The demands of the Democratic impeachment managers appear to be falling flat with some key potential &#8220;swing votes&#8221; on the other side of the aisle.
One of the Republican moderates Democrats are hoping will be among the four Republican defectors they need to force the subpoenaing of additional witnesses is Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski. But the senator&#8217;s comments after three days of the trial suggest she is not going to cave to Democrats&#8217; attempts to force former national security adviser John Bolton and others to testify.
After House Democrats decided not to issue subpoenas to Bolton and other Trump administration officials protected from testifying by executive privilege, citing the supposed &#8220;urgency&#8221; of the situation, Democratic impeachment managers are now demanding the Republican-majority Senate do so. The move could end up drawing out the impeachment for weeks, or even months, as Republicans are warning.
In comments reported by <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/479678-gop-warns-of-drawn-out-executive-privilege-battle-over-bolton-testimony">The Hill</a> Friday, and highlighted by Hot Air&#8217;s <a href="https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/01/24/murkowski-house-managers-pushing-us-legal-battle-refused/">Ed Morrissey</a>, Murkowski pushed back on Democrats&#8217; demand that Bolton testify, arguing, in effect, that the Democrats have the process backwards.
&#8220;It’s kind of like the House made a decision that they didn’t want to slow things down by having to go through the courts,&#8221; said the senator. &#8220;And yet now they’re basically saying you guys need to go through the courts. We didn’t but we need you to. That’s kind of where we are.&#8221;
The Hill quotes a few other Republicans who likewise scoffed at the Democrats&#8217; demands, including Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson (R), who told the outlet, &#8220;Do we want to elongate this thing even further? I don’t believe we should.&#8221;
As Morrissey <a href="https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/01/23/murkowski-offended-nadlers-cover-accusation/">noted</a>, Murkowski is one of several Senate Republicans who has expressed anger over the antics of the Democratic impeachment managers, particularly House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who has accused them of a &#8220;cover up.&#8221;
In a podcast Wednesday, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz made a similar argument to Murkowski about the Democrats suddenly reversing on the subpoenaing witnesses they now say are crucial in making the case. The reversal, said Cruz on &#8220;Verdict with Ted Crush,&#8221; is evidence that the Democrats are just &#8220;playing games.&#8221;
“House Democrats said, ‘We want John Bolton to testify,'&#8221; Cruz <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-ted-cruz-offers-look-behind-the-scenes-on-impeachment-explains-how-dems-quickly-revealed-theyre-playing-games">explained</a> to co-host Michael Knowles, host of The Daily Wire&#8217;s &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show&#8221; (video below). &#8220;And John Bolton did something very interesting and, I think, very clever. John Bolton’s lawyer went to a federal court in D.C. and filed a pleading that said, ‘Judge, my client has two conflicting obligations: House Democrats have asked him to testify, but the White House has exerted executive privilege that said he can’t testify.’ And his lawyer said, ‘My client doesn’t know what to do. So, Your Honor, he’ll do whatever you tell him to do. We put ourselves at the mercy of the court. You, judge, tell John Bolton what he should do.&#8217;”
&#8220;The next step is remarkable,” Cruz continued. “You know what the House Democrats did? They said never mind. &#8230; And then they get to the Senate and the first thing they want to do is subpoena John Bolton. They literally passed on it in the House.&#8221;
<iframe title="Trump On Trial | Ep. 1" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pIT6X5jviak?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Lisa Murkowski

Impeachment ‘Swing Vote’ Murkowski Deals Blow To Democrats’ Witness Demands

Impeachment

John Bolton

Susan Collins

Ted Cruz

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said this week that Democrats have made a &#8220;very serious strategic error&#8221; while trying to bolster their case for removing President Donald Trump from office and that the testimony of 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden&#8217;s son, Hunter Biden, was now needed.
&#8220;I think the House managers made a very serious strategic error today,&#8221; Cruz told reporters. &#8220;Adam Schiff’s arguments to open the day today directly drew into question Hunter Biden and made not only his testimony relevant, which it already was, but it is now critical because the House Democrats have built their entire case on the proposition that any investigation into Burisma and corruption was a sham, that it was completely debunked.&#8221;
&#8220;The problem is there is very significant prima facie evidence of corruption,&#8221; Cruz continued. &#8220;Hunter Biden, the son of the then-sitting Vice President Joe Biden, was being paid $83,000 a month, a million dollars a year, this is someone with no background in oil and gas, no experience, and at the same time Joe Biden has publicly admitted that he threatened Ukraine, he withheld, or threatened to withhold a billion dollars of aid unless and until Ukraine fired the prosecutor that was potentially investigating the company on which his son served on the board.&#8221;
Cruz concluded, &#8220;If the House managers case is based on the allegations of corruption concerning Hunter Biden and Joe Biden being a sham than it is directly relevant and I got to say the need for the Senate to hear the testimony of Hunter Biden and the need for the Senate to grant the White House lawyers the ability to take that testimony has become all the more relevant.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="Ted Cruz: Hunter Biden&#039;s Testimony &quot;Is Now Critical&quot;" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GiGGHR0fLL8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Cruz later addressed comments made by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who is an impeachment manager, during the Senate trial.
&#8220;One last observation: Yesterday, representative Nadler threw up great indignation and he said out of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian companies, how can it be that President Trump was just concerned with this one, this one company Burisma?&#8221; Cruz said. &#8220;Well, the obvious answer that the House managers ignore is Burisma was the only Ukrainian company that had the son of the vice president that had real prima facie indications of American corruption.&#8221;
Cruz continued, &#8220;We&#8217;re not talking about some abstract interest in any sort of corruption that might exist in Ukraine but if you have a sitting vice president making public policy decisions to benefit his family to the tune of a million bucks a year that raises a serious question of corruption and a president not only is justified in asking for that to be investigated, but has a responsibility to see that that&#8217;s investigated and that was a question not about Ukrainian corruption, but a question about American corruption and Ukraine being integral in helping investigate whether there was, in fact, American corruption.&#8221;
&#8220;I think we&#8217;re gonna hear another two and a half days of arguments from the House Democrats, but the longer they talk at this point, the weaker the case is getting,&#8221; Cruz concluded.

Ted Cruz: Democrats Made ‘Very Serious Strategic Error,’ Hunter Biden Testimony Now Needed

Hunter Biden

U.S. Senate

In the first episode of a new podcast series, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) peels back the curtain on the impeachment trial, offering Americans a glimpse at more than just the political theater put on for the cameras and giving his perspective on the process as both a senator-juror and a constitutional lawyer.
Asked by co-host Michael Knowles, host of The Daily Wire&#8217;s &#8220;Michael Knowles Show,&#8221; about some of his big takeaways from day one of the trial, Cruz noted that while the Democratic impeachment managers started off putting on a pretty good show, they soon devolved into &#8220;lecturing&#8221; senators and Americans, alike — and they also managed to immediately expose themselves as playing political games rather than trying to seriously get to the truth (video below).
In a discussion about the Democrats attempting to remove the judiciary in the impeachment process, particularly in connection to executive privilege — the issue at the heart of the Democrats&#8217; &#8220;obstruction of Congress&#8221; allegation, one of the two charges the Democrat-majority House brought against Trump without a single Republican vote — Cruz pointed to the Democrats&#8217; reversal on the testimony of a key White House official as evidence that the Democrats are just &#8220;playing games.&#8221;
&#8220;The best way to understand it is look at John Bolton,&#8221; said Cruz. &#8220;A lot of the argument today was about John Bolton, [former] national security adviser to the president. House Democrats said, &#8216;We want John Bolton to testify.'&#8221;
&#8220;And John Bolton did something very interesting and, I think, very clever,&#8221; Cruz continued. &#8220;John Bolton&#8217;s lawyer went to a federal court in D.C. and filed a pleading that said, &#8216;Judge, my client has two conflicting obligations: House Democrats have asked him to testify, but the White House has exerted executive privilege that said he can&#8217;t testify.&#8217; And his lawyer said, &#8216;My client doesn&#8217;t know what to do. So, Your Honor, he&#8217;ll do whatever you tell him to do. We put ourselves at the mercy of the court. You, judge, tell John Bolton what he should do.'&#8221;
&#8220;The next step is remarkable,&#8221; said Cruz. &#8220;You know what the House Democrats did? They said never mind.&#8221; The House Democrats withdrew the subpoena for Bolton&#8217;s deputy and told the judge that they were not going to subpoena Bolton as a witness, Cruz explained.
&#8220;And then they get to the Senate and the first thing they want to do is subpoena John Bolton,&#8221; Cruz said. &#8220;They literally passed on it in the House.&#8221;
What the Democrats just revealed, the senator explained, is that they are not willing to use the proper legal method to get to the truth. Instead, they want to put on a show for the public decrying the &#8220;unfairness&#8221; of the process in front of the cameras in the Senate.
The reason, Cruz underscored, is that the Democrats know they do not have a case for their two impeachment articles, neither of which specifies an actual crime and both of which fail to rise to the definition of &#8220;high crime or misdemeanor,&#8221; as required by the Constitution.
Video of the full episode below:
<iframe title="Trump On Trial | Ep. 1" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pIT6X5jviak?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-ted-cruz-sums-up-first-day-of-impeachment-trial-with-old-saying-offers-prediction">WATCH: Ted Cruz Sums Up First Day Of Impeachment Trial With ‘Old Saying,’ Offers Prediction</a>

WATCH: Ted Cruz Offers Look Behind The Scenes On Impeachment, Explains How Dems Quickly Revealed They’re ‘Playing Games’

Michael Knowles

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) isn’t usually the Republican senator one thinks of to give a scathing speech about Democrat partisanship, but on Wednesday she gave just such an admonishment regarding the organizing resolution for impeachment. 
“First, the Democratic House impeachment managers told us the evidence against President Trump was ‘overwhelming.’ Right after, we heard there wasn’t enough evidence, and we would need to allow additional testimony in order to get it,” Blackburn said.
The first-term senator went on to criticize the impeachment process taken by House Democrats:
<blockquote> House Democrats had ample opportunity to seek testimony from the witnesses they are now requesting, but they decided instead to rush through their unsubstantiated articles of impeachment. The Democrats are entangled in an intellectually dishonest effort to force a constitutional challenge against executive privilege in the name of taking down President Trump at all costs. We don’t need more testimony – we need less abuse of the Constitution, less mania and zero impeachment do overs. President Trump, like any American, has the right to seek relief in the courts, and if Democrats will punish him for this right, they will do it to anyone. Enough is enough.
Majority Leader McConnell pledged that the trial in his chamber would employ fair process. And today, the Senate set fair rules to review the House’s work. We will continue to run a thorough, constitutional process so we can all get back to improving the lives of the American people.</blockquote>
Blackburn also published <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-marsha-blackburn-impeachment-trial-is-a-political-farce-no-more-witnesses-or-documents-are-needed">an op-ed</a> at Fox News Tuesday evening calling the impeachment trial “a political farce.”
“In the days to come, out of respect for the Constitution, 100 senators will sit quietly and listen to arguments that will no more reveal President Trump’s darkest intentions than they will those of Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, or any other person who has relied on candor and objectivity to keep our country afloat,” she wrote.
“No additional witnesses or documents are necessary for the impeachment trial. To admit them would be to legitimize Democrats’ caricature of fairness, and the continuation of a process that will never be more than a political farce,” Blackburn continued.
Her remarks come after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) gave reporters on Tuesday <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-ted-cruz-sums-up-first-day-of-impeachment-trial-with-old-saying-offers-prediction">a summary</a> of the first day of the impeachment trial and offered a prediction.
“We’ve seen one motion after another after another. They’ve been redundant; they’ve been making the same arguments,” Cruz said. “This seems to be a time for Adam Schiff and the House managers to lecture the American people and attack the president.”
“But, you know, there’s an old saying that ‘If you have the facts, you bang the facts. If you have the law, you bang the law. If you don’t have either, you bang the table,&#8217;” Cruz continued. “Well, this afternoon, we’ve seen a whole lot of table banging.”
“And at the end of the day, we’re in the same spot we were in when we began the day,” he continued, “which is the House articles of impeachment that were passed on a partisan basis, they don’t meet the constitutional standard.”
Cruz then predicted the House managers wouldn’t “meet the constitutional threshold” to remove Trump from office.

Marsha Blackburn

Republican Senator Offers Blistering Rebuke Of Democrat Impeachment Efforts

The Senate impeachment trial kicked off Tuesday with all the predicted fireworks, including Democratic allegations of a &#8220;cover up&#8221; by Republicans, dire declarations from the impeachment managers and bruising rebukes by the president&#8217;s legal team. Amid all the Capitol Hill commotion, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) stepped in front of cameras to provide a succinct summary of the day Democrats have long anticipated, and threw in a prediction for good measure.
The opening arguments of the Democratic impeachment managers, headed up by House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), said Cruz, are best summarized by an &#8220;old saying.&#8221;
&#8220;We&#8217;ve seen one motion after another after another. They&#8217;ve been redundant; they&#8217;ve been making the same arguments,&#8221; Cruz told reporters Tuesday. &#8220;This seems to be a time for Adam Schiff and the House managers to lecture the American people and attack the president.&#8221;
&#8220;But, you know, there&#8217;s an old saying that &#8216;If you have the facts, you bang the facts. If you have the law, you bang the law. If you don&#8217;t have either, you bang the table,'&#8221; said Cruz. &#8220;Well, this afternoon, we&#8217;ve seen a whole lot of table banging.&#8221;
&#8220;And at the end of the day, we&#8217;re in the same spot we were in when we began the day,&#8221; he continued, &#8220;which is the House articles of impeachment that were passed on a partisan basis, they don&#8217;t meet the constitutional standard.&#8221;
Cruz then offered a prediction about the outcome of the trial. &#8220;And that&#8217;s why the end of this process, after a fair proceeding — after hearing the arguments of the House managers, after hearing the arguments of the president — the end of this proceeding is going to be an acquittal because the House managers still can&#8217;t meet the constitutional threshold.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
If you have the facts, you bang the facts. If you have the law, you bang the law. If you don&#39;t have either, you bang the table.
Today, we&#39;ve seen a whole lot of table banging. <a href="https://t.co/ez6HZtvu7y">pic.twitter.com/ez6HZtvu7y</a>
&mdash; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1219841602945998848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As The Daily Wire&#8217;s Josh Hammer <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ted-cruz-blasts-democrats-opening-impeachment-demand">reported,</a> Cruz also weighed in on social media Tuesday concerning the Democrats&#8217; demand that White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, one of the members of Trump&#8217;s high-powered impeachment team, &#8220;must either disclose any pertinent information he has about Democrats&#8217; substantive impeachment claims or otherwise be dismissed as a Trump defense lawyer at trial.&#8221;
&#8220;You may be a material witness to the charges against President Trump, even though you are also his advocate,&#8221; the Democrats&#8217; impeachment managers wrote in a letter to Cipollone, as <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/pat-cipollone-trump-ukraine-scandal-101355">reported</a> by Politico. &#8220;[A]t a minimum, you must disclose all facts and information as to which you have first-hand knowledge that will be at issue in connection with the evidence you present or arguments you make in your role as the President&#8217;s legal advocate so that the Senate and Chief Justice can be apprised of any potential ethical issues, conflicts, or biases.&#8221;
Cruz, a constitutional attorney who clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court for former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, weighed in on the Democrats&#8217; &#8220;absurd request&#8221; on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10157741123607464">Facebook</a>:
<blockquote>Democrats’ opening salvo in impeachment: they demand Trump get rid of his lawyer, Pat Cipollone.
Absurd request.
Unlike the House, the Senate will have a FAIR trial. That means we won’t deny the President his lawyer ON THE DAY the trial starts.
The Sixth Amendment provides the accused the right &#8220;to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.&#8221; Note that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to the prosecution; it protects only the accused. Under the standard put forth by the House Democrats today – that any potential fact witness cannot serve as counsel in the impeachment hearing – there is an obvious person who should be disqualified: Adam Schiff.
Schiff, it has been alleged, spoke directly with the so-called &#8220;whistle-blower&#8221; and may even have helped him draft the complaint that launched this entire impeachment.
So, maybe we should disqualify Schiff as a lawyer, and schedule him instead as a witness to explain his role in creating the &#8220;evidence&#8221; in this proceeding?</blockquote>
Hammer notes that the Constitution &#8220;affords no role for the impeachment trial prosecution to impose procedural demands upon the Senate itself,&#8221; citing <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei">Article I, Section 2, Clause 5</a>  which states that the House “shall have the sole power of impeachment,” and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei">Article I, Section 3, Clause 6</a>, which specifies that the Senate “shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.”
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-calls-out-media-over-new-report-schiff-mischaracterized-impeachment-evidence">Trump Calls Out Media Over New Report Schiff Mischaracterized Impeachment Evidence</a>
&nbsp;

WATCH: Ted Cruz Sums Up First Day Of Impeachment Trial With ‘Old Saying,’ Offers Prediction

Adam Schiff

Donald Trump

On Tuesday, with impeachment proceedings underway in the Senate, a tweet appeared from Senator Ted Cruz, provoking former Clinton White House press secretary and current CNN political analyst Joe Lockhart to trumpet that Cruz had violated the rules of the Senate and that Twitter should investigate him. Cruz’s reply was one for the ages.
Cruz triggered Lockhart by tweeting, “NEWSFLASH for Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff: <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump">@realDonaldTrump</a> invoking Constitutional privilege is not obstruction of Congress. If it were, nearly every president would have committed impeachable conduct.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
NEWSFLASH for Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff: <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> invoking Constitutional privilege is not obstruction of Congress.
If it were, nearly every president would have committed impeachable conduct. <a href="https://t.co/lWeV32MxWH">pic.twitter.com/lWeV32MxWH</a>
&mdash; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1219694084748644353?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Lockhart, apparently breathless with excitement, responded on Twitter, “Senators on the floor are sworn to silence and have no electronic devices. So how is this Senator tweeting? Did he sneak a phone in. Is he willing to go to prison? Or is the tweet from someone other than Cruz. <a href="https://twitter.com/jack">@jack</a> you should investigate.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Senators on the floor are sworn to silence and have no electronic devices. So how is this Senator tweeting? Did he sneak a phone in. Is he willing to go to prison? Or is the tweet from someone other than Cruz. <a href="https://twitter.com/jack?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@jack</a> you should investigate
&mdash; Joe Lockhart (@joelockhart) <a href="https://twitter.com/joelockhart/status/1219695347762716672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Before we get to Cruz’s response, which not only won Twitter for the day, it might have won it for the week or the month, let’s check out a few other responses to Lockhart’s desperate attempt to target Cruz as we build to Cruz’s response:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
If you&#39;re going to be the enforcer on this I think you&#39;ll end up staying pretty busy. <a href="https://t.co/knbnEkxPAS">https://t.co/knbnEkxPAS</a>
&mdash; Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) <a href="https://twitter.com/mattdizwhitlock/status/1219698385185333248?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This was an interesting one to send out during the hearing. But he can explain that to the police you send his way! <a href="https://t.co/GfBC86M5Q7">https://t.co/GfBC86M5Q7</a>
&mdash; Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) <a href="https://twitter.com/mattdizwhitlock/status/1219707843911340035?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
O K
B O O M E R
&mdash; Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) <a href="https://twitter.com/ComfortablySmug/status/1219699484839596032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
You cover politics and aren&#39;t smart enough to realize aides have access to their bosses twitter accts?
Embarrassing.
&mdash; Noah (@reeb1011) <a href="https://twitter.com/reeb1011/status/1219698106641666049?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And now, Cruz’s classic Texas response:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
<a href="https://t.co/FNTogu1IUt">https://t.co/FNTogu1IUt</a> <a href="https://t.co/cuO8Sz5Vls">pic.twitter.com/cuO8Sz5Vls</a>
&mdash; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1219698358887026691?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Cruz, a student of history, was making an obvious reference of Texas to the Battle of Gonzales in 1835 in the Texas revolution against Mexico. In that battle, when Texans resisted the Mexican forces who outnumbered them and intended to take their cannon, the Texans created a flag on which &#8220;come and take it&#8221; was emblazoned along with a black star. Replicas of the original flag can be found all over Texas, from the state capitol to the Texas State History Museum to the University of Texas to Sam Houston State University.
In all likelihood, Cruz is also aware of another time in American history in which the phrase &#8220;come and take it&#8221; was used: Fort Morris in Georgia during the Revolutionary War, where British soldiers outnumbered the 127 Continental soldiers plus militiamen and local citizens and demanded the Americans&#8217; surrender in a written note. American Colonel John McIntosh issued a response in which he stated, &#8220;As to surrendering the fort, receive this laconic reply: COME AND TAKE IT!&#8221;
Cruz has been on a roll lately; on Sunday, he <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cruz-trolls-pelosi-on-impeachment-trump-will-be-acquitted-forever-of-these-bogus-charges">mocked</a> House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s pronouncement  that President Donald Trump will be &#8220;impeached forever,&#8221; responding that by the time the Senate is done with the trial, Trump would be &#8220;acquitted forever of these bogus charges.&#8221; Last week, after Pelosi celebrated sending off the articles of impeachment by smiling and offering taxpayer-funded golden pens to those who attended,  Cruz had a golden response of his own characterizing the Democrats as buffoonish and childish, which he sent via <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1217634848426397696?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1217634848426397696&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Feditorial.dailywire.com%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost.php%3Fpost%3D79486%26action%3Dedit">Twitter</a>: “Given the circus in the House, I’m surprised she didn’t use crayons.”
Just before that, after Senator Elizabeth Warren suggested that on the first day in office after she were elected president, she would cancel student loan debt for up to 42 million Americans and simply ignore what Congress had to say about it, Cruz <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1217151342071963649?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1217151342071963649&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Feditorial.dailywire.com%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost.php%3Fpost%3D79151%26action%3Dedit">fired back</a>, &#8220;Which clause of the Constitution gives a President the authority to give away a trillion $ w/o Congress? And if you like this policy, how would you feel if/when a GOP president does it for something you don’t like? Here’s a better idea: follow the Const &amp; don’t be a dictator.”
H/T <a href="https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2020/01/21/ex-clinton-wh-press-secretary-and-cnn-analyst-joe-lockhart-thinks-twitter-should-investigate-ted-cruz-over-a-tweet-but-cruz-has-a-better-idea/">Twitchy</a>

Senate Judiciary Committee Questions Twitter And Facebook On Technological Censorship

Former Clinton White House Press Secretary Says Twitter Should Investigate Cruz. Cruz Decimates Him With One Image.

On Tuesday, House Democrats launched a new demand for the Senate&#8217;s nascent impeachment trial of President Donald Trump: White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, who is helping to lead the president&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trumps-impeachment-team-adds-more-big-names-two-from-bill-clinton-report">prolific legal defense team</a>, must either disclose any pertinent information he has about Democrats&#8217; substantive impeachment claims or otherwise be dismissed as a Trump defense lawyer at trial.
&#8220;President Donald Trump&#8217;s lead impeachment lawyer, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, was a central witness to many of the facts of the case against Trump, House Democrats argued Tuesday, demanding that the Cipollone disclose any firsthand knowledge and warning that his role &#8216;threatens to undermine the integrity of the pending trial,'&#8221; Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/pat-cipollone-trump-ukraine-scandal-101355">reported</a>.
&#8220;You may be a material witness to the charges against President Trump, even though you are also his advocate,&#8221; House Democrats&#8217; impeachment managers wrote in a letter to Cipollone, the outlet noted. &#8220;[A]t a minimum, you must disclose all facts and information as to which you have first-hand knowledge that will be at issue in connection with the evidence you present or arguments you make in your role as the President&#8217;s legal advocate so that the Senate and Chief Justice can be apprised of any potential ethical issues, conflicts, or biases,&#8221; the impeachment managers continued.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who has been a consistent defender of the president&#8217;s throughout the entirety of Democrats&#8217; partisan impeachment push, is having none of it. The junior senator from Texas, a formerly prolific constitutional attorney who clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court for former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, blasted the Democratic demand in no uncertain terms. Cruz called the demand an &#8220;absurd request&#8221; on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10157741123607464">Facebook</a>:
<blockquote>Democrats’ opening salvo in impeachment: they demand Trump get rid of his lawyer, Pat Cipollone.
Absurd request.
Unlike the House, the Senate will have a FAIR trial. That means we won’t deny the President his lawyer ON THE DAY the trial starts.
The Sixth Amendment provides the accused the right &#8220;to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.&#8221; Note that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to the prosecution; it protects only the accused. Under the standard put forth by the House Democrats today – that any potential fact witness cannot serve as counsel in the impeachment hearing – there is an obvious person who should be disqualified: Adam Schiff.
Schiff, it has been alleged, spoke directly with the so-called &#8220;whistle-blower&#8221; and may even have helped him draft the complaint that launched this entire impeachment.
So, maybe we should disqualify Schiff as a lawyer, and schedule him instead as a witness to explain his role in creating the &#8220;evidence&#8221; in this proceeding?</blockquote>
The Constitution affords no role for the impeachment trial prosecution to impose procedural demands upon the Senate itself. <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei">Article I, Section 2, Clause 5</a>  says that the House “shall have the sole power of impeachment,” and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei">Article I, Section 3, Clause 6</a> says that the Senate “shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” The <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/19/pelosis-newest-dirty-trick-putting-trumps-senate-trial-on-hold/">obvious textual implication</a> is that House members and Senate members, respectively, possess plenary authority to establish their own internal procedures for conducting the impeachment process.

Ted Cruz being interviewed

Ted Cruz Blasts Democrats’ Opening Impeachment Demand

Constitution

Democratic Party

U.S. House of Representatives

Cruz Trolls Pelosi On Impeachment: Trump Will Be ‘Acquitted Forever Of These Bogus Charges’

Nancy Pelosi

Cruz: Democrats’ Trump Allegations Do Not Amount To As Much As A ‘Speeding Ticket’

On Thursday morning, as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/liberal-hack-sen-mcsally-shuts-down-cnn-reporter-on-video">The Daily Wire</a> reported, Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ) triggered a media firestorm after she refused to answer CNN&#8217;s Manu Raju question about the impeachment proceedings against President Trump, instead calling him a &#8220;liberal hack.&#8221; As <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/16/sen-martha-mcsally-blasts-cnn-reporter-on-camera-youre-a-liberal-hack/">The Federalist</a> noted, Raju asked, “Senator McSally, should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trail?”
McSally responded, “Manu, you’re a liberal hack, I’m not talking to you.”
Raju pressed, “You’re not going to comment about this?” That prompted McSally to reiterate, “You’re a liberal hack, buddy.”
Raju tweeted that McSally &#8220;lashed out&#8221; at him, writing, &#8220;Sen. Martha McSally, a Republican facing a difficult election race, lashed out when I asked if she would consider new evidence as part of the Senate trial, ‘You’re a liberal hack — I’m not talking to you. You’re a liberal hack.&#8217; She then walked into a hearing room.&#8221;
That exchange set off CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Thursday night, who ripped McSally, saying she “acted like a punk today; she did a disservice to herself and the seat that she holds, which was held by John McCain.” He claimed McSally insulted Raju because she wanted to “impress” President Trump.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
CNN&#39;s Chris Cuomo: Martha McSally acted like a &quot;punk&quot; and &quot;did a disservice to herself&quot; for calling a reporter a &quot;liberal hack.&quot; 
This is from a guy who threatened to throw someone down a flight of stairs because he thinks &quot;Fredo&quot; is the n word for Italians. <a href="https://t.co/NWM9F22x47">pic.twitter.com/NWM9F22x47</a>
&mdash; Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) <a href="https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1218178918995329024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 17, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On Friday morning, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) fired back at Cuomo on Twitter. He began by tweeting, “NY Dem royalty Chris Cuomo declares ‘I can’t believe people would vote for’ McSally, or McConnell, or any GOP candidate. Clutching his pearls, in the very same breath, he says he can’t understand why anyone might think CNN are liberal hacks&#8230;.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
NY Dem royalty Chris Cuomo declares “I can’t believe people would vote for” McSally, or McConnell, or any GOP candidate. Clutching his pearls, in the very same breath, he says he can’t understand why anyone might think CNN are liberal hacks&#8230;. 🤔 <a href="https://t.co/CwMGYrT0Nc">https://t.co/CwMGYrT0Nc</a>
&mdash; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1218144441703243776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 17, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Then Cruz offered some free advice for Cuomo: &#8220;Pro tip: real &#8216;journalists&#8217; don’t (1) kiss up to every Dem, (2) refuse to ask them hard Qs, (3) relentlessly attack every Republican, (4) lie when doing so &amp; (5) always, always push the prevailing Dem narrative of the moment. You know this, as does Manu. You just choose not to.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Pro tip: real “journalists” don’t (1) kiss up to every Dem, (2) refuse to ask them hard Qs, (3) relentlessly attack every Republican, (4) lie when doing so &amp; (5) always, always push the prevailing Dem narrative of the moment. You know this, as does Manu. You just choose not to.
&mdash; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1218146107206795264?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 17, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Cruz has been on a roll this week; on Thursday, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who hypocritically insisted along with other House Democrats that the job of impeaching President Trump was a sad and somber duty, celebrated sending off the articles of impeachment on Wednesday by smiling and offering taxpayer-funded golden pens to those who attended, Cruz (r-TX) had a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pelosi-grins-and-offers-golden-pens-for-impeachment-ted-cruz-fires-back-a-golden-tweet">golden response</a> of his own characterizing the Democrats as buffoonish and childish, which he sent via Twitter: “Given the circus in the House, I’m surprised she didn’t use crayons.”
He added on Fox News, &#8220;Once the president is able to defend himself, I am  confident that the result of that is that the president will be acquitted, and the reason is that these articles of impeachment, on their face, are ridiculous; they don’t satisfy the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. And so we’ve moved out of Nancy Pelosi’s world. It’s why she delayed this for so long, because she knew that once the House no longer had it, that they wouldn’t be able to put on a kangaroo court like they have, and instead we’re going to move in the Senate, where I hope and believe we’re going to follow the law, and that means we’re going to acquit the president.&#8221;
H/T <a href="https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2020/01/17/martha-mcsally-spoke-the-truth-ted-cruz-uses-chris-cuomos-own-words-to-prove-cnn-absolutely-is-filled-with-liberal-hacks/">Twitchy</a>

Attorney General Barr Testifies At Senate Hearing On Russian Interference In 2016 Election

McSally’s ‘Liberal Hack’ Remark Triggers Cuomo: ‘Acted Like A Punk.’  Ted Cruz Trashes Cuomo: ‘Clutching His Pearls’

Chris Cuomo

After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who hypocritically insisted along with other House Democrats that the job of impeaching President Trump was a sad and somber duty, celebrated sending off the articles of impeachment on Wednesday by smiling and offering taxpayer-funded golden pens to those who attended, Senator Ted Cruz (r-TX) had a golden response of his own characterizing the Democrats as buffoonish and childish, which he sent via Twitter: “Given the circus in the House, I’m surprised she didn’t use crayons.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Given the circus in the House, I’m surprised she didn’t use crayons. 🎪 🖍 🎪 <a href="https://t.co/hGTIGvb2Ey">https://t.co/hGTIGvb2Ey</a>
&mdash; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1217634848426397696?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 16, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Speaking on Fox News Wednesday, Cruz <a href="https://video.foxnews.com/v/6123057302001#sp=show-clips">stated</a>:
<blockquote>The good news is the partisan circus in the House is over. Nancy Pelosi’s circus is done. And we’re not going to see the one-sided show trial that the House has engaged in for months and months and months. That farce is over. In the Senate, here’s what I hope happens; I hope the Senate — I’m confident the Senate will conduct a fair trial. That means we’ll give the House managers an opportunity to present their case.
We’ll listen to what they have to say; but then we’re going to do something that the House didn’t do: which is we’re going to give President Trump a full opportunity to defend himself, to present his case, to lay out the facts and evidence in law that the House ignored. And once the president is able to defend himself, I am  confident that the result of that is that the president will be acquitted, and the reason is that these articles of impeachment, on their face, are ridiculous; they don’t satisfy the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.
And so we’ve moved out of Nancy Pelosi’s world. It’s why she delayed this for so long, because she knew that once the House no longer had it, that they wouldn’t be able to put on a kangaroo court like they have, and instead we’re going to move in the Senate, where I hope and believe we’re going to follow the law, and that means we’re going to acquit the president.</blockquote>
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sad-pelosi-grins-while-signing-impeachment-articles-internet-explodes-over-her-golden-pens">The Daily Wire</a> reported earlier Wednesday, Pelosi stated:
<blockquote>So sad, so tragic for our country that the actions taken by the president undermined our national security, to violate his oath of office, and to jeopardize the security of our elections, the integrity of our elections, has taken us to this place. So, today we will make history when the managers walk down the hallway, we will cross a threshold in history, delivering articles of impeachment against the President of the United States for abuse of power and obstruction of the House.</blockquote>
CNN reporter Lauren Fox explained, “So many pens that Pelosi will sign to officially transmit the articles of impeachment and sign resolution appointing House managers. Why so many? They will be given away to members like House managers as a symbol of today.”
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) responded to Pelosi’s actions by writing on Twitter: “They claim it’s a somber, serious occasion they’re heartbroken over… and then they pass out impeachment-signing pens with special cases. Folks. You can’t make it up.”

SiriusXM Host Julie Mason Talks With Guests At The National Air And Space Museum

Pelosi Grins And Offers Golden Pens For Impeachment. Ted Cruz Fires Back A Golden Tweet.

On Tuesday, Sen. <a style="font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit;" href="https://www.foxnews.com/category/person/ted-cruz">Ted Cruz</a> (R-TX) suggested an idea that could trigger calling former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter to be called as witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate. Cruz called for “witness reciprocity,” which would enable GOP leaders in the Senate to call a witness of their own for every witness called for by Senate Democrats.
Cruz brought up the idea during a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and GOP leaders, according to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/witness-reciprocity-trump-impeachment-senate-trial-ted-cruz-mitch-mcconnell">Fox News</a>, which added that other people who might be called by the GOP include House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and the whistleblower who publicized a July phone call between Trump and the leader of Ukraine.
McConnell, who consulted with Cruz,senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah regarding tactics for the impeachment trial, stated,“We’ll be dealing with the witness issue at the appropriate time into the trial. And I think it’s certainly appropriate to point out that both sides would want to call witnesses if they wanted to hear from them. So if you get to that issue, I can’t imagine that only the witnesses our Democratic colleagues want to call will be called.”
Donald Trump Jr. tweeted, “I love @tedcruz’s plan of witness reciprocity. The American people want to hear from #wheresHunter Biden, #sleepyJoe Biden, #fullofschiff, the phony “whistleblower” etc. much more than they do anyone on our side especially since the house had free reign of witnesses for months.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I love <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@tedcruz</a>’s plan of witness reciprocity.
The American people want to hear from <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/wheresHunter?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#wheresHunter</a> Biden, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/sleepyJoe?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#sleepyJoe</a> Biden, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/fullofschiff?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#fullofschiff</a>, the phony “whistleblower” etc. much more than they do anyone on our side especially since the house had free reign of witnesses for months.
&mdash; Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) <a href="https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1217251711057874944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 15, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
A likely witness whom the Democrats would like to call would be former national security advisor John Bolton; three GOP senators, Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have suggested they might be open to agreeing he should be called as a witness. With 53 senators in the Senate, the GOP needs every vote, as it requires a simple majority to win a motion in the Senate. President Trump told Fox News last week that he might invoke executive privilege so Bolton could not testify.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.VA) noted McConnell is famous for keeping his plans secret, asserting, “He’s been around a long time. And he’s close to the vest. The thing he has on his radar screen is … 51 [votes]. Where can he get to 51? And no matter what his personal beliefs might be or how he feels about it. And I think that’s really the difficulty he has, trying to weave that,” as <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/14/mitch-mcconnell-trump-impeachment-098908">Politico</a> reported.
White House Director of Legislative Affairs Eric Ueland pointed out the close ties between Trump and McConnell, saying, “They have a lot of conversations, and I don’t think there’s any problem between the two of them in terms of how their being crisp and clear with each other on the various priorities each has pulling together this trial process.”
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) approved of McConnell waiting to announce his plans, stating, “If I was him, I certainly wouldn’t disclose it because then Nancy Pelosi could say, ‘Oh, now that I’ve seen the rules, I’m not gonna send these [articles] over.’ Why throw your hand in when you’ve won the game?”

Lawmakers And Presidential Candidates Attend Texas Tribune Festival In Austin, Texas

Ted Cruz Suggests Idea For Impeachment Trial That Could Make Joe Biden, Hunter Biden Testify

Joe Biden

On Tuesday, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) , growing more and more desperate as she slides down the polls in the Democratic presidential race, offered a plan that was bludgeoned by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) once he got wind of it. Warren suggested that on the first day in office after she were elected president, she would cancel student loan debt for up to 42 million Americans and simply ignore what Congress had to say about it.
As The Washington Examiner reported, “The Democratic presidential candidate said, in <a href="https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/student-loan-debt-day-one?source=soc-WB-ew-tw-rollout-20200114">a plan released Tuesday, </a>that she would direct her secretary of education to &#8220;compromise and modify&#8221; federal student loans consistent with her plan to cancel up to $50,000 in debt for 95% of student loan borrowers.”
Warren bragged on Twitter:
<blockquote>When I was elected to the Senate, I used every opportunity and tool available to ease the burden of student debt. I fought to lower interest rates, refinance loans, and hold loan servicers and debt collectors accountable for breaking the law and hurting borrowers … Understand this: The Department of Education has broad authority to end the student loan debt crisis. When I&#8217;m president, I plan to use that authority.</blockquote>
Pulling out her identity politics card, she stated, “Canceling student loan debt is a racial justice issue.” Warren pontificated that she would simply ignore Congress, stating, “We have a student loan crisis—and we can&#8217;t afford to wait for Congress to act. I’ve already proposed a student loan debt cancellation plan, and on day one of my presidency, I’ll use existing laws to start providing that debt cancellation immediately.”
Cruz fired back on Twitter, “Which clause of the Constitution gives a President the authority to give away a trillion $ w/o Congress? And if you like this policy, how would you feel if/when a GOP president does it for something you don’t like? Here’s a better idea: follow the Const &amp; don’t be a dictator.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Which clause of the Constitution gives a President the authority to give away a trillion $ w/o Congress? And if you like this policy, how would you feel if/when a GOP president does it for something you don’t like? Here’s a better idea: follow the Const &amp; don’t be a dictator. <a href="https://t.co/HT5pTEXxGp">https://t.co/HT5pTEXxGp</a>
&mdash; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1217151342071963649?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Warren has said she would make up the money lost from canceling student debt by her wealth tax. In a late November Democratic presidential debate, she claimed, according to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/nov-20-democratic-debate-live-updates-n1087226/ncrd1087866#liveBlogHeader">NBC News</a>, “I have proposed a 2-cent wealth tax. Your first 50 billion is free and clear — but your 50 billionth and first dollar, you gotta pitch in 2 cents, and when you hit a billion dollars, you gotta pitch in a few pennies more.”
But as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/warren-is-lying-about-taking-2-cents-from-billionaires-to-pay-for-socilaist-plans-heres-the-truth">The Daily Wire</a> pointed out, “Warren has actually proposed a 2% surtax on folks with a net worth over $50 million, and a 6% on people with more than $1 billion. Her initial plan included 3% tax on billionaires, before she upped it to 6%.”
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/15/warrens-misleading-pitch-her-tax-billionaires/">The Washington Post</a> noted, “Warren’s “<a href="https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax">Ultra-Millionaire Tax</a>” would apply to households with a net worth of $50 million or more, essentially the wealthiest 75,000 households. They would be charged 2 percent of every dollar of net worth above $50 million, unless they’re billionaires. Households with $1 billion or more in assets would start paying 3 percent on assets above $1 billion. At least that was in Warren’s first iteration of her tax plans. She said this tax would raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years.”

Rep. Elijah Cummings Lies In State At U.S. Capitol

Warren Says She’ll Ignore Congress, Cancel Student Loan Debt. Ted Cruz Bludgeons That Idea.

Elizabeth Warren

On Thursday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) criticized senators who, after being briefed about the strike against Qassem Soleimani, were not “convinced [that] action against” the leader of the Iranian Quds Force “was justified.”
This appeared to some to be a potentially veiled swipe at Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who stated that the Iran briefing was “inadequate” and “insulting.”
Following the briefing on Iran, Sen. Lee spoke to reporters. The senator made sure to first note that he respects the way in which President Trump has conducted himself with respect to foreign military engagement:
<blockquote>I want to state at the outset I support President Trump; I support and respect the manner in which he has approached his commander in chief powers. I believe that more than any other president in my lifetime, President Trump has shown a lot of restraint; he&#8217;s been reluctant to get us involved in wars all over the globe; he&#8217;s been very mindful and respectful of the fact that when the American people are asked to give up blood and treasure, they&#8217;re sending off their sons and their daughters, their moms and their dads, into battlefield, and he&#8217;s therefore very careful about it. I respect that enormously. My comments at the moment are not directed toward the attack that occurred on Friday. We’ll leave that to another day.</blockquote>
After making sure his initial point was clear, Lee went on to discuss his primary issues with the briefing:
<blockquote>I will say that we were brought into this briefing today to talk to us about that attack on Friday. I had hoped and expected to receive more information outlining the legal, factual, and moral justification for the attack, but was left somewhat unsatisfied on that front.
The briefing lasted only 75 minutes whereupon our briefers left. This, however, is not the biggest problem I have with the briefing, which I would add was probably the worst briefing I&#8217;ve seen – at least on a military issue – in the nine years I&#8217;ve served in the United States Senate. What I found so distressing about that briefing was that one of the messages we received from the briefers was, “Do not debate; do not discuss the issue of the appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran, and that if you do, you&#8217;ll be emboldening Iran.” The implication being that we would somehow be making America less safe by having a debate or a discussion about the appropriateness of further military involvement against the government of Iran.
Now, I find this insulting and demeaning, not personally, but to the office that each of the 100 senators in this building happens to hold. I find it insulting and I find it demeaning to the Constitution of the United States, to which we&#8217;ve all sworn an oath. It is, after all, the prerogative of the legislative branch to declare war. Article 1 section 8 makes that very clear.</blockquote>
Lee stated that he entered the briefing on the fence about “whether to support the resolution under the War Powers Act introduced” by a Democratic senator, but came out in support of it (pending amendments that would make it satisfactory).
Lee concluded:
<blockquote>It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government – I don&#8217;t care whether they&#8217;re with the CIA, with the Department of Defense, or otherwise – to come in and tell us that we can&#8217;t debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran. It’s un-American; it&#8217;s unconstitutional; and it&#8217;s wrong. And I hope and expect that they will show greater deference to their own limited power in the future and to the power that belongs to Congress.</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DyDVVIO5OH0" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Speaking later with Fox News’ Martha MacCallum, Lee <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/tv/mike-lee-on-fox-news-doubles-down-on-fiery-iran-presser-officials-wouldnt-answer-questions-on-imminent-threat/">clarified and expanded</a> on his remarks:
<blockquote>First of all, as to the substance of the strike itself on Friday with General Soleimani – he was a bad guy. I have yet to take a position on that. I was hoping to be able to reach a conclusion as to the logical, legal, constitutional, and moral justification today. I didn&#8217;t feel like I got my questions answered. I&#8217;m willing to assume for purposes of this discussion with you right now, Martha, that that may have been legally justifiable.
What I’m concerned about is the flippant attitude that they [those who briefed the senators] reflected, both with regard to the underlying facts on Friday’s attack and especially as they relate moving forward to any subsequent attack that we might undertake on Iran. There was a dismissive attitude, one that was displayed in such a way that resulted in them saying “We can’t identify what circumstances in which we would need to come back to Congress to get approval or authorization.” That’s antithetical to the Constitution.</blockquote>
Lee continued:
<blockquote>We repeatedly asked them, “Under what circumstances would you need to come back to us to get authority from Congress before taking an action against Iran? For example, what if you decided that you wanted to take out the supreme leader. Would you in that circumstance need to come back to Congress for a declaration of war or an authorization for the use of military force?” Astoundingly, they refused to answer that question. I find that simply unacceptable.</blockquote>
When MacCallum asked Lee about the briefers’ explanation as it pertained to “the justification for the imminence of the attacks,” Lee replied:
<blockquote>They kept telling us that there would have been an imminent attack had they not taken this strike on Friday, which, again, for purposes of this conversation, I’m willing to assume may well have been lawful. But then when we would ask them, “What was the nature of that attack? When and where would it have occurred? By whom would it have been carried it out?,” they refused to answer the question, and they deferred in the same way they would if we weren’t in a classified environment, saying, “Well, we can’t talk about that.” Well, we were in an underground bunker designed for that very purpose. And they should have told us.</blockquote>
Senator Marco Rubio didn’t share the same perspective, tweeting on Wednesday and Thursday:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Natl Security officials gave a compelling briefing to Senators just now. They answered every important question.
Anyone who walks out &amp; says they aren’t convinced action against <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Soleimani?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Soleimani</a> was justified is either never going to be convinced or just oppose everything Trump does.
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) <a href="https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1215016844081422338?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2020</a></blockquote>
<blockquote>Natl Security officials gave a compelling briefing to Senators just now. They answered every important question. Anyone who walks out &amp; says they aren’t convinced action against <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Soleimani?src=hash">#Soleimani</a> was justified is either never going to be convinced or just oppose everything Trump does.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Any Senator who left the briefing on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Iran?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Iran</a> &amp; claims <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Soleimani?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Soleimani</a> wasn’t planning a near term attack on Americans is calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Milley a liar.
Because Gen. Milley stated clearly &amp; firmlythat Soleimani was about to kill Americans.
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) <a href="https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1215242295857090561?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<blockquote>Any Senator who left the briefing on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Iran?src=hash">#Iran</a> &amp; claims <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Soleimani?src=hash">#Soleimani</a> wasn’t planning a near term attack on Americans is calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Milley a liar. Because Gen. Milley stated clearly &amp; firmly that Soleimani was about to kill Americans.</blockquote>
Rubio later attempted to clarify, issuing another tweet: “Some reporting about GOP Senator upset after Iran briefing leaves false impression it’s because information provided didn’t justify #Soleimani strike. It was because administration didn’t offer hypothetical scenario requiring congressional authorization for military action.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Some reporting about GOP Senator upset after Iran briefing leaves false impression it’s because information provided didn’t justify <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Soleimani?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Soleimani</a> strike
It was because administration didn’t offer hypothetical scenario requiring congressional authorization for military action
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) <a href="https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1215258695329775616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
Appearing on Fox News, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), a close friend of Lee, seemingly tried to bridge the gap, telling host Shannon Bream:
<blockquote>I think Mike was frustrated because the administration, particularly when asked some forward-looking questions about what level of congressional authorization and congressional consultation was necessary, I think the administration was a little too quick to dismiss the role of Congress. Listen, I&#8217;m a believer in the Constitution. Under the Constitution, it is Congress that has the power to declare war, and I think any time you&#8217;re looking at long-term sustained military engagement, you need congressional authorization. That&#8217;s what Mike was reacting to, is the administration was pretty dismissive of that.</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zACxAyVjSeA?start=145" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Sen. Mike Lee.

Rubio Calls Iran Briefing ‘Compelling’; Lee Calls It ‘Insulting’; Cruz Tries To Thread Needle For Lee

Iran

Marco Rubio

Mike Lee

Qasem Soleimani

Senator Ted Cruz wants Democrats to publicly declare their feelings on the Trump Administration&#8217;s mission to kill Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, and his office reports that they have constructed and are circulating a Senate resolution praising the attack.
<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ted-cruz-senate-resolution-praising-soleimani-mission">According to Fox News</a>, Cruz wants Senate Democrats &#8212; including a handful of contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination &#8212; to go on the record on where they stand regarding Soleimani, particularly given that many have expressed concerns and reservations in the wake of the drone strike that left Solemani and a handful of Iranian and Iraqi military officials dead.
Per the senator&#8217;s aides who spoke to Fox News on Friday, Cruz&#8217;s resolution is &#8220;structured and worded the same way as a 2011 resolution commending the Obama Administration&#8221; for locating and eliminating terror mastermind and Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
The resolution, the outlet says, praises “the members of the military and intelligence community who carried out the mission that killed Qasem Soleimani.”
Cruz has been a staunch defender of the Administration&#8217;s decision to target Soleimani &#8212; a decision that President Donald Trump said came about because the intelligence community reported that Soleimani, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of members of the United States military in several Middle East conflicts, was planning &#8220;imminent and sinister attacks&#8221; against American interests inside Iraq. The head of Iran&#8217;s Qud&#8217;s Force, the president added, was looking to destabilize Iraq.
“Soleimani made the death of innocent people his sick passion,” Trump said Friday. &#8220;[W]hat the U.S. did yesterday should have been done long ago.&#8221;
Democrats have, to no one&#8217;s surprise, been critical of Trump&#8217;s decision, sounding the alarm of &#8220;World War III&#8221; and accusing the Administration of failing to have a long-term plan following the strike or considering the consequences of eliminating a major player in Middle East conflict.
Several Democrats, including Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), have accused Trump of &#8220;assassinating&#8221; a &#8220;government official&#8221; in violation of international conventions and have vowed to exercise control over Trump&#8217;s mission and any further military actions. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, has pledged to introduce a Senate resolution of his own, cutting the Trump Administration off from pursuing any further action against Iran until a new &#8220;use of force&#8221; authorization can be drafted and approved by Congress (something rather unlikely given the partisanship in Congress and particularly in the Democrat-controlled House).
Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) are reportedly drafting their own competing resolution to Cruz&#8217;s, also condemning the Trump Administration&#8217;s decision to engage in a &#8220;war&#8221; with Iran.
&#8220;The Senate must not let this President march into another war in the Middle East without debate and authorization from Congress,&#8221; Durbin tweeted on Saturday. &#8220;Yesterday I joined <a class="PrettyLink profile customisable h-card" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/timkaine" data-mentioned-user-id="172858784" data-scribe="element:mention">@timkaine</a> to introduce a resolution preventing Pres. Trump from starting a war with Iran all on his own.&#8221;
Kaine added that Congress should &#8220;stop President Trump from entangling America in yet another unnecessary war in the Middle East.”
So far, a more intense conflict has not materialized, and experts are quick to point out that there is much room between a few strategic attacks and an all-out global war, headlined by a conflict between the United States and Iran. Iran has, reportedly, continued a string of air attacks on U.S. military bases in Iraq &#8212; missile strikes have been ongoing in that region for some months.

Ted Cruz Dares Democrats, Offers Senate Resolution Praising Soleimani Mission

Dick Durbin

Qassem Soleimani

Tim Kaine

On Tuesday morning, Americans woke up to the news that the U.S. embassy in Baghdad was physically <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-thousands-of-terrorist-supporters-storm-u-s-embassy-in-baghdad-after-u-s-strikes-kill-dozens-of-terrorists">assaulted and besieged</a> — not by anodyne &#8220;<a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1212173561856757760">mourners</a>,&#8221; as the fine folks at The New York Times would have us believe, but by Iranian regime-supporting radical jihadists. The terrorists&#8217; physical storming of the embassy was allegedly in direct retaliation for U.S. airstrikes conducted against Kataib Hezbollah, which is the Iraqi proxy for the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-defund-lebanon-and-do-it-yesterday">broader Hezbollah terrorist group</a> — itself a wholly owned and operated Shiite Islamist outfit of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-iranian-revolution-forty-years-old-stand-josh-hammer">jihadist</a> Iranian regime. In many respects, Iraq is increasingly a mere Iranian satrapy.
Debate about how best to deal with the Iranian regime, which has been in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bryen-the-unyielding-iranian-menace">ceaseless state of war</a> with the West since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, continues to percolate throughout American conservative discourse. Paleoconservative-leaning Buchananites, led by Fox News host Tucker Carlson, came out swinging hard against retaliatory American military action after the mullahs <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/after-iran-shoots-down-huge-american-drone-trump-hank-berrien">downed an American unmanned aerial vehicle</a> (UAV) in June. In September, the debate rekindled after Iran and its proxies launched an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-us-must-side-saudi-arabia-against-iranian-josh-hammer">unprecedented attack</a> against Saudi Arabian oil facilities. That Iranian attack against Saudi Arabia took place roughly a week after Trump&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-bad-trump-presidents-dismissal-john-bolton-josh-hammer">dismissal of then-National Security John Bolton</a>, who is famously hawkish on Iran.
The attack upon the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, much like the downing of the American UAV in June and the attack against Saudi oil facilities in September, ought to be viewed as the exhausted gasps of a regime that is truly hurting. Iranian <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/inflation-rampant-in-tehran-as-iran-struggles-to-stem-rising-food-prices.html">inflation is increasingly off the charts</a> and its entire macroeconomy is in a <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/13/irans-economy-is-crumbling-but-collapse-is-a-long-way-off-jcpoa-waivers-sanctions/">state of near-free fall</a>, as the panoply of U.S.-imposed sanctions following President Donald Trump&#8217;s removal of the U.S. from the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-trump-just-shredded-iran-deal-here-are-5-ben-shapiro">catastrophic</a> Iran nuclear deal continue to hit the mullahs hard.
Many of those on the Left, such as Ben Rhodes — perhaps the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html">single most emphatically unqualified person</a> in the whole world to purport to talk credibly about the perils of the Iranian regime — would have us believe that Iran&#8217;s various attempts to lash out in frustration are the fault of the U.S. In peddling such utter tomfoolery, these capitulatory appeasers on the Left have found no shortage of allies among the ascendant forces of the isolationist Right.
It is important that conservatives get the issue of Iran right. And it is imperative that conservatives continue to properly view the Iranian regime as a uniquely evil geopolitical foe whose <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bryen-irans-imperial-overreach">regional hegemonic ambitions</a> and would-be nuclear program alike must be thwarted at every turn.
To be sure, it is long overdue for conservatives to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-never-forget-911-we-need-rethink-how-we-josh-hammer">soberly re-assess</a> the inherently non-conservative intellectual hubris that undergirded much of Bush administration-era &#8220;neoconservative&#8221; foreign policy. But there is a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-ted-cruzs-non-interventionist-hawk-foreign-josh-hammer">very prudent middle ground to be attained</a>, and the risk is increasingly greater than conservatives might overly recalibrate far too much toward the extreme isolationist end of the pendulum. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has called this hardened realism version of anti-Islamist hawkishness that of a &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-ted-cruzs-non-interventionist-hawk-foreign-josh-hammer">non-interventionist hawk</a>,&#8221; and his approach is correct.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Friendly foreign policy 101 reminder:
Closely calibrated, narrowly targeted elimination of strategically threatening jihadist actors = GOOD.
Attempts to remake backwater third-world sharia hellscapes into Madisonian republics = BAD.
&mdash; Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1212062312275861504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 31, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
There are a myriad ways that the U.S. could complement its crippling sanctions against Iran with closely targeted military actions in such a way as to be consistent with this thesis. Again, it is impossible to overstate just how pernicious the Iranian regime&#8217;s tentacles actually are. Over the past four decades, Iran has had its hands in <a href="https://mosaicmagazine.com/response/jewish-world/2019/08/the-men-responsible-for-the-amia-bombing-are-known-and-still-at-large/">more jihad</a> committed <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/08/iran-hired-dutch-criminals-assassinate-iranian-dissidents-netherlands/">against the West</a> — by far — than has any other nation. The specific means by which the U.S. can, or should, push back militarily against Iranian aggression ought to be debated. But as famed Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz <a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/19042/should-israel-invade-gaza">once said</a>: First decide on one&#8217;s policy, then one&#8217;s strategy, and only then one&#8217;s tactics.
That was, is, and will always be sound foreign policy advice.
And it is crucial that an overarching policy of deterrence of Iran — by both financial and, if need be, closely targeted military means — remain the ultimate goal of American conservatives.

ayatollah Iran street art

HAMMER: Now Is Not The Time To Go Soft On Iran

Foreign Policy

Iraq

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

Middle East

Nuclear Weapons

Radical Islam

Radical Islamic Terror

Terrorism

On Wednesday, speaking at Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s hearing, Senator Ted Cruz attacked the Obama administration for its supposed ignorance of the actions of the FBI and DOJ that targeted the 2016 Trump campaign, snapping, “This wasn’t Jason Bourne. This was Beavis and Butt-Head.”
Cruz began, “Reading this report— this is a 434 page report — that lays out what I consider to be a stunning indictment of the FBI and the Department of Justice of a pattern of abuse of power. And I will say both the Department of Justice and the FBI, for decades, have had a great many honorable principled professionals with a fidelity to rule of law. And this indictment – I’m an alumnus of the Department of Justice — this pattern of facts makes me angry, and it makes anyone who expects law enforcement to be non-partisan and faithful to the law, it should make them angry as well.”
He continued, “Now the press has focused on your specific conclusion that you did not find evidence of political bias. That’s a judgment you have; I disagree with that judgment. But I think that judgment is, in many ways, the least significant component of this report. I think the facts that are in this report need to be understood and they should be deeply chilling to anyone who understands the facts in this report, and then people can draw the inference as to why that pattern of abuse occurred.”
Horowitz, asked if he agreed that the facts should be made known to the public, said he did.
Cruz continued, “So this 434-page report, outlines 17 major errors and misstatements that were made by the FBI or DOJ in securing FISA warrants. A number of them are deeply, deeply troubling. These are not typos; these are not small inadvertent errors; these are grotesque abuses of power. Let’s focus on a couple of them.&#8221;
Cruz stated:
<blockquote>The primary subsource: the primary subsource, and indeed the first error you note in the second, third, and fourth application for the FISA warrant is that the primary subsource reporting raised serious questions about the accuracy of the Steele dossier, which we now know was a bunch of malarkey, to use a term that’s been in the news lately, and that the FISA court was not informed of that. Now let’s get specific: so the basis of this Steele report was what’s referred to in your report as the primary subsource. That was the principal basis, and the FBI interviewed that primary subsource not once, not twice, but three times, in January, March and May of 2017. What did the primary subsource say? As the OIG reports, the interviews with the primary subsource raised “significant questions about the reliability of the Steel reporting.”  What did the subsource say specifically, as your report goes on to say? It says, “Steele misstated or exaggerated multiple sections of the reporting.”</blockquote>
After Cruz delineated the extent of the misstatements and exaggerations, Cruz continued, “The FBI had that information; knew that the basis of this dossier was saying it’s unreliable, and what did the FBI and DOJ do? … The FBI advised the court, &#8216;The FBI found the Russian-based subsource to be truthful and cooperative&#8217; with zero revisions.&#8221;
Cruz added that the second error was omitting Carter Page’s association with U.S. intelligence, pointing out that Page’s talking to Russians made sense from that perspective.
Cruz spoke of the fact that the DNC funded the opposition research done by Fusion GPS and the fact that the FISA court was not informed of that fact by the FBI or DOJ.
Cruz slammed the Obama Administration for its supposed ignorance of what was going on:
<blockquote>I can tell you from my time at the Department of Justice and from my time in law enforcement, any responsible leader when hearing that you’re talking about sending in spies and sending in a wiretap on any presidential nominee should say, &#8220;What in the hell are we doing?&#8221; And by the way, the people up the chain who are saying &#8220;We didn’t know,&#8221; if you had responsible leadership there’s no more important decision than you make.
I can tell you, when I was at DOJ, if someone said let’s tap Hillary Clinton or let’s tap Bill Clinton or John Kerry, the people there would have said, &#8220;What in the hell are you talking about?&#8221; What was going on here, this wasn’t Jason Bourne. This was Beavis and Butt-Head.
<iframe src="https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c4838024/user-clip-cruz" width="512" height="330" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></blockquote>

Justice Dept Inspector General Michael Horowitz Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Committee On FISA Report

WATCH: Cruz Blisters Obama Administration For Ignorance Of FBI Targeting Trump: ‘This Wasn’t Jason Bourne. This Was Beavis and Butt-Head.’

Barack Obama

Department of Justice

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) ripped far-left journalists and news publications on Sunday for continuing to push a misleading narrative that falsely claims that Ukraine did not attempt to meddle in the 2016 U.S. elections.
Cruz appeared on NBC&#8217;s &#8220;Meet the Press&#8221; with far-left host Chuck Todd, who asked Cruz, &#8220;Do you believe Ukraine meddled in the American election in 2016?&#8221;
&#8220;I do,&#8221; Cruz responded. &#8220;And I think there&#8217;s considerable evidence of that.&#8221;
Todd, stunned by Cruz&#8217;s remarks, immediately shifted to bringing up dirt and prior conflict between Cruz and President Trump in what was an apparent attempt to get Cruz not to defend Trump&#8217;s comments about Ukraine.
&#8220;Look, this is – Senator, this sort of strikes me as odd. Because you went through a primary campaign with this president. He launched a birtherism campaign against you,&#8221; Todd said. &#8220;He went after your faith. He threatened to &#8216;spill the beans’ about your wife about something. He pushed a National Enquirer story, which we now know he had a real relationship with the editors of the National Enquirer –&#8221;
&#8220;And Chuck, I appreciate you dragging up all that garbage,&#8221; Cruz responded. &#8220;That&#8217;s very kind of you. Go ahead.&#8221;
Todd responded, &#8220;No, but Senator, is it – let me ask you this. Is it not possible that this president is capable of creating a false narrative about somebody in order to help him politically?&#8221;
&#8220;Except that&#8217;s not what happened,&#8221; Cruz responded. &#8220;The president released the transcript of the phone call. You can read what was said on the phone call. And let me point out –&#8221;
&#8220;Look, on the evidence, Russia clearly interfered in our election,&#8221; Cruz continued. &#8220;But here&#8217;s the game the media is playing: Because Russia interfered, the media pretends nobody else did. Ukraine blatantly interfered in our election. The sitting ambassador from Ukraine wrote an op-ed blasting Donald Trump during the election season.&#8221;
Cruz persisted in getting his point across despite numerous interruptions from Todd, saying, &#8220;Chuck, Chuck, I understand that you want to dismiss Ukrainian interference, because, A) they were trying to get Hillary Clinton elected, which is what the vast majority of the media wanted, anyway, and B) it&#8217;s inconvenient for the narrative. You know, it&#8217;s hysterical. Two years ago, there was article after article after article in the mainstream media about Ukrainian interference in the elections. But now, the Democrats have no evidence of a crime, no evidence of violating the law. And so suddenly, Ukrainian interference is treated as, the media clutches their pearls. &#8216;Oh, my goodness. You can&#8217;t say that.&#8217; Last week, Chuck, you called Senator John Kennedy, basically, a stooge for Putin.&#8221;
&#8220;I have been in multiple briefings. I have been in multiple briefings, year after year after year, about foreign interference in our election,&#8221; Cruz continued. &#8220;Russia has tried to interfere in our elections. China&#8217;s tried to interfere in our elections. North Korea&#8217;s tried to interfere in our elections. Ukraine has tried to interfere in our elections. This is not new. 2016&#8217;s not the first year they did it. And they&#8217;re going to keep trying. And so we need to be strong in dealing with it.&#8221;
&#8220;But the media needs to actually report facts. This is a kangaroo court in the House,&#8221; Cruz concluded. &#8220;They&#8217;re going to impeach, not because they have the evidence, but because they hate the president, want to do the election. But it&#8217;s going to go to the Senate. It&#8217;s going to go nowhere. I think the American people know this is a waste of time. And this is Democrats putting on a circus.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
In case you missed my full interview on <a href="https://twitter.com/MeetThePress?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MeetThePress</a> with <a href="https://twitter.com/chucktodd?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@chucktodd</a> where I discussed the Democrats’ attempt to impeach <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a>, regardless of facts or evidence, watch it here ⤵️ <a href="https://t.co/8a7Jv9Mqvd">pic.twitter.com/8a7Jv9Mqvd</a>
&mdash; Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/1203794475019096064?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Many of the claims that Cruz made are substantiated by a 2017 report from Politico that is <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446">titled</a>: &#8220;Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire: Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.&#8221;
The report details Ukraine&#8217;s attempts to meddle in the election in a manner to harm Trump and boost Clinton, and no media organizations have disputed the accuracy of Politico&#8217;s report.
Daily Caller Editor-in-Chief Geoffrey Ingersoll noted in a tweet at the start of the month the basic strategy of how the Democrats and media are deceiving the American public about the Ukraine-meddling story.
Ingersoll&#8217;s tweet was directed at former Obama official and current CNN reporter Jim Sciutto, who wrote a thread on Twitter trying to debunk the claims that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.
&#8220;Zero mention of Chalupa, Nellie Ohr, Fusion GPS, or the trials in Ukraine &#8230; of course,&#8221; Ingersoll wrote. &#8220;Similar strategy all over the wider media/democratic party: focus on bogus server theory, omit the rest. Certainly not close to similar in scope, but at least address it.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Zero mention of Chalupa, Nellie Ohr, Fusion GPS, or the trials in Ukraine &#8230; of course.
Similar strategy all over the wider media/democratic party: focus on bogus server theory, omit the rest.
Certainly not close to similar in scope, but at least address it. <a href="https://t.co/yVWfp4yL9o">https://t.co/yVWfp4yL9o</a>
&mdash; Geoffrey Ingersoll (@GPIngersoll) <a href="https://twitter.com/GPIngersoll/status/1201350635259600896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Cruz went on the slam other far-left journalists and media publications who tried to inaccurately portray his comments from the interview.
CNBC reporter John Harwood wrote: &#8220;Ted Cruz disseminating propaganda fabricated by the Kremlin to weaken the Unites States.&#8221;
Cruz responded, &#8220;Rabid partisan @johnjharwood was so biased for Dems in 2016 that he got NBC fired from moderating GOP debates. @kenvogel – a current NY Times &amp; former Politico reporter – reported on Ukrainian “efforts to sabotage Trump.” Harwood claims saying that makes you a Russian asset. #Pravda&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Rabid partisan <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@johnjharwood</a> was so biased for Dems in 2016 that he got NBC fired from moderating GOP debates. <a href="https://twitter.com/kenvogel?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@kenvogel</a> —a current NY Times &amp; former Politico reporter—reported on Ukrainian “efforts to sabotage Trump.” Harwood claims saying that makes you a Russian asset. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Pravda?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Pravda</a> <a href="https://t.co/O2ushyx6CC">https://t.co/O2ushyx6CC</a>
&mdash; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1203869749815521283?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Cruz added, &#8220;John, this is a flat-out lie &amp; you know it. You’re not supposed to be a partisan hack; you claim to be a “journalist.” Report on these FACTS: [link to thread in response to Axios].&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
John, this is a flat-out lie &amp; you know it. You’re not supposed to be a partisan hack; you claim to be a “journalist.” Report on these FACTS: <a href="https://t.co/7Vp4eOLzdD">https://t.co/7Vp4eOLzdD</a> <a href="https://t.co/mIn1gdrsO3">https://t.co/mIn1gdrsO3</a>
&mdash; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1203746547097382914?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Cruz also called out Axios, a news publication that <a href="https://twitter.com/axios/status/1203071155227242496">smeared</a> Nikki Haley on Friday, which wrote on Twitter: &#8220;NEW: Sen. Ted Cruz said on &#8216;Meet the Press&#8217; that Ukraine &#8216;blatantly interfered&#8217; in the 2016 election, repeating a conspiracy theory that experts warn has been promoted by Russian intelligence services.&#8221;
Cruz responded: &#8220;@axios your bias is showing. Stop behaving like Schiff’s press secretary. Stop ignoring facts to push Dem narrative. This is why nobody trusts the media. Here are several FACTS that media chooses to ignore: (1) Hunter Biden was paid $83k a month from Ukraine’s biggest gas co.&#8221;
&#8220;FACT 2: VP Biden bragged publicly about withholding $1 billion in aid until Ukraine fired the prosecutor investigating Burisma, the company paying his son $1mm/yr. Since MSM calls this a “conspiracy theory” &amp; ignores facts, WATCH the actual video:&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
2/x FACT 2: VP Biden bragged publicly about withholding $1 billion in aid until Ukraine fired the prosecutor investigating Burisma, the company paying his son $1mm/yr. Since MSM calls this a “conspiracy theory” &amp; ignores facts, WATCH the actual video: <a href="https://t.co/3AKurt9Kvb">https://t.co/3AKurt9Kvb</a>
&mdash; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1203737664916197377?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;FACT 3: Here’s what Politico reported on 1/11/17: &#8216;Ukrainian govt officials TRIED TO HELP Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption&#8230;. and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they HELPED Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.&#8217; Axios, was Politico pushing a &#8216;conspiracy theory?'&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
4/x “&#8230;and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they HELPED Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.” Axios, was Politico pushing a “conspiracy theory?”
&mdash; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1203739293472165890?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;FACT 4: On 8/28/16, the Financial Times reported: &#8216;Kiev’s wider political leadership [did] something they would never have attempted before: INTERVENE, however indirectly, in a U.S. election.&#8217; Axios, was the Financial Times pushing a &#8216;conspiracy theory&#8217;? @axios &amp; @chucktodd are deliberately LYING. They know there’s significant evidence of Ukrainian corruption, but they refuse to report it. When anyone points to actual facts, they scream &#8216;Russian conspiracy.&#8217; This isn’t journalism; it’s partisan propaganda. Chuck knows better.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
6/x <a href="https://twitter.com/axios?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@axios</a> &amp; <a href="https://twitter.com/chucktodd?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@chucktodd</a> are deliberately LYING. They know there’s significant evidence of Ukrainian corruption, but they refuse to report it. When anyone points to actual facts, they scream “Russian conspiracy.” This isn’t journalism; it’s partisan propaganda. Chuck knows better.
&mdash; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1203744006062182402?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Jennifer Rubin, a far-left blogger for The Washington Post who claims that she is conservative, wrote an op-ed immediately after Cruz’s appearance on “Meet The Press,” titled: “It has come to this: Ted Cruz is Putin’s stooge”
Cruz responded to a tweet by Nathan Brand from the NRSC that showed numerous headlines from The Washington Post that claimed Republicans were Russia assets, tweeting, “Definition: ‘Freud considered that, in projection, thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings that cannot be accepted as one&#8217;s own are dealt with by being placed in the outside world and attributed to someone else.’ Hmm, does that mean @JeffBezos is a ‘Russian asset’?”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Definition: “Freud considered that, in projection, thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings that cannot be accepted as one&#39;s own are dealt with by being placed in the outside world and attributed to someone else.” Hmm, does that mean <a href="https://twitter.com/JeffBezos?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JeffBezos</a> is a “Russian asset”? 🤔 <a href="https://t.co/gN29Qzo98J">https://t.co/gN29Qzo98J</a>
&mdash; Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1203826135269859328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Cruz Shreds Far-Left Journalists, Publications On Ukraine Meddling In 2016 Election

2016 election

Ukraine

Former Rep. Beto O&#8217;Rourke (D-TX) revealed on Thursday evening that while he still has not figured out his future plans, he will &#8220;absolutely&#8221; be staying in the political sphere following his twice-failed bid for elected office.
&#8220;Any of you out there who have run for office before and come up short — some part of you wants to go deep into a cave and never come out again,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke said <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/469548-orourke-says-he-absolutely-plans-to-stay-in-politics">during a telephone call</a> with supporters. &#8220;That&#8217;s a natural part of the reaction, but I don&#8217;t think you get that pass in a democracy.&#8221;
&#8220;This country is counting on all of us,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;And if any one of us fails to do our part to the best of our ability, then we will fail this country and the generations that follow that are counting on us.&#8221;
The former Texas lawmaker announced only a week ago that he was officially ending his presidential campaign and dropping out of the race for the Democratic nomination in 2020. O&#8217;Rourke notably lost his bid to unseat Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) during the 2018 midterm election cycle after serving in the House of Representatives for three terms.
While O&#8217;Rourke claimed earlier in October that his bid for the presidency will be his last shot at elected office, he had already walked back his repeated pledge to Texans that if he lost the Senate race, he would definitively not be running for president in 2020.
O&#8217;Rourke told CNN&#8217;s Dana Bash in October 2018 that he &#8220;will not be a candidate for president in 2020,&#8221; and in the days leading up to the midterm elections the following month, the El Paso congressman again denied he would run against President Trump.
However, only a week after meeting with former President Barack Obama following his election loss, the Texas politician revealed that he had changed his mind and was considering walking back his pledge not to launch a bid for the presidency.
O&#8217;Rourke also told his supporters on Thursday that he is still trying to determine what his next steps are, but pledged to support Democratic candidates nationwide and promote the anti-Second Amendment agenda that ultimately became a keystone of his campaign.
&#8220;I am going to do everything that I can, and what form that takes and in what capacity I don&#8217;t know,&#8221; O&#8217;Rourke said on the call. &#8220;But certainly it will involve supporting great candidates all over this country from school board trustee to the next nominee for the presidency of the Democratic Party.&#8221;
&#8220;All of us have to commit to get behind the nominee from this party to make sure that she or he is successful against Donald Trump,&#8221; he added. &#8220;And then to make sure that once they become president, they help to heal this very divided country.&#8221;
O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s presidential campaign was consistently struggling to gain traction — both his fundraising and polling numbers were relatively stagnant over the last two quarters despite relaunching his campaign for a third time in August. O&#8217;Rourke had not broken 5% support in any nationwide polls since April 2019, and when he ended his bid for the presidency, he was receiving less than 2% of the vote on average, according to <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">Real Clear Politics</a>.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Attend &#8220;Union For All&#8221; Summit In Los Angeles

After Declaring He Won’t Run Again, Beto Says He Will ‘Absolutely’ Stay In Politics

Beto O'Rourke

Last evening, The Hill <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/469133-graham-predicts-controversial-trump-court-picks-will-clear-panel">reported</a> that U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) plans to bring Halil Suleyman (&#8220;Sul&#8221;) Ozerden back up for a Committee-wide vote this Thursday. Ozerden, who (by pure happenstance!) <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/13/mulvaney-halil-suleyman-fifth-circuit-1362794">seems to have had</a> Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney as a groomsman at his 2003 wedding, was <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-judicial-nominees-3/">announced</a> this past summer by the White House as its pick to fill a long-vacant Mississippi-based seat on the crucial U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In addition to Mulvaney, Ozerden has the backing of each of Mississippi&#8217;s two Republican senators.
Ozerden, who is only a recent convert to Federalist Society membership and whose judicial track record seems <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/conservatives-voice-concerns-over-potential-fifth-circuit-nominee/">scattershot</a> at best, has long faced <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/key-conservatives-double-down-opposition-trump-josh-hammer">fairly intensive</a> movement conservative opposition. As I <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-sul-ozerden-very-weak-fifth-circuit-pick-josh-hammer">noted</a> last summer in launching my own anti-Ozerden salvo, much of the opposition centers around the 2012 Southern District of Mississippi case of <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FA-MS-0001-0002.pdf">Catholic Diocese of Biloxi v. Sebelius</a>, wherein the eponymous diocese challenged the intrusive and conscience rights-undermining Obamacare contraceptive mandate promulgated by President Barack Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services. Ozerden, then the district court judge presiding over the case, went so far as to <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FA-MS-0001-0003.pdf">deny the diocese’s mere motion for oral argument</a> — thereby treating a Catholic diocese pleading a genuine infringement of its right to conscience in much the same manner as a judge swatting away a pro se prisoner&#8217;s filing of a risible habeas corpus petition.
At the time, I <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-sul-ozerden-very-weak-fifth-circuit-pick-josh-hammer">urged</a> Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to &#8220;lead this battle&#8221; and predicted that, &#8220;[w]ith Cruz’s leadership, it is hard to see how at least [Sen. Josh] Hawley [(R-MO)] does not follow.&#8221; Not to toot my own horn, but that is indeed precisely what happened. Cruz <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/ted-cruz-halil-sul-ozerden-nomination-1492305">came out in public opposition</a> to Ozerden in early September, and <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/26/josh-hawley-judicial-nominee-1513793">Hawley followed</a> two weeks later. Lacking the votes to pass Ozerden out of the Judiciary Committee with a favorable recommendation, then, Graham <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/26/josh-hawley-judicial-nominee-1513793">tabled a vote</a> on Ozerden&#8217;s nomination. And in the time since Graham tabled the Ozerden nomination, furthermore, Eliana Johnson of The Washington Free Beacon broke a <a href="https://freebeacon.com/issues/white-house-judicial-nom-violated-judicial-code-of-conduct-ex-wife-alleged/">scandalous story</a> about Ozerden allegedly once pressuring his wife to make an illegal campaign contribution to then-Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott&#8217;s (R-MS) political action committee.
Lacking the Republican votes on the Judiciary Committee and with a genuine scandal garnering headlines in conservative media, it seemed that the Ozerden nomination was heading for a slow but painful death. But rumors started circulating last week that Graham was actively courting Democratic votes on the Judiciary Committee to help favorably pass through Ozerden. Knowledgeable Senate sources confirmed to me this week that Graham planned to try to push through the Ozerden nomination with Democratic votes, and The Hill&#8217;s aforementioned <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/469133-graham-predicts-controversial-trump-court-picks-will-clear-panel">report</a> last evening followed. Sources tell me that the Committee Democrat most likely to cross the aisle to vote for Ozerden is either Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) or Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE).
If Graham follows this through to conclusion, let us call this spade a spade: It would be a betrayal of movement conservatism and the coronation of a thoroughly milquetoast, unfit nominee for the Anthony Kennedy-style swing seat on one of the nation&#8217;s most influential federal courts of appeal. The Fifth Circuit, which covers the red states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, represents the geographical and ideological heartland of post-Reagan conservatism in America. Mississippi, which has two Republican senators, could do a lot better than to nominate a scandal-tied non-movement conservative jurist with an inconsistent judicial track record and an expressed hostility to the foundational issue of religious liberty.
Lindsey Graham should stop what he is doing and not embark upon this path. There is no world in which Democratic votes should be relied upon to pass through a weak nominee who is opposed by large swaths of the conservative movement. Allowing Ozerden to move through would be a tremendous proverbial middle finger to the scores of conservative and religious liberty activists who have opposed his nomination from the get-go.
But if Graham does proceed, then the onus will fall on another courageous Judiciary Committee Republican to join forces with Cruz and Hawley in opposing Ozerden. Perhaps that courageous Judiciary Committee Republican is someone who is allegedly still on the fence, with respect to the Ozerden nomination, and who has a demonstrable <a href="https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/1/sasse-op-ed-important-win-for-religious-liberty">track record</a> of defending the interests of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3VblIoWpDs">religious liberty</a>.
Are you listening, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE)?

Menu