{"id":29942,"date":"2019-12-01T06:48:21","date_gmt":"2019-12-01T11:48:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=29942"},"modified":"2019-12-01T06:54:12","modified_gmt":"2019-12-01T11:54:12","slug":"lawsuits-over-impeachment-accusations-now-starting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=29942","title":{"rendered":"Lawsuits over impeachment accusations now starting"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. The Schifthead Coup has been flailing around for several weeks now and is coming to it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

However, some of the victims of the Democrats actions are fighting back. Here are the details from Fox News<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n

A White House<\/a> official on Monday sued Politico and one of its reporters over stories and tweets that he says falsely accuse him of \u201clying, deceit and unethical conduct.\u201d <\/b>Kash Patel, the National Security Council\u2019s 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<\/a> contributor, as well as Politico owner Robert Allbritton. <\/b><\/p>\n

I will be honest and say that I\u2019ve never heard of Mr. Patel, and probably most American\u2019s haven\u2019t either. I supposes that if I made a habit of reading Politico, I would have seen something about him. Still, if Politico went the \u201cFake News\u201d route and made up stories regarding Mr. Patel, those people who do follow Politico would have seen them.<\/p>\n

While Politico is the nominal target of the suit, it represents an aggressive attempt by a presidential aide to put Adam Schiff\u2019s handling of the impeachment inquiry itself on trial. Describing the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee<\/a> as \u201ca demagogue with an ax to grind against the president,\u201d Patel portrays Schiff as running roughshod over rules and interviewing witnesses \u201cto create click-bait headlines and soundbites to feed to his co-conspirators and media sympathizers.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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 \u201cSecret\u201d hearings were designed to allow Schifthead to control the narrative through selective leaks to organizations such as Politico.<\/p>\n

The suit stems from Bertrand\u2019s Oct. 23 story, headlined \u201cNunes Protege Fed Ukraine Info to Trump.\u201d Patel previously worked for Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, spearheading the Intel Committee\u2019s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, before joining the White House in February. <\/b><\/p>\n

Well, that certainly isn\u2019t a headline designed to provide unbiased facts and information.<\/p>\n

The Politico piece said Patel \u201cwas among those passing negative information about Ukraine<\/a> to President Donald Trump earlier this year, fueling the president\u2019s belief that Ukraine was brimming with corruption and interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Democrats.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Never mind the fact that the Ukrainian government at the time was corrupt and did try to help Felonia von Pantsuit win the election.<\/p>\n

Patel was \u201cso involved in the issue,\u201d the story said, that \u201cat one point Trump thought he was in charge of Ukraine policy for the National Security<\/a> Council.\u201d This was attributed to closed-door House testimony by Fiona Hill,\u201d a former NSC official. What\u2019s more, Politico said, \u201cPatel\u2019s involvement demonstrates that the president had at least some support for the scheme from within the NSC\u201d — the scheme being to pressure Ukraine into investigations that would help Trump politically. <\/b><\/p>\n

Fiona Hill testified in front of the Schifthead Coup Committee and basically showed that she isn\u2019t 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?<\/p>\n

In fact, Patel\u2019s suit says, \u201cat no time\u201d before Oct. 30 \u201chad Kash ever communicated with the president on any matters involving Ukraine. Kash never supplied any Ukraine \u2018materials\u2019 to the president.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

That statement is pretty forceful. It\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

A second story by Bertrand, on Oct. 30, quoted sources as saying Vindman<\/a> told lawmakers that Patel \u201c\u2018misrepresented\u2019 himself\u201d to Trump \u201cin an effort to involve himself further in Ukraine policy, according to two people familiar with his closed-door deposition.\u201d The piece said the president \u201cbelieved at the time\u201d that Patel \u201cwas actually the NSC\u2019s top Ukraine expert instead of Vindman,\u201d despite Patel\u2019s lack of experience with Ukraine.<\/a> This, Politico said, highlighted \u201cthe unusual steps top NSC officials were taking as early as May to avoid angering or annoying the president on Ukraine issues,\u201d and \u201cfeeding Trump\u2019s belief that Ukraine was brimming with corruption and had interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Democrats.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Oh joy, Mr. (Damn it! Call me Lieutenant Colonel), Vindman again. Yet another Obama Deep State operative who\u2019s credibility is a complete joke.<\/p>\n

The lawsuit contends — and this is certain to be contested — that if Politico \u201chad bothered to wait for the transcript, they would have learned that Fiona Hill completely fabricated the story that Kash had provided \u2018materials on Ukraine\u2019 to the president.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

That is going to be rather hard to prove, but again, I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Patel\u2019s lawyers have a smoking battery of cannon ready to go. (As opposed to the MSM\u2019s \u201cSmoking gun\u201d)<\/p>\n

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. <\/b><\/p>\n

Oh that\u2019s going to be fun. If all Politico has are \u201cUnnamed sources\u201d, and not actual congressional records, Mr. Patel\u2019s 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 \u201c1st<\/sup> Amendment martyr\u201d thing, but I could see Mr. Patel\u2019s lawyers simply saying that if Politico won\u2019t name the sources, considering the information that came out regarding the call, there were no sources and they made the whole thing up.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Patel burst into the news last year during the committee\u2019s 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<\/a> and intelligence community, that accused federal officials of bias against Trump. <\/b><\/p>\n

I remember the memo, but do not recall that Mr. Patel had anything to do with it.<\/p>\n

The suit describes Patel as a \u201cprivate individual,\u201d a key point since the bar for a successful libel suit is much higher if, as a White House<\/a> official, he is deemed a public figure.<\/b><\/p>\n

Well, that \u201cHigher Bar\u201d is nothing more then a construct by the Liberal Supreme Court, and is ripe for overturning. That decision, New York Times Co. vs Sullivan<\/a> is what has protected the media for decades when they make up stories, or get it wrong and won\u2019t correct it. It\u2019s already taken a pretty severe hit with regards to the Bollea v. Gawker<\/a> 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\u2019s case which is now going forward.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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 \u201cThe 1st<\/sup> Amendment is dead!\u201d 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\u2019s going to be very entertaining!<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Thatisall<\/p>\n\"1\"2\"3\"4\"5 (1<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n

~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

\u00a0