Thursday PM ~ thefrontpagecover

~ Featuring ~
Who Makes the Decisions in America?
Harold Hutchison  
House Republicans Request
scumbag-Adam Schiff Bring Whistleblower
Forward For Questioning
By Ashe Schow
{ } ~ Republican members on the House Intelligence Committee have written a letter to Chairman scumbag-Adam Schiff (D-CA) requesting he bring forward the whistleblower... whose August 12 complaint prompted an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.  In the letter, sent Wednesday to scumbag-Schiff and obtained by The Daily Wire, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Devin Nunes (R-CA), and Michael McCaul (R-TX) asked why scumbag-Schiff changed his mind on calling the whistleblower to testify. “We are surprised by your announcement that the Committees will not receive testimony from the anonymous intelligence community employee whose complaint initiated the so-called impeachment inquiry,” the congressmen wrote. “You had earlier committed that the employee would provide ‘unfiltered’ testimony ‘very soon,’ only to reverse course following revelations that the employee had a bias against President Donald Trump and that you had received a secret, early account of the allegations.” “As the so-called impeachment inquiry gathers information that contradicts the employee’s allegations, we ask that you arrange for the Committees to receive public testimony from the employee and all individuals he or she relied upon in formulating the complaint,” the congressmen added. The congressmen insisted that in light of these inconsistencies, scumbag-Schiff should make available the testimony of the whistleblower and all the people he or she spoke to in order to write the complaint. The congressmen then seemingly took a page from House Democrats by concluding in their letter: “Your failure to arrange for the Committees to receive this testimony shall constitute evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.”...
scumbag-Adam Schiff Desperate to Hide
William Taylor Testimony that Would
Kill Ukraine Hoax
{ } ~ The Big Fake News today is that Ukraine’s top diplomat, William Taylor, delivered a smoking gun to Rep. scumbag-Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) secret impeachment hearings... That is not hyperbole, those are the headlines — “smoking gun.” So here we are again with Russian Collusion 2 in full swing, with the WALLS CLOSING IN ON TRUMP, and all of it backed by a coordinated news cycle about how President Trump is toast, done, over and out, corrupt and kaput fer realzies this time. Except…Once again, it’s all fake news but you knew that. Even though scumbag-Schiff’s secret impeachment inquiry is supposed to be secret, leaks to the far-left CNN-NYTimes-WashPost geared for the Get Drumpf! crowd are currently being reported everywhere without a hint of scrutiny from the media, unaware or unashamed of being so obviously manipulated by the scumbag-Schiff Cabal.  Someone, somehow leaked Taylor’s opening statement to the media — and, gee, we can only sit here and imagine who that might have been. Meanwhile, even though we are talking about a process designed to overturn a national election, the accused — President Trump — has no rights, nor do his surrogates among House Republicans. They are not only restricted from calling their own witnesses, which is unprecedented in the history of impeachment, they cannot even publicize their side of the story without violating scumbag-Schiff’s fascist rules. Worse still, while Taylor’s opening statement is leaked to the media, this one-sided document from a career diplomat who obviously despises Trump, the transcripts and recordings of his entire testimony remain hidden, guarded, secreted away… And the so-called media are perfectly fine with this, perfectly happy to publish what scumbag-Schiff wants them to publish, even though they know it does not tell the full truth...   
Democrats Are Embarrassed By
scumbag-Schiff’s Impeachment Tactics,
And They Should Be  
By Adam Mill 
{ } ~ Criticisms of Rep. scumbag-Adam Schiff’s impeachment tactics have begun to bite. Fair-minded people have begun to ask why is it necessary to have secret witnesses, secret hearings, and leaks of distorted... out-of-context excerpts from transcripts, Why is it necessary to block the president from sending representatives to attend these hearings so he can have equal access to any evidence? Why was it necessary for House Intelligence Committee Chairman scumbag-Schiff to “parody” the transcript of the president’s call to the Ukrainian president? Aren’t parodies supposed to be funny? Shouldn’t the chairman be proceeding with sober deliberation and fairness instead of romping about with gleeful shtick? If scumbag-Schiff cannot take the proceedings seriously, what of the 218 representatives who voted against the resolution condemning scumbag-Schiff? The resolution failed despite the undisputed truth of the allegations. scumbag-Schiff did manufacture “a false retelling of the conversation between President Trump and President Zelensky.” scumbag-Schiff did tell the American people, “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” when his staff actually coached the “whistleblower” before he or she approached the inspector general. And why are Democrats shutting out Republicans from the process? Listening to the Democratic presidential primary debate last week, I heard something that made my ears prick up. The criticisms of the fairness of the impeachment inquiry have begun to resonate. The evidence: Some of the candidates and their fawning CNN enablers felt compelled at least to pay lip service to the importance of a fair process. I had to review the transcript to confirm that my ears were not playing tricks on me. CNN moderator Anderson Cooper asked candidate scumbag-Cory Booker, “Sen. scumbag-Booker, you have said that President Trump’s, quote, ‘moral vandalism’ disqualifies him from being president. Can you be fair in an impeachment trial?” scumbag-Booker responded, “So, first of all, we must be fair. We are talking about ongoing proceedings to remove a sitting president for office. This has got to be about patriotism and not partisanship. Look, I share the same sense of urgency of everybody on this stage. I understand the outrage that we all feel. But we have to conduct this process in a way that is honorable, that brings our country together, doesn’t rip us apart.”...
Of Course President Trump Is Being Lynched
By Brian C. Joondeph
{ } ~ President Donald Trump once again did the unthinkable: he hit back against the media and their political party, also known as the Democrats, over their contrived efforts to impeach him for the unforgivable sin of beating their chosen 2016 presidential candidate... Impeachment is being pushed without authorization from the full House, as in, "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." The Constitution gives this power not to the speaker or the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, but to "The House," meaning the entire House.  Sure, the House can change the rules. They could vote to make Joy Behar the speaker of the House, since the speaker does not have to be a member of Congress, but that would be a radical departure from precedent, just as the current impeachment process is. How is the House pushing impeachment? Through a "secret" process rather than through a "due" process. Hearings are conveniently being held clandestinely, since, if the oxymoronic "House Intelligence" Committee holds hearings, everything can be covered under a blanket of "national security." The accusers call witnesses while the defense can only watch, unable to take notes or call their own witnesses, subpoena documents, receive transcripts of the proceedings, or anything else normally afforded the defense under the due process of American jurisprudence. How would one describe such a circus? How about using the word "lynch"? Cambridge Dictionary describes lynching: "If a crowd of people lynch someone who they believe is guilty of a crime, they kill them without a legal trial, usually by hanging." By the way, lynching is a diverse process, applicable to anyone, regardless of skin color, sex, or any other characteristic.  Supreme Court nominees Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, while of different skin colors, were both treated to Democrat lynchings... 
Well well well, what do we have here? William 
Taylor met with scumbag-Schiff’s staffer 
in Ukraine 4 days prior to leak
by Sam J.
{ } ~ Everything we’re reading about this leaker yeah, that’s a bad visual on its own just stinks to high heaven... It could be that we read so many tweets from so many different people on the topic that it seems extra stinky to us. Then again, reading this tweet from Ivan Pentchoukov about William Taylor meeting with scumbag-Schiff’s staffer in Ukraine four days before the leak seems … well, pretty damn stinky. Amazingly indeed. Something strange is afoot at the Circle K. And a source. Hrm. Right?! So much of this has just been one crazy coincidence after another. No wonder scumbag-Schiff For Brains has worked so hard to keep the interviews secret, he only wants certain bits and pieces getting out. Shameful. But wait, there’s more …Told you … lots of coincidences here.
2015 Federal Election Finance Violations 
And Fraud Yields 2019 Plea Agreement
by Rodney Graves
{ } ~ Federal prosecutors today filed a criminal case charging Imaad Shah Zuberi, a Southern California campaign fundraiser, with falsifying records to conceal his work as a foreign agent... while lobbying high-level U.S. government officials. The criminal charges allege that Zuberi engaged in lobbying efforts that earned him millions of dollars, most of which was pilfered from his clients, and Zuberi has agreed to plead guilty to those charges at a later date, pursuant to a plea agreement. Who, you might ask?  Who had influence for sale in 2015? How much? Zuberi delivered $615,000 to scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton’s joint fundraising committee, scumbag/liar-Hillary Victory Fund and reportedly contributed between $250,000 and $500,000 to the scumbag/liar-Clinton Foundation. He gave $102,135 to the scumbag/liar-nObama Victory Fund in 2008 & bundled $500,000 for scumbag/liar-nObama in 2012. And when the tide changed the targets changed. With a $900,000 donation to the Trump Inaugural fund. So, what do you think the media headlines are?
Who Makes the Decisions in America?
Harold Hutchison:  There are times when things can boil down to a single big question that America has to face. We face one of those times now. Two items have drawn headlines that could very well determine if we can keep the Republic that Benjamin Franklin and the rest of our Founders left us.

These two items don’t even seem to fit. The first is the very controversial matter of the holding up of military aid destined for Ukraine. The second is the Supreme Court case involving the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) declaration that “sex discrimination” also includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. But both boil down to a single question: Who makes the policy decisions in the United States of America?

If you are familiar with the Constitution, you know that answer: Congress makes laws, with both the House and Senate agreeing to the legislation by a majority vote in final passage (the Senate currently takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster). Two-thirds majorities are needed to pass a law over a president’s veto.

Nothing in there gives the EEOC power to make that call on its own. The commission can enforce the current laws, but when it comes to changing those laws (and that is what it was doing), that is left strictly to Congress. The cases the Supreme Court heard two weeks ago could very well determine if rogue bureaucrats can make such radical changes to legal interpretations or not.

If the Supreme Court doesn’t put the EEOC in its place, then how much do our elections matter? Do they even matter at all? Such questions would undoubtedly be percolating through large swaths of the United States, and the consequences stemming from the answers that many Americans would come up will not be escapable.

The situation with Ukraine, and to a lesser extent, Syria, also involves this question of who makes policy: Is it the elected officials, or is it the bureaucrats? Imagine if a fraction of the tactics used on President Donald Trump had been broken out in defense of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program or to thwart Barack Obama’s efforts to withdraw from Iraq — misguided as they were. How do you think those trying to tear down Trump would be reacting?

We already have a sense of that. When Charles Stimson, a Defense Department official in the George W. Bush Administration, suggested that companies that were represented by the treasonous Gitmo bar rethink who they hired, he was driven out of public service by a media outcry. That was just for making a few comments to the press. What the Deep State has done to President Trump far exceeds what Stimson did — and Stimson was only trying to win the Global War on Terror. Yet the outcry of 2007 on behalf of the Gitmo bar — some of whom later ended up in the Obama administration — is not being mirrored now.

It’s impossible to deny that a pernicious and blatant double standard exists. We have previously discussed the lack of accountability stemming from bureaucratic abuses. The stakes have only grown since then. Now, fueled by bureaucrats who openly hate the president the people elected, we have a constitutional crisis emerging.

Regardless of the wisdom of President Trump’s foreign-policy decisions, the Constitution clearly places the conduct of foreign policy in the president. Similarly, the Constitution denies bureaucrats the right to make changes to the country’s laws. That is the purview of Congress. Either way, by the end of 2020, we will know whether that will remain the case in the United States of America.   ~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