Mike Huckabee

First, this from Martha S:

Great questions as usual, Mike. But you forgot to ask Schiffty about his connections to the identical twin Vindman boys, Lt. Colonel Alexander and Lt. Colonel Yevgeny. Interesting to know that they have offices across the hall from each other at the NSC and they both have connections to the impeachment proceedings, albeit behind the curtain.

From the Gov:

Great idea, Martha, though I certainly haven’t forgotten that. There’s plenty more that Schiffty could be asked. The developing story about the identical twin Vindmans is fascinating, and I’ll be writing about it as more details are clear. In the meantime, let’s bring everybody up to speed…

NSC aide handling book approvals is twin brother of Lt. Col. Vindman: Report

--------------------

Alas, my list of suggested “fun” questions for Adam Schiff did not get asked on the Senate floor, but I would have loved to watch his face during one particular Q&A that did take place. It could go down as the Question Of The Day, as it opened the door to questioning by senators concerning the unnamed “whistleblower” (ERIC CIARAMELLA) and the activities surrounding the suspicious origin of the impeachment “inquiry” within Schiff’s House Intel Committee.

It was posed to Trump’s legal counsel by Republican Sens. Lee, Cruz and Hawley: “Is it true that Sean Misko, Abigail Grace and the alleged ‘whistleblower’ were employed by or detailed to the National Security Council during the same time period between January 20, 2017, and the present? Do you have reason to believe that they knew each other? Do you have any reason to believe that the alleged ‘whistleblower’ and Misko coordinated to fulfill their reported commitments to ‘do everything we can to take out the President’?”

Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin calmly and matter-of-factly tackled this one, saying the only knowledge his team has comes from public reports. “I don’t want to get into speculating about that,” he said. It seemed for a moment that this was all he might say, but then he went on: “It is something that, to an unknown extent, may have been addressed in the testimony of the inspector general of the intelligence community before Chairman Schiff’s committees, but that testimony --- contacts with the ‘whistleblower,’ contacts between members of Manager Schiff’s staff and the whistleblower --- are shrouded in secrecy to this day.

“We don’t know what the testimony of the ICIG was; that remains secret, has not been forwarded. We don’t know what Manager Schiff’s staff’s contacts with the ‘whistleblower’ have been and what connections there are there. It’s something that would seem to be relevant, since the ‘whistleblower’ started this entire inquiry, but I can’t make any representations that we have particular knowledge of the facts suggested in the question. We know that there was a public report suggesting connections and prior working relationships between certain people –- not something that I can comment on other than to say that there’s a report there. We don’t know what the ICIG discussed. We don’t know what the ICIG was told by the ‘whistleblower.’ Other public reports about inaccuracies in the ‘whistleblower’s’ report to the ICIG, we don’t know the testimony on that. We don’t know the situation of the contacts, coordination, advice provided by Manager Schiff’s staff to the ‘whistleblower’ --- that all remains unknown, but something that, obviously, to get to the bottom of motivations, bias, how this, uh, how this inquiry was all created, could potentially be relevant. Thank you.”

Thank YOU, senators and Trump attorneys, for finally getting a discussion of this into the public record. The message was subtle but crystal clear to House managers: WE WILL GO THERE. DO NOT DOUBT US. Mr. Philbin was referring to the mysterious 18th transcript --- the one transcript from the House “inquiry” that Schiff will not release. (The House even refers to “the 17 witnesses,” when there were really 18.) Intel Committee IG Michael Atkinson gave his testimony inside the SCIF (“skiff”), and since that time, not even anyone on Schiff’s committee has been allowed to look at it outside that elaborately secure room in the basement of the Capitol building. We know, of course, that if it were helpful to their case at all, they would have not only revealed it, but trumpeted it.

It was bad enough that the President’s legal counsel were denied any presence during the House “inquiry” hearings. (Incidentally, I always use quotes around “inquiry” in this context because it wasn’t an inquiry at all, as the outcome had obviously been pre-ordained.) If Trump hadn’t been denied due process, his deputy counsel would have been present during the questioning of Atkinson and would have been able to ask questions himself; as it was, they didn’t even provide him with a transcript when it was done. Now, after all the other transcripts have been released, Schiff is STILL keeping Atkinson’s testimony from them.

It’s Atkinson who received the initial “whistleblower” complaint, AFTER Ciaramella had gone to Adam Schiff’s office and consulted with his staff on what to do with it. We’ve gone all over this: it was in Schiff’s office that Ciaramella was put in touch with his anti-Trump “whistleblower” attorneys. Ciaramella’s close friend who had worked with him at the National Security Council, Sean Miklos, was on Schiff’s staff. Ciaramella and Miklos were the two White House national security staffers overheard just two weeks after Trump’s inauguration loudly commenting that they would take Trump out.

Schiff probably thought he could keep the lid on the contrived origin of his phony “inquiry,” but his lies have caught up with him. He no doubt has a legal argument prepared to try to keep himself out of the witness chair if witnesses are called, but that is highly unlikely to work, and if it does, the truth will still come out through Ciaramella, Miklos, Atkinson and perhaps others on the House staff. I have a feeling it’s already been decided on BOTH sides of the aisle that witnesses won’t be called, as Schiff actually doesn’t want witnesses to be called now. Given the Pandora’s box that would be opened if Ciaramella and/or Schiff were called, I think House managers may just be pretending to demand witnesses so that when it doesn’t happen, they can complain forever about the “lack of fairness.” Yes, they are that disingenuous.

The idea that John Bolton would be a helpful witness for the House has been destroyed by a video clip of him being interviewed for Radio Free Europe in August, a month before he left the White House. In the clip, there is no hint of frustration with Trump concerning Ukraine; he even describes the two phone calls between Trump and Zelensky as “very warm and cordial.” Bolton says, “...the success of Ukraine maintaining its freedom, its system of representative government, a free-market economy FREE OF CORRUPTION (emphasis mine)...are high priorities here, obviously, but high priorities for the United States as well.”

Say, if witnesses are called after all and the Democrats decide not to call Bolton, can we have him?

…………………...

By the way, here’s a great question suggested by reader B. Drinkwine:

Many are wondering and would like an answer to this question: How can four Democrat Senators who are running for President in 2020 vote to impeach their opponent, Donald Trump? Is this not a conflict of interest or illegal?

From the Gov:

To my knowledge, no one has challenged this legally, but obviously they do have a huge conflict of interest and cannot possibly be unbiased. On the other hand, who among them is unbiased?

It does seem they had ample cause to recuse themselves, and you know they wish they didn’t have to be there. They've probably been driving around with bumper stickers reading “I’d Rather Be In Iowa.” Fortunately for all, the way things are looking as of this writing (early Thursday), they will get their wish in a matter of hours.

Mike Huckabee

MONOLOGUE TEXT

There’s a reason why I increasingly hold the mainstream media in contempt.  It’s because they have destroyed the art of journalism and have replaced it with biased advocacy for the left.  There was a time they at least concealed their partisanship, but not anymore.  The number of true journalists whose stories and reporting don’t tip their hand as to their own political leanings is a very shortlist.  I’ll give you a simple way to determine if a person in the media has crossed the line from journalism to commentary.  If the story is about you or something or someone you like and you can tell whether the writer or reporter likes or despises the person being discussed, that’s commentary.  When after reading or viewing the story, you honestly can’t tell what the opinion of the writer or reporter is, that is journalism.

We need a fair and objective news media.  It’s vital to our great Republic.  The press is supposed to like the referees in a ball game, who may privately have opinions, but keep those subjugated so as to simply state the facts and let the consumer determine what they mean.  They are essentially like the guys wearing the striped shirts, trying to keep the game fair by insisting everyone is playing by the same rules,  But when the guys in the striped shirts wear a team jersey and openly cheer for one side against another, the game is rigged.

A little over a week ago, President Trump signed the USMCA trade agreement, a historic trade deal that replaced the job-killing NAFTA and which was so profound that it was actually passed by an 89-10 vote in the Senate.  Think about that.  It was a truly bipartisan bill that had overwhelming House and Senate support from both parties.  USMCA stands for United States, Mexico, and Canada and it fulfills a YUUUGE promise made by Donald Trump when he was a candidate.  He pledged to get rid of NAFTA and replace it with a trade plan that puts everyone on the same level and stops so many American jobs heading across our northern or southern border.  But how much time did NBC, CBS, ABC, AND CNN and MSNBC devote to this truly major deal that will have great impact on American farmers, manufacturers, and consumers?  ZERO.  Not one second.  Nothing.  They never mentioned it.  They were frothing at the mouth about impeachment that by any reasonable standard is based on political bias, utterly manufactured charges pulled from the blue sky, and carried out exclusively by Democrats as an attempt to overturn the 2016 election that Donald Trump won. 

So how can you get information that is trustworthy?  I offer you a few tips:

1. Never take the first “breaking news” as the story.  Too many reporters and networks had rather be first than right.

2.  Discount or even disregard stories based on anonymous “sources” or “high-level officials,” or “senior advisors.”  So-called whistle-blowers are more often smoke-blowers.   And let me be clear—I don’t care where you get your news and information. Even if it’s Fox News where I’m still contributor if they are touting “unnamed sources,” or “my sources close to the President,” don’t fall for it.  It may even be true, but demand better. 

3.  If the story doesn’t include a credible and knowledgeable named source to balance or counter the story, toss it in the trash.  It’s where a lot of modern “journalism” belongs.  In the meantime, the media sure is missing some real important news.  And that means you are too. 

And if we ever see real journalism again, I’ll quit talking about the New York Slimes, The Washington Compost, CNN, the bottom-feeding Catfish News Network, or BSNBC….

Mike Huckabee

Today is the 47^th annual March For Life.  The big gathering is in DC, but there are hundreds of local events, and at this writing, it’s not too late to join in.  You can find info on events closest to you at www.marchforlife.org.

This year’s March will also be historic because President Trump plans to become the first sitting President ever to address the crowd in person.  I’ll share a link to that video once it’s available. With nearly 62 million babies being killed since Roe v. Wade, let’s hope this marks a turning point. The media are so pro-abortion that they routinely give little or no coverage to the massive annual pro-life march.  Trump’s appearance will force them to cover it, which is one of many reasons why it’s so appreciated by the pro-life movement.

https://www.westernjournal.com/white-house-announces-trump-will-become-first-president-attend-march-life/

It’s shocking that well into the 21^st century, there are still people defending the cruel abomination of abortion, despite seeing their longtime arguments destroyed by advances in science. And with pro-life pregnancy centers that help arrange adoptions outnumbering abortion clinics 5-to-1, the abortion industry’s only hope of survival is to keep people in the dark about what abortion really is and what their options are.  By showing up in person, President Trump is forcing the liberal media outlets that keep him under a glaring spotlight 24/7 to drag that spotlight to where it will do some good.  

Mike Huckabee

Today's Edition

----------------------------------

---------------------------------

FEATURED STORY

END OF DAY 1: The Gov. answers comment on Senate trial

By Mike Huckabee

From the Gov:

Mike Huckabee

Pat Reeder, Staff writer

By “Huckabee” writer/pop culture historian and lifelong Monty Python geek, Pat Reeder (http://www.facebook.com/hollywoodhifibook)

We are saddened to report that Terry Jones of the massively influential British comedy troupe Monty Python’s Flying Circus passed away Tuesday evening at 77 with his wife by his side. Jones had been fighting a long battle against FTD, a rare form of dementia. He was quietly slipping away over the past few days as his children, friends and family gathered to say their final goodbyes.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/terry-jones-dead-monty-python-founder-british-comedy-icon-was-77-963478

A throwback to the era of really intelligent humor, Jones studied English at Oxford, where he met his lifelong friend and collaborator, Michael Palin. The two worked on other comedy projects and shows before joining Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, John Cleese and the late Graham Chapman to form Monty Python. In addition to writing and performing, Jones also directed TV shows and movies, including Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” and “The Meaning of Life.” With Gilliam, he co-directed “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” often cited as one of the funniest and most-quoted movies ever made.

He wrote a number of acclaimed books, both humorous and non-fiction. He also created and starred in several TV documentary series about British history, earning a 2004 Emmy nomination for “Terry Jones’ Medieval Lives.” (Maybe that's why, for all its crazy jokes and plot elements, "Holy Grail" was praised for looking more authentic than many serious movies set in the Middle Ages.)

A biographer once said that if you spoke to him "on subjects as diverse as fossil fuels, or Rupert Bear, or mercenaries in the Middle Ages or modern China…in a moment, you will find yourself hopelessly out of your depth, floored by his knowledge."

But with all that on his resume, he will likely be best remembered as Brian's mom who scolded him for being a naughty boy, or Prince Herbert who lived in a swamp and just wanted to sing, or the wise knight who can tell someone’s a witch because she weighs the same as a duck. I like to think he would be perfectly happy with that unparalleled legacy.

Mike Huckabee

Nancy Pelosi is feeling the pressure right now. Even a growing number of Democrats are calling for her to be done with it and send the Impeachment Articles to the Senate at long last. Truly, the impatience with her is something being felt on both sides of the aisle, albeit for different reasons.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/mounting-pressure-on-pelosi-to-hold-vote-on-impeachment-inquiry

Recall that I posted an open letter to Madam Speaker not long ago, and many thousands of you added your names. Now, there’s a slew of stories and even a website called PressurePelosi.com.   

On Wednesday’s HANNITY show, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz and New York Rep. Elise Stefanik had a lively discussion about the move to light a fire under Pelosi's stylish pumps.

"I just hope to find a woman that’ll hold me as tight as Nancy Pelosi’s holdin’ onto those impeachment articles,” Rep. Gaetz said. We all wish him well in that endeavor.

He also dropped what I would consider a blockbuster: news that representatives –- especially the 31 who are in districts won by Donald Trump –- were told if they didn’t vote for impeachment, they wouldn’t receive party funding. As Gaetz put it, Pelosi “actually used political money as a weapon to threaten a lot of these folks to vote for impeachment.”

"They were told if they did not vote for impeachment, they could not expect funding from the DCCC in their races,” Gaetz revealed. “This wasn’t a sincere effort to abide by the rule of law. It was a political hit job by Democrats because they have no substantive argument against the Trump presidency.”

"...Pelosi has been exposed and the impeachment dam is breaking,” said Stefanik. “We need to continue to keep the pressure up because she has no authority over the Senate, so it was absolutely audacious and outrageous that she has been willing to withhold this, after urging the American people and Democrats forcing them to take this vote on an arbitrary schedule.

"The real reason why I think she’s holding back," Stefanik said, "is she does not want to expose the coordination that we know happened between Adam Schiff and the whistleblower.”  I think that with this comment, Stefanik nailed it.  The curtain is going to be pulled back, big-time.  Can't wait.

Jordan pointed out that Pelosi didn’t imagine when she started down the impeachment road that absolutely no Republicans would join her and that one Democrat would vote against impeachment, another would vote “present” and still another would vote “no” and then switch parties.

In a Wednesday interview with Laura Ingraham, California Republican Rep. Kevin McCarthy reminded viewers that Nancy Pelosi, being from San Francisco, is actually Sen. Feinstein’s “hometown” member of Congress. And even Feinstein is getting impatient with Pelosi. “If we’re going to do it, she should send them over,” Feinstein reportedly said. “I don’t see what good delay does.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/feinstein-fed-up-with-pelosi-delay-tactics-demands-she-send-articles-of-impeachment-to-senate-as-speaker-clings-to-articles-refuses-to-let-go/

Ingraham asked McCarthy what would happen if the House decided, independently, to subpoena John Bolton, in hopes of getting information from him after the fact and somehow “backfilling” the impeachment case. McCarthy stated what is now the obvious: that the House had the opportunity to subpoena any witnesses they wanted, but they seemed to think impeachment was so urgent that they went with the information they had. “They know their case is so weak,” he said, “it’s almost like she doesn’t want to send it, like she’s embarrassed [about] it.” Indeed.

Sen. Lindsay Graham has been talking about changing the rules in the Senate to allow for them to take up the impeachment without actually receiving the Articles. He’s also crafted a resolution calling on Pelosi to send the Articles to the Senate. “The refusal by the Speaker to transmit the Articles is a flagrant violation of the separation of powers,” he wrote. (Well, that’s debatable, but it sure is a flagrant violation of protocol and common sense.) He calls on Pelosi to immediately appoint impeachment managers and transmit the Articles.

If Pelosi doesn't do this, it would take a simple majority to change the Senate rules, according to Bob Barr, former Clinton impeachment manager. He told Ingraham that “the Senate can do that any time it wants to…and they can do that pretty much any time.” Still, there’s one factor he didn’t mention, though Ted Cruz has brought it up: the possibility of a filibuster, which can happen without 67 votes to end it. In effect, Cruz says, it would take 67 votes to get the Senate to move forward.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he has enough votes in the Senate to to begin the trial without calling witnesses. And though Democrats would like to see former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney testify, “My Democratic friends are losing patience,” McConnell said. The implication: some of those votes he has come from the Democrat side.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/08/mcconnell-blasts-pelosi-for-shameless-game-playing-over-impeachment/

Former Whitewater deputy independent counsel Sol Wisenberg, also speaking with Laura, had an interesting take on the rules: that the Senate rules they have don’t even cover this situation, as they are supposed to be for handling the Articles of Impeachment once they’ve been delivered. Since they haven’t been delivered, they don’t apply. There are NO rules for this situation, in which the House has voted to impeach the President but hasn’t delivered the Articles of Impeachment. “In my opinion,” he said, “what are called the ‘impeachment rules’ in the Senate don’t cover the situation we’re in. And I believe that they could establish new rules by majority vote and say, ‘Look, this is what we’re gonna do in this situation, unprecedented, and we’re gonna move forward.”

Finally, just as Rep. Stefanik was saying, we can bet both Pelosi and Adam Schiff are nervous about Republicans calling witnesses in the Senate, because they’re afraid of what might come out regarding collaboration with the so-called “whistleblower,” a.k.a. Eric Ciaramella (yep, that’s him, and he's actually just a leaker who deserves no anonymity). This goes to the very reason for the investigation of Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky in the first place. Schiff won’t release a transcript of Intel Community Inspector General (ICIG) Michael Atkinson’s closed-door testimony –- it’s the only transcript he refuses to release –- but Republican members of the House Intel Committee are now looking into Atkinson’s handling of the "whistleblower" complaint. According to Devin Nunes, they sent a letter to Atkinson on September 30, which was responded to “in an inadequate way” on October 8. This week, they’re sending another letter that will give him another week to respond. “Someone is not telling the truth here,” Nunes said to Laura Ingraham, “and that’s why they don’t want this testimony out.” There’s apparently more to this story; we don’t know it yet but Nunes does.

So what can the Republican minority do without subpoena power? Nunes says they have other means: getting other people to come in and testify, for one, and also hearing from other, REAL whistleblowers and informants who WANT to come in and talk to them. As for Atkinson, “essentially you have to either believe he’s in on it, or he’s incompetent.” The committee needs to see all the documentation and the changes made to the forms, rather than just taking his word that he made mistakes.

Here are more details; this article in AMERICAN THINKER is a must-read…

House Republicans are investigating the ICIG behind the Ukraine 'whistleblower'

Mike Huckabee

It’s been said that President Trump has some sort of mystical, magical power over Democrats.  Simply by living in their heads 24/7, he forces them to do incredibly dumb things, like endorsing open borders and free health care for illegal aliens, calling for abolishing ICE and police forces, badmouthing dogs, and now, taking the side of Iran and mourning the man behind countless terrorist plots, including the Benghazi attack that killed our ambassador, Chris Stevens.

I’m sure they’ll say that’s not what they’re doing – they’re just calling for restraint, diplomacy, engagement, and all those other cherished State Department buzzwords that have helped persuade Iran to become the peaceful, open, friendly, America-loving, non-terrorism-supporting Utopia that it is today. But it’s kind of hard to see the difference when liberal news outlets are describing the late, unlamented Gen. Qassem Suleimani, the Iranian military leader responsible for the deaths of at least 600 US soldiers and tens of thousands of people across the Middle East, as a “revered military leader” (WaPo) and giving airtime to people who describe the Iran-backed militia that attacked our Baghdad Embassy as “war heroes.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/msnbc-airs-stunning-claim-iran-backed-attackers-war-heroes/

Pouring on the syrup, a New York Times writer tweeted video of the soft side of a terrorist mass murderer, showing Suleimani reading poetry about “friends departing & him being left behind” (did they “depart” when he killed them with IEDs?)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-reporter-sympathy-soleimani-poetry-fake-news-propoganda

We’re also being told how horrifying, vulgar and unseemly it is to cheer the death of a vicious enemy of the US, something that nobody seemed to care about when Hillary Clinton was laughing about the death of Muammar Gaddafi.  And that really did lead to a deadly, hellish chaos in Libya.  

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/353600

The Democratic Presidential candidates also fell over themselves to voice disapproval of Trump’s action in killing Suleimani, calling it “reckless,” with several referring to it as an “assassination.”  So if you vote any of them into office and an attack is launched on American soil, as with our Embassy in Baghdad, now you know how they'll respond. Caveat emptor.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryancbrooks/trump-iran-soleimani-strike-democrats-reaction

https://www.westernjournal.com/biden-warren-sanders-issue-deplorable-responses-soleimani-strike/

We also had the spectacle of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff, among many others, giving the standard disclaimers about how awful Suleimani was, BUT Trump should have consulted Congress and gotten its authorization before launching a strike.

https://www.westernjournal.com/pelosi-schiff-complain-trump-didnt-consult-soleimani-strike/

A few points:

Trump was under no obligation to seek their permission, just as Obama didn’t tell Congress he was about to take out Osama bin Laden (he even ignored Joe Biden’s opposition) or launch any of his drone strikes (come to think of it, has any President ever had less concern for Congressional approval than Obama?)  These types of strikes are based on fleeting opportunities, and if you miss your shot by wasting time dealing with Congress, it may never come again.  Also, what are the odds that people like Schiff, who have demonstrated on multiple occasions that they hate Trump more than they love America and can’t be trusted, wouldn’t leak this to the media where Iran’s government would see it?  Judging by content, I assume the enemies of America and airport travelers are CNN’s target audience.   

As long as I brought up Obama taking out Osama, another reminder: even Republicans who staunchly opposed Obama praised him and didn’t try to find ways to spin that raid as a negative or a "provocation." 

https://www.westernjournal.com/desoto-libs-fume-soleimani-killing-remember-conservatives-cheered-bin-ladens-demise/

Also, Joe Biden has previously admitted to advising Obama not to okay the bin Laden raid, but now claims he did approve of it while at the time claiming Trump should not have okayed the raid to take out Suleimani.  But in 1996, he said a bombing by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (run by Suleimani) was an act of war that gave the US the right to respond in any way it wanted. Are you as confused as Joe Biden yet?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-denies-telling-obama-not-to-launch-bin-laden-raid

https://freebeacon.com/issues/in-1996-interview-biden-called-iranian-bombing-act-of-war-called-for-tough-response/

You know, it’s really not that hard.  You can voice legitimate concerns about the consequences, the heightened tensions, the potential danger to the soldiers, or the possibility that it will lead to another quagmire war.  In fact, Sen. Rand Paul did just that…

https://www.foxnews.com/media/sen-paul-says-diplomacy-is-dead-now-in-the-middle-east-with-iran-fears-escalation

But note how he questioned Trump’s strategy without sounding like he’s rooting for Iran, apologizing to Iran, or eulogizing a mass-murdering monster as some kind of sensitive, poetry-reciting folk hero? 

The Democrats, by assuming everything Trump does is wrong and evil and they have to take the exact opposite side, are making themselves look as if they’d rather align with America’s worst enemy that show any support for a President they oppose politically. Their unthinking, kneejerk opposition to Trump even at a time like this is not only making them look foolish and unpatriotic, it’s also making the jobs of the satirists at the Babylon Bee even easier.

https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-call-for-flags-to-be-flown-half-mast-to-grieve-death-of-soleimani