Thursday, October 31, 2019

John Solomon Debunks MSM Lies About Ukraine, Biden And Election Interference

By Tyler Durden

There is a long way to go in the impeachment process, and there are some very important issues still to be resolved. But as the process marches on, a growing number of myths and falsehoods are being spread by partisans and their allies in the news media.

The early pattern of misinformation about Ukraine, Joe Biden and election interference mirrors closely the tactics used in late 2016 and early 2017 to build the false and now-debunked narrative that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin colluded to hijack the 2016 election.

Facts do matter. And they prove to be stubborn evidence, even in the midst of a political firestorm. So here are the facts (complete with links to the original materials) debunking some of the bigger fables in the Ukraine scandal.

Myth: There is no evidence the Democratic National Committee sought Ukraine’s assistance during the 2016 election.

The Facts: The Ukrainian embassy in Washington confirmed to me this past April that a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa did, in fact, solicit dirt on Donald Trump and Paul Manafort during the spring of 2016 in hopes of spurring a pre-election congressional hearing into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. The embassy also stated Chalupa tried to get Ukraine’s president at the time, Petro Poroshenko, to do an interview on Manafort with an American investigative reporter working on the issue. The embassy said it turned down both requests.

It’s not who you might think– it’s someone much worse. And a new, incredibly powerful hidden force will practically guarantee that she wins. Click here to find out why she’ll be a disaster for millions of Americans.

You can read the Ukraine embassy’s statement here. The statement essentially confirmed a January 2017 investigative article in Politico that first raised concerns about Chalupa’s contacts with the embassy.

Chalupa’s activities involving Ukraine were further detailed in a May 2016 email published by WikiLeaks in which she reported to DNC officials on her efforts to dig up dirt on Manafort and Trump. You can read that email here.  

Myth: There is no evidence that Ukrainian government officials tried to influence the American presidential election in 2016.

The Facts: There are two documented episodes involving Ukrainian government officials’ efforts to influence the 2016 American presidential election. 

The first occurred in Ukraine, where a court last December ruled that a Parliamentary member and a senior Ukrainian law enforcement official improperly tried to influence the U.S. election by releasing financial records in spring and summer 2016 from an investigation into Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s lobbying activities. The publicity from the release of the so-called Black Ledger documents forced Manafort to resign. You can read that ruling here.  While that court ruling since has been set aside on a jurisdiction technicality, the facts of the released information are not in dispute.

The second episode occurred on U.S. soil back in August 2016 when Ukraine’s then-ambassador to Washington, Valeriy Chaly, took the extraordinary step of writing an OpEd in The Hill criticizing GOP nominee Donald Trump and his views on Russia just three months before Election Day. You can read that OpEd here.

Chaly later told me through his spokeswoman that he wasn’t writing the OpEd for political purposes but rather to address his country’s geopolitical interests. But his article, nonetheless, was viewed by many in career diplomatic circles as running contrary to the Geneva Convention’s rules barring diplomats from becoming embroiled in the host country’s political affairs. And it clearly adds to the public perception that Ukraine’s government at the time preferred Hillary Clinton over Trump in the 2016 election.

Myth: The allegation that Joe Biden tried to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his son Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian gas firm employer has been debunked, and there is no evidence the ex-vice president did anything improper.

The Facts: Joe Biden is captured on videotape bragging about his effort to strong-arm Ukraine’s president into firing Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. Biden told a foreign policy group in early 2018 that he used the threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid to Kiev to successfully force Shokin’s firing. You can watch Biden’s statement here.

It also is not in dispute that at the time he forced the firing, the vice president’s office knew Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings, the company where Hunter Biden worked as a board member and consultant. Team Biden was alerted to the investigation in a December 2015 New York Times article. You can read that article here.

The unresolved question is what motivated Joe Biden to seek Shokin’s ouster. Biden says he took the action solely because the U.S. and Western allies believed Shokin was ineffective in fighting corruption. Shokin told me, ABC News and others that he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy that the Burisma investigation was not shut down. He made similar statements in an affidavit prepared to be filed in an European court. You can read that affidavit here.

In the end, though, whether Joe Biden had good or bad intentions in getting Shokin fired is somewhat irrelevant to the question of the vice president’s ethical obligation.

U.S. ethics rules require all government officials to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in taking official actions. Ethics experts I talked with say Biden should have recused himself from the Shokin matter once he learned about the Burisma investigation to avoid the appearance issue.

And a senior U.S. diplomat was quoted in testimony reported by The Washington Post earlier this month that he tried to raise warnings with Biden’s VP office in 2015 that Hunter Biden’s role at the Ukrainian firm raised the potential issue of conflicts of interest.

Myth: Ukraine’s investigation into Burisma Holdings was no longer active when Joe Biden forced Shokin’s firing in March 2016.

The Facts: This is one of the most egregiously false statements spread by the media. Ukraine’s official case file for Burisma Holdings, provided to me by prosecutors, shows there were two active investigations into the gas firm and its founder Mykola Zlochevsky in early 2016, one involving corruption allegations and the other involving unpaid taxes.

In fact, Shokin told me in an interview he was making plans to interview Burisma board members, including Hunter Biden, at the time he was fired. And it was publicly reported that in February 2016, a month before Shokin was fired, that Ukrainian prosecutors raided one of Zlochevsky’s homes and seized expensive items like a luxury car as part of the corruption probe. You can read a contemporaneous news report about the seizure here.

Burisma’s own legal activities also clearly show the investigations were active at the time Shokin was fired. Internal emails I obtained from the American legal team representing Burisma show that on March 29, 2016 – the very day Shokin was fired – Burisma lawyer John Buretta was seeking a meeting with Shokin’s temporary replacement in hopes of settling the open cases.

In May 2016 when new Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko was appointed, Buretta then sent a letter to the new prosecutor seeking to resolve the investigations of Burisma  and Zlochevsky. You can read that letter here.

Buretta eventually gave a February 2017 interview to the Kiev Post in which he divulged that the corruption probe was resolved in fall 2016 and the tax case by early January 2017.  You can read Buretta’s interview here.

In another words, the Burisma investigations were active at the time Vice President Biden forced Shokin’s firing, and any suggestion to the contrary is pure misinformation.

Myth: There is no evidence Vice President Joe Biden did anything to encourage Burisma’s hiring of his son Hunter.

The Facts: This is another area where the public facts cry out for more investigation and raise a question in some minds about another appearance of a conflict of interest.

Hunter Biden’s business partner, Devon Archer, was appointed to Burisma’s board in mid-April 2014 and the firm Rosemont Seneca Bohai — jointly owned by Hunter Biden and Devon Archer — received its first payments from the Ukrainian gas company on April 15, 2014, according to the company’s ledgers. That very same day as the first Burisma payment, Devon Archer met with Joe Biden at the White House, according to White House visitor logs. It is not known what the two discussed.

A week later, Joe Biden traveled to Ukraine and met with then-Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. During that meeting, the American vice president urged Ukraine to ramp up energy production to free itself from its Russian natural gas dependence. Biden even boasted that “an American team is currently in the region working with Ukraine and its neighbors to increase Ukraine’s short-term energy supply.” Yatsenyuk welcomed the help from American “investors” in modernizing natural gas supply lines in Ukraine. You can read the Biden-Yatsenyuk transcript here.

Less than three weeks later, Burisma added Hunter Biden to its board to join Archer. To some, the sequence of events creates the appearance that Joe Biden’s pressure to increase Ukrainian gas supply and to urge Kiev to rely on Americans might have led Burisma to hire his son. More investigation needs to be done to determine exactly what happened. And until that occurs, the appearance issue will likely linger over this episode.

Myth: Hunter Biden’s firm only received $50,000 a month for his work as a board member and consultant for Burisma Holdings.

The Facts: This figure frequently cited by Biden defenders and the media significantly understates what Burisma was paying Hunter Biden’s Rosemont Seneca Bohai firm for his and Devon Archer’s services. Bank records obtained by the FBI in an unrelated case show that between May 2014 and the end of 2015, Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s firm received monthly consulting payments totaling $166,666, or three times the amount cited by the media. In some months, there was even more money than that paid. You can review those bank records here.

The monthly payments figures are confirmed by the accounting ledger that Burisma turned over to Ukrainian prosecutors. That ledger, which you can read here, also shows that in spring and summer of 2014 Burisma paid more than $283,000 to the American law firm of Boies Schiller, where Hunter Biden also worked as an attorney.

Myth: President Trump was trying to force Ukraine to reopen a probe into Burisma Holdings and its founder Mykola Zlochevsky when he talked to Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in July of this year.

The Facts: Trump could not have forced the Ukrainians into opening a new Burisma investigation in July because the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s office had already done so on March 28, 2019, or three months before the call.

The prosecutors filed this notice of suspicion in Ukraine announcing the re-opening of the investigation. The revival of the case was even widely reported in the Ukrainian press, something U.S. intelligence and diplomats who are now testifying to Congress behind closed doors should have known. Here’s an example of one such Ukrainian media report at the time.

Myth: Former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko retracted or recanted his claim that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch in 2016 identified people and entities she did not what to see prosecuted in Ukraine.

The Facts: In a March interview with me at Hill.TV captured on videotape, Lutsenko stated that during his first meeting with Yovanovitch in summer 2016, the American diplomat rattled off a list of names of Ukrainian individuals and entities she did not want to see investigated or prosecuted. Lutsenko called it a “do not prosecute” list. You can watch that video here. The State Department disputed his characterization as a fabrication, which Hill.TV reported in its original report.

A few weeks later, a Ukrainian news outlet claimed it interviewed Lutsenko and he backed off his assertion about the list. Several American outlets have since picked up that same language.

There is just one problem. I re-interviewed Lutsenko after the Ukrainian report suggesting he recanted. He adamantly denied recanting, retracting or changing his story, and said the Ukrainian newspaper simply misunderstood that the list of names were conveyed orally during the meeting and not in writing, just like he said in the original Hill.TV interview.

Here is Lutsenko’s full explanation to me back last spring:

“At no time since our interview have I ever retracted the statement I made about the U.S. ambassador providing me a list of names of people and organizations she did not want my office to prosecute. Shortly after my televised interview with your news organization I was asked by a Ukraine reporter if I had a copy of the letter that Ambassador Yovanovitch provided me with the names of those she did not want prosecuted. The reporter misunderstood how the names were transmitted to me. I explained to the reporter that the Ambassador did not hand me a written list but rather provided the list of names orally over the course of a meeting.” 

Lutsenko reaffirmed he stood by his statements again in September.

It is important to note Lutsenko’s story was also backed up by State Department officials and contemporaneous memos before his interview was ever aired. For instance, a senior U.S. official I interviewed for the Lutsenko story reviewed the list of names that Lutsenko recalled being on the so-called do-not-prosecute list.

That official stated during the interview: “I can confirm to you that at least some of those names are names that U.S. embassy Kiev raised with the Prosecutor General’s office because we were concerned about retribution and unfair treatment of Ukrainians viewed as favorable to the United States.”

Separately, both U.S. and Ukrainian official confirmed to me a letter written by then-U.S. embassy official George Kent in April 2016 in which U.S. officials pointedly (and in writing) demanded that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down an investigation into several Ukrainian nonprofit groups suspected of misspending U.S. foreign aid. The letter even named one of the groups, the AntiCorruption Action Centre, a nonprofit funded jointly by the State Department and liberal megadonor George Soros.

“We are gravely concerned about this investigation, for which we see no basis,” Kent wrote the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office in April 2016. You can read the letter here

So even without Lutsenko’s claim, there is substantial evidence that the U.S. embassy in Kiev applied pressure on Ukrainian prosecutors not to pursue certain investigations in 2016.

Myth: The narratives about Biden, the U.S. embassy and Ukrainian election interference are conspiracy theories invented by Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, to impact the 2020 election.

The Facts: Giuliani began investigating matters in Ukraine in late fall 2018 as a personal lawyer to the president. But months before his quest began, Ukrainian prosecutors believed they possessed evidence about Burisma, the Bidens and 2016 election interference that might interest the U.S. Justice Department. It is the same evidence that came to light this spring and summer and that is now a focus of the impeachment proceedings.

Originally, one of Ukraine’s senior prosecutors tried to secure a visa to come to the United States to deliver that evidence. But when the U.S. embassy in Kiev did not fulfill his travel request, the group of Ukrainian prosecutors hired a former U.S. attorney in America to reach out to the U.S. attorney office in New York and try to arrange a transfer of the evidence. The Ukrainian prosecutors’ story was independently verified by the American lawyer they hired.

So the activities and allegation now at the heart of impeachment actually pre-date Giuliani starting work on Ukraine. You can read the prosecutors’ account of their 2018 effort to get this information to Americans here.

BREAKING: NSC Official Testifies He Heard Nothing Illegal On Trump-Zelensky Call, Transcript Accurate

By Timothy Meads |

Source: (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

CBS News is reporting that Tim Morrison, the National Security Council's Senior Director for European Affairs, testified before Congress on Thursday that he heard nothing illegal on the phone call between President Donald J. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Morrison also reportedly testified that the transcript released by the White House was accurate.

The Federalist is also reporting this according to transcripts obtained by the outlet. 

“I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison testified today, according to Sean Davis. 

"My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland’s proposal to [Ukrainian National Security Advisor Andriy] Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general — not President Zelensky — would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation, Morrison testified according to the Federalist. 

“I am pleased our process gave the president the confidence he needed to approve the release of the security sector assistance,” he added. “I am proud of what I have been able, in some small way, to help the Trump administration accomplish."

After a government whistleblower came forward, Congressional Democrats accused President Trump of offering an illegal quid pro quo, pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden in exchange for military aid. On Thursday, they voted to conduct an official impeachment inquiry into President Trump's actions. 

This is a breaking news post and will be updated as needed. 

House approves impeachment inquiry rules after fiery floor debate

By Brooke Singman | Fox News

A sharply divided House voted Thursday to approve a resolution setting "ground rules" for the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, putting lawmakers on record over the contentious process while setting the stage for proceedings to move into the public eye after weeks of closed-door depositions.

The measure passed largely along party lines, 232-196. Two Democrats defected on the vote.

The first formal floor vote in relation to the impeachment probe announced a month ago by Speaker Nancy Pelosi followed a fierce debate in the chamber, where Republicans accused Democrats of launching a de facto "coup" against the president in a "pre-ordained" bid to overturn the results of the 2016 election.

"A yes vote on this resolution today gives a stamp of approval to a process that has been damaged beyond all repair and a blatant and obvious coup to unseat a sitting president of the United States," Rep. Ross Spano, R-Fla., said.

Democrats, though, maintained that the president's own actions – pressing Ukraine to launch politically related investigations, and allegedly using military aid as leverage – brought the country to this point.

"I do not take any pleasure in the need for this resolution," Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said. "We are here because the facts compel us to be here."

Showmanship and heated rhetoric marked the lead-up to the vote. Pelosi stood beside a giant placard of an American flag while declaring Congress was "defending our democracy."

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., accused Democrats of being part of a "cult," suggesting Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is their leader.

Trump tweeted after the vote: "The Greatest Witch Hunt In American History!"
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham maintained in a statement that the president has done nothing wrong.

"With today’s vote, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats have done nothing more than enshrine unacceptable violations of due process into House rules," she said.

No Republicans voted for the measure on Thursday, while two Democrats voted against it: Reps. Jeff Van Drew, D-N.J., and Collin Peterson, D-Minn.

Republicans for weeks had challenged Pelosi to hold a floor vote, complaining the inquiry hasn’t followed past precedent and violates the president’s due process rights. While she finally gave in to those demands in a bid to mute their complaints about process, GOP lawmakers continued to call the inquiry a "sham" while complaining that the newly unveiled rules still limit their authority — including by requiring the consent of Democratic chairs to subpoena witnesses.

McGovern introduced the resolution earlier this week, while defending the process and claiming it was not partisan.

"It's about transparency and it's about due process for the president," McGovern said. "Some on the other side will never be satisfied with any process."

The resolution directs the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Judiciary, and Ways and Means Committees to “continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump.”

The Democrats’ resolution specifies that Republicans in the minority on the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees will have the authority, with the concurrence of committee chairs in the majority, to subpoena witnesses and compel their testimony.

If the chair does not consent, the minority can appeal to the full committee. It is common in other proceedings for committee chairs to essentially have veto authority over subpoenas sought by ranking minority members.

The measure also sets the stage for proceedings to move into a public setting soon.

The resolution authorizes the Intelligence Committee to conduct an "open hearing or hearings" in which minority Republicans have equal time to question witnesses.

And, after that hearing is concluded, "to allow for a full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given."

McGovern has argued, and maintained on Thursday, that the standards outlined in the resolution are the same as those under the impeachments of both Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

The resolution further directs the Intelligence Committee, in consultation with the other committees, to prepare a report on its findings to the Judiciary Committee, which would write any articles of impeachment. In response to GOP complaints about Democrats' selective leaks of opening statements and depositions, the document also authorizes the public release of testimony transcripts, with only sensitive or classified information being redacted. The resolution also allows Republican members to submit written demands for testimony and other evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, and raise objections.

Pelosi announced the Trump impeachment inquiry on Sept. 24, saying at the time that "the president must be held accountable" for his "betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and the betrayal of the integrity of our elections."

The inquiry was opened after a whistleblower complaint alleged that Trump, during a July phone call, pushed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter as military aid to the country was being withheld.

A transcript released by the White House shows Trump making that request, but he and his allies deny that military aid was clearly linked to the request or that there was any "quid pro quo." Some witnesses coming before House committees as part of the impeachment proceedings have challenged that assertion.

Fox News' Gregg Re and Chad Pergram contributed to this report.

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

REPORT: 'Whistleblower' Who Complained About Trump's Call to Ukrainian President Zelensky Revealed

By Bronson Stocking| Townhall.Com

Source: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Everything Trump's defenders feared about the whistleblower is true! According to a report from RealClear Investigations, the whistleblower is 33-year-old Eric Ciaramella.

Ciaramella is a holdover from the Obama administration and a registered Democrat. He's been accused of leaking like crazy. He worked with Joe Biden, he's a vocal critic of President Trump, and he invited a DNC operative inside the White House to attend meetings. He also helped instigate the investigation into Russia collusion. So, of course, Democrats believe his second-hand complaint about President Trump's phone conversation with Ukranian President Zelensky over the actual transcript of the call itself. 

(Via RealClear Investigations) 

"He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said a former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

Also, Ciaramella huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC. (Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the impeachment inquiry.)

And Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

The report claims that federal records show Ciaramella attended a state luncheon with Joe Biden's office back in October 2016. You'll never guess who else was there? Former FBI Director James Comey and former National Intelligence Director James Clapper. You can't make this stuff up! The report says it was strange for Ciaramella, a relatively low-level GS-13 federal employee, to have been there. And it describes Ciaramella's invitation as "unusual," saying it "signaled he was politically connected inside the Obama White House." 

With Ciaramella’s name long under wraps, interest in the intelligence analyst has become so high that a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research dossier on him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill, and briefings have been conducted based on it. One briefed Republican has been planning to unmask the whistleblower in a speech on the House floor. On the Internet, meanwhile, Ciaramella's name for weeks has been bandied about on Twitter feeds and intelligence blogs as the suspected person who blew the whistle on the president. The mainstream media are also aware of his name.

No wonder Democrats and the media have kept such a tight lid on the whistleblower's identity. Now William Barr needs to investigate the origins of the whistleblower's complaint so we can get to the true conspiracy here, which is more and more looking like just another attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election. 

The Way of the Dragon

This book by China Smith is a must read and is available on Amazon.

About the author: 

China Smith was born and raised in Sarasota, Florida in humble circumstances, but with a dream in his heart to be a Champion Boxer. China, who turned professional at age 18, went on to establish an outstanding professional boxing record as a heavyweight. He posted 35 wins and 5 losses, and he scored an impressive 26 knockouts. He gained local, national and international acclaim and then took off from boxing for over six years. 

Surprisingly, he then got back in shape and decided to come back to the ring, fighting and winning the North American World Boxing Federation recognition as the former two-time NBA Heavyweight Champion of the World.

China’s record is a statement to his will and determination, but he is more than just a professional heavyweight boxer, he is also a true gentleman with outstanding moral character. One of China’s major attributes, outside of his gentlemanly behavior, is that he is a believer and follower of Jesus Christ and is dedicated in his desire to help young people, not only in his community but throughout the world.

China is the executive director of his own 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, China Smith and Friends Inc., which is now called Team China Smith/ TCS Global Entertainment LLC headquartered at the Police Athletic League boxing fitness club in Bradenton, FL. 

He is heavily involved in the development and evolution of the youth within the Sarasota/Bradenton community, spending a great amount of his time counseling them on the conflicts they face and the choices they make that will shape the rest of their lives. He coaches them on how to stay on the straight and narrow path, choose goals for themselves, and he demonstrates how hard work and perseverance will help them to achieve their goals and be respected young men and women.

China encourages all people to stay away from self-destructive activities such as drinking alcohol, smoking, doing drugs or running with the wrong crowd. China has never drunk alcohol, smoked or tried illegal drugs ever in his entire life. That alone sends the right message, loud and clear. China has been a guest speaker at various schools, youth organizations and churches locally and in neighboring communities. 

He has worked extensively with Genesis Health Systems, Boys and Girls Club, Warren Foundation, Teen Court, Franchise Kids Foundation, Compass Center, YMCA, American I-Can, Keeping Sarasota Beautiful, Habitat for Humanity, and Pathways to Excellence. These are just a few of the organizations that China Smith has contributed to over the years.

China communicates to children and young adults in a meaningful and powerful way because they can relate to how he grew up in humble circumstances. He speaks of his personal experiences and provides knowledge on how to become a responsible adult and how to deal with peer pressure. He shares the trials and tribulations that he has encountered along the way, and how he overcame adversity. He shares how he was faced with those who told him to quit after being defeated in the ring. However, because giving up was never an option for him, he was able to succeed, against all odds.

 China’s desire is simple, to be remembered as China Smith aka The People’s Champ, a man who made a strong, positive impact on young people everywhere and on everyone he has met along the way!

Tuesday, October 29, 2019

President Donald J. Trump addressed the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges

On September 10th, President Donald J. Trump addressed the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) 2019 Conference in Washington, DC. This was the first time a U.S. President has addressed the HBCU Conference.

In President Trump's remarks, he highlighted not only the great work being championed by his administration for our Historically Black Colleges and Universities (see below for some reminders), but the greater body of work to lift up our communities including criminal justice reform, opportunity zones, workforce development and the economy.

He also announced another action being taken to protect HBCUs and other faith-based institutions. Recently, the US Department of Justice published an option declaring discriminatory restrictions unconstitutional that 40 faith-based HBCUs and seminaries previously faced denying them full access to federal support for capital improvement projects.

In addition, President Trump issued a proclamation declaring September 8- 14, 2019 as National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week, and proclaimed September 9, 2019, as the Inaugural National HBCU Colors Day.

The White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities was established in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan, setting into motion a government wide effort to strengthen our nation’s HBCUs. I hope you will take time to learn more about the White House Initiative on HBCUs.

Meet the Team Leading the Efforts with our HBCUs:

From left to right: Johnny C. Taylor, Chairman, President's Board of Advisors on HBCUs; Johnathan Holifield, Executive Director of the White House Initiative on HBCUs; and Dr. Leonard Haynes, Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary, US Dept. of Education

Barely a month after taking office, President Trump signed Executive Order 13779 – White House Initiative to Promote Excellent and Innovation at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (the earliest any President has signed an HBCU Executive Order).

President Trump directed agencies across his Administration to develop plans to enhance their support for HBCUs.

Under President Trump, over $300 million worth of debt was eliminated for HBCU’s that have been impacted by natural disasters.

President Trump has signed legislation increasing Federal funding for HBCUs.
The President signed legislation that added more than $100 million for scholarships, research, and centers of excellence at HBCU land grant institutions.

Under President Trump, in collaboration with Congress, HBCUs have seen a significant increase in investment $45 million thru Title III Funding: 

$35 million increase in the Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program ($279.6 million);

$9 million increase in the Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions ($72.3 million);

 $1 million increase in the Strengthening HBCU Masters Programs ($8.6 million);

Meaningful increases investments in student support like Pell Grants, Federal Work Study, and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG); and

Increases in Howard University’s annual appropriation by nearly $11 million, bringing its fiscal year 2018 investment level to $232.5 million.

Under the Trump Administration, The White House Initiative on HBCUs launched the HBCU Competitiveness Scholars.  

The induction of the 2019 class included Sixty-three students from 54 HBCUs.  These Scholars include undergraduate, graduate, and professional students who were selected based on their academic achievement, campus and civic involvement, and entrepreneurial ethos or “go-getter” spirit.

The Trump Administration relaunched the HBCU Capital Finance Board to make millions of dollars available to support HBCUs’ long-term growth and improvement - positioning these institutions to deliver even more value to their students.

The Administration has announced that any restrictions on those funds going to institutions with a religious mission is unconstitutional.

Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, has demonstrated her support of HBCUs by:

Donating her salary to the Thurgood Marshall Foundation (TMF);

Removing and reforming onerous regulations harmful to HBCUs, including borrower’s defense; and

Advocating for and implementing the expansion of Pell grants eligibility to include low-income students attending classes all year; and increasing the maximum student award.

The Administration is rethinking college by reducing regulatory burdens, promoting innovation, strengthening accountability, and respecting the unique mission of each school.

President Trump's emerging prosperity agenda includes Opportunity Zones, American Innovation, workforce development, and urban revitalization. 

Compiled by the Republican National Committee

Biden Caught In Blatant Lie, Tells Black Students He Went To Black University

Joe Biden is not having gaffes anymore, he is stone cold lying to people and he thinks that he will not get caught.

In front of a group of black voters this weekend the former vice president claimed he started at a historically black university.

“I got started out of an HBCU, Delaware State, and I don’t want to hear anything negative about Delaware state here. Okay?

“Those are my folks,” he said. “But all kidding aside HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges & Universities), are in trouble financially.”

The former vice president is correct. Delaware State is, in fact, a historically black university.

But there is just one minor issue. Joe Biden never attended Delaware State University. It was a bold faced lie.

Biden attended St. Helena School, then St. Paul’s Elementary School, then the University of Delaware,

Bottom of Form
Unless one is senile it is tough to believe that one would not remember what university they went to.

And it is even tougher to believe that, if they were one of a handful of white people attending that university that they would not remember.

What is more likely is that Biden is used to campaigning in the days of yonder when people could not check the Internet to find the facts.

If President Donald Trump said this it would be Breaking News on CNN. One of two things is true. Biden is a bold faced liar or he does not remember where he went to school. And if he does not remember then he does not have the mental faculties to be president.

Carmine Sabia Jr started his own professional wrestling business at age 18 and went on to become a real estate investor. Currently he is a pundit who covers political news and current events.