The National Republican Senatorial Committee immediately criticized the decision as “selfish,” arguing that it would unnecessarily force the GOP to spend more time and money in Georgia.
Collins dismissed this criticism as “fake news.”
Don’t be ridiculous, this is FAKE NEWS coming from the head of a Washington-based group whose bylaws require him to support all incumbents, even unelected ones. https://t.co/azpS3PzaCJ
NRSC Executive Director Kevin McLaughlin said Collins should consider the fate of the entire Senate GOP instead of only looking after his own interests.
“The shortsightedness in this decision is stunning,” McLaughlin said in a statement. “All he has done is put two Senate seats, multiple House seats, and Georgia’s 16 electoral votes in play.”
Trump asked Kemp to give Collins the open Senate seat late last year after the incumbent, Johnny Isakson, decided to step down for health reasons.
But Kemp ignored the request and instead chose Loeffler, an Atlanta businesswoman who Kemp hopes will diversify and increase the electoral standing of the GOP in the state.
Trump has not yet said whether he will support Collins’s Senate bid, but recent poll shows Collins performing slightly better than Loeffler.
Georgia will hold a special jungle primary election on Nov. 3, and the top two winners, regardless of party, will face off in another run-off election afterward.
Collins and his allies are pushing to reform the law, arguing the state should hold a more traditional primary and allow voters to choose just one Republican primary candidate.
Republican voters in Georgia should choose their candidate — not one politician or a Super PAC in Washington.
The time for that contest is now so we can unite well before November.
Fighting ourselves and the left at the same time is a bad strategy. #gapol
‘Even if he loses in November, he will grab Sean Hannity, and they will start their own TV network…’
Joe Walsh/IMAGE: ABC News via YouTube
(Joshua Paladino, Liberty Headlines) Former one-term Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., who is challenging President Donald Trump in the Republican primary, said Wednesday he would prefer Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., or Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the White House rather than see the incumbent win a second term.
“He’s an ass. He wants people talking about him all the time,” Walsh said in Iowa City at Bluebird Diner, The Gazette reported.
“I would rather have Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders in the White House than this guy,” Walsh continued. “At least they can have a respectful conversation about issues.”
He said Trump may lose, though he will not release his influence on Republicans.
“Some of them want him to lose. Some think he will lose, and this will all be over and they can move on,” Walsh said, describing conversations with Republican leaders. “Even if he loses in November, he will grab Sean Hannity, and they will start their own TV network. He is not going away. I think this Trump thing is permanent.”
Walsh represented Illinois’s 8th district in the House of Representatives from 2011 to 2013 before redistricting removed McHenry County from the map. In the newly redrawn 8th district, he lost re-election.
He hosted The Joe Walsh Show on Chicago’s talk radio WIND from 2013 to 2019, when he declared his intention to seek the Republican nomination for president.
Walsh accused the president of showing sociopathic tendencies, including lying and lack of concern for others.
He said the president controls the Republican Party like a “cult, not a party.”
He also said Trump has perpetrated the “destruction of truth.”
He claimed that politicians who support Trump will be stained with a “permanent mark.”
Walsh said he does not think he can win the Republican nomination, but he believes that he can pull a good number of supporters from the president.
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) An annual networking meeting established by the NeverTrump, pro-free-market Koch brothers reversed its 2016 stance last weekend, with donors openly worrying about the prospects of a Trump loss to one of the radical leftists currently leading the Democratic primary.
Although David Koch passed away last year, his brother Charles continued to partially fund the Stand Together Summit in Palm Springs, California, which aims to tackle a range of social issues—including education, criminal justice, poverty and immigration.
It touts itself as transcending the constraints of common political boundaries while seeing to get the “national debate back on target.”
“Both parties have fallen into tribal warfare,” Charles Koch said in an introductory video. “We are offering a different approach: uniting people, regardless of political party, to advance policies that empower people.”
According to CNBC, attendees worried not only about socialism-influenced Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., but also about former Vice President Joe Biden, whose positions have grown increasingly more radical as progressives continue to push the Democrats’ Overton window farther to the leftist fringes.
However, said the article, “Sanders and Warren provided the most fright,” according to one unnamed attendee.
Brian Hooks, Stand Together’s chairman and CEO, was among those expressing concerns about tax hikes and proposals to implement costly universal healthcare policies such as Medicare for All.
Koch has openly denounced some of President Donald Trump’s economic policies—notably his tariffs and trade war with China.
Despite sitting out the 2016 presidential race, he has continued to give money to supporting other conservative leaders and causes.
CNBC reported that the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity Action has publicly supported several GOP senators in their 2020 re-election bids, some of whom face tightly contested races.
‘It’s time … that we stop assuming that everybody has horrible motives in a puritanical rage of everybody’s doing something wrong except for you…’
Elizabeth Warren / IMAGE: The Late Late Show with James Corden via Youtube
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., swapped her stump speeches Thursday for a question that stumped even smooth talking House impeachment manager Adam Schiff—and jeopardized one of Democrats’ few remaining hopes for a favorable verdict in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
Ignoring the issue of whether it is appropriate for Democratic candidates running against Trump to sit in judgment of the president in a left-wing ploy to remove his name from the ballot, around 5:40 p.m. Warren submitted her talking point— framed as a question—hoping to further erode confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Warren asked: “At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice’s presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?”
That put Chief Justice John Roberts in the awkward position of reading aloud the nasty missive, directed at him personally, in the final hours of questions and answers.
The Senate is expected to vote Friday on whether to call additional witnesses and extend the trial or, as is currently anticipated, move to dismiss the charges and/or vote to acquit the president.
It is unclear what end she hoped to achieve attacking the process outlined in the Constitution that stipulates the chief justice will preside over impeachment.
However, the question implicitly criticized House Democrats for bringing the charges to begin with, instead supporting the argument of Trump’s defense team that it should be the voters’ decision and that the divisive, baseless trial did, indeed, threaten to erode public faith in government.
Worse, Warren’s personal attack on the chief justice and his impartiality could potentially influence the outcome.
Should the Senate be divided in a 50–50 vote, the tie-breaking decision would fall to the chief justice (a power normally delegated to the vice president).
Schiff, ever the consummate lawyer, seemed to recognize these implications—and his rhetorical showboating, for once, seemed to be thrown off rhythm with a stilted response.
“Senator, I would not say that it contributes to, uh, a loss of confidence in the chief justice. Uh, I think the chief justice has presided admirably,” Schiff began.
Adam Schiff / IMAGE: CSPAN via Youtube
The California congressman quickly steered his response away from any sort of criticism of Roberts and offered, instead, a long-winded deflection that touched on the Clintons and the Bidens before landing with a demand for more witnesses and whining about the inherent unfairness that the partisan House Democrats faced in the GOP-led Senate.
“We can’t even get a fair shake for the American people,” he griped. “… God forbid we should hear a relevant witness and what he has to say. Hear no evil. It cannot reflect well on any of us.”
Shortly before the question, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone landed a shot across the bow at the House impeachment manager, denouncing his “calumny in dulcet tones” for accusing Trump, the defense team and GOP senators of conspiring in a cover-up.
“I think it’s time in this country that we start—that we stop—assuming that everybody has horrible motives in a puritanical rage of everybody’s doing something wrong except for you,” Cipollone told Schiff. “You cannot be questioned—that’s part of the problem.”
Schiff attempted to address the blow during his response to Warren, but only seemed to dig himself in deeper.
“I wouldn’t describe myself as a puritan, but I do believe in right and wrong—and I think right matters,” he said in faux earnestness.
“I think a fair trial matters,” he continued. “And I think the country deserves a fair trial—and yes, senator, if they don’t get that fair trial it will just further the cynicism that is corrosive to this institution and to our democracy.”
Warren’s attack was not the first time tensions in the upper chamber have created discomfort for Roberts.
During the first day of opening arguments, which ran well into the wee hours, House manager Jerrold Nadler targeted GOP senators—accusing them of a cover-up—which prompted a rebuke from potential swing vote Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and also from Roberts.
Chief Justice John Roberts “I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president’s counsel in equal to terms. To remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body…” pic.twitter.com/iO3AmQSnrq
Shortly thereafter, Nadler took several days leave of absence, ostensibly to care for his wife, who had received a bad cancer diagnosis.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., also threatened to get testy with the chief justice on Thursday after Roberts had refused to allow a question that named the so-called whistleblower.
Paul issued an announcement saying he would challenge Roberts, but that exchange did not appear to happen on Thursday.
As Schiff menacingly noted during the trial last week, the Constitution provides that senators who disrupt the order of the proceedings can be sanctioned, up to and including imprisonment.
“I’m not sure that chief justice is fully aware of just how rare it is, how extraordinary it is for the House members to be able to command the attention of senators sitting silently for hours—or even four minutes, for that matter,” Schiff said.
“Of course, it doesn’t hurt that the morning starts out every day with the sergeant-of-arms warning you that if you don’t, you will be imprisoned,” he added.
‘There was no discussion of ‘personal favors’ or ‘undue influence’ on investigations…’
William Barr/IMAGE: Fox Business via YouTube
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) The Justice Department accused former national security adviser John Bolton of “grossly” mischaracterizing his conversations with President Trump in his unreleased memoir.
The New York Times reported last week that Bolton alleged Trump directly tied the freeze on Ukrainian military assistance to the country’s impending investigations into corruption, but the DOJ says this is not true.
“While the Department of Justice has not reviewed Mr. Bolton’s manuscript, the New York Times‘ account of this conversation grossly mischaracterizes what Attorney General Barr and Mr. Bolton discussed,” Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement. “There was no discussion of ‘personal favors’ or ‘undue influence’ on investigations, nor did Attorney General Barr say that the President’s conversations with foreign leaders was improper.”
Trump has also disputed Bolton’s account, calling it a “nasty & untrue book.”
Why didn’t John Bolton complain about this “nonsense” a long time ago, when he was very publicly terminated. He said, not that it matters, NOTHING!
“I think I can say the mood is good,” said Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., after his meeting with McConnell. “If I had to guess, no witnesses. We’ll be in a place where I think everyone is going to have their mind made up and I believe that we’ll be able to move to a verdict, and the witness question will be clear at that point.”
Trump allies have also accused Bolton of coordinating with the media by leaking his memoir to the New York Times — an allegation Bolton’s team has denied.
‘Defendants and those they worked with inside the federal government did not and will not succeed in making America a surveillance state…’
Carter Page (screen shot: Fox News/Youtube)
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) The fallout continues after the damning revelations in December regarding the actions that partisan FBI officials took to interfere with the election and undermine President Donald Trump.
In a letter to Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday, two GOP senators called for the declassification of four details in the FBI’s 2016 probe of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.
And on Thursday, former Trump adviser Carter Page, the chief victim in the FBI’s domestic wiretapping scheme, filed a lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee and others who spread misinformation about him in the now-discredited Steele Dossier.
“This is a first step to ensure that the full extent of the FISA abuse that has occurred during the last few years is exposed and remedied,” said Page’s attorney, John Pierce, according to Fox News.
“Defendants and those they worked with inside the federal government did not and will not succeed in making America a surveillance state,” Pierce said.
The Russia collusion conspiracy theory was ultimately debunked last year with the conclusion of the Mueller Report, the two-year special-counsel investigation that stemmed from the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation. But the questions about the FBI’s collusion with the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign remain under criminal investigation by the Department of Justice.
A redacted report released in December by Michael Horowitz, the DOJ inspector general, found several critical abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that the FBI committed while seeking rubber-stamp approval from the secretive FISA court to spy on Page and other members of the Trump campaign.
Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, requested that four of the footnotes in Horowitz’s report be declassified in their letter to Barr on Tuesday.
They were not able to identify specifically which sections they were making reference to, but they publicly released a separate, unclassified version of the letter saying the publicly available information misleadingly contradicted the redacted version.
“[C]ertain sections of the public version of the report are misleading because they are contradicted by relevant and probative classified information redacted in four footnotes,” they wrote. “This classified information is significant not only because it contradicts key statements in a section of the report, but also because it provides insight essential for an accurate evaluation of the entire investigation.”
Separately, Page file his defamation suit on Thursday, which Pierce, his attorney, said was “only the first salvo” in his bid to hold accountable those who violated his privacy rights.
“We will follow the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how high,” Pierce said. “… The rule of law will prevail.”
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged last year—after it was revealed that the DOJ was moving into a criminal investigation—that top intelligence officials were simply following the marching orders of then-President Barack Obama.
A judge previously dismissed a suit filed in Oklahoma, Fox News reported. The present suit was filed in Illinois because, Pierce said, the relationship between Fusion GPS, the left-wing research firm that compiled the Steele Dossier, and Perkins Coie, the law firm that commissioned the dossier on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign, had begun in the firm’s Illinois office.
It alleged that Perkins Coie lawyers Marc Elias and Michael Sussman “used false information, misrepresentations and other misconduct to direct the power of the international intelligence apparatus and the media industry against [Page] to further their political agenda.”
Fox News noted that Pierce also is representing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, a current Democratic primary contender who filed a defamation suit last week against Clinton for claiming she was a Russian agent.
EDITOR’S UPDATE: Senator Paul announced in a press release at 11:30 Thursday morning that he would “insist” on his question being asked when the impeachment trial resumes at 1:00 p.m.:
“While we are uncertain of how things will proceed, Senator Paul believes it is crucial the American people get the full story on what started the Democrats’ push to impeach President Donald Trump, as reports have indicated Obama appointees at the National Security Council may have discussed organizing an impeachment process in advance of the whistleblower complaint.”
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: (Liberty Headlines) During the Senate’s first day of questions and answers in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, Chief Justice John Roberts repeatedly rejected attempts by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to name the so-called whistleblower whose complaint triggered the politically motivated House charges.
A preponderance of evidence points to CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, a left-wing activist with personal and professional ties to many of the key players in the impeachment saga—among them, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; and former Vice President Joe Biden, who, along with his son Hunter, played a central role in the scandal.
While Paul is among those who have publicly identified Ciaramella, a number of public officials, citing dubiously invoked whistleblower protections, have coyly refused to name him.
Schiff repeatedly used the need to preserve anonymity as a pretense for suppressing the due process of Trump and his GOP allies in the House during the initial impeachment investigation.
Several senators had put forth questions concerning the whistleblower and the role his partisan ties may have played in the complaint, but Roberts made clear in advance of the two-day Q&A phase that he would not field any questions naming Ciaramella that were submitted to him.
CNN reported that Paul appeared frustrated during a break in the proceedings Wednesday, telling a staffer, “If I have to fight for recognition, I will.”
Paul indicated to media sources that he would continue to press the issue during the second eight-hour session on Thursday.
“It’s still an ongoing process,” he said during the break Wednesday, adding that the question “may happen tomorrow.”
Senators, including Josh Hawley, R-Mo., have said that Schiff and Ciaramella are among those who would be subpoenaed if the Senate votes to call additional witnesses. That vote—slated for Friday—appears unlikely to clear the 51-member majority needed to pass.
‘I believe that we’ll be able to move to a verdict…’
Mike Braun/IMAGE: YouTube
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) GOP leadership is confident they have the votes to block the Democrats from calling additional witnesses, according to The Hill.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., met with his party on Wednesday, and the impression left was that the Senate would vote to finish the impeachment trial of President Trump this Friday.
Democrats — if they remain unified — need four Republican votes to call additional witnesses, potentially including former national security adviser John Bolton.
It’s likely Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Mitt Romney, R-Utah, will vote with the Democrats, but Republicans are now sure that those will be the only two votes McConnell will lose.
“I think I can say the mood is good,” said Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., after his meeting with McConnell. “If I had to guess, no witnesses. We’ll be in a place where I think everyone is going to have their mind made up and I believe that we’ll be able to move to a verdict, and the witness question will be clear at that point.”
Earlier this week, it appeared McConnell would lose the vote to the Democrats.
The Wall Street Journal reported that at least five Republican senators were considering voting to call Bolton, but the White House remained hopeful that McConnell would be able to reach a compromise.
One suggestion floated, which Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., supports, would allow senators to obtain copies of Bolton’s unreleased memoir.
“Ambassador John Bolton, Simon & Schuster, and Javelin Literary categorically state that there was absolutely no coordination with the New York Times or anyone else regarding the appearance of information about his book, THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENED, at online booksellers,” longtime Bolton aide Sarah Tinsley said in a statement.
‘Ironic because most thought Ossoff would be too embarrassed to ever show his face again after burning $30M to lose his last race…’
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Democratic Senate candidate Jon Ossoff said liberals’ goal should be to beat the GOP so badly in 2020 that they may “never” show their faces “in public” again.
Speaking at a candidate forum in Georgia, Ossoff said Democrats must prove that President Donald Trump’s rhetoric and policies are not acceptable to the American public.
“We need to send a message that if you indulge this kind of politics, you’re not just going to get beat,” Ossoff said, “you’re going to get beaten so bad you can never run or show your face again in public, because we have had enough, absolutely enough of what we are getting from Donald Trump and his fellow travelers right now.”
Jon @Ossoff is out to cancel conservatism. In a new clip he says he wants to make it so Republicans/ Trump supporters “never show their faces again”
Ironic because most thought Ossoff would be too embarrassed to ever show his face again after burning $30M to lose his last race. pic.twitter.com/O3A352jWre
Ossoff is best known for losing his House race against Rep. Karen Handel in 2017 to replace Tom Price, who was appointed Trump’s first secretary of health and human services.
The special election—which the Left tried to cast as an early referendum on the Trump presidency—was the most expensive House race of all time, with more than $50 million spent.
Ossoff raised more than $30 million from outside groups but still lost. Now, he’s running again against Sen. David Perdue, arguing that the country faces “a crisis of political corruption” that must be put to an end.
Nathan Brand, a representative for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Ossoff’s comment was representative of the way most Democrats think of Trump supporters. He denounced it as nothing more than an “attempt to appease his radical Hollywood donors.”
Ossoff’s “extreme left-wing views will fit in with the rest of the crowded Democratic primary but will stand in sharp contrast to David Perdue’s positive record of delivering results for all of Georgia,” Brand noted.
‘It is now the IRS’s responsibility to ensure the proper use of verification to prevent any additional fraudulent payments…’
IRS/IMAGE: Project Veritas via Youtube
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-NY, asked the office of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) to release information on how many illegal immigrants received fraudulent child-refundable tax credits last year.
Zeldin cited the growing concern among Republicans that illegal aliens have been issued “billions of dollars in fraudulent overpayments” of tax credits.
He then cited a 2011 TIGTA report that estimated that $4.2 billion in refundable tax credits had been claimed by unauthorized individuals.
For years, individuals have filed child tax credit payments with their Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.
But an applicant can have an ITIN without having a Social Security number, Zeldin explained.
President Donald Trump’s recent tax bill made the requirements for refundable child credits stricter to ensure “only U.S. children will be able to continue utilizing this benefit,” Zeldin said.
But an inspector-general report last year found that this problem is still occurring within the Internal Revenue Service.
Lee Zeldin/IMAGE: Fox News via Youtube
“Congress changed the law to correct the ACTC vulnerabilities and it is now the IRS’s responsibility to ensure the proper use of verification to prevent any additional fraudulent payments,” Zeldin wrote in a letter to the TIGTA.
The Center for Immigration Studies reported on this problem in 2010 and found that illegal immigrants often “access welfare benefits” through “state and local governments that do not verify citizenship or that accept false proof of citizenship.”
The reason the IRS allows this abuse to take place, CIS said, is because “the IRS management’s view is that the law does not provide sufficient legal authority” for the agency to limit child tax credits to those without proper Social Security identification.
The Trump administration has made more of an effort to crack down on this abuse, but in 2017, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., urged Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to be more proactive.
“Despite the administration’s prioritization of border security and calls from Republicans, Democrats, and an independent inspector general for the IRS to correct this problem, the committee learned in recent testimony that the IRS, under Commissioner John Koskinen, allows these fraudulent overpayments to persist,” Johnson said at the time.
