaramella, a friend and co-worker of Misko’s in the intelligence community. Schiff’s staff gave Ciaramella “guidance” on how to make a complaint. A cozy arrangement. The emails will likely divulge more.
Schiff concealed these dealings until the New York Times caught him in the lie. Schiff also withheld from House investigators documents detailing how his staff aided the whistleblower.
The whistleblower filed his complaint with intelligence community Inspector General Michael Atkinson on Aug. 12, also concealing that he had met with Schiff’s staff. When the complaint became public in September, Schiff feigned surprise.
Even worse, Schiff obscured how the whistleblower complaint ever saw the light of day. The big question is why Atkinson deemed the complaint “credible” enough to be reported to Congress — the trigger required for Schiff to launch an impeachment investigation.
The document contained nothing but “second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions” that regulations say are insufficient for a complaint to be acted on. Accounts of wrongdoing from co-workers don’t qualify. Atkinson’s Sept. 30 statement defending his decision to deem the complaint “credible” amounts to: “I did it, because I did it.” He never gave a reason.
Atkinson’s Oct. 4 closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence Committee undoubtedly offers answers, but Schiff refuses to let even House members see it. The transcripts of all the 18 other witnesses have been released, but not Atkinson’s. It’s a stunning omission.
By concealing that testimony, Schiff is propping up what Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel calls the whistleblower’s “hearsay report” and keeping Schiff’s own role in launching the complaint under wraps.
But the truth about Schiff’s intrigues will likely be uncovered in the emails Judicial Watch is seeking. Sadly, too late to spare the nation from impeachment.
Enlarge Image
Adam Schiff
The truth behind House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff’s role in engineering President Trump’s impeachment may soon come out. Judicial Watch, a nonprofit group promoting government transparency, is suing to get the whistleblower’s emails.
That’s good news. Because no matter what comes of Trump’s Senate trial, Schiff should be held accountable for his devious methods.
The public also needs the truth about the so-called whistleblower. Real whistleblowers deserve to be treated like heroes. But Eric Ciaramella — the man Judicial Watch and many media accounts have identified as the whistleblower and who doesn’t deny it — is no hero.
To dignify Ciaramella with the term “whistleblower” misrepresents what he did. Sure, he filed what is technically called a whistleblower complaint. But he had no firsthand knowledge of Trump’s controversial July 25 phone call or motivations. Every allegation in the complaint begins with “I learned from multiple US officials,” or “multiple officials told me,” or “officials with direct knowledge informed me.” Just gossip. He never names any sources. Ciaramella acted as the anti-Trumpers’ front man. As for courage, not an ounce: He is cowering from public view.
Compare him to real whistleblowers. Jay Brainard, the top Transportation Safety Administration official in Kansas, blew the whistle this month, warning the TSA is lowering metal-detector sensitivity levels to shorten airport lines. He went on TV to warn against sacrificing safety for convenience.
Similarly, Boeing ex-employee Ed Pierson is blowing the whistle against the company for allegedly overworking assembly-line employees, leading to production errors that could cause 737 MAX planes to malfunction or crash. (Boeing denies a connection.)
Real whistleblowers speak from firsthand knowledge. They muster the courage to expose dangers or abuses that would otherwise go unreported. Movies are made about heroes like former cigarette company executive Jeffrey Wigand, who went on “60 Minutes” to expose the industry coverup of addiction.
During hearings, Schiff cracked his gavel repeatedly to silence questions from Republicans about the whistleblower. Truth is, Schiff was protecting himself. Even now, if the whistleblower talks, details of Schiff’s role in launching the complaint may come out.
What is already known is that on July 26, one day after Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president, Schiff hired Sean Misko to join his staff. Shortly after that hire, Schiff’s staff met with Ciaramella, a friend and co-worker of Misko’s in the intelligence community. Schiff’s staff gave Ciaramella “guidance” on how to make a complaint. A cozy arrangement. The emails will likely divulge more.
Schiff concealed these dealings until the New York Times caught him in the lie. Schiff also withheld from House investigators documents detailing how his staff aided the whistleblower.
The whistleblower filed his complaint with intelligence community Inspector General Michael Atkinson on Aug. 12, also concealing that he had met with Schiff’s staff. When the complaint became public in September, Schiff feigned surprise.
Even worse, Schiff obscured how the whistleblower complaint ever saw the light of day. The big question is why Atkinson deemed the complaint “credible” enough to be reported to Congress — the trigger required for Schiff to launch an impeachment investigation.
The document contained nothing but “second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions” that regulations say are insufficient for a complaint to be acted on. Accounts of wrongdoing from co-workers don’t qualify. Atkinson’s Sept. 30 statement defending his decision to deem the complaint “credible” amounts to: “I did it, because I did it.” He never gave a reason.
Atkinson’s Oct. 4 closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence Committee undoubtedly offers answers, but Schiff refuses to let even House members see it. The transcripts of all the 18 other witnesses have been released, but not Atkinson’s. It’s a stunning omission.
By concealing that testimony, Schiff is propping up what Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel calls the whistleblower’s “hearsay report” and keeping Schiff’s own role in launching the complaint under wraps.
But the truth about Schiff’s intrigues will likely be uncovered in the emails Judicial Watch is seeking. Sadly, too late to spare the nation from impeachment.
Thursday, January 30, 2020
What's wrong with saying the supposed whistleblowers name..? Everyone has already heard it
Rand Paul Releases Questions Censured by Chief Justice John Roberts 2020-01-30 Source: TTN by: TTN Staff
In response, Rand Paul publically released the questions that Roberts wouldn't read.
According to The Daily Wire:
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, blocked Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) from asking a question on Thursday during the trial.
RAND PAUL:
"and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Eric Ciaramella and Shawn Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings."
READ MORE
McConnell and Romney Fighting for Influence Over Trump’s Trial Jan 30th2020
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is fighting with failed presidential candidate and current Senator Mitt Romney over whether or not to have witnesses in President Trump’s Senate trial.
Mitt wants them and McConnell doesn’t and it appears McConnell is winning.
According to The Hill:
The fight over calling additional witnesses at President Trump‘s impeachment trial has turned into a struggle for influence between Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney.
The two Republican leaders — one the Senate majority leader, the other the GOP’s 2012 nominee for president — have two very different agendas.
McConnell has staked his reelection to a seventh term on helping Trump implement his agenda and has made clear that he is closely coordinating trial strategy with the White House.
Romney doesn’t have the immediate pressure of reelection and has told allies that he’s more interested in the role of elder statesman than climbing the Senate’s power ladder.
McConnell has announced that he believes he has the votes to block witnesses meaning he has convinced enough GOP senators that witnesses would be a mistake.
READ UTAH RECALL SWIPE AT ROMNEY...?
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is fighting with failed presidential candidate and current Senator Mitt Romney over whether or not to have witnesses in President Trump’s Senate trial.
Mitt wants them and McConnell doesn’t and it appears McConnell is winning.
According to The Hill:
The fight over calling additional witnesses at President Trump‘s impeachment trial has turned into a struggle for influence between Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney.
The two Republican leaders — one the Senate majority leader, the other the GOP’s 2012 nominee for president — have two very different agendas.
McConnell has staked his reelection to a seventh term on helping Trump implement his agenda and has made clear that he is closely coordinating trial strategy with the White House.
Romney doesn’t have the immediate pressure of reelection and has told allies that he’s more interested in the role of elder statesman than climbing the Senate’s power ladder.
McConnell has announced that he believes he has the votes to block witnesses meaning he has convinced enough GOP senators that witnesses would be a mistake.
READ UTAH RECALL SWIPE AT ROMNEY...?
Very informative article...You Gotta read the whole thing W/VIDEOS.......This week, Schiff said Bolton needed to testify in the trial as an important and believable witness.
"GAME OVER"
Trump declares, as old Bolton, Schiff videos surface amid impeachment trial 17 hours ago By Gregg Re | FoxNews
A string of newly resurfaced video clips of former national security adviser John Bolton spurred President Trump and his supporters Wednesday to highlight what they described as serious credibility questions -- raised by both Democrats and Republicans -- amid the Senate impeachment trial, as the president tweeted, "GAME OVER!"
In his tweet, Trump linked to an interview of Bolton in August 2019 where he discusses Ukraine policy. In the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty interview clip, Bolton made no mention of any illicit quid pro quo, and acknowledged, as Republicans have claimed, that combating "corruption" in Ukraine was a "high priority" for the Trump administration.
Bolton also called Trump's communications with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky "warm and cordial," without mentioning any misconduct. It seemingly contradicted reported assertions in Bolton's forthcoming book that Trump explicitly told him he wanted to tie military aid to Ukraine to an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden. (Zelensky has said his communications with Trump involved no pressure for any investigation.)
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Trump Defense Lawyer Pam Bondi Eloquently Explains the Biden's Ukraine Rolls 2020-01-28 Source: TTN by: TTN Staff
Trump's defense lawyer Pam Bondi exposed Joe and Hunter Biden's roles within Ukraine in front of the full Senate and the indictment drew the praise of CNN's chief legal analyst Jeffry Toobin.
According to The Daily Caller:
Bondi suggested the Ukrainian gas firm Burisma only hired Hunter Biden to gain influence over his father, who was then Barack Obama’s point man on Ukraine.
“In fact, every witness who is asked about Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma agreed, there was a potential appearance of a conflict of interest. Multiple House Democratic witnesses, including those from the Department of State, the National Security Council, and others unanimously testified there was a potential appearance of a conflict of interest,” Bondi told those assembled in the Senate chamber.
“Hunter Biden was paid significantly more than board members for major U.S. Fortune 100 companies said Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup. The typical board member of these fortune 100 companies are titans of industry, highly qualified, and as such, they are well compensated. Even so, Hunter Biden was paid significantly more. This is how well he was compensated. Hunter Biden is paid over $83,000 a month. The average American family of four during that time each year made less than $54,000.”
“When speaking with ABC News about his qualifications to be on Burisma’s board, Hunter Biden did not point to any of the usual qualifications of a board member. Hunter Biden had no experience and natural gas, no experience in the energy sector, no experience with Ukrainian regulatory affairs. As far as we know, he doesn’t speak Ukrainian. Naturally, the media has asked questions about his board membership.
Watch the takedown here:
Bondi also pointed out how Joe Biden bragged that he threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine if the prosecutor looking into his son's corruption was not fired.
CNN's Jeffery Toobin praised Bondi's ability to show just how sleazy Hunter Biden was.
According to Newsweek:
CNN's chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin praised former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi for one aspect of her defense of President Donald Trump during the impeachment trial Monday, saying she did an "effective job" talking about Hunter Biden.
Toobin was however critical of the rest of Trump's defense team's work today, including Bondi and attorney Eric Hershmann's condemnation of former Vice President Joe Biden.
"I thought Attorney General Bondi did an effective job at showing how sleazy the hiring of Hunter Biden was," Toobin told Jake Tapper and Wolf Blitzer Monday. "There is no way to dress that up. He was given a great deal of money for a job he was unqualified for and the only reason he got it is because he was the vice president's son."
When asked by White House counsel Steve Castor if Hunter Biden was qualified for his position at Burisma, Vindman answered, "As far as I can tell, he didn't seem to be, but like I said, I don't know his qualifications."
The Biden's corruption has been at the center of the impeachment probe because it was their corruption that warranted the inquiry by President Trump. However, Democrats continue to argue that because Joe Biden was Trump's "political rival" it made him immune from investigation, especially if the inquiry was made by President Trump.
According to The Daily Caller:
Bondi suggested the Ukrainian gas firm Burisma only hired Hunter Biden to gain influence over his father, who was then Barack Obama’s point man on Ukraine.
“In fact, every witness who is asked about Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma agreed, there was a potential appearance of a conflict of interest. Multiple House Democratic witnesses, including those from the Department of State, the National Security Council, and others unanimously testified there was a potential appearance of a conflict of interest,” Bondi told those assembled in the Senate chamber.
“Hunter Biden was paid significantly more than board members for major U.S. Fortune 100 companies said Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup. The typical board member of these fortune 100 companies are titans of industry, highly qualified, and as such, they are well compensated. Even so, Hunter Biden was paid significantly more. This is how well he was compensated. Hunter Biden is paid over $83,000 a month. The average American family of four during that time each year made less than $54,000.”
“When speaking with ABC News about his qualifications to be on Burisma’s board, Hunter Biden did not point to any of the usual qualifications of a board member. Hunter Biden had no experience and natural gas, no experience in the energy sector, no experience with Ukrainian regulatory affairs. As far as we know, he doesn’t speak Ukrainian. Naturally, the media has asked questions about his board membership.
Watch the takedown here:
Bondi also pointed out how Joe Biden bragged that he threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine if the prosecutor looking into his son's corruption was not fired.
CNN's Jeffery Toobin praised Bondi's ability to show just how sleazy Hunter Biden was.
According to Newsweek:
CNN's chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin praised former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi for one aspect of her defense of President Donald Trump during the impeachment trial Monday, saying she did an "effective job" talking about Hunter Biden.
Toobin was however critical of the rest of Trump's defense team's work today, including Bondi and attorney Eric Hershmann's condemnation of former Vice President Joe Biden.
"I thought Attorney General Bondi did an effective job at showing how sleazy the hiring of Hunter Biden was," Toobin told Jake Tapper and Wolf Blitzer Monday. "There is no way to dress that up. He was given a great deal of money for a job he was unqualified for and the only reason he got it is because he was the vice president's son."
When asked by White House counsel Steve Castor if Hunter Biden was qualified for his position at Burisma, Vindman answered, "As far as I can tell, he didn't seem to be, but like I said, I don't know his qualifications."
The Biden's corruption has been at the center of the impeachment probe because it was their corruption that warranted the inquiry by President Trump. However, Democrats continue to argue that because Joe Biden was Trump's "political rival" it made him immune from investigation, especially if the inquiry was made by President Trump.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
