GOP Senators Ask Schiff Why He Hired Colleague of Alleged Whistleblower a Day After Trump-Zelensky Call

By Breitbart. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) and other Republican senators asked lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) during the Senate impeachment trial Thursday why his committee hired Sean Misko, a former National Security Council staffer who was reportedly close to the alleged whistleblower, a day after the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Chief Justice John Roberts said, reading the question submitted by Johnson and others:

Recent reporting described two NSC staff holdovers from the Obama administration attending an all-hands meeting of NSC staff held about two weeks into the Trump administration and talking loudly enough to be overheard, saying, ‘We need to do everything we can to take out the president.

On July 26, 2019, the House Intelligence Committee hired one of those individuals, Sean Misko. The report further describes relationships between Misko, Lt. Col. Vindman, and an individual alleged as the whistleblower. Why did your committee hire Sean Misko the day after the phone call between President Trump and Zelensky, and what role has he played throughout your committee’s investigation?

Schiff refused to answer any part of the question, claiming it was an attempt to smear his staff and out the whistleblower — whose identity he also claims he does not know. (Read more from “GOP Senators Ask Schiff Why He Hired Colleague of Alleged Whistleblower a Day After Trump-Zelensky Call” HERE)

________________________________________________

Schiff Wants to Devote One Week to Hearing Impeachment Witnesses

By New York Post. Rep. Adam Schiff on Thursday delivered a last-minute pitch to have witnesses in President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.

Schiff said that he wants one week devoted to closed-door depositions from witnesses in the trial as senators prepare to vote on the matter Friday.

“I will make an offer to opposing counsel, who says this will stretch on indefinitely if you decide to have a single witness,” Schiff, the lead House impeachment manager, told senators.

“Let’s cabin the depositions to one week. I think we can. I think we should. I think we must,” the California Democrat added.

Trump’s legal team and GOP senators have argued that allowing more witnesses would mean that the impeachment trial would drag on for weeks or longer. (Read more from “Schiff Wants to Devote One Week to Hearing Impeachment Witnesses” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Texas Mom Who Wanted to ‘Transition’ 7-Year-Old Son to Girl Loses Again in Court

A Dallas judge, ruling in the case of a mother trying to turn her 7-year-old son into a “girl,” upheld a previous court ruling that made both the boy’s parents have joint conservatorship over him.

Judge Mary Brown not only denied Anne Georgulas’ request that the case revert to an October jury ruling that would have likely resulted in the mother being granted sole managing conservatorship, but the judge made it an official order that both parents have joint conservatorship over their son, James Younger.

In a case that received national attention, a mother and a father battled over custody of their two twin boys. The father, Jeffery Younger, argued that he needed some say in the medical decision making for the boys as the mother, Dr. Anne Georgulas, had enrolled one of the 7-year-old boys in school under the name “Luna” and medical records indicated the mother was pursuing a medical gender “transition” for the boy.

On October 21, a jury initially ruled against Mr. Younger, denying his request for sole managing conservatorship. The jury also ruled that the decision making authority for the boys should rest in one person, known as sole managing conservatorship. The jury was not given the ability to specify who the sole managing conservator of the boys should be if it wasn’t Mr. Younger. . .

Today, Judge Brown ruled on three motions, a motion to enter Judge Cooks’ order, a motion to conform to the jury ruling, and a motion to disqualify the parental coordinator. Judge Brown was hearing the case as Judge Cooks was recused from the case at the request of Dr. Georgulas. (Read more from “Texas Mom Who Wanted to ‘Transition’ 7-Year-Old Son to Girl Loses Again in Court” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Democrat Palestinian ‘Peace’ Plan: Immoral and Indefensible

Democrats have a real problem with borders. Even as emphatic as the Left is about demanding that Trump destroy our secure borders, leftists seem to go absolutely apoplectic over his support for Israel’s right to secure its borders. Democrats condemned Trump’s peace plan in unison, regarding his generous proposal for a demilitarized Palestinian state as not substantial enough for their Hamas allies. “Trump’s ‘peace plan’ is a rubber stamp for annexation and offers no chance for a real Palestinian state,” fumed Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

So what do the Democrats and leftists want? The global elites and leftists repeat their mantra of a two-state solution and a Palestinian state like mindless robots without any regard for the geography, security situation, or logistical reality of such a proposition. It’s become a punch line without any meaning – much like the need for “comprehensive immigration reform” or “criminal justice reform.”

Regardless of the history of the Holy Land and how we’ve gotten to this point in history, it makes no sense to push for another state west of the Jordan River at this point – unless the objectives of those pursuing it are more sinister than a mere credulous desire to make peace with terrorists.

A geographically impossible approach

If one were to come to Earth from Mars and listen to the world leaders discuss Israel and a two-state solution with a laser focus on every last morsel of land (the West Bank, Jerusalem, Gaza, Golan), he would come away with the impression that the land in dispute is a massive territory – one in which can be created two viable, contiguous countries. In reality, modern-day Israel, even without the so-called West Bank, is only 8,522 square miles, roughly the size of New Jersey. When coupled with the “West Bank,” that area only expands by 2,180 square miles.

New Jersey has almost 8.9 million residents and is already the most densely populated state in the United States. Israel’s population is roughly 8.7 million and is rapidly growing. Just based on geography alone, does it make any sense to deny Israel the 2,180 square miles it was originally granted and won back in a defensive war?

Moreover, none of the proponents of this mythical yet unassailable solution have ever explained how two independently contiguous states could be created by uniting Gaza with Judea/Samaria. Presumably, there is an unspoken plan to grab even more land from the heart of Israel in the south to make a proposed Arab “Palestinian” state contiguous in all its territory. An underground tunnel will not suffice in the long run.

Let’s take this a step further. The Arab/Muslim countries constitute a land mass 640 times the size of Israel. Does it make sense to squeeze the last few thousand square miles from the only Jewish state in order to create an Arab national state in the Holy Land for the first time in history, if there are well over 12 million square miles of Muslim lands?

Indefensible “Auschwitz borders”

It is clear that anyone peddling a two-state solution without the conditions Trump prescribed has either never looked at a map of the region or is implicitly supporting a “final solution” of pushing the Jews into the Mediterranean Sea. Just consider the consequences of Israel’s surrender of Gaza and extrapolate those grave dangers to Judea and Samaria.

When Israel surrendered the Gaza Strip in 2005, it immediately came under attack by short-range and medium-range rockets, attacks that continue to this very day. It was during one iteration of the rocket war that Israel discovered an even more serious threat to its existence. Hamas had dug a series of complex tunnels from Gaza underground that extended for miles deep into Israeli territory. Hamas planned to use those tunnels to commit mass terror attacks and conduct kidnapping missions throughout southern Israel.

Now consider the fact that Gaza is located in the southwest corner of Israel, the “least” perilous location for a tiny country defending against a genocidal enemy. Imagine if Hamas were allowed to create a state in Judea and Samaria – the heart of Israel? There would not be a single square inch of the remainder of Israeli territory that would not be subject to a perennial threat of terror attacks and infiltrations.

Were Israel to cede Samaria, even if the “Palestinian” state were demilitarized (which in itself is a pipe dream), any two-bit terror cell could paralyze the country indefinitely with cheap surface-to-surface, surface-to-air, and shoulder-fired rockets. Samaria is a mountainous region overlooking Israel’s coastal plain – the area containing 70 percent of the Jewish population and 80 percent of the country’s industrial base, as well as its only international airport. This tiny geographical strip, at its narrowest point, is nine miles wide. There is no way to defend it against the rockets and tunnels. This is exactly what Israel’s legendary diplomat Abba Eban meant when he referred to such an idea as “Auschwitz borders.”

Worse, once a recognized state is created, Israel would have no ability to conduct counterterror operations to halt the inevitable terror attacks. Any incursion would be regarded acts of war. Also, the newly created Arab government would play good cop/bad cop with the local terror networks and accuse Israel of launching a war of aggression against a peaceful government.

The only conclusion one can draw from leftist politicians and world leaders pushing an Arab Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria is that either they are ignorant of the security situation and geography of the land, or they are seeking something much more sinister than a “two-state solution.”

The immoral double standard of a two-state solution

If the dangerous motives of the two-state solution aren’t apparent already, consider one final point that speaks to the immoral dichotomy inherent in creating an Arab Palestinian state. Israel is the only Jewish state in the world, yet despite its relatively tiny size, there are two million Arabs – mostly Muslims – living within the “pre-1967” Israeli borders. They enjoy full civil rights, voting rights, and representation in the Israeli parliament. Their elected officials have been free to side with Israel’s enemies while serving in the Knesset. Their members have even been free to walk out while the Israeli national anthem is played.

Now let’s examine the nature of the proposed Arab Palestinian state. What is the unspoken, yet implicit, directive of creating a Palestinian state? To make that land completely Judenrein – deracinating every last vestige of Judaism from the heart of the inherited land.

When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, it used its own military to physically uproot every last Jewish resident of the region. Jewish houses, businesses, and farms were destroyed and the Jews exiled from their land. What’s worse, far from the painful concession fostering a peaceful reconciliation, Israel had to exhume every last Jewish grave in Gaza so that Jewish cemeteries would not be desecrated by the inevitable violence of the local Arabs. The Israeli government was originally going to destroy the synagogues but left them intact after the State Department and the Palestinian Authority promised to guard them. Yet within minutes of the Arabs occupying the land, the synagogues were torched and destroyed, vividly conjuring up images of Kristallnacht.

This is the Orwellian peaceful “solution” that would occur for the hundreds of thousands of Jews living in Judea and Samaria, along with their cemeteries and holy sites, were Democrats and world leaders to successfully “promote a just and durable agreement,” as Bernie Sanders promised. In addition, remember, they also want to negotiate flooding the remaining skeleton borders of Israel with potentially millions more Arabs in addition to the two million already there.

If this double standard – forcing Israel to accept an unlimited number of hostile Arabs in a land the size of a broom closet on the geographical map while forcing out every Jew from the lands trodden by Abraham in Judea – is not inherently racist, then the oft-overused term has no meaning.

Hence, there is no moral, historical, or practical justification for pushing the creation of an Arab state west of the Jordan River other than ensuring the destruction of the only Jewish state in the world. And that’s exactly what these Democrat presidential candidates want. They despise Israel’s sovereignty and its desire to protect its people as much as they despise our own sovereignty and the security of our people. (For more from the author of “The Democrat Palestinian ‘Peace’ Plan: Immoral and Indefensible” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

REPORT: Hillary Refuses to Be Served Gabbard Lawsuit Before Declaring ‘No One Is Above the Law’

On Thursday morning, Hillary Clinton decided to weigh in on the impeachment trial of President Trump, tweeting this deathless quote: “In America, no one is above the law.”

Clinton’s tweet was in reference to the impeachment trial of President Trump; her full tweet read, “Richard Nixon once made this argument:‘When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.’ He was forced to resign in disgrace. In America, no one is above the law.”

But also on Thursday this tidbit of news was released to the public: Tulsi Gabbard’s attorney, Brian Dunne, stated that Clinton has twice refused to accept the legal documents that a process server attempted to deliver to her from the defamation lawsuit filed against her by Gabbard.

Dunne told The New York Post, “I find it rather unbelievable that Hillary Clinton is so intimidated by Tulsi Gabbard that she won’t accept service of process. But I guess here we are.”

The Post added, “Dunne said their process server first attempted to effect service at Clinton’s house in Chappaqua on Tuesday afternoon — but was turned away by Secret Service agents. The agents directed the server to Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, who on Wednesday claimed at his Washington, DC, firm, Williams & Connolly, that he was unable to accept service on Clinton’s behalf, said Dunne.” (Read more from “REPORT: Hillary Refuses to Be Served Gabbard Lawsuit Before Declaring ‘No One Is Above the Law'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WATCH: Kansas City Chiefs Player Wears Pro-Trump Ensemble to Super Bowl Press Conference

2020 is looking up to be the year that celebrities let their MAGA pride flag fly for all to see. After Joy Villa wowed everyone in her pro-Trump dress at the Grammy Awards this past weekend, Frank Clark, defensive end for the Kansas City Chiefs, wore some Trump swag of his own during a Super Bowl press conference last Friday. The big moment went viral on social media Thursday when Benny Johnson shared footage of the moment on Twitter. Take a look:

The sweater features a photo of the moment when President Trump met rap icon Kanye West at Trump Tower in Manhattan shortly after the 2016 election.

“I got my good friend in L.A. At Zero’s; it’s a clothing store,” he told reporters after they asked him to explain his sweater. “I’ll never forget. You all know the moment when Donald Trump met Kanye. A historical moment in our history.” . . .

Whether or not Frank Clark would visit the White House in the event of Kansas City winning the Super Bowl remains to be seen. Last week, however, 49ers cornerback Richard Sherman said that he most likely would not visit the White House if his team squeaked out a Sunday victory. (Read more from “WATCH: Kansas City Chiefs Player Wears Pro-Trump Ensemble to Super Bowl Press Conference” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Ilhan Omar Introduces Bill to Block Trump From Implementing ‘Muslim Ban’

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) introduced a bill intended to remove the legal justification for a “Muslim ban,” which President Donald Trump promised during his 2016 presidential election.

Omar released a statement on Thursday about the bill that would repeal the Alien Enemies Act, which the president used as precedent to justify his travel ban.

“This outdated and xenophobic law is an offense to our values as a nation, which should stand as a refuge for those fleeing violence and persecution,” Omar said.

“It is a perfect example of outdated immigration laws that are being exploited and abused by this Administration. As the President seeks to expand the Muslim Ban, we must close policy loopholes that he can exploit to cause harm to our neighbors, our country and the values that we hold dear,” she continued.

“We must learn from historical mistakes built on fear of the other and embrace a fair and just immigration system by repealing the Alien Enemies Act,” Omar concluded. (Read more from “Ilhan Omar Introduces Bill to Block Trump From Implementing ‘Muslim Ban'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WATCH: Radical Leftists Plan to ‘F*** S**T up’ at NYC’s Train Terminals. Oh, and ‘F*** the Police,’ They Declare.

A radical leftist organization known as Decolonize This Place indicates it’s planning a large-scale “action” Friday in New York City in order to “f*** s**t up” at the city’s train terminals. They call it “F*** the Police 3,” and it’s a protest against fares and police presence on the transit system.

The group posted a video on Twitter announcing the planned uprising. The text preceding the clip reads, “The streets are ours. The trains our ours. The walls are ours. This moment is ours. How will you and your crew build and f*** s**t up for #FTP3 on #J31 (THIS FRIDAY)? Issa mothaf***in’ movement.” . . .

[WARNING: Explicit language used throughout video.]

The video shows a trio of masked, hooded individuals, and the voice of the speaker in the middle is muffled presumably to hide his identity. The speaker asks listeners to “think of the ways that you can move in affinity” with other protesters “and f*** s**t up on J31 all day long.”

(Read more from “WATCH: Radical Leftists Plan to ‘F*** S**T up’ at NYC’s Train Terminals. Oh, and ‘F*** the Police,’ They Declare.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

‘GAME OVER,’ Trump Declares, as Old Bolton, Schiff Videos Surface; Nasty Kamala Sneaks Content From Trump’s Access Hollywood Tape Into Impeachment Trial

By Breitbart. Failed presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris used her occasion to ask a written question during the Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday to feature the old Access Hollywood video of President Donald Trump.

“President Nixon said, quote, ‘When the president does it that means that it is not illegal.’ End quote. Before he was elected, President Trump said, quote, ‘When you’re a star they let you do it, you can do anything,’ end quote,” the Harris note read.

That particular Trump quote was from the infamous Access Hollywood tape that was used by the Clinton campaign in an effort to turn voters against him ahead of the 2016 election. During the campaign, Trump apologized for the remarks in the video recorded in 2005, and he went on to win the presidential election in 2016. (Read more from “Nasty Kamala Sneaks Content From Trump’s Access Hollywood Tape Into Impeachment Trial” HERE)

_________________________________________________

‘GAME OVER,’ Trump Declares, as Old Bolton, Schiff Videos Surface Amid Senate Impeachment Trial

By Fox News. A string of newly resurfaced video clips of former national security adviser John Bolton spurred President Trump and his supporters Wednesday to highlight what they described as serious credibility questions — raised by both Democrats and Republicans — amid the Senate impeachment trial, as the president tweeted, “GAME OVER!”

In his tweet, Trump linked to an interview of Bolton in August 2019 where he discusses Ukraine policy. In the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty interview clip, Bolton made no mention of any illicit quid pro quo, and acknowledged, as Republicans have claimed, that combating “corruption” in Ukraine was a “high priority” for the Trump administration.

Bolton also called Trump’s communications with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “warm and cordial,” without mentioning any misconduct. It seemingly contradicted reported assertions in Bolton’s forthcoming book that Trump explicitly told him he wanted to tie military aid to Ukraine to an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden. (Zelensky has said his communications with Trump involved no pressure for any investigation.)

(Read more from “‘Game Over,’ Trump Declares, as Old Bolton, Schiff Videos Surface Amid Senate Impeachment Trial” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

REPORT: GOP Has Votes to Block Witnesses in Impeachment Trial; Senators Pose Questions Over Evidence

By Townhall. The witness aspect of the impeachment trial for President Trump has been the controversy on Capitol Hill this week, especially after Former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s book preview insinuated he may have relevant information. Democrats, who have historically demonized Bolton, immediately pounced and demanded Bolton testify. Most Republicans have united against a hypothetical Bolton testimony, on account of national security, and dragging the taxpayer funded impeachment charade on longer than necessary. As multiple GOP senators pointed out, the timing of the leak of Bolton’s memo to the New York Times is suspicious, at best.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has thus far indicated that his majority does not yet have the votes to block witness testimony. Some Republicans have floated the idea of allowing Bolton to testify if the Democrats will concede former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden or Rep. Adam Schiff (R-CA). Democrats insist that the Bidens are completely vindicated, and have no place in this impeachment trial.

It appears that the game may be shifting. Senate Republicans are optimistic that witnesses will be blocked. Republicans in the upper chamber met with Leader McConnell this morning. (Read more from “REPORT: GOP Has Votes to Block Witnesses in Impeachment Trial” HERE)

______________________________________________________

Trump Impeachment Trial: Senators Pose Questions Over Evidence

By New York Post. In a dramatic opening to the questioning phase of President Trump’s impeachment trial Wednesday, three Republican senators asked Trump’s lawyers what effect it would have on their decision if the president had multiple reasons for his actions regarding Ukraine.

“If President Trump had more than one motive for his alleged conduct, such as the pursuit of personal political advantage, rooting out corruption and the promotion of national interests, how should the Senate consider more than one motive in its assessment of Article I?” said the written query from GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah.

All three are moderates who are considered possible defectors from the Republican caucus.

One of Trump’s lawyers, Patrick Philbin, responded by arguing that even if Trump acted out of personal interest, it was not an impeachable offense in asking Ukraine to probe Joe Biden.

“There are really two layers to my answer. I’d like to point out first, even if there was only one motive, the theory of abuse of power the House have presented for an impeachable offense we believe is constitutionally defective. It is not a permissible way to claim a claim of impeachable offense under the Constitution,” he said. (Read more from “Trump Impeachment Trial: Senators Pose Questions Over Evidence” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Dems Get Crushed in Special Election That Was Supposed to Open Door to ‘Defeat Trump in Texas’

A special election in Texas that had been viewed by some high-profile Democrats as key to beating President Donald Trump in Texas ended in a big win for the GOP.

Gary Gates, the Republican candidate Texas House District 28, soundly defeated his Democratic opponent Elizabeth Markowitz in a nationally targeted special election on Wednesday, ABC affiliate KTRK reported. . .

Three presidential candidates, including Texas Democrat and former 2020 presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, lent their support to Markowitz ahead of the vote.

O’Rourke in particular stressed the election’s importance to winning the state house and building a “team to defeat Trump in Texas.”

(Read more from “Dems Get Crushed in Special Election That Was Supposed to Open Door to ‘Defeat Trump in Texas’” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE