“Both in front of the cameras and behind closed doors, Republican Sen. Mitt Romney (UT) has embraced the role of leader of the Senate resistance to the party line on impeachment witnesses — and some of his colleagues are making brutally clear how they feel about it.
In a private lunch with fellow Senate Republicans Monday, the frequent critic of President Trump reportedly “made a strong pitch” for calling additional witnesses for the Senate trial, according to Politico’s sources.
In addition to trying to convince fellow Republicans to defect behind the scenes, Romney is going public with his plea. “The article in the New York Times I think made it pretty clear that [Bolton] has some information that may be relevant,” he said Monday, as reported by Politico. “And I’d like to hear relevant information before I made a final decision.”
———-
“Despite his public optimism about winning the witness argument, as Politico notes, the three moderate senators’ appeals seem to be going “nowhere,” and multiple Republican Senators have come forward to push back on Romney’s case for calling witnesses.”
“Sen. Graham: ‘I’ll Make a Prediction: They’ll be 51 Republican Votes to Call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the Whistleblower, and the DNC Staffer’
You want to open Pandora’s Box, Democrats?”
“Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) threw some cold water on the Democrats just moments before day eight of the impeachment trial.
The Democrats desperately want witnesses in the trial, but they seem to forget the Senate has two sides.”
Sen. @LindseyGrahamSC on witnesses: "I'll make a prediction; they'll be 51 Republican votes to call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the whistleblower and the DNC staffer at a very minimum." pic.twitter.com/jpoJIfzg7k
“New Scalia Rising? Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch warns judicial activists he’s coming for them”
“Is the era of Big Judicial Activism over?
It might just be. Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch, in a ruling about denying green cards to migrants who come here to be “public charges,” something that’s plainly laid out in U.S. law as illegal, threw in a special warning to activist judges, all leftists, who have been beavering away to rule from the bench, warning them that he’s tired of their shenanigans. It’s a spectacle to behold — a big lion on the Supreme Court who not only cares about rule of law, but is now warning the leftists out there that he’s coming for them.
Here’s PJMedia’s report:
In addition to the 5-4 decision allowing the rule to go into effect, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion rebuking activist judges and their rush to apply “nationwide injunctions” against Trump administration policies.
“Today the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the government to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois. But, in light of all that’s come before, it would be delusional to think that one stay today suffices to remedy the problem. The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw — they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” Gorsuch wrote.
These details from the Wall Street Journal are important, too:
His concurrence, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, is a much-needed rebuke to what he calls “the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw — they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case.”
Love the use of the word “cosmic” to describe this judicial overreach. Kudos also to Justice Clarence Thomas, who has been laboring on this for decades.
Translation: Back off. You are a problem. You will be overruled.
The story here is that a new big lion has roared, and all the little judicial activist rats out there who have been scurrying hard to block President Trump’s bid to do what the voters asked of him are now being read the Riot Act.”
“A Long Island judge intentionally ignored the state’s controversial bail-reform law and refused to release a defendant he deemed a “menace to society,” The Post has learned.
Nassau County District Judge David McAndrews admitted in court that accused two-time bank robber Romell Nellis wasn’t charged with a “bondable or bail offense” — but still ordered him held on $10,000 cash or $20,000 bond.
“I don’t want you walking around my neighborhood,” McAndrews told Nellis, according to a transcript of the Jan. 9 hearing in Hempstead.
But McAndrew’s principled stand was short-lived, as a higher-level judge promptly reversed his order and released Nellis with an ankle monitor — only to have him cut it off and disappear.
The situation has local law-enforcement officials outraged, with Nassau Police Commissioner Patrick Ryder saying of Nellis, “He’s out there, somewhere, able to commit another crime.”
“It’s insane, when you think who we’re letting out of jail. It has nothing to do with justice reform,” Ryder said. “We’re not protecting the victims, and we’ve swung the pendulum way too far.”
Nellis, 40, was busted Jan. 8 over two bank heists in which he allegedly handed tellers notes that said, “I have a gun!” and demanded “$100s, 50s & 20s.”
The homeless ex-con made off with a total haul of nearly $9,500 from the Dec. 17 caper in West Hempstead and a Dec. 30 heist in Valley Stream, court papers allege.
At the time of the robberies, Nellis was facing sentencing in Central Islip federal court after admitting he violated his supervised release in a 2012 crack-trafficking case for which he served a seven-year prison term.”
“Potential Avenatti Jurors Dismissed After Calling Accused Lawyer A ‘Notorious Scumbag,’ Liar, Cheater”
“Celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti’s trial for allegedly extorting multi-billion dollar shoe company, Nike, is set to begin in New York, but attorneys are reportedly having a very difficult time finding a jury.
The jurors were given a questionnaire ahead of official voir dire in order to narrow down the potential jury pool, making actually impaneling a jury a less onerous task for both the prosecution and defense. ‘The questionnaire asked jurors if they have heard anything regarding Avenatti and the charges against him. It also asked if they could put whatever they’ve heard aside and decide the case fairly,” NBC News New York reported.
The answers given by some members of the jury pool were enlightening.
The New York Post reports that potential jurors are being excused left and right for lobbing pointed insults at Stormy Daniels’ former attorney, calling Avenatti a “scumbag,” a “liar,” and a “cheat.”
“Michael Avenatti is a notorious scumbag who is willing to do anything, including lie and cheat in order to enrich himself and gain public attention,” wrote one possible juror. “He should already be in prison.”
“The last time Republicans held a majority on this state’s Supreme Court was in the 1920s. Its Court of Appeals has never had a Republican majority.
The last time Republicans held a majority in both houses of the state Legislature at the same time was 1930. In the 89 years from 1931 to the present, Democrats have held a majority of both houses of the state Legislature for 79 of the 89 years.
Since 1931, Democrats have held the governor’s office for 69 of the 89 years. Even when a Republican has been governor, his powers have been greatly limited because he has never held a majority in both houses of the state legislature while in office.
What state am I?
If you guessed CA, IL, NY, NJ, or MA, you’re wrong. If you guessed NM, go to the head of the class. Since 1931, no other state has had single-party Dem rule at the state level as long as New Mexico. And how has New Mexico fared under the stewardship of single party Democrat rule? As we shall see, not so well.
EDUCATION: By all accounts, New Mexico has one of the worst, if not the worst, K–12 public education system in the country. It is a system that spends vast sums of money but has little or no accountability for the students, teachers, administrators, parents, or elected officials. Here are the sobering stats. It has recently been rated as the worst state public school system in the country. Among the country’s 11,850 school districts, only one from New Mexico, Los Alamos, is rated in the top 1,000. A charity named the New Mexico Coalition for Literacy estimates that an astonishing 46% of the adults in the state are functional illiterates.
Sadly, the state university system is little better. It is an example of quantity over quality. Despite its small population of 2.1 million, New Mexico has a staggering seven state-funded colleges and universities that grant four-year degrees. In contrast, neighboring Arizona with a population of 7.3 million has three. Not a single college or university in New Mexico is ranked in the nation’s top 500.
CRIME: New Mexico is a dangerous place to live, and a lot of judges are reluctant to lock up criminals. It is #1 in the country for per capita property crime and #2 for violent crime. Albuquerque, by far the state’s largest city, has the dubious distinction of a #1 ranking for auto thefts in the entire nation. Don’t expect the Chamber of Commerce or the Department of Tourism to brag about the fact that Albuquerque is ranked as the 12th most dangerous city in the U.S. Expect Albuquerque to move up on the list, as it just had a record number of homicides in 2019.
JOBS/ECONOMY: New Mexico survives financially because it receives enormous sums of money from two sources: the federal government and the oil and natural gas industry. The federal government has spent a gigantic amount of money in the state since the 1940s, with the development of the bomb and all the defense spending that came afterwards. The state also receives millions of dollars each year from oil and gas revenues, especially from leases of state land. With the fracking revolution going on in the Permian Basin in southeast New Mexico, the state is swimming in tax revenues and has a large budget surplus.
Despite all the mentioned revenue and the production bonanza in the Permian Basin, New Mexico has one of the worst job markets in the country. It has the fourth highest unemployment rate of any state. It’s the second hardest state in the country in which to find full-time employment. As one would expect of a state that has had single-party Dem rule for nearly 90 years, the state is teeming with public-sector employees and has the third highest percentage of public-sector workers in the country. The national average for public sector workers is 15.1%, while New Mexico has 22.2%. In other words, New Mexico has 47% more public sector workers than the national average. Not surprisingly, New Mexico is more dependent on federal spending than any other state and receives more in per capita federal spending than all but two states.
POVERTY: Poverty among adults is usually associated with low education levels, and poverty among children is usually associated with being raised in a single-parent home. New Mexico has lots of both. As of November 2019, New Mexico had 827,269 persons receiving Medicaid, or 39% of the population and 223,116 persons receiving SNAP benefits, or 11% of the state’s population. Despite the enormous amount of federal spending, oil and natural gas riches, and some of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world, New Mexico is considered to be the third poorest state in the nation.”
“Bolton and the Consequences of the Destruction of Executive Privilege”
“Fred Fleitz, a former deputy to John Bolton, the national security advisor President Trump fired in September 2019, over the weekend published an opinion piece explaining the dangers of his former boss’s anticipated tell-all book.
“Given the importance of protecting a president’s confidential discussions with his senior advisers,” Fleitz wrote, “I strongly disagree with Bolton’s decision to release the book before the November presidential election and call on him to withdraw it from the publisher immediately.”
Bolton is just the latest example of former advisors cravenly monetizing the confidential access to a president.
Fleitz represents what seems to be the last gasp of a legal tradition that is vital to our constitutional self-government. The consequences of this ongoing assault on presidential privileges will be catastrophic not only to the security of our Republic but also to self-government.
In 1974, the Supreme Court upheld the necessity of executive privilege, writing:
The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of his conversations and correspondence, like the claim of confidentiality of judicial deliberations, for example, has all the values to which we accord deference for the privacy of all citizens and, added to those values, is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decisionmaking. A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions, and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications. The privilege is fundamental to the operation of Government, and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.
The get-Trump forces have assaulted cherished traditions of executive and attorney-client privileges over the last three years, including the savaging of President Trump’s privileged communication with his private attorney Michael Cohen, the public disclosure of the call records of Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani, the public disclosure of confidential communications with the heads of state of Mexico and Australia, the lawless confiscation of private communications of Trump’s transition team, the leaks of private conversations with the head of the FBI, the leaks of Trump’s national security advisor’s communication with the Russian ambassador, and the leak of Trump’s confidential communication with the Ukrainian ambassador, just to name a few such violations.
The damage the get-Trump forces are doing is not limited to Trump personally. These lawless vigilantes are blinding all future presidents from advice and communication vital to the office. Further, they have chilled cooperation between future presidents and legitimate law enforcement inquiries into public corruption.”
Warren doesn’t understand the law. My former colleague, Senator Warren, claims she could not follow my carefully laid out presentation that everybody else seemed to understand. This says more about Warren than it does about me. (1 of 2)
She also willfully mischaracterized what I said, claiming that I spoke about “intent.” I challenge her to find that word anywhere in my presentation. I talked about the difficulty of discerning mixed motives. (2 of 3
(3 OF 3) If Warren knew anything about criminal law she would understand the distinction between motives – which are not elements of crime—and intent, which is. It’s the responsibility of presidential candidates to have a better understanding of the law.
I thought Glenn Beck made a good case this morning for letting Bolton testify. Bolton’s book will come out anyway. If he doesn’t testify, when the book comes out the press will tout anything negative he says about Trump as unchallenged fact. Democrats will have more ammunition to de-legitimize the impeachment trial in public opinion as a whitewash job by the Republican Senate.
On the other hand, if Bolton does testify, the Senate gets to challenge him and exploit any weaknesses in his testimony. And they’ll clear Trump in the end anyway.
Kevin: “…the press will tout anything negative he says about Trump as unchallenged fact.” They’ll keep doing that anyway, whether it’s Bolton or whoever the next character is. They will simply continue with unfounded accusations and hoaxes (usually to cover up their own malfeasance or criminal activity). It will never stop. It would be far better for Republicans to protect executive privilege, and just keep emphasizing what is actually true.
The only positive with witnesses is if they could get the Bidens to testify, and also the fake whistleblower, who was also involved in fake Russia collusion (inc. claiming that the Russians pressured Pres. Trump to fire Comey). It’s pretty clear why Dems don’t want any of them to testify…
Exactly. They aren’t looking for facts. They’re looking for soundbites to bash the president with come the race to Nov. That’s all it’s about at this point. They have no hope of ever getting to 2/3 for removal. This is all just posturing.
The White House says it contains classified info and can’t be published until scrubbed. And even then, the president still rightly and legally has the opportunity to claim executive privilege, and then it goes to court. Something the House should have already done, but they have an election to influence, so they just didn’t. Now they expect the Senate to supplement their shoddy work?
Um…. no.
The Senate job is to vote based upon the convictions (2) already sent by the House, not retry it with new info. This is garbage.
The book is a long way off either way. They should have just waited til after the election, but at that point no one would care, or buy Bolton’s book. But that’s as it should be.
White House seeks to block publication of Bolton’s book, demands classified info be removed first
And the letter came before the Bolton story broke, so this isn’t a reaction to that on the president’s part. However the leak is probably a response from Bolton and his publishers after they were told to delay publication. This is what’s known as playing politics, and criminally leaking to do so. Again. Just like Comey.
“In a letter to former national security adviser John Bolton’s attorney, the White House said Bolton’s upcoming book contains classified information that must be removed before it can be published.
The letter to Bolton lawyer Charles Cooper dated Jan. 23, a National Security Council aide wrote, “Based on our preliminary review, the manuscript appears to contain significant amounts of classified information. It also appears that some of this classified information is at the top secret level.”
“The manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information,” added Ellen Knight, NSC senior director for records, access, and information security management.
That letter was written days before The New York Times reported that according to a manuscript of Bolton’s book, President Donald Trump told Bolton in August that nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine would not be released until the country provided all of the information it had in connection to the investigations of Democrats the president sought. The manuscript has not been seen by NBC News.
That reported conversation between the two men contradicts the president’s impeachment defense, as Trump and allies have said the hold on military aid and investigations were not linked. Trump said he “NEVER” had such a conversation with Bolton.”
“Bolton’s Manuscript Lands in NYT Three Days After NSC Warns Bolton Book has ‘Significant Amount of Classified Information’
I don’t believe in coincidences when it comes to politics.”
“Questions have surfaced over who leaked the manuscript of John Bolton’s book. How did it get out? Gee, why would it come out now?
The Washington Examiner Chief Political Correspondent Byron York found something interesting in the timeline.”
So: Bolton lawyer discusses book clearance with NSC on Jan 22. On Jan 23, NSC informs Bolton side in writing that book had 'significant amounts' of classified info. Then, amazingly enough, story gets to NYT, which publishes scoop on Jan 26. https://t.co/0yipjoB0S2
“The manuscript did not contain a little classified information. Bolton put in “significant amounts of classified information.” Not only that, but some of that classified information has the TOP SECRET label.
So who leaked it to The New York Times? Obviously, with that many markups, it would take longer to edit, which means a pushed back publish date.
Bolton? Another member of the NSC? One of the guys who reviewed the book for classified information?”
Very obvious Senate Democrats coordinated with Democrat impeachment managers on what questions would be asked. They have video responses ready to go and their managers are reading from sheets of paper. Remember when the outrage was over McConnell coordinating with the WH?
The best way to sum up this whole debacle is to understand that Senator Schumer’s desire for Lev Parnas to attend the Senate trial apparently cannot be accommodated because Mr. Parnas has an electronic ankle bracelet imposed upon him by the court. You can’t make this up.
There’s a ZERO percent chance Adam Schiff doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower.
How does he lie so easily? It’s really quite remarkable. He’s prosecuting the Pres of the United States in front of the Chief Justice & these lies just keep flowing right out of his mouth.
We already know what Bolton thought of this as well.
He’s already told us his story. In his own words……
Adam Schiff: "Ask John Bolton."
John Bolton in 2019: @realDonaldTrump's phone calls with President Zelensky were "very warm and cordial… the success of Ukraine … [maintaining] a free market economy free of corruption … is high priorit[y] of the US" pic.twitter.com/w6lAuDCKmR
“IT’S TIME TO PULL THE PLUG ON THE IMPEACHMENT FARCE
Mitch McConnell set up the rules for the Senate’s current impeachment hearing so that there would be an early vote on whether to call witnesses, or simply proceed to an up or down vote on impeachment. Either way, the result is foreordained, just as the impeachment process itself was foreordained when the Democrats captured the House in 2018. The president will be exonerated.
The vote on whether to proceed with witnesses apparently will take place on Friday. I assume that McConnell thought it would be easy to get 51 votes in favor of terminating the Senate proceeding, but John Bolton’s ill-timed and ill-advised tell-all book has thrown a monkey wrench into that plan. The White House has gone after Bolton, entirely appropriately, in my view, as with President Trump’s tweets:”
Wandering Views 
Push back for the disloyal Romney.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/mitt-romney-makes-strong-push-on-impeachment-witnesses-behind-closed-doors-colleagues-push-back
“Both in front of the cameras and behind closed doors, Republican Sen. Mitt Romney (UT) has embraced the role of leader of the Senate resistance to the party line on impeachment witnesses — and some of his colleagues are making brutally clear how they feel about it.
In a private lunch with fellow Senate Republicans Monday, the frequent critic of President Trump reportedly “made a strong pitch” for calling additional witnesses for the Senate trial, according to Politico’s sources.
In addition to trying to convince fellow Republicans to defect behind the scenes, Romney is going public with his plea. “The article in the New York Times I think made it pretty clear that [Bolton] has some information that may be relevant,” he said Monday, as reported by Politico. “And I’d like to hear relevant information before I made a final decision.”
———-
“Despite his public optimism about winning the witness argument, as Politico notes, the three moderate senators’ appeals seem to be going “nowhere,” and multiple Republican Senators have come forward to push back on Romney’s case for calling witnesses.”
LikeLike
Graham remains confident.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/01/sen-graham-you-want-witnesses-well-give-you-witnesses/
“Sen. Graham: ‘I’ll Make a Prediction: They’ll be 51 Republican Votes to Call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the Whistleblower, and the DNC Staffer’
You want to open Pandora’s Box, Democrats?”
“Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) threw some cold water on the Democrats just moments before day eight of the impeachment trial.
The Democrats desperately want witnesses in the trial, but they seem to forget the Senate has two sides.”
LikeLike
The only thing they’ve been right about.
————-
LikeLike
Journos must protect their precious Democrats.
————-
LikeLike
Thank you President Trump. These picks to the court will pay dividends long after your 8 years are up. 🙂
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/new_scala_rising_supreme_court_justice_neil_gorsuch_warns_judicial_activists_that_hes_coming_for_them_.html
“New Scalia Rising? Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch warns judicial activists he’s coming for them”
“Is the era of Big Judicial Activism over?
It might just be. Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch, in a ruling about denying green cards to migrants who come here to be “public charges,” something that’s plainly laid out in U.S. law as illegal, threw in a special warning to activist judges, all leftists, who have been beavering away to rule from the bench, warning them that he’s tired of their shenanigans. It’s a spectacle to behold — a big lion on the Supreme Court who not only cares about rule of law, but is now warning the leftists out there that he’s coming for them.
Here’s PJMedia’s report:
In addition to the 5-4 decision allowing the rule to go into effect, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion rebuking activist judges and their rush to apply “nationwide injunctions” against Trump administration policies.
“Today the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the government to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois. But, in light of all that’s come before, it would be delusional to think that one stay today suffices to remedy the problem. The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw — they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” Gorsuch wrote.
These details from the Wall Street Journal are important, too:
His concurrence, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, is a much-needed rebuke to what he calls “the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw — they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case.”
Love the use of the word “cosmic” to describe this judicial overreach. Kudos also to Justice Clarence Thomas, who has been laboring on this for decades.
Translation: Back off. You are a problem. You will be overruled.
The story here is that a new big lion has roared, and all the little judicial activist rats out there who have been scurrying hard to block President Trump’s bid to do what the voters asked of him are now being read the Riot Act.”
LikeLike
So how’s that bail reform workin’ out there NY?
https://nypost.com/2020/01/28/long-island-judge-ignores-bail-law-refuses-release-of-menace-to-society/
“A Long Island judge intentionally ignored the state’s controversial bail-reform law and refused to release a defendant he deemed a “menace to society,” The Post has learned.
Nassau County District Judge David McAndrews admitted in court that accused two-time bank robber Romell Nellis wasn’t charged with a “bondable or bail offense” — but still ordered him held on $10,000 cash or $20,000 bond.
“I don’t want you walking around my neighborhood,” McAndrews told Nellis, according to a transcript of the Jan. 9 hearing in Hempstead.
But McAndrew’s principled stand was short-lived, as a higher-level judge promptly reversed his order and released Nellis with an ankle monitor — only to have him cut it off and disappear.
The situation has local law-enforcement officials outraged, with Nassau Police Commissioner Patrick Ryder saying of Nellis, “He’s out there, somewhere, able to commit another crime.”
“It’s insane, when you think who we’re letting out of jail. It has nothing to do with justice reform,” Ryder said. “We’re not protecting the victims, and we’ve swung the pendulum way too far.”
Nellis, 40, was busted Jan. 8 over two bank heists in which he allegedly handed tellers notes that said, “I have a gun!” and demanded “$100s, 50s & 20s.”
The homeless ex-con made off with a total haul of nearly $9,500 from the Dec. 17 caper in West Hempstead and a Dec. 30 heist in Valley Stream, court papers allege.
At the time of the robberies, Nellis was facing sentencing in Central Islip federal court after admitting he violated his supervised release in a 2012 crack-trafficking case for which he served a seven-year prison term.”
LikeLike
Here’s a novel way to get out of jury duty.
Speak the truth, poof…… you’re gone, home by lunch. 🙂
This joins yelling out “Oh yeah, he looks like a criminal” when the defendant walks in as the best way to be shown the door.
Note it was plural.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/potential-avenatti-jurors-dismissed-after-calling-accused-lawyer-a-notorious-scumbag-liar-cheater
“Potential Avenatti Jurors Dismissed After Calling Accused Lawyer A ‘Notorious Scumbag,’ Liar, Cheater”
“Celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti’s trial for allegedly extorting multi-billion dollar shoe company, Nike, is set to begin in New York, but attorneys are reportedly having a very difficult time finding a jury.
The jurors were given a questionnaire ahead of official voir dire in order to narrow down the potential jury pool, making actually impaneling a jury a less onerous task for both the prosecution and defense. ‘The questionnaire asked jurors if they have heard anything regarding Avenatti and the charges against him. It also asked if they could put whatever they’ve heard aside and decide the case fairly,” NBC News New York reported.
The answers given by some members of the jury pool were enlightening.
The New York Post reports that potential jurors are being excused left and right for lobbing pointed insults at Stormy Daniels’ former attorney, calling Avenatti a “scumbag,” a “liar,” and a “cheat.”
“Michael Avenatti is a notorious scumbag who is willing to do anything, including lie and cheat in order to enrich himself and gain public attention,” wrote one possible juror. “He should already be in prison.”
LikeLike
Guess the State: Democrat-Run Fiasco Edition
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/guess_the_state_democratrun_fiasco_edition.html
“The last time Republicans held a majority on this state’s Supreme Court was in the 1920s. Its Court of Appeals has never had a Republican majority.
The last time Republicans held a majority in both houses of the state Legislature at the same time was 1930. In the 89 years from 1931 to the present, Democrats have held a majority of both houses of the state Legislature for 79 of the 89 years.
Since 1931, Democrats have held the governor’s office for 69 of the 89 years. Even when a Republican has been governor, his powers have been greatly limited because he has never held a majority in both houses of the state legislature while in office.
What state am I?
If you guessed CA, IL, NY, NJ, or MA, you’re wrong. If you guessed NM, go to the head of the class. Since 1931, no other state has had single-party Dem rule at the state level as long as New Mexico. And how has New Mexico fared under the stewardship of single party Democrat rule? As we shall see, not so well.
EDUCATION: By all accounts, New Mexico has one of the worst, if not the worst, K–12 public education system in the country. It is a system that spends vast sums of money but has little or no accountability for the students, teachers, administrators, parents, or elected officials. Here are the sobering stats. It has recently been rated as the worst state public school system in the country. Among the country’s 11,850 school districts, only one from New Mexico, Los Alamos, is rated in the top 1,000. A charity named the New Mexico Coalition for Literacy estimates that an astonishing 46% of the adults in the state are functional illiterates.
Sadly, the state university system is little better. It is an example of quantity over quality. Despite its small population of 2.1 million, New Mexico has a staggering seven state-funded colleges and universities that grant four-year degrees. In contrast, neighboring Arizona with a population of 7.3 million has three. Not a single college or university in New Mexico is ranked in the nation’s top 500.
CRIME: New Mexico is a dangerous place to live, and a lot of judges are reluctant to lock up criminals. It is #1 in the country for per capita property crime and #2 for violent crime. Albuquerque, by far the state’s largest city, has the dubious distinction of a #1 ranking for auto thefts in the entire nation. Don’t expect the Chamber of Commerce or the Department of Tourism to brag about the fact that Albuquerque is ranked as the 12th most dangerous city in the U.S. Expect Albuquerque to move up on the list, as it just had a record number of homicides in 2019.
JOBS/ECONOMY: New Mexico survives financially because it receives enormous sums of money from two sources: the federal government and the oil and natural gas industry. The federal government has spent a gigantic amount of money in the state since the 1940s, with the development of the bomb and all the defense spending that came afterwards. The state also receives millions of dollars each year from oil and gas revenues, especially from leases of state land. With the fracking revolution going on in the Permian Basin in southeast New Mexico, the state is swimming in tax revenues and has a large budget surplus.
Despite all the mentioned revenue and the production bonanza in the Permian Basin, New Mexico has one of the worst job markets in the country. It has the fourth highest unemployment rate of any state. It’s the second hardest state in the country in which to find full-time employment. As one would expect of a state that has had single-party Dem rule for nearly 90 years, the state is teeming with public-sector employees and has the third highest percentage of public-sector workers in the country. The national average for public sector workers is 15.1%, while New Mexico has 22.2%. In other words, New Mexico has 47% more public sector workers than the national average. Not surprisingly, New Mexico is more dependent on federal spending than any other state and receives more in per capita federal spending than all but two states.
POVERTY: Poverty among adults is usually associated with low education levels, and poverty among children is usually associated with being raised in a single-parent home. New Mexico has lots of both. As of November 2019, New Mexico had 827,269 persons receiving Medicaid, or 39% of the population and 223,116 persons receiving SNAP benefits, or 11% of the state’s population. Despite the enormous amount of federal spending, oil and natural gas riches, and some of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world, New Mexico is considered to be the third poorest state in the nation.”
LikeLike
The get-Trump movement is legal nihilism and the antithesis of the rule of law.
“Bolton and the Consequences of the Destruction of Executive Privilege”
“Fred Fleitz, a former deputy to John Bolton, the national security advisor President Trump fired in September 2019, over the weekend published an opinion piece explaining the dangers of his former boss’s anticipated tell-all book.
“Given the importance of protecting a president’s confidential discussions with his senior advisers,” Fleitz wrote, “I strongly disagree with Bolton’s decision to release the book before the November presidential election and call on him to withdraw it from the publisher immediately.”
Bolton is just the latest example of former advisors cravenly monetizing the confidential access to a president.
Fleitz represents what seems to be the last gasp of a legal tradition that is vital to our constitutional self-government. The consequences of this ongoing assault on presidential privileges will be catastrophic not only to the security of our Republic but also to self-government.
In 1974, the Supreme Court upheld the necessity of executive privilege, writing:
The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of his conversations and correspondence, like the claim of confidentiality of judicial deliberations, for example, has all the values to which we accord deference for the privacy of all citizens and, added to those values, is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decisionmaking. A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions, and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications. The privilege is fundamental to the operation of Government, and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.
The get-Trump forces have assaulted cherished traditions of executive and attorney-client privileges over the last three years, including the savaging of President Trump’s privileged communication with his private attorney Michael Cohen, the public disclosure of the call records of Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani, the public disclosure of confidential communications with the heads of state of Mexico and Australia, the lawless confiscation of private communications of Trump’s transition team, the leaks of private conversations with the head of the FBI, the leaks of Trump’s national security advisor’s communication with the Russian ambassador, and the leak of Trump’s confidential communication with the Ukrainian ambassador, just to name a few such violations.
The damage the get-Trump forces are doing is not limited to Trump personally. These lawless vigilantes are blinding all future presidents from advice and communication vital to the office. Further, they have chilled cooperation between future presidents and legitimate law enforcement inquiries into public corruption.”
LikeLike
Told ya’ this was free ad fodder….
Why the ad practically wrote itself.
LikeLike
Fauxahontas should stick to punching in her own intellectual weight class. A lightweight like her doesn’t stand a chance against a real heavyweight.
===========
LikeLike
————–
LikeLike
I thought Glenn Beck made a good case this morning for letting Bolton testify. Bolton’s book will come out anyway. If he doesn’t testify, when the book comes out the press will tout anything negative he says about Trump as unchallenged fact. Democrats will have more ammunition to de-legitimize the impeachment trial in public opinion as a whitewash job by the Republican Senate.
On the other hand, if Bolton does testify, the Senate gets to challenge him and exploit any weaknesses in his testimony. And they’ll clear Trump in the end anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kevin: “…the press will tout anything negative he says about Trump as unchallenged fact.” They’ll keep doing that anyway, whether it’s Bolton or whoever the next character is. They will simply continue with unfounded accusations and hoaxes (usually to cover up their own malfeasance or criminal activity). It will never stop. It would be far better for Republicans to protect executive privilege, and just keep emphasizing what is actually true.
The only positive with witnesses is if they could get the Bidens to testify, and also the fake whistleblower, who was also involved in fake Russia collusion (inc. claiming that the Russians pressured Pres. Trump to fire Comey). It’s pretty clear why Dems don’t want any of them to testify…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. They aren’t looking for facts. They’re looking for soundbites to bash the president with come the race to Nov. That’s all it’s about at this point. They have no hope of ever getting to 2/3 for removal. This is all just posturing.
LikeLike
And not so fast on that book either.
The White House says it contains classified info and can’t be published until scrubbed. And even then, the president still rightly and legally has the opportunity to claim executive privilege, and then it goes to court. Something the House should have already done, but they have an election to influence, so they just didn’t. Now they expect the Senate to supplement their shoddy work?
Um…. no.
The Senate job is to vote based upon the convictions (2) already sent by the House, not retry it with new info. This is garbage.
The book is a long way off either way. They should have just waited til after the election, but at that point no one would care, or buy Bolton’s book. But that’s as it should be.
LikeLike
White House seeks to block publication of Bolton’s book, demands classified info be removed first
And the letter came before the Bolton story broke, so this isn’t a reaction to that on the president’s part. However the leak is probably a response from Bolton and his publishers after they were told to delay publication. This is what’s known as playing politics, and criminally leaking to do so. Again. Just like Comey.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-seeks-to-block-publication-of-boltons-book-demands-classified-info-be-removed-first/ar-BBZs0IO?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout
“In a letter to former national security adviser John Bolton’s attorney, the White House said Bolton’s upcoming book contains classified information that must be removed before it can be published.
The letter to Bolton lawyer Charles Cooper dated Jan. 23, a National Security Council aide wrote, “Based on our preliminary review, the manuscript appears to contain significant amounts of classified information. It also appears that some of this classified information is at the top secret level.”
“The manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information,” added Ellen Knight, NSC senior director for records, access, and information security management.
That letter was written days before The New York Times reported that according to a manuscript of Bolton’s book, President Donald Trump told Bolton in August that nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine would not be released until the country provided all of the information it had in connection to the investigations of Democrats the president sought. The manuscript has not been seen by NBC News.
That reported conversation between the two men contradicts the president’s impeachment defense, as Trump and allies have said the hold on military aid and investigations were not linked. Trump said he “NEVER” had such a conversation with Bolton.”
LikeLike
Bam. Right again.
This is why Bolton leaked to the NYT. He gets the letter from Trump, was was told no, and 3 days later the leak drops to the NYT.
Same script as Comey, and the same publisher, and the same leak loving reporter. This is what’s called a set-up.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/01/boltons-manuscript-lands-in-nyt-three-days-after-nsc-warns-bolton-book-has-significant-amount-of-classified-information/
“Bolton’s Manuscript Lands in NYT Three Days After NSC Warns Bolton Book has ‘Significant Amount of Classified Information’
I don’t believe in coincidences when it comes to politics.”
“Questions have surfaced over who leaked the manuscript of John Bolton’s book. How did it get out? Gee, why would it come out now?
The Washington Examiner Chief Political Correspondent Byron York found something interesting in the timeline.”
“The manuscript did not contain a little classified information. Bolton put in “significant amounts of classified information.” Not only that, but some of that classified information has the TOP SECRET label.
So who leaked it to The New York Times? Obviously, with that many markups, it would take longer to edit, which means a pushed back publish date.
Bolton? Another member of the NSC? One of the guys who reviewed the book for classified information?”
LikeLike
Yeah, good times…..
————
Very.
LikeLike
Yer’ outta here!
Once again it’s the Democrats colluding with criminals and foreigners…….
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1222583748450975746?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1222583748450975746&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fdougp-3137%2F2020%2F01%2F29%2Fyou-cant-make-this-up-ted-cruz-lindsey-graham-explain-why-chuck-schumers-guest-at-impeachment-trial-was-ejected-from-the-gallery%2F
————
LikeLike
FNC’s Baier On USMCA: “A Big, Big Win” For President Trump That No One Thought Was Possible
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1222643727753252872
———-
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1222644566886699008
LikeLike
————-
LikeLike
————–
LikeLike
Watch the reporter’s face. 🙂
Not at all what he was expecting…. Priceless.
LikeLike
We already know what Bolton thought of this as well.
He’s already told us his story. In his own words……
LikeLike
Way past time, in fact…..
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/its-time-to-pull-the-plug-on-the-impeachment-farce.php
“IT’S TIME TO PULL THE PLUG ON THE IMPEACHMENT FARCE
Mitch McConnell set up the rules for the Senate’s current impeachment hearing so that there would be an early vote on whether to call witnesses, or simply proceed to an up or down vote on impeachment. Either way, the result is foreordained, just as the impeachment process itself was foreordained when the Democrats captured the House in 2018. The president will be exonerated.
The vote on whether to proceed with witnesses apparently will take place on Friday. I assume that McConnell thought it would be easy to get 51 votes in favor of terminating the Senate proceeding, but John Bolton’s ill-timed and ill-advised tell-all book has thrown a monkey wrench into that plan. The White House has gone after Bolton, entirely appropriately, in my view, as with President Trump’s tweets:”
LikeLike