Schiff Pledges To Remove Trump From Office In Speech … Should He Be Removed As Chair?

Schiff Pledges To Remove Trump From Office In Speech … Should He Be Removed As Chair? Did CNN write his talking points?

"We will send that charlatan in the White House back to the golden throne he came from."@RepAdamSchiff calls @realDonaldTrump a "charlatan" and says he will be removed from office.

Axios: The Trumpification Of Elise Stefanik
“It’s pretty powerful for Republicans to have a split screen of a young woman going after Schiff — this older white man,” said one GOP official working on impeachment."

Despite Dem Spin, Sondland Said He Was Never Told By Trump About Any Conditions  "Gordon Sondland was clear: "I've never heard from President Trump that the aid (to Ukraine) was conditioned on the investigations."
So what did @realDonaldTrump say when Sondland DID talk to him?
Sondland, quoting POTUS: "I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo."
Gordon Sondland was clear: "I've never heard from President Trump that the aid (to Ukraine) was conditioned on the investigations."

So what did @realDonaldTrump say when Sondland DID talk to him?

Sondland, quoting POTUS: "I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo."

Where are the mutineers who will save the Democrat Party from Adam Schiff?

Patricia McCarthy . . . "A classic symptom of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is "one-mindedness," the belief that there is only one valid way to view any situation or issue.  To a person with NPD, what he believes is the only possible true view.  Such people never, ever admit they are wrong.  So Schiff can sit there all day long, hear his theory that President Trump has committed an impeachable offense discredited every which way, and think he made progress toward his goal.  He is that far gone.

"If Pelosi and enough Democrats vote to impeach and send their articles over to the Senate, it will be their permanent undoing.  The American people just are not as stupid as they think we are.

"Obama broke a promise by our country and betrayed Ukraine when Russia invaded and took Crimea.  Obama sent no defensive weapons, no financial aid.  Trump has helped Ukraine each year he has been in office, with weapons and money.  That the aid was delayed a month in 2019 to verify that Zelensky was and is a reformer who means to fight the institutional corruption that has plagued Ukraine for as long as anyone can remember is smart, not criminal.". . .  

Impeachment is not Playing in Peoria  "During the heyday of American vaudeville, the answer to the question “Will it play in Peoria?” determined whether a show would be a hit or a flop.  It was generally understood that if the production wasn’t acceptable to those in heartland America, there was no chance it would succeed anywhere else in the country.  So how is the Nancy Pelosi vaudeville production of “The Impeachment Follies” starring Adam Schiff and his merry mélange of marionettes playing in Peoria?" . . .
"In the days of vaudeville when a show was destined to not play well in Peoria the producers would cut their losses and shelve the production.  So, Nancy Pelosi what are you going to do?  Stick with The Ukraine debacle to the bitter end rather than admit a mistake?  Try and create out of whole cloth yet another impeachment theory?  Slink off into the shadows and not have an impeachment vote?  You have spent three years building the gallows for Donald Trump but you and your compatriots in the House of Representatives may well be the only ones hanging from it on November 3, 2020."

SAYS IT ALL: Eric Ciaramella in Oval Office with Barack Obama

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

We'll Tell You Who's Privileged

It’s getting to the point that the only purpose of the establishment media is to alert us that there’s a story about something. You see a headline “Carnage in Las Vegas” or “How Voters Turned Virginia From Deep Red to Solid Blue,” and think to yourself, Oh, I’ll have to look that up from a fairer source. No wonder the social media companies are so hellbent on purging conservatives from the internet.

Ann Coulter  "While waiting for a car at Union Station last Thursday night, I was treated to a giant TV screen playing Christine Blasey Ford's testimony from last year against then-nominee Brett Kavanaugh -- now "Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh." The display had been arranged by feminists to protest the justice’s speech to a Federalist Society dinner inside the station.

"Thanks for the memories! I’ve been meaning to mention that Kavanaugh’s opponents are inveterate liars, who cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything. This was just the nudge I needed!
"Today, we’ll cover some of the left’s lies about “white privilege.” (More to come in a future column.)
"In their now discredited book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,” Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly describe a mythical Yale University of the 1980s, teaming with rich preppies swatting down humble Puerto Ricans with their polo mallets.

"The humble Puerto Rican in question is Debbie Ramirez, who didn’t remember what Kavanaugh had done to her for more than 30 years, until he was nominated to the Supreme Court, after which she spent “six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney,” as The New Yorker put it.
"That doesn’t sound like much of an accusation, but liberals have a better method of deciding the truth:

Male: bad; Female: good;
White: bad; Half-Puerto Rican: good;
Rich: bad; Poor: good.

"Using this abacus, the authors set out to prove that Ramirez is pure as the driven snow (except snow is bad because it’s white), and Kavanaugh is lower than pond scum.
"Ramirez is depicted as a plucky ingenue from humble beginnings, who’d been thrown into a maelstrom of preppies at Yale. “[S]he often felt,” Pogrebin and Kelly write, “insufficiently rich, experienced or savvy to mingle with her more privileged classmates.”

. . . 

"Outside of a Hollywood movie set, no living American would recognize the place described by the authors. Does Yale have any WASPs anymore?" . . .  Full article.

More here: Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court  by 

Chick-fil-A caves to the left

Babylon Bee reports: Chick-Fil-A Trades Adoring Christian Fans For Outraged Mob That Won't Be Appeased Until Their Every Demand Is Met

. . . " 'In no way will this backfire on us," said Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy. "Surely the left will be entirely appeased by this move. They will definitely forgive us right away and welcome us as one of them. In no way will they hold our past activities against us. This is much better than our previous Christian audience, who were always adoring us and never protesting us.""Cathy said the Christian fans have been great, but it's boring just having loyal fans who support you through thick and thin, and he'd much rather have fans who stage die-ins and cancel you when you don't cave in." 'Sometimes you just want to be loved by a group that protests you for years and calls you a bigot," he added, shrugging."At publishing time, a source had confirmed that Chick-fil-A was paid a sizable bribe of thirty pieces of silver to defund the Christian organizations." 

Power Line Blog  "Today’s saddest news story: Chick-fil-A To Stop Donating To Christian Charities Branded “Anti-LGBT.”

. . . With its new, more narrowed approach to charitable donations, the company’s charitable actions “will no longer include donating to organizations like the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Paul Anderson Youth Home,” Bisnow reports.

"The Salvation Army is probably the purest force for good in the U.S. The idea that it is “anti-LGBT” is false; the Army serves all comers. Of course, as a Christian organization, it does not subscribe to the radical LGBT agenda. But so what? Is kowtowing to demands of the most extreme elements of a tiny minority now a prerequisite for being allowed to do business?

"Chick-fil-A’s unabashed Christian, pro-American culture is an important reason for the company’s explosive growth. It also serves great fast food. I won’t stop eating at Chick-fil-A on account of this retreat, but I won’t do it with the same enthusiasm, either.

"It’s too bad: it isn’t as though the dimwitted left-wing Chick-fil-A boycotts hurt sales. On the contrary, Chick-fil-A is America’s fastest-growing restaurant chain. So the company’s caving in to the far Left wasn’t, apparently, an economic decision. Maybe it is another instance of corporate executives caring more about their standing within their peer group than about the well-being of the organization they lead, a phenomenon that Glenn Reynolds has described many times."

WaPo gives Schiff(California) three Pinocchois on whistleblower anonymity claim

The Hill  "The Washington Post gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-California) three Pinocchios on Wednesday for his claim that the whistleblower in the impeachment process against President Trump "has a statutory right to anonymity."  

"The Post's fact-checker applies Pinocchios ranging from one to four, with three and four being reserved for what the column considers the more egregious statements.  

"Schiff(of California) has said repeatedly, including during impeachment hearings on Tuesday, that the whistleblower who filed a formal complaint about Trump’s July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine has a statutory right to remain anonymous. 

“The whistleblower has the right, a statutory right, to anonymity. These proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower," Schiff (of California) said Tuesday.

"The Post fact-checker disagreed, stating "it's not a right spelled out in any statute." 

"The analysis also cites the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act in coming to its conclusion to award Schiff (of California) three Pinocchios. 

"The case for Three: The ICWPA doesn’t include language granting whistleblowers a right to anonymity. Neither do other statutes, directives or court rulings that apply to the intelligence community," it reads. "The argument that whistleblower-protection laws implicitly provide anonymity is more nuanced, and debatable, than what Schiff said in a nationally televised hearing. And what good is a statutory right anyway if there’s no mechanism to enforce it?" 

" 'We found the case for Three Pinocchios more compelling. (California) Schiff says the whistleblower has a 'statutory right' to anonymity, and it apparently, in Schiff’s understanding, extends to congressional hearings and settings that don’t involve the inspector general," the fact-check concludes. "That’s debatable at best." 

"The three Pinocchios comes after (California) Schiff was given four Pinocchios in October for claiming his panel had "not spoken directly with the whistleblower," with the paper calling the claim "flat-out false.' "  . . .

Nancy Pelosi Is Already Attacking the Legitimacy of the 2020 Election

David Harsanyi

Democrats are unable to accept the fact that a bunch of voters will simply disagree with them.

"Nancy Pelosi just stated that ‘it is dangerous to let the voters decide Trump’s fate.’ @FoxNews In other words, she thinks I’m going to win and doesn’t want to take a chance on letting the voters decide. Like Al Green, she wants to change our voting system. Wow, she’s CRAZY!” tweeted Donald Trump Tuesday.
"Well, not exactly. Trump’s tweet quotes a Fox News reporter summarizing Pelosi’s position, not the speaker’s statement verbatim. Left-wing Twitterverse, of course, was immediately able to jump all over the president’s clumsy wording and act as if the substance of his contention was wholly untrue. It wasn’t.
"In her Dear Colleague letter pushing back against Republican anti-impeachment talking points, Nancy Pelosi wrote this: “The weak response to these hearings has been, ‘Let the election decide.’ That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections.” Is he?
"If a Republican had suggested that a presidential election was a “dangerous” notion, he would have triggered around-the-clock panic-stricken coverage on CNN and a series of deep dives in The Atlantic lamenting the conservative turn against our sacred democratic ideals.
"What Pelosi has done is even more cynical. She’s arguing that if Democrats fail in their efforts to impeach Trump — and, I assume, remove him from office — then the very legitimacy of the 2020 election will be in question before any votes are cast." . . .

Lara Logan says mistrust in mainstream media is increasing: 'Middle ground has been taken from us'

Fox News

. . . "Logan, a former "60 Minutes" war correspondent, signed this week with Fox Nation to present a four-part docuseries reporting from the front lines of America’s political and ideological war zones on a number of hot-button issues with on-the-ground coverage and expert interviews.

"No Agenda with Lara Logan" will feature four 90-minute installments that will be released on the Fox Nation streaming service. The series will focus on four key subjects: media bias, immigration, socialism and veterans."

But there are a few dedicated, non-partisan press people who maintain their journalistic standards. CNN's Don Lemon assures us all he is one of those:

CNN’s Don Lemon claims he’s not ‘some liberal’ Democrat: ‘I’m not a partisan’

. . . “Don Lemon is a Trump-hating left-wing activist and even liberals are embarrassed by him," Gainor said. "The left has criticized him at times because he's also prone to saying some of the most stupid things in the history of television, like asking if the Malaysian jet's disappearance was either ‘supernatural’ or that it might have gone into a black hole. Hardly a candidate for the Ronald Reagan award.”  

"Meanwhile, Vanity Fair reported earlier this year that The New York Times blocks its reporters from appearing on Lemon’s show because its “too partisan.” The magazine reported that Times' executive editor Dean Baquet is concerned that his reporters who appear on particular programs, including “CNN Tonight,” would be "perceived as being aligned" with the show's far-left politics."

Ten Reasons Vindman’s Testimony Was Bad for Democrats (Updated)

PJ Media

National Security Council aide Mr. Alexander Vindman

"Forget the Democrats' talking points. Forget the media spin. If you watched Lt. Col. Vindman's testimony today it was a total dud for the Democrats and their impeachment witch hunt. Need proof? I've compiled ten reasons that the show today did not advance the Democrats' narrative one bit." . . .

3. Vindman said he couldn’t recall Ukrainians feeling pressured to do investigationsIt's kind of hard to claim that they were pressured when there's no evidence they felt pressured.

One must acknowledge that Vindman does wear the Combat Infantryman's Badge which means the wearer was in the presence of enemies who wanted to kill him. But many who earned that honor in Vietnam also were guilty of "fragging" their superiors.

Updates:
Vindman busted for resume enhancement during yesterday’s testimony

Vindman previously claimed in his opening statement to be the “principal advisor to the National Security Advisor and the president on Ukraine and the other countries in my portfolio.”

 Strange media silence after Vindman testified he was offered job of Ukraine Minister of Defense 3 times

. . . "Update: I wish that Republicans had asked Vindman about his intereactions with Ukraine'sofficials  when that country's government was interfering with the US presidential election in 2016.  Victoria Toensing remembers:Hey Dems. #ukraine ALSO interfered in 2016 election ...to help HRC. @NellieOhr testified Ukrainians helped her write dossier; Ukr Amb to US wrote OpEd in @thehill criticizing candidate @realDonaldTrump; DNC and Obama WH in Jan 2016 asked Ukr Embassy for dirt on Manafort.

Touchy devil: Vindman pulls rank on Nunes
. . . "In reality, people who are assured of their self-worth don't need to turn to titles and ranks to let the world know how important they are. The elite military units sure don't. If Nunes had treated Vindman rudely, which he did not, the onus would be on Nunes, not Vindman, as such arrows would bounce right off. This guy, though, acts like a human pincushion, concerned about the opinions of Twitterati no less. Kind of unbecoming. And worse still, would an enlisted man want to follow such a person? Not a normal one." . . .

Ben Carson scolds Maxine Waters: 'Basic manners elude you'

 "Basic manners elude you and it seems that instead of producing results, you're more interested in producing cheap headlines at the President's expense — like a true career politician."

CBN

The Blaze:  The HUD secretary did not mince words
"Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson gave a scolding to Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) on Monday, accusing her of caring more about show-boating than working to addressing homelessness in her district and telling the congresswoman: "Basic manners elude you."

What are the details?

"My mother always taught me that people shouldn't throw rocks, especially while they live in a glass house," Carson wrote to Waters in a letter obtained by Politico. "Because of that wise lesson, I was a little surprised to read your hostile letter to President [Donald] Trump regarding the record number of homeless Americans in California, particularly in your district."
"Sec. Carson was reacting to a letter Rep. Waters wrote President Trump last month, where she told the president, "Your shamelessness knows no bounds," demanding details on his administration's "reported plans to unilaterally demolish homeless tent camps and relocate homeless individuals to federally-owned facilities."
"Shamelessness is a career politician of 30 years laying blame," Carson wrote in response. "Shamelessness is allowing more than 55,000 Americans to live on the very streets they represent."
"The HUD chief went on to defend the Trump administration's plans by saying, "To me, the most compassionate, obvious, and logical solution would be to get as many homeless Americans off the streets — with a roof over their heads — as soon as humanly possible."

" 'I have sent multiple letters to your office and requested numerous meetings, but each time you've refused," Carson continued. "Basic manners elude you and it seems that instead of producing results, you're more interested in producing cheap headlines at the President's expense — like a true career politician.' " . . .Read the full article

A Week in the Life of ABC ‘News’ Trump-bashing, race-baiting, and fear-mongering. Or as they call it at the network, Tuesday. Edward Ring

American Greatness  "ABC Nightly News,” televised daily across the nation at 5:30 p.m., offers what is perhaps the lowest common denominator of the mainstream media’s liberal, anti-Trump bias. But even if you compare what ABC has to say to what actually constitutes balanced reporting, as well as to what qualifies as newsworthy reporting, ABC falls short.

"By these standards—by what used to be the basic editorial criteria for good journalism—ABC “news” is a dangerous fraud. They spew propaganda, calibrated at an almost infantile level, calculated to reinforce carefully nurtured biases within their television audience.

"ABC News is anchored by the dashing metrosexual, David Muir, an actor of extraordinary skill. Muir, along with a laudably diverse collection of equally telegenic thespians masquerading as “journalists,” manages to exude convincing gravitas despite delivering, night after night, an embarrassing infotainment sham, mixing in equal parts pablum and agenda-driven propaganda. Forget about the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Television Political Journalism, or the Edward R. Murrow Award. Give David Muir an Oscar.

"ABC’s nightly “news” is easily dissected. Their 30-minute formula, which all three legacy networks follow, consists of a prolonged opening segment, about 15 minutes in length, in which the  top national and international stories are presented (or so they tell us). An examination of what they reported on last week, during the five days from August 5 through August 9, provides ample evidence of just how far removed they are from genuine journalism.

"Monday, August 5

"Top story: the shootings in Dayton and El Paso. Almost immediately Muir had to connect the shootings to “growing scrutiny on the president.” Video clips were shown of Trump responding to someone who shouted “shoot them” at one of Trump’s rallies, followed by commentary stressing how “Trump has downplayed the threat of white supremacists.” With respect to the two shooters, the focus was on evidence of the El Paso shooter’s racism, with the left-wing lunacy of the Dayton shooter barely mentioned." . . . and on through the week.

Hat tip to Ruthfully Yours, via American Greatness

"Americans Should Demand an End to This Impeachment Absurdity"

http://www.terrellaftermath.com/

Conrad Black: Americans Should Demand an End to This Impeachment Absurdity
. . . "Any American adult who believes any substantial part of that should seek psychiatric help at once, regardless of his healthcare plan. Henry Kissinger is fond of quoting Metternich that public “policy is a drama that ends by following the script to its conclusion or because the audience mounts the stage and stops it.” What is left of American national dignity requires that the audience mount the stage, stop the media auto-da-fé and let their congressmen and senators know that this farce must end. There was never a legal basis to it and there is no longer even an entertainment justification for it. It merely makes the United States appear absurd, to itself and to the world."

Impeachment: The great 'Why should I care?'  . . . "For myself, who has watched not a single minute of these proceedings on TV, nor even the snatches that have made it to the various blogs I read, it has come down to a few simple questions: "Why are the people doing this? Concern about law or justice? Or are they simply looking for personal (or political) gain?"
"The answer is obviously #2, so why should I even give them my attention?" . . .

Jim Jordan nails it on the impeachment scam
Need I remind you, Rep. Jordan, that you were once told by Mazie Hirono to "just shut up"?

Tuned Out: Impeachment Circus A Ratings Dud  . . . "Will this lackluster ratings performance spell doom for the Trump impeachment hearings? How long are the Democrats willing to go on with something that Americans are actively – and in great numbers –tuning out. In TV-land, a ratings dud spells only one thing: It’s time to cancel the show." . . .