Wednesday Noon ~ thefrontpagecover

~ Featuring ~
Democrats' Weak Impeachment Case Not
Strengthened by Anti-Trump Law Professors
yl4hDEcj5FyXDcRmKDaKjKlRL-8ywAeahZKn8U_iueyyNaI5HFurYYZC2aHgL50JEEeBvmdSjI207QUS4IHTioYHqdhWfcGPx5c54NRyMApxgSIsdUz2BiuYyv6YL695w4lOTBT4fb9qDOLb531CeGu3ID8DApo=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href= Hans von Spakovsky
Horowitz Goes Full scumbag-Comey
By Daniel John Sobieski
{ } ~ Like disgraced former FBI director scumbag-James Comey before him exonerating scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton for her crimes, DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz presents us with a documented list of crimes, fraud, and deception in the FISA warrant application process... by the FBI but then says never mind — these are  bureaucratic mistakes made without bias and without intent. There still was sufficient predicate, says he, for starting an investigation and surveillance of Team Trump, even as Horowitz admits that the first FISA warrant, the one authorizing  surveilling Carter Page, was riddled with errors and omissions of key exculpatory evidence. It was the first of four frauds committed on the FISA court, a felony. We have confirmation that the first FISA application, at least, was based almost solely on what scumbag-Comey himself called the "unverified and salacious" Steele dossier, paid for by the scumbag/liar-Clinton campaign and the DNC. Yet the FBI "forgot" to ask or inform the court who paid for it. Former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe has stated that without the Steele dossier, there would have been no FISA warrants at all and no investigation of Team Trump. Ironically, this was confirmed by the I.G. Report: The much awaited Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) report, conducted by Inspector General Michael Horowitz, was released today. It finds that the FBI would not have had enough claimed evidence to secretly surveil former Trump aide Carter Page, and thus the Trump 2016 campaign, without using a "dossier" of opposition research funded by the scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton campaign. In 2016, after Page left the Trump campaign, the FBI asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for a warrant to secretly surveil Page. The FBI said it was concerned that Page had ties with the Kremlin in Russia, but their only confirmation of these allegations came from former British intelligence officer Steele. Steele authored the "dossier" that alleged ties between President Trump and Russia. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS, a research group that received funding from a law firm representing scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton's campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee. ...On November 2017, a British top national security official warned U.S. officials in a memo that Steele should not be trusted. This information was originally published by The Hill, corroborated by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), and mentioned in a filing by Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's lawyers. Yet the FBI subsequently applied for two more reauthorizations of their surveillance of Page.  Yet Inspector General Michael Horowitz, while acknowledging "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in FISA applications that precipitated one of the greatest abuses of investigative power in our lifetime, dismisses them as showing no intent, no bias. Nothing to see here. Move on.  Investigative reporter John Solomon begs to differ and finds that the odds of so many inaccuracies and omissions being unintentional boggles the mind. Solomon notes based on the Horowitz report 51 violations of Woods Procedures to vet evidence, 17 significant errors in FISA application, 9 false statements, 9 inaccurate statements, 33 statements without verification or supporting evidence, and 4 informants used to target the Trump 2016 campaign. Like scumbag/liar-Hillary's deletion of 33,000 emails under subpoena, Mr. Horowitz, this was no accident. This we call intent...  
Why Allowing A Democrat Impeachment Witness 
To Cross-Examine An Opponent Was 
Completely Unfair And Unethical 
By John Lucas
{ } ~ House Judiciary Committee Democrats’ pre-planned Kafkaesque decision to allow their attorney and advocate, Barry Berke, to both testify as a witness and then change roles mid-hearing... to become an advocate and cross-examine the Democrats’ adversary, Stephen Castor minority counsel for the intelligence committee, is totally unprecedented in American jurisprudence. It was an unprecedented violation of fundamental rules of fairness. It also was an ambush, pure and simple. Give judiciary Chairman scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler and his crowd credit for one thing: creativity. After the hearing I asked a lawyer friend, a tried and true Democrat, if he had ever heard of anything similar being done outside of the Soviet Union, North Korea, or a similar totalitarian state. He first said, “No,” then quickly added, “I can’t picture even them doing this because it is so obviously unfair and stupid.” A comparison with the rules governing lawyers and trials shows the impropriety. The closest analogy may be the ethical rules governing lawyers. Those rules squarely forbid Democrats’ outrageous conduct. The American Bar Association’s Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7 provides in the absence of exceptions that are not applicable here: “A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness…” Although the impeachment hearings are not a trial, they are—or Democrats try to pretend that they are—a quasi-judicial proceeding. Indeed, scumbag liar-Nadler assured the American people at the outset that lawyers would be called to present evidence. Thus, the starting point in any consideration of the scumbag liar-Nadler charade is to understand clearly that no court in the United States would permit Democrats’ tactic of designating a witness to testify and then allowing that witness to conduct a surprise cross-examination of an attorney for the other side. The Official Comments to the ABA’s ethical rules point out several reasons Rule 3.7 is necessary to ensure fairness. The first is to avoid a conflict of interest. The ABA’s Official Comment [1] to Rule 3.7 provides: “Combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the tribunal and the opposing party and can also involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client…” The potential for a conflict of interest was manifest throughout Berke’s testimony. As the ABA’s Official Comment [2] explains, as a fact witness, he was “required to testify on the basis of personal knowledge.” His obligation as a fact witness obligated him to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”...  
Flashback: scumbag/liar-nObama Asked The Russians To Interfere In A U.S. Election  
By David Marcus 
{ } ~ Hot microphones are a hell of a thing. In 2012, speaking with Dmitry Medvedev, who was then president of our great rival Russia, President scumbag/liar-nObama said... “After my election I have more flexibility.” Medvedev responded that he would transmit this information to Vladimir. As in, you know, Putin. Oh, what a time it was. Russia was great friend; we had pushed the Staples reset button and were looking towards the future. Let’s break this down. “After the election we have more flexibility.” Huh. This sounds a lot like asking a foreign leader to play a role in an American election. Let’s go a step further: this was an election in which scumbag/liar-nObama mocked his opponent, Republican rino-Mitt Romney, for criticizing Russia. Remember that? Remember the debate when scumbag/liar-nObama said “the 1980s wants its foreign policy back”? But now, suddenly Russia is our greatest foe again. Funny how things work out. So what was the deal with that conversation that nobody was supposed to hear? What exactly was scumbag/liar-nObama asking for? Was he asking the Russian president to act in a way that would help him in his reelection? It sounds like it. Was that an impeachable offense — asking a foreign power for help in a campaign? Was that a request for foreign interference in our elections? Who can say, right? The question here is, when does an ask from a foreign power that can be considered a political win rise to the level of election interference? This is something Democrats should consider as they march off the cliff of impeaching President Trump. Was scumbag/liar-nObama asking the Russian president for “dirt” on rino-Romney? No. But was he asking for actions that would help him win an election? It sure sounds like it. If scumbag/liar-nObama wasn’t looking for a favor to help him win, then why mention the election at all? Was this flexibility, whatever it referred to, official U.S. policy? Had scumbag/liar-nObama been told by brave career diplomats to offer Medvedev more flexibility after the election? Or did scumbag/liar-nObama just make this offer on his own? Was it for his own benefit?...   
Trump to issue executive order to 
fight antisemitism on college campuses
{ } ~ Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz praised US President Donald Trump on Wednesday... ahead of his expected issuance of an executive order later in the day invoking Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to fight antisemitic rhetoric on college campuses. The new executive order would also label Judaism as a nationality in addition to a religion, so it would fall into the category of Title VI and, according to Katz, "enable a more effective fight against the anti-Israel boycott movement on campus. "I congratulate US President Donald Trump on his intention to sign a presidential order to combat antisemitism on US university and college campuses, and to prevent funding from going to those institutions that will not prevent antisemitism," Katz continued. The move will also direct federally funded agencies to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism in cases of discrimination. "I urge more countries to adopt similar measures," Katz said.  Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. The Department of Education could cut federal funding for institutions that fail to remedy antisemitic incidents that fall under the title, once the order is made. A senior administration official said on Tuesday that antisemitism on campuses is often hidden in an anti-Israel agenda. If campuses that receive money from the government adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism in cases of discrimination, students who will feel that they are being bullied on college campuses would be able to complain to their institution's administration, who will then need to decide if the incident is considered antisemitic...  
President Trump impeached for being 
an excellent leader and too popular 
with we-the-people
7j7z_g1ATv2Yy7lNmLSzXkNiQ_pqOjSFg_bSRp1BXtwjBTQEvoy6Z9MGFwDW4UCFHzKTsKwegiR_-z31V_9ow6BriPSDvCixY2ljAg=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href= Sher Zieve
{ } ~ Again, these are unprecedented times in the United States of America. Our President is being impeached for actually following through with his campaign promises and – since he's been on office... drawing exponentially more voters to his side than when he won his first term of office in 2016. Despite the fact that the impeachment charges are Unconstitutional there is no "obstruction of Congress" charge in the US Constitution and the fact that the charges are not based on any discernable facts and legal positions, the worst individuals leading the lower-house charge in our history have decided to impeach President Trump and will go to a lower-house vote next week. Not only has President Trump not committed "high crimes and misdemeanors"...he has committed no crimes, whatsoever, as President of the United States let alone any crime at all. The Democrats' have based their entire case on hearsay and anti-Trump opinion witnesses. And, the Republican President was not offered any defense – the "defense" he was allowed included the Democrat committee chairs to make the rules as to whom POTUS could call, who would be allowed and disallowed and how many witnesses he could bring. These include the very definition of a Kangaroo Court: A kangaroo court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations. The defendants in such courts are often denied access to legal representation and in some cases, proper defense and the right of appeal." So, now we move into the next phase of the SDAP's (Socialist Democrats of America Party) attempts to get rid of the man who will likely prove to be the most popular in American history...
Knesset to vote on dispersing itself today
{ } ~ Barring a last-minute miracle, Israel will embark on an unprecedented third election in under a year on Wednesday... when the Knesset will vote to disperse itself and initiate an 82-day race that will culminate when Israelis will go to the polls on Monday, March 2. The bill formally initiating the election was submitted by five MKs from the Blue and White and Likud parties on Tuesday. It must pass three readings in the Knesset Arrangements Committee and four in the plenum by midnight to pass into law.  If the bill does not pass into law and no MK obtains the support of a majority of MKs to form a government by midnight, the Knesset will be dispersed automatically and elections will be held on March 10, despite it being the Purim holiday. The final vote is expected to be delayed until close to midnight to give an opportunity for an MK to obtain a last-minute mandate to form a government from President Reuven Rivlin, but Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein expressed skepticism about that happening. “It is hard to believe that there is a chance to prevent a third round of elections,” Edelstein told ambassadors at the annual gathering for heads of foreign missions. Instead of holding coalition talks, Blue and White leader Benny Gantz and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chose to issue campaign statements just ahead of the nightly news. No negotiations are expected on Wednesday as well. Gantz released a video in which he reiterated his calls for Netanyahu to not seek parliamentary immunity from prosecution following his three criminal indictments. He said coalition talks could only take place if Netanyahu made such a promise, as he did ahead of the September election. “You have the full right to defend yourself but you cannot use the Knesset as a refuge from the law,” Gantz told Netanyahu in the video...
Democrats' Weak Impeachment Case Not
Strengthened by Anti-Trump Law Professors
yl4hDEcj5FyXDcRmKDaKjKlRL-8ywAeahZKn8U_iueyyNaI5HFurYYZC2aHgL50JEEeBvmdSjI207QUS4IHTioYHqdhWfcGPx5c54NRyMApxgSIsdUz2BiuYyv6YL695w4lOTBT4fb9qDOLb531CeGu3ID8DApo=s0-d-e1-ft#%3Ca%20rel%3Dnofollow%20href= Hans von Spakovsky

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler opened Wednesday’s impeachment hearing with testimony from three left-wing law professors who consider President Trump to be evil incarnate. If scumbag liar-Nadler thought this display would somehow convince the public that the president’s actions merit impeachment, he is sure to be disappointed.

The three professors simply failed to make the case.

scumbag liar-Nadler’s witnesses were Noah Feldman of Harvard University, Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, and Pamela Karlan of Stanford University.

The sole Republican witness was Jonathan Turley of George Washington University.

The key question was: What type of presidential misconduct justifies impeachment?

In drafting the Constitution, America’s founders did not provide for impeachment as a partisan political weapon or as a response by Congress to a president who lawmakers dislike or whose policies they consider misguided.

Rather, the founders viewed impeachment solely as a remedy for misconduct so serious that it renders the president unfit to remain in office for another day. Otherwise, lawmakers could wait for the next election and let voters decide who should occupy the Oval Office.

Professor Karlan is a campaign contributor to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination to run against Trump. In addition, Karlan was a political appointee of President Barack scumbag/liar-nObama in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department.

I encountered Karlan several years ago when she published a law review article making patently false claims about the supposed lack of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act by the Bush administration. She started talking about impeaching Trump over his business ties in 2016 — before he even took the oath of office.

In her testimony Wednesday, Karlan claimed that Trump should be impeached because the “evidence reveals” that he abused the “powers of his office to demand that a foreign government participate in undermining a competing candidate for the presidency.”

The problem with that claim — as Professor Turley observed — is that the evidence does not show that at all.

Turley, a self-professed liberal who told the committee he voted against Trump in 2016, pointed out that the House is moving toward impeachment on a “record composed of a relatively small number of witnesses with largely second-hand knowledge.”

Moreover, the “only three direct conversations with President Trump do not contain a statement of a quid pro quo, and two expressly deny such a precondition,” Turley said.

In other words, Karlan’s claim that the president demanded that a foreign government interfere in our 2020 presidential election is not supported by the evidence. While much for her testimony consisted of grandiose statements about the importance of the right to vote and the dangers of “foreign interference,” she failed to prove that impeachment is warranted.

Professor Feldman is a columnist for Bloomberg News, which is owned by Democratic presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Feldman recently wrote that Democrats shouldn’t let legal concerns “obfuscate the fundamental wrongness of Trump’s conduct.”

In his testimony Wednesday, Feldman echoed Karlan’s claim that the “testimony” and “publicly released memorandum” of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky show Trump illegally “solicited” Ukraine to investigate “his political rivals in order to gain personal political advantage.”

As Turley said, the evidence did not show this.

In fact, the military aid that was the supposed source of the non-existent quid pro quo was released after “a delay that the witness described as ‘not uncommon’ for this or prior administrations,” Turley said.

Professor Gerhardt has been deeply involved in Democratic politics, working on everything from the Clinton transition team to helping Sen. Dianne Fein-stein, D-Calif., oppose the nomination of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

In what can only be considered a bizarre claim, Gerhardt’s written testimony asserted that he could not “help but conclude that this president has attacked each of the Constitution’s safeguards against establishing a monarchy in this country.”

Trump is trying to make himself a king? Really, professor? That is supposed to be a persuasive argument?

Gerhardt even resurrected a claim that House Democrats have all but abandoned: that Trump engaged in obstruction of justice by interfering in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 election.

According to Gerhardt, Trump’s behavior is as bad as President Richard Nixon’s.

In contrast, Turley prudently advised the Judiciary Committee to recognize the sparsity of the record before it.

“There is no evidence that President Trump acted with the corrupt intent required for obstruction of justice on the record created by the House Intelligence Committee,” Turley said. He said there is no evidence of a quid pro quo; the evidence does not meet the requirements for proving bribery or extortion; and there are “no good-faith grounds” for arguing that the president violated campaign finance laws.

Democrats would do well to heed the final warning in Turley’s written testimony. If they impeach a president on the deficient record they have established, he cautioned, they will “expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.”

Turley is right about that. Impeachment for partisan reasons threatens the stability of our democratic republic. The founders would be mortified.   ~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