Joe Biden’s campaign sternly warns anyone who “calls themselves a ‘Democrat’” not to repeat “discredited lies” about Biden and his son at the debate. Or they’d be “making a profound statement about themselves.”

Wow. OK, sure thing, Joe.

Oh yeah, Joe's not worried at all about these Ukranian and Chinese revelations. He's not worried one bit. Not one bit...

He's scared. That's obvious. Bad move, Joe.

As we know, Trump had a rally in Louisiana in odder to help make sure Gov. Bel Edwards is held to under 50% to insure a runoff election in the near future.

With about 80% of ballots cast, Bel Edwards is at 45%.

Trump may have done it here.

an update lbj,

w 92% precincts reporting,

Edwards (D) 46.2 %

Rispone (R) 27.4 %

Abraham (R) 24 %

if these numbers hold up, there will be top 2 run off.

https://www.wafb.com/2019/10/1...in-primary-election/

Incumbent Governor John Bel Edwards will not secure the votes needed to win a primary election held in Louisiana Saturday, Oct. 12. He will face republican newcomer Edward “Eddie” Rispone in a runoff.

Rispone, a self-proclaimed political outsider, claims his pro-life, pro-family, and pro-Second Amendment political ideology was shaped by his Christian and Conservative upbringing. He’s said previously, in fact, a whisper from God led him to run against Edwards.

Rispone is among Louisiana’s wealthy resident

The General Election will be held Wednesday, Nov. 16.


NYT agrees: Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, and Eddie Rispone, a Republican businessman, advanced to a runoff election for governor scheduled for Nov. 16

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
an update lbj,

w 92% precincts reporting,

Edwards (D) 46.2 %

Rispone (R) 27.4 %

Abraham (R) 24 %

if these numbers hold up, there will be top 2 run off.

Yee haw

Democrats ratchet up impeachment secrecy

https://www.washingtonexaminer...-impeachment-secrecy

A week ago, House Republicans complained that Democrats imposed excessive secrecy on interviews conducted as part of the drive to impeach President Trump. Now, the situation appears to have gotten worse.

Friday's interview of Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, marked a new point — a low point, as Republicans see it — in Democratic efforts to keep impeachment information out of public view.

In this way: The two previous impeachment interviews, with former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker and Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, were conducted in the format of what is known as a transcribed interview. Rep. Adam Schiff, who is running the Democratic impeachment effort, decreed that transcripts not be released to the public. At the same time, there were no heavily restrictive rules on what would happen should any member of Congress, acting from memory, reveal things that were said in the interview.

The Yovanovitch session was different. Democrats conducted the interview in the format of a deposition, which is different from a transcribed interview. One key difference is that there are serious penalties for lawmakers who reveal the contents of a deposition. Doing so would almost surely subject the offending member to a House ethics investigation.

All Republicans remember the price paid by Rep. Devin Nunes, who in 2017, as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, faced an ethics investigation based on a complaint from a Democratic-allied outside group alleging he leaked classified information. Nunes was later cleared of all the charges, but he had to distance himself from some committee activities as the investigation slowly proceeded.

Now, some Republican lawmakers express fear of Democrats siccing an ethics investigation on them if they reveal what took place in the Yovanovitch interview, even though none of what was discussed was classified. Look at what happened to Nunes, they say.

So Republicans feel tight restrictions on what they can say. What was Yovanovitch asked? What did she answer? Were her answers consistent with what is known about the case? Republicans can't say, fearful that Schiff and Democrats will come after them.

Here is the clever part, from the Democratic perspective. As the Yovanovitch interview began, her 10-page opening statement quickly leaked. In it, Yovanovitch made her case for all the press to read. Headline after headline appeared, all based on the statement:

Washington Post: "Ousted ambassador Marie Yovanovitch tells Congress Trump pressured State Dept. to remove her."

Politico: "Marie Yovanovitch says Trump ousted her over 'unfounded and false claims.'"

CNN: "Former US ambassador to Ukraine says Trump wanted her removed and blames 'unfounded and false claims.'"

New York Times: "Ukraine Envoy Says She Was Told Trump Wanted Her Out Over Lack of Trust."

Wall Street Journal: "Trump Pressed for Ukraine Envoy's Removal, She Tells Lawmakers."

Democrats and Yovanovitch got their side of the story out without any rebuttal from Republicans. Beyond the leaked written statement, what did she actually say in the deposition? Did Republicans question her about her claims? Did the questioning reveal any facts not included in Yovanovitch's opening statement? Were there any contradictions?

None of that was known. Yovanovitch's opening statement instantly became the accepted version of the story. Meanwhile, Republicans said nothing.

Take, for example, Rep. Scott Perry, one of the four GOP House members in the room. Appearing on Fox News Friday night, Perry was asked what was said at the deposition. "Unfortunately, in the ever-changing rules situation here, I can't tell you what happened in that room," Perry answered.

In private conversation, other sources were equally reticent. All were silenced by the Democrats' strategic use of House procedures.

"Depositions are governed by very specific House regulations," said a House staffer in a text exchange. "Only one lawyer can ask questions per round, agency counsel is barred from attending, and the testimony is close hold. Transcribed interviews, in comparison, really don't have any hard rules." The only exception, the staffer said, is a closed session of the Intelligence Committee, which is not what the Yovanovitch deposition was.

Finally, the contents of the interview are being kept secret not only from the public but from other lawmakers. Perhaps a dozen members have heard any of the testimony in the impeachment hearings so far. The other 420 or so don't know what went on.

In his much-criticized letter to Congress, White House counsel Pat Cipollone said Democratic handling of the impeachment investigation "violates fundamental fairness." He meant fairness toward the target of the proceeding, President Trump. But there is also the question of fairness toward the American people trying to follow an impeachment process shrouded in secrecy. Don't they have the right to know what the president's accusers say?

I think the path of the D's on impeachment has finally become clear.

They'll have a vote, and announce that from now on, President Trump is on "double secret probation" and they'll be watching him closely.

Fox News pollster Braun Research misrepresented impeachment poll: analysis
By Mary Kay Linge

October 12, 2019 | 8:36pm

The poll released last week by Fox News that claimed most Americans favor the impeachment of President Trump underrepresented Republican and independent voters, The Post has found.

The poll said 51% of voters were in favor of Trump’s impeachment and removal from office, while 40% did not want him impeached.

Princeton, New Jersey, pollster Braun Research, which conducted the survey, noted 48% of its respondents were Democrats. But the actual breakdown of party-affiliation is 31% Democrat, 29% Republican and 38% independent, according to Gallup.

A poll weighted for party affiliation would have concluded that 44.9% favored impeachment and 44.4% opposed it, a Post analysis has concluded.

The poll prompted Trump to tweet: “Whoever [Fox News’] Pollster is, they suck.”

Braun could not be reached for comment.

NY Post

Interesting interview with Steve Bannon on CNBC regarding trade with China and many other topics including the impeachment and 2020 election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...lzfj2lIZonCf6fCFiUJ0

Hunter Biden Leaves China Board as Trump Attacks Hit Home

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...mp-attacks-hit-home/

Hunter Biden is walking away from the board of a Chinese-backed private equity company as part of a public pledge to disavow all foreign work if his father, former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, gains the presidency in 2020.

Joe Biden’s second son made his move after a month of pushing by U.S. President Donald Trump who has publicly highlighted the perceived – and real – conflicts of interest represented by Biden’s work in Asia.

A statement released on his behalf by his legal counsel George Mesires said his relationship with the management company of a private equity fund that’s backed by Chinese state-owned entities will end within weeks.

The 49-year-old doesn’t state whether he will be divesting from BHR (Shanghai) Equity Investment Fund Management Company. The company was set up in 2013 to invest Chinese capital outside of China.

Instead the young Biden pledged he wouldn’t work for any foreign-owned companies or serve on their boards during a potential Biden administration.

“Hunter always understood that his father would be guided, entirely and unequivocally, by established U.S. policy, regardless of its effects on Hunter’s professional interests,” the statement said. “He never anticipated the barrage of false charges against both him and his father by the President of the United States.”

Just two days ago Trump again highlighted the problem of Hunter Biden seeking work overseas during a political rally in Louisiana, as Breitbart News reported.


“He doesn’t know what a gasoline tank looks like,” Trump said, explaining Biden’s son knew nothing about energy despite earning up to $83,000 a month for sitting on a board of a corrupt energy company in Ukraine.

Trump then ripped Hunter for leaving China with $1.5 billion in investments from the bank of China despite knowing “nothing” and mocked the news broadcasts for repeatedly saying that Trump’s claims of corruption were “totally unsubstantiated” … at Biden’s request.

“It’s not unsubstantiated, he took a fortune out of Ukraine, knew nothing, took a fortune out of China,” he said.

He expressed skepticism Hunter Biden was able to get $1.5 billion in Chinese investments because they thought he was a good investment.

“For a guy to walk in from off the street with no experience, a bad track record, just got thrown out of the navy, and he walks away with $1.5 billion?” Trump said

Oh, Mister President, you sank my battleship!

So the Biden derps have done nothing wrong according to the entire left BUT ol Hunter boy will step down from all the jobs he’s unqualified for if dad wins the election. Ok, sounds like nothing shady was happening.

Schiff's CIA 'Whistleblower' May Not Testify In Impeachment Probe After All

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...fy-impeachment-probe

A CIA 'whistleblower' who worked with former VP Joe Biden as well as two Adam Schiff (D-CA) aides has apparently gotten cold feet, and may not testify in front of the House Intelligence Committee in person or in writing, according to Schiff. This is in stark contrast to what Schiff's late September claim that the man at the center of an impeachment inquiry against President Trump would testify in the House "very soon."

That was downgraded last week to testimony "in writing."

And finally, on Sunday, Schiff told CBS' "Face the Nation" that the whistleblower's testimony might not be needed after all.

"Yes, we were interested in having the whistleblower come forward," Schiff said, to which host Margaret Brennan asked "but not anymore?"

"Well, our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected ... given that we already have the call records we dodn't need the whistleblower, who wasn't on the call."



House Democrats launched their impeachment inquiry into President Trump after the whistleblower claimed Trump was abusing his office and 'pressuring' the new president of Ukraine, Volodomyr Zelensky, to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter for alleged corruption.

After the White House released a transcript of the call, however, it was clear that no pressure was applied. Zelensky, meanwhile, has said on multiple occasions that there was no pressure or 'blackmail' involved in the request, and that Ukraine would "happily investigate" the Bidens.

Further crumbling the Democrat credibility is the fact that Schiff lied when he said that his panel had "not spoken directly with the whistleblower," a claim which earned him four pinocchios from the Washington Post for his "flat-out false" statement when it was later revealed that the whistleblower approached Schiff's panel - which then directed him to a Democrat attorney.

"Schiff on 'Morning Joe' clearly made a statement that was false," said the fact-checker. "He now says he’s was answering the wrong question, but if that was the case, he should have quickly corrected the record. He compounded his falsehood by telling reporters a few days later that if not for the [inspector general's] office, the committee would not have known about the complaint. That again suggested there had been no prior communication."

A House Intel Committee spokesperson told The Post that Schiff's reply "should have been more carefully phrased."

So here we are - with Schiff and House Democrats are continuing forward with their impeachment inquiry as if Trump hadn't released the transcript, and their accuser's credibility wasn't eroding by the day.

How Adam Schiff operates: Chairman keeps digging until he finds dirt on Trump

https://www.washingtontimes.co...achment-probe-follo/

Clues into how Rep. Adam B. Schiff is secretly running the Democrats’ Ukraine impeachment inquiry are contained in his 2018 Russia report in which he demanded at least 60 more witnesses while venturing down scores of investigative alleys.

A Republican Hill staffer told The Washington Times that Mr. Schiff’s technique is to pile witness upon witness — some he calls “foundational” witnesses — in hopes of finding anything detrimental to President Trump. The source said Russia conspiracies that Mr. Schiff pursued haven’t materialized.

Mr. Schiff, in his 99-page dissent to a Republican finding of no Trump-Russia conspiracy, also chastised the majority on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for holding few public hearings. This is the same complaint Republicans are now lodging against Mr. Schiff. The California Democrat and now committee chairman has held one open hearing as he grills witnesses in private.

“The Majority held only four open hearings during the course of the investigation,” Mr. Schiff and his Democratic colleagues wrote in 2018.

Mr. Schiff is irking Mr. Trump by coming up with more and more figures he wants to interrogate from the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies.

A frustrated Mr. Trump complained last week on Twitter: “How many people can [Democrats] talk to? We had a simple conversation. The whistleblower, who seems to be a Democrat that’s involved with a lot of people, gave a false interpretation of the conversation. So I don’t know why they’d be calling [Energy Secretary] Rick Perry. I don’t know why they’d be calling all these people. It’s a very bad situation for our country. You have to run a country. I just don’t think you can have everybody testify.”

A year ago, Mr. Schiff wrote: “The Majority refused to seek testimony from dozens of witnesses proposed by the Minority.”

He said the full depth of a Trump-Kremlin conspiracy had yet to be uncovered as his staff continued to call in witnesses.

“We have assembled to date a significant body of evidence from witness interviews, hearings, classified intelligence, and materials produced to the Committee, which has in turn identified new leads, persons, and entities of interest,” Mr. Schiff wrote.

A year later, those supposed new leads have not materialized in public.

Special counsel Robert Mueller in March released a 448-page report that said his team of FBI agents, prosecutors and intelligence analysts failed to find a Trump election conspiracy. It was essentially the same conclusion reached in 2018 by then-House intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes, California Republican.

“Schiff’s M.O., both with the Russia and the Ukraine investigation, is to use some flimsy pretext, the dossier and the whistleblower complaint, to get an initial set of witness names, then use them to get more names and then to get more names,” said the Republican congressional staffer. “He then runs a sprawling, fishing-expedition-type investigation, hoping if he talks to enough people and gets enough documents, some malfeasance he doesn’t know about will turn up.”

Mr. Schiff championed the 2016 Democratic Party-financed, Kremlin-sourced dossier that leveled a dozen conspiracy charges against Trump associates — none proved.

He now is relying on a CIA analyst/Democratic whistleblower complaint about Mr. Trump’s phone call in July with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Mr. Trump asked him to talk with Attorney General William Barr about former Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s role in Ukraine. That request is the thrust of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

Republicans call Mr. Schiff a perpetual liar. They have asked him to step down as chairman three times this year for uttering what they say are falsehoods and citing conspiracies that don’t exist.

Now totaling 108 co-sponsors, a Republican resolution condemns Mr. Schiff for reading from the Zelensky call transcript and citing words that the president did not say. Mr. Schiff quoted Mr. Trump as asking Mr. Zelensky to fabricate evidence — something not in the official transcript or nine-page complaint.

In his 2018 report, Mr. Schiff said he wanted to call a string of White House witnesses but Mr. Nunes would not let him. Mr. Trump allowed all requested White House personnel to be interviewed by Mr. Mueller’s FBI prosecution team.

Wrote Mr. Schiff: “The Majority’s report reflects a lack of seriousness and interest in pursuing the truth. By refusing to call in key witnesses, by refusing to request pertinent documents, and by refusing to compel and enforce witness cooperation and answers to key questions, the Majority hobbled the Committee’s ability to conduct a credible investigation that could inspire public confidence.”

Spies and ‘shady data’

One trail Mr. Schiff wanted to follow involved George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser working in London.

The official FBI timeline is that Papadopoulos triggered the Trump investigation when he repeated to an Australian diplomat a piece of gossip he heard from Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud. Mr. Mifsud said he heard in Moscow, where he attended a conference, that the Kremlin owned dirt on 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Moscow intelligence did in fact hack Democratic Party computers and steal thousands of messages and other documents.

“The Committee was unable to examine the precise facts regarding Russia’s approach to Papadopoulos,” Mr. Schiff said.

He also linked the Mifsud incident to a Russian lawyer visiting Trump Tower in June 2016 with a promise to provide dirt on Mrs. Clinton. The brief meeting ended when the lawyer disclosed her real purpose: She represented a rich Russian who wanted economic sanctions lifted.

The Mueller report drew no link between the Mifsud conversation and the Russian lawyer’s visit with Donald Trump Jr. and other campaign officials.

The Mueller report found no evidence that Papadopoulos shared the Mifsud comment with the Trump campaign or that he acted in any way to try to acquire the emails.

Papadopoulos said he believes Mr. Mifsud, a well-traveled academic who taught in Rome and London, was a Western intelligence asset sent to spy on him. It is known that the FBI put two spies on Papadopoulos in London: professor Stefan Halper and his supposed assistant.

The Mueller report depicts Mr. Mifsud as a Russian asset. The report makes no mention of his multiple ties to Western government officials.

Mr. Schiff also wanted to call more witnesses to flesh out the involvement of Cambridge Analytica, a polling and data mining consulting firm in England.

Cambridge improperly received Facebook users’ data, making it the subject of investigative journalists and a parliamentary inquiry.

Liberal news outlets floated the conspiracy that Cambridge and the Trump campaign hooked up in a Kremlin conspiracy. Cambridge did a limited amount of Trump polling.

One news website said, “Cambridge Analytica, the shady data firm that might be a key Trump-Russia link, explained.”

Mr. Schiff wrote: “Even as the Majority shutters its own investigation into Russia’s meddling, new developments have emerged related to Cambridge Analytica, which ran the Trump campaign’s digital media operation.”

Mr. Mueller was assigned the task of investigating “any links” between a Trump ally and the Russian government. His report doesn’t mention Cambridge Analytica.

Mr. Schiff said in March that is he still investigating Cambridge.

Mr. Schiff said this question in 2018 was left unanswered: “Whether and to what extent certain U.S. persons, including individuals associated with then-candidate Trump, his companies, and his campaign, knew of, abetted, or were otherwise involved in Russia’s active measures, including its anonymous dissemination efforts.”

Again, the Mueller report said investigators found no such conspiracy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a fellow California Democrat, has stuck by Mr. Schiff.

After the Mueller report showed no conspiracy, Republicans made their first call for Mr. Schiff’s resignation.

“Chairman Schiff has done an outstanding job and that’s the reason why he’s subject to these ridiculous attacks,” Ashley Etienne, the speaker’s spokeswoman, told The Hill newspaper.

“Democrats aren’t going to be intimidated by the White House or Congressional Republicans, we’re not going to be distracted from securing the release of the full Mueller report and the underlying evidence, and we will continue to pursue legitimate oversight because that’s what the Constitution requires. The days of Congress ignoring the mountain of legal and ethical misconduct by this President and Administration are over,” Ms. Etienne said.

More recently, Mrs. Pelosi defended Mr. Schiff for saying the transcript of the July phone call with the Ukrainian president included pressure by Mr. Trump to make up evidence against Mr. Biden.

Representative Schiff needs to be told to do the work he was elected to do--propose and pass legislation. If he can't do that, he should resign. He has lied so often, even under oath, that he should be removed for cause.

flashguy