~ Featuring ~
Justices Should Reject Criminal Alien’s 
Appeal of Deportation Order
 Hans von Spakovsky
Friday Top News Executive Summary
Media Editors:  Above the Fold

LANDMARK SCUFFLE: Trump asks Supreme Court to let him keep his tax returns secret, setting up a landmark fight (CNBC)

BIRDS OF A FEATHER, PART I: Congress releases messages showing Rep. worthless-Rashida Tlaib asked campaign for personal money, announces investigation into her (The Daily Wire)

BIRDS OF A FEATHER, PART II: Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings faces House ethics investigation of relationship with top staffer (National Review)

Government & Politics

TRADE PROGRESS: liar-Nancy Pelosi says finalized trade deal with Mexico and Canada “imminent” (National Review)

MEMO TO STACEY ABRAMS: Bevin concedes in Kentucky governor’s race (The Washington Times)

DUMB AND DUMBER: Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren sells “Billionaire Tears” mug on platform created by billionaire (Townhall)

National Security

BACKGROUND HERE: Federal judge rules U.S.-born “ISIS bride” not an American citizen, U.S. not required to repatriate her (National Review)

BORDER FENCING: Trump admin preparing to take over private land in Texas for border barrier — which is progress given that new barriers have yet to be erected (NBC News)

AWKWARD: U.S. manufacturing group hacked by China as trade talks intensified (Reuters)


IRON FIST: Hong Kong violence continues to escalate as China’s Xi Jinping makes strongest statement yet (Hot Air)

Closing Arguments

POLICY: The Green New Deal isn’t just expensive. It’s also bad environmental policy. (The Daily Signal)

POLICY: Don’t reauthorize the Export-Import Bank — defund it (Washington Examiner)

HUMOR: “We don’t need to look into the loose lips liar-Bidens’ corruption,” insists scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff while attempting Jedi mind trick (The Babylon Bee)  

~The Patriot Post     
House Intelligence Committee 
Impeachment Hearing – Day Two 
by sundance
{ } ~ Today at 9:00am ET, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will hold the second day of open hearings for the impeachment of President Donald Trump... Todays testimony will come from former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. Marie Yovanovitch is a woman of dubious character who was removed from the administration prior to the July phone call between U.S. President Trump and Ukraine President Zelenskyy. Ms. Yovanovitch has coordinated both her deposition and public hearing comments with the Democrat staff of the committee.
scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff made one shocking admission that stunned everyone into silence
by ~ scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff is the star of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. Wednesday saw the opening of the Democrats’ Stalinist public show trial... But in the opening of the hearing, scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff made one shocking admission that stunned everyone into silence. After scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff’s opening statement, Republicans pressed Chairman scumbag/liar-Schiff on points of order about their ability to call witnesses. scumbag/liar-Schiff had stated that anyone who attempted to name the whistleblower would be subject to an ethics investigation. Republicans — such as Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan — declared that of the 435 members of Congress, scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff was the only one to know the identity of the whistleblower. scumbag/liar-Schiff responded by outrageously claiming to not know the whistleblower’s identity. House Intelligence Committee Chairman scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff (D-CA) said Wednesday he does not know the identity of the intelligence officer “whistleblower” who set off Democrats’ impeachment inquiry by mischaracterizing a phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked scumbag/liar-Schiff during the House’s first public impeachment hearing Wednesday about when the committee might be able to vote and have the whistleblower come and testify regarding his complaint against the president. Jordan said that scumbag/liar-Schiff was the “only member” that knows the identity of the whistleblower. “I do not know the identity of the whistleblower, and I’m going to make sure that identity is protected,” scumbag/liar-Schiff claimed. Americans watching at home were dumbfounded at that answer.   
Senator Graham on Impeachment: “I Will Not 
Allow Hearsay Evidence During Senate Trial”
by sundance
{ } ~ An impeachment trial in the senate would presumably be run through the Senate Judiciary Committee presiding judge John Roberts, unless there are constitutionally permitted process rule changes... Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham begins to get specific about what he will and will-not allow as part of the senate trial.  Graham notes the ‘hearsay rule’ will be applied to the House evidence within the articles as presented. Additionally, Graham notes that anonymous witnesses ie. “whistleblower” will not be permitted.
Senate GOP Leadership Warns Trump
Any White House Attempt to Dismiss 
Impeachment Charges Will Fail
by sundance
{ } ~ They are called “decepticons” for a reason. McConnell is king, and Cornyn, Thune and Barasso are his praetorian guards. Go Deep... Senator John Cornyn (TX), a key member of the Senate GOP leadership; and a member of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees; warns the White House that a vote to immediately dismiss articles of impeachment and avoid a trial won’t work. “There’s some people talking about trying to stop the bill, dismiss charges basically as soon as they get over here. I think that’s not going to happen. That would require 51 votes,” Cornyn told reporters Wednesday. “I think it would be hard to find 51 votes to cut the case off before the evidence is presented.”  A top Senate Republican, John Cornyn, said on Wednesday that should the U.S. House of Representatives vote to impeach President Donald Trump, he doubts a motion in the Senate to immediately dismiss the charges would succeed. Cornyn, who spent years as the Senate’s no. 2 Republican, said such a motion would not receive the 51 votes necessary in the Republican-controlled Senate to pass. He said he was confident that ultimately, a vote in the Senate to remove Trump from office would fail. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, is one Republican senator who previously hinted at the possibility of advancing a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment. However, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told GOP colleagues during a lunch meeting last month any motion to dismiss would have to come from the president’s defense team after the impeachment managers deliver the articles to the Senate...     
Impeachment Hearings Produce 
Shocking Evidence of Moral Corruption
by Andrew Stiles 
{ } ~ Impeachment hearings taking place on Capitol Hill on Wednesday produced shocking evidence of moral corruption in the nation's capital... A number of Twitter users expressed dismay after a bombshell document related to the House impeachment inquiry was posted on the popular social networking website. Prior to the start of Wednesday's hearing, the Capitol Lounge, a D.C. drinking establishment frequented by congressional staffers, announced a special menu of "impeachment cocktails" for patrons with nothing better to do than watch political hearings at a bar in the middle of the day. In the opinion of most analysts who reviewed the document, it was a stunning indictment of the moral and intellectual derangement of the left-wing political professionals who reside in Washington. The cocktails in question, priced at 450 Russian rubles ($7), were given clever resistance-themed names and descriptions. The "Daddy Will Never Love You" martini, for example, was advertised as "extra bitter" and "extra filthy dirty," a reference to the fact that the words "bitter" and "dirty" can have different meanings, depending on context. In fact, most of the other cocktail descriptions used wordplay in an effort to entice patrons and inject amusement into the bitter hearts of resistance libs. The fizzy, fruity concoction known as the "Quit Bro, Go" would be "served on a subpoena," while the rye-based "Jared's Grease in the Middle East" would be "served covered-up. "The menu concludes with the establishment's tagline: "No Politics. No Miller Lite. "A handful of Twitter users expressed joy and excitement in response to the impeachment-related document. Most Americans, meanwhile, went about their daily lives, blissfully unaware of the moral turpitude on display in our nation's capital.     
Washington State Defeats 
Affirmative Action Proposal
by Charles Fain Lehman 
{ } ~ Washington state voters rejected a referendum to permit affirmative action in hiring decisions, election officials confirmed Tuesday evening... Officials announced after a week of counting that Referendum 88, which would have allowed the state government to use minority status as a factor in public education, hiring, and other public acts so long as it did not erect a quota system, had failed by 13,000 votes. The referendum would have overturned the state's civil rights initiative that explicitly prohibits any discrimination or preference on grounds of race, sex, or other protected status. The defeat of Referendum 88 in a state otherwise dominated by Democrats may serve as a warning to national candidates, even as 2020 contenders race to the left on everything from "more-inclusive" language to reparations for slavery. The Democrat-controlled state legislature passed an affirmative action bill known as Initiative 1000 in April. Initiative 1000 would have expanded the scope of discrimination laws to include sexual orientation, disability, and veteran status. But it also would have given the Washington state government free rein to give preferential treatment to groups it views as minorities. Activists challenged the bill and put the issue directly in the hands of residents rather than lawmakers. Tuesday's results reaffirmed a 1998 ballot initiative in which voters approved an anti-affirmative action law by a 58-42 margin. "Our coalition of volunteers from across the political spectrum defeated the Pro-88 campaign because voters didn’t want a new system of quotas based on race, nor did they want a massive new unaccountable government bureaucracy to implement it," Linda Yang, a leading affirmative action opponent, said in a press release. The referendum's loss is surprising given Washington state's status as a liberal stronghold. Democratic governor Jay Inslee drew national attention through a hard-left presidential campaign focused on spending  $3 trillion to fight global warming; he dropped out in August. Both houses of the Washington state legislature are also dominated by Democrats, making it 1 of just 15 states with total Democratic control...   

Deportation of Shakir is a Win for Democracy
by Matthew Mainen
{ } ~ On Monday, the European Union called on Israel to "reverse its decision" to deport Omar Shakir, Human Rights Watch's director for Israel and the disputed territories... This request comes in the wake of a finding last week by Israel's High Court that Shakir breached a 2017 law prohibiting entry and residency to foreigners who publicly support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Though applauded in pro-Israel circles, the deportation has been met with a bevy of  criticism for allegedly violating democratic norms. In fact, Shakir's removal and the broader circumstances exemplify the robustness of Israel's democratic process, something that should not be undermined by the European Union or any other external actor. The Knesset passed "Amendment No. 28 to the Entry Into Israel Law" after Israelis elected three successive right-wing governments vowing to aggressively combat BDS. By continuously backing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies, the Israeli people affirmed this platform. Their decision should be respected. The same goes for that of the Israeli judiciary, which ruled against Shakir at every merits stage of the process. By any theory of statutory interpretation, Shakir unambiguously broke the law with routine calls on companies to cease business in Israeli-controlled parts of the disputed territories, and that was a drop in the bucket compared to his larger BDS activism...   
Justices Should Reject Criminal Alien’s 
Appeal of Deportation Order
Hans von Spakovsky

The Supreme Court on Nov. 4 heard oral arguments in an immigration case that could have a dramatic impact on how many criminal aliens plaguing our communities finally get deported.

The case, Barton v. Barr, is complicated, in large part because the statutes involved are vague and subject to various interpretations.

That prompted Justice Stephen Breyer to comment during oral arguments that “it wasn’t a genius who drafted this.” But the decision that will be made by the court in interpreting these immigration laws will affect the lives and safety of Americans.

Under federal immigration law, a permanent resident alien who is here legally is “removable” if he is “inadmissible.” That is to say, he should never have been admitted in the first place because he met one of the factors listed in the statute (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)), such as posing “a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others.”

A permanent resident alien is also removable if he is “deportable” under another statute (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)), which lists a series of disqualifying offenses, including violations of any “law of the United States.”

The attorney general has the discretion to cancel the removal of such an alien, but to be eligible for such cancellation, the alien has to show not only that he is statutorily eligible for such relief from the attorney general, but that he also deserves such favorable treatment.

The statutory requirement is that the alien has been “lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years”; has “resided” in the country “continuously for 7 years after having been admitted”; and that he has not been “convicted of any aggravated felony.”

What is at issue in the Barton case is the “stop-time rule.” The stop-time rule outlined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) says that an alien’s “period of continuous residence” in the U.S. is “deemed to end” if the alien has committed any offense that makes him “inadmissible” or “removable.”

In other words, an alien has to be crime-free under the law during the seven-year period of continuous residence. That’s not asking very much of a would-be citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Andre Martello Barton is a Jamaican who was admitted to the U.S. on a tourist visa in May 1989. In 1992, he was granted permanent resident alien status. Four years later, in 1996, he was convicted in state court on three counts of aggravated assault, as well as first-degree criminal damage to property and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. This was followed up by more convictions in 2007 and 2008 for drug offenses.

In 2016, the Department of Homeland Security finally sought to remove Barton, and an immigration judge agreed that he could be removed because of his drug and weapon convictions.

When Barton applied for cancellation of his removal, the DHS argued he wasn’t statutorily eligible because he didn’t meet the seven-year continuous residence requirement due to his convictions for aggravated assault in 1996.

The DHS said the “stop-time” rule meant that his period of continuous residence ended in 1996, when he committed the aggravated assaults and firearms offenses.

Barton appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In what amounts to a highly technical argument about the wording in the applicable immigration statutes, Barton claimed that since he was not currently seeking admission to the U.S., he couldn’t be “rendered” inadmissible through the stop-time rule.

Barton also argues that the 1996 convictions did not trigger the stop-time rule because it is not referenced in Section 1182(a)(2) of the statute, and that he was convicted in July 1996, after the seven-year anniversary of his initial admission as a tourist.

The Court of Appeals rejected Barton’s arguments, and he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court should rule against Barton, too. As the 11th Circuit said, the stop-time rule’s “plain language forecloses” the interpretation that Barton and his lawyers are trying to push.

Further, if the Supreme Court rules against the government, it could keep thousands of dangerous aliens who have committed serious crimes, such as aggravated assault and using a weapon to commit a felony, in the U.S.

Congress obviously wanted criminal aliens like Barton, who endanger our communities, removed from the country. Although the statutes in play here may not have been written by “a genius” (or even a decent legal writer), their intent is clear.

A ruling for Barton would not just violate the text of federal immigration law, but the congressional intent behind those particular statutes.  

~The Patriot Post  

Views: 4


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “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.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service