Home Blog Page 4

Double-take: Hillary emerges as favorite candidate in new poll of Democrat voters


With the upcoming presidential election less than one year away, many questions still surround the Democratic Party and its political strategies leading up to what is sure to be a riotous partisan showdown against President Trump. But much of that would-be speculation hinges on one simple, obvious question: Who will represent the Democratic Party against the Republican incumbent and his massive war chest?

For the most part, conventional wisdom has maintained that former Vice President will be the nominee. While that could still be regarded as a safe bet, to some, Biden’s persistent gaffes and perceived scandals surrounding his son suggest to some that he would be too vulnerable in a face-off with President Trump. Liberal commentator Bill Maher was perhaps the most direct of those doubting Biden’s odds in a general election, saying: “I’ve always said, I like Joe. He’s never been my favorite. But if he’s the guy to beat Trump, I was like, let’s not kill him. Because if he’s the one — but I must say, my confidence that he can beat Trump is waning. He looks like a depreciating stock to me.”

Another sign that some view Biden as too weak to challenge President Trump was the late entry of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg into the Democratic field of candidates. While Bloomberg forgoes the early primary states in lieu of a Super Tuesday-centric strategy, new polling data suggests potentially bad news for Joe “No Malarkey” Biden.

As reported in the New York Post, The Center for American Political Studies at Harvard released the findings of its online poll of 1,859 Democrat voters, revealing Hillary Clinton to be the favorite candidate when included as a possible choice. At 21% of the vote, Clinton held a slim edge over Biden (20%), followed by Bernie Sanders (12), Elizabeth Warren (9%), and Bloomberg (7%).

When the poll’s researchers also excluded Clinton as a potential choice, respondents followed a similar pattern, favoring Biden (29%), then Sanders (16%), followed by Warren (13%).

While intra-party fighting is far from unique to Democrats, and primary battles always prove contentious, the polling does reveal some likely apprehension among voters when it comes to Biden’s ability to defeat the president. In a recent interview with Howard Stern, Clinton downplayed fractions in the party, assuring listeners that she would support the Democratic nominee, though she refrained from making an endorsement.

So who will represent the Democratic Party against President Trump? Before that question is answered, perhaps the more pertinent query is: Will Hillary Clinton throw her hat in the ring for a third time?

Sources: New York Post, Harvard-Harris, Newsweek, ABC

Written by Red Blue Divide editorial staff.

Mother of Hunter Biden’s love-child demands all his Ukraine/Burisma financial records


The current court battle between Hunter Biden and the mother of his child, Lunden Roberts, seems to be getting messier by the day, according to a report in The Daily Mail.

Following reports that Judge Don McSpadden had recently given both parties a ten day deadline to turn over five years’ worth of their respective financial histories, Roberts is demanding that Biden confirm his employment by Burisma, along with the exact monthly compensation he received while serving on the board of the Ukrainian oil company.

The court documents obtained in The Daily Mail contain many redactions, such as the exact monthly figure Roberts claims Burisma paid Biden, though it is believed the sum is upwards of $50,000.

In total, the court filings demand that Biden comply with nearly 50 separate inquiries, “including six related to his income taxes for the years from 2013 to 2018.” What’s more is Roberts makes the interesting claim that Biden or a related entity had benefitted through the investment of an unnamed Chinese individual.

The report also revealed that Biden’s attorney has informed the court that the defendant objects to complying with Roberts’ request to cover her $11,000 legal fees.

Despite the high-profile nature of the case, the specifics of Biden’s financials are unlikely to be revealed to the public, as the judge intends to seal all financial records and preside over a timely, no-nonsense trial: “I do not want to have this drug out nor do I want to have to drag out the monies these individuals may have received in any form or fashion.”

Speaking to the sensitive nature of Biden’s financial records, Judge McSpadden directed the court to treat the obtained information with the utmost professionalism: “The likelihood that [Biden’s] private records will be used in an inappropriate or malicious manner for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with these proceedings is exceedingly high and should not be tolerated by the court.”

Source: Daily Mail

Written by Red Blue Divide editorial staff.

Louie Gohmert leaves Nadler visibly furious, suggests bribery is behind Dem strategy


House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler’s impeachment proceedings took a chaotic turn during a tense exchange with Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert and Louisiana Rep. Mike Johnson.

As reported in The Hill, the outburst came in response to a rather unusual development amid the proceedings: Democratic counsel Barry Berke went from being a witness for the Democrats to sitting on the dais with Nadler, asking probing question of Republican Intelligence Committee lawyer Steve Castor.

Gohmert could hardly believe what was happening.

“I’ve been a judge and I know that you don’t get to be a witness and a judge in the same case,” The Texas Republican argued. “That’s my point of order. He should not be up here,” Gohmert continued.

Nadler attempted to quash the opposition by claiming Berke could indeed conduct questioning pursuant to House Resolution 660, but Reps. Johnson and Gohmert persisted.

“Mr. Chairman, what is this?” Johnson asked Nadler, appearing to be in disbelief of what he was witnessing. Chairman Nadler then proceeded to pound his gavel and deny Johnson’s “parliamentary inquiry,” which prompted Gohmert to quickly resume furious incredulity, asking Nadler: “…how many other rules are you going to disregard?”

Amid the slams of Nadler’s pounding gavel, Gohmert insisted: “This is not appropriate to have a witness be a questioner of somebody that was a witness when he was. It’s just wrong… There is no rule nor precedent for anybody being a witness and then getting to come up and question … How much money do you have to give to get to do that?”

Nadler was quick to scold Gohmert, furiously responding: “The gentleman will not cast aspersions on members or staff of the committee. Mr. Berke has the time. Mr. Berke has the time.”

After the ruckus subsided, Berke continued to question Castor after Nadler reiterated his authority under House Resolution 660.

Sources: Fox News, The Hill

Written by Red Blue Divide editorial staff.

California church “updates” Christmas nativity scene with Jesus, Mary & Joseph in cages


A California church is putting what they consider to be a modern and politically poignant spin on the traditional Christmas nativity scene.

Claremont United Methodist Church, about a thirty minute drive east of Los Angeles, has constructed what its website refers to as “A Nativity to Affirm the Humanity of All People.” As displayed on The Daily Mail, this new take on the nativity scene showcases Joseph, Mary, and baby Jesus all in separate cages. The scene is meant to depict family separations that asylum-seeking migrants endure at America’s southern border.

Describing the display as “Christianity in action,” the church sought to clarify the via the following online statement:

‘Many people have shared that they are praying for us – some who appreciate the nativity display, and some who do not. We are grateful for every prayer. Every one.

We want to directly address a concern raised by some. We find the detention and family separation policy immoral in any administration, and this congregation has opposed those policies since their inception. For those who have asked why we did not do such displays previously, please know that we have. In both 2009 and 2012, in particular, our nativity displays attempted to raise similar awareness on immigration policy concerns.

We believe and proclaim that all people are made in God’s image. The message of our nativity encourages us to see God’s image and the love of Christ in every person.

We are receiving too many communications to respond to each individually. We are grateful for the conversations the Nativity has inspired, and we hope they raise greater awareness in each of us for God’s care for the least of these. As Jesus said:

“I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” Matthew 25:35.’

Controversy initially arose when minister of Claremont United, Karen Clark Ristine, posted an image of the scene to Facebook over the weekend, saying it brought tears to her eyes as it depicted “the most well-known refugee family in the world.” The leader of the progressive church went to say that the teachings of Jesus teaches us to welcome all those who seek mercy, and that “the thousands of nameless families separated at our borders” were represented by the caged nativity depiction.

“What if this family sought refuge in our country today?” Pastor Clark Ristine asked.

Sources: The Daily Mail, ClaremontUNC

Written by Red Blue Divide editorial staff.

Michelle Obama is confident America will emerge “stronger” after impeachment effort


Former First Lady Michelle Obama does not see any reason why America should endure negative long-term ramifications as a result of the impeachment hearings (and likely senate trial) surrounding President Donald Trump.

During an interview conducted by Jenna Bush-Hager on the Today show, Obama seemed astonished at political developments in Washington D.C., referring to the impeachment proceedings as “surreal.” When asked if she thought America could “come back” from the partisanship of impeachment, Obama responded assuredly: “Oh yeah. We’ve seen worse times. We’ve seen tough times in this country. We’ve gone through depressions and wars and bombings and terrorist attacks and we’ve gone through Jim Crow – and we’ve always come out stronger.”

She went on to say that Americans must stay strong for the next generation. “To ball up in a corner,” isn’t an option, said Obama, before striking an all-inclusive, bipartisan tone: “‘It’s not an “us or them,” it’s not an “R or a D” (Republican or Democrat), we are all here as part of this country. We all want the same things, it’s just sometimes that gets lost in the noise.”

Obama’s interview on the Today show took place in Vietnam on the heels of a promotional book tour for her best-selling autobiography “Becoming.” Visiting Vietnam is part of the Obama Foundation’s Girls Opportunity Alliance mission to promote education for young girls across the globe. On her Twitter page, the former first lady described the trip as serving “to support projects that empower girls through education in Vietnam and around the world.”

Sources: Obama.org, Daily Mail, Today

Written by Red Blue Divide editorial staff.

“Living legend” Nancy Pelosi named “politician of the year” by Juan Williams


For the last nine years, The Hill contributor Juan Williams has marked the coming end of the calendar year by naming congress’ single “biggest winner” in his opinion column. This year, the choice to spotlight House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was an easy decision for the liberal commentator. In fact, he feels that such a designation does not even fully encapsulate all that the California Democrat has managed to achieve.

“The problem with giving the award to Pelosi is that she deserves recognition for more than any single year of political mastery,” Williams writes in his piece for The Hill. After noting Pelosi’s historical status as the first female house speaker, along with her willingness to confront Trump within a hostile political “sea of men,” Williams points to two primary reasons for using his column to celebrate Trump’s house rival.

Following President Trump’s 2016 victory, Williams hailed Pelosi’s ability to “protect” her Democratic colleagues who currently serve in districts that voted to “Make America Great Again.” According to Williams, Speaker Pelosi declined to proceed with the controversial impeachment push until she received confirmation that the Democrats in question were willing to assume the political risk of attempting to remove a sitting president from office.

The other reason relates to Pelosi’s communicative abilities and the way in which Williams claims she has framed the impeachment debate, providing “the map for House Democrats to tell the public that impeachment is bigger than another partisan battle.” As spearheaded by the speaker, Democrats-including Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler-have positioned themselves as merely vessels for impeachment; public servants who are supposedly fulfilling their duty to the constitution rather than engaging in a partisan political battle aimed at the 45th president of the United States.

Pelosi typified this sentiment when she solidified her stance on impeachment, saying: “The president’s actions have seriously violated the Constitution. Our democracy is what is at stake. The president leaves us no choice.”

The coming year will certainly prove whether or not Williams’ celebratory column was in fact accurate or premature. With an imminent impeachment trial looming in the US Senate, an acquittal for President Trump could have far-reaching political ramifications that could leave many Democrats second-guessing their parties strategy.

Source: The Hill

Written by Red Blue Divide editorial staff.

US county seeks to be first to ban refugees following Trump’s executive order


Burleigh County in North Dakota is set to hold a controversial vote that could stop refugees from entering the locality, as reported in The Daily Mail. If members of the local commission vote in favor of the ban, the county, home to roughly 95,000 residents, would be the first local government in the nation to do so in the name of President Trump’s executive order.

On September 26th, the president “signed an executive order that, for the first time, gives states and municipalities the authority to deny the resettlement of refugees in their communities,” according to HIAS, an American refugee advocacy group.

Last week, over 100 people showed up and successfully disrupted the Burleigh commissions’s original scheduled vote. Now taking place on Monday, December 10th, a middle school cafeteria will serve as the venue in order to accommodate the public’s immense interest.

Chairman Brian Bitner has served on the commission for over ten years, and he’s never seen his constituents so invested in a particular issue. Bitner will be voting against accepting more refugees, reasoning that, ‘The overwhelming public opinion is so clear to me, that I think if you vote for it, you’re not going to be reelected if you choose to run again.”

President Trump’s executive order declares that, although refugees can still settle throughout the country’s various states, they can only do so via the explicit consent of both the states and respective counties.

Unsurprisingly, the executive order has caused the president’s opponents and refugee advocates to firmly establish their position. Even in North Dakota, Republican Gov. Doug Burgam has publicly welcomed more refugees into his state. Likewise, other counties within North Dakota, such as Grand Forks and Cass, have also signaled that refugees are still welcome. Fargo’s mayor, Tim Mahoney, even insisted that the city’s economy has greatly benefitted from the influx of refugees, claiming 90% have been gainfully employed within 90 days of setting in their new homes.

However, in the conservative county of Burleigh, it is expected that refugees will no longer be admitted.

Sources: The Daily Mail, HIAS

Written by Red Blue Divide editorial staff.

“Pathetic!” – Trump blasts Fox for “pandering,” giving a voice to “Radical Left Haters”


When it comes to the Fox News Channel, President Trump seems to be offering more criticism than support, at least of late.

While the president remains a regular guest on “Fox & Friends,” and can count hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin as among his most ardent supporters, Trump nonetheless is frustrated by the cable news giant’s choice of guests, and of course, some of their most recognizable reporters.

Taking to Twitter over the weekend to rebuke Fox News’ programming decisions, the president posted:

The latter part of Trump’s complaint refers to the fact that the Democratic National Committee has decided to not to allow for any of their party’s presidential primary debates to occur on Fox News.

Trump’s outburst was also prompted by an interview that had been conducted by Chris Wallace earlier in the day, in which he spoke to House Judiciary Committee member Democrat David Cicilline about the Democrats’ decision to draft articles of impeachment. As reported in The Hill, the Rhode Island Democrat told Wallace that the president had engaged in a “classic example of an impeachable offense.” Cicilline continued: “The focus is on the president’s misconduct, asking a foreign government to interfere in our elections. … I think all of the potential articles of impeachment are on the table. That will be a decision the Judiciary Committee makes, but the Judiciary Committee will have all the evidence.”

This isn’t the first time Chris Wallace’s Sunday show has gotten under President Trump’s skin. On November 17th, 2019, Chris Wallace found himself on the receiving end of a personal attack from the president, in which he referred to Wallace as “nasty & obnoxious,” further claiming he would never live up to the legacy left by his father, Mike Wallace. As Trump explained in a tweet, the rebuke was in response to Wallace’s interview with House Minority Whip Steve Scalise.

The interview took on a contentious tone when Wallace accused Scalise of “mischaracterizing” witnesses who appeared before the House Intelligence Committee as “Schiff’s witnesses,” arguing: “They were asked, William Taylor, for instance, the acting Ambassador to Ukraine, was asked whether or not these were impeachable offenses. He said ‘I’m there as a fact witness. I’m not there to pass judgment,’ but he made it clear what he thought about what the president was doing.”

Sources: The Hill, Fox News

Written by Red Blue Divide editorial staff

“Over as quickly as possible” – Graham reveals his impeachment trial strategy


There remains little doubt that the United States Senate will soon undergo an impeachment trial following Democrats’ investigation into President Trump’s alleged abuse of power concerning the flow of military aid to Ukraine. As Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham readies for what is likely to be a bitter partisan showdown, the fierce Trump ally is confident the Democrats’ goal of removing the president from office will ultimately fail.

Speaking with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, Senator Graham did not mince words as he laid out his plans for the likely trial: “Here’s what I’m going to do with the trial: I’m going to try to get it over as quickly as possible, listen to the House case — let them present their case. If there’s nothing new and dramatic,” Graham continued, “I would be ready to vote, and we can do all this other stuff in congressional oversight.”

Barring any unforeseen developments, the South Carolina senator then advised President Trump to forego any temptation to draw out the trial, and instead opt for a quick acquittal. “[Trump] may want to call Schiff. He may want to call Hunter Biden. He may want to call Joe Biden. “But,” Graham insisted, “here’s my advice to the president: if the Senate is ready to vote and acquit you, you should celebrate that.”

During the interview, Graham seemed less concerned with the outcome of the likely senate trial than he was about the lasting ramifications of Democrats’ impeachment effort. Trump’s senate ally blasted the opposition as engaging in a “joke of a process” that is “dangerous to the country.” Graham warned: “You don’t want to create a situation where an anonymous person can start impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States,” arguing that anonymous tips are not even sufficient enough to convict an American citizen of a parking violation.

In what may come as something of a shock to his Republican supporters, the Senate Judiciary Chairman said he had no intention of turning the senate into a “circus” by subpoenaing Congressman Adam Schiff.

His reason?

‘I’m not going to participate in things I think will destroy the country,’ Graham declared.

H/T Fox News, Daily Mail

Written by Red Blue Divide editorial staff.

Devin Nunes vows retaliation against Schiff, House Intel report via “legal action”


California congressman and House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes told Fox News that he will be taking legal action following the release of his phone records in the Committee’s impeachment inquiry report.

Along with Congressman Nunes, the phone records of Fox News host Sean Hannity, Lev Parnas, journalist John Solomon, and President Trump’s lawyers Jay Sekulow and Rudy Giuliani were also included in the Committee’s 300-page report, which detailed the results of the inquiry into the Trump/Ukraine scandal. During an appearance on “Fox & Friends: Weekend,” Nunes blasted Democrats’ political position to Trump and his supporters, claiming he himself has been one of their prime targets due to his efforts to “expose corruption.”

Nunes then went on to explain he believes Democrats are still frustrated by the “lack of evidence” that was produced during the Intel Committee’s inquiry: “…Over the two weeks before Thanksgiving, I think they were embarrassed by their lack of evidence they were able to present through the hearings. So, what happened is, the Friday before Thanksgiving, this fake news story drops about me supposedly being in Vienna. And then we get back from Thanksgiving and then — lo and behold — my name along with one of my current staff people…and a former staff person, all of a sudden our civil liberties are violated because our phone records show up in this report.”

What is perhaps even more alarming about this story is that Congressman Nunes claims his phone records do not match those released in the report. “Finally, yesterday I had a change to go through all of my phone records, and I can tell you: My phone records do match what Schiff and the Democrats put in that report,” he said.

Fox News reporter Ed Henry then asked the congressman if his supposed phone correspondence with Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, as detailed in the report, was inaccurate. “It doesn’t match,” Nunes replied. He then went on to claim he only had two actual phone conversations with Giuliani between April and May, and that a woman he assumed to be Lev Parnas’ wife had attempted to call him once, but that he referred her “to the appropriate staff person.”

Nunes’ threat of legal action comes amid his current seven-figure lawsuit against CNN, in which the congressman claims the network lied when it claimed he had met with a Ukrainian lawyer in Vienna in order to procure damning information about Joe Biden.

Sources: Fox News

Written by Red Blue Divide editorial staff.

Pin It on Pinterest