Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) announced on Monday that she will be participating in the upcoming Democratic National Committee (DNC) presidential primary debate after publicly considering boycotting the event.
&#8220;I will be attending the debate,&#8221; Gabbard told her supporters on Twitter. She refrained from providing any further information regarding her decision.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I will be attending the debate.
&mdash; Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) <a href="https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1183716774476312576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 14, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The announcement comes nearly a week after the Hawaii congresswoman revealed that she was mulling over launching her own boycott against the DNC&#8217;s &#8220;rigged&#8221; primary election process and therefore decline to participate in the October 15th debate as a form of protest.
&#8220;There are so many of you that I&#8217;ve had the opportunity to meet in Iowa and New Hampshire who have expressed to me how frustrated you are that the DNC and the corporate media are essentially trying to usurp your role as voters in choosing who our Democratic nominee will be,&#8221; Gabbard said at the time. &#8220;I share your concerns.&#8221;
&#8220;They are attempting to replace the roles of voters in the early states using polling and other arbitrary methods, which are not transparent or democratic, and they&#8217;re holding so-called debates, which are really not debates at all but rather commercialized reality television meant to entertain rather than inform or enlighten,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;The DNC and the corporate media are trying to hijack the entire election process, so in order to bring attention to this serious threat to our democracy and to ensure that your voice is heard, I&#8217;m seriously considering boycotting the next debate.&#8221;
Gabbard met the DNC&#8217;s threshold to qualify for the upcoming debate after failing to qualify for the previous debate in September.
In order to nab a podium on the next debate state in Westerville, Ohio, presidential candidates must have raised campaign donations from no fewer than 130,000 individual donors and receive at least 2% of the vote in four or more polls that have been pre-approved by the DNC.
Gabbard was the twelfth and final presidential hopeful to meet the qualifying benchmark and subsequently accept an invitation onto the debate stage: Former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), financier Tom Steyer, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and entrepreneur Andrew Yang will also be participating.
Gabbard, however, has been an outspoken critic of the DNC&#8217;s lack of transparency and arbitrary determination of which polls are deemed eligible for qualification purposes. Her campaign urged the DNC in September to reconsider their criteria and further slammed the organization for hindering conversations &#8220;between future leaders of this country.&#8221;
&#8220;Rep. Gabbard has exceeded the 2% support in 26 national and early state polls, but only two of them are on the DNC&#8217;s &#8216;certified&#8217; list,” Gabbard&#8217;s campaign wrote to the DNC. &#8220;Many of the uncertified polls, including those conducted by highly reputable organizations such as The Economist and The Boston Globe are ranked by Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight as more accurate than some &#8216;certified&#8217; polls.&#8221;
While the DNC declined to reconsider their benchmarks, Gabbard ultimately received an invitation for October&#8217;s debate after a certified poll conducted by <a href="https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_NH_092419/">Monmouth University</a> shows that the Hawaii congresswoman received 2% support in the early voting state of New Hampshire.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Attend Iowa Democratic Party Hall Of Fame Celebration

After Blasting &#8216;Rigged&#8217; Primary, Tulsi Gabbard Decides Against Debate Boycott

2020 Election

Democratic National Committee

Tulsi Gabbard

The Blaze has released an audio recording that they recently obtained that appears to show Artem Sytnyk, Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, admitting that he tried to boost the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton by sabotaging then-candidate Donald Trump&#8217;s campaign.
The connection between the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Ukrainian government was veteran Democratic operative Alexandra Chalupa, &#8220;who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration&#8221; and then &#8220;went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee,&#8221; <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446">Politico</a> reported.
Chalupa was working directly with the Ukrainian embassy in the United States to raise concerns about Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and, according to Politico, she indicated that the Embassy was working &#8220;directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and Russia to point them in the right directions.&#8221;
The Ukrainian embassy political officer who worked at the embassy at the time, Andrii Telizhenko, stated that the Ukrainians &#8220;were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa&#8221; and that “the embassy worked very closely with” Chalupa.
The Blaze highlighted an email from WikiLeaks from Chalupa to Louise Miranda at the DNC:
<blockquote>Hey, a lot coming down the pipe. I spoke to a delegation of 68 investigative journalists from Ukraine last night at the Library of Congress, the Open World Society forum. They put me on the program to speak specifically about Paul Manafort. I invited Michael Isikoff, who I&#8217;ve been working with for the past few weeks, and connected him to the Ukrainians. More offline tomorrow, since there was a big Trump component you and Lauren need to be aware of that will hit in the next few weeks. Something I&#8217;m working on that you should be aware of.</blockquote>
<a href="https://www.theblaze.com/glenn-radio/dnc-ukraine-collusion-sytnyk">The Blaze</a> then reported that Sytnyk, who eventually &#8220;was tried and convicted in Ukraine for <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrainian-officials-meddled-in-2016-election-by-leaking-secret-manafort-ledger-court-says">interfering</a> in the U.S. presidential election in 2016,&#8221; released a &#8220;black ledger&#8221; on Manafort during the 2016 presidential election that eventually led to Manafort&#8217;s downfall.
&#8220;So here he is. He is admitting to tampering with our elections. Admitted working with the Hillary Clinton campaign,&#8221; Glenn Beck said during a <a href="https://youtu.be/kuvfYE7ZdL0">2-hour special presentation</a> by The Blaze on Ukraine&#8217;s interference in the U.S. election. &#8220;He is actually convicted in the highest court in the land in Ukraine. This is all front page news in Ukraine, while we are saying, &#8216;Was there anyone tampering with the election?'&#8221;
In audio exclusively obtained by The Blaze, Sytnyk appeared to admit that he worked to boost Clinton by harming Trump&#8217;s campaign by releasing the &#8220;black ledger.&#8221; Sytnyk also essentially admitted that Trump was better for America than Clinton was because Clinton belonged to the establishment while Trump&#8217;s focus was solely on promoting America.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
&#8220;I don&#8217;t know how, but the Americans got an audio recording of Mr. Sytnik&#8217;s conversation: He is resting with his family &amp; friends &amp; discussing how he would like to help Hillary.&#8221;<a href="https://twitter.com/glennbeck?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@glennbeck</a> reveals the Ukraine transcript the media isn&#8217;t talking about.<a href="https://t.co/fZHzqMCZbV">https://t.co/fZHzqMCZbV</a> <a href="https://t.co/9jyMLVwdEB">pic.twitter.com/9jyMLVwdEB</a>
— BlazeTV (@BlazeTV) <a href="https://twitter.com/BlazeTV/status/1180309130164109312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 5, 2019</a></blockquote>
Transcript of the translated Ukrainian tape:
<blockquote>Kolya: Did they, those Russians, help Trump? Your people?
Sytnyk: I think they did. Yeah. I helped him, too. Not him, but Hillary. I helped her.
Kolya: Yeah. Right. Then her position tottered, right?
Sytnyk: Well, this is how they write about it, right.
Ivan: Hillary&#8217;s humanitarian aid &#8230; [indiscernible.]
Kolya: Well, I&#8217;m about &#8230; the commentaries. At the time, we were not [indiscernible.]
Sytnyk: Trump &#8230; his purely inner problem &#8230; issue &#8230; they dominate over the external matters. While Hillary, she is – how shall I put it? She belongs to the cohort of politicians who comprise the hegemony in the U.S. Both in the U.S. and the entire world, right? For us, it&#8217;s &#8230; sort of &#8230; better. For Americans &#8230; what Trump is doing is better for them.
Kolya: Well, we have lots of those American experts here now &#8230; [indiscernible.]
Sytnyk: Well, there, you see why Hillary lost the elections? I was in charge of the investigation of their &#8220;black accounting&#8221; records. We made the Manafort&#8217;s data available to general public.
Kolya: So what?
Sytnyk: He was imprisoned. Manafort then was the head of the Supreme Headquarter of Trump, right? Then he was dismissed, too, including due to the &#8220;black accounting.&#8221; After that, he was sentenced to 80 years of imprisonment term. How about Trump? Did he not give a s***. They have their system working there and it works smoothly.
Kolya: Everybody worked smoothly there.
Sytnyk: And when they carried out the elections, a week before the elections, the FBI reopened the investigation in respect of Hillary. So her rating dropped for 7 percent and that&#8217;s why Trump managed to win the elections at a pinch. I&#8217;m still unable to understand why he&#8217;s fighting with the FBI. They try to catch him on the hand. If it were not the FBI, he would not have won the elections. They torpedoed Hillary&#8217;s ratings for 7 percent.</blockquote>

Hillary Clinton

BOMBSHELL: Audio, Email Evidence Shows DNC Colluded With Ukraine To Boost Hillary By Harming Trump, Report Says

Donald Trump

Glenn Beck

Paul Manafort

Ukraine

Trump

GOP Senators Say Hillary, DNC Colluded With Ukraine To Undermine Trump Campaign, Press DOJ To Probe

2016

Hillary Clinton 2016

Senate Judiciary Letter To DOJ: Ukraine Helped Clinton Campaign, DNC

Charles Grassley

U.S. Senate

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has officially met the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) threshold to qualify for the upcoming Democratic presidential primary debate in October.
In order to nab a podium on the next debate state in Westerville, Ohio, presidential candidates must raise campaign donations from no fewer than 130,000 individual donors and receive at least 2% of the vote in four or more polls that have been pre-approved by the DNC.
A certified poll conducted by <a href="https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_NH_092419/">Monmouth University</a> shows that the Hawaii congresswoman received 2% support in the early voting state of New Hampshire. The poll, released on Tuesday, marks the final benchmark that she needed to overcome on order to receive an invitation onto the stage.
Gabbard is now the twelfth presidential hopeful to meet the qualifying threshold and subsequently accept an invitation onto the debate stage: Former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), financier Tom Steyer, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and entrepreneur Andrew Yang will also be participating.
Notably, both Steyer and Gabbard failed to meet the criteria to appear in September&#8217;s debate in Houston, Texas.
Gabbard, however, has been an outspoken critic of the DNC&#8217;s lack of transparency and arbitrary determination of which polls are deemed eligible for qualification purposes. Her campaign urged the DNC to reconsider their criteria and further slammed the organization for hindering conversations &#8220;between future leaders of this country.&#8221;
&#8220;The DNC set a threshold that candidates must meet at least 2% in four DNC-certified polls in order to qualify for the third and fourth Democratic primary debates,&#8221; the campaign wrote in a statement in August. &#8220;However, the DNC has not released their criteria for selecting the 16 polling organizations they deem &#8216;certifiable.'&#8221;
&#8220;Rep. Gabbard has exceeded the 2% support in 26 national and early state polls, but only two of them are on the DNC&#8217;s &#8216;certified&#8217; list,&#8221; the statement continued at the time. &#8220;Many of the uncertified polls, including those conducted by highly reputable organizations such as The Economist and The Boston Globe are ranked by Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight as more accurate than some &#8216;certified&#8217; polls.&#8221;
Gabbard is likely to be the final presidential contender to receive an invitation onto the fourth debate stage. Qualifications for participating in the event end on October 1 and author Marianne Williamson is the only remaining candidate to have passed the donor threshold. Williamson, however, is still three DNC-approved polls short of hitting the benchmark.
The DNC announced on Monday that it will be raising the criteria for the fifth debate in an attempt to further narrow down the crowded Democratic primary field.
In order to receive an invitation onto November&#8217;s debate stage, presidential candidates must raise campaign donations from no fewer than 165,000 individual donors. In addition, they must also receive at least 3% of the vote in four general DNC-approved polls and 5% in two early-state polls — such as those in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina.

tulsigabbard.jpg

Tulsi Gabbard Qualifies For Upcoming Presidential Debate

Democratic Party

The Republican National Committee (RNC) raked in more than $23 million during the month of August, nearly tripling what the Democratic National Committee (DNC) raised, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.
The RNC <a href="https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00003418/1353552/">raised $23.5 million</a> last month, bringing the party&#8217;s total fundraising haul to $141.4 million for the election cycle. Comparatively, the DNC <a href="https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00010603/1353586/">raised $7.9 million</a> over the same period, totaling $59.5 million to date.
&#8220;Thanks to the boycotts from Hollywood liberals and the Castro brothers doxxing private citizens who support President [Donald] Trump, the RNC&#8217;s fundraising hit record levels in August,&#8221; said RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. &#8220;The more Democrats demonize President Trump and his supporters, the more boots we can put on the ground to re-elect him.&#8221;
&#8220;Between the president&#8217;s accomplishments and our grassroots infrastructure, Republicans are going to be unstoppable in 2020,&#8221; she added.
For the third month in a row, the RNC&#8217;s fundraising haul surpassed its previous record for the most raised during a non-election year. In addition, the RNC posted the biggest off-cycle August in history for either national party committees. Accordingly, the RNC currently has 6.5 times more cash on hand than its Democratic counterpart.
&#8220;The momentum is on our side heading into President Trump&#8217;s re-election year,&#8221; Steve Guest, the RNC&#8217;s Rapid Response Director told The Daily Wire. &#8220;And while we are focused on building out the necessary infrastructure to win in November 2020, it&#8217;s clear that the DNC will be nothing more than a millstone around the neck of their eventual nominee.&#8221;
Guest also pointed out the DNC&#8217;s high burn rate. According to FEC filings, the party spent more than $750,000 above what they brought in during the month of August and further increased its debt by $1.7 million since July.
&#8220;What are we doing with our massive fundraising advantage? We&#8217;re building the largest field program and most expansive data operation in party history,&#8221; Guest explained. He also noted that the RNC is continuing to &#8220;invest in our unparalleled data-driven ground game to help re-elect President Trump and Republicans up and down the ballot.&#8221;
The Trump campaign, in partnership with the RNC, is actively engaged in expanding the 2020 electoral map. The two organizations have signaled confidence in winning a state like New Mexico, where Trump lost by 8 points in 2016.
In addition to holding his first rally in the Land of Enchantment in September, the RNC-Trump Campaign coalition launched a <a href="https://twitter.com/kayleighmcenany/status/1173634899456094221?s=20">New Mexico Victory Leadership team</a>, which included hiring a regional political director and a state director to help turn New Mexico red.
The RNC also touted the partnership&#8217;s new &#8220;Make Campus Great Again&#8221; program that seeks to provide students the support they need to stand up and speak up on their college campuses.
&#8220;Freedom of thought is being suppressed in college classrooms across America,&#8221; McDaniel said at the time. &#8220;Conservative students, in particular, are being bullied by liberal professors and peers to either submit to the socialist, Leftist ideology or sit quietly.&#8221;
The program kicked off only a week ago and has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51951/trump-victory-launches-make-campus-great-again-ashe-schow">already exceeded attendance</a> expectations.

Donald Trump Thumbs Up

RNC Reports Another Record Breaking Fundraising Month, DNC Struggles To Catch Up

Republican National Committee (RNC)

A new report states that the Democratic Party, supported by the Bill Clinton White House, launched an effort prior to the 1996 election to inundate radio talk shows with thousands of callers who posed as ordinary listeners but in reality were operatives who pushed the Democrats’ talking points.
The Washington Free Beacon’s Yuichrio Kakutani, in a <a href="https://freebeacon.com/politics/dems-secretly-fielded-thousands-of-activists-to-manipulate-media-clinton-library-docs-show/">comprehensive report</a>, notes that evidence of the Democrats’ secret plan, titled the Talk Radio Initiative (TRI), was gleaned from documents from the Clinton Presidential Library. The plan was triggered by the overwhelming victory the GOP won in the 1994 congressional elections, gaining control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1954. An internal report by the Democratic National Committee stated of the plans for TRI, &#8220;Democrats have largely ignored talk radio, and only since the last election, have we paid attention to how we can win back the airwaves and the discussion. We have now put our frustration into action.&#8221;
Michigan Democrats created a TRI guide which stated, &#8220;Volunteers must be able to keep the project confidential so as not to create the image of a &#8216;Democratic conspiracy&#8217; to infiltrate Detroit area talk radio shows. Democratic performance in the 1996 elections will no doubt be affected by the success or failure of this initiative … If you are afraid that producers are beginning to recognize your name and are weary of allowing you on the air, use an alias. For example, be Carol today, Sue tomorrow, and Debbie on Friday!&#8221;
More instructions for TRI operatives included, &#8220;Sound dumb. Even though you may have indicated a difference of opinion with the host, appear to present an opportunity for him to demolish you with his &#8216;superior&#8217; intelligence.&#8221;
Radio host Lars Larson recalled to the Beacon, &#8220;You would get calls, an hour apart, from different people with different voices and different names, but they would talk the same lines. So close that you knew that this was not a coincidence. It was the same language on the same subject and the same arguments … They seemed to come in waves. You would start getting seminar calls on Monday and Tuesday and you say ‘we are going to start getting these all week long,&#8217; as though someone has just put out the word that this is a point that needs to be pushed.&#8221;
Kakutani notes, &#8220;The materials revealed that Democrats systematically trained more than 4,000 operatives in at least 23 states to lie about their identities, deflect difficult questions from hosts, and plant pro-Democrat messages on the radio waves.&#8221;
Evidence of the Clinton White House’s involvement: TRI Director Jon-Christopher Bua allegedly wrote a memo to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes in April 1996 which stated, &#8220;My office is now coordinating closely with talk radio shops in the White House, Federal Departments and Agencies, the House, the Senate, and [the] ones I have helped set up in the State Parties.&#8221; Ickes reportedly sent the memo to President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, and Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, among others.
Rush Limbaugh, who was the giant of radio show hosts and the arch-foe of the Clintons, <a href="https://news.iheart.com/featured/rush-limbaugh/content/2019-09-10-pn-rush-limbaugh-bill-clinton-couldnt-abide-criticism-by-one-radio-show-trump-has-entire-media-against-him/">commented on Tuesday</a> about the evidence of the initiative the Democrats had launched. He recalled:
<blockquote>The point is this. Back in &#8217;92, &#8217;93, this show was it, folks. CNN was out there, but they were all on Clinton&#8217;s side. There wasn&#8217;t Fox News. There wasn&#8217;t the blogosphere yet. And Bill Clinton went nuts with one radio show, a three-hour radio show, that&#8217;s all the opposition he had, he went nuts about it.
He called KMOX in St. Louis from Air Force One to complain about this program and how there was no Truth Detector after it. There was nobody to set the record straight. Here&#8217;s the note. &#8220;My name is blah, blah. I&#8217;m a reporter for the blah, blah. We&#8217;re working on a story regarding a confidential document that we uncovered from the Clinton library detailing White House involvement with the effort to train callers to call into conservative talk shows around the country. I know this is something Rush has always suspected, that he used to be identify these trained callers –&#8221; That&#8217;s right. They were seminars callers.
Here&#8217;s my point. Bill Clinton went crazy &#8212; well, that may be a bit of a &#8212; Bill Clinton was totally bamboozled by one three-hour radio show. Blaming me for the Oklahoma City bombing, anything he could talk about. One radio show. And then, of course, there became more as Clinton&#8217;s term began.</blockquote>

The Clintons At Inauguration 1997

Report: Democrats, Supported By Clinton White House, Trained Thousands Of Operatives To Infiltrate Radio Talk Shows

Bill Clinton

Rush Limbaugh

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sent a letter to qualifying campaigns ahead of its third presidential primary debate, warning the Democratic presidential candidates not to use vulgar language while on the debate stage.
&#8220;We wanted to take this opportunity to remind you that, as the debate will air on the ABC broadcast network, we are governed by Federal Communication Commission indecency rules,&#8221; the DNC wrote in a letter obtained by Axios. &#8220;We will not be broadcasting on any delay, so there will be no opportunity to edit out foul language. Candidates should therefore avoid cursing or expletives in accordance with federal law and FCC guidelines.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Source sent me this email from DNC on behalf of ABC to the campaigns ahead of the Houston debate.
Paging <a href="https://twitter.com/BetoORourke?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BetoORourke</a> lol <a href="https://t.co/6pjXFvOGOL">pic.twitter.com/6pjXFvOGOL</a>
— Alexi McCammond (@alexi) <a href="https://twitter.com/alexi/status/1171456785976156164?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 10, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The letter comes as former Rep. Beto O&#8217;Rourke (D-TX) has been receiving attention for the uptick in curse words that he has been espousing while on the campaign trail.
The failed Texas U.S. Senate candidate first made headlines with his vulgar language while conceding the statewide race to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as part of the 2018 midterm election cycle.
&#8220;All of you showing the country how you do this — I am so f***ing proud of you guys,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke told the crowd in November. While he received wild cheers at the time, he later swore that he would no longer curse after announcing his bid for the presidency.
The pledge, however, did not last long.
In the aftermath of a deadly shooting in El Paso, Texas, O&#8217;Rourke was asked by reporters if it was possible for President Donald Trump to do anything &#8220;to make this better.&#8221;
&#8220;Um, what do you think? You know the s**t he&#8217;s been saying,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke replied. &#8220;He&#8217;s been calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals. I don&#8217;t know. Like, members of the press — what the f***? It&#8217;s these questions that you know the answers to, I mean, connect the dots.&#8221;
The aggressive response was considered by many to be a testament to his authenticity. <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Beto-come-home-Texas-needs-you-Editorial-14294396.php?utm_source=&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=24082">The Houston Chronicle</a> praised the vulgarity, arguing that it is a human moment &#8220;more telling than a season of advertisements.&#8221;
&#8220;Is that language presidential? Not normally. It certainly isn&#8217;t the normal fare for an editorial page in the Sunday paper, either, with or without the asterisks,&#8221; the Chronicle wrote.&#8221;But it struck us as so unscripted, so unexpected, that its offense was somehow washed away.&#8221;
O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s campaign seemingly noticed the attention-grabbing language and, by September, the Democratic presidential hopeful was selling &#8220;This is f***ed up&#8221; t-shirts as a nod to his own response after another deadly shooting outside of Odessa, Texas.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">New in the store&#8230;
100% of the proceeds will benefit <a href="https://twitter.com/MomsDemand?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MomsDemand</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/AMarch4OurLives?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AMarch4OurLives</a>.
This is fucked up. We can change it. <a href="https://t.co/PFRWFCypAl">https://t.co/PFRWFCypAl</a> <a href="https://t.co/Us1V4mz1cf">pic.twitter.com/Us1V4mz1cf</a>
— Team Beto (@TeamBeto) <a href="https://twitter.com/TeamBeto/status/1168238254593925120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 1, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The DNC is preparing for its third presidential primary debate, which will be held on September 12 in Houston, Texas. Because of the relatively high threshold to qualify, only 10 of the candidates in the crowded Democratic primary field were able to qualify.
Accordingly, the organization faced blowback for the high barrier to entry to appear on the debate stage — especially from many of the candidates who fell short of receiving an invitation.
&#8220;The DNC is stifling debate at a time when we need it the most,&#8221; Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) said during the DNC&#8217;s annual summer meeting. &#8220;We&#8217;re rewarding celebrity candidates with millions of Twitter followers, billionaires who buy their way onto the debate stage, and candidates who have been running for president for years.&#8221;
Bennet&#8217;s remarks came the same day that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard&#8217;s (D-HI) campaign criticized the DNC for abdicating its responsibility to &#8220;facilitate more conversations.&#8221;

Beto O&#8217;Rourke

DNC Warns Candidates Not To Swear During The Debate, As O’Rourke Racks Up The F-Bombs

Beto O'Rourke

On Wednesday, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) appeared on Fox News&#8217; &#8220;Tucker Carlson Tonight&#8221; to discuss not having made the cut for the next debate, which is scheduled for September 12.
<blockquote>CARLSON: Tell me if I&#8217;m misstating this. The Democratic Party is refusing to – the DNC is refusing to recognize as valid polls that puts you, that would qualify you for the next debate.
GABBARD: Oh, here&#8217;s the situation. There&#8217;s a whole bunch of different polls that have come out. The DNC has only recognized some of them as being qualifying polls for the debate. The whole thing gets a little bit confusing, and you&#8217;ve got to jump way down into the weeds of the numbers and the statistics. But I think the bigger problem is that the whole process really lacks transparency.
CARLSON: Right.
GABBARD: People deserve having that transparency, because ultimately, it&#8217;s the people who will decide who our Democratic nominee will be and ultimately who our next president, commander-in-chief will be. And when you see that lack of transparency, it creates, you know, a lack of faith and trust in the process.
And I think this also points to a bigger issue and challenge that goes beyond the DNC and party politics – [which] is the government itself, you know.
CARLSON: Right.
GABBARD: There [are] people who are increasingly losing that faith and trust in the government because they see a lack of transparency there; they see that we don&#8217;t have a government that is of, by, and for the people. And, really, what they see is a small group of really powerful political elites, the establishment, making decisions that serve their interests, and maintaining that power, while the rest of us are left outside. The American people are left behind.
So, these are the deeper-seated issues that I think it&#8217;s important that we recognize, and that for me as president, that I would seek to change. That we’d actually fulfill that vision that our Founders had for our country of having a government that is truly of, by, and for the people, and making it so that people can trust that our leaders are listening to them and making decisions not based on partisanship, but based on serving their interests.
GABBARD: Again, I&#8217;ve got some concerns about the process. And I think a lot of them go to that lack of transparency. &#8230; Because when you have transparency, then people are able to say, &#8220;Okay, well, here’s the process. Here&#8217;s what&#8217;s going on.&#8221; That&#8217;s not really what we&#8217;re seeing right now, especially around all these polls, and the qualifiers and the non-qualifiers for the debate.
For me, I can just say that whether I&#8217;m on that debate stage or not, I&#8217;m going to continue focusing on speaking directly to voters across this country, connecting with them and recognizing that no matter what the powers that be in Washington say, the power lies in the hands of the people of this country.</blockquote>
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/217_UhhtyTw?start=36" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
According to the <a href="https://democrats.org/news/third-debate/">rule set</a> issued by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in May, in order to qualify for the September debate, a candidate must have &#8220;received donations from a minimum of 130,000 unique donors &#8230; and 400 unique donors per state in at least 20 U.S. states.&#8221;
Additionally, a candidate must &#8220;receive 2% or more support in at least four [qualifying] polls&#8221; between the dates of June 28 &#8211; August 28. The polling organizations approved by the DNC are:
<blockquote>[The] Associated Press, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Des Moines Register, Fox News, Monmouth University, NBC News, New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), Quinnipiac University, University of New Hampshire, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, and Winthrop University.</blockquote>
As of the DNC deadline, Rep. Gabbard passed the donations threshold, but fell two polls shy of qualification.
FiveThirtyEight’s Geoffrey Skelley <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-the-third-debate-were-based-on-different-polls/">noted</a> on Friday that if the DNC opened up its criteria to allow all polling firms with a B- grade or higher to count toward winning a spot on the debate stage in September, Gabbard would have landed with five qualifying polls.
According to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClearPolitics</a> average of polls, Rep. Gabbard sits in ninth place with 1.4% support, ahead of both Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and former HUD Secretary Julian Castro, both of whom not only have lower average polling numbers than Gabbard (0.9% and 1.1%, respectively), but will be on the debate stage on September 12.
As indicated by Rep. Gabbard during her interview with Carlson, this isn&#8217;t the end. While her absence in the September debate could damage her standing in the race, the representative can still make the stage for the next Democratic debate in October.
According to the <a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/reidepstein/status/1167833634793017344">DNC</a>, candidates will have until October 1 to hit the required benchmarks in order to participate in the debate on October 15.

WATCH: Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Shreds ‘Lack Of Transparency’ From DNC That Shut Her Out Of The Next Debate

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) revealed on Thursday that she will not run for president on a third party ticket if she fails to win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.
“I will not, no,” Gabbard replied to CNN news anchor Jim Sciutto when asked if she would run as an independent candidate. “I’ve ruled that out.”
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
“I’m going to continue to focus on moving our campaign forward,” she continued. “Continuing this grassroots campaign, continuing to deliver our message to the American people and ask for their support.”
Gabbard’s remarks come only days after the Hawaii congresswoman failed to qualify for the third Democratic primary debate in Houston, Texas. In order to make it onto the debate stage, candidates must have raised donations from at least 130,000 unique donors and receive more than 2% support in four or more polls that have been pre-approved by the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
While Gabbard was able to quickly meet the fundraising threshold, she was ultimately two polls short of receiving an invitation to the debate stage.
During the final two weeks to qualify, Gabbard took a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/50532/tulsi-gabbard-pausing-her-presidential-campaign-molly-prince">leave of absence</a> from her presidential campaign in order to report for active duty with the Hawaiian Army National Guard. While abroad in Indonesia for her service, she was unable to monitor or check in with her campaign, and solely relied on her staff to continue campaign operations.
Accordingly, Gabbard’s campaign team <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/50974/tulsis-2020-campaign-urges-dnc-adjust-debate-molly-prince">issued a statement</a> on Friday urging the DNC to reconsider the polling criteria required to qualify for the debates.
“Rep. Gabbard has exceeded 2% support in 26 national and early state polls, but only two of them are on the DNC’s ‘certified’ list,” the campaign wrote. “Many of the uncertified polls, including those conducted by highly reputable organizations such as The Economist and the Boston Globe, are ranked by Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight as more accurate than some DNC ‘certified’ polls.”
In the press release, the campaign also pointed to a Real Clear Politics article aptly titled “Gabbard Victimized by DNC’s Dubious Debate Criteria,” where journalist Michael Tracey argues that the Hawaiian lawmaker is on “on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic presidential debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd.”
“The Democratic National Committee has the responsibility to facilitate more conversations between the future leaders of this country, not less,” the statement said. “Notably, there have been only four qualifying polls released after the second Democratic primary debate compared with the fourteen qualifying polls released in the month after the first Democratic primary debate.”
The DNC subsequently refused to adjust their polling benchmarks and allow Gabbard to participate.
Gabbard made waves during the second debate after she challenged Sen. Kamala Harris’ (D-CA) record on criminal prosecutions. The exchange was largely considered the to be one of the night’s most critical moments and fruitful lines of attack. In the aftermath, Harris took a significant hit in the polls.

WATCH: Tulsi Gabbard Rules Out Third Party Run

Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, has released a statement on <a href="https://twitter.com/PollsterPatrick?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Twitter</a> saying that a <a href="https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_082619/">Monmouth poll</a> distributed earlier this week that made a lot of headlines, as it showed a three-way tie between former Vice President Biden and Sens. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), is &#8220;an outlier.&#8221;
Murray maintains that despite using &#8220;nearly identical samples to our prior polls&#8221; and following the &#8220;same methods&#8221; as six prior 2020 Democratic primary national polls, the anomalous results were &#8220;a product of the uncertainty inherent to the polling process.&#8221;
&#8220;I understood when we released our poll that the picture it painted diverged from others,&#8221; writes Murray. &#8220;We could have adjusted the weighting to comport with other polls or we could have simply sat on the numbers, but neither of those actions meet our standards for transparency and disclosure.&#8221;
The poll, which was released on Monday, showed Warren and Sanders polling at 20% and Biden polling at 19%.
Shortly after the poll was released, an official for the Biden campaign told the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-campaign-dismisses-poll-showing-13-point-drop-in-support">Washington Examiner</a> that the poll shouldn&#8217;t be taken seriously because it was &#8220;an outlier.&#8221; John Anzalone, a pollster for the Biden campaign, told <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2020-daily-trail-markers-bidens-team-disputes-poll-showing-him-behind/">CBS News</a> that &#8220;if you&#8217;ve been a pollster for a long time, you can smell funky data.&#8221;
The Biden campaign has seen its initial response to the polls justified by two more polls released on Wednesday. One poll, conducted by <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3638">Quinnipiac University,</a> shows Biden registering at 32% among Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters. Another poll, conducted by <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/08/28/2020-biden-leads-democrats-voters-dread-election/2120726001/">USA Today and Suffolk University</a>, reaffirmed Biden’s 32% front-running status.
An <a href="https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/b17i8aeg5p/econTabReport.pdf">Economist-YouGov</a> poll also released Wednesday shows Biden leading the Democratic primary field with 24% support among people who say they will vote in a 2020 Democratic primary or caucus. Also notable, all three polls released on Wednesday show Warren leading Sanders.
The latest round of polls come as Wednesday&#8217;s midnight-deadline to qualify for the third Democratic primary debate looms. Currently, ten candidates have qualified, meaning the debate will be limited to a single night, according to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democratic-debate-appears-set-10-candidates-after-tom-steyer-fails-n1047131">CBS News</a>.
Candidate Tom Steyer, who has been a mega-donor for the Democratic Party in the past, barely failed to qualify, reports the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/us/politics/democratic-polls-quinnipiac-suffolk.html">New York Times</a>. Steyer entered the primary in July <a href="http://nypost.com/2019/08/28/billionaire-tom-steyer-could-split-the-next-democratic-debate-into-two-nights/">after</a> the first Democratic debate had already taken place.
The next Democratic primary debate will be held on September 12 in Houston, Texas.

Joe Biden

Pollster: Don’t Pay Too Much Attention To Our Big Democratic Primary Poll

Poll

Presidential candidate Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) scolded the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Friday for impeding the primary process in a way that prevents a party-wide conversation on issues.
“I am proud to be a Democrat and I stand here grateful for the work that you do, day in and day out, to strengthen our party,” Bennet told a crowd at the DNC’s annual summer meeting. “I’m ready to lead our party and our country to victory next November.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">I&#8217;m spending my time focused on what matters most: talking to voters &amp; beating Donald Trump. <a href="https://t.co/Fz7ziw9gj7">pic.twitter.com/Fz7ziw9gj7</a>
— Michael Bennet (@MichaelBennet) <a href="https://twitter.com/MichaelBennet/status/1164987263417298946?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 23, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
“But I’ve got to be honest — and I say it with love – the DNC process is stifling debate at a time when we need it the most,” he continued. “We’re rewarding celebrity candidates with millions of Twitter followers, billionaires who buy their way onto the debate stage, and candidates who have been running for president for years.&#8221;
Bennet argued that the DNC’s determined method of choosing a presidential nominee is skewed in favor of popularity over substance.
“It forces campaigns to fork over millions of dollars to Facebook,” Bennet said, “the same platform that let the Russians interfere in 2016, instead of harnessing the resources to talk to voters.”
<div class="embed video fluid-video"></div>
“[Washington Governor] Jay Inslee dropped out of this race, not just because he didn’t qualify for the third debate, but because he didn’t qualify for the climate change town hall,” he continued. “Think about that for a moment — the climate change candidate didn’t qualify for the climate change town hall.”
Accordingly, Inslee announced on Wednesday that he was officially ending his presidential campaign after struggling to meet the threshold for a series of upcoming debates. The DNC has been facing backlash for imposing such a high barrier to entry to appear on the stage.
In order to qualify for the Democratic primary debate stage, presidential candidates must raise campaign donations from no less than 130,000 individual donors and receive at least 2% of the vote in 4 or more polls that have been pre-approved by the DNC.
Bennet’s remarks come the same day that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s (D-HI) campaign <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/50974/tulsis-2020-campaign-urges-dnc-adjust-debate-molly-prince">slammed the DNC</a> for instituting criteria that are unfairly harmful to her presidential run and abdicating its responsibility to “facilitate more conversations.” The campaign further urged the party to “hold true to their promise and make adjustments to the process now to ensure transparency and fairness.”
“Crucial decisions on debate qualifications that impact the right of the American people to have the opportunity to participate fully in the Democratic process should not be made in secret by party bosses,” the Gabbard campaign wrote in a press release. “For the same of democracy, these decisions must be made openly with clear and consistent standards and a sufficient window of opportunity for candidates to demonstrate genuine grassroots momentum and enthusiasm.”
“If we wanted to be the party that excluded people, we would be Republicans,” Bennet said. “These rules have created exactly the wrong outcomes, and they will not help us beat [President] Donald Trump.”
“I’m not going to be on the debate stage next month, but I am going to be out in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina and Nevada building a constituency for change this country needs,” he added.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez Interview

WATCH: 2020 Democrat Hits DNC For ‘Stifling Debate’ And ‘Rewarding Celebrity Candidates’

The presidential campaign for Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) urged the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Friday to reconsider the criteria to qualify for the upcoming 2020 Democratic primary debates.
In order to nab a podium on the next debate stage, presidential candidates must raise campaign donations from no less than 130,000 individual donors and receive at least 2% of the vote in four or more polls that have been pre-approved by the DNC.
While Gabbard has already met the fundraising threshold, she still needs two more qualifying polls before she will receive an invitation onto the debate stage. Gabbard&#8217;s campaign, however, took issue with which polls the DNC deemed certifiable and called on the organization to revise the list of which polls would be considered.
&#8220;The DNC set a threshold that candidates must meet at 2% in four DNC-certified polls in order to qualify for the third and fourth Democratic primary debates,&#8221; the campaign <a href="https://www.tulsi2020.com/press/2019-08-23-tulsi-gabbards-campaign-calls-dnc-ensure-transparency-debate-requirements#gs.ycrbqi">wrote in a statement</a>. &#8220;However, the DNC has not released their criteria for selecting the 16 polling organizations they deem &#8216;certifiable.'&#8221;
&#8220;Rep. Gabbard has exceeded 2% support in 26 national and early state polls, but only two of them are on the DNC&#8217;s &#8216;certified&#8217; list,&#8221; the campaign continued. &#8220;Many of the uncertified polls, including those conducted by highly reputable organizations such as The Economist and the Boston Globe, are ranked by Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight as more accurate than some DNC &#8216;certified&#8217; polls.&#8221;
The campaign further pointed to a RealClearPolitics article titled &#8220;<a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/21/gabbard_victimized_by_dncs_dubious_debate_criteria_141055.html">Gabbard Victimized by DNC’s Dubious Debate Criteria</a>.&#8221; In it, author Michael Tracey contends that the Hawaii congresswoman is &#8220;on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic presidential debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd.&#8221;
&#8220;The Democratic National Committee has the responsibility to facilitate more conversations between the future leaders of this country, not less,&#8221; the campaign said. &#8220;Notably, there have been only four qualifying polls released after the second Democratic primary debate compared with fourteen qualifying polls released in the month after the first Democratic primary debate.&#8221;
Gabbard is currently on the tail end of a two-week leave of absence from her presidential campaign, while she <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/50532/tulsi-gabbard-pausing-her-presidential-campaign-molly-prince">reports for active duty</a> in Indonesia with the Hawaiian Army National Guard. She will be returning to the campaign trail on August 25, just three days before the deadline to qualify for the next Democratic primary debate.
&#8220;The Gabbard campaign is calling on the DNC to hold true to their promise and make adjustments to the process now to ensure transparency and fairness,&#8221; the campaign said. &#8220;Crucial decisions on debate qualifications that impact the right of the American people to have the opportunity to participate fully in the Democratic process should not be made in secret by party bosses.&#8221;
&#8220;For the sake of democracy, those decisions must be made openly, with clear and consistent standards and a sufficient window of opportunity for the candidates to demonstrate genuine grassroots momentum and enthusiasm,&#8221; the campaign added.

Tulsi’s 2020 Campaign Urges DNC To Adjust Debate Criteria As She Sits Just Shy Of Qualifying

The Republican National Committee (RNC) raked in more than $20 million during the month of July, nearly tripling what the Democratic National Committee (DNC) raised, according the Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.
The RNC <a href="https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00003418/1349156/">raised $20.8 million </a>last month, bringing the party’s total fundraising haul to $177.9 million for the election cycle. Comparatively, the DNC <a href="https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00010603/1349173/">raised $7.7 million</a> over the same period, totaling $51.6 to date.
“Last month’s fundraising haul again smashed records, and we continue to directly invest this money into growing our top-notch data-driven infrastructure, recruiting and training thousands of new volunteers, and registering voters across the country,” said RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. “Our fundraising success is further evidence that the American people like the pro-growth agenda and economic record that the Trump Administration and Republicans will continue to deliver, and this puts us in a strong position to secure more Republican victories in 2020.”
For the second month in a row, the RNC’s fundraising haul surpassed its previous record for the most raised during a non-election year. The previous record for an off-year fundraising was achieved in July 2017, when the RNC raised $10.6 million, nearly half of the amount raised last month.
“We also had our largest online fundraising ever,” Steve Guest, the RNC’s Rapid Response Director told The Daily Wire. He further noted that online fundraising was 1,100% more than in July 2016 and 1,900% more than July 2015.
Guest also pointed to DNC Chairman Tom Perez’s scheduled fundraising trips to Mexico as sign of the party’s “struggle to fundraise.”
“The DNC’s financial situation is in such a mess, they’re now relying on Hillary Clinton and Mexico to hold their fundraisers,” Guest continued.
Accordingly, Perez will be traveling to Mexico City in September where he will be hosting a series of large donor events for the American expatriate community, according to a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-20/dnc-chief-plans-to-raise-money-from-americans-in-mexico-city">Bloomberg News</a> report published Tuesday.
Attendees will be required to present proof of United States citizenship or permanent residency, and will range from a DNC-sponsored happy hour with tickets starting at $25 to a dinner hitting as much as $15,000 per ticket.
The same day that a DNC spokesperson confirmed Perez’s plans to travel across the border, news surfaced that former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would be hosting a dinner to fundraising for the party, with tickets costing as much as $50,000 per person.
“With our fundraising advantage, we’re able to continue to invest in our permanent data-driven ground game,” Guest said. “So far, we have staff in 16 key target states across the country, including regional political directors, regional data directors, and state directors.”
“We’re also able to recruit and train thousands of volunteers through regular ‘National Weeks of Training’ as well as target vulnerable Democrats in key districts with massive ad buys,” he continued. “These are necessary investments in election winning tools that the broke DNC could only dream of making.”
A spokeswoman for the DNC did not return The Daily Wire’s request for comment.

President And Mrs. Trump Host Wounded Warrior Project Soldier Ride

RNC Massively Out-Raises The DNC In July

Ronna Romney McDaniel

On Tuesday, a Bill Clinton-appointed U.S. district judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee against the Trump campaign for its alleged role in the hacking and dissemination of internal Democratic Party emails during the 2016 presidential race. In his <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.492363/gov.uscourts.nysd.492363.266.0.pdf">opinion</a> issued Tuesday, Judge John Koeltl torches the key premises of the DNC&#8217;s racketeering suit, including the Trump campaign&#8217;s role in the hacking of the emails and the very notion that disseminating information &#8220;plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers&#8221; is legally actionable.
The DNC&#8217;s lawsuit was filed against Donald Trump, his campaign officials and &#8220;defendants&#8221; &#8212; including Donald Trump Jr, Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, George Papadopoulos, Richard Gates and Roger Stone &#8212; WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, the Russian Federation, and various Russian individuals. The DNC&#8217;s allegation: that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia and WikiLeaks to release Democratic Party officials&#8217; emails in order to benefit then-candidate Trump.
But, as Koeltl details in his 80+ page opinion, neither the evidence nor the law backs up the DNC&#8217;s complaint. The lawsuit itself alleged that the Russian Federation alone actually hacked the DNC&#8217;s servers and gained access to the emails, not the Trump campaign. &#8220;The primary wrongdoer in this alleged criminal activity is undoubtedly the Russian Federation,&#8221; Koeltl writes, but, he continues, &#8220;under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act &#8230; , the Russian Federation cannot be sued&#8221; in U.S. courts.
Meanwhile, WikiLeaks, not the Trump campaign, actually published the documents, but, Koeltl maintains, Assange&#8217;s controversial organization cannot be sued because its actions fall under constitutional protections for the release of information that serves the public interest. &#8220;The DNC seeks to hold the second-level participants in this alleged activity [the Trump campaign, campaign defendants and WikiLeaks] liable for dissemination of stolen materials,&#8221; Koeltl writes. &#8220;But &#8230; the First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest[.]&#8221;
Koeltl went further: Even if the Trump campaign itself had obtained and published the documents, it too would have been protected under the First Amendment because the documents &#8220;allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election,&#8221; and thus constitute information &#8220;entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.&#8221;
&#8220;Even if the documents had been provided directly to the Campaign [and] the Campaign defendants &#8230; they could have published the documents themselves without liability because they did not participate in the theft and the documents are of public concern,&#8221; he wrote in summary (h/t <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/30/dnc-lawsuit-trump-campaign-russia-email-hack-1441166">Politico</a>). &#8220;The DNC cannot hold these defendants liable for aiding and abetting publication when they would have been entitled to publish the stolen documents themselves without liability.&#8221;
Both the DNC and Trump have responded to the ruling. In a statement reported by Politico, the DNC decried the Clinton-appointed judge&#8217;s dismissal of the suit, saying his opinion &#8220;raises serious concerns about our protections from foreign election interference and the theft of private property to advance the interests of our enemies.&#8221;
In a pair of tweets Tuesday night, Trump celebrated &#8220;yet another total &amp; complete vindication &amp; exoneration.&#8221;
&#8220;Wow! A federal Judge in the Southern District of N.Y. completely dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Democratic National Committee against our historic 2016 campaign for President,&#8221; Trump wrote. &#8220;The Judge said the DNC case was &#8216;entirely divorced&#8217; from the facts, yet another total &amp; complete vindication &amp; exoneration from the Russian, WikiLeaks and every other form of HOAX perpetrated by the DNC, Radical Democrats and others. This is really big &#8216;stuff&#8217; especially coming from a highly respected judge who was appointed by President Clinton. The Witch Hunt Ends!&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
&#8230;.vindication &amp; exoneration from the Russian, WikiLeaks and every other form of HOAX perpetrated by the DNC, Radical Democrats and others. This is really big &#8220;stuff&#8221; especially coming from a highly respected judge who was appointed by President Clinton. The Witch Hunt Ends!
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1156345335087804422?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 30, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/50046/update-diversity-chaos-takes-down-war-vet-james-barrett">UPDATE: &#8216;Diversity&#8217; &#8216;Chaos&#8217; Takes Down War Vet Democratic Campaign Arm Director</a>

President Trump Returns To The White House

Clinton-Appointed Judge Dumps DNC’s Lawsuit Against Trump Campaign; Trump Responds

Russia

It was a Friday, April 20, 2018. News <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/29699/sore-losers-hillarys-campaign-sues-trump-campaign-ryan-saavedra">broke</a> that the Democratic National Committee had filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit over their 2016 election loss. The organization was attempting to sue President Donald Trump&#8217;s 2016 campaign, the Russian government, Wikileaks, and a host of other people for allegedly stealing the election and hacking DNC emails.
Later that night, even CNN <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/29711/watch-cnn-mocks-dnc-lawsuit-100-stunt-its-just-way-ryan-saavedra">mocked the lawsuit</a>, with host Brooke Baldwin asking the network&#8217;s chief political analyst, Gloria Borger, &#8220;How much of this do you think is just a stunt versus a pretty smart ploy for the court of public opinion?&#8221; Borger replied, &#8220;A 100 percent stunt, 100 percent. They want to get in the act, obviously. They want to keep the story moving. This is nothing new.&#8221;
Not much has been reported on the case since then, but a look at the court files reveals steady filings over the past year. On Tuesday, the Trump campaign filed a motion for sanctions, insisting the DNC violated &#8220;its certification that all of its &#8216;factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.&#8217;&#8221;
The Trump campaign argues that the DNC&#8217;s claims were &#8220;definitively refuted&#8221; by Special Counsel Robert Mueller&#8217;s final report on his investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the election. The campaign lists two examples of specific claims in the DNC lawsuit that were refuted by the Mueller report.
For example, the DNC claimed in their lawsuit that Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos told multiple people on the campaign what Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud had told him &#8212; &#8220;that the Russians had &#8216;thousands of emails&#8217; that could harm Hillary Clinton&#8217;s presidential campaign.&#8221; In the end, the Mueller report stated that neither Papadopoulos, nor anyone who interacted with him on the campaign, could remember such information being shared. But here&#8217;s the kicker, from the Mueller report: &#8220;No documentary evidence, and nothing in the email accounts or other communications facilities reviewed by the Office, shows that Papadopoulos shared this information with the Campaign.&#8221; Yet the DNC claimed it had, or would have, such evidence of Papadopoulos&#8217; interactions.
In another example, the DNC lawsuit claimed the infamous Trump Tower meeting resulted in Trump campaign officials accepting help from the Russians (who were actually working with Democrat opposition research firm Fusion GPS). The lawsuit claimed that Russian government officials &#8220;used the meeting to tell members of the Trump Campaign about the documents it had stolen from the DNC, including trade secrets&#8221; and &#8220;members of the Campaign blessed a plan in which Russia would continue stealing similar documents and disseminate the documents it already had to the public.&#8221;
Again, the Mueller report found this to be untrue. The report found that the meeting lasted about 20 minutes and involved discussions of alleged &#8220;funds derived from illegal activities in Russia [that] were provided to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats,&#8221; and &#8220;a critique of the origins of&#8221; the Magnitsky Act, which &#8220;imposed financial and travel sanctions on Russian officials and that resulted in a retaliatory ban on adoptions of Russian children.&#8221; Further, the Mueller report didn&#8217;t find evidence the meeting ever included a discussion of Clinton&#8217;s hacked emails or stolen DNC documents.
As the Trump campaign&#8217;s motion stated, &#8220;the foregoing are only examples; the Report renders many other allegations in the Second Amended Complaint untenable.&#8221;
The Trump campaign is demanding sanctions be imposed against the DNC, including a dismissal of their complaint against the campaign with prejudice, reimbursing the campaign&#8217;s legal fees, and &#8220;any additional sanctions that the Court deems just and proper.&#8221;
<a href="https://twitter.com/johnwhuber/status/1136055864715022336?s=12">H/t @JohnWHuber</a>

Remember The DNC’s Lawsuit Over Russian Collusion? Trump Campaign Just Used The MUELLER REPORT To Demand They Retract It.

It seems &#8220;Beto 2.0&#8221; won&#8217;t only be a full reconfiguration of Beto O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s primary operation, but also an effort to bypass the traditional method of earning delegates by courting the Democratic party&#8217;s superdelegates.
<a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/13/beto-orourkes-texas-delegate-fight-shapes-hard-fought-democratic-race-president">Dallas News reports</a> that Beto O&#8217;Rourke has hired former president Barack Obama&#8217;s &#8220;delegate guru,&#8221; Jeff Berman, as part of his complete campaign overhaul, signaling that his plan may be less to win in key early primary states, and more to win by rubbing elbows with the Democrats&#8217; top dignitaries and donors, securing support outside of the traditional primary system in an effort to surreptitiously secure the nomination.
&#8220;Berman,&#8221; Dallas News reports, &#8220;was the MVP (most valuable politico) in Obama&#8217;s 2008 campaign, helping the star candidate gobble up delegates and hold off Hillary Clinton, who didn&#8217;t grasp the math until it was too late.&#8221;
Hillary Clinton learned from that mistake, snapping up Berman early in her 2016 campaign so that she could secure the party&#8217;s superdelegates before ever hitting the primary trail in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, making it next to impossible for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to come close to the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination before the race even began.
It&#8217;s a smart move for Beto, whose campaign has been failing almost since the day after he announced his run for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. Although he picked up a base of support early, earning him enough in donations to push him onto the primary debate stage, since April, O&#8217;Rourke has tanked in polls, earning less than 3% support in any early state and hovering around 1% support nationally &#8212; some 40% behind the leader, former Vice President Joe Biden.
With more than 20 candidates now in the race and few opportunities to cull the herd before January of 2020, every candidate &#8212; even Biden and Sanders &#8212; will be making a play for every available delegate. That makes courting superdelegates, who are won on an individual basis and not awarded in any primary or caucus, a key part of securing the Democratic party&#8217;s nomination.
With no chance of picking up many delegates the traditional way, Beto is smart to take a more creative approach, but it&#8217;s very possible it&#8217;s just too little too late for the former Texas Senate candidate.
For starters, it didn&#8217;t take much for Berman to convince superdelegates to support either Obama against Clinton or Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The field, in both cases, was small, and both were standout candidates. In Clinton&#8217;s case, she was also viewed as the candidate &#8220;owed&#8221; the nomination, so superdelegates weren&#8217;t particularly hard to convince. In Obama&#8217;s case, the momentum was behind him, and while Berman was a key part of his operation, he wasn&#8217;t the only factor in earning Obama the nod.
The hill is less surmountable for O&#8217;Rourke. He&#8217;s coming from far behind and is no longer viewed as a particularly exciting or breakout candidate. That honor was stolen from him by South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who is filling the &#8220;fourth place&#8221; slot O&#8217;Rourke hoped to occupy. Although Buttigieg is facing problems of his own &#8212; declining interest and a lack of platform &#8212; he&#8217;s still viewed favorably among media and Democratic standard bearers.
Beto also isn&#8217;t superdelegate material. After Bernie Sanders lost the 2016 nomination, progressives in the Democratic National Committee tried desperately to reduce the power of superdelegates, most of whom are more traditional, entrenched, &#8220;establishment&#8221; Democrats who lean more toward the center than the 2020 field. O&#8217;Rourke began his campaign as a self-described &#8220;moderate&#8221; but has moved further left as desperation has set in. The better choice for superdelegates is, easily, Joe Biden.

Beto O&#8217;Rourke Hires Obama Campaign Guru To Help Him Bypass The Primaries

Bernie Sanders

Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Tom Perez told CNN&#8217;s Alisyn Camerota on Wednesday that Republicans should not use any ill-gotten information against the Democrats in the upcoming elections, but, when pressed, did not seem to think that Democrats should be held to the same standard.
&#8220;And what we saw in the 2016 election, a foreign adversary &#8212; and not just any foreign adversary, our &#8212; our most &#8212; our fiercest foreign adversary attempted to interfere with our election to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton,&#8221; Perez <a href="http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1904/25/nday.02.html">said</a>. &#8220;And what we said in 2016, and my predecessor asked her counterpart at the RNC back then to do the same thing, don&#8217;t use stolen information. That&#8217;s what we&#8217;re saying again.&#8221;
&#8220;It sounds like they&#8217;re saying that,&#8221; Camerota responded. &#8220;I mean when they say it&#8217;s an affront to all of us, any breach of political organizations, and we come together to prevent it, it sounds like they&#8217;re saying that.&#8221;
&#8220;We are at war right now. It is a cyber war. Unfortunately, because our commander in chief is compromised, the federal government is asleep at the switch,&#8221; Perez claimed without evidence. &#8220;And that is why the DNC and others in the Democratic Party ecosystem are working tirelessly to make sure that we are protecting our data, making sure &#8212; we&#8217;re working with every campaign to provide cybersecurity training because we can&#8217;t expect help from the &#8212; from this administration.&#8221;
&#8220;But what if you get something really juicy, say President Trump&#8217;s taxes, then should one of the Democratic candidate be able to air those?&#8221; Camerota asked.
&#8220;Well, that&#8217;s going to be a product of a subpoena process where we are &#8212;&#8221; Perez responded.
&#8220;Maybe. I mean maybe it&#8217;s going to be leaked,&#8221; Camerota responded. &#8220;What if that&#8217;s leaked to you? Are you saying that the Democrats shouldn&#8217;t use that?&#8221;
&#8220;Well, again, I think we are entitled to that,&#8221; Perez said, which contradicted his earlier point about not using ill-gotten information for political gain. &#8220;If you look at the law that Chairman Neal of the House Ways and Means Committee is using, it&#8217;s a very &#8212; it&#8217;s very clear. It&#8217;s not &#8212; it doesn&#8217;t say you&#8217;re entitled to taxes unless it&#8217;s the taxes of the president of the United States. So firmly believe that we will get access to those.&#8221;
&#8220;Right. I just mean &#8212; I just mean the tactics,&#8221; Camerota responded. I just mean that &#8212; you&#8217;re sticking with this, even if you get juicy oppo research of some kind about President Trump through ill-gotten tactics somehow, you are sticking with this position?&#8221;
Perez responded by refusing to answer the follow-up question from Camerota and instead deflected to talking about the 2016 election.
&#8220;Well, here&#8217;s what I&#8217;m sticking with. And this isn&#8217;t about Right versus Left. This is about right versus wrong,&#8221; Perez responded. &#8220;A foreign adversary, Russia, they hacked the DNC, they hacked others. They did so with the intent to interfere with our presidential election. And what we said in that letter is, when we have such activity, if someone calls you and tells you, I&#8217;m going to rob a bank, your response should be, I&#8217;m going to call the authorities. When the Russians called Donald Trump and said, I got dirt on Hillary Clinton, they should have called the authorities. Instead, they said, tell us what you got. That&#8217;s not right.&#8221;
WATCH:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
DNC chair Tom Perez demands the GOP doesn&#8217;t use ill-gotten info against Democrats
CNN&#8217;s Alisyn Camerota asks him if Dems will weaponize Trump&#8217;s tax returns if they&#8217;re *leaked*
Perez: &#8220;Well, again, we are entitled to that&#8230;&#8221;
Camerota pressed him again and he dodges answering <a href="https://t.co/zq6yuzHv1g">pic.twitter.com/zq6yuzHv1g</a>
&#8212; Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1121842824054362112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>

DNC Chair Tom Perez: GOP Shouldn’t Use Ill-Gotten Info, But We Can

Tom Perez

Trump Administration

Michael Knowles discusses why &#8220;BS&#8221; has become so popular among 2020 Democratic Party candidates on Tuesday&#8217;s episode of &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show.&#8221; Transcript and video below.
There&#8217;s this book that came out about twenty years ago &#8220;On BS&#8221; by Harry G Frankfort. What he pointed out is that one of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much BS. He says, &#8220;everyone knows this, each of us contributes his share.&#8221; You see it all around you. Now perhaps the reason for that is not that people are BSing more than they used to, but that we&#8217;re communicating so much more than we used to. Now, obviously you&#8217;re watching this on the internet, or you&#8217;re listening to it in your car, or on your phone or wherever. Everybody is talking to everybody.
This is a product of the internet age. Maybe the percentage of BS remains the same, even though the volume has greatly increased. As Harry Frankfort points out, &#8220;in consequence, we have no clear understanding of what BS is. Why there is so much of it. Or what function it serves. And we lack a conscientiously developed appreciation of what it means to us. In other words, we have no theory.&#8221;
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="409" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/A0fbUUtTdKc" width="728"></iframe></div>
Coincidentally, I was watching all these presidential candidates coming out, and not only are they BSing, they&#8217;re even using the word BS quite a lot.
According to this book, BS &#8220;is not fundamentally that the speaker regards his statements as false,&#8221; so it&#8217;s not that BS is just when you intentionally lie and it&#8217;s just obvious lies. That&#8217;s not really what defines BS. What defines BS instead is that &#8220;the BSer intends the BS statements to convey a certain impression of himself.&#8221;
So, when you BS, it&#8217;s not that you&#8217;re intentionally lying, or that you&#8217;re telling the truth. It&#8217;s actually that you don&#8217;t really have any regard for what you&#8217;re saying at all. You don&#8217;t have any regard for the truth that you&#8217;re saying, and you don&#8217;t have any regard for the object you&#8217;re saying. All that you&#8217;re really concerned with is how you are being perceived. What impression you are giving of yourself.
So, when guys like Julian Castro or Eric Swalwell, when they even use the word BS, they are just trying to give an impression of themselves. &#8220;I&#8217;m going to talk tough. I&#8217;m going to speak casually. Yeah, I can use profanity. But it&#8217;s not actually conveying an idea or an idea about which they really care.&#8221; This is obviously what&#8217;s going on in the 2020 Democrat primary.
<a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963?mt=2">Listen to &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show&#8221; on iTunes.</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/show/michael-knowles-show">Watch &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show&#8221; on-demand.</a>

KNOWLES: Why Democrats Spew BS

Conservatism

Eric Swalwell

Julian Castro

Michael Knowles

The campaign consultants behind Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s (D-NY) meteoric rise to national prominence want to extend their &#8220;progressive primary&#8221; crusade to every Democratic House race in the country, but the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is standing in their way.
But Justice Democrats, the controversial operation behind Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s win &#8212; the same group that has now been hit with <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-de-listed-from-board-of-justice-democrats-after-controversy">several FEC complaints over how it mixed its money</a> with Cortez&#8217;s campaign coffers &#8212; is fighting back and threatening to declare open war within the Democratic party if they aren&#8217;t allowed to take on existing moderate candidates.
This week, <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/campaign-consultants-frozen-out-of-dccc-money-create-the-blacklist">Roll Call reports</a>, the DCCC voted to &#8220;freeze out&#8221; Justice Democrats from getting lucrative contracts with Democratic House contenders across the country. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the D.C. based outlet says, has a &#8220;newly stated policy that it will not grant contracts to pollsters, strategists and communications specialists working with primary challengers.&#8221;
&#8220;Still, the new policy moves millions of expenditures by the DCCC off the table for firms that work with candidates who challenge Democratic incumbents,&#8221; Roll Call adds.
Justice Democrats exists largely to primary moderate and, in many cases, older Democrats who they feel are standing in the way of real progressive progress. Initially, before Ocasio-Cortez won office, they seemed like an outlier company, standing behind a number of campaigns that all, inevitably, lost. But with Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s success, the Justice Democrats are in demand (aside from their teeny-tiny issues with the Federal Election Commission, of course).
In response, the Justice Democrats have <a href="https://dcccblacklist.com/">created the &#8220;DCCC Blacklist</a>,&#8221; a website that chronicles all of the progressive-owned &#8220;pollsters, strategists and communications specialists&#8221; as well as &#8220;political vendors, political action committees, and advocacy groups&#8221; who are willing to provide their services to specifically progressive candidates, including those looking to launch primary challenges to other Democrats.
The DCCC Blacklist is apparently bankrolled by the Indivisible Project, the most recent, &#8220;resistance&#8221;-based spinoff of MoveOn.org, financed almost exclusively by progressive billionaire George Soros.
Indivisible&#8217;s political director, Maria Urbina made the official announcement for the DCCC Blacklist.
&#8220;We reject the DCCC&#8217;s attempt to hoard power, which will only serve to keep that talent pool &#8212; and Congress itself &#8212; disproportionately white and male,&#8221;she told media in a statement. &#8220;Incumbents who engage fully with their constituents shouldn&#8217;t fear primaries and shouldn&#8217;t rely on the national institutions like the DCCC to suppress challenges before voters ever have a say.&#8221;
If all this seems to demonstrate that the coalition between leftist and moderate Democrats is cracking at the seams, that&#8217;s because it is. Aside from the obvious &#8212; that any Democrat engaged in a House or Senate race in 2020 needs to watch their back, lest they be ousted in a primary by a progressive candidate &#8212; it&#8217;s clear Soros and other major leftist donors are not waiting around for the Democratic establishment to welcome far-left progressive with open arms.
They&#8217;re simply going to force recognition of progressive candidates themselves and bankroll progressive campaigns without regard for traditional Democratic institutions.
There is one flaw in the DCCC Blacklist, and that is constituents. Although Ocasio-Cortez is much beloved by the national far-left, she <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/27/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-rise-leaves-14th-congres/">isn&#8217;t beloved at home in her own district</a> where her constituents are convinced they&#8217;ve been left behind by a Representative seeking a national &#8212; not a local &#8212; stage.

Menu