Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
This Is Awful’: Ilhan Omar Blasted Over Her Vote On Armenian Genocide Resolution
Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar faced intense blowback Tuesday over the vote on a resolution to recognize the Ottoman empire’s genocide against Armenians more than a century ago.
Omar, a progressive Democrat, was one of three lawmakers to vote “present” on the resolution, which recognized the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman empire to be a genocide.
The resolution passed by a vote of 405-11, over an intense lobbying campaign from the Turkish government.
House Democrats pushed for the vote in part over escalating tensions regarding Turkish military strikes earlier in October against Syrian Kurds. Omar asserted that while she supports “accountability for human rights violations,” she did not want to support the genocide resolution being used “as cudgel in a political fight.”
She also said the question of whether to label the mass deaths, which occurred between 1915 and 1923, should be answered by “academic consensus outside the push and pull of geopolitics.”
The Turkish government and its cadre of U.S. lobbyists have made a similar argument for decades in their efforts to block votes on a genocide resolution.
Omar characterized the transatlantic slave trade and murders of Native Americans in North America as genocides.
Omar has been an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump, especially regarding his policies toward illegal immigrants.
She has been far less outspoken regarding Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has led a widespread crackdown against political opponents in Turkey. Omar met with Erdogan in New York City in September 2017, when...
The Walls are Closing In — but Not on Trump
Democrats and their media propaganda arm have been telling us since President Trump took office that “The walls are closing in.” First it was the Mueller investigation, then every fake news story from the media, from Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen being in Prague to Don Jr. calling his father about the Trump Tower entrapment meeting with some Russians.
Every “bombshell” revelation about Stormy Daniels or Omarosa meant that “the walls are closing in.” Mueller’s report, despite the best efforts of Andrew Weissman and his merry band of partisans, was a dud. As was the Ukraine phone call, with whistleblowers and Rep. Adam Schiff, perhaps one and the same, contradicted by the actual call transcript which Trump released.
For a humorous walk down memory lane, watch this YouTube montage of Democrat and #NeverTrump stooges telling their shrinking cable news audiences repeatedly that, “The walls are closing in” on President Trump.
Other oft-repeated phrases were, “This is the beginning of the end” and “It’s a tipping point” as this montage reminds us, with every bit of news described as “a bombshell.” It seems the entire U.S. media receives its talking points from a single source, as they all sound the same and use the exact same words or expressions. The original JournoList may be defunct, but media collusion is alive and well.
News this week suggests that the walls are indeed closing in, but not on President Trump. Instead it’s officials in the Obama administration, up to and including President Obama himself, who notice the size of their rooms beginning to shrink.
As many of us hoped, Attorney General William Barr’s investigation into the origins of the Russian collusion hoax is now a criminal investigation rather than simply an administrative inquiry. For those patiently, or impatiently, sitting through the calm before the storm, the storm has finally arrived.
This means that Lone Ranger Barr and his sidekick Tonto, U.S. Attorney John Durham, have enough suspicion that some individuals have broken the law to now shift the investigation into the realm of criminality. Durham now can issue subpoenas and impanel a grand jury. Indictments and prosecutions...
‘Consensus’ witness to testify but he worked against Trump in Ukraine
What he heard was the phone call for which we all have a transcript.
We have the transcript of the call he is referring to below, and there is no quid pro quo, but Army officer Alexander Vindman, who serves on the National Security Council, didn’t think it appropriate, nor did he like Rudy Giuliani’s role. Giuliani, as the President’s lawyer, was investigating the 2016 election, and the Bidens. Giuliani said the Bidens came up as part of the investigation into corruption in the 2016 election.
It’s 13 months before the election, and House Democrats want to take the next election out of Americans’ hands.
The President will have no rights during Vindman’s ‘depositions’ and will have no ability to question. The House Democrats have set themselves up as investigators, prosecutors, and jury.
The House Democrats get to release whatever they want and keep all other information from the public.
ESPIONAGE? HE WORKED AGAINST TRUMP IN UKRAINE
Laura Ingraham told a panel on her show last night that “buried in the New York Times piece tonight…I found it very interesting. He’s a decorated colonel, by the way, in the Iraq war. Because Col. Vindman immigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani though they typically communicated in English.”
“Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside the White House, apparently against the president’s interest. And usually, they spoke in English.”
She found that interesting, but one panelist, law professor, and former DOJ attorney John Yoo said, “I find that astounding. Some people might call that espionage.”
That might be an exaggeration or not, but should Ms. Hill and Mr. Vindman been telling Ukrainians how to get around the President?
THE ARMY OFFICER WILL STATE IT WAS NOT “PROPER”
“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” Colonel Vindman said in his statement. “I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.”
Burisma Holdings is an energy company on whose board Mr. Biden’s son served while his father was vice president.
“This would all undermine U.S. national security,” Colonel Vindman added, referring to Mr. Trump’s comments in the call.
The Times says, he will testify that he watched with alarm as “outside influencers” began pushing a “false narrative” about Ukraine that was counter to the consensus view of American national security officials, and harmful to United States interests.
Consensus view??? Does that mean it can’t be investigated if there is a consensus?
According to documents reviewed by The Times on the eve of his congressional testimony, Colonel Vindman was concerned as he discovered that Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, was leading an effort to...
“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” Colonel Vindman said in his statement. “I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.”
Burisma Holdings is an energy company on whose board Mr. Biden’s son served while his father was vice president.
“This would all undermine U.S. national security,” Colonel Vindman added, referring to Mr. Trump’s comments in the call.
The Times says, he will testify that he watched with alarm as “outside influencers” began pushing a “false narrative” about Ukraine that was counter to the consensus view of American national security officials, and harmful to United States interests.
Consensus view??? Does that mean it can’t be investigated if there is a consensus?
According to documents reviewed by The Times on the eve of his congressional testimony, Colonel Vindman was concerned as he discovered that Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, was leading an effort to...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)