On Tuesday, the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-28/trump-team-wraps-impeachment-defense-with-an-elephant-in-the-senate-john-bolton">LA Times</a> circulated a story regarding Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) leaning toward acquitting President Donald Trump, who was impeachment in the House last month.
&#8220;Just after President Trump’s defense lawyers ended arguments in their Senate trial Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California became the first Democrat to suggest that she could vote to acquit him, despite serious concerns about his character,&#8221; the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-28/trump-team-wraps-impeachment-defense-with-an-elephant-in-the-senate-john-bolton">LA Times</a> report stated.
“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein was quoted telling reporters on Tuesday, the paper reported. “That was my view and it still is my view.”
“What changed my opinion as this went on [is a realization that] impeachment isn’t about one offense. It’s really about the character and ability and physical and mental fitness of the individual to serve the people, not themselves,&#8221; she added.
“We’re not finished,&#8221; the Democrat told reporters when asked if she&#8217;d acquit President Trump.
“There is substantial weight to this and the question is: Is it enough to cast this vote?&#8221; Feinstein said of impeachment, adding that she&#8217;s &#8220;received roughly 125,000 letters in support of the impeachment last week, and about 30,000 against it,&#8221; the LA Times noted.
After the report broke and began trending on Twitter, Feinstein took to Twitter to clarify her remarks, backing off any possibility of Trump&#8217;s acquittal.
&#8220;The LA Times misunderstood what I said today,&#8221; she posted. &#8220;Before the trial I said I&#8217;d keep an open mind. Now that both sides made their cases, it’s clear the president’s actions were wrong. He withheld vital foreign assistance for personal political gain. That can’t be allowed to stand.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The LA Times misunderstood what I said today. Before the trial I said I&#39;d keep an open mind. Now that both sides made their cases, it’s clear the president’s actions were wrong. He withheld vital foreign assistance for personal political gain. That can’t be allowed to stand.
&mdash; Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein/status/1222286544733704193?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 28, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In December, the House voted to impeach President Trump on two articles: &#8220;abuse of power&#8221; and &#8220;obstruction of Congress.&#8221; Not a single Republican voted in favor of impeachment, while multiple Democrats refused a &#8220;yes&#8221; vote. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-multiple-democrats-vote-against-impeachment-only-democrats-vote-for-it">The Daily Wire</a> reported:
<blockquote>On the first article of impeachment, “abuse of power,” Democrats voted 228–2, Republicans voted 0–195, and the one independent member of Congress voted for impeachment.
The final vote on the first article of impeachment was 230–197–1.
The vote on the second article of impeachment, “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-the-new-york-post-obstruction-of-congress-is-an-utterly-ridiculous-impeachment-charge">obstruction of Congress</a>,” concluded with even more Democrats defecting from their party and voting against impeachment.
The final vote on the second article of impeachment is Democrats voted 228–3, Republicans voted 0–195, and the one independent member of Congress voted for impeachment.</blockquote>
In the Senate, there is less uniformity among Republicans. As noted by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mitt-romney-makes-strong-push-on-impeachment-witnesses-behind-closed-doors-colleagues-push-back">The Daily Wire</a> on Tuesday, Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) &#8220;has embraced the role of leader of the Senate resistance to the party line on impeachment witnesses.&#8221;
“The article in the New York Times I think made it pretty clear that [Bolton] has some information that may be relevant,” Romney said Monday, reported Politico. “And I’d like to hear relevant information before I made a final decision.”
The senator also reportedly “made a strong pitch” for calling additional witnesses during a private lunch with fellow Senate Republicans, Politico sources said.

Senator Dianne Feinstein

BREAKING: Dianne Feinstein Backpedals: I Was ‘Misunderstood’ Over Trump Acquittal Comments

Dianne Feinstein

Impeachment

Fissures have erupted between the House and Senate Democrats, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) continues to delay sending articles of impeachment to the upper chamber of Congress in an effort to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) into revealing the trial details, such as witnesses called and topics discussed.
According to Laura Litvan of Bloomberg News, none other than Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has called upon Nancy Pelosi to send over the articles, arguing that delay will do no good.
&#8220;If we&#8217;re going to do it, she should send them over,&#8221; Feinstein said, as reported by Litvan. &#8220;I don&#8217;t see what good delay does.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Dianne Feinstein says it’s time for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to send the impeachment articles to the Senate.
“If we’re going to do it, she should send them over,” the California Democrat said. “I don’t see what good delay does.”
&mdash; Laura Litvan (@LauraLitvan) <a href="https://twitter.com/LauraLitvan/status/1214954518900854788?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) also said, “Now that we have John Bolton saying he wants to testify, she’s accomplished something.”
Working in tandem with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Pelosi has been withholding two articles of impeachment from proceeding to a Senate trial in an effort to negotiate more favorable terms with McConnell.
“It is important that he immediately publish this resolution, so that, as I have said before, we can see the arena in which we will be participating, appoint managers and transmit the articles to the Senate,” Pelosi wrote in a note on Wednesday.
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-live-updates/2020/01/07/e0f49d52-313b-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html">The Washington Post</a> also reported that Pelosi &#8220;told Democrats in a closed-door meeting Tuesday that she will not send articles of impeachment to the Senate until she learns more about how the chamber would conduct a potential trial, according to three people present for her remarks who were not authorized to comment publicly.”
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-mcconnell-has-the-votes-to-block-witnesses-in-senate-impeachment-trial">reported</a> by The Daily Wire&#8217;s Emily Zanotti, Mitch McConnell announced on Tuesday that he has whipped up the votes to call whatever witnesses he likes, effectively blocking any witnesses the Democrats might wish.
<blockquote>The Democrats’ effort to forestall the Senate half of the impeachment process may have backfired, according to reports from outlets in Washington, D.C. With the extra time, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has reportedly whipped enough votes to block Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) bid to force witness testimony in the Senate impeachment trial.
<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477045-mcconnell-has-the-votes-to-block-democrats-witness-demands-in-trump">The Hill reports Tuesday</a> that McConnell is confident that he has at least 51 votes — a simple majority — against allowing witnesses to give testimony in front of the Senate, blocking a Democratic effort to plug holes in their case for impeaching President Donald Trump, something Democrats in the House had been pushing for with the help of Senate Democratic leadership.
It seems the House Democrats’ decision to withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate until McConnell agreed to a trial that involves witnesses worked against them, giving McConnell time to convince even moderate Republicans that a Senate trial should operate according to the rules crafted by Schumer and others back in 1998, when then-President Bill Clinton was on trial.</blockquote>
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Nancy Pelosi <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-08/pelosi-still-holding-on-to-trump-charges-impeachment-update?srnd=politics-vp&amp;sref=tmIR2vcd">said</a> the House will continue to wait and see what the terms are in order to &#8220;see the arena&#8221; in which they will be competing.
“We are waiting to see what the terms are,” Pelosi said. “How we choose our managers depends on what the arena is that we are going into. We can’t do it until we see the arena they’re going into.&#8221;
Speaking on the Senate floor, Mitch McConnell blasted House Democrats for “dragging their heels and refusing to proceed to a Senate trial.&#8221;
“There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedures,” McConnell said. “We will not cede our authority. The Senate is not a creature of the House.”

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Committee

Sen. Dianne Feinstein Tells Pelosi To Send Over Impeachment Articles: ‘I Don’t See What Good Delay Does’

Democratic Party

Nancy Pelosi

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

On Monday, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) published an <a href="https://time.com/5606786/senate-republicans-act-on-gun-safety-reforms/?xid=tcoshare">anti-gun op-ed</a> in TIME in which they argued, &#8220;Guns like the AR-15 aren&#8217;t used for hunting and they&#8217;re not viable for home protection. They have only one purpose, and that&#8217;s to fire as many rounds as possible, as quickly as possible.&#8221;
Feinstein reiterated the statement on Twitter, writing, &#8220;Guns like the AR-15 aren&#8217;t used for hunting and they&#8217;re not viable for home protection. They have only one purpose: fire as many rounds as possible, as quickly as possible. 60% of Americans support outlawing these weapons.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Guns like the AR-15 aren&#8217;t used for hunting and they&#8217;re not viable for home protection. They have only one purpose: fire as many rounds as possible, as quickly as possible. 60% of Americans support outlawing these weapons. Read my op-ed with <a href="https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ChrisMurphyCT</a>. <a href="https://t.co/T2l8NeWTZX">https://t.co/T2l8NeWTZX</a>
&#8212; Sen Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein/status/1140637378891124737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The first statement, that &#8220;Guns like the AR-15 aren&#8217;t used for hunting and they&#8217;re not viable for home protection,&#8221; is simply untrue. As <a href="https://www.realtree.com/brow-tines-and-backstrap/why-you-should-use-an-ar-15-as-a-deer-rifle">RealTree</a> reported in November 2016:
<blockquote>
According to a recent study by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, 27 percent of hunters surveyed have used a modern sporting rifle (MSR) in pursuit of game. Of those, 48 percent report having used a MSR within the past five years, illustrating a growth in the use of the platform among those hunters surveyed. Of those answering yes to the use of an MSR for hunting, nearly 60 percent state they have used that platform to hunt large game.
</blockquote>
One <a href="https://www.brentonusa.com/5-reasons-to-hunt-with-an-ar-15/">website</a> devoted to hunting rifles stated:
<blockquote>
Compact features of the AR-15 make it an excellent <a href="https://www.brentonusa.com/b-20-stalker-ar-hunting-rifle/">hunting rifle</a>. The vertical grip and magazine make for a much more ergonomic fit of rifle to shooter, especially for younger or smaller hunters. Larger or taller hunters also enjoy the vertical grip as well as the additional advantage of being able to reach further down the free-floating handguard for more comfort if needed. The front carry sling system found on most AR-15&#8217;s allows the hunter to walk extended distance without any concern for the rifle as it always hangs ready from the shoulders.
</blockquote>
As far as the claim that AR-15s are &#8220;not viable for home protection,&#8221; The <a href="https://freebeacon.com/issues/democrats-ar-15s-arent-used-for-hunting-not-viable-for-home-protection/">Washington Free Beacon </a>pointed out that <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/14/8-times-law-abiding-citizens-saved-lives-ar-15/">The Daily Signal delineated</a> in March 2018 eight separate incidents in which an AR-15 was effectively used for home or business protection: a 2013 incident in which a 15-year-old boy defended himself and his 12-year-old sister from two home invaders; another incident in 2013 in which a college student&#8217;s unloaded AR-15 scared off two armed burglars; a 2014 incident in the Ferguson, Missouri riots in which only one business survived the onslaught in a 2-square mile radius because men guarded it with an AR-15; a 2017 incident in which a target of a drive-by shooting used his AR-15 to ward off an attack by three armed men; another 2017 incident in which a 19-year-old boy defended his home from three invaders; a third 2017 incident in which a man near a church in Texas forced a shooter to flee; a 2018 incident in which a man stopped an attack a man armed with a knife was about to commit against a pregnant woman, and another 2018 incident in which a man used an AR-15 to stop a threat from a relative of three robbers who had targeted the man&#8217;s home.

Dianne Feinstein Attacks AR-15s In Op-Ed. She Tells 2 Whopping Lies.

Chris Murphy

Gun Control

The United States may be on the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46807/trump-sends-clear-and-unmistakable-message-iran-ryan-saavedra">seeming precipice of war</a> with the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43339/hammer-iranian-revolution-forty-years-old-stand-josh-hammer">jihad-exporting</a> terrorist regime that has governed the Islamic Republic of Iran since the fateful Islamic Revolution of 1979, but apparently that hasn&#8217;t stopped the notoriously <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/08/sen-dianne-feinsteins-ties-china-go-way-deeper-alleged-office-spy/">authoritarian regime-friendly</a> Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) from recently meeting with infamous Iranian regime mouthpiece Mohammad Javad Zarif &#8212; foreign minister for the terrorist mullocracy.
Per <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2019/05/23/dianne-feinsteins-dinner-with-the-foreign-minister-of-iran-439276">Politico</a>&#8216;s &#8220;Playbook&#8221;:
<blockquote>
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CALIF.) had dinner with IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER JAVAD ZARIF when he was in the United States a few weeks ago, several sources told us. Last week, Playbook reported that Feinstein was walking around the Capitol with Zarif&#8217;s contact information pulled up on her iPhone &#8212; we spotted it in an elevator. 
FEINSTEIN&#8217;S team tells us that the dinner was &#8220;arranged in consultation with the State Department.&#8221; &#8220;The office was in touch with State in advance of the meeting to let them know it was happening and to get an update on U.S.-Iran activity,&#8221; Feinstein&#8217;s office said. A State Department official told us that they did not ask Feinstein to go to the dinner with Zarif, a smooth-talking, American-educated Iranian diplomat who worked on the nuclear deal with John Kerry.
OF COURSE, the United States and Iran are in the middle of a high-wire diplomatic and military staring contest. The United States has moved additional military resources into the region, and has indicated it has intelligence that the Iranians were readying to attack American interests in the region.
</blockquote>
Politico also casually referred to Feinstein&#8217;s &#8220;dining with the foreign minister of an adversary&#8221; as &#8220;a bit unusual.&#8221;
As the Washington Examiner <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dianne-feinstein-met-with-iranian-foreign-minister-as-us-iran-feud-escalated">notes</a>, Zarif was one of the preeminent public-facing Iranian regime figureheads during the Obama administration&#8217;s negotiations that led to the United States&#8217; entrance in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (i.e., the Iran nuclear deal):
<blockquote>
Zarif was also one of the Iranian officials who met with former Secretary of State John Kerry about salvaging the Iran nuclear deal. This led to accusations by the Trump administration that Kerry violated the Logan Act, a more than 200-year-old law that prohibits unauthorized private citizens from acting on behalf of the U.S. in disputes with foreign governments but has never been used to prosecute anyone.
</blockquote>
The Logan Act routinely comes up in discussions regarding non-presidential governmental figures and foreign government officials, but it is never actually invoked. Conservative commentator and radio host Erick Erickson actually once <a href="https://www.redstate.com/erick/2015/03/10/the-logan-act-is-the-talking-point-of-hacks-and-morons/">referred</a> to it, during the context of the Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)-led Republican senator pushback against the Iran deal, as a &#8220;talking point of hacks and morons&#8221;:
<blockquote>
The Logan Act originated in 1799. Not a single person has ever been convicted under the Logan Act. Ironically, the namesake of the law, George Logan, after compelling John Adams to get the act passed, became a United States Senator. The Logan Act serves mostly as a partisan tool to throw at opponents who dare to contradict a sitting President&#8217;s foreign policy. &#8230;
It&#8217;s a stupid talking point used by unserious people who want to avoid having to deal with the fact that the President of the United States is giving away the farm to Iranians who, given the chance, would gladly kill him, you, me, and everyone complaining about a Logan Act violation.
</blockquote>

Dianne Feinstein Recently Dined With Top Official From Terrorist Iranian Regime, Report Says

Iran

Nuclear Weapons

Tom Cotton

Attorney General William Barr shut down Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on Wednesday during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Special Counsel Robert Mueller&#8217;s Russia investigation after Feinstein tried to suggest that President Donald Trump committed an obstruction of justice offense.
&#8220;Mr. Attorney General, the special counsel&#8217;s report describes how the president directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Special Counsel Mueller and later told McGahn to write a letter &#8216;for our records&#8217; stating that the president had not ordered him to fire Mueller,&#8221; Feinstein began. &#8220;The report also recounts how the president made repeated efforts to get McGahn to change his story. Knowing that McGahn believed that the president&#8217;s version of events was false, the special counsel found &#8216;substantial evidence&#8217; that the president tried to change McGahn&#8217;s account in order to prevent further scrutiny of the president towards the investigation.&#8221;
&#8220;Special counsel also found that McGahn is a credible witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate, given the position he held in the White House,&#8221; Feinstein continued. &#8220;Here&#8217;s the question: Does existing law prohibit efforts to get a witness to lie to say something the witness believes is false?&#8221;
&#8220;Yes, lie to the government, yes,&#8221; Barr responded.
&#8220;And what law is that?
&#8220;Obstruction statutes,&#8221; Barr responded.
Feinstein then said that what Trump did &#8220;in effect constitute[d] obstruction,&#8221; adding that she was &#8220;specifically&#8221; noting that &#8220;the special counsel in his report found substantial evidence that the president tried to change McGahn&#8217;s account in order to prevent and this is a quote further scrutiny of the president toward the investigation.&#8221;
&#8220;We felt that &#8230; the government would not be able to establish obstruction, if you go back and you if you look at the episode where the president gave McGann an instruction, McGahn&#8217;s version of that is quite clear and each time he gave it which is that the instruction said go to Rosenstein, raise the issue of conflict of interest, and Mueller has to go because of this conflict of interest,&#8221; Barr responded. &#8220;So there&#8217;s no question that whatever instruction was giving McGahn had to do with Mueller&#8217;s conflict of interest.&#8221;
&#8220;Now, the president later said that what he meant was that the conflict of interest should be raised with Rosenstein, but the decision should be left with Rosenstein,&#8221; Barr continued. &#8220;On the other end of the spectrum, it appears that McGahn felt it was more directive and that the president was essentially saying push Rosenstein to invoke a conflict of interest to push Mueller out. Wherever it fell on that spectrum of interest, The New York Times&#8217; story was very different. The New York Times&#8217; story said flat-out that the president directed the firing of Muller, he told McGahn to &#8216;fire Mueller.'&#8221;
Barr then explained the critical difference between firing the special counsel and having the special counsel replaced due to conflicts of interest.
&#8220;Now there&#8217;s something very different between firing a special counsel outright, which suggests ending the investigation, and having a special counsel removed for conflict, which suggests that you&#8217;re going to have another special counsel,&#8221; Barr said. &#8220;So the fact is, that even under McGahn&#8217;s, and then as the report says and recognizes there is evidence the president truly felt that The Times&#8217; article was inaccurate and he wanted McGahn to correct it. So, we believe that it would be impossible for the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the president understood that he was instructing McGahn and to say something false because it wasn&#8217;t necessarily false.&#8221;
WATCH:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/coHbry-m3r8" width="560"></iframe></div>

WATCH: Bill Barr Shuts Down Dianne Feinstein On Obstruction Claims

William Barr

On his talk radio show Monday, Rush Limbaugh addressed the viral video of an encounter between California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a group of children pushing democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s far-left and logistically impossible &#8220;Green New Deal.&#8221;
The situation, Limbaugh suggested, reveals a &#8220;scary&#8221; reality created by the Left, including Democrats like Feinstein and now, in a more radical way, Ocasio-Cortez. Not only do the kids have &#8220;no concept of representative republican government&#8221; &#8212; believing it simply means that they&#8217;re entitled to &#8220;get their way&#8221; and, if not, get to &#8220;shout and proclaim things&#8221; &#8212;some of them appear to be genuinely &#8220;scared to death&#8221; about climate change. These are the &#8220;scary, scary&#8221; consequences of an education system that has embraced left-wing indoctrination, said the host.
Limbaugh began by setting the scene: A group of largely children activists called the Sunrise Movement converged on Feinstein&#8217;s San Francisco office last week to demand that she vote for the Green New Deal. The seasoned senator wasn&#8217;t impressed. Limbaugh then played his first clip of the encounter (transcript via <a href="https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/02/25/difi-lectures-indoctrinated-liberal-kids/">RushLimbaugh.com</a>):
<blockquote>
CHILD: We are trying to ask you to vote &#8220;yes&#8221; on the Green New Deal.
CHILD: And please.
FEINSTEIN: Okay. I&#8217;ll tell you what. We have our own Green New Deal.
CHILD: Some scientists have said that we have 12 years to turn this around.
CHILD: The government is supposed to &#8211;
FEINSTEIN: Well, it&#8217;s not gonna get turned around in 10 years.
CHILD: The government is supposed to &#8211;
FEINSTEIN: What we can do &#8212;
ADULT: Senator, if this doesn&#8217;t get turned around in 10 years you&#8217;re looking at the faces of the people who are gonna be living with the consequences.
CHILD: The government is supposed to be for the people and by the people and all for the people.
FEINSTEIN: You know what&#8217;s interesting about this group, is I&#8217;ve been doing this for 30 years. I know what I&#8217;m doing. You come in here and you say it has to be my way or the highway. I don&#8217;t respond to that. I&#8217;ve gotten elected. I just ran. I was elected by almost a million vote plurality. And I know what I&#8217;m doing. So, you know, maybe people should listen a little bit.
</blockquote>
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="325" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eIebWywFfNw" width="661"></iframe></div>
&#8220;Now, on the one hand, I totally understand her frustration, and I like it,&#8221; said Limbaugh. &#8220;On the other hand, she is helping create this!&#8221;
The Left has put the thoughts in the heads and the words in the mouths of these &#8220;robotic kids,&#8221; Limbaugh said. &#8220;Do you hear these robotic little kids?&#8221; he asked. &#8220;These kids are not old enough to think or know anything. They are plenty old enough to have absorbed like sponges and be able to repeat it.&#8221;
The whole thing, said Rush, is deeply troubling because it reveals how deep the Left&#8217;s indoctrination goes.
&#8220;Look, I&#8217;m not exaggerating,&#8221; he said. &#8220;This is scary, scary stuff to me because it shows you that we are up against a bunch of indoctrination and propagandizing, not education. And here are young kids who, whether you think they know what they&#8217;re talking about or not, they think 10 years, 12 years, they think that&#8217;s it. They think she&#8217;s not doing enough.&#8221;
He then played another clip:
<blockquote>
CHILD: We are trying to ask you to vote &#8220;yes&#8221; on the Green New Deal.
CHILD: And please.
FEINSTEIN: Okay. I&#8217;ll tell you what. We have our own Green New Deal.
CHILD: Some scientists have said that we have 12 years to turn this around.
CHILD: The government is supposed to &#8211;
FEINSTEIN: Well, it&#8217;s not gonna get turned around in 10 years.
CHILD: The government is supposed to &#8211;
FEINSTEIN: What we can do &#8212;
ADULT: Senator, if this doesn&#8217;t get turned around in 10 years you&#8217;re looking at the faces of the people who are gonna be living with the consequences.
CHILD: The government is supposed to be for the people and by the people and all for the people.
FEINSTEIN: You know what&#8217;s interesting about this group, is I&#8217;ve been doing this for 30 years. I know what I&#8217;m doing. You come in here and you say it has to be my way or the highway. I don&#8217;t respond to that. I&#8217;ve gotten elected. I just ran. I was elected by almost a million vote plurality. And I know what I&#8217;m doing. So, you know, maybe people should listen a little bit.
</blockquote>
&#8220;Believe me, one half of me loves this because it is pushback, but this is the party that&#8217;s for the children &#8212; everything is for the children,&#8221; said Limbaugh. But the troubling aspect of it overcomes the schadenfreude element, he stressed.
After playing another clip where a 16-year-old says they &#8220;voted&#8221; for Feinstein and the senator pushes back by pointing out that&#8217;s not possible, Limbaugh said: &#8220;[N]otice what they think government of the people, by the people, for the people means. They have no concept of representative republican government. They have no concept. They don&#8217;t know what of, by, and for the people means. They think it means they get their way. And, if they don&#8217;t get their way, then they get to be acting like spoiled kids, and they start getting to shout and proclaim things.&#8221;
&#8220;So they&#8217;re scared to death,&#8221; he added. &#8220;Whoever the adults are that have been in charge of these kids, look at how they&#8217;re literally scaring them to death. Who does that? I maintain to you our buddies on the American left. Kids, anybody else, scare the hell out of &#8217;em.&#8221;

&#8220;This is breaking down on the left, folks. And this is a microcosm of the pressures that all of these Democrat presidential candidates are gonna be under,&#8221; said Limbaugh. &#8220;The ones running for office are gonna respond to entreaties like this from these programmed teenagers. And who do you think is programming them? Is it their parents? Is it their teachers? Is it the media, a combination of all of these things? But how many of you have laughed or not believed me or thought I was exaggerating when I told you that I know a bunch of young people scared to death the earth is not going to be habitable when they&#8217;re 65? Do not doubt me on this. This is exactly what they think.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43712/ocasio-cortez-explodes-over-people-saying-she-james-barrett">Ocasio-Cortez Explodes Over People Saying She &#8216;Didn&#8217;t Understand&#8217; Amazon Deal</a>
Transcript via <a href="https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/02/25/difi-lectures-indoctrinated-liberal-kids/">RushLimbaugh.com</a>

Limbaugh: Here’s The ‘Scary’ Takeaway From Viral Video Of Feinstein Vs. ‘Green New Deal’ Kids

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Climate Change

Global Warming

Rush Limbaugh

Dianne Feinstein caught a lot of flack over the weekend after an out-of-context video went viral. The clip shows Feinstein&#8217;s exchange with a bunch of kids from a radical environmentalist group called the Sunrise Movement. The kids demand that Feinstein support the Green New Deal while the senator does her level best to educate the youngsters on the finer points of the legislative process.
The outraged masses claim that Feinstein was &#8220;disrespectful&#8221; and &#8220;rude&#8221; to the children. The <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-full-video-of-exchange-between-sen-dianne-feinstein-and-young-environmental-activists/">full video</a> clearly shows that she was enormously patient, at one point offering an internship to one of the kids. Even the short clip is favorable to Feinstein. She isn&#8217;t the one who needs to apologize for her behavior. The impertinence was entirely on the part of the kids, who spent several minutes lecturing and scolding an adult. I&#8217;m old fashioned enough to still believe in respecting your elders. The parents of these children have clearly neglected to teach them that crucial lesson.
But the most disturbing thing about the footage, aside from the bratty behavior of those poorly-raised children, is the very real fear you can hear in their voices and see on their faces. They really believe that the world might soon end and the Green New Deal is the only thing that can pull us back from the brink. They believe such nonsense because that&#8217;s what the adults in their lives have told them. Environmentalism is a doomsday cult, and millions of kids are being indoctrinated into it.
The high priestess of the cult, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, warns us that the situation is so dire that we should probably <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43880/ocasio-cortez-people-maybe-shouldnt-reproduce-due-ryan-saavedra">stop having kids</a>. That makes sense, I guess, because she also thinks the <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/">world is going to end</a> in 12 years. The UN takes a slightly more optimistic view, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report">prophesying mere catastrophe</a> in 12 year&#8217;s time, though perhaps not the end of all things.
A <a href="https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/1099056631365677056">climate alarmist</a> with a huge social media following put the prophesy in more colorful terms:
<blockquote>
Preventing the Earth from descending into a lifeless husk of a planet in a geological blink of an eye is technologically possible, experts say. But it will require confiscating unearned wealth from billionaires and ending the pointless wars we&#8217;ve been fighting for generations.
</blockquote>
A lifeless husk? We couldn&#8217;t turn the Earth into a lifeless husk if we tried. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It has survived asteroids, super volcano eruptions, nuclear blasts, ice ages, and countless other cataclysms. The idea that a couple hundred years of industrialized society could, as they claim, &#8220;destroy the planet,&#8221; is absurd in the extreme. It&#8217;s incredibly arrogant, too. A cosmic scale event is required to destroy a planet. The collapse of a star, a planetary collision, a black hole &#8212; these are planet destroyers. Your SUV won&#8217;t cut it.
These people are moments away from strapping on sandwich board signs with &#8220;THE END IS NEAR&#8221; written across in black marker. From there it&#8217;s only another step to a bowl of cyanide Kool-Aid. Ocasio-Cortez is the organic <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping">Harold Camping</a>, an End Times prophet shouting about Armageddon. Al Gore carried that mantle before her, and there were others before him. When I was a kid, I was told that we&#8217;d all soon suffocate because of oxygen depletion due to deforestation. Environmentalists have more failed apocalypse predictions than Jehovah&#8217;s Witnesses. And they&#8217;re only getting bolder, and louder, and more hysterical as time passes.
Despite all of this madness, it is actually possible to advocate for environmental responsibility, conservation, recycling, and other wholesome practices, without sounding like the Book of Revelation. We cannot and will not &#8220;destroy the planet&#8221; or turn it into a &#8220;lifeless husk&#8221; or bring about the end of all existence through cow farts and car exhaust, but we can make our planet a more or less pleasant place to live depending on our stewardship of it. That may not be a very dramatic or attention-grabbing message, but at least it has the benefit of truth and sanity. And it won&#8217;t traumatize our children.
<a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-matt-walsh-show/id1367210511?mt=2">Listen</a> to Matt&#8217;s latest podcast.

WALSH: Environmentalists Have Become A Doomsday Cult, And They’re Needlessly Terrifying Our Children

Environmentalism

Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) suggested on Sunday night that people should consider not having children due to climate change because there is a &#8220;scientific consensus&#8221; that life will be hard for kids.
&#8220;Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don&#8217;t turn this ship around and so it&#8217;s basically like, there&#8217;s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult,&#8221; Ocasio-Cortez said while chopping up food in her kitchen during an Instagram live video. &#8220;And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, &#8216;Is it okay to still have children?'&#8221;
Ocasio-Cortez then took a shot at Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) over an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43869/watch-far-left-group-uses-kids-pressure-feinstein-ryan-saavedra">incident that happened</a> in Feinstein&#8217;s office on Friday when a far-left fringe group tried to pressure Feinstein into supporting the Green New Deal.
&#8220;You know what&#8217;s interesting about this group?&#8221; Feinstein told the group on Friday, in response to the group storming into her office. &#8220;I&#8217;ve been doing this for 30 years. I know what I&#8217;m doing.&#8221;
&#8220;You come in here, and you say it has to be my way or the highway. I don&#8217;t respond to that,&#8221; Feinstein continued. &#8220;I&#8217;ve gotten elected, I just ran. I was elected by almost a million-vote plurality. And I know what I&#8217;m doing. So you know, maybe people should listen a little bit.&#8221;
Ocasio-Cortez said Feinstein&#8217;s response was &#8220;like not good enough&#8221; because the legislation that the Democrats support is &#8220;frankly going to kill us.&#8221;
&#8220;This idea that &#8216;I&#8217;ve been working on this for x-amount of years,&#8217; um, it&#8217;s like not good enough,&#8221; Ocasio-Cortez said. &#8220;Like, we need a universal sense of urgency, and people are like trying to introduce watered-down proposals that are frankly going to kill us. A lack of urgency is going to kill us.&#8221;
WATCH:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
Socialist <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AOC</a> discusses how people should reconsider having children due to global warming, and reminds us that we are all going to *literally* die if the Green New Deal doesn&#8217;t pass. She also takes some shots at Dianne Feinstein. *Sidenote: She failed to compost her potatoes* <a href="https://t.co/6eWhbTbqqB">pic.twitter.com/6eWhbTbqqB</a>
&#8212; Gob Abierto (@GobAbiertoBOL) <a href="https://twitter.com/GobAbiertoBOL/status/1099834318329970690?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;The issue has gotten worse,&#8221; Ocasio-Cortez continued. &#8220;So I don&#8217;t think that working on an issue for 30 years alone is what qualifies as, as what someone qualified to solve an issue.&#8221;
&#8220;That said, there are a lot of people that have been doing this work for decades that have proposed ambitious solutions for years and have not been listened to,&#8221; Ocasio-Cortez <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/aoc-rips-dianne-feinstein-after-her-confrontation-with-kids-over-green-new-deal">added</a>. &#8220;So it&#8217;s not just, &#8216;I&#8217;ve been doing this for 30 years,&#8217; so we need to listen to them because frankly people have been failing at the same things for 30 or 40 years. What we need to do is say, &#8216;What solutions have not been tried yet? And what ambitious scale have we not shot at yet.&#8217; And let&#8217;s do it.&#8221;
WATCH:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
Socialist <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AOC</a> eviscerates <a href="https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenFeinstein</a> and calls her a political coward. This is wild. <a href="https://t.co/ZQQw7Ibixh">pic.twitter.com/ZQQw7Ibixh</a>
&#8212; Gob Abierto (@GobAbiertoBOL) <a href="https://twitter.com/GobAbiertoBOL/status/1099843291305119746?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Ocasio-Cortez has often used alarmist language when discussing climate change, repeatedly comparing fighting climate change to fighting Nazi Germany. Ocasio-Cortez has gone as far as to claim that the world is going to end in 12 years if her far-left policies are not implemented.
&#8220;I think the part of it that is generational is that millennials and people, in Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we&#8217;re like, the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don&#8217;t address climate change,&#8221; Ocasio-Cortez <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42497/ocasio-snaps-world-could-end-12-years-algorithms-ryan-saavedra">said</a> during a Martin Luther King forum in New York City in January. &#8220;And your biggest issue, your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it? &#8212; and like this is the war, this is our World War II.&#8221;

Ocasio-Cortez: People Maybe Shouldn’t Reproduce Due To Climate Change

On Friday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) shut down a far-left activist group after they used children to create a scene in her office in an attempt to push alarmist climate change policies.
The Sunrise Movement, a fringe group that tries to intimidate politicians into supporting socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s (D-NY) &#8220;Green New Deal,&#8221; shared a selectively edited video clip of the exchange.
&#8220;You know what&#8217;s interesting about this group?&#8221; Feinstein said. &#8220;I&#8217;ve been doing this for 30 years. I know what I&#8217;m doing.&#8221;
&#8220;You come in here, and you say it has to be my way or the highway. I don&#8217;t respond to that,&#8221; Feinstein continued. &#8220;I&#8217;ve gotten elected, I just ran. I was elected by almost a million-vote plurality. And I know what I&#8217;m doing. So you know, maybe people should listen a little bit.&#8221;
One particular exchange drew a lot of laughs on social media:
<blockquote>
ACTIVIST: I hear what you&#8217;re saying, but we&#8217;re the people who voted you. You&#8217;re supposed to listen to us, that&#8217;s your job.
FEINSTEIN: How old are you?
ACTIVIST: I&#8217;m 16, I can&#8217;t vote.
FEINSTEIN: Well, you didn&#8217;t vote for me.
</blockquote>
The Green New Deal is a far-left plan designed to implement government control over large portions of the U.S. economy that Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Brian Riedl has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43403/democrats-panic-after-mcconnell-urges-green-new-ryan-saavedra">estimated</a> could potentially cost up to approximately $100 trillion.
WATCH:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
This is how <a href="https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SenFeinstein</a> reacted to children asking her to support the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GreenNewDeal?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GreenNewDeal</a> resolution &#8212; with smugness + disrespect.
This is a fight for our generation&#8217;s survival. Her reaction is why young people desperately want new leadership in Congress. <a href="https://t.co/0zAkaxruMI">pic.twitter.com/0zAkaxruMI</a>
&#8212; Sunrise Movement (@sunrisemvmt) <a href="https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1099075460649107458?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 22, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
The reaction online to the video was split, with those on the political left &#8212; many of whom attacked the Covington Catholic kids for smiling at a Native American &#8212; declaring that Feinstein was being rude to the children who were being disruptive in her office.
Aside from the faux outrage from leftists, many loved Feinstein&#8217;s reaction or were disturbed by the fringe group&#8217;s use of children to push political agendas:
<ul>
<li>David Harsanyi <a href="https://twitter.com/davidharsanyi/status/1099084437730586624">tweeted</a>: &#8220;This group teaches kids &#8212; the luckiest, wealthiest, healthiest generation to ever live &#8212; that they are living through &#8216;dark time.&#8217; These ppl are dangerous cultists.&#8221;</li>
<li>Buck Sexton <a href="https://twitter.com/BuckSexton/status/1099102305612451842">tweeted</a>: &#8220;Senator Feinstein refused to be lectured and bullied by a mob of brainwashed tweens on the insanely stupid Green New Deal. Good for her.&#8221;</li>
<li>Sebastian Gorka <a href="https://twitter.com/SebGorka/status/1099362399600152582">tweeted</a>: &#8220;Cult.&#8221;</li>
<li>Jason Rantz <a href="https://twitter.com/jasonrantz/status/1099134368633606145">tweeted</a>: &#8220;When an adult uses a bunch of brainwashed kids to push propaganda. And the media eats it up.&#8221;</li>
<li>Tom Fitton <a href="https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1099134212458856448">tweeted</a>: &#8220;Disturbed by the automaton-like leftist using the children to advance the communist green proposal.&#8221;</li>
<li>Tom Nichols <a href="https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1099092685854593024">tweeted</a>: &#8220;I know this is bad retail politics, but man, I love seeing Feinstein telling off a bunch of kids &#8211; and I&#8217;m not even kidding.&#8221;</li>
<li>Josh Jordan <a href="https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/1099106593931702273">tweeted</a>: &#8220;I love Feinstein now after watching this video.&#8221;</li>
<li>Stephen Miller <a href="https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1099091844833656832">tweeted</a>: &#8220;&#8216;Santa isn&#8217;t real, kid, now GTFO of my office. It&#8217;s Friday.'&#8221;</li>
<li>Mark Hemingway <a href="https://twitter.com/Heminator/status/1099088162322817024">tweeted</a>: &#8220;Look, you might as well disabuse kids of the notion that politics will save us sooner rather than later.&#8221;</li>
<li>Eric Weinstein <a href="https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1099173812736733185">tweeted</a>: &#8220;Not at all. @SenFeinstein said &#8216;no&#8217; both politely &amp; firmly to adorable children attempting to pressure her with cameras rolling by creating an awkward moment fit for a news cycle. My rabbi @noakushner is loved for telling our young ones &#8220;Oh that&#8217;s so beautiful&#8230;but also wrong.&#8221;
	 </li>
</ul>

WATCH: Far-Left Group Uses Kids To Pressure Feinstein. She Shuts Them Down.

Every citizen of legal age is qualified to serve in government. The Constitution contemplates that we ought to be self-governed by diverse, citizen lawmakers. When senators wag their fingers at nominees and attempt &#8212; with not a little incredulity &#8212; to claim the moral high ground, our country suffers.
We suffer for several reasons. First among them is that we tolerate what is obviously unconstitutional. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that &#8220;no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.&#8221;
The idea behind this constitutional provision is simple: Forcing citizens to adhere to a specific religious ideology &#8212; or none at all &#8212; violates the rights common to our humanity, rights endowed to us by our Creator. The reigning idea in history was that one must share the ideology of the potentate in order to qualify to serve at his pleasure. This kept a lot of good people from benefiting a country by their contribution to government.
America set that historical notion aside. Article VI is, therefore, a beneficial aberration of history and part of the core idea of what constitutes our grand tradition of freedom and democracy.
And yet, many senators act as if they&#8217;ve never heard of Article VI. Listen to the senators in their own words:
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/dick-durbin-dianne-feinstein-senators-grill-judicial-nominee-amy-coney-barrett-religion-catholic/">Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) suggested</a> that the &#8220;dogma lives loudly&#8221; within Amy Coney Barrett, suggesting that those religious beliefs are &#8220;of concern.&#8221; Meanwhile, <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/dick-durbin-dianne-feinstein-senators-grill-judicial-nominee-amy-coney-barrett-religion-catholic/">Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked</a> Barrett a question having nothing whatsoever to do with her capacity as a lawyer and potential judge: &#8220;Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?&#8221; In other words, are you my kind of Catholic or their kind &#8212; either way, he should never ask that question of a judicial nominee.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/bernie-sanders-chris-van-hollen-russell-vought/529614/">Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) famously attacked Russell Vought</a> at his confirmation hearing. Remember, President Donald Trump nominated Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Most people probably do not even know what the OMB does. Rather, they lump it in with the rest of the acronymed bureaucracies in Washington, D.C. Sen. Sanders &#8212; sitting on Capitol Hill, in a U.S. Senate hearing room &#8212; asked Vought, &#8220;In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?&#8221; What does that have to do with management or budgets?!</li>
<li>Sen. Cory Booker has his own chapter in the annals of bad questions and made-for-TV protestations of nominees. Before he dubbed himself &#8220;Spartacus,&#8221; Sen. Booker <a href="https://www.facebook.com/corybooker/photos/a.115558592227/10157854338762228/?type=3&amp;theater">roundly mocked</a> Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo on Facebook about his religious beliefs.</li>
<li>More recently, Sen. Booker <a href="https://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/senator-cory-booker-asks-judicial-nominee-if-lgbt-relationships-are-a-sin.html">pursued a line of questions</a> with Neomi Rao, the potential replacement on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for the seat vacated by now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He actually asked if Rao believed homosexuality is a sin. <a href="https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sin">Dictionary.com&#8217;s first definition</a> for the word &#8220;sin&#8221; is &#8220;transgression of divine law,&#8221; which is remarkably similar to the definition given by the <a href="http://www.shortercatechism.com/resources/wsc/wsc_014.html">Westminster Shorter Catechism</a>. In asking a potential judicial nominee to make a theological pronouncement, Sen. Booker may be unwittingly making one of his own.</li>
<li><a href="https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/07/mike-lee-hirono-religious-nominees/">Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) defended</a> Sen. Booker from a perplexed Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who wondered aloud, &#8220;I can&#8217;t fathom a circumstance in which it&#8217;s ever appropriate for us to ask a nominee about his or her religious beliefs about whether X, Y or Z is a sin.&#8221; Lee then had to remind Sen. Hirono of Sen. Booker&#8217;s actual question about sin when Hirono shot back, &#8220;It is not that we all ask &#8216;do you think such and such is a sin, etc., etc.'&#8221;</li>
<li>Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) didn&#8217;t ask Judge Trevor McFadden about his religious beliefs. He <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/McFadden%20Responses%20to%20QFRs.pdf">asked about comments McFadden&#8217;s pastor had made</a>.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Phipps%20Responses%20to%20QFRs.pdf">Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) asked Judge Peter Phipps</a> to explain his membership in the Knights of Columbus and whether his membership in that religious organization would conflict with his job as a jurist.</li>
</ul>
Yes. These were real questions, actually asked by duly elected United States senators. Sadly, most of the distracted nation yawned and kept scrolling down their social media feeds.
The effect of these questions, coupled with scorched-Earth confirmation hearings like what the country witnessed with Justice Kavanaugh, will be to drive good people away from being willing to even be nominated, much less to serve.
Actually, it&#8217;s worse than that. These kinds of questions have a nasty habit of turning into imperatives. They become standards of disqualification. Dare to associate with the religious or profess a belief about eternity in a college exam &#8212; or associate in any way with those who do &#8212; and you are automatically blacklisted from public office.
You failed the religious test for office.
But, there is a simple solution. Sadly, no one has ever deployed it and Washington-as-usual probably routinely recommends against it. Still, the time may have come to deploy it.
The next time Sen. Booker asks about the definition of sin or Sen. Whitehouse questions comments made by a nominee&#8217;s pastor, the nominee is entirely within rights to respond, &#8220;Senator, the question is impermissible because it asserts a religious test for office, in violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.&#8221;
The Framers of the Constitution understood the importance of keeping the halls of government open to an ideological variety of Americans. That&#8217;s why Article VI exists &#8212; even if senators choose to ignore it.

Jeremy Dys is Deputy General Counsel for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

DYS: How To Respond To A Religious Test For Office

Bernie Sanders

Constitution

Cory Booker

Kamala Harris

Religion

Imagine the outrage if Democrats introduced a bill that would protect state and local governments who wanted to refuse to do business with Christian organizations because those organizations don&#8217;t support gay marriage and Republicans refused to vote for the bill. Republicans would be painted as bigots, for sure.
We&#8217;re experiencing something similar today, but the parties are reversed.
Republicans in the senate are trying to pass S.1, the Strengthening America&#8217;s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019, which includes the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1/text#toc-idF7FC801058C74D3B88F93BE45076A02F">Combating BDS Act of 2019</a>. The anti-boycott, divestment, and, sanctions (BDS) bill would allow state and local governments to avoid contracting with businesses and individuals who support or engage in &#8220;commerce-related or investment-related boycott, divestment, or sanctions activity in the course of interstate or international commerce that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or otherwise limit commercial relations with Israel or persons doing business in Israel or Israeli-controlled territories.&#8221;
Supporters of this bill argue that it is not about prohibiting free speech or political activity, but about prohibiting discrimination. Harvard Law School emeritus professor Alan Dershowitz told the Federalist <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/10/two-democrat-senators-will-publicly-oppose-anti-israel-bds-movement/">recently that</a> &#8220;If the law prohibits advocacy, it is unconstitutional. If it prohibits economic discrimination based on religion or national origin, it is constitutional.&#8221;
Two Federalist contributors, Ellie Bufkin and Melissa Langsam Braunstein, reached out to every Democrat senator (plus the two &#8220;Independents&#8221; who caucus with the Democrats) earlier this week to ask for their position on BDS. Braunstein said just two offices responded, offering tepid statements about Israel and the movement.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein&#8217;s (D-CA) office pointed Braunstein to the senator&#8217;s previous statemen tof &#8220;<a href="https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=04DE4B7A-DD54-4F63-864E-7BF20151A38E">strong support for Israel</a>,&#8221; but described the anti-BDS bill as unconstitutional. Sen. Ben Cardin&#8217;s (D-MD) office sent the Federalist a statement:
<blockquote>
We should not stand idle when foreign countries or international governmental organizations use BDS tactics to isolate one of our key allies and bypass direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Senator Cardin has a very clear record opposing the BDS movement. He strongly believes in individual First Amendment rights that permit anyone to support BDS if they want to do so. He simply disagrees.
</blockquote>
Just four Democrats voted to advance S.1 on Tuesday: Sens. Doug Jones of Alabama, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
Braunstein notes that the Democrat Party is more supportive of the anti-Israel BDS movement now than previously:
<blockquote>
Consider that one year ago, Pew Research polled Americans&#8217; attitudes toward Israel and the Palestinians. They reported that &#8220;the partisan divide in Middle East sympathies, for Israel or the Palestinians, is now wider than at any point since 1978. Currently, 79% of Republicans say they sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians, compared with just 27% of Democrats.&#8221;
Drilling down, Pew quantified the change within the Democratic Party&#8217;s progressive wing that&#8217;s been apparent to Middle East watchers for some time: &#8220;The share of liberal Democrats who sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians has declined from 33% to 19% since 2016. Currently, nearly twice as many liberal Democrats say they sympathize more with the Palestinians than with Israel (35% vs. 19%).&#8221;
</blockquote>
Further, two pro-BDS Democrats, Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) were elected in the last election.

Few Democrat Senators Are Against The BDS Movement

Anti-Semitism

Federalist

In the still of the last night of 2018, the silence of California Dems chilled the air and airwaves.
Border wall opponent Sen. Kamala Harris tweeted three times between Christmas and New Year&#8217;s Eve bemoaning the plight of illegal immigrants and their children.
But not a peep was heard from Harris about the brutal shooting death of Newman, California, Police Department Cpl. Ronil Singh at the hands of a Mexican gang member illegally in the country and protected by the very sanctuary policies Harris champions.
Border wall opponent Rep. Nancy Pelosi decried the deaths of two illegal immigrant children on the same day Singh was murdered, bashed the government shutdown and, on New Year&#8217;s Eve, promoted her upcoming MSNBC special.
But not a peep was heard from Pelosi about Singh, the suspected illegal immigrant murderer, or the arrests of a total of seven alleged accomplices &#8212; all reported to be illegally in this country as well.
Border wall opponent Sen. Dianne Feinstein released a public letter to the Customs and Border Patrol agency on the day of Singh&#8217;s murder to voice her &#8220;strong concern about the recent deaths and illnesses of children detained in Border Patrol custody, and to request a full accounting and a revised protocol to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future.&#8221;
But not a peep was heard from Feinstein about Singh, no call for investigation of how the suspected murderer and his alleged accomplices arrived in the U.S., were able to evade arrest and detection, and who employed them, and aided, abetted, and sheltered them.
Neighbors, friends and co-workers turned out in full force for a candlelight vigil this week memorializing the dedicated, patriotic, compassionate, hard-working husband and father of a 5-month-old baby. But rabble-rousing liberal politicians, so quick to rush down to the border to exploit the migrant caravan crisis and sabotage President Donald Trump&#8217;s efforts to keep America safe, were nowhere to be found.
How could any decent citizen not be moved by Reggie Singh, who broke down in tears while expressing thanks to local, state and federal officers upon the arrest of his hero brother&#8217;s suspected murderer after an intense multiagency manhunt?
How could any public servant not be outraged by the revelations of Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson, who reported that Ronil Singh&#8217;s suspected murderer from Mexico had worked illegally as a laborer, had known gang affiliations, and had two prior drunk driving arrests before the fatal traffic stop and attempted escape back to Mexico.
California&#8217;s sanctuary laws, supported by every California Democrat and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, barred local authorities from reporting the alleged cop-killer for his prior criminal arrests to ICE.
The priorities couldn&#8217;t be starker: Open borders Democratic hearts bleed for those bent on undermining our sovereignty, while they turn blind eyes to legal immigrants like Indo-American Singh, originally from Fiji, who honored our institutions and enforced our laws.
Newman Police Chief Randy Richardson paid tribute to his friend and employee: &#8220;This is a man that loved his country. This is a man that worked hard for what he believed in. He believed in this community.&#8221;
Singh was the true story of the American dream, brought down by the ongoing open borders nightmare. He cherished his family roots and heritage, but embraced the privileges and responsibilities of legally obtained citizenship as a fully assimilated American. And this is precisely why California Democrats won&#8217;t say his name, acknowledge his sacrifice or investigate the policy failures that led to his death.
The silent Dems have spent 30 years obliterating the difference between legal and illegal immigration.
They&#8217;ve spent every waking moment since President Trump took office denying the chaotic consequences of sanctuary policies.
They&#8217;ve spent the past year demonizing law enforcement officers at both borders and across the interior, stoking fear and hatred of those who put their lives on the line 24/7/365.
To speak Cpl. Ronil Singh&#8217;s name is to admit the blood on their own hands.
Michelle Malkin is host of &#8220;Michelle Malkin Investigates&#8221; on CRTV.com. Her email address is writemalkin@gmail.com. To find out more about Michelle Malkin and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

MALKIN: Say His Name: RIP Cpl. Ronil Singh

Crime

Illegal Immigration

Sanctuary Cities

On Thursday, California Senator Dianne Feinstein threw fellow California Democratic Senator Kamala Harris under the bus, asserting that her preferred candidate for the 2020 presidential nomination is former Vice President Joe Biden.
Speaking to reporters, Feinstein opined, &#8220;Joe was chairman of the Judiciary [Committee] when he came to this place. I&#8217;ve watched him as vice president, I&#8217;ve seen him operate, I&#8217;ve seen him perform. He brings a level of experience and seniority which I think is really important.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/03/dianne-feinstein-2020-pick-joe-biden-1079024">Politico</a> reported that Feinstein claimed she hadn&#8217;t spoken to Biden about a prospective candidacy, allowing, &#8220;That&#8217;s just my view.&#8221;
In 2018, when Feinstein ran for reelection, Biden <a href="https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/wires/joe-biden-endorses-sen-dianne-feinsteins-re-election-bid/">supported her</a>, saying, &#8220;She&#8217;s tenacious. She&#8217;s accomplished. And she&#8217;s exactly who we need in the Senate to stand up to this Administration and its Republican allies in Congress. Dianne is a dear friend, and I&#8217;m proud to endorse her re-election.&#8221; After she was elected to the Senate for the fifth time, she <a href="https://abc7news.com/politics/us-sen-dianne-feinstein-wins-fifth-full-term/4633576/">spoke</a> about Biden asking her to be the first woman on the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Anita Hill hearings.
Biden has been leading the Democratic field in poll after poll: in late December a <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/12/26/2020-democrats-usa-today-suffolk-university-poll/2399076002/?utm_source=feedblitz&amp;utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&amp;utm_campaign=usatodaycomwashington-topstories">poll</a> found 53% of voters excited to see him run; Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) followed Biden, with 36% of respondents excited; Rep. Beto O&#8217;Rourke (D-TX) who lost in his senatorial bid against incumbent Senator Ted Cruz in Texas and has experienced a flurry of media breathlessness over his possible candidacy, only got 30% of voters saying they&#8217;d be excited about him running, half of what Biden received. Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) closely followed O&#8217;Rourke; 29% of voters said they&#8217;d be excited to see Harris run, as 34 % of respondents had never heard of her; 28% were excited about a Booker run, 29% of respondents had never heard of him.
A <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/politics/cnn-poll-2020-democrats-beto-orourke-rising/index.html">CNN poll</a> from December 6 found Biden garnering 30% of the vote, followed by Sanders with 14% and O&#8217;Rourke following him with 9%. After O&#8217;Rourke, Booker grabbed 5% of the vote; Harris and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren both plunged five points since October and rest below 5%.
In early November, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-2020-biden/joe-biden-leads-potential-2020-democratic-field-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1NC0P1">Reuters reported</a> that a Reuters/Ipsos Election Day opinion poll found Biden the preferred candidate among Democrats; he received 29% of the votes, followed by Sanders with 22%, and then a virtual tie between Booker, Warren, and Harris. The poll found that in a hypothetical match with President Trump, Biden led 51%-39%, and Sanders, Booker and Harris would also defeat Trump in the popular vote.
Also in early November, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/amp-stories/battle-ground-poll-presidential-candidates/">The Washington Post</a> conducted an exit poll asking Democrat voters whom they preferred to see as the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee. Biden got 32% of the vote; Sanders received 15% of the vote; Warren, Bloomberg and Harris got 10% of the vote. O&#8217;Rourke got 9% of the vote; Booker got 7% of the vote, and New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper got 2% of the vote. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti was listed, but he received 0% of the vote.

Dianne Feinstein Ignores Fellow CA Senator Kamala Harris, Favors Biden For 2020

Joe Biden

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), both frequent critics of the state of Israel, pulled an unsurprising move on Wednesday, <a href="https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Sanders-Feinstein-Israel-Anti-Boycott-Act-out-of-appropriations-bill-574887?utm_source=dlvr.it&amp;utm_medium=twitter">sending a letter</a> to the Senate urging that body to exclude S. 720, the &#8220;Israel Anti-Boycott Act,&#8221; from the year-end appropriations bill.
The duo wrote, &#8220;While we do not support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, we remain resolved to our constitutional oath to defend the right of every American to express their views peacefully without fear of or actual punishment by the government,&#8221; the senators said.
The bill, introduced by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720">reads</a>:
<blockquote>
This bill declares that Congress: (1) opposes the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution of March 24, 2016, which urges countries to pressure companies to divest from, or break contracts with, Israel; and (2) encourages full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 through enhanced, governmentwide, coordinated U.S.-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in civilian areas.
The bill amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 to declare that it shall be U.S. policy to oppose:
<ul>
<li>requests by foreign countries to impose restrictive practices or boycotts against other countries friendly to the United States or against U.S. persons; and</li>
<li>restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by an international governmental organization, or requests to impose such practices or boycotts, against Israel.</li>
</ul>
The bill prohibits any U.S. person engaged interstate or foreign commerce from supporting:
<ul>
<li>any request by a foreign country to impose any boycott against a country that is friendly to the United States and that is not itself the object of any form of boycott pursuant to United States law or regulation, or</li>
<li>any boycott fostered or imposed by any international governmental organization against Israel or any request by any international governmental organization to impose such a boycott.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
Cardin has been pushing to have the bill included in the appropriations bill. A spokesman for Cardin <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/421945-israel-boycott-fight-roils-democrats-in-year-end-spending-debate">stated</a>, &#8220;We don&#8217;t want our companies to be forced into implementing other countries&#8217; decisions to boycott U.S. allies &#8230; It&#8217;s that movement from the international governmental organizations &#8212; the UNHRC specifically &#8212; that is driving some of the increased urgency of trying to get this done sooner rather than later. Because they&#8217;re not waiting for Congress. They&#8217;re just plowing ahead.&#8221;
The bill is <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-bernie-sanders-dianne-feinstein-urge-senate-leaders-to-scrap-anti-bds-bill-1.6762918">opposed by the ACLU</a>, which claims it could be used to target private citizens. Sanders and Feinstein cited rulings in federal courts in Kansas and Arizona that found similar laws unconstitutional.
Some other Democrats differ from Sanders and Feinstein; <a href="https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Lobbyists-push-for-Israel-anti-boycott-law-in-end-of-year-spending-bill-574088">The Jerusalem Post</a> reports that The Jewish Democratic Council of America endorsed the bill as &#8220;consistent&#8221; with the 2016 Democratic Party platform, stating:
<blockquote>
The bill will extend existing U.S. legal protections which protect companies from coercion by foreign countries to participate in boycotts of Israel to include protection from boycotts led by international governmental organizations, such as the United Nations. We support the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, as amended, and urge passage of this legislation during the 115th Congress. We are encouraging JDCA members to write to their member of Congress to support passage of the bill by the end of the year.
</blockquote>

Sanders, Feinstein Urge Senate To Kill ‘Israel Anti-Boycott Act’

Joe Scarborough, co-host of MSNBC&#8217;s &#8220;Morning Joe,&#8221; is no fan of Donald Trump; in fact, he&#8217;s one of the president&#8217;s most vocal critics, who has made quite clear that he wants to see him fail. But his anti-Trump lens hasn&#8217;t blinded Scarborough to some glaring problems with how the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media handled the uncorroborated allegations against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
In a searing critique of the media&#8217;s coverage of the allegations, particularly how the content of Christine Blasey Ford&#8217;s confidential letter was leaked to the press despite her desire to remain anonymous, Scarborough called out multiple mainstream outlets that portray themselves as committed to reporting the truth without partiality for failing to dig into the matter.
&#8220;What New York Times reporter, what Washington Post reporter, was assigned a story by their editors to go see what really happened with Dianne Feinstein, and ask Dianne Feinstein and her staff the sort of questions that would have happened if the Republican Party had done the same thing?&#8221; Scarborough asked, the <a href="https://freebeacon.com/politics/scarborough-didnt-media-ask-dianne-feinsteins-staff-leaked-ford-letter/">Free Beacon</a> reports. &#8220;Not one.&#8221;
He then issued a direct challenge to the Times, the Post and The Wall Street Journal to do what they should have done in &#8220;real time.&#8221;
&#8220;I challenge New York Times reporters this morning &#8212; not reporters, editors. I challenge Washington Post editors. I challenge Wall Street Journal editors. I challenge editors across America: Write that story,&#8221; he said. &#8220;What happened with Dr. Ford&#8217;s agreement &#8230; with Dianne Feinstein? Why did they leak that story? And more importantly, look at yourself and ask yourself the question, &#8216;why didn&#8217;t we report on this in real time?&#8217; when you sure as hell would have reported on it if [Republican Sen. Chuck] Grassley and his office had done the same thing.&#8221;
Scarborough&#8217;s guest, who made clear that he generally sides with the Democrats, couldn&#8217;t help but agree that the Democrats&#8217; and the media&#8217;s handling of the allegations were extremely problematic. Scarborough later returned to his question again and hammered his premise more directly.
&#8220;The question is, why didn&#8217;t they focus on the allegations before them and why didn&#8217;t they ask the same tough questions of Dianne Feinstein and her staff that they should have, rightly asked, of Chuck Grassley and his staff? You held the letter for a couple of months, you waited until Kavanaugh&#8217;s hearing was over and then you released it at the very end,&#8221; Scarborough said.
In her testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford said she contacted Democratic Sen. Anna Eshoo of California in July and that her confidential letter reached Feinstein&#8217;s office on July 30. For six weeks, Feinstein did nothing with the letter. Just as the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing wrapped up, however, reports of the allegation leaked, and Feinstein issued a cryptic statement saying she&#8217;d handed allegations against the nominee over to the FBI. Ford testified that she wanted to remain anonymous, but after the story leaked, she felt compelled to come forward. During the explosive hearing with Kavanaugh and Ford, Feinstein insisted that her office did not leak the letter.
Video below via WFB:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="380" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-OlZzfXsyww" width="630"></iframe></div>

Morning Joe: Why Didn’t Media Ask Feinstein’s Staff About Leak Of Ford’s Letter?

Brett Kavanaugh

Christine Blasey Ford

Joe Scarborough

Media Bias

At a rally in Iowa Tuesday, President Trump had some fun at Sen. Dianne Feinstein&#8217;s expense over her much-criticized handling of the uncorroborated allegations against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, but the crowd&#8217;s reaction is what&#8217;s making the headlines.
Trump was on a roll smacking around Democratic senators, including presidential hopefuls Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. When he took a moment to focus on Feinstein &#8212; the ranking Democrat in the Senate Judiciary Committee who held onto the allegations by Christine Blasey Ford for six weeks before handing them over to the FBI just days before the initial planned vote on Kavanaugh &#8212; Trump did some of his famous/infamous impersonation work.
&#8220;How about Sen. Feinstein? That&#8217;s another beauty,&#8221; Trump said, the crowd responding with boos and groans. &#8220;That&#8217;s a beauty!&#8221; he repeated (video below).
&#8220;Did you leak the documents?&#8221; Trump asked, acting out the scene. &#8220;Wha, wha, what? No, I didn&#8217;t!&#8221; said Trump-as-Feinstein. He then imitated her backward glance at her staff. &#8220;Did we leak? Did we leak?&#8221; he said.
&#8220;No! No! No, we didn&#8217;t!&#8221; he said, turning back to the imagined committee. &#8220;No, no. He just said no, we didn&#8217;t leak.&#8221;
That&#8217;s when the &#8220;Lock Her Up!&#8221; chants began, an echo of the anti-Hillary chants frequently heard back in 2016.
&#8220;I think they&#8217;re talking about Feinstein!&#8221; Trump said in response. &#8220;Can you believe that?&#8221; he added with a laugh.
He went on to point out that if we&#8217;re talking about body language, Feinstein&#8217;s was &#8220;the worst.&#8221;
&#8220;In other words, did she leak it? 100 percent!&#8221; he said, adding, &#8220;No, I don&#8217;t want to get sued. 99 percent. See? Now I can&#8217;t get sued.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Donald Trump&#8217;s Iowa crowd chants &#8220;lock her up!&#8221; at his mention of Senator Dianne Feinstein.
The president laughs playfully. <a href="https://t.co/a6KLrf8kzS">pic.twitter.com/a6KLrf8kzS</a>
&#8212; Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) <a href="https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1049814734806142977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
H/t <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6258981/Iowa-crowd-screams-Lock-DIANNE-FEINSTEIN-not-Hillary-Clinton-hate.html">Daily Mail</a>.

WATCH: Trump Mocks Sen. Feinstein, Crowd Chants A Familiar Phrase

How did we get here? The Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination circus didn&#8217;t happen by accident. The emergence of incredible &#8212; and by &#8220;incredible,&#8221; I mean the literal Merriam-Webster definition of &#8220;too extraordinary and improbable to be believed&#8221; &#8212; accusers in the 11th hour was no mistake.
It is my contention that this grand unearth-and-destroy spectacle was planned, coordinated and facilitated by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats and their staffers.
After the FBI finishes its Freshmen Booze Investigations, Federal Barfight Interrogations and Fraternity Barfing Incidents probe of every last Yale and Holton Arms acquaintance and publicity hound ever photographed with Judge Brett Kavanaugh, every cog in the Resistance Wrecking Machine must be investigated:
Protest Orchestration. The hearings were doomed from the very start, when 70 screaming demonstrators (including Women&#8217;s March holy warrior Linda Sarsour and actress Piper Perabo) systematically infiltrated the Hart Senate Office Building and disrupted the proceedings in Hour One of Day One. Day Two saw another 72 social justice mobsters arrested, with more than 200 total taken into custody by Capitol Police by the end of Day Three.
Taxpayers have a right to know who sponsored the deliberate sabotage and abuse of the gallery pass privilege, which has been in place since 1890. As the U.S. Senate website notes, &#8220;A code of conduct for visitors to the galleries is set by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and is enforced by the doorkeepers &#8230; each gallery pass requires the &#8216;signature&#8217; of a senator or officer of the Senate.&#8221; We&#8217;ve seen this partisan-organized circus mayhem before.
During the Bush years, Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Major Owens showered Code Pink radicals with free passes to disrupt speeches and hearings. Last year, Sen. Chuck Schumer handed out passes to protesters for the Obamacare repeal vote. Sen. Dianne Feinstein acknowledged that she invited gun control activist and Parkland father Fred Guttenberg to the manufactured Kavanaugh chaos, where he pulled an awful fake news stunt during a break in the hearings &#8212; a stunt that no major media bothered to verify.
Who else did Feinstein enable? Which other senators joined the plot? Those who deliberately aid and abet the hijacking of congressional proceedings should be named and shamed. Their ability to sign for passes should be curtailed. When they go low, the taxpaying public has a right to know.
Leaky Sneaks. Denial ain&#8217;t just a river in Egypt. It&#8217;s what fills the Beltway swamp. Feinstein adamantly insists that she &#8220;did not leak the contents&#8221; or existence of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford&#8217;s letter, which detailed an alleged sexual assault with more conjecture than actual details. Ford denied during panel questioning that she had leaked the letter. And the left-wing Intercept website, which ran the first report publicizing the letter&#8217;s existence, also denies that Feinstein&#8217;s office leaked it.
But it was Feinstein&#8217;s office that sat on the letter for months until it would do the most damage. And it was Feinstein&#8217;s office that recommended veteran liberal lawyer and proud resistance activist Debra Katz to Ford. Various media outlets that picked up the story point to other Democratic offices as possible sources for the privacy breach, since the letter purportedly went through California Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo&#8217;s office first before landing on Feinstein&#8217;s desk and eventually arriving into the hands of Washington Post reporter Emma Brown.
I don&#8217;t buy it. Feinstein&#8217;s in control; her senior staffers, not Eshoo&#8217;s, are the ones fielding complaints, auditioning potential victims and feeding the media. When a Beltway swamp creature declaims that &#8220;survivors have a right to decide how their stories are made public,&#8221; that&#8217;s not a deflection of responsibility. That&#8217;s an inadvertent boast of the senator&#8217;s ability to pick and choose which reporters to enlist in their smear campaign.
Accuser Procurement. There&#8217;s something fishy about the highly managed appearance of accuser Deborah Ramirez onto the Kavanaugh circus scene. Like Ford, Ramirez was assisted by a home state elected official &#8212; Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennett. But he got involved only after unnamed &#8220;Judiciary staff&#8221; reached out to him for help, according to the political operatives masquerading as journalists at the never-Trump New Yorker magazine.
&#8220;Judiciary staff reached out to our office and asked for a connection to someone who might be helpful should Deborah Ramirez decide to come forward with an allegation related to that made by Dr. Ford. We reached out to (liberal former Boulder County DA) Stan Garnett, who then met with Ramirez to work through how to analyze and present her allegations,&#8221; Bennet Press Secretary Laurie Cipriano wrote in a statement.
A fish rots from the head down. And at the head of the Senate Democrats&#8217; Resistance Wrecking Machine is power-mad Beltway barnacle Sen. Dianne Feinstein. If the Senate Republicans can&#8217;t man up and take back control of the judicial nominations process from the saboteurs seated next to them, they deserve to lose their majority.
Michelle Malkin is host of &#8220;Michelle Malkin Investigates&#8221; on CRTV.com. Her email address is writemalkin@gmail.com. To find out more about Michelle Malkin and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

MALKIN: Investigate The Senate Democrat Wrecking Machine

Jennifer Duck, the Democratic staff director for the Senate Judiciary Committee and the former Chief of Staff of Dianne Feinstein appears to be quite close with James Hohmann, the national political correspondent for The Washington Post who has been intensely covering the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Hohmann and Duck were spotted together as early as December 23, 2015. A <a href="https://www.facebook.com/EastviewHighSchool/photos/a.109658361238/10153329224816239/?type=3">photo posted</a> on Eastview High School&#8217;s Facebook page &#8212; the high school where Hohmann attended &#8212; shows the couple with Michelle and Barack Obama. Another photo from 2016 also shows Duck and Hohmann together with two others.
[[{&#8220;fid&#8221;:&#8221;38776&#8243;,&#8221;view_mode&#8221;:&#8221;default&#8221;,&#8221;fields&#8221;:{&#8220;format&#8221;:&#8221;default&#8221;,&#8221;field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:&#8221;Facebook Photo&#8221;,&#8221;field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:&#8221;Facebook Photo&#8221;},&#8221;type&#8221;:&#8221;media&#8221;,&#8221;field_deltas&#8221;:{&#8220;1&#8221;:{&#8220;format&#8221;:&#8221;default&#8221;,&#8221;field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:&#8221;Facebook Photo&#8221;,&#8221;field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:&#8221;Facebook Photo&#8221;}},&#8221;attributes&#8221;:{&#8220;alt&#8221;:&#8221;Facebook Photo&#8221;,&#8221;title&#8221;:&#8221;Facebook Photo&#8221;,&#8221;class&#8221;:&#8221;media-element file-default&#8221;,&#8221;data-delta&#8221;:&#8221;1&#8243;}}]]
<a href="https://www.politico.com/tipsheets/playbook/2015/03/sabato-reveals-top-3-gop-2016ers-politico-plans-personalization-push-names-chief-technology-officer-in-charge-of-sharp-powerful-high-performing-digital-platforms-bday-jill-abramson-kayla-212543">An article in Politico</a> also notes they attended an event together in Iowa in 2015.
In February they <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155613356467763&amp;set=pb.509697762.-2207520000.1538771162.&amp;type=3&amp;theater">were also in a photo together</a>.
Since Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault, Hohmann has written 11 articles about the situation. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/09/17/daily-202-kavanaugh-allegations-test-the-staying-power-of-the-metoo-movement/5b9f06ad1b326b47ec959643/?utm_term=.a52406e93cab">His first article</a> about the situation, written on September 17 in The Daily 202, discusses Christine Blasey Ford&#8217;s &#8220;decision&#8221; to come forward with allegations against Judge Kavanaugh: &#8220;Ford&#8217;s decision to go public on Sunday with her accusation that Judge Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her when they were both in highschool throws a wrench in Republican plans to advance his nomination through the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday and to confirm him by the end of the month,&#8221; Hohmann wrote.
Hohmann also created <a href="https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/09/27/wapo-correspondent-kavanaugh-was-doing-a-lot-of-strength-training-the-summer-ford-says-he-pinned-her-down/">controversy</a> after he suggested that Kavanaugh&#8217;s weight training the summer which Ford claims she was assaulted had something to do with her assault allegations. He later deleted his tweet claiming that it was &#8220;interpreted in a way that was not intended.&#8221;
[[{&#8220;fid&#8221;:&#8221;38777&#8243;,&#8221;view_mode&#8221;:&#8221;default&#8221;,&#8221;fields&#8221;:{&#8220;format&#8221;:&#8221;default&#8221;,&#8221;field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:&#8221;Tweet from James Hohmann&#8221;,&#8221;field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:&#8221;Tweet from James Hohmann&#8221;},&#8221;type&#8221;:&#8221;media&#8221;,&#8221;field_deltas&#8221;:{&#8220;2&#8221;:{&#8220;format&#8221;:&#8221;default&#8221;,&#8221;field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:&#8221;Tweet from James Hohmann&#8221;,&#8221;field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:&#8221;Tweet from James Hohmann&#8221;}},&#8221;attributes&#8221;:{&#8220;alt&#8221;:&#8221;Tweet from James Hohmann&#8221;,&#8221;title&#8221;:&#8221;Tweet from James Hohmann&#8221;,&#8221;class&#8221;:&#8221;media-element file-default&#8221;,&#8221;data-delta&#8221;:&#8221;2&#8243;}}]]
Hohmann has also offered extensive commentary on Kavanaugh on his Twitter: 
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The danger of being so angry and emotional right now is that Brett Kavanaugh comes across as someone who is unable to be an impartial judge.
&#8212; James Hohmann (@jameshohmann) <a href="https://twitter.com/jameshohmann/status/1045394676893851648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Christine Ford was scared to go public because she thought her life would be upended and Kavanaugh would ultimately get confirmed anyway. Increasingly, at this hour, it seems like both those things might happen. <a href="https://t.co/fi3xAHaEYL">https://t.co/fi3xAHaEYL</a>
&#8212; James Hohmann (@jameshohmann) <a href="https://twitter.com/jameshohmann/status/1045660077091368962?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Kavanaugh&#8217;s testimony seems much more aimed at reassuring TRUMP than trying to win over COLLINS, FLAKE or MURKOWKSI. Not to mention the independent suburban women who might cost Republicans the Senate and if they push him onto the court after all of this unfolds.
&#8212; James Hohmann (@jameshohmann) <a href="https://twitter.com/jameshohmann/status/1045395842629332992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
It&#8217;s no surprise that alleged witness and Kavanaugh friend Mark Judge doesn&#8217;t want to answer questions under oath and will not appear voluntarily, but it would only take two Senate Republicans to agree to subpoena him and compel him to appear. <a href="https://t.co/bc8tk5N115">https://t.co/bc8tk5N115</a>
&#8212; James Hohmann (@jameshohmann) <a href="https://twitter.com/jameshohmann/status/1042413267107426304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2018</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
As I wrote yesterday, even before Ford came forward, Kavanaugh was already the least popular and most polarizing nominee to the Supreme Court since Robert Bork in 1987. <a href="https://t.co/VJ5oIrtpYQ">https://t.co/VJ5oIrtpYQ</a>
&#8212; James Hohmann (@jameshohmann) <a href="https://twitter.com/jameshohmann/status/1042406616698638336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2018</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The danger of being so angry and emotional right now is that Brett Kavanaugh comes across as someone who is unable to be an impartial judge.
&#8212; James Hohmann (@jameshohmann) <a href="https://twitter.com/jameshohmann/status/1045394676893851648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/media-administration-deal-with-conflicts/2013/06/12/e6f98314-ca2e-11e2-8da7-d274bc611a47_story.html?utm_term=.2ddd669d08e1">In a 2013 article in The Washington Post</a>, Paul Farhi writes, &#8220;It&#8217;s all but a journalistic commandment: Thou shalt not have a vested interest in the story you&#8217;re covering. Otherwise, a personal entanglement could color a reporter&#8217;s neutrality or cloud public perceptions of fairness. An obvious area of concern: when a journalist&#8217;s relative or spouse is part of the news.&#8221;
Duck and Hohmann did not respond to a request for comment.

These Photos Show Just How Cozy Senate Democratic Staff And Mainstream Journalists Are

Washington Post

Mainstream media, trying to read the tea leaves regarding the upcoming Senate vote on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, reported that Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins, considered one of the prime swing votes in the Senate, differed with Democrats crying that the FBI investigation that just closed was insufficient. Collins said that the investigation &#8220;appeared to be thorough.&#8221;
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who has led the charge against Kavanaugh, whined about the conclusion of the FBI investigation, &#8220;The most notable part of this report is what&#8217;s not in it.&#8221; But Feinstein also admitted, &#8220;I had the opportunity to read some, but not all of it.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
SIREN: Susan Collins: &#8220;It appears to be a very thorough investigation.&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/jeremyherb?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@jeremyherb</a>
&#8212; Manu Raju (@mkraju) <a href="https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1047868079332646912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins, a critical vote on Kavanaugh, says it appears to be a thorough investigation. <a href="https://t.co/WSL25VCHf6">https://t.co/WSL25VCHf6</a>
&#8212; Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) <a href="https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1047869526455570432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Senator Susan Collins on the FBI probe into Kavanaugh: &#8220;It appears to be a very thorough investigation, but I am going back later today to personally read the interviews. That&#8217;s really all I have to say right now.&#8221;
&#8212; Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) <a href="https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1047869896447746049?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
With Collins and Flake both satisfied with the investigation, it&#8217;s hard to see them voting against the nomination since that would be an obvious red flag to raise right now. Kavanaugh appears, at the moment, headed to the Supreme Court
&#8212; Manu Raju (@mkraju) <a href="https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1047873757564612608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Collins, GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and GOP Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona have been regarded as the key GOP swing votes on Kavanaugh&#8217;s confirmation.

Swing Vote Susan Collins Says FBI Investigation ‘Appears Thorough.’ Feinstein Rips It, Admits She Hasn’t Read The Whole Report.

Susan Collins

On Wednesday, Senate Democrats released the latest in an absurd spate of Democratic <a href="https://www.durbin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Grassley%20-%20October%203,%202018.pdf">letters</a> blatantly attempting to hold up the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh for no reason. In the past few days, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has written to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-NE) to complain about the FBI&#8217;s short time frame; Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) has written to report a non-verified and unbelievable allegation of sexual misconduct.
This time, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Kamala Harris (D-CA) wrote a letter suggesting that the &#8220;confidential background investigation of Judge Kavanaugh&#8221; from the FBI, prior to the hearings, showed that there was information related in some way to &#8220;inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse.&#8221; The Democrats did not specify which of those areas of allegation had been involved. Suffice it to say that the FBI background investigation didn&#8217;t raise any issues serious enough for a single Democrat to raise such issues during the initial hearings with Kavanaugh.
But Democrats simply want to muddy the waters at this point. Their entire case against Kavanaugh comes down to the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford, whose testimony is at best uncorroborated, and at worst full of holes (she lacks location, date, and witnesses to back her story &#8212; in fact, her own witnesses say they don&#8217;t remember the party at issue). Ford herself has been implicated in possible dishonesty on questions ranging from her supposed fear of flying to her experiences with polygraph tests to the rationale behind the two front doors at her home.
The Democrats also want to be able to provide the full FBI investigation data to the public, hoping that in doing so, they can rally enough doubts about that investigation to delay the nomination still further. As they write in their letter, &#8220;we urge you to call for a full Senate briefing with the FBI on the results of their re-opened investigation so that all Senators hear the same information and have the same opportunity to question the FBI before any floor vote on the Kavanaugh nomination.&#8221; That would represent yet another waiting game, since the FBI report will be what it is; no questioning will require further investigation.
Nonetheless, the Democratic letter achieved the desired effect: the rumor that Kavanaugh was originally dinged for sexually aberrant behavior. Here, for example, is the White House reporter for The Washington Post:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Yowza &#8212; Senate Dems say in new letter that there is information in Kavanaugh&#8217;s past FBI background checks that involve either inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse (aides won&#8217;t elaborate which) <a href="https://t.co/BvmLewl1OX">https://t.co/BvmLewl1OX</a>
&#8212; Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) <a href="https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1047601056157507586?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 3, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>

Menu