THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP

Post by thelivyjr »

THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

"READ: House Intelligence Committee releases Trump impeachment report"


by Zachary Halaschak

December 03, 2019 02:09 PM

Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, led by Chairman Adam Schiff, released their report on impeachment proceedings against President Trump on Tuesday.

The report outlines the case for impeaching the president, whom they accuse of withholding almost $400 million in military assistance to Ukraine in exchange for investigations into the 2016 presidential election and his 2020 rival Joe Biden.


A July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was the catalyst behind the whistleblower complaint that sparked the impeachment effort.

The report comes after a number of witnesses were called to testify before the committee, including Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, and special envoy Kurt Volker, among others.

Republicans released their own report on Monday that claimed the president did nothing wrong in withholding military aid.

They also argue that Trump did not attempt to obstruct House impeachment proceedings.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... ent-report
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP

Post by thelivyjr »

THE NEW YORK TIMES

"Republican Impeachment Defense Claims Trump’s Ukraine Pressure Was Apolitical"


Nicholas Fandos

3 DECEMBER 2019

WASHINGTON — House Republicans plan to argue that President Trump was acting on “genuine and reasonable” skepticism of Ukraine and “valid” concerns about possible corruption involving Americans, not political self-interest, when he pressed the country for investigations of his Democratic rivals, according to a draft of a report laying out their impeachment defense.

In a 123-page document that echoes the defiant messaging that Mr. Trump has employed in his own defense, the Republicans do not concede a single point of wrongdoing or hint of misbehavior by the president, according to a copy reviewed by The New York Times ahead of its planned release on Tuesday.

The report amounts to a pre-emptive attack by some of Mr. Trump’s most ardent supporters against Democrats’ arguments for impeachment.

The Democrats have finalized a written report of their own and are scheduled to vote on Tuesday to transmit it to the House Judiciary Committee, kick-starting the next phase of the impeachment inquiry in the House as it barrels toward a likely vote on articles of impeachment.

In the Republicans’ dissenting views, they argue that after two months of investigation, the evidence “does not support” that Mr. Trump withheld a coveted White House meeting for Ukraine’s president or nearly $400 million in security assistance for the country as leverage for securing the investigations.

The conclusion is at odds with sworn testimony from senior American diplomats, White House officials and other administration officials who recounted how Mr. Trump sought to use American influence over Ukraine to suit his domestic political purposes, repeatedly insisting that President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine announce investigations into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and an unproven claim that Ukraine conspired with Democrats to interfere in the 2016 election.

Rather than take those assertions at face value, the Republicans charge that they came from civil servants who dislike Mr. Trump’s agenda and style and are therefore allowing themselves to be part of a push by Democrats to undo the results of the 2016 election and thwart Mr. Trump’s re-election chances in 2020.

“The Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct; it is an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system,” the Republicans wrote.

“The Democrats are trying to impeach a duly elected president based on the accusations and assumptions of unelected bureaucrats who disagreed with President Trump’s policy initiatives and processes.”


The argument mirrored one made at the White House on Monday by Kellyanne Conway, Mr. Trump’s counselor, who sought to portray Democrats’ case as flimsy.

“One out of 12 people had ever talked to the president of the United States and met him or discussed Ukraine with him — that is just mind-boggling to me,” Ms. Conway said, referring to the number of current and former government officials who testified publicly in the inquiry.

“And we are supposed to impeach the president for high crimes and misdemeanors for that reason?”

Ms. Conway also dared the chairman of the Intelligence Committee who has been leading the inquiry, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, to testify publicly during the Judiciary Committee’s proceedings about his handling of the case.

If he did, she promised to “show up on behalf of the White House,” which on Sunday declined to participate in a hearing scheduled for Wednesday.

Hours later, the Judiciary Committee unveiled the panel of constitutional scholars its members would question in that hearing to help inform its debate over whether Mr. Trump’s conduct was impeachable.

The witnesses are Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School, Pamela S. Karlan of Stanford Law School, Michael J. Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina Law School and Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School.

Mr. Turley was invited by Republicans on the panel.

Democrats are expected to argue the virtual opposite of the Republican report.

They will conclude, based on witness testimony and documentary evidence, that working with allies inside and outside his administration, Mr. Trump used the power of his office to pressure Ukraine to do his bidding in order to gain an advantage in the 2020 race.


Democrats’ case centers on a July phone call in which Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Zelensky to investigate Mr. Biden and the claim that Ukraine worked with Democrats to subvert the 2016 election.

It is also likely to charge that Mr. Trump conditioned the White House meeting and military assistance money on a public commitment to the investigations.

The minority report was compiled by committee staff for the top three Republicans on the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform Committees.

It essentially formalizes a range of defenses Republicans road-tested during two weeks of public impeachment hearings in the Intelligence Committee last month.

For members of the Judiciary Committee and the larger Republican conference in the House, it provides several alternative tacks for defending Mr. Trump or at least arguing against impeachment.

If the Democrats’ case hinges on linking actions by Mr. Trump and his agents to a unified pressure campaign, the Republican defense is staked on pulling those pieces apart and offering an alternate explanation for each.

Many of the actions in question, Republicans argue, stem from Mr. Trump’s “longstanding, deep-seated skepticism of Ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption.”

“Understood in this proper context, the president’s initial hesitation to meet with President Zelensky or to provide U.S. taxpayer-funded security assistance to Ukraine without thoughtful review is entirely prudent,” the Republicans wrote.


Likewise, they argued, there was “nothing wrong with asking serious questions” about Mr. Biden and his younger son, Hunter Biden, who served on the board of a Ukrainian energy firm when his father was vice president, or about “Ukraine’s attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election.”

Though some officials who testified before the inquiry said that Hunter Biden’s role had prompted concerns about the appearance of a conflict of interest, no evidence had emerged to support any accusations of wrongdoing.

And Mr. Trump’s own former national security advisers testified that the concerns he raised to Mr. Zelensky about 2016 were conspiracies promulgated by Russia to absolve its own interference campaign in 2016 and harm American democracy.

They said the president had repeatedly been told as much.

Republicans also argued there was “nothing inherently improper” with Mr. Trump empowering Rudolph W. Giuliani, his private lawyer who led the push for investigations, to help steer Ukraine matters, despite testimony that there was widespread alarm at Mr. Giuliani’s involvement.

Fiona Hill, the former top Europe and Russia adviser at the White House, testified that her boss, John R. Bolton, had called Mr. Giuliani a “hand grenade.”

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are also investigating whether Mr. Giuliani’s Ukraine work broke the law.

The report spends relatively little time on the smear campaign by Mr. Giuliani and other Trump allies targeting Marie L. Yovanovitch, the former American ambassador to Kyiv, or Mr. Trump’s directive to remove her from her post months ahead of schedule.

Ms. Yovanovitch’s removal is a key plank of Democrats’ case that Mr. Trump shunted aside the proper foreign policy apparatus to secure what he wanted from Ukraine, politically beneficial investigations.

Republicans do not suggest that Ms. Yovanovitch was treated fairly, but they play down her removal, arguing that it had no meaningful effect on her and writing that it was “not per se evidence of wrongdoing for the president’s political benefit.”

The report also repeats familiar Republican grievances about the denial of “fundamental fairness” in the investigative process put forward by Democrats.

Mr. Trump’s decision to discourage participation in the inquiry, they wrote, was “a legitimate response to an unfair, abusive, and partisan process, and does not constitute obstruction of a legitimate impeachment inquiry.”

Democrats do not see it that way, and have prepared a catalog of all of the ways that Mr. Trump has obstructed their inquiry that could form the basis for its own article of impeachment in the Judiciary Committee.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 1, 2019

Opinion: On NOAA, Contrived Science and the IPCC

Special Opinion by Paul Plante.

For those unfamiliar with the term “IPCC,” it stands for the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” which is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations supposedly dedicated to providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change, its natural, political and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options, and I use the word supposedly on purpose, because the horse**** coming into Our House of Representatives on September 18, 2019 in the form of the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018 is anything but an objective, scientific view of climate change, because first of all, the IPCC itself is not objective; it has a definite agenda, and more to the point, the IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself, rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources, so in a word, it does not know what the **** it is talking about, and that is a fact.

As to the underlying agenda, we can see it at least strongly hinted at, if not clearly stated in the following from the REMARKS BY THE MINISTER OF WATER AND CLIMATE HONOURABLE OPPAH. C.Z. MUCHINGURI-KASHIRI (MP) AT COP 23, to wit:

The Zimbabwe Government views climate change as a serious issue and a matter that needs urgent attention.

end quotes

At the same time, we have this concerning Zimbabwe from the Reuters article “Zimbabwe fires 211 striking doctors as economy worsens” on November 8, 2019, as follows:

HARARE (Reuters) – Zimbabwe on Friday fired more than 200 public sector doctors who have been on strike for more than two months demanding better pay to protect them from soaring inflation.

Other public workers say they cannot go to work because they have no money.

Police on Wednesday blocked a handful of public sector workers from marching to government offices with a petition demanding better pay.

Junior and middle level doctors from state hospitals have been on strike since Sept. 3.

They want their pay indexed to the U.S. dollar to stop their earnings being eroded by triple-digit inflation.

Patients are being turned away from hospitals because there are no doctors to treat them.

The board plans to call in 516 of the government’s 1,601 doctors for disciplinary hearings.

Tawanda Zvakada, spokesman for Zimbabwe Hospital Doctors Association, said he could not immediately comment.

The government said last month it had doubled doctors’ salaries.

They said that was inadequate, as it would only increase their monthly salary to about 2,000 Zimbabwe dollars ($130).

Zimbabweans are bearing the brunt of the worst economic crisis in a decade, with shortages of foreign currency, fuel, power and medicines.

The crisis has been worsened by a drought that has left more than half of the population in need of food aid and forced the government to scramble for scarce dollars to import grain.

Mnangagwa has asked for patience while his government tries to fix the economy.

But hope has dimmed that he can end years of economic troubles that were a hallmark of the rule of the late Robert Mugabe, who was ousted in an army coup two years ago.

end quotes

So, they need money and lots of it, and as a result, we now have a contrived climate crisis to shake that money loose, as we see by going back to those remarks by the MINISTER OF WATER AND CLIMATE HONOURABLE OPPAH. C.Z. MUCHINGURI-KASHIRI of Zimbabwe, as follows:

My country has ratified the Paris Agreement and now a Party to this crucial treaty.

We view the Paris Agreement as a stepping stone towards tangible action in addressing the climate change challenge facing the world today.

end quotes

Except as we are going to see from the real science, there is not a “climate change challenge” facing the world today, which takes us back to his remarks as follows:

We need to move with speed to finalise the development of the rulebook for implementation of this Agreement.

Access to climate finance remains a challenge to Zimbabwe and most of the developing world as the Green Climate Fund which is the main funding mechanism of the UNFCCC, remains slow in processing applications and the disbursement of resources.

Our GCF Readiness Proposal was approved more than a year ago, but up to date, GCF has not released the funds.

We need to see a change in the way these funds are handled and simplification of the GCF projects approval and funds disbursement processes.

end quotes

Yes, it is all about getting access to the money, people, and that money is supposed to flow from us to them, which is a great deal for Zimbabwe, and a real lousy deal for us.

Getting back to the IPCC, it was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and was later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly with membership open to all members of the WMO and UN.

With respect to the IPCC having an agenda, it produces reports that contribute to the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main international treaty on climate change, which is about “social justice and equity” as core aspects of climate-resilient development pathways for transformational social change per Chapter 5 of the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, the SR 1.5, which was released on October 8, 2018.

Now, contrast that with this statement from the propaganda concerning the IPCC:

The objective of the UNFCCC is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system”.

end quotes

Except the term “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” is more bull****, as we can see by examining the real science, not this bogus “science” contrived by this IPCC crowd, which is the purpose of this essay.

With respect to that contrived science, which is based on thin air, we have as follows this hysteria-mongering from AP NEWS entitled “‘We’re all in big trouble’: Climate panel sees a dire future” by the hysteria mongerer Seth Borenstein on September 25, 2019, as follows:

NEW YORK (AP) — Earth is in more hot water than ever before, and so are we, an expert United Nations climate panel warned in a grim new report Wednesday.

Sea levels are rising at an ever-faster rate as ice and snow shrink, and oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a report issued as world leaders met at the United Nations.

It warned that if steps aren’t taken to reduce emissions and slow global warming, seas will rise 3 feet by the end of the century, with many fewer fish, less snow and ice, stronger and wetter hurricanes and other, nastier weather systems.

“The oceans and the icy parts of the world are in big trouble, and that means we’re all in big trouble, too,” said one of the report’s lead authors, Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.

“The changes are accelerating.”

The dire effects will be felt on both land and sea, harming people, plants, animals, food, societies, infrastructure and the global economy.

“The world’s oceans and cryosphere have been taking the heat for climate change for decades.”

“The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” said Ko Barrett, vice chair of the IPCC and a deputy assistant administrator for research at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

end quotes

Except that is not true, as we clearly see by consulting the real science this IPCC crowd is attempting to bury under a huge mountain of bull**** from the IPCC, to wit:

From CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD, Second Edition by H.H. Lamb:

COOLING IN THE ARCTIC

The cooling of the Arctic since 1950–60 has been most marked in the very same regions which experienced the strongest warming in the earlier decades of the present century, namely the central Arctic and northernmost parts of the two great continents remote from the world’s oceans but also in the Norwegian—East Greenland Sea.

In some places, e.g. the Franz Josef Land archipelago near 80°N 50–60°E, the long-term average temperature fell by 3–4°C and the ten-year average winter temperatures became 6–10°C colder in the 1960s as compared with the preceding decades.

It is clear from Icelandic oceanographic surveys that changes in the ocean currents have been involved.

Indeed a greatly (in the extreme case, ten times) increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current, bringing polar water southwards, has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts of Iceland than for fifty years (fig. 97): in April–May 1968 and 1969 the island was half surrounded by the ice, as had not occurred since 1888.

Such ice years have always been dreaded in Iceland’s history because of the depression of summer temperatures and the effects on farm production.

In the 1950s the mean temperature of the summer half year in Iceland had been 7.7°C and the average hay yields were 4.3 tonnes/hectare (with the use of 2.8 kg of nitrogen fertilizer); in the late 1960s with mean temperature 6.8°C the average hay yield was only 3.0 tonnes/hectare (despite the use of 4.8 kg of fertilizer).

The temperature level was dangerously close to the point at which the grass virtually ceases to grow.

The country’s crop of potatoes was similarly reduced.

The 1960s also saw the abandonment of attempts at grain growing in Iceland which had been resumed in the warmer decades of this century after a lapse of some hundreds of years.

At the same time the changes in the ocean have produced changes in the spawning grounds and seasonal range of migration of fish stocks — a not much publicized aspect of the international wrangles and ‘cod wars’ of recent times.

With the fall by over 1°C in the mean sea surface temperatures off west Greenland from the peak years in the 1920s and 1950s, the cod fishery there declined by the early 1970s to a tiny fraction of what it had been in those times.

The Greenland cod migrated to Iceland waters, and for a few years (1967–71) offset the declining stocks there; but since 1974 the spawning stocks in Iceland waters have been only a tenth of what they were in the late 1950s and the total stocks have fallen by almost a half, the decline being probably attributable to combined effects of the change in water climate and over-fishing.

Similarly, herring stocks have moved from Iceland waters to the wider reaches of the Norwegian Sea farther east, south and north and to the North Sea, while a southward shift of the southern limit of cod seems to have led to increased catches in the North Sea since about 1963.

An interruption of the colder regime introduced by the 1960s affected Europe and Iceland, part of east Asia and the eastern United States in the early-mid 1970s and was perhaps too hurriedly hailed as a reversal of the trend.

Most of Europe and parts of the other regions named experienced between 1971 and 1977 four to seven mild winters in a row, largely thanks to repetitive occurrences of anticyclones in positions which gave them southerly or southwesterly winds.

One or two of these winters produced extreme phenomena such as the roses still blooming in the parks in Copenhagen in late January.

But much of the remaining areas of the northern hemisphere, in Asia and Africa and including the polar region and the two great oceans as well as eastern Canada, had a straight run of colder than usual winters in the same years.

As the pattern depended so largely on the positions of stationary (‘blocking’) features in the wind circulation in middle latitudes, no great surprise should have been caused when conditions were reversed again in many of these regions in the immediately following years later in the decade.

By the end of the decade in Iceland, as in other regions of the Arctic fringe, it had to be concluded that the colder regime which set in in the 1960s seems to be continuing; and after notably cold years in 1979 and 1980 the widely debated expectation of global warming setting in as a result of the impact of the man-made increase of carbon dioxide on the world climate is being called in question in these countries.

end quotes

That, people, is the real science that is being buried by the contrived science of this IPCC crowd, with aid and assistance from the NOAA in this country.

This essay asks the essential existential question as to why that is – why is this IPCC crowd lying to us, and why is the United States House of Representatives foisting those lies on us as if they were the truth?


http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... -the-ipcc/
NANCY PELOSI IS SPEWING PURE BULL**** HERE, PEOPLE …

THE PARIS AGREEMENT IS ABOUT MOVING MONEY FROM THE U.S. TO POOR COUNTRIES LIKE ZIMBABWE OR CHILE …

THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE TO BE IN THE PARIS AGREEMENT TO REDUCE ITS EMISSIONS …

THAT IS JUST A SMOKESCREEN …

IF NANCY ACTUALLY CARED ABOUT REDUCING CARBON DIOXIDE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES AS OPPOSED TO ENDLESSLY PLAYING STUPID LITTLE GAMES TO CONSTANTLY MOCK AND BELITTLE TRUMP, AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SHE HAS HAD PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITIES TO DO SO …

BUT INSTEAD, SHE HAS DONE NOTHING …

SO THIS TRIP IS NOTHING BUT A SHOW …

AND HOW MUCH CARBON DIOXIDE DID NANCY AND HER DEMOCRATS CAUSE TO BE ADMITTED TO THE ATMOSPHERE BY FLYING THERE?

QUITE A BIT IS THAT ANSWER ...

THE HILL

"Pelosi: Congress has 'iron-clad' commitment to climate crisis"


Miranda Green

2 DECEMBER 2019

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised world leaders Monday that Democrats in Congress have an "iron-clad" commitment to addressing climate change despite the Trump's administration rollback of multiple environmental efforts.

Speaking at a United Nations conference in Madrid, Pelosi promised that the U.S. would continue to push for the goals set by the Paris climate agreement despite President Trump removing the country from the international pact.

"Congress's commitment to take action on the climate crisis is iron-clad," she said.

"By coming here we want to say to everyone, 'We're still in.'"

"'The United States is still in.'"

Flanked by 14 Democratic senators and representatives, Pelosi's attendance at this year's United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is meant to position congressional Democrats as counter figures to the White House, whose talking points have frequently derided the Paris climate accord, a capstone of the countries involved in this week's international meeting.


"It's our moral responsibility, if you believe as do I that this planet is God's creation and we must be stewards of it."

"But if you don't share that belief, we all agree we have a moral responsibility to our children to pass on this planet to our children in a very responsible way," Pelosi said.

Pelosi journeyed to the event as part of a bicameral delegation with members of Congress who have been key figures in the party's climate action push, including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.).

The House in May passed a bill introduced by Castor that would force the U.S. to rejoin the Paris climate agreement and recommence steps to meet its emissions goals.


The Senate has not taken up the bill for a vote.

Delegates from nearly 200 countries are attending the event in Madrid this week to hammer out details from the 2015 Paris climate accord.

Trump is not scheduled to attend and sent no senior members in his wake.

Earlier this month, Trump took official measures to formally withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.

The withdrawal would make the U.S. the only country to not be part of the accord.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP

Post by thelivyjr »

MARKETWATCH

"Democrats say they’re ready to press on with impeachment process"


By Associated Press

Published: Dec 4, 2019 6:03 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had a simple question for fellow Democrats behind closed doors Wednesday, addressing them as the Judiciary Committee considered articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump in an initial hearing that erupted in sharply partisan exchanges.

“Are you ready?” she asked rank-and-file lawmakers.

The answer was a resounding yes.

The Democrats also gave a standing ovation to Rep. Adam Schiff, whose Intelligence Committee report cataloged potential grounds for impeachment, overwhelmingly indicating they want to continue to press the inquiry rather than slow its advance or call a halt for fear of political costs in next year’s congressional elections.


The meeting was described by people familiar with it, who were unauthorized to discuss it by name and were granted anonymity.

Pelosi, once reluctant to engage in a strictly party-line impeachment proceeding, is now leading colleagues to a likely partisan vote after a House investigation found that Trump seriously misused the power of his office to seek foreign interference in the U.S. election and then obstructed Congress in its efforts to investigate.

Support for the impeachment effort was vigorous in the Democrats’ private meeting, though voting to remove Trump could come hard for some lawmakers in regions where the president has substantial backing.

Meanwhile, Trump’s team fanned out across the Capitol with Vice President Mike Pence meeting with House Republicans and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell gathering GOP lawmakers from his chamber with White House officials to prepare for what could be the first presidential impeachment trial in a generation.

Some of those from the White House still believe the unpopularity of impeachment in areas where Trump is popular will prevent a vote in the House.

That seems unlikely.

Elsewhere at the Capitol, Republicans at the Judiciary Committee hearing protested the proceedings as unfair, the dredging up of unfounded allegations as part of an effort to undo the 2016 election and remove Trump from office.

“You just don’t like the guy,” said Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the panel.

He called the proceedings a “disgrace’’ and a “sham.”

Trump, attending a NATO meeting in London called the hearing a “joke” and doubted many people would watch “because it’s going to be boring.”

Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., had a different view as he gaveled open the session.

The matter is serious and “the facts before us are undisputed,” he declared.

Pelosi has said no decision has been made on whether there will be a House vote on impeaching Trump.

But a vote by Christmas appears increasingly likely with the release of the 300-page report by Democrats on the Intelligence Committee that found “serious misconduct” by the president.

At the heart of the inquiry is Trump’s July 25 phone call asking Ukraine for a “favor,” to investigate rival Democrats including Joe Biden.

Trump at the time was withholding $400 million in military aid from the ally, which faced an aggressive Russia on its border.

Nadler said the phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy wasn’t the first time Trump sought a foreign power to influence American elections, noting Russian interference in 2016.

“We cannot wait for the election to address the present crisis,” Nadler said.

“The president has shown us his pattern of conduct."

"If we do not act to hold him in check, now, President Trump will almost certainly try again to solicit interference in the election for his personal political gain.”


White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, who has declined for now to participate in the House proceedings, relayed that Trump sees no need for a Senate trial but is eager to have his say.

Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said, “He feels like he has had no opportunity to tell his side of the story.”

Trump lambastes the impeachment probe daily and proclaims his innocence of any wrongdoing at length, but he has declined to testify before House hearings.

At Wednesday’s session, three legal experts called by Democrats said impeachment was merited.

Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law School professor, said he considered it clear that the president’s conduct met the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Pamela Karlan, a Stanford Law School professor and former Obama administration Justice Department official, said the president’s action constituted an especially serious abuse of power “because it undermines democracy itself.”

“If what we’re talking about is not impeachable,” said Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor, “then nothing is impeachable.”


The only Republican witness, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, dissented.

He said the Democrats were bringing a “slipshod impeachment” case against the president, but he didn’t excuse Trump’s behavior.

“It is not wrong because President Trump is right,” Turley said.

“A case for impeachment could be made, but it cannot be made on this record.”

New telephone records released with the House committee report deepened Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s known involvement in what House investigators call the “scheme.”

Asked about that, Trump told reporters he doesn’t know why Giuliani was calling the White House Office of Management and Budget, which was withholding $400 million in military aid to Ukraine.

“’You have to ask him,” Trump said.

“Sounds like something that’s not so complicated."

"... No big deal.”

Based on two months of investigation sparked by a still-anonymous government whistleblower’s complaint, the Intelligence Committee’s Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report relies heavily on testimony from current and former U.S. officials who defied White House orders and appeared.

Trump “sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security,” the committee report says.


When Congress began investigating, it adds, Trump obstructed the investigation like no other president in history.

Republicans defended the president in a 123-page rebuttal claiming Trump never intended to pressure Ukraine when he asked for a “favor” — investigations of Democrats and Biden and his son.

They say the military aid the White House was withholding was not being used as leverage, as Democrats claim — and besides, the money was ultimately released, although only after a congressional outcry.

Democrats once hoped to sway Republicans to consider Trump’s removal, but they are now facing an ever-hardening partisan split over the swift-moving proceedings that are dividing Congress and the country.

While liberal Democrats are pushing the party to go further and incorporate the findings from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and other actions by Trump, more centrist and moderate Democrats prefer to stick with the Ukraine matter as a simpler narrative that Americans understand.


Democrats could begin drafting articles of impeachment in a matter of days, with a Judiciary Committee vote next week.

The full House could vote by Christmas.

Then the matter would move to the Senate for a trial in 2020.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/democ ... latestnews
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP

Post by thelivyjr »

MARKETWATCH

"White House tells Nadler it won't participate in impeachment hearing"


By Robert Schroeder

Published: Dec 6, 2019 4:43 p.m. ET

The White House on Friday slammed House Democrats' impeachment inquiry anew and made clear it won't participate in a Judiciary Committee hearing on Monday.

"House Democrats have wasted enough of America's time with this charade," White House counsel Pat Cipollone told Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler in a two-paragraph letter.

Cipollone called the inquiry "completely baseless," a day after President Donald Trump urged Democrats to speed up their process so the country can get "back to business."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/white ... latestnews
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP

Post by thelivyjr »

THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

"Report will clear FBI of misdeeds in Russia investigation"


By Del Quentin Wilber, Los Angeles Times

7 DECEMBER 2019

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s internal watchdog has determined that political bias did not influence the federal investigation of potential links between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016, according to people familiar with the matter, countering White House claims of deliberate partisan influence.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who will release his long-anticipated report Monday, also found that the FBI had enough evidence to justify obtaining a foreign intelligence warrant in 2016 to conduct secret surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser who had multiple contacts with Russian officials, the people said.

The report’s findings are expected to effectively reject or dismiss the most explosive allegations from President Donald Trump and his allies — that FBI officials and agents broke rules and laws in their pursuit of evidence, and deliberately sought to derail Trump’s candidacy.

But the report also will provide grist for other criticism, and thus may create new partisan friction even as Trump battles an impeachment inquiry in the House.

Horowitz uncovered cases of FBI agents and lawyers acting in careless and unprofessional ways, according to the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the report’s conclusions.

Trump and Republicans are eagerly awaiting the report, with the president saying he expected it to be “historic.”

“Now, what you’re going to see, I predict, will be perhaps the biggest scandal in the history of our country,” the president told Fox News last month.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a public hearing Wednesday into Horowitz’s findings.

The report will be released as the House Judiciary Committee holds its second impeachment hearing into whether Trump abused his power when he pressured Ukraine to announce investigations of his political foes.

Lawyers for the House Intelligence Committee will present findings of that panel’s investigation.

After two months of depositions and hearings, Democrats on the Intelligence Committee concluded that Trump improperly “solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection.”

In a minority report, Republicans argued the process was unfair and that it showed no evidence of impeachable offenses.

The dispute echoes, in some ways, the earlier investigations into the Trump campaign and Russia’s role in the 2016 election.

A special counsel investigation found that Trump’s aides welcomed Russian offers of help during that race, but did not coordinate with them.

Horowitz is not investigating Trump’s efforts regarding Ukraine.

Instead, Horowitz looked into the FBI’s handling of secret warrants obtained in 2016 to help determine if Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser, was working for Russian spy services.

Trump’s allies have alleged that the Justice Department failed to adequately disclose to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its application for a warrant on Page relied, in part, on unverified information from Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who compiled a dossier on Trump in 2016 that was ultimately funded by Democrats.

The inspector general also looked at whether the FBI allowed political bias to shape counterintelligence probes involving potential connections between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

Peter Strozk, the FBI agent who oversaw the initial investigation, exchanged private text messages with an FBI lawyer that were disparaging of Trump.

Strozk later served as the lead agent on the investigation led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, a former FBI director.

Strozk was removed from Mueller’s team in 2017 after the text messages were discovered.

He was eventually fired.

Strozk also oversaw the FBI’s much-maligned probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of State.

Horowitz examined the handling of the email investigation and found no evidence it had been influenced by political bias.

The inspector general, however, chastised Strozk and the FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, writing that their text exchanges helped create “the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.”

The FBI first obtained warrants from the FISA court in October 2016 to conduct surveillance on Page, an oil industry consultant.

It renewed those warrants three more times, the last time in June 2017.

The first warrant was obtained a few weeks after Page disclosed he had left his job as an unpaid foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign amid controversy over his contacts with Russian officials.

Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway told CNN that September that Page was “not part of the campaign I’m running.”

Page has not been charged with any crimes.

In an email to the Los Angeles Times, he wrote that the report was “an important first step in the process."

"It’s by no means the final word.”

Page has asked Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to permit him to testify at the hearing Wednesday, calling the FISA warrant process a “debacle.”

Horowitz is not the only Justice Department official reexamining investigations into the 2016 campaign.

Attorney General William Barr tapped a U.S. attorney, John Durham, to conduct a parallel investigation into the Russia probes.

It is not known when Durham will publish his results or whether it will result in criminal charges.

Horowitz has referred at least one person to Durham for a potential criminal investigation.

That referral involves a junior FBI lawyer who doctored an email that was part of the FISA warrant process.


Former federal prosecutors and FBI agents said they don’t expect Horowitz’s report to change the dynamics or close the partisan divide in Washington.

Many Trump supporters “don’t deal in reality or in facts,” said Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor.

“They deal in conspiracy."

"So this report will just be further evidence of a deep-state conspiracy.”

Frank Montoya, a former FBI agent who specialized in counterintelligence, said he expects Horowitz to recommend changes to the way FISA warrants are obtained.

In a statement, Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said Horowitz had done “excellent work.”

“Rather than speculating,” Kupec said, “people should just read the report for themselves next week, watch the Inspector General’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and draw their own conclusions about these important matters.”

———

(Los Angeles Times staff writer Christopher Megerian contributed to this report.)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 8, 2019

Opinion: Pelosi announces formal surrender of US to IPCC


Opinion by Paul Plante

Yes, people, that is the gist as I understand it of a breaking news story in The Hill that announced that Speaker of the House and Democrat faction leader and San Francisco, California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and a whole passel of Democrats created a huge cloud of noxious and toxic carbon pollution flying over to Madrid, whether first-class, as befits her station, or military aircraft at present is unknown, so she and her entourage, which included a pet senator or two, could surrender the United States of America to governance by the IPCC, by by-passing Trump and bringing the United States of America back into that FARCE called the PARIS AGREEMEMNT, which Trump got us out of, precisely because it is a FARCE.

In the article in The Hill entitled “Pelosi: Congress has ‘iron-clad’ commitment to climate crisis” by Miranda Green on 2 December 2019, we and the candid world that watches were informed thusly concerning Leader Pelosi’s surprise trip to Madrid to surrender the United States of America to the IPCC, to wit:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised world leaders Monday that Democrats in Congress have an “iron-clad” commitment to addressing climate change despite the Trump’s administration rollback of multiple environmental efforts.

end quotes

Now, seriously, people – is there anyone out there who will be bold enough to step up to the plate in defense of Nancy Pelosi and explain to us how that is not just mindless drivel?

Does anyone have a clue as to what Nancy is on about when she says, “Democrats in Congress have an ‘iron-clad’ commitment to addressing climate change despite the Trump’s administration rollback of multiple environmental efforts,” given that the earth’s climate for the last several thousand years or more has never been constant nor stable, and instead has always been changing, sometimes quite rapidly?

Is she saying that the Democrats will finally yank their heads out of their collective ***** to study the basic high school science they so obviously missed if they don’t know that the earth’s climatic zones are constantly shifting?

Getting back to that breaking news:

Speaking at a United Nations conference in Madrid, Pelosi promised that the U.S. would continue to push for the goals set by the Paris climate agreement despite President Trump removing the country from the international pact.

end quotes

Except the Paris Agreement goals are pure horse****, as we can clearly see from p.10 of “Ecomodernism: Technology, Politics and The Climate Crisis” by Jonathan Symons, who is an Australian, by the way, not a Trump Republican, copyright 2019, to wit:

Social psychology also tells us that people are generally much more likely to acknowledge the existence of a threat if they believe others have caused it.

Consider the 2015 Paris Agreement’s aspirational target of limiting warming 1.5°C.

This goal was always a fantasy whose adoption suggests a collective desire to avoid difficult truths.

Even if all emissions ceased today, warming might eventually exceed 1.5°C (Hansen et al. 2008).

The more ambitious 2°C now also looks practically unfeasible.

Full implementation of the Paris Agreement pledges would bridge only about twenty-two percent of the gap between our current emissions trajectory and a pathway consistent with limiting this century’s warming to 2°C (UNFCCC 2015b, p. 44).

At the time of writing, no major developed economy is on track to meet even these feeble pledges Victor et al. 2017).

end quotes

And that is mirrored in the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius October 8th 2018 which was delivered to the Democrats in our Congress by little Greta Thunberg of Sweden in September of this year at their invitation in Chapter 4, to wit:

Limiting warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels would require transformative systemic change, integrated with sustainable development.

Such change would require the upscaling and acceleration of the implementation of far-reaching, multilevel and cross-sectoral climate mitigation and addressing barriers.

Such systemic change would need to be linked to complementary adaptation actions, including transformational adaptation, especially for pathways that temporarily overshoot 1.5°C (medium evidence, high agreement) {Chapter 2, Chapter 3, 4.2.1, 4.4.5, 4.5}.

Current national pledges on mitigation and adaptation are not enough to stay below the Paris Agreement temperature limits and achieve its adaptation goals.

While transitions in energy efficiency, carbon intensity of fuels, electrification and land-use change are underway in various countries, limiting warming to 1.5°C will require a greater scale and pace of change to transform energy, land, urban and industrial systems globally. {4.3, 4.4, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in this Chapter}

Although multiple communities around the world are demonstrating the possibility of implementation consistent with 1.5°C pathways {Boxes 4.1-4.10}, very few countries, regions, cities, communities or businesses can currently make such a claim (high confidence).

To strengthen the global response, almost all countries would need to significantly raise their level of ambition.

In developing countries and for poor and vulnerable people, implementing the response would require financial, technological and other forms of support to build capacity, for which additional local, national and international resources would need to be mobilized (high confidence).

end quotes

So why would We, the American people with our own Constitution and laws and form of national government wish to jettison our Constitution and laws and form of national government to submit ourselves to governance by this foreign IPCC?

And since this is all common knowledge that the so-called Paris Agreement is a SHAM, why is Nancy Pelosi so hot to sell us out as an independent nation to this IPCC, which itself is a world government scheme?

Getting back to The Hill:

“Congress’s commitment to take action on the climate crisis is iron-clad,” she said.

“By coming here we want to say to everyone, ‘We’re still in.'”

“‘The United States is still in.'”

end quotes

And no, Nancy, there is where you are dead wrong, and you obviously do not read the Cape Charles Mirror, because We, the American people want nothing to do with that SCAM known as the Paris Agreement, from which we gain no benefits whatsoever as a people and as a nation!

Getting back to The Hill once again:

Flanked by 14 Democratic senators and representatives, Pelosi’s attendance at this year’s United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is meant to position congressional Democrats as counter figures to the White House, whose talking points have frequently derided the Paris climate accord, a capstone of the countries involved in this week’s international meeting.

end quotes

And yes, Nancy, we know – it is all about the childish, silly tit-for-tat infantile political games you Democrats are playing as you try to get even with Trump for being president instead of Hillary Clinton, and then for having the gall and temerity to investigate prominent Democrats for alleged corrupt acts.

And PHOTO OPS, which Nancy is a master of, as one can see by looking at the photo at the top of the story with Nancy and her entourage in front of the UN backdrop with Nancy looking quite regal and imperious people up this way are saying, a woman of great power in the world who knows she is in charge, not Trump, and who has no qualms about using that power, either, which takes us back to the narrative of Nancy in Madrid, to wit:

“It’s our moral responsibility, if you believe as do I that this planet is God’s creation and we must be stewards of it.”

“But if you don’t share that belief, we all agree we have a moral responsibility to our children to pass on this planet to our children in a very responsible way,” Pelosi said.

end quotes

Speaking as a grandfather, Nancy, I would say that it is our moral responsibility to not lie to children and fill their heads full of “CLIMATE CRISIS” bull**** to make them scared, when you and all the rest of the Democrats are in possession of no evidence whatsoever that there is a “climate crisis,” which is an invented term.

That is what our true moral responsibility is – to not teach our children FALSEHOODS implying that the Democrats in Congress actually have such control over nature as its “stewards” that they can literally make the earth stand still and have it be like sunny Burbank for everybody in the world, except the Russians, 24/7/365.

And finishing out that news:

Pelosi journeyed to the event as part of a bicameral delegation with members of Congress who have been key figures in the party’s climate action push, including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.).

The House in May passed a bill introduced by Castor that would force the U.S. to rejoin the Paris climate agreement and recommence steps to meet its emissions goals.

end quotes

Except there is no linkage between the two!

The United States of America does not need the Paris Agreement for it to reduce CO2 emissions.

The United States is a sovereign nation!

If its CO2 emissions need to be reduced, then it is totally within our power as a people and as a nation to reduce them.

So what then is Nancy Pelosi really doing in Madrid, beyond playing at childish partisan politics while making empty promises to the youth of America, exploiting them for partisan political gain in the 2020 presidential election?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... s-to-ipcc/
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 8, 2019 at 1:49 pm

Paul Plante says :

Staying for the moment with the theme that the United States of America is a sovereign nation with our own Constitution, even if it is totally ignored by Nancy Pelosi, who may well be bat**** crazy, and her ravening pack of Democrats, and our own laws, which are again totally ignored by Nancy and her Democrats who make it up as they go, it is incandescently clear from a review of OUR Constitution that when she and her pack of fawning fools went to Madrid to declare that she was going to put the United States back into this FARCE and SHAM known as the “Paris Agreement,” she and they were way off the reservation usurping powers never delegated to them in the first place by We, The American People, because the Paris Agreement is a TREATY, and the House of Representatives, according to our written Constitution, has no role to play at all in the making of treaties, and with good reason.

According to the Annotations to Article II of OUR written Constitution, as opposed to the unwritten constitution of the Democrats which Nancy Pelosi keeps stored for safety in her own alimentary tract, specifically Clause 2. Treaties and Appointment of Officers, we have as follows:

THE TREATY-MAKING POWER

President and Senate


The plan which the Committee of Detail reported to the Federal Convention on August 6, 1787 provided that ”the Senate of the United States shall have power to make treaties, and to appoint Ambassadors, and Judges of the Supreme Court.”

Not until September 7, ten days before the Convention’s final adjournment, was the President made a participant in these powers.

The constitutional clause evidently assumes that the President and Senate will be associated throughout the entire process of making a treaty, although Jay, writing in The Federalist, foresaw that the initiative must often be seized by the President without benefit of senatorial counsel.

Yet, so late as 1818, Rufus King, Senator from New York, who had been a member of the Convention, declared on the floor of the Senate: ”In these concerns the Senate are the Constitutional and the only responsible counsellors of the President.”

“And in this capacity the Senate may, and ought to, look into and watch over every branch of the foreign affairs of the nation; they may, therefore, at any time call for full and exact information respecting the foreign affairs, and express their opinion and advice to the President respecting the same, when, and under whatever other circumstances, they may think such advice expedient.”

end quotes

So, given that, how then does Nancy Pelosi, a mere congresswoman from San Francisco, California, get any constitutional authority to put OUR nation back into this insane scheme known as the “Paris Agreement?”

And the answer is she simply does what she always does – she makes it up by pulling it from out of her ***, because OUR Constitution as written totally denies her a role to play in that treaty-making process, which takes us back to the Annotations to our written Constitution, as follows:

Negotiation, a Presidential Monopoly

Actually, the negotiation of treaties had long since been taken over by the President; the Senate’s role in relation to treaties is today essentially legislative in character.

”He alone negotiates.”

“Into the field of negotiation, the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it,” declared Justice Sutherland for the Court in 1936.

end quotes

However, that means nothing at all to Nancy Pelosi, who sees herself as above our laws, as well as being the true ruler of the United States of America, as opposed to Trump, who the Democrats in Congress view as an illegitimate usurper, given that Democrat Hussein Obama has already tapped Hillary Clinton as his chosen successor, in the manner of Roman Emperors appointing their successors, which takes us back to the Annotations, as follows:

The Senate must, moreover, content itself with such information as the President chooses to furnish it.

In performing the function that remains to it, however, it has several options.

It may consent unconditionally to a proposed treaty, it may refuse its consent, or it may stipulate conditions in the form of amendments to the treaty, of reservations to the act of ratification, or of statements of understanding or other declarations, the formal difference between the first two and the third being that amendments and reservations, if accepted by the President must be communicated to the other parties to the treaty, and, at least with respect to amendments and often reservations as well, require reopening negotiations and changes, whereas the other actions may have more problematic results.

The act of ratification for the United States is the President’s act, but it may not be forthcoming unless the Senate has consented to it by the required two-thirds of the Senators present, which signifies two-thirds of a quorum, otherwise the consent rendered would not be that of the Senate as organized under the Constitution to do business.

Conversely, the President may, if dissatisfied with amendments which have been affixed by the Senate to a proposed treaty or with the conditions stipulated by it to ratification, decide to abandon the negotiation, which he is entirely free to do.

end quotes

So, once again, people, what were Nancy Pelosi and her pack of Democrats doing in Madrid, besides acting in a LAWLESS and UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANNER?

And why, as a free people, should we meekly be accepting of that type of LAWLESS conduct by Nancy Pelosi and her pack of rabid Democrats?

Because we are weak and stupid?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-205425
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP

Post by thelivyjr »

MARKETWATCH

"‘No choice’ but to move quickly on impeachment, Pelosi says"


By Associated Press

Published: Dec 5, 2019 5:58 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — House Democrats moved aggressively to draw up formal articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Thursday, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying he “leaves us no choice” but to act swiftly because he’s likely to corrupt the system again unless removed before next year’s election.

A strictly partisan effort at this point, derided immediately by Trump and other leading Republicans as a sham and a hoax, it is a politically risky undertaking. Democrats say it is their duty, while Republicans say will it drive Pelosi’s majority from office.

Congress must act, Pelosi said.

“The democracy is what is at stake.”

“The president’s actions have seriously violated the Constitution,” she said.

“He is trying to corrupt, once again, the election for his own benefit."


"The president has engaged in abuse of power, undermining our national security and jeopardizing the integrity of our elections.”

Trump has insisted he did nothing wrong.

He tweeted that the Democrats “have gone crazy.”

At the core of the impeachment probe is a July phone call with the president of Ukraine, in which Trump pressed the leader to announce investigations of Democrats including political rival Joe Biden at the same time the White House was withholding military aid from its ally bordering an aggressive Russia.

Drafting articles of impeachment is a milestone moment, only the fourth time in U.S. history Congress has tried to remove a president, and it intensifies the rigid and polarizing partisanship of the Trump era that is consuming Washington and dividing the nation.

The speaker delivered her historic announcement in solemn tones at the Capitol, drawing on the Constitution and the Founding Fathers in forcefully claiming Congress’ oversight of the president in the nation’s system of checks and balances.

Democrats are already beginning to prepare the formal charges, pushing toward House votes, possibly before Christmas.

“Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders and a heart full of love for America, today I am asking our chairmen to proceed with articles of impeachment,” Pelosi said.

Seemingly eager to fight, Trump tweeted that if Democrats “are going to impeach me, do it now, fast.”

Though he has fought the House investigation, trying to bar current and former officials from testifying, he said he now wants to move on to a “fair trial” in the Senate.

Approval of articles of impeachment are considered likely in the Democratic-majority House.

Conviction in a following trial in the Republican-dominated Senate seems very unlikely.

Once reluctant to pursue impeachment, warning it was too divisive for the country and needed to be bipartisan, Pelosi is now leading Congress into politically riskier waters for all sides just ahead of the election year.

Republican are standing lock-step with Trump, unswayed by arguments that his actions amount to wrongdoing, let alone impeachable offenses.

That is leaving Democrats to go it alone in a campaign to consider removing the 45th president from office.

Pelosi emphasized the Russia connection, from special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into 2016 election interference to the president’s phone call this summer with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that set off alarms in Washington.

It’s Russia and President Vladimir Putin who benefited most from Trump’s actions toward Ukraine, she said.

“All roads lead to Putin."

"Understand that,” she declared at a news conference.

“That was the a-ha moment.”


She spoke solemnly and calmly, but that changed when she was asked as she was leaving if she hates Trump.

Pelosi stiffened, returned to the podium and responded sharply that the president’s views and politics are for the voters to judge at elections but impeachment “is about the Constitution.”

She said that as a Catholic, she does not hate the president but rather is praying for him daily.

Trump quickly tweeted back that he didn’t believe her.

Trump’s allies argue that voters, not lawmakers, should decide the president’s future.

But Democrats say the nation cannot wait for the 2020 election, alleging Trump’s past efforts to have foreign countries intervene in the presidential campaign is forcing them to act to prevent him from doing it again.

Pelosi said the still-anonymous whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s Ukraine call changed the dynamic, creating the urgency to act.

The number of articles and the allegations they will include will be both a legal and political exercise for the House committee chairmen, who will be meeting privately.

They must balance electoral dynamics while striving to hit the Constitution’s bar of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Pulling from the House’s 300-page investigation of the Ukraine matter, Democrats are focusing on at least three areas — abuse of power, bribery and obstruction — that could result in two to five articles, they say.

They argue that Trump abused the power of his office by putting personal political gain over national security interests, engaging in bribery by holding out $400 million in military aid that Congress had approved for Ukraine; and then obstructing Congress by stonewalling the investigation.

Some liberal Democrats want to reach further into Trump’s actions, particularly regarding the findings from special counsel Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

That could produce an additional article of obstruction not only of Congress, but also of justice.


But more centrist and moderate Democrats, those lawmakers who are most at risk of political fallout from the impeachment proceedings, prefer to stick with the Ukraine matter as a simpler narrative that Americans can more easily understand.

The GOP Leader of the House, Kevin McCarthy, said Pelosi is more concerned about tearing the president down than building the country up.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., criticized Democrats for focusing on impeachment over other issues, though many House-passed bills are waiting for action in his chamber.

“It’s all impeachment, all the time,” he said.

At the White House, press secretary Stephanie Grisham tweeted that Pelosi and the Democrats “should be ashamed.”

House members are preparing to vote on the articles of impeachment in the Judiciary Committee, possibly as soon as next week.

The committee set a Monday hearing to receive the Intelligence Committee’s report outlining the findings against the president.

The House is expecting a full vote by Christmas.

That would send the issue to the Senate for a trial in the new year.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-ch ... latestnews
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE MAGA-MAN DONALD TRUMP

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 7, 2019 at 11:15 pm

Paul Plante says :

So, while this UN “global climate crisis” crowd meeting in Madrid are screeching out of one side of their mouth about drought in the Sahel, which is historically an arid zone on the earth for natural reasons related to air flows around the earth, not carbon dioxide, and the end of the world coming, guess what is coming out of the other side, and this is directly related to the true agenda of this IPCC, which is transfer of money and technology to the third-world countries of the earth, we have this from the UN, to wit:

Welcome to the United Nations

“The Sahel: Land of Opportunities”


The overarching goal of the UN Support Plan for the Sahel is to scale up efforts to accelerate shared prosperity and lasting peace in the Sahel countries and the region at-large by implementing priorities to achieve the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the African Union Agenda 2063

end quotes

Shared prosperity in the Sahel, people, an arid area that receives very little rain because the arid and semi-arid regions of Africa (Sahara and Sahel) lie north of about 10°N, near the northern limit of the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ), also called the “climate equator” as it lies near the geographic equator, and divides the global air circulation patterns into two mirror images to the north and south.

The ITCZ is an area of low atmospheric pressure that forms where the Northeast Trade Winds meet the Southeast Trade Winds near (actually just north of) the earth’s equator.

As a direct result, the Sahara and Sahel receive one rainy season with very little precipitation, which has been the situation there since maybe 5000 years before Christ was born, and as Penn State University tells us in Lesson 7 of its on-line learning program about climate and the changing climates of the earth, entitled “Climates of Africa – Forming of the Sahara Desert,” to wit:

There was a time when the Sahara was immensely rainy, and now it is not.

We care because the development of Egyptian civilization and settlement in the Nile Delta was driven by this climate change.

We also care because this huge change in climate was not caused by human activity.

end quotes

Which is to say, people, it was not caused by carbon pollution as the House Democrats and NOAA and the IPCC climate crisis crowd would have us believe, to mislead us, which takes us back to the UN’s plan to make the Sahel prosperous, as if those fools who have made a fine mess of the world already with their ineptness and outright corruption had the power to do so, to wit:

The Sahel, the vast semi-arid region of Africa separating the Sahara Desert to the north and tropical savannas to the south, is as much a land of opportunities as it is of challenges.

Although it has abundant human and natural resources, offering tremendous potential for rapid growth, there are deep-rooted challenges — environmental, political and security — that may affect the prosperity and peace of the Sahel.

end quotes

Hey, dudes, really, no kidding – deep roots challenges to making the Sahel prosperous!

My goodness, who’d a thought it, which takes us back to that UN HOUSE OF CARDS, as follows:

For this reason, the United Nations has come up with a unique support plan targeting 10 countries to scale up efforts to accelerate prosperity and sustainable peace in the region.

Target countries:

Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, The Gambia, Guinea Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal.

end quotes

To see what these UN fools are up against as they bring prosperity to Burkina Faso, for example, we have from the news as follows:

Dozens killed in ethnic violence in Burkina Faso – Reuters
https://www.reuters.com › article › us-burkina-security › dozens-killed-in-…

Jan 4, 2019 – OUAGADOUGOU (Reuters) – About 46 people were killed in ethnic clashes in central Burkina Faso this week, the government said on Friday.

Ethnic clashes kill 13 in Burkina Faso as security worsens …
https://www.reuters.com › article › ethnic-clashes-kill-13-in-burkina-faso-a…

Jan 2, 2019 – Thirteen civilians have been killed in ethnic violence in central Burkina Faso, the government said on Wednesday, echoing a rise in …

More Than 60 Dead in Burkina Faso Violence – The New York …
https://www.nytimes.com › 2019/04/03 › world › africa › burkina-faso-killed

Apr 3, 2019 – Burkina Faso and neighboring Mali have seen a spike in ethnic clashes fueled by Islamist militants as they seek to extend their influence over …
Local rivalry sparks deadly attack on Burkinabe village
https://www.france24.com › Return to homepage › Africa

Apr 2, 2019 – Eight people have died in eastern Burkina Faso in what a minister described as … Intercommunal violence in Burkina has made it harder for the …
Over 60 killed in Burkina Faso inter-community clashes
https://www.france24.com › Return to homepage › Africa

Apr 4, 2019 – Over 60 killed in Burkina Faso inter-community clashes … Burkina and neighbouring Mali have seen a spike in ethnic clashes fuelled by …
Countries of the Sahel

end quotes

As to Cameroon, the next on the list, we have:

Thousands Flee Violence in Cameroon’s English-Speaking …
https://www.voanews.com › africa › thousands-flee-violence-cameroons-e…
Aug 26, 2019 – Tens of thousands of people have deserted Cameroon’s conflict prone English-speaking regions after a bloody weekend. … The renewed fighting comes after a military tribunal ordered separatist leaders imprisoned for life. … Six hundred people wait at Amour Mezam, a bus terminal in …

end quotes

And this:

Is Cameroon dangerous?

Cameroon Crime Rates

Like many of its neighbours, crime is a serious problem throughout Cameroon. Having said that if you are sensible, i.e. don’t flash your cash around, avoid dangerous areas and be a bit inconspicuous you should have a trouble free stay. Sep 24, 2018

Crime, Politics & Poison in Cameroon → How to Stay Safe
https://www.worldnomads.com › travel-safety › africa › cameroon-crime-pol…

end quotes

And that list goes on and on for those other countries, as well, but you know what – the UN is going to end all of that by making everybody prosperous, so they will all be happy and feel good about themselves and all warm and squishy inside, which for the more emotionally-driven, is what it is all about – make them all rich and they will have nothing to fight about, even though the violence is actually ethnically-driven, or a function of religion, which takes us back to the UN as follows:

The support plan highlights the enormous opportunities in the Sahel and its vast assets in natural resources, energy, tourism and culture.

It is aimed at mobilizing public resources and triggering private investments in the 10 countries in support of ongoing efforts and initiatives by governments, international and regional organizations, and other partners.

It is built around the following six priority areas:

• Cross-border cooperation

• Prevention and sustaining peace

• Inclusive growth

• Climate action

• Renewable energy

• Women and youth empowerment

The plan will bring coherence, improve coordination and strengthen collaboration with all partners in the region.

National and regional institutions, bilateral and multilateral organizations, the private sector and civil society organizations will work towards operationalizing and implementing the Security Council resolutions on the Sahel.

Women, youth and job creation will cut across all priority areas and interventions, aiming at strengthening governance, improving security and building resilience, as well as promoting a more integrated approach to address the humanitarian-security-development nexus as a strategy to accelerate the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The Sahel is also endowed with enormous renewable energy potential; it has more solar energy production capacity than other regions of the world.

The Sahel is endowed with great potential for renewable energy and sits atop some of the largest aquifers on the continent.

Potentially one of the richest regions in the world with abundant human, cultural and natural resources.

The launch

The launch of the UN Support Plan for the Sahel will take place during a high-level-meeting on the Sahel on the margins of the 31st Summit of the Africa Union in Mauritania’s capital, Nouakchott.

The launch followed by the creation and deployment of the G5 Sahel Joint-Force and the United Nations Integrated Strategy (UNIS) for the Sahel could bring tangible progress.

So, countries in the region are encouraged to adopt, with support from international partners, the necessary measures to fully implement the support plan.

end quotes

And when they talk about “international partners,” people, they are talking about us.

More specifically they are talking about Nancy Pelosi and her pack of fawning Democrats who were just in Madrid to tell the UN crowd that the Democrats were going to bring the United States back into this insanity after Trump announced he was getting us out of it, which brings us full circle in this series of discussion on climate hosted by the Cape Charles Mirror to Chapter 5 of the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius October 8th 2018 transmitted to the House Democrats directly from the hand of little Greta Thunberg of Sweden who has more access to the Democrats in our House of Representatives than we American citizens do, to wit:

Social justice and equity are core aspects of climate-resilient development pathways for transformational social change.

Addressing challenges and widening opportunities between and within countries and communities would be necessary to achieve sustainable development and limit warming to 1.5°C, without making the poor and disadvantaged worse off (high confidence).

Identifying and navigating inclusive and socially acceptable pathways towards low-carbon, climate-resilient futures is a challenging yet important endeavour, fraught with moral, practical and political difficulties and inevitable trade-offs (very high confidence). {5.5.2, 5.5.3.3, Box 5.3}

It entails deliberation and problem-solving processes to negotiate societal values, well-being, risks and resilience and to determine what is desirable and fair, and to whom (medium evidence, high agreement).

The fundamental societal and systemic changes to achieve sustainable development, eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities while limiting warming to 1.5°C would require meeting a set of institutional, social, cultural, economic and technological conditions (high confidence).

Attention to power asymmetries and unequal opportunities for development, among and within countries, is key to adopting 1.5°C-compatible development pathways that benefit all populations (high confidence). {5.5.3, 5.6.4, Box 5.3}

Re-examining individual and collective values could help spur urgent, ambitious and cooperative change (medium evidence, high agreement). {5.5.3, 5.6.5}

end quotes

So, people, yes, coercion is required to bring peace and prosperity to the Sahel, and who has to be coerced to make that happen is us – that is what the statement about the fundamental societal and systemic changes to achieve sustainable development, eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities while limiting warming to 1.5°C would require meeting a set of institutional, social, cultural, economic and technological conditions.

If Nancy Pelosi is successful in bringing us back into the so-called Paris Agreement based on the hysteria-mongering of such public officials in this country as NOAA’s Ko Barrett, who is also an elected official of the IPCC, our national borders would disappear and we would end up being subsumed into this one world government that is the UN IPCC.

Should that be forced upon us without our consent by the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-205216
Post Reply