Month: January 2020

Collins, Alexander prove that fix has been in all along on Trump’s impeachment trial

Posted on by Joan McCarter

There will almost certainly not be a 50-50 tie in the Senate impeachment trial on whether to have additional witnesses and documents. Sen. Susan Collins, almost immediately following the closing of Thursday night's session, showed that she'd been given the "hall pass" from McConnell to vote "yes" on witnesses. In a three-paragraph statement that was probably written before the trial even began.

Moments after Collins’ statement, as if it were totally choreographed to try to make her look like the hero, Sen. Lamar Alexander announced that he is a "no" because "there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the U.S. Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense." He goes on to say essentially, yes Trump definitely did it, but we don't need to impeach him over it.

If, as expected, Sen. Mitt Romney votes for witnesses, that leaves just Sen. Lisa Murkowski as an unknown. She’s said she's thinking on it. That's most likely false, because the main thing has been trying to give Collins cover, and McConnell is not going to allow Chief Justice Roberts being in the position of having to decide whether or not to break a tie.

We have to end their hold on the Senate. Please give $1 to our nominee fund to help Democrats and end McConnell's career as majority leader.

Roberts Not Allowing Rand Paul’s Question About Whistleblower Is Ruffling Feathers

Posted on by Wayne Dupree

Chief Justice John Roberts isn’t merely a disappointment. He is part of the cabalist infrastructure.

Roberts, who is presiding over President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, has rejected questions from Sen. Rand Paul on a few occasions and gone to the Democrats and asked theirs. Paul let it be known he wanted to know about the whistleblower and if that individual would ever be called as a witness, but Roberts has decided to shelve that opportunity.

Why do you think Justice Roberts denies the president the opportunity to confront his accuser? Why does he deny the Senator’s right to freedom of speech? There is no legal nor constitutional guarantee or even offer of anonymity for a whistleblower. There is no credible fear of death or physical harm; after all, he did not blow the whistle on a Clinton.

MORE NEWS: Dave Chappelle: “I Don’t Look at Trump Supporters as My Enemy”

Beginning but not ending with his handling of the FISA court and the appointments thereto, the next impeachment should be his. Justice Roberts’ behavior saddens me, but not surprised. He has been suspect since the Obamacare trial.

None of this corruption in Washington would ever have seen the light of day if it were not for Donald Trump. The exposure of the fraud and treasonous behavior within the government itself and the complicit media will make him the single most important person in American history if the country is to go forward as it was founded.

There are some things we need to keep in mind?

MORE NEWS: 2020 Dem Michael Bloomberg Will Run $10 Million Gun Control Ad During Super Bowl

First, Chief Justice Roberts is the reason Obamacare initially survived in the Supreme Court when during the eleventh hour and 59th minute, he switched sides. It was so late in the process that Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion ends with the following words: “I respectfully dissent.” The only problem is that when you file a concurring opinion, you are not dissenting. What happened? Justice Ginsburg wrote her opinion when she thought she would be in a 5-4 minority.

Second, in my opinion, there is absolutely no legal basis for Chief Justice Roberts to refuse Paul’s question. The question is far more relevant than other questions that have been posited by the Chief Justice. Also, there was nothing in the question that identified the whistleblower as Eric Ciaramella or any other person.

Third, even if somebody wants to argue that the question “outs” the whistleblower, that is not a basis for Chief Justice Roberts to not read the question. Nowhere in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended (“ICWPA”), which amended the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978, is anonymity even mentioned. On October 10, 2012, President Barack Obama issued Presidential Policy Directive 19, which provided specific whistleblower protections. Nothing in this directive provided anonymity for an intelligence community whistleblower; the directive prohibited retaliation against a whistleblower.

MORE NEWS: Fox Refuses To Air Super Bowl Ad About Abortion Survivors – Greenlights Commercial Featuring Drag Queens

The Inspector General Act of 1978 prohibits the inspector general from releasing the name of a complainant, but this applies to no one else. Under the statutory framework, whistleblowers are granted certain rights against retaliation or reprisal in the workplace. In other words, they cannot be demoted, transferred, fired, or otherwise penalized for filing a complaint that meets the statutory whistleblower requirements. However, identity protection is neither provided for nor contemplated, anywhere in the statutory language.

Senator Paul should submit another question about Ciaramella, and when Roberts refuses to read it, object, and demand a count of Senators willing to overrule Roberts. It’s time to find out how many Senators believe that the accused has the right to face his accuser!

Sections 7(B) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 “provides for the identity of an employee making a complaint, such as a whistleblower, to remain undisclosed to the extent practicable: “The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the investigation,” according to FactCheck.org.

Since Senator Paul is not the Inspector General (and neither am I), he is not precluded (and neither am I) from releasing the name of Ciaramella as the whistleblower.

More Stories From WayneDupree.com

 

The post Roberts Not Allowing Rand Paul’s Question About Whistleblower Is Ruffling Feathers appeared first on The Political Insider.

Trump Taunts Dems and Shrugs Off Impeachment at Iowa Rally

Posted on by Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

Trump Taunts Dems and Shrugs Off Impeachment at Iowa RallyDES MOINES, Iowa—On a cold night in Iowa, thousands packed into an arena as Donald Trump kicked off a rally warning against “radical, socialist Democrats right down the street.” “We are going to win the great state of Iowa. It will be a historic landslide,” he said. “If we do not win, your farms are going to hell, I can tell you that right now!”And so it went, as his potential Democratic rivals headed into the crucial last days of the Iowa primary campaign, Trump kicked back and let loose in a trademark freewheeling rally—blending some of his recent accomplishments, like the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, with greatest hits like the 2016 elections and tales of murderous illegal immigrants—while complaining about the impeachment trial that was underway as he spoke. While he name-checked the four Democrats who are currently leading the polls in Iowa—“Crazy Bernie” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT),  “Pocahontas” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and “Boot-Edge-Edge” former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg—he repeatedly took aim at former Vice President Joe Biden, returning several times to question his mental acuity. First, Trump slammed Biden for confusing Iowa and Ohio—a mistake he made in November 2019.“He always gets the name wrong,” Trump said. “How many times has he missed it. He is in Iowa, he says, great to be in the great state of Ohio. They say, Joe, you are in Iowa. You cannot do that. No matter how great you speak. If you are Winston Churchill, if you make that mistake at the beginning of your speech, it is over.” Motioning to the cameras, he added, “They will absolutely destroy you. You cannot do that. Sleepy Joe.” Later he returned to Biden again, declaring that it is “over” for the former vice president. “Sleepy Joe doesn't even know what he is talking about. Honestly, that poor guy is so lost. It was over for him a long time ago,” Trump said at one point.  “Now it's really over.” Trump’s comments come as the impeachment trial centered on his pressure campaign in Ukraine gears up for a pivotal vote on whether or not to allow additional witnesses to testify. For most of the rally, Trump seemed to be directing his supporters’ attention anywhere but there. To the extent there was a theme, it was to warn against the socialist policies that his competitors would implement if elected.  “The good people of Iowa have had a front row seat to the lunacy and the madness of the totally sick left,” Trump said, before launching once again into a litany of predictions about all the things Democrats would take away should they rise back into power. Trump touched only momentarily on impeachment, but expressed confidence in the outcome. “No, that will not work,” he said. “Watch. Just watch.”Dems Fed Up With GOP’s Refusal to Budge on Impeachment: ‘It’s More Than Frustrating—It's Pathetic’Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.


Posted in Uncategorized