THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 23, 2019 at 9:07 pm
Paul Plante says:
Point I is that it is obvious that the term “living Constitution” has no real concrete meaning, and anyway, our Constitution has been dead for some time now, so it is irrelevant what the term really means, and it was Tommy Jefferson who is responsible for the concept of a “living Constitution,” to wit:
One could also reasonably argue that Thomas Jefferson himself presented the idea of evolving Constitutional interpretations.
In an 1816 letter to Samuel Kercheval, excerpted on Panel 4 of the Jefferson Memorial, he wrote
But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.
As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.
We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
end quotes
Sadly, in this country, the progress of the human mind has been backwards, not forward, and here we are today, not knowing if we are afoot or horseback in this sorry nation, and that takes us to FEDERALIST No. 84, Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered by Alexander Hamilton from McLEAN’s Edition, New York, to the People of the State of New York on how and why it is that OUR Constitution is different from some inferior product the Brits may possess, as follows:
It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.
Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John.
Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes.
Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign.
Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights.
It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants.
Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations.
“WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.
But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.
If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State.
But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.
They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.
This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing.
What signifies a declaration, that “the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved”?
What is the liberty of the press?
Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion?
I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government. 3
And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.
There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point.
The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.
The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the constitution of each State is its bill of rights.
And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union.
Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government?
This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions.
Is another object of a bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns?
This we have seen has also been attended to, in a variety of cases, in the same plan.
Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the work of the convention.
It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this appear; but it can with no propriety be contended that there is no such thing.
It certainly must be immaterial what mode is observed as to the order of declaring the rights of the citizens, if they are to be found in any part of the instrument which establishes the government.
And hence it must be apparent, that much of what has been said on this subject rests merely on verbal and nominal distinctions, entirely foreign from the substance of the thing.
end quotes
And there are “living mortgages,” and they are called “variable rate,” but they have nothing to do with our Constitution.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-160481
Just musings, is all
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 24, 2019 at 5:55 pm
Paul Plante says:
Actually, my dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller, and here I am speaking from personal experience, in the America of today, it is most definitely a privilege to live without fear, and you need both money and political connections to make that possible, and I DO NOT enjoy that privilege because I lack both.
And it is hardly an unalienable right as a human being to live with hope and to live happy and unthreatened.
If those were in fact “unalienable rights,” my dear friend Chas, where unalienable is defined as “unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor,” with such synonyms as inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct, unchallengeable, unassailable, then clearly there would not be people in America like myself who are without such rights, precisely because there is no place those rights can be vindicated as having an actual existence, and thus, they cannot be enforced, which means they are not unalienable, at all.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-160705
Paul Plante says:
Actually, my dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller, and here I am speaking from personal experience, in the America of today, it is most definitely a privilege to live without fear, and you need both money and political connections to make that possible, and I DO NOT enjoy that privilege because I lack both.
And it is hardly an unalienable right as a human being to live with hope and to live happy and unthreatened.
If those were in fact “unalienable rights,” my dear friend Chas, where unalienable is defined as “unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor,” with such synonyms as inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct, unchallengeable, unassailable, then clearly there would not be people in America like myself who are without such rights, precisely because there is no place those rights can be vindicated as having an actual existence, and thus, they cannot be enforced, which means they are not unalienable, at all.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-160705
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 26, 2019 at 6:51 pm
Paul Plante says:
Having been a very diligent student of the United States Constitution ever since a night in VEET NAM back in 1969 when I was ordered to take part in what would have been a massacre of Vietnamese women and children, I am going to say that there is no other document in history whose history and purpose are so clearly defined, and when one actually sits down and reads that history, including and starting with each word of each Federalist Papers, and one considers oneself a “strict constructionist,” as I do myself, one can come to no other conclusion but that the United States Constitution is the very essence of a “living constitution,” as opposed to a “dead constitution,” and the proof of that is found right in the beginning in the Preamble, which states as follows, to wit: “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” where “posterity” means all future generations of people.
And here is what separates a living constitution like ours from a dead constitution – the realization that the meaning of the term “blessings of liberty” in our times today where there are some 330 million people in the United States of America means far different than it did when there were 3 million people living in a largely agricultural society in what was a wilderness in many cases.
There is where the controversy comes in – with respect to the meaning of the word, liberty.
“My country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing!”
There is nothing in there about any kind of “rights,” such as gay rights, whatever on earth those might be, or the right to have housing provided for you, or the right to a “living wage.”
Those are societal demands.
That the purpose of the Constitution was to guard our liberty against the encroachments of the federal government is made clear right in the beginning in FEDERALIST. No. 1, General Introduction, by Alexander Hamilton for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York, as follows:
Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.
end quotes
Now, that is the actual history of those times out of which OUR Constitution came, so that EVERYBODY in the country today who was born after the time in which Alexander Hamilton wrote those words cannot change that history around to suit their own purposes today, like rejecting the Constitution out of hand because it supposedly is a “racist” document intended to keep the “people of color” down, which is horse****.
Getting back to Federalist No. 1 and “liberty”:
To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives.
An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty.
An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good.
It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust.
On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.
History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth.
You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution.
Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it.
I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-160481
Paul Plante says:
Having been a very diligent student of the United States Constitution ever since a night in VEET NAM back in 1969 when I was ordered to take part in what would have been a massacre of Vietnamese women and children, I am going to say that there is no other document in history whose history and purpose are so clearly defined, and when one actually sits down and reads that history, including and starting with each word of each Federalist Papers, and one considers oneself a “strict constructionist,” as I do myself, one can come to no other conclusion but that the United States Constitution is the very essence of a “living constitution,” as opposed to a “dead constitution,” and the proof of that is found right in the beginning in the Preamble, which states as follows, to wit: “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” where “posterity” means all future generations of people.
And here is what separates a living constitution like ours from a dead constitution – the realization that the meaning of the term “blessings of liberty” in our times today where there are some 330 million people in the United States of America means far different than it did when there were 3 million people living in a largely agricultural society in what was a wilderness in many cases.
There is where the controversy comes in – with respect to the meaning of the word, liberty.
“My country tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing!”
There is nothing in there about any kind of “rights,” such as gay rights, whatever on earth those might be, or the right to have housing provided for you, or the right to a “living wage.”
Those are societal demands.
That the purpose of the Constitution was to guard our liberty against the encroachments of the federal government is made clear right in the beginning in FEDERALIST. No. 1, General Introduction, by Alexander Hamilton for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York, as follows:
Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.
end quotes
Now, that is the actual history of those times out of which OUR Constitution came, so that EVERYBODY in the country today who was born after the time in which Alexander Hamilton wrote those words cannot change that history around to suit their own purposes today, like rejecting the Constitution out of hand because it supposedly is a “racist” document intended to keep the “people of color” down, which is horse****.
Getting back to Federalist No. 1 and “liberty”:
To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives.
An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty.
An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good.
It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust.
On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.
History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth.
You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution.
Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it.
I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-160481
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 28, 2019
OP-Ed: 27 Takeaways from Mueller’s Big Day
Opinion by Paul Plante
The first takeaway, of course, at least for me as an older American, is just how disgusting this whole “process,” if it can be called that, has been since the Democrats started screeching in 2016 about the Russians interfering in our “democracy” because their queen Hillary Clinton lost to Trump, which was never supposed to happen according to all the pundits and all the polls.
The last time I remember something like this taking place in the TEN MILES SQUARE was back when “Tailgunner Joe” McCarthy was in the U.S. Senate conducting his famous hearings into how far the Communists had managed to infiltrate the Democrat party in this country, which makes it ironic for the Democrats to be accusing Trump of being a Russian agent, which is the second of many takeaways from the Mueller Hearing on 24 July 2019, a day that will go down in infamy in American history as the day a sitting United States president was stripped of due process of law and was literally lynched, something I find quite reprehensible as an American citizen dedicated to RULE OF LAW, which clearly did not exist in that hearing on 24 July 2019.
Which takes us back to February 6, 2018, a bit less than a year AFTER Jimmy Comey gave his famous testimony to the Democrats on 20 March 2017 about Trump and the Russians, to a book by Lanny J. Davis entitled “The Unmaking of the President 2016: How FBI Director James Comey Cost Hillary Clinton the Presidency Hardcover,” which review on Amazon states thusly:
During the week of October 24, 2016, Hillary Clinton was decisively ahead of Donald Trump in many polls and, more importantly, in the battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Then FBI Director James Comey sent his infamous letter to Congress on October 28, saying the bureau was investigating additional emails that may have been relevant to the Hillary Clinton email case.
In The Unmaking of the President 2016, attorney Lanny J. Davis shows how Comey’s misguided announcement — just eleven days before the election — swung a significant number of voters away from Clinton, winning Trump an Electoral College victory — and the presidency.
Davis traces Clinton’s email controversy and Comey’s July 2016 appearance before Congress, in which he said the Clinton email matter was effectively closed.
From that moment until Comey’s late October letter to Congress, Davis says, Clinton was destined to be elected president by substantial popular and electoral vote margins.
But the decision to send his October 28 letter, so near to the election, not only violated long-standing justice department policies but also contained no new facts of improper emails at all — just pure speculation.
Davis shows state by state, using polling data before October 28, and on election day, how voter support for Hillary Clinton eroded quickly.
He proves that had the election been held on October 27, Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency by a substantial margin.
Despite so many other issues in the closing days of the campaign — Trump’s behavior, the Russian hacking, reports of Clinton momentum in marginal states such as Georgia, Arizona, even Texas — after the October 28 Comey letter, everything changed.
References to “Clinton emails” and “new criminal investigation” dominated media coverage virtually round-the-clock through election day November 8.
Now Davis proves with raw, indisputable data how Comey’s October surprise cost Hillary Clinton the presidency and changed American history in the blink of an eye.
end quotes
However POOF!
Forget all of that, because the narrative has changed!
It’s now Trump and the Russians who caused Hillary to lose.
Which brings us to an op-ed by Lanny Davis on 24 July 2019, entitled “Advice to House Democrats: Mueller is right to stick to the facts – don’t ask him to imitate Starr and Comey,” as follows:
There are three reasons why House Democrats during Wednesday’s public hearings should support, not criticize, former special counsel Robert Mueller’s decision to stick to the facts and evidence and to refuse to offer his own opinions on the evidence of Trump’s apparent attempts to obstruct justice.
First and foremost is the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Prosecutors violate it by offering any opinions at all without a published indictment and a trial with due process rights to the accused.
Second, the U.S. Justice Department’s long-standing rules and policies under Democratic and Republican administrations forbid a prosecutor publicly expressing his opinion on the evidence – again, based on due process principles.
And third, by following these two principles, Mr. Mueller avoided the historic ignominy of being compared to Ken Starr and James Comey, who ignored both of them.
Lest we forget, Starr’s public comments on Whitewater and his report to Congress on impeachment were improperly filled with opinion and innuendo of guilt.
James Comey thought it was OK to offer his negative opinion of the evidence regarding Hillary Clinton’s email practices — yet then said she had committed no prosecutable crime.
The DOJ’s independent inspector general harshly criticized Comey for this and other misconduct.
end quotes
And then, Mueller and the Democrats did exactly that – violating Trump’s right to due process by having Mueller offer opinions without a published indictment and a trial with due process rights to the accused, which violates the U.S. Justice Department’s long-standing rules and policies under Democratic and Republican administrations which forbid a prosecutor from publicly expressing his opinion on the evidence – again, based on due process principles.
But really, people, and truly, who gives a damn?
We’re talking about Trump, and everybody in America knows now that Trump is a reprehensible racist and criminal who is a dupe of Putin and the Kremlin, so why should Trump be entitled to any kind of due process of law?
Which brings us to the third takeaway, which is that the Russians are going to interfere in the 2020 presidential election to keep their dupe Trump in the White House, so that if we want to beat the Russians at their own game, then we need to elect anybody but Trump in 2020, which means VOTE DEMOCRAT IF YOU LOVE AMERICA AND HATE PUTIN!
And what a victory for Putin that would be, which is the fourth takeaway here in rapid-fire order, with a whole passel of takeaways waiting in the queue for their chance to see the light of day, which takes us to the fifth takeaway, and that is how canny Robert Mueller was in hiding the origins of just how it was that he came to be appointed by Rod Rosenstein back in 2017, fifty-eight (58) days AFTER the 20 March 2017 Congressional Hearing where FBI Director Jimmy Comey gave testimony along with evasive answers about Team Trump and the Russians before the 2016 presidential election.
And before we go further, and incidentally, there are twenty-seven takeaways in here because reviewing everybody else’s numbers, with Fox News having five “big” takeaways, and NBC having six, and CNN having ten, I thought it appropriate to have a bigger number than any of them, and 27 seemed just about right, although in the end, even 27 might be far too small a number, indeed, let’s go back to where this all began with a WALL STREET JOURNAL article entitled “Mueller concludes Russia probe, delivers report to the attorney general” by Aruna Viswanatha and Sadie Gurman published Mar 22, 2019, where we had as follows, to wit:
Special counsel Robert Mueller presented his long-awaited report to the Justice Department on Friday, ending his nearly two-year investigation that has roiled the Trump presidency and likely setting up a battle with Congress over what he has found.
No details from the report on the investigation, which examined Trump campaign connections to Russian election interference and whether the president himself tried to obstruct justice, were immediately made public.
Attorney General William Barr said in a letter to Congress that he may advise lawmakers of any conclusions from the report “as soon as this weekend.”
Barr has previously said he would bring as much transparency as possible to Mueller’s findings but stressed that Justice Department policy prevents officials from disclosing much about investigations that didn’t yield criminal charges.
That means a swath of Mueller’s probe—especially as it relates to President Trump—may not be revealed any time soon.
end quotes
Just days before that, REUTERS had an article entitled “Trump says he doesn’t mind if public sees Mueller’s Russia probe report” on 20 March 2019, which informed us as follows, to wit:
WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he does not mind if the public is allowed to see the report that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is preparing about his investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and any possible links to the Trump campaign.
Trump has denied collusion and obstruction.
Russia has denied interfering in the election.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 420-0 last week on a nonbinding resolution calling for Mueller’s report to be released both to Congress and to the public, but it is not clear how the measure will fare in the Senate.
Answering questions from journalists at the White House, Trump said he had no idea when the report would be released, adding, “no collusion, no collusion” and “we’ll see if it’s fair.”
Asked if the public should be allowed to see the report, Trump said: “I don’t mind.”
“Let it come out, let people see it, that’s up to the attorney general … and we’ll see what happens,” he added.
end quotes
Prophetic words, those, and here we are, four months later, and we are indeed seeing what happened, which is that Trump just got lynched.
What I heard when I listened to that hearing was Mueller answering in the affirmative in a setting where Donald Trump was not present to present a defense a question posed to him as to whether Trump was engaged in “criminal activity,” a very serious allegation, and that is very dirty pool, indeed, as well as being a reversal of Mueller’s original reason for not charging Trump with a crime.
So color it anyway you wish, but Trump got slimed and smeared big time in that hearing by the Democrats and to his shame, Robert Mueller was a part of the game, which takes us to a POLITICO article entitled “Pelosi tells Dems she’ll reject highly classified briefing on Mueller findings” by Andrew Desiderio, Heather Caygle and Kyle Cheney on 23 March 2019, where we have the following background, to wit:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Democrats on Saturday she’ll rebuff any efforts by the Justice Department to reveal details of special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings in a highly classified setting — a tactic she warned could be employed to shield the report’s conclusions from the public.
Two sources who participated in a conference call among House Democrats said Pelosi (D-Calif.) told lawmakers she worried the Justice Department would seek to disclose Mueller’s conclusions to the so-called Gang of Eight — the top Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate — which handles the nation’s most sensitive secrets.
The substance of Gang of Eight briefings are heavily guarded.
“Everyone pounded the transparency drum continuously,” said a source who was on the Saturday afternoon call.
Pelosi said it was her belief that the findings of the report should be unclassified, a consistent theme from Democrats who said they wanted Attorney General William Barr to share virtually every scrap of paper connected to the Mueller report with Congress.
Democrats repeatedly compared their demands for transparency to Republican efforts to obtain intricate details of the FBI’s handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
GOP lawmakers succeeded in obtaining thousands of FBI officials’ text messages connected to the Clinton probe, as well as agent notes, internal emails and thousands of files.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) both cited the Clinton precedent as evidence to support their calls for complete transparency.
Democrats conferred as they awaited a high-level summary of Mueller’s findings from the Justice Department, which top Democrats said they expected to be delivered to Congress on Sunday or Monday.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is likely to get the first indication from Barr when a summary is being delivered, said he would notify colleagues immediately.
Without details of Mueller’s conclusions about Russian contacts with associates of President Donald Trump in 2016, the lawmakers leaned heavily into calls for the release of the full report.
During an earlier conference call with Judiciary Committee Democrats, Nadler said the committee would ask the Justice Department to preserve all documents from the special counsel’s investigation, according to a source familiar with the call.
end quotes
And from there we go to another POLITICO article, this one entitled “Schiff: There is still ‘significant evidence of collusion’” by Quint Forgey on 03/24/2019, to wit:
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, defended his assessment Sunday that there exists “significant evidence of collusion” between President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Kremlin — despite word from the Justice Department that special counsel Robert Mueller will not be recommending any further indictments in his investigation into Russian election interference.
“There’s a difference between compelling evidence of collusion and whether the special counsel concludes that he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the criminal charge of conspiracy,” Schiff told host George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”
“I leave that decision to Bob Mueller, and I have full confidence in him,” Schiff continued, adding that Americans owe Mueller “a debt of gratitude” for conducting his 22-month-long probe “as professionally as he has.”
“I trust in his prosecutorial judgment,” Schiff said.
“But that doesn’t mean, of course, that there isn’t compelling and incriminating evidence that should be shared with the American people.”
end quotes
And I am going to pause here to let all of that background sink in, and especially that last sentence by Adam Schiff above here, where he stated, “But that doesn’t mean, of course, that there isn’t compelling and incriminating evidence that should be shared with the American people.”
Think about that, people, if anyone out there can actually decipher that statement to figure out just what it means, but what it seems to mean is that if Mueller did not uncover the dirt on Trump Schiff wanted him to uncover, then Schiff would come up with it on his own, because that is the name of the game being played here by the Democrats as we head into the 2020 presidential election – GET TRUMP AT ANY COST TO GET A DEMOCRAT INTO THE OVAL OFFICE!
And after hearing what went on at the Mueller hearing, they might just have succeeded.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... s-big-day/
OP-Ed: 27 Takeaways from Mueller’s Big Day
Opinion by Paul Plante
The first takeaway, of course, at least for me as an older American, is just how disgusting this whole “process,” if it can be called that, has been since the Democrats started screeching in 2016 about the Russians interfering in our “democracy” because their queen Hillary Clinton lost to Trump, which was never supposed to happen according to all the pundits and all the polls.
The last time I remember something like this taking place in the TEN MILES SQUARE was back when “Tailgunner Joe” McCarthy was in the U.S. Senate conducting his famous hearings into how far the Communists had managed to infiltrate the Democrat party in this country, which makes it ironic for the Democrats to be accusing Trump of being a Russian agent, which is the second of many takeaways from the Mueller Hearing on 24 July 2019, a day that will go down in infamy in American history as the day a sitting United States president was stripped of due process of law and was literally lynched, something I find quite reprehensible as an American citizen dedicated to RULE OF LAW, which clearly did not exist in that hearing on 24 July 2019.
Which takes us back to February 6, 2018, a bit less than a year AFTER Jimmy Comey gave his famous testimony to the Democrats on 20 March 2017 about Trump and the Russians, to a book by Lanny J. Davis entitled “The Unmaking of the President 2016: How FBI Director James Comey Cost Hillary Clinton the Presidency Hardcover,” which review on Amazon states thusly:
During the week of October 24, 2016, Hillary Clinton was decisively ahead of Donald Trump in many polls and, more importantly, in the battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Then FBI Director James Comey sent his infamous letter to Congress on October 28, saying the bureau was investigating additional emails that may have been relevant to the Hillary Clinton email case.
In The Unmaking of the President 2016, attorney Lanny J. Davis shows how Comey’s misguided announcement — just eleven days before the election — swung a significant number of voters away from Clinton, winning Trump an Electoral College victory — and the presidency.
Davis traces Clinton’s email controversy and Comey’s July 2016 appearance before Congress, in which he said the Clinton email matter was effectively closed.
From that moment until Comey’s late October letter to Congress, Davis says, Clinton was destined to be elected president by substantial popular and electoral vote margins.
But the decision to send his October 28 letter, so near to the election, not only violated long-standing justice department policies but also contained no new facts of improper emails at all — just pure speculation.
Davis shows state by state, using polling data before October 28, and on election day, how voter support for Hillary Clinton eroded quickly.
He proves that had the election been held on October 27, Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency by a substantial margin.
Despite so many other issues in the closing days of the campaign — Trump’s behavior, the Russian hacking, reports of Clinton momentum in marginal states such as Georgia, Arizona, even Texas — after the October 28 Comey letter, everything changed.
References to “Clinton emails” and “new criminal investigation” dominated media coverage virtually round-the-clock through election day November 8.
Now Davis proves with raw, indisputable data how Comey’s October surprise cost Hillary Clinton the presidency and changed American history in the blink of an eye.
end quotes
However POOF!
Forget all of that, because the narrative has changed!
It’s now Trump and the Russians who caused Hillary to lose.
Which brings us to an op-ed by Lanny Davis on 24 July 2019, entitled “Advice to House Democrats: Mueller is right to stick to the facts – don’t ask him to imitate Starr and Comey,” as follows:
There are three reasons why House Democrats during Wednesday’s public hearings should support, not criticize, former special counsel Robert Mueller’s decision to stick to the facts and evidence and to refuse to offer his own opinions on the evidence of Trump’s apparent attempts to obstruct justice.
First and foremost is the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Prosecutors violate it by offering any opinions at all without a published indictment and a trial with due process rights to the accused.
Second, the U.S. Justice Department’s long-standing rules and policies under Democratic and Republican administrations forbid a prosecutor publicly expressing his opinion on the evidence – again, based on due process principles.
And third, by following these two principles, Mr. Mueller avoided the historic ignominy of being compared to Ken Starr and James Comey, who ignored both of them.
Lest we forget, Starr’s public comments on Whitewater and his report to Congress on impeachment were improperly filled with opinion and innuendo of guilt.
James Comey thought it was OK to offer his negative opinion of the evidence regarding Hillary Clinton’s email practices — yet then said she had committed no prosecutable crime.
The DOJ’s independent inspector general harshly criticized Comey for this and other misconduct.
end quotes
And then, Mueller and the Democrats did exactly that – violating Trump’s right to due process by having Mueller offer opinions without a published indictment and a trial with due process rights to the accused, which violates the U.S. Justice Department’s long-standing rules and policies under Democratic and Republican administrations which forbid a prosecutor from publicly expressing his opinion on the evidence – again, based on due process principles.
But really, people, and truly, who gives a damn?
We’re talking about Trump, and everybody in America knows now that Trump is a reprehensible racist and criminal who is a dupe of Putin and the Kremlin, so why should Trump be entitled to any kind of due process of law?
Which brings us to the third takeaway, which is that the Russians are going to interfere in the 2020 presidential election to keep their dupe Trump in the White House, so that if we want to beat the Russians at their own game, then we need to elect anybody but Trump in 2020, which means VOTE DEMOCRAT IF YOU LOVE AMERICA AND HATE PUTIN!
And what a victory for Putin that would be, which is the fourth takeaway here in rapid-fire order, with a whole passel of takeaways waiting in the queue for their chance to see the light of day, which takes us to the fifth takeaway, and that is how canny Robert Mueller was in hiding the origins of just how it was that he came to be appointed by Rod Rosenstein back in 2017, fifty-eight (58) days AFTER the 20 March 2017 Congressional Hearing where FBI Director Jimmy Comey gave testimony along with evasive answers about Team Trump and the Russians before the 2016 presidential election.
And before we go further, and incidentally, there are twenty-seven takeaways in here because reviewing everybody else’s numbers, with Fox News having five “big” takeaways, and NBC having six, and CNN having ten, I thought it appropriate to have a bigger number than any of them, and 27 seemed just about right, although in the end, even 27 might be far too small a number, indeed, let’s go back to where this all began with a WALL STREET JOURNAL article entitled “Mueller concludes Russia probe, delivers report to the attorney general” by Aruna Viswanatha and Sadie Gurman published Mar 22, 2019, where we had as follows, to wit:
Special counsel Robert Mueller presented his long-awaited report to the Justice Department on Friday, ending his nearly two-year investigation that has roiled the Trump presidency and likely setting up a battle with Congress over what he has found.
No details from the report on the investigation, which examined Trump campaign connections to Russian election interference and whether the president himself tried to obstruct justice, were immediately made public.
Attorney General William Barr said in a letter to Congress that he may advise lawmakers of any conclusions from the report “as soon as this weekend.”
Barr has previously said he would bring as much transparency as possible to Mueller’s findings but stressed that Justice Department policy prevents officials from disclosing much about investigations that didn’t yield criminal charges.
That means a swath of Mueller’s probe—especially as it relates to President Trump—may not be revealed any time soon.
end quotes
Just days before that, REUTERS had an article entitled “Trump says he doesn’t mind if public sees Mueller’s Russia probe report” on 20 March 2019, which informed us as follows, to wit:
WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he does not mind if the public is allowed to see the report that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is preparing about his investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and any possible links to the Trump campaign.
Trump has denied collusion and obstruction.
Russia has denied interfering in the election.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 420-0 last week on a nonbinding resolution calling for Mueller’s report to be released both to Congress and to the public, but it is not clear how the measure will fare in the Senate.
Answering questions from journalists at the White House, Trump said he had no idea when the report would be released, adding, “no collusion, no collusion” and “we’ll see if it’s fair.”
Asked if the public should be allowed to see the report, Trump said: “I don’t mind.”
“Let it come out, let people see it, that’s up to the attorney general … and we’ll see what happens,” he added.
end quotes
Prophetic words, those, and here we are, four months later, and we are indeed seeing what happened, which is that Trump just got lynched.
What I heard when I listened to that hearing was Mueller answering in the affirmative in a setting where Donald Trump was not present to present a defense a question posed to him as to whether Trump was engaged in “criminal activity,” a very serious allegation, and that is very dirty pool, indeed, as well as being a reversal of Mueller’s original reason for not charging Trump with a crime.
So color it anyway you wish, but Trump got slimed and smeared big time in that hearing by the Democrats and to his shame, Robert Mueller was a part of the game, which takes us to a POLITICO article entitled “Pelosi tells Dems she’ll reject highly classified briefing on Mueller findings” by Andrew Desiderio, Heather Caygle and Kyle Cheney on 23 March 2019, where we have the following background, to wit:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Democrats on Saturday she’ll rebuff any efforts by the Justice Department to reveal details of special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings in a highly classified setting — a tactic she warned could be employed to shield the report’s conclusions from the public.
Two sources who participated in a conference call among House Democrats said Pelosi (D-Calif.) told lawmakers she worried the Justice Department would seek to disclose Mueller’s conclusions to the so-called Gang of Eight — the top Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate — which handles the nation’s most sensitive secrets.
The substance of Gang of Eight briefings are heavily guarded.
“Everyone pounded the transparency drum continuously,” said a source who was on the Saturday afternoon call.
Pelosi said it was her belief that the findings of the report should be unclassified, a consistent theme from Democrats who said they wanted Attorney General William Barr to share virtually every scrap of paper connected to the Mueller report with Congress.
Democrats repeatedly compared their demands for transparency to Republican efforts to obtain intricate details of the FBI’s handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
GOP lawmakers succeeded in obtaining thousands of FBI officials’ text messages connected to the Clinton probe, as well as agent notes, internal emails and thousands of files.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) both cited the Clinton precedent as evidence to support their calls for complete transparency.
Democrats conferred as they awaited a high-level summary of Mueller’s findings from the Justice Department, which top Democrats said they expected to be delivered to Congress on Sunday or Monday.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is likely to get the first indication from Barr when a summary is being delivered, said he would notify colleagues immediately.
Without details of Mueller’s conclusions about Russian contacts with associates of President Donald Trump in 2016, the lawmakers leaned heavily into calls for the release of the full report.
During an earlier conference call with Judiciary Committee Democrats, Nadler said the committee would ask the Justice Department to preserve all documents from the special counsel’s investigation, according to a source familiar with the call.
end quotes
And from there we go to another POLITICO article, this one entitled “Schiff: There is still ‘significant evidence of collusion’” by Quint Forgey on 03/24/2019, to wit:
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, defended his assessment Sunday that there exists “significant evidence of collusion” between President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Kremlin — despite word from the Justice Department that special counsel Robert Mueller will not be recommending any further indictments in his investigation into Russian election interference.
“There’s a difference between compelling evidence of collusion and whether the special counsel concludes that he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the criminal charge of conspiracy,” Schiff told host George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”
“I leave that decision to Bob Mueller, and I have full confidence in him,” Schiff continued, adding that Americans owe Mueller “a debt of gratitude” for conducting his 22-month-long probe “as professionally as he has.”
“I trust in his prosecutorial judgment,” Schiff said.
“But that doesn’t mean, of course, that there isn’t compelling and incriminating evidence that should be shared with the American people.”
end quotes
And I am going to pause here to let all of that background sink in, and especially that last sentence by Adam Schiff above here, where he stated, “But that doesn’t mean, of course, that there isn’t compelling and incriminating evidence that should be shared with the American people.”
Think about that, people, if anyone out there can actually decipher that statement to figure out just what it means, but what it seems to mean is that if Mueller did not uncover the dirt on Trump Schiff wanted him to uncover, then Schiff would come up with it on his own, because that is the name of the game being played here by the Democrats as we head into the 2020 presidential election – GET TRUMP AT ANY COST TO GET A DEMOCRAT INTO THE OVAL OFFICE!
And after hearing what went on at the Mueller hearing, they might just have succeeded.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... s-big-day/
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 28, 2019
Russiagate: What we were told, what we know
BY WAYNE CREED
We were told Trump’s inquisitor was a calm, even-handed Republican with impeccable credentials who was trusted by everyone.
What we learned yesterday was that the inquisition was run by the Democrat lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s aide who destroyed evidence with a hammer.
We were told that the evidence of alleged Russian collusion was rock solid, the work of America’s top intelligence agencies.
In reality, it was pure fiction cooked up by a Clinton-funded foreign contractor on the payroll of a sanctioned Russian oligarch.
We were told the Trump campaign was never spied on or wiretapped by U.S. spy agencies.
We now know the campaign was indeed wiretapped, that honeypots were deployed to entrap campaign affiliates, that overseas intel assets were used to set up meetings as pretexts for more spying.
We were told our nation’s intel agencies would never use false information to justify secret surveillance of American citizens.
In reality, DOJ and the FBI peddled lies to the FISA court that were cooked up by a foreign spy and a DOJ official’s wife, both funded by Clinton.
We were told that our government’s top secret keepers would never leak classified or confidential information to the media.
What actually happened is that top intel officials repeatedly leaked, often illegally, to cement a false narrative to support further spying on citizens.
Finally, we were told that America’s top cops and spies would never foment a coup to overturn election results they didn’t like.
We now know the most powerful unelected people in government cooked up lies as part of an orchestrated scheme to overthrow the duly elected president.
Is this America?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-161520
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 28, 2019 at 12:13 pm
Paul Plante says:
It supposedly remains “America,” just a markedly different version of it that seems more like the Soviet Union for those of us who remember such things.
Who has clearly won here is Putin and Russia, this thanks to the House Democrats including Nadler and Schiff aided and abetted by Robert Mueller, with the result that the 2020 presidential election along with our “democracy” is now fatally tainted by charges of criminality leveled against Trump by the Democrats, without any grand jury action in between, along with further charges that Trump is a Russian dupe, and the Russians are going to interfere in our 2020 presidential election big-time to keep Trump in office, so the only way we can “beat the Russians” at their own game and defeat them is to elect a Democrat as president, because everybody now knows, thanks to the Democrats and Jimmy Comey, that Putin HATES Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, which is all horsecrap.
I have seen a lot of horse**** coming out of Washington, D.C. in my lifetime, but never something as incredible and insulting to our sense of justice as American people as this travesty, where Bob Mueller has taken on the role of judge and jury, skipping over the requirement of a grand jury, in order to fatally taint the 2020 presidential election to put the Democrats in full control of our government, which should incense every American citizen who cares that our elections are fair and free, which they now no longer are with these charges leveled against Trump, that he has no way of exonerating himself of.
If we bother to look at the Grand Jury Handbook – Handbook for Grand Jurors Serving in the United States District Courts, we find this, to wit: The grand jury as an institution was so firmly established in the traditions of our forebears that they included it in the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides in part that “(n)o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . .”
An “infamous crime,” according to the handbook, is a federal crime with a penalty of at least a year, so what has happened here is that in their zeal to destroy Trump and thus, swing the 2020 presidential election their way, the Democrats have stripped Trump of his constitutional rights, period, by charging him with criminal activity in a public forum as they did, which is plain disgusting.
Consider the Los Angeles Times article “Democrats hope Mueller’s testimony will make more Americans want to impeach Trump” by Jennifer Haberkorn on 22 July 2019, for example:
WASHINGTON — House Democrats hope to boost public support for impeaching President Trump when former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III testifies to Congress for the first time Wednesday about investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and alleged obstruction of justice.
Mueller has warned he doesn’t intend to deliver any bombshells beyond those detailed in the 448-page report released in mid-April.
But Democrats hope he will summarize its findings in short, digestible TV soundbites that will spur new outrage, especially among lawmakers on the fence about whether to try to force Trump from office.
For House Democrats already committed to impeachment, Mueller’s back-to-back testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees may be their last best chance to muster a majority short of dramatic new misconduct by the president — or an about-face by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who has steadfastly opposed impeachment proceedings for now.
Democrats acknowledge that they need a televised moment to counter Trump’s claim of “complete and total exoneration” shortly after Atty. Gen. William Barr gave a public summary of Mueller’s report on March 24.
But Mueller decided that Justice Department rules barred indictment of a sitting president, adding, “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
end quotes
Which was followed by a Reuters article entitled “Mueller report shows evidence Trump committed crimes, House Judiciary chairman says” by Sarah N. Lynch on 22 July 2019, where we were treated to the following:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The top Democrat on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee said Sunday he believes there is “substantial evidence” that President Donald Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and he plans to ask former Special Counsel Robert Mueller to present those facts at a congressional hearing on Wednesday.
“The report presents very substantial evidence that the president is guilty of high crime and misdemeanors, and we have to let Mueller present those facts to the American people and then see where we go from there,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said on “Fox News Sunday.”
“The administration must be held accountable, and no president can be above the law.”
Nadler’s comments are significant because evidence of such crimes would be required if Democrats pursue impeachment proceedings against the president.
end quotes
BUT evidence of alleged crimes committed by Trump would come to us, not from Democrat “Jumping Jerry” Nadler, who lives up to his name by jumping to conclusions here and trying to take us with him, as if we were all quite stupid, or Bob Mueller, as we clearly see by returning to the Federal Grand Jury Handbook, as follows:
The grand jury normally hears only that evidence presented by an attorney for the government which tends to show the commission of a crime.
The grand jury must determine from this evidence, and usually without hearing evidence for the defense, whether a person should be tried for a serious federal crime, referred to in the Bill of Rights as an “infamous crime.”
An infamous crime is one which may be punished by imprisonment for more than one year.
As a general rule, no one can be prosecuted for a serious crime unless the grand jury decides that the evidence it has heard so requires.
In this way, the grand jury operates both as a “sword,” authorizing the government’s prosecution of suspected criminals, and also as a “shield,” protecting citizens from unwarranted or inappropriate prosecutions.
Furthermore, a federal grand jury is not authorized to investigate situations involving the conduct of individuals, public officials, agencies or institutions that the grand jury believes is subject to mere criticism rather than a violation of federal criminal statutes.
Its concern must be devoted solely to ascertaining whether there is probable cause to believe that a federal crime has been committed and to report accordingly to the court.
end quotes
And ALL of that was thrown right out the window by the Democrats and Bob Mueller in their zeal to get Trump and by fatally tainting the 2020 presidential election, to impose one-party rule on us as they have over in Putin’s Russia.
So this is a perverted power-grab by the Democrats, plain and simple, which takes us back to the Nadler accusation article, as follows:
Nadler said Democrats plan to ask very specific questions about Trump’s obstructive conduct and ask Mueller to read passages from the report aloud.
“We hope it won’t end up being a dud,” he said of the hearing.
end quotes
So much for truth, justice and RULE OF LAW in America, people – they are gone, and we are a lesser nation and people, as a result, which should concern every single person here in the United States of America, which then takes us to a CBS News article entitled “Pelosi distributes memo to House Democrats ahead of Mueller hearing” by Emily Tillett on 23 July 2019, to wit:
Ahead of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony to Congress on Wednesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has distributed a 6-page memo to House Democrats telling them to “fight for our national security” by safeguarding the U.S. election process.
“Nothing less than the integrity of our democracy, the rule of law and national security are at stake,” the memo, titled “Exposing the Truth,” reads.
“Our Democratic House Majority will continue to fight for our national security by securing our elections, safeguarding our democracy and holding the President accountable – because no one is above the law,” the memo read.
end quotes
Except none of that is true, at all.
The Democrats have not “secured” our elections – they have fatally tainted them with their accusations of criminality against Trump that were never submitted to a grand jury for review.
And the Democrats, by doing so, have not “safeguarded” our democracy; to the contrary, by their actions, they have fatally tainted and destroyed our democracy, which is supposed to give us FREEDOM OF CHOICE over who we elect to public office.
And that makes the Democrats clearly above OUR laws, which they simply do not give a damn about, which then takes us to a Washington Examiner article entitled “Comey: Trump did obstruct justice, but Mueller won’t say that” by Mike Brest on 24 July 2019, where we have a vindictive Jimmy Comey further violating Trump’s right to due process and equal protection of law, as follows:
Former FBI Director James Comey shared his opinion that President Trump obstructed justice regarding the special counsel investigation, but added that he would be surprised if Robert Mueller said that during his upcoming testimony.
Comey was on MSNBC’s Deadline Tuesday afternoon to discuss the testimony of Mueller, who is scheduled to appear in front of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.
“A former colleague of mine from the Bush White House said they’re lucky Robert Mueller wasn’t forced to render a decision because it looks to this individual like he would have said, fine I recommend prosecution.”
“Is it your sense that might be true?” Nicolle Wallace asked.
“Do you agree with the 800-plus prosecutors who have said if Donald Trump were anyone other than the president of the United States, he would have absolutely been charged with obstruction?”
“So, I think the second question first: Yes, I agree.”
“If this were a case about someone other than the president, they’d have already been indicted on several of these obstruction incidents, maybe all of them, I don’t know.”
“But Director Mueller, I think, if pressed, would reach a decision at least on some of them there is sufficient basis to charge the president,” Comey answered.
end quotes
Is Jimmy Comey totally unaware of federal law and the Constitution?
That answer seems to be that in the case of getting Trump, and in the process, strengthening Russia at the expense of the American people, which is a BIG WIN for Putin, the answer is yes.
Is Nicolle Wallace of MSNBC’s Deadline nothing more than an ignorant party hack who knows nothing about America or OUR laws and OUR Constitution?
Of course.
And have the Democrats finally succeeded in making our “democracy” nothing more than a disgusting spectacle reminiscent of the Athenian Greeks voting to ostracize people from Athens, simply because they did not like them?
Yes, and it stinks!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-161520
Russiagate: What we were told, what we know
BY WAYNE CREED
We were told Trump’s inquisitor was a calm, even-handed Republican with impeccable credentials who was trusted by everyone.
What we learned yesterday was that the inquisition was run by the Democrat lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s aide who destroyed evidence with a hammer.
We were told that the evidence of alleged Russian collusion was rock solid, the work of America’s top intelligence agencies.
In reality, it was pure fiction cooked up by a Clinton-funded foreign contractor on the payroll of a sanctioned Russian oligarch.
We were told the Trump campaign was never spied on or wiretapped by U.S. spy agencies.
We now know the campaign was indeed wiretapped, that honeypots were deployed to entrap campaign affiliates, that overseas intel assets were used to set up meetings as pretexts for more spying.
We were told our nation’s intel agencies would never use false information to justify secret surveillance of American citizens.
In reality, DOJ and the FBI peddled lies to the FISA court that were cooked up by a foreign spy and a DOJ official’s wife, both funded by Clinton.
We were told that our government’s top secret keepers would never leak classified or confidential information to the media.
What actually happened is that top intel officials repeatedly leaked, often illegally, to cement a false narrative to support further spying on citizens.
Finally, we were told that America’s top cops and spies would never foment a coup to overturn election results they didn’t like.
We now know the most powerful unelected people in government cooked up lies as part of an orchestrated scheme to overthrow the duly elected president.
Is this America?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-161520
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 28, 2019 at 12:13 pm
Paul Plante says:
It supposedly remains “America,” just a markedly different version of it that seems more like the Soviet Union for those of us who remember such things.
Who has clearly won here is Putin and Russia, this thanks to the House Democrats including Nadler and Schiff aided and abetted by Robert Mueller, with the result that the 2020 presidential election along with our “democracy” is now fatally tainted by charges of criminality leveled against Trump by the Democrats, without any grand jury action in between, along with further charges that Trump is a Russian dupe, and the Russians are going to interfere in our 2020 presidential election big-time to keep Trump in office, so the only way we can “beat the Russians” at their own game and defeat them is to elect a Democrat as president, because everybody now knows, thanks to the Democrats and Jimmy Comey, that Putin HATES Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, which is all horsecrap.
I have seen a lot of horse**** coming out of Washington, D.C. in my lifetime, but never something as incredible and insulting to our sense of justice as American people as this travesty, where Bob Mueller has taken on the role of judge and jury, skipping over the requirement of a grand jury, in order to fatally taint the 2020 presidential election to put the Democrats in full control of our government, which should incense every American citizen who cares that our elections are fair and free, which they now no longer are with these charges leveled against Trump, that he has no way of exonerating himself of.
If we bother to look at the Grand Jury Handbook – Handbook for Grand Jurors Serving in the United States District Courts, we find this, to wit: The grand jury as an institution was so firmly established in the traditions of our forebears that they included it in the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides in part that “(n)o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . .”
An “infamous crime,” according to the handbook, is a federal crime with a penalty of at least a year, so what has happened here is that in their zeal to destroy Trump and thus, swing the 2020 presidential election their way, the Democrats have stripped Trump of his constitutional rights, period, by charging him with criminal activity in a public forum as they did, which is plain disgusting.
Consider the Los Angeles Times article “Democrats hope Mueller’s testimony will make more Americans want to impeach Trump” by Jennifer Haberkorn on 22 July 2019, for example:
WASHINGTON — House Democrats hope to boost public support for impeaching President Trump when former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III testifies to Congress for the first time Wednesday about investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and alleged obstruction of justice.
Mueller has warned he doesn’t intend to deliver any bombshells beyond those detailed in the 448-page report released in mid-April.
But Democrats hope he will summarize its findings in short, digestible TV soundbites that will spur new outrage, especially among lawmakers on the fence about whether to try to force Trump from office.
For House Democrats already committed to impeachment, Mueller’s back-to-back testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees may be their last best chance to muster a majority short of dramatic new misconduct by the president — or an about-face by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who has steadfastly opposed impeachment proceedings for now.
Democrats acknowledge that they need a televised moment to counter Trump’s claim of “complete and total exoneration” shortly after Atty. Gen. William Barr gave a public summary of Mueller’s report on March 24.
But Mueller decided that Justice Department rules barred indictment of a sitting president, adding, “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
end quotes
Which was followed by a Reuters article entitled “Mueller report shows evidence Trump committed crimes, House Judiciary chairman says” by Sarah N. Lynch on 22 July 2019, where we were treated to the following:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The top Democrat on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee said Sunday he believes there is “substantial evidence” that President Donald Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and he plans to ask former Special Counsel Robert Mueller to present those facts at a congressional hearing on Wednesday.
“The report presents very substantial evidence that the president is guilty of high crime and misdemeanors, and we have to let Mueller present those facts to the American people and then see where we go from there,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said on “Fox News Sunday.”
“The administration must be held accountable, and no president can be above the law.”
Nadler’s comments are significant because evidence of such crimes would be required if Democrats pursue impeachment proceedings against the president.
end quotes
BUT evidence of alleged crimes committed by Trump would come to us, not from Democrat “Jumping Jerry” Nadler, who lives up to his name by jumping to conclusions here and trying to take us with him, as if we were all quite stupid, or Bob Mueller, as we clearly see by returning to the Federal Grand Jury Handbook, as follows:
The grand jury normally hears only that evidence presented by an attorney for the government which tends to show the commission of a crime.
The grand jury must determine from this evidence, and usually without hearing evidence for the defense, whether a person should be tried for a serious federal crime, referred to in the Bill of Rights as an “infamous crime.”
An infamous crime is one which may be punished by imprisonment for more than one year.
As a general rule, no one can be prosecuted for a serious crime unless the grand jury decides that the evidence it has heard so requires.
In this way, the grand jury operates both as a “sword,” authorizing the government’s prosecution of suspected criminals, and also as a “shield,” protecting citizens from unwarranted or inappropriate prosecutions.
Furthermore, a federal grand jury is not authorized to investigate situations involving the conduct of individuals, public officials, agencies or institutions that the grand jury believes is subject to mere criticism rather than a violation of federal criminal statutes.
Its concern must be devoted solely to ascertaining whether there is probable cause to believe that a federal crime has been committed and to report accordingly to the court.
end quotes
And ALL of that was thrown right out the window by the Democrats and Bob Mueller in their zeal to get Trump and by fatally tainting the 2020 presidential election, to impose one-party rule on us as they have over in Putin’s Russia.
So this is a perverted power-grab by the Democrats, plain and simple, which takes us back to the Nadler accusation article, as follows:
Nadler said Democrats plan to ask very specific questions about Trump’s obstructive conduct and ask Mueller to read passages from the report aloud.
“We hope it won’t end up being a dud,” he said of the hearing.
end quotes
So much for truth, justice and RULE OF LAW in America, people – they are gone, and we are a lesser nation and people, as a result, which should concern every single person here in the United States of America, which then takes us to a CBS News article entitled “Pelosi distributes memo to House Democrats ahead of Mueller hearing” by Emily Tillett on 23 July 2019, to wit:
Ahead of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony to Congress on Wednesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has distributed a 6-page memo to House Democrats telling them to “fight for our national security” by safeguarding the U.S. election process.
“Nothing less than the integrity of our democracy, the rule of law and national security are at stake,” the memo, titled “Exposing the Truth,” reads.
“Our Democratic House Majority will continue to fight for our national security by securing our elections, safeguarding our democracy and holding the President accountable – because no one is above the law,” the memo read.
end quotes
Except none of that is true, at all.
The Democrats have not “secured” our elections – they have fatally tainted them with their accusations of criminality against Trump that were never submitted to a grand jury for review.
And the Democrats, by doing so, have not “safeguarded” our democracy; to the contrary, by their actions, they have fatally tainted and destroyed our democracy, which is supposed to give us FREEDOM OF CHOICE over who we elect to public office.
And that makes the Democrats clearly above OUR laws, which they simply do not give a damn about, which then takes us to a Washington Examiner article entitled “Comey: Trump did obstruct justice, but Mueller won’t say that” by Mike Brest on 24 July 2019, where we have a vindictive Jimmy Comey further violating Trump’s right to due process and equal protection of law, as follows:
Former FBI Director James Comey shared his opinion that President Trump obstructed justice regarding the special counsel investigation, but added that he would be surprised if Robert Mueller said that during his upcoming testimony.
Comey was on MSNBC’s Deadline Tuesday afternoon to discuss the testimony of Mueller, who is scheduled to appear in front of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.
“A former colleague of mine from the Bush White House said they’re lucky Robert Mueller wasn’t forced to render a decision because it looks to this individual like he would have said, fine I recommend prosecution.”
“Is it your sense that might be true?” Nicolle Wallace asked.
“Do you agree with the 800-plus prosecutors who have said if Donald Trump were anyone other than the president of the United States, he would have absolutely been charged with obstruction?”
“So, I think the second question first: Yes, I agree.”
“If this were a case about someone other than the president, they’d have already been indicted on several of these obstruction incidents, maybe all of them, I don’t know.”
“But Director Mueller, I think, if pressed, would reach a decision at least on some of them there is sufficient basis to charge the president,” Comey answered.
end quotes
Is Jimmy Comey totally unaware of federal law and the Constitution?
That answer seems to be that in the case of getting Trump, and in the process, strengthening Russia at the expense of the American people, which is a BIG WIN for Putin, the answer is yes.
Is Nicolle Wallace of MSNBC’s Deadline nothing more than an ignorant party hack who knows nothing about America or OUR laws and OUR Constitution?
Of course.
And have the Democrats finally succeeded in making our “democracy” nothing more than a disgusting spectacle reminiscent of the Athenian Greeks voting to ostracize people from Athens, simply because they did not like them?
Yes, and it stinks!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-161520
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 27, 2019 at 7:26 pm
Paul Plante says:
Further evidence of the fact that we have a “living” constitution, i.e. one that should have still BOUND the federal government to prevent it from becoming a tyrant in OUR times, as opposed to a “dead” constitution whose validity ended when that generation which framed it passed from the earth, which would leave chaos behind if a constitution of government as the supreme law binding that government were only good for twenty years, is Article I, Section 8 of OUR Constitution, which provides today as it did at the beginning, and all the way through to now, that for better or worse, Congress has the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof,” along with the Commerce Clause, which in our day has been stretched and contorted in the case of Obamacare by the Supreme Court so that now, in addition to merely regulating commerce between the states, the original intent, that clause can now be used by congress, this thanks to the justices of the supreme court, the biggest bastardizers of our Constitution there are in this country, to force people to have to buy something they neither want nor need.
If the Constitution were not a “living” document, then every new generation would be left without a functioning government in place, since governments are constituted not by whim or wish or hope, but by constitutions, and if it were not a living document, then we would be forced by it to still be living in 1789, with no hope of ever advancing as a nation or a people.
At the time of the Constitution coming into being back in 1787 and after, at the time of the Federalist Papers and a literal host of political essays pro and con, which incidentally are found on a site for high school teachers, as well as here viewtopic.php?f=15&t=20 , it was never said that the Constitution then under consideration was perfect; to the contrary, it was always said and admitted that after long and careful study, that was the best they could come up with to cure the ills of the nation which existed at that time, when the fledgling nation was deeply in debt with no home industry to speak of, and no markets abroad, and the states at each others throats, so that the union of 13 separate states that made it through the revolution together as a union were on the verge of separating the union to become either separate states on their own, or a series of small confederations.
In a A Landholder II by Oliver Ellsworth, this nation’s first chief justice of the Supreme Court, this dated November 12, 1787 and addressed to the Holders and Tillers of Land in America at that time, we are given a good glimpse of the situation existing in America at that time, to wit:
GENTLEMEN, You were told in the late war that peace and independence would reward your toil, and that riches would accompany the establishment of your liberties, by opening a wider market, and consequently raising the price of such commodities as America produces for exportation.
Such a conclusion appeared just and natural.
We had been restrained by the British to trade only with themselves, who often re-exported to other nations at a high advance, the raw material they had procured from us.
This advance we designed to realize, but our expectation has been disappointed.
The produce of the country is in general down to the old price, and bids fair to fall much lower.
It is time for those who till the earth in the sweat of their brow to enquire the cause.
And we shall find it neither in merchant or farmer, but in a bad system of policy and government, or rather in having no system at all.
When we call ourselves an independent nation it is false, we are neither a nation, nor are we independent.
Like thirteen contentious neighbors we devour and take every advantage of each other, and are without that system of policy which give safety and strength, and constitutes a national structure.
Once we were dependent only on Great-Britain, now we are dependent on every petty state in the world and on every custom house officer of foreign ports.
If the injured apply for redress to the assemblies of the several states, it is in vain, for they are not, and cannot be known abroad.
If they apply to Congress, it is also vain, for however wise and good that body may be, they have not power to vindicate either themselves or their subjects.
Do not, my countrymen, fall into a passion on hearing these truths, nor think your treatment unexampled.
From the beginning it hath been the case that people without policy will find enough to take advantage of their weakness, and you are not the first who have been devoured by their wiser neighbors, but perhaps it is not too late for a remedy, we ought at least to make a tryal, and if we still die shall have this consolation in our last hours, that we tried to live.
end quotes
One thing I always take away from reading these ORIGINALIST documents, those written not by pundits in our times, but by the people who lived through that revolution and came out on the other side to see the 13 states all separating, because having come together in a time of war, they knew nothing of peaceful co-existence with no external enemy to threaten them, is how knowledgeable those people were about the world around them going back to antiquity, as well as human nature down through the ages of man, and how well they were able to express their thoughts on the subject to their fellow Americans, as Oliver Ellsworth has just done above here, where he states, quite truthfully, as we are seeing in our time with the Russians now on the verge of totally owning “our democracy,” because our democracy is so weak, that from the beginning of time it hath been the case that people without policy will find enough to take advantage of their weakness, and we in our time will not be the first who have been devoured by their wiser neighbors, in this case, Putin and the Russians, thanks to Hillary Clinton and the high technology she provided them to make them stronger so they could then beat us in a cyber-war, as they are doing as I write these words, this according to Bob Mueller, the Wray dude with the FBI and the Democrats, and in our case, due to our national ignorance, perhaps it is too late for a remedy, but as then, and this thanks to the Cape Charles Mirror, we ought at least to make a tryal, and if we still die shall have this consolation in our last hours, that we tried to live.
Ellsworth then continued as follows, to wit:
I can foresee that several classes of men will try to alarm your fears, and however selfish their motives, we may expect that liberty, the encroachments of power, and the inestimable privileges of dear posterity will with them be fruitful topicks of argument.
The first to oppose a federal government will be the old friends of Great Britain, who in their hearts cursed the prosperity of your arms, and have ever since delighted in the perplexity of your councils.
Many of these men are still among us, and for several years their hopes of a re-union with Britain have been high.
They rightly judge that nothing will so soon effect their wishes as the deranged state we are now in, if it should continue.
They see that the merchant is weary of a government which cannot protect his property, and that the farmer finding no benefit from the revolution, begins to dread much evil; and they hope the people will soon supplicate the protection of their old masters.
We therefore expect that all the policy of these men will center in defeating those measures, which will protect the people, and give system and force to American Councils.
end quotes
There, from the pen of someone who lived those times, is the background in existence at the time our Constitution came into being, and its purpose was to RISE US UP from those dismal and abject conditions to make us stronger as a nation and as a people.
To keep us risen up requires a living constitution, or chaos is the result, which is what we had in this nation before we had a constitution.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... one-dying/
Paul Plante says:
Further evidence of the fact that we have a “living” constitution, i.e. one that should have still BOUND the federal government to prevent it from becoming a tyrant in OUR times, as opposed to a “dead” constitution whose validity ended when that generation which framed it passed from the earth, which would leave chaos behind if a constitution of government as the supreme law binding that government were only good for twenty years, is Article I, Section 8 of OUR Constitution, which provides today as it did at the beginning, and all the way through to now, that for better or worse, Congress has the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof,” along with the Commerce Clause, which in our day has been stretched and contorted in the case of Obamacare by the Supreme Court so that now, in addition to merely regulating commerce between the states, the original intent, that clause can now be used by congress, this thanks to the justices of the supreme court, the biggest bastardizers of our Constitution there are in this country, to force people to have to buy something they neither want nor need.
If the Constitution were not a “living” document, then every new generation would be left without a functioning government in place, since governments are constituted not by whim or wish or hope, but by constitutions, and if it were not a living document, then we would be forced by it to still be living in 1789, with no hope of ever advancing as a nation or a people.
At the time of the Constitution coming into being back in 1787 and after, at the time of the Federalist Papers and a literal host of political essays pro and con, which incidentally are found on a site for high school teachers, as well as here viewtopic.php?f=15&t=20 , it was never said that the Constitution then under consideration was perfect; to the contrary, it was always said and admitted that after long and careful study, that was the best they could come up with to cure the ills of the nation which existed at that time, when the fledgling nation was deeply in debt with no home industry to speak of, and no markets abroad, and the states at each others throats, so that the union of 13 separate states that made it through the revolution together as a union were on the verge of separating the union to become either separate states on their own, or a series of small confederations.
In a A Landholder II by Oliver Ellsworth, this nation’s first chief justice of the Supreme Court, this dated November 12, 1787 and addressed to the Holders and Tillers of Land in America at that time, we are given a good glimpse of the situation existing in America at that time, to wit:
GENTLEMEN, You were told in the late war that peace and independence would reward your toil, and that riches would accompany the establishment of your liberties, by opening a wider market, and consequently raising the price of such commodities as America produces for exportation.
Such a conclusion appeared just and natural.
We had been restrained by the British to trade only with themselves, who often re-exported to other nations at a high advance, the raw material they had procured from us.
This advance we designed to realize, but our expectation has been disappointed.
The produce of the country is in general down to the old price, and bids fair to fall much lower.
It is time for those who till the earth in the sweat of their brow to enquire the cause.
And we shall find it neither in merchant or farmer, but in a bad system of policy and government, or rather in having no system at all.
When we call ourselves an independent nation it is false, we are neither a nation, nor are we independent.
Like thirteen contentious neighbors we devour and take every advantage of each other, and are without that system of policy which give safety and strength, and constitutes a national structure.
Once we were dependent only on Great-Britain, now we are dependent on every petty state in the world and on every custom house officer of foreign ports.
If the injured apply for redress to the assemblies of the several states, it is in vain, for they are not, and cannot be known abroad.
If they apply to Congress, it is also vain, for however wise and good that body may be, they have not power to vindicate either themselves or their subjects.
Do not, my countrymen, fall into a passion on hearing these truths, nor think your treatment unexampled.
From the beginning it hath been the case that people without policy will find enough to take advantage of their weakness, and you are not the first who have been devoured by their wiser neighbors, but perhaps it is not too late for a remedy, we ought at least to make a tryal, and if we still die shall have this consolation in our last hours, that we tried to live.
end quotes
One thing I always take away from reading these ORIGINALIST documents, those written not by pundits in our times, but by the people who lived through that revolution and came out on the other side to see the 13 states all separating, because having come together in a time of war, they knew nothing of peaceful co-existence with no external enemy to threaten them, is how knowledgeable those people were about the world around them going back to antiquity, as well as human nature down through the ages of man, and how well they were able to express their thoughts on the subject to their fellow Americans, as Oliver Ellsworth has just done above here, where he states, quite truthfully, as we are seeing in our time with the Russians now on the verge of totally owning “our democracy,” because our democracy is so weak, that from the beginning of time it hath been the case that people without policy will find enough to take advantage of their weakness, and we in our time will not be the first who have been devoured by their wiser neighbors, in this case, Putin and the Russians, thanks to Hillary Clinton and the high technology she provided them to make them stronger so they could then beat us in a cyber-war, as they are doing as I write these words, this according to Bob Mueller, the Wray dude with the FBI and the Democrats, and in our case, due to our national ignorance, perhaps it is too late for a remedy, but as then, and this thanks to the Cape Charles Mirror, we ought at least to make a tryal, and if we still die shall have this consolation in our last hours, that we tried to live.
Ellsworth then continued as follows, to wit:
I can foresee that several classes of men will try to alarm your fears, and however selfish their motives, we may expect that liberty, the encroachments of power, and the inestimable privileges of dear posterity will with them be fruitful topicks of argument.
The first to oppose a federal government will be the old friends of Great Britain, who in their hearts cursed the prosperity of your arms, and have ever since delighted in the perplexity of your councils.
Many of these men are still among us, and for several years their hopes of a re-union with Britain have been high.
They rightly judge that nothing will so soon effect their wishes as the deranged state we are now in, if it should continue.
They see that the merchant is weary of a government which cannot protect his property, and that the farmer finding no benefit from the revolution, begins to dread much evil; and they hope the people will soon supplicate the protection of their old masters.
We therefore expect that all the policy of these men will center in defeating those measures, which will protect the people, and give system and force to American Councils.
end quotes
There, from the pen of someone who lived those times, is the background in existence at the time our Constitution came into being, and its purpose was to RISE US UP from those dismal and abject conditions to make us stronger as a nation and as a people.
To keep us risen up requires a living constitution, or chaos is the result, which is what we had in this nation before we had a constitution.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... one-dying/
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 28, 2019 at 7:47 pm
Paul Plante says:
Another key takeaway here is that thanks to “Jumping Jerry” Nadler, the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff, the Democrat party, Robert Mueller III, and the vindictive and spiteful Jimmy Comey, the 2020 presidential election has now been fatally compromised, along with our democracy in this country, tainted as it now is because of interference and meddling by the Democrats with their unsubstantiated charges of criminality against Trump, so that now, the stink of corruption is firmly attached to it, before the fact, that stink of corruption as a result of the Democrats accusing Trump of being a criminal who is in thrall to Mother Russia and Putin, which is the refrain that we will be hearing from here on out as the myriad of Democrats running for president keep repeating that mantra over and over, as has already happened if anyone happened to be watching “AMJoy” on MSNBC on Saturday morning, 27 July 2019, which show featured some obstreperous, overly-emotional and seemingly hysterical woman shouting at other people about how the Russians are going to use the 2020 presidential election to put Trump back in power so they can take over our democracy, which takes us to the takeaway of just how weak and rotten our democracy has become if the Russians can take it over so easily as they are right now, at least according to Bob Mueller on 24 July 2019, as was reported by NBC News in the article “Six takeaways from Mueller’s day before Congress” by Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann on July 25, 2019, as follows:
“Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy,” he said.
“The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious.”
“As I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of every American.”
end quotes
And since I am every bit as much an American as is Bob Mueller, I have been diligently looking for any signs of the alleged “Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election,” and have yet to find any, and as to the number of challenges to our democracy that I have seen in my lifetime, which is just about as long as Bob Mueller’s lifetime, this Mueller Hearing on 24 July 2019 is definitely among the most serious, if not fatal, which takes us the Bob Mueller’s statement that this was no “witch hunt,” which is entirely correct – Mueller and the Democrats were not searching for witches; they were intentionally creating the witches out of whole cloth for partisan political purposes so they can take over all three branches of our federal government in 2020, by tainting the 2020 election in favor of the Democrats.
And the harm they have done to our nation as a result is irreparable.
As to that harm, what they have done with that hearing is to make it clear to not just the citizens of the United States of America, but to the candid world and Russia and Putin, as well, which is a huge victory for him won by the House Democrats under Nadler and Schiff, that in the United States of America today, rule of law is now done, finished, kaput, which now makes us nothing more than just another third-world ****hole nation where kangaroo courts and false charges are the norm, which is a very sad day for OUR America, indeed.
And here, by way of necessary background, I would like to go back to this nation’s beginnings to FEDERALIST No. 69, The Real Character of the Executive, to the People of the State of New York from the New York Packet by Alexander Hamilton on Friday, March 14, 1788, where was stated in clear and unambiguous language as follows:
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.
end quotes
Which makes it incandescently clear that IF the Democrats really had evidence that Trump had violated the law, they could simply charge him themselves through articles of impeachment and be done with it, except they have no such evidence, and so they are stuck, which takes us back to that NBC News article, as follows:
But if the idea of yesterday was to galvanize Democrats to impeach Trump, it didn’t do the trick.
It’s hard to disagree with the Washington Post’s Dan Balz: “If Democrats hope to end the Trump presidency, they will have to do so by defeating him at the ballot box in November 2020.”
end quotes
Which in turn brings us to a Washington Examiner article entitled “Mueller probably thinks Trump obstructed justice but refuses to be Democrats’ impeachment fall guy” by Tiana Lowe on July 24, 2019, to wit:
Of all the questions raised by former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s interference in our 2016 elections, none has proven more mystifying and aggravating as to why Robert Mueller ultimately punted the question of whether President Trump committed obstruction of justice to Attorney General William Barr.
Mueller clearly deliberated and decided that not enough evidence existed to charge Trump with any conspiracy charges, yet he explicitly refused to come to a conclusion on the obstruction question.
Of all the material benefit to the public brought by Mueller’s hearings with the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, the only real question that matters to the public is why.
Mueller went through great lengths to obfuscate his intentions and understandably so.
As special counsel, Mueller was assigned to make a legal decision, not a political one.
Following the precedent set by the Office of Legal Counsel, Mueller has consistently maintained that even if he found enough evidence to charge Trump with acts of obstruction, he wouldn’t charge a sitting president.
But he refused to decide that “even if” question.
His words today further indicate that he did believe Trump should have been brought up on obstruction charges otherwise, and his actions point towards his refusal to make a political decision by proxy and give Democrats the green light to initiate impeachment proceedings.
“Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller states in his prepared remarks.
The phrasing here is key.
The Justice Department policy directed Mueller not to bring up charges, but it certainly doesn’t say that Mueller couldn’t or shouldn’t make a verdict on whether Trump ought to be brought up on charges once he’s out of office.
No, that he blames on the intentionally vague “principles of fairness” doctrine.
What does it mean?
Likely that Mueller believes that he shouldn’t be responsible for instigating political trials, only criminal ones.
Every equivocation indicated that Mueller personally believes Trump should face obstruction charges.
When Rep. Ted Lieu, D-California, got Mueller to confirm that he believed Trump committed all three legal elements required to constitute obstruction of justice, Mueller attempted to halt the correlation by noting that he doesn’t endorse the conclusion of what Lieu “was saying.”
But to both Lieu and Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Mueller concurred that Volume II of the report indicates that Trump committed all three elements of obstruction.
If Democrats genuinely believe they have the goods to impeach Trump on obstruction charges, they’ll need to initiate proceedings without having Mueller’s explicit approval.
The former special counsel made abundantly clear he refuses to make that decision for them, and although he should have answered the obstruction question as a matter of legal principle, it makes sense why he wouldn’t as a moral one.
Democrats won’t get Mueller as a scapegoat.
If they go forward with impeachment, they’ll have to prove to an overwhelmingly unapproving public why they have the political points to do so.
end quotes
Which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 71, The Duration in Office of the Executive, by Alexander Hamilton to the People of the State of New York from the New York Packet on Tuesday, March 18, 1788, as follows:
There are some who would be inclined to regard the servile pliancy of the Executive to a prevailing current, either in the community or in the legislature, as its best recommendation.
But such men entertain very crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government was instituted, as of the true means by which the public happiness may be promoted.
end quotes
And there, of course, he is talking about “Jumping Jerry” Nadler, the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff, and the House Democrats, which takes us back to Alexander Hamilton, as follows:
But however inclined we might be to insist upon an unbounded complaisance in the Executive to the inclinations of the people, we can with no propriety contend for a like complaisance to the humors of the legislature.
end quotes
And there is exactly what we are seeing going on in America right now – the Democrats are demanding that Trump as president have an unbounded complaisance (disposition to please or comply) to the humors of the Democrats in the legislature, and not getting that complaisance from Trump, they are now seeking to totally pervert our democracy by meddling and interfering in our 2020 presidential election to keep Trump out of office for a second term, which takes us back to Federalist No. 71, as follows:
The latter may sometimes stand in opposition to the former, and at other times the people may be entirely neutral.
In either supposition, it is certainly desirable that the Executive should be in a situation to dare to act his own opinion with vigor and decision.
The same rule which teaches the propriety of a partition between the various branches of power, teaches us likewise that this partition ought to be so contrived as to render the one independent of the other.
To what purpose separate the executive or the judiciary from the legislative, if both the executive and the judiciary are so constituted as to be at the absolute devotion of the legislative?
end quotes
And people, regardless of your political affiliation, or like in my case, your lack of a political affiliation to either the Democrats or the Republicans, there is an existential question from our past that is now ours as citizens to answer: do we want a president in this country today who will serve at the absolute devotion of the Democrats in the House of representatives?
And if so, what on earth type of third-world ****hole government would that give us?
And why on earth would we want it, which takes us back to Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No. 71, as follows:
It is one thing to be subordinate to the laws, and another to be dependent on the legislative body.
The first comports with, the last violates, the fundamental principles of good government; and, whatever may be the forms of the Constitution, unites all power in the same hands.
The tendency of the legislative authority to absorb every other, has been fully displayed and illustrated by examples in some preceding numbers.
end quotes
And once again, people we are seeing it happen right before our eyes today as the Democrats in the House of Representatives try to absorb the executive branch and put it under their authority, which again takes us back to Alexander Hamilton, as follows:
The representatives of the people, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the people themselves, and betray strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any other quarter; as if the exercise of its rights, by either the executive or judiciary, were a breach of their privilege and an outrage to their dignity.
They often appear disposed to exert an imperious control over the other departments; and as they commonly have the people on their side, they always act with such momentum as to make it very difficult for the other members of the government to maintain the balance of the Constitution.
end quotes
And there is where we are right now in this country, with the Democrat representatives of the people in the popular assembly which is the House of Representatives, or “People’s House,” as Nancy Pelosi and Ilhan Omar call it, fancying that they are the people themselves, and are they ever betraying strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from the office of the executive, as if the exercise of its rights by the executive were a breach of their privilege and an outrage to their dignity, and they very much appear disposed to exert an imperious control over the office of the executive, and as they have some of the people on their side, and are futilely trying to get the rest of us to come over to the dark side where they are, they are acting with such momentum as to make it very difficult for the other members of the government to maintain the balance of the Constitution.
Is that a good thing for America, people?
Do we want our nation under the imperious control of the Democrats in the House of Representatives?
And while you all ponder those questions, I am going to pause for station identification so I can go vomit, so toxic disgusting our federal government in Washington, D.C. has become.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-161923
Paul Plante says:
Another key takeaway here is that thanks to “Jumping Jerry” Nadler, the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff, the Democrat party, Robert Mueller III, and the vindictive and spiteful Jimmy Comey, the 2020 presidential election has now been fatally compromised, along with our democracy in this country, tainted as it now is because of interference and meddling by the Democrats with their unsubstantiated charges of criminality against Trump, so that now, the stink of corruption is firmly attached to it, before the fact, that stink of corruption as a result of the Democrats accusing Trump of being a criminal who is in thrall to Mother Russia and Putin, which is the refrain that we will be hearing from here on out as the myriad of Democrats running for president keep repeating that mantra over and over, as has already happened if anyone happened to be watching “AMJoy” on MSNBC on Saturday morning, 27 July 2019, which show featured some obstreperous, overly-emotional and seemingly hysterical woman shouting at other people about how the Russians are going to use the 2020 presidential election to put Trump back in power so they can take over our democracy, which takes us to the takeaway of just how weak and rotten our democracy has become if the Russians can take it over so easily as they are right now, at least according to Bob Mueller on 24 July 2019, as was reported by NBC News in the article “Six takeaways from Mueller’s day before Congress” by Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann on July 25, 2019, as follows:
“Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy,” he said.
“The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious.”
“As I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of every American.”
end quotes
And since I am every bit as much an American as is Bob Mueller, I have been diligently looking for any signs of the alleged “Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election,” and have yet to find any, and as to the number of challenges to our democracy that I have seen in my lifetime, which is just about as long as Bob Mueller’s lifetime, this Mueller Hearing on 24 July 2019 is definitely among the most serious, if not fatal, which takes us the Bob Mueller’s statement that this was no “witch hunt,” which is entirely correct – Mueller and the Democrats were not searching for witches; they were intentionally creating the witches out of whole cloth for partisan political purposes so they can take over all three branches of our federal government in 2020, by tainting the 2020 election in favor of the Democrats.
And the harm they have done to our nation as a result is irreparable.
As to that harm, what they have done with that hearing is to make it clear to not just the citizens of the United States of America, but to the candid world and Russia and Putin, as well, which is a huge victory for him won by the House Democrats under Nadler and Schiff, that in the United States of America today, rule of law is now done, finished, kaput, which now makes us nothing more than just another third-world ****hole nation where kangaroo courts and false charges are the norm, which is a very sad day for OUR America, indeed.
And here, by way of necessary background, I would like to go back to this nation’s beginnings to FEDERALIST No. 69, The Real Character of the Executive, to the People of the State of New York from the New York Packet by Alexander Hamilton on Friday, March 14, 1788, where was stated in clear and unambiguous language as follows:
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.
end quotes
Which makes it incandescently clear that IF the Democrats really had evidence that Trump had violated the law, they could simply charge him themselves through articles of impeachment and be done with it, except they have no such evidence, and so they are stuck, which takes us back to that NBC News article, as follows:
But if the idea of yesterday was to galvanize Democrats to impeach Trump, it didn’t do the trick.
It’s hard to disagree with the Washington Post’s Dan Balz: “If Democrats hope to end the Trump presidency, they will have to do so by defeating him at the ballot box in November 2020.”
end quotes
Which in turn brings us to a Washington Examiner article entitled “Mueller probably thinks Trump obstructed justice but refuses to be Democrats’ impeachment fall guy” by Tiana Lowe on July 24, 2019, to wit:
Of all the questions raised by former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s interference in our 2016 elections, none has proven more mystifying and aggravating as to why Robert Mueller ultimately punted the question of whether President Trump committed obstruction of justice to Attorney General William Barr.
Mueller clearly deliberated and decided that not enough evidence existed to charge Trump with any conspiracy charges, yet he explicitly refused to come to a conclusion on the obstruction question.
Of all the material benefit to the public brought by Mueller’s hearings with the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, the only real question that matters to the public is why.
Mueller went through great lengths to obfuscate his intentions and understandably so.
As special counsel, Mueller was assigned to make a legal decision, not a political one.
Following the precedent set by the Office of Legal Counsel, Mueller has consistently maintained that even if he found enough evidence to charge Trump with acts of obstruction, he wouldn’t charge a sitting president.
But he refused to decide that “even if” question.
His words today further indicate that he did believe Trump should have been brought up on obstruction charges otherwise, and his actions point towards his refusal to make a political decision by proxy and give Democrats the green light to initiate impeachment proceedings.
“Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller states in his prepared remarks.
The phrasing here is key.
The Justice Department policy directed Mueller not to bring up charges, but it certainly doesn’t say that Mueller couldn’t or shouldn’t make a verdict on whether Trump ought to be brought up on charges once he’s out of office.
No, that he blames on the intentionally vague “principles of fairness” doctrine.
What does it mean?
Likely that Mueller believes that he shouldn’t be responsible for instigating political trials, only criminal ones.
Every equivocation indicated that Mueller personally believes Trump should face obstruction charges.
When Rep. Ted Lieu, D-California, got Mueller to confirm that he believed Trump committed all three legal elements required to constitute obstruction of justice, Mueller attempted to halt the correlation by noting that he doesn’t endorse the conclusion of what Lieu “was saying.”
But to both Lieu and Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Mueller concurred that Volume II of the report indicates that Trump committed all three elements of obstruction.
If Democrats genuinely believe they have the goods to impeach Trump on obstruction charges, they’ll need to initiate proceedings without having Mueller’s explicit approval.
The former special counsel made abundantly clear he refuses to make that decision for them, and although he should have answered the obstruction question as a matter of legal principle, it makes sense why he wouldn’t as a moral one.
Democrats won’t get Mueller as a scapegoat.
If they go forward with impeachment, they’ll have to prove to an overwhelmingly unapproving public why they have the political points to do so.
end quotes
Which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 71, The Duration in Office of the Executive, by Alexander Hamilton to the People of the State of New York from the New York Packet on Tuesday, March 18, 1788, as follows:
There are some who would be inclined to regard the servile pliancy of the Executive to a prevailing current, either in the community or in the legislature, as its best recommendation.
But such men entertain very crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government was instituted, as of the true means by which the public happiness may be promoted.
end quotes
And there, of course, he is talking about “Jumping Jerry” Nadler, the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff, and the House Democrats, which takes us back to Alexander Hamilton, as follows:
But however inclined we might be to insist upon an unbounded complaisance in the Executive to the inclinations of the people, we can with no propriety contend for a like complaisance to the humors of the legislature.
end quotes
And there is exactly what we are seeing going on in America right now – the Democrats are demanding that Trump as president have an unbounded complaisance (disposition to please or comply) to the humors of the Democrats in the legislature, and not getting that complaisance from Trump, they are now seeking to totally pervert our democracy by meddling and interfering in our 2020 presidential election to keep Trump out of office for a second term, which takes us back to Federalist No. 71, as follows:
The latter may sometimes stand in opposition to the former, and at other times the people may be entirely neutral.
In either supposition, it is certainly desirable that the Executive should be in a situation to dare to act his own opinion with vigor and decision.
The same rule which teaches the propriety of a partition between the various branches of power, teaches us likewise that this partition ought to be so contrived as to render the one independent of the other.
To what purpose separate the executive or the judiciary from the legislative, if both the executive and the judiciary are so constituted as to be at the absolute devotion of the legislative?
end quotes
And people, regardless of your political affiliation, or like in my case, your lack of a political affiliation to either the Democrats or the Republicans, there is an existential question from our past that is now ours as citizens to answer: do we want a president in this country today who will serve at the absolute devotion of the Democrats in the House of representatives?
And if so, what on earth type of third-world ****hole government would that give us?
And why on earth would we want it, which takes us back to Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No. 71, as follows:
It is one thing to be subordinate to the laws, and another to be dependent on the legislative body.
The first comports with, the last violates, the fundamental principles of good government; and, whatever may be the forms of the Constitution, unites all power in the same hands.
The tendency of the legislative authority to absorb every other, has been fully displayed and illustrated by examples in some preceding numbers.
end quotes
And once again, people we are seeing it happen right before our eyes today as the Democrats in the House of Representatives try to absorb the executive branch and put it under their authority, which again takes us back to Alexander Hamilton, as follows:
The representatives of the people, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the people themselves, and betray strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any other quarter; as if the exercise of its rights, by either the executive or judiciary, were a breach of their privilege and an outrage to their dignity.
They often appear disposed to exert an imperious control over the other departments; and as they commonly have the people on their side, they always act with such momentum as to make it very difficult for the other members of the government to maintain the balance of the Constitution.
end quotes
And there is where we are right now in this country, with the Democrat representatives of the people in the popular assembly which is the House of Representatives, or “People’s House,” as Nancy Pelosi and Ilhan Omar call it, fancying that they are the people themselves, and are they ever betraying strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from the office of the executive, as if the exercise of its rights by the executive were a breach of their privilege and an outrage to their dignity, and they very much appear disposed to exert an imperious control over the office of the executive, and as they have some of the people on their side, and are futilely trying to get the rest of us to come over to the dark side where they are, they are acting with such momentum as to make it very difficult for the other members of the government to maintain the balance of the Constitution.
Is that a good thing for America, people?
Do we want our nation under the imperious control of the Democrats in the House of Representatives?
And while you all ponder those questions, I am going to pause for station identification so I can go vomit, so toxic disgusting our federal government in Washington, D.C. has become.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-161923
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 29, 2019 at 7:01 pm
Paul Plante says:
And while we are wheeling through the multitude of takeaways coming out of Bob Mueller’s BIG DAY before the Democrats in the House of Representatives, which farce is said to have Hillary Clinton, the woman scorned and the face that launched a raft of bull**** in America, and Putin in Russia both ecstatic and jumping for joy as the Trump presidency is being destroyed, and the electoral college is being cast into suspicion and disrespect for having foisted Trump off on us, when the American people really wanted Hillary instead, before we go forward to a Washington Post article entitled “Top Democrat on House Judiciary Committee says Trump ‘richly deserves impeachment’” by Karoun Demirjian on 28 July 2019, where was stated “(T)he chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Sunday that he believes President Trump ‘richly deserves impeachment,’ an explosive statement from the lawmaker whose committee has the power to launch proceedings to remove the president from office,” along with “Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), appearing on CNN’s ‘State of the Union,’ said Trump ‘has done many impeachable offenses, he’s violated the law six ways from Sunday,’” which is horse**** and a right load of codswallop, to boot, by way of necessary background, let’s go back to March 14, 1788, and FEDERALIST No. 69, The Real Character of the Executive, to the People of the State of New York from the New York Packet by Alexander Hamilton where in clear and unambiguous language it was stated that if today, “Hop, Skip & Jump Jerry” Nadler, so-named in his native New York for his uncanny ability to hop, skip and jump all around the truth while never coming anywhere close to it, a necessary characteristic of a national-league Democrat politician in America today, actually had EVIDENCE that Trump “richly deserves impeachment,” and that Trump “has done many impeachable offenses, he’s violated the law six ways from Sunday,” then “Hop, Skip & Jump Jerry” Nadler is OBLIGATED to WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to stop flapping his gums and running his mouth and fixing to get with it and get the show of impeachment on the road by filing ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, to wit:
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.
end quotes
Which means all this DRAMA with the Mueller Hearing is a distraction, because the Democrats do not need Mueller or his Report to file Articles of Impeachment against Trump when they are already in possession of enough evidence to hang Trump on, at least according to “Hop, Skip & Jump Jerry” Nadler in the Washington Post, which brings us to what ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT really are, which is as follows, to wit:
Articles of Impeachment Law and Legal Definition
Articles of Impeachment is a formal document filed to impeach a public official.
The articles of impeachment state the charges against the official and the reasons why the official should be removed from office.
In the U.S the articles of impeachment against President, Vice President and Federal Judges, are prepared and voted upon by the House of Representatives.
The article of impeachment performs the same purpose as an indictment in a common criminal case.
However these articles usually do not follow the strict form and accuracy of an indictment.
Answer to articles of impeachment is also exempted from observing great strictness of form.
It may contain arguments as well as facts.
Usual procedure is to give a full and particular answer to each article of the accusation.
end quotes
So why hasn’t that been done?
For that answer, we merely have to return to the Washington Post, where we have the following dose of hog**** from Jerry, to wit:
“But that’s not the question,” Nadler continued.
“The question is, can we develop enough evidence to put before the American people?”
end quotes
And that is hog**** because WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE have absolutely nothing to do with that process,
It is not up to us to review criminal charges against Trump that are in ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
Jerry Nadler does not need our permission to impeach Trump, so why is he pretending he needs to seek it?
The Constitution gives WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE no role to play in impeaching a president, so why is Jerry Nadler pretending it does?
Is he stupid?
Or is he playing games with our minds here in a bid to confuse us?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-161923
Paul Plante says:
And while we are wheeling through the multitude of takeaways coming out of Bob Mueller’s BIG DAY before the Democrats in the House of Representatives, which farce is said to have Hillary Clinton, the woman scorned and the face that launched a raft of bull**** in America, and Putin in Russia both ecstatic and jumping for joy as the Trump presidency is being destroyed, and the electoral college is being cast into suspicion and disrespect for having foisted Trump off on us, when the American people really wanted Hillary instead, before we go forward to a Washington Post article entitled “Top Democrat on House Judiciary Committee says Trump ‘richly deserves impeachment’” by Karoun Demirjian on 28 July 2019, where was stated “(T)he chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Sunday that he believes President Trump ‘richly deserves impeachment,’ an explosive statement from the lawmaker whose committee has the power to launch proceedings to remove the president from office,” along with “Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), appearing on CNN’s ‘State of the Union,’ said Trump ‘has done many impeachable offenses, he’s violated the law six ways from Sunday,’” which is horse**** and a right load of codswallop, to boot, by way of necessary background, let’s go back to March 14, 1788, and FEDERALIST No. 69, The Real Character of the Executive, to the People of the State of New York from the New York Packet by Alexander Hamilton where in clear and unambiguous language it was stated that if today, “Hop, Skip & Jump Jerry” Nadler, so-named in his native New York for his uncanny ability to hop, skip and jump all around the truth while never coming anywhere close to it, a necessary characteristic of a national-league Democrat politician in America today, actually had EVIDENCE that Trump “richly deserves impeachment,” and that Trump “has done many impeachable offenses, he’s violated the law six ways from Sunday,” then “Hop, Skip & Jump Jerry” Nadler is OBLIGATED to WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to stop flapping his gums and running his mouth and fixing to get with it and get the show of impeachment on the road by filing ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, to wit:
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.
end quotes
Which means all this DRAMA with the Mueller Hearing is a distraction, because the Democrats do not need Mueller or his Report to file Articles of Impeachment against Trump when they are already in possession of enough evidence to hang Trump on, at least according to “Hop, Skip & Jump Jerry” Nadler in the Washington Post, which brings us to what ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT really are, which is as follows, to wit:
Articles of Impeachment Law and Legal Definition
Articles of Impeachment is a formal document filed to impeach a public official.
The articles of impeachment state the charges against the official and the reasons why the official should be removed from office.
In the U.S the articles of impeachment against President, Vice President and Federal Judges, are prepared and voted upon by the House of Representatives.
The article of impeachment performs the same purpose as an indictment in a common criminal case.
However these articles usually do not follow the strict form and accuracy of an indictment.
Answer to articles of impeachment is also exempted from observing great strictness of form.
It may contain arguments as well as facts.
Usual procedure is to give a full and particular answer to each article of the accusation.
end quotes
So why hasn’t that been done?
For that answer, we merely have to return to the Washington Post, where we have the following dose of hog**** from Jerry, to wit:
“But that’s not the question,” Nadler continued.
“The question is, can we develop enough evidence to put before the American people?”
end quotes
And that is hog**** because WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE have absolutely nothing to do with that process,
It is not up to us to review criminal charges against Trump that are in ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
Jerry Nadler does not need our permission to impeach Trump, so why is he pretending he needs to seek it?
The Constitution gives WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE no role to play in impeaching a president, so why is Jerry Nadler pretending it does?
Is he stupid?
Or is he playing games with our minds here in a bid to confuse us?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-161923
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 31, 2019 at 4:34 pm
Paul Plante says:
Now, despite this disgusting STUPID SHOW these desperate Democrats have been staging in their effort to take over complete control of our national government, which would be a huge win for Putin in Russia, by whipping up a mob frenzy for the impeachment of Donald Trump, which is called by the despicable Democrats leading this effort, “direct democracy,” as they had in Athens in the time of Solon and the rise of the tyranny of Pisistratus, and ostracism, the “democratic” process by which any citizen, including political leaders, could be expelled from the city-state for 10 years, where like today here in the United States of America, thanks to Nancy Pelosi and her pack of Democrats, once a year, ancient Athenian citizens would nominate people they felt threatened democracy because of political differences or just general dislike, as is the case today with the visceral hatred and enmity the Democrats bear towards Trump, who in their eyes stole the 2016 presidential election from Hillary Clinton, with the help of Putin in Russia, who they say hated Hillary Clinton’s guts, because she was so much superior a human being in every way than Putin, the impeachment of an American president was never intended to be the ridiculous, demeaning and totally stupid and slapdash (done too carelessly; i.e. “the Democrats gave a slapdash performance on 24 July 2019” with such appropriate synonyms as slipshod, disorganized, haphazard, and thoughtless) political drama we are being fed by the Democrats today, as can clearly be seen by review of FEDERALIST No. 65, The Powers of the Senate Continued, by Alexander Hamilton from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 7, 1788, wherein was clearly stated, “(A) well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective,” and, “(T)he subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust,” and FEDERALIST No. 66, Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered, by Alexander Hamilton from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Tuesday, March 11, 1788, where was stated “(T)he division of them between the two branches of the legislature, assigning to one the right of accusing, to the other the right of judging, avoids the inconvenience of making the same persons both accusers and judges; and guards against the danger of persecution, from the prevalency of a factious spirit in either of those branches.”
And in fact, much is written on the process of impeachment in an intelligent manner the Democrats of today lack the mental capacity to understand or comprehend in those two Federalist papers, but before we go there, to see just how blatantly stupid and ignorant of OUR Constitution and laws these Democrats of today really are concerning impeachment, let us stop by FOX News for an article entitled “Pelosi warns Dems: Don’t trash colleagues who won’t back impeachment” by Brooke Singman on 25 July 2019, where we have as follows:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday warned congressional Democrats who support impeachment proceedings against President Trump not to “disparage” colleagues who don’t, a source familiar with the conversation told Fox News.
The stern guidance came during a morning meeting on Capitol Hill, on the heels of Robert Mueller’s testimony, which left pro-impeachment Democrats with little new material to pursue their case.
end quotes
And that is an important statement here, people, about these “pro-impeachment” Democrats, which include the ignorant and foul-mouthed Democratic Socialist Rashida Tlaib, who was the star of a VOX article entitled “New Congress member creates stir by saying of Trump: ‘We’re going to impeach this motherfucker!’ – Rashida Tlaib went there — right away” by Aaron Rupar @atrupar on Jan 4, 2019 coming away from this bogus Mueller Hearing on 24 July 2019 with no evidence to support their cause, because their cause is based on nothing but hot air, bull**** and partisan politics, not law or fact, especially in the case of Democratic Socialist Rashida Tlaib, who as a Democratic Socialist, is for the overthrow of our existing frame of government based on Republican principles in order to replace it with the “radical democracy” espoused by the Democratic Socialists in their party manifesto, as follows:
DSA believes that the fight for democratic socialism is one and the same as the fight for radical democracy, which we understand as the freedom of all people to determine all aspects of their lives to the greatest extent possible.
Our vision entails nothing less than the radical democratization of all areas of life, not least of which is the economy.
Solidarity among all working people who are ensnared in the capitalist system may be a prerequisite for a strong socialist movement, but socialism as radical democracy is much more than the emancipation of a single economic class.
The democratic socialist project also entails addressing a wide range of oppressions in law, culture and society that limit people’s capacity for self-determination.
end quotes
Bringing discredit onto the Electoral College by impeaching Trump based on bogus charges is one way to achieve that goal, as we see by returning to VOX, as follows:
While Tlaib’s profane language caused a stir, it wasn’t even the first time on Thursday that she called for Trump’s impeachment.
Earlier in the day, the Detroit Free Press published an op-ed she co-authored titled, “Now is the time to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump.”
“President Donald Trump is a direct and serious threat to our country,” she wrote.
“On an almost daily basis, he attacks our Constitution, our democracy, the rule of law and the people who are in this country.”
“His conduct has created a constitutional crisis that we must confront now.”
end quotes
So, Rashida, it is now 31 July 2019 by my calendar, so, where’s the beef, Rashida?
Where is there any proof of a constitutional crisis here in America, besides the one you are inventing?
Do you think we are all stupid, Rashida, just because whomever put you in office were?
Getting back to that article, which really sets the stage for everything the froth-at-the-mouth Democrats have thrown at us since, which chain of events has brought us right to this moment we are in now, we have:
Newly empowered House Democrats aren’t just making arguments to impeach Trump. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) has already announced he plans to introduce articles of impeachment as soon as possible.
Sherman was one of three Democrats — along with Reps. Al Green (D-TX) and Steve Cohen (D-TN) — who introduced resolutions to impeach Trump during the last Congress.
But it’s a whole new ballgame now that Democrats have control of the House.
end quotes
And there is another important statement, people, before we go to the pertinent Federalist Papers on impeachment, about it being a “whole new ballgame” for the Democrats, with their gaining control of OUR House of Representatives, so they could turn it into a political tool with which their faction could destroy the functioning of our national government, which they have done, in order to take control of all three branches of our national government, which takes us back to VOX, as follows:
As Vox’s Andrew Prokop explained, Democratic leaders in the House are reluctant to make open calls for impeachment so far, but that could change — quickly.
Yet this measured approach could change very quickly if new and damning information about Trump were to emerge from one of the many investigations into him or his inner circle: special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, investigations into Trump’s campaign hush money and inauguration, and the new probes that will soon be launched by Democratic House committee chairs.
end quotes
And here we are, some six months later, the Mueller hearing, which turned out to be a DUD, is now over, and the Democrats, who thought they had this one in the bag, are left holding a great big sack of pure nothing with which to proceed, which is causing great turmoil in the ranks of the disorganized and distraught Democrats today, as we clearly see by returning to the FOX article, to wit:
The source told Fox News that Pelosi told lawmakers they are still allowed talk about impeachment if it’s politically important for their home districts, but urged them not to malign members who aren’t in the same camp.
“She said, ‘Do what you have to do for your districts, but don’t disparage those who are not for it,’” the source said, recalling Pelosi’s remarks.
“She said not to make it a thing about their patriotism or lack thereof if they are not for it.”
The source added that Pelosi even warned them not to “make it a thing” that members in support of impeachment proceedings are “following the Constitution” because it “implies that those of us who don’t support it are not following the Constitution.”
end quotes
And there we see the predicament such rabid Democrats as Rashida Tlaib have maneuvered the Democrats into today, where they are fighting among themselves as to what the United States Constitution and OUR laws mean and which Democrats are really for the Constitution, versus which Democrats are against the Constitution, which brings us back to VOX, as follows:
Impeachment is much more likely now for a very simple reason: It only takes a majority vote in the House to impeach a president, and Democrats now have a majority.
Tlaib is clearly tapping into a simmering grassroots appetite for impeachment.
But, as Prokop explained, while Democrats could impeach Trump with a party-line vote in the House, it will be extremely difficult to remove him from office in the Republican-controlled Senate.
For that to happen, 20 or more Republican senators will need to vote in favor of Trump’s removal from office to hit the two-thirds threshold.
As of now there’s no indication that anywhere near that number would do so.
end quotes
And there is another key factor here – the continuing claim by the Democrats that they can’t impeach Trump because Trump owns the senate, which is yet more horse**** served on a moldy hardroll, because if the Democrats really had evidence of criminal or unconstitutional conduct by Trump, and they prepared an INDICTMENT of Trump known as Articles of Impeachment, the senate could not just toss that indictment aside as these Democrats playing mind games with us allege, and that takes us back again to VOX, as follows:
Tlaib’s comments were a hot topic of discussion on Friday morning’s cable news shows.
On CNN, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, distanced himself both from Tlaib’s sentiment and the way she expressed it.
“I don’t really like that kind of language.”
“But more to the point, I disagree with what she said,” Nadler said.
“It is too early to talk about that intelligently.”
“We have to follow the facts.”
“We have to get the facts.”
“That’s why it’s important to protect the Mueller investigation.”
“That’s why it’s important to do our own inquiry.”
“We have to get the facts, and we’ll see where the facts lead — and maybe that’ll lead to impeachment, maybe it won’t.”
end quotes
And once again, with that said, it is now common knowledge all over the world, including in Putin’s Russia that Mueller has finished his testimony, such as it was, with David Axelrod, a former top Obama White House strategist while Mr. Mueller was still serving as F.B.I. director, writing on Twitter, “(T)his is delicate to say, but Mueller, whom I deeply respect, has not publicly testified before Congress in at least six years and he does not appear as sharp as he was then,” while the New York Times in the article “Mueller’s Labored Performance Was a Departure From His Once-Fabled Stamina” by Sharon LaFraniere, Michael S. Schmidt, Noah Weiland and Adam Goldman on 25 July 2019 reported “(H)ad Mr. Mueller delivered a commanding performance — even if he said little — he might have cemented that impression; instead, he may have ignited a whole new set of questions about whether he was too old for the job he took on, whether he delegated too many decisions to his top deputies, and whether he was reluctant to testify because he was not up to it,” and FOX News in the article “Robert Mueller hearings: 5 big takeaways” by Vandana Rambaran on 25 July 2019 reported “Democrats hoping to see a smooth, career lawman in command of facts and skilled at parrying with GOP House members had to be sorely disappointed,” and “Mueller was described afterward by various pundits as ‘dazed,’ ‘doddering’ and ‘confused,” while The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway told Fox News’ “Special Report” Wednesday night, “What I don’t think anybody expected was Mueller would present himself as doddering, as lacking command of anything to do with the election and thereby raising a whole host of questions about who actually was in charge of this Mueller investigation,” and clearly, the Democrats have nothing to base an impeachment on.
So when is it that they will finally realize this?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-162467
Paul Plante says:
Now, despite this disgusting STUPID SHOW these desperate Democrats have been staging in their effort to take over complete control of our national government, which would be a huge win for Putin in Russia, by whipping up a mob frenzy for the impeachment of Donald Trump, which is called by the despicable Democrats leading this effort, “direct democracy,” as they had in Athens in the time of Solon and the rise of the tyranny of Pisistratus, and ostracism, the “democratic” process by which any citizen, including political leaders, could be expelled from the city-state for 10 years, where like today here in the United States of America, thanks to Nancy Pelosi and her pack of Democrats, once a year, ancient Athenian citizens would nominate people they felt threatened democracy because of political differences or just general dislike, as is the case today with the visceral hatred and enmity the Democrats bear towards Trump, who in their eyes stole the 2016 presidential election from Hillary Clinton, with the help of Putin in Russia, who they say hated Hillary Clinton’s guts, because she was so much superior a human being in every way than Putin, the impeachment of an American president was never intended to be the ridiculous, demeaning and totally stupid and slapdash (done too carelessly; i.e. “the Democrats gave a slapdash performance on 24 July 2019” with such appropriate synonyms as slipshod, disorganized, haphazard, and thoughtless) political drama we are being fed by the Democrats today, as can clearly be seen by review of FEDERALIST No. 65, The Powers of the Senate Continued, by Alexander Hamilton from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 7, 1788, wherein was clearly stated, “(A) well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective,” and, “(T)he subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust,” and FEDERALIST No. 66, Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered, by Alexander Hamilton from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Tuesday, March 11, 1788, where was stated “(T)he division of them between the two branches of the legislature, assigning to one the right of accusing, to the other the right of judging, avoids the inconvenience of making the same persons both accusers and judges; and guards against the danger of persecution, from the prevalency of a factious spirit in either of those branches.”
And in fact, much is written on the process of impeachment in an intelligent manner the Democrats of today lack the mental capacity to understand or comprehend in those two Federalist papers, but before we go there, to see just how blatantly stupid and ignorant of OUR Constitution and laws these Democrats of today really are concerning impeachment, let us stop by FOX News for an article entitled “Pelosi warns Dems: Don’t trash colleagues who won’t back impeachment” by Brooke Singman on 25 July 2019, where we have as follows:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday warned congressional Democrats who support impeachment proceedings against President Trump not to “disparage” colleagues who don’t, a source familiar with the conversation told Fox News.
The stern guidance came during a morning meeting on Capitol Hill, on the heels of Robert Mueller’s testimony, which left pro-impeachment Democrats with little new material to pursue their case.
end quotes
And that is an important statement here, people, about these “pro-impeachment” Democrats, which include the ignorant and foul-mouthed Democratic Socialist Rashida Tlaib, who was the star of a VOX article entitled “New Congress member creates stir by saying of Trump: ‘We’re going to impeach this motherfucker!’ – Rashida Tlaib went there — right away” by Aaron Rupar @atrupar on Jan 4, 2019 coming away from this bogus Mueller Hearing on 24 July 2019 with no evidence to support their cause, because their cause is based on nothing but hot air, bull**** and partisan politics, not law or fact, especially in the case of Democratic Socialist Rashida Tlaib, who as a Democratic Socialist, is for the overthrow of our existing frame of government based on Republican principles in order to replace it with the “radical democracy” espoused by the Democratic Socialists in their party manifesto, as follows:
DSA believes that the fight for democratic socialism is one and the same as the fight for radical democracy, which we understand as the freedom of all people to determine all aspects of their lives to the greatest extent possible.
Our vision entails nothing less than the radical democratization of all areas of life, not least of which is the economy.
Solidarity among all working people who are ensnared in the capitalist system may be a prerequisite for a strong socialist movement, but socialism as radical democracy is much more than the emancipation of a single economic class.
The democratic socialist project also entails addressing a wide range of oppressions in law, culture and society that limit people’s capacity for self-determination.
end quotes
Bringing discredit onto the Electoral College by impeaching Trump based on bogus charges is one way to achieve that goal, as we see by returning to VOX, as follows:
While Tlaib’s profane language caused a stir, it wasn’t even the first time on Thursday that she called for Trump’s impeachment.
Earlier in the day, the Detroit Free Press published an op-ed she co-authored titled, “Now is the time to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump.”
“President Donald Trump is a direct and serious threat to our country,” she wrote.
“On an almost daily basis, he attacks our Constitution, our democracy, the rule of law and the people who are in this country.”
“His conduct has created a constitutional crisis that we must confront now.”
end quotes
So, Rashida, it is now 31 July 2019 by my calendar, so, where’s the beef, Rashida?
Where is there any proof of a constitutional crisis here in America, besides the one you are inventing?
Do you think we are all stupid, Rashida, just because whomever put you in office were?
Getting back to that article, which really sets the stage for everything the froth-at-the-mouth Democrats have thrown at us since, which chain of events has brought us right to this moment we are in now, we have:
Newly empowered House Democrats aren’t just making arguments to impeach Trump. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) has already announced he plans to introduce articles of impeachment as soon as possible.
Sherman was one of three Democrats — along with Reps. Al Green (D-TX) and Steve Cohen (D-TN) — who introduced resolutions to impeach Trump during the last Congress.
But it’s a whole new ballgame now that Democrats have control of the House.
end quotes
And there is another important statement, people, before we go to the pertinent Federalist Papers on impeachment, about it being a “whole new ballgame” for the Democrats, with their gaining control of OUR House of Representatives, so they could turn it into a political tool with which their faction could destroy the functioning of our national government, which they have done, in order to take control of all three branches of our national government, which takes us back to VOX, as follows:
As Vox’s Andrew Prokop explained, Democratic leaders in the House are reluctant to make open calls for impeachment so far, but that could change — quickly.
Yet this measured approach could change very quickly if new and damning information about Trump were to emerge from one of the many investigations into him or his inner circle: special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, investigations into Trump’s campaign hush money and inauguration, and the new probes that will soon be launched by Democratic House committee chairs.
end quotes
And here we are, some six months later, the Mueller hearing, which turned out to be a DUD, is now over, and the Democrats, who thought they had this one in the bag, are left holding a great big sack of pure nothing with which to proceed, which is causing great turmoil in the ranks of the disorganized and distraught Democrats today, as we clearly see by returning to the FOX article, to wit:
The source told Fox News that Pelosi told lawmakers they are still allowed talk about impeachment if it’s politically important for their home districts, but urged them not to malign members who aren’t in the same camp.
“She said, ‘Do what you have to do for your districts, but don’t disparage those who are not for it,’” the source said, recalling Pelosi’s remarks.
“She said not to make it a thing about their patriotism or lack thereof if they are not for it.”
The source added that Pelosi even warned them not to “make it a thing” that members in support of impeachment proceedings are “following the Constitution” because it “implies that those of us who don’t support it are not following the Constitution.”
end quotes
And there we see the predicament such rabid Democrats as Rashida Tlaib have maneuvered the Democrats into today, where they are fighting among themselves as to what the United States Constitution and OUR laws mean and which Democrats are really for the Constitution, versus which Democrats are against the Constitution, which brings us back to VOX, as follows:
Impeachment is much more likely now for a very simple reason: It only takes a majority vote in the House to impeach a president, and Democrats now have a majority.
Tlaib is clearly tapping into a simmering grassroots appetite for impeachment.
But, as Prokop explained, while Democrats could impeach Trump with a party-line vote in the House, it will be extremely difficult to remove him from office in the Republican-controlled Senate.
For that to happen, 20 or more Republican senators will need to vote in favor of Trump’s removal from office to hit the two-thirds threshold.
As of now there’s no indication that anywhere near that number would do so.
end quotes
And there is another key factor here – the continuing claim by the Democrats that they can’t impeach Trump because Trump owns the senate, which is yet more horse**** served on a moldy hardroll, because if the Democrats really had evidence of criminal or unconstitutional conduct by Trump, and they prepared an INDICTMENT of Trump known as Articles of Impeachment, the senate could not just toss that indictment aside as these Democrats playing mind games with us allege, and that takes us back again to VOX, as follows:
Tlaib’s comments were a hot topic of discussion on Friday morning’s cable news shows.
On CNN, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, distanced himself both from Tlaib’s sentiment and the way she expressed it.
“I don’t really like that kind of language.”
“But more to the point, I disagree with what she said,” Nadler said.
“It is too early to talk about that intelligently.”
“We have to follow the facts.”
“We have to get the facts.”
“That’s why it’s important to protect the Mueller investigation.”
“That’s why it’s important to do our own inquiry.”
“We have to get the facts, and we’ll see where the facts lead — and maybe that’ll lead to impeachment, maybe it won’t.”
end quotes
And once again, with that said, it is now common knowledge all over the world, including in Putin’s Russia that Mueller has finished his testimony, such as it was, with David Axelrod, a former top Obama White House strategist while Mr. Mueller was still serving as F.B.I. director, writing on Twitter, “(T)his is delicate to say, but Mueller, whom I deeply respect, has not publicly testified before Congress in at least six years and he does not appear as sharp as he was then,” while the New York Times in the article “Mueller’s Labored Performance Was a Departure From His Once-Fabled Stamina” by Sharon LaFraniere, Michael S. Schmidt, Noah Weiland and Adam Goldman on 25 July 2019 reported “(H)ad Mr. Mueller delivered a commanding performance — even if he said little — he might have cemented that impression; instead, he may have ignited a whole new set of questions about whether he was too old for the job he took on, whether he delegated too many decisions to his top deputies, and whether he was reluctant to testify because he was not up to it,” and FOX News in the article “Robert Mueller hearings: 5 big takeaways” by Vandana Rambaran on 25 July 2019 reported “Democrats hoping to see a smooth, career lawman in command of facts and skilled at parrying with GOP House members had to be sorely disappointed,” and “Mueller was described afterward by various pundits as ‘dazed,’ ‘doddering’ and ‘confused,” while The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway told Fox News’ “Special Report” Wednesday night, “What I don’t think anybody expected was Mueller would present himself as doddering, as lacking command of anything to do with the election and thereby raising a whole host of questions about who actually was in charge of this Mueller investigation,” and clearly, the Democrats have nothing to base an impeachment on.
So when is it that they will finally realize this?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-162467
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 1, 2019 at 5:57 pm
Paul Plante says:
By way of what I think is necessary background here, to understand these claims of alleged FBI wrongdoing in the matter of Trump, we need to drop back in time a bit over two years ago to 20 March 2017, to the opening statement of then-FBI Director Jimmy Comey testifying under oath to a House Committee which had the smarmy and unctuous Hollywood, California Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff, who has been fundraising off of having Trump as his personal punching bag and bete noire, as one of its members, to wit:
COMEY: Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Schiff, members of the committee, thank you for including me in today’s hearing.
I’m honored to be here representing the people of the FBI.
end quotes
As a side note, however, later in the hearing, in colloquy with Democrat Congressman Denny Heck (WA-10), who incidentally just released a statement on 28 July 2019 announcing his support for a formal impeachment inquiry, Jimmy Comey stated as follows, to wit:
I’m not here voluntarily.
Right?
I would rather not be talking about this at all.
end quotes
With that said, back to his opening statement we go, aware that he is there under duress, to wit:
I hope we have shown you through our actions and our words how much we at the FBI value your oversight of our work and how much we respect your responsibility to investigate those things are important to the American people.
Thank you for showing that both are being taken very seriously.
end quotes
Pardon me here, but HUH?
I hope we have shown you through our actions and our words how much we at the FBI value your oversight of our work and how much we respect your responsibility to investigate those things are important to the American people?
The American people?
Which American people. Jimmy?
The 33% who are died-in-the-wool Democrats and Trump haters?
Or the rest of us who are watching this show, waiting to see where the next turn in the road of this convoluted path is going to take us?
Getting back now to the essential meat of Jimmy’s opening statement on 20 March 2017 which ties it to today, we have:
As you know, our practice is not to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations, especially those investigations that involve classified matters, but in unusual circumstances where it is in the public interest, it may be appropriate to do so as Justice Department policies recognize.
This is one of those circumstances.
I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.
end quotes
So there is the confirmation of an on-going FBI “investigation” or surveillance operation of the Trump campaign that goes back to when Trump was a candidate and Hussein Obama was still in the oval office, and fifty-eight (58) days later, Rod Rosenstein was going to declare that he had a major conflict of interest that required him to appoint Bob Mueller to take over that very investigation that Jimmy Comey just exposed there, which takes us back to Jimmy on 20 March 2017, as follows:
As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.
Because it is an open ongoing investigation and is classified, I cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are examining.
At the request of congressional leaders, we have taken the extraordinary step in coordination with the Department of Justice of briefing this Congress’ leaders, including the leaders of this committee, in a classified setting in detail about the investigation but I can’t go into those details here.
I know that is extremely frustrating to some folks.
I hope you and the American people can understand.
The FBI is very careful in how we handle information about our cases and about the people we are investigating.
We are also very careful about the way we handle information that may be of interest to our foreign adversaries.
Both of those interests are at issue in a counterintelligence investigation.
Please don’t draw any conclusions from the fact that I may not be able to comment on certain topics.
I know speculating is part of human nature, but it really isn’t fair to draw conclusions simply because I say that I can’t comment.
Some folks may want to make comparisons to past instances where the Department of Justice and the FBI have spoken about the details of some investigations, but please keep in mind that those involved the details of completed investigations.
Our ability to share details with the Congress and the American people is limited when those investigations are still open, which I hope makes sense.
We need to protect people’s privacy.
We need to make sure we don’t give other people clues as to where we’re going.
We need to make sure that we don’t give information to our foreign adversaries about what we know or don’t know.
We just cannot do our work well or fairly if we start talking about it while we’re doing it.
So we will try very, very hard to avoid that, as we always do.
This work is very complex and there is no way for me to give you a timetable as to when it will be done.
We approach this work in an open-minded, independent way and our expert investigators will conclude that work as quickly as they can but they will always do it well no matter how long that takes.
I can promise you, we will follow the facts wherever they lead.
And I wanna underscore something my friend Mike Rogers said, leaks of classified information are serious, serious federal crimes for a reason…
(AUDIO GAP)
COMEY: … they should be investigated and where possible prosecuted in a way that reflects that seriousness so that people understand it simply cannot be tolerated.
And I look forward to taking your questions.
end quotes
And that takes us then to the colloquy between Congresswoman Elise Stefanik and Jimmy Comey in that same 20 March 2017 hearing, to wit:
STEFANIK: My first set of questions are directed at Director Comey.
Broadly, when the FBI has any open counter-intelligence investigation, what are the typical protocols or procedures for notifying the DNI, the White House, and senior Congressional leadership?
COMEY: There is a practice of a quarterly briefing on sensitive cases to the chair and ranking of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
And the reason I hesitate is, thanks to feedback we’ve gotten, we’re trying to make it better.
And that involves a briefing of the Department of Justice, I believe the DNI, and the — some portion of the National Security Council at the White House…
STEFANIK: So if that’s quarterly…
COMEY: … to brief them before Congress is briefed.
STEFANIK: So it’s quarterly for all three then, senior congressional leadership, the White House, and the DNI?
COMEY: I think that’s right.
Now that’s by practice not by rule or by written policy which is why, thanks to the chair and ranking giving us feedback, we’re trying to tweak it in certain ways.
STEFANIK: So since, in your opening statement, you confirmed that there is a counter-intelligence investigation currently open and you also referenced that it started in July.
When did you notify the DNI, the White House, or senior congressional leadership?
COMEY: It’s a good question.
Congressional leadership, some time recently.
They were briefed on the nature of the investigation in some detail as I said.
Obviously the Department of Justice has been aware of it all along.
The DNI, I don’t know what the DNI’s knowledge of it was because we didn’t have a DNI until Mr. Coats took office and I briefed him his first morning in office.
STEFANIK: So just to drill down on this, if — if the open investigation began in July and the briefing of congressional leadership only occurred recently, why was there no notification prior to the recent — to the past month?
COMEY: I think our decision was it was a matter of such sensitivity that we wouldn’t include it in the quarterly briefings.
STEFANIK: So when you state our decision is that your decision?
Is that usually your decision what gets briefed in those quarterly updates?
COMEY: No, it’s usually the decision of the head of our counter-intelligence division.
STEFANIK: And just again, to get the detailed — on the record, why was the decision made not to brief senior congressional leadership until recently when the investigation had been open since July?
A very serious investigation — why was that decision to wait months?
COMEY: Because of the sensitivity of the matter.
end quotes
So, who knew about the FBI investigation into Trump in 2016, besides Obama?
And why was it kept secret?
Is the answer because Obama wanted it kept secret?
Questions from then left unanswered that demand answers now.
Why was the FBI conducting what appears to be an OFF-THE-BOOKS surveillance operation on the Trump campaign in 2016?
Because Obama ordered it?
Was Obama using the FBI for political purposes to spy on Trump?
The candid world would like to know!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-162807
Paul Plante says:
By way of what I think is necessary background here, to understand these claims of alleged FBI wrongdoing in the matter of Trump, we need to drop back in time a bit over two years ago to 20 March 2017, to the opening statement of then-FBI Director Jimmy Comey testifying under oath to a House Committee which had the smarmy and unctuous Hollywood, California Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff, who has been fundraising off of having Trump as his personal punching bag and bete noire, as one of its members, to wit:
COMEY: Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Schiff, members of the committee, thank you for including me in today’s hearing.
I’m honored to be here representing the people of the FBI.
end quotes
As a side note, however, later in the hearing, in colloquy with Democrat Congressman Denny Heck (WA-10), who incidentally just released a statement on 28 July 2019 announcing his support for a formal impeachment inquiry, Jimmy Comey stated as follows, to wit:
I’m not here voluntarily.
Right?
I would rather not be talking about this at all.
end quotes
With that said, back to his opening statement we go, aware that he is there under duress, to wit:
I hope we have shown you through our actions and our words how much we at the FBI value your oversight of our work and how much we respect your responsibility to investigate those things are important to the American people.
Thank you for showing that both are being taken very seriously.
end quotes
Pardon me here, but HUH?
I hope we have shown you through our actions and our words how much we at the FBI value your oversight of our work and how much we respect your responsibility to investigate those things are important to the American people?
The American people?
Which American people. Jimmy?
The 33% who are died-in-the-wool Democrats and Trump haters?
Or the rest of us who are watching this show, waiting to see where the next turn in the road of this convoluted path is going to take us?
Getting back now to the essential meat of Jimmy’s opening statement on 20 March 2017 which ties it to today, we have:
As you know, our practice is not to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations, especially those investigations that involve classified matters, but in unusual circumstances where it is in the public interest, it may be appropriate to do so as Justice Department policies recognize.
This is one of those circumstances.
I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.
end quotes
So there is the confirmation of an on-going FBI “investigation” or surveillance operation of the Trump campaign that goes back to when Trump was a candidate and Hussein Obama was still in the oval office, and fifty-eight (58) days later, Rod Rosenstein was going to declare that he had a major conflict of interest that required him to appoint Bob Mueller to take over that very investigation that Jimmy Comey just exposed there, which takes us back to Jimmy on 20 March 2017, as follows:
As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.
Because it is an open ongoing investigation and is classified, I cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are examining.
At the request of congressional leaders, we have taken the extraordinary step in coordination with the Department of Justice of briefing this Congress’ leaders, including the leaders of this committee, in a classified setting in detail about the investigation but I can’t go into those details here.
I know that is extremely frustrating to some folks.
I hope you and the American people can understand.
The FBI is very careful in how we handle information about our cases and about the people we are investigating.
We are also very careful about the way we handle information that may be of interest to our foreign adversaries.
Both of those interests are at issue in a counterintelligence investigation.
Please don’t draw any conclusions from the fact that I may not be able to comment on certain topics.
I know speculating is part of human nature, but it really isn’t fair to draw conclusions simply because I say that I can’t comment.
Some folks may want to make comparisons to past instances where the Department of Justice and the FBI have spoken about the details of some investigations, but please keep in mind that those involved the details of completed investigations.
Our ability to share details with the Congress and the American people is limited when those investigations are still open, which I hope makes sense.
We need to protect people’s privacy.
We need to make sure we don’t give other people clues as to where we’re going.
We need to make sure that we don’t give information to our foreign adversaries about what we know or don’t know.
We just cannot do our work well or fairly if we start talking about it while we’re doing it.
So we will try very, very hard to avoid that, as we always do.
This work is very complex and there is no way for me to give you a timetable as to when it will be done.
We approach this work in an open-minded, independent way and our expert investigators will conclude that work as quickly as they can but they will always do it well no matter how long that takes.
I can promise you, we will follow the facts wherever they lead.
And I wanna underscore something my friend Mike Rogers said, leaks of classified information are serious, serious federal crimes for a reason…
(AUDIO GAP)
COMEY: … they should be investigated and where possible prosecuted in a way that reflects that seriousness so that people understand it simply cannot be tolerated.
And I look forward to taking your questions.
end quotes
And that takes us then to the colloquy between Congresswoman Elise Stefanik and Jimmy Comey in that same 20 March 2017 hearing, to wit:
STEFANIK: My first set of questions are directed at Director Comey.
Broadly, when the FBI has any open counter-intelligence investigation, what are the typical protocols or procedures for notifying the DNI, the White House, and senior Congressional leadership?
COMEY: There is a practice of a quarterly briefing on sensitive cases to the chair and ranking of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
And the reason I hesitate is, thanks to feedback we’ve gotten, we’re trying to make it better.
And that involves a briefing of the Department of Justice, I believe the DNI, and the — some portion of the National Security Council at the White House…
STEFANIK: So if that’s quarterly…
COMEY: … to brief them before Congress is briefed.
STEFANIK: So it’s quarterly for all three then, senior congressional leadership, the White House, and the DNI?
COMEY: I think that’s right.
Now that’s by practice not by rule or by written policy which is why, thanks to the chair and ranking giving us feedback, we’re trying to tweak it in certain ways.
STEFANIK: So since, in your opening statement, you confirmed that there is a counter-intelligence investigation currently open and you also referenced that it started in July.
When did you notify the DNI, the White House, or senior congressional leadership?
COMEY: It’s a good question.
Congressional leadership, some time recently.
They were briefed on the nature of the investigation in some detail as I said.
Obviously the Department of Justice has been aware of it all along.
The DNI, I don’t know what the DNI’s knowledge of it was because we didn’t have a DNI until Mr. Coats took office and I briefed him his first morning in office.
STEFANIK: So just to drill down on this, if — if the open investigation began in July and the briefing of congressional leadership only occurred recently, why was there no notification prior to the recent — to the past month?
COMEY: I think our decision was it was a matter of such sensitivity that we wouldn’t include it in the quarterly briefings.
STEFANIK: So when you state our decision is that your decision?
Is that usually your decision what gets briefed in those quarterly updates?
COMEY: No, it’s usually the decision of the head of our counter-intelligence division.
STEFANIK: And just again, to get the detailed — on the record, why was the decision made not to brief senior congressional leadership until recently when the investigation had been open since July?
A very serious investigation — why was that decision to wait months?
COMEY: Because of the sensitivity of the matter.
end quotes
So, who knew about the FBI investigation into Trump in 2016, besides Obama?
And why was it kept secret?
Is the answer because Obama wanted it kept secret?
Questions from then left unanswered that demand answers now.
Why was the FBI conducting what appears to be an OFF-THE-BOOKS surveillance operation on the Trump campaign in 2016?
Because Obama ordered it?
Was Obama using the FBI for political purposes to spy on Trump?
The candid world would like to know!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-162807