Tulsi Gabbard Sues Hillary Clinton for Defamation over ‘Russian Asset’ Comments

National Review  "Tulsi Gabbard sued Hillary Clinton on Wednesday for defamation over the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate’s claim that the Hawaii congresswoman was a “Russian asset.”
“ 'With this action, Tulsi seeks to hold Clinton, and the political elites who enable her, accountable for distorting the truth in the middle of a critical Presidential election,” the suit explains. The move appears to be the next step after Gabbard’s lawyers demanded a retraction of Clinton’s “defamatory” comments in a November letter.
"Clinton made headlines in October after she called Gabbard “the favorite of the Russians” in an appearance on former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe’s podcast, and suggested she was being groomed as a potential third party candidate, despite Gabbard stating publicly she would not run a third-party campaign.
"While Clinton did not explicitly mention Gabbard’s name, her spokesman Nick Merrill said “if the nesting doll fits” when asked if the accusation was leveled at the Hawaii Congresswoman. After backlash, Merrill claimed that Clinton was referring to Republicans, not Russians, with the “grooming” comment." . . .

Fox News covers this here  . . . " 'Clinton was extremely angry—to put it mildly—that Tulsi endorsed Senator Sanders over her," the lawsuit says, citing communications Gabbard claims she received from Clinton's representatives saying that her team "no longer trust[s] [Tulsi's] judgment." Gabbard also alleges that she was told "that the Clinton team would never forget this slight.' " . . .

Then this from Babylon Bee:  

Hillary Clinton Asked To Leave Costco After Repeatedly Accusing Sample Lady Of Being A Russian Asset

. . . "It wasn't clear how Clinton had ended up in the Costco, as she usually has her servants' servants go to the market for her. Some suggested she wanted to disguise herself and go be among her subjects to see how the other 99% lives.
"Whatever the case, the sample lady had apparently offered the failed presidential candidate a small paper cup of orange juice and told her the packs were on sale for $9.49 when the incident occurred.
" 'Orange... orange like Trump!" Clinton screamed suddenly, frightening the poor food demonstration worker. "You're in league with him, aren't you!?" The failed presidential candidate lunged across the cart and attempted to pull off her face mask, certain the lady was actually Vladimir Putin in a skin suit.
"When that failed and the woman shooed her off with a plastic glove, Clinton turned for help and began screaming, "Security! Margaret in the frozen foods aisle is a Russian asset! Help, help, our elections are being meddled with!"
"Guards arrived but relaxed when they saw it was just Hillary Clinton. "OK, lady, let's go," they said, grabbing her by each arm.
" 'Thank goodness you're here!" Clinton cried. "Arrest that woman! Can't someone help me out!?"
" 'Oh yeah, sure, lady, we'll help you out," the guards said, snickering as they dragged her toward the front door."

As The Impeachment Trial Begins, Democrats Are Losing Their Minds

The Federalist

Having realized their impeachment gambit is failing, Democrats have resorted to accusing Sen. Mitch McConnell of a coverup and calling the trial 'rigged.'

"On Monday, as senators and House impeachment managers prepared for the opening of President Trump’s impeachment trial Tuesday, Democrats and their courtiers in the mainstream press decided to ratchet up the their rhetoric to the point of delusional hysteria.

"The House managers—led by Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler—issued a statement that essentially accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of a coverup, saying his proposed rules for the trial are “rigged,” nothing more than an “effort to prevent the full truth of the President’s misconduct from coming to light.”

"That wasn’t all. Schiff and the impeachment managers also called on Trump’s lead impeachment lawyer, Pat A. Cipollone, to disclose what he knows about the president’s alleged behavior underlying the two articles of impeachment, saying Cipollone is a “material fact witness,” and that, “The ethical rules generally preclude a lawyer from acting as an advocate at a trial in which he is likely also a necessary witness.”

"Funny they should mention that. As my colleague Mollie Hemingway pointed out on Twitter, Schiff is himself a material fact witness to this entire impeachment imbroglio, beginning with his office’s coordination with the whistleblower.

"As for McConnell’s rules being some kind of coverup, compare them to the House impeachment inquiry, which turned up no evidence of a crime despite Schiff stacking the deck in Democrats’ favor by not allowing GOP members to call witnesses or ask substantive questions.

"By those standards, McConnell’s proposed rules are generous to Democrats, stipulating a four-day calendar in which each side gets two days, 12 hours per day, just for opening statements. After that, senators would have 16 hours for written questions for the prosecution and defense, then four hours of debate—all to adjudicate a purely partisan impeachment probe that after months failed to persuade even one GOP member of the House that Trump had committed an impeachable offence." . . .

Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump

. . . "the CIA “whistleblower” was identified by Real Clear Investigations as one Eric Ciaramella, an Obama administration alum who is linked to many top Democrats.

Real Clear Investigations  "Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella – the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous “whistleblower" who touched off Trump's impeachment – was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.
"Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues. And both expressed anger over Trump’s new “America First” foreign policy, a sea change from President Obama’s approach to international affairs.
" 'Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking about trying to get rid of him,” said a White House colleague who overheard their conversation.
" 'They weren’t just bent on subverting his agenda,” the former official added. “They were plotting to actually have him removed from office.”
"Misko left the White House last summer to join House impeachment manager Adam Schiff’s committee, where sources say he offered “guidance” to the whistleblower, who has been officially identified only as an intelligence officer in a complaint against Trump filed under whistleblower laws. Misko then helped run the impeachment inquiry based on that complaint as a top investigator for congressional . . ."

Parody, Mr. Snopes::: 'The View' Audience Applauds Hitler After Revelation He Never Voted For Trump

 Babylon Bee

"NEW YORK, NY—A gleeful Joy Behar reported to the audience of The View the startling revelation that Adolf Hitler never voted for Trump, causing the crowd to cheer wildly.

" 'This just in: it seems that Adolf Hitler never voted for Donald Trump!" Behar cried in ecstasy, causing the crowd to begin screaming in rapturous joy. "Shove that in your pipe and smoke it, bad orange man! Ha! You can't even get an evil Nazi dictator to fall for your shenanigans."

"The studio audience chanted enthusiastically: "Adolf! Adolf! Adolf!" and held up signs with swastikas on them, overjoyed to discover that Adolf Hitler never once announced his public support for Trump's campaign.

" 'If it means owning Donald Trump, sure, I'll side with the Nazis," Behar said later."

The "applause" sign lit  and the audience cheered hysterically. TD

"Trump’s only crime is being Trump"

"Adam Schiff has made himself the face of impeachment and he is obviously very proud of his role in this Democrat disaster. He just seems not to know how big a disaster it is, for him and his party. Sure, the talking heads at CNN and MSNBC think Schiff is some kind of hero."  Patricia McCarthy

http://www.terrellaftermath.com/

Adam Schiff made a fool of himself on Day One of the Senate impeachment trial

. . .  But this much was abundantly clear:  Adam Schiff is maniacally obsessed with removing President Trump from office.  We have known for years that he is a pathological liar; he lies even when he surely knows his lies will be exposed in due time . . .

. . . "By midnight, Schiff seemed close to actually melting down like the Wicked Witch of the West in The Wizard of Oz; close to tears like his final act at the oh-so-illegitimate "inquiry."   Schiff is the biggest mistake Pelosi ever made, for he has made fools of her and all those who are too cowardly to rein him in, to admit the emperor has no clothes.  They may grit their teeth and utter his praise, but they all know he is a menace to their society.  

" 'An outside show is a poor substitute for inner worth" (Aesop again).  Schiff is all show, an empty vessel.  He will be his party's undoing. Adam Schiff's unrestrained zeal to overturn the 2016 election and affect the 2020 vote betrays his wholesale lack of discretion.  And Trump, despite all the democrats' efforts to unseat him, will be re-elected in landslide in 2020. " 

White House Counsel Nukes Jerry Nadler: ‘This Is the United States Senate. You’re Not in Charge Here.’  Those of watching Nadler last night saw him preaching to the Republican side.
. . . "The White House counsel was responding to Nadler’s lengthy speech advocating for an amendment to subpoena former National Security Advisor John Bolton. Bolton has said he would be willing to testify, though the House failed to call him to testify during its own impeachment inquiry. Democrats hope that he will shed light on what impeachment managers called a “scheme” by the president to pressure Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election." . .  .

Jerry Nadler’s fatal mistake on impeachment  . . . "Not only must this national disgrace be put to a swift end, the perpetrators of this farce must be made to suffer the consequences in November. People like Nadler are safe no matter what they say or do, but we can turn the House back over to Republicans make render him irrelevant once again. Otherwise, the United States of America will be doomed, and the Deep State will be able to drop the pretense of fair elections." . . .

"Barack Obama should be key witness in impeachment trial, not Joe or Hunter Biden"

. . . "At this point in his story, Biden says the Ukrainian leaders challenged him, saying, "You have no authority.  You're not the president."  Biden said his response to their challenge was, "Call him."  That's the irrefutable statement that implicates President Obama in the quid pro quo.

"After indicating that he was acting on a clear directive from President Obama, Biden spelled out what can only be characterized as a threatening and time-sensitive quid pro quo.  Biden told the Ukrainian leaders, "I'm leaving in six hours.  If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money."  Biden then ended his comments about this incident, saying, "Well, son of a b----. He [the prosecutor] got fired."

"Based on Joe Biden's comments, it would seem there is a big question that only President Obama can answer." . . .

He Can’t Stop Lying! Liberal Media Catches Adam Schiff in a New Lie on Lev Parnas Evidence  . . .  In a letter last week Schiff listed communications between Lev Parnas and President Zelensky of Ukraine. But Politico discovered the communication was actually between Lev Parnas and Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma.
"If Democrats had a case they wouldn’t have to lie so much." . . . Related: Schiff may have mischaracterized Parnas evidence, documents show

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff appears to have mischaracterized a text message exchange between two players in the Ukraine saga, according to documents obtained by POLITICO — a possible error the GOP will likely criticize as another example of the Democrats’ rushed effort to impeach President Donald Trump.

Lucianne posts: Trump’s only crime is being Trump

Forget the two “counts” against President Trump in the Senate trial that begins today, the reality is he is charged with only one crime. He is accused of being Donald J. Trump. For that high crime, the Democrats say, he must be removed from office. The Democrat “House managers” are going to get 24 hours over the next two days to lay out their opening arguments, but how are they going to fill that time, considering that they’re not even accusing him of committing any crimes? Certainly no actual felonies — you know, Bill Clinton stuff like obstruction of justice, perjury and subornlng perjury. They just accuse him of being … Donald J. Trump. . . .

More here at the Tunnel wall

The Covington Kids’ Revenge, One Year Later

 The American Conservative

The mob did not get away with defaming Nick Sandmann. In fact, people victimized by the media's new normal are now fighting back.

"Almost to the day CNN paid out a notable cash settlement to Nick Sandmann, the Covington High School kid it defamed as a racist pup for grinning at a Native American whilst supporting President Trump, the network was one of a gaggle of MSM outlets out to spin the killing of an Iranian general—into another Orange Man Bad. As with Sandmann, the facts never support the heavy metal screeching, but the facts also matter little. The anti-Trump agenda rules no matter the price.

"You remember about a year ago, when Sandmann and his Catholic school classmates traveled to Washington, D.C., to join the annual March for Life rally on Capitol Hill. Sandmann was photographed smiling at a Native American. With one mighty flatulent blast, outlets like CNN imagined Sandmann, wearing his MAGA cap, as the distillation of everything evil, some redneck from Kentucky a-protestin’ them abortions and rubbing his smug grin in the face of a noble Native American supposedly trying to defuse a tense situation. The Native American was also quickly (but wrongly) glorified as a Vietnam vet.

"Blue Check Twitter suggested Sandmann be punched in the face, and veiled suggestions of mob action led to threats. Sandmann’s family was temporarily run out of their home. Disciplinary action included coerced apologies. Progressive media gleefully piled on. It was right out of Orwell’s 1984, the Two Minutes Hate.

"But not only was everything CNN and the others said absolutely wrong (Sandmann was never an aggressor, and alongside his peers, said nothing in return to those taunting him), it wasn’t even news. Nothing really happened. Students on a field trip. But the media appointed Sandmann their racist oberfuhrer, fashioned the others into props, and had the entire white nationalist anti-Trump agenda in one handy snapshot.

Navarro

"Most agenda journalism victims are expected to disappear in shame. But this time it was different. Sandmann sued a range of journalists, including Maggie Haberman, Ana Navarro, and Shaun King, for slurs they threw at him on Twitter. Included in the swath of additional lawsuits by Sandmann were CNN, MSNBC’s parent company, the AP, Gannett, HuffPo, Slate, and The Washington Post. In the words of the suit, they “brought down the full force of corporate power, influence, and wealth on Nicholas by falsely attacking, vilifying, and bullying him despite the fact that he was a minor child.' ” . . . 

Posts on the impeachment as of Jan 21

Earl of Taint

The Secret Sauce of the Democrats’ Impeachment Strategy  . . . "Legal scholars and political pundits are justifiably worried about the implications President Trump’s impeachment holds for America’s future.  Not only will tomorrow’s presidents be vulnerable to political vendettas, coups to undo election results, and frivolous attacks on policy and ideology by a House mob run amok, but our entire constitutional republic, and the separation of powers and checks and balances on which it is built, are in jeopardy" . . .

Running out of words to describe the impeachment sham

"Orwellian" doesn't begin to describe this spectacle of hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy among America's ruling class.  Hot and cold anger doesn't begin to describe the mood of Americans massively insulted by this charade that mocks and defiles the very concepts of truth and justice.Americans are not stupid; they are not undiscerning; they are not morally vacuous—and they are watching their ruling class.

The Democrats Destroyed Their Own Argument for More Impeachment Witnesses and Evidence  . . . "Their current narrative about the need for more evidence undermines the legitimacy of their vote to impeach. Of course, this isn’t all that surprising. They’ve been throwing out all kinds of allegations waiting for something to stick. They’ve been calling for impeachment from day one, and they had to go all-in this time to appease their base and then proceeded with a partisan impeachment when their case fell apart. . . ."

Jay Sekulow Demolishes Schiff, Pelosi on Executive Privilege: Remember Eric Holder?  . . . "On June 28, 2012, Eric Holder became the first attorney general to be held in both civil and criminal contempt. Why? Because President Obama asserted executive privilege," Sekulow noted.
"Citing a 2012 op-ed Schiff wrote in Politico, Trump's lawyer said, "With respect to the Holder contempt proceedings, Mr. [impeachment] Manager Schiff wrote, 'the White House assertion [of privilege] is backed by decades of precedent that has recognized the need for the president and his senior advisors to receive candid advice and information from their top aides.' " . . .

Terrific NRSC Video That Calls Out Destroys Democratic Impeachment Push
"Right on target."    Watch the video

They never wanted @realDonaldTrump to be President.
And they've never stopped trying to beat him.

This has always been about politics, and the Senate cannot let it stand.

Democrats: who do they hate the most?

House Democrats Block Resolution Supporting Iran Protestors  "On Tuesday, House Democrats blocked a resolution introduced by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., which expressed support for the Iran protestors.
“ 'Why in the world are @HouseDemocrats blocking the @GOPLeader‘s resolution condemning this Iranian regime for obvious human rights violations?” Leader McCarthy wrote on Twitter. “This isn’t complicated. Let’s stand up for the same basic right to free speech in Iran that we have here and vote on this resolution.”
"Protests in Iran continued for a fourth day as Democrats blocked the vote, with the crowd denouncing clerical rulers and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during a brutal crackdown. At least 30 protestors were taken into custody.
"Demonstrations were sparked after Iran admitted Saturday its military shot down Ukraine International Airlines (UIA) Flight 752 bound for Kiev, killing all 176 aboard. While the regime called it a “disastrous mistake”, the admission came after three days of denials and mounting international pressure.
"On Saturday, protestors were calling for the death of Ayatollah Khamenei, despite risk of execution. The crowd defended President Donald J. Trump and called Qassem Soleimani a “murderer.”
"Numerous videos posted late on Sunday recorded gunfire in Tehran’s Azadi Square. Wounded protestors were being carried and security personnel ran holding rifles. Riot police hit protesters with batons as people shouted “Don’t beat them!”
"Fars News Agency, the a “semi-official” media for the Iranian government, said a person who posted the video online last week showing a missile hitting the plane, has been arrested.
"House Resolution 791 expressed support for the Iran protestors, condemned how the regime handled the accidental shoot-down of UIA Flight 752, and called on the mullahs to not use force against its own people."

'Guillotine the rich': Sanders staffer says he's ready for armed 'revolution'

Jeffries: Trust Me, We Took “No Joy” From Our “Solemn” Genuine Souvenir Impeachment Pen Giveaway  "Whom should we believe — Hakeem Jeffries, or our own lying eyes? This fun leftover from yesterday’s Fox News Sunday had Chris Wallace doing a double-take after Jeffries’ double-talk over the signing ceremony for the articles of impeachment. “There was no joy in that ceremony,” Jeffries says as Wallace plays footage of a smiling Nancy Pelosi and her souvenir-pen business." . . .

. . . "We’ve seen the pictures from House Democrats’ calls for impeachment over the last three years, too, so it’s not clear whom Jeffries thinks he’s fooling here. But it does bring up an opportunity to play this clip from the 1998 impeachment follies, when House Democrats claimed that the case then was motivated by hatred and an attempt to overturn a legitimate election rather than constitutional concerns. And guess what? You’ll see some of the same faces as at the souvenir pen giveaway, too:. . . "

The Secret Sauce of the Democrats’ Impeachment Strategy: The Judiciary

This wouldn’t be the first time Democrats tested an idea and then used it as a template for future endeavors.  After the Left destroyed Robert Bork’s Supreme Court nomination, “borking” entered the political lexicon and the Democrat playbook as a way to take out conservative nominees.

Sally Zelikovsky  "What is it about this impeachment that is so valuable to Democrats that they feel justified risking a flimsy impeachment strategy today, knowing that it could be used against them tomorrow? 

"Legal scholars and political pundits are justifiably worried about the implications President Trump’s impeachment holds for America’s future.  Not only will tomorrow’s presidents be vulnerable to political vendettas, coups to undo election results, and frivolous attacks on policy and ideology by a House mob run amok, but our entire constitutional republic, and the separation of powers and checks and balances on which it is built, are in jeopardy.   

"The Democrats are certainly motivated by their short-term goals of ousting Trump, disrupting his presidency, and creating chaos for the 2020 elections.  But an impeachment on such a shaky foundation does not serve them well in the long-term, especially if the tables should turn and they are sitting in the White House while Republicans control the House.

"What makes this entire impeachment risk worth their while is… the judiciary. It’s their secret sauce.

"For decades, the Democrats have had an ideological lock on the judiciary.  It has been their failsafe for policy when they are unable to pass desired legislation, promulgate burdensome regulations, or affect change with either a swipe of the President’s pen or by propaganda delivered through the media, the educational system, and Hollywood." . . . 

. . . 

"The Democrat machine is relentless, and we cannot afford to stick our heads in the sand as we did after we lost Colorado.  Trump will only be in office another one to five years, but his appointments will endure for decades, so we must go on offense in order to defend them or the Trump years will have been for naught." 

Romney Reveals Where He Stands on Witnesses in the Senate Trial

Townhall

"Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) is one of a handful of moderate Republicans who is undecided as to whether the Senate should allow more witnesses in the impeachment trial against President Trump. He said he's open to it, as long as they take the vote after opening arguments.
Read Romney's statement here
. . . 
"As mentioned, Romney is one of the Republicans on the fence regarding additional witnesses. The other persuadable senators include Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Lamar Alexander (TN), and a few other retiring senators." . . .

He wants to see which way the wind blows.  Mitt Romney A ‘Well-Oiled Weather Vane’

Government in the Shadows; "Goodbye to the peaceful transfer of power."

Victor Davis Hanson

At worst, the endless opposition turned into a slow-motion sort of coup in which progressive, life-tenured bureaucrats leaked, obstructed, and connived to stop the daily operations of the administration — as they often proudly admitted to the media. The subtext was that the Obama-progressive-media complex would create enough momentum to abort Trump’s first term. Or was it that Trump represented such an existential danger to the administrative-state way of doing business that any means necessary were justified to end his presidency?

"The frenetic opposition to Donald Trump by the Washington establishment, the new progressive, hard-left Democratic party, and in particular the veterans of the Obama administration has led to the ruination of a number of hallowed protocols and customs.
Impeachment has been redefined as a mere vote of no confidence and will become a rank political ploy for years to come once an opposition party gains a majority in the House. It is taking on the flavor of a preemptory device, a vaccination, rather than a medicine, as if to prevent future hypothetical crimes in the absence of current impeachable offenses.
Whistleblowers are now mere political operatives, who work with the opposition party to disseminate second- and third-hand rumor to prompt impeachment frenzies." . . .

Is this gender-related? The NYT endorses both Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren.

Althouse

"The nice illustration is by Jules Julien. It's even better if you go to the article page, here.

"If Kamala Harris were still in the race, would the Times have picked 3?

"Let's read:

On the Democratic side, an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation. Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible. Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced....

Democrats must decide which of their two models would be most compelling for the American people and best suited for repairing the Republic.... The history of the editorial board would suggest that we would side squarely with the candidate with a more traditional approach to pushing the nation forward, within the realities of a constitutional framework and a multiparty country....

. . .
"But chances are, it will boil down to Biden and Bernie, and if it does, that's when we'll know how dedicated the Times is to the realist side of the Democratic Party. They'll embrace Biden."