THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 1, 2019 at 6:43 pm
Paul Plante says:
And staying with the subject of impeachment, since that is where we are now headed as a result of the 24 July Mueller Hearing, where Bob Mueller stated in no uncertain terms in response to a question from Congressman William Ballard Hurd, born August 19, 1977, an American politician and former CIA officer serving as the U.S. representative for Texas’s 23rd congressional district since 2015, “(D)id you think that this was a single attempt by the Russians to get involved in our election or did you find evidence to suggest they’ll try to do this again?”, “It wasn’t a single attempt, they’re doing it as we sit here,” I would like to go back to the 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, but before I do, I would like to make note of the fact that that language by Mueller on 24 July 2019, “they’re (the Russians) doing it as we sit here,” means to me, an American citizen concerned about what has been going on here since 20 March 2017, when then-FBI Director Jimmy Comey appeared before the same Democrats holding the Mueller Hearing on 24 July 2019 to announce what seems to be an OFF-THE-BOOKS FBI surveillance operation of the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016, when Hussein Obama was in charge of the Justice Department and FBI, is that he was making a direct reference to the fact that the 24 July 2019 Mueller Hearing was a benefit to the efforts of Putin and Russia to interfere in our 2020 presidential election by the slimy trick of using the Mueller hearing to totally discredit Trump as a candidate, thus throwing the election to the Democrats.
With that said, in early-January of this year, some six months before this farce on 24 July 2019, and right after she was sworn into office, the foul-mouthed Democratic Socialist Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib had an op-ed published in the Detroit Free Press titled, “Now is the time to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump” wherein Rashida stated as follows:
“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
And from there, she went on as follows, which is what is relevant to this story today, as we head towards impeachment, to wit:
But in her op-ed, Tlaib addresses concerns like the one Nadler expressed about pursuing impeachment before Mueller’s work is completed.
“It is not Mueller’s role to determine whether the president has committed impeachable offenses.”
“That is the responsibility of the US Congress,” she wrote.
“Those who say we must wait for Special Counsel Mueller to complete his criminal investigation before Congress can start any impeachment proceedings ignore this crucial distinction.”
“There is no requirement whatsoever that a president be charged with or be convicted of a crime before Congress can impeach him.”
“They also ignore the fact that many of the impeachable offenses committed by this president are beyond the scope of the special counsel’s investigation.”
end quotes
Now, it turns out from a review of the Federalist papers that Rashida Tlaib is dead on the money when she says in January of this year “It is not Mueller’s role to determine whether the president has committed impeachable offenses; that is the responsibility of the US Congress!”
So why, six months later, did the Democrats have to put poor Bob Mueller on the witness stand in a bogus hearing to essentially embarrass him while showing all the world just how weak a nation we are and how scared of Putin and Russia we are as a nation, which is a grave insult to each and every American citizen?
Why the need for the sick show when as Rashida Tlaib, a lawyer, made clear six months ago in January of 2019 that it was up to Congress, not Mueller, to bring charges against Trump?
And how much of our tax dollars have the Democrats now expended on these hearings since the witch hunt began in earnest back in 2016?
And how exactly was that money appropriated?
And by whom?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-162820
Just musings, is all
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 2, 2019 at 5:32 pm
Paul Plante says:
So what is impeachment, people?
What does it really mean when the Democrats and Democratic Socialists like the foul-mouthed Rashida Tlaib say they are going to impeach Trump?
As to impeachment as applied to Trump as president, in FEDERALIST No. 69, The Real Character of the Executive, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, Alexander Hamilton stated thusly, to wit:.
I PROCEED now to trace the real characters of the proposed Executive, as they are marked out in the plan of the convention.
This will serve to place in a strong light the unfairness of the representations which have been made in regard to it.
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
So, from that, we can see that impeachment is a process that is intended to protect We, the American people, from another tyrant in the mold of George III of England, whose tyranny was still very fresh in the minds of those who gave us the United States Constitution; but at the same time, it is also intended to protect the executive from the machinations of factions in the House of Representatives who are demagogues appealing to the base passions of the people at large in their bid to usurp the power of the executive to make it their own.
So in this case, if Rashida Tlaib, said to be a lawyer whose intellectual capacity far exceeds that of a John Marshall or Dershowitz and Tribe, has evidence that Trump has committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, then what she does as a member of the House is to prepare Articles of Impeachment, listing therein each separate charge of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, and the specifications of each separate charge, to include who, what, when, and where, and then she has those charges, or that indictment, served on Trump, and the impeachment process begins.
So, does Rashida have evidence?
According to the VOX article from January of this year, she says she does, to wit:
With regard to which impeachable offenses Tlaib thinks Trump has already committed, she specifically cites “obstructing justice; violating the emoluments clause; abusing the pardon power; directing or seeking to direct law enforcement to prosecute political adversaries for improper purposes; advocating illegal violence and undermining equal protection of the laws; ordering the cruel and unconstitutional imprisonment of children and their families at the southern border; and conspiring to illegally influence the 2016 election through a series of hush money payments.”
end quotes
That, people, was in January, and those are indeed quite serious charges which if true would likely result in Trump being removed from office and being liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law, just as Alexander Hamilton told us would be the case in Federalist No. 69 – so why were there no Articles of Impeachment filed in January of this year by Rashida Tlaib, a highly skilled lawyer in her own right, to get the process going in order to protect us from a president she tells us is a direct and serious threat to our country who on an almost daily basis attacks our Constitution, our democracy, the rule of law and the people who are in this country, and whose conduct has created a constitutional crisis that we must confront now?
With things that serious, what on earth can she be waiting for, especially when she seems to have the goods on Trump, as she told us in January?
And that existential question takes us back to the FOX News article “Pelosi warns Dems: Don’t trash colleagues who won’t back impeachment” by Brooke Singman on 25 July 2019, where we have the following bizarre and surreal colloquy between Democrat Veronica Escobar, born September 15, 1969, who is an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Texas’s 16th congressional district, based in El Paso, and Bob Mueller, as follows:
But the impeachment question threatens to further divide the caucus after Mueller’s testimony left the future of that push as unclear as ever.
Pelosi, for her part, has resisted impeachment pressure from the start.
Mueller stood by his team’s findings at the hearings before both the House Judiciary and House Intelligence Committees — reiterating that the special counsel’s office had found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Trump associates and Russia, while also stating that the president was not exonerated on allegations of obstruction of justice despite his assertions to the contrary.
But in doing so, Mueller repeatedly refused to drift beyond the bounds of his report.
He also declined to go down the road of the impeachment topic, under questioning from both Republicans and Democrats.
Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, of the Judiciary Committee, directly questioned Mueller on whether he was suggesting that Congress impeach Trump.
“You explained [in May] … that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” Escobar said, quoting Mueller’s remarks during his press conference in May.
“That process other than the criminal justice system to accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing — is that impeachment?”
“I’m not going to comment on that,” Mueller said, as she continued to press the issue, citing a footnote in the report.
“What are other constitutional processes?” she said.
Mueller replied: “I think I heard you mention at least one.”
“Impeachment, correct?” she pressed.
“I’m not going to comment,” he said.
end quotes
If Bob Mueller was going to comment on that bizarre line of questioning, it would have been along the lines of how does someone as ignorant of OUR Constitution as Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, manage to become a congressperson in the first place, and then, more importantly how on earth did she end up getting placed on the Judiciary Committee, when she knows nothing of OUR laws and Constitution, but Bob Mueller was too polite and politically correct on 24 July 2019, six (6) months AFTER Rashida Tlaib laid out the process and grounds for impeaching Trump on a host of charges, for that exchange to happen, so he stayed silent, instead, to our detriment as a nation and as a people.
And that takes us to Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 65, The Powers of the Senate Continued, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 7, 1788, on the subject of impeachment of Trump, as follows:
We will, therefore, conclude this head with a view of the judicial character of the Senate.
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.
The 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.
end quotes
So, for the impeachment process to work as it should to protect us from a president Democratic Socialist firebrand and Trump hater Rashida Tlaib tells us us is a direct and serious threat to our country who on an almost daily basis attacks our Constitution, our democracy, the rule of law and the people who are in this country, and whose conduct has created a constitutional crisis that we must confront now, she would prepare an indictment against Trump known as Articles of Impeachment demonstrating therein to the Senate the misconduct of Trump that is an abuse or violation of some public trust, and the game would be on.
So why isn’t it?
Getting back to Hamilton and Federalist No. 65:
They (alleged abuses or violations of some public trust) are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.
end quotes
So, has Trump done injuries to society itself?
Or hasn’t he?
And when is it the Democrats will finally let us know?
And in the meantime, what can they be waiting for?
Is this just a game with them, as it appears to be?
And again, that thought takes us back to Federalist No. 65, as follows:
The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.
end quotes
Did Alexander Hamilton have prescient (having or showing knowledge of events before they take place) vision when he wrote those words on March 7, 1788?
Getting back to Federalist No. 65:
In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
end quotes
Which again raises the question of prescient vision, because that is where we are right now in this country, especially as on 28 July 2019, Democrat Congressman Denny Heck (WA-10) of the Judiciary Committee announced his support for impeachment of Trump, as follows:
“For many months multiple committees of the House have been engaged in investigations both of potentially illegal acts by President Trump related to Russia’s ‘sweeping and systematic’ interference in the 2016 election and of the President’s response to investigations into that interference.”
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I’ve been deeply involved in that effort.”
“I’ve sat through hundreds of hours of closed and open testimony, read and reread the findings of the Office of the Special Counsel (the Mueller Report), and spoken with and listened to the people of the Tenth Congressional District.”
“In last week’s hearings, I also had the opportunity to hear directly from Special Counsel Mueller and, along with my colleagues, to personally engage him in questions.”
“After considerable reflection and prayerful consideration, I’ve reached some conclusions.
“First, there is no question that the President encouraged, welcomed and benefited from the interference of a foreign adversary in our 2016 election.”
“Furthermore, he has both refused to fully acknowledge it occurred and even suggested he might welcome such interference again.”
“The White House has also opposed Congressional measures to enhance election security going forward.”
“This strikes at the very core of our democracy and democratic values.”
“America’s elections are for Americans.”
“Period.”
“Support of free, fair and open elections is not negotiable.
“The President has also engaged in an aggressive and active cover-up of the effort to reveal all the facts.”
“This is particularly true of the many ways in which potential financial conflicts or motivations may have guided the Trump campaign or several of its high-ranking officials.”
“This was the essence of my exchange with Special Counsel Mueller during the hearing last week.”
“Americans deserve to know the full extent of the facts.”
“Officially initiating an impeachment inquiry substantially strengthens the legal hand of the House to discover all information.”
“I am familiar with the political arguments against initiating an impeachment inquiry based on the findings to date.”
“For example, some suggest that the Senate is highly unlikely to convict the President should the House impeach him and that his chances of reelection will therefore be enhanced.”
“That may be true.”
“What is truer is that nothing less than the rule of law is at stake.
“Accordingly, I support initiation of an impeachment inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee and will support measures to accomplish this when Congress returns to Washington, D.C.”
end quotes
And with that, I will pause before getting back to the Federalist Papers, but don’t go away, because this sick saga sure isn’t going to – the Democrats are too far in now to get back out gracefully, so will they now double down on their efforts to disgrace Trump before the 2020 presidential election?
Stay tuned to this same channel and we will find out together as it happens.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-163141
Paul Plante says:
So what is impeachment, people?
What does it really mean when the Democrats and Democratic Socialists like the foul-mouthed Rashida Tlaib say they are going to impeach Trump?
As to impeachment as applied to Trump as president, in FEDERALIST No. 69, The Real Character of the Executive, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, Alexander Hamilton stated thusly, to wit:.
I PROCEED now to trace the real characters of the proposed Executive, as they are marked out in the plan of the convention.
This will serve to place in a strong light the unfairness of the representations which have been made in regard to it.
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
So, from that, we can see that impeachment is a process that is intended to protect We, the American people, from another tyrant in the mold of George III of England, whose tyranny was still very fresh in the minds of those who gave us the United States Constitution; but at the same time, it is also intended to protect the executive from the machinations of factions in the House of Representatives who are demagogues appealing to the base passions of the people at large in their bid to usurp the power of the executive to make it their own.
So in this case, if Rashida Tlaib, said to be a lawyer whose intellectual capacity far exceeds that of a John Marshall or Dershowitz and Tribe, has evidence that Trump has committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, then what she does as a member of the House is to prepare Articles of Impeachment, listing therein each separate charge of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, and the specifications of each separate charge, to include who, what, when, and where, and then she has those charges, or that indictment, served on Trump, and the impeachment process begins.
So, does Rashida have evidence?
According to the VOX article from January of this year, she says she does, to wit:
With regard to which impeachable offenses Tlaib thinks Trump has already committed, she specifically cites “obstructing justice; violating the emoluments clause; abusing the pardon power; directing or seeking to direct law enforcement to prosecute political adversaries for improper purposes; advocating illegal violence and undermining equal protection of the laws; ordering the cruel and unconstitutional imprisonment of children and their families at the southern border; and conspiring to illegally influence the 2016 election through a series of hush money payments.”
end quotes
That, people, was in January, and those are indeed quite serious charges which if true would likely result in Trump being removed from office and being liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law, just as Alexander Hamilton told us would be the case in Federalist No. 69 – so why were there no Articles of Impeachment filed in January of this year by Rashida Tlaib, a highly skilled lawyer in her own right, to get the process going in order to protect us from a president she tells us is a direct and serious threat to our country who on an almost daily basis attacks our Constitution, our democracy, the rule of law and the people who are in this country, and whose conduct has created a constitutional crisis that we must confront now?
With things that serious, what on earth can she be waiting for, especially when she seems to have the goods on Trump, as she told us in January?
And that existential question takes us back to the FOX News article “Pelosi warns Dems: Don’t trash colleagues who won’t back impeachment” by Brooke Singman on 25 July 2019, where we have the following bizarre and surreal colloquy between Democrat Veronica Escobar, born September 15, 1969, who is an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Texas’s 16th congressional district, based in El Paso, and Bob Mueller, as follows:
But the impeachment question threatens to further divide the caucus after Mueller’s testimony left the future of that push as unclear as ever.
Pelosi, for her part, has resisted impeachment pressure from the start.
Mueller stood by his team’s findings at the hearings before both the House Judiciary and House Intelligence Committees — reiterating that the special counsel’s office had found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Trump associates and Russia, while also stating that the president was not exonerated on allegations of obstruction of justice despite his assertions to the contrary.
But in doing so, Mueller repeatedly refused to drift beyond the bounds of his report.
He also declined to go down the road of the impeachment topic, under questioning from both Republicans and Democrats.
Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, of the Judiciary Committee, directly questioned Mueller on whether he was suggesting that Congress impeach Trump.
“You explained [in May] … that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” Escobar said, quoting Mueller’s remarks during his press conference in May.
“That process other than the criminal justice system to accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing — is that impeachment?”
“I’m not going to comment on that,” Mueller said, as she continued to press the issue, citing a footnote in the report.
“What are other constitutional processes?” she said.
Mueller replied: “I think I heard you mention at least one.”
“Impeachment, correct?” she pressed.
“I’m not going to comment,” he said.
end quotes
If Bob Mueller was going to comment on that bizarre line of questioning, it would have been along the lines of how does someone as ignorant of OUR Constitution as Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, manage to become a congressperson in the first place, and then, more importantly how on earth did she end up getting placed on the Judiciary Committee, when she knows nothing of OUR laws and Constitution, but Bob Mueller was too polite and politically correct on 24 July 2019, six (6) months AFTER Rashida Tlaib laid out the process and grounds for impeaching Trump on a host of charges, for that exchange to happen, so he stayed silent, instead, to our detriment as a nation and as a people.
And that takes us to Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 65, The Powers of the Senate Continued, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 7, 1788, on the subject of impeachment of Trump, as follows:
We will, therefore, conclude this head with a view of the judicial character of the Senate.
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.
The 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.
end quotes
So, for the impeachment process to work as it should to protect us from a president Democratic Socialist firebrand and Trump hater Rashida Tlaib tells us us is a direct and serious threat to our country who on an almost daily basis attacks our Constitution, our democracy, the rule of law and the people who are in this country, and whose conduct has created a constitutional crisis that we must confront now, she would prepare an indictment against Trump known as Articles of Impeachment demonstrating therein to the Senate the misconduct of Trump that is an abuse or violation of some public trust, and the game would be on.
So why isn’t it?
Getting back to Hamilton and Federalist No. 65:
They (alleged abuses or violations of some public trust) are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.
end quotes
So, has Trump done injuries to society itself?
Or hasn’t he?
And when is it the Democrats will finally let us know?
And in the meantime, what can they be waiting for?
Is this just a game with them, as it appears to be?
And again, that thought takes us back to Federalist No. 65, as follows:
The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.
end quotes
Did Alexander Hamilton have prescient (having or showing knowledge of events before they take place) vision when he wrote those words on March 7, 1788?
Getting back to Federalist No. 65:
In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
end quotes
Which again raises the question of prescient vision, because that is where we are right now in this country, especially as on 28 July 2019, Democrat Congressman Denny Heck (WA-10) of the Judiciary Committee announced his support for impeachment of Trump, as follows:
“For many months multiple committees of the House have been engaged in investigations both of potentially illegal acts by President Trump related to Russia’s ‘sweeping and systematic’ interference in the 2016 election and of the President’s response to investigations into that interference.”
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I’ve been deeply involved in that effort.”
“I’ve sat through hundreds of hours of closed and open testimony, read and reread the findings of the Office of the Special Counsel (the Mueller Report), and spoken with and listened to the people of the Tenth Congressional District.”
“In last week’s hearings, I also had the opportunity to hear directly from Special Counsel Mueller and, along with my colleagues, to personally engage him in questions.”
“After considerable reflection and prayerful consideration, I’ve reached some conclusions.
“First, there is no question that the President encouraged, welcomed and benefited from the interference of a foreign adversary in our 2016 election.”
“Furthermore, he has both refused to fully acknowledge it occurred and even suggested he might welcome such interference again.”
“The White House has also opposed Congressional measures to enhance election security going forward.”
“This strikes at the very core of our democracy and democratic values.”
“America’s elections are for Americans.”
“Period.”
“Support of free, fair and open elections is not negotiable.
“The President has also engaged in an aggressive and active cover-up of the effort to reveal all the facts.”
“This is particularly true of the many ways in which potential financial conflicts or motivations may have guided the Trump campaign or several of its high-ranking officials.”
“This was the essence of my exchange with Special Counsel Mueller during the hearing last week.”
“Americans deserve to know the full extent of the facts.”
“Officially initiating an impeachment inquiry substantially strengthens the legal hand of the House to discover all information.”
“I am familiar with the political arguments against initiating an impeachment inquiry based on the findings to date.”
“For example, some suggest that the Senate is highly unlikely to convict the President should the House impeach him and that his chances of reelection will therefore be enhanced.”
“That may be true.”
“What is truer is that nothing less than the rule of law is at stake.
“Accordingly, I support initiation of an impeachment inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee and will support measures to accomplish this when Congress returns to Washington, D.C.”
end quotes
And with that, I will pause before getting back to the Federalist Papers, but don’t go away, because this sick saga sure isn’t going to – the Democrats are too far in now to get back out gracefully, so will they now double down on their efforts to disgrace Trump before the 2020 presidential election?
Stay tuned to this same channel and we will find out together as it happens.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-163141
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 4, 2019 at 10:23 pm
Paul Plante says:
So, people, according to The Daily Beast, this bizarre and seemingly unending drama now known as the Democrat party impeachment train is now gathering steam and actually very much appears as if it even might be somewhat ready to leave the station, as we see in the story entitled “A Majority of House Democrats Now Back Trump Impeachment Inquiry” by Julia Arciga on 1 August 2019, as follows:
The majority of the House Democratic caucus now supports an impeachment inquiry against President Trump, with Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) becoming the 118th Democrat in the chamber to support moving to such proceedings.
“[President Trump] seems to think that Mueller’s performance wasn’t enough to trigger an impeachment inquiry,” the congressman wrote in an op-ed in the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
“Sorry, Mr. President, the question is no longer whether the House should vote to proceed with a formal impeachment inquiry.”
“The inquiry has already begun.”
end quotes
So there we are, people, after spending some $32 million on the Mueller investigation, which according to the CNBC article “Robert Mueller’s Russia probe cost nearly $32 million in total, Justice Department says” by Kevin Breuninger on 2 August 2019 involved 19 lawyers supported by 40 FBI agents, along with intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other staff, we still do not know enough to actually impeach Trump by preparing in the House an INDICTMENT in the form of Articles of Impeachment, so we need to spend more money on yet more investigations to learn what it is that we don’t actually yet know, as a result of the Mueller investigation, which sounds ridiculous, but there we are folks – it is what it is when it is, even if and when it makes no sense at all, like this Democrat “impeachment inquiry,” which is a way for the Democrats to keep flogging this dead horse and making scurrilous accusations against Trump without actually ever having to prove them in a forum where Trump is not allowed to mount a defense, right on up to November 2020 and the upcoming presidential election, which the Democrats are now meddling in and interfering with by talking about impeaching Trump for all these alleged crimes without actually impeaching him, in fact, which is as low as politics can get in this country, and that’s a fact, which takes us to a CNBC article entitlled “Trump’s nominee for intelligence chief accused Mueller of violating ‘sacred traditions'” by Kevin Breuninger on 29 July 2019, where we have as follows:
President Donald Trump’s just-announced nominee to replace Dan Coats as director of national intelligence had already drawn national attention earlier this week, when he delivered an aggressive diatribe against former special counsel Robert Mueller.
Rep. John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, had zeroed in on one of the key lines from Mueller’s report on Russian election interference, possible coordination between Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin, and possible obstruction of justice by Trump himself.
Mueller’s 448-page report found insufficient evidence to prove coordination, and declined to make a determination on obstruction despite detailing numerous examples of potential obstruction by Trump.
But the report notes: “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
During Mueller’s first hearing before the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Ratcliffe said he agreed with Mueller’s conclusions that Russia’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election were “sweeping and systematic.”
But he tore into Mueller for including the asterisk in his report that explicitly said Trump was not exonerated.
“Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe asked Mueller.
The former special counsel responded, “I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”
Ratcliffe shot back: “You can’t find it, because – I’ll tell you why – it doesn’t exist.”
“It was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence.”
“It exists for everyone, everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents,” Ratcliffe said in the hearing.
“You managed to violate every principle and the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis.”
Trump shouldn’t be above the law, Ratcliffe added, “but he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law, which is where volume two of this report puts him.”
end quotes
But the Democrats heading into the 2020 need the American people to believe that Trump really is below the law, not entitled to due process, and so he now is, according to the Democrats, which takes us back to The Daily Beast article “A Majority of House Democrats Now Back Trump Impeachment Inquiry” by Julia Arciga on 1 August 2019, as follows:
A spokesperson for Deutch confirmed to Politico that he would vote for an impeachment inquiry if such a vote was requested.
end quotes
Ah, yes, Ted, I think I’m seeing it all a bit more clearly now – even though above you said the impeachment inquiry had already begun, what you really meant was that it hasn’t begun at all, which is why you are telling us you would support it, if requested, which again takes us back to The Daily Beast, as follows:.
“The American people want, and deserve, the truth.”
“Mr. Mueller’s testimony provided ample evidence that the president committed obstruction of justice, and I believe the House must pursue a formal impeachment inquiry,” House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY) wrote in a statement Tuesday announcing his support for impeachment.
end quotes
You see, people, there it is right there in black and white – the American people want, and deserve, the truth.
So when the hell are we finally going to get it?
And that answer is never, because the truth is something the Democrats haven’t got, and never will, or this thread would not need to be running in the first place, talking about the games the Democrats are now trying to play with our minds as they continue to whip up visceral hate against Trump heading into 2020, which again takes us to The Daily Beast, to wit:
“While many people believe that beginning an impeachment investigation can begin only with a vote of the full House of Representatives, this is not true.”
“Article I authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process,” members of the committee wrote in an Atlantic piece.
end quotes
And actually, Article I says no such thing about the House Judiciary Committee, but that would never trouble a Democrat, who can merely make this **** up out of thin air, as they go.
Section 4 of Article II of OUR Constitution states in clear and unequivocal language, as follows:
Section 4. Impeachment
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
end quotes
Note the key words, “impeachment for AND conviction of.”
According to the annotations, few provisions of the Constitution were adopted from English practice to the degree the section on impeachment was.
In England, impeachment was a device to remove from office one who abused his office or misbehaved but who was protected by the Crown.
It was a device that figured in the plans proposed to the Convention from the first, and the arguments went to such questions as what body was to try impeachments and what grounds were to be stated as warranting impeachment, and the attention of the Framers was for the most part fixed on the President and his removal, and the results of this narrow frame of reference are reflected in the questions unresolved by the language of the Constitution.
As to the grounds for impeachment, the Constitutional Convention came to its choice of words describing the grounds for impeachment after much deliberation, but the phrasing derived directly from the English practice.
The framers early adopted, on June 2, a provision that the Executive should be removable by impeachment and conviction ”of mal-practice or neglect of duty.”
The Committee of Detail reported as grounds ”Treason (or) Bribery or Corruption.”
And the Committee of Eleven reduced the phrase to ”Treason, or bribery.”
On September 8, Mason objected to this limitation, observing that the term did not encompass all the conduct which should be grounds for removal; he therefore proposed to add ”or maladministration” following ”bribery.”
Upon Madison’s objection that ”(s)o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,” Mason suggested ”other high crimes and misdemeanors,” which was adopted without further recorded debate.
The phrase in the context of impeachments has an ancient English history, first turning up in the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk in 1388.
Treason is defined in the Constitution; bribery is not, but it had a clear common-law meaning and is now well covered by statute.
High crimes and misdemeanors, however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses.
In an unrelated action, the Convention had seemed to understand the term ”high misdemeanor” to be quite limited in meaning, but debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President at least, and all the debate was in terms of the President, should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.
Practice over the years, however, insofar as the Senate deems itself bound by the actions of previous Senates, would appear to limit the grounds of conviction to indictable criminal offenses for all officers, with the possible exception of judges.
end quotes
So there is what should be happening if in fact Trump is really guilty of all these indictable offenses, as the Democrats have been telling us since January of this year.
So why aren’t they then?
What’s the deal?
Oh, right, the Democrats are simply playing mind games with us in an effort to throw the 2020 presidential election to the Democrats, which would be a big win for Putin in Russia were that to happen.
And now, we pause for station identification to let that message sink in, and right after a word from our sponsors we will be right back!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-163683
Paul Plante says:
So, people, according to The Daily Beast, this bizarre and seemingly unending drama now known as the Democrat party impeachment train is now gathering steam and actually very much appears as if it even might be somewhat ready to leave the station, as we see in the story entitled “A Majority of House Democrats Now Back Trump Impeachment Inquiry” by Julia Arciga on 1 August 2019, as follows:
The majority of the House Democratic caucus now supports an impeachment inquiry against President Trump, with Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) becoming the 118th Democrat in the chamber to support moving to such proceedings.
“[President Trump] seems to think that Mueller’s performance wasn’t enough to trigger an impeachment inquiry,” the congressman wrote in an op-ed in the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
“Sorry, Mr. President, the question is no longer whether the House should vote to proceed with a formal impeachment inquiry.”
“The inquiry has already begun.”
end quotes
So there we are, people, after spending some $32 million on the Mueller investigation, which according to the CNBC article “Robert Mueller’s Russia probe cost nearly $32 million in total, Justice Department says” by Kevin Breuninger on 2 August 2019 involved 19 lawyers supported by 40 FBI agents, along with intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other staff, we still do not know enough to actually impeach Trump by preparing in the House an INDICTMENT in the form of Articles of Impeachment, so we need to spend more money on yet more investigations to learn what it is that we don’t actually yet know, as a result of the Mueller investigation, which sounds ridiculous, but there we are folks – it is what it is when it is, even if and when it makes no sense at all, like this Democrat “impeachment inquiry,” which is a way for the Democrats to keep flogging this dead horse and making scurrilous accusations against Trump without actually ever having to prove them in a forum where Trump is not allowed to mount a defense, right on up to November 2020 and the upcoming presidential election, which the Democrats are now meddling in and interfering with by talking about impeaching Trump for all these alleged crimes without actually impeaching him, in fact, which is as low as politics can get in this country, and that’s a fact, which takes us to a CNBC article entitlled “Trump’s nominee for intelligence chief accused Mueller of violating ‘sacred traditions'” by Kevin Breuninger on 29 July 2019, where we have as follows:
President Donald Trump’s just-announced nominee to replace Dan Coats as director of national intelligence had already drawn national attention earlier this week, when he delivered an aggressive diatribe against former special counsel Robert Mueller.
Rep. John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, had zeroed in on one of the key lines from Mueller’s report on Russian election interference, possible coordination between Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin, and possible obstruction of justice by Trump himself.
Mueller’s 448-page report found insufficient evidence to prove coordination, and declined to make a determination on obstruction despite detailing numerous examples of potential obstruction by Trump.
But the report notes: “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
During Mueller’s first hearing before the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Ratcliffe said he agreed with Mueller’s conclusions that Russia’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election were “sweeping and systematic.”
But he tore into Mueller for including the asterisk in his report that explicitly said Trump was not exonerated.
“Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe asked Mueller.
The former special counsel responded, “I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”
Ratcliffe shot back: “You can’t find it, because – I’ll tell you why – it doesn’t exist.”
“It was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence.”
“It exists for everyone, everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents,” Ratcliffe said in the hearing.
“You managed to violate every principle and the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis.”
Trump shouldn’t be above the law, Ratcliffe added, “but he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law, which is where volume two of this report puts him.”
end quotes
But the Democrats heading into the 2020 need the American people to believe that Trump really is below the law, not entitled to due process, and so he now is, according to the Democrats, which takes us back to The Daily Beast article “A Majority of House Democrats Now Back Trump Impeachment Inquiry” by Julia Arciga on 1 August 2019, as follows:
A spokesperson for Deutch confirmed to Politico that he would vote for an impeachment inquiry if such a vote was requested.
end quotes
Ah, yes, Ted, I think I’m seeing it all a bit more clearly now – even though above you said the impeachment inquiry had already begun, what you really meant was that it hasn’t begun at all, which is why you are telling us you would support it, if requested, which again takes us back to The Daily Beast, as follows:.
“The American people want, and deserve, the truth.”
“Mr. Mueller’s testimony provided ample evidence that the president committed obstruction of justice, and I believe the House must pursue a formal impeachment inquiry,” House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY) wrote in a statement Tuesday announcing his support for impeachment.
end quotes
You see, people, there it is right there in black and white – the American people want, and deserve, the truth.
So when the hell are we finally going to get it?
And that answer is never, because the truth is something the Democrats haven’t got, and never will, or this thread would not need to be running in the first place, talking about the games the Democrats are now trying to play with our minds as they continue to whip up visceral hate against Trump heading into 2020, which again takes us to The Daily Beast, to wit:
“While many people believe that beginning an impeachment investigation can begin only with a vote of the full House of Representatives, this is not true.”
“Article I authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process,” members of the committee wrote in an Atlantic piece.
end quotes
And actually, Article I says no such thing about the House Judiciary Committee, but that would never trouble a Democrat, who can merely make this **** up out of thin air, as they go.
Section 4 of Article II of OUR Constitution states in clear and unequivocal language, as follows:
Section 4. Impeachment
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
end quotes
Note the key words, “impeachment for AND conviction of.”
According to the annotations, few provisions of the Constitution were adopted from English practice to the degree the section on impeachment was.
In England, impeachment was a device to remove from office one who abused his office or misbehaved but who was protected by the Crown.
It was a device that figured in the plans proposed to the Convention from the first, and the arguments went to such questions as what body was to try impeachments and what grounds were to be stated as warranting impeachment, and the attention of the Framers was for the most part fixed on the President and his removal, and the results of this narrow frame of reference are reflected in the questions unresolved by the language of the Constitution.
As to the grounds for impeachment, the Constitutional Convention came to its choice of words describing the grounds for impeachment after much deliberation, but the phrasing derived directly from the English practice.
The framers early adopted, on June 2, a provision that the Executive should be removable by impeachment and conviction ”of mal-practice or neglect of duty.”
The Committee of Detail reported as grounds ”Treason (or) Bribery or Corruption.”
And the Committee of Eleven reduced the phrase to ”Treason, or bribery.”
On September 8, Mason objected to this limitation, observing that the term did not encompass all the conduct which should be grounds for removal; he therefore proposed to add ”or maladministration” following ”bribery.”
Upon Madison’s objection that ”(s)o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,” Mason suggested ”other high crimes and misdemeanors,” which was adopted without further recorded debate.
The phrase in the context of impeachments has an ancient English history, first turning up in the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk in 1388.
Treason is defined in the Constitution; bribery is not, but it had a clear common-law meaning and is now well covered by statute.
High crimes and misdemeanors, however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses.
In an unrelated action, the Convention had seemed to understand the term ”high misdemeanor” to be quite limited in meaning, but debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President at least, and all the debate was in terms of the President, should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.
Practice over the years, however, insofar as the Senate deems itself bound by the actions of previous Senates, would appear to limit the grounds of conviction to indictable criminal offenses for all officers, with the possible exception of judges.
end quotes
So there is what should be happening if in fact Trump is really guilty of all these indictable offenses, as the Democrats have been telling us since January of this year.
So why aren’t they then?
What’s the deal?
Oh, right, the Democrats are simply playing mind games with us in an effort to throw the 2020 presidential election to the Democrats, which would be a big win for Putin in Russia were that to happen.
And now, we pause for station identification to let that message sink in, and right after a word from our sponsors we will be right back!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-163683
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 5, 2019 at 7:04 pm
Paul Plante says:
And before we go any further into the dense clouds of obfuscation and misdirection being thrown in our faces by the Congressional Democrats as we try to navigate this murky morass and outright slime storm the Democrats in the House of Representatives have created as they meddle in the 2020 presidential election in order to insure that a Democrat is our next president, let us for a moment go back to The Daily Beast story “A Majority of House Democrats Now Back Trump Impeachment Inquiry” by Julia Arciga on 1 August 2019, where we have the following from House Democrat Commander-in-Chief Nancy Pelosi on the subject of impeachment, as follows:
Pelosi supported the committee’s effort, but has repeatedly spoke against sparking the impeachment process.
“We will proceed when we have what we need to proceed,” she said at a press conference.
“Not a day sooner.”
end quotes
And by my calculations, employing the same political calculus I believe a canny, old-school machine Democrat like Nancy Pelosi would employ here, the Articles of Impeachment will be served on Trump on 15 October 2020, right before the November 2020 presidential elections, in the hopes that that would stall any momentum Trump might have going into 2020 and tip the election to the Democrats, which takes us back to that Daily Beast article, as follows, to wit:
The House Speaker also argued that Trump was “taunting” and “goading” Democrats into handing him a win — under the assumption that the effort would fail in the GOP-controlled Senate.
end quotes
And what an absolutely stupid, ridiculous, childish and totally ignorant statement that really is, Nancy!
The Democrats in the House of Representatives would file Articles of Impeachment against Trump because he “taunted” and “goaded” them?
Are we talking about functioning adults here?
Or are we talking about juveniles, and to me, it certainly sounds the latter, given that the Constitution does not make taunting and goading Democrats in the House of Representatives an impeachable offence without more, and it is the “more” part of that equation that the Democrats are sorely lacking, which takes us to FEDERALIST No. 65, The Powers of the Senate Continued, from the New York Packet by Alexander Hamilton to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 7, 1788, where we have the following as to why these Articles of Impeachment would be tried in the Senate, as opposed to Nancy Pelosi’s very partisan House of Representatives, as follows:
The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves.
end quotes
And it is there that our present CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS with the Democrats under Nancy Pelosi meddling with and interfering in our 2020 presidential election begins – because with this continual litany of alleged criminal violations by the Democrats against Trump, without there ever being a trial or a chance for the accused, in this case, Trump, to confront the witnesses against him, which is very un-American, and is something you would expect in Putin’s Russia, the House Democrats are making a mockery of that statement by making a continual mockery of Trump himself, which is the purpose of all of these hearings, which takes us back to Federalist No. 65, for the following words of wisdom on the subject from Alexander Hamilton, to wit:
The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.
end quotes
And amen to that, Alexander Hamilton!
And when he talks about the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction who can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny, he is talking about Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, the smarmy and unctuous Democrat Hollywood, California Congressman Adam Schiff, and a virtual swarm of other Democrats in the House, including Democratic Socialist firebrand AOC and the foul-mouthed and ignorant Rashida Tlaib, which again takes us back to Federalist No. 65, to wit:.
The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust.
Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.
What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself?
Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men?
If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?
It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body.
Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry?
The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention.
In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it.
Several of the State constitutions have followed the example.
As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government.
Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?
Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent?
What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused,and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?
end quotes
And there, people, is what the Democrats in the House of Representatives are so upset about – the fact that unlike the House, the Democrats in the Senate do not have the numbers to pervert the impeachment process as the House Democrats under the canny, machine politician Nancy Pelosi are doing!
And before we go back to Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No. 65, we will pause for station identification to give you a chance to head for the kitchen for some sustenance to sustain you as we penetrate further into the fog of Democrat obfuscation here in a bid to save our democracy and the soul of our nation from this blatant assault the Democrats are making on them, and pray we are successful, so that come 2020, it is not Putin who wins our 2020 presidential election.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-163856
Paul Plante says:
And before we go any further into the dense clouds of obfuscation and misdirection being thrown in our faces by the Congressional Democrats as we try to navigate this murky morass and outright slime storm the Democrats in the House of Representatives have created as they meddle in the 2020 presidential election in order to insure that a Democrat is our next president, let us for a moment go back to The Daily Beast story “A Majority of House Democrats Now Back Trump Impeachment Inquiry” by Julia Arciga on 1 August 2019, where we have the following from House Democrat Commander-in-Chief Nancy Pelosi on the subject of impeachment, as follows:
Pelosi supported the committee’s effort, but has repeatedly spoke against sparking the impeachment process.
“We will proceed when we have what we need to proceed,” she said at a press conference.
“Not a day sooner.”
end quotes
And by my calculations, employing the same political calculus I believe a canny, old-school machine Democrat like Nancy Pelosi would employ here, the Articles of Impeachment will be served on Trump on 15 October 2020, right before the November 2020 presidential elections, in the hopes that that would stall any momentum Trump might have going into 2020 and tip the election to the Democrats, which takes us back to that Daily Beast article, as follows, to wit:
The House Speaker also argued that Trump was “taunting” and “goading” Democrats into handing him a win — under the assumption that the effort would fail in the GOP-controlled Senate.
end quotes
And what an absolutely stupid, ridiculous, childish and totally ignorant statement that really is, Nancy!
The Democrats in the House of Representatives would file Articles of Impeachment against Trump because he “taunted” and “goaded” them?
Are we talking about functioning adults here?
Or are we talking about juveniles, and to me, it certainly sounds the latter, given that the Constitution does not make taunting and goading Democrats in the House of Representatives an impeachable offence without more, and it is the “more” part of that equation that the Democrats are sorely lacking, which takes us to FEDERALIST No. 65, The Powers of the Senate Continued, from the New York Packet by Alexander Hamilton to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 7, 1788, where we have the following as to why these Articles of Impeachment would be tried in the Senate, as opposed to Nancy Pelosi’s very partisan House of Representatives, as follows:
The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves.
end quotes
And it is there that our present CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS with the Democrats under Nancy Pelosi meddling with and interfering in our 2020 presidential election begins – because with this continual litany of alleged criminal violations by the Democrats against Trump, without there ever being a trial or a chance for the accused, in this case, Trump, to confront the witnesses against him, which is very un-American, and is something you would expect in Putin’s Russia, the House Democrats are making a mockery of that statement by making a continual mockery of Trump himself, which is the purpose of all of these hearings, which takes us back to Federalist No. 65, for the following words of wisdom on the subject from Alexander Hamilton, to wit:
The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.
end quotes
And amen to that, Alexander Hamilton!
And when he talks about the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction who can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny, he is talking about Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, the smarmy and unctuous Democrat Hollywood, California Congressman Adam Schiff, and a virtual swarm of other Democrats in the House, including Democratic Socialist firebrand AOC and the foul-mouthed and ignorant Rashida Tlaib, which again takes us back to Federalist No. 65, to wit:.
The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust.
Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.
What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself?
Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men?
If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?
It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body.
Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry?
The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention.
In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it.
Several of the State constitutions have followed the example.
As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government.
Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?
Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent?
What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused,and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?
end quotes
And there, people, is what the Democrats in the House of Representatives are so upset about – the fact that unlike the House, the Democrats in the Senate do not have the numbers to pervert the impeachment process as the House Democrats under the canny, machine politician Nancy Pelosi are doing!
And before we go back to Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No. 65, we will pause for station identification to give you a chance to head for the kitchen for some sustenance to sustain you as we penetrate further into the fog of Democrat obfuscation here in a bid to save our democracy and the soul of our nation from this blatant assault the Democrats are making on them, and pray we are successful, so that come 2020, it is not Putin who wins our 2020 presidential election.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-163856
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 6, 2019 at 6:43 pm
Paul Plante says:
And while we are on the subject of RULE OF LAW and DUE PROCESS OF LAW and PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE and SEPARATION OF POWERS all going out the window thanks to Nancy Pelosi and her pack of House Democrats who are totally perverting Article I of OUR Constitution and our laws in order to smear and slander and heap slime on a president of the opposite party in a bid to get a Democrat into the oval office come November 2020, before we go back to Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No. 65, The Hill just came out with an article entitled “Nadler: Judiciary panel could reach impeachment decision by late fall” by Olivia Beavers on 5 August, where we get this update on what the Democrats are thinking, and how they are proceeding, as follows:
House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) on Monday said that his committee could decide whether to move forward with articles of impeachment against President Trump by late fall of this year but cautioned that such a decision requires certain conditions.
“If we decide to report articles of impeachment, we could get to that in the late fall perhaps – in the latter part of the year,” Nadler said in an appearance on MSNBC.
end quotes
So, are they getting with it, then?
Or are they fixin’ to get with it?
A huge mystery to which the pundits so far have no answers, other than that maybe something will happen by fall, but then again, maybe nothing will happen, which will leave us in suspense and on the edge of our seats all winter, and hey, that may well be the plan here, because we are dealing with some very canny Democrats here, and these investigations of Trump are a fundraising bonanza for the Democrats, so this show is not going to end so long as the campaign contributions keep rolling in, which takes us back to The Hill, as follows:
“The calendar is whatever it is,” Nadler said.
“We can’t let the election calendar dictate.”
“We will have hearings in September and October, who are witnesses not dependent on the court proceedings and we will do it through the fall.”
Nadler also noted that three key ingredients must exist before moving forward with articles of impeachment: The committee must be able to prove the president committed impeachable offenses, answer whether they reach the threshold of serious impeachable offenses, and have the support of the American people.
Polls currently indicate that a majority of U.S. citizens do not favor impeachment, but Nadler thinks his committee’s work will likely change their minds.
“We will hold these hearings.”
“We will get the support of the American people or we won’t.”
“I suspect we will,” Nadler said.
But even if House ultimately decided to introduce articles of impeachment against Trump, Democrats would face a far more difficult time seeking to convince the GOP-controlled Senate of removing Trump from office.
Democrats say it is their duty to conduct oversight.
Late last month, Nadler and others heralded the testimony of Mueller as a resounding success, despite Democrats privately saying the high-profile hearing in many ways failed to match their hope and expectations.
Still, Nadler, who jabbed the press for initially acting like “theater critics” over the Mueller’s testimony, called it an “inflection point.”
While the former FBI chief did not present any new evidence during the hearings – and often times gave basic or one-worded answers – he did confirm on camera that his investigation did not exonerate the president of obstruction of justice.
Mueller’s investigation ultimately did not find sufficient evidence that members of the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia.
But Democrats say it is now in the hands of Congress to make that determination, and they will continue to collect evidence in order to do so.
“The Mueller report was the summary of the evidence, we don’t have the evidence,” Nadler said on MSNBC.
“We will get the evidence in public hearings in front of the American people and then we will see about the conclusions.”
end quotes
So from that, it very much sounds like Jerrold Nadler is not accepting the Mueller Report as either conclusive or final, and he is going to have his committee redo the Mueller Investigation so that they can have it come up with some different conclusions more beneficial to the Democrats going into the 2020 elections, which takes us back to July 24, 2019, and the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON OVERSIGHT OF THE REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y., and his opening statement wherein he essentially indicts Trump, as follows:
CHAIRMAN: I will now recognize myself for a brief opening statement.
Director Mueller, thank you for being here.
I want to say just a few words about our themes today: responsibility, integrity and accountability.
end quotes
And so do I, actually, which takes us to a MARKETWATCH story entitled “Justice Department won’t charge Comey over Trump memos” by Associated Press published Aug. 1, 2019, where we have what appears to be a case of Jimmy Comey, like Hillary Clinton, being above the law, and thus not responsible or accountable, as follows:
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has declined to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey over his handling of a series of memos he wrote that documented personal interactions with President Donald Trump, a person familiar with the matter said Thursday.
The memos, some of which Justice Department officials later determined contained classified information, were written in the weeks and months before Comey’s firing by Trump in May 2017.
A week after he was fired, Comey authorized a friend to describe the contents of one of the memos to the news media.
He has said his hope in having one of the memos become public was to spur the appointment of a special counsel to run the Justice Department’s investigation into possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.
end quotes
So, okay, admitted, he did have to break the law to make that happen, but since the goal is to hang Trump, and Jimmy was loyal to Hillary, so he shouldn’t have to take a fall for helping to take down Trump, that kind of law-breaking can be overlooked as politics.
Getting back to that article:
FBI agents collected four memos from Comey’s house one month after he was fired, according to court documents made public this week as part of a lawsuit by the organization Judicial Watch.
In court documents arguing against the public release of the memos, the FBI has contended that the memos include “highly sensitive information” about the Russia probe as well as certain classified details, including the code name and true identity of a source and details of foreign intelligence information.
Comey has said he took pains to document other information in an unclassified manner so that it could be made public and discussed out in the open.
That includes his February 2017 conversation about Flynn, the topic of the first memo described to the media.
“So my thinking was, if I write it in such a way that I don’t include anything that would trigger a classification, that’ll make it easier for us to discuss, within the FBI and the government, and to — to hold on to it in a way that makes it accessible to us,” Comey said at a June 2017 hearing.
The memos, some of which Comey described in a book released last year, were also pieces of evidence in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
The person who confirmed the Justice Department’s decision was not authorized to discuss it by name and spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press.
A lawyer for Comey declined to comment.
John Lavinsky, a spokesman for the Justice Department’s inspector general, which had been investigating, said he could not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.
end quotes
So, nothing to see here, people, let’s go, clear the streets, everybody go back home and you will be just fine, because nothing happened in the first place to worry about, and now, we’ll pause to take a station break for a word from our sponsors, before returning to Alexander Hamilton, who will speak prophetically as follows, to wit:
The necessity of a numerous court for the trial of impeachments, is equally dictated by the nature of the proceeding.
This can never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors, or in the construction of it by the judges, as in common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security.
There will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law, and the party who is to receive or suffer it.
The awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons.
These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments.
There remains a further consideration, which will not a little strengthen this conclusion.
It is this: The punishment which may be the consequence of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender.
After having been sentenced to a perpetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.
Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame, and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial, should, in another trial, for the same offense, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune?
Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error, in the first sentence, would be the parent of error in the second sentence?
That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision?
Those who know anything of human nature, will not hesitate to answer these questions in the affirmative; and will be at no loss to perceive, that by making the same persons judges in both cases, those who might happen to be the objects of prosecution would, in a great measure, be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial.
The loss of life and estate would often be virtually included in a sentence which, in its terms, imported nothing more than dismission from a present, and disqualification for a future, office.
It may be said, that the intervention of a jury, in the second instance, would obviate the danger.
But juries are frequently influenced by the opinions of judges.
They are sometimes induced to find special verdicts, which refer the main question to the decision of the court.
Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate upon the verdict of a jury acting under the auspices of judges who had predetermined his guilt?
end quotes
Who, indeed, Alexander – an existential question for our times!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-164104
Paul Plante says:
And while we are on the subject of RULE OF LAW and DUE PROCESS OF LAW and PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE and SEPARATION OF POWERS all going out the window thanks to Nancy Pelosi and her pack of House Democrats who are totally perverting Article I of OUR Constitution and our laws in order to smear and slander and heap slime on a president of the opposite party in a bid to get a Democrat into the oval office come November 2020, before we go back to Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No. 65, The Hill just came out with an article entitled “Nadler: Judiciary panel could reach impeachment decision by late fall” by Olivia Beavers on 5 August, where we get this update on what the Democrats are thinking, and how they are proceeding, as follows:
House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) on Monday said that his committee could decide whether to move forward with articles of impeachment against President Trump by late fall of this year but cautioned that such a decision requires certain conditions.
“If we decide to report articles of impeachment, we could get to that in the late fall perhaps – in the latter part of the year,” Nadler said in an appearance on MSNBC.
end quotes
So, are they getting with it, then?
Or are they fixin’ to get with it?
A huge mystery to which the pundits so far have no answers, other than that maybe something will happen by fall, but then again, maybe nothing will happen, which will leave us in suspense and on the edge of our seats all winter, and hey, that may well be the plan here, because we are dealing with some very canny Democrats here, and these investigations of Trump are a fundraising bonanza for the Democrats, so this show is not going to end so long as the campaign contributions keep rolling in, which takes us back to The Hill, as follows:
“The calendar is whatever it is,” Nadler said.
“We can’t let the election calendar dictate.”
“We will have hearings in September and October, who are witnesses not dependent on the court proceedings and we will do it through the fall.”
Nadler also noted that three key ingredients must exist before moving forward with articles of impeachment: The committee must be able to prove the president committed impeachable offenses, answer whether they reach the threshold of serious impeachable offenses, and have the support of the American people.
Polls currently indicate that a majority of U.S. citizens do not favor impeachment, but Nadler thinks his committee’s work will likely change their minds.
“We will hold these hearings.”
“We will get the support of the American people or we won’t.”
“I suspect we will,” Nadler said.
But even if House ultimately decided to introduce articles of impeachment against Trump, Democrats would face a far more difficult time seeking to convince the GOP-controlled Senate of removing Trump from office.
Democrats say it is their duty to conduct oversight.
Late last month, Nadler and others heralded the testimony of Mueller as a resounding success, despite Democrats privately saying the high-profile hearing in many ways failed to match their hope and expectations.
Still, Nadler, who jabbed the press for initially acting like “theater critics” over the Mueller’s testimony, called it an “inflection point.”
While the former FBI chief did not present any new evidence during the hearings – and often times gave basic or one-worded answers – he did confirm on camera that his investigation did not exonerate the president of obstruction of justice.
Mueller’s investigation ultimately did not find sufficient evidence that members of the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia.
But Democrats say it is now in the hands of Congress to make that determination, and they will continue to collect evidence in order to do so.
“The Mueller report was the summary of the evidence, we don’t have the evidence,” Nadler said on MSNBC.
“We will get the evidence in public hearings in front of the American people and then we will see about the conclusions.”
end quotes
So from that, it very much sounds like Jerrold Nadler is not accepting the Mueller Report as either conclusive or final, and he is going to have his committee redo the Mueller Investigation so that they can have it come up with some different conclusions more beneficial to the Democrats going into the 2020 elections, which takes us back to July 24, 2019, and the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON OVERSIGHT OF THE REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y., and his opening statement wherein he essentially indicts Trump, as follows:
CHAIRMAN: I will now recognize myself for a brief opening statement.
Director Mueller, thank you for being here.
I want to say just a few words about our themes today: responsibility, integrity and accountability.
end quotes
And so do I, actually, which takes us to a MARKETWATCH story entitled “Justice Department won’t charge Comey over Trump memos” by Associated Press published Aug. 1, 2019, where we have what appears to be a case of Jimmy Comey, like Hillary Clinton, being above the law, and thus not responsible or accountable, as follows:
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has declined to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey over his handling of a series of memos he wrote that documented personal interactions with President Donald Trump, a person familiar with the matter said Thursday.
The memos, some of which Justice Department officials later determined contained classified information, were written in the weeks and months before Comey’s firing by Trump in May 2017.
A week after he was fired, Comey authorized a friend to describe the contents of one of the memos to the news media.
He has said his hope in having one of the memos become public was to spur the appointment of a special counsel to run the Justice Department’s investigation into possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.
end quotes
So, okay, admitted, he did have to break the law to make that happen, but since the goal is to hang Trump, and Jimmy was loyal to Hillary, so he shouldn’t have to take a fall for helping to take down Trump, that kind of law-breaking can be overlooked as politics.
Getting back to that article:
FBI agents collected four memos from Comey’s house one month after he was fired, according to court documents made public this week as part of a lawsuit by the organization Judicial Watch.
In court documents arguing against the public release of the memos, the FBI has contended that the memos include “highly sensitive information” about the Russia probe as well as certain classified details, including the code name and true identity of a source and details of foreign intelligence information.
Comey has said he took pains to document other information in an unclassified manner so that it could be made public and discussed out in the open.
That includes his February 2017 conversation about Flynn, the topic of the first memo described to the media.
“So my thinking was, if I write it in such a way that I don’t include anything that would trigger a classification, that’ll make it easier for us to discuss, within the FBI and the government, and to — to hold on to it in a way that makes it accessible to us,” Comey said at a June 2017 hearing.
The memos, some of which Comey described in a book released last year, were also pieces of evidence in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
The person who confirmed the Justice Department’s decision was not authorized to discuss it by name and spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press.
A lawyer for Comey declined to comment.
John Lavinsky, a spokesman for the Justice Department’s inspector general, which had been investigating, said he could not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.
end quotes
So, nothing to see here, people, let’s go, clear the streets, everybody go back home and you will be just fine, because nothing happened in the first place to worry about, and now, we’ll pause to take a station break for a word from our sponsors, before returning to Alexander Hamilton, who will speak prophetically as follows, to wit:
The necessity of a numerous court for the trial of impeachments, is equally dictated by the nature of the proceeding.
This can never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors, or in the construction of it by the judges, as in common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security.
There will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law, and the party who is to receive or suffer it.
The awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons.
These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments.
There remains a further consideration, which will not a little strengthen this conclusion.
It is this: The punishment which may be the consequence of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender.
After having been sentenced to a perpetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.
Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame, and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial, should, in another trial, for the same offense, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune?
Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error, in the first sentence, would be the parent of error in the second sentence?
That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision?
Those who know anything of human nature, will not hesitate to answer these questions in the affirmative; and will be at no loss to perceive, that by making the same persons judges in both cases, those who might happen to be the objects of prosecution would, in a great measure, be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial.
The loss of life and estate would often be virtually included in a sentence which, in its terms, imported nothing more than dismission from a present, and disqualification for a future, office.
It may be said, that the intervention of a jury, in the second instance, would obviate the danger.
But juries are frequently influenced by the opinions of judges.
They are sometimes induced to find special verdicts, which refer the main question to the decision of the court.
Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate upon the verdict of a jury acting under the auspices of judges who had predetermined his guilt?
end quotes
Who, indeed, Alexander – an existential question for our times!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-164104
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 7, 2019 at 5:40 pm
Paul Plante says :
And as we continue to try to follow this convoluted mess being thrown at us by the House Democrats as they continue to play the impeachment game here, we have these words to consider, to wit:
Director Mueller, we have a responsibility to address the evidence that you have uncovered.
You recognize as much when you said, quote, “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing,” close quote.
That process begins with the work of this committee.
We will follow your example, Director Mueller.
We will act with integrity.
We will follow the facts where they lead.
We will consider all appropriate remedies.
We will make our recommendation to the House when our work concludes.
We will do this work because there must be accountability for the conduct described in your report especially as it relates to the president.
Thank you again, Director Mueller.
We look forward to your testimony.
end quotes
And that, people, was Democrat House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) speaking to special prosecutor Bob Mueller and We, The American People, as well, on 24 July 2019 during the Mueller Hearing, him being the same Jerrold Nadler who then came back twelve (12) days later on 5 August 2019 to tell us in the article in The Hill entitled “Nadler: Judiciary panel could reach impeachment decision by late fall” by Olivia Beavers as follows:
House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) on Monday said that his committee could decide whether to move forward with articles of impeachment against President Trump by late fall of this year but cautioned that such a decision requires certain conditions.
“If we decide to report articles of impeachment, we could get to that in the late fall perhaps – in the latter part of the year,” Nadler said in an appearance on MSNBC.
end quotes
And that brings us to the NBC News article “Majority of House Democrats now support Trump impeachment inquiry” by Alex Moe and Kyle Stewart on 2 August 2019, as follows:
Rep. Salud Carbajal, of California, put the Democrats over the halfway mark on Friday, saying in a statement that Trump “evaded truth, encouraged his staff to lie repeatedly to investigators and engaged in obstruction,” adding “that’s criminal.”
With Carbajal’s announcement, 118 out of 235 House Democrats have publicly called for opening an inquiry.
end quotes
And there is the bull**** nature of this Democrat effort to mislead us while they continue to meddle in the 2020 presidential election by calling Trump a criminal while never actually getting the process going whereby Trump would be afforded an opportunity to defend himself, which used to be a bedrock right here in the United States of America before the Democrats took over things in this country and changed the rules.
If Democrat Salud Ortiz Carbajal, born November 18, 1964 in Moroleón, Mexico, an American politician who is the current United States Representative from California’s 24th congressional district has actual evidence that Trump acted in a “criminal” manner, then why is he sitting on his hands and not doing anything about it, other than running his mouth to NBC News as part of their hate campaign against Trump?
Why has he filed no Articles of Impeachment?
Why is he not speaking out that with these charges hanging against Trump, it is imperative that Articles of Impeachment be filed now, for the sake of our Republic and our future as a nation?
Which thought then takes us back a little over two years ago to 20 March 2017, and the closing statement of then-Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes at the Comey hearing before the Intelligence Committee which then led in an unbroken chain of events to Rod Rosenstein announcing fifty-eight (58) days later in May of 2017 that he had a major-league conflict of interest that required him to turn over the Russia investigation to Bob Mueller and a bunch of lawyers connected to Hillary Clinton, which action then led to the Mueller Report, and then the 24 July 2019 Mueller Hearing, where Jerrold Nadler spoke the opening words above here, to wit:
NUNES: Mr. Comey, this is my final list of questions here.
I just want to make sure we get this on the record.
Do you have any evidence that any current Trump White House or administration official coordinated with the Russian intelligence services?
COMEY: Not a question I can answer.
NUNES: I figured you were going to say that, but I just wanted to make sure we got it on the record.
But here’s the challenge.
Is that you’ve announced that you have this big investigation, but now you’ve got people that are involved in our government that are — the Secretary of State, for example — these are important players.
And the longer this hangs out here, the bigger the cloud is.
And I know that you’re not going to tell me whether or not you have any evidence, but I can tell you that we don’t have any evidence.
And we’re conducting our own investigation here, and if you have some — if you have evidence I’d — especially as it relates to people in the White House that are working in the White House or the administration, I mean, that would be something that we really should know about and we should know about quickly.
And so if you can’t give it to the entire committee, I hope you can at least give it myself and Mr. Schiff because you know, there is a big gray cloud that you have put over people who have very important work to do to lead this country.
And so the faster you can get to the bottom of this, it’s going to be better for all Americans.
COMEY: I understand.
Thank you.
end quotes
And here we are, over two years later, and not only have we not gotten to the bottom of anything, but things are now murkier than ever, which takes us back to the NBC News article, as follows:
More than two dozen Democrats have now voiced support for moving ahead with the impeachment process since former special counsel Robert Mueller testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees last week.
At the hearings, Mueller repeated his report’s findings that his investigation into Trump and Russia did not exonerate the president on the question of obstruction of justice and found that Russia worked to try to help his presidential campaign.
end quotes
And seriously, people, how many times have we now heard those same accusations?
Seems like several hundred to me, anyway, which takes us back to NBC News, as follows:
Eleven committee chairs, including two leading investigations into the Trump administration — House Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. — have announced their support for impeachment.
But House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., whose committee has jurisdiction over impeachment, has publicly been more reserved about supporting the move.
“We may not do that, we may do that, but that’s a conclusion at the end of the process,” Nadler told reporters last week about his panel recommending articles of impeachment against Trump.
He added when pressed that his committee has “in effect” been conducting an impeachment inquiry into the president.
Sixteen of the 24 Democrats on his committee also back an inquiry.
“What’s going on is that I think too much has been made of the phrase ‘an impeachment inquiry,'” Nadler told reporters last Friday.
“We are doing what our court filing says we are doing, what I said we are doing, and that is to say we are using our full Article I powers to investigate the conduct of the president, and to consider what remedies there are.”
end quotes
Except Article I of OUR Constitution makes no mention whatsoever of Jerrold Nadler or the house judiciary committee, nor does Article I of OUR Constitution give either Jerrold Nadler or his committee any powers to investigate a sitting American president – that is something Jerrold is making up out of whole cloth to make himself sound important as the person who oversees the conduct of an American president, which would then make Jerrold Nadler, a mere congressman, more powerful than the president, which would then pervert OUR Constitution and make a mockery out of it, which takes us back to NBC News, as follows:
The vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., even broke ranks with leadership last week to call for opening an impeachment inquiry.
“I deeply respect the committee work of House Democrats to hold the president accountable, including hearings, subpoenas and lawsuits,” the sixth-ranking House Democrat said in a statement the day after Mueller’s testimony.
“All of our efforts to put the facts before the American people, however, have been met with unprecedented stonewalling and obstruction.”
“That is why I believe we need to open an impeachment inquiry that will provide us a more formal way to fully uncover the facts.”
end quotes
And that last statement by vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., that after all these other investigations and hearings that have expended tens of millions of OUR tax dollars, we now need to open an impeachment inquiry that will provide us a more formal way to fully uncover the facts goes to show just how ridiculous and asinine this whole sick show has now become.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-164350
Paul Plante says :
And as we continue to try to follow this convoluted mess being thrown at us by the House Democrats as they continue to play the impeachment game here, we have these words to consider, to wit:
Director Mueller, we have a responsibility to address the evidence that you have uncovered.
You recognize as much when you said, quote, “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing,” close quote.
That process begins with the work of this committee.
We will follow your example, Director Mueller.
We will act with integrity.
We will follow the facts where they lead.
We will consider all appropriate remedies.
We will make our recommendation to the House when our work concludes.
We will do this work because there must be accountability for the conduct described in your report especially as it relates to the president.
Thank you again, Director Mueller.
We look forward to your testimony.
end quotes
And that, people, was Democrat House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) speaking to special prosecutor Bob Mueller and We, The American People, as well, on 24 July 2019 during the Mueller Hearing, him being the same Jerrold Nadler who then came back twelve (12) days later on 5 August 2019 to tell us in the article in The Hill entitled “Nadler: Judiciary panel could reach impeachment decision by late fall” by Olivia Beavers as follows:
House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) on Monday said that his committee could decide whether to move forward with articles of impeachment against President Trump by late fall of this year but cautioned that such a decision requires certain conditions.
“If we decide to report articles of impeachment, we could get to that in the late fall perhaps – in the latter part of the year,” Nadler said in an appearance on MSNBC.
end quotes
And that brings us to the NBC News article “Majority of House Democrats now support Trump impeachment inquiry” by Alex Moe and Kyle Stewart on 2 August 2019, as follows:
Rep. Salud Carbajal, of California, put the Democrats over the halfway mark on Friday, saying in a statement that Trump “evaded truth, encouraged his staff to lie repeatedly to investigators and engaged in obstruction,” adding “that’s criminal.”
With Carbajal’s announcement, 118 out of 235 House Democrats have publicly called for opening an inquiry.
end quotes
And there is the bull**** nature of this Democrat effort to mislead us while they continue to meddle in the 2020 presidential election by calling Trump a criminal while never actually getting the process going whereby Trump would be afforded an opportunity to defend himself, which used to be a bedrock right here in the United States of America before the Democrats took over things in this country and changed the rules.
If Democrat Salud Ortiz Carbajal, born November 18, 1964 in Moroleón, Mexico, an American politician who is the current United States Representative from California’s 24th congressional district has actual evidence that Trump acted in a “criminal” manner, then why is he sitting on his hands and not doing anything about it, other than running his mouth to NBC News as part of their hate campaign against Trump?
Why has he filed no Articles of Impeachment?
Why is he not speaking out that with these charges hanging against Trump, it is imperative that Articles of Impeachment be filed now, for the sake of our Republic and our future as a nation?
Which thought then takes us back a little over two years ago to 20 March 2017, and the closing statement of then-Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes at the Comey hearing before the Intelligence Committee which then led in an unbroken chain of events to Rod Rosenstein announcing fifty-eight (58) days later in May of 2017 that he had a major-league conflict of interest that required him to turn over the Russia investigation to Bob Mueller and a bunch of lawyers connected to Hillary Clinton, which action then led to the Mueller Report, and then the 24 July 2019 Mueller Hearing, where Jerrold Nadler spoke the opening words above here, to wit:
NUNES: Mr. Comey, this is my final list of questions here.
I just want to make sure we get this on the record.
Do you have any evidence that any current Trump White House or administration official coordinated with the Russian intelligence services?
COMEY: Not a question I can answer.
NUNES: I figured you were going to say that, but I just wanted to make sure we got it on the record.
But here’s the challenge.
Is that you’ve announced that you have this big investigation, but now you’ve got people that are involved in our government that are — the Secretary of State, for example — these are important players.
And the longer this hangs out here, the bigger the cloud is.
And I know that you’re not going to tell me whether or not you have any evidence, but I can tell you that we don’t have any evidence.
And we’re conducting our own investigation here, and if you have some — if you have evidence I’d — especially as it relates to people in the White House that are working in the White House or the administration, I mean, that would be something that we really should know about and we should know about quickly.
And so if you can’t give it to the entire committee, I hope you can at least give it myself and Mr. Schiff because you know, there is a big gray cloud that you have put over people who have very important work to do to lead this country.
And so the faster you can get to the bottom of this, it’s going to be better for all Americans.
COMEY: I understand.
Thank you.
end quotes
And here we are, over two years later, and not only have we not gotten to the bottom of anything, but things are now murkier than ever, which takes us back to the NBC News article, as follows:
More than two dozen Democrats have now voiced support for moving ahead with the impeachment process since former special counsel Robert Mueller testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees last week.
At the hearings, Mueller repeated his report’s findings that his investigation into Trump and Russia did not exonerate the president on the question of obstruction of justice and found that Russia worked to try to help his presidential campaign.
end quotes
And seriously, people, how many times have we now heard those same accusations?
Seems like several hundred to me, anyway, which takes us back to NBC News, as follows:
Eleven committee chairs, including two leading investigations into the Trump administration — House Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. — have announced their support for impeachment.
But House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., whose committee has jurisdiction over impeachment, has publicly been more reserved about supporting the move.
“We may not do that, we may do that, but that’s a conclusion at the end of the process,” Nadler told reporters last week about his panel recommending articles of impeachment against Trump.
He added when pressed that his committee has “in effect” been conducting an impeachment inquiry into the president.
Sixteen of the 24 Democrats on his committee also back an inquiry.
“What’s going on is that I think too much has been made of the phrase ‘an impeachment inquiry,'” Nadler told reporters last Friday.
“We are doing what our court filing says we are doing, what I said we are doing, and that is to say we are using our full Article I powers to investigate the conduct of the president, and to consider what remedies there are.”
end quotes
Except Article I of OUR Constitution makes no mention whatsoever of Jerrold Nadler or the house judiciary committee, nor does Article I of OUR Constitution give either Jerrold Nadler or his committee any powers to investigate a sitting American president – that is something Jerrold is making up out of whole cloth to make himself sound important as the person who oversees the conduct of an American president, which would then make Jerrold Nadler, a mere congressman, more powerful than the president, which would then pervert OUR Constitution and make a mockery out of it, which takes us back to NBC News, as follows:
The vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., even broke ranks with leadership last week to call for opening an impeachment inquiry.
“I deeply respect the committee work of House Democrats to hold the president accountable, including hearings, subpoenas and lawsuits,” the sixth-ranking House Democrat said in a statement the day after Mueller’s testimony.
“All of our efforts to put the facts before the American people, however, have been met with unprecedented stonewalling and obstruction.”
“That is why I believe we need to open an impeachment inquiry that will provide us a more formal way to fully uncover the facts.”
end quotes
And that last statement by vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., that after all these other investigations and hearings that have expended tens of millions of OUR tax dollars, we now need to open an impeachment inquiry that will provide us a more formal way to fully uncover the facts goes to show just how ridiculous and asinine this whole sick show has now become.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-164350
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 7, 2019 at 9:36 pm
Paul Plante says :
“We need to go back to the beginning and acknowledge that the very founding of our country was an act of profound contradiction, and demagogues throughout generations who stoked racist and anti-immigrant hatred, often for votes, and then enshrined their bigotry into laws.”
And that burst of nonsensical idiocy comes to us from Democrat presidential contender and player of the race card for political benefit Cory Booker in the inflammatory New York Times article “In Charleston, Cory Booker Delivers Major Speech About White Supremacy and Gun Violence” by Alexander Burns on 7 August 2019, where we were informed as follows, to wit:
CHARLESTON, S.C. — Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey called on Wednesday for a national crusade against gun violence and a moral reckoning with the strains of white supremacy “ingrained in our politics since our founding,” as demands for government action continued to mount after two gun massacres last weekend in Texas and Ohio.
end quotes
A “moral reckoning?”
And pray tell, exactly what is that term supposed to connote to we, the American people who are sick and tired of hearing Democrats calling everyone they don’t like a “racist,” which itself is a damn stupid term, given that we only have one race of people here in this country, unless of course, Cory Booker thinks people with skin other than white are some other race than human, which would make Cory very stupid indeed?
Looking for some kind of guidance, since the political panderer Cory Booker gives us none, I did some internet research on the subject and what I came up with, outside of much on a “moral reckoning” in the field of nursing, was a book report on a book by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen entitled “A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair” by Donald Dietrich, a Professor of Theology at Boston College, specializing in Holocaust Studies and the Catholic Human Rights conversation who is the author of “God and Humanity in Auschwitz: Jewish-Christian Relations and Sanctioned Murder,” where we were informed as follows:
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s 1996 book, “Hitler’s Willing Executioners, Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust,” elicited a great deal of contentious debate, and it is likely that this most recent book will continue that tradition.
In this polemical study, Goldhagen asks the Catholic Church a question: “What must a religion of love and goodness do to confront its history of hatred and harm, to make amends with its victims, and to right itself so that it is no longer the source of hatred and harm that, whatever its past, it would no longer endorse?” (p. 3)
He has attempted to analyze the moral culpability of Catholics and their leaders, to judge the actors, and to discern how today’s Catholics can make material, political and moral restitution.
Following an introduction that sets the tone of the book, Goldhagen launches Part One by explicating a fairly standard theme.
Christian churches helped develop an antisemitic bias that was dedicated to the conversion of the Jews, while simultaneously trying to “eliminate” Jews from their so-called influential roles in civic society and culture.
The churches did not support the extermination of the Jewish people.
Goldhagen and other scholars generally have pointed, however, to the fact that religious, cultural and political antisemitism softened the consciences of Christians and so allowed the virulent, exterminationist antisemitism of Hitler and his minions to spiral out of control into the brutalizing death camps.
Throughout his book, Goldhagen peppers his analysis with the moral precepts articulated by the Catholic Catechism to judge the activities of Catholics and their Church during this dark period, and he is right to do so, except that this complex story, about which volumes of commentaries have been written, cannot be tied merely to non-nuanced moral axioms.
Morality is more complicated than simple axioms might suggest.
To comprehend their meaning properly, one must understand these stark moral axioms within their evolving contexts in secular and theological history
Throughout this book, Goldhagen’s analysis tends to be reductionistic because his “proof-texting” methodology ignores the complexities of real life.
What particularly seems to disturb him is the fact that the Catholic Church during this period was acting as a political institution as well as a moral institution and not exclusively as one or the other (p. 96).
Since the inception of Christianity, and especially after Constantine, however, the Church has had to function as an institution that lives in the world and yet has a spiritual mission.
What this has meant in practice is that Church Councils, Popes, and documents have articulated theological and moral principles, but have done so only while engaging the culture.
Hence, moral principles have tried to exert guidance in the real world of marching soldiers and have at times failed.
Such failures as the Church’s antisemitism and its compromising responses to the Third Reich certainly sapped institutional vitality and constricted the possibilities of vital moral leadership, and that is a lesson that has been painfully learned.
Goldhagen seems to find it difficult to accept that human activity by its very nature is political and moral, which means that each of us has to live in a dynamic tension of balancing “real world” survival and the ethical principles that we use as guiding principles.
The fact that bishops, theologians, and lay Catholics were antisemitic should not be as surprising as Goldhagen suggests, since the bias has been carefully learned over the centuries and this systematic evil (sin) is part of our learned culture.
end quotes
And that learned exposition on the fact that human beings are neither perfect nor infallible, Cory Booker and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all excepted of course, since they are both perfect and infallible, takes us back then to Cory Booker’s statement, which is not historically correct, that “We need to go back to the beginning and acknowledge that the very founding of our country was an act of profound contradiction, and demagogues throughout generations who stoked racist and anti-immigrant hatred, often for votes, and then enshrined their bigotry into laws.”
We need to “acknowledge” (accept or admit the existence or truth of) that the very founding of our country was an act of profound contradiction?
WHY?
Why do we need to “acknowledge” that, especially since it is not true?
So what exactly is this “profound contradiction?”
Cory, of course, being a politician, does not say, nor did the New York Times ask him to explain.
And what are these “strains of white supremacy ingrained in our politics since our founding” besides some misplaced ideas in the head of the Democrat demagogue Cory Booker as he panders for votes and political donations heading into the 2020 presidential elections?
And the answer is that there are no “strains of white supremacy ingrained in our politics since our founding,” as if every person with skin that is white has been raised up to be a “racist,” which is bull****, plain and simple.
And have there been demagogues throughout generations in this country who have stoked racist and anti-immigrant hatred, often for votes, and then enshrined their bigotry into laws?
My goodness, of course there have been, which is something we American people used to learn in kindergarten so we would not go out into the world as adults to emulate them.
And here we are today, with Democrat demagogue Cory Booker coming forward to stoke racist hatred for votes!
For shame, Cory!
And Cory, after hearing this same **** from Democrats since Hillary Clinton was spewing her “white privilege” and “Implicit bias” bull**** during the 2016 presidential contest, We, The American People are really quite sick of hearing it.
And you should be ashamed, Cory, for sounding like such an ignoramus when it comes to actual American history, as opposed to the fake version you are spewing as you pander for votes and political contributions to fuel your presidential run.
And take a hint here, Cory, somebody like yourself who chooses to lie to us, and mislead us, and divide us, does not deserve to be the leader of a free people!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-164405
Paul Plante says :
“We need to go back to the beginning and acknowledge that the very founding of our country was an act of profound contradiction, and demagogues throughout generations who stoked racist and anti-immigrant hatred, often for votes, and then enshrined their bigotry into laws.”
And that burst of nonsensical idiocy comes to us from Democrat presidential contender and player of the race card for political benefit Cory Booker in the inflammatory New York Times article “In Charleston, Cory Booker Delivers Major Speech About White Supremacy and Gun Violence” by Alexander Burns on 7 August 2019, where we were informed as follows, to wit:
CHARLESTON, S.C. — Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey called on Wednesday for a national crusade against gun violence and a moral reckoning with the strains of white supremacy “ingrained in our politics since our founding,” as demands for government action continued to mount after two gun massacres last weekend in Texas and Ohio.
end quotes
A “moral reckoning?”
And pray tell, exactly what is that term supposed to connote to we, the American people who are sick and tired of hearing Democrats calling everyone they don’t like a “racist,” which itself is a damn stupid term, given that we only have one race of people here in this country, unless of course, Cory Booker thinks people with skin other than white are some other race than human, which would make Cory very stupid indeed?
Looking for some kind of guidance, since the political panderer Cory Booker gives us none, I did some internet research on the subject and what I came up with, outside of much on a “moral reckoning” in the field of nursing, was a book report on a book by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen entitled “A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair” by Donald Dietrich, a Professor of Theology at Boston College, specializing in Holocaust Studies and the Catholic Human Rights conversation who is the author of “God and Humanity in Auschwitz: Jewish-Christian Relations and Sanctioned Murder,” where we were informed as follows:
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s 1996 book, “Hitler’s Willing Executioners, Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust,” elicited a great deal of contentious debate, and it is likely that this most recent book will continue that tradition.
In this polemical study, Goldhagen asks the Catholic Church a question: “What must a religion of love and goodness do to confront its history of hatred and harm, to make amends with its victims, and to right itself so that it is no longer the source of hatred and harm that, whatever its past, it would no longer endorse?” (p. 3)
He has attempted to analyze the moral culpability of Catholics and their leaders, to judge the actors, and to discern how today’s Catholics can make material, political and moral restitution.
Following an introduction that sets the tone of the book, Goldhagen launches Part One by explicating a fairly standard theme.
Christian churches helped develop an antisemitic bias that was dedicated to the conversion of the Jews, while simultaneously trying to “eliminate” Jews from their so-called influential roles in civic society and culture.
The churches did not support the extermination of the Jewish people.
Goldhagen and other scholars generally have pointed, however, to the fact that religious, cultural and political antisemitism softened the consciences of Christians and so allowed the virulent, exterminationist antisemitism of Hitler and his minions to spiral out of control into the brutalizing death camps.
Throughout his book, Goldhagen peppers his analysis with the moral precepts articulated by the Catholic Catechism to judge the activities of Catholics and their Church during this dark period, and he is right to do so, except that this complex story, about which volumes of commentaries have been written, cannot be tied merely to non-nuanced moral axioms.
Morality is more complicated than simple axioms might suggest.
To comprehend their meaning properly, one must understand these stark moral axioms within their evolving contexts in secular and theological history
Throughout this book, Goldhagen’s analysis tends to be reductionistic because his “proof-texting” methodology ignores the complexities of real life.
What particularly seems to disturb him is the fact that the Catholic Church during this period was acting as a political institution as well as a moral institution and not exclusively as one or the other (p. 96).
Since the inception of Christianity, and especially after Constantine, however, the Church has had to function as an institution that lives in the world and yet has a spiritual mission.
What this has meant in practice is that Church Councils, Popes, and documents have articulated theological and moral principles, but have done so only while engaging the culture.
Hence, moral principles have tried to exert guidance in the real world of marching soldiers and have at times failed.
Such failures as the Church’s antisemitism and its compromising responses to the Third Reich certainly sapped institutional vitality and constricted the possibilities of vital moral leadership, and that is a lesson that has been painfully learned.
Goldhagen seems to find it difficult to accept that human activity by its very nature is political and moral, which means that each of us has to live in a dynamic tension of balancing “real world” survival and the ethical principles that we use as guiding principles.
The fact that bishops, theologians, and lay Catholics were antisemitic should not be as surprising as Goldhagen suggests, since the bias has been carefully learned over the centuries and this systematic evil (sin) is part of our learned culture.
end quotes
And that learned exposition on the fact that human beings are neither perfect nor infallible, Cory Booker and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all excepted of course, since they are both perfect and infallible, takes us back then to Cory Booker’s statement, which is not historically correct, that “We need to go back to the beginning and acknowledge that the very founding of our country was an act of profound contradiction, and demagogues throughout generations who stoked racist and anti-immigrant hatred, often for votes, and then enshrined their bigotry into laws.”
We need to “acknowledge” (accept or admit the existence or truth of) that the very founding of our country was an act of profound contradiction?
WHY?
Why do we need to “acknowledge” that, especially since it is not true?
So what exactly is this “profound contradiction?”
Cory, of course, being a politician, does not say, nor did the New York Times ask him to explain.
And what are these “strains of white supremacy ingrained in our politics since our founding” besides some misplaced ideas in the head of the Democrat demagogue Cory Booker as he panders for votes and political donations heading into the 2020 presidential elections?
And the answer is that there are no “strains of white supremacy ingrained in our politics since our founding,” as if every person with skin that is white has been raised up to be a “racist,” which is bull****, plain and simple.
And have there been demagogues throughout generations in this country who have stoked racist and anti-immigrant hatred, often for votes, and then enshrined their bigotry into laws?
My goodness, of course there have been, which is something we American people used to learn in kindergarten so we would not go out into the world as adults to emulate them.
And here we are today, with Democrat demagogue Cory Booker coming forward to stoke racist hatred for votes!
For shame, Cory!
And Cory, after hearing this same **** from Democrats since Hillary Clinton was spewing her “white privilege” and “Implicit bias” bull**** during the 2016 presidential contest, We, The American People are really quite sick of hearing it.
And you should be ashamed, Cory, for sounding like such an ignoramus when it comes to actual American history, as opposed to the fake version you are spewing as you pander for votes and political contributions to fuel your presidential run.
And take a hint here, Cory, somebody like yourself who chooses to lie to us, and mislead us, and divide us, does not deserve to be the leader of a free people!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-164405
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 9, 2019 at 7:00 pm
Paul Plante says:
And talk about an intentionally convoluted mess being thrown in our faces by the Democrats in a bid to confuse us and distract us and mislead us as we head into the 2020 presidential election season, where according to an article in The Daily Beast entitled “A Majority of House Democrats Now Back Trump Impeachment Inquiry” by Julia Arciga on 1 August 2019, and this despite having no evidence to support Articles of Impeachment, or even having Articles of Impeachment to consider, notwithstanding all of that, which is a BAD SIGN for our Constitutional rights should any of them actually become president, the issue of impeaching Donald Trump has gained steam among Senate Democrats with 12 of the chamber’s 47 Democrats publicly backing the effort and with nearly half of the dozen supporters being unsurprisingly the 2020 Democrat contenders Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), in order to hand the 2020 presidential election to a Democrat by smearing and slandering and libeling Trump, who right now is a helpless spectator to the process, which in turn makes a mockery of the uniquely American Constitutional concept of DUE PROCESS of law coupled with the right to face one’s accusers, we now have the CNN article “Nadler presses ahead with impeachment probe as Pelosi keeps door open” by Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb on 8 August 2019 to consider, as the Democrats go high-speed here in an effort to bury us under such a mountain of bull**** we will never see the sun again, to wit:
The House Judiciary Committee is now engaged in a full-blown investigation and legal fight with the goal of deciding whether to recommend articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump by the end of the year, according to Democratic officials involved in the effort.
end quotes
So, what is up with this now?
How many more “full-blown” investigations will we need before we have even a small clue as to whether or not Trump is going to be impeached?
And what purpose have any of these other multitude of investigations served, starting with the Mueller investigation, which according to Mueller himself on 24 July 2019, was intended to investigate Trump, himself, to wit:
NADLER: I will now introduce today’s witness.
Robert Mueller served as director of the FBI from 2001 to 2013, and he most recently served as special counsel in the Department of Justice, overseeing the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 special election.
Now, if you would please rise, I will begin by swearing you in.
Would you raise your right hand, please?
Left hand.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief, so help you God?
Let the record show the witness answered in the affirmative.
Thank you, and please be seated.
MUELLER: Good morning, Chairman Nadler, the — and Ranking Member Collins, and the members of the committee.
As you know, in May 2017, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel.
The order appointing me as special counsel directed our office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.
end quotes
Later, Mr. Mueller made it very clear that anything that did not relate to dirt on Trump was not going to be discussed, to wit:
For example, I am unable to address questions about the initial opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation which occurred months before my appointment or matters related to the so-called Steele dossier.
end quotes
The Steele dossier, which has subsequently been discredited, is an important piece of evidence here, because it is what started all these investigations into Trump in the first place, as we can clearly see by going back to 20 March 2017, when the smarmy and unctuous Democrat congressman from Hollywood, California Adam Schiff was making a speech to Jimmy Comey during that hearing where Comey was supposed to be the witness, as follows:
And I also want to thank Director Comey and Admiral Rogers for appearing before us today as the committee holds its first open hearing into the interference campaign waged against our 2016 presidential election.
Last summer at the height of a bitterly contested and hugely consequential presidential campaign, a foreign adversarial power intervened in an effort to weaken our democracy and to influence the outcome for one candidate and against the other.
That foreign adversary was of course Russia and it activated through its intelligence agencies and upon the direct instructions of its autocratic ruler Vladimir Putin, in order to help Donald J. Trump become the 45th president of the United States.
We will never know whether the Russian intervention was determinative in such a close election.
Indeed, it is unknowable in a campaign to which so many small changes could have dictated a different result.
More importantly, and for the purposes of our investigation, it simply does not matter.
What does matter is this, the Russians successfully meddled in our democracy and our intelligence agencies have concluded they will do so again.
What is striking here is the degree to which the Russians were willing to undertake such an audacious and risky action against the most powerful nation on Earth.
We know a lot about the Russian operation, about the way they amplified the damage their hacking and dumping of stolen documents was causing through the use of slick propaganda like R.T., the Kremlin’s media arm.
But there is a lot we don’t know.
Most important, we do not yet know whether the Russians have the help of U.S. citizens including people associated with the Trump campaign.
Many of the Trump’s campaign personnel, including the president himself, have ties to Russia and Russian interests.
This is of course no crime.
On the other hand, if the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it aided or abetted the Russians, it would not only be a serious crime, it would also represent one of the most shocking betrayals of democracy in history.
Today, most of my Democratic colleagues will be exploring with the witnesses the potential involvement of U.S. persons in the Russian attack on our democracy.
It is not that we feel the other issues are less important; they are very important, but rather because this issue is least understood by the public.
We realize of course that the witnesses may not be able to answer many of the questions in open session.
They may or may not be willing to disclose even whether there is an investigation.
But we hope to present to you directors and the public why we believe this is a matter of such gravity that it demands a thorough investigation not only by us as we intend to do but by the FBI as well.
Let me give you a short preview of what I expect you’ll be asked by our members.
Whether the Russian active measures campaign began as nothing more than an attempt to gather intelligence or was always intended to be more than that, we do not know and is one of the questions we hope to answer.
But we do know this; the months of July and August 2016 appear to have been pivotal.
It was at this time the Russians began using the information they had stolen to help Donald Trump and harm Hillary Clinton.
And so the question is, why?
What was happening in July, August of last year and were U.S. persons involved?
Here are some of the matters drawn from public sources alone since that is all we can discuss in this setting that concern us and we believe should concern all Americans.
In early July, Carter Page, someone candidate Trump identified as one of his national security advisors, travels to Moscow on a trip approved by the Trump campaign.
While in Moscow, he gives a speech critical of the United States and other western countries for what he believes is a hypocritical focus on democratization and efforts to fight corruption.
According to Christopher Steele, a British — a former British intelligence officer, who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. intelligence, Russian sources tell him that Page has also had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin, CEO of the Russian gas giant, Rosneft.
Sechin is reported to be a former KGB agent and close friend of Putin’s.
According to Steele’s Russian sources, Page is offered brokerage fees by such an on a deal involving a 19 percent share of the company.
According to Reuters, the sale of a 19.5 percent share of Rosneft later takes place with unknown purchasers and unknown brokerage fees.
Also, according to Steele’s Russian sources, the campaign has offered documents damaging to Hillary Clinton which the Russians would publish through an outlet that gives them deniability like WikiLeaks.
end quotes
The Steele dossier also came up in questioning of Comey on 20 March 2017 by Joaquin Castro, born September 16, 1974, who is a Harvard law school grad and an American Democratic politician who has served in the United States House of Representatives for Texas’s 20th congressional district since 2013, to wit:
CASTRO: Thank you.
And thank you gentlemen for your service to the nation and for your testimony today.
I wanna take a moment to turn the Christopher Steele dossier, which was first mentioned in the media just before the election and published in full by media outlets in January.
My focus today is to explore how many claims within Steele’s dossier are looking more and more likely, as though they are accurate.
First, let me ask you, can you describe who Christopher Steele is?
COMEY: No, I’m not gonna comment on that.
CASTRO: Are you investigating the claims made in the dossier?
COMEY: I’m not gonna comment on that, Mr. Castro.
CASTRO: OK.
Well, the reputation of the author, Christopher Steele is a former accomplished British intelligence officer with a career built on following Russia is important.
This is not someone who doesn’t know how to run a source and not someone without contacts.
The allegations it raises about President Trump’s campaign aids connections to Russians, when overlaid with known established facts and timelines from the 2016 campaign are very revealing.
end quotes
And it came up again in the questioning of Comey on 20 March 2017 by Democrat André D. Carson, born October 16, 1974, the U.S. Representative for Indiana’s 7th congressional district, as follows:
In fact, the dossier written by former MI6 agent, Christopher Steele alleges that Trump agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue, which is effectively a priority for Vladimir Putin.
There’s a lot in the dossier that is yet to be proven, but increasingly as we’ll hear throughout the day, allegations are checking out.
And this one seems to be as accurate as they come.
end quotes
Yeah, right, Andre!
So the Steele dossier was in fact a huge component that set this whole show in motion, but since it has been discredited, we can no longer talk about it!
So, getting back to Bob Mueller, and the pending impeachment of Donald Trump for beating Hillary Clinton in 2016, in his own words, in May of 2017, fifty-eight (58) days after Jimmy Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee where the Steele dossier was an item of discussion by the Democrats as evidence of alleged wrong-doing by Trump, Rod Rosenstein of the Department of Justice asked Bob Mueller to specifically investigate any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, and in his own words on 24 July 2019, this is what Bob Mueller had to say on that subject, to wit:
Certain of the charges we brought remain pending today.
And for those matters I stress that the indictments contain allegations and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
end quotes
Ah, well, except for Trump, of course – nobody really likes Trump, so he shouldn’t get treated like other people who are nice – Trump, in the words of the Democrats, is presumed guilty because he is Trump.
Getting back to Bob Mueller on 24 July 2019:
As you know, I made a few limited remarks — limited remarks about our report when we closed the special counsel’s office in May of this year.
There are certain points that bear emphasis.
First, our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion.
Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term; rather we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and there was not.
end quotes
So, for the umpteenth time here, folks, NOTHING HAPPENED!
Whatever word you want to use, there was NO conspiracy between team Trump and the Russians, nor was there collusion, so there were no “crimes” for Trump to cover up, which takes us back to Bob Mueller’s sworn testimony on 24 July 2019, to wit:
Third, our investigation of efforts to obstruct the investigation and lie to investigators was of critical importance.
Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and to hold wrongdoers accountable.
end quotes
And here, it must be considered that the government’s efforts to find the truth led to the truth that there was NO COLLUSION between Trump and the Russians, which then takes us back to Bob Mueller on 24 July 2019, as follows:
Finally, as described in Volume 2 of our report, we investigated a series of actions by the president towards the investigation.
Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a decision as to whether the president committed a crime.
That was our decision then and it remains our decision today.
end quotes
Ah. yes, “principles of FAIRNESS,” people, where “fairness” is the quality of making judgments that are free from discrimination.
And there is where this whole charade goes south in a hurry – where Trump is already guilty in the minds of the Democrats who are hurrying this impeachment train along with all of their multitude of hearings, which so far haven’t produced any evidence to support actually impeaching Trump as opposed to simply vilifying him, the concept of “fairness” is out the window, and that people, is about as UN-AMERICAN as this charade can get.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-164960
Paul Plante says:
And talk about an intentionally convoluted mess being thrown in our faces by the Democrats in a bid to confuse us and distract us and mislead us as we head into the 2020 presidential election season, where according to an article in The Daily Beast entitled “A Majority of House Democrats Now Back Trump Impeachment Inquiry” by Julia Arciga on 1 August 2019, and this despite having no evidence to support Articles of Impeachment, or even having Articles of Impeachment to consider, notwithstanding all of that, which is a BAD SIGN for our Constitutional rights should any of them actually become president, the issue of impeaching Donald Trump has gained steam among Senate Democrats with 12 of the chamber’s 47 Democrats publicly backing the effort and with nearly half of the dozen supporters being unsurprisingly the 2020 Democrat contenders Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), in order to hand the 2020 presidential election to a Democrat by smearing and slandering and libeling Trump, who right now is a helpless spectator to the process, which in turn makes a mockery of the uniquely American Constitutional concept of DUE PROCESS of law coupled with the right to face one’s accusers, we now have the CNN article “Nadler presses ahead with impeachment probe as Pelosi keeps door open” by Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb on 8 August 2019 to consider, as the Democrats go high-speed here in an effort to bury us under such a mountain of bull**** we will never see the sun again, to wit:
The House Judiciary Committee is now engaged in a full-blown investigation and legal fight with the goal of deciding whether to recommend articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump by the end of the year, according to Democratic officials involved in the effort.
end quotes
So, what is up with this now?
How many more “full-blown” investigations will we need before we have even a small clue as to whether or not Trump is going to be impeached?
And what purpose have any of these other multitude of investigations served, starting with the Mueller investigation, which according to Mueller himself on 24 July 2019, was intended to investigate Trump, himself, to wit:
NADLER: I will now introduce today’s witness.
Robert Mueller served as director of the FBI from 2001 to 2013, and he most recently served as special counsel in the Department of Justice, overseeing the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 special election.
Now, if you would please rise, I will begin by swearing you in.
Would you raise your right hand, please?
Left hand.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief, so help you God?
Let the record show the witness answered in the affirmative.
Thank you, and please be seated.
MUELLER: Good morning, Chairman Nadler, the — and Ranking Member Collins, and the members of the committee.
As you know, in May 2017, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel.
The order appointing me as special counsel directed our office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.
end quotes
Later, Mr. Mueller made it very clear that anything that did not relate to dirt on Trump was not going to be discussed, to wit:
For example, I am unable to address questions about the initial opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation which occurred months before my appointment or matters related to the so-called Steele dossier.
end quotes
The Steele dossier, which has subsequently been discredited, is an important piece of evidence here, because it is what started all these investigations into Trump in the first place, as we can clearly see by going back to 20 March 2017, when the smarmy and unctuous Democrat congressman from Hollywood, California Adam Schiff was making a speech to Jimmy Comey during that hearing where Comey was supposed to be the witness, as follows:
And I also want to thank Director Comey and Admiral Rogers for appearing before us today as the committee holds its first open hearing into the interference campaign waged against our 2016 presidential election.
Last summer at the height of a bitterly contested and hugely consequential presidential campaign, a foreign adversarial power intervened in an effort to weaken our democracy and to influence the outcome for one candidate and against the other.
That foreign adversary was of course Russia and it activated through its intelligence agencies and upon the direct instructions of its autocratic ruler Vladimir Putin, in order to help Donald J. Trump become the 45th president of the United States.
We will never know whether the Russian intervention was determinative in such a close election.
Indeed, it is unknowable in a campaign to which so many small changes could have dictated a different result.
More importantly, and for the purposes of our investigation, it simply does not matter.
What does matter is this, the Russians successfully meddled in our democracy and our intelligence agencies have concluded they will do so again.
What is striking here is the degree to which the Russians were willing to undertake such an audacious and risky action against the most powerful nation on Earth.
We know a lot about the Russian operation, about the way they amplified the damage their hacking and dumping of stolen documents was causing through the use of slick propaganda like R.T., the Kremlin’s media arm.
But there is a lot we don’t know.
Most important, we do not yet know whether the Russians have the help of U.S. citizens including people associated with the Trump campaign.
Many of the Trump’s campaign personnel, including the president himself, have ties to Russia and Russian interests.
This is of course no crime.
On the other hand, if the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it aided or abetted the Russians, it would not only be a serious crime, it would also represent one of the most shocking betrayals of democracy in history.
Today, most of my Democratic colleagues will be exploring with the witnesses the potential involvement of U.S. persons in the Russian attack on our democracy.
It is not that we feel the other issues are less important; they are very important, but rather because this issue is least understood by the public.
We realize of course that the witnesses may not be able to answer many of the questions in open session.
They may or may not be willing to disclose even whether there is an investigation.
But we hope to present to you directors and the public why we believe this is a matter of such gravity that it demands a thorough investigation not only by us as we intend to do but by the FBI as well.
Let me give you a short preview of what I expect you’ll be asked by our members.
Whether the Russian active measures campaign began as nothing more than an attempt to gather intelligence or was always intended to be more than that, we do not know and is one of the questions we hope to answer.
But we do know this; the months of July and August 2016 appear to have been pivotal.
It was at this time the Russians began using the information they had stolen to help Donald Trump and harm Hillary Clinton.
And so the question is, why?
What was happening in July, August of last year and were U.S. persons involved?
Here are some of the matters drawn from public sources alone since that is all we can discuss in this setting that concern us and we believe should concern all Americans.
In early July, Carter Page, someone candidate Trump identified as one of his national security advisors, travels to Moscow on a trip approved by the Trump campaign.
While in Moscow, he gives a speech critical of the United States and other western countries for what he believes is a hypocritical focus on democratization and efforts to fight corruption.
According to Christopher Steele, a British — a former British intelligence officer, who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. intelligence, Russian sources tell him that Page has also had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin, CEO of the Russian gas giant, Rosneft.
Sechin is reported to be a former KGB agent and close friend of Putin’s.
According to Steele’s Russian sources, Page is offered brokerage fees by such an on a deal involving a 19 percent share of the company.
According to Reuters, the sale of a 19.5 percent share of Rosneft later takes place with unknown purchasers and unknown brokerage fees.
Also, according to Steele’s Russian sources, the campaign has offered documents damaging to Hillary Clinton which the Russians would publish through an outlet that gives them deniability like WikiLeaks.
end quotes
The Steele dossier also came up in questioning of Comey on 20 March 2017 by Joaquin Castro, born September 16, 1974, who is a Harvard law school grad and an American Democratic politician who has served in the United States House of Representatives for Texas’s 20th congressional district since 2013, to wit:
CASTRO: Thank you.
And thank you gentlemen for your service to the nation and for your testimony today.
I wanna take a moment to turn the Christopher Steele dossier, which was first mentioned in the media just before the election and published in full by media outlets in January.
My focus today is to explore how many claims within Steele’s dossier are looking more and more likely, as though they are accurate.
First, let me ask you, can you describe who Christopher Steele is?
COMEY: No, I’m not gonna comment on that.
CASTRO: Are you investigating the claims made in the dossier?
COMEY: I’m not gonna comment on that, Mr. Castro.
CASTRO: OK.
Well, the reputation of the author, Christopher Steele is a former accomplished British intelligence officer with a career built on following Russia is important.
This is not someone who doesn’t know how to run a source and not someone without contacts.
The allegations it raises about President Trump’s campaign aids connections to Russians, when overlaid with known established facts and timelines from the 2016 campaign are very revealing.
end quotes
And it came up again in the questioning of Comey on 20 March 2017 by Democrat André D. Carson, born October 16, 1974, the U.S. Representative for Indiana’s 7th congressional district, as follows:
In fact, the dossier written by former MI6 agent, Christopher Steele alleges that Trump agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue, which is effectively a priority for Vladimir Putin.
There’s a lot in the dossier that is yet to be proven, but increasingly as we’ll hear throughout the day, allegations are checking out.
And this one seems to be as accurate as they come.
end quotes
Yeah, right, Andre!
So the Steele dossier was in fact a huge component that set this whole show in motion, but since it has been discredited, we can no longer talk about it!
So, getting back to Bob Mueller, and the pending impeachment of Donald Trump for beating Hillary Clinton in 2016, in his own words, in May of 2017, fifty-eight (58) days after Jimmy Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee where the Steele dossier was an item of discussion by the Democrats as evidence of alleged wrong-doing by Trump, Rod Rosenstein of the Department of Justice asked Bob Mueller to specifically investigate any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, and in his own words on 24 July 2019, this is what Bob Mueller had to say on that subject, to wit:
Certain of the charges we brought remain pending today.
And for those matters I stress that the indictments contain allegations and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
end quotes
Ah, well, except for Trump, of course – nobody really likes Trump, so he shouldn’t get treated like other people who are nice – Trump, in the words of the Democrats, is presumed guilty because he is Trump.
Getting back to Bob Mueller on 24 July 2019:
As you know, I made a few limited remarks — limited remarks about our report when we closed the special counsel’s office in May of this year.
There are certain points that bear emphasis.
First, our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion.
Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term; rather we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and there was not.
end quotes
So, for the umpteenth time here, folks, NOTHING HAPPENED!
Whatever word you want to use, there was NO conspiracy between team Trump and the Russians, nor was there collusion, so there were no “crimes” for Trump to cover up, which takes us back to Bob Mueller’s sworn testimony on 24 July 2019, to wit:
Third, our investigation of efforts to obstruct the investigation and lie to investigators was of critical importance.
Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and to hold wrongdoers accountable.
end quotes
And here, it must be considered that the government’s efforts to find the truth led to the truth that there was NO COLLUSION between Trump and the Russians, which then takes us back to Bob Mueller on 24 July 2019, as follows:
Finally, as described in Volume 2 of our report, we investigated a series of actions by the president towards the investigation.
Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a decision as to whether the president committed a crime.
That was our decision then and it remains our decision today.
end quotes
Ah. yes, “principles of FAIRNESS,” people, where “fairness” is the quality of making judgments that are free from discrimination.
And there is where this whole charade goes south in a hurry – where Trump is already guilty in the minds of the Democrats who are hurrying this impeachment train along with all of their multitude of hearings, which so far haven’t produced any evidence to support actually impeaching Trump as opposed to simply vilifying him, the concept of “fairness” is out the window, and that people, is about as UN-AMERICAN as this charade can get.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-164960
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 10, 2019 at 6:20 pm
Paul Plante says :
“We should soundly reject language coming out of the mouths of any of our leaders that feeds a climate of fear and hatred and normalizes racist sentiments; leaders who demonize those who don’t look like us, or suggest that other people, including immigrants, threaten our way of life, or refer to other people as sub-human, or imply that America belongs to just one certain type of people!”
Those words, people, are from out of the mouth of former American president Barack Hussein Obama in an article in The Hill entitled “Obama calls on Americans to reject leaders who feed ‘climate of fear and hatred'” by Brett Samuels on 5 August 2019, where it was stated that former President Obama on Monday urged Americans to “soundly reject” leaders who feed “a climate of fear and hatred,” and there he is talking directly about Democrat Senator from New Jersey and Democrat presidential contender Cory Booker, who according to no less an authority than the highly esteemed and venerable New York Times in the article “In Charleston, Cory Booker Delivers Major Speech About White Supremacy and Gun Violence” by Alexander Burns on 7 August 2019, is playing the “race card” in an intentional bid to pit people with skin other than white against people with skin that is white, with him as the champion of those whose skin is not white, as follows:
The speech by Mr. Booker, one of two leading black candidates for the Democratic nomination, had the potential to be one of the most important moments of his campaign, testing his power as a voice of moral clarity and racial justice in a crowded Democratic race that has largely focused so far on debates about economic inequality.
He has been something of an outlier in the primary field so far in his insistence on trumpeting themes of national healing, at times clashing with his party’s prevailing mood of hot indignation.
That healer’s ethos, however, may register differently with voters at a moment of mounting violence, frequently aimed at racial minorities and women.
But this week of turbulence and trauma has developed into a vitally important one for Mr. Booker, who after months of toiling away in relative obscurity has begun to show signs of breaking through in the presidential race.
end quotes
Yes, he is “breaking through” in the presidential race, and that is by dividing us into “US” and “THEM,” which is exactly what Obama was warning us about above here, when he told us emphatically that this kind of divisive rhetoric of New Jersey Senator and Democrat presidential contender Cory Booker is not new, but that it “has no place in our politics and our public life,” so that “(I)t’s time for the overwhelming majority of Americans of goodwill, of every race and faith and political party, to say as much — clearly and unequivocally,” which, thanks to the public spiritedness of the Cape Charles Mirror, I am taking the opportunity to do in here, as forcefully as I can,
And how on earth anyone can misconstrue the words of Cory Booker that are intended to cause disharmony between those with skin that is not white and those with skin that is white as the words of a “healer” is totally lost on me, because those words of his are not healing words, at all, as we can clearly see by going back to that NYT article, as follows:
Few venues for that message could have been as laden with symbolism as the one Mr. Booker chose: the predominantly black congregation in downtown Charleston became the focal point of a wrenching national confrontation with racism after the 2015 attack by a racist gunman who has since been sentenced to die for his crimes.
end quotes
A “racist” gunman?
How about an IDIOT, instead?
And what exactly is the message there, people?
That because there was indeed a WHACK-JOB with white skin that committed murder in a black church, that all people with white skin then are potential murderers?
Because a KOOK-A-DOOK with white skin murdered black people, that all people with white skin are now deemed to be a danger to people with skin that is not white?
And where is the healing in that message?
And what exactly is the SYMBOLISM that the demagogue Cory Booker is trying to bring forth here and invoke?
How about this:
US! (People with skin that is not white)
THEM! (People with skin that is white)
THEY (people with skin that is white) ARE A DANGER TO US (people with skin that is not white)!
VOTE FOR ME (Cory Booker) AND I WILL PROTECT YOU (people with skin that is not white) FROM THEM (people with skin that is white)!
And that is a message not of unity, but of hate, for political purposes.
BA-DOOM, war drums beating!
And what will Cory, Senator Booker from New Jersey, do about the bad white folks in America who he deems a threat to all the non-white people in America with this “WAR BETWEEN THE RACES” of his?
Here is what the New York Times tells us, anyway:
And in Charleston on Wednesday, Mr. Booker entwined specific policy demands — including new licensing requirements for firearms and a comprehensive law-enforcement strategy for fighting white nationalism — with thematic appeals to the power of love.
end quotes
A comprehensive law-enforcement strategy for fighting white nationalism?
Do tell, Senator Booker!
And tell us now, before we make the serious mistake of putting you in the White House with that thought hanging over our heads, exactly what this “comprehensive law-enforcement strategy for fighting white nationalism” is going to look like in real life, given that there is no such thing as “white nationalism” outside of an idea in some person’s head.
Are we all going to be rounded up on suspicion of being white nationalists based on nothing more than the sin and/or federal crime under the Cory Booker administration of having been born with skin not black like Cory Booker, so that we white-skinned people do not look like him, and thus are to be put into re-education camps where we can all be treated for the “implicit bias” Democrat Hillary Clinton says afflicts all white-skinned persons but for her?
Tell us Senator Booker – what do you have planned for us on the day you become president?
The candid world would like to know!
And that takes us back to that New York Times article and these words from Senator Booker, as follows:
“There is no neutrality in this fight,” he said.
“You are either an agent of justice or you are contributing to the problem.”
end quotes
And given that there is no neutrality in this fight, and not wanting to be one who is contributing to the problem, as is Democrat Senator from New Jersey Cory Booker, I am taking a public stand against the Senator from New Jersey and his hate-filled rhetoric intended to divide the people of America into warring camps to benefit Cory Booker politically, which is obscene!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-165264
Paul Plante says :
“We should soundly reject language coming out of the mouths of any of our leaders that feeds a climate of fear and hatred and normalizes racist sentiments; leaders who demonize those who don’t look like us, or suggest that other people, including immigrants, threaten our way of life, or refer to other people as sub-human, or imply that America belongs to just one certain type of people!”
Those words, people, are from out of the mouth of former American president Barack Hussein Obama in an article in The Hill entitled “Obama calls on Americans to reject leaders who feed ‘climate of fear and hatred'” by Brett Samuels on 5 August 2019, where it was stated that former President Obama on Monday urged Americans to “soundly reject” leaders who feed “a climate of fear and hatred,” and there he is talking directly about Democrat Senator from New Jersey and Democrat presidential contender Cory Booker, who according to no less an authority than the highly esteemed and venerable New York Times in the article “In Charleston, Cory Booker Delivers Major Speech About White Supremacy and Gun Violence” by Alexander Burns on 7 August 2019, is playing the “race card” in an intentional bid to pit people with skin other than white against people with skin that is white, with him as the champion of those whose skin is not white, as follows:
The speech by Mr. Booker, one of two leading black candidates for the Democratic nomination, had the potential to be one of the most important moments of his campaign, testing his power as a voice of moral clarity and racial justice in a crowded Democratic race that has largely focused so far on debates about economic inequality.
He has been something of an outlier in the primary field so far in his insistence on trumpeting themes of national healing, at times clashing with his party’s prevailing mood of hot indignation.
That healer’s ethos, however, may register differently with voters at a moment of mounting violence, frequently aimed at racial minorities and women.
But this week of turbulence and trauma has developed into a vitally important one for Mr. Booker, who after months of toiling away in relative obscurity has begun to show signs of breaking through in the presidential race.
end quotes
Yes, he is “breaking through” in the presidential race, and that is by dividing us into “US” and “THEM,” which is exactly what Obama was warning us about above here, when he told us emphatically that this kind of divisive rhetoric of New Jersey Senator and Democrat presidential contender Cory Booker is not new, but that it “has no place in our politics and our public life,” so that “(I)t’s time for the overwhelming majority of Americans of goodwill, of every race and faith and political party, to say as much — clearly and unequivocally,” which, thanks to the public spiritedness of the Cape Charles Mirror, I am taking the opportunity to do in here, as forcefully as I can,
And how on earth anyone can misconstrue the words of Cory Booker that are intended to cause disharmony between those with skin that is not white and those with skin that is white as the words of a “healer” is totally lost on me, because those words of his are not healing words, at all, as we can clearly see by going back to that NYT article, as follows:
Few venues for that message could have been as laden with symbolism as the one Mr. Booker chose: the predominantly black congregation in downtown Charleston became the focal point of a wrenching national confrontation with racism after the 2015 attack by a racist gunman who has since been sentenced to die for his crimes.
end quotes
A “racist” gunman?
How about an IDIOT, instead?
And what exactly is the message there, people?
That because there was indeed a WHACK-JOB with white skin that committed murder in a black church, that all people with white skin then are potential murderers?
Because a KOOK-A-DOOK with white skin murdered black people, that all people with white skin are now deemed to be a danger to people with skin that is not white?
And where is the healing in that message?
And what exactly is the SYMBOLISM that the demagogue Cory Booker is trying to bring forth here and invoke?
How about this:
US! (People with skin that is not white)
THEM! (People with skin that is white)
THEY (people with skin that is white) ARE A DANGER TO US (people with skin that is not white)!
VOTE FOR ME (Cory Booker) AND I WILL PROTECT YOU (people with skin that is not white) FROM THEM (people with skin that is white)!
And that is a message not of unity, but of hate, for political purposes.
BA-DOOM, war drums beating!
And what will Cory, Senator Booker from New Jersey, do about the bad white folks in America who he deems a threat to all the non-white people in America with this “WAR BETWEEN THE RACES” of his?
Here is what the New York Times tells us, anyway:
And in Charleston on Wednesday, Mr. Booker entwined specific policy demands — including new licensing requirements for firearms and a comprehensive law-enforcement strategy for fighting white nationalism — with thematic appeals to the power of love.
end quotes
A comprehensive law-enforcement strategy for fighting white nationalism?
Do tell, Senator Booker!
And tell us now, before we make the serious mistake of putting you in the White House with that thought hanging over our heads, exactly what this “comprehensive law-enforcement strategy for fighting white nationalism” is going to look like in real life, given that there is no such thing as “white nationalism” outside of an idea in some person’s head.
Are we all going to be rounded up on suspicion of being white nationalists based on nothing more than the sin and/or federal crime under the Cory Booker administration of having been born with skin not black like Cory Booker, so that we white-skinned people do not look like him, and thus are to be put into re-education camps where we can all be treated for the “implicit bias” Democrat Hillary Clinton says afflicts all white-skinned persons but for her?
Tell us Senator Booker – what do you have planned for us on the day you become president?
The candid world would like to know!
And that takes us back to that New York Times article and these words from Senator Booker, as follows:
“There is no neutrality in this fight,” he said.
“You are either an agent of justice or you are contributing to the problem.”
end quotes
And given that there is no neutrality in this fight, and not wanting to be one who is contributing to the problem, as is Democrat Senator from New Jersey Cory Booker, I am taking a public stand against the Senator from New Jersey and his hate-filled rhetoric intended to divide the people of America into warring camps to benefit Cory Booker politically, which is obscene!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-165264
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 11, 2019 at 7:19 pm
Paul Plante says:
And before the Democrats take us any further into this FARCE they are trying to con and gull us with, as if we were all totally brain-dead, and would therefore believe anything a Democrat told us without question, in their bid to totally discredit Trump as a criminal and Russian dupe, while portraying themselves as our only remaining hope to keep Putin and his pack of Russians from totally crushing our democracy, let’s cut right to the chase and get to this existential question confronting us as a nation and as a people, to wit: did Trump obstruct justice?
And to get that answer, let’s simply drop back in time as we can do in here thanks to the goodness of the heart of Al Gore, who gifted we, the American people with the internet, to 24 July 2019, and the sworn testimony of special prosecutor Bob Mueller before the Judiciary Committee of Democrat Jerrold Nadler, and let’s start with the cross-examination of Mr. Mueller by Democrat Susan Ellen “Zoe” Lofgren, born December 21, 1947, who is an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for California’s 19th congressional district, a Bay Area resident who attended Gunn High School (1966) in Palo Alto, and while in high school, was a member of the Junior State of America, a student-run political debate, activism, and student governance organization, earning her B.A. degree at Stanford University (1970) and a Juris Doctor degree at Santa Clara University School of Law (1975), who after graduating from Stanford worked as a House Judiciary Committee staffer for Congressman Don Edwards when the committee prepared articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon, as follows:
LOFGREN: Well, Mr. Mueller, I appreciate your being here and your report.
From your testimony and the report, I think the American people have learned several things.
First, the Russians wanted Trump to win.
The Russians hacked the DNC and they got the Democratic game plan for the election.
Russian (sic) campaign chairmen met with Russian agents and repeatedly gave them internal data, polling and messaging in the battleground states.
So while the Russians were buying ads and creating propaganda to influence the outcome of the election, they were armed with inside information that they had stolen through hacking from the DNC and that they had been given by the Trump campaign chairman, Mr. Manafort.
My colleagues will probe the efforts undertaken to keep this information from becoming public, but I think it’s important for the American people to understand the gravity of the underlying problem that your report uncovered.
end quotes
Now, I am as much one of the “American people” as is Zoe Lofgren, and the gravity of the underlying problem Bob Mueller’s report uncovered to me is that we are being snookered by this whole process, which is nothing more than meddling in our 2020 presidential election and interfering in our 2020 presidential election by the Democrats to throw the election their way, which is the gravest threat to our democracy that I can see facing us as a nation and as a people, which takes us to this colloquy on 24 July 2019 between hot-shot Democrat lawyer Jerrold Nadler, and Bob Mueller, as follows:
NADLER: Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?
MUELLER: Correct.
That is not what the report said.
NADLER: Now, reading from page 2 of Volume 2 of your report that’s on the screen, you wrote, quote, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”
“Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment,” close quote.
Now does that say there was no obstruction?
MUELLER: No.
NADLER: In fact, you were actually unable to conclude the president did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?
MUELLER: Well, we at the outset determined that we — when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to — we needed — we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a president — sitting president cannot be indicted.
NADLER: So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?
MUELLER: That is correct.
NADLER: And what about total exoneration?
Did you actually totally exonerate the president?
MUELLER: No.
NADLER: Now, in fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president.
MUELLER: It does.
NADLER: And your investigation actually found, quote, “multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.”
Is that correct?
MUELLER: Correct.
NADLER: Now, Director Mueller, can you explain in plain terms what that finding means so the American people can understand it?
MUELLER: Well, the finding indicates that the president was not — that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.
end quotes
And pardon me here, people, but are they intentionally playing games with us here and pulling our legs to see if we are asleep at the switch, or are they intentionally treating us as if we are stupid and can’t tell the difference, because that is gibberish what Bob Mueller is saying there about Trump was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed, where “exculpate” means “to clear from alleged fault or guilt,” with “exculpate” being similar in meaning to exonerate.
When you exonerate someone, you clear a person of an accusation and any suspicion that goes along with it.
Exculpate usually refers more directly to clearing the charges against someone.
So Bob Mueller is saying to We, The American people, that he is not going to say that Trump is innocent of the criminal charge of obstruction of justice, which leaves a huge cloud hanging over the head of Trump going into the 2020 presidential election, as intended, which takes us back to the 24 July 2019 cross-examination of Bob Mueller by Democrat Jerrold Nadler, as follows:
NADLER: In fact, you were talking about incidents, quote, “in which the president sought to use his official power outside of usual channels,” unquote, to exert undo influence over your investigations, is that right?
MUELLER: That’s correct.
NADLER: Now, am I correct that on page 7 of Volume 2 of your report, you wrote, quote, “The president became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction of justice inquiry.”
“At that point, the president engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation,” close quote.
So President Trump’s efforts to exert undo influence over your investigation intensified after the president became aware that he personally was being investigated?
MUELLER: I stick with the language that you have in front of you, which comes from page 7, Volume 2.
NADLER: Now, is it correct that if you concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?
MUELLER: Can you repeat the question, sir?
NADLER: Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?
MUELLER: Well, I would say you could — the statement would be to — that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting president — excuse me — cannot be indicted.
It would be unconstitutional.
NADLER: So you could not state that because of the OLC opinion, if that would have been your conclusion.
MUELLER: OLC opinion was some guide, yes.
end quotes
What a charade, people, with Democrat Jerrold Nadler shamelessly trying to stuff words down Bob Mueller’s throat on national TV that was probably being watched in Russia by a gleeful Vlad Putin, and Mueller spitting them right back out again, which takes us back to Jerrold Nadler, as follows with this ridiculous question, to wit:
NADLER: But under DOJ — under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?
MUELLER: True.
NADLER: Thank you.
end quotes
Under our system of RULE OF LAW, Trump could indeed be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, IF AND ONLY IF he were to be indicted by a federal grand jury, which takes us to the Federal Grand Jury Handbook, which you would think a real hot-shot lawyer like Jerrold Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee would be aware of, along with the concept of due process of law. 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
So, yes, assuming a grand jury composed of American citizens just like us, as opposed to biased political hacks like Jerrold Nadler, were to be presented with actual evidence that crimes had been committed by Trump, indeed he could be indicted and prosecuted, which has exactly nothing to do with what that 24 July 2019 Mueller Hearing was supposedly about, which in turn takes us to FEDERALIST No. 69, The Real Character of the Executive, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by Alexander Hamilton on Friday, March 14, 1788, 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
Whether Trump might or might not be indicted for anything once he leaves office is totally immaterial to anything confronting us today, because Trump has not been impeached or indicted by the House of Representatives, which takes us to FEDERALIST No. 65, The Powers of the Senate Continued, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by Alexander Hamilton on Friday, March 7, 1788, to wit, concerning impeachment and trail upon leaving office:
The awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons.
These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments.
There remains a further consideration, which will not a little strengthen this conclusion.
It is this: The punishment which may be the consequence of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender.
After having been sentenced to a perpetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.
end quotes
So, If Jerrold Nadler and the Democrats want to see Trump indicted and prosecuted as a criminal after he leaves office, they have no choice under our system of RULE OF LAW than to file Articles of Impeachment against Trump and then see him convicted in the Senate, which takes us back to 24 July 2019 and Jerrold Nadler on the subject of obstruction of justice by Trump, as follows:
Did any senior White House official refuse or request to be interviewed by you and your team?
MUELLER: I don’t believe so.
NADLER: The president…
MUELLER: Well, I take — let me take that back.
I would have to look at it, but I’m not certain that that was the case.
NADLER: And did you also ask him to provide written answers to questions on the 10 possible episodes of obstruction of justice crimes involving him?
MUELLER: Yes.
NADLER: Did he provide any answers to a single question about whether he engaged in obstruction of justice crimes?
MUELLER: I would have to check on that.
I’m not certain.
NADLER: Director Mueller, we are grateful that you are here to explain your investigation and findings.
Having reviewed your work, I believe anyone else who’d engage in the conduct described in your report would have been criminally prosecuted.
Your work is vitally important to this committee and the American people because no one is above the law.
end quotes
Which is not true – Hillary Clinton is above the law, as is Jimmy Comey, but since this only peripherally about them at this point, let us go to Congressman Christopher Carl Collins, born May 20, 1950, an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for New York’s 27th congressional district since 2013, as follows:
COLLINS: At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?
MUELLER: No.
COLLINS: Thank you.
Is it true, the evidence gathered during your investigation — given the questions that you’ve just answered, is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the president was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference as stated in Volume 1, page 7?
MUELLER: We found insufficient evidence of the president’s culpability.
end quotes
Straight from the horse’s mouth, people – Mueller’s investigation was not curtailed or stopped or hindered, nor was there evidence that Trump committed any crimes, so if this crap came to us sitting as a federal grand jury, what other choice would we have by to return a NO-BILL, which means we declined to indict Trump because there was nothing to indict Trump on?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-165683
Paul Plante says:
And before the Democrats take us any further into this FARCE they are trying to con and gull us with, as if we were all totally brain-dead, and would therefore believe anything a Democrat told us without question, in their bid to totally discredit Trump as a criminal and Russian dupe, while portraying themselves as our only remaining hope to keep Putin and his pack of Russians from totally crushing our democracy, let’s cut right to the chase and get to this existential question confronting us as a nation and as a people, to wit: did Trump obstruct justice?
And to get that answer, let’s simply drop back in time as we can do in here thanks to the goodness of the heart of Al Gore, who gifted we, the American people with the internet, to 24 July 2019, and the sworn testimony of special prosecutor Bob Mueller before the Judiciary Committee of Democrat Jerrold Nadler, and let’s start with the cross-examination of Mr. Mueller by Democrat Susan Ellen “Zoe” Lofgren, born December 21, 1947, who is an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for California’s 19th congressional district, a Bay Area resident who attended Gunn High School (1966) in Palo Alto, and while in high school, was a member of the Junior State of America, a student-run political debate, activism, and student governance organization, earning her B.A. degree at Stanford University (1970) and a Juris Doctor degree at Santa Clara University School of Law (1975), who after graduating from Stanford worked as a House Judiciary Committee staffer for Congressman Don Edwards when the committee prepared articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon, as follows:
LOFGREN: Well, Mr. Mueller, I appreciate your being here and your report.
From your testimony and the report, I think the American people have learned several things.
First, the Russians wanted Trump to win.
The Russians hacked the DNC and they got the Democratic game plan for the election.
Russian (sic) campaign chairmen met with Russian agents and repeatedly gave them internal data, polling and messaging in the battleground states.
So while the Russians were buying ads and creating propaganda to influence the outcome of the election, they were armed with inside information that they had stolen through hacking from the DNC and that they had been given by the Trump campaign chairman, Mr. Manafort.
My colleagues will probe the efforts undertaken to keep this information from becoming public, but I think it’s important for the American people to understand the gravity of the underlying problem that your report uncovered.
end quotes
Now, I am as much one of the “American people” as is Zoe Lofgren, and the gravity of the underlying problem Bob Mueller’s report uncovered to me is that we are being snookered by this whole process, which is nothing more than meddling in our 2020 presidential election and interfering in our 2020 presidential election by the Democrats to throw the election their way, which is the gravest threat to our democracy that I can see facing us as a nation and as a people, which takes us to this colloquy on 24 July 2019 between hot-shot Democrat lawyer Jerrold Nadler, and Bob Mueller, as follows:
NADLER: Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?
MUELLER: Correct.
That is not what the report said.
NADLER: Now, reading from page 2 of Volume 2 of your report that’s on the screen, you wrote, quote, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”
“Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment,” close quote.
Now does that say there was no obstruction?
MUELLER: No.
NADLER: In fact, you were actually unable to conclude the president did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?
MUELLER: Well, we at the outset determined that we — when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to — we needed — we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a president — sitting president cannot be indicted.
NADLER: So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?
MUELLER: That is correct.
NADLER: And what about total exoneration?
Did you actually totally exonerate the president?
MUELLER: No.
NADLER: Now, in fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president.
MUELLER: It does.
NADLER: And your investigation actually found, quote, “multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.”
Is that correct?
MUELLER: Correct.
NADLER: Now, Director Mueller, can you explain in plain terms what that finding means so the American people can understand it?
MUELLER: Well, the finding indicates that the president was not — that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.
end quotes
And pardon me here, people, but are they intentionally playing games with us here and pulling our legs to see if we are asleep at the switch, or are they intentionally treating us as if we are stupid and can’t tell the difference, because that is gibberish what Bob Mueller is saying there about Trump was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed, where “exculpate” means “to clear from alleged fault or guilt,” with “exculpate” being similar in meaning to exonerate.
When you exonerate someone, you clear a person of an accusation and any suspicion that goes along with it.
Exculpate usually refers more directly to clearing the charges against someone.
So Bob Mueller is saying to We, The American people, that he is not going to say that Trump is innocent of the criminal charge of obstruction of justice, which leaves a huge cloud hanging over the head of Trump going into the 2020 presidential election, as intended, which takes us back to the 24 July 2019 cross-examination of Bob Mueller by Democrat Jerrold Nadler, as follows:
NADLER: In fact, you were talking about incidents, quote, “in which the president sought to use his official power outside of usual channels,” unquote, to exert undo influence over your investigations, is that right?
MUELLER: That’s correct.
NADLER: Now, am I correct that on page 7 of Volume 2 of your report, you wrote, quote, “The president became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction of justice inquiry.”
“At that point, the president engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation,” close quote.
So President Trump’s efforts to exert undo influence over your investigation intensified after the president became aware that he personally was being investigated?
MUELLER: I stick with the language that you have in front of you, which comes from page 7, Volume 2.
NADLER: Now, is it correct that if you concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?
MUELLER: Can you repeat the question, sir?
NADLER: Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?
MUELLER: Well, I would say you could — the statement would be to — that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting president — excuse me — cannot be indicted.
It would be unconstitutional.
NADLER: So you could not state that because of the OLC opinion, if that would have been your conclusion.
MUELLER: OLC opinion was some guide, yes.
end quotes
What a charade, people, with Democrat Jerrold Nadler shamelessly trying to stuff words down Bob Mueller’s throat on national TV that was probably being watched in Russia by a gleeful Vlad Putin, and Mueller spitting them right back out again, which takes us back to Jerrold Nadler, as follows with this ridiculous question, to wit:
NADLER: But under DOJ — under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?
MUELLER: True.
NADLER: Thank you.
end quotes
Under our system of RULE OF LAW, Trump could indeed be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, IF AND ONLY IF he were to be indicted by a federal grand jury, which takes us to the Federal Grand Jury Handbook, which you would think a real hot-shot lawyer like Jerrold Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee would be aware of, along with the concept of due process of law. 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
So, yes, assuming a grand jury composed of American citizens just like us, as opposed to biased political hacks like Jerrold Nadler, were to be presented with actual evidence that crimes had been committed by Trump, indeed he could be indicted and prosecuted, which has exactly nothing to do with what that 24 July 2019 Mueller Hearing was supposedly about, which in turn takes us to FEDERALIST No. 69, The Real Character of the Executive, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by Alexander Hamilton on Friday, March 14, 1788, 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
Whether Trump might or might not be indicted for anything once he leaves office is totally immaterial to anything confronting us today, because Trump has not been impeached or indicted by the House of Representatives, which takes us to FEDERALIST No. 65, The Powers of the Senate Continued, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by Alexander Hamilton on Friday, March 7, 1788, to wit, concerning impeachment and trail upon leaving office:
The awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons.
These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments.
There remains a further consideration, which will not a little strengthen this conclusion.
It is this: The punishment which may be the consequence of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender.
After having been sentenced to a perpetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.
end quotes
So, If Jerrold Nadler and the Democrats want to see Trump indicted and prosecuted as a criminal after he leaves office, they have no choice under our system of RULE OF LAW than to file Articles of Impeachment against Trump and then see him convicted in the Senate, which takes us back to 24 July 2019 and Jerrold Nadler on the subject of obstruction of justice by Trump, as follows:
Did any senior White House official refuse or request to be interviewed by you and your team?
MUELLER: I don’t believe so.
NADLER: The president…
MUELLER: Well, I take — let me take that back.
I would have to look at it, but I’m not certain that that was the case.
NADLER: And did you also ask him to provide written answers to questions on the 10 possible episodes of obstruction of justice crimes involving him?
MUELLER: Yes.
NADLER: Did he provide any answers to a single question about whether he engaged in obstruction of justice crimes?
MUELLER: I would have to check on that.
I’m not certain.
NADLER: Director Mueller, we are grateful that you are here to explain your investigation and findings.
Having reviewed your work, I believe anyone else who’d engage in the conduct described in your report would have been criminally prosecuted.
Your work is vitally important to this committee and the American people because no one is above the law.
end quotes
Which is not true – Hillary Clinton is above the law, as is Jimmy Comey, but since this only peripherally about them at this point, let us go to Congressman Christopher Carl Collins, born May 20, 1950, an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for New York’s 27th congressional district since 2013, as follows:
COLLINS: At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?
MUELLER: No.
COLLINS: Thank you.
Is it true, the evidence gathered during your investigation — given the questions that you’ve just answered, is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the president was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference as stated in Volume 1, page 7?
MUELLER: We found insufficient evidence of the president’s culpability.
end quotes
Straight from the horse’s mouth, people – Mueller’s investigation was not curtailed or stopped or hindered, nor was there evidence that Trump committed any crimes, so if this crap came to us sitting as a federal grand jury, what other choice would we have by to return a NO-BILL, which means we declined to indict Trump because there was nothing to indict Trump on?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-165683