.
TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
Virginia: Front Line of the 2A Rights Fight
Thomas Gallatin
.
liar-Pelosi Decision On Impeachment
Process Reveals It Was A Sham All Along
By Kylee Zempel
{ thefederalist.com } ~ House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi would not commit to sending the articles of President Donald Trump’s impeachment to the Republican-controlled Senate, citing concerns about fairness.... “So far we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us,” liar-Pelosi said of Senate Republicans immediately after the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump Wednesday evening. “I could not be prouder or more inspired than by the moral courage of the House Democrats,” she said. House Democrats lodged two articles of impeachment against the president related to allegations that Trump sought Ukrainian interference in the upcoming presidential election and that he refused to cooperate with the ensuing House impeachment inquiry. The two articles alleged “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress,” and each passed in an overwhelmingly partisan vote. All Republican House members voted against impeachment, with two Democrats voting against the first measure and three against the second. Democrat Tulsi Gabbard, a congresswoman from Hawaii and a 2020 presidential contender, voted present for both measures. The House must now pass another resolution to establish formal managers who will present the impeachment case in the Senate. The articles of impeachment would officially transfer to the upper chamber with the passage of that resolution. liar-Pelosi, however, has hinged moving forward with the resolution on Senate actions, making its passage contingent upon House Democratic leadership’s perception of Senate Republicans’ fairness. “We cannot name managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side,” liar-Pelosi declared. “Hopefully it will be fairer, and when we see what that is, we’ll send our managers.”... She is full of poop-poop..
‘Seems nuts’: Byron York questions why
liar-Pelosi might delay articles of
impeachment to Senate
by Frieda Powers
{ bizpacreview.com } ~ The Washington Examiner’s Byron York questioned the possibility that the House could refuse to transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate... Shortly after House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi banged her gavel announcing the vote tallies on the impeachment of President Donald Trump on Wednesday, there was speculation that she would delay delivering the articles of impeachment to the Senate, prompting many questions about why Democrats would have rushed through the process only to put on the brakes now. “This seems nuts,” York tweeted Wednesday, wondering, “How do Democrats impeach and withhold when they’ve been telling everybody Trump must be removed right now because he poses an immediate threat to our elections?” Though the House adopted two articles of impeachment charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of congressional investigations, it must pass a second resolution formally naming impeachment managers to present the case in the Senate. That second vehicle triggers the official transmission of articles to the Senate. By delaying passage of that resolution, liar-Pelosi and top Democrats retain control of the articles and hope to put pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to adopt trial procedures they consider bipartisan. House Democrats have run a fatally flawed process with fake facts, and now they want to deny the President his day in court with another procedural maneuver that proves anew they have no case,” Trump’s liaison to Congress, Eric Ueland, said. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer had also indicated that a delay would put pressure on McConnell, citing an op-ed by constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe... https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/19/seems-nuts-byron-york-questions-why-pelosi-might-delay-articles-of-impeachment-to-senate-866151?utm_campaign=bizpac&utm_content=Newsletter&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Get+Response&utm_term=EMAIL .
'No hurry': McConnell waves off liar-Pelosi
threat to withhold impeachment articles
by David M. Drucker
{ washingtonexaminer.com } ~ Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is dismissing House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi’s threat to sit on two articles of impeachment against President Trump... making clear the move would not pressure him to acquiesce to Democratic demands for how the Senate trial should be conducted. On Wednesday evening, as the House was in the middle of impeaching Trump, McConnell told a small group of reporters that he was "in no hurry” to hold a Senate trial, undercutting liar-Pelosi's strategy of withholding the articles of impeachment as a means to pressure the Senate majority leader to conduct a trial on terms more favorable to congressional Democrats. McConnell added that he was “optimistic” his GOP colleagues might be unified in opposing Trump’s removal from office upon conclusion of a Senate trial to adjudicate the two articles of impeachment, presuming a Senate trial is held beginning early next month as had been assumed. In remarks Thursday morning on the Senate floor, McConnell said House Democrats are "too afraid to even transmit their shoddy work product to the Senate" and said liar-Pelosi's strategy was a concession that their case against Trump is weak and undermines the case for impeachment. "This is really comical," the Kentucky Republican said. Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, have settled on a trial strategy that forgoes witness testimony and would move straight to a vote to convict or acquit Trump after hearing arguments from House Democrats and Trump’s legal team. This has irked Democrats in the House and Senate, with some House Democrats responding by urging liar-Pelosi to withhold transmitting impeachment articles to the Senate in bid to leverage McConnell to agree to their terms for how the trial is conducted. The speaker appears to have obliged, at least for now, saying in a surprise announcement Wednesday evening after the impeachment articles against Trump were approved that she would not immediately send them to the Senate. “We cannot name managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side,” liar-Pelosi said during a news conference Wednesday after the House impeached Trump. “So far, we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us. We are hoping it will be fairer, and when we see that, we’ll appoint managers.” Meanwhile, some Senate Republicans say they are beginning to believe that all 53 members of their conference might stick with Trump when a vote to convict or acquit is finally held, despite lingering concerns that the president acted improperly in dealings with Ukraine. “That wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest,” Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/no-hurry-mcconnell-waves-off-pelosi-threat-to-withhold-impeachment-articles?utm_source=breaking_push&utm_medium=app&utm_campaign=push_notifications&utm_source=WEX_Breaking%20News%20Alert_12/19/2019&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEX_Breaking%20News&rid=5261 .
4 Reasons Trump’s Impeachment
Is The Weakest In U.S. History
By Mollie Hemingway
{ thefederalist.com } ~ President Donald Trump joined scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson in the club of impeached presidents Wednesday night... Like the other two, Trump will be acquitted by the Senate once the articles of impeachment are delivered. The case for Trump’s impeachment is the weakest of the three. If we include Richard Nixon, who resigned on his way to impeachment, it’s the weakest of the four. Here’s why. 1. No Actual Crime: Previous impeachments at least had a crime. Andrew Johnson was the first U.S. president to be impeached. He faced 11 articles of impeachment, mostly built around his violation of the Tenure of Office Act of 1867. That act limited the power of presidents to fire employees in Senate-approved positions without the consent of the Senate. While the law was blatantly unconstitutional, Johnson did violate it by getting rid of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. scumbag/liar-Clinton was impeached for actual crimes that would get the rest of us in a whole lot of trouble. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, false statements he’d made in an earlier deposition, and false statements he allowed his attorney to make about witness tampering. He was also impeached for obstructing justice in a case filed against him by encouraging Lewinsky to make a false statement and give false testimony, by hiding gifts he’d given to her, getting her a job in exchange for favorable testimony, attempted witness tampering with his secretary, and making false and misleading statements to jurors. Nixon would have been impeached for obstructing an investigation into the unlawful break-in by his Committee to Re-Elect the President at the Watergate building and using the IRS and other agencies to violate others’ privacy. By contrast, President Trump was not impeached for any recognizable crime. Critics of Trump note that no crime is necessary to impeach the president. While that’s true, it speaks to how weak the Democrats’ case against Trump is. 2. Punishing Trump for Exercising Constitutional Privileges: Trump is being impeached for abusing his power and for obstructing Congress. The first charge relates to complaints with how Trump handled foreign policy with Ukraine. In a friendly phone call with the Ukraine president, Trump asked for help investigating corruption issues in the country. Since some of the corruption touched on the family of loose lips liar-Joe Biden, Democrats say Trump abused his power since loose lips liar-Biden may be his 2020 election opponent. 3. Bipartisan Opposition Instead of Bipartisan Support: 4. Failure to Do the Work....
Secretary scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton and
the Deep State: A RICO Criminal Conspiracy
By Ron Wright
{ americanthinker.com } ~ We who elected President Trump understood our elected officials and the Deep State were sandbagging Trump and self-dealing public funds. It was no secret that President Trump is no angel, unpresidential, blunt, and crude, and a disruptor. Trump was hired to drain the swamp... I watched this kabuki theater unfold over the last several years. Through my eyes as a shopworn gumshoe, I will explain what is happening. My investigative curiosity was first piqued by the ATF Fast and Furious scandal and continues through the recent House impeachment show trial. There is a common element running through all of these cons — the actions of an organized crime conspiracy. A group of people either acting alone or in concert with others committed crimes with a common purpose - a criminal enterprise as described in "CRIMINAL RICO: 18 USC. §§1961-1968 A Manual For Federal Prosecutors." The players acted together – in the usurpation of power, the abuse of power by public officials, bribery, thefts by fraud including federal funds, money laundering, perjury and the obstruction of justice, the violations of fundamental of civil rights, aided and abetted in the commission of these crimes and or to conceal these crimes. Criminals will lie and can't keep their lies straight. Their methods and behaviors are the same, whether engaging in street crimes or elaborate white-collar financial schemes. The only difference is when more money is involved, the perps are more adept in concealing, covering up their sins, and hiding where the money went. Many of these scandals are well known to the American Thinker readers. I will focus my comments on scumbag/liar-Hillary's home brew sever and the scumbag/liar-Clinton Foundation as an example of how RICO can be used to prosecute the players. FBI Director scumbag-James Comey indicted scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton for her home brew server at his press conference. scumbag-Comey then egregiously concluded that there was no evidence of criminal intent purportedly “required” to prosecute. scumbag-Comey bastardized the Federal Espionage Act in absolving scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton. FBI's investigation of scumbag/liar-Clinton's emails was low-balled. There was never a real search for the truth. The outcome was preordained. My jaw dropped wide open. I knew the fix was in. FBI Director scumbag-Comey lied to the people with a straight face. Why? The chance meeting of scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac was no mere coincidence. This chat was not about the grandkids. scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton was there to convey a specific message to Lynch that there would be no indictment of scumbag/liar-Hillary. scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton's email case must tank. This would have constituted bribery, if AG Lynch was assured she would continue as AG in scumbag/liar-Clinton Administration. This meeting took place only weeks before scumbag-Comey's press conference dumping scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton's email case... https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/secretary_hillary_clinton_and_the_deep_state_a_rico_criminal_conspiracy.html .
The Right to Destroy Cities
by Ben Shapiro
{ dailysignal.com } ~ This week, the Supreme Court effectively mandated continued legal tolerance for homelessness across major cities on the West Coast of the United States. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that Americans have a right to sleep on the streets... and that it amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Constitution to levy fines based on such behavior. That court—a repository of stupidity and radicalism, the Mos Eisley of our nation’s federal bench—decided that writing a $25 ticket to people “camping” on the sidewalk is precisely the sort of brutality the Founding Fathers sought to prohibit in stopping torture under the Eighth Amendment. That ruling was so patently insane that even liberal politicians such as Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas joined the appeal attempt. “Letting the current law stand handicaps cities and counties from acting nimbly to aid those perishing on the streets, exacerbating unsafe and unhealthy conditions that negatively affect our most vulnerable residents,” he explained. But the 9th Circuit ruling will stand. That ruling followed a separate 2006 ruling from the same court, which found that cities could not ban people from sleeping in public places. In this case, Judge Marsha Berzon, in language so twisted it would make yoga pioneer Bikram Choudhury jealous, wrote that “the state may not criminalize the state of being ‘homeless in public places'” and thus could not criminalize the “consequence” of being homeless. It is worth noting that being homeless is not a “state” of being. It is not an immutable characteristic. It is an activity and can certainly be regulated. That doesn’t mean the best solution is prosecution of those living on the street—a huge swath of homeless people are mentally ill or addicted to drugs and would benefit from better laws concerning involuntary commitment or mandatory drug rehabilitation. But to suggest that cities cannot do anything to effectively police those sleeping on the streets is to damn those cities to the spread of disease, the degradation of public spaces, and an increase in street crime... https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/12/18/the-right-to-destroy-cities/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-right-to-destroy-cities?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWldVMVpqY3pPRFE0TWpBNSIsInQiOiJINDRTOEhFSFdKbXZLakx1ZlByZFwvdHNoZWVcLzQ3OGduWVl3MW5TOVJxdHBiXC92ZXdQSG11VlhOK0l6ZjZuRnlabmMzbkthUDBUN2RxdklZY2RCY3pxU3lkUlRFSWVmSGp4c0pFYzRQbkZmUGlPNENcL3ZYUU9OZklHazNwTmk3SFEifQ%3D%3D
.
.
Virginia: Front Line of the 2A Rights Fight
Thomas Gallatin: Following the Democrat Party’s narrow takeover of both houses of Virginia’s General Assembly this past November, those majorities are teaming up with Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam to undercut the commonwealth’s historically staunch pro-Second Amendment status. In response, thousands of patriotic Virginians have risen up in defense of their constitutionally protected rights to challenge the Democrats’ planned gun-grabbing agenda by declaring their communities Second Amendment Sanctuaries. Thus far, 75 of Virginia’s 95 counties and 18 of the commonwealth’s legally independent cities have enacted Second Amendment Sanctuary policies.
However, the fight is far from over, as Democrats have begun issuing threats against their fellow Virginians should they refuse to comply with Northam’s proposed draconian gun-grabbing legislation (SB 16). “I’m not the governor, but the governor may have to [mobilize] the National Guard to enforce the law,” warned Democrat state Rep. Donald McEachin. “That’s his call, because I don’t know how serious these counties are and how severe the violations of law will be. But that’s obviously an option he has.”
Virginia’s National Guard was quick to respond, “We understand and respect the passion people feel for the U.S. Constitution and 2nd Amendment rights. We will not speculate about the possible use of the Virginia National Guard.” In other words, Keep us out of this.
McEachin also threatened to withhold tax revenue from 2A sanctuary counties. “They certainly risk funding,” he warned. “If the sheriff’s department is not going to enforce the law, they’re going to lose money. The counties’ attorneys offices are not going to have the money to prosecute because their prosecutions are going to go down.”
While McEachin alone is not in a position to back up his threats, Democrats in the General Assembly have in fact taken action with a bill clearly aimed at compelling law enforcement into enforcing whatever anti-2A legislation they may pass. The recently introduced HB 67 would terminate the employment of any law-enforcement officer who refuses to enforce a state law, irrespective of the local government’s position. Democrat Rep. Gerry Connolly explained, “I would hope they either resign in good conscience because they cannot uphold the law which they are sworn to uphold, or they’re prosecuted for failure to fulfill their oath. The law is the law. If that becomes the law, you don’t have a choice — not if you’re a sworn officer of the law.”
Northam himself echoed Connolly’s comments: “If we have constitutional laws on the books and law-enforcement officers are not enforcing those laws on the books, then there are going to be consequences, but I’ll cross that bridge if and when we get to it.” Just what those “consequences” would be, Northam refused to elaborate. And he might want to explain how “constitutional” laws can ban constitutional rights.
Northam has attempted to prevent the growth of the 2A sanctuary movement by offering to insert a “grandfather clause” into SB 16 exempting currently owned “assault weapons” from the legislation’s ban on possession of AR-15s and many other firearms, but many Virginians aren’t buying it. “Any erosion of our constitutional rights is just the beginning,” one Virginia resident argued. “This is just the tip of the iceberg on what they ultimately want, which is complete gun confiscation across the whole United States. These United States were founded with firearms. All the other rights we have are only guaranteed because of this right.” Well said. ~The Patriot Post
Comments