.
dirty cop-Mueller Resists Dems’ Request to
Testify Publicly about Details Outside His Report
by Jack Crowe the Washington Post first reported Tuesday. dirty cop-Mueller and his representatives have reportedly reached an impasse in their negotiations with House Judiciary Committee chairman scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler, who would like him to speak publicly about a range of issues, including whether the president could be charged with obstruction of justice absent Department of Justice guidelines that prohibit the indictment of a sitting president. As they navigate the question of whether the obstructive behavior attributed to Trump in the dirty cop-Mueller report warrants impeachment, a number of top Democrats have repeatedly insisted that lawmakers must hear from dirty cop-Mueller himself before a decision can be made. They have also suggested that they would like to question dirty cop-Mueller about whether he believes Attorney General William Barr’s summary of his report misrepresented its findings. Barr told the Wall Street Journal that he has no problem with dirty cop-Mueller testifying before Congress, but Democrats have accused the Department of Justice of intentionally delaying negotiations over any such testimony. Trump has said it is Barr’s decision whether dirty cop-Mueller can appear before Congress. News of the impasse comes hours after former White House counsel Don McGahn failed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions about Trump’s alleged efforts to interfere in the dirty cop-Mueller probe. “Let me be clear: This committee will hear Mr. McGahn’s testimony, even if we have to go to court to secure it,” scumbag liar-Nadler said after the hearing. During the Tuesday hearing, Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the ranking republican on the Judiciary Committee, accused Democrats of delaying dirty cop-Mueller’s testimony out of a reticence to accept his findings...
.
Trump gives AG Barr authority to declassify documents related to 2016 campaign surveillance
by Talia Kaplan and Mike Arroyo
{ foxnews.com } ~ President Trump on Thursday night issued a memo giving Attorney General William Barr the authority to declassify any documents related to surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2016... Trump also ordered the intelligence community to cooperate with Barr. The memo read: "The heads of elements of the intelligence community... and the heads of each department or agency that includes an element of the intelligence community shall promptly provide such assistance and information as the Attorney General may request in connection with that review." "Today, at the request and recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, President Donald J. Trump directed the intelligence community to quickly and fully cooperate with the Attorney General’s investigation into surveillance activities during the 2016 Presidential election," White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement. "The Attorney General has also been delegated full and complete authority to declassify information pertaining to this investigation, in accordance with the long-established standards for handling classified information. Today’s action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions." In a Twitter message late Thursday, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani defended the president's action. "The President @realDonaldTrump made a wise decision to let AG Barr on the documents," Giuliani wrote. "I don’t know for sure but I seriously doubt there’s any national security concern but some of it could affect pending investigations. I’m sure AG and DOJ will make a very appropriate decision. "U.S. Rep. scumbag-Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, blasted the move as an attempt to "weaponize law enforcement and classified information."...
scumbag-Adam Schiff is a complete jerk and should be removed..
People Dealing With Pulosi See Her
‘Disintegrating Before Their Eyes’
by Cameron Cawthorne
{ freebeacon.com } ~ President Donald Trump on Thursday took a shot at Speaker of the House Nancy Pulosi's (D., Calif.) comprehension of the trade agreement with Canada and Mexico that’s awaiting congressional approval... Trump said she is "disintegrating before their eyes" during a White House ceremony announcing a $16 billion aid package for farmers. During the event, Trump celebrated the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and was asked to explain why he didn't think Pulosi didn't understands the agreement and why his administration isn't forcing her hand in negotiations. "Well they're being very nice to her because they really—she's a mess. Let's face it. She doesn't understand [USMCA]. They sort of feel she's disintegrating before their eyes," Trump said. "She does not understand it. They want to have her understand before it's finished. It's signed, as you know. Mexico has approved the deal. Canada has approved the deal, and they are waiting to get a signal for her. Now I would say this. The farmers should start talking to the Democrats in the House. The Senate's ready to approve it." He went on to slam Pulosi for not understanding the bill, arguing unions, farmers, and manufacturers supported the bill."By the way, I think she wants to approve it. I think," he said. "U.S. Trade Representative Bob Lighthizer, who you can speak to if you want, he is waiting to get the okay from her to send it in, but we're at a point where we are going to have to send it in. It's all ready." "He said Pulosi would like to have two weeks to get to know the bill. think that's a long time." Trump went after Pulosi again minutes later by calling her a "mess." "We made a great deal, but whether or not Pulosi understands it or whether—I don't think she's capable right now of understanding it. I think she's got a lot of problems," Trump said, disputing Democrats' characterization that he was angry during their meeting Wednesday. "The whole Democrat Party is very messed up. They have never recovered from the great election of 2016, an election that I think you folks liked very much, right? Well Nancy Pulosi was not happy about it and she is a mess."...
.
Why is The New York Times Trying
to Abort the Trump Peace Plan?
by Alan M. Dershowitz it quoted only nay-sayers and critics, who without having even seen the plan have declared its demise. In the guise of news, the Times provided "analysis" in the news section, which was, in reality, an editorial. This has become more and more common on the news pages of The New York Times. The separation of news from opinion is in the highest tradition of journalism, but The New York Times seems determined to knock down that wall of separation, especially when it comes to subjects on which its editors and publishers have strong opinions. Among these subjects are both Israel, which can do no right, and Donald Trump, who is always wrong. When these two subjects come together, as they do with regard to the Trump peace plan, readers must be wary of accepting news reports as objective. Every single expert quoted in the article predicted that it would not succeed. Many of these experts have been involved in past unsuccessful efforts to bring about a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not surprising that these experts would not want to see others succeed where they have failed, especially if those others were members of the Trump administration. Then one expert went so far as to say: "The only way to protect the long-term viability of the best aspects of the Kushner plan," he wrote, "is to kill the plan." The danger of such biased reporting is that it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If The New York Times reports that the plan will fail, that report itself is likely to have influence on parties to the negotiation. Nobody wants to risk their credibility by being part of a failed effort. The New York Times declined to seek expert opinion from those of us who actually consulted with the administration on aspects of the plan. They seem deliberately to avoid quoting anyone who had a positive view of the Trump administration's efforts. No one ever lost money betting against peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and the expressed unwillingness on the part of Palestinians leaders even consider the Trump plan is not an encouraging sign, despite published reports that the plan includes considerable economic incentives that could improve the lives of all Palestinians. The hope is that the other Sunni Arab nations in the area will see virtues in the plan and will pressure the Palestinians to sit down and negotiate...
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14264/new-york-times-trump-peace .
Cheers Erupt As House Judiciary Committee Approves ‘Path to Citizenship’ Bills
by Patrick Goodenoughfor immigrants who arrived in the U.S. without legal permission as minors (“Dreamers”) and allow some immigrants with temporary protected status to apply for permanent legal status. Voting along partisan lines after lengthy debate, the committee marked up three bills – the Dream Act (H.R. 2820), the American Promise Act (H.R. 2821) and the Venezuela TPS Act (H.R. 549). The votes were 19-10, 20-9, and 20-9 respectively for the three bills. The first two measures were initially part of one bill, the American Dream and Promise Act (H.R. 6), unveiled in March by House Speaker Nancy Pulosi and the bill’s lead sponsor Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.). It was co-sponsored by 232 Democrats. The Dream Act applies to minor immigrants covered by the scumbag/liar-nObama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, while the American Promise Act applies to immigrants with temporary protected status (TPS) or deferred enforced departure (DED) status. The third bill would allow Venezuelan nationals to qualify for TPS, which prevents their removal from the U.S. and allows them to obtain employment. The vote counts were met by cheers, clapping and fist pumps from members and visitors, while committee chairman Rep. scumbag liar-Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) banged his gavel, to little effect. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) asked scumbag liar-Nadler whether it was committee practice to allow “demonstrations either for or against legislation.”...
scumbag/liar-nObama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was done by EO illegally. .
.
Memorial Day PardonsCharles Paige: Figurative battle lines have been drawn in the cases of several service members accused or convicted of war crimes and who President Donald Trump is reportedly considering pardoning to “mark” Memorial Day. Before getting to the specifics of the cases, we should make clear that Memorial Day stands on its own merits — namely the memory of the men and women who gave the last full measure while fighting for their country. Full stop. The spotlight on Memorial Day should be on those whose headstone reads “KIA,” not on President Trump or any living service member. An overtly political act, particularly one so controversial and from as polarizing a president as Trump, on Memorial Day, is no more appropriate than the plethora of sales that will clog mailboxes and airwaves this weekend.
The most controversial of Trump’s proposed pardons are for a sailor and soldier, both special operators, accused of killing prisoners.
The case against MAJ Matthew Golsteyn is based on his own admission — once during a polygraph for a CIA position and once on a Fox News show — that he killed an unarmed Afghan who posed no immediate threat to Golsteyn or his U.S. or Afghan military teammates.
Chief Petty Officer Eddie Gallagher’s case is more complex, in part because it involves multiple unrelated events during a 2017 deployment, and because he has strongly denied the charges. He is accused of killing multiple Iraqi noncombatants, including women and children, while operating as a sniper, and stabbing an incapacitated prisoner being treated on a coalition base for wounds sustained during an earlier engagement. The recent charges have also renewed interest in previously inconclusive allegations that he shot and killed a noncombatant during a 2010 deployment in Afghanistan. Most of the evidence that has been made public in Gallagher’s case centers on remarks he made to fellow SEALs following the incidents in question. As outlined by our Harold Hutchison earlier this week, however, the waters in both cases have been further muddied by questionable actions by prosecutors.
Yet it’s ironic that many of the same folks who are most vocal about the pardons seem to believe that the only honorable people in the military are those currently facing charges. According to this logic, anyone above the accused in the chain of command who allowed the investigation to proceed or is part of prosecuting the case is a political hack whose primary concern is with securing a promotion, while any other operator who substantiates the charges — as several SEALs have done against Gallagher — are “weak” and trying to get back at someone whose standards and tactical prowess they could never match. Their advocates would have us believe that any action taken by “operators” like Gallagher and Golsteyn can’t be questioned simply because they occurred in a combat zone.
But the charges discussed here don’t involve acts committed “in the heat of battle,” where time-sensitive decisions are made with incomplete or muddled information and wide discretion is warranted. Both Golsteyn and Gallagher face prosecution for deliberate acts taken after some consideration and calculation.
Aside from the inappropriateness of using Memorial Day as prop, President Trump should not short circuit the process by granting pardons before the courts-martial have run their course. The cases mentioned for pardons revolve around extra-judicial killing, an extreme example of the rule of man supplanting the Rule of Law. While a presidential pardon is indeed legal — within the bounds of the Rule of Law — it would subvert the process that gives Rule of Law its legitimacy and send the message that the rule of man is the standard for the U.S. military. The military legal system — much like its civilian counterpart — isn’t perfect, but the charges in these cases are serious and credible and we owe it to the accused and their accusers to let a jury of peers hear the evidence and render a verdict. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/63224?mailing_id=4290&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4290&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body
Comments