Mediaboss Marketing

CELEBRATING ONE YEAR OF FOX NATION -- FOR A LIMITED TIME, SIGN UPAND GET 35% OFFWITH PROMO CODE: CELEBRATE

Retired Lt. Col. Oliver North said history appears to be repeating itself, as Democrats in the House held more hearingsMonday in their impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

North, who served on National Security Council staff in the Ronald Reagan administration, argued that Democrats have been just as determined to impeachTrumpas they were intent on removing Reaganfrom office.

"Back in the 1980s in the aftermath of Grenada, there were threats to impeach Ronald Reagan and it came from the speaker of the House... Tip O'Neill," said North on Fox Nation's "Deep Dive" on Monday.

Top Democrats "gathered together," North said."And, they said, 'We're going to find a way to get rid of this cowboy'... They did not like President Reagan."

On Nov.11, 1983, seven HouseDemocratsintroduced a draft resolution toimpeach Reagan, arguing that hehad committed a high crime or misdemeanor by"ordering the invasion of Grenadain violation of the Constitution," among other charges.Reagan had greenlitthe operation after a series of coups replaced Grenada's democratically-elected government with a pro-Soviet military regime.

The impeachment resolution failed.

WHEN DEMOCRATS TRIED TO IMPEACH RONALD REAGAN: NEW DOCUMENTARY

"Of course, they got all they ever wanted in November of '86, the Iran-Contra affair was exposed and they knew that they had it,"continued North, referring to the scandal over theReagan administration's funneling of arms-sales proceeds torebel forces in Nicaragua, known as the Contras. Northwas convicted on three counts, which were later dismissed,for his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair.

"Just like this whole thing with finding out that [Trump]had a conversation with another foreign leader. They've got their hook," he contended, drawing aparallelbetween 1986 and today.

"At the end of the day, they held a hearing in the summer of'87... and they had theirbacksides handed to them. A Navy admiral and a Marine lieutenant colonel said, 'You're not going to get us to do the wrong thing here and accusethe president of it,'" he said in reference to former Reagan National Security Adviser John Poindexter and himself.

"Then, the House of Representatives, they looked at it and said, 'Oh, my God, we're not going to put those two guys back on the stand in an impeachment trial in the Senate. Are you guys nuts?' and walked away from itcompletely."

In conclusion, North predicted theDemocrats would find themselves empty-handed at the end of this impeachment process.

He said witnesses will "testify in that Senate trial that are not only going to exonerate Donald Trump as president of the United States -- they're going to encourage Americans who didn't vote for him last time to get out and vote for him because of the abuse of what's going on right now," he concluded.

To watch all of"Deep Dive"go toFox Nationand sign up today.

CELEBRATING ONE YEAR OF FOX NATION -- FOR A LIMITED TIME, SIGN UPAND GET 35% OFFWITH PROMO CODE: CELEBRATE

Fox Nationprograms are viewable on-demand and from your mobile device app, but only for Fox Nation subscribers.Go to Fox Nationto start a free trial and watch the extensive library from Tomi Lahren, Pete Hegseth, Abby Hornacek, Laura Ingraham, Ainsley Earhardt, Greg Gutfeld, Judge Andrew Napolitano and many more of your favorite Fox News personalities.

Follow this link:
Democrats determined to impeach Trump, as they were with Ronald Reagan, Oliver North argues - Fox News

Ms. Warren disagrees. In the latest Democratic debate, she said the spending programs funded by her wealth tax would be transformative for workers. Those plans would raise wages, make college tuition-free and relieve graduates of student debt, she said, adding, We can invest in an entire generations future.

An emerging group of liberal economists say taxes on high-earners could spur growth even if the government did nothing with the revenue because the concentration of income and wealth is dampening consumer spending.

We are experiencing a revolution right now in macroeconomics, particularly in the policy space, said Mark Paul, an economist who is a fellow at the liberal Roosevelt Institute in Washington. We can think of a wealth tax as welfare-enhancing, in and of itself, simply by constraining the power of the very wealthy to influence public policy and distort markets to their advantage.

Taken together, Ms. Warrens proposals would transform the role of federal taxation. If every tax increase she has proposed in the campaign passed and raised as much revenue as her advisers predict a contingency hotly debated among even liberal economists total federal tax revenue would grow more than 50 percent.

The United States would leap from one of the lowest-taxed rich nations to one of the highest. It would collect more taxes as a share of the economy than the Netherlands and only slightly less than Italy.

Mr. Sanderss plan envisions a similarly large increase in tax levels. Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.s proposals are much smaller in scale: He would raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations by $3.4 trillion over a decade, in order to fund increased spending on health care, higher education, infrastructure and carbon emissions reduction.

If Ms. Warrens tax program is enacted, said Gabriel Zucman, an economist at Berkeley who is an architect of her wealth tax proposal, in my view, the most likely effect is a small positive effect on growth, depending on how the revenues are used.

Continue reading here:
Could Tax Increases Speed Up the Economy? Democrats Say Yes - The New York Times

The following is satirical.

The new economic numbers are out and it now seems clear President Trump has helped create one of the greatest economies in American history. In the wake of the good news, Democrats are scrambling to find an effective way to campaign against him.

In an interview given to Chuck Todd in the bowels of Castle Democrat, which sits on the mist-shrouded crags atop Mount Incompetence, DNC Chairman Hapless Schmoe said, We thought if you journalists kept using the word bombshell over and over, we might be able to sell the people on this cockamamie nonsense about Ukraine or wherever it is, but if theyre not stupid enough to fall for that, theyre sure enough not going to vote for one of our lousy candidates.

The lousy candidates, meanwhile, have been retooling their campaign slogans in hopes of offering voters an alternative to peace and prosperity.

For instance, Joe Biden is testing out the new slogan: Sure, America is doing great but that doesnt mean we couldnt use a doddering, corrupt old fool in the White House.

Elizabeth Warren is now using the slogan: The economy is amazing, but I have a plan for that.

And Pete Buttigieg has new signs that read: Who wants a gorgeous, graceful, kind, stylish, and elegant first lady when you could have my husband Christian instead?

Bernie Sanders has been telling his rallies, I happen to believe that every man, woman and child should have a free alley cat for dinner like they do in other socialist countries.

And in his new TV ad Corey Booker says: Im walking around bare chested in a short leather skirt because Im Spartacus. No, really.

Finally, Nancy Pelosi will be running to hold her speaker seat with the slogan: I prayed for the president and look how well hes doing. Clearly God listens to me, so you should keep me in Congress.

Democrats say if these slogans dont work, theyll just go back to shrieking lies while the media pretends to believe them, as usual.

Related:Jobs Report Presents Terrible News For Democrats As They Push Forward On Partisan Impeachment

Continued here:
Democrats Offer Voters An Alternative To Peace And Prosperity [Satire] - The Daily Wire

In the next phase of the impeachment inquiry, the House Judiciary Committee will hear from legal experts Wednesday on the nature of impeachment. Patrick Semansky/AP hide caption

In the next phase of the impeachment inquiry, the House Judiciary Committee will hear from legal experts Wednesday on the nature of impeachment.

Wednesday could bring the beginning of the end to House Democrats' efforts to impeach President Trump.

The House Intelligence Committee completed what it called the fact-finding portion of the impeachment inquiry on Tuesday with the release of a report about the Ukraine affair and the subsequent vote to adopt it.

Now the curtain opens on a new act, one in which House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and his members must decide on how to proceed based on what their colleagues have uncovered.

The hearing is scheduled to convene at 10 a.m. ET Watch it live here.

Nadler, his compatriots and their leader, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have said that impeachment isn't a foregone conclusion and that it depends on the outcome of their process.

Nadler has convened a hearing on Wednesday with a panel of four law professors because, he says, the members of the Judiciary Committee need to get a sense about the historic and legal context of impeachment and whether it may be merited in this case.

"This new phase of the inquiry will look different," said one staffer working on the impeachment inquiry. "With the transmittal of the report to the Judiciary Committee, this hearing will examine the constitutional framework put in place to address presidential misconduct."

To be sure, however, Democrats also are likely to restate, for TV audiences, the findings of the report unveiled on Tuesday by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif. This case is as serious as it gets, Democratic staffers said ahead of Nadler's hearing.

"The president abused his power to advance his personal, political interests over our own national security interests," as another staffer said.

Republicans step up their defenses

The Judiciary Committee's ranking member, Doug Collins, R-Ga., and Trump's other Republican defenders have mocked and faulted Democrats' process thus far, calling it unfair and also groundless.

The Intelligence Committee's Republicans, led by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., released a minority report on Monday defending Trump in the Ukraine matter and accusing Democrats of simple political animus.

The White House, meanwhile, said on Tuesday that Schiff was no better than a "basement blogger" trying to find facts to fit his theories.

The administration isn't sending an attorney to take part and Trump's campaign said on Tuesday that Nadler's witnesses are "just left-wing liberals who have been talking about impeachment since President Trump took office."

"With witnesses like these, the Democrats' impeachment hearing will be nothing more than political theater," Trump's campaign said. "It's all part of their transparent attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and stop President Trump in 2020."

Collins also already has complained about how headlong and reckless he says Nadler has been moving ahead of Wednesday's session. Collins and Republicans are likely to use it to continue to try to undercut the process and mock what they've called Democrats' patchwork case.

In a fiery press conference Tuesday evening, House Republican leaders slammed Schiff and mocked him for not testifying.

The indictment

House rules give Nadler and the Judiciary Committee the responsibility for assessing what, if any, articles of impeachment to draft against Trump.

Democrats could then use their majority on the panel to advance them to the floor of the full House, where, if a sufficient number of Democrats lent their support, Trump could become just the third sitting president in history to be impeached.

That is the equivalent of an indictment by a grand jury a statement by the House that it considers there to be enough evidence for Trump to stand trial in the Senate.

Republicans, led by Trump ally Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., control the upper chamber and are expected to acquit the president, permitting him to retain his office.

Nadler and Democrats can see what's ahead for this process the same as anyone. But impeachment is worth doing, they've argued, because it sends a message about what Congress will not tolerate and it forces senators to go on the record defending Trump's actions in the Ukraine affair.

Democrats' dilemma

Impeachment is a quasi-legal but mostly political process. Pelosi, Nadler and their compatriots are balancing this as they decide what kind of case to make against Trump

Should it be narrowly constructed around the facts of the House Ukraine investigation? Or should it be a broader case that reflects more about what Democrats argue has been improper behavior by Trump?

Given that House Democrats likely cannot remove Trump, the question they must ask themselves is what will do him the most political damage and themselves the least damage, mindful about the election next year.

Pelosi and Nadler may have answered these questions already for themselves, but the public aspect of that process, at least, is what is scheduled to get underway on Wednesday.

The hearing also will mark Nadler's return to the spotlight after months in center stage for Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee. But Nadler was an early convert on impeachment and insisted earlier this year that his committee was pursuing an impeachment case even before the imprimatur given by the vote of most other Democrats in November.

In that earlier phase, Nadler sought to exploit some of the findings of former Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller, including those that Democrats have said amount to obstruction of justice by Trump.

The chairman's interest in that thread, which also has involved litigation by the House against Trump and the Justice Department involving evidence from Mueller and other matters, may mean the question isn't settled as to whether Nadler might favor a broad indictment of Trump that takes elements from the Russia investigation or focuses closely on Schiff's report.

NPR congressional reporter Claudia Grisales contributed to this report.

Read the original here:
Judiciary Hearing To Open Final Act Of Democrats' Trump Impeachment Saga - NPR

The 2020 Democratic field is going back to school sort of.

Teachers unions, students, parents and civil rights groups are expected to grill Democratic hopefuls on public education issues at MSNBC's "Public Education Forum 2020: Equity and Justice for All" on Dec. 14 in Pittsburgh, it was announced Tuesday.

The candidates who are expected to attend include: Former Vice President Joe Biden; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana; billionaire businessman Tom Steyer; and Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The network said that presidential candidates who either previously qualified for the October debate or currently hold statewide office were invited to attend.

Many of the 2020 candidates have released ambitious proposals to reshape the American education system from free public college to erasing student debt to addressing segregation in schools but have squabbled over the best way to implement their proposals.

MSNBC will moderate and exclusively livestream the forum. Ali Velshi, host of "MSNBC Live," and Rehema Ellis, an NBC News education correspondent, will serve as the forum's moderators. Topics will include early childhood education, school investment, student debt and disparities in public education, among other issues.

The event will be streamed live on NBC News Now, MSNBC.com and NBC News Learn, and will be featured across MSNBC programming.

Dartunorro Clark is a political reporter for NBC News.

Read the rest here:
MSNBC to host December forum on education issues with 2020 Democrats - NBC News