Tag Archives: Dana Bash

When I Tried To Post The Source Article For This Article On Facebook, It Was Taken Down

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The American Thinker posted an article outlining their strategy for President Trump in the debate.

The article notes:

The first and perhaps only presidential debate between presumed nominees Donald Trump and Joe Biden takes place on June 27 in CNN’s Atlanta headquarters. Home court advantage goes to President Biden.

Is there anyone at CNN, aside from the janitors and cleaning crew, that support Trump? Doubtful. The debate will be moderated by the Trump hating undynamic duo of Jake Tapper and Dana Bash.

CNN will mute the microphones, to keep Trump from objecting to Biden’s fabrications, and likely to silence Biden’s gibberish, something occurring with increasing frequency.

No live audience will watch the debates, which will run 90 minutes, two commercial breaks, time for Biden to get a shot of vitamins, stimulants, or whatever keeps him awake and coherent for brief stretches of time.

“CNN said they won’t be allowed to use any props or pre-written notes but will be given paper, a pen and water.”

This gives Biden an advantage as he won’t read instructions like “pause” off the teleprompter.

If Biden is juiced up and can speak in coherent sentences, he will win since expectations for his performance are so low.

…For Trump, if he keeps his cool and acts “presidential”, whatever that means, this will go a long way in assuaging potential voters who like his policies but have their noses out of joint over his brash personality, mean tweets, and name calling.

The question that President Trump needs to ask during the debate is the same question Ronald Reagan asked during his debate with Jimmy Carter, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” We all know the answer to that question.

Please follow the link to the article. It includes a list of things that were stable or beneficial to Americans under the Trump administration that are now a problem for the average American.

To Debate or Not to Debate

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

Televised presidential debates first started with the 1960 presidential contest between John Kennedy and Ricard Nixon. It is generally believed that the debate process helped Kennedy and harmed Nixon. Debates during subsequent presidential races have had varying impact on the outcome of the races. The Biden regime’s surprise request to hold two debates with Donald Trump raises some questions.

First, the request for debates came on the heels of the most recent polls showing that Trump has a significant lead in key swing states and is gaining support with minorities, whose support the Democrats have always taken for granted. Is this just a coincidence? I think not. The Biden regime must believe that debates can be used to reverse Trump’s lead in the polls. Given Biden’s obvious lack of mental acuity, this is quite surprising and raises the question about who will control the debates and whether they can be stacked against Donald Trump. Let’s look at the how the debates will be conducted.

The channels selected to hold the debates at this time are CNN and ABC. Members of what Trump calls the “Fake Media.” So too with the moderators. CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash are notoriously anti-Trump, as are likely ABCs moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis. The fact that first debate will be held on June 27th before either candidate has actually secured their party’s nomination is suspicious and has never been done before. Perhaps, if Biden performs very poorly, the Democrats can use that as another reason not to nominate him at their convention. If that happens, Trump may find himself having to debate a yet unknown candidate one or more times, closer to the election. The Biden regime is also requiring that there will be no live audience to react to the candidates remarks during the debate. Surely they do not want to have to deal with applause for Donald Trump during the televised debates. Another restriction is that the candidates’ microphones can be turned off by the moderators to prevent comments from the candidates from being broadcast. In the 2016 debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it was subsequently revealed that Hillary Clinton had been given the questions before the debate.

Trump’s ability to outshine Biden in any fairly run debate is not in question. However, given the Democrat’s track record and their desperation over the recent polls, they will make every effort to sway the debate in Biden’s favor. Here are some reasonable requirements that Trump should demand before final agreement on the debates: (1) Debates should not occur until both candidates have been officially nominated; (2)There must be balance as to the networks broadcasting the debates. CNN should be replaced by NewsMax, preferably, or FOX News (3) Both candidates should be given the main questions they will be asked by the moderators, which is the only way of preventing only one candidate getting the questions and the other not. (4) Candidates should be allowed to ask questions of each other. (5) A non-selected audience should be allowed. (6) Both candidates should be required to take a drug test.

It is all very well, and admirable of Trump to agree to debate Biden “any time, any place” as he has said. However, he is ahead in the polls and must ensure that any debate is fair to both candidates. Otherwise, he may be jeopardizing his campaign by making himself vulnerable to his unscrupulous opponent. There is an old saying “The Pride before the Fall.” Trump should heed this truthful admonition!

 

Is This Legal?

Posted on by

As the Republicans prepare to take the majority in the House of Representatives, Democrats are preparing for the change. However, some of the preparation seems a little odd.

On Sunday, The Epoch Times reported the following:

Outgoing House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said the Jan. 6 committee will have to “scrub” some evidence from its final report before Republicans take over the house in 2023.

During an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Schiff was asked by anchor Dana Bash about Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) becoming chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee and will “go through the evidence you left out … you’re saying that there won’t be evidence that will not be made public?”

“The evidence will all be made public,” Schiff told Bash in response. “Now, we will have to make sure that we scrub that evidence for personally identifiable information, that the evidence that we provide protects people’s security, it doesn’t put them at risk. So, there are things that we’re going to have to do along those lines.”

The article also notes:

Elsewhere in his interview, Schiff declined to say whether he would comply with a House Republican subpoena when the GOP takes control.

“We’ll have to consider the validity of the subpoena,” he said. “But I would certainly view my obligation, administration’s obligation to follow the law. And the fact that they have disrespected the law is not a precedent I would hope that would be broadly followed. But we’ll have to look at the legitimacy or lack of legitimacy of what they do.”

Schiff, meanwhile, did not say when the final Jan. 6 select committee’s report would be released to the public. The panel will end with the start of the next Congress in January 2023—like all other select committees created during the current session of Congress.

So there are only consequences for not complying with a subpoena when the Democrats issue the subpoena? I am honestly beginning to wonder if our unequal system of justice has reached the point on no return.