Connect with us

Politics

Trump Responds to Sondland Testimony with Notes of Call on White House Lawn

Sondland’s CYA opening statement has been eviscerated by his own transcribed phone call with the President.

Published

on

Today’s impeachment hearing has been a tale of two parties, once again, but this time under the highly polarizing spell of a panicked Congress.

Gordon Sondland stunned the Republicans this morning during his opening statement, in which he stated quite clearly that a “quid pro quo” was present in the case of Ukraine, while also seemingly throwing a number of high-ranking government officials under the proverbial bus.

Apparently, Sondland got the mainstream media memo about the need for a little more “pizzazz” in these proceedings.

That opening statement hit the press ahead of his testimony, to get a head start on the news’ spin for the day, and appeared to take Ranking Republican Devin Nunes by surprise.

Trending: Another Democrat Will Vote Against Impeachment

But, as Sondland trudged through the friendly questions of the Democrats and into the suddenly bitter then of the GOP, a new reality emerged.  In fact, the President had told Sondland explicitly and specifically that no such quid pro quo was to be had.

The President, on his way to Marine One, reminded the nation of this in his signature style.

Of course, these words come directly from a phone call whose transcript has already been read into evidence, and clearly shows the President assuring Sondland that nothing untoward should occur in Ukraine.

So do we believe the opening statement of a man who has already committed to refiguring this previous testimony in order to stay out of jail, or do we believe the transcript of a phone call emanating from the White House itself?

 

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement

Politics

Trump Takes Dems to Toolshed with Latest Impeachment Remarks

The President let the whole world know how he felt about the mess.

Published

on

President Trump has little to fear this week – a claim that may surprise those of us who are still being hand-fed our news from the mainstream infotainment industry.

On television this week, it was all doom and gloom.  Trump is on his way to being the third President ever to be impeached in the history of our great nation, and that has the Democrats both “prayerful” and “somber”.

Of course, it shouldn’t be forgotten that one freshman Congresswoman began her first term in the House by proclaiming loudly that she was ready to “impeach the motherf***er”.

So, now that the President is on the precipice of this notorious bit of Democratic diversion, he himself has some choice words for those attempting to oust him.

At the White House after the votes, Trump denounced the inquiry and actions against him, using the terms he’s relied on for months. He referred to the impeachment effort four times as a hoax, twice as a sham and once each as a scam, a witch hunt and a disgrace. He described his actions as perfect three times and said four times he did nothing wrong.

When he had asked Ukraine to “do us a favor” in the July phone call that sparked the impeachment inquiry, he said, the “us” referred to the U.S., not a political favor for himself.

Trump noted that he watched “quite a bit” of the previous day’s proceedings, and he derided the government officials who testified that he pressured Ukraine. He claimed he actually was benefiting politically from impeachment.

Trump is fully expected to be acquitted in the Senate in the coming weeks, with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell parting the media on Friday that the White House and the upper legislative chamber will be working closely together in order to shut down the “hoax”.

Continue Reading

Politics

Mitch Triggers Democrats by Saying Senate Will Coordinate with White House in Impeachment Trial

We can expect a rather significant spike in case of Trump Derangement Syndrome in the coming weeks. 

Published

on

It is now essentially a foregone conclusion;  the Democrats will make Donald J. Trump only the third President to ever be impeached, and only the fourth to even face the prospect, given that Richard Nixon resigned before the articles against him we passed.

Trump’s case certainly is unique, however.  Not only has it been called the “thinnest” impeachment in terms of evidence by constitutional scholar Jon Turley, but it is also the first in which a President seemed to defy the Congress throughout the process.

The Republican-controlled Senate will soon be at the helm of this ship, however, and their plans to move forward are irking a great many Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is pledging that he’ll be in “total coordination” with the White House as he plots the GOP strategy for an impeachment trial.

McConnell, during an interview with Fox News, repeatedly pledged that he will be in sync with White House counsel Pat Cipollone, with whom he met privately on Thursday.

“Everything I do during this I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this,” McConnell told Fox News on Thursday night.

McConnell added that he’ll be in “total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and the people who are representing the president in the well of the Senate.”

This sent blue state Twitter users’ blood pressure through the roof.

We can expect a rather significant spike in case of Trump Derangement Syndrome in the coming weeks.

 

Continue Reading

Politics

Mainstream Media Again Labels President of The United States a ‘White Nationalist’

This unfathomable dog whistle to the radical left is not only disdainful, but dangerous.

Published

on

In this age of purposeful offense and the rapid escalation of personal conflicts online, maybe it should come as no surprise that even our political pundits are being sucked into this void of decency and decorum.

What ever happened to having some class as we discuss our differences?  Why must everything end in someone going nuclear?  Is there no sanctity or gravity in the work of simply reporting the facts?

The Trump era has seen a number of mutations within the mainstream media, particularly in the realm of incivility.  Given the hard leftist slant of much of the infotainment industry, it should come as no surprise that this ramping up of disdainful discourse has almost exclusively benefitted the Democratic dialogue.  The latest absurd and offense insinuation to grace our television screens came to us from ABC, and its inflammatory nature is troublesome to say the least.

On an episode of The View, host Sunny Hostin made an asinine claim.

Guest-host Ana Navarro said, “Especially with Donald Trump, remember just last week — just last week Boris Johnson and all the other leaders of NATO were laughing and mocking Donald Trump.”

Hostin said, “This is anecdotal, but I was asking people, you know, around the building. I was, like, ‘do you know who Jeremy Corbin is?’ He was like, ‘Is it a late-night talk show host?’ I’m, like, ‘no.’ Donald Trump really is talking about America first, right? He’s much more of a white nationalist, in my opinion. You know, everything is about being at home.”

This is precisely the sort of rhetoric that liberal extremists cite as they radicalize, and you will no doubt see this same talking point being repeated by Antifa and their ilk.

Continue Reading

Politics

House Rep. Seen Watching Golf During Judiciary Hearing on Impeachment

Nothing screams “Washington elitist” quite like an elected official ignoring the most important hearing of his entire life to watch a game played by millionaires.

Published

on

Democrats have consistently attempted to convince the nation that their impeachment “inquiry” was being undertaken in the most solemn and sober manner possible.  This is, after all, a dark day for our country.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been the principle cheerleader of this narrative, working hard to tamp down the sort of frantic fever of Freshmen Congresspersons such as Rashida Tlaib, who announced during her inauguration that she was hoping to “impeach the motherf***er”.

Now, as the House finally puts forth their vague and broad articles of impeachment, we can see just how seriously the left is taking this momentous occasion.

Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) was caught watching golf during an impeachment hearing in the House Judiciary Committee.

Republican National Committee (RNC) Rapid Response Director Steve Guest picked up on the footage of Richmond watching the President’s Cup golf tournament on a laptop via CNN.

Don’t believe it?  There’s video evidence.

Nothing screams “Washington elitist” quite like an elected official ignoring the most important hearing of his entire life to watch a game played by millionaires.

Republicans pounced on the proverbial shank caught on tape.

“Democrats on Nadler’s Committee are so ‘solemn’ and ‘prayerful’ about impeachment that they’re watching golf at the hearing,” RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel wrote on Twitter. “This partisan sham has been an absolute waste of the American people’s time.”

Once again, our taxpayer dollars aren’t so much hard at work as they are hardly working on Capitol Hill.

Continue Reading

Politics

Lindsey Graham Disses Impeachment ‘Sham’ in His Own Unique Way

The lack of concern from Graham may be the best indication yet that there is no real threat to the President.

Published

on

As our nation slips over the precipice of the third ever impeachment of a sitting President, our elected representatives are expressing their opinions on the subject in any manner of disparate ways.

On the left, they are putting on their most somber and sober faces, reminding themselves not to smirk or smile while discussing their ever-changing reasons for moving forward with reversing the results of the 2016 election.

On the right, however, there is a righteous rage against the entire process, which will soon be moving to the Senate for what will surely be an ever-more contentious trial.

Senator Lindsey Graham is dealing with this sham impeachment in his own unique way:  By stepping aside while the Democrats dig their own proverbial grave.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Thursday that he wants the Democratic-led impeachment “sham” process to end quickly.

Appearing on “America’s Newsroom” with hosts Bill Hemmer and Sandra Smith, Graham said he’d like to end the impeachment process “as soon as possible.”

“I don’t want to give it any legitimacy because it’s a crock,” he said, noting that “every impeachment except this one has been conducted by outside counsel.”

In order to speed it up, Graham will forego calling any witnesses.

“I don’t need any witnesses at all. I am ready to go,” Graham replied, adding that the issue of Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine can be addressed outside of impeachment hearings.

“In terms of time, is it a week, is it two weeks, is it a month, what is it?” Hemmer shot back.

“It’s closer to a week, for sure,” the South Carolina senator said.

The lack of concern from Graham may be the best indication yet that there is no real threat to the President.

Continue Reading

Politics

McConnell Looks to Go Nuclear in Senate Trial, Pushes for Acquittal Over Dismissal

This tells us all we need to know about Mitch McConnell’s attitude on the subject.

Published

on

The Democrats are about to get Mitch-slapped.

The impeachment fiasco that has taken the nation hostage over the course of the last several months is growing ever more vitriolic and vicious as the Democratic articles of impeachment against President Trump get ready to head over to the Senate for trial.

That trial has been the subject of some debate, however, as Donald Trump himself would like to see a spectacle in the Senate.  The President wants his rightful revenge against the left for their lopsided and secretive impeachment hearings so far, in which the Republicans weren’t allowed to call witnesses that would have cast doubt upon the left’s accusations.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated that he feels differently, however, and would prefer to have a swift and efficient trial in the higher chamber.

McConnell does have the President’s back, however, as indicated by his latest claim as to the projected outcome.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to hold a final vote to acquit President Donald Trump, should he be impeached, when a majority of senators believe his trial has run its course instead of holding a vote on dismissing the articles of impeachment, two Republican senators told CNN on Wednesday.

Republicans want to have a vote on acquittal — to clear the President of the charges against him — not simply rely on a 51-vote threshold procedural motion to dismiss the hotly disputed case.

The Constitution mandates 67 votes are required to convict the President and remove him from office, a barrier widely considered too high to be reached in this case.

One vote McConnell can’t rely on is that of Vice President Mike Pence, who has “no role in impeachment,” according to a GOP leadership aide, despite being president of the Senate with the mandate to break ties.

Today’s impeachment debates will give way to a full House vote in the coming days before the Senate takes up the issue, possibly sometime before the new year.

Continue Reading

Politics

Horowitz: DNC Funded Dossier Used To Justify Sending “Confidential Human Sources” To Trump Campaign

Published

on

Horowitz: DNC Funded Dossier Used To Justify Sending “Confidential Human Sources” To Trump Campaign

Horowitz said the DNC funded dossier was used to justify sending “confidential human sources” to the Trump campaign.

“The Department of Justice and the FBI did not tell the court that this entire operation was funded by the DNC. It was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and by Democrats. It was an oppo research dump. Look, at some level, this was the most effective oppo research dump in history, because the Department of Justice and FBI were perfectly happy to be hatchet men for this oppo research dump.”

Fox News:

One intelligence analyst told the inspector general’s office that they focused “instead on vetting the accuracy of the information” in the report, “because if the reporting turned out to be true, it would not matter to the team who ultimately paid for the research.”

Steele’s reporting was commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS, and funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) through law firm Perkins Coie.

According to the report, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said that if the FBI had information about the Clinton campaign and the DNC funding Steele’s reporting, he “would have expected the FBI to revise the language to be more explicit.”

Meanwhile, McCabe, despite the inaccuracies and uncorroborated nature of Steele’s report, said he wanted to include that information in an official Intelligence Community Assessment to be delivered to then-President Barack Obama. McCabe told the inspector general’s office he believed the Steele reporting needed to be included in that ICA because “President Obama had requested ‘everything you have relevant to this topic of Russian influence.'”

But, CIA officials pushed back, arguing that Steele’s reporting was simply “internet rumor,” and merited inclusion only as an appendix in the final report.

McCabe argued that including it as an appendix was simply “tacking it on” in a way that “would minimize” the information and prevent it from being properly considered—despite Comey’s assertion that Steele’s reporting was “not ripe enough, mature enough, to be a finished intelligence product.” More

Sen. Cruz calls the abuse of power by the DOJ and FBI, “the most effective oppo research dump in history.”

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz press release:

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today questioned Inspector General Michael Horowitz on his report regarding alleged abuses by the Department of Justice and FBI of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) against then-candidate Donald Trump.

As an alumnus of the Department of Justice, where he served as an Associate Deputy Attorney General under President Bush, Sen. Cruz said:

“Now, the press has focused on your specific conclusion that you did not find evidence of political bias. That’s a judgment you have. I disagree with that judgment. But I think that judgment is in many ways the least significant component of this report. I think the facts that are in this report need to be understood and they should be deeply chilling to anyone who understands the facts in this report, and then people can draw the inference as to why that pattern of abuse occurred.”

He added:

“This 434-page report outlines 17 major errors and misstatements that were made by the FBI or DOJ in securing FISA warrants. A number of them are deeply, deeply troubling. These are not typos. These are not small inadvertent errors. These are grotesque abuses of power.”

Of the 17 errors and misstatements outlined in the report, Sen. Cruz went on to question IG Horowitz on three of them, including one in which an attorney with the FBI fabricated an email central to the FBI and the DOJ ultimately securing the FISA warrant.

As Sen. Cruz asked:

“The men and women at home need to know what’s happening. A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies on. Am I stating that accurately?”

To which IG Horowitz responded:

“That’s correct. That is what occurred.”

Sen. Cruz went on to call the abuse of power by the DOJ and FBI, “the most effective oppo research dump in history”:

“The Department of Justice and the FBI did not tell the court that this entire operation was funded by the DNC. It was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and by Democrats. It was an oppo research dump. Look, at some level this was the most effective oppo research dump in history because the Department of Justice and FBI were perfectly happy to be hatchet men for this oppo research dump.”

Sen. Cruz also rejected the claims from his Democratic colleagues that, “the FBI didn’t place spies in the Trump campaign”:

“So, they didn’t place spies in the campaign. But they sent spies to record senior members of the campaign in the middle of a presidential campaign when that candidate was the nominee for the other major party that was the opposing party to the one in power, is that right?”

As IG Horowitz confirmed:

“They sent confidential human sources in to do those.”

Sen. Cruz concluded:

“And I can tell you from my time at the Department of Justice, and from my time in law enforcement, any responsible leader when hearing that you’re talking about sending in spies, and sending in a wiretap on any presidential nominee should say: ‘What in the hell are we doing?’ And by the way, the people up the chain who are saying, ‘we didn’t know,’ if you had responsible leadership there’s no more important decision that you make. I can tell you, when I was at DOJ, if someone said let’s tap Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton or John Kerry, the people there would have said, ‘What in the hell are you talking about?’ What was going on here? This wasn’t Jason Bourne. This was Beavis and Butthead.”

Sen. Cruz’s full line of questioning may be viewed here and below:

Sen. Cruz: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Horowitz, thank you for being here. I want to start by taking the opportunity to thank not only you but the men and women of your team that are gathered here. I think the work that you have done in the Inspector General’s Office is incredibly important. Reading this report, this is a 434-page report that lays out what I consider to be a stunning indictment of the FBI and the Department of Justice of a pattern of abuse of power. And I will say both the Department of Justice and the FBI for decades have had a great many honorable, principled professionals with a fidelity to the rule of law. I’m an alumnus of the Department of Justice. This pattern of facts makes me angry and it makes anyone who expects law enforcement to be nonpartisan and faithful to the law — it should make them angry as well.

“Now, the press has focused on your specific conclusion that you did not find evidence of political bias. That’s a judgment you have. I disagree with that judgment. But I think that judgment is in many ways the least significant component of this report. I think the facts that are in this report need to be understood and they should be deeply chilling to anyone who understands the facts in this report, and then people can draw the inference as to why that pattern of abuse occurred.”

Chairman Lindsey Graham: “Do you agree with that? Do you agree with what he said?”

IG Horowitz: “The purpose of this report is to lay out the facts for the public and everybody can debate and decide what they think of this information. I absolutely agree.”

Sen. Cruz: “This 434-page report outlines 17 major errors and misstatements that were made by the FBI or DOJ in securing FISA warrants. A number of them are deeply, deeply troubling. These are not typos. These are not small inadvertent errors. These are grotesque abuses of power. Let’s focus on a couple of them.

“The primary subsource […] and indeed the first error you note in the second, third and fourth application for the FISA warrant, is that the primary subsource reporting raised serious questions about the accuracy of the Steele dossier, which we know was a bunch of malarkey, to use a term that’s been in the news lately. And that the FISA court was not informed of that. Now let’s get specifically, so the basis of this Steele report was what’s referred to in your report as the primary subsource. That was the principle basis, and the FBI interviewed that primary subsource not one, not twice, but three times in January, March, and May of 2017. So that’s the basis of this dossier. What did the primary subsource say? As the OIG report says, the interviews with the subsource raised ‘significant questions about the reliability of the Steele reporting.’ What did the subsource say specifically? As your report goes on to say, it says Steele misstated or exaggerated multiple sections of the reporting. It says that portions of it, particularly the more salacious and sexual portions, were based on ‘rumor and speculation.’ It says some of the basis of that came from conversations with ‘friends over beers,’ and statements that were made in ‘jest.’ And the primary subsource also says to take the other subsources, ‘with a grain of salt.’ Now the FBI had that information — knew that the basis of this dossier was saying it’s unreliable. And what did the FBI and DOJ do? In renewal application number two and number three, the FBI advised the court, ‘the FBI found the Russian-based subsource to be truthful and cooperative with zero revisions.’ You note that as the most significant misstatement. And that is going in front of a court of law, relying on facts that you know are unreliable without any basis. That was the number one [error].

“The number two major error in the applications was omitting Carter Page’s prior relationship. We now have evidence that Carter Page functioned as a source for a United States Intelligence Agency. That’s a pretty darn important fact. If you’re telling the FISA court, ‘Hey, the fact that this guy, Carter Page — who I don’t know, I don’t know this guy Carter Page — but the fact he’s talking to Russians, really suspicious,’ well the fact that he’s serving as a source for U.S. intelligence agents is pretty darn relevant to why he’s talking to Russians. Because we have lots of sources that are talking to bad guys, and when you don’t tell the court that, you’re deceiving the court. But it’s worse than just deceiving the court, because, as the OIG report details, an Assistant General Counsel in the FBI altered an email, fabricated evidence, and reading from the OIG report, ‘specifically the words and not a source had been inserted into the email.’ That email then was sent onto the officials responsible for making the decision to go forward. And as the report said, let me read on page 256 of the OIG report the final paragraph, ‘consistent with the Inspector General Act of 1978 and following OIG’s discovery that the OGC attorney had altered the email that he sent to the supervising agent who thereafter relied on it to swear out the final FISA application.’ So the men and women at home need to know what’s happening. A lawyer at the FBI creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies on. Am I stating that accurately?”

IG Horowitz: “That’s correct. That is what occurred.”

Sen. Cruz: “Now you who have worked in law enforcement a long time. Is the pattern of a Department of Justice employee altering evidence and submitting fraudulent evidence that ultimately gets submitted to a court, is that commonplace, is that typical?”

IG Horowitz: “I have not seen an alteration of an email end up impacting a court document like this.”

Sen. Cruz: “In any ordinary circumstance, if a private citizen did this, fabricated evidence — and by the way, what he inserted was not just slightly wrong, it was 180-degrees opposite what the evidence said. So the intelligence agency said this guy is a source and he inserted this guy is not a source. If a private citizen did that in any law enforcement investigation — if they fabricated evidence and reversed what it said, in your experience, would that private citizen be prosecuted for fabricating evidence? Be prosecuted for obstruction of justice? Be prosecuted for perjury?”

IG Horowitz: “They certainly would be considered for that, if there was an intentional effort to deceive the court. On this one, I’m going to defer because, as we noted here in the sentence you indicated, we referred that over to the Attorney General and the FBI Director for handling.”

Sen. Cruz: “Third major omission that the Department of Justice and the FBI did not tell the court is that this entire operation was funded by the DNC. It was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and by Democrats. It was an oppo research dump. Look, at some level this was the most effective oppo research dump in history, because the Department of Justice and FBI were perfectly happy to be hatchet men for this oppo research dump. Now, throughout every one of the filings, DOJ and the FBI didn’t inform the FISA court that this was being paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, is that right?”

IG Horowitz: “That’s not in any of the FISA applications.”

Sen. Cruz: “So, they didn’t tell the court that. And it’s not like DOJ didn’t know. Indeed, one of the senior Department of Justice officials, Bruce Ohr, his wife worked at Fusion GPS, the oppo research company being paid by the DNC, and he became the principal liaison with Steele without telling anyone at the Department of Justice that he was essentially working on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

“Who at the Department of Justice was — and by the way, several Democrats, it’s interesting seeing Democratic senators wanting to defend this abuse of power. Several senators said, Senator Feinstein said, and I wrote this down, ‘The FBI didn’t place spies in the Trump campaign.’ Senator Leahy said something similar. Well, that may be true, not spies in the Trump campaign.

“But reading from your report, in particular, page four of the Executive Summary, your report says: ‘Thereafter the Crossfire Hurricane team used the intrusive techniques including confidential human sources to interact and consensually record multiple conversations with Page and Papadopoulos both before and after they were working for the Trump campaign as well as on one occasion with a high-level Trump campaign official who was not the subject of the investigation.’

“So, they didn’t place spies in the campaign. But they sent spies to record senior members of the campaign in the middle of a presidential campaign when that candidate was the nominee for the other major party that was the opposing party to the one in power, is that right?”

IG Horowitz: “They sent confidential human sources in to do those.”

Sen. Cruz: “Did anyone at DOJ — who at DOJ knew about this? Did the Attorney General know about this? Did the White House know about this?”

IG Horowitz: “Based on what we found, nobody had been told in advance.”

Sen. Cruz: “But once it was happening did they know?”

IG Horowitz: “They did not. The only evidence that somebody knew were the line attorneys in NSD, the National Security Division, when they were told very selective portions of what had occurred. Nobody knew beforehand. Nobody had been briefed. And frankly, that was one of the most concerning things here is that nobody needed to be told.”

Sen. Cruz: “And I can tell you from my time at the Department of Justice, and from my time in law enforcement, any responsible leader when hearing that you’re talking about sending in spies, and sending in a wiretap on any presidential nominee should say: ‘What in the hell are we doing?’ And by the way, the people up the chain who are saying, ‘we didn’t know,’ if you had responsible leadership there’s no more important decision that you make. I can tell you, when I was at DOJ, if someone said let’s tap Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton or John Kerry, the people there would have said, ‘What in the hell are you talking about?’ What was going on here? This wasn’t Jason Bourne. This was Beavis and Butthead.”

 

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend