Friday AM ~ thefrontpagecover

TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
   Wise Judge Blocks California 
Law Targeting Trump
yl4hDEcj5FyXDcRmKDaKjKlRL-8ywAeahZKn8U_iueyyNaI5HFurYYZC2aHgL50JEEeBvmdSjI207QUS4IHTioYHqdhWfcGPx5c54NRyMApxgSIsdUz2BiuYyv6YL695w4lOTBT4fb9qDOLb531CeGu3ID8DApo=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href= Hans von Spakovsky 
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
Acting director of national
 intelligence testifies before Congress
hz2dzpHPUXS-Dily0Mjwe7bWUkW4IzzBVW1_hulC5l8VRR3h3ZIZwGY8GBrqonmTyfRKTTIqL-C_nfGVYMOTeShT6YhPuruEXCuB24FIebx68Hu75eSl6C-aJQYqrodrU5q8ilh3lWeU21Tzb5UaUBaQ2ynYK2Hb9SppAp4_U-XiUp5Kmdvayxgep7_F9QnB74OyaIcpSc0dVOSfUDy7CPe8vHEyJvjUOgDhfxZ0WNoGoVaK_tXkluF5WxzGI4r3S9b4XMAEydCDn_MUCe7_ZomJV0QZMunvxbxofT0psBrnboeDrmKoebe-e__PRszmS8qUh33W0RIjhQfaFc8=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by washingtonexaminer.com ~ Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire will be testifying before the House Intelligence Committee to explain the handling of the whistleblower complaint that reportedly accused President Trump of pressuring Ukraine... to open an investigation into former Vice President loose lips liar-Joe Biden and his son, Hunter loose lips liar-Biden. After reports of the whistleblower complaint, many Democrats in Congress have called for an official impeachment inquiry, with Speaker of the House liar-Nancy Pelosi officially endorsing the move on Tuesday. The White House released the transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which is one of the aspects of the complaint, on Wednesday. The Dems in Congress would rather believe a whistleblower then actual transcript of the meeting of Ukrainian President.  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watch-live-acting-director-of-national-intelligence-testifies-to-congress?utm_source=breaking_push&utm_medium=app&utm_campaign=push_notifications&utm_source=WEX_Breaking%20News%20Alert_09/26/2019&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEX_Breaking%20News&rid=5261  
.
Rep. scumbag-Schiff Fabricates What Trump 
Said In Ukraine Telephone Call Transcript
k0prHGOhQqxz5r3dUIUmdsv74roZrz-0Y8oB2HaNjj0ZtmWgwg4JomFk_urTVVZ4OFY6BlB_ARmckIJF60Bvu_ZtH_atIHonOdzkMJDlnKqf9V8tW5WSrSjhAnWgvOCaRvQyiR_1YTqeEsrFMXxM47yaA3xg=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
by DAVID KRAYDEN
{ dailycaller.com } ~ California Democratic Rep. scumbag-Adam Schiff read a portion of a transcript of a telephone conversation between President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart Thursday before the House Intelligence Committee... but the congressman largely fabricated the president’s words. scumbag-Schiff claimed he was reading “the essence” of the president’s words to the committee’s witness, Acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire.  “This is the essence of what the president communicates. We’ve been very good to your country, very good, no other country has done as much as we have, but you know what, I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though. And I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good.” The congressman on Wednesday compared Trump’s words to Volodymyr Zelensky as akin to a “Mafia-like shakedown” and he apparently read that perception into his interpretation of the transcript of that conversation. scumbag-Schiff continued, making it up as he went along:  “I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it, on this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I’m going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my attorney general Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him.” The House Intelligence Committee chairman even suggested that Trump told Zelensky, “‘And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy — you’re going to love him, trust me. You know what I’m asking, and so I’m only going to say this a few more times in a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again, I’ll call you when you’ve done what you’ve asked.’ This is the sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a graphic betrayal of the president’s Oath of Office.”... I wonder if scumbag-Schiff will get away from his lies.  https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/26/rep-schiff-fabricates-trump-transcript/  
.
How The House Plans To Use Its 
‘Inquiry’ To Instigate Impeachment 
XJuZ7LzsmRDB0hlev6jDJ62kplzzqKnpmLAVKtxaxkDq1NPrUOfMAV5kRzmsAYUTIuhwtBoQKZwQchHJYVVxy1__VY6m9ZE_lLV1S2jm6wZGPam3XNh8b2TZdc08vAUMbOgG-9RHM2dgyilsXelZhg2Hw8VmGzbMh2ohpByVj1U=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
By Adam Mill
{ thefederalist.com } ~ Exhibit A in the upcoming impeachment proceedings, if you believe Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), is this transcript of a phone call between President Trump and the president of Ukraine... Anyone capable of passing a middle school civics test already knows an “impeachment inquiry” of the kind Democrats have announced is only step one in the process. In a Senate with 47 non-Republicans, the “get Trump” forces must convince 20 Republican senators to vote to expel the president for a House impeachment effort to succeed. This is because Article I of the Constitution requires that two-thirds of senators vote to convict to expel the president. If all 100 senators are present, 67 must vote to get rid of Trump. This seems impossible based upon the current state of affairs. So what is behind the coordinated media and Democrat campaign to drum up an “impeachment inquiry”? In one 24-hour period, the media rolled out the same Trump-Ukraine story with the same angle and often the same talking points within the same few hours on CNN, the Intelligencer, The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Guardian, Vox, Vanity Fair, and The Daily Beast, to name a few examples. More tellingly, the phrase “in plain sight” appears over and over again in the supposedly independent media outlets that, in theory, wrote the articles at the same time, making it difficult or impossible for them to have directly copied from each other. Google search results bury the first dissenting coverage near the bottom of the second page. Of course they’re colluding with each other and  coordinating with Democrats, but that’s another article for a different day. To understand the significance of an “impeachment inquiry,” we need to go back to a blitz of document requests that House Judiciary Committee Chairman scumbag liar-Jerrod Nadler sent in March 2019. scumbag liar-Nadler sent requests to a withering list of 81 government officials, citizens, corporations, and probably a few zoo animals and cartoon characters. Each included a “schedule” of requested documents designed to burden and harass each of the unlucky recipients. The one to the White House requested a huge list of document categories, including any documents furnished to the special counsel team. Since at least March, scumbag liar-Nadler and other House Democrats have engaged in a public fight with House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi to force the House into a formal impeachment proceeding. Rep. Ro Khanna explained scumbag liar-Nadler’s strategy: “What happens next is dependent on the courts. If the courts rule against the administration and the administration defies a court order, then I think it is a full-blown crisis.” Congress’s authority to request documents is dependent on whether it has a legitimate legislative purpose for the documents. The purpose of the House invoking the phrase “impeachment inquiry” is to create a pretext to argue in court that it has a right to the documents...   https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/how-the-house-plans-to-use-its-inquiry-to-instigate-impeachment/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=c07cc33fbb-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-c07cc33fbb-83771801   
ABC, NBC Hide IG Warning of the 
Whistleblower’s Anti-Trump ‘Political Bias’
t3yGDouiX0KOsS9LnmYVZO_hQ0cBto-eUSgvOrpoR3Khr9TGe09lvj7HUDOapJASVQGCKlRgoaYyvVmKGFSr5OIoz_FXCaFxHtfYu5G2Iotss-qFzLzGPLJFGdDCfPX_GTidzrcos9AmIHFFEmlxYvXX4T_r3y4n_r0hR32_pDZ975nhrmkH4vjmp_DVpjAcEMdNRqgKMWyGWk38KEZamMxE_x4VBkcA_J7V27RE33WwAUpYpDBZKYaBTLq0rFPbCylSwQ=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
By Nicholas Fondacaro 
{ newsbusters.org } ~ While the liberal media was treating the newly released transcript of President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as the smoking gun they needed to impeach him... the CBS Evening News flashed a shred of honesty on Wednesday and reported that the Justice Department was warning lawmakers of the whistleblower’s anti-Trump “political bias.” Although, CBS’s reporting did have their own political bias problems. It was a fact completely omitted from the cascade of Trump impeachment coverage found on ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News. “The Dependent of Justice warned the whistleblower's information was ‘secondhand’ and that there are indications, quote, ‘of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant,’” reported CBS chief congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes. But her report could have used some more nuance. According to an exclusive Fox News report from Tuesday night, it wasn’t just the DOJ who found that problem with the Whistleblower, but it was their internal watchdog, inspector general’s office: A senior Trump administration official told Fox News late Tuesday that the administration will release a document showing the intelligence community inspector general found the whistleblower who leveled an explosive accusation against President Trump concerning his talks with Ukraine had indications of “political bias” in favor of “a rival candidate” of the president. “But the DNI general counsel said days later that, after consulting with the DOJ, the matter did not meet the legal definition of an ‘urgent concern,’ and was not subject to mandatory disclosure to Congress,” Fox News added. Despite those facts, Cordes leaned on statements from hypnotic Democrats, who thought this was their chance to get rid of Trump, to pad out her report. “This is how a mafia boss talks. What have you done for us? We've done so much for you,” purported radical Democratic Congressman scumbag-Adam Schiff (CA) in a soundbite...  https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2019/09/25/abc-nbc-hide-ig-warning-whistleblowers-anti-trump-political  
.
Democrats Asked Ukraine 
To Investigate Trump In 2018
zbfudV4CEJPeBst7JjEhLoZPE7VNdAKgFbItSERixyuWW2y8r9hUZXj-yRjoLMYDpL_oC9wDcKuUZBfRvpxnDH-8-N_SpXmW0uePr8Mg381nyPFa9uFIyxU0JsT-tPWcHsfcpYzbp7IWVfp1ZPgD-A=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=?profile=RESIZE_710x
By Tristan Justice
{ thefederalist.com } ~ While Democrats rush toward impeachment over an anonymous whistleblower complaint accusing President Donald Trump of requesting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky investigate former Vice President loose lips liar-Joe Biden many have ignored the fact that last year... Senate Democrats wrote to Ukraine’s prosecutor general asking Ukrainian officials to investigate Trump. In May of 2018, Sens. scumbag-Bob Menendez, D-N.J., scumbag-Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and scumbag-Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote to Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko asking the Ukraine government to keep four investigations open related to the Mueller probe into Russian election interference in the U.S. and indicated that their support for foreign aid to Ukraine could be in jeopardy. “As strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine, we believe that our cooperation should extend to such legal matters,” the senators wrote, adding that they were “disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these principles in order to avoid the ire of President Trump.” scumbag-Durbin, one of the letter’s authors, has now come out in support of House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi’s opening of an impeachment inquiry against Trump. scumbag-Leahy and scumbag-Menendez have both called for an investigation into the president’s alleged misconduct related to Ukraine. The White House has come under heightened scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers and political opponents after an uncorroborated complaint was filed by a whistleblower accusing the president of conspiring with Zelensky to impede the campaign of loose lips liar-Joe Biden, who is the 2020 Democratic front-runner. The complaint was deemed “credible” and “urgent” by the intelligence inspector general despite the whistleblower admitting having no firsthand knowledge of the conversations between the two world leaders in question. Some Democrats who were previously opposed to impeachment, however, have now supported the start of official proceedings, including liar-Pelosi, who endorsed impeachment Tuesday with the announcement of an official inquiry the House has not yet voted on...
.
AGHnzvDgAIc_dkrUO59jF21LrUmiQ79dA3RIshU-YlAdfSFPOhc54BmJs1OTRtvnrEX-cCbeiMVXdurlydL03p7YzXsWg_6cAavWTIOYU1PogQU4ftAjtXM=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href=
.
Wise Judge Blocks California Law 
Targeting Trump
yl4hDEcj5FyXDcRmKDaKjKlRL-8ywAeahZKn8U_iueyyNaI5HFurYYZC2aHgL50JEEeBvmdSjI207QUS4IHTioYHqdhWfcGPx5c54NRyMApxgSIsdUz2BiuYyv6YL695w4lOTBT4fb9qDOLb531CeGu3ID8DApo=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href= Hans von Spakovsky
 

We’re all used to seeing California throw its weight around, but its new law requiring a presidential candidate to provide five years of tax returns to be eligible to appear on a primary ballot is a new low. Now, however, a federal district court judge has blocked the state from enforcing it, at least temporarily.

It’s the right decision. The law is nothing more than a political attack on President Donald Trump, the federal elections process, and the right of free association of citizens and all political parties.

California is weighing its options, but if it chooses to appeal, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court should affirm the district judge’s decision because the law violates the presidential Qualifications Clause and the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The Qualifications Clause in Article II, Section 1 sets out the sole requirements to be president of the United States. You must be a “natural born Citizen,” 35 years of age, and a resident “within” the U.S. for 14 years.

The key case on this is U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995). There was a movement across the country in the late 1980s and early 1990s to impose term limits on members of Congress. This political movement ended, however, when the U.S. Supreme Court held in Thornton that an Arkansas law limiting the number of terms that a member of Congress could serve was a violation of the separate Qualifications Clauses that apply to members of Congress.

The Arkansas law provided that once a representative or senator reached the maximum term, he could not have his name “placed on the ballot” — a ballot-access restriction akin to California’s new law.

Arkansas was adding an additional qualification to being a representative or a senator; the court, in a 5-4 opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, said that “States lack the power to impose qualifications.” Although the Thornton case dealt with congressional elections, the same constitutional consideration would apply to presidential elections and the presidential Qualifications Clause.

Arkansas also tried to argue that the term limit was not an additional qualification, but simply a ballot-access requirement. But the court disagreed. States can “adopt generally applicable and evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself.” States have the right to implement rules that are intended to avoid “voter confusion, ballot overcrowding or the presence of frivolous candidacies.”

But what states cannot do is try to disguise additional qualifications as ballot-access requirements.

In another decision in 1983 — this time involving Ohio — the Supreme Court in Anderson v. Celebrezze (also a 5-4 decision written by Stevens) threw out a March filing deadline for a presidential candidate to appear on the November ballot. The deadline placed an unconstitutional burden on the voting and associational rights of supporters of a candidate in violation of the First Amendment.

According to the court, “state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest” since “the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.” Thus, “in a Presidential election a State’s enforcement of more stringent ballot access requirements” have “an impact beyond its own borders.”

So states have far less power to regulate presidential elections “than statewide or local elections, because the outcome of the former will be largely determined by voters beyond the State’s boundaries.”

Similarly, in 2001, in Cook v. Gralike, the Supreme Court, this time in a unanimous opinion written by Stevens, said that the authority of states is limited to regulating election procedures. The acceptable regulations are those necessary to impose “some sort of order, rather than chaos” on the “democratic process” as well as to protect the integrity of elections.

The new California law says its purpose is to “provide voters with essential information regarding the candidate’s potential conflicts of interest, business dealings, financial status, and charitable donations” so they can “make a more informed decision.” Gov. scumbag-Gavin Newsom said in his signing statement that states “have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking higher office meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence.”

The law’s stated purpose reveals that it has nothing to do with regulating the “reliability of the electoral process itself” and ensuring orderly voting procedures. scumbag-Newsom’s statement about the law imposing “minimal standards” also shows the law isn’t about protecting the voting process — it’s about imposing California’s minimal qualifications on anyone who wants to be president.

California passed a similar bill two years ago. When then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill, he not only acknowledged that it might “not be constitutional,” but he expressed his concern “about the political perils of individual states seeking to regulate presidential elections in this manner.” He called it a “slippery slope.” Tax returns now, but what else might states start to demand he said. Health records? High school report cards? Certified birth certificates?

All of that might depend, as Brown warned, “on which political party is in power” and it could “lead to an ever-escalating set of differing state requirements for presidential candidates.”

Neither California nor any other state has the right to impose additional requirements for presidential candidates, whether they categorize them as “qualifications” or as restrictive ballot-access requirements.

The law also violates the First Amendment.

In Anderson and Burdick v. Takushi, the Supreme Court laid out a framework for analyzing First Amendment challenges to state election laws. Under that analysis, California’s law causes significant harm to its citizens’ First Amendment rights because it denies members of a political party the opportunity to vote for a constitutionally qualified candidate of their choice.

The fact that Republican primary voters could write in Trump’s name on the ballot doesn’t save the law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a write-in “is not an adequate substitute for having the candidate’s name appear on the printed ballot.”

California says it has an interest in “ensuring that its voters make informed, educated choices.” That is not a legitimate state interest and can be seen as a pretext for animus against Trump. The right to choose elected representatives belongs exclusively to the people, and it is the people, and not the states, who have the right to educate themselves about their candidates however they see fit.

When a state, like California, chooses which of a candidate’s characteristics to educate the people about, it impermissibly substitutes its judgment for the people’s judgment. This law is an unnecessary burden on the public’s First Amendment rights. The law does not educate voters: It punishes candidates who refuse to comply.

In essence, California’s law deprives voters of their right to vote for any constitutionally qualified candidate of their choosing simply because California has decided, in its infinite wisdom, that tax returns matter more than any other information that voters might care about.

The First Amendment does not allow that.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/65656?mailing_id=4547&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4547&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

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

Join Command Center