Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have been hitting the airways to declare that the evidence of impeachable acts by President Donald Trump is not only clearly established by the Special Counsel Report but additional impeachable acts are unfolding every day. However, on Wednesday, a closed door caucus was held with a very different and apparently uncontested view: no impeachment. I have previously written about the disconnect of what Democrats are telling their voters and what they are actually saying to each other. Since before the midterm election (when impeachment was a big sell for giving the Democrats the majority), I do not believe that the House leadership ever intended to allow an impeachment to move forward against Trump because it is not in their political interests.
According to reports, none of the firebrands calling for impeachment publicly even raised the issue in the caucus. Instead, Pelosi raised it to reaffirm again that it was a non-starter. What may be red meat for Democratic voters on MSNBC is clearly off the menu for not just the House leadership but the House rank-and-file.
While I think this would be a difficult impeachment case given the mixed and incomplete findings of Robert Mueller, that has nothing to do with Pelosi and others fulfilling their oaths if they believe impeachable conduct has occurred.
Pelosi said that they will not initiate impeachment proceedings. Period. Not a single member voiced a dissenting view. She even spoke in the voice of their voters and said that they have to be shown other things that they can do: “Why aren’t we impeaching the president? Why aren’t we impeaching him? They get a little down.”
The description of voters being “a little down” is an understatement. Many members raised impeachment as the pitch for gaining control of the House and many are still pretending that they are actively working to that end, including a number of presidential candidates. That leaves a disturbing disconnect between what the members are saying among themselves and what they are telling the public. It also makes investigations looks like little more than “bread and circus” distractions.
What do you think?
249 thoughts on “Report: Democrats Hold Closed Door Caucus Rejecting Impeachment Move . . . Without A Single Dissenting Voice”
“[O]ne of the things that everybody is forgetting . . . is the basic separation of powers thing. The special prosecutor, the Department of Justice itself, the Attorney General have no powers under our Constitution that aren’t derived from the President. The notion that the President can’t determine the course of an investigation is the most basic violation of separation of power. . . . The notion that the President can be charged therefore for directing the conduct of the Executive Branch . . . really misunderstands the Constitution from a very basic level.”
~Dr. John Eastman (Chapman Law professor)
There is no Separation of Powers thing, the States in Congress Assembled, The Union, holds all Power in our Government! The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial are not Coequal Branches. The President has no Executive Powers, or Executive Privileges, The President, and all the Executive Departments are directly under the Control of the Senate, where the States are Assembled as Equals, with Equal Suffrage.
I challenge anyone to find anywhere that gives the President any Powers to do anything without the Advice and Consent of the Senate. If you want a more definitive explanation then reference Federalist #51 by Madison, where it talks directly about the distribution of power in our Government, #62 and #63 also by Madison which discusses the Senate, #64 by Jay which talks about Presidential Powers, By and With the Advice and Consent of the Senate, Provided 2/3 of the States Concur to provide Secrecy and Dispatch for our Government, and #77 by Hamilton which summarizes Presidential Powers and the President being under direct control of the Senate.
This is Hamilton’s conclusion from Federalist #77, I think it is a very clear elicitation of all the Fundamental Constitutional Principles regarding the
Selection of the President, Control of the President, and the States as the Union’s protections against an undesirable Executive and President.
Federalists #77 Hamilton
“We have now completed a survey of the structure and powers of the executive department, which, I have endeavored to show, combines, as far as republican principles will admit, all the requisites to energy. The remaining inquiry is,—Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense—a due dependence on the People—a due responsibility? The answer to this question has been anticipated in the investigation of its other characteristics, and is satisfactorily deducible from these circumstances; from the election of the President once in four years by persons immediately chosen by the people for that purpose; and from his being at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office, incapacity to serve in any other, and to forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution in the common course of law. But these precautions, great as they are, are not the only ones which the plan of the convention has provided in favor of the public security. In the only instances in which the abuse of the executive authority was materially to be feared, the Chief Magistrate of the United States would, by that plan, be subjected to the control of a branch of the legislative body. What more could be desired by an enlightened and reasonable people? PUBLIUS.”
In the article JT cites for his information on the caucus meeting, the 1st line is:
“WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump, who is refusing to cooperate with more than 20 congressional investigations, instructed current and former aides Wednesday to ignore a House committee’s request for documents in the latest act of defiance that has prompted Democrats to declare the nation is facing a constitutional crisis…..”
Somehow, that 1st paragraph is of no interest to our “constitutional legal expert”, while the political strategy of the Democrats – which he finds wanting – is.
Happily, this blog is free, the appropriate valuation.
Shill, I’m still waiting for your response as to why you are supporting Al-Qaeda in Idlib?
L4D says–He isn’t. Saudi Arabia and Mohammed bin Salman are supporting Al Qaeda in Idlib. And Trump and Kushner are supporting MbS and Saudi Arabia. Did you know that Vampires cannot see their own reflection in a mirror?
If we are truly in constitutional crisis Dems must impeach now. Not to impeach shows weakness or undermines credibility that we are in a crisis
In case anyone gets the wrong impression that the problems in the Middle East are just a result of Trump and not the result of state terrorism and nukes take note of what is happening in another part of the globe. It’s not just the Jews that live in the tiny area of Israel but Christians as well. The supporters of state sponsored terrorism here on the list have to widen their vision by removing their blinders.
Burkina Faso: The New Land of Islamic Jihad and Christian Slaughter
When five assailants opened fire on the French embassy in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso in March 2018, they were heard to cry the jihad’s ancient war cry, “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is the greatest.”). Pictured: A street in Ouagadougou. (Image source: iStock)
Last Sunday, May 12, in the small West African nation of Burkina Faso, as many as 30 armed Islamic terrorists stormed a Catholic church, slaughtered at least six Christian worshippers — including the officiating priest — then burned the church to the ground.
Ousmane Zongo, the mayor of Dablo, where the attack occurred, recalled the incident:
“Towards 9:00am, during mass, armed individuals burst into the Catholic Church… They started firing as the congregation tried to flee…. They burned down the church, then shops and a small restaurant before going to the health centre where they searched the premises and set fire to the head nurse’s vehicle…. The city is filled with panic. People are holed up at home. Shops and stores are closed. It’s practically a ghost town.”
Discussing the situation in the country — which is 60% Muslim, 23% Christian, and 17% animist or other — the BBC reports that “Jihadist violence has flared in Burkina Faso since 2016…. Fighters affiliated to al-Qaeda and the Islamic State group as well as the local Ansarul Islam [Champions of Islam] have been active in the region.”
Sadly, while a total of 12 Islamic terror attacks were registered in 2016, nearly 160 were reported in just the first five months of 2019.
Last Sunday’s assault is, in fact, the third church attack in only five weeks. On Sunday, April 28, in Silgadji, Islamic terrorists stormed a Protestant church near the end of the service and killed six Christian worshippers, including the pastor, 80-year-old Pierre Oult, and his two sons. According to a local Christian:
“The assailants asked the Christians to convert to Islam, but the pastor and the others refused. They ordered them to gather under a tree and took their Bibles and mobile phones. Then they called them, one after the other, behind the church building where they shot them dead.”
On April 5, Islamic gunmen entered another Catholic church and murdered four Christians. The same report adds that “the fate of a Catholic priest kidnapped a month ago remains unclear.”
Considering the usual fate in store for Christians kidnapped in Burkina Faso, optimism is not warranted. For example, in February, Muslim terrorists abducted and murdered Antonio Cesar Fernandez, a 72-year-old Christian who had served as a missionary in Africa since 1982. Others — including Kirk Woodman, a Canadian — were also kidnapped and later found slaughtered.
The Islamic terrorists operating in Burkina Faso seem to be similar to other African jihadi groups, such as Nigeria’s Boko Haram and Somalia’s Al Shabaab. Like them, when not terrorizing churches and slaughtering Christians, they target anything else that might be associated with the West. According to one report:
“Much of the Islamic anger in Burkina Faso has to do with the teaching of so-called Western thoughts and ideals. Besides churches, schools are also a favorite target of the militants, who are pushing to make the country an Islamic state and impose Sharia Law… Of 2,869 schools in Burkina Faso, 1,111 have been closed in the last three years as a direct result of Islamic extremist violence.”
“A lot of schools have been torched,” elaborated one head teacher whose own school was set ablaze in the town of Foubé.
The jihadis have also targeted a hotel (20 killed) and a restaurant (18 killed) popular with Western people.
As with other African Islamic terror groups, the motivating ideology fueling the terrorists of Burkina Faso is distinctly Islamic and jihadi in nature. For example, after eight Muslims were arrested for their role in terrorist attacks that killed 14, their prosecutor said, “they all carried on their foreheads or had white bands on which were written in Arabic the following expression — translated as — ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger.'”
Similarly, when they opened fire on the French embassy in Ouagadougou, the five assailants were heard to cry the jihad’s ancient war cry, “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is the greatest.”).
Needless to say, such clear indicators of motive have not caused the establishment to revise its narrative. When interviewed on last Sunday’s church carnage, Sten Hagberg, a Swedish professor of anthropology at Uppsala University, offered the usual fare: The attack, he said, “has, to my mind, much more to do with politics and economics than religion.”
The situation in Burkina Faso is a reminder that, if groups like the Islamic State are on the wane in Iraq and Syria, the jihad continues to spread like wildfire in more obscure and forgotten nations around the world, and to consume countless nameless and faceless innocents.
Should be noted that Burkina Faso, like most African countries nowadays, has regular electoral competition. Manifest popular support for Islamist parties is close to nil therein. These brigands represent only themselves.
Along with the financial penalties against Iran for violating the nuke agreement it appears there is a spin off benefit. Iran is having trouble financing terrorist groups. Those that advocate supporting the leading supporter of state terrorism will like Obam’s Iran deal that provided Iran with plenty of money to not only violate the agreement but to fund terror in the region and elsewhere. Those not likeing to support terrorist nations will applaud Trump’s policy depriving Iran of the funds Iran uses to sponsor terrorism along with building missiles and nukes.
U.S. sanctions are limiting Iran’s ability to fund Hezbollah – report
Speaking to several Hezbollah officials, The Washington Post revealed how the Lebanese terrorist group has been forced to make cuts.
Iran’s sponsorship of Hezbollah includes $800 million in annual financial support, the supply of 130,000 rockets and missiles. The latest wave of US sanctions has significantly curbed Iran’s ability to fund Hezbollah, The Washington Post reported on Saturday.
The Lebanese terrorist group has traditionally been the best funded Islamic Republic’s proxy, with its fighters and affiliates benefiting from salaries and social services paid for by Tehran.
However, speaking to several Hezbollah officials, the Washington-based newspaper revealed how the sanctions imposed by the Trump administration after the US pulled out from the 2015 nuclear deal a year ago had had a deep impact on the funding.
According to the report, while maintaining expenses that are considered essential – such as salaries to full-time fighters and stipends to families of the militants who died in Syria, where Hezbollah militias have been instrumental in keeping Syrian President Bashar Assad in power – other programs have been slashed or canceled. These programs include extra benefits to militants and their families and the distribution of free medicines and groceries. Moreover, fighters have been pulled out from Syria or assigned to the reserves.
“There is no doubt these sanctions have had a negative impact,” a Hezbollah official told The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity. “But ultimately, sanctions are a component of war, and we are going to confront them in this context.”
The report highlighted that the Hezbollah sources would not reveal any figures of the funding received by Tehran before or after the sanctions, but that according to US Special Envoy Brian Hook, Iran used to send the Lebanese group up to $700 million a year, accounting for 70% of their revenue. It added that the Trump administration has stated that sanctions have decreased Iranian revenue by $10 billion since last November.
“The Iranians are used to sanctions. But this level of sanctions will generate a different response. The Iranians will not be quiet about it,” Kamal Wazne, a Beirut-based political analyst told The Washington Post. The newspaper described him as an analyst holding opinions “sympathetic to the Iranian and Hezbollah point of view.”
“[The sanctions] are a form of war more detrimental than actual war… It’s the slow death of a country, the government and its people,” Wazne added, explaining that the Islamic Republic will be forced to retaliate.
However, the Hezbollah officials who spoke to the American newspaper said that the current financial predicaments are not affecting the group’s ability to fight in the different battlefields, including against Israel.
“We are still getting arms from Iran. We are still ready to confront Israel. Our role in Iraq and Syria remains. There is no person in Hezbollah who left because they didn’t get their salary, and the social services have not stopped,” the official told The Washington Post, adding that “sanctions won’t last forever,” and they will be “victorious” in the war against Israel as they have been in Syria and Iraq.
In the meantime, Israel who has been attacked from the Syrian side of the border is responding by blowing up targets in Syria that support the Hezbollah and Iranian attacks on Israel.
“There was no comment on the strikes by Israel, which rarely discusses alleged IAF operations on the northern front. Israeli officials, however, have repeatedly voiced concerns over Iran’s presence in Syria and the smuggling of sophisticated weaponry to Hezbollah from Tehran to Lebanon via Syria, stressing that both are redlines for the Jewish state.”
Meanwhile “President Donald Trump has bolstered economic sanctions and built up US military presence in the region, accusing Iran of threats to US troops and interests.” Trump has already said that the use of proxies against the US (which has been done before) will be interpreted as an attack by Iran on the US.
The pressure on Iran is moving Europe and “‘BDS is antisemitic,’ rules German Bundestag in landmark vote
Germany is the first country in the European Union to rule that the BDS movement is antisemitic. The anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is antisemitic, the German Bundestag ruled on Friday in a landmark vote. It called on governmental bodies not to finance or support any organizations that support BDS or question Israel’s right to exist.”
Alan, are pasting newspaper stories here? If so, why aren’t you noting sources? This seems like a break from proper protocol.
Why should I post the address? If it isn’t the NYSlimes or WaPo you call it invalid or not a real source. That is your mindset despite the fact that the NYSlimes and WaPo use anonymous sources and have been proven wrong so many times.
A Secondary reason is that your blinders make you terribly opinionated with regard to proof that you accept annonymous sources over known experts that are unknown to you and the WaPo even though they may be world renown. Therefore, I figure I should force you to think or look these things up yourself. It will help in the process of educating you. There is marked difference in my writing style from those coming from printed sources so it shouldn’t be difficult to tell them apart. When one is discussing opinion, It is the ideas that count not who is providing the opinion unless the opinion is from an expert. Most journalists are not experts especially from the WaPo..
The one person that has the difficulty in figuring out what is copied or not is really stupid. That is brainless anonymous who can insult the person that permits her to blog on his site. No manners and no brains. Truly a waste of human reproduction.
L4D says–Obviously, the only real “shill” around her is Allan. (Except for the other ones.)
Shill, there’s something seriously wrong with Allan. Who hides his sources and tries to justify it?
Anon, are you copying the ideas of Brainless Anonymous. It is very easy to look up where those points came from. You still haven’t responded to Karen’s 11 points on healthcare and you have lied your way throughout this blog. You are not interested in the addresses of what I post. You don’t even bother to read what you post.
Anyone who is rationally deciding who on this blog has something seriously wrong with them have quite a number of good candidates much better candidates than me. You are on the top of the list along with Brainless Anonymous and her alter egos.
Yes, Anon, it’s most bizarre. Alan is telling us that sources are insignificant. This attitude could lead to great mischief. One could paste a legitimate news story but alter various passages. What is Alan up to??
Peter, sources to people like you are insignificant. You have predetermined that only sources from the left are valid and you have proven that over and over again.
No, it’s you who is playing the part of a Brock troll. Please stop this nonsense…you look crazy and it’s messing up this blog. Unless that’s your goal.
You means “Shill and anon.”
Some guy named “Ivan” has yet to post an “original thought” on this blog that he also complains is being “messed up” by the “nonsense” of commenters who routinely post “original thinking” on this blog.
Why is that so perfectly predictable?
Ivan’s the other guy who couldn’t provide a link when asked recently.
“Ivan’s the other guy who couldn’t provide a link when asked recently.”
Anon is the guy who says he responded to Karen’s 11 points regarding the ACA. When called on it he said he didn’t see it. When called on it again he said he couldn’t find it. When given the citations so he could review them he played pin the tail on the donkey. Then he said he answered the points. One gets the impression that Anon is not very truthful. In that way he is acting just like he did when he first appeared on the blog as Jan F. before embarrassment made him change his name.
As Trump would say, this guy Anon is a loser.
As is Allan.
Time for sanitation to pick up the trash. It smells.
The bag’s got your name on it, Allan.
“The bag’s got your name on it, Allan.”
Anonymous it is better to have one’s name on the garbage bag than to live in it.
No wonder the David Brock paid Trolls are spamming JT’s blog.
Troll baby troll
New DOJ Investigation Has Haunted FBI for Months
John Durham, the prosecutor tapped by Attorney General William Barr to investigate how Trump-Russia allegations emerged and spread within federal law enforcement, has already been looking into whether the FBI’s former top lawyer, James Baker, illegally leaked to reporters.
In fact, the U.S. attorney from Connecticut appears to have begun that work more than seven months ago, to judge from an underreported transcript of an October congressional interview with Baker. The Baker interview, at which Durham was not present, suggests that the prosecutor nevertheless has some people very worried.
Baker testified about the Trump-Russia affair on Oct. 3 before the House Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
In that session, the former FBI general counsel admitted that versions and variations of Christopher Steele’s dossier were being turned in to the bureau from the strangest of places. Baker said he had even heard about it from David Corn, Washington bureau chief of left-leaning Mother Jones, who wrote one of the first pieces on the dossier, in October 2016. But in one of those company-town connections that happen frequently in Washington, Baker said he was not just a contact or source for Corn; they were also old pals.
“Tell me about your relationship with David Corn,” said Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan.
“David is a friend of mine,” Baker said.
“Tell me about that. A close friend? Long-time friend?”
Jordan asked, “When did you first meet Mr. Corn?”
“I don’t specifically remember,” Baker testified. “A long time ago, though.”
“Years ago? “
“Years and years and years ago, yeah,” Baker allowed. “Our kids carpooled together. We carpooled with them when our kids were little.”
So one of the most divisive scandals in Washington history was facilitated by an unexpected friendship, an odd couple brought together by a shared interest in getting their kids dropped off at school.
The congressman from Ohio wanted to know more about the Baker-Corn relationship: “Prior to the election of – Presidential election of 2016,” Jordan asked, “how many times did you talk with David Corn in the weeks and months prior to election day?”
“I don’t remember,” Baker said, providing an answer that suggests it was more than a few.
“Is it fair to say you did” talk with Corn, Jordan asked?
“Yes, I did, but I just don’t remember how many [times].”
“So did you talk to Mr. Corn about anything that the FBI was working on,” Jordan asked, “specifically the now infamous Steele dossier?”
Suddenly, Baker’s lawyer, Dan Levin, jumped in: “One second,” he said before he and his client had a conversation off the record.
When the microphones were back on, Levin declared he would “not let [Baker] answer these questions right now. You may or may not know, he’s been the subject of a leak investigation which is still – a criminal leak investigation that’s still active at the Justice Department.” And so Levin concluded, “I’m sorry. I’m cutting off any discussion about conversations with reporters.”
North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows wanted to make clear what Baker’s lawyer was claiming: “You’re saying he’s under criminal investigation? That’s why you’re not letting him answer?”
Levin and the lawmakers sparred a bit over whether Baker was invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, and the congressmen finally got around to asking who was leading this criminal probe:
“There is an ongoing investigation by whom?” Jordan said.
“The Justice Department,” Levin responded.
“I mean, is the inspector general looking at this or is this—”
“No,” said Levin, “it’s Mr. John Durham, a prosecutor.”
The specter of Durham haunts the rest of the interview. Baker can’t talk about what he told his old friend David Corn in their conversations about the dossier because it would put Baker in legal jeopardy.
Time and again, when Baker was asked questions about reporters – even hypothetical questions about FBI policy regarding contacts with the press, Levin said, “I’m not going to allow him to answer that question” or “I am not going let him answer any questions about leaks.”
“I don’t want him talking about conversations he’s had with reporters because I don’t know what the questions are and I don’t know what the answers are right now,” Levin said. “Given that there is an ongoing investigation of him for leaks which the Department has not closed, I’m not comfortable letting him answer questions.” Durham’s inquiry was serious enough to limit significantly what Baker was willing to talk about with lawmakers.
That Baker’s lawyer advised him not to talk about leaks is, of course, not proof that Baker leaked. “Baker’s lawyer was obviously being prudent and saying his client could not talk about anything related to any leaks of any kind,” David Corn tells RealClearInvestigations. Corn emphasizes that the “Durham inquiry did not involve Russia or the Steele memos; it had nothing to do with me or my limited interaction with Baker.”
And one former federal official who said he has been interviewed by Durham in connection with the Baker probe, Robert Litt, has written that the inquiry has nothing to do with the Steele dossier.
Contacted by RealClearInvestigations, Levin said, “Mr. Baker did not make an unauthorized disclosure of classified information and we are confident the investigation will conclude that.”
L4D says–Excerpted from the Wikipedia entry for The Trump-Russia Dossier:
In early July 2016, Steele called seasoned FBI agent Michael Gaeta, who was stationed in Rome, and asked him to come to London so he could show him his findings. Because he was assigned to the U.S. embassy in Rome, Gaeta sought and was granted approval for the trip from Victoria Nuland, who was then the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. When he arrived in London on July 5, 2016, he met with Steele at his office. Alarmed by what he read, Gaeta remarked, “I have to show this to headquarters”.
As Nuland later shared, “In the middle of July, when he [Steele] was doing this other work and became concerned, he passed two to four pages of short points of what he was finding and our immediate reaction to that was, ‘This is not in our purview’.” “This needs to go to the FBI if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation. That’s something for the FBI to investigate.” Shortly after, in July, the report was sent to an agent with expertise in criminal organizations and organized crime at the FBI’s New York field office — essentially, the wrong person to handle a counterintelligence investigation.
It has remained unclear as to who exactly at the FBI was aware of Steele’s report through July and August, and what was done with it, but they did not immediately request additional material until late August or early September, when the FBI asked Steele for “all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos — some of which referred to members of Trump’s inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI.”
According to Nancy LeTourneau, political writer for the Washington Monthly, the report “was languishing in the FBI’s New York field office” for two months, and “was finally sent to the counterintelligence team investigating Russia at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C.”, in September 2016.
The timeline is critical for Trump’s “Spy-Gate” conspiracy theory. The only way currently available to put The Trump-Russia Dossier into the hands of the FBI before the inception of Operation Crossfire Hurricane on July 31st, 2016, is the one outlined in the excerpt above. The key feature of that chronology is that Steele’s memos sat in the New York Office of the FBI for nearly two months before the Trump-Russia Dossier was given to the FBI counter-intelligence agents actually conducting the Operation Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The presence of Steele’s memos in the New York Office of the FBI raises the suspicion that Giuliani and, therefore, Trump, himself, knew about the Trump-Russia Dossier before the FBI counter-intelligence agents actually conducting the Operation Crossfire Hurricane investigation did. If U. S. Attorney Durham uncovers evidence that Trump and Giuliani knew about “the dodgy dossier” before the FBI HQ in D. C. knew about it, then Durham’s “Spy-Gate” investigation is not going to end well for Trump. Remember what Mr. H said: Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
L4D says–Also excerpted from the Wikipedia entry for The Trump-Russia Dossier:
Simpson later said that “Steele severed his contacts with [the] FBI before the election following public statements by the FBI that it had found no connection between the Trump campaign and Russia and concerns that [the FBI] was being ‘manipulated for political ends by the Trump people’.” Steele had become frustrated with the FBI, whom he believed failed to investigate his reports, choosing instead to focus on the investigation into Clinton’s emails. According to The Independent, Steele came to believe that there was a “cabal” inside the FBI, particularly its New York field office linked to Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani, because it blocked any attempts to investigate the links between Trump and Russia.
Fortunately for our Republic, we finally have an AG who will find out the truth using our judicial system, not wikipedia.
AG William “Casting Couch” Barr couldn’t find the truth with two bulls and a Durham.
have an AG who will find out the truth using our judicial system, not wikipedia
the find the judicial system too difficult to maneuver whereas Wiki they can edit as their needs warrant 24/7
GOP Representative Amash of Michigan and Freedom Caucus member, today:
“Here are my principal conclusions:
1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.
3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.
4. Few members of Congress have read the report.
12:30 PM – 18 May 201
I offer these conclusions only after having read Mueller’s redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis.
12:30 PM – 18 May 2019
In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings.
12:30 PM – 18 May 2019
Barr’s misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice.
12:30 PM – 18 May 20
Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.
12:30 PM – 18 May 2
In fact, Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.
12:30 PM – 18 May 2019
States Rushing To Ban Abortion Rate Low On Child Welfare
Data shows that many of the states advancing legislation to restrict abortion do a poor job of supporting children, in terms of economic well-being, education, health, and family and community.
The states rank below average, and in some cases place among the very worst, nationally when it comes to child well-being, according to metrics the nonpartisan Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Kids Count Data Center has tracked for the past three decades.
The center compiles statistics from the Census Bureau, the Department of Education, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other sources to rank states on 16 measures across four sectors. It uses that information to rank how states perform overall on child well-being.
Among 10 states that have recently enacted or are seriously considering bills to restrict abortion, all but one are in the bottom half nationally, including three that fall in the bottom 10: Louisiana ranks 49th, Mississippi is 48th, and Alabama is 42nd in the nation.
Not far behind are: West Virginia at 40th, Georgia at 39th, South Carolina at 38th, Kentucky at 37th, and Tennessee at 35th.
The highest-ranked of the bunch are Ohio, which misses the bottom half by the slimmest margin, placing 25th nationally, and Missouri, at 26th.
The nonpartisan Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Kids Count Data Center has tracked child well-being data for the past three decades. The center compiles statistics from the Census Bureau, the Department of Education, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other sources to rank states on 16 measures across the four sectors below. It also uses that information to rank how states perform overall. The figures below show where each state ranks among the 50 states.
Edited from: “States Pushing Abortion Legislation Rank Poorly When It Comes To Child Welfare”
The Boston Globe, 5/18/19
Regarding The Above:
These stats should surprise no one whatsoever. The most conservative states seem to always rank low in health and education surveys. For that one reason alone educated liberals are naturally skeptical when Republicans preach about ‘life’. The most Republican states tend to have policies punitive to the poor.
Since Peter Shill is posting about abortions on an unrelated topic to this article, here is some Good News about Life.
Fifth Sunday of Easter
Reading 1: ACTS 14:21-27
After Paul and Barnabas had proclaimed the good news
to that city
and made a considerable number of disciples,
they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch.
They strengthened the spirits of the disciples
and exhorted them to persevere in the faith, saying,
“It is necessary for us to undergo many hardships
to enter the kingdom of God.”
They appointed elders for them in each church and,
with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord
in whom they had put their faith.
Then they traveled through Pisidia and reached Pamphylia.
After proclaiming the word at Perga they went down to Attalia.
From there they sailed to Antioch,
where they had been commended to the grace of God
for the work they had now accomplished.
And when they arrived, they called the church together
and reported what God had done with them
and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles.
Responsorial Psalm PS 145:8-9, 10-11, 12-13
R. (cf. 1) I will praise your name for ever, my king and my God.
The LORD is gracious and merciful,
slow to anger and of great kindness.
The LORD is good to all
and compassionate toward all his works.
R. I will praise your name for ever, my king and my God.
Let all your works give you thanks, O LORD,
and let your faithful ones bless you.
Let them discourse of the glory of your kingdom
and speak of your might.
R. I will praise your name for ever, my king and my God.
Let them make known your might to the children of Adam,
and the glorious splendor of your kingdom.
Your kingdom is a kingdom for all ages,
and your dominion endures through all generations.
R. I will praise your name for ever, my king and my God.
Reading 2: REV 21:1-5A
Then I, John, saw a new heaven and a new earth.
The former heaven and the former earth had passed away,
and the sea was no more.
I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem,
coming down out of heaven from God,
prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
I heard a loud voice from the throne saying,
“Behold, God’s dwelling is with the human race.
He will dwell with them and they will be his people
and God himself will always be with them as their God.
He will wipe every tear from their eyes,
and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain,
for the old order has passed away.”
The One who sat on the throne said,
“Behold, I make all things new.”
Alleluia JN 13:34
R. Alleluia, alleluia.
I give you a new commandment, says the Lord:
love one another as I have loved you.
R. Alleluia, alleluia.
Gospel: John 13:31-33A, 34-35
When Judas had left them, Jesus said,
“Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
If God is glorified in him,
God will also glorify him in himself,
and God will glorify him at once.
My children, I will be with you only a little while longer.
I give you a new commandment: love one another.
As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.
This is how all will know that you are my disciples,
if you have love for one another.”
Comments are closed.