“US Issues Terror Alert Over Anti-Government Extremists
The National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin said a heightened threat of attack “will persist in the weeks following the successful presidential inauguration,” which took place on January 20.””
“The US Department of Homeland Security declared a nationwide terrorism alert Wednesday, citing the potential threat from domestic anti-government extremists opposed to Joe Biden as president.
“Information suggests that some ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence,” the department said.
The National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin said a heightened threat of attack “will persist in the weeks following the successful presidential inauguration,” which took place on January 20.
“DHS does not have any information to indicate a specific, credible plot,” it said.”
“THE HELL WITH THE HALL OF FAME
The National Baseball Hall of Fame voters have decided, collectively, not to elect anyone to the Hall this year. Curt Schilling came the closest to obtaining the required 75 percent of the votes. He collected 71.1 percent, falling 16 votes short.
Schilling’s exclusion is a travesty. He clearly had a Hall of Fame caliber career. As I wrote last year around this time:
Schilling’s career WAR (wins above replacement player) is 80.5. That’s just behind Bob Gibson and just ahead of Tom Glavine and Carl Hubbell. All three are generally considered upper tier Hall of Famers.
Like Gibson, Schilling boasts an exquisite post-season record. He went 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA and a 0.97 WHIP (walks plus hits over innings pitched) in 19 starts and 133.3 career playoff innings. Schilling won three World Series rings, was named MVP of the 1993 NLCS, and co-MVP of the 2001 World Series (with Randy Johnson).
Moreover, Schilling engaged in no baseball-related misconduct that could justify his exclusion. He didn’t throw games like Shoeless Joe Jackson. He didn’t bet on games like Pete Rose. There is no indication that he used performance enhancing drugs like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.
Schilling was excluded because of his politics. The Washington Post concedes this.
Joe Posnanski of the Athletic had voted for Schilling’s admission every year since the pitcher became eligible. This year he did not vote for Schilling.
What changed? Not Schilling’s stats. Not his political stances or comments. What changed is the political environment in the most contentious year of the Trump presidency — impeachment, BLM, the election, etc. What changed is the increased audacity of the cancel culture.
Posnanski insists that he didn’t blackball Schilling because the pitcher is conservative. He notes his support for Mariano Rivera, another conservative, who was elected to the Hall unanimously.
This reminds of when anti-Semites used to say, “some of my best friends are Jewish.” Yes, but a certain kind of Jewish. Or, in Posnanski’s case, a certain kind of conservative.”
——-
“Anti-Schilling writers cite the language in the Hall of Fame instructions saying that voters should consider the “integrity, sportsmanship [and] character” of candidates. This language provides a basis for excluding Joe Jackson, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and maybe Pete Rose, if voters see fit to do so.
However, if the “character” language is going to be used to exclude some conservatives for their political speech, then to hell with the Hall of Fame.”
CCP-owned Biden is an enemy of the USA. Now he is being pressured to quickly seek to pack the SC, so that no lawsuit can challenge his unconstitutional acts.
Biden is a puppet being used to sign anything that the CCP Dems want. I wonder if he can name even one-tenth of the executive orders that he has signed?
The Dem party is corrupt to the core. Being a Dem today means actually doing evil, or being an accessory to evil. They are clearly seeking to consolidate power and form an authoritarian government.
Congress is taking action to try to impeach the wrong guy – they need to re-direct, and quickly!
Otherwise, the military needs to go ahead and do its constitutional duty…
There were clearly enough obtuse people to take the 30 pieces of silver – history will not be kind to them at all…
“Nancy Pelosi buys 25 Tesla call options, may benefit from Joe Biden’s EV push
The purchase by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is questionable as it could be argued that Tesla stands to benefit from new Joe Biden administration.”
“Speaker of the US House of Representative and California representative, Nancy Pelosi has purchased 25 call options of Tesla Inc. The same purchase has now come under the radar, as it stands to benefit from the new Joe Biden administration.
What happened?
According to a report, Pelosi or her husband Pual, who runs a venture capital firm purchased options of Tesla at a stake price of $500 and the expiration of March 18, 2022.
Pelosi paid between $500,000 and $1,000,000 for the options.
The shares of Tesla have risen from $640.34 at the time when the calls were purchased to $890 today. As of January 27, they were valued at $1.12 million.”
———
So she’s already got a 12% profit and the govt hasn’t even sent in purchase orders yet, which will send the stock soaring.
Well that was a chilling clip to watch of Tucker’s….wondering when they will be showing up at my door 😳 I find it incomprehensible and even more so that so many remain asleep at the wheel on what is happening to this nation. Do they not care, do they not believe it, will they not believe it until the water reaches the boiling point and then it is too late? Lord have mercy because we are sunk without Him….
“Legal Scholars’ Letter Supporting Constitutionality of Impeaching and Convicting Presidents After they Leave Office
The signers include a wide range of constitutional scholars across the political spectrum, including Federalist Society co-founder Steve Calabresi.”
“Protect Democracy has recently posted a letter signed by over 170 legal scholars, setting forth the reasons why impeachment and trial of officials who have left office is in fact constitutional.
The list of signers is notable for its ideological diversity—unusual in an era when legal scholars’ views on controversial issues are often polarized along ideological lines. , , ,
Here is an excerpt from the letter:
We take no position on whether the Senate should convict President Trump on the article of impeachment soon to be transmitted by the House of Representatives.
We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation. But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents.
Our shared conclusion is supported by the text and structure of the Constitution, the history of its drafting, and relevant precedent. The Constitution allocates the “sole Power of Impeachment” to the House of Representatives, and the “sole Power to try all Impeachments” to the Senate. It provides that the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It further specifies that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”
In other words, the Constitution’s impeachment power has two aspects. The first is removal from office, which occurs automatically upon the conviction of a current officer. The second is disqualification from holding future office, which occurs in those cases where the Senate deems disqualification appropriate in light of the conduct for which the impeached person was convicted. The impeachment power must be read so as to give full effect to both aspects of this power.
Impeachment is the exclusive constitutional means for removing a president (or other officer) before his or her term expires. But nothing in the provision authorizing impeachment-for-removal limits impeachment to situations where it accomplishes removal from office. Indeed, such a reading would thwart and potentially nullify a vital aspect of the impeachment power: the power of the Senate to impose disqualification from future office as a penalty for conviction.”
No one will hold these liars accountable for their actions.
And in other news….. water is wet.
“The New York State attorney general accused the Cuomo administration of undercounting coronavirus-related deaths at nursing homes by as much as 50 percent, according to a report released on Thursday.
The count of deaths in state nursing homes has been a source of controversy for Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and state Health Department officials, who have been sensitive to any suggestion that they played any role in the number of nursing home deaths, which the state put at more than 8,500.
They have also been accused of obscuring a more accurate estimate of nursing home deaths, because the state only counted deaths at the actual facilities, rather than including deaths of residents who were transferred to a hospital and died there.”
Paul was not the only GOP senator to speak up over Roberts’ absence — or comment on Leahy serving as his replacement.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of GOP leadership, remarked Monday, “The Constitution requires that the chief justice preside over the impeachment trial of a president, but that’s not what we’re doing. To me, that’s indicative of the fact that we’re in uncharted waters.
“I just think it looks very petty and vindictive,” he added. “I understand there are a lot of people who are mad, but the process itself already looks like a railroad job.”
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) echoed Cornyn’s concerns, saying, “There’s only one constitutional process for impeachment and it is of the president, not a president. It requires the chief justice to preside.”
Seems even the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS knows it is a farce…..
“Maricopa County in Arizona will carry out a comprehensive forensic audit of its voting systems to allay concerns raised by some constituents about the integrity of the November 2020 election.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously at a meeting Wednesday to hire two independent companies to conduct an audit that will probe whether voting machines counted votes correctly, and whether they were tampered with or hacked in any way.
The Republican-dominated board defended the accuracy of the county’s election results while expressing hope that a comprehensive equipment and software audit would dispel concerns that the results were inaccurate.”
However, it looks like these are the same two companies that certified Dominion voting machines in Georgia…
Sure Kizzie, from a bunch of leftist and NT “scholars” no one ever heard of except for the NTer at the Federalist. This is the same BS tactic they used right before the election where a couple hundred deep state bureaucrats in “intelligence” said Trump was bad.
It’s BS garbage later proven false, as is this. There’s a reason Roberts isn’t presiding. He knows it’s unconstitutional too, and wants no part.
Same MO as this trash from last year. Repeat the lie often enough and the gullible begin to believe it.
“Top-Level Intel Officers’ War Against Donald Trump Is Bad For The Country
Top political appointees at intelligence agencies are engaged in a dangerous and discrediting full-scale war against Donald Trump.”
————-
Meanwhile on the left and right, the greatest legal scholars, Dershowitz, Turley, Cruz, Cornell Law Professor Jacobson, Retired Fed Judge Luttig, and numerous others say it’s unconstitutional.
“Impeachment 2.0 – No, the Senate cannot convict Trump after he leaves office
At best, supporters of post-departure Senate impeachment conviction could say there is an argument for it, but it’s complicated. Opponents merely need to point to the words of the Constitution.”
“Democrats are suggesting that the Senate could hold a trial even after Trump leaves office, perhaps as much as months later depending on what timing Biden thought benefitted his legislative agenda. The purpose would not be to remove Trump — he’d already be gone — but to preclude him from running again as part of the punishment. They also might seek to strip away his lifetime salary and security stipend.
The question is, can the Senate hold an impeachment trial and convict a president after the president already has left office. I think the plain wording of the constitution says such post-departure impeachment is not permitted. But there is a split of opinion.
Article II, Section 4, provides:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
So the premise of impeachment is that it is against someone who is the President, not someone who once was the President. Also, the purpose is removal, which cannot happen if someone already has left office.
Article I, Section II, Section 7, provides for the remedies available in the Judgment after Senate trial:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
So there are remedies beyond removal, but that presumes a proper conviction. It is those other remedies that Democrats and some Republicans want more than anything, but there is nothing in the language of the constitution to suggest that the post-conviction remedies expand the time scope of impeachment trial and conviction.
Former appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig writes in WaPo:
It appears that even if the House of Representatives impeaches President Trump this week, the Senate trial on that impeachment will not begin until after Trump has left office and President-Elect Biden has become president on Jan. 20. That Senate trial would be unconstitutional….
The Constitution itself answers this question clearly: No, he cannot be. Once Trump’s term ends on Jan. 20, Congress loses its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him — even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment.
Therefore, if the House of Representatives were to impeach the president before he leaves office, the Senate could not thereafter convict the former president and disqualify him under the Constitution from future public office.
Alan Dershowitz expressed a similar view, that the power of the Senate to try an impeachment ends when Trump leaves office:”
families of every race, color & creed would go unnoticed because of their navel gazing drama.
They think you are stupid. You’ll be glued to your TV listening to their weasel words as if it matters. Trump will not be convicted. But your kids are out of school. Your business /2
signs whatever they put in front of him & eliminate 10s of thousands of jobs & today, possibly whole industries.
All of this was 100% predictable if an honest corporate media had reported on stated policy positions, asked probing questions & reported the answers /4
Instead they want you to think we are in a race war. We aren’t. If you really believe 65% of the country harbors some serious racial animus, get therapy. Not even the SPLC thinks that.
A black or brown person living in poverty in downtown Chicago /6
every bit as nice as Mitch McConnell. Because they have all profited off Americans misery. Like the septuagenarians that wring the last dollars out of an obsolete family business.
We need smarter leaders who are not corrupt. They wouldn’t be hard to find. So let’s do it. /8
The House has no evidence of insurrection. But just because they had a majority to push their leftist agenda through due to their hatred of a President who stood for the people of the United States…yeah…they got their “impeachment”. Will it get through the Senate? Only if more turncoat Republicans join with the Socialist party.
Why did our Forefathers fight so hard for the establishment of this great nation? Not all but many had a deep faith in the Lord God Almighty….it is chilling to witness so many minds being swayed by a regime of socialism and evil….
AJ – I shared that to explain what the other side of the issue is. The author of the piece writes that the signers are diverse in their ideology and “take no position on whether the Senate should convict President Trump . . .” I doubt that they are all leftists or NeverTrumpers.
The main point was the duality of the text, the second part being “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”
It reminded me of how gun control advocates will insist that the 2nd Amendment was intended only for militias, but 2nd Amendment advocates will point out the second part – “the people”, which apparently always meant the people at large, not merely a certain group. Even if we did not have a militia, the people would still have the right to bear arms.
We have some diversity in our congregation as well, it’s important for believers to seek ways to prevent those differences from dividing us as a body.
Another issue (not overtly political perhaps) that’s caused some underlying contention in our congregation has been the whole issue of how to deal with the pandemic, masks vs. no masks, indoor worship ok, not ok. Even our elder board has been quite split on the matter.
DJ, with my new position in the church I may get in on some of the mask discussions, but I think it has not been a problem with my church from what I have seen. I guess since we are so close to CDC and a number of people in my church are associated with the medical community, I think that makes a sway toward mask wearing. And we just have so much Covid in our area, even have a testing site on our church property. Who wouldn’t want to wear a mask under those circumstances?
What has bothered and concerned me is that I have seen (on social media) some believers who were ordinarily sweet and calm, but are now posting or commenting with anger and sometimes rudeness.
It makes me wonder if all of this (the election, mask mandates, etc.) is a test for us believers. The Bible tells us that we will be known by our love (along with a whole lot more about how our attitudes, particularly towards each other, should be), and yet some are throwing daggers at their brothers and sisters, as well as unbelievers, they disagree with. It makes me cringe, and even brings me to tears sometimes, and of course, I pray, too.
Congregations have to muddle through their own pandemic rules individually, I think. What may be a good idea for one group may not work for another. Creativity is our friend, and will be helpful in getting through this. It might even help us to prosper in unusual ways. It has made me more aware of how much my physical location matters. And ironically, politics has receded a little, while other things have become closer. I still care about the politics, but it just feels further away from me, probably because I can’t affect it.
I cannot for the life of me fathom why a follower of Christ would knowingly align themselves with a group of people who champion the killing of the unborn/just born. Or who endorse sinful acts which explicitly go against scripture. I am at a loss.
Those of us who know Christ as Saviour and follow Him in our lives are still not perfect. I have a temper…I get stirred at injustice and evil doers. And yes…I push back at times. If there is conviction I will stand for what is right and make no apologies. I love my nephew…he knows that and I have told him I love him more than he will ever know…but I will not tell him what he is doing in his life is good and right. I loved the women in my book club but when asked I gave them my review on a book and many were upset. I will not sit back and remain quiet when I read the words of a book leading the reader down the road of deception and untruth. (And Randy Alcorn agreed with me 😊) Just because I have an opposing position it does not mean I do not love my fellow man…I just wish someone would hit them over the head with a two by four and wake them up!
AJ — no comment on the day traders who busted hedge funds in the last few weeks? I thought it would be something you and I could agree on. Multi billion dollar hedge funds shorting stock (betting the stock will go lower) beaten by followers of a subreddit group who coordinated a massive buy of stocks hedge funds shorted. A bunch of twenty somethings saved a few companies and at the same time stuck it to the rich who went whining to the halls of Congress about how unfair this is. I suspect a bipartisan effort will try to stop any more attempts to bust hedge funds. Its estimated that hedge funds lost about $5 billion so far.
As I commented to a day trader friend of mine, who watched it on his screen on real time and enjoyed evey minute of it, if members of congress had to withdraw everytime an issue affected their stock portfolio, it would leave AOC in charge all day every day. Corruption is bipartisan. The former Georgia senators were famous for managing their stocks minutes after a Senate cmttee meetring and obviuously Pelosi is no different. Perhaps, a mandatory blind trust for public officials should be enforced. This would also prevent presidents from directing businesses to their golf courses.
Back to the Gamestop and subreddit group activity; previously hedge funds were prohibited from using borrowed stocks to short but they successfully arguend this was unnecessary gov’t interference. Now they want a bailout and they want gov’t regualtion to stop the “kids” from doing it again. Socialism for the rich again…
Taxing carbon use is not the gov’t controlling you; its the gov’t picking economic winners by encouraging the masses to buy one product over another. Not much different than the gov’t picking winners by subsidizing oil companies. Taxing carbon at least is a good thing — cuts down on polluiton and the use of a non renewable resource.
There’s no man behind the curtain. People knew when they voted for Biden they were getting Obama part two — thats what they wanted.
From what I understand, impeachment is an indictment. Evidence and witnesses are not necessary until trail. I am interested as to what route the House Democrats are going to use in this trial — are they going to focus on the Jan 6th rally (in which case they should impeach a few Republican politicans instead of Trump) or are they going to claim the entire post-election claims of Trump helped incite the insurrection? The latter I think would be more succesfull in the public opinion and a way of calling more calling more witnesses to provide sworn testimony.
Speaking of post election comments, Dominion isn’t done. They’ve sued Rudy G but they have stated they will go after more as they methodically go through Republican claims and statements to see which cases are winnable — they’ve hinted they will sue any Republican they thing defamed the company and they have a reasonable chance of winning the case. Both the people Dominion sue and the actual litigation wil be interesting. Turmp might wan to move to non-American golf resort.
HRW, my husband has been closely following the reddit/gamestop story. I wouldn’t have known about it otherwise. I think some of the wall st guys are asking their political buddies to treat it like domestic cyber terrorism. All I could think was that’s surely the pot calling the kettle black. :–)
If we’re going to impeach former officials as well as those in congress now who have earned it, I have a list of suggestions—-a very long bipartisan list.
I think it’s hysterical. The Hedge Fund Romney’s of the world need to take it on the chin now and again. Predators who got preyed upon is all this is. Good for the little guy.
By suing Rudy they just opened themselves up to the discovery process. They just gave him a free fishing expedition thru their files, emails, and programming data. This is a bad move on their part.
Dominion has been really slow to respond over the last three months which means they and their lawyers have done due diligence. I think it will be settled out of court but it will be interesting to see how far it goes and who else they sue. If they sue Trump I’m defintely buying a bag of Lay’s ketchup chips and watchign my neigbours.
What a difference. I’ve been searching the same phrases in both to see what’s different. On google you need to go 5-10 pages deep to find a conservative source and view. On DDG, the top 10 has 3 or 4 conservative sources on each page. It’s refreshing.
I’m so done with Google’s manipulation of the searches for political purposes. 🙂
If by “due diligence” you mean back room dirty scheming… I agree 🙃
Debra I have a long bipartisan list of impeachable government “workers”…starting with Maxine Waters….
A post I shared a day or so ago made the point that this lawsuit would give Giuliani and Powell the opportunity to finally show whatever evidence they may have, if they really do have any.
Re impeachment: I also think the Constitution intended it to be applied to present officials, not former ones. However, it’s worth noting that President Trump was impeached while he was still president and that impeachment does allow for a penalty beyond removal. So there is a case to be made by “the other side.” My hunch is that if it was the Democrat being impeached just before leaving office, some of the posters on here would be arguing they should go ahead with the trial anyway. I haven’t heard why the Chief Justice isn’t involved in this one, and don’t remember whether the Constitution requires his involvement.
I really don’t think that issues like this one should be partisan. There’s legitimate debate about whether an impeached president can be tried even if he has already left office between the impeachment and the trial. People of good faith can come down on either side. And they definitely can do so without being traitors–that word is way too strong for holding a different opinion on such a legal question.
BTW, I don’t vote for any pro-abortion politician. But I have lived among the poor and gone to church with the poor, and while I disagree that the Democratic platform is more helpful to the poor than the Republican platform, an awful lot of people do believe that. A lot of people also believe that abortions are more likely to decrease under poor-supporting policies than under specifically anti-abortion ones. If one side makes policies that claim to defend women and the other side has policies that really and truly DO defend women, voters might legitimately vote for the second party and not the first. Likewise with decreasing abortion. If people truly believe that poverty is the main reason behind most abortions, and that the Democrats have a far better record on decreasing poverty, some voters might hold their nose on the Democratic political support for abortion and still vote for the Democrat. Again, I myself do not do this. But people have asked “Why?” and I am answering.
Wandering Views 
Once again they slander good people with zero proof. They must be planning another false flag operation.
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-issues-terror-alert-over-anti-government-extremists-2359018
“US Issues Terror Alert Over Anti-Government Extremists
The National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin said a heightened threat of attack “will persist in the weeks following the successful presidential inauguration,” which took place on January 20.””
“The US Department of Homeland Security declared a nationwide terrorism alert Wednesday, citing the potential threat from domestic anti-government extremists opposed to Joe Biden as president.
“Information suggests that some ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence,” the department said.
The National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin said a heightened threat of attack “will persist in the weeks following the successful presidential inauguration,” which took place on January 20.
“DHS does not have any information to indicate a specific, credible plot,” it said.”
———-
They’re making up BS now.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I hate the Red Sox.
But this is un-American garbage.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/the-hell-with-the-hall-of-fame.php
“THE HELL WITH THE HALL OF FAME
The National Baseball Hall of Fame voters have decided, collectively, not to elect anyone to the Hall this year. Curt Schilling came the closest to obtaining the required 75 percent of the votes. He collected 71.1 percent, falling 16 votes short.
Schilling’s exclusion is a travesty. He clearly had a Hall of Fame caliber career. As I wrote last year around this time:
Schilling’s career WAR (wins above replacement player) is 80.5. That’s just behind Bob Gibson and just ahead of Tom Glavine and Carl Hubbell. All three are generally considered upper tier Hall of Famers.
Like Gibson, Schilling boasts an exquisite post-season record. He went 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA and a 0.97 WHIP (walks plus hits over innings pitched) in 19 starts and 133.3 career playoff innings. Schilling won three World Series rings, was named MVP of the 1993 NLCS, and co-MVP of the 2001 World Series (with Randy Johnson).
Moreover, Schilling engaged in no baseball-related misconduct that could justify his exclusion. He didn’t throw games like Shoeless Joe Jackson. He didn’t bet on games like Pete Rose. There is no indication that he used performance enhancing drugs like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.
Schilling was excluded because of his politics. The Washington Post concedes this.
Joe Posnanski of the Athletic had voted for Schilling’s admission every year since the pitcher became eligible. This year he did not vote for Schilling.
What changed? Not Schilling’s stats. Not his political stances or comments. What changed is the political environment in the most contentious year of the Trump presidency — impeachment, BLM, the election, etc. What changed is the increased audacity of the cancel culture.
Posnanski insists that he didn’t blackball Schilling because the pitcher is conservative. He notes his support for Mariano Rivera, another conservative, who was elected to the Hall unanimously.
This reminds of when anti-Semites used to say, “some of my best friends are Jewish.” Yes, but a certain kind of Jewish. Or, in Posnanski’s case, a certain kind of conservative.”
——-
“Anti-Schilling writers cite the language in the Hall of Fame instructions saying that voters should consider the “integrity, sportsmanship [and] character” of candidates. This language provides a basis for excluding Joe Jackson, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and maybe Pete Rose, if voters see fit to do so.
However, if the “character” language is going to be used to exclude some conservatives for their political speech, then to hell with the Hall of Fame.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Green Scam is back on.
——–
LikeLiked by 3 people
CCP-owned Biden is an enemy of the USA. Now he is being pressured to quickly seek to pack the SC, so that no lawsuit can challenge his unconstitutional acts.
Biden is a puppet being used to sign anything that the CCP Dems want. I wonder if he can name even one-tenth of the executive orders that he has signed?
The Dem party is corrupt to the core. Being a Dem today means actually doing evil, or being an accessory to evil. They are clearly seeking to consolidate power and form an authoritarian government.
Congress is taking action to try to impeach the wrong guy – they need to re-direct, and quickly!
Otherwise, the military needs to go ahead and do its constitutional duty…
There were clearly enough obtuse people to take the 30 pieces of silver – history will not be kind to them at all…
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s a crime for thee, but not for me…..
And it MAY benefit her?
Try it WILL benefit her….
In fact, it already has….
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world/nancy-pelosi-buys-25-tesla-call-options-may-benefit-from-joe-bidens-ev-push-6403871.html
“Nancy Pelosi buys 25 Tesla call options, may benefit from Joe Biden’s EV push
The purchase by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is questionable as it could be argued that Tesla stands to benefit from new Joe Biden administration.”
“Speaker of the US House of Representative and California representative, Nancy Pelosi has purchased 25 call options of Tesla Inc. The same purchase has now come under the radar, as it stands to benefit from the new Joe Biden administration.
What happened?
According to a report, Pelosi or her husband Pual, who runs a venture capital firm purchased options of Tesla at a stake price of $500 and the expiration of March 18, 2022.
Pelosi paid between $500,000 and $1,000,000 for the options.
The shares of Tesla have risen from $640.34 at the time when the calls were purchased to $890 today. As of January 27, they were valued at $1.12 million.”
———
So she’s already got a 12% profit and the govt hasn’t even sent in purchase orders yet, which will send the stock soaring.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Garbage.
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1354574008738598913
——–
LikeLiked by 3 people
Traitor Kerry returns.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Exactly.
It’s why his admin is loaded with Obama flunkies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Has this already been posted here?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/tucker-carlson-why-are-thousands-of-federal-troops-still-in-washington/vi-BB1d9JvZ?ocid=msedgdhp
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well that was a chilling clip to watch of Tucker’s….wondering when they will be showing up at my door 😳 I find it incomprehensible and even more so that so many remain asleep at the wheel on what is happening to this nation. Do they not care, do they not believe it, will they not believe it until the water reaches the boiling point and then it is too late? Lord have mercy because we are sunk without Him….
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Legal Scholars’ Letter Supporting Constitutionality of Impeaching and Convicting Presidents After they Leave Office
The signers include a wide range of constitutional scholars across the political spectrum, including Federalist Society co-founder Steve Calabresi.”
“Protect Democracy has recently posted a letter signed by over 170 legal scholars, setting forth the reasons why impeachment and trial of officials who have left office is in fact constitutional.
The list of signers is notable for its ideological diversity—unusual in an era when legal scholars’ views on controversial issues are often polarized along ideological lines. , , ,
Here is an excerpt from the letter:
We take no position on whether the Senate should convict President Trump on the article of impeachment soon to be transmitted by the House of Representatives.
We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation. But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents.
Our shared conclusion is supported by the text and structure of the Constitution, the history of its drafting, and relevant precedent. The Constitution allocates the “sole Power of Impeachment” to the House of Representatives, and the “sole Power to try all Impeachments” to the Senate. It provides that the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It further specifies that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”
In other words, the Constitution’s impeachment power has two aspects. The first is removal from office, which occurs automatically upon the conviction of a current officer. The second is disqualification from holding future office, which occurs in those cases where the Senate deems disqualification appropriate in light of the conduct for which the impeached person was convicted. The impeachment power must be read so as to give full effect to both aspects of this power.
Impeachment is the exclusive constitutional means for removing a president (or other officer) before his or her term expires. But nothing in the provision authorizing impeachment-for-removal limits impeachment to situations where it accomplishes removal from office. Indeed, such a reading would thwart and potentially nullify a vital aspect of the impeachment power: the power of the Senate to impose disqualification from future office as a penalty for conviction.”
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/22/legal-scholars-letter-supporting-constitutionality-of-impeaching-and-convicting-presidents-after-they-leave-office/?fbclid=IwAR323WrfZvnXKb1Cn5YN2cgt9IqCiuq9Wt0V3gtcfNsK2teqtlIgNBGEskQ
LikeLike
No one will hold these liars accountable for their actions.
And in other news….. water is wet.
“The New York State attorney general accused the Cuomo administration of undercounting coronavirus-related deaths at nursing homes by as much as 50 percent, according to a report released on Thursday.
The count of deaths in state nursing homes has been a source of controversy for Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and state Health Department officials, who have been sensitive to any suggestion that they played any role in the number of nursing home deaths, which the state put at more than 8,500.
They have also been accused of obscuring a more accurate estimate of nursing home deaths, because the state only counted deaths at the actual facilities, rather than including deaths of residents who were transferred to a hospital and died there.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul was not the only GOP senator to speak up over Roberts’ absence — or comment on Leahy serving as his replacement.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of GOP leadership, remarked Monday, “The Constitution requires that the chief justice preside over the impeachment trial of a president, but that’s not what we’re doing. To me, that’s indicative of the fact that we’re in uncharted waters.
“I just think it looks very petty and vindictive,” he added. “I understand there are a lot of people who are mad, but the process itself already looks like a railroad job.”
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) echoed Cornyn’s concerns, saying, “There’s only one constitutional process for impeachment and it is of the president, not a president. It requires the chief justice to preside.”
Seems even the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS knows it is a farce…..
LikeLiked by 3 people
Better late than never… however, I don’t know if the Board can be trusted in having chosen these two companies (see below).
We could really do with a country-wide audit…
https://www.theepochtimes.com/maricopa-county-votes-to-perform-forensic-audit-of-machines-used-in-november-election_3675298.html?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-01-28-1
“Maricopa County in Arizona will carry out a comprehensive forensic audit of its voting systems to allay concerns raised by some constituents about the integrity of the November 2020 election.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously at a meeting Wednesday to hire two independent companies to conduct an audit that will probe whether voting machines counted votes correctly, and whether they were tampered with or hacked in any way.
The Republican-dominated board defended the accuracy of the county’s election results while expressing hope that a comprehensive equipment and software audit would dispel concerns that the results were inaccurate.”
However, it looks like these are the same two companies that certified Dominion voting machines in Georgia…
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/breaking-exclusive-companies-used-audit-elections-certify-2020-results-georgia-chosen-arizona-linked-dominion-voting-systems/
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sure Kizzie, from a bunch of leftist and NT “scholars” no one ever heard of except for the NTer at the Federalist. This is the same BS tactic they used right before the election where a couple hundred deep state bureaucrats in “intelligence” said Trump was bad.
It’s BS garbage later proven false, as is this. There’s a reason Roberts isn’t presiding. He knows it’s unconstitutional too, and wants no part.
Same MO as this trash from last year. Repeat the lie often enough and the gullible begin to believe it.
https://thefederalist.com/2017/01/17/top-level-intel-officers-war-donald-trump-bad-country/
“Top-Level Intel Officers’ War Against Donald Trump Is Bad For The Country
Top political appointees at intelligence agencies are engaged in a dangerous and discrediting full-scale war against Donald Trump.”
————-
Meanwhile on the left and right, the greatest legal scholars, Dershowitz, Turley, Cruz, Cornell Law Professor Jacobson, Retired Fed Judge Luttig, and numerous others say it’s unconstitutional.
From Cornell Law Professor Jacobson,
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/01/impeachment-2-0-no-the-senate-cannot-convict-trump-after-he-leaves-office/
“Impeachment 2.0 – No, the Senate cannot convict Trump after he leaves office
At best, supporters of post-departure Senate impeachment conviction could say there is an argument for it, but it’s complicated. Opponents merely need to point to the words of the Constitution.”
“Democrats are suggesting that the Senate could hold a trial even after Trump leaves office, perhaps as much as months later depending on what timing Biden thought benefitted his legislative agenda. The purpose would not be to remove Trump — he’d already be gone — but to preclude him from running again as part of the punishment. They also might seek to strip away his lifetime salary and security stipend.
The question is, can the Senate hold an impeachment trial and convict a president after the president already has left office. I think the plain wording of the constitution says such post-departure impeachment is not permitted. But there is a split of opinion.
Article II, Section 4, provides:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
So the premise of impeachment is that it is against someone who is the President, not someone who once was the President. Also, the purpose is removal, which cannot happen if someone already has left office.
Article I, Section II, Section 7, provides for the remedies available in the Judgment after Senate trial:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
So there are remedies beyond removal, but that presumes a proper conviction. It is those other remedies that Democrats and some Republicans want more than anything, but there is nothing in the language of the constitution to suggest that the post-conviction remedies expand the time scope of impeachment trial and conviction.
Former appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig writes in WaPo:
It appears that even if the House of Representatives impeaches President Trump this week, the Senate trial on that impeachment will not begin until after Trump has left office and President-Elect Biden has become president on Jan. 20. That Senate trial would be unconstitutional….
The Constitution itself answers this question clearly: No, he cannot be. Once Trump’s term ends on Jan. 20, Congress loses its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him — even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment.
Therefore, if the House of Representatives were to impeach the president before he leaves office, the Senate could not thereafter convict the former president and disqualify him under the Constitution from future public office.
Alan Dershowitz expressed a similar view, that the power of the Senate to try an impeachment ends when Trump leaves office:”
LikeLiked by 5 people
LikeLiked by 2 people
——–
LikeLiked by 2 people
———-
LikeLiked by 4 people
The House has no evidence of insurrection. But just because they had a majority to push their leftist agenda through due to their hatred of a President who stood for the people of the United States…yeah…they got their “impeachment”. Will it get through the Senate? Only if more turncoat Republicans join with the Socialist party.
Why did our Forefathers fight so hard for the establishment of this great nation? Not all but many had a deep faith in the Lord God Almighty….it is chilling to witness so many minds being swayed by a regime of socialism and evil….
LikeLiked by 3 people
AJ – I shared that to explain what the other side of the issue is. The author of the piece writes that the signers are diverse in their ideology and “take no position on whether the Senate should convict President Trump . . .” I doubt that they are all leftists or NeverTrumpers.
The main point was the duality of the text, the second part being “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”
It reminded me of how gun control advocates will insist that the 2nd Amendment was intended only for militias, but 2nd Amendment advocates will point out the second part – “the people”, which apparently always meant the people at large, not merely a certain group. Even if we did not have a militia, the people would still have the right to bear arms.
LikeLike
And I agree that Chief Justice Roberts should preside.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some here may appreciate this about politics and the church and the position pastors find themselves in considering the diversity of congregants. I did not read it all, but found it did not address those who voted based on the platform (prolife) rather than personality. It is one man’s view. I think he may be in a similar position as my pastor considering the urban congregation.
https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/first-person-election-protesters-and-never-trumpers-in-my-pews-how-can-we-move-forward-together/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the article link, Janice.
We have some diversity in our congregation as well, it’s important for believers to seek ways to prevent those differences from dividing us as a body.
Another issue (not overtly political perhaps) that’s caused some underlying contention in our congregation has been the whole issue of how to deal with the pandemic, masks vs. no masks, indoor worship ok, not ok. Even our elder board has been quite split on the matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DJ, with my new position in the church I may get in on some of the mask discussions, but I think it has not been a problem with my church from what I have seen. I guess since we are so close to CDC and a number of people in my church are associated with the medical community, I think that makes a sway toward mask wearing. And we just have so much Covid in our area, even have a testing site on our church property. Who wouldn’t want to wear a mask under those circumstances?
LikeLiked by 3 people
What has bothered and concerned me is that I have seen (on social media) some believers who were ordinarily sweet and calm, but are now posting or commenting with anger and sometimes rudeness.
It makes me wonder if all of this (the election, mask mandates, etc.) is a test for us believers. The Bible tells us that we will be known by our love (along with a whole lot more about how our attitudes, particularly towards each other, should be), and yet some are throwing daggers at their brothers and sisters, as well as unbelievers, they disagree with. It makes me cringe, and even brings me to tears sometimes, and of course, I pray, too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Congregations have to muddle through their own pandemic rules individually, I think. What may be a good idea for one group may not work for another. Creativity is our friend, and will be helpful in getting through this. It might even help us to prosper in unusual ways. It has made me more aware of how much my physical location matters. And ironically, politics has receded a little, while other things have become closer. I still care about the politics, but it just feels further away from me, probably because I can’t affect it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I cannot for the life of me fathom why a follower of Christ would knowingly align themselves with a group of people who champion the killing of the unborn/just born. Or who endorse sinful acts which explicitly go against scripture. I am at a loss.
Those of us who know Christ as Saviour and follow Him in our lives are still not perfect. I have a temper…I get stirred at injustice and evil doers. And yes…I push back at times. If there is conviction I will stand for what is right and make no apologies. I love my nephew…he knows that and I have told him I love him more than he will ever know…but I will not tell him what he is doing in his life is good and right. I loved the women in my book club but when asked I gave them my review on a book and many were upset. I will not sit back and remain quiet when I read the words of a book leading the reader down the road of deception and untruth. (And Randy Alcorn agreed with me 😊) Just because I have an opposing position it does not mean I do not love my fellow man…I just wish someone would hit them over the head with a two by four and wake them up!
LikeLiked by 4 people
AJ, thanks for bringing back the news.
LikeLiked by 2 people
AJ — no comment on the day traders who busted hedge funds in the last few weeks? I thought it would be something you and I could agree on. Multi billion dollar hedge funds shorting stock (betting the stock will go lower) beaten by followers of a subreddit group who coordinated a massive buy of stocks hedge funds shorted. A bunch of twenty somethings saved a few companies and at the same time stuck it to the rich who went whining to the halls of Congress about how unfair this is. I suspect a bipartisan effort will try to stop any more attempts to bust hedge funds. Its estimated that hedge funds lost about $5 billion so far.
As I commented to a day trader friend of mine, who watched it on his screen on real time and enjoyed evey minute of it, if members of congress had to withdraw everytime an issue affected their stock portfolio, it would leave AOC in charge all day every day. Corruption is bipartisan. The former Georgia senators were famous for managing their stocks minutes after a Senate cmttee meetring and obviuously Pelosi is no different. Perhaps, a mandatory blind trust for public officials should be enforced. This would also prevent presidents from directing businesses to their golf courses.
Back to the Gamestop and subreddit group activity; previously hedge funds were prohibited from using borrowed stocks to short but they successfully arguend this was unnecessary gov’t interference. Now they want a bailout and they want gov’t regualtion to stop the “kids” from doing it again. Socialism for the rich again…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Taxing carbon use is not the gov’t controlling you; its the gov’t picking economic winners by encouraging the masses to buy one product over another. Not much different than the gov’t picking winners by subsidizing oil companies. Taxing carbon at least is a good thing — cuts down on polluiton and the use of a non renewable resource.
There’s no man behind the curtain. People knew when they voted for Biden they were getting Obama part two — thats what they wanted.
From what I understand, impeachment is an indictment. Evidence and witnesses are not necessary until trail. I am interested as to what route the House Democrats are going to use in this trial — are they going to focus on the Jan 6th rally (in which case they should impeach a few Republican politicans instead of Trump) or are they going to claim the entire post-election claims of Trump helped incite the insurrection? The latter I think would be more succesfull in the public opinion and a way of calling more calling more witnesses to provide sworn testimony.
Speaking of post election comments, Dominion isn’t done. They’ve sued Rudy G but they have stated they will go after more as they methodically go through Republican claims and statements to see which cases are winnable — they’ve hinted they will sue any Republican they thing defamed the company and they have a reasonable chance of winning the case. Both the people Dominion sue and the actual litigation wil be interesting. Turmp might wan to move to non-American golf resort.
LikeLike
HRW, my husband has been closely following the reddit/gamestop story. I wouldn’t have known about it otherwise. I think some of the wall st guys are asking their political buddies to treat it like domestic cyber terrorism. All I could think was that’s surely the pot calling the kettle black. :–)
LikeLiked by 2 people
If we’re going to impeach former officials as well as those in congress now who have earned it, I have a list of suggestions—-a very long bipartisan list.
LikeLiked by 2 people
HRW,
I think it’s hysterical. The Hedge Fund Romney’s of the world need to take it on the chin now and again. Predators who got preyed upon is all this is. Good for the little guy.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Now as for Dominion, they screwed up.
By suing Rudy they just opened themselves up to the discovery process. They just gave him a free fishing expedition thru their files, emails, and programming data. This is a bad move on their part.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dominion has been really slow to respond over the last three months which means they and their lawyers have done due diligence. I think it will be settled out of court but it will be interesting to see how far it goes and who else they sue. If they sue Trump I’m defintely buying a bag of Lay’s ketchup chips and watchign my neigbours.
LikeLike
So now I’ve also moved on to DuckDuckGo.
What a difference. I’ve been searching the same phrases in both to see what’s different. On google you need to go 5-10 pages deep to find a conservative source and view. On DDG, the top 10 has 3 or 4 conservative sources on each page. It’s refreshing.
I’m so done with Google’s manipulation of the searches for political purposes. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Obviously my link didn’t work, but if you google “canada watching us news gif” you wil see it.
LikeLike
And oh the irony of a group called Robinhood crying because they got Robinhooded. 🙂
Too funny.
LikeLiked by 3 people
If by “due diligence” you mean back room dirty scheming… I agree 🙃
Debra I have a long bipartisan list of impeachable government “workers”…starting with Maxine Waters….
LikeLiked by 3 people
A post I shared a day or so ago made the point that this lawsuit would give Giuliani and Powell the opportunity to finally show whatever evidence they may have, if they really do have any.
LikeLike
Re impeachment: I also think the Constitution intended it to be applied to present officials, not former ones. However, it’s worth noting that President Trump was impeached while he was still president and that impeachment does allow for a penalty beyond removal. So there is a case to be made by “the other side.” My hunch is that if it was the Democrat being impeached just before leaving office, some of the posters on here would be arguing they should go ahead with the trial anyway. I haven’t heard why the Chief Justice isn’t involved in this one, and don’t remember whether the Constitution requires his involvement.
I really don’t think that issues like this one should be partisan. There’s legitimate debate about whether an impeached president can be tried even if he has already left office between the impeachment and the trial. People of good faith can come down on either side. And they definitely can do so without being traitors–that word is way too strong for holding a different opinion on such a legal question.
BTW, I don’t vote for any pro-abortion politician. But I have lived among the poor and gone to church with the poor, and while I disagree that the Democratic platform is more helpful to the poor than the Republican platform, an awful lot of people do believe that. A lot of people also believe that abortions are more likely to decrease under poor-supporting policies than under specifically anti-abortion ones. If one side makes policies that claim to defend women and the other side has policies that really and truly DO defend women, voters might legitimately vote for the second party and not the first. Likewise with decreasing abortion. If people truly believe that poverty is the main reason behind most abortions, and that the Democrats have a far better record on decreasing poverty, some voters might hold their nose on the Democratic political support for abortion and still vote for the Democrat. Again, I myself do not do this. But people have asked “Why?” and I am answering.
LikeLiked by 3 people