Monday PM ~ thefrontpagecover

~ Featuring ~
SCOTUS Takes Up Case on Right to Bear Arms
Thomas Gallatin  
White House, in fiery letter, declares Trump 
won’t participate in House Judiciary 
impeachment hearing
By Gregg Re and Bradford Betz 
{ } ~ The White House announced in a fiery letter Sunday night that President Trump and his lawyers won't participate in the House Judiciary Committee’s first impeachment hearing scheduled for Wednesday... even accusing the panel's Democratic chairman, scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler, of "purposely" scheduling the proceedings when Trump would be attending the NATO Leaders' Meeting in London. The five-page letter came as the Democratic majority on the House Intelligence Committee was preparing to approve a report on Tuesday that will outline possible charges of bribery or “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the constitutional standard for impeachment. After receiving the report, the Judiciary Committee would prepare actual charges. “This baseless and highly partisan inquiry violates all past historical precedent, basic due process rights, and fundamental fairness,” wrote White House counsel Pat Cipollone, continuing the West Wing’s attack on the procedural form of the impeachment proceedings. Cipollone said scumbag liar-Nadler provided only "vague" details about the hearing, and that unnamed academics -- and not "fact witnesses" -- would apparently be attending. "As for the hearing scheduled for December 4, we cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the president a fair process through additional hearings," Cipollone said. "More importantly, an invitation to an academic discussion with law professors does not begin to provide the President with any semblance of a fair process. Accordingly, under the current circumstances, we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing." He continued: "When the Judiciary Committee scheduled a similar hearing during the scumbag/liar-Clinton impeachment process, it allowed those questioning the witnesses two-and-a-half weeks' notice to prepare, and it scheduled the hearing on a date suggested by the president's attorneys. Today, by contrast, you have afforded the president no scheduling input, no meaningful information and so little time to prepare that you have effectively denied the administration a fair opportunity to participate." Cipollone's letter made clear that his response applied only to the Wednesday hearing, at least for now. Cipollone demanded more information from Democrats on how they intended to conduct further hearings before Trump would decide whether to participate in those hearings, amid sagging national support for Democrats' probe. Specifically, Cipollone demanded to know whether Republicans would be able to cross-examine and call their own fact witnesses,  including House Intelligence Committee Chairman scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff, D-Calif...  
House Intel Panel Members to Review 
Impeachment Report Monday
{ } ~ House Intelligence Committee members are expected to review their report regarding the ongoing impeachment investigation into President Donald Trump’s telephone call with the leader of Ukraine... according to a report.  Politico said Saturday that members will be granted up to a 24-hour review period and are slated to sign off on the report Tuesday. The news outlet noted that following the report’s approval, the House Judiciary Committee will likely begin drafting articles of impeachment. Earlier this week, House Intelligence Committee Chairman scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff (D-CA) suggested in a letter to lawmakers that the report would arrive “soon.” Saturday’s report comes after Rep. scumbag/liar-Jerry Nadler (D-NY), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to President Trump in which he set a December 6th deadline to establish whether the president’s legal team will participate in the panel’s public impeachment proceedings. Democrats previously set a Sunday deadline for the Trump administration to answer whether it will participate in the committee’s first impeachment hearing, scheduled for Wednesday. A separate letter was sent Friday to judiciary committee ranking member Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), informing him of the new deadline given to the White House.  House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) launched a formal impeachment probe into President Trump in response to a whistleblower complaint written by a partisan CIA officer who mischaracterized the president’s conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Deep Stater, who Real Clear Investigations suggests may be Eric Ciaramella, alleged the president pressured Zelensky to probe allegations of corruption against former Vice President loose lips liar-Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in exchange for U.S. military aid. The White House responded to the complaint’s framing by releasing a transcript of the conversation showing neither President Trump nor Zelensky tied the potential probe to the aid money. During last week’s hearings held by the House intel panel, numerous witnesses testified that they believe no “quid pro quo” took place during the Trump-Zelensky call, with the exception of Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. However, in a significant exchange with Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), Sondland conceded nobody told him the president sought to tie the aid to an investigation into the loose lips liar-Bidens – he simply presumed it.   
The job no GOP senator wants
'I'd rather have a root canal'
{ } ~ A prime chairmanship is poised to come open in the Senate next year. The problem? No GOP senators seem to want it. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) is set to retire in approximately a month, creating an opening atop the Senate Ethics Committee... a behind-the-scenes panel responsible for enforcing standards of behavior for senators and their staffs and investigating potential violations of federal law or the Senate’s rules. Isakson,  who has chaired the committee for nearly five years, told The Hill that he doesn’t know who his successor will be but encouraged his colleagues to accept the chairmanship if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) asks them. “It’s an honor to do it, and if asked, they ought to,” he said. But GOP senators who spoke with The Hill, including current members of the committee, had a nearly universal response when asked if they wanted to take over the Ethics Committee: Thanks, but no thanks. “Uh, I’m going to say probably not,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), a member of GOP leadership, laughing when asked if she would like to chair the committee. “I don’t think that’s a sought-after position.” The lack of enthusiasm comes as the normally secretive committee has had high-profile investigations in recent years, putting a spotlight on why finding Isakson's successor could prove difficult: No one relishes investigating their colleagues. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), another member of leadership, said he doesn’t know who will take over the committee. Asked if he was interested, he answered with an emphatic, drawn out “nooooo.”...
Washington Awaits John Durham
by Emmett Tyrrell
{ } ~ Last week, toward the end of the week, there appeared in our finest newspapers -- The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal -- a spate of news stories that set official Washington's mind at ease... As one of the great gazettes, The Washington Post, put it, "The Justice Department's internal watchdog that would be Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected to find in a forthcoming report that political bias did not taint top officials running the FBI investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016." Nonetheless, the report will be criticizing "the bureau for systemic failures in its handling of surveillance applications, according to two U.S. officials." We shall have to wait until Dec. 9 to hear from Horowitz as to what those "systemic failures" were. Do these early reports on his work forecast a whitewash? It would appear so. But can anyone really take seriously that those "systemic failures" took place in the absence of bias? Such a claim requires a great deal of contortion. And the spate of stories last week suggests the form that contortion will take: Blame will fall not on Peter "We Will Stop Him" Strzok -- the virulent hater of President Donald Trump who orchestrated the spying on the Trump campaign -- but on a low-level lawyer named Kevin Clinesmith. We are led to believe by these stories that while Clinesmith was biased against Trump -- Trump's victory had "devastated him," he wrote in an email -- that bias never "tainted" his work or infected any of his colleagues. Many of whom, incidentally, are on record as sharing his bias. He was, you see, simply sloppy, or so the report is purported to say. I read these happy, trouble-free news stories very carefully, and one thing struck me. Nowhere in any of the stories did anyone bother to ask the question: What precisely triggered the need for this investigation of the investigators? It did not start in a vacuum. Was it not largely precipitated by the discovery of the FBI's pervasive use of the scumbag/liar-Hillary-financed Steele dossier, upon which the Strzoks of this world relied for spying on Trump officials, all of whom turned out not to be Russian agents, as the FBI alleged? Naturally, these stories skirt that issue. If Horowitz skirts that issue, too, his report will not amount to much, and we will have to look to Justice Department prosecutor John Durham for real answers. In April, Attorney General William Barr said, "I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal." It has not ceased to be a big deal, even if Horowitz breezes over it. What real grounds did the scumbag/liar-nObama administration have for its spying? That has never been satisfactorily explained. Consider the irony here. During the impeachment hearing, we have heard Democrat after Democrat intone gravely that nothing is more abusive than a president seeking to get foreigners to spy on a "political rival." Yet is that not exactly what scumbag/liar-nObama did in letting the scumbag/commie-John Brennans and Peter Strzoks loose to spy on the Trump campaign with the help of foreign intelligence bodies, such as MI6? If it was wrong for Trump to try to get our ally Ukraine to investigate the loose lips liar-Joe and Hunter Biden, as the Democrats assert, how can they possibly justify the scumbag/liar-nObama administration's use of foreign intelligence bodies to spy on Trump?...
Anti-Trump FBI lawyer Lisa Page finally breaks 
her silence, portrays herself as victim  
by Chris Enloe
{ } ~ Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page was thrust into the national spotlight in late 2017 when text messages between her and then-senior FBI agent Peter Strzok became public... The two were having an affair, and their text messages detailed how adamant their opposition to President Donald Trump was. Now, nearly two years later, Page has finally broken her silence, speaking with the Daily Beast in an interview published Sunday, where she responded to the president's personal criticism and cast herself as a victim. Page said that she finally decided to speak up after Trump mocked her at a campaign rally in October, where he allegedly acted out a fake orgasm. "Honestly, his demeaning fake orgasm was really the straw that broke the camel's back," she said. "I had stayed quiet for years hoping it would fade away, but instead it got worse. It had been so hard not to defend myself, to let people who hate me control the narrative. I decided to take my power back." It's almost impossible to describe. It's like being punched in the gut. My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again. The president of the United States is calling me names to the entire world. He's demeaning me and my career. It's sickening. But it's also very intimidating because he's still the president of the United States. And when the president accuses you of treason by name, despite the fact that I know there's no fathomable way that I have committed any crime at all, let alone treason, he's still somebody in a position to actually do something about that. To try to further destroy my life. It never goes away or stops, even when he's not publicly attacking me. The glowing profile of Page, written by journalist Molly Jong-Fast, was met with mixed criticism. Many on social media thanked Page for finally speaking out, while others lambasted her for partisanship. "Cry more, homewrecker," one critic said. Page's interview came one week before a report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected to exonerate Page of acting with political bias against the president while working at the FBI.  
Californians' Leftist Gov't Betrays Them, 
Sells Their Info for $50 Million per Year
By C. Douglas Golden 
{ } ~ Your personal information is being bought and sold. Unless you’re an internet naïf, you know this. Facebook, Gmail, Twitter — none of these things are free... As the privacy-obsessed guy on your news feed is fond of telling you — always as if he’s discovered some kind of profound truth no one else has yet — when it comes to free stuff on the web, you are the product. I’m used to this kind of mentality when dealing with social media. Where it gets a little dodgy is when dealing with my state government. According to an investigation by Vice, the Department of Motor Vehicles in the people’s republic of California is making over $50 million a year selling the personal information of citizens to third parties. While other states sell this information, too, Vice notes “California’s sales come from a state which generally scrutinizes privacy to a higher degree than the rest of the country.” Check out a discussion on the report from last week’s “Outnumbered” on Fox News. Vice discovered the information through a Public Records Act request and found the state’s business in selling personal information had grown over $10 million in the past few years. In the financial year of 2013/14, for instance, the DMV collected $41,562,735 in revenue from selling personal data. Meanwhile, in 2017/18, the state collected $52,048,236. As Vice stated, California’s hardly the only place that does this. Yet, it’s also home to the California Consumer Privacy Act, one of the strictest pieces of privacy legislation in the country. According to TechCrunch, the CCPA “requires businesses over a certain user and/or revenue threshold to disclose what personal data they collect; the purposes they intend to use the data for; and any third parties it will be shared with; as well as requiring that they provide a discrimination-free opt-out to personal data being sold or shared.” In the article, Marty Greenstein, public information officer at the California DMV, defended the practice of selling information. In a letter to Vice, he wrote that the sale of the information leads to “including availability of insurance, risk assessment, vehicle safety recalls, traffic studies, emissions research, background checks, and for pre- and existing employment purposes.” “The DMV takes its obligation to protect personal information very seriously. Information is only released pursuant to legislative direction, and the DMV continues to review its release practices to ensure information is only released to authorized persons/entities and only for authorized purposes. The DMV also audits requesters to ensure proper audit logs are maintained and that employees are trained in the protection of DMV information and anyone having access to this information sign a security document,” Greenstein wrote...
SCOTUS Takes Up Case on Right to Bear Arms
Thomas Gallatin:  Today the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. This will be the first Second Amendment case the High Court has heard in nearly 10 years following its landmark rulings in Heller  (2008) and McDonald (2010). The case involves New York City’s passage of a gun-control law banning gun-owning residents from transporting their firearms outside their homes and outside city limits, except to select gun ranges within the city and only then provided their handguns are unloaded, locked up, and separate from ammunition. In other words, paper weights that are useless for self-defense.

The draconian and obviously unconstitutional law was immediately challenged by Second Amendment advocates. In a move clearly demonstrating that New York officials knew their law violates the Second Amendment, they sought to prevent the issue from being taken up by the Supreme Court by changing the law to allow gun-owning residents to transport their firearms outside city limits provided it was “directly to and from” a second home or shooting range.

However, this “voluntary cessation” didn’t stop the justices from deciding to hear the case, as they rightly note that the issue at stake is the Second Amendment’s protection of individuals’ right to bear and not merely possess arms. Furthermore, New York officials are clearly seeking to undermine the Heller decision, which protects the right to bear firearms for the “core lawful purpose of self-defense,” as well as “learning to handle and use [arms]” and “hunting.” By limiting a gun owner’s right to bear firearms only in his place of residence, New York was effectively attempting to gut Heller, which is likely why the justices are keen to take up this case to reassert the Court’s judicial authority. Clarence Thomas, for one, has been particularly vocal about the erosion of the Second Amendment by municipalities and lower courts.

Predictably, the anti-gun crowd isn’t happy. Democrat Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) warned the Court that if it did not drop the case, he and his fellow Democrats would work to “restructure” the Court. “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” Whitehouse ridiculously asserted. He added, “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.” Oh, the irony. Who exactly is seeking to inject “the influence of politics” into the Court in order to eliminate Americans’ Second Amendment rights? It certainly isn’t the NRA or Republicans.

If the Court follows the precedent it set with Heller, it’s likely that the ruling will come down to a 5-4 decision. No wonder anti-Second Amendment activists are so upset over the Court’s decision to hear the case.  

~The Patriot Post  

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

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

Join Tea Party Command Center