Warren Vs. Bernie!


Liz Feels the Bern

Nothing like a hot mic to reveal the truth about these mediocre Democrat candidates!

The most memorable line from the recent DNC debate was after it ended when a hot mic caught Warren accusing Bernie Sanders of calling her a liar.

Funny coming from a woman who claimed she was Native American for years!

Here’s how it went down:

Warren; “I think you called me a liar on national TV.”

Sanders;  “You know, let’s not do it right now. If you want to have that discussion, we’ll have that discussion.”

Warren; “Anytime.”

Sanders; “You called me a liar. You told me — all right, let’s not do it now.”

Here, let me help…

YOU’RE BOTH LIARS!

Tina

Is Impeachment Always Political and Should it be Prevented?


COMMENT: I don’t believe your ECM and when the Republicans impeached Clinton this is just payback which is well deserved. They should shut your site down.

Oppressed Democrat

REPLY: Don’t worry, I have no desire to live forever. I understand that Socialists hate cycles and want to oppress everyone for their own benefits. I am in favor of splitting the country on political principles where you can live with people who think like you, free of people like me who just want to be left alone.

As for your payback, well you are wrong on that also. In the case of Clinton, the impeachment came out from the special prosecutor’s report, which this case against Trump did not. Clinton committed perjury and then tried to get his secretary to confirm his lie. Because of that “obstruction of justice,” it is true that the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives back then as the Democrats do today. However, Clinton was impeached on a bipartisan vote of 258–176 (31 Democrats joined Republicans) because this did come from the special prosecutor report. Nevertheless, I believe that was wrong anyhow.

Clinton was impeached for a crime that in a normal legal proceeding would have landed him in prison for 5 years. The grounds for impeachment were perjury to a grand jury (first article, 228–206)and obstruction of justice (third article, 221–212). I disagreed with that because I question if something ancillary to the position of president is grounds to impeach a president. The perjury was with respect to his sexual conduct. I do not believe that is grounds for impeachment.

 

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson took place on February 24, 1868. A president is supposed to be impeached only for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which in my opinion have never been articulated against Trump, Clinton, or Johnson. Anything a president does that is short of treason against the country, I believe, was never intended to be included in the high crimes and misdemeanors.

If the president was driving and failed to renew his license, that is actually a misdemeanor. Driving with a suspended license is considered a misdemeanor and can come with pretty severe consequences. Other traffic misdemeanors that are criminal in nature include driving while intoxicated or driving while impaired by drugs. In some instances, reckless driving can be considered a misdemeanor as opposed to a traffic infraction. The Founding Fathers never envisioned that there could be demands for a license and the failure to pay the fee would be a misdemeanor. That certainly is not grounds for impeachment, which begs the question — have we created way too many laws?

The primary charge against Johnson was a violation of the Tenure of Office Act, which Congress passed because they wanted to punish the South and they felt that Johnson was too soft on the Confederate states. Johnson removed from office Edwin M. Stanton, who was the Secretary of War. He was eventually replaced with General Ulysses S. Grant.

Andrew Johnson was against being hard on the South and opposed the Radical Republicans who demanded the South be punished. During the mid-term election, the Radical Republicans gained more seats and nullified any possible veto of Johnson.

Johnson was the first American president to be impeached on March 2–3, 1868, when the House simply disagreed with his policies. The trial in the Senate began three days later, with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding. The Senate failed to convict Johnson by one single vote (35–19) on May 16th. They called a 10-day recess attempting to convict him on additional articles on May 26th, but they failed to convict with the same vote.

The legal importance of the impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson went directly to the political implications for the separation of powers. Congress, as a matter of principle, abused its power in the Johnson impeachment as they are doing with Trump for the principle that Congress should not remove the president from office simply because its members disagreed with him over policy.

The abuse of the impeachment power is creating a system that is undermining the very structure of the Constitution destroying the separation of powers seeking to replace it by a government ruled by Congressional Dictatorial Government.

Consequently, the fact that you have taken the time to send this email verifies my concern that the rise of tensions will become violent for the election. This impeachment of Trump is entirely political and there can be no obstruction of justice where a president is subservient to the House of Representatives, which in and of itself has become a den of political nonsense.

I personally disagree with the power to impeach a president residing in the House of Representatives on a simple majority vote. That has clearly allowed for abuse of Congressional power, for in all cases impeachment has been used simply as a political tool because they dislike the president and/or his policies.

To me, it is an abuse of power for Pelosi to order all Democrats to vote for impeachment. That is a very dangerous precedent. I do NOT say that as a Trump supporter, but as an American with at least a legal background and 40 years of experience with politicians. The plain truth is that politicians will always act in their own self-interest, precisely as Adam Smith discovered in his invisible hand. That has led to the abuse of the impeachment power in all three cases.

Senator Ted Cruz Walks Through Likely Senate Trial Process – Holds Same Concerns as Rand Paul…


Senator Ted Cruz appears for a discussion on the Senate impeachment trial.  Cruz walks through the most likely scenario of 24 hours prosecution case (two or three days), then 24 hours of defense case (two or three days); then the individual Senators submitting questions to the Chief Justice, John Roberts, to ask both sides.   This phase of the process should take two to three weeks total.  Then the issue of “witnesses” will be debated.

.

While the first week is unfolding in the Senate, President Trump will be attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and negotiating more economic benefits for the U.S.  Quite a remarkable contrast.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Words of wisdom. Thank you Ted! https://twitter.com/sentedcruz/status/1217855192399601665 

Senator Ted Cruz

@SenTedCruz

TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: This is the beginning of the end of the abuse of the Constitution. The Senate will provide a fair trial for @realDonaldTrump. #impeachment #ArticlesOfImpeachment #ImpeachmentTrial #senate #SenateImpeachmentTrial

Embedded video

19.2K people are talking about this

Adopted yesterday by unanimous consent:

  • A Summons to the White House notifying them of the impeachment trial will be issued by the Senate and delivered by Saturday January 18th, 2020, 6:00pm,
  • The House of Representatives (impeachment managers) have a deadline of 5:00pm Saturday, January 18th, 2020, for the filing of their impeachment brief to the Senate.
  • The White House (defense lawyers) have a response deadline of 5:00pm Monday, January 20th, for their response to the House impeachment brief.
  • The House of Representatives (impeachment managers) have a deadline of Noon Tuesday, January 21st, for their rebuttal brief to the White House defense brief.
  • The Senate Trial begins at 1:00pm Eastern, Tuesday January 21st, 2020.

Senators will not be allowed to bring their cell phones or any electronic device into the Senate chamber while the trial is underway.

Alan Dershowitz Discusses His Role During President Trump Impeachment Trial…


I’m skipping any further discussion of Pam Bondi because, quite frankly, while she may be considered a member of President Trump’s team, if we are honest about her background –particularly in the Zimmerman case fraud– there’s nothing good to say.

Bondi was the Florida AG and convinced Gov. Scott to appoint a special prosecutor.  Bondi picked her campaign manager, Jacksonville state attorney, Angela Corey; who constructed a fraudulent witness against the accused. AG Pam Bondi specifically knew Witness #8 was manufactured. In ’12/’13 Pam Bondi attempted to frame a transparently innocent man.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz appears on Fox News for a discussion of his role in the upcoming senate impeachment trial of President Trump. Mr. Dershowitz states he will be presenting the constitutional argument against the entire premise for the insufferable impeachment. WATCH:

Defense Lawyers

President Trump Notes DNC Establishment Targeting Bernie Again…


The fourth quarter fundraising totals shocked the professional political class. Bernie is not only leading the polling, he’s also leading the fundraising…  Things are serious now.

Professional party Democrats pay attention to personalities and policies in a general sense; however, professional democrats pay severe attention to the money. Amid Democrat circles elitism is defined by status; and status is defined by money.

Those united party interests rolled out the Elizabeth Warren gender card in a coordinated attack.  Warren is inauthentic, and her pandering ‘wokeness’ is silly, but the limo-liberals and caviar-communists like her…. Go figure. President Trump sees the game and tweets about it: (this is the second time)

The Democrat professional party apparatus is playing with fire.  Bernie Sanders’ socialist supporters will not accept another railroading like 2016. President Trump is correct, it is fun to watch.

Trey Gowdy Discusses Impeachment Trial – President Trump Adds Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz to Defense Team…


Trey Gowdy appears on Fox to discuss the anticipated points and counterpoints, accusations and defenses, and strategy within the upcoming impeachment trial.

Today it was also announced that President Trump’s defense team added Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Ray, Pam Bondi and Jane Raskin.  Those five will join Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow who are the primary defense lawyers.

The IG Report Documentary: “FISA and Spying on Team Trump” – OAN Broadcast 7:00pm ET Tonight….


Few people have read the entire inspector general report on the FBI’s FISA misconduct, and fewer still have an understanding of the depth of troubling findings within it.  In an effort to provide information about the content, John Spiropoulos has produced a documentary going over many of the reports’ more important findings.

The exceptionally well produced documentary called “FISA, Spying on Team Trump” is an hour long broadcast created by John Spiropoulos, a former MSM journalist and producer for Channel 7 in Washington DC (1979 – 1989).  John spent a month going through every page of the report, pulling out some of the key details and overlaying information from IG Michael Horowitz congressional testimony.

The investigative report will premier tonight at 7:00pm EST / 4:00pm PST on One America News (OAN).  Here’s an exclusive preview:

.

There are new revelations within the documentary, and the report will rebroadcast on Saturday January 18th, and Sunday January 19th at 11am Eastern / 8am Pacific time.

Pelosi’s Poison Pens!


As we watched Nancy Pelosi sign the articles of impeachment, we were overcome with disgust. What was supposed to be a sad and somber affair (her words), was unnecessarily made into a pompous and grandiose spectacle. Each letter of her name was signed individually with a separate golden pen. Clearly she was enjoying herself as she attempted to aggrandize the ‘historic’ manufactured spectacle.

We know the whole impeachment charade was planned for three years. Nothing is real with the Democrats.

As I watched her, I got the impression of a black widow spider holding many of those pens at once. This cartoon immediately sprung to mind, and since I was making her into an arachnid, I decided to make Schiff as a cockroach and Nadler into a slug-like creature. Why not? After all, they are disgusting traitors who are carrying out a coup against a lawfully elected president.

Pelosi is drunk with power.

She repeatedly talked about the founding fathers and Constitution, but her words ring as hollow as her empty vodka bottle. She’s about power and money and that’s all. Her shame has now been passed onto the Senate for trial. Trump should be exonerated, and quickly.

Pelosi should be condemned, and perpetually mocked forever.

—Ben Garriso

Update on Supreme Court


QUESTION: I heard that several coin dealers conspired with the government in hopes of getting all the coins you ever had. Is that also something the Supreme Court will rule on?

GN

ANSWER: I am sure there are always people who would conspire against their own mother for a buck. I believe that one dealer bought stolen coins and then tried to sell then 20 years later. I would not say he conspired with the government, but against the government.

The government was ordered to reply by December 2nd. They asked for an extension and were granted until January 2nd. They then said they could not make that deadline and were given yet another 30 days. So they will have to respond by February 2nd, we get a reply, and then the decision to hear the case will be made in early March.

The way this works is that the government does not respond to petitions to the Supreme Court for they get thousands. They respond ONLY to cases the Supreme Court is interested in taking which the Court then orders them to respond. Central to the case is the fact that they used a civil parallel case filed after the first case and then used that to intervene and disrupt the parallel case. Judge Owen was notoriously biased. I doubt that many other judges would have done what he did.

The Supreme Court has ruled that before a single court, what they did to me, 240 employees, and my family would have been unconstitutional. So the question is really if a single court cannot act in this manner, then can the government use a parallel case to do what is illegal in a single court?

Then there are numerous Supreme Court cases they just ignored.

 

  1. Grupo Mexicano v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999)

(holding that unsecured notes cannot be frozen)

2. Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010)

(held the SEC never had jurisdiction outside the USA)

3. Luis v. United States,  136 S.Ct. 1083 (2016)

(holding that if someone is denied the use of their funds to defend themselves, the judgment is automatically vacated because it is a structural error)

These are only three of the Supreme Court decisions that have been just ignored in my case because it became political. There are several others that were also ignored.

I understand there are people who point their finger at coin dealers, others at prosecutors, others at the CIA, and still others in Japan at their own government because I was not Japanese as they are doing to the head of Nissan. I do not believe it was the CIA. It was not instigated in the USA but on letters from the Japanese government that clients there believed were an intentional error claiming there was $10 billion outstanding when it was $1 which they then corrected only after everything began.

There is plenty of blame to go around. If the Supreme Court takes the case, it will be a watershed decision that will help so many people who are being abused by the SEC and CFTC. The Grupo decision clearly states that the equitable power of a federal court is confined to the known remedies as they stood in 1789 without statutory authority. The SEC never had any statutory authority to even create a receiver until 2010 when Congress finally granted that authority. So there was never any authority for a receiver either back in 1999.

If the Supreme Court takes the case, and they just affirm their prior decisions, the outcome will be very interesting. Even HSBC, who I believe conspired with the government to steal $400 million of profit in the notes, may find themselves liable for all the funds lost by 240 employees. Anyone else who conspired with the government may suddenly find themselves on the opposite side of the table which may include the receiver and his law firm.

Let’s see what happens

Chaff and Countermeasures? – Timed During Impeachment, Another Report of Former FBI Director James Comey Under Investigation…


Another New York Times report of James Comey under investigation for unscrupulous, potentially illegal, leaks surrounding the FBI Clinton investigation. However, a note of caution: is this simply chaff and countermeasures intended to keep the heat off corruption monitors Bill Barr and John Durham?

In 2018 congressman Jim Jordan noted James Comey had a special employee on assignment ‘off-the-books’.  People started asking questions and Fox News Catherine Herridge detailed how Daniel Richman held special access privileges to the FBI, as an outcome of former FBI Director James Comey authorizing his friend as a “Special Government Employee” or SGE.

According to The Times the current issues surround media leaks from James Comey to his “special FBI employee” friend Daniel Richman related to the Clinton investigation:

(VIA NYT) […] The latest investigation involves material that Dutch intelligence operatives siphoned off Russian computers and provided to the United States government. The information included a Russian analysis of what appeared to be an email exchange during the 2016 presidential campaign between Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida who was also the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee at the time, and Leonard Benardo, an official with the Open Society Foundations, a democracy-promoting organization whose founder, George Soros, has long been a target of the far right.

In the email, Ms. Wasserman Schultz suggested that then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch would make sure that Mrs. Clinton would not be prosecuted in the email case. Both Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Benardo have denied being in contact, suggesting the document was meant to be Russian disinformation.

That document was one of the key factors that drove Mr. Comey to hold a news conference in July 2016 announcing that investigators would recommend no charges against Mrs. Clinton. Typically, senior Justice Department officials would decide how to proceed in such a high-profile case, but Mr. Comey was concerned that if Ms. Lynch played a central role in deciding whether to charge Mrs. Clinton, Russia could leak the email.

Whether the document was fake remains an open question. But American officials at the time did not believe that Ms. Lynch would hinder the Clinton email investigation, and neither Ms. Wasserman Schultz nor Mr. Benardo had any inside information about it. Still, if the Russians had released the information after the inquiry was closed, it could have tainted the outcome, hurt public confidence in the Justice Department and sowed discord.

Prosecutors are also looking at whether Mr. Richman might have played a role in providing the information to reporters about the Russia document and how it figured into Mr. Comey’s rationale about the news conference, according to the people familiar with the investigation. Mr. Comey hired Mr. Richman at one point to consult for the F.B.I. about encryption and other complex legal issues, and investigators have expressed interest in how he operated. (read more)

People are rightly skeptical of this latest report as all prior reports of Comey misconduct have been summarily dismissed by current DOJ corruption monitors.

Sharyl Attkisson🕵️‍♂️

@SharylAttkisson

I’m not sure why they should bother. The IG referred Comey for charges already and @TheJusticeDept gave him a pass, finding he meant no harm. Why would this be different? https://twitter.com/adamgoldmanNYT/status/1217933267493625866 

Adam Goldman

@adamgoldmanNYT

NEWS: The case is the second time the Justice Department has investigated leaks potentially involving Mr. Comey, a frequent target of President Trump, who has repeatedly called him a “leaker.” https://nyti.ms/2uU6edT 

456 people are talking about this

What Sharyl Attkisson references is the IG referrals to no-where from the prior IG Report on James Comey.  The IG found serious issues with the way James Comey hid information and obstructed the FBI investigation of his memos.  Again another series of leaks to his friend, and special FBI employee, Daniel Richman.  However, the DOJ failed to take any action on those referrals…. so why would this be any different?

There was absolutely no doubt James Comey used his memos akin to FD-302 investigative reports from an FBI agent. Meaning, from beginning-to-end he considered himself an investigative agent against the President-elect and then President Trump.

Note: His recording of his encounter with the target, President-elect Trump should be “treated like FISA derived information in a counterintelligence investigation.” During this January 6th operation, Comey was the active FBI agent gathering evidence for later use. The collected intelligence would be shared with the team via memo #1.

Every encounter, and every aspect of every action within that encounter, was conducted in what Comey perceived as an official investigative capacity.

President Trump was the target of Comey’s operations and he wrote his memos as investigative notes therein. Example: Comey ran the January 6th, 2017, operation:

So the “small group”: Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Baker, Priestap, Rybicki, et al, were running a counterintelligence operation against the incoming administration.

There are parts of the IG report highlighting a stunning amount of self-interest.

Example: Who made the decision(s) about what “was” or what “was not” classified? Or, put another way: who was making the internal decisions about Comey’s exposure to legal risk for sharing his investigative notes (memos) outside the department?

The answer is the same “small group” who were carrying out the operation:

James Baker, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, James Rybicki and Lisa Page were determining what parts of James Comey’s investigative notes needed to be classified.

The corrupt FBI was in position to police itself. This is not a conflict of interest, it is better described as a profound conflict of self-interest.

The information the ‘small group‘ wanted to use to frame the target would be visible, not classified; however, any material that would outline the construct of their corruption in targeting the target would be hidden, classified. You can’t make this stuff up folks.

The “small group” WAS the sources and methods they were protecting.

Everything needed to understand that level of corruption is outlined in the way the IG report discusses the handling of James Comey’s investigative notes (ie. memos). AND the fact that James Comey kept them hidden, yes hidden. Read this stuff!

First, “no hard copies of any of the memos were found in Comey’s FBI office.”:

So, if the memos were not held in Director James Comey’s official FBI office, the next logical question is where were they?

Well, when Special Agents went to James Comey’s house, he still kept them hidden and never informed the agents:

If Mr. Altruism, James Comey, was simply fulfilling the duty of a concerned and dedicated FBI Director, why not tell the FBI agents -picking up FBI records- that he had copies of FBI investigative notes in his “personal safe” while they were there?

What honorable justification exists for keeping them hidden from valid investigators?

Obviously me, you and God are not the only ones able to see the sketchy nature of this construct. In fact, an internal FBI whistleblower came forward soon after that search of Comey’s home to request official “whistleblower status protection” from the IG.

Think logically…. What would prompt someone inside the FBI; who at some point gained access to the Comey memos; to request ‘whistleblower protected status’?

Doesn’t the “whistleblower request” indicate the requesting FBI official saw something nefarious in the way this was all going down?

Who was that ‘whistleblower’?

Well, first, Captain Obvious would tell you it has to be someone who actually gained possession of those memos right?…. this is not a big group. Second, you only need to read a few more pages of the IG report to see who it was:

The “whistleblower” was the Supervisory Special Agent described in page 38 as above.

The memos were “stored” in a “reception area“, and in locked drawers in James Rybicki’s office. [“Drawer safes” are silly FBI legal terms for fancy locked drawers] Also note…

Reception area“? “May 15th“?

May 10th, no-one knows where the memos are.  May 12th the FBI goes to James Comey’s House; again no mention of the memos he was keeping there.  Then all of a sudden, poof, May 15th and the memos are in the FBI “reception area”?

First, apparently no-one wanted to be the one holding the hot potato of investigative evidence (Comey memos); that ownership would outline them as participatory members in carrying out the targeting of then President Trump.

Oh, yeah, those investigative notes were not in “the office of the FBI Director” on May 10th, when you were here searching the last time,… for some mysterious reason.. they, uh,… well, they were discovered… May 15th in the “reception area“… yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket! Right under the four month old copy of People Magazine, n’ stuff.

….ARE YOU FRIGGIN’ KIDDING ME WITH THIS?

…AND secondly, the very next morning, GUESS what happened?…

Now we see why the FBI Supervisory Special Agent in charge in charge of inventorying Comey records asked the IG for official “whistleblower status.”

The SSA agent was surrounded by sketchy warning flares right there in the FBI executive suites.  May 10th, no memos; May 12th, Comey house, no memos; May 15th the memo’s mysteriously appear; and the next day Comey is taking pictures of the memos and sending them to his BFF Daniel Richman to send to the New York Times.

Of course the FBI SSA gave the Inspector General the seven memos, asked for whistle-blower protection, and likely told the IG the way they were produced stinks to high heaven. Good grief.  And the media can’t see this?

And U.S. Attorney Bill Barr can’t clearly see this?

And we can?

C’mon Man!

With that in mind, is this latest leak about yet another Comey investigation simply an effort by the DOJ to deflect and isolate themselves from anger and frustration while President Trump is going through an impeachment trial?

Given the history, the possibility cannot easily be dismissed.