Larry Elder covers the articles of impeachment for Nixon. Many pundits are saying that what Trump did is Nixon-like or worse, “the Sage” notes what Nixon would have been impeached for — he stepped down before that. Jonathan Turley, Leftist legal scholar and professor, notes that so far Trump’s actions don’t even come close. Enjoy!
Author: Papa Giorgio
Professor Jonathan Turley On Trump/Comey/Special Prosecutor
Professor Alan Dershowitz On Trump/Comey/Special Prosecutor
Saudi Arabia – More Pro-American Than California?
…let’s not forget that we are dealing with a corrupt, degenerate, autocratic state where there is no free speech, where universities are run by fanatics who indoctrinate students with radical ideology; where street thugs aligned with the ruling party freely commit acts of violence against opposing views, and whose ruling elite routinely violates the basic rights of Christians and other minorities. Also, Saudi Arabia is pretty bad too.
(GAY PATRIOT “That Awkward Moment When Saudi Arabia Is More Pro-American Than California“)
Impeachment? Nah… Even Comey Responded “NO” To Obstruction
Comey Responded “NO” (Under Oath) To Obstruction — https://youtu.be/I-GkLXNZcDoLarry Elder takes us on a tour-de-force of Comey saying — prior to the “memo,” he was not asked to stop the investigation[s]. BTW, no one has seen this memo… even the reporter who wrote the article. This is mainly a quick upload to show that “impeachment” cannot be a level reached – legally. EVEN DENNIS KUCINICH is worried about the Democratic machine [i.e., the “deep state”] left in the administration that wants to undermine Trump:
➤ “ Well, you have a politicization of the agencies. That is resulting in leaks from anonymous unknown people and the intention is to take down a president. This is very dangerous to America. It is a threat to our republic. It constitutes a clear and present danger to our way of life. What is the motive of these people? Who’s putting these leaks out? Why isn’t somebody coming forward to make that charge and put their name and their reputation behind it instead of attacking through the media and not substantiating their position?”
Larry Elder discusses the non-evidence so far regarding Comey’s firing and the “obstruction” charge. Larry Elder includes audio from a debate between Jeffrey Toobin (a lawyer and liberal/progressive blogger as well as CNN legal analyst) and Jonathan Turley (lawyer, legal scholar, legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism, as well as currently a professor at George Washington University). Later in the segment “The Sage” includes some audio (I insert the video) of Peter King wondering why Comey stayed silent if he feared instruction.
- I also have a short explanation of “Why Now,” why Trump waited to fire Comey
- ALSO, the very beginning — Comey getting fired — is from SCHMOYOHO:
The Bitter Cup | China’s Persecution of Underground Churches
This documentary abounds with compelling testimonies by house church missionaries. Their dedication, suffering, faithfulness, and thanksgiving is producing an unprecedented multiplication of Chinese Christians every day. Discover the similarity of the early church in the Book of Acts of rapid multiplication of Christians by disciples making disciples.
ACTS 2:42-47 ~ They spent their time in learning from the apostles, taking part in the fellowship, and sharing in the fellowship meals and the prayers. Many miracles and wonders were being done through the apostles, and everyone was filled with awe. All the believers continued together in close fellowship and shared their belongings with one another. They would sell their property and possessions, and distribute the money among all, according to what each one needed. Day after day they met as a group in the Temple, and they had their meals together in their homes, eating with glad and humble hearts, praising God, and enjoying the good will of all the people. And every day the Lord added to their group those who were being saved.
Bibles For Believers in Asia from JT on Vimeo.
Cinco de Mayo Chaos – SJWs (UPDATED)
- A University of New Hampshire student publicly berated and harassed a peer for wearing a serape on his way to celebrate Cinco de Mayo, proudly posting a video of the encounter on Facebook.
- Danique Montique was most incensed by the fact that the student was a white male, complaining that this gives him “the most privilege in this whole f***ing country.”
- She also loudly told him that Cinco de Mayo is “not your holiday” and that “you white people” need to find different holidays to celebrate.
More chaos via MOONBATTERY:
When utopia has been achieved, white people will no longer be racist by wearing sombreros and ponchos during lighthearted celebrations (assuming there will be any white people in utopia). In the meantime, at the University of New Hampshire:
[A] student group known as “All Eyes on UNH” has released a set of demands, which includes calls for the “administration and town elected officials” to urge “local stores in Durham to stop carrying items like ponchos and sombreros for May 5 celebrations, and instead seek out alternative sources of revenue.”
The stores must stop selling these products because “cultural appropriation contributes to the growing acceptance of racism and xenophobia.”
Meanwhile, the list of demands also calls for the “creation of a campus-wide committee to prevent similar offenses in future years,” with another demand asking Greek-life leaders to “find other ways to celebrate the end of the academic year.”
I can just picture the committee (to the right)….
The “Expert” Fallacy ~ Global Warming
A great response to a mushy response to AGW skeptics, here is the typical charge:
Imagine your doctor tells you that you have dangerously high cholesterol and blocked arteries. She says you may drop dead soon. [Note: Based on comments/questions, I should clarify here. By “doctor”, I mean the entire medical establishment. So imagine you got not just a “second opinion,” but 100 opinions…and 97 say the same thing].You might have four basic reactions based on two dimensions, belief (or doubt) in the basic facts/science, and whether you commit to action or delay.
Here are some of the responses — in part — from WATTS UP WITH THAT:
1. A medical doctor is a highly-qualified professional. Medical doctors must successfully complete a medical school, spend 3-7 years in residency actually treating patients, and be licensed by a state medical board composed mostly of proven doctors.
In contrast, anybody can call him- or herself a scientist and speak on behalf of science. There are no licensing or certification requirements….
[….]
2. A medical doctor is accountable. A doctor would lose patients or be fired if his or her advice isn’t sound. A doctor can also be sued by a dissatisfied patient. In a number of cases, doctors have been indicted.
A putative climate scientist can hardly even be criticized….
[….]
3. Patients have direct bidirectional communication with their doctor. “Direct” means that the patient usually speaks face-to-face with the doctor. “Bi-directional” means the patient can ask the doctor questions and get answers. Very few accept TV personalities’ talk as real medical advice.
The so-called “climate science” is usually communicated to the public in third person point of view like “The scientists say that …”, “Majority of peer-reviewed articles conclude …”, and even “Models show that …” These used to be typical introductory clauses before statements about alleged climate dangers…..
[….]
4. One takes initiative to seek a doctor, rather than the other way around. Any unsolicited email offering a medical procedure or a wonder pill is sent straight to the spam folder.
But climate alarmism promoters always come unsolicited! …
[….]
5. Doctors do not demand patients to trust them. They earn their trust.
Climate alarmists demand trust because they have earned mistrust.
I would like to finish by paraphrasing Edmund Burke:
- Alleged science looks for defense from Washington when it fails in the real world.
Hands and Lips Are As Alluring As Breasts, So Say Feminists
Yesterday’s show and his column today via Dennis Prager, deals with CNN reporter, Jill Filipovic, writing about Australian Sen. Larissa Waters. Miss. Waters does not cover her breast while the baby eats… a polite manner/habit when breastfeeding in public. The part I was especially interested in was the portion quoting evolutionary psychologist Carol Jahme, a science columnist for the left-wing pro-feminist publication the Guardian….
….Because in virtually every society, heterosexual men have found the female breast a particularly sexually alluring part of a woman’s body.
Evolutionary psychologist Carol Jahme, a science columnist for the left-wing pro-feminist publication the Guardian, summarized a whole host of academic studies. She wrote: “The full, plump bosom seen in the human ape is an anomaly. No other primate has a permanent breast. … The sex appeal of rounded female buttocks and plump breasts is both universal and unique to the human primate.”
So, then, the sole purpose of women’s breasts is not for nursing babies. It is also to attract and arouse men.
Yet, whoever argues that women’s breasts are there to arouse men, not just to provide a baby with milk, is dismissed by feminists as a sexist heterosexist patriarchal pig, a product of a sexist culture that renders women and their baby-feeding mammary glands sexual objects.
But it turns out that science, not just common sense, rejects the feminist argument.
So, how does a CNN columnist, along with myriad other feminists, not know this? Why did my grandmother, who never went to high school, know this, while a vast number of graduates of our universities do not?
The answer is that today’s universities — especially women’s studies and gender studies departments — generally make people stupid.
The only remaining question is: Did anyone at CNN find this column absurd? I suspect not….
Keep in mind, I do not believe in naturalistic evolution, but this is an argument you would adopt to show the detractor that even their side argues against them.
WaPo – Did Trump Spills the Beans to the Russians? No
Of course the talk this morning is about the Washington Post story, highlighted at HOTAIR, where Trump was suppose to have given classified information to the Russians during a meeting. A friend asked me about this and I responded in part:
Okay, my thoughts are the same as I relayed to a friend (before the above McMaster audio was watched): ” the bottom line is in a discussion between two powers fighting a common enemy, what the President decides to declassify is his prerogative, not WaPo’s. The main issue is when are these leakers going to be prosecuted?”
To which my compatriot wisely noted: “…agreed, how many secrets were shared between FDR and Stalin?”
General McMaster also said something similar later in the day:
McMaster: “Our national security has been put at risk by those violating confidentiality and those releasing information to the press.” pic.twitter.com/JOi6wRZLfC
— ABC News (@ABC) May 16, 2017
As well as Trump laying down Presidential authority via Twitter (not so Presidential medium):
Larry Elder Ruminates On Trump, Comey, and Watergate
Here is the WASHINGTON POST article by Bill Clinton’s former Attorney General:
….It is true, as I pointed out in a Post op-ed in October, that Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, after her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, had left a vacuum by neither formally recusing herself nor exercising supervision over the case. But the remedy for that was for Comey to present his factual findings to the deputy attorney general, not to exercise the prosecutorial power himself on a matter of such grave importance.
Until Comey’s testimony last week, I had assumed that Lynch had authorized Comey to act unilaterally. It is now clear that the department’s leadership was sandbagged. I know of no former senior Justice Department official — Democrat or Republican — who does not view Comey’s conduct in July to have been a grave usurpation of authority.
Comey’s basic misjudgment boxed him in, compelling him to take increasingly controversial actions giving the impression that the FBI was enmeshed in politics. Once Comey staked out a position in July, he had no choice on the near-eve of the election but to reopen the investigation when new evidence materialized. Regrettably, however, this performance made Comey himself the issue, placing him on center stage in public political discourse and causing him to lose credibility on both sides of the aisle. It was widely recognized that Comey’s job was in jeopardy regardless of who won the election.
It is not surprising that Trump would be inclined to make a fresh start at the bureau and would consult with the leadership of the Justice Department about whether Comey should remain. Those deliberations could not begin in earnest until the new deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, to whom Comey would report, was confirmed and in a position to assess Comey and his performance. No matter how far along the president was in his own thinking, Rosenstein’s assessment is cogent and vindicates the president’s decision.
Rosenstein made clear in his memorandum that he was concerned not so much with Comey’s past arrogation of power, as astonishing as it was, but rather with his ongoing refusal to acknowledge his errors. I do not dispute that Comey sincerely believes he acted properly in the best interests of the country. But at the same time, I think it is quite understandable that the administration would not want an FBI director who did not recognize established limits on his powers.
It is telling that none of the president’s critics are challenging the decision on the merits. None argue that Comey’s performance warranted keeping him on as director. Instead, they are attacking the president’s motives, claiming the president acted to neuter the investigation into Russia’s role in the election.
The notion that the integrity of this investigation depends on Comey’s presence just does not hold water. Contrary to the critics’ talking points, Comey was not “in charge” of the investigation….
Wonder What Fake News Is? Benjamin Netanyahu Tells Us (Updated)
(NEWSBUSTERS) Better not show the latest video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan. She has already revealed that she is triggered just by the term “fake news” and the video of Netanyahu accusing CNN and the New York Times of reporting fake news about Hamas would probably cause her to wilt from such a macroaggression. Netanyahu not only clearly explains why CNN and the Times were reporting fake news but provides a nice finishing touch by tossing the Hamas report into a trash bucket.
GATESTONE INSTITUTE has an excellent piece about the renewed vigor against Israel and America:
As U.S. President Donald Trump prepares to hold his second meeting with Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem next week, two Palestinian terror groups have announced that the new U.S. administration is planning to “liquidate the Palestinian cause.” The warning by Hamas and Islamic Jihad is directed not only against Trump and his new administration, but also against Abbas and any Arab leader who dares to “collude” with the U.S.
The two Palestinian terror groups, which control the Gaza Strip and its two million residents, also renewed their pledge to pursue the armed fight against Israel; they said they would not give up one inch of Palestine, from the (Mediterranean) sea to the (Jordan) river.
Trump and his administration would do well to heed the warning issued by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, especially in the wake of Abbas’s recent statements concerning a two-state solution and peace with Israel. Abbas controls only parts of the West Bank, and how he intends to establish a Palestinian state when he cannot even set foot in the Gaza Strip is anyone’s guess. Recently, Hamas announced that if and when the 82-year-old Abbas shows up in the Gaza Strip, he will be hanged in a public square on charges of “high treason.”
The warning by the Palestinian terror groups was made during a joint rally in the Gaza Strip on May 14. Leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad vowed to “preserve the Palestinian rifle and Palestinian rights in the face of any schemes and attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause.”
Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar stated that Palestinian “principles are part of our [Islamic] religion, and we cannot make any concessions on them. We will not give up one inch of our land and holy sites. We will continue to work until the liberation of each inch of Palestine.”
Zahar also warned Abbas against signing any agreement with Israel that includes relinquishing Palestinian rights. “Anyone who gives up our rights and holy sites will betray Allah and his Prophet Mohammed,” Zahar cautioned.
Notably, Zahar’s statement to “liberate every inch of Palestine” comes amid false claims in the Western media to the effect that Hamas has abandoned its dream of eliminating Israel.
The claims are based on a new policy document recently published by Hamas; it says that the Islamic terror movement accepts a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, but without recognizing Israel’s right to exist. Translation: Hamas seeks a Palestinian state that would be used as a launching pad to destroy Israel.
Zahar and other Hamas leaders have taken advantage of every available platform to clarify that their acceptance of a Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines does not mean abandoning their plan to eliminate Israel.
They have also explained, at length, that the new policy document does not replace Hamas’s original charter, which explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel.
Hamas’s honesty with respect to its true intentions stands in utter contrast to the deceit with which the policy document is being treated by others.
For instance, some Western media outlets and Palestinian affairs “experts” and “analysts” deceptively describe the document as a sign of moderation and pragmatism on the part of Hamas.
While Hamas leaders proudly proclaim that there is no real change in their ideology and charter, some Westerners seem to have a sort of hearing disability when it comes to the truth of the terror movement.
Another Hamas leader, Ahmed Bahr, said at the rally that his movement remains strongly opposed to security coordination between Abbas’s Palestinian Authority and Israel in the West Bank.
Bahr described the security coordination and the crackdown on Hamas supporters in the West Bank as a new Palestinian “Nakba” (Catastrophe) — the term used by Palestinians and Arabs to describe the establishment of Israel in 1948…..