Report: Democrats Hold Closed Door Caucus Rejecting Impeachment Move . . . Without A Single Dissenting Voice

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”

  1. Allan is plagiarizing. Again.

    The article that Allan copied without attribution. (Mentioning the article earlier in the day, isn’t enough, buddy.)

    “Five Myths About President Trump’s Withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal”

    https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2019/05/14/five-myths-about-president-trumps-withdrawal-from-the-iran-nuclear-deal/

    You don’t get to cite it in a morning comment, Allan, and then cut and paste most of the article hours later without citing it again. Because: busy people and plagiarism.

    https://jonathanturley.org/2019/05/17/report-democrats-hold-closed-door-caucus-rejecting-impeachment-move-without-a-single-dissenting-voice/comment-page-2/#comment-1850661

    This isn’t the first time. When called out on it, Allan tries to rationalize, deflect, deny, and insult — as is Allan’s way.

      1. As noted above:

        When called out on it, Allan tries to rationalize, deflect, deny, and insult — as is Allan’s way.

        1. No, I just tell the truth and you think everyone else is as dumb as you are. It’s simple. I have little regard for people like you and don’t care what you think. I remember having to deal with people like you when I was in school. Your type was never bright and never amounted to anything. You haven’t said anything intelligent since I have been on this blog.

    1. You copied this twice anonymous. Apparently you are used to a lot of repetition. You can now go slide under your rock.

      1. Yep. I copied it twice.

        As noted above:

        When called out on it, Allan tries to rationalize, deflect, deny, and insult — as is Allan’s way.

        And with you, it still won’t sink in.

  2. You like Robert Reich ask, What do you think, but I doubt you care anything about what others think, especially when it comes to the Proper Assembly and the proper function of our Governing institutions!

    Impeachment is not a political process to deal with your political advisories! Congress is not a Political Assembly! The President is not a Political Leader, and the Executive Department does not form political policy or have a political agenda!

    By the way, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial are not Coequal Branches, and I dare you to find anywhere in the Constitution that supports the hypothesis that there is a balance of power between the 3 Departments of our Federal Government!

    Congress is an Assembly of the States, meaning the States are the members of Congress, the Representatives and Senators are Representatives of the Member States, not Members of Congress Themselves. Congress is designed to reach Majority Consensus between the States by two independent modes of assembly and corresponding Rules of Suffrage.

    I point out these principles of Assembly and Suffrage because only the States are assembled into Congress and only the States have Suffrage in Congress to reach Majority Consensus. Parties are not Members of Congress and therefore have no Constitutional Rights of Assembly, Representation, or Suffrage in Congress! Reaching a Bipartisan Majority Consensus means nothing in Congress, and on its face is mired in corruption and conflicts of interest which prevents coming to Majority Consensus, let alone a Majority Consensus of the States as the Union.

    On one hand the opposition party is deciding whether or not to impeach based upon their political interest, and if impeached the Senate will decide removal based upon their conflicting political interest which act as a conflict of interest if they share political affiliation with a common party with the person who has been impeached, neither situation allows the States to reach a Majority Consensus on Impeachment or removal as intended!

    So let’s talk about what constitutes an impeachable offense! Let’s start with insubordination! The President, and the entire Executive Department is subordinate to Congress, the United States, in Congress Assembled. Which branch of Congress holds this Control over the President and the Executive Department? The Senate where the States are assembled as Equals! Why not the House? Because the House is just the Assembly of the States by another means and is necessarily more numerous, the Senate as the less Numerous, and Equal Branch of Congress, allows for Secrecy and Dispatch to conduct their Constitutional role of Concurrence on all Laws and All Treaties, all Foreign Policy, as the Union, requiring in most cases a 2/3 Majority Consensus between the States.

    This is distributed power, not concentrated power, and Congress has internal Checks and Balances to prevent factions of our country from gaining control over any aspect of our Government, as well as providing Continuity and Stability of Government through the Stability of the Senate!

    The moral of this story is that the Speaker of the House has no control, or say, in whether or not any person in our Government is impeached, no political Party has any control over whether or not a person is impeach or removed, only the States, as they are assembled in Congress as Equals can impeach based upon each States Proportional Suffrage in the House, requiring as few as 9 States to form a Majority Consensus, and remove based upon the Concurrence of the States through their Equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    Politics is not Governing, we must separate the assembly and Legislative processes in our Governing institutions from Political Conflicts of interest! Then the impeachment process will work as designed, and every person within our government, when asked to appear in the Senate and provide information will be compelled to to act immediately or be removed from office for insubordination on the Pain of impeachment.

    The President is an interchangeable cog, not a leader or decision maker, just a manager of the day to day operations of our Government and must consult Congress for the proper implementation of all laws, and before any negotiations of any foreign policy! By and With means Before and During, Not After, and the President must consult the States as the Union to determine if said negotiations are in the Union’s interest and what will constitute an agreement. An the other side, just as it takes the Senate’s Advice and Consent to negotiate any treaty, foreign policy, it takes the Senate’s advice and Consent to dissolve any Treaty, or Appointment. The States are always in Control of every aspect of what our Country does as a Union. The only decision maker in our Government is Congress where the States are assembled as Equals to Govern Together as Equals, The United States, in Congress Assembled, The Union which makes our Country the United States of America!

    That’s what I think!

    What do you think about that!

    1. The Congress and Senate consist of the People. The People have the power. The power resides in impeachment and conviction. The problem is producing a majority vote. The President is inferior by way of impeachment. Supreme Court Justices are inferior by way of impeachment. The singularly powerful branch of government is Congress/Senate. The Congress and Senate consist of the People. The People have the power.

      The singular American failure has been the Supreme Court and treasonous individual Justices since the “Reign of Terror” of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln who subverted and effectively abrogated the Constitution and Bill of Rights to rule as despot and tyrannical dictator. To be sure, slavery should have been eliminated through employment of economic tools and the freedom of speech in the form of boycotts, divestiture and public advocacy, not an unconstitutional war against a legal, constitutional sovereign foreign nation.

      “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

      – Alexander Hamilton

      The “manifest tenor” of the Constitution must have been vigorously supported by the SCOTUS and precludes the communist principles of central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth and social engineering.

      The SCOTUS failed miserably and completely to perform its function of assuring that actions comport with the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

      The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Education, Labor, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing,” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

      Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

      Do you KNOW the American thesis and the American Constitution? Freedom and Self-Reliance is the thesis. The Constitution provides maximal freedom to individuals as it severely restricts and limits government. Central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth and social engineering are antithetical, illegal per fundamental law and irrefutably unconstitutional.

      – Congress has no authority to tax for the purpose of redistribution of wealth.

      – Congress has no authority to regulate anything other than “…commerce among the several States.”

      – Congress has no authority to possess or dispose of, or to “claim or exercise dominion” over the private property of individuals with the sole exception of Eminent Domain.

      Article 1, Section 8 and the right to private property cause the entire American welfare state to be unconstitutional including affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Education, Labor, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws,”Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

      Please correct me where I am wrong.

      Article 1, Section 8

      Congress has only the power to tax for “…general Welfare…” and Congress has no power to tax for individual welfare.

      Congress has only the power to regulate trade, exchange or “…commerce among the several States…” to preclude bias or favor by one state over another.

      James Madison defined private property as “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

      Ben Franklin, 1789, we gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

      Ben Franklin, 2019, we gave you “…a republic, if you can take it back.”

      1. Totally 100% wrong, not on the federal level! On the federal it is the states, the States are represented in senate and the people of the states are represented in the house.

        That’s how the power of the purse and legislative checks and balances are established.

        The people are directly represented in their own states and form the people in their collective capacity! The states are represented in the federal government and form the states in their collective capacity.

        The parties are factions and are not represented, and don’t represent the people, in any capacity on any level.

        1. The People vote on and control the Congress and Senate. The Congress and Senate retain the power of impeachment and conviction. The Congress (i.e. Congress and Senate) may remove and convict any Officer of the United States. The power is with the Congress which can remove and convict any and all Officers of the United States assigning a lower or inferior status to the two other branches of government, all the officers of which Congress may impeach and convict, including those of the executive and judicial.

          It’s kinda hard to be a co-equal branch of government when the legislative branch throws you in prison.

          Your implication that branches have any power or power sufficient to nullify and void the Constitution and Bill of Rights is completely wrong. After all is said and done, no branch of government may ignore, subvert, nullify and/or void the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as those documents hold dominion, until the People legally and legitimately amend them by constitutional process.

          1. Absolutely not, the people are not in control of the composition of Congress by voting for parties. The composition of Congress is defined by Article 1 of the Constitution, by State, and only the States have any Suffrage what so ever in Congress! This is the problem, the States are not assembled into Congress as they should be, and the Parties are usurping the power of the States through controlling the Ballot Box.

            You need to learn more about Congress, the Bicameral Legislature, and republican Government. The people are not directly involved with any aspect of the Federal Government, they, like the Parties, must participate through their States. We the People is a collective terminology which men’s We The Representatives of the People of The Several States, Not The People as individuals!

          2. I see that you struggle with reading comprehension, nowhere in what I wrote do I say that anyone, including a State has the right to nullify any part of the Constitution. Maybe you should read the Constitution before you assume you know what I said.

            Furthermore, I do say many times that the Executive and Legislative are not Coequal Branches! I State that the Executive is subservient to the Legislature, “in a Confederated Republic, the Legislature necessarily Predominates”, Federalist #51 Madison, try reading it for yourself. The dominance of the Legislature is reiterated by Madison in Federalist #’s 62 and 63, and by Jay in Federalist #64, Hamilton discusses it at length in Federalist #’s 65 -77, with a summery of his conclusions at the end of Federalist #77 that I will reprint for you here, since I know you are too lazy to read it for yourself!

            Federalist #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.”

            1. federalistpapersrevisited

              “You like Robert Reich ask, What do you think, but I doubt you care anything about what others think, especially when it comes to the Proper Assembly and the proper function of our Governing institutions!”
              ____________________________________________________________________

              Please cite the Constituon wherein Congress is provided any power to impose any form of central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. regulation), redistribution of wealth or social engineering. That power does not exist and the executive and judicial branches have treasonoulsy and unconsitutionally promoted the imposition of the principles of communism including affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Education, Labor, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws,”Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

              Below, please find the “…proper function…” of our government.

              Individuals are provided maximal freedom while the government is severely restricted and limited.

              The Constitution is effective in reducing or eliminating any power of government to do anything beyond facilitating the freedom of individuals as it is empowered merely to provide security and infrastructure. The government has no constitutional authority for any form of central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. regulation), redistribution of wealth or social engineering.
              ___________________________________________________________________

              Once again, if the legislative branch has the power to impeach and convict, it has no equal. You stated that the branches were equal which is patently false. Congress, including the Senate, holds dominion.

              Democrat (i.e. communist) presidents and communist Justices of the Supreme Court have failed in their duties to support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which irrefutably precludes any and all principles of communism, those being central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. regulation), redistribution of wealth and social engineering, none of which is constitutional.

              Article 1, Section 8 and the right to private property cause the entire American welfare state to be unconstitutional including affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Education, Labor, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws,”Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

              Article 1, Section 8

              – Congress has only the power to tax for “…general Welfare…” and Congress has no power to tax for individual welfare.

              – Congress has only the power to regulate trade, exchange or “…commerce among the several States…” to preclude bias or favor by one state over another.

              Private Property Rights

              – James Madison defined private property as “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

              1. You are lost and confused! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that makes you a danger to yourself and others!

                The States assembled into Congress are the Union, and as the Union the States can do anything they wish, including totally rewriting the Constitution to their satisfaction, as long as they do it together and reach a Majority Consensus between themselves!

                I won’t even try to read or respond to what you have written here, it’s so confused and misconstrued that it would serve no purpose to discuss or rebut!

                Congress is the Assembly of the States, the States in their Collective Capacity, The Union which makes us The United States of America! That’s the Starting point, the Union is the Boss and the Decision maker, Period, all other departments are subservient to and under the control of the Union!

              2. Article. I. Section. 1.
                All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

                Congress is an Assembly of the States! And “all” means “All” and that means that anything the States see on their collective interest is raised as a question and voted upon to reach Majority Consensus, of the States, as they are assembled in Congress!

                If you can’t understand that, I can’t, and won’t, help you!

                1. Individuals were provided maximal freedom and government was severely restricted and limited.

                  Government, under the Constitution, exists only to facilitate the freedom of the individual.

                  Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

                  Congress’ powers are restricted, limited and specifically enumerated.

                  Legislation may be struck down by the Supreme Court citing the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

                  Congress cannot tax for individual welfare and it can’t regulate other the trade, exchange or “…commerce among the several States.” Private property may not be possessed or controlled by Congress with the exception of Eminent Domain.

                  Article 1, Section 8 and the right to private property cause the entire American welfare state to be unconstitutional including affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Education, Labor, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws,”Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

                  The singular American failure has been the Supreme Court which has “legislated from the bench” the imposition of the principles of communism as it has subverted and nullified the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

                  1. Bull Shit, the Constitution had nothing whatsoever to do with individuals, only the More Perfect Union of the States and all the benefits, privileges, and shared cost that Union implies! The Constitution was written by the States, for the States, to form a More Perfect Union of the States! The only Individual thing in the Constitution is that each person should be counted as 1 Person as a method of determining the proportion of Representation, Suffrage, and the share of the Nations Debts each State was Entitled!

                    This is indirect Democracy, which is collective, not Individual, even the Bill of Rights does not directly address individual rights, but the collective rights of the People with respect to the Union.

                    Individual rights are bestowed on the State level, as every State is the People, Property, natural resource, and economic resources within each State that each State brings to the Union!

                    There is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court, that isn’t wrong with the rest of our Government, it isn’t being used properly, which is for dispute resolution between the
                    States in the Union and between States and the Union!

                    I’ll leave that for you to figure out on your own!

                    This is where you need to revisit the Articles of Confederation to understand what issues they were experiencing with the original Union and why a More Perfect Union was necessary!

                    I’ll leave that for your individual study as well.

                    1. “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

                      “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

                      – Alexander Hamilton
                      _________________

                      Article 1, Section 8

                      – The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare…”

                      – To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

                      – Private Property as defined by James Madison is: “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
                      ___________________________________________________________

                      These three provisions preclude central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. regulation), redistribution of wealth and social engineering. The People and their Congress may want these provisions enacted but the Constitution does not allow it.

                      To clarify with laser-like precision:

                      The Constitution does not allow for affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Education, Labor, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing,” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

                      The Supreme Court must have declared all of these acts, which are contrary to the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution, void. It failed to do so.
                      ____________________________

                      “The Supreme Court must declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void (paraphrased).”

                      “Alexander Hamilton

                    2. Just STOP! You are so far off the rails that nothing you are saying has anything to do with the topic under discussion, or the Larger topic of the assembly and function of a republican form of Government utilizing a Bicameral Legislature!

                      You are applying parts of the Constitution so far out of context that it has no real meaning.

                      There are two types of Taxes, direct and indirect, all direct taxes, including capitation taxes, are assessed upon the States and paid by the rule of Apportionment of Representation and Direct taxes of Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution which are Proportional on an Equal per capita basis; indirect taxes including all import, export and excise taxes and tariffs, are taxes assessed on goods and services which cross the boarder of the Nation, are collected by the States as Federal Revenue, and yes, the States as the Union have the right and responsibility to set all these taxes in Congress!

                      Note, there is no justification for income taxes, neither State or Federal, which are a form of extortion and a continuation of principles of Slavery!

                      There is no Federal Taxation of anything within a State, especially involving individuals, all taxation within a State for Property, Commerce, and Consumption on individuals and corporations disproportionately form the State’s revenue base, and then the State pays an equal per capita tax taken from the State’s revenue base to pay for its proportion of Federal expenditures which they have a Proportional Vote in approving, then an Equal Vote to Concur! Meaning, all expenditures must be approved before the Collection of revenue!

                      I don’t expect you to understand that as being the Power of the Purse, held by each State independently by their Proportional Suffrage in the House, and Legislative Checks and Balances through each State’s independent Equal Suffrage in the Senate!

                      And by the way, your comments are not one size fits all, you should stop copying and pasting your comments on several threads like somehow they all can be solved by your idiotic understanding of your interpretations the Constitution!

                      Stop trying to interpret the Constitution, it is clear and must be applied as written!

                      I’m not sure where you got your education, which you consider makes you a Constitutional Authority, but Just STOP, you are embarrassing yourself!

  3. I like Darran’s weekend article about the sky penis drawing pilots. One day, perhaps in our own lifetimes, all combat aircraft may be swarms of drones controlled by AI executioners. They will lack the sense of humor and wit that they displayed.

    Which brings to mind the old joke. What is long and hard and full of seamen?

    A submarine.

      1. From the Navy Times article:

        ““A mother who lives in Okanogan who took pictures of the drawings reached out to KREM 2 to complain about the images, saying she was upset she might have to explain to her young children what the drawings were,” the station reported.”

        Get creative. Tell them it’s a giant Stetson…and move on.

  4. Darren, why did you block comments on your “Sky Penis” article? Oh, wait. I think I know.

    BTW, I may not be the only American desirous of the full and irrevocable repeal of the 19th Dumbmendment.

  5. mespo,

    We no longer have the rule of law. The Bill of Rights has been trampled on. If you are saying I don’t like “leaders” who do this, you are correct.

    You would have made a fine British soldier during the revolution!

    1. Jill,

      Do you KNOW the American thesis and the American Constitution? Freedom and Self-Reliance is the thesis. The Constitution provides maximal freedom to individuals as it severely restricts and limits government. Central planning, control of the mean s of production, redistribution of wealth and social engineering are antithetical, illegal per fundamental law and irrefutably unconstitutional.

      – Congress has no authority to tax for the purpose of redistribution of wealth.

      – Congress has no authority to regulate anything other than “…commerce among the several States.”

      – Congress has no authority to possess or dispose of, or to “claim or exercise dominion” over the private property of individuals with the sole exception of Eminent Domain.

      Article 1, Section 8 and the right to private property cause the entire American welfare state to be unconstitutional including affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Education, Labor, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws,”Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

      Please correct me where I am wrong.

      Article 1, Section 8

      Congress has only the power to tax for “…general Welfare…” and Congress has no power to tax for individual welfare.

      Congress has only the power to regulate trade, exchange or “…commerce among the several States…” to preclude bias or favor by one state over another.

      James Madison defined private property as “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

    2. Jill to mespo, nailing it:

      “You would have made a fine British soldier during the revolution!”

      Truth.

      1. A “Fine British Soldier” is not necessarily a pejorative. I might have joined him in those ranks. We may have “Saved the United Kingdoms” while eschewing the United States, replaced the monarchy with the Constitution and Bill of Rights and assured that:

        “The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire.”

        “Hear, Hear!!!”

      2. Actually a Tory is more appropriate considering he sides with a traitorous prez plus like tRump all bark and no bite.

  6. OT: Previously there had been discussion of the Iran nuclear deal. I follow with a summary 5 myths of the nuclear deal. Better to read the article than the summary.

    Obama said and lied: “… Our goal is to get Iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place. … But the deal we’ll accept is — they end their nuclear program. It’s very straightforward.”

    He made the deal for his own political legacy and not the safety of our nation or the world.

    1) A weak lopsided agreement starting to expire in 2025
    2) Not a ratified treaty
    “Iran’s behavior significantly worsened after the JCPOA was agreed to when it sent troops into Syria, arms to the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and increased spending on terrorism, the military and its missile program. In response to Iranian assassination squads operating in Europe to kill Iranian dissidents”
    3) Adequate inspections not permitted explained as ““don’t ask, don’t inspect” policy.”
    Stolen plans reveal:
    “— A plan to manufacture five nuclear warheads at 10 kilotons each.
    — A plan to conduct an underground nuclear test.
    — An attempt to acquire highly-enriched uranium (weapons-grade) from abroad.”
    4) Agreement cannot be fixed.
    5) Withdrawal.

    https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2019/05/14/five-myths-about-president-trumps-withdrawal-from-the-iran-nuclear-deal/

    1. Alan, virtually all our European allies thought that accord with Iran was sound and enforceable. But Trump (and Kushner) have conflicts of interest; beholden to Saudi investors. That and their unflinching support of Netanyahu makes them anti-Iran in a totally hypocritical way.

      Trump’s anti-Iranian attitude is also hypocritical in the sense that Trump essentially supports Russia’s involvement in Syria where Putin, in effect, partners with Iran. If Iran is really so evil that we can’t have any nuclear accord with them, then we should have zero tolerance for the Syrian regime of Bashar el-Assad.

      This Iranian issue illustrates the need to see Trump’s tax returns. We need to know ‘who’ his investment partners are so we know where Trump is coming from with regards to foreign policy decisions.

        1. Peter, what do you want our government, which includes Democrats that spend their time trying to deny that Trump won the Presidency, to do?

          Two options
          1) War
          2) Soft power. Your choose the soft power to be utilized.

          I know your answer. The solution lies in Trump’s tax returns. LOL.

          1. Sorry, Alan, I just tuned out when you said we shouldn’t see Trump’s tax returns. You lost me right there and I see no way back.

            Conflicts of interests mean nothing to Republicans when it comes to Donald Trump.

            1. “Sorry, Alan, I just tuned out when you said we shouldn’t see Trump’s tax returns. You lost me right there and I see no way back.”

              The truth is you can’t defend your arguments. When provided with choice, after allowing your defense of Trump’s conflicts by assuming them to be true, you still can’t respond to the underlying question.

              Two options
              …1) War
              …2) Soft power. Your choose the soft power to be utilized.

              This proves there is nothing behind your rhetoric and that is why when you are faced with facts you “tuned out”.

              That tells us about you and your problems but tells us nothing about the question under discussion.

        2. Al-Qaeda rules in Idlib. They will be removed by Syria and Russia although the real fighting has not started yet. Why do you support Al-Qaeda?

          1. To use the words of Absurd x ?, “It’s a reasonable wager”…

            …that no one here supports al-Qaeda, Ivan.

      1. Peter, did you read what Obama had promised when he went into the negotiations?

        Did you read what Obama got out of it? 2025 starts the end of that non treaty.

        Did you read about what we are not permitted to investigate? (almost everything)

        Did you read about the soil sample findings on what the Iranians produced as proof they are not breaking the rules? (They are breaking the rules even proven by the soil sample.)

        Your entire argument hinges on conflicts of interest and Trump’s tax returns, but that argument doesn’t deal with the reality on the ground or the known fact that Iran has not adequately complied and that in 2025 the non agreement starts to disappear. What did Obama say? “THEY END THEIR NUCLEAR PROGRAM. IT’S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. It’s very straightforward.” That did not happen and the non-agreement was an agreement to see to it that it would not happen.

        You entire response to a dangerous complex question is we need Trump’s tax returns. That is laughable and demonstrates a mind that has not matured sufficiently to deal with reality.

        1. Alan, common sense dictates that we look at Trump tax returns to see what conflicts exist. That’s just common sense! And Trump should want to be transparent so we know he’s operating as an honest broker. The fact that Trump refuses to show his taxes should be a glaring red flag to anyone with common sense.

          And what happened with Trump’s North Korean thrust?? That went nowhere, right?? So why is Trump focused on Iran?? North Korea is far more dangerous. They keep menacing Japan with their tests.

          Trump is focused on Iran because of investment conflicts with the Saudis. That’s why Trump refused to cut involvement with the conflict in Yemen. It’s all conflicts with Trump. And guys like you think Trump has some important constitutional right to keep his taxes secret. Like we’re all better off not knowing the conflicts! How ridiculous!!

          1. “Alan, common sense dictates that we look at Trump tax returns to see what conflicts exist.”

            Let’s assume there is a legal conflict of interest. Now what? Does that conflict mean that Obama’s promise “THEY END THEIR NUCLEAR PROGRAM. IT’S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD” was fulfilled? No Therefore this type of comment is junk and leads nowhere. Evsery human being has conflicts of interest yet we deal with these conflicts.

            Trump’s taxes aren’t the answer to the world’s problems and you should know that but it seems you don’t.

            What did Obama’s promise “THEY END THEIR NUCLEAR PROGRAM. IT’S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD” Mean?

            Based on the information we have and based on the agreement Iran will not ” END THEIR NUCLEAR PROGRAM.” Obama lied.

            1. Alan, all our western allies considered Iran in compliance and said the pact was viable. You’re telling me they’re all wrong and only Trump is right..??

              And you seem to be saying, of course, that ‘nothing can be learned by looking at Trump’s tax returns. Because only liberals think it’s important to track conflicts of interest’.

              Regarding North Korea, one presumes you buy Trump’s assessment that Kim Jong Un is trustworthy.

              1. “Alan, all our western allies considered Iran in compliance and said the pact was viable. You’re telling me they’re all wrong and only Trump is right..??”

                With you everything is Trump or his taxes. Many people all over the world think the Obama deal was a sham. There is no doubt the agreement is or was a sham based on Obamas words “THEY END THEIR NUCLEAR PROGRAM.”

                You talk about conflict of interest. Who is most shortsighted when viewing this non agreement? The powerful business interests that generate income and the natiions looking to boost their GDP’s. The dollar flow ceases with a blockade of Iran as does some of the oil flow making oil more expensive.

                What is it that the article said that was wrong? Nothing. According to you the appeasement of Nazi Germany was the correct thing to do because everyone was doing it. The problem is no one thought things through and provided alternative ideas. Instead many of them believed the problems would be relieved if Trump’s taxes were released.

              2. The IAEA has inspectors on site and has continued to verify Iranian compliance, as did the Pentagon and Israeli military intelligence.

                1. There is strong evidence Iran has violated the JCPOA from the beginning of the agreement even though IAEA and U.S. intelligence officials refuse to acknowledge this.

                  Iran’s refusal to allow IAEA inspections of military sites is a clear violation of the JCPOA. If covert nuclear weapons work is being conducted in Iran, it is taking place at military sites. Although the IAEA could ask to inspect Iranian military facilities, it won’t do so because Tehran would refuse, which would force the IAEA to declare Iran in noncompliance with the JCPOA. This reluctance of the IAEA to conduct full inspections in Iran could be called a “don’t ask, don’t inspect” policy.

                  There was one exception to Iran’s refusal to allow IAEA inspections of military sites, the Parchin military base, which was inspected in September 2015. However, Iran insisted this site be inspected by Iranians and tightly restricted what they could inspect to a single building that was sanitized to remove incriminating evidence. Nevertheless, samples collected by this inspection proved that nuclear weapons work had been conducted at this site that Iran tried to hide.

                  The Parchin inspection was in response to paragraph 14 of the JCPOA which required Iran to fully cooperate with an ongoing IAEA investigation of the “Possible Military Dimensions” (PMD) of its nuclear program before Tehran would be granted full sanctions relief in January 2016. A December 2, 2015 IAEA report indicated that Iran failed to fully cooperate with this investigation, making it impossible for the Agency to explain Iran’s nuclear activities and assess with certainty that possible nuclear weapons-related activities had ceased. However, led by the United States, IAEA members decided to ignore these issues and voted on December 15, 2015 to close the file on Iran’s PMD issues.

                  We learned last year from a trove of Iranian nuclear documents stolen by Israeli intelligence – a.k.a. the Iranian Nuclear Archive – how far Iran’s nuclear program had progressed and the extent of its deception during the IAEA’s 2015 PMD investigation. This included:

                  — A plan to manufacture five nuclear warheads at 10 kilotons each.
                  — A plan to conduct an underground nuclear test.
                  — An attempt to acquire highly-enriched uranium (weapons-grade) from abroad.

                  The nuclear archive documents also provided details of multiple buildings at the Parchin base where work to develop nuclear weapons was conducted.

                  Israel learned from the Iranian nuclear archive about the existence of a secret atomic warehouse in Tehran that may have contained 300 tons of equipment and 15 kilograms of radioactive material. Israeli officials told the IAEA about this discovery in the spring of 2018 and urged the Agency to inspect it. However, probably due to its “don’t ask, don’t inspect” policy, the IAEA failed to inspect this warehouse until April 2019, long after it had been emptied.

                  There has been other compelling evidence of Iranian cheating on the JCPOA, including several reports by German intelligence agencies on covert efforts by Iran to acquire nuclear equipment and materials in violation of the nuclear agreement.

                  If there is strong evidence that Iran has been violating the JCPOA, why do the IAEA and the U.S. Intelligence Community claim otherwise? One reason may be that they prefer to side on this issue with the liberal foreign policy establishment and European leaders rather than American conservatives like President Donald Trump and Ambassador John Bolton. Another reason could be that while these organizations privately believe the JCPOA is flawed, they feel it is better than nothing. Regardless of the actual reasons, IAEA and U.S. intelligence officials have misled the American people and the world on Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal.

                    1. I see the dummy finally realized that I already provided the site, but no matter because dummies will be dummies and I have seen that you have already joined your bretheren.

                    2. You are a dummy. If you look you will see that I gave the site earlier and copied a portion of that site. That portion was in the entire text I provided.

                2. The IAEA has inspectors on site and has continued to verify Iranian compliance, as have the Pentagon and Israeli military intelligence. None of these 3 have cause to twist the facts though the GOP does – given their railing against the agreement because…… Obama, and the inability of their leader to get even the time of day from Lil Kim after he went down on him. Only fools and liars pretend otherwise.

        2. Peter, did you read …

          Nope. Peter Shill can not read. PS comments on these forums are copy/paste talking points from Daddy David Brock aside from lying by the character…

          You would get more stimulating conversation from the homeless passed out on the streets of San Francisco thanks to Nancy Pelosi’s indifference

            1. Estovir, think of it this way, if the only answer they can provide is ‘we need Trump’s taxes’ then do you really think they notice the feces in the street?

          1. Estovir, we should not think Peter’s point has no merit. It has no merit with regard to the discussion but it does tell us a lot about a certain segment of the population. They exist and they vote even though they don’t vote based on the realities that exist.

            In this case Peter was provided some factual information and his reply had to do with Trump’s taxes. That is the type of thing Peter holds onto as a response which obviously is a ridiculous response.

            Did you ever play with a Gerbil? Mine died decades ago. Now I have Peter. 😀

            1. Alan, when have you provided facts to anyone?????? Never!!!!!!

              You’re just a one man disinformation team working hard on these threads.

              1. Peter, are you saying that the Obama quote is a lie?

                Tell us what facts I said or the article said weren’t true. You can’t and that is your problem. That is why your choice of answers are represented by:

                Trump’s taxes need to be released.
                Everyone is doing it. (That is what the drugged out druggie said before he died).

                Stop acting like a Gerbil.

              2. “Alan, common sense dictates that we look at Trump tax returns to see what conflicts exist. That’s just common sense!”

                A person using common sense would imagine a world where the Congress actually has the power to simply order up information(tax or otherwise) on whomever they hate at the moment.

                You have no sense of the law. Like a child you simply demand his tax returns without any consideration for the disastrous consequences of your actions.

          2. Estovir, you’ve never been to San Francisco. You’ve never been anywhere outside the deep south. And while you might pass as intelligent on the Info-War’s Comment Thread, here you’re just creepy nerd.

          1. Peter, are you trying to say that Obama didn’t say this?

            “THEY END THEIR NUCLEAR PROGRAM. IT’S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD”

            What do you think the objective was when Obama negotiated with Iran?

  7. Every person in the elected govt. needs to resign. No exceptions. They do not uphold their oath of office. They are tools of fascism we meed them to resign. The cabal, elected and their unelected masters, needs to be accountable in a court of law. They won’t impeach because they are guilty of war and financial crimes themselves. We are living in a full on neocon fascist dictatorship.

    1. “We are living in a full on neocon fascist dictatorship.”
      ********************
      Not really. We’re living in a world you don’t like which means rational leadership, improving status in the world and an opposition increasingly becoming manic.

    2. @Jill

      Mespo’s view is obviously limited. He truly believes that he knows…, but he doesn’t.

  8. Seeing Nadler’s phallic fixation on Trump’s privates taxes and his reoccurring shooting of blanks due to having an endowment of impotent subpoenas gives one the diagnostic impression that ol fat boy Jerrold “Where is your neck?!” Nadler has ED on top of TDS. Nadler would benefit from a gender reassignment surgery since he is acting like a PMS female …provided Nancy Pelosi approves of the surgery. Jerrold is now Geraldine

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q4EcJ9yScI

    NB: Thank you Darren for the funny Naval Pilot article

    1. Funny to see Estovir upholding the trashing of Congressiinal subpoena powers. What the hell, they’ll never need that for a Democratic administration.

      By the way, your p…y draft dodging leader has a bigger a.s than KK.

      1. I’m no attorney or constitutional scholar but don’t comrade Needler and the Congressional “Keystone Cops” need a “crime” to subpoena tax records or any other “evidence?” We’re right back where we started, having no “crime,” only a potential counter-intelligence operation, to base the appointment of a special counsel on. There is no probable cause. There are only political attacks.

      2. By the way, your p…y draft dodging leader has a bigger a.s than KK.

        You cannot stop lying.

        He received an ordinary I-Y disqualification. See the period Statistical Abstract series. Fully 42% of those examined for service in 1968 were disqualified, some categorically (IV-F) and some barring certain contingencies (I-Y). The stock of those registered for Selective Service at that time was 20 million men. Of these 14% were classified as I-Y. The military could be oddly exacting. You could be disqualified for being underweight, for being overweight, for having a hernia (as was Hubert Humphrey in 1942), for having eczema on your feet (as happened to a friend of mine in 1969). He could have been recalled for another physical in as little as 90 days. As it happened, he wasn’t. At the end of 1969, the first draft lottery was held, applicable to all men who hadn’t served born after 1943 but before 1951. The Trump brothers, like most men, drew lottery numbers high enough that they weren’t going to be drafted.

        A lot of boneheads babble on as if all men of a certain vintage were out their in combat in VietNam. Most men born after 1938 but prior to 1955 have no history of military service. Maybe 20% of the most vulnerable cohorts (1944-50) were posted to VietNam, and a large minority of them were out of harm’s way the whole time.

        1. Then why lie about it?

          “… The United States inducted about 300,000 men into the military in 1968. At that time, a year before the draft lottery was instituted, local boards had to meet quotas and called men for service, leaving those without deferments or exemptions vulnerable.

          Mr. Trump had been declared available for service two years earlier and undergone a physical exam, Selective Service records show. That exam did not result in a medical exemption, but he did receive an education deferment. When officials again declared him available for service in July 1968, he had exhausted four education deferments and finished school, so it was the medical exemption that kept him from being eligible.

          He has often said it was “ultimately” a high draft lottery number that spared him, but Mr. Trump had been medically exempted for more than a year before the lottery began in December 1969.

          …..In the fall of 1968, Donald J. Trump received a timely diagnosis of bone spurs in his heels that led to his medical exemption from the military during Vietnam.

          …It involves a foot doctor in Queens who rented his office from Mr. Trump’s father, Fred C. Trump, and a suggestion that the diagnosis was granted as a courtesy to the elder Mr. Trump.

          The podiatrist, Dr. Larry Braunstein, died in 2007. But his daughters say their father often told the story of coming to the aid of a young Mr. Trump during the Vietnam War as a favor to his father….”

          https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/us/politics/trump-vietnam-draft-exemption.html

          1. What the NYSlimes says is: there is ” a suggestion that the diagnosis was granted as a courtesy to the elder Mr. Trump”

            Hmmm, this is proof. What fool would accept this as proof. DSS just suggested that Anon is a liar. It was actually more than a suggestion, does that make it true? It has been suggested that Obama is gay, does that make it true as well? Did the NYTImes pull out any records that can change a suggestion into a fact? No. For two years the NYTimes has suggested all sorts of things about Trump, sometimes on a daily basis, that were later proven untrue. There are a lot of stupid people in the world that need to learn the difference between libel, opinion and proof.

            Honestly, I don’t know the truth but Trump had legal exemptions and it is up to those that wish to attack him to provide the proof. Right now most of those people have mud on their faces and have been proven quite ignorant about what has been in the news.

          2. There is nothing in that quotation which indicates Trump lied about anything. But you knew that.

            The physician they refer to is dead and has said nothing. Your documentation that this particular physician’s medical reports were those supplied to Selective Service is nil. Your evidence that the physicians performing induction physicals were snookered is nil. What you have is an account by his daughters, fifty years after the fact, that he spoke of it ‘often’.

            If their father actually discussed his patients with his family and put names on it, its a scandal, and they’re injuring his reputation posthumously. Occam’s razor says they’re making stuff up.

            No one would take this story seriously except for the DNC press office employees employed by the Sulzbergers. And, of course, you.

            1. DSS, Those making the determinations of deferments for medical problems were well aware of all the ruses used by those trying to evade the draft. Bone spurs could lead to an x-ray or some sort of proof that could get the physician in trouble. You are right. The podiatrists daughters have besmirched his reputation.

              Don’t expect Anon to be able to read well enough to recognize what a fool he made of himself. He does that all the time and doesn’t recognize it only hearing an occasional applause from Brainless Anonymous.

            2. “He has often said it was “ultimately” a high draft lottery number that spared him, but Mr. Trump had been medically exempted for more than a year before the lottery began in December 1969.”

              1. Who got exempted in one year could change in subsequent years.

                Ultimately the high number closed the issue.

                1. Yep. Graduate school deferments disappeared at the end of 1967. The I-Y was formally temporary. It sent you to the back of the queue.

  9. Here’s another end run around the constitution by Trump that a real legal analyst …. cough, cough……might think was more important than machetes and concern trolling

    “OAKLAND — In the first court hearing over President Trump’s border wall funding plan, administration lawyers on Friday vigorously pressed their controversial argument that Congress did not in fact deny him the money when lawmakers excluded it from the appropriations bill they enacted in February.

    To bar spending, Deputy Assistant Attorney General James M. Burnham told a federal judge here, Congress would have had to explicitly say that “no money shall be obligated” in any form to construct a barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border. Having failed to do that, Burnham argued, the administration is free to tap funds never intended for border security ….”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-tells-judge-congress-did-not-deny-border-wall-funds-when-it-declined-to-appropriate-money-for-it/2019/05/17/3018d35e-786d-11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html?utm_term=.dffe745e4d12

    1. [Be On Alert] L4D paraphrases–Congress didn’t say that Trump could spend the money on the wall. Therefore, Congress didn’t says that Trump couldn’t spend the money on the wall. “Sort of a double negative” Like the one Trump meant to say at Helsinki with Putin. “I don’t see why it wouldn’t have been border-wall funding.” So it’s official, now. Trump is the “Simon didn’t say, ‘Simon says'” President. What’s going on? What’s going on?

  10. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections
    I had to check on the 2010 mid-terms; the Democrats did lose 63 seats. Obama came into office in 2009 with a very strong Democratic majority in the Senate and a majority in the House.
    That 63 seat loss in the 2010 election flipped control of the House to the GOP.
    I remember the 1994 mid-terms better, because Speaker Tom Foley had been our Representative since the 1964 LBJ Landslide.
    It seemed obvious to that the GOP would gain a lot of seats in that election….they ended up with a net gain of 54…..so Foley would no longer be Speaker.
    But I didn’t think Foley would lose the Congressional Seat he’d held for 30 years to a relatively unknown (George Nethercutt) GOP challenger, so that was more of a surprise.

    1. It was the largest total vote margin since Watergate.

      “With votes continuing to be tallied more than two weeks after Election Day, Democrats hold a lead over Republicans in the House popular vote by more than 8.6 million votes.

      That’s the largest total victory in a midterm House election since Democrats defeated Republicans by more than 8.7 million votes in 1974, just months after President Richard Nixon resigned from office in disgrace….”

      https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-won-house-popular-vote-largest-midterm-margin-watergate-n938996

  11. How Trump lost the 2020 election in just three easy steps:

    1) Fired Secretary of Defense Mattis for refusing to say that Iran was NOT in compliance with its denuclearization pledge.

    2) Hired Yosemite Sam Bolton to start a rootin’ tootin’ shootin’ war with Iran.

    3) Brought The Reverend Jesse Jackson out of retirement as a Special Envoy to negotiate for the release of captured U. S. Airmen from their captors in the terrorist state of Iran.

    Contributed by The L4D–I Can See For Miles And Miles And Miles And Miles And Miles–Project (Oh! Yeah!)

  12. Here’s what was revealed on the same day our concern troll JT fretted about Dem’s willingness to impeach:

    “Attorney General William P. Barr conceded in his infamous memo to the Justice Department, “Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example, if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction.” Barr also told Senate Judiciary Committee members during his confirmation hearing that it would be illegal for a president to coach a witness or persuade a witness to change testimony.

    …“In one of the previously redacted filings released Thursday, prosecutors said Flynn described multiple episodes in which ‘he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could have affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation.’ ”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/17/why-flynn-revelations-are-so-important/?utm_term=.7cc1e725cbef

    Gee JT, who redacted that? Along with that information we learned there was a voicemail left by Trump’s attorney Dowd to Flynn’s attorney fretting about what Flynn might be saying in testimony and how Trump still thinks warmly of him. And you’re concerned about campaign implications – you don’t quote any promises – of impeachment?

      1. L4D says–If Flynn had been acting on his own, then Mueller would have charged Flynn with a much more serious crime. Mueller did not charge Flynn with a much more serious crime. Ergo, Flynn was not acting on his own. And Mueller knows it. And Flynn can prove it. But Flynn has to forfeit a pardon from Trump–which Trump was never going to give Flynn, anyway. And Flynn figured that one out a long time ago) And that’s why Mueller is going easy of Flynn in Flynn’s sentencing–even though Judge Sullivan is still ready to throw the book at Flynn. Meanwhile Trump is already throwing Flynn under the bus. And it’s highly probable that Flynn will return the favor by chucking Trump overboard.

        You know what, Ron? It is a little bit funny. But it’s not laugh-out-loud funny.

  13. Here’s what I think JT. Hard to see you as anything but a Trump stooge, what with the constant pretending that the problem in Washington is the Democrats trying to deal with a scumbag president being propped up by his hack AG who without proof is busy tearing down the FBI. Yeah, whether the Dems decide to chase a doomed impeachment hearing because the Senate is run by a cult which has abandoned constitutional principles in exchange for primary safety is not really the problem. Blind tools like you are.

    That’s what I think.

    1. L4D says–More Flynn stuff coming out of the lock-box. This excerpt is from FBI interview notes with Bob Foresman who appears to have been intent upon setting up a back-channel between Flynn and someone other than Kislyak named Ushakov.

      Bob Foresman, the UBS investment bank executive who had previously tried to transmit to candidate Trump an invitation to speak at an economic forum in Russia, see Volume I, Section IV.A.l.d.ii, supra, may have provided similar information [suggesting that Yuri Ushakov, not Sergei Kislyak, would be the guy to contact on serious matters] to the Transition Team. According to Foresman, at the end of an early December 2016 meeting with incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and his designated deputy (K.T. McFarland) in New York, Flynn asked Foresman for his thoughts on Kislyak. Foresman had not met Kislyak but told Flynn that, while Kislyak was an important person, Kislyak did not have a direct line to Putin. 1132 Foresman subsequently traveled to Moscow, inquired of a source he believed to be close to Putin, and heard back from that source that Ushakov would be the official channel for the incoming U.S. national security advisor. 1133 Foresman acknowledged that Flynn had not asked him to undertake that inquiry in Russia but told the Office that he nonetheless felt obligated to report the information back to Flynn, and that he worked to get a face-to-face meeting with Flynn in January 2017 so that he could do so.1134 Email correspondence suggests that the meeting ultimately went forward, 1135 but Flynn has no recollection of it or of the earlier December meeting.1136 (The investigation did not identify evidence of Flynn or Kushner meeting with Ushakov after being given his name. 1137

      1. L4D says–excerpted from the article linked above:

        Since May 2012 he [Yuri Ushakov] has been Aide to the President of the Russian Federation [Vladimir Putin] responsible for international affairs in the Presidential Administration.

        Whoa! This Bob Foresman fellow knows his stuff. If Flynn wanted “a direct line to Putin,” then Ushakov was Flynn’s go-to guy, for sure. But Flynn says he can’t remember anything about it. That’s like saying you can’t remember anything about hitting the jackpot at Vegas. What’s going on? What’s going on?

        1. L4D says–More Manafort stuff from The Mueller Report (The index numbers are from FBI interview notes):

          Immediately upon joining the Campaign, Manafort directed Gates to prepare for his review separate memoranda addressed to Deripaska, Akhmetov, Serhiy Lyovochkin, and Boris Kolesnikov,879 the last three being Ukrainian oligarchs who were senior Opposition Bloc officials. 880 The memoranda described Manafort’ s appointment to the Trump Campaign and indicated his willingness to consult on Ukrainian politics in the future. On March 30, 2016, Gates emailed the memoranda and a press release announcing Manafort’ s appointment to Kilimnik for translation and dissemination.881 Manafort later followed up with Kilimnik to ensure his messages had been delivered, emailing on April 11, 2016 to ask whether Kilimnik had shown “our friends” the media coverage of his new role. 882 Kilimnik replied, “Absolutely. Every article.” Manafort further asked: “How do we use to get whole. Has Ovd [Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska] operation seen?” Kilimnik wrote back the same day, “Yes, I have been sending everything to Victor [Boyarkin, Deripaska’s deputy], who has been forwarding the coverage directly to OVD.”883

          [end excerpt]

          Victor Boyarkin is more than just Deripaska’s deputy. Boyarkin was listed in the election interference sanctions. Boyarkin is the guy who forwarded the infamous polling data from Kilimnik to Deripaska. What’s worse, Boyarkin has known ties to 9 out of the 12 GRU officers indicted for the 2016 Russian hacking operation. Boyarkin almost certainly forwarded the polling data to The GRU.

    2. You’re guilty of incivility to the host for calling him a “tool.”

      You’re wrong about him, but I doubt he will notice the stupid remark or care. So I don’t care much either. You had your say, now retire back to oblivion

      1. Kurtz, the host asked what we thought and I told him and why. I stand by every word. I’m under no illusions about the reach or importance of our comments, your’s included, and I also doubt he cares or will read what I wrote, but if he cares about reality and the country, that’s his loss.

  14. The Dems can’t impeach because they would then have to make their case in front of the Senate and Chief Justice with all the eyes of the world watching. I wish it would happen, but there’s zero chance that it will.

    The only plan the Dems have is more of the same, but now the tables are turned. Nadler can issue as many subpoenas as he wants, but what matters is that Mueller’s bogus never ending investigation is over and Barr is in charge. Indictments are coming.

    1. L4D asks–Indictments against whom? Have you heard of something called graymail? Ask Lt. Col. Oliver North for a primer on the subject. It’s not exactly the same thing as the discovery of classified information for exculpatory purposes. Although, while you’re at it, look up the acronyms CIPA and SCIF, too.

      1. Yes, I know graymail, North, and the acronyms…of course. I grew up in the 70’s so I have a healthy distaste of government.

        “Indictments against whom?”

        Knowingly submitting an illegal FISA warrant is a very serious crime as Rosenstein himself made clear during the hearings. Indictments for those involved in knowingly approving these false warrants are inbound. However, the scope of illegal behavior is far larger as we’ve all known for two years plus. It wasn’t just Carter Page who’s rights were violated. Papadopoulos was set up by Josef Mifsud, Stefan Halper, Azra Turk, Alexander Downer, and Charles Tawil. If either Mifsud or Tawil is Western intelligence, then we have clear entrapment. When it’s shown that Mifsud was working with us, then the doors will be blown wide open.

        The only people conspiring with the Russians was Hillary/DNC. It’s now known that close allies of Putin in the Kremlin were the source for the disinformation in the Steele dossier. Did Mueller show any interest in this? Mueller has much more to answer for.

        The scope of the scandal/crime here is huge and the rights of many others were violated, especially Trump. Ultimately, it’s clear that the illegal conduct to take down Trump and his allies was widespread. It extends to “allied” foreign nations- Richard Dearlove is a name you should familiarize yourself with. This illegal conduct actually extends further to Hillary’s gross violation of the espionage act which the Obama WH had full knowledge of dating back to at least 2012.

        When it comes to indicting/convicting high level intelligence officials there’s always the question of will they threaten to reveal deep dark secrets to protect themselves…the answer is of course they will. That never changes. The problem is that Barr and Trump are serious. They took a shot at the President and missed. Trump’s the kind of man to respond ten-fold.

        1. Ivan said, “Knowingly submitting an illegal FISA warrant is a very serious crime . . . ”

          L4D says–Knowingly investigating an investigation on the basis of “a tip” from Chuck Ross of The Daily Caller News Foundation is a very serious . . . farce.

          P. S. Your preferred coping mechanism (underestimating your enemy) is also a very serious farce.

        2. Ivan, you’ve bought the whole package obviously, but can you do me a favor? Give me a link for your claim that the former head of the British MI6 Russian desk was either taken in by Putin or was his willing accomplice in spreading false information intended to take down the candidate Putin otherwise worked to elect. I’m all ears.

          1. Don’t concern yourself with any of the endless details that make this such an enormous scandal. If you were genuinely interested and not going by “anon” then I would help you.

            It sounds like it was you who bought the package that Trump was a traitor engaged in a conspiracy with Putin.

            It was all so amateurish I still can’t believe people fell for it. Trump ordering golden showers in Moscow? That’s absurd.

              1. L4D says–Actually, it is possible that Steele told Deripaska that Steele was compiling the Trump-Russia dossier. If so, then it might have been Deripaska who snookered Steele. Deripaska’s deputy, Victor Boyarkin, has ties to The GRU, just like Kilimnik does. Of course, there were other ways that Russia could get disinformation into Steele’s informant network without Steele having told Deripaska anything about the dossier. Either way, it is probable that at least some of allegations in the dossier were Russian disinformation planted in Steele’s informant network.

  15. WSJ

    When Did the Spying Begin?

    U.S. Attorney General William Barr says he’s going to find the answer.

    Attorney General William Barr said his review of the origins of the Russia investigation is focused on U.S. intelligence gathering before the Federal Bureau of Investigation opened its formal inquiry in July 2016 and could lead to rule changes for counterintelligence investigations of political campaigns.

    Multiple former FBI officials have testified that the bureau opened the counterintelligence investigation in July 2016 into people affiliated with the Trump campaign after receiving information from the Australian government that a foreign-policy adviser to the campaign, George Papadopoulos, appeared to know about Russian plans to use “dirt” they had on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

    Two hours after the Journal report this morning, Bill Hemmer of Fox News played excerpts of his own Barr interview in which Mr. Hemmer pressed the attorney general on the question of when the spying began. Mr. Barr responded that he was “not going to speculate about when it started,” but insisted that “we are going to find out.” Mr. Barr added that some explanations he’s been given about the government’s conduct in the matter have been “inadequate” or don’t “hang together” with other explanations.

    It seems that Mr. Barr isn’t buying the origin story promoted by senior officials from the Obama administration. And there’s every reason to doubt it, as the Journal’s Kimberley A. Strassel has been chronicling for more than a year.

    Mr. Barr also noted during his Fox interview that special counsel Robert Mueller did not investigate the government’s role in spying on the Trump campaign, but focused instead on the question of whether the campaign had colluded with Russia. Mr. Mueller found no evidence that Team Trump had conspired or coordinated with the Kremlin.

    Americans hoping that the special counsel would also explain how the intelligence tools created to spy on foreign powers were directed against the domestic political opposition were disappointed. But Mr. Barr is on the case now, and Justice inquiries go beyond the FBI to also cover the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency.

    This suggests that the Trump investigation origin story advanced by leaders of the Obama FBI may not be the only official story due for a correction. America’s most famous spy agency currently maintains a web page with the headline: “Top 10 CIA Myths.” It reads in part:

    Myth 1: The CIA spies on US citizens
    The CIA’s mission is to collect information related to foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence. By direction of the president in Executive Order 12333 of 1981, and in accordance with procedures approved by the Attorney General, the CIA is restricted in the collection of intelligence information directed against US citizens. Collection is allowed only for an authorized intelligence purpose; for example, if there is a reason to believe that an individual is involved in espionage or international terrorist activities. The CIA’s procedures require senior approval for any such collection that is allowed, and, depending on the collection technique employed, the sanction of the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may be required. These restrictions have been in effect since the 1970s.

    The FBI has the lead on intelligence matters in the United States, especially those directed against US citizens. The CIA does not collect information concerning the domestic activities of US citizens, but its foreign intelligence collection mission can be conducted anywhere.

    The surveillance of domestic political opponents in 2016 may have involved multiple federal agencies, and only one person exercised management authority over all of them. Perhaps at some point someone in the media will decide to ask him about it.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-did-the-spying-begin-11558105067

      1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

        The National Security Division (NSD) was created in March 2006 by the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization and Improvement Act (Pub. L. No. 109-177). The creation of the NSD consolidated the Justice Department’s primary national security operations: the former Office of Intelligence Policy and Review and the Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence and Export Control Sections of the Criminal Division. The new Office of Law and Policy and the Executive Office, as well as the Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism (which previously operated out of the Criminal Division) complete the NSD. The NSD commenced operations in September 2006 upon the swearing in of the first Assistant Attorney General for National Security.

        The mission of the National Security Division is to carry out the Department’s highest priority: protect the United States from threats to our national security by pursuing justice through the law. The NSD’s organizational structure is designed to ensure greater coordination and unity of purpose between prosecutors and law enforcement agencies, on the one hand, and intelligence attorneys and the Intelligence Community, on the other, thus strengthening the effectiveness of the federal government’s national security efforts.

        [end excerpt]

        Guess who was Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation when The NSD was created? That’s right. He who will not be deterred, Robert Swan Mueller The Third. But, but, but . . . That was during The Bush Junior Presidency. Uh-huh. And Alberto Gonzales was still Attorney General then. Although he would soon be replaced by Michael Mukasey. In any case, the point remains that AG Whitewash Barr might not be quite up to snuff on “recent developments” in United States law since, say, The September Eleventh terrorist attacks, for instance.

        Did you know that The NSD is not only allowed, but statutorily required, to receive intelligence reports from The DNI, DHS, The NSA and, yes, even The CIA? It is all part of our Great National effort in The War on Terror. Now why would AG Whitewash Barr mess with that? D’oh! Why would Trump mess with that? Putin, sure. But Trump? What’s going on? What’s going on?

        Contributed by The L4D–Wake Up Little Suzie–Project

    1. CIA has done a lot of dirt. Their JOB is to do dirt– but on FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS NOT AMERICANS!

      Make them accountable for this!

  16. Flynn’s Call To Russian Ambassador..

    And The Call Trump’s Attorney Placed To Flynn

    A federal judge on Thursday ordered that prosecutors make public a transcript of a phone call that former national security adviser Michael Flynn tried hard to hide with a lie: his conversation with a Russian ambassador in late 2016.

    U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in Washington ordered the government also to provide a public transcript of a November 2017 voice mail involving Flynn. In that sensitive call, President Trump’s attorney left a message for Flynn’s attorney reminding him of the president’s fondness for Flynn at a time when Flynn was considering cooperating with federal investigators. . . . Sullivan also ordered that still-redacted portions of the Mueller report that relate to Flynn be given to the court and made public.

    The voice mail was from John Dowd, President Trump’s former personal lawyer who, according to The Post, “tried to learn whether Flynn had any problematic information about the president after Flynn’s attorney signaled his client might begin cooperating with Mueller’s investigators.”

    The kicker: “In one of the previously redacted filings released Thursday, prosecutors said Flynn described multiple episodes in which ‘he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the Administration or Congress that could have affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation.’ ”

    Edited from: “Why Michael Flynn Revelations Are So Important”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. Trump Leery Of Flynn Development

      Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 5h5 hours ago

      It now seems the General Flynn was under investigation long before was common knowledge. It would have been impossible for me to know this but, if that was the case, and with me being one of two people who would become president, why was I not told so that I could make a change?
      26,365 replies 16,619 retweets 60,159 likes
      …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

      Actually Barrack Obama warned Trump about Flynn at their post-election briefing.

      1. L4D says–It is inevitable, Mr. H, that Trump will eventually accuse Flynn of being an Obama-holdover Mole implanted in the Trump campaign. Are you following that? Flynn spied on Trump. That’s where Trump is headed. And, as I’m sure you know, that’s how dumb it gets.

        1. Come to think of it, if Trump ever decides to go “full retard,” (See: Tropic of Thunder), then Trump could accuse Carter Page and George Papadopoulos of having been FBI informant “Moles” implanted in the Trump campaign. Unfortunately, that gambit is not going to work for Paul Manafort and Rick Gates–least of all for Michael Cohen.

  17. THere is a great white shark cruising towards the east coast of the USA . But nothing to fear the rest of the shark world got together and decided to send this message to allay feeding ground fears.

    And they wonder why the favorable percentage of polls towards Congress never gets above 20% and usually hangs close to ten.

  18. Whatever will the co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America do as the noose tightens?
    ____________________________________________________________

    LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS: Joining me now with reaction former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova, House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan and former Deputy Independent Counsel, Robert Ray, it doesn’t get better than this tonight.

    Joe what does the impressive scope of this new probe initiated by Barr tell us tonight.

    JOE DIGENOVA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: James Comey, Brennan and Clapper have said to themselves which one of us is going to pay the Barr bill. The Barr bill is coming due. And Durham’s appointment means that the already occurred meetings between the Attorney General, the CIA Director and the Director of National Intelligence have now focused on a laser that the core of this conspiracy began with John Brennan and ends with John Brennan in London and D.C. and the Democratic National Committee.

    This is very serious business and for the first time, I now believe that some of these guys are going to go to prison.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________

    Has Obama lawyered up yet?

  19. We will ImPeach we’ll impeach!
    We will impeach all the way!
    From our first cigarette to our last daying day!

    You can call him the Trumpster and sneer at his tweets…
    You can listen to Nancy and hear the drum beats.
    There is nothing to prove here and nothing to say..
    The impeach Trump chorus has a fast dying day!

Leave a Reply