Leak: Senate Intel Obtains Information Clearing Donald Trump in Don Jr.’s Set-up Meeting with Russian Attorney
The Senate Intelligence Committee leaked information that proves Donald Trump Jr.’s mysterious phone calls before his meeting with the Russian attorney and Fusion GPS operatives in Trump Tower were not with his father.
The far left media suspected then Candidate Trump was on the call with his son before the meeting with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Fusion GPS employees set up Donald Trump Jr. and the Trump campaign in order to hold a meeting in Trump Tower.
According to Mark Stewart, the General Counsel for the House Committee responding to Fusion GPS, at least three of the five people at the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. at Trump Tower in June 2016 were Fusion GPS officials.
We now know that Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrat Party funded Fusion GPS at least $6 million for “research” during the 2016 election.
It looks more and more like the Donald Trump Jr. meeting at Trump Tower was a hit job by Hillary Clinton, the shady Fusion GPS organization and the Democrats.
The group that organized the meeting with Trump advisers and the Russian lawyers was the same Democratic group Fusion GPS that was behind the discredited Trump dossier.
The eight people who attended the Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 2016:
— Donald Trump Jr.
— Jared Kushner (left early)
— Paul Manafort
— Natalia Veselnitskaya (Fusion GPS)
— Anatoli Samochornov (translator and Fusion GPS)
— Rinat Akhmetshin (lobbyist – Fusion GPS)
— Rob Goldstone
— Rep. of the Agalarov Family
The lawyer who met with the Trump team in June 2016 was denied a U.S. visa to enter, however; she received special permission to enter the United States after filing an affidavit in a Federal case in New York.
The Senate Intelligence Committee leaked information today that cleared Donald Trump in rumors about the meeting.
As Democrats in New York and Virginia continue to push for more and more radical forms of abortion, a poll has come out that shows that America isn’t at all in agreement with Democrats, even among those who consider themselves to be pro-abortion.
Recently, New York celebrated a new law that allows them to give babies a lethal injection all the way up to moment before birth. Now Virginia lawmakers are floating the idea that death should be able to come to children not long after birth as well.
According to the Washington Times, The Knights of Columbus commissioned a Marist Poll that found the vast majority of Americans, and even the majority of pro-abortion Americans want there to be restrictions on abortion after the first three months of pregnancy:
The survey found that 81 percent of Americans and 66 percent of those who identify as pro-choice would restrict abortion to – at most – the first three months of pregnancy. Eighty two percent of women agree with that. The pollster says these findings have been consistent for the last eight years.
In addition, 55 percent of American overall agree that “abortion ultimately does a woman more harm than good”; 56 percent of women and 27 percent of pro-choice advocates agree. Six in 10 Americans – including 61 percent of women – say abortion is “morally wrong.” One-third of pro-choice Americans agree.
Another 77 percent overall – including 79 percent of women and 71 percent of pro-choice supporters – say that laws can protect both a mother and her unborn child. Seventeen percent of Americans overall, 15 percent of women, 23 percent of pro-choice identifiers disagree.
This numbers signal an America that isn’t as on board with the act of abortion than Democrats and leftist activist groups proclaim.
At a time when Democrat leaders are literally suggesting to make infanticide legal, this poll is a reminder that America isn’t the cesspool of murderous nonsense it hopes it is.
Jussie Smollett’s Family Releases Statement – Claims ‘Racist, Homophobic’ Hate Crimes Are Happening on a Daily Basis Across the Country
Jussie Smollett’s family released a statement on Thursday laden with Marxist propaganda.
“Empire” star Jussie Smollett, 35, claims he was brutally beaten by 2 white men in ski masks, dressed in all black at 2 AM in Chicago this week.
Smollett says he was walking to Subway to get something to eat at 2 AM when 2 white men wearing ski masks put his head in a noose, poured bleach on him and screamed, “This is MAGA country!”
Someone also yelled, “Aren’t you that fag*ot ‘Empire’ nig*er?”
For starters, Chicago Police and detectives have found zero video surveillance of the alleged attack on ‘Empire’ actor Jussie Smollett even though they have viewed hundreds of hours of footage.
Jussie Smollett reportedly still had the ‘noose’ around his neck nearly an hour after the ‘attack’ when police officers arrived on the scene. Weird.
All the detectives have is a few seconds of video of two people lawfully walking down the street near the alleged crime — in other words, they have nothing.
Jussie Smollett’s story is falling apart and now he is refusing to give his phone to investigators.
But Smollett’s family continued to push the hate hoax on Thursday in a statement given to ABC News.
Smollett’s family called the ‘racist and homophobic’ attack an act of “domestic terrorism” and claimed that racist, homophobic attacks are happening on a “daily basis all across the country.”
“In the early hours of Tuesday morning, our beloved son and brother, Jussie, was the victim of a violent and unprovoked attack. We want to be clear, this was a racial and homophobic hate crime,” the family wrote in the statement to ABC News. “Jussie has told the police everything from the very beginning. His story has never changed, and we are hopeful they will find these men and bring them to justice.”
“We are so grateful that God saw him through this cowardly attack alive,” the statement continued. “We want people to understand these targeted hate crimes are happening to our sisters, brothers and our gender non-conforming siblings, many who reside within the intersection of multiple identities, on a monthly, weekly, and sometimes even daily basis all across our country. Oftentimes ending fatally, these are inhumane acts of domestic terrorism and they should be treated as such.”
The family added that “radical love is the only solution” to dealing the racism and homophobia they say led to the attack, but warned that “passivity will be our downfall.”
“We, as a family, will continue to work for love, equity and justice until it reigns supreme in our nation and all over the world,” the family added.
There is no proof whatsoever that Jussie Smollett was attacked by white racist Trump-supporters this week yet his family, with the help of the media continue to push the lie.
One of the nicest things about working in a think tank like AEI is having the ability not only to engage in current policy debates, but also to delve into academic work. My best year in Yale’s graduate school was having a year, absent classes, to do nothing but read core literature — hundreds of books and articles. So, while this blog post may not touch upon the headlines of the day, it is important to give shout-outs to stellar and quality work which bolsters a field, in this case, Middle Eastern and Iranian studies.
Some background: Decades before “fake news” became a problem in coverage of contemporary events, the same phenomenon descended upon the academy with the embrace of Edward Said’s “Orientalism,” a book which promoted politics and feelings over research and fact. The late Princeton historian Bernard Lewis exposed the fallacy of Said’s work in a New York Review of Books essay.
The corrosive legacy of Said’s trendiness in the academy and, especially in the study of the Middle East, has been well-documented by Martin Kramer. Forty years after “Orientalism’s” publication, the net result is that there have been relatively few useful or accurate historical works published to illuminate new aspects about the Middle East. Simply put, too often, theory has supplanted libraries, archives, and concrete research in the illumination of knowledge.
There have been exceptions, of course. Nicholas Krohley’s “The Death of the Mahdi Army” is, hands-down, the best assessment of the 2007 Iraqi troop surge, largely because, rather than substitute research for hagiography of and access to General David Petraeus or to rely on US documents, Krohley did the hard work of going neighborhood to neighborhood surveying how residents viewed both the United States and how they interacted with Shi’ite firebrand Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia.
Abbas Amanat’s “Iran: A Modern History” likewise is a serious and grand survey of Iranian political and intellectual history, at least up to the Islamic Revolution. How fortunate it is for Iranophiles and serious students of the Middle East that Amir A. Afkhami, a polyglot medical doctor, professor of psychiatry at George Washington University, and a Yale-trained historian, has now published a completely new history studying the interplay between imperialism and public health in nineteenth and twentieth century Iran. In “A Modern Contagion: Imperialism and Public Health in Iran’s Age of Cholera,” Afkhami explores how Iran (or Persia as it was known until 1935), in its position as the literal and figurative crossroads between east and west, faced an Asian pandemic but was after many decades able to apply new Western standards of and procedures for sanitation and public health.
Afkhami is no apologist for imperialism. He notes how the Great Game competition between Great Britain and Russia paralyzed international health and sanitation conferences but, at the same time, he gives credit for how Western standards and practices helped Iranian authorities address and overcome public health challenges.
The Iranian government does not come off smelling likes roses. Even though most scientists understood by the 1890s that cholera was waterborne, the Qajar-era shah and his various administrators were too distracted by administrative and fiscal crises to do what was necessary to repair Iran’s systems. Such internal dysfunction and infrastructural maladies amplified the impact of Asiatic cholera when it first appeared. Here, there is a lesson that can easily be extrapolated for more modern pandemics — Bird Flu in Asia and Ebola in Africa, for example.
Afkhami also shows how domestic understanding about the nature of disease grew alongside both advances in scientific and medical knowledge and as a cadre of native medical experts grew. Perhaps this to provides some lessons for the superstition and conspiracy hampering pandemic treatments in Congo and elsewhere. Western aid organizations and NGOs may feel and do good sweeping in to address immediate problems, but the more solid response involves ensuring that developing countries have solid and meritocratic medical schools in order to spread ownership over public health to indigenous citizens rather than make it the domain of foreign aid workers.
Against today’s intellectual atmosphere which holds that criticism of the West is admirable, but criticism of other cultures and religions is contemptible, Afkhami pulls no punches. Based on Islamic prophetic tradition, many Iranians believed that a water’s flow made it suitable for consumption unless there was visible impurity. Therefore, there was little compunction to wash corpses in and drink water from the same streams. Combating such conventional wisdom took decades, and had life and death consequences. Today, combating myth and recognizing that an appreciation for cultural understanding does not mandate apologia for negative manifestations, superstitions, or belief is too often sacrificed upon the altar of political correctness.
The real tragedy of Iran’s tale — and an episode that explains the xenophobia many Iranians embrace regardless of whether or not they support today’s clerical regime — is that so much of the progress which Iran made through the late nineteenth and first decade of the twentieth century was erased when allied powers invaded and fought on Iran’s territory, disrupting food production and spreading disease. Afkhami notes that Iran lost more citizens to war-related diseases than the war’s belligerents lost in the trenches. The Spanish influenza which killed up to one-fifth of Iran’s population was just the icing on the cake.
“A Modern Contagion” will not be a bestseller — it is far too substantive and serious for that, alas — but it does demonstrate both that traditional historical inquiry, at least when it comes to the Middle East, need not be dead, unreadable, or subordinated to theoretical gobbledygook. It is a great work which any serious Middle East, Iran, public health, or medical history scholar should read.
Does a full week off for federal workers to volunteer for election duty sound like a wise idea? How about federal subsidies for political campaigns that set up “matching” funds for donors? A new paid federal holiday on Election Day turns out to be the most benign part of HR1, the election-reform package designated by Nancy Pelosi as the new House majority’s “signature” legislation in this session. Mitch McConnell ripped the bill on the Senate floor yesterday, calling it a “power grab” that would best be named the “Democratic Politician Protection Act.”
Don’t hold back, Senator … tell us how you really feel:
Do you look forward to the bumper stickers, robocalls, attack ads, and campaign mail that descend on the country in seemingly-endless cycles? Speaker Pelosi must think you do, because she wants to you pay for these things with your tax dollars. This bill creates brand-new government subsidies both for political campaign donors and for the campaigns themselves. The federal government would start ‘matching’ political donations the same way some employers match gifts to charity. You would literally be funding attack ads for the candidates you disagree with! …
But they aren’t stopping there. Democrats also want taxpayers on the hook for generous new benefits for federal bureaucrats and government employees. Their bill would make Election Day a new paid holiday for government workers and create an additional, brand-new paid leave benefit of up to six days for any federal bureaucrat who decides they’d like to hang out at the polls during any election.
So this is the Democrats’ plan to ‘restore democracy.’ A brand-new week of paid vacation for every federal employee who’d like to hover around while you cast your ballot. A Washington-based, taxpayer-subsidized clearinghouse for political campaign funding. A political power grab that’s smelling more and more like what it is.
Pelosi should send McConnell a bouquet of flowers for spending this much time on the Senate floor on a bill that has zero chance of becoming law. For a “signature” bill, which is what the HR1 designation signifies, the coverage of this bill has been remarkably low-key. Two progressive outlets, Common Dreams and The Nation, both endorsed it and ripped Republicans in advance for their opposition. MSNBC’s Steve Benen called it an opportunity for a “worthwhile debate” and noted that the committee hearing over it had been “lively”:
For Capitol Hill watchers, the spirited argument over one of the most fundamental issues undergirding our political system was encouraging, even if many of the far-right arguments and observations were absurd. It led a colleague of mine to ask a good question.
“I was wondering why I feel like it’s been a while since I’ve seen or heard about actual contentious hearings on proposed legislation,” Isaac-Davy Aronson asked, adding, “Is it true that it’s been a while since we’ve had a real hearing like this?” …
Yesterday’s hearing on HR1 was, at varying times, contentious, exasperating, and encouraging. But just as importantly, it was an example of how the legislative process is supposed to work – and how it didn’t work when the GOP majority ran the chamber.
The Washington Post covered the bill through the prism of McConnell’s criticisms, which their report largely corroborated:
The far-reaching legislation would also prohibit the purging of voter rolls, require presidential and vice-presidential candidates to release their tax returns, compel states to adopt independent redistricting commissions and create a matching system for small-dollar donations to congressional campaigns, among other changes.
In his Wednesday remarks, as well as in a Washington Post op-ed earlier this month, McConnell mocked the legislation as the “Democrat Politician Protection Act.”
“H.R. 1 would victimize every American taxpayer by pouring their money into expensive new subsidies that don’t even pass the laugh test,” McConnell said on the Senate floor.
The matching-fund subsidies are perhaps the most laughable part of this package, although the six days of leave for federal workers to volunteer for political work might be the most offensive. (Gee, I wonder who will benefit from all that volunteer labor from SEIU/AFSCME members?) The US had a matching-funds program for presidential elections that worked pretty well for a few decades, until Barack Obama refused to use it and comply with spending and fundraising restrictions in 2008. He claimed that the system was broken and that he’d fix it once he took office, but Democrats never lifted a finger to do so in the two years that they had full control of the federal government. Suddenly Pelosi’s interested in creating a similar system for House and Senate races? Pardon us if we’re less than impressed with the Democrats’ track record on such matters.
At any rate, this is all academic. Pelosi knows this won’t move in the Senate; it’s a setup for the 2020 congressional elections. However, it’s not exactly the kind of bill that will fire up voters or be remembered for very long after its demise. House Democrats might have been better advised to focus more on hardening the voting infrastructure in the country ahead of the next election, a project that would have a much greater chance of success than giving federal workers freebies for participating in Democratic campaigns.