Good day all. The Schifthead Coup has been flailing around for several weeks now and is coming to it’s inevitable conclusion. President Donald J. Trump did nothing wrong, but will be impeached along a party line vote. He will be acquitted in the Senate and the Democrats will be shown to be what they truly are. Tyrants that consider the Constitution and the American People to be nothing important.
However, some of the victims of the Democrats actions are fighting back. Here are the details from Fox News:
A White House official on Monday sued Politico and one of its reporters over stories and tweets that he says falsely accuse him of “lying, deceit and unethical conduct.” Kash Patel, the National Security Council’s senior counterterrorism director, is seeking more than $25 million in damages in the suit filed in Virginia. The lawsuit also names Natasha Bertrand, a Politico reporter and MSNBC contributor, as well as Politico owner Robert Allbritton.
I will be honest and say that I’ve never heard of Mr. Patel, and probably most American’s haven’t either. I supposes that if I made a habit of reading Politico, I would have seen something about him. Still, if Politico went the “Fake News” route and made up stories regarding Mr. Patel, those people who do follow Politico would have seen them.
While Politico is the nominal target of the suit, it represents an aggressive attempt by a presidential aide to put Adam Schiff’s handling of the impeachment inquiry itself on trial. Describing the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee as “a demagogue with an ax to grind against the president,” Patel portrays Schiff as running roughshod over rules and interviewing witnesses “to create click-bait headlines and soundbites to feed to his co-conspirators and media sympathizers.”
Schifthead is nothing more than a toilet bug. His hatred of President Trump along with his utter and complete contempt for the Rule of Law as well as the Constitution has been on display all through the public hearings. The Star Chamber “Secret” hearings were designed to allow Schifthead to control the narrative through selective leaks to organizations such as Politico.
The suit stems from Bertrand’s Oct. 23 story, headlined “Nunes Protege Fed Ukraine Info to Trump.” Patel previously worked for Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, spearheading the Intel Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, before joining the White House in February.
Well, that certainly isn’t a headline designed to provide unbiased facts and information.
The Politico piece said Patel “was among those passing negative information about Ukraine to President Donald Trump earlier this year, fueling the president’s belief that Ukraine was brimming with corruption and interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Democrats.”
Never mind the fact that the Ukrainian government at the time was corrupt and did try to help Felonia von Pantsuit win the election.
Patel was “so involved in the issue,” the story said, that “at one point Trump thought he was in charge of Ukraine policy for the National Security Council.” This was attributed to closed-door House testimony by Fiona Hill,” a former NSC official. What’s more, Politico said, “Patel’s involvement demonstrates that the president had at least some support for the scheme from within the NSC” — the scheme being to pressure Ukraine into investigations that would help Trump politically.
Fiona Hill testified in front of the Schifthead Coup Committee and basically showed that she isn’t all that credible. Of course, Politico is a rather left wing information source and everything they heard fit in with their beliefs. No further investigation was required or desired. As for Mr. Patel?
In fact, Patel’s suit says, “at no time” before Oct. 30 “had Kash ever communicated with the president on any matters involving Ukraine. Kash never supplied any Ukraine ‘materials’ to the president.”
That statement is pretty forceful. It’s also something that Mr. Patel will have to prove in a court of law. Since the White House records all sorts of things, like meetings and communications between the president and the staff, I suspect Mr. Patel and his lawyers already have all their ducks in a nice, legal row.
A second story by Bertrand, on Oct. 30, quoted sources as saying Vindman told lawmakers that Patel “‘misrepresented’ himself” to Trump “in an effort to involve himself further in Ukraine policy, according to two people familiar with his closed-door deposition.” The piece said the president “believed at the time” that Patel “was actually the NSC’s top Ukraine expert instead of Vindman,” despite Patel’s lack of experience with Ukraine. This, Politico said, highlighted “the unusual steps top NSC officials were taking as early as May to avoid angering or annoying the president on Ukraine issues,” and “feeding Trump’s belief that Ukraine was brimming with corruption and had interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Democrats.”
Oh joy, Mr. (Damn it! Call me Lieutenant Colonel), Vindman again. Yet another Obama Deep State operative who’s credibility is a complete joke.
The lawsuit contends — and this is certain to be contested — that if Politico “had bothered to wait for the transcript, they would have learned that Fiona Hill completely fabricated the story that Kash had provided ‘materials on Ukraine’ to the president.”
That is going to be rather hard to prove, but again, I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Patel’s lawyers have a smoking battery of cannon ready to go. (As opposed to the MSM’s “Smoking gun”)
Patel essentially argues that Hill and Vindman offered no direct evidence to show he briefed the president on Ukraine. Politico could counter that it was fairly reporting on congressional testimony, except that the stories were based on leaked accounts, not the actual transcripts.
Oh that’s going to be fun. If all Politico has are “Unnamed sources”, and not actual congressional records, Mr. Patel’s lawyers are going to have a field day. Politico could be forced to name the sources. Of course, they might refuse and do the whole “1st Amendment martyr” thing, but I could see Mr. Patel’s lawyers simply saying that if Politico won’t name the sources, considering the information that came out regarding the call, there were no sources and they made the whole thing up.
Patel burst into the news last year during the committee’s Russia probe. The New York Times cited sources in saying he was the primary author of a controversial memo, released by Nunes over the objections of the FBI and intelligence community, that accused federal officials of bias against Trump.
I remember the memo, but do not recall that Mr. Patel had anything to do with it.
The suit describes Patel as a “private individual,” a key point since the bar for a successful libel suit is much higher if, as a White House official, he is deemed a public figure.
Well, that “Higher Bar” is nothing more then a construct by the Liberal Supreme Court, and is ripe for overturning. That decision, New York Times Co. vs Sullivan is what has protected the media for decades when they make up stories, or get it wrong and won’t correct it. It’s already taken a pretty severe hit with regards to the Bollea v. Gawker suit brought by Hulk Hogan against the web site Gawker. There is no doubt that Hogan is a public figure, however, he won his case and Gawker ceased to exist. We also have Nick Sandmann’s case which is now going forward.
I suspect that if either the Sandmann or Patel cases, (Or both), reach the Supreme Court, the original Sullivan decision is going to be revisited. If the court rules in favor of Mr. Patel, you can expect the usual screams from the Mostly Stupid Media that “The 1st Amendment is dead!” Of course, all that will happen is that news services will be forced to do actual work on these stories, and ready to admit to an error if they make an honest one. Pass the popcorn, it’s going to be very entertaining!
Thatisall
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
~The Angry Webmaster~
