The likelihood of Trump being removed from office by the Senate is zero. However, the Democrats may be preparing to impeach Trump twice. While this current impeachment is unconstitutional and focused on this nonsense with Ukraine, Congress is pursuing in the courts the strategy to compel White House counsel Don McGahn to testify, who defied a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee. His testimony regarded Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into the Russia scandal implying an obstruction of justice.
Trump argued that there’s no longer any need for the courts to rush in to decide whether McGahn has to testify to the Judiciary Committee since he was impeached. However, the lawyers representing the Democrats argued that if this testimony produces a charge of obstruction of justice, then the committee could impeach Trump a second time. Keep in mind that Nixon fought the subpoenas and eventually lost in the Supreme Court.
This entire impeachment process has become just another political weapon. It was never intended to be used in this manner and indeed Trump has been only the third president to be impeached. Nixon resigned before the House voted for impeachment based upon bipartisan support for impeachment which has not taken place this time as both parties simply clash.
A second impeachment is possible and would be pursued by the Democrats. This will be taken much more seriously than the current nonsense over Ukraine. For that reason, the turning point of the ECM come January 18th, could be much more important to the market reactions than currently suspected.
This may provide the true answer as to why Pelosi has been holding back on sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. She may actually be holding back to add to the impeachment depending upon the court ruling,
Tammy Bruce is filling in for Sean Hannity. Refreshing. Congressman Louie Gohmert discusses the status of the political impeachment effort and Speaker Pelosi’s refusal to send the articles to the Senate. Ms. Bruce notes the DC reaction to an outsider administration was predictable; President Trump is adverse to their self-interests.
Today the DC U.S. Attorney requested a one week delay prior to submitting a second briefing for the sentencing of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
According to the filing, the DOJ is seeking a one week delay, from Dec 30th to January 6th, in order to gather more material for a new sentencing memorandum. Due to Flynn’s non-cooperation, it is anticipated the DOJ will enhance the prior memo from December 2018 and ask for a more severe sentence.
In their sentencing memo of December 2018 the DOJ (Mueller ongoing) did not request prison time, arguing for a sentence “at the low end of the guidance range.”
However, with AG Bill Barr and U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu; and given the events over the past year, including 6(e) grand jury information; there is a possibility the DOJ will now request a much more harsh sentence to include time in prison
Holy cow, what an abject lesson in media-created nuttery this is. Eric Wemple writes a column in the Washington Post skewering Rachel Maddow for selling her gullible audience on the credibility of the Steele Dossier for almost three years. However, judging by the reaction to Wemple’s tweet, the left-wingnuts still believe the Dossier is viable and accurate despite the only source, Steele’s primary sub-source, saying the Dossier material was completely bunk; “mostly innuendo”, “bar-talk”, and “internet rumor/gossip”.
There’s a cognitive pathology that clings to denial as a survival mechanism at this level. It’s called cognitive dissonance, or what David Mamet referred to as an inherent need for the collective left to pretend not to know things in order to retain their views.
Let there be no doubt the U.S. media created this. It might seem odd in hindsight, but CTH wrote about where we would be today, two years ago.
January 2018: What exactly do you think the American institutional media will do with a Justice department reality, within the real DOJ and FBI story, that factually ends up in a direction 180° divergent from their current years-long travel?
The media have fully invested themselves in eighteen months of narrative distribution in only one direction. Not a single MSM entity has questioned their travel as a result of false leaks and false sources in the totality of time they have covered the DOJ and FBI story.
Nothing within their collective need to will-an-outcome, will change the media’s proximity to facts when the truthful story behind the DOJ and FBI corruption is finally exposed. The media are so far away from the place where this story ends, they have no inherent capability to even begin to travel in the opposite direction, toward the truth.
The only way they could align with the truth is to admit that virtually every scintilla of their reportage over the past 18 months three years was inherently false. There’s not a single media outlet capable of doing that.
We shared a discussion thread two years ago about how the media are enmeshed within the story of the DOJ and FBI corruption. The media engagements with the parties swirling around the FBI, DOJ and Clinton-Steele Dossier are so pervasive they cannot reasonably report on any aspect of the story without exposing their own duplicity.
Michael Isikoff highlighted how enmeshed media is with the dossier story when he admitted his reporting was being used by the DOJ and FBI to advance the political objectives of the intelligence community. Additionally, FBI investigator Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page were shown in their text messages to be leaking stories from the Clinton Investigation, the Trump investigation and the Mueller investigation to journalists at Politico, The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. –SEE HERE–
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was busted by the Inspector General leaking stories to the media and then lying about it to INSD and IG investigators.
FBI Director James Comey admitted to leaking stories to the New York Times, and even hired his friend Andrew Richman (off-the-books), gave him access to FBI and NSA databases, and then leaked information to Richman along with another friend Benjamin Wittes at Lawfare blog.
Lest we forget, the IG report on how the FBI handled the Clinton investigation revealed that dozens of FBI officials were actually taking bribes from the media for information:
IG REPORT – We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters. Attached to this report as Attachments E and F are two link charts that reflect the volume of communications that we identified between FBI employees and media representatives in April/May and October 2016. We have profound concerns about the volume and extent of unauthorized media contacts by FBI personnel that we have uncovered during our review.
[…] We do not believe the problem is with the FBI’s policy, which we found to be clear and unambiguous. Rather, we concluded that these leaks highlight the need to change what appears to be a cultural attitudeamong many in the organization. (link to pdf – page Xii of executive summary)
Madness.
This is an IG fact-based criticism of the institution of the FBI, not simply a few rogue officials within it.
But wait…. Perspective:
Later it was revealed that Andrew Weissman, Robert Mueller’s #1 special counsel prosecutor, was coordinating investigative efforts with the full support of four AP reporters who were giving Weissman tips. That’s information from journalists to use in his court filings and submitted search warrants. Make sure you grasp this: The AP journalists were feeding information to their ideological allies within the special counsel.
Nuts; simply, well, nuts.
And then there’s Devlin Barrett, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok:
Additionally, Christopher Steele has stated in U.K. court records the person in charge of the Clinton Campaign’s opposition research firm, Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS, arranged and coordinated for Mr. Steele to talk to several journalists (CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Yahoo News and Mother Jones) while Mr. Steele was also the primary source of information for the FBI investigators (including Strzok and Page):
Make sure you read that full response from Christopher Steele above to see the scope of the media engagements he was conducting.
As more evidence surfaced, the relationship between journalists, Fusion-GPS, Chris Steele and the media’s DOJ/FBI sources blended together. The FBI was using media reports, which were based on Fusion-GPS pitches, to bolster its investigative documents to the FISA court. It is an intelligence laundry operation:
According to the U.K records, Christopher Steele reports this September 2016 meeting with Isikoff was arranged by Glenn Simpson. According to Michael Isikoff on his February podcast, he met Christopher Steele at a Washington, D.C. hotel in Sept. 2016. They were joined by his “old friend” Glenn Simpson, the founder of opposition research firm Fusion GPS, who Isikoff now defines as a “private investigator.”
So Christopher Steele was meeting with journalists, the journalists were writing articles; the FBI was leaking to media and simultaneously citing those same articles as underlying evidence to support their counterintelligence investigations; and all of this was used to validate the investigative documents the FBI was receiving from Christopher Steele; who, along with the leaking FBI officials, was also the source of the media articles.
FUBAR! This is exponentially bonkers.
This is a circle of information, all coming from Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS, who was the opposition research firm being financed by Hillary Clinton, along with FBI officials who were using their own strategic leaks to validate their own investigation.
Think about the scale of the reporting, and reporting on reporting, and reporting on reporting of reporting, of anonymous leaks, false leaks, lies from “people with knowledge of the matter”, “government officials involved in the matter”, “people familiar with the matter”, “government sources” etc. all going in one unified and semi-coordinated direction – against the aggregate Trump administration.
Now, it actually gets even more convoluted.
Christopher Steele has sworn under oath that he met with multiple journalists (at least eight organizations) in September, mid-October, and late-October 2016: “at Fusion’s instruction“. (pdf page #7)
Overlay upon that sworn admission with what Glenn Simpson (Fusion-GPS) told the House Intelligence Committee while also under oath about his involvement in sharing information derived from Christopher Steele:
FBI Director James Comey admits to leaking his ‘memos’ to the New York Times. FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was busted for leaking and lying about it. FBI #2 Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Attorney Lisa Page are caught in their text messages leaking to Politico, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.
…. AND the FBI is caught, in at least one FISA application, using Yahoo media reports provided by them AND their investigative source Christopher Steele to establish a basis for FISA “Title I” surveillance; the most intrusive and wide-open search and surveillance authority possible.
The Clinton Campaign is paying Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research against Donald Trump. In addition to Glenn Simpson pushing that opposition research into the media, Fusion GPS is also providing that opposition research –including information from contacts with media– directly to the FBI:
… In addition to using the Fusion-GPS opposition research to underpin their counterintelligence investigation, the FBI then turn around and leak the same opposition research information to the media to create secondary support for their counterintelligence investigation.
Tell me again how the media can possibly write about this now?
The problem is not just corruption with the U.S. Justice System, the DOJ and the FBI; the problem is corruption within the media.
We’re talking about thousands of hours of media TV pundits, thousands more columns written, and almost every scintilla of it based on originating intelligence sources -from the larger intelligence system- that are now being exposed as duplicitous and conspiratorial in the scale of their malicious intent.
This larger story-line has traveled in one direction. The narrative has only traveled in one direction. Each thread converging on codependent trails for collective stories all going in one direction. One big engineered narrative endlessly pushed. Think about how far the collective media have traveled with this story over the past eighteen months?
Hell, twenty-something-year-old “journalists” were so committed to the resistance narrative they were even sleeping with their sources to get any little engineering angle possible.
Over a period of several years it has become increasingly obvious the collective journey, using all that expended effort, was going in the wrong direction.
The media have fully invested themselves in three-years of narrative distribution in only one direction. Not a single MSM entity has questioned their travel as a result of false leaks or false sources in the totality of time they have covered the DOJ and FBI story.
Nothing within their collective need to will-an-outcome will change the media’s proximity to facts when the truthful story behind the DOJ and FBI corruption is finally exposed. The media are so far away from the place where this story ends, they have no inherent capability to even begin to travel in the opposite direction, toward the truth.
The only way they could align with the truth is to admit that virtually every scintilla of their reportage over the past three years was inherently false, wrong, skewed and manipulated by their “sources” distributing the material for their reporting.
There’s not a single media outlet capable of doing that.
Think about a New York Times, CNN, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, Mother Jones, Yahoo News or Washington Post journalist now having to write an article deconstructing a foundation of three-years worth of lies they participated in creating.
Do we really think such a catastrophic level of corrupted journalism could reconstitute into genuine reporting of fact-based information?
An interesting CTH discussion on Carter Page is worth expansion. Factually I have not spent much time thinking about Mr. Page because he always seemed irrelevant. However, some people have put a great deal of smart thought into how Page plays into the larger SpyGate dynamic. That analysis is interesting & the various possibilities are a good read.
From the initial CTH review of Page he always seemed to be a tool. Something akin to a disposable syringe. The viral agent in the syringe is important; the motives of those using the syringe obviously important; but Page himself seemed disposable to the sharps bag.
Maybe that’s the wrong way to look at him.
Having not spent much time thinking about him, it’s very interesting to read Treeper comments about him and the various possibilities his appearance in 2016 might represent. So please use this thread to discuss your own opinion(s).
What role do you think Mr. Carter Page played in the larger objectives of the coup crew?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has done every crazy thing but froth at the mouth during the impeachment process. A sane person trying to understand her tactics might conclude that Pelosi has gone wild. Stephen Green leads Scott Ott and Bill Whittle in an effort to make sense of her approach. Join Bill, Scott and Steve and a lot more people like you on a Caribbean cruise in May 2020. Reserve your cabin now at https://BillWhittleCruise.com Right Angle comes to you 20-times each month thanks to our Members. Join them today: https://BillWhittle.com/register/
At a recent “get-out-the-vote” rally in Las Vegas, former first lady Michelle Obama declared that people don’t have to be informed in order to vote. All they need, she said, is to “be a citizen,” “have opinions,” and want “a say in what happens.” She emphasized, “I’ve been voting since I was 18 years old—and trust me—I didn’t know nothing about nothing at 18 years old.”
In contrast, James Madison—the father of the Constitution and primary author of the Bill of Rights—stressed that voters “must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” Failure to do this, he said, will produce government that is “a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both.”
The results of a new scientific survey indicate that voters of all ages, political parties, and genders are following Obama’s lead instead of Madison’s. Moreover, the survey shows that many voters are not only uninformed about major issues—they are positively misinformed.
Those are the findings of an annual, national poll commissioned by Just Facts, a non-profit research and educational institute. The poll was conducted by an academic research firm that used sound methodologies to assess U.S. residents who regularly vote.
While most surveys measure public opinion, this unique one measures voters’ knowledge of issues that affect their lives in tangible ways—such as education, taxes, healthcare, the national debt, pollution, government spending, Social Security, global warming, energy, and hunger. Every year, the poll includes a new question about a prevalent, controversial issue. This year, the question is about rape.
Results for All Voters
For each question, voters were offered a selection of two or more answers, one of which was true. Voters also had the opportunity to say they were unsure.
On average, voters gave the correct answer 40% of the time, gave an incorrect answer 53% of the time, and said they were unsure 7% of the time. A majority of voters gave the correct answer to only six of the 24 questions.
The highest levels of misinformation were found on questions related to child hunger, tax burdens, landfills, health insurance copayments, and Social Security finances. For these questions, 25% or less of voters provided the correct answer.
Results by Age, Gender, and Politics
The survey also recorded voters’ ages, genders, and political party preferences. This allows the poll to pinpoint segments of society that are most and least informed about specific issues.
The results show deep partisan and demographic divides, with different groups being more or less knowledgeable depending upon the questions.
In total, the rates at which voters gave the correct answers varied from a high of 47% for Republican voters to a low of 34% for Democrat voters:
47% for Republican voters
43% for males
42% for 35 to 64 year olds
41% for 18 to 34 year olds
38% for 65+ year olds
38% for third-party voters
37% for females
34% for Democrat voters
The questions, answers, full survey results and methodologies are below.
Education
Question 1: Relative to other nations, how do you believe U.S. fourth graders rank in terms of their reading and math ability? Are they in the bottom 50% or in the top 50%?
Correct Answer: Top 50%. In international tests administered to students in dozens of nations, U.S. fourth graders rank in the top 30% of nations for reading and for math. Confusion about this issue may stem from the fact that the relative performance of U.S. students declines over time, and by the age of 15, they drop to the bottom 50% in reading and to the bottom 20% in math. This suggests that the problems of the U.S. education system may occur in the later years, not the early years, as many have claimed.
Correct answer given by 44% of all voters, 42% of Democrat voters, 46% of Republican voters, 41% of third-party voters, 47% of males, 41% of females, 52% of 18 to 34 year olds, 45% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 41% of 65+ year olds.
Question 2: On average across the United States, how much do you think public schools spend per year to educate each classroom of students? Less or more than $150,000 per classroom per year?
Correct Answer: More than $150,000. The average cost to educate a classroom of public school students is about $315,000 per year. Department of Education data shows that the average inflation-adjusted spending per public school student has risen by more than three times since 1960.
Correct answer given by 33% of all voters, 20% of Democrat voters, 44% of Republican voters, 33% of third-party voters, 39% of males, 26% of females, 35% of 18 to 34 year olds, 33% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 32% of 65+ year olds.
Question 3: In your mind, what portion of 17- to 24-year-olds in the U.S. are unqualified for military service because of weak educational skills, poor physical fitness, illegal drug usage, medical conditions, or criminal records?More or less than half?
Correct Answer: More than half. According to various agencies within the Department of Defense, two-thirds to three-quarters of all 17- to 24-year-olds are unqualified for military service because of weak educational skills, poor physical fitness, illegal drug usage, medical conditions, or criminal records.
Correct answer given by 43% of all voters, 37% of Democrat voters, 46% of Republican voters, 49% of third-party voters, 40% of males, 46% of females, 38% of 18 to 34 year olds, 45% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 40% of 65+ year olds.
Question 4: When conventional public schools are subject to school choice programs that allow students to leave for private or charter schools, do you think the children who remain in the public schools academically decline?
Correct Answer: No. At least 21 high-quality studies have been performed on the academic outcomes of students who remain in public schools that are subject to school choice programs. All but one of the studies found neutral-to-positive results, and none of the studies found negative results. This is consistent with the theory that school choice stimulates competition that helps public schools to improve.
Correct answer given by 44% of all voters, 37% of Democrat voters, 46% of Republican voters, 49% of third-party voters, 45% of males, 41% of females, 39% of 18 to 34 year olds, 46% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 40% of 65+ year olds.
Taxes
Question 5: The average U.S. household spends about $29,000 per year on food, housing, and clothing combined. If we broke down all combined federal, state, and local taxes to a per household cost, do you think this would amount to more or less than an average of $29,000 per household per year?
Correct Answer: More than $29,000. In 2017, federal, state and local governments collected a combined total of $5.0 trillion in taxes or an average of $40,000 for every household in the U.S.
Correct answer given by 46% of all voters, 39% of Democrat voters, 50% of Republican voters, 58% of third-party voters, 47% of males, 45% of females, 58% of 18 to 34 year olds, 49% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 40% of 65+ year olds.
Question 6: On average, who would you say pays a greater portion of their income in federal taxes: The middle class or the upper 1% of income earners?
Correct Answer: The upper 1%. The Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. Treasury, and the Tax Policy Center have all documented that households in the top 1% of income pay an average effective federal tax rate of about 34%, while middle-income households pay about 13%. These tax rates account for nearly all income and federal taxes. Claims to the contrary—which are often voiced by politicians and the media—are based on misleading calculations that exclude large portions of people’s taxes and/or incomes.
Correct answer given by 22% of all voters, 9% of Democrat voters, 37% of Republican voters, 17% of third-party voters, 27% of males, 16% of females, 25% of 18 to 34 year olds, 24% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 18% of 65+ year olds.
Spending
Question 7: Now, changing the subject from taxes to spending, suppose we broke down all government spending to a per household cost—do you think the combined spending of federal, state and local governments amounts to more or less than $40,000 per household per year?
Correct Answer: More than $40,000. In 2017, federal, state and local governments spent a combined total of $6.6 trillionor an average of $52,000 for every household in the U.S. For reference, the average U.S. household spends about $44,000per year on food, housing, clothing, transportation, and healthcare.
Correct answer given by 44% of all voters, 38% of Democrat voters, 51% of Republican voters, 35% of third-party voters, 47% of males, 40% of females, 47% of 18 to 34 year olds, 46% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 40% of 65+ year olds.
Question 8: Do you think the federal government spends more money on social programs, such as Medicare, education, and food stamps—or does the federal government spend more money on national defense, such as the Army, Navy, and missile defense?
Correct Answer: Social programs. In 2016, 63% of federal spending was for social programs, and 18% was for national defense. In 1960, the opposite was true, and 53% of federal spending was for national defense, while 21% was for social programs.
Correct answer given by 34% of all voters, 12% of Democrat voters, 60% of Republican voters, 23% of third-party voters, 37% of males, 32% of females, 28% of 18 to 34 year olds, 33% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 37% of 65+ year olds.
National Debt
Question 9: What about federal government debt? The average U.S. household owes about $122,000 in consumer debt, such as mortgages and credit cards. Thinking about all federal government debt broken down to a per household basis, do you think the average federal debt per U.S. household amounts to more or less than the average consumer debt per U.S. household?
Correct Answer: More than $122,000. Federal debt is now $21.6 trillion or $171,000 for every household in the United States. Such levels of debt can have far-reaching negative effects on wages, living standards, healthcare, and financial security.
Correct answer given by 74% of all voters, 72% of Democrat voters, 78% of Republican voters, 76% of third-party voters, 73% of males, 74% of females, 72% of 18 to 34 year olds, 78% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 67% of 65+ year olds.
Question 10: From the time that the Great Recession ended in 2009, which do you think has grown at a faster rate, the U.S. economy or the national debt?
Correct Answer: The national debt. From the time that the Great Recession ended in 2009, the national debt grew by 88%, while the U.S. economy grew by 42%.
Correct answer given by 80% of all voters, 85% of Democrat voters, 74% of Republican voters, 88% of third-party voters, 80% of males, 80% of females, 81% of 18 to 34 year olds, 79% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 81% of 65+ year olds.
Global Warming
Question 11: Would you say the earth has become measurably warmer since the 1980s?
Correct Answer: Yes.According to both satellite-measured data and ground-level thermometers, the earth’s average temperature has increased by about 0.6 to 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1980s. This increase is greater than the range of measurement uncertainty. Providing a sense of scale for this change, a temperature analysis of a glacier in Greenland found that it was about 22ºF colder during the last ice age than it is now.
Correct answer given by 67% of all voters, 95% of Democrat voters, 38% of Republican voters, 77% of third-party voters, 64% of males, 71% of females, 78% of 18 to 34 year olds, 63% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 71% of 65+ year olds.
Question 12: Again, thinking about the whole planet, do you think the number and intensity of hurricanes and tropical storms have generally increased since the 1980s?
Correct Answer: No. Comprehensive global data shows that the number and intensity of cyclones and hurricanes has been roughly level for the past four-to-five decades. This data was originally published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in 2011 and updated this year. Likewise, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reported: “There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.” Various media outlets have spread false claims to the contrary by ignoring wide-ranging facts and cherry-picking timeframes, geographical locations, and the opinions of certain scientists.
Correct answer given by 30% of all voters, 6% of Democrat voters, 55% of Republican voters, 20% of third-party voters, 35% of males, 23% of females, 18% of 18 to 34 year olds, 36% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 22% of 65+ year olds.
Pollution
Question 13: Now, just thinking about the United States, in your opinion, is the air generally more polluted than it was in the 1980s?
Correct Answer: No. EPA data shows that ambient levels of all criteria air pollutants have declined significantly since the 1980s. Criteria air pollutions are those that are deemed by the administrator of the EPA to be widespread and to “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare….” Likewise, combined emissions of hazardous air pollutants have declined by about 50% since the 1990s. Lower pollution levels can improve human health and reduce problems like learning deficits and behavioral disorders.
Correct answer given by 54% of all voters, 44% of Democrat voters, 69% of Republican voters, 42% of third-party voters, 63% of males, 44% of females, 43% of 18 to 34 year olds, 59% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 50% of 65+ year olds.
Question 14: If the U.S. stopped recycling and buried all of its municipal trash for the next 100 years in a single landfill that was 30 feet high, how much of the nation’s land area would you think this landfill would cover? Less than 1%, 1% to less than 5%, or more than 5%?
Correct Answer: Less than 1%. At the current U.S. population growth rate and the current per-person trash production rate, the landfill would cover 0.06% of the nation’s land area. More realistically, the actual area in use will be an order of magnitude smaller, because:
the U.S. recycles, burns, or composts 48% of its trash.
landfills can be more than 200 feet high.
after 30 to 50 years, landfills are often covered and used for purposes such as parks, golf courses, ski slopes, and airfields.
Correct answer given by 9% of all voters, 6% of Democrat voters, 13% of Republican voters, 6% of third-party voters, 12% of males, 5% of females, 5% of 18 to 34 year olds, 10% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 7% of 65+ year olds.
Energy
Question 15: Without government subsidies, which of these technologies do you think is the least expensive method for generating electricity? Wind turbines, solar panels, or natural gas power plants?
Correct Answer: Natural gas power plants. Determining the costs of electricity-generating technologies is complex, but data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that natural gas is considerably less expensive than wind, and wind is considerably less expensive than solar. Affordable energy has many important benefits, and for poorer people, it can mean the difference between life and death.
Correct answer given by 37% of all voters, 23% of Democrat voters, 53% of Republican voters, 35% of third-party voters, 46% of males, 26% of females, 41% of 18 to 34 year olds, 39% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 32% of 65+ year olds.
Question 16: Without government subsidies, which of these fuels do you believe is least expensive for powering automobiles? Gasoline, ethanol, or biodiesel?
Correct Answer: Gasoline. Data from the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Energy Information Administration show that in 2017, the unsubsidized cost of ethanol was 32% more than gasoline, and the unsubsidized cost of biodiesel was 119% more than gasoline.
Correct answer given by 48% of all voters, 38% of Democrat voters, 61% of Republican voters, 31% of third-party voters, 53% of males, 41% of females, 40% of 18 to 34 year olds, 49% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 47% of 65+ year olds.
Question 17: Worldwide, which of these technologies generates the most electricity? Solar panels, natural gas power plants, coal power plants, or nuclear power plants?
Correct Answer: Coal power plants. Due to the low cost and widespread availability of coal, coal power plants generate about 40% of the world’s electricity, as compared to 22% for natural gas, 11% for nuclear, and 1% for solar.
Correct answer given by 34% of all voters, 32% of Democrat voters, 36% of Republican voters, 25% of third-party voters, 43% of males, 23% of females, 36% of 18 to 34 year olds, 37% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 29% of 65+ year olds.
Hunger
Question 18: On an average day, what portion of U.S. households with children do you believe will have at least one child who experiences hunger? Less than 1%, 1% to 10%, or more than 10%?
Correct Answer: Less than 1%. Per the latest data from the USDA, on an average day, less than one fifth of one percent (0.14%) of households with children have a child who experiences hunger. Those who claim that child hunger is more common often falsely equate the term “food insecure” with “hunger,” but most food-insecure households never experience hunger during any point of the year.
Correct answer given by 14% of all voters, 5% of Democrat voters, 24% of Republican voters, 10% of third-party voters, 17% of males, 10% of females, 11% of 18 to 34 year olds, 14% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 14% of 65+ year olds.
Social Security
Question 19: Do you think Social Security’s financial problems stem from politicians looting the program and spending the money on other programs?
Correct Answer: No. By law, all Social Security taxes and revenues can be used only for the Social Security program, and the federal government has never failed to abide by this law. What some call “looting” is actually a legal requirement (established in the original Social Security of 1935) that all of the program’s surpluses be loaned to the federal government. The government is required to pay back this money with interest, and it has been doing this since 2010. Social Security’s financial problems primarily stem from the fact that the ratio of workers paying taxes to people receiving benefits has fallen by three times since 1955 and is projected to fall further.
Correct answer given by 16% of all voters, 19% of Democrat voters, 13% of Republican voters, 12% of third-party voters, 17% of males, 14% of females, 22% of 18 to 34 year olds, 16% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 13% of 65+ year olds.
Question 20: Some policymakers are proposing that individuals be allowed to save and invest some of their Social Security taxes in personal accounts instead of paying these taxes to the Social Security program. In your view, do you think such proposals generally improve or harm the finances of the Social Security program?
Correct Answer: Improve. As shown by analyses conducted by the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration and a bipartisan presidential commission, proposals to give Social Security an element of personal ownership generally strengthen the program’s finances. Although some tax revenues that would have gone to the program instead go to people’s personal retirement accounts, these tax revenues are more than offset by the savings of not paying these individuals full benefits.
Correct answer given by 24% of all voters, 10% of Democrat voters, 37% of Republican voters, 19% of third-party voters, 27% of males, 20% of females, 31% of 18 to 34 year olds, 26% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 19% of 65+ year olds.
Health Care
Question 21: In 1960, governments paid for 24% of all healthcare costs in the U.S. Do you think governments now pay a greater portion or a lesser portion of all healthcare costs in the U.S.?
Correct Answer: A greater portion. In 2016, governments paid for 49% of all healthcare expenses in the United States.
Correct answer given by 55% of all voters, 43% of Democrat voters, 69% of Republican voters, 41% of third-party voters, 58% of males, 50% of females, 50% of 18 to 34 year olds, 56% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 54% of 65+ year olds.
Question 22: When health insurance copayments are high, people tend to spend less on healthcare. Do you think that this reduced spending typically has a negative impact on their health?
Correct Answer: No. Multiple studies have shown that when copayments are high, people generally spend less money on their healthcare without negatively impacting their health. This is because when people directly pay for more of their healthcare bills, they are more likely to be responsible consumers and use only those services that actually benefit their health. An exception to this rule is the poorest 6% of the population, who do experience negative effects when copayments are increased.
Correct answer given by 15% of all voters, 6% of Democrat voters, 24% of Republican voters, 10% of third-party voters, 18% of males, 12% of females, 23% of 18 to 34 year olds, 13% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 16% of 65+ year olds.
Question 23: In 2010, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare.” This law uses price controls to save money in the Medicare program. Do you think these price controls will worsen Medicare patients’ access to care?
Correct Answer: Yes. As explained by Medicare’s actuaries, the price controls in the Affordable Care Act will cut Medicare prices for many medical services over the next three generations to “less than half of their level under the prior law.” The actuaries have been clear that this will likely cause “withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market” and “severe problems with beneficiary access to care.”
Correct answer given by 47% of all voters, 17% of Democrat voters, 75% of Republican voters, 56% of third-party voters, 47% of males, 47% of females, 41% of 18 to 34 year olds, 49% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 46% of 65+ year olds.
Rape
Question 24: What portion of adult females living in the U.S. say that they have been the victim of an act that fits the legal definition of rape? Less than 1%, 1% to 5%, or more than 5%?
Correct Answer: More than 5%. A nationally representative scientific survey conducted by U.S. Centers for Disease Control found that 11.5% of adult females say they have been the victim of acts that constitute forcible rape. These findings are consistent with other rigorous studies. Politicians, journalists, and activists have spread a lot of misinformation about rape in general, college rape, and false allegations of rape. A detailed analysis of the latest credible data on these topics is available here.
Correct answer given by 56% of all voters, 78% of Democrat voters, 33% of Republican voters, 65% of third-party voters, 51% of males, 61% of females, 64% of 18 to 34 year olds, 57% of 35 to 64 year olds, and 51% of 65+ year olds.
Methodology and Full Results
The survey was conducted by Triton Polling & Research, an academic research firm used by scholars, corporations, and political campaigns. The responses were obtained through live telephone surveys of 1,000 likely voters across the United States during October 2–13, 2018. This sample size is large enough to accurately represent the U.S. population. Likely voters are people who say they vote “every time there is an opportunity” or in “most” elections.
The margin of sampling error for the total pool of respondents is ±3% with at least 95% confidence. The margins of error for the subsets are 5% for Democrat voters, 5% for Republican voters, 11% for third-party voters, 4% for males, 4% for females, 10% for 18 to 34 year olds, 5% for 35 to 64 year olds, and 5% for 65+ year olds.
The survey results presented in this article are slightly weighted to match the ages and genders of likely voters. The political parties and geographic locations of the survey respondents almost precisely match the population of likely voters. Thus, there is no need for weighting based upon these variables. The complete weighted and unweighted results are available here:
To achieve this impeachment, the Democrats ORDERED all Democrats “MUST” vote for impeachment even if they disagreed. This is clearly a total denial of the democratic foundation of the United States. We have people who run for office and tell you what they personally stand for. Then they get to Washington and the Party tells them it does not matter what they were elected to do, the Party instructs them how to vote and when.
Rep. Jeff Van Drew has refused to be dictated to and has announced that he has left the Democratic Party stating publicly that the Democrats told him that: “You Have To Vote For Impeachment.” The partisanship which has dominated this impeachment has deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights, to be represented by elected politicians. The very right to participate equally in the political process has been denied by Nancy Pelosi ordering Democrats to vote party line. This has undermined the fundamental principle of representative government.
Politicians are not elected to advance party political beliefs, but make representations as to their policies upon which people then vote whereby they choose their political representatives. If a party can direct the votes of representatives contrary to the very policies that achieved their position is as unconstitutional as directing votes against races, creed, or gender.
If partisanship supersedes democratic principles then this has debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people. These party dictates have enabled politicians to entrench themselves in office as against voters’ preferences. This has promoted partisanship above respect for the popular votes which are the cornerstone of our democratic society. This impeachment process is constitutionally invalid encouraging a politics of polarization and dysfunction. If left unchecked, the future abuse of this impeachment process will undermine society which will irreparably damage our system of government.
I’m not sure exactly who they are, and there’s a possibility they might just be one person; however, it appears there are three distinct FBI officials engaged in an overall investigative capacity, attempting to break the truth through the corrupt machinery.
Each individual is noted within a specific event or outcome. Hopefully AG Bill Barr has tasked his deputy James Rosen to hold an honest ‘climate assessment‘ discussion with these individuals.
♦The first honorable FBI Agent is the FBI official who enhanced the DOJ sentencing memo for James Wolfe. The DOJ prosecution, namely DC U.S. Attorney Jessie K Liu -possibly following instructions from Rod Rosenstein- was trying to cover-up the classified intelligence leak of SSCI Security Director James Wolfe in order to protect powerful Senators.
One FBI agent was obviously not happy with that DOJ leadership decision and seeded the DOJ ‘sentencing memo’ with a key sentence that exposed the cover-up:
For him or her we are thankful. That sunlight, though unsuccessful in stopping the corrupt cover-up, provided just enough undeniable evidence to highlight the severity of a cover-up initiated by those running the DOJ in 2018.
♦The second FBI official to note, might actually be a key top-level DOJ official – though that seems less likely. The second FBI official is however high ranking. The high ranking FBI position is likely because the top level security clearance was needed for this FBI agent to travel to CIA headquarters and review the CIA operation file on Carter Page.
The CIA file on Carter Page included a copy of the return memo to the FBI outlining Mr. Page as a source for CIA information involving various Russian individuals. That CIA return memo was edited by corrupt FBI lead lawyer Kevin Clinesmith to hide Page’s action on behalf of the CIA.
The FBI Agent who saw that memo in Page’s file then compared it to the memo in the FBI operational file on Carter Page. The difference on the exact same memo between the CIA file and the FBI file led to the discovery of Clinesmith manipulating internal documents to frame Carter Page. That Senior FBI officer is another truth-teller.
♦The third FBI agent, perhaps a career FBI administrative officer, who is clearly working to bring sunlight despite being surrounded by corruption, was involved in the actual text writing of the IG FISA abuse report itself.
Whether on assignment for the FISA review, or whether an administrative investigator attached to the Office of Inspector General, this isn’t the first time we have noticed a very specific inclusion of word choices that helped bring sunlight to an intentionally opaque report.
CTH will not identify the signs, except to say that each of them was/is irrelevant for the context of the written text. However, their inclusion was/is an obvious breadcrumb trail from inside the machine.
♦ I share this research perspective publicly, optimistically, because not everyone is corrupted. However, the non-corrupt middle-tier appear to be working to expose the truth against the efforts of the top-tier FBI offices trying to bury it.
I’m certain if the top tier was cleared out (with an aggressive posture) those middle-tier honest-brokers could greatly help AG Bill Barr…. IF, Barr is genuinely disposed therein.
However, AG Bill Barr’s continued defense and support for FBI Director Chris Wray, Deputy FBI Director David Bowditch and FBI legal counsel Dana Boente; in addition to his former -perhaps reformed- impression of U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu, runs counter to the honest administration of justice.
2020 is only five days away….
It’s time for Attorney General Bill Barr to start calling the baby ugly.
Bill Barr will either be part of the solution, or he’ll endeavor to covering up the problem out of some misguided loyalty to those corrupt officials around him… there really is no middle ground.
Truth ain’t complicated!
.
Consider, and note: Brandon Van Grack is still working for AG Bill Barr…
To understand why there’s no-one in the administrative mid-tier of the FBI acting in a whistle-blowing capacity requires a background perspective looking at the totality of corruption. The institutions are protecting themselves; and yes, that protection applies to the internal dynamics.
Former DAG Rod Rosenstein was dirty. He might not have started out dirty, but his actions in office created a dirty mess. Rosenstein facilitated the McCabe operation against Trump during the May 16th, 2017, White House FBI sting against Trump with Mueller. Rosenstein also facilitated the special counsel (writ large), and provided three scope memos to expand the corrupt investigation of President Trump. According to the inaction of AG Bill Barr, we’re not allowed to see those authorizing scope memos.
Additionally, despite knowing the Trump investigation held a false predicate, Rosenstein signed the 3rd renewal of a fraudulent FISA application. Worse yet, even if Rosenstein was caught up by corruption around him, he did nothing to stop the fraud once identified.
Why is Rosenstein a key inflection point? Because Rod Rosenstein recommended current FBI Director Christopher Wray to President Trump. POTUS then allowed Wray, as he does all department heads, to select his deputy – Wray chose David Bowditch.
♦Keep in mind the National Security Division of the DOJ (DOJ-NSD) was/is the epicenter of many corrupt activities, including filing the fraudulent FISA application, manipulating interpretations of law for FARA (§901) violations, and doing all of this while denying any inspector general oversight. As FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer recently noted, the DOJ-NSD is positioned as a rogue legal arm of the U.S. intelligence apparatus.
FBI Director Wray selected the former head of DOJ-NSD to become the lead lawyer for the FBI, chief legal counsel Dana Boente.
So from Rosenstein we got: Chris Wray, David Bowditch, Dana Boente and another dubious DOJ recommendation, DC U.S. Attorney Jessie K Liu (ref. Awan Bros and James Wolfe). Keep this in mind moving forward.
Another career corrupt-o-crat to come out of the DOJ-NSD, who was also involved in the fraudulent legal filings was the lead lawyer for the division, Michael Atkinson.
Atkinson was moved from DOJ-NSD to become the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG). Yes, the same IGIC who manipulated the rules and regulations to allow the hearsay Ukraine CIA “whistleblower”, Eric Ciaramella.
What we end up with is a brutally obvious, convoluted, network of corrupt officials; each carrying an independent reason to cover their institutional asses… each individual interest forms a collective fraudulent scheme inside the machinery of the FBI apparatus.
The motive behind the DOJ/FBI effort to cover for Senate Intelligence Committee Security Director James Wolfe’s unlawful classified information leaks, is connected to this network and expands into the SSCI Chairman (Richard Burr) and Vice-Chair Mark Warner.
Security Director Wolfe was working on instructions from inside the committee itself; his leak of the FISA application to journalist Ali Watkins was in alignment with the intents/motives of the SSCI in March 2017. Dirty politicians corrupting staff.
The DOJ and FBI didn’t charge James Wolfe with the leaking of classified information because it would have exposed corruption within the SSCI. Wolfe was prepared to call the senators in his defense…. this could not be allowed. The SSCI has oversight over the intelligence community to include the FBI, DOJ, DOJ-NSD, CIA, ODNI etc.
How does all of this corruption come together?…. More importantly how does this level of institutional corruption create the inability of FBI whistle-blowers to come forward?
♦ The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is the approver for any nominations for any executive appointed position involving the intelligence community.
If the senate intel committee wants to block the nomination, likely adverse to their interests, they can… simply, they don’t take it up. (See Trump’s attempt to appoint Representative John Ratcliffe as ODNI as an example.)
However, along with approving Wray and Bowditch, the SSCI also approved former DOJ-NSD legal counsel Michael Atkinson to become Intelligence Community Inspector General. Who would an honest intelligence whistle-blower have to go through? Dirty Michael Atkinson.
The same dirty Michael Atkinson who was the top legal counsel to the head of the DOJ-NSD when the corrupt DOJ-NSD agency operations were ongoing. See how the whistle-blower block works?
Aligned interests – The Senate Intel Committee uses the placement of Atkinson to block any whistle-blower action that would be adverse to their interests. Whistle-blowers ain’t stupid, they know what surrounds them.
Senator Mark Warner and Senator Richard Burr are dirty. So too is ICIG Atkinson, FBI Director Chris Wray, FBI Deputy Director David Bowditch and FBI Legal Counsel Dana Boente.
♦ Robert Mueller was dirty. Rod Rosenstein was dirty. All of the special counsel lawyers including Andrew Weissmann and Brandon Van Grack (Flynn prosecutor) are dirty. Additionally Mueller’s lead FBI Agent David Archey, who was promoted after the corrupt special counsel investigation to be the head of the Virginia FBI field office, dirty.
FBI official David Archey, like ICIG Michael Atkinson, conveniently put into a place where he can run cover for FBI operations that might expose dirty DC and Virgina-based FBI activities. See how that works?
Try telling me with all we know about the Mueller investigation how anyone on the special counsel assignment was participating in a fraudulent investigation without knowing.
Special Agent Peter Strzok, dirty. FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, dirty. FBI Lawyer Lisa Page, dirty. FBI media spox Michael Kortan, dirty. James Comey, Andrew McCabe and James Baker, dirty-dirty-dirty. Fortunately all of these are fired… but what about Supervisory Special Agent Joseph Pientka (SSA1)? Pientka clearly outlined as dirty by IG Horowitz report on FISA abuse, and yet still employed; still providing cover.
So what exactly does that make Horowitz? Perhaps lead corruption polisher who comes in willfully blind behind the Bondo application team?
That, all of that, in its brutal totality, is why we have not seen any honest FBI whistle-blowers come forward.
There’s no-one for them to blow the whistle to…
Every day we spend outraged about what the DOJ and FBI did in 2016 and 2017, is one less day that AG Bill Barr is not being held accountable for all of this current DOJ and FBI corruption that stares him in the face when he brushes his teeth each morning.
If we had a functioning Fourth Estate none of these corrupt officials could survive investigative media scrutiny. Unfortunately the corrupt administrative state doesn’t *play* the press, it actually involves the press…. it absorbs the press… it attaches the press viability to its own position…. it makes the press part of the corrupt process.
The press cannot turn against the corrupt administrative state without exposing their own culpability, participation and lack of credibility…… It’s a protective circle.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 