The House Intelligence Committee is in possession of audio and video recordings and photographs provided to the committee by Lev Parnas, an associate of President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who reportedly played a key role in assisting him in his efforts to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and Ukraine, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.The material submitted to the committee includes audio, video and photos that include Giuliani and Trump.
A confidential White House review of President Donald Trump's decision to place a hold on military aid to Ukraine has turned up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the decision and a debate over whether the delay was legal, according to three people familiar with the records.The research by the White House Counsel's Office, which was triggered by a congressional impeachment inquiry announced in September, includes early August email exchanges between acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and White House budget officials seeking to provide an explanation for withholding the funds after Trump had already ordered a hold in mid-July on the nearly US$400 million in security assistance, according to the three people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.
Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican member on the House Intelligence Committee, spent nearly $57,000 on a trip to Europe for him and his staff to allegedly investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, records show.The figures seem to confirm allegations made by Lev Parnas--a Ukrainian-born American who worked as a "fixer" for Rudy Giuliani before being indicted on criminal charges--who said that he helped Nunes arrange meetings with various Ukrainian officials to dig up dirt on Biden.Parnas said he met Nunes in a secretive trip to Vienna, Austria, between November and December 2018, and put him in touch with former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin--the lawyer who was ousted from his position in 2016 after pressure from Western leaders, including Biden, who said he was not doing enough to combat corruption.
From the beginning, there were good reasons for progressive leftists not to trust that Elizabeth Warren was on their side. For one thing, she had spent much of her career as a Republican, and only recently become a champion of progressive causes. Warren worked at Harvard Law School training generations of elite corporate lawyers; did legal work for big corporations accused of wrongdoing; collected donations from billionaires; held secret meetings with investment bankers and major Democratic party donors; and stood up and applauded when Donald Trump vowed that America would "never become a socialist country". Even at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, her most prominent initiative on behalf of ordinary borrowers, Warren brought in former Wall Street bankers, tasking financial foxes with guarding the henhouse. [...]It's been difficult for progressives to know what to make of Warren. She's been antagonizing the super-rich, but some of them also seem fond of her, perhaps because they recognize that her regulatory proposals are actually a modest and pragmatic way of staving off a populist revolution. She has long been attacked for supporting Medicare for All, but she has also been troublingly vague about the details in ways that left single-payer proponents unsure whether she was with them or against them. (Harry Reid, having been Warren's colleague in the Senate, said she would probably ditch single-payer when she was actually in office, in favor of something more "pragmatic".)But lately, Warren has finally begun to make her true feelings clear, and progressives no longer need to wonder whether she's with us or not. She's not. Warren released a Medicare for All plan that called it a "long-term" plan, which leftwing political analyst Ben Studebaker pointed out is "code to rich people for 'this is all pretend'".A few weeks later, Warren confirmed that while in theory she supported single-payer healthcare, it would not be one of her primary initiatives, and she would initially push for a more moderate proposal similar to those advocated by Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. Political analysts quickly saw Warren's statement for what it was: an admission that she did not really intend to pass single-payer at all. Doug Henwood noted that Barclays bank put out an analysis assuring Wall Street that Warren's plan to put off Medicare for All until late in the first term "decreases the likelihood that this plan comes to fruition". So much for big structural change.
Her name is Asma and in a statement given to IlmFeed she said, "...as a Muslim woman and mother I know what it's like to be attacked and dehumanised for my faith and I couldn't just watch and see this happen to another family with young children." https://t.co/3bUrVdVHFz pic.twitter.com/x78p30xLmN
— IlmFeed (@IlmFeed) November 23, 2019
The Navy has been notified that the White House will not intervene to stop a disciplinary proceeding that could cost a SEAL his position in the elite unit, a senior Navy official said Sunday.
The exchange:CHRIS WALLACE: "Senator Kennedy, who do you believe was responsible for hacking the DNC and Clinton campaign computers -- their emails. Was it Russia or Ukraine?"KENNEDY: "I don't know. Nor do you. Nor do any of us."WALLACE "Let me just interrupt to say that the entire intelligence community says it was Russia."KENNEDY: "Right, but it could also be Ukraine. I'm not saying that I know one way or the other."
"I've seen things written like he's going to throw me under the bus. When they say that, I say he isn't, but I have insurance," Giuliani went on to say.
The top Democrat on the House armed services committee said Saturday that Republican Rep. Devin Nunes is likely to face an ethics investigation over allegations he met with an ex-Ukrainian prosecutor at the center of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
The secretary of the U.S. Navy said Saturday he doesn't consider a tweet by President Donald Trump an order and would need a formal order to stop a review of a sailor who could lose his status as a Navy SEAL.