MOST IMPORTANT to keep in mind as the viewer is immersed in this implosion of Democratic narratives:
…The far-left Washington Post hid a bombshell under the anodyne headline “Americans are split on impeachment, just like they were before the public hearings”– except, yeah, in the only states that matter, they are actually not split…
Buried under six paragraphs, we learn that, in almost all of the 2020 swing states, a majority oppose this hoax impeachment by a clear margin of 51 to 44 percent: [emphasis added throughout]
Battleground state polls show a more negative reaction to the impeachment inquiry, signaling more risk to Democrats and potential benefit for Trump. An average of 44 percent supported impeachment, with 51 percent opposed, averaging across a dozen October and November polls in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Wisconsin. That’s a flip from an average of national polls that finds support for impeachment narrowly edging opposition, 47 percent to 43 percent.
And this is not the first poll that shows impeachment backfiring in the only places that will matter next year.
The depressed support for impeachment in key states was first signaled by a series of New York Times-Siena College polls conducted in mid-October, which found between 51 and 53 percent opposing impeachment in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Let’s not forget that Wisconsin poll that shows 53 percent oppose impeachment, while only 40 percent disagree.
Even the best news for Democrats is bad news. These so-called impeachment hearings, even as rigged as they were by Democrats, even as hyped and supported as they were by the fake news media, did nothing to move the needle. Oh…
Matt Gaetz, whom PJ-MEDIA says “brought a blow torch to the impeachment hearings and set a glorious bonfire“:
WEASEL ZIPPERS notes the “objectivity” (videos) — and PJ-MEDIA laid down the law with this chicks Congressional statements:
…She even peddled the nonsense in a published law review article. Karlan falsely wrote, “For five of the eight years of the Bush Administration, [they] brought no Voting Rights Act cases of its own except for one case protecting white voters.”
Karlan’s sleight of hand might be interesting… if it were true. Sadly, for her credibility, it is demonstrably false, and she has never once corrected her false scholarship. Her fellow travelers never mention her falsehood and instead praise and elevate her, still.
This is demonstrably false; any visit to the DOJ website demonstrates this. Karlan says the Voting Section brought no cases to protect minorities under the Voting Rights Act in five of eight years — let’s look at the record:
Even if Karlan were to claim she meant only “vote dilution cases” (commonly thought of as “redistricting” cases), she is still lying. Dilution cases were brought in four of the eight years, not three of the eight, as she falsely claims. In any event, it’s impossible to claim she only meant dilution cases: she made the bold, broad statement that the Bush DOJ “brought no Voting Rights Act cases of its own” in five of eight years. Taken literally, Karlan’s claim is especially false, as cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act were brought — as we see above — in every year except 2004.
Wow… she is a nutter and wrong on facts. Damn — good job Dems. But the other people the Democrats chose are not as bad… right? Wrong. GATEWAY PUNDIT notes the RADICAL nature of Noah Feldman:
…Noah Feldman, the first impeachment ‘witness’ the Dems rolled out on Wednesday not only called for Trump’s impeachment shortly after Trump was sworn in, he actually argued in a NY Times op-ed titled, “Why Shariah?” that Islamic Sharia law is more humane than US law.
Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law professor, bashed legal systems created by Western countries including the United States and argued Sharia law is more ‘just’ and ‘fair’ than the US Supreme Court.
Mr. Feldman actually believes that a medieval system of laws that chops off the hands of thieves, stones ‘adulterous women,’ blames the woman when she is raped by a man, publicly hangs and tosses homosexuals off of buildings, is more “progressive” and “humane” than Western laws.
“In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation,” Feldman argued.
Feldman also claimed that the West “needs Shariah and Islam.”…
JIHAD WATCHhas some older article on this cat, here, and here for example. Another noteworthy questioning was by Ratliff:
Here is the FULL Republican counsel’s questioning of Turley:
RED STATE does a BANG-UP job in the following list:
…A comparison of the carnage at the very highest levels of the FBI and the DOJ to the complete lack of evidence of wrongdoing by President Trump following over two years of investigations should tell Robert Mueller that it’s time to extricate himself, as gracefully as possible, from this fraud. He needs to admit defeat in his attempt to undo the results of a fair election.
Seamus Bruner of The Epoch Times has just put together a list of 25 DOJ and FBI officials who have resigned in the last year. Some of them, Rachel Brand for example, have left to take positions in the private sector. Mike Kortan has said he was planning to retire anyway. But many on this list have been fired, or forced out (largely in disgrace) or demoted, because of the Trump/Russia investigation.
Joel McElvain, assistant branch director of the civil division (resigned)
As I look at this list, I know it includes only a fraction of those who have risked their careers and their reputations because they simply couldn’t bear to see Donald Trump in the White House.
Before this is over, others will be added to the list. Perhaps even Rod Rosenstein. And there will likely be former top-level Obama officials caught in the net as well. Perjurers John Brennan and James Clapper come to mind.
In addition to the men and women who have been working against Trump in the DOJ and the FBI, there were/are employees in the State Department and the CIA, holdovers from the Obama administration, who are complicit.
The mainstream media has played a huge role in perpetuating this hoax. They have breathlessly distorted events to influence public opinion. Instead of reporting the news, they have worked overtime to shape it.
For an example of how the mainstream media has aided and abetted the left’s attempt to impeach Trump, we need to look no further than their outrage over the revocation of John Brennan’s security clearance….
Even contention in the ranks of the upper echelon of SPOOKS is starting to maske it’s way to the public as people “cover their asses”
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Sunday that he thinks former CIA Director John Brennan‘s rhetoric is becoming an issue “in and of itself.”
“John and his rhetoric have become an issue in and of itself,” Clapper said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “John is subtle like a freight train and he’s gonna say what’s on his mind.”
Clapper’s comments came in response to an op-ed penned by Brennan in The New York Times this week, in which he wrote that President Trumpcolluded with Russia during the 2016 election.
Clapper said he empathized with Brennan, but voiced concerns for Brennan’s fiery rhetoric toward Trump and his administration.
“I think that the common denominator among all of us [in the intelligence community] that have been speaking up … is genuine concern about the jeopardy and threats to our institutions,” Clapper said.
Brennan’s claims drew criticism from some in the intelligence community who said the timing was suspect.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) on Thursday took aim at Brennan for “purport[ing] to know, as fact, that the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power.”
“If his statement is based on intelligence he has seen since leaving office, it constitutes an intelligence breach. If he has some other personal knowledge of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the special counsel, not The New York Times,” Burr said……..
As news and excited reactions pour down the collective American brainstem in a semi-rigorous attempt to make sense of Andrew McCabe‘s firing, one liberal legal expert and constitutional law professor is simply not there for partisan response efforts.
Instead, it appears McCabe’s ouster was in line with the law and he should probably be thankful he’s not facing criminal charges for the behavior that led to said ouster.
George Washington University School of Law Professor Jonathan Turley predicted McCabe’s firing some time ago. Turley discussed the firing today in an interview with CNN‘s Michael Smerconish.
First, Turley moved to dismiss widespread liberal accusations that McCabe’s firing was some sort of heavy-handed political payback by the Trump administration. Rather, Turley said, McCabe’s firing was a suggestion originally made by an Obama appointee–and therefore a suggestion Jeff Sessions simply could not ignore.
[McCabe’s firing] was justified in the sense that these were career officials–at the Office of Professional Responsibility–that made this recommendation which is exceedingly rare. In fact, it’s unprecedented for someone in this position. These are not political appointees. The OPR, quite frankly, is not viewed as a particularly aggressive office. So, all of that makes this a relatively rare sanction coming from career officers. They clearly concluded that McCabe misled them–and that he misled them on one of the core issues they were investigating, not a collateral issue.
Smerconish then launched into an anecdote about his own past experience with the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) and stressed that the OIG was not really the type of government agency likely to succumb to political pressure. Turley agreed.
He said, “Everyone that I know of speaks highly of [Inspector General and Obama appointee Michael] Horowitz–he’s viewed as completely highly apolitical. This office is, as you note, insulated like a Sherman tank from any outside forces. What’s fascinating about the way this has all unfolded is not its outcome. I first said when I heard of the report and its recommendation that I thought it was a given that he would be fired. It would be very surprising for Sessions to turn down this type of rare recommendation from the career staff. After all, he followed a recommendation from career staff to recuse himself–and I think rightfully so.”
Then Turley got to his broader point about criminality. He said:
What’s going to create an issue going forward is whether there will be a criminal referral. Michael Flynn was indicted for making a false statement to investigators. Now, it’s true that they were looking at him for other crimes as well. But there will be some that will argue, “Why would you indict Michael Flynn, but a deputy FBI director is just worried about his pension, not prison?”
As Turley pointed out, Flynn’s indictment was entirely the result of Flynn’s own super-poor decision to lie about his otherwise legal behavior. Flynn was allowed to meet with Russians. That’s not currently a crime. Back-channel communications happen all the time and are completely aboveboard. Flynn did it to himself by lying about his lawful behavior after the fact.
HOT AIR pulls out an excellent point/quote by Jonathan Turley:
….However, he points out another problem which isn’t getting nearly as much attention. What happened to the dire threats to national security we were told were contained in this memo?
My greatest concern is what is not in the [memo]: classified information “jeopardizing national security.” Leaders like Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared that the committee had moved beyond “dangerous irresponsibility and disregard for our national security” and “disregarded the warnings of the Justice Department and the FBI.”
Now we can read the memo. There is a sharp and alarming disconnect between the descriptions of Pelosi and the House Intelligence Committee’s Ranking Minority Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the actual document. It clearly does not contain information that would reveal sources or methods.
The memo reaffirms concerns over the lower standards that apply to FISA applications as well as the misuse of classification authority. Most of this memo references what was already known about the use of the dossier. What was added was testimonial evidence and details to the publicly known information. Yet, the FBI vehemently objected to the release of the memo as threatening “grave” consequences to national security…
The FBI opposition to declassification of this memo should be a focus of both Congress and the public. The memo is clearly designed to avoid revealing classified information. For civil libertarians, this is a rare opportunity to show how classified rules are misused for strategic purposes by these agencies. The same concern can be directed toward members who read this memo and represented to the public that the release would clearly damage national security.
In that first paragraph above, Turley is quoting the statement Pelosi put out about the memo on Tuesday. However, she made a similar claim on CNN during that contentious interview with Chris Cuomo. “Putting this aside in terms of tit for tat, which you seem to—well, with all due respect to you—trying to make it look like Democrats vs. [Republicans]. It isn’t about that,” Pelosi said. She added, “It’s about our national security.” In the same interview, she said, “We’re not talking about some issue that we’re having a fight about, we’re talking about our national security.”
The point is, this was raised many times this week by Democrats eager to prevent the release of the memo. In retrospect, it’s difficult to see how anyone could have thought it represented a grave threat to national security. Maybe the subsequent release of the Democrats’ own memo will shed some additional light on whatever threat they see in it, but at the moment it looks as if those warnings were overblown. As Turley puts it, “it proved to be an empty ‘grave’ after weeks of overheated hyperbole.”
Here is the e-mail via POWERLINE(click to enlarge):
The sentence reads: “I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, since they’re already in the majority.”
So much for being an “equal opportunity employer” I guess. Just curious: what’s it like to be a straight, cis-gendered white male working at the DNC? Do you have to begin every day genuflecting outside the office of the diversity coordinator, and apologizing for your “white privilege”? Do you have to go to regular de-tox sessions to shed your “toxic masculinity”?
If this email is valid, Leader was engaging in flagrant discrimination at least in trying to avoid white male applicants. Such practices violate state and federal laws. She should be fired. However, there is also the concern that Leader simply made express what may be a practice at the DNC in discriminating against some applicants or employees on the basis of their race or gender.
…It’s the opinion of the courts, as the LA Times reported back in May of 2016–it’s unconstitutional:
House Republicans won Round 2 in a potentially historic lawsuit Thursday when a federal judge declared the Obama administration was unconstitutionally spending money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.
Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of Representatives had legal standing to sue the president over how he was enforcing his signature healthcare law.
On Thursday, she ruled the administration is violating a provision of the law by paying promised reimbursements to health insurers who provide coverage at reduced costs to low-income Americans.
The judge’s ruling, while a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal.
Josh Blackman elaborated on this subsidy provision in National Review back in July:
In 2014, a federal judge concluded that with the so-called OPM fix, the “executive branch has rewritten a key provision of the ACA so as to render it essentially meaningless in order to save members of Congress and their staffs.” Allowing the administration to rewrite the law, he wrote, “would be a violation of Article I of the Constitution, which reposes the lawmaking power in the legislative branch.” However, because the plaintiffs in the lawsuit (Senator Ron Johnson and one of his staffers) were not personally injured by OPM’s policy — indeed they benefited — the case was dismissed for lack of standing. While the Obama administration was content to make these illegal payments, the Trump administration should halt them.
Congress is not the only beneficiary of such illegal largess. The ACA employed two strategies to make health insurance more affordable. Section 1401 of the law provides for the payment of subsidies to consumers to reduce premiums. Section 1402 provides payments to insurers to offset certain “cost sharing” fees, such as deductibles and co-pays. But while the ACA funds the subsidies under Section 1401 with a permanent appropriation, to date, Congress has not provided an annual appropriation for the cost-sharing subsidies under Section 1402.
Once again, where Congress would not act, President Obama did so unilaterally. The executive branch pretended that the ACA had actually funded Section 1402 all along, and it paid billions of dollars to insurers. Once again, Mr. Trump is exactly right that this is a “BAILOUT.” And, once again, the payments are a violation of the separation of powers.
Now, we have Jonathan Turley, a constitutional scholar at the George Washington University Law School, reiterating the point that the Obamacare subsidy provision was unconstitutional with Fox News’ Bret Baier last Friday…..
ruh roh shaggy!When Sekulow and Turley are on the same page, it has to bad!
Jonathan Turley comes out swinging! This is with a h-t to POWERLINE, and comes from THE HILL:
As a threshold matter, Comey asked a question with regard to Trump that he should now answer with regard to his own conduct. Comey asked why Trump would ask everyone to leave the Oval Office to speak with Comey unless he was doing something improper. Yet, Trump could ask why Comey would use a third party to leak these memos if they were his property and there was nothing improper in their public release.
In fact, there was a great deal wrong with their release, and Comey likely knew it. These were documents prepared on an FBI computer addressing a highly sensitive investigation on facts that he considered material to that investigation. Indeed, he conveyed that information confidentially to his top aides and later said that he wanted the information to be given to the special counsel because it was important to the investigation.
Many in the media have tried to spin this as not a “leak” because leaks by definition only involve classified information. That is entirely untrue as shown by history. Leaks involve the release of unauthorized information — not only classified information. Many of the most important leaks historically have involved pictures and facts not classified but embarrassing to a government. More importantly, federal regulations refer to unauthorized disclosures not just classified information.
Comey’s position would effectively gut a host of federal rules and regulations. He is suggesting that any federal employee effectively owns documents created during federal employment in relation to an ongoing investigation so long as they address the information to themselves. FBI agents routinely write such memos in investigations. They are called 302s to memorialize field interviews or fact acquisitions. They are treated as FBI information.
The Justice Department routinely claims such memos as privileged and covered by the deliberative process privilege and other privileges. Indeed, if this information were sought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) it would likely have been denied. Among other things, the Justice Department and FBI routinely claim privilege “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.”
Of course, Comey did not know if there was a privilege or classification claim by either the Justice Department or the White House because he never asked for review. He just woke up in the middle of night upset about Trump’s name calling and released the damaging information. In doing so, he used these memos not as a shield but a sword.
Besides being subject to nondisclosure agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and unclassified information. Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641, which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.”
The above video and the below is with thanks to POLITISTICK:
Appearing on Lou Dobbs Tonight on Fox Business, Farrell said that the memos Comey admitted to leaking were “property of the U.S. government” and that he “absconded with them.”
“It’s clear the FBI director was taking instructions from Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Clearly, the attorney general was giving him talking points and he literally adopted them.
This admission today is stunning. I would argue that Mr. Comey’s notes are the property of the United States government and that he absconded with them.
Frankly, if I were the attorney general, about 20 minutes after his confession today in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Deputy U.S. Marshals would have raided his home and office, as well as Mr. Richman at Columbia Law School.”
People warned the Democrats… “what would happen if a Republican does what your guy did?” Well…
Mark Levin gives us an Econ 101 class on tariffs and taxes. This is why the unions love this because it protects their jobs and not other businesses in the States. An interesting part of the call which I stitched to before the other segment is an article in the Wall Street Journal which notes that the reason car manufacturers build in Mexico is due to free-trade agreements:
Audi says that an array of free trade agreements favors Mexico over U.S. sites. Its not just the price of skilled labor that is attractive to Audi. If you think about a $50,000 car made in the U.S. that is then exported to Europe there is a 10% duty on that car. So that’s $5000 in duties that Audi is paying. When that same car is made in Mexico there is no duty. This means with an already concentrated area of auto manufactures in Mexico, low cost skilled labor and free trade agreements it is a huge win for Audi and it will be easy to do business. No reinventing the wheel or stepping out alone as the only auto manufacture, Audi is simply following suit. (WSJ)
What is interesting is the juxtaposition the Dems find themselves in regarding the E.O.’s. You see, you had many challenges to Obama’s E.O.’s and he holds the record for the most overturned by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in our history as a country. But they were brought to the court mainly by Republican Attorney Generals in a state[s] or a group — or a combination thereof. AND YES, many of these actions Trump is taking with his pen and paper are just as unconstitutional. However, in 2018 we find this:
The GOP will be defending just eight seats, while Democrats must fight for 23 — plus another two held by independents who caucus with Democrats. (THE HILL)
This means that since the Democrats know their constituents are already upset enough at them to switch parties… why would you rock the boat on some of these executive orders that they know their constituents like. Like the car manufactures/unions. What Democrat in their right mind would bring a case to SCOTUS to overturn something they wish they had did?
Or how bout’ the growing concern in the black community about jobs and the influx of illegal immigrants? You see, they type of people Trump is putting on the Court would vote AGAINST what Trump is doing. They are originalists, and so, the Democrats would certainly win these cases if brought before the conservative Court.
AGAIN… they also have to win in 2018. They are essentially protecting 25-seats… 10 of which are “red-state” seats.
So many of these E.O.’s Trump is writing could easily be overturned if moved forward by the Democrats. Right now however, doing so would be politically dangerous for them. For now at least.
President Donald Trump’s latest executive order is as good as executive orders come. Trump has banned executive appointees from becoming a lobbyist of the particular branch they served in for five years, plus several other restrictions.
“2. If, upon my departure from the Government, I am covered by the post-employment restrictions on communicating with employees of my former executive agency set forth in section 207(c) of title 18, United States Code, I agree that I will abide by those restrictions.
“3. In addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraphs 1 and 2, I also agree, upon leaving Government service, not to engage in lobbying activities with respect to any covered executive branch official or non-career Senior Executive Service appointee for the remainder of the Administration.
“4. I will not, at any time after the termination of my employment in the United States Government, engage in any activity on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party which, were it undertaken on January 20, 2017, would require me to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.
“5. I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.
This is really good policy, and also delivers on Trump’s “drain the swamp,” rhetoric from the campaign. Ethics reform is something all governments should engage in, because it can increase transparency and keep cronyism from rearing its ugly head. It can possibly save the government money, and reduce the debt.
But there’s still a massive problem. Trump is doing this action through executive order, instead of letting it go through the legislative process. The Constitution is quite clear on which branch originally comes up with rules. From Article I, Section 8, Subsection 14 (emphasis mine):
The Congress shall have Power…To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
It’s Congress which develops the rules for government employees, not the president. Trump is acting as CEO of the government (which he’s not), meaning he’s so used to doing things his way, without having to have others sign off on his actions. He’s taking another page out of former President Barack Obama’s playbook, but promising he’ll do it right. ….
What leftist is going to bring the above to the Court? This is how I described it on my Facebook:
Many of the economic one will be too far along to be challenged (like the pipelines for instance). There are 25-Dem seats up in 2018 (10-in red states). Only 7-GOP seats. What Democrats would challenge the E.O. putting tariffs on Mexico (something I hate but unions l-o-v-e). The Dems have already alienated their base… unions.
So I think even though these Democrats could challenge many of these — they are stuck between a rock and a voting booth. And let me also say, the people Trump is putting on the Supreme Court are originalists and would vote these down in a heart beat (bravo for Trump for putting forward such upstanding justices!)… but the cases have to make it there
In other words… if Trump were truly a dictator looking to split the branches of government… he would pick Justices who would support his Executive Orders.